A spokesman for WHO said the drug industry did not influence its decisions on swine flu.
However, in case there was any doubt about it, the emergency committee that advises WHO has announced today that swine flu is still a pandemic -- even as medical authorities are saying that the virus is past its peak.
BBC News reports:
"Guidelines recommending governments stockpile antiviral drugs were issued by WHO in 2004. The advice prompted many countries around the world into buying up large stocks of Tamiflu, made by Roche, and Relenza manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline.
A year after the swine flu pandemic was declared, stocks are left unused in warehouses and governments are attempting to unpick contracts."
Fortunately, and largely as a result of our correct predictions and advice, over 70% of the U.S. population refused to take the vaccine. We were also able to prevent the use of squalene in the vaccine for those that did receive it and, most importantly, we were able to help prevent mandatory vaccination.
A major victory by any measure in that millions of dangerous complications and side effects were avoided by implementing the strategy we advocated.
It was just a little over a year ago that the World Health Organization (WHO) raised its swine flu pandemic alert from a 5 to a 6, a move that sent governments around the world scrambling to stockpile antiviral flu drugs and vaccines, while causing panic in countries around the world.
By this time, the swine flu virus was already showing itself to have mild symptoms, quick recovery time, and low incidence of death among the vast majority of H1N1 patients throughout the world.
Yet the drug companies needed to begin shipping out their profitable new H1N1 vaccine and antiviral drugs across the world was for the swine flu to be kicked up one notch, from a phase 5 to a phase 6 pandemic … and that is exactly what they got.
If you didn't find this suspicious before, I suspect you'll find it hard to swallow now in light of the latest information that reveals some of the very same "scientists," and I use that term lightly, who advised WHO on their decisions were paid consultants with the drug industry.
Drug Company Insiders Disguised as Scientists Advised WHO
A joint investigation by the BMJ and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism found that three key scientists who advised WHO on the stockpiling of pandemic flu drugs had been paid by drug companies Roche and GlaxoSmithKline for lectures and consulting work, as well as were involved in research for the companies.
The obvious conflicts of interest were not publicly declared by WHO, despite the fact that conflict of interest forms had apparently been collected by the organization. The findings shed even more doubt into whose interest WHO was looking out for when it declared swine flu a pandemic last year.
"The investigation by the BMJ/The Bureau reveals a system struggling to manage the inherent conflict between the pharmaceutical industry, WHO, and the global public health system, which all draw on the same pool of scientific experts.
Our investigation has identified key scientists involved in WHO pandemic planning who had declarable interests, some of whom are or have been funded by pharmaceutical firms that stood to gain from the guidance they were drafting.
Yet these interests have never been publicly disclosed by WHO and, despite repeated requests from the BMJ/The Bureau, WHO has failed to provide any details about whether such conflicts were declared by the relevant experts and what, if anything, was done about them.
It is this lack of transparency over conflicts of interests—coupled with a documented changing of the definition of a pandemic and unanswered questions over the evidence base for therapeutic interventions—that has led to the emergence of these conspiracies."
First They Change the Definition of Pandemic …
Even before these latest revelations, the Council of Europe, European Parliament, and even WHO itself had launched investigations to determine exactly what role the drug companies played in the swine flu debacle, and how deeply Big Pharma's tentacles reach into the World Health Organization.
As I have said from the very beginning, this so-called pandemic was never a pandemic in the true sense. It only became a "pandemic" by definition when the WHO decided to change the definition in May last year.
That's when they changed the criteria for a pandemic to make it no longer necessary for large numbers of people to have contracted an illness or died before a pandemic could be called. Instead, under the new definition, all it takes to declare a pandemic is a virus that people have no immunity toward, which is spreading beyond borders.
In other words, it doesn't matter how many, or how few, people are affected. All a disease has to do to be a pandemic is move beyond a few countries' borders.
By changing the definition, nations were compelled to implement pandemic plans and to purchase H1N1 flu vaccines and antiviral drugs, enabling drug companies to pocket billions of dollars on fast-tracked, untested vaccines.
In the motion to investigate this travesty, the EU Health Committee denounced what the WHO did, saying, "The definition of an alarming pandemic must not be under the influence of drug-sellers."
BMJ, too, found this definition change suspicious. They noted:
"WHO for years had defined pandemics as outbreaks causing "enormous numbers of deaths and illness" but in early May 2009 it removed this phrase—describing a measure of severity—from the definition."
No Scientific Basis For WHO's Recommendations
WHO has continued to defend their decisions, implying they made the best decisions they could with the information they had available. But part of the problem in the whole fiasco was that WHO's communications with the world had no scientific basis whatsoever.
Gerd Gigerenzer, director of the Centre for Adaptive Behaviour and Cognition at the Max Planck Institute in Germany and an expert in risk communication, told the BMJ:
"The problem is not so much that communicating uncertainty is difficult, but that uncertainty was not communicated. There was no scientific basis for the WHO's estimate of 2 billion for likely H1N1 cases, and we knew little about the benefits and harms of the vaccination.
The WHO maintained this 2 billion estimate even after the winter season in Australia and New Zealand showed that only about one to two out of 1000 people were infected. Last but not least, it changed the very definition of a pandemic."
Now WHO Says Swine Flu is Still a Threat …
By declaring this non-pandemic a pandemic, and conveniently not publicly declaring that its scientists have ties to the drug industry, WHO has recklessly damaged its credibility, so much so that it's possible that when a real pandemic hits, nobody will pay attention!
"In order to promote their patented drugs and vaccines against flu, pharmaceutical companies have influenced scientists and official agencies, responsible for public health standards, to alarm governments worldwide," the motion says.
"They have made (governments) squander tight health care resources for inefficient vaccine strategies and needlessly exposed millions of healthy people to the risk of unknown side-effects of insufficiently tested vaccines.
The "birds-flu"-campaign (2005/06) combined with the "swine-flu"-campaign seem to have caused a great deal of damage not only to some vaccinated patients and to public health budgets, but also to the credibility and accountability of important international health agencies."
This is so true, and to add insult to injury, WHO announced this month that the swine flu is still a pandemic! They are keeping their pandemic alert level at 6 -- the highest level -- for the time-being, and may look into the decision in July.
What is really going on?
It's hard to say, because the identities of the16-member WHO Emergency Committee that was formed in 2009 to guide pandemic policy -- including when to decide the pandemic is over -- is still being kept secret. Ironically, WHO says this is to "protect the committee from outside influences," but as BMJ reported:
"The secrecy of the committee is also fuelling conspiracy theories, particularly around the activation of dormant pandemic vaccine contracts. A key question will be whether the pharmaceutical companies, which had invested around $4bn … in developing the swine flu vaccine, had supporters inside the emergency committee, who then put pressure on WHO to declare a pandemic. It was the declaring of the pandemic that triggered the contracts."
This is not news; it's the way it works in the world of the vaccine makers. When Dr. Wolfgang Woodard, chairman of the EU Health Committee, asked WHO in 2004 during the avian flu episode about how they defined a pandemic, this is what he learned:
"The governments have sealed contracts with vaccine producers where they secure orders in advance and take upon themselves almost all the responsibility. In this way the producers of vaccines are sure of enormous gains without having any financial risks. So they just wait until WHO says 'pandemic' and activate the contracts."
So basically the drug companies have standing contracts with governments that guarantee massive amounts of profits … if only a pandemic is declared. So the motivation of WHO's Emergency Committee is highly suspect, especially if it's revealed that it, too, contains members with ties to the industry.
For now, it appears WHO is unwilling to give up on this major scandal, despite the fact that U.S. medical authorities acknowledge that swine flu is long past its peak and, as ABC News reported, "CDC stopped reporting H1N1 flu infections by late May, stating on its Web site that "only a small number of influenza viruses are being reported."
It seems patently clear that when it comes to vaccine recommendations it is very unwise to take WHO or government recommendations at face value, as it is likely there is massive conflict of interest that is perverting the truth.
It would seem likely that you and your family would best be served by doing as much independent research as you can to determine the actual risk and the benefits. Most decisions in life involve a risk-benefit analysis, and they are relatively easy to make.
The problem with vaccines is that there is just too much profit involved that generates such massive conflict of interest in public health recommendations that you need to take control of your health and analyze the information very carefully before you commit to a plan of action.
At some point a vaccine may be appropriate, it just depends and it is likely that the risk-benefit analysis will never favor the use of any flu vaccine.