When I read this title, it cracked me up! 😊
Now Facebook (and Google) are telling us what to think and who to trust. They do not want the population to use their brains.
Big Brother is watching us!
Brainwashing is getting more obvious and more intense.
With more than 8,000 employees, the World Health Organization (WHO) is the United Nation’s single largest special organization worldwide.
Its central mission is to fight disease and promote the best possible health care for all people.
The “People’s Health Movement,” a network of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) focused on health policy from more than 70 countries, has criticized the pharmaceutical industry’s growing influence on WHO as well as the organization’s increasing reliance on private donors.
Founded in 1948, WHO is funded entirely by the annual obligatory contributions of its members, who have meanwhile grown to 194. But 30 percent of the contributions to WHO’s 2011-2012 budget, totaling US $4.9 billion, came from private donors or were voluntary government grants. And much of this money flowed from countries that are home to some of the world’s largest pharmaceuticals companies.
That is a problem, according to Thomas Gebauer, managing director of the medical relief organization Medico International, which is a member of the People’s Health Movement.
“These contributions are earmarked for specific purposes, allowing the donors to directly influence WHO’s work,” he said. And that, he added, has consequences far beyond the loss of democratic decision-making.
According to NGOs engaged in the People’s Health Movement, commercial interests have a growing influence on WHO’s goals and strategies.
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is a prime example. With contributions of about US $220 million, the foundation is the second largest donor to WHO’s current budget – after the United States and before the United Kingdom in third place.
“The lion’s share of the $25 billion that Gates was able to invest in health programs around the world in the past 10 years stemmed from returns from well-known companies in the chemical, pharmaceutical and food industries whose business practices often run counter to global health efforts,” Gebauer said.
Gates has also made a fortune from defending intellectual property rights, according to Gebauer. His foundation prefers to support patented medicines and vaccines instead of promoting freely accessible and less expensive generic products.
“If Gates brings WHO to back such patented vaccination programs, both vaccine producers and their shareholders, like the Gates Foundation, stand to benefit,” Gebauer said. This would come at the expense of people in the world’s poor countries whose governments are unable to afford typically expensive vaccination programs.
This is very concerning as we know that Gates is a known supporter and promoter of eugenics programs. He clearly stated that his goal is to reduce the population by 10% using well-designed vaccination programs.
Yes, vaccines is a tool used to achieve this!
The H1N1 “swine flu” influenza showed just how much influence the pharmaceutical industry and its supporting foundations actually have.
In June 2009, WHO was advised by its standing vaccination committee to issue its highest alert for the H1N1 pandemic, which we know that it was fake, fabricated.
Among the members and consultants of the commission were scientists who had contracts with the manufacturers of Tamiflu and other “anti-flu” drugs. The global vaccination program that WHO set in motion with its pandemic alert turned into a billion-dollar business for these companies.
For a “perfectly ordinary flu” to escalate into a dangerous pandemic, WHO lowered the criteria for pandemic alerts before the first case of H1N1 had been known, according to the Council of Europe. Also, health officials around the world committed contractually to purchases with vaccine manufacturers. This was pure propaganda by using fear as their tool.
Another factor is that WHO’s core public health policy and financing tasks have been outsourced and thus removed from the democratic control of its member states, according to Alison Katz, who had worked for 18 years in the WHO headquarters in Geneva.
“Take, for instance, the Global Fund that was set up to combat the three major killer diseases in the Third World: AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria,” said Katz. “WHO, which is responsible for populations in its members states, isn’t even represented in it.”
The WHO funds focus on treating these diseases with pharmaceutical products and medical devices rather than promoting prevention measures because such measure generate no profits for companies.
We can see a pattern here. Big Pharma gives money to the WHO and the WHO pay them back by promoting vaccinations and their drugs.
Millions of dollars given by major pharmaceutical companies to the World Health Organization (WHO) raise questions of compliance with the organization’s guidelines on interactions with commercial enterprises.
In 2014, WHO received USD 6,158,153 from GlaxoSmithKline (GSK).
It received USD 5,785,000 and USD 8,266,284 in 2012 and 2013 respectively from GSK.
GSK Biologics paid USD 17,000.
Novartis AG donated USD 5,300,000 in 2014 and USD 4,500,000 in 2013.
Hoffmann-La Roche donated USD 6,158,153 in 2014 and USD 4,806,492 in 2013.
The purposes of those “donations” were not disclosed.
All the four companies earmarked their donations for specific areas set out in the agreements with the WHO Secretariat.
These donations raise prima facie concerns about the violation of provisions of the Guidelines which state that commercial enterprises working with WHO are expected to conform to various WHO policies including the ethical promotion of medicinal drug products.
As a general rule the Guidelines recognize that the WHO’s activities affect commercial enterprises.
“In establishing such relationships it should be borne in mind that WHO’s activities affect the commercial sector in broader ways, through for example, its public health guidance, its recommendations on regulatory standards, or other work that might influence product costs, market demand, or profitability of specific goods and services”.
Illustrations of WHO’s activities are provided: “Such activities include setting of norms for quality, safety, and efficacy of pharmaceuticals and related promotional practices; dissemination of information on pharmaceuticals; provision of guidelines for diagnostics and treatment or advice that might affect the market for individual products and product categories; establishment of chemical safety standards; and formulation of nutritional guidelines”.
However, there are doubts about the actual implementation of the provisions of the Guidelines in light of the financial resources received from certain pharmaceutical companies such as GSK, Novartis, Hoffmann-La Roche and Eli Lilly.
All the four companies have either been found guilty of, or investigated for, unethical promotion of medicines including suppression of safety data in different WHO Member States.
In 2012 GSK pleaded guilty and paid USD 3 billion on a charge of unlawful promotion of medicines.
The press release of the United States Justice Department stated: “Global health care giant GlaxoSmithKline LLC (GSK) agreed to plead guilty and to pay $3 billion to resolve its criminal and civil liability arising from the company’s unlawful promotion of certain prescription drugs, its failure to report certain safety data, and its civil liability for alleged false price reporting practices, …”
GSK was charged for promoting an anti-depressant medicine for persons under the age of 18, “even though the FDA has never approved it for pediatric use.”
Further, in 2014 China imposed a fine of USD 490 million on GSK for bribing doctors and top executives were sentenced to prison. However, imprisonment was suspended.
In 2014, Poland initiated a criminal investigation against GSK, again for bribing doctors. According to a BBC report, a former sales representative for GSK in the Polish region of Lodz, Jarek Wisniewski, said:
“There is a simple equation. We pay doctors, they give us prescriptions. We don’t pay doctors; we don’t see prescriptions for our drugs. We cannot go to doctors and say to them, ‘I need 20 more prescriptions’. So, we prepare an agreement for them to give a talk to patients, we pay 100, but we expect more than 100 prescriptions for this drug” (
In 2014 the Italian competition authority (AGCM) fined both Novartis and Hoffmann-La Roche USD 251 million for entering into an agreement to prevent the sale of Roche’s cancer medicine Avastin to treat an eye disease, in favor of Novartis more expensive Lucentis that is jointly marketed by the two companies.
According to a Reuters report dated 10 April 2014 the French competition authority also initiated a similar investigation against Novartis and Roche.
In 2014 Italian authorities raided two Novartis facilities for alleged fraud committed against the Italian health ministry by inflating the price of a component of a flu vaccine.
In 2015 Japan took action against Novartis for the failure of reporting nearly 3200 adverse events.
According to a website report:
“Last year, prosecutors in Japan laid formal charges against Novartis in an ongoing investigation about the manipulation of clinical data, centering on studies of the company’s blood pressure treatment Diovan (valsartan) which were alleged to have been tampered with to make the drug look more effective than competitors on the market. Meanwhile, the company has also come under scrutiny amid claims that its staff acted inappropriately in data collection activities relating to its leukaemia drug Tasigna (nilotinib), a probe that resulted in three senior management figures resigning from the Japanese unit including former head Yoshiyasu Ninomiya”
In 2014 the European Medicine Agency concluded an investigation against Roche for suppression of drug safety reporting and forwarded the investigation report to the European Commission for further action. According to Reuters, Roche could face fines for failing to comply with so-called “pharmacovigilance” obligations under European Union rules, of up to 5 percent of its annual EU turnover, which totaled 12.8 billion Swiss francs ($14.6 billion) in 2011”.
Similarly, in 2014 a US jury ordered Takeda and Eli Lilly to pay USD 9 billion as punitive damage for suppression of drug safety data regarding the cancer risks on their diabetic drug pioglitazone.
The above mentioned cases are clearly in violation of WHO’s “Ethical criteria for medicinal drug promotion” (WHA Resolution 41.17 adopted in 1988: http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/documents/whozip08e/whozip08e.pdf).
Paragraph 8 of the criteria reads: “Promotion in the form of financial or material benefits should not be offered to or sought by health care practitioners to influence them in in the prescription of drugs”. GSK executives were found guilty of bribing doctors China.
Paragraph 7 states: “All promotion-making claims
concerning medicinal drugs should be reliable, accurate, truthful, informative,
balanced, up-to-date, capable of substantiation and in good taste. They should
not contain misleading or unverifiable statements or omissions likely to induce
medically unjustifiable drug use or give rise to undue risks”.
Paragraph 19 states: “Medical representatives should not offer inducements to prescribers and dispensers”. The cases in Poland and China involving GSK are clear examples.
Paragraph 27 states: “Substantiated information on hazards associated with medicinal drugs should be reported to the appropriate national health authority as a priority, and should be disseminated internationally as soon as possible”. For instance, the action by Japan against Novartis, and the European Medicine Agency investigation against Roche for suppression of data.
Thus, the above financial contributions to WHO would be in conflict with WHO’s criteria for ethical promotion of medicines and accordingly the Guidelines.
Even though there is no information about the exact activity for which these financial resources have been used the financial contributions from these pharmaceutical companies raise prima facie concern with regard to the violation of paragraph 15 of the Guidelines that states:
“Funds may not be sought or accepted from enterprises that have a direct commercial interest in the outcome of the project toward which they would be contributing, unless approved in conformity with the provisions on clinical trials or product development, set out below”.
These financial contributions thus raise doubts about the implementation of the Guidelines by the Secretariat. How can the WHO Secretariat be expected to scrutinize the conduct of the pharmaceutical companies concerned while accepting financial resources from them?
Books have been written about these major conflicts of interest between the WHO and big pharma. There is ton of evidence of this, if you take the time to look for it 😊
There is no reason to trust the WHO when their policies are being influenced by pharmaceutical companies.
They clearly do not have our interests at heart but only the bank accounts of those big companies.
God bless y’all 😊