Title
21 Jan 2010
Subtitle
WATCH THIS VIDEO:
Let me quote what GlaxoSmithKline say in their defence:
"Allegations of undue influence are misguided and unfounded. The WHO declared that H1N1 swine flu met the criteria for a pandemic. Responding to it has required unprecedented collaboration…
"… As WHO have stated, legal regulations and numerous safeguards are in place to manage possible conflicts of interest."
Notice in the second paragraph how they use the word "manage" instead of "prevent". What does manage mean in this context? Does that mean the conflicts of interest are okay if they are "managed" in some way? You can bet the phraseology used has been checked by a team of lawyers so the word was chosen very carefully, and it was chosen because it is actually relatively meaningless in this context. Managed does not imply any actual effort to prevent conflicts of interest. Well obviously this is the case as "many of the WHO experts who had claimed to be independent have turned out to have financial links to the very pharmaceutical companies that have benefited the most from their recommendations."
Professor Juhani Eskola — received 6.3 million Euro from GSK in 2009
Dr. Heil Ferguson — received money from Baxter, GSK and Roche
Dr. Friedrich Hayden — received money from Roche, RW Johnson and SmithKline Beecham
Professor Malik Peiris — received money from Baxter, GSK and Sanofi Pasteur
Dr. Peter Figueroa — received money from Merck
Dr. Arnold Monto — an advisor to Chiron, GSK, MedImmune, Roche, Novartis, Baxter and Sanofi Pasteur.
Dr. Albert Osterhaus — received money from Baxter, Crucell, Novartis, Hoffmann-La Roche, MedImmune, Nobilon, Sanofi Pasteur, MSD, GSK and Solvay.
[Source: Medical journalist Jane Burgermeister's excellent ebook False Pandemic: A failed attempt at depopulation and One World Government]
All the above are WHO experts who advise WHO on how serious particular disease outbreaks are. Looking at their conflicts of interest, which are no doubt "managed" extremely efficiently, one can see that WHO is dangerously in the pockets of the pharmaceutical industry. Is it any coincidence therefore that this relatively mild form of flu received "pandemic" status in the eyes of WHO, a status which was and is very obviously in the financial interests of the above corporations?
And in the GSK quote above in the first paragraph, of course there had to be unprecedented collaboration — it was between the different pharmaceutical companies wanting to stick their noses in the trough and make sure they get their share. And governments fell for this scam hook, line and sinker.
There never was a pandemic; it was a bold money-making ruse.
But was there another agenda? Jane Burgermeister, a respected medical journalist, has thoroughly investigated the flu vaccine scam and believes that it was a failed attempt to depopulate the world. If this is the case, then it is only a matter of time before big pharma try again with another virus.
So there is no point mocking these scientists for predicting a pandemic: they could well have been acting in good faith knowing that there was another agenda afoot and that the H1N1 vaccine, which has suspiciously synthetic-looking DNA coding, was a depopulation device that "unfortunately" failed to work. Again, read Burgermeister's ebook.
Refusing vaccination, therefore, on the basis that the threat is exaggerated, therefore, is not actually that helpful because it may not apply to the next manufactured flu pandemic if that outbreak starts killing correctly. Then the danger will be real and there will be little excuse not to take the offered vaccinations. And the vaccinations will again do more harm than good in a dangerous situation, perhaps helping to depopulate the world.
We should therefore be refusing vaccination on the grounds that vaccines do
not work and generally do a lot more harm than good (apart from the original
smallpox vaccine). [See vaccine expert Dr. Shiv Chopra's interview with Dr.
Joseph Mercola below.] If we burst the bubble of vaccination altogether then
we stand a chance, even if big pharma do manufacture something much more
virulent.