Posts Tagged World Health Organization
Ethan A. Huff
October 29, 2014
The same drug manufacturers that stand to profit immensely from the sale of Ebola vaccines say they require full legal immunity from any potential lawsuits that might arise when people are harmed by various adverse effects from these “emergency” drugs.
GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) CEO Andrew Witty told World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General Margaret Chan that his corporation, which is currently leading the way in producing Ebola vaccines, shouldn’t have to shoulder any of the burden of responsibility for their safety.
Witty maintains, in other words, that GSK should be allowed full access to the financial benefits associated with selling Ebola vaccines to the public, but with absolutely none of the risk. And his company and others will likely get what they want, since they hold remarkable sway in the political realm.
“I think it is reasonable that there should be some level of indemnification because the vaccine is essentially being used in an emergency situation before we’ve all had the chance to confirm its absolute profile,” Witty told BBC.
“That’s a situation where we would look for some kind of indemnification, either from governments or from multilateral agencies.”
Taxpayers funding development of high-profit drugs for which drug companies will not be held liable
There are currently no approved drugs or vaccines for Ebola, which is why GSK and others have been racing to pump new ones through the pipeline. This process, which normally takes five or six years to complete, is being done in about five or six months, hence concerns over the safety of the final products.
But the shady reality is that governments, not vaccine companies, are actually the ones financing the development of experimental Ebola drugs and vaccines. And they are doing so on the taxpayer dime, which means vaccine companies are not only developing their vaccines for free but also gaining access to unlimited profit potential driven by fear.
by: Sayer Ji
August 7, 2012
New Research: Statins Increase Risk of Polymalgia Rheumatica 14-Fold
Few drugs are as toxic to the organ they are prescribed to “treat” as statins. There are already hundreds of studies indicating that statin drugs are muscle-damaging (myotoxic) and nerve-damaging (neurotoxic), and yet they are somehow still legally allowed to be sold to millions of patients worldwide, ostensibly to protect the human heart — which is, mind you, a muscle with an exceptionally high density of nerves.
After research published back in 2009 in the journal Cardiology found that statin drug use was associated with impaired heart muscle function, there is little doubt remaining that they do far more harm than good. In fact, no less than 300 adverse health effects have been linked to this chemical class of drugs.
Some of the most consistently observed effects listed below
- Liver Damage
- Coenzyme Q10 Deficiency
- Type 2 Diabetes
- Cognitive Decline/Dysfunction
- Erectile Dysfunction
- Peripheral Neuropathies
- Mitochondrial Dysfunction
Recently published research reveals another way in which the obvious damage caused by statin drugs is being covered up, whether by ignorance or intention. Statin drug-induced symptoms have been renamed in Greek as a newly minted, seemingly unrelated disease: Polymyalgia Rheumatica.
Polymyalgia translates from the Greek “pain in many muscles,” and rheumatic means “flux.” Published in the journal PLoS, researchers analyzed the World Health Organization’s Global Individual Case Safety Database, and found that of the 327 cases of PMR reported, ” statins were more frequently reported as suspected agent (29.4%) compared to non-cases (2.9%).”
by: Justin Gross
Monday, August 6, 2012
All of the new vaccines are DNA vaccines which contaminate normal human DNA with patented GMOs, just as Monsanto has been doing to organic fields with pollen drift.
The public has not been informed of this or given legal papers to release their intellectual property rights over their own unique DNA.
But under GW Bush, whose family is deeply connected to the biotech/pharmaceutical industry that put Hitler into office, laws were put in place that would use the military to force such vaccines, and with unknown content, on the entire population, under the pretext of a flu.
The following went into effect under George Bush:
‘During a pandemic, it may be necessary to overrule existing legislation or (individual) human rights. Examples are the enforcement of quarantine (overruling individual freedom of movement), use of privately owned buildings for hospitals, off-license use of drugs, compulsory vaccination or implementation of emergency shifts in essential services. These decisions need a legal framework to ensure transparent assessment and justification of the measures that are being considered, and to ensure coherence with international legislation (International Health Regulations). [Source]
Bush provided the pandemics laws that intersect with the WHO’s health regulations. Obama recently signed an executive order putting the US into alignment with international laws. The WHO has been the driver of covert sterilizing campaigns with vaccines around the world, and just threatened Pakistan for attempting to suspend Gates, WHO, and World Bank polio vaccines until the Pakistani government was sure the vaccines were safe and effective. The vaccines are causing mass paralysis there.
George Bush pushed through the pandemic laws in the US using the false fear that there would again be a pandemic like the 1918 flu pandemic. There was no flu pandemic in 1918. Millions died but they died because of the pharmaceutical industry’s “miracle drug,” aspirin, a highly toxic drug that can kill quickly when used in overdose, as well as a potent immunosuppressive which allowed common upper respiratory infections to deteriorate into deadly pneumonias. The millions of 1918-19 deaths are the result of pharmaceutical industry greed, and the collusion of government, medical authorities, military and corporations.
These same groups have gone many steps further under the Bush pandemic laws.
- They have mandated a highly toxic, immunosuppressive “treatment” in advance, to every person in the country.
- They have brought together government, military, medical “authorities,” and corporations in a financial arrangement.
- All liability has been removed.
- The vaccines themselves do not have to be tested (and thus not even known) in an emergency.
- Any emergency does not have to be proved.
Thursday, August 02, 2012
By: Jon Rappoport
[NaturalNews] Who knew the Pentagon had muscled into the US vaccine program?
DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) has been doing research on vaccine production. They’ve found a way to produce flu vaccines a lot faster than Big Pharma.
Utilizing vaccines grown on tobacco cells, instead of the traditional chicken eggs, DARPA has turned out a staggering 10 million doses of flu vaccine in just one month.
This “Blue Angel” project, as it’s called, suddenly puts the Pentagon in the forefront of the vaccine business. The big question is: why is the Army involved in vaccines at all? And the answer is no surprise. According to DARPA, it’s all about readiness in containing bio-threats. Translated, that means terrorist attacks that could use flu viruses.
This is a sinister development. It creates a potential scenario in which the military can invent the “bio-threat” and then step in and provide the solution. It doesn’t really matter whether the bio-threat is real or imaginary.
The threat would offer the chance to initiate a martial-law scenario, after which the military vaccine would be made mandatory, destroying the right of each state in the union to permit, as is now the case, people to opt out of vaccination on religious, medical, or ethical grounds.
The Pentagon is famous for developing weapons and then lobbying for battlefield opportunities to use them. This is part and parcel of their “war is forever” mentality. Well, in this case, the vaccine becomes the defensive weapon, and you can be sure the Pentagon will strive to deploy it in a situation that “demands it”—a chilling prospect.
Several medical issues arise as well. First, what safety tests have been done to ensure that tobacco viruses don’t enter these DARPA vaccines through lab contamination, thereby finding their way into the human bloodstream, via injection, and causing uncharted health problems? No word about that, just as there was no word, historically, about various Pentagon weapons systems that later proved to be dangerous to the soldiers using them (e.g, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle).
Hidden in the story about the new means of vaccine production: the employment of a synthetic construction that is supposed to mimic the human immune system. To test the ability of the tobacco-vaccines to induce a “robust immune response,” this new chemical lab-version of an immune system becomes the guinea pig. But there is no proof that such an artifact works or is translatable to actual processes of the human body.
Finally, DARPA states that the vaccine it just produced contains aluminum. Toxicity for humans is thus guaranteed.
In the hands of the Pentagon, what could possibly go wrong with this Blue Angel program? Everything.
In case we need to review the most recent “epidemic” advertised by the CDC and the World Health Organization (WHO), it killed, by the most generous estimates, 20,000 people worldwide. Despite being labeled a catastrophic level-6 pandemic, the H1N1 Swine Flu turned out to be a comparative dud. WHO states that, every year, seasonal non-pandemic flu kills between 250,000 and 500,000 people.
The CDC and WHO relentlessly promoted Swine Flu as a monster menace that could invade and decimate the planet. Therefore, everyone needed to step up and take the vaccine. These civilian agencies are mere pikers compared to the Pentagon. Can you imagine what the Dept. of Defense would promote and launch to guarantee their vaccine finds a place in your bloodstream? The DOD regularly makes conflict of interest into an art form.
Martial law? No problem.
The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.
by: Dr. Mercola
July 26, 2012
Do you believe that a hospital is the safest place to give birth to a baby? Society certainly paints the picture this way, portraying the hospital as the savior of sorts where women must rush off to in the middle of the night at the first sign of labor.
However, a growing number of women are choosing to buck the status quo and deliver their babies right at home.
And wouldn’t you know it … this isn’t a new fad, it’s a return to the way women have been birthing babies for ages – and the research shows it’s often the safer way, too.
Home Birth is Safer for Most Low-Risk Pregnancies
In an article written by Judy Cohain, CNM, she highlights 17 studies conducted over the last 15 years that show attended planned home birth is safer for low-risk women than hospital birth. In 12 of the studies, rates of perinatal mortality (deaths that occur before, during or immediately after birth) were either lower or similar for home birth, while rates of maternal morbidity were significantly lower, compared to hospital birth.
She pointed out five studies that appeared to show home birth as less safe, but this was because they included high-risk cases in the mix. Cohain stated:1
“Another 5 studies claim home birth to have a higher perinatal mortality rate compared to hospital birth but they all include high risk births in the planned homebirth group.
Instead of excluding the high risk births from both groups, they include the home birth outcomes of premature births at 34-37 weeks gestation, breech and twins, lethal anomalies incompatible with life, unattended home births, unplanned home births, or women who became risked out of home birth by becoming high risk at the end of pregnancy, had hospital births, but are included in the home birth group.
These 5 studies conclude that home birth is less safe than hospital birth, when what these papers actually found is that low risk births are safer at home but premature births have better outcomes in hospital.
Possible explanations for the false conclusion of these studies could be paternalistic power games over women or hospital birth being not only the most common but also the most profitable reason for hospitalization. Remove the high risk births from those studies and they also confirm that home birth is safer for low risk women than hospital birth.”
What Makes Hospital Births Risky for Low-Risk Women?
When you enter a hospital setting, birth, an inherently natural experience, is automatically turned into a medical condition. Many women are given the drug Pitocin, a synthetic form of oxytocin, to jumpstart labor and intensify contractions, or their membranes are artificially ruptured, which then can set off a cascade of biological changes that increase the need for more medical interventions, and ultimately Caesarean section (C-section).
C-section is the most common operation performed in the United States, and accounts for nearly one-third of all births. According to the World Health Organization, no country is justified in having a cesarean rate greater than 10 percent to 15 percent. The United States’ rate, at nearly 32 percent, is so high that even The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists admits it is worrisome.
This is actually the highest rate ever reported in the United States, and a rate higher than in most other developed countries. One study in the British Medical Journal found that a woman’s risk of death during delivery is three to five times higher during cesarean than a natural delivery, her risk of hysterectomy four times higher, and her risk of being admitted to intensive care is two times higher.2
C-section rates are lower among home births, as well as midwife-attended births. At one small hospital run by the Navajo Nation, where midwives deliver most babies born vaginally, the C-section rate is only 13.5 percent.
by: Susanne Posel
July 20, 2012
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved Gilead Sciences’ Truvada, the first pharmaceutical drug to prevent the virus that causes AIDS.
Some of the senior members of Gilead Sciences include:
- John C. Martin, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, who served on the Centers for Disease Control/Health Resources and Services Administrations Advisory Committee on HIV and STD Prevention and Treatment and was a member of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS and worked for competitors Bristol-Myers Squibb and Syntex Corporation
- Robin L. Washington, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer who was a former accounting analyst for the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
- Kevin Young, Executive Vice President, Commercial Operations, who was appointed Commander of The British Empire for his service to the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries
Margaret Hamburg, FDA commissioner, released a statement saying that the approval by the FDA “marks an important milestone in our fight against HIV.”
Marketed as a preventative for people who at high risk of contracting HIV through sexual activies, Turvada is supported by public health advocates that believe this pill will slow down the spread of HIV. In America it is estimated that 1.2 million people have HIV. With this new antiviral drug, it is proposed that 240,000 HIV carriers will not be able to continue to spread the disease.
Gilead Sciences combined two separate drugs to create Truvada. The genetically engineering of the preventative is praised by the FDA to answer the assumption that condoms are not effective. The pharmaceutical corporations are working hard to convince the general public that their drugs are the only answer to our problems; whether with regard to healthcare or psychology or simply controlling social behavior as with addiction vaccines .
The inception of HIV/AIDS began in the late 1970’s when the World Health Organization (WHO) went into Africa under a small pox vaccine initiative . Suddenly, in 1981, the first recorded incident of HIV was “discovered” in the same places where WHO had conducted the small pox vaccine campaigns.