A Conflict of Interest

We are suppose to be able to trust our governments.  Trust the medical professionals that give us information and recommendations about our health and trust the major associations that advise the public and our governing bodies when they are making decisions and statements.  I know that the vast majority of the John and Jane Doe's are perfectly happy to blindly follow the professionals that supposedly have our best interests at heart, but there are still a few thinking humans out there and we are seriously concerned.  


When you read the fine print and do your homework it becomes blatantly clear that such faith in the assumed omnipotence of these professionals and their associations is questionable at best.  "Conflict of  Interest" is rife in our governments and professional associations.  So much so that the question becomes "Who do you trust?"


CBC and other news agencies have spent months tracking down the truth about Tamiflu, the Be-all, End-all for dealing with the H1N1 flu virus..... or so they tried to convince us. The Canadian government stockpiled nearly $180 MILLION dollars worth of anti-viral drugs (mostly Tamiflu), and now a good portion of it is about to expire. Yep, Millions of dollars are about to be thrown out.  Why do we have these stockpiles of drugs and are they even worth it is the question the CBC and other media reporters are asking.  Why? Because the truth is that there is a HUGE conflict of interest that is deeply rooted at the centre of all this.


The CBC reports:

A CBC documentary, which was broadcast on The National on Monday night, reports that certain other researchers in Canada, Italy, Britain and the U.S. are now challenging the claims by Roche that Tamiflu can significantly reduce complications or hospitalizations due to the flu.
The documentary also raises concerns about possible side effects surrounding the drug — strange behaviours and psychiatric delusions — that some countries, Japan in particular, have reported.
Using freedom of information requests, the investigation found hundreds of similar cases in Canada and the U.S., which were reported to health authorities but have not been made public.
It’s often difficult to establish a clear causal link between a drug and rare adverse reactions. Roche says its research suggests that these side effects result from the flu itself and high fevers, not the medication.
In the course of the CBC investigation, Zalac also reported that three of Canada's most prominent flu experts — Dr. Donald Low and Dr. Allison McGeer of Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto, and Dr. Fred Aoki of the University of Manitoba — had received research funding or acted as a consultant or speaker for Roche during the period when Tamiflu was being promoted....
...But these relationships were rarely reported in broader public forums, in the media or even when some of these individuals would appear in marketing videos or flu-warning commercials on television produced by Roche.

Conflict of Interest is a disease that riddles our entire government and the decision makers that we presume are looking out for the best interests of the people they are advising: Us. I have written several articles about the various xxxx that have been reported in the media, yet ignored by the public for the most part:

- "Conflict of Interest Much? Here a swine, there a swine"

-"WHO "Mr Swine Flu" investigated for gross Conflict of interest"

-"WHO warns of corruption in Pharmaceutical companies"

But Conflict of Interest isn't just about the flu, it happens in all aspects of the health industry!  WHO and UNICEF have both been targeted as having undisclosed conflicts of interest. As a matter of fact just recently  Ann Veneman, Unicef executive director from 2005 to 2010, joined forces with the evil Nestlé board of directors. This LINK  shows the implications of her shocking career move from an organisation that supports breastfeeding to one that undermines breastfeeding.

And then there is the recent call for submissions from the Health Canada Committee in charge of rewriting the guidelines "Nutrition for Healthy Term Infants: Birth to Six Months". Appalled by the fact that Health Canada left us with less than one month for the public and stakeholder groups to write their response to their draft document, we scrambled to gather our information and to petition HC for an extension of the deadline (which we did successfully).  While writing their response, Elizabeth Sterkin of INFACT Canada uncovered the committees dirty laundry: 3 of the members of the committee have ties to Infant formula and infant food companies.  Yet nowhere in their draft document or the information about the members of the committee does Health Canada reveal these conflicts of interest to the public or to stakeholder groups.  To not disclose this information when HC tries to make statements that if a mother is unable to breastfeed, commercial infant formula is her only option: ""Commercial infant formulas are the only acceptable alternative to breastmilk.".... hmmmmm.... no mention of donor milk or banked breastmilk.  Just formula.  Still think that conflicts of interest like this don't shape policies?

We need to stand up for our rights to have full disclosure and to have access to information to make informed choices that are not influenced by people that are motivated by financial gain.  We need to tell our governments that these conflicts of interest need to be fully disclosed to the public so that they KNOW where the information  is coming from and how commercialism and the mighty dollar might be twisting that information for their own gain.  

Accountability is not just an empty word.  It must be followed by action. 

Conflict of Interest Much? Here a Swine, There a Swine....

The World Health Organization has released  for the first time a list of the 15 members of the Emergency Committee responsible for advising the World Health Organisation about swine flu pandemic alerts and for the mass hysteria caused by these so called "Pandemic" alerts, which caused a mass rush by world governments to buy up massive quantities of H1N1 Vaccines.  Of these 15 advisors, 5 have direct ties to Big Pharma and their wallets.

WHO list reveals flu advisors with industry ties

Nancy Cox, from the US Centers for Disease Control, disclosed financial support from a drugs industry group, the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA) for flu vaccine research and work on viruses in her unit.

US professor Arnold Monto declared current and past consultancies on pandemic or seasonal influenza research for GSK, Novartis, Roche, Baxter and Sanofi Pasteur.
He also declared a grant from Sanofi for a clinical trial in 2007-2008 related to influenza vaccines.

John Wood's research unit at Britain's National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC), had undertaken research for Sanofi Pasteur, CSL, IFPMA, Novartis and Powdermed on influenza vaccine.

Professor Maria Zambon's laboratory at the UK Health Protection Agency Centre for Infection received funding from several vaccine makers, including Sanofi, Novartis, CSL, Baxter and GSK.

British professor Neil Ferguson, an advisor to the committee, had acted as a consultant for Roche and GSK Biologicals until 2007, according to the list.

The WHO said those interests "do not give rise to a conflict of interest such that the experts concerned should be partially or totally excluded from participation in the Emergency Committee."

The panel provided expert advice to the WHO Director General Margaret Chan about the new swine flu virus, allowing her to raise the alert when it was first uncovered in Mexico and the United States in April 2009.
It was also instrumental in the declaration of a pandemic with global spread of the disease in June 2009, triggering a chain of public health precautions including development and production of an influenza vaccine....

HERE to read the entire article  

 So the truth is out yet WHO is still trying to cover their collective asses by denying that these advisers were in direct conflict of interest, considering their deep pockets were lined with Big Pharma's gold.  Even sadder is the fact that none of these people will be held accountable for their obvious bamboozling of the worlds government health agencies, costing us tax payers millions and millions of our hard earned cash in unused vaccines. 

For a very clear look calculated look at the history of the flu vaccine production within the business sector of Big Pharma, read my article "How Vaccines became Big Business".  Many of us have known all along: The drug companies were motivated by money and profits in pushing the "Swine Flu Pandemic" scare. Billions of Dollars/Pounds/Euros have been squandered to order massive quantities of vaccines and flu drugs as governments got prepared for the massive death toll and riots that were suppose to be caused by the H1N1 Virus.... Now governments are left with stock piles of vaccines that are completely useless, and gaping holes in their health budgets to pay for actual medical emergencies and routine services.

Who wants to bet on what the next "Pandemic" scare will be, and whose pockets will be lined this time?

WHO: Warning of Corruption within Pharmaceudical Companies

Well, many of my readers will not find this a very surprising piece of news, with the exception that WHO (the World Health Organization) has actually come clean and admitted it in "public".  WHO recently issued a fact sheet warning about the corruption and unethical practices that are endemic to every step of the pharmaceuticals business.

Key facts

• US$ 4.1 trillion is spent globally on health services every year, with US$ 750 billion spent in the pharmaceutical market.
• 10 to 25% of public procurement spending (including on pharmaceuticals) is lost to corrupt practices.
• In developed countries, fraud and abuse in health care has been estimated to cost individual governments as much as US$ 23 billion per year.
• Countries with a higher incidence of corruption have higher child mortality rates.
• Lack of medicines and counterfeit and substandard medicines lead to patient suffering and have direct life or death consequences.
• To reduce corruption, thorough checks and balances are required at each step in the medicine chain. Good governance includes transparency, accountability, promoting institutional integrity and moral leadership.

"Corruption in the pharmaceutical sector occurs throughout all stages of the medicines chain, from research and development to dispensing and promotion.¹

Related links: Figure: Key steps of the medicine supply chain and unethical practices in the pharmaceutical sector [gif 86kb]

Unethical practices along the chain can take many forms such as falsification of evidence, mismanagement of conflict of interest, or bribery. The Figure illustrates key steps of the medicines chain and some examples of unethical practices..."

Impact of corruption

There are at least three main areas of negative impact from corruption in the medicines chain.

• Negative patient impact. Unethical practices lead to reduced availability of medicines in health facilities due to diversion of medicines, as well as the presence of unsafe or ineffective products on the market. Diverted, counterfeit and substandard medicines have been identified in markets of both rich and poor countries, as well as medicines that are granted unwarranted registration. Such practices lead to patient suffering and have direct life or death consequences.
• Lost resources. Corruption results in enormous amounts of limited public health resources being lost. For example, in developed countries, fraud and abuse in health care has been estimated to cost individual governments as much as US$ 12–23 billion per year.⁶ In developing countries, up to 89% leakage of procurement and operational costs has been observed.⁷ Such losses cripple the ability of health-care institutions to provide adequate care.
• Eroding confidence. Corruption also takes a more subtle toll by eroding public and donor confidence in public institutions. In some countries, the public health system is perceived as the most corrupt public service institution.⁸ Pharmaceutical corruption within ministries of health has also threatened the withdrawal of donor contributions in some low-income countries.^9,10,11

HERE to read the Original Fact Sheet

While I applaud WHO for taking a stand in the fight against unethical and corrupt business practices within the Pharmaceutical arena, I think that they might want to start their investigations closer to home within their own ranks.  Back in December 2009 I wrote about an article that outlined several conflict of interests within WHO over the H1N1 "Pandemic"

"WHO ADVISER CONCEALS A DONATION OF MILLIONS FROM A PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY"

And in January 2010 I wrote another blog based on a major news story involving several conflict of interests in the WHO/Big Pharma H1N1 debacle. 

Drug firms cashed in on scare over swine flu

Wolfgang Wodarg, head of health at the Council of Europe, accused the makers of flu drugs and vaccines of influencing the World Health Organisation's decision to declare a pandemic.
This led to the pharmaceutical firms ensuring 'enormous gains', while countries, including the UK, 'squandered' their meagre health budgets, with millions being vaccinated against a relatively mild disease...
He added that their influence could have led the WHO to soften its definition of a pandemic - leading to the declaration of a worldwide outbreak last June.
Dr Wodarg said: '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.
'They have made them squander tight healthcare resources for inefficient vaccine strategies and needlessly exposed millions of healthy people to the risk of unknown side-effects of insufficiently tested vaccines.'

This article contains all the information you need to defend your decision to co-sleep with your new baby, or to help you  make an informed decision about sharing a family bed.

baby co-sleeping fact sheet

by Elizabeth Willmott Harrop
June 2008, updated April 2010

Co-sleeping is surrounded by myth, with all co-sleeping branded as irresponsible, when it is actually unsafe forms of co-sleeping which lead to harm. Rather like wanting to ban all car driving because of the possibility of road deaths, without differentiating between safe and reckless driving. To quote an October 2009 study of SIDS in south west England: "Many of the SIDS infants had coslept in a hazardous environment ... specific advice needs to be given, particularly on use of alcohol or drugs before cosleeping and cosleeping on a sofa."

Co-sleeping¹ is beneficial to mothers & babies and the children & adults they become:

• Protective against SIDS
• More frequent breastfeeding for a longer term
• Less crying
• Calmer and more soothing night time environment
• Dramatic decrease in sleep startles
• Increased understanding of baby's cues
• Longer birth intervals
• More light and less deep sleep appropriate to infants
• More independent and secure children
• Better mental health as adults

Always follow safety guidelines such as sleeping baby on their back, avoiding smoking (in and after pregnancy), being drug and alcohol free, using light bedding and a firm mattress. For full recommendations see Safe Cosleeping from The University of Notre Dame Mother-Baby Behavioral Sleep Lab and Attachment Parenting International - Infant Sleep Safety

It is ok

• to breastfeed your baby to sleep
• to breastfeed several times in the night
• if your baby doesn't sleep through the night
• if your baby wants to be with you all night
• to bed/room share with your baby

 HERE to read the whole Article

Many times when the topic of bed sharing or co-sleeping enters conversations someone will undoubtedly bring up "The Study".... the Study that has caused several media storms of negative articles about co-sleeping and the irresponsibility of parents who sleep with their babies.  This is a perfect example of how the media is unable to read a study and analyse it correctly, without letting their own personal bias come into play when they publish the report to the public. 

This research study I am talking about came out in 1999 from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission that showed 515 cases of accidental infant deaths occurred in an adult bed over an 8-year period between 1990 and 1997.  The media jumped on this (and has jumped on it again and again), using fear mongering  and sensationalism to proclaim loudly that sleep sharing and co-sleeping is unsafe.  But anyone with the ability to read facts and use logic would be able to see through the gigantic holes in this study and be capable of concluding that not only is the study flawed, but that the conclusions drawn from it are highly illogical.

Dr. William Sears discusses the glaringly illogical conclusions of this study, and more importantly brings to light a huge conflict of interest on his website.

SLEEPING SAFELY WITH YOUR BABY (Here to be directed to the site)

the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission that showed 515 cases of accidental infant deaths occurred in an adult bed over an 8-year period between 1990 and 1997. That's about 65 deaths per year. These deaths were not classified as Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), where the cause of death is undetermined. There were actual causes that were verified upon review of the scene and autopsy. Such causes included accidental smothering by an adult, getting trapped between the mattress and headboard or other furniture, and suffocation on a soft waterbed mattress.
The conclusion that the researchers drew from this study was that sleeping with an infant in an adult bed is dangerous and should never be done. This sounds like a reasonable conclusion, until you consider the epidemic of SIDS as a whole. During the 8-year period of this study, about 34,000 total cases of SIDS occurred in the U.S. (around 4250 per year). If 65 cases of non-SIDS accidental death occurred each year in a bed, and about 4250 cases of actual SIDS occurred overall each year, then the number of accidental deaths in an adult bed is only 1.5% of the total cases of SIDS.
There are two pieces of critical data that are missing that would allow us to determine the risk of SIDS or any cause of death in a bed versus a crib.

• How many cases of actual SIDS occur in an adult bed versus in a crib?
• How many babies sleep with their parents in the U.S., and how many sleep in cribs?

The data on the first question is available, but has anyone examined it? In fact, one independent researcher examined the CPSC's data and came to the opposite conclusion than did the CPSC - this data supports the conclusion that sleeping with your baby is actually SAFER than not sleeping with your baby (see Mothering Magazine Sept/Oct 2002). As for the second question, many people may think that very few babies sleep with their parents, but we shouldn't be too quick to assume this. The number of parents that bring their babies into their bed at 4 am is probably quite high. Some studies have shown that over half of parents bring their baby into bed with them at least part of the night. And the number that sleep with their infants the whole night is probably considerable as well. In fact, in most countries around the world sleeping with your baby is the norm, not the exception. And what is the incidence of SIDS in these countries? During the 1990s, in Japan the rate was only one tenth of the U.S. rate, and in Hong Kong, it was only 3% of the U.S. rate. These are just two examples. Some countries do have a higher rate of SIDS, depending on how SIDS is defined.
Until a legitimate survey is done to determine how many babies sleep with their parents, and this is factored into the rate of SIDS in a bed versus a crib, it is unwarranted to state that sleeping in a crib is safer than a bed....

...A conflict of interest? Who is behind this new national campaign to warn parents not to sleep with their babies? In addition to the USCPSC, the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (JPMA) is co-sponsoring this campaign. The JPMA? An association of crib manufacturers. This is a huge conflict of interest. Actually, this campaign is exactly in the interest of the JPMA.

 So the next time someone tries to tell you that you are endangering the physical and emotional well being of your baby by cuddling up next to him all night, give them the facts!!!

Drug firms cashed in on scare over swine flu

Yet more reports of conflict of interest from people in high positions responsible to advising governments, and of course we have the fact - that many of us have known all along: The drug companies were motivated by money and profits in pushing the "Swine Flu Pandemic" scare. Billions of Dollars/Pounds/Euros have been squandered to order massive quantities of vaccines and flu drugs as governments got prepared for the massive death toll and riots that were suppose to be caused by the H1N1 Virus.... Now governments are left with stock piles of vaccines that will be all but useless in the next few months, and gaping holes in their health budgets to pay for actual medical emergencies and routine services.

Are you shocked?

The 'false' pandemic: Drug firms cashed in on scare over swine flu, claims Euro health chief

By Fiona Macrae
Last updated at 8:38 AM on 11th January 2010

The swine flu outbreak was a 'false pandemic' driven by drug companies that stood to make billions of pounds from a worldwide scare, a leading health expert has claimed.

Wolfgang Wodarg, head of health at the Council of Europe, accused the makers of flu drugs and vaccines of influencing the World Health Organisation's decision to declare a pandemic.

This led to the pharmaceutical firms ensuring 'enormous gains', while countries, including the UK, 'squandered' their meagre health budgets, with millions being vaccinated against a relatively mild disease.

A resolution proposed by Dr Wodarg calling for an investigation into the role of drug firms has been passed by the Council of Europe, the Strasbourg-based 'senate' responsible for the European Court of Human Rights.

An emergency debate on the issue will be held later this month.

Dr Wodarg's claims come as it emerged the British government is desperately trying to offload up to £1billion of swine flu vaccine, ordered at the height of the scare

The Department of Health warned of 65,000 deaths, set up a special advice line and website, suspended normal rules so anti-flu drugs could be given out without prescription and told health and local authorities to prepare for a major pandemic.

Planners were told to get morgues ready for the sheer scale of deaths and there were warnings that the Army could be called in to prevent riots as people fought to obtain drugs.

But with fewer than 5,000 in England catching the disease last week and just 251 deaths overall, Dr Wodarg has branded the H1N1 outbreak as 'one of the greatest medical scandals of the century'.

He said: 'We have had a mild flu - and a false pandemic.'

He added the seeds of the scare were sown five years ago, when it was feared the much more lethal bird flu virus would mutate into a human form.

The 'atmosphere of panic' led to governments stockpiling the anti-flu drug Tamiflu and putting in place 'sleeping contracts' for millions of doses of vaccine

Dr Wodarg said: '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.'

He also claims that to further push their interests, leading drug companies placed 'their people' in the 'cogs' of the WHO and other influential organisations.

He added that their influence could have led the WHO to soften its definition of a pandemic - leading to the declaration of a worldwide outbreak last June.

Dr Wodarg said: '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.

'They have made them squander tight healthcare resources for inefficient vaccine strategies and needlessly exposed millions of healthy people to the risk of unknown side-effects of insufficiently tested vaccines.'

He does not name any Britons with conflicts of interest.

But last year, the Daily Mail revealed that Sir Roy Anderson, a scientist who advises the Government on swine flu, also holds a £116,000-a-year post on the board of GlaxoSmithKline.

GSK makes anti-flu drugs and vaccines and is predicted to be one of the biggest beneficiaries of the pandemic.

A young girl is given an inoculation at a medical centre in Cockermouth, England. Millions were given vaccines against swine flu, with pharmaceutical companies being paid huge sums by the government

The Department of Health says that although the disease appears to be on the wane, it cannot rule out a third surge and urges all those entitled to the jab to have it.

Professor David Salisbury, the Government's head of immunisation said there were 'no grounds whatsoever' for Dr Wodarg's claims, saying people with conflicts of interest were kept out of the decision-making process.

A GSK spokesman said: 'Allegations of undue influence are misguided and unfounded. The WHO declared that H1N1 swine flu met the criteria for a pandemic.

'As WHO have stated, legal regulations and numerous safeguards are in place to manage possible conflicts of interest.'

The company, which still employs Sir Roy, said he had declared his commercial interests and had not attended any meetings related to the purchase of drugs or vaccine for either the Government or GSK.

HERE to go to the original Article

Ahhhhh... yet again, more information about "Conflicts of Interest" within major health organizations and Big Pharma.

WHO ADVISER CONCEALS A DONATION OF MILLIONS FROM A PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY

Thursday, 17 December 2009 11:33

WHO ADVISER CONCEALS A DONATION OF MILLIONS FROM A PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY

Written by Louise Voller & Kristian Villesen for the Danish daily newspaper, “Information”

10.12. 2009

A Finnish member of the WHO board, an advisor on vaccines, has received 46 million crowns (6 million euros) for his research centre from the vaccine manufactures, GlaxoSmithKline. WHO promises transparency, but this conflict of interests is not available for the public to see at WHO’s homepage.

Another ‘WHO’ vaccine advisor is withholding information concerning financial support from the pharmaceutical industry.

Professor Juhani Eskola is the director of the Finnish research vaccine programme (THL) and a new member of the WHO group, ‘Strategic Advisory Group of Experts’ (SAGE), which gives advice to the WHO Director-General, Margaret Chan. ‘SAGE’ also recommend which vaccines - and how many - member countries should purchase for the pandemic.

According to documents acquired through the Danish ‘Freedom of Information Act,’ Professor Juhani Eskola’s Finnish institute, THL, received almost 6.3 million Euro from GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) for research on vaccines during 2009.

This amount of money qualifies GlaxoSmithKline as THL’s main source of income.

HERE to read the complete article

Do you still think that the WHO and many world governments truly are "independent"? That they are motivated solely for the benefit of the populations that they are suppose to be protecting?

Yea, I don't think so.

It's a strange thing that when you start to investigate all these so called "Experts" in the field of viruses and vaccines, the deeper you dig, the more collusion and outright conflicts of interest you discover.

One of the members of SAGE at the time and today was Dr. Albert “Mr Flu” Osterhaus. Not only was Osterhaus in a key position to advocate the panic-inducing WHO “Pandemic emergency” declaration. He was also chairman of the leading private European Scientific Working group on Influenza, which describes itself as a “multidisciplinary group of key opinion leaders in influenza [that] aims to combat the impact of epidemic and pandemic influenza.” Osterhaus’ ESWI is the vital link as they themselves describe it “between the World Health Organization (WHO) in Geneva, the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin and the University of Connecticut, USA.”

What is more significant about the ESWI is that its work is entirely financed by the same pharma mafia companies that make billions on the pandemic emergency as governments around the world are compelled to buy and stockpile vaccines on declaration of a WHO Pandemic. The funders of ESWI include H1N1 vaccine maker Novartis, Tamiflu distributor, Hofmann-La Roche, Baxter Vaccines, MedImmune, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur and others.

Not to lose the point, the world-leading virologist, official adviser on H1N1 to the governments of the UK and Holland, Dr Albert Osterhaus, head of the Department of Virology at the Erasmus MC of Rotterdam, also sat on the WHO’s elite SAGE and served as chairman at the same time of the pharma industry-sponsored ESWI which urged dramatic steps to vaccinate the world against the grave danger of a new Pandemic they insisted could rival the feared 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic.

The Wall Street bank, JP Morgan estimated that in large part as a result of the WHO pandemic decision, the giant pharma firms that also finance Osterhaus’ ESWI work, stand to reap some €7.5 to €10 billion in profits. ¹⁴

A fellow member of WHO’s SAGE is Dr Frederick Hayden, of Britain’s Wellcome Trust and reportedly a close friend of Osterhaus. Hayden also receives money for “advisory” services from Roche and GlaxoSmithKline among other pharma giants involved in producing products related to the H1N1 panic....

..Even more the meetings of the “independent” scientists of SAGE are attended by “observers” who include, yes, the very vaccine producers GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Baxter and company. In the past decade the WHO, in order to boost funds at its disposal entered into what it calls “public private partnerships.” Instead of receiving its funds solely from member United Nations governments as its original purpose had been, WHO today receives almost double its normal UN budget in the form of grants and financial support from private industry. The industry? The very drug and vaccine makers who benefit from decisions like the June 2009 H1N1 Pandemic emergency declaration. As the main financiers of the WHO bureaucracy, naturally the Pharma Mafia and their friends receive what has been called “open door red carpet treatment” in Geneva.¹⁷

World Health Organisation ‘Mr Swine Flu’ Under Investigation for Gross Conflict of Interest

Politics / Global Pandemic Dec 08, 2009 - 02:08 PM

By: F_William_Engdahl

HERE to read the complete article