WHO admits “conflicts of interest”
Sept 2010. Almost everyone who reads the papers, watches TV or listens to the radio has now heard that the H1N1 pandemic did not pan out as was anticipated and is causing the World Health Organization to come under fire by health officials that spent billions of dollars on vaccines that are now useless.
WHO admits to “inconsistencies” in its policy on conflicts of interest.
The World Health Organization has now admitted that its policies governing the publication of conflicts of interests of its “expert advisers” have “inconsistencies” and that safeguards “surrounding engagements with industry” need to be tightened. They point out that their advisors where receiving money from the drug industry. Click HERE to read the report.
The joint BMJ and bureau investigation found that key scientists advising WHO on planning for a flu pandemic had done paid work for drug firms that stood to gain from the guidance and that the agency had not declared these conflicts of interests. In addition, the names of 16 members of the WHO “emergency committee” have been kept secret to outsiders, and as such their possible conflicts of interest with drug companies are unknown.
The WHO’s image is now tarnished……
A report was made by Dr. Margaret Chan, the Director-General to the Executive Board at its 126th session Geneva, Switzerland. 18 January 201o.
“Although the virus has not yet delivered any devastating surprises, we have seen some surprises on other fronts. We anticipated problems in producing enough vaccine fast enough, and this did indeed happen. But we did not anticipate that people would decide not to be vaccinated.
I mentioned the revolution in communications and information technologies. In today’s world, people can draw on a vast range of information sources. People make their own decisions about what information to trust, and base their actions on those decisions.
The days when health officials could issue advice, based on the very best medical and scientific data, and expect populations to comply, may be fading. It may no longer be sufficient to say that a vaccine is safe, or testing complied with all regulatory standards, or a risk is real.
In my view, this is a new communications challenge that we may need to address.”
It is clear that the Internet has changed the way the public gets their information concerning health issues. Health websites like Mercola.com, Andrew Weil, and many others are now the beacons of light that shine the truth. Some traditional media publishers such as Prevention and GQ no longer fear the wrath of the FCC or the wireless industry advertiser and now use their print publications and websites to inform the public that the dangers of EMF are real and the governments need to change the safety limits now.
It is becoming clear that the WHO is quickly losing credibility with the media and the governments from around the world. We are witnessing a culture shift where the public no longer trusts their own doctors or Public Health Board – or local media providers that quote the WHO and it’s advisors…
Governments can no longer quote the World Health Organization hoping to placate the public that questions the safety of cell phones, WIFI, cell towers, powerlines and other sources of electromagnetic radiation.
The WHO continues to send mixed messages. On their website they state:
Do mobile phones pose a cancer risk? Coordinated by WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the largest ever international study of mobile phone safety has concluded that the devices do not raise the risk of brain cancer, except for a possible slight increase in tumours among the most intensive users!
How can you say in one sentence that there is no risk, and then say that there is if you use your phone intensively? “The more you use your phone the greater the risk” is what the WHO should have said.
For those that still have faith in the WHO – Here is a presentation from Michael Repacholi – Is there a similar conflict of interest? < Learn more about the WHO’s main EMF advisor.