The World Health Organization (WHO) often finds itself at the center of controversy. It is also considered the “go to” source for authoritative health information. The organization toggles between parroting industry talking points and propaganda, while also producing information that purportedly assists public health awareness.
Yet the WHO has a history of ignoring reality and warnings while shaping their policy. Here are a few examples
1 – Ignoring Vaccine Safety and Risk Concerns
Vaccinations have been a central focus of WHO for many years. Until recently, they’ve been enthusiastic about vaccine uptake, but in 2019, WHO went “all in” on the manufactured talking point regarding “vaccine hesitancy.”
When WHO declared vaccine hesitancy one of their top ten threats to global health, corporate news headlines and government bureaucrats around the world echoed the WHO’s proclamation, despite limited safety testing from a notoriously unscrupulous industry.
Unanswered questions surrounding vaccine safety are consistently listed in polls, surveys and research around the world as a reason many people are ‘hesitant’ about vaccination.
But what’s there to be hesitant about if vaccines are “safe and effective”? Heck, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) labels vaccines one of the top ten public health achievements in the twentieth century – along with water fluoridation.
Yet here’s Prof. Heidi Larson, Ph.D., Professor of Anthropology and Director of the Vaccine Confidence Project discussing the biggest issue surrounding growing vaccine hesitancy worldwide. Spoiler alert – it’s safety.
Larson later added,
“There’s a lot of safety science that’s needed. You can’t repurpose the same old science to make it sound better if you don’t have the science that’s relevant to the new problems.”
Doesn’t sound like a lot of “confidence” from the Director of the Vaccine Confidence Project, does it?
Vaccine safety doesn’t just rest on the so-called “settled science” of missing double-blind, placebo controlled studies [which all other drugs and medications must adhere to] and the complete absence of total health outcome comparisons in vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations.
Product safety is also justified by robust surveillance and monitoring systems – you know, the same ones enacted to track the vaccine wariness of you and your family.
Now let’s listen in on Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, Chief Scientist at the WHO She’s caught flatfooted, contradicting herself when talking about her (own waning) confidence in vaccine surveillance, behind closed doors at the Global Vaccine Safety Summit in Geneva, Switzerland, last December.
That same day, Marion Gruber of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) publicly acknowledged it was only now beginning to organize the components needed for planning the creation of proper vaccine surveillance systems.
2 – Ignoring America’s Opioid Epidemic To Expand Problems Globally
In hindsight, there have been some pretty shocking headlines about opioids over the past few years.
The 2016 Los Angeles Times investigative piece OxyContin goes global – “We’re only just getting started” exposed a global opioid marketing push by Mundipharma International – a network of pharmaceutical companies owned by the Sackler family.
The LA Times piece prompted a letter from 12 members of Congress to WHO’s then Director-General Margaret Chan. The letter urged Chan and the WHO to “…do everything in its power to avoid allowing [Purdue Pharma] to begin a worldwide opioid epidemic.”
Citing irrefutable examples and internal documents, the members of Congress wrote:
“We urge the WHO to learn from our experience and rein in this reckless and dangerous behavior while there is still time.”
But it was already too late. Little did Congress know at the time, the WHO’s guidelines and policy on opioids had already been updated in 2011 to reflect deep industry talking points.
In 2019 a Congressional report detailing WHO’s infiltration by the opioid industry was released through the offices of Clark and Rogers: Exposing Dangerous Opioid Manufacturer Influence at the World Health Organization.
The document unequivocally states,
“We are disturbed that the WHO, a trusted international agency, appears to be lending the opioid industry its voice and credibility.”
The Congressional report goes on to warn, “Based on the course of events that has taken place in the U.S. over the past 20 years, if the recommendations in these WHO guidelines are followed, there is a significant risk of sparking a worldwide public health crisis.”
3 – Ignoring Alarming Death Rates of Vaccine Campaigns in Third World Countries
In Dr. Peter Aaby’s recent presentation WHO is the brain in the system? A case study of how public health vaccinology deals with fundamental contradictions of current policy he recounted his studies in Africa with a newly approved measles vaccine.
After finding that girls given the measles vaccine had a two-fold higher mortality rate, Dr. Abby alerted the WHO. After WHO initially discounted his findings, Dr. Aaby worked to convince the WHO to hold an expert panel to discuss his data and discoveries.
According to Dr. Aaby, the panel concluded his findings weren’t plausible because there was no biological explanation. Additionally, the WHO panel claimed that since the study and deaths weren’t planned, they should simply be discounted.
You might want to read that previous paragraph a couple times, just to let it sink in.
Later, after similar findings were found in Haiti and Sudan by other researchers, the WHO withdrew the new measles vaccine as quietly as they could “with no real explanation” and making “no attempt to understand what has happened,” Dr. Aaby explains.
Dr. Aaby continued to look at the introductions and combinations of other vaccines given to children in Guinea-Bissau over his career. In 2018 he published Evidence of Increase in Mortality After the Introduction of Diphtheria–Tetanus–Pertussis Vaccine to Children Aged 6–35 Months in Guinea-Bissau: A Time for Reflection?
Dr. Aaby and his team concluded the following:
“…6–35 months old DTP-vaccinated children tended to have higher mortality than DTP-unvaccinated children. All studies of the introduction of DTP have found increased overall mortality.”
He also found in a separate study that DTP vaccination was associated with increased mortality and that oral polio vaccination may modify the effect of DTP.
In late 2017, The Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) sent a legal notice letter to UNICEF and 150 other underdeveloped nations. The letter demanded UNICEF “cease distribution of the DTP vaccine or at least confirm that parents of children receiving this vaccine are advised of Dr. Aaby’s findings…”
After two months UNICEF replied to ICAN’s notice with a canned response completely ignoring Aaby’s study and refusing to address the concerning results of their DTP vaccination campaign.
4 – Ignoring Safety Issues About the HPV Vaccine
In 2016, WHO Director-General Margaret Chan received an open letter from Dr. Sin Hang Lee, regarding safety issues with the aluminum adjuvant contained within the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine, along with evidence several individuals and organizations had deliberately mislead Japanese authorities regarding the safety of Gardasil® and Cervarix®.
The WHO ignored Dr. Lee’s warnings, along with a decade of international research showing aluminum adjuvants are harmful.
Instead, a year later WHO published its position paper, which it stands by to this day, stating, “Data from all sources continue to be reassuring regarding the safety profile of all 3 vaccines…All 3 licensed HPV vaccines – bivalent, quadrivalent and nonavalent – have excellent safety, efficacy and effectiveness profiles.”
In closing, one must give credit where credit is due even if the information arrives late to the party. The WHO’s International Agency For Research on Cancer now labels glyphosate as a Group 2A probably carcinogenic to humans product, banging Bayer-Monsanto’s so-called settled herbicidal science.
That 2015 finding teed up the company for record cancer lawsuits against its flagship Roundup product, which are still ongoing today. Let’s hope currently-protected-from-litigation Big Pharma will soon find itself in similar straits.