Big Pharma may have to reveal government deals in WHO's draft pandemic rules

This should be fun.

Big Pharma and governments need to be held accountable for their handling of the pandemic and assisting them with blocking non-FDA-approved drugs that were clearly shown to be working, to push a vaccine-only solution at all costs and to curtail and play down anything else deliberately.

The vaccines largely failed, as they predicted to do by virologist Dr Geert Vanden Boorche when, more than 2 years ago, he warned WHO not to vaccinate everyone but to only focus on the elderly and those with severe comorbidities.

The latest death tolls are evidence that our public health officials did not follow the science and worse, doubled down on pushing a vaccine-only response which should never have been the only method of attacking covid.

The data continues to roll in as it always has been right from the start:

Median age of a covid death is 83.1 years of age;

Natural immunity outlasts vaccine by more than 3 times the efficacy duration, the latter according to Pfizer themselves, begins waning at 3 months;

Recent study shows heart inflammation at the rate 1 in 43 in vaccinated teenagers;

FDA wanted 75 years to release Pfizer trial data;

Pfizer cut the trial period short and removed 1000's from the study with no explanation;

Low Vitamin D levels associated with a 4x's the higher death rate. 63% of those with severe covid outcomes had low Vitamin D levels.

Hope they have a wee word with you know where and their 0-covid policy for the mathematically challenged.

Big Pharma and governments need to be held accountable for their handling of the pandemic and assisting them with blocking non-FDA-approved drugs that were clearly shown to be working

No such thing happened, the drugs that were tested and found effective are being used including some that were dirt cheap like dexamethasone. The usual excuses (dexametasone and HCQ) were not only useless against covid but even increase the risk for the patients. Imaginary conspiracies are not a valid reason for criticism.

The vaccines largely failed

The experts of the world say the contrary based on clear scientific evidence, nameless people on the internet saying the people that know the best about the topic are all wrong are not exactly trustworthy.

The latest death tolls are evidence that our public health officials did not follow the science and worse, doubled down on pushing a vaccine-only response which should never have been the only method of attacking covid.

You mean the much reduced rates of hospitalizations, complications and death in vaccinated people? that does exactly the opposite of your mistaken conclusions.

Natural immunity outlasts vaccine by more than 3 times the efficacy duration, the latter according to Pfizer themselves, begins waning at 3 months;

No, it does not, by the same reason that losing your hand is not a more efficient way to prevent hurting that hand, when your "solution" requires for you to run the full problems you are trying to avoid in the first place that is not a solution at all.

Recent study shows heart inflammation at the rate 1 in 43 in vaccinated teenagers;

No such thing, why make up imaginary things? is it that you don't have actual arguments? The consensus of science is clear, covid is a much more important and serious cause of inflammation of hearth muscle tissue than any of the vaccines.

FDA wanted 75 years to release Pfizer trial data;

No, it wanted funds to have people dedicated to redact thousands of pages of documents for a thousand different requests instead of having only a couple of people doing that for decades.

Low Vitamin D levels associated with a 4x's the higher death rate. 63% of those with severe covid outcomes had low Vitamin D levels.

But people that have a genetic disposition to have low vitamin D levels have no increased risk from covid, which helps exemplifying how nothing is so simple. Nor that there is any need to stop necessary supplementation while doing everything else recommended to protect people from covid.

Pfizer cut the trial period short and removed 1000's from the study with no explanation;

No, that is also false, clinical trials have ethical constrains for their approval, that means that if something is demonstrated to be effective (such as the vaccines) it becomes unethical to keep the control group without it, so by design the trials have to be cut short. Saying this was "without explanation" is just clearly false propaganda from antivaxxer groups that try to mislead people with disinformation.

Big Pharma may have to reveal government deals in WHO's draft pandemic rules

The WHO is like a travel agency. It is trying to sell something.

After dropping the ball on malaria, HPV, cholera, monkey pox, Covid etc. this agency should just keep its fingers out of people's business.

JayToday  06:49 am JST

Big Pharma and governments need to be held accountable for their handling of the pandemic and assisting them with blocking non-FDA-approved drugs that were clearly shown to be working, to push a vaccine-only solution at all costs and to curtail and play down anything else deliberately.

The vaccines largely failed, as they predicted to do by virologist Dr Geert Vanden Boorche when, more than 2 years ago, he warned WHO not to vaccinate everyone but to only focus on the elderly and those with severe comorbidities.

100% true.

The WHO is like a travel agency. It is trying to sell something.

Again this magical argument of yours that pretends only the WHO should have known the future and give a different advice than what was actually given by all the international scientific institutions? That still keeps being not an argument, just an excuse to support your personal bias.

After dropping the ball on malaria, HPV, cholera, monkey pox, Covid etc. this agency should just keep its fingers out of people's business.

Just because you say something does not make it true, you are again just trying to push what you personally think and pretend it is true even when contradicted by the experts.

100% true.

Still false, as demonstrated by the scientific consensus that clearly support the vaccines as the best way to deal with the pandemic and HCQ and ivermectin as completely useless, that would make it the opposite of true, as easy as no support for this claim is being used.

Still false, as demonstrated by the scientific consensus that clearly support the vaccines as the best way to deal with the pandemic and HCQ and ivermectin as completely useless, that would make it the opposite of true, as easy as no support for this claim is being used.

There is no scientific consensus. A number of health agencies have moved away from the mass vax. And a number of them have adopted hcq and ivm.

Looking at the scientific literature, there is no consensus, it's only in your mind.

The WHO is like a travel agency.

I still can't see how WHO is "like travel agency".

Is HIS like a world health organisation?

I suppose Don't book it, Thomas Cook it!

You mean the much reduced rates of hospitalizations, complications and death in vaccinated people? that does exactly the opposite of your mistaken conclusions.

And the fact that the virus itself weakened had no role to play? I would say that is the main factor attributing to reduce rates of hospitalizations, complications and death.

In fact, ”If” I were to make a conclusion based on my own observations (as I know quite a few unvaccinated people, ALL of who didn’t even contract Covid), I would say that the vaccine makes one MORE susceptible to contracting the virus.

At the very most, I would say the vaccine would only be beneficial to those at risk due to age or having a compromised immune system. At the very most…

I think it’s quite curious that there seems to be a lack of data readily available showing recent statistics of vaccinated versus unvaccinated infections and well as the demographics (including the health conditions when infected). Leading with that kind of info would instantly dispel any suspicions.

One would think that that kind of data would be available and would be a great tool in promoting the benefits of being vaccinated. Alas, that last nail in the coffin does not exist.

Nor will it ever…

There is no scientific consensus. A number of health agencies have moved away from the mass vax. And a number of them have adopted hcq and ivm.

Well, zero is a number, and since zero of health agencies say the vaccines is not safe or effective and support hcq and ivermecting that would make your statement true in that part, but the consensus is still there, as sure as you could not bring any example.

And the fact that the virus itself weakened had no role to play? 

So you believe the virus weakens itself only on vaccinated people? that makes no sense. Else how this explanation would apply only in vaccinated people as you quote?

 I would say that is the main factor attributing to reduce rates of hospitalizations, complications and death.

On vaccinated people when compared with unvaccinated? how does this works again?

In fact, ”If” I were to make a conclusion based on my own observations (as I know quite a few unvaccinated people, ALL of who didn’t even contract Covid), I would say that the vaccine makes one MORE susceptible to contracting the virus.

So the professionals working on the field on every related institution of the planet have the data to say exactly the opposite, but someone completely unable to explain how something clearly observed on vaccinated people happens because the virus behaves differently only on them say the experts of the world are wrong?

Well, that would not make it difficult to see who is simply much more likely to be correct, the lack of explanation of the magical mechanism involved and the evidence clearly shows supporting vaccines is the only rational explanation.

The experts clearly say the vaccine is beneficial for anybody for whom it is indicated.

One would think that that kind of data would be available and would be a great tool in promoting the benefits of being vaccinated. Alas, that last nail in the coffin does not exist.

Because having most of the population already vaccinated make the benefits of further vaccination less obvious?

The information is there, reports on the benefits of the vaccine are still being published in scientific journals, just because you are not interested enough to consult these primary sources of information does not mean they don't exist.

The information is there, reports on the benefits of the vaccine are still being published in scientific journals, just because you are not interested enough to consult these primary sources of information does not mean they don't exist.

The information is there, reports on the severe adverse effects of the vaccine are still being published in scientific journals, just because you are not interested enough to consult these primary sources of information does not mean they don't exist.

The information is there, reports on the severe adverse effects of the vaccine are still being published in scientific journals, just because you are not interested enough to consult these primary sources of information does not mean they don't exist.

Yes no recognized institution of medicine or science support what you claim, exactly as if the reports clearly said the rates of important problems do not increase specifically for vaccinated people, and the risks inherent to covid were much more important.

This is why there is a scientific and medical consensus in favor of vaccination, because the primary sources of information say the opposite of what you want to believe.

This would set a precedent for non-governmental bodies like WHO to enact regulation or even legislation where democratically elected governments failed to do so. Very dangerous precedent. It's potentially a slippery slope argument but once you let the WHO set pandemic rules for each country, what other powers could they get over sovereign nations? It should be the governments that signed the deals with pharma that are enforcing transparency, not WEF backed treaties.

So, believe what the medical institutions linked to pharma companies giving kickbacks willynilly ;not disclosing or releasing drugs for “emergency use only” when the chance of dying from Covid is not even statistically significant?

But guess what?

People have already woken up to the fact that their own natural immunity and lifestyle DOES have an effect on the outcome of contracting pathogens-keep it quiet and the money will keep rolling in though!

So, believe what the medical institutions linked to pharma companies giving kickbacks willynilly ;not disclosing or releasing drugs for “emergency use only” when the chance of dying from Covid is not even statistically significant?

So every single institution related to human health in the world is in this conspiracy? How come they are all recognizing covid even now as an important public health problem? how did you calculate the statistical significance and found covid does not have it? What scientific studies have shown that vaccines and treatment have no importance?

People have already woken up to the fact that their own natural immunity and lifestyle DOES have an effect on the outcome of contracting pathogens-keep it quiet and the money will keep rolling in though!

That was known from the very beginning, and does absolutely nothing to negate the fact that even young people without any comorbidities have a reduction of risk from covid by vaccinating or getting treatment with drugs of corroborated efficacy. This would apply also to many other vaccine preventable diseases, do you think then than all vaccines are also useless?

The notion that the stance or opiniona of "every single institution related to human health" can be in consistent consensus or even known is demonstrably preposterous. Scientific and medical communities rely on rigorous debate and contestant questioning for a consensus to be formed over time. What we are witnessing currently is a global policy shift around public health as a segment of governance. This is more akin to political decision making "at the speed of science". Hence the dangers in allowing a group of psuedo-experts like WHO to be in charge of policing everyone's daily life.