Flashback – New Years Eve 2020, the WHO approves Pfizer/BioNTech’s experimental modified mRNA C19 injection and advises against Ivermectin
Sometimes it is worthwhile reminding ourselves of why the WHO is not fit for purpose.
Given these clinical trial results for Pfizer – designed with the sole intent of making symptoms undetectable – one objective – to reduce symptoms, not infection, transmission, hospitalization and death – just the symptoms of C19 disease.
The COVID-19 Inoculations - More Harm Than Good FINAL Video & Print (canadiancovidcarealliance.org)
Remember, the mRNA technology had failed each and every time it had been attempted in the past, the actual injections were not those used in the clinical trials, but were completed using “Process 2” that Guetzkow ad Levi revealed was 2-3 times more harmful and that the trials were unblinded months earlier than their intended 6 month time span.
Note also that the trials were conducted amongst a health population, not the more vulnerable elderly and infirm. Nor was any analysis done for those with specific contra-indications to ingredients. Nor was any testing done on pregnant women.
At the time, it was widely known that drugs like Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine treatment protocols plus vitamin C and D were safe, effective, cheap and easily available.
Has anyone seen an assessment by the WHO of the clinical trial results for Pfizer – or the actual doses rolled out under Process 2?
Instead, we have this from 31 December 2020:
“The World Health Organization (WHO) today listed the Comirnaty COVID-19 mRNA vaccine for emergency use, making the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine the first to receive emergency validation from WHO since the outbreak began a year ago.”
Three months later on 31 March 2021, the WHO released this – rather than recommend IVM and/or HCQ plus vitamins a year earlier I March 2020. Remember, standard treatment protocol for corona viruses was HCQ – even Ralph Baric endorsed this. IVM solutions arose in the wider medical community I May 2020.
WHO advises that ivermectin only be used to treat COVID-19 within clinical trials
“The current evidence on the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19 patients is inconclusive. Until more data is available, WHO recommends that the drug only be used within clinical trials.”
Note the use of the word “inconclusive” and compare that to the advocacy of an experimental gene therapy which FAILED clinical trials.
The WHO dully endorsed no-pharmaceutical interventions such as mask, travel restrictions ad lockdowns – until the failed injections were administered.
Note that at no time did the WHO refer to the high recovery rate from the symptoms of DARS-COV2. The recovery rate was not highlighted in the trials either by Pfizer, the WHO or any other health regulator anywhere I the world.
The recovery rate is 96% over 2-3 weeks. The absolute efficacy rate claimed by Pfizer was under 1% (95% relative efficacy). In other words, not everyone was always infected (less than 10% average case rate in any single year as defined by the “not fit for purpose” RT-PCR test)
For every 100 “cases” 96% would recover anyway and just one case out of one hundred would be prevented. Not surprising since that was not the intention of the “vaccines” in the first place.
The WHO did not at ay time refer to the post-marketing authorization report issued by Pfizer for the period 10 December 2020 (date of US EUA) and 28 February 2021 here:
reissue_5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf (phmpt.org)
Note the sleight of hand in the report where Pfizer claims 126 million doses shipped to produce these reports, rather than the 70 million doses actually administered in mainly the US and EU.
These injuries and deaths would have been largely amongst priority groups like medics and the elderly.
One dose over 10 December 2020 as it rolled out to 28 February 2021.
Note also that the under-reporting factor at this time would be way I excess of the 40 generally assumed – probably close to 70.
At o time dd the WHO refer to any adverse events or indicate whether what standard of “safe and effective” it considered “acceptable”. In any event A SINGLE DATH is unacceptable without informed consent of the risks.
Generally, “safe” means one death in a million doses. The post-marketing authorization report indicated 1,223 deaths from around 70 million doses. Far higher. If you adjust for the under-reporting factor, you pass 74,000 deaths. This umber approximates to the “Rancourt rule of thumb” of one death per thousand doses that would indicate around 70,000 deaths.
There are countless other failings by the WHO. One stand-out is the inspections of manufacturing plants, the testing of supply chains, the compliance of injections with safe levels of contamination and even checks for adulteration. All issues in the current arena that a competent WHO would have been well ahead of, and supervising had it ay competence whatsoever.
As it is, the very issue of whether there ever a pandemic is now questioned, the testing for infection using an RT-PCR test has been completely debunked and the effectiveness of masks ad lockdowns has also been debunked.
One last point.
From here on 22 August 2022, the WH issued this “volte face”:
“Previously, WHO had suggested against its use in all COVID-19 patients regardless of disease severity, due to the totality of the evidence at that time showing little or no effect on mortality.
Following publication of new data from a clinical trial looking at the outcome of admission to hospital, WHO has updated its recommendation. WHO now suggests the use of remdesivir in mild or moderate COVID-19 patients who are at high risk of hospitalization...”
The recommendation for use of remdesivir in patients with severe or critical COVID-19 is currently under review.”
The US gave Remdesivir like it was ice cream after a tonsillectomy.
This is the WHO that could be preventing disease, malnutrition ad suffering in the third world but instead wants to inject the planet with toxins that modify g human genes and DNA, and which have never and will never work unless they are improved beyond all recognition from their current state.
It should be formulating and implementing plans to provide clean water, agricultural and hygiene education to third world countries, the worst first, and campaigning to take responsibility and accountability from all the overseas aid budgets – eve charities – that pump hundreds of billions of dollars a year into corrupt spending on ineffective “projects” in the third world.
Onwards!!!
Please take a paid subscription or forward this article to those you think might be interested. You can also donate via Ko-fi – any amount from three dollars upwards. Ko-fi donations here: https://ko-fi.com/peterhalligan
How about the 60,000 Lupus patients taking HCQ in northern Italy (early-one of the worst hit areas) that had no hospitalizations and no deaths.
W.H.O. covered that up.
Or the amazingly good (low) death rate among patients in nursing homes taking inhaled steroids for lung conditions relating to asthma, partial lung removal (cancer), COPD, and associated.
W.H.O. covered that up too.