Providing information on how to treat the sick -enabling informed consent – what the WHO should be doing – a global database of conditions and treatments along with collating research papers

You would think that a World Health Organization would be interested in arming medics with the information they need to alleviate human suffering and save lives, right? Instead the WHO is intent on injecting people with FAILED experimental injections and imposing draconian complains and monitoring systems to restrict the freedom of speech and movement of people.

A complete failure to fulfil a “prime directive”.

From the outset of the C19 scamdemic, a website has provided a database of treatment protocols with links to published research. Of course, this excludes all the research rejected by the “editors” of these papers which did not make it past pre-print servers and includes those papers that were designed to discredit some treatments – leading to some quality issues.

Nonetheless, here is a link:

COVID-19 early treatment: real-time analysis of 3,335 studies (c19early.org)

COVID-19 early treatment: real-time analysis of 3,335 studies

Analysis of 56 COVID early treatments, approvals in 102 countries, database of 5,674 treatments  

The site ventures into costs of all sorts of treatments:

And allows searching by treatment:

And many other treatments that the site has not reviewed:. Heres’ just some of them:

It has this for Ivermectin:

Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time analysis of all 225 studies (c19ivm.org)

Each of those studies is referenced via a link.

Now, “tempus fugit”, so the studies may not be relevant today as they deal with prior variants. Like me, you may also be curious, for example, about whether IVM’s blocking of the ACE2 receptor so the spike protein cannot penetrate means that the ACE2 receptor is not performing other valuable functions or what impact IVM has on blood clots, if any.

There will be similar questions for other treatments  Here’s a link to a description of Chlorine Dioxide, for example:

Chlorine dioxide for COVID-19 (c19early.org)

I think that Vitamin D3 is a winner! I haven’t found the McCullough protocol!

The point is that this is a private database of treatments for C19 from prophylaxis, through early to mid and late stage symptoms. There is research on each treatment – sometimes in depth research and yet the WHO does not support or maintain its own version for C19 OR ANY OTHER CONDITION.

A world health organisation would be aware of research and would assign a quality rating to it, with a ranking of good to bad and points in between – together with links to adverse events it knows about from clinical trials AND THE QUALITY OF THOSE CLINICAL TRIALS AGAINST A TRUE PLACEBO!

Now, consider the adverse events that have been inflicted by the experimental C19 mRNA injections.

Dr Trozzi has listed them (most?) of them here (some “long covid” papers included):

1000 peer reviewed articles on “Vaccine” injuries (drtrozzi.org)

An example for myopericarditis

Myopericarditis

A complication of acute pericarditis, is characterized by extension of pericardial inflammation to the myocardium, which manifests as an elevated troponin level. It is generally evaluated and treated as acute pericarditis.

Total Papers: 21

These research papers describe the harms, not the treatments.

So, in the same way that the C19 website

COVID-19 early treatment: real-time analysis of 3,335 studies (c19early.org)

Details a whole pile of research on treatments of C19 at all stages from prophylaxis to late stage for C19, the world needs a database for each of the ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTEEN adverse events listed in Dr Trozzi’s piece.

It needs a clear indication of the side effects and adverse events from treatments AND it needs information on the INTERACTION of treatments with each other.

None of this is being done to the degree necessary for informed consent amongst the WHO’s 194 member countries.

What is also needed is a clear differentiation between C19 adverse events AND  adverse events from injections. The adverse events from injections need to be split out between those adverse events resulting from bad manufacturing (contaminants such as endotoxins, e coli and monkey DNA fragments etc) and the experimental product itself (PEG, mRNA, lipid nanoparticles etc) AND badly administered injections (non-aspirated, past the use-by date, out of the fridge too long, not prepared correctly and so on).

Easy reporting of adverse events from injections of any sort PLUS long term monitoring of changes to developing health conditions In the major causes of death should be a pre-requisition of a world health organisation.

Why isn’t the WHO stating that the explosion in turbo cancers, heart attacks and other sudden deaths are a Public Health Emergency of International Concern? Perhaps 4% of those injected have elevated risk of heart problems – which would equate to 200 million or so of the 5.3 billion people injected.

So there are a few dimensions that a world health organization should be doing.

Instead of providing information that helps, the WHO is intent on policing compliance with the injection of failed technologies and population control methods.

Onwards!

Please buy a subscription or donate a coffee (I drink a lot of coffee) - “God Bless You!” if you can’t or don’t want to contribute. Coffee donations here: https://ko-fi.com/peterhalligan - an annual subscription of 100 bucks is one third less than a $3 coffee a week!