Lamenting the likely outcome of recent revelations that the WHO knowingly and unnecessarily hyped the recent H1N1 influenza panic, WHO Director-General Margaret Chan admitted: "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."
The remarks came in Chan's report to the WHO Executive Board at the biannual meeting of the board in Geneva last week. They come at the end of a decidedly upbeat report on the WHO's recent successes that avoids talking about recent allegations that the WHO's own officials and advisors knowingly and unnecessarily hyped the recent swine flu panic to benefit their big pharma patrons. In the report, Chan does not mention the recent Dutch parliament investigation into Dr. Albert Osterhaus or the ongoing investigation by the Council of Europe, choosing instead to allude to these ongoing investigations elliptically: "It is natural that every decision or action that shaped the response [to the H1N1 outbreak] will likewise be closely and carefully scrutinized." She adds somewhat hopefully that "WHO can withstand this scrutiny."
The WHO's critics, however, are not so sure. The Council of Europe, for one, voted in favor of a resolution authorizing an investigation by that body into the H1N1 scare. The resolution outright accuses the WHO of conspiring with pharmaceuticals manufacturers "in order to promote their patented drugs and vaccines against the flu," and states that the incident has damaged "the credibility and accountability of important international health-agencies."
Given the intensity and forthrightness of criticism of the organization, it is doubtful that the organization will escape sanction for its transgressions. If the Council finds that the pharmaceutical companies have influenced the WHO's decisionmaking processes in any way, the fallout is likely to be devestating for the organization and its top brass.
Perhaps in an effort to shape the narrative before the investigations make their determination, Chan appears to deflect criticism of the WHO back on to the public: "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."
The comments are made in reference to the fact that large numbers of people chose to ignore the WHO's advice and not take the experimental H1N1 vaccines, leaving country after country after country scrambling to dispose of their excess vaccine stockpiles. Chan's comments are disingenuous at best, as the best medical and scientific data did not indicate the vaccines were safe. As Wolfgang Wodarg explained to L'Humanité, some of the vaccines greenlighted for use included adjuvants that had not previously been approved for use in vaccinations and others, like Novartis' 'ObtaFlu,' used experimental manufacturing techniques like growing the virus on live cancer cells. "It can therefore happen that during the manufacturing process of the vaccine, residue of cancerous cells remain in the preparation," explained Wodarg.
That there could be valid, scientifically justified reasons for not taking the H1N1 vaccine is not allowed for in Chan's trite formulation, even despite the fact that the majority of medical professionals in country after country after country indicated their unwillingness to take the vaccine. Nor does Chan's statement allow for the fact that many of the vaccines were approved before testing even began, sometimes with approval coming before testing had even been done on the very target population for the vaccine.
In Chan's formulation, all such misgivings are dismissed as incredulous. They are chalked up to a "revolution in communications and information technologies," evidently meaning the ability for people to follow the scientific debate for themselves on the internet rather than wait for official word from the authorities about what is or is not safe. She then concludes that this recent failure to achieve 100% vaccination rates presented a "communications challenge" that could be solved by "managing public perceptions."
Certainly, the public's perception of such arrogance does play a role in influencing their thinking about organizations like the WHO. Chan's own actions are an example of the type of double-standard that often afflicts those who order the public to do what they're told; like one-child policy advocate Ted Turner (who has five children himself) or carbon reduction advocate Al Gore (whose household consumes twenty times more energy than the average American), it was revealed that Margaret Chan had not bothered to take the H1N1 vaccine herself, citing a busy schedule as an excuse for not having undertaken the twenty second procedure. Since both Ted Turner and Al Gore have self-serving reasons for taking their hypocritical stances, it would be illogical to conclude that the same cannot be true in Chan's case.
Of course, Chan's comments should be taken for what they are: an attempt (however clumsy) to derail serious investigation of the WHO's actions by claiming that the health authorities are always correct. Assuming the Council of Europe receives the necessary cooperation with its investigation, this idea is likely to be exposed as a patent falsehood in due course.
More worrying than Chan's transparent attempt to save her own job, however, is the fact that the WHO is not even giving the increased scrutiny of its actions pause for thought. Instead, as we reported last week, the organization is contemplating a vast increase in its budget, scope and authority.
Alluding to the WHO's audacious plan to implement global taxes in order to expand its operations overseas, Chan tells the Executive Board: "Last week, I convened an informal consultation of experts to look at the future of financing for WHO." She fails to mention that one of the members of the Expert Working Group in question has now publicly claimed that the group was not fully consulted on all of its supposed recommendations and that the process had been manipulated by big pharma.
By far the most chilling revelation of the entire document comes next. According to Chan, "Global governance of public health was part of the discussions during that meeting."
Given the recent attempt to set up global governmental systems on the back of the discredited pseudoscience propounded by the climategate criminals, the calls for global currency from the same criminals who engineered the financial collapse and calls for cross-border military operations by the same politicians who were missing on purpose during the largest military emergency of modern history, even the most gung-ho globalist would have to admit a pattern of fraudsters, felons and criminals backing global government as a way to increase their power, control and personal wealth. Now that the WHO is attempting to implement global taxes even after they have been exposed as Big Pharma stooges and swindlers only further reinforces the point.
That the WHO is attempting to push through their globalist agenda at this point is either a sign that they have to go all-in on their plan before it is completely exposed or that they think the public is too dumbed-down and self-absorbed to notice what is happening in plain view. Either way, the question of whether or not the WHO will be able to pull off this global scam is up to the public, who will vote by continuing to support those institutions, media, and governments that perpetuate the status quo or those alternative media figures, politicians and activists who are exposing the truth on these globalist issues.