Trickle down corruption-Part One
The Post-War business model of the United Nations using the WHO, WEF and Big Pharma to maim and impoverish humanity for the benefit of those at the top.
Graphics by ‘the ten fingered sword’
James Roguski explains in the video below the treachery we face in a highly covert fascist world.
The Almost Perfect Business Model: To Make People Sick and Keep them Sick
The following narrative was constructed from many sources that I regard as reasonably accurate. However, it is my opinion at the conclusion based on personal observations and communications with other respected professionals.
The establishment of the United Nations (UN) and the subsequent development of its specialized agencies, such as the World Health Organization (WHO), marked a significant transformation in international cooperation and global governance. The UN was conceived out of the devastation of the Second World War, with the primary aim of preventing future conflicts and fostering peace. The WHO, as a specialized agency of the UN, was established to promote public health, provide leadership on global health matters, and support the health of the world's population. However, the integrity and effectiveness of the WHO have come under scrutiny due to allegations of undue influence by the pharmaceutical industry and the potential negative impacts of this influence on global health.
The United Nations was officially established on October 24, 1945, following the ratification of the UN Charter by the majority of signatory states, including the five permanent members of the Security Council—China, France, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and the United States. The Charter was the culmination of several years of planning and negotiation, beginning with the Declaration of St. James Palace in 1941 and continuing through the Atlantic Charter, the Declaration by United Nations in 1942, the Moscow and Tehran Conferences in 1943, and the Dumbarton Oaks and Yalta Conferences in 1944 and 1945. The San Francisco Conference in April-June 1945 was the final stage in drafting the Charter, which outlined the structure and functions of the UN, including the General Assembly, Security Council, Economic and Social Council, International Court of Justice, Trusteeship Council, and Secretariat.
The World Health Organization was established on April 7, 1948, as a specialized agency of the United Nations with a broad mandate to act as the directing and coordinating authority on international health work. Its mission was to lead global health responses, set norms and standards, articulate evidence-based policy options, provide technical support to countries, and monitor health trends. The WHO's Constitution defines health as a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being, not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, reflecting a holistic approach to health that goes beyond the treatment of illness.
Over the years, concerns have been raised about the influence of the pharmaceutical industry on the WHO's policies and priorities. Critics argue that the industry's financial power and lobbying efforts have led to a focus on medicalised approaches to health at the expense of broader social and economic determinants. This influence is seen in the promotion of patented medicines and the marginalisation of generic and traditional remedies, potentially undermining the WHO's commitment to health equity and access to medicines for all.
The pharmaceutical industry's interaction with the WHO is driven by factors such as money, medical need, and politics, The industry competes in an equity market and relies on patent protection for its products, which can lead to high drug prices and restricted access, particularly in developing countries. This has raised concerns about the affordability and accessibility of essential medicines, as well as the potential for conflicts of interest and industry influence on public health policies.
The alleged capture and corruption of the WHO by the pharmaceutical industry have had several negative impacts on global health. High drug prices have made essential medicines unaffordable for many, contributing to health inequities and financial hardship. The prioritisation of patented drugs over more affordable options has limited access to life-saving treatments, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. Additionally, the focus on pharmaceutical solutions has sometimes overshadowed the importance of addressing the underlying social determinants of health, such as poverty, education, and environmental factors.
The establishment of the United Nations and the World Health Organization represented a hopeful vision for a peaceful and healthier world. However, the integrity of the WHO's mission has been challenged by allegations of undue influence by the pharmaceutical industry. The prioritisation of business interests over public health needs has raised serious concerns about the organisation's ability to fulfil its mandate effectively. It is crucial for the international community to address these issues to ensure that the WHO can continue to work towards its original goal of promoting the health and well-being of all people, free from the distorting influence of commercial interests.
Regulatory Capture
The concept of regulatory capture, where regulatory agencies may come to be dominated by the industries they are supposed to regulate, provides a framework for understanding the complex relationship between the World Health Organization (WHO) and the pharmaceutical industry. This phenomenon is not unique to the WHO but is common across various sectors of the economy and throughout history, often resulting in agencies acting in ways that benefit incumbent firms in the industry they are supposed to be regulating.
The pharmaceutical industry's influence on the WHO can be traced through several mechanisms, including financial contributions, lobbying efforts, and the revolving door between the industry and regulatory bodies. The WHO, like many other global health institutions, relies on a mix of funding from member states and private donors. It has been reported that the WHO is significantly financed by private donors, with the Bill Gates Foundation being one of its main contributors. This heavy reliance on private funding raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest and the influence of these donors on the WHO's policies and priorities.
Lobbying efforts by the pharmaceutical industry are another avenue through which it can exert influence on the WHO. The industry spends significant amounts on lobbying to shape health policies and regulations in its favor. For instance, pharmaceutical and health product companies poured over a record amount into lobbying Congress and federal agencies, with the industry suffering a legislative defeat when a bill curtailing rising drug costs was signed into law. Despite this setback, the industry's lobbying efforts are a testament to its commitment to influencing health policy at the highest levels.
The revolving door phenomenon, where individuals move between roles as industry representatives and regulators, further complicates the relationship between the WHO and the pharmaceutical industry. This movement can lead to a situation where regulatory agencies, including those within the WHO, may be influenced by the perspectives and interests of the industry. The presence of former industry employees in regulatory roles can lead to a regulatory environment that is more favourable to the industry's interests.
Moreover, the pharmaceutical industry's financial ties with health professionals and researchers can also impact the WHO's work. A study examining financial ties between Australian medical researchers and pharmaceutical companies revealed a significant underreporting of conflicts of interest. Such undisclosed financial relationships can bias research findings and influence the development of health policies and guidelines, potentially affecting the WHO's efforts to base its recommendations on unbiased scientific evidence.
In summary, the pharmaceutical industry's capture of the WHO can be attributed to a combination of financial influence, lobbying efforts, the revolving door phenomenon, and undisclosed financial ties between the industry and health professionals. These factors can lead to a regulatory environment that prioritises the interests of the pharmaceutical industry over public health objectives, raising concerns about the WHO's ability to act independently in the best interests of global health.
Conflicts of interest.
Conflicts of interest between the pharmaceutical industry and the World Health Organization (WHO) can manifest in various ways, impacting the integrity of medical practice, patient safety, and public health. Here are some examples based on the provided sources:
1. Influence on Public Pharmaceutical Committees: Public sector pharmaceutical committees, which include technical and clinical experts, may have members with employment, advisory, consulting, or familial relationships with private sector entities, including pharmaceutical companies. These relationships can create conflicts of interest when these individuals have competing obligations that could influence decision-making processes related to product registration, reimbursement, procurement, and usage of health products.
2. Financial Relationships with Health Professionals: Globally, financial relationships between physicians, researchers, and the pharmaceutical industry are common. These relationships extend to sponsorship of medical education and research. When members of public sector pharmaceutical committees or external experts advising them have financial ties to the industry, there is a risk that these secondary interests could influence public committee decision-making.
3. Lack of Transparency in Conflict of Interest Policies: Some public pharmaceutical committees may not use clear criteria to recruit members and face challenges in executing their conflict of interest policies. This lack of transparency can undermine public trust in policy processes and the products themselves, potentially leading to reduced access, inflated prices, or increased inappropriate and unsafe use of essential health products.
4. Self-Interest in Clinical Practice Guidelines: Financial conflicts of interest commonly arise from relationships with or payments by the industry, which can sway a clinical practice guideline author’s professional judgment. This can negatively affect the trustworthiness of clinical practice guidelines, which are meant to objectively synthesise evidence to optimise patient care.
5. Institutional Conflicts of Interest: Institutional conflicts of interest (ICOIs) with pharmaceutical companies can bias the internal operation of healthcare organizations. For example, scholarship donations provided to healthcare organizations to encourage educational and academic activities can be used as bribes by pharmaceutical companies to influence prescription practices.
6. Undisclosed Financial Ties: There is evidence of significant underreporting of conflicts of interest among medical researchers, which can bias research findings and influence the development of health policies and guidelines.
7. Influence on WHO Advisory Groups: WHO works with a wide range of individuals and requires all experts advising the organization to declare all professional and financial interests, including those related to the pharmaceutical industry. Allegations of undeclared conflicts of interest are taken seriously and investigated by WHO.
These examples highlight the multifaceted nature of conflicts of interest between the pharmaceutical industry and the WHO, which can range from individual financial relationships to institutional arrangements that may compromise the integrity of health policies and practices.
by Professor Ian Brighthope. Supporter of “EXIT THE W.H.O.”
The current situation.
From The Aligned Council of Australia.
THE W.H.O.’S POWER GRAB IN THE NAME OF HEALTH
Both the U.N. and the W.H.O. are currently preparing 4 documents that purport to be treaties or accords, all in the name of health and future pandemics. These documents are being drafted under urgency, behind closed doors, by unelected officials. They are a mixture of new treaties and amendments to the 2005 International Health Regulations, which Australia is already bound.
The 4 treaties will hand the W.H.O. the authority to make binding directions on how a country is required to respond to a potential public health emergency (not necessarily an actual one). Under the treaties, the W.H.O. will be able to order measures including significant financial contributions from individual Member States (Australia), censor scientific debate, order lockdowns, restrict travel, force medical examinations, and mandatory vaccinations, all in the name of health.
Whatever your views of the Covid pandemic, we can all agree that before running headlong into new and more rules, the more appropriate step for the UN and the W.H.O. would be to stop and reflect, hold hearings, and make findings on what worked, what didn’t and what could have been done differently.
I think it is too late for the UN and WHO to change course now. They are corrupt to the core and share the same democidal goals as the WEF. The only hope is for every country to leave the UN, NATO, WHO and WEF. They are all captured by the military industrial complex and the bioweapons industrial complex. They want war and they want pestilence. This is the most profitable for them.
Call these perps what they are - Fascists. All this Commie and Socialist political stuff is nonsense just as Left and Right in politics was a word trick to distract too.
Fascism as has been said, is when private business and the state are inseparable. Kind like what we have now perfectly illustrated with the WEF - can it be any clearer?