Swine Flu FraudOfficial Questioning Now Starts

by Heidi Stevenson

10 January 2010

Now that Big Pharma has made its profits and locked nations into long term contracts for vaccines, the truth is starting to come out. Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, the president of the Council of Europe's Health Commission, was interviewed by L'Humanit about the links between Big Pharma, the World Health Organization (WHO), and governments. Dr. Wodarg discusses the fraud, the greed, and the risks placed on the populace in the travesty of the faked swine flu pandemic. At first, I'd intended to select particularly interesting quotes, but the entire interview consists of one hard-hitting, to-the-point, and compelling quote after another. So, here's the entire thing. Read it and weep. Bruno Odet for L'Humanit: What attracted your suspicions about laboratories' undue influence on the decisions taken with respect to influenza A? Wolfgang Wodarg: We are faced with a failure of the great national institutions charged with alerting us to the risks and responding to them should a pandemic arise. In April, when the first alarm came from Mexico, I was very surprised by the figures the World Health Organization (WHO) was advancing to justify the proclamation of a pandemic. I had suspicions immediately: the figures were quite weak and the level of alarm very elevated. There weren't even a thousand sick people before there was already talk of the pandemic of the century. And the extreme alert decreed was based on the fact that the virus was new. But the characteristic of flu-type illnesses is to develop very fast with viruses that take on new forms each time by moving in on new hosts - animals, people etc. There's nothing new in that. A new "flu" virus of that kind appears every year. In reality, nothing justified sounding the alarm at that level. That was only possible because the WHO changed its definition of pandemic at the beginning of May. Before that date, it was not only necessary that the illness break out in several countries at once, but also that it have very serious consequences, with a number of mortalities in excess of the usual averages. That aspect was erased from the new definition, while the only criterion retained was that of the rate of the illness's diffusion. And it was alleged that the virus was dangerous because populations had not been able to develop immune defenses against it. Which was false for this virus, since we had been able to observe that people over 60 already had antibodies, which is to say that they had already been in contact with analogous viruses. That's why there were practically no people over 60 who developed the illness. Yet, they were the people it was recommended to have be rapidly vaccinated. Among the things that aroused my suspicions then, there was on the one hand, that desire to sound the alarm - and on the other, very curious facts. Such as, for example, the WHO's recommendation to perform two injections for the vaccinations. That had never been the case before. There was no scientific justification for it. There was also this recommendation to use only specific patented vaccines. Yet, no reason existed for not adding - as is done every year - specific anti-viral particles of this new H1N1 virus, thus "completing" seasonal flu vaccines. That wasn't done because it was preferred to

use patented vaccine material that the big laboratories had elaborated and manufactured to hold in readiness should a pandemic develop. And by proceeding in this fashion, they did not hesitate to put vaccinated persons in danger. What danger? Wolfgang Wodarg: To make products quickly available, additives were used in some vaccines the effects of which had not be adequately tested. In other words: people absolutely wanted to use these new patented products instead of perfecting vaccines according to much simpler, more trustworthy and less costly traditional methods of m manufacture. There was no medical reason for that - solely marketing reasons. How were they able to justify that? Wolfgang Wodarg: In order to understand, we must go back to the avian flu episode of 2005 - 2006. It was on that occasion that the new international plans designed to confront a pandemic alert were mapped out. Officially, those plans were elaborated to guarantee rapid manufacture of vaccine in the event of an alert. That gave rise to negotiations between the pharmaceutical firms and governments. On the one hand, the laboratories committed to hold themselves ready to develop preparations; on the other hand, governments assured the companies that they would really buy all that from them. Pursuant to this phony deal, the pharmaceutical industry took no economic risk by committing to new manufactures. And it was assured of hitting the jackpot should a pandemic break out. You contest the established diagnoses and the seriousness, even the potential seriousness, of influenza A? Wolfgang Wodarg: Yes, it's an altogether normal flu. It occasions only a tenth of the deaths caused by classic seasonal flu. All that mattered and all that led to the extraordinary campaign of panic we have witnessed is that it constituted a golden opportunity for lab reps who knew they'd make a mint should a pandemic be proclaimed. These are very serious accusations you're making. How was such a process within the heart of the World Health Organization made possible? Wolfgang Wodarg: A group of people at the WHO is very tightly associated with the pharmaceutical industry. The Council of Europe's inquiry will also work in this direction? Wolfgang Wodarg: We want to shed light on everything that could have yielded this incredible propaganda campaign. We want to know who decided on the basis of what scientific evidence and exactly how the pharmaceutical industry's influence was exerted in the decision making. And we must ultimately present our claims to the governments. The objective of the commission of inquiry is to assure there be no more false alarms of this type in the future, to assure that the population may rely on the analysis and the expertise of national and international public institutions. Today, those institutions are discredited because millions of people have been vaccinated with products that present possible risks to their health. That was not necessary. Also, that all led to a significant waste of public money.

Do you have concrete numbers on the scope of that waste? Wolfgang Wodarg: In Germany, it was 700 million euros. But it's very difficult to know the precise figures because on the one hand people are talking about the resale of vaccines to foreign countries and especially because - in the name of the principle of respect for "business secrets" - companies do not communicate the amounts in contracts signed with governments and the possible compensation clauses that figure within them. Will the Council of Europe investigation also deal with the labs' lobbying of the national institutes of health? Wolfgang Wodarg: Yes, we shall study the attitude of the institutes, such as the Robert Koch in Germany, or the Pasteur in France, that really should have advised their governments in a critical manner. In some countries, the institutes did just that. In Finland or Poland, for example, critical voices were raised to say: "We don't need that." Wasn't the incredible planetary propaganda operation possible also because the pharmaceutical industry had "its representative" right inside the governments of the most powerful countries? Wolfgang Wodarg: In the ministries, that seems obvious to me. I cannot fathom how specialists, highly intelligent people who know the problem of influenza illnesses by heart, didn't notice what was going on. What happened, then? Wolfgang Wodarg: Without going so far as direct corruption, which I am certain does exist, there were a thousand ways for the labs to exert their influence over decisions. I have been able to establish very concretely, for example, how Klaus Sthr, who was head of the epidemiological department at the WHO during the era of the avian flu, and who, therefore, prepared the plans designed to confront a pandemic that I mentioned earlier, became, in the meantime, a senior executive at Novartis. And similar connections exist between Glaxo, Baxter etc. and influential members of the WHO. These big firms had "their people" in the system and managed things afterwards so that the "right" political decisions were made, that is, the decisions that allowed them to pump the maximum amount of money out of the taxpayers. But if your investigation succeeds, won't it be a prop for citizens to require that their governments demand an accounting from these big groups? Wolfgang Wodarg: Yes, you are right; it's one of the big issues connected with this investigation. Governments could, in fact, refer to the investigation to contest contracts signed under, let us say, not very clean conditions. If it can be proved that it was the firms' undue influence that led to the onset of the process, then we must push governments until they demand to be reimbursed. But that's solely on the financial side; there's also the human side - that of people vaccinated with inadequately tested products.

What sort of risk did they unknowingly take then, these people in good health who had themselves vaccinated? Wolfgang Wodarg: I repeat that the vaccines were developed too quickly, some additives inadequately tested. But there are more serious problems. The vaccine developed by Novartis was produced in a bioreactor from cancerous cells, a technique never used before now. Obviously, I'm not a specialist, but how can someone make a vaccine from sick cells? Wolfgang Wodarg: Normally, chicken eggs are used as the medium in which the viruses are grown. It's necessary, in fact, to work with live cells, since the virus can multiply in that way only and consequently, by definition, the anti-viral preparations that go with them. But that procedure presents a major flaw; it's slow; it requires many eggs. And it is long and complex on a technical level. Another technique with remarkable potential consists of growing the viruses on living cells in bioreactors. Cells that grow and divide very quickly are required for that. That's approximately the procedure that is used to culture yogurt, which is also made in bioreactors, but in this context the cell has been so disrupted in its environment and its growth that it grows like a cancerous cell. And it's on those high-yield cells that the virus is cultivated. Only to manufacture the vaccine, it is necessary to extract the viruses from those cells into which they have been implanted. And. consequently, it may happen that during the process of manufacturing the vaccine, residues from the cancerous cell remain in the preparation, as happens in the classic manufacture with eggs. So, we know that in the case of a vaccination against classic flu, secondary effects may appear in people allergic to the egg albumin found in egg whites. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that protein remains of a cancerous cell present in a vaccine manufactured in a bioreactor give rise to a tumor in the vaccinated person. According to the true precautionary principle, therefore, it should have been necessary before such a product be authorized for commercial use to be 100 percent certain that such effects are actually out of the question. And that wasn't done? Wolfgang Wodarg: That was not done. The EMA (European Medicines Agency), an institution based in London under the responsibility of the European Commissioner for the Economy, which gives the authorizations for putting vaccines on the market in Europe, gave its green light for the commercialization of this product, arguing, that, in this case, this manufacturing method did not constitute a "significant" risk. That was evaluated quite differently by numerous specialists here in Germany and by an independent medicine institution: they, on the contrary, raised the alarm and communicated their objections. I took those warnings seriously. I studied the file and intervened within the framework of the Bundestag Health Committee, to which I then belonged, so that the vaccine not be used in Germany. I made it known that I was certainly not opposed to the development of vaccines using that technique, but that it was first of all necessary to guarantee total harmlessness. So, the product was not used in Germany where the government rescinded the contract with Novartis. What is the name of this vaccine? Wolfgang Wodarg: Obta flu.

But that means that in other European countries such as France the product may be sold without any problem? Wolfgang Wodarg: Yes, it obtained EMA authorization and may consequently be used throughout the European Union. What alternative do you intend to promote so that we escape new scandals of this kind? Wolfgang Wodarg: The WHO should have to be more transparent so that we clearly know who decides and what kind of relationship exists between the participants in the organization. It would also be appropriate that the WHO at least be supported by an elected chamber, able to react very critically and in which everyone is free to express themselves. This strengthening of public control is indispensable. But isn't the issue one of another system able to handle a question that in fact relates to the common welfare of all citizens of the planet? Wolfgang Wodarg: Can we continue to leave the production of vaccines and the conduct of that production to organizations, the objective of which is to earn the most money possible? Or is not the production of vaccines a public domain issue par excellence that governments must control and implement themselves? That's why I think we must abandon the system of patents for vaccines, that is to say, the possibility of some big group monopolizing vaccine production. For that possibility presupposes the sacrifice of thousands of human lives, simply in the name of respect for those monopolistic rights. You are right, that particular demand has taken on - for me, in any case - the aspect of an obvious fact.

A H1N1
Grippe A : Ils ont organis la psychose
Rvlation : prsident de la commission sant du Conseil de lEurope, lallemand Wolfgang Wodarg accuse les lobbys pharmaceutiques et les gouvernants. Il a obtenu le lancement dune enqute de cette instance sur le rle jou par les laboratoires dans la campagne de panique autour du virus. Entretien sans dtour. Ex-membre du SPD, Wolfgang Wodarg est mdecin et pidmiologiste. Il a obtenu lunanimit des membres de la commission sant du Conseil de lEurope une commission denqute sur le rle des firmes pharmaceutiques dans la gestion de la grippe A par lOMS et les tats. Quest ce qui a attir vos soupons dans la prise dinfluence des laboratoires sur les dcisions prises lgard de la grippe A? Wolfgang Wodarg. Nous sommes confronts un chec des grandes institutions nationales, charges dalerter sur les risques et dy rpondre au cas o une pandmie survient. En avril quand la premire alarme est venue de Mexico jai t trs surpris des chiffres quavanait lOrganisation Mondiale de la Sant (OMS) pour justifier de la proclamation dune pandmie. Jai eu tout de suite des soupons : les chiffres taient trs faibles et le niveau dalarme trs lev. On en tait mme pas mille malades que lon parlait dj de pandmie du sicle. Et lalerte extrme dcrte tait fonde sur le fait que le virus tait nouveau. Mais la caractristique des maladies grippales, cest de se dvelopper trs vite avec des virus qui prennent chaque fois de nouvelles formes, en sinstallant chez de nouveaux htes, lanimal, lhomme etc. Il ny avait rien de nouveau en soi cela. Chaque anne apparat un nouveau virus de ce type grippal . En ralit rien ne justifiait de sonner lalerte ce niveau. Cela na t possible que parce que lOMS a chang dbut mai sa dfinition de la pandmie. Avant cette date il fallait non seulement que la maladie clate dans plusieurs pays la fois mais aussi quelle ait des consquences trs graves avec un nombre de cas mortels au dessus des moyennes habituelles. On a ray cet aspect dans la nouvelle dfinition pour ne retenir que le critre du rythme de diffusion de la maladie. Et on a prtendu que le virus tait dangereux car les populations navaient pas pu dvelopper de dfense immunitaires contre lui. Ce qui tait faux pour ce virus. Car on a pu observer que des gens gs de plus de 60 ans avaient dj des anticorps. Cest--dire quils avaient dj t en contact avec des virus analogues. Cest la raison pour laquelle dailleurs il ny a pratiquement pas eu de personnes ges de plus de 60 ans qui aient dvelopp la maladie. Cest pourtant celles l quon a recommand de se faire vacciner rapidement. Dans les choses qui ont suscit mes soupons il y a donc eu dun ct cette volont de sonner lalerte. Et de lautre des faits trs curieux. Comme par exemple la recommandation par lOMS de procder deux injections pour les vaccins. Ca navait jamais t le cas auparavant. Il ny avait aucune justification scientifique cela. I y a eu aussi cette recommandation de nutiliser que des vaccins brevets particuliers. Il nexistait pourtant aucune raison ce que lon najoute pas, comme on le fait chaque annes, des particules antivirales spcifiques de ce nouveau virus H1N1, compltant les vaccins servant la grippe saisonnire. On ne la pas fait car on a prfr utiliser des matriaux vaccinales brevets que les grands laboratoires avaient labores et fabriqu pour se tenir prts en cas de dveloppement dune pandmie. Et en procdant de cette

faon on na pas hsit mettre en danger les personnes vaccines. Quel danger? Wolfgang Wodarg. Pour aller vite dans la mise disposition des produits on a utilis des adjuvants dans certains vaccins, dont les effets nont pas t suffisamment tests. Autrement dit : on a voulu absolument utiliser ces produits brevets nouveaux au lieu de mettre au point des vaccins selon des mthodes de fabrication traditionnelles bien plus simples, fiables et moins coteuses. Il ny avait aucune raison mdicale cela. Uniquement des raisons de marketing. Comment a-t-on pu justifier de cela? Wolfgang Wodarg. Pour comprendre il faut en revenir lpisode de la grippe aviaire de 2005 - 2006. Cest cette occasion l quont t dfinis les nouveaux plans internationaux destins faire face une alarme pandmique. Ces plans ont t labors officiellement pour garantir une fabrication rapide de vaccins en cas dalerte. Cela a donn lieu une ngociation entre les firmes pharmaceutiques et les Etats. Dun ct les labos sengageaient se ternir prts laborer les prparations, de lautre les Etats leur assuraient quils leur achteraient bien tout cela. Au terme de ce drle de march lindustrie pharmaceutique ne prenait aucun risque conomique en sengageant dans les nouvelles fabrications. Et elle tait assure de toucher le jack pot en cas de dclenchement dune pandmie. Vous contestez les diagnostics tablis et la gravit, mme potentielle, de la grippe A? Wolfgang Wodarg. Oui, cest une grippe tout ce quil y a de plus normale. Elle ne provoque quun dixime des dcs occasionns par la grippe saisonnire classique. Tout ce qui importait et tout ce qui a conduit la formidable campagne de panique laquelle on a assist, cest quelle constituait une occasion en or pour les reprsentants des labos qui savaient quils toucheraient le gros lot en cas de proclamation de pandmie. Ce sont de trs graves accusations que vous portez l. Comment un tel processus a-t-il t rendu possible au sein de lOMS? Wolfgang Wodarg. Un groupe de personnes lOMS est associ de manire trs troite lindustrie pharmaceutique. Lenqute du conseil de lEurope va travailler aussi dans cette direction? Wolfgang Wodarg. Nous voulons faire la lumire sur tout ce qui a pu rendre cette formidable opration dintox. Nous voulons savoir qui a dcid, sur la base de quelles preuves scientifiques, et comment sest exerc prcisment linfluence de lindustrie pharmaceutique dans la prise de dcision. Et nous devons enfin prsenter des revendications aux gouvernements. Lobjectif de la commission denqute est quil ny ait plus lavenir de fausses alertes de ce genre. Que la population puisse se reposer sur lanalyse, lexpertise des instituions publiques nationales et internationales. Celles ci sont aujourdhui discrdites car des millions de personnes ont t vaccins avec des produits prsentant dventuelles risques pour leur sant. Cela ntait pas ncessaire. Tout cela a dbouch aussi sur une gabegie dargent public considrable.

Avez-vous des chiffres concrets sur lampleur de cette gabegie? Wolfgang Wodarg. En Allemagne ce sont 700 millions deuros. Mais il est trs difficile de connatre les chiffres prcis car on parle maintenant dun ct de reventes de vaccins des pays trangers et surtout les firmes ne communiquent pas, au nom du principe du respect du secret des affaires les chiffres des contrats passs avec les Etats et les ventuelles clauses de ddommagements qui y figurent. Le travail de lobying des labos sur les instituts de sant nationaux sera-t-il aussi trait par lenqute du conseil de lEurope ? Wolfgang Wodarg. Oui nous nous pencherons sur lattitude des instituts comme le Robert Koch en Allemagne ou Pasteur en France qui auraientt d en ralit conseiller leurs gouvernements de faon critique. Dans certains pays des institutions lont fait. En Finlande ou en Pologne, par exemple, des voix critiques se sont leves pour dire : nous navons pas besoin de cela . La formidable opration dintox plantaire na-t-elle pas t possible aussi parce que lindustrie pharmaceutique avait ses reprsentants jusque dans les gouvernements des pays les plus puissants ? Wolgang Wodarg. Dans les ministres cela me parat vident. Je ne peux pas mexpliquer comment des spcialistes , des gens trs intelligents qui connaissent par cur la problmatique des maladies grippales, naient pas remarqu ce qui tait en train de se produire. Que sest-il pass alors ? Wolfgang Wodarg. Sans aller jusqu la corruption directe qui jen suis certain existe, il y a eu mille manires pour les labos dexercer leur influence sur les dcisions. Jai pu constater trs concrtement par exemple comment Klaus Sthr qui tait le chef du dpartement pidmiologique de lOMS lpoque de la grippe aviaire, et qui donc a prpar les plans destins faire face une pandmie que jvoquais plus haut, tait devenu entre temps un haut cadre de la socit Novartis. Et des liens semblables existent entre Glaxo ou Baxter, etc. et des membres influents de lOMS. Ces grandes firmes ont leurs gens dans les appareils et se dbrouillent ensuite pour que les bonnes dcisions politiques soient prises. Cest dire celles qui leur permettent de pomper le maximum dargent des contribuables. Mais si votre enqute aboutit, ne sera-t-elle pas un appui pour les citoyens dexiger de leurs gouvernements quils demandent des comptes ces grands groupes ? Wolfgang Wodarg. Oui, vous avez raison, cest lun des grands enjeux li cette enqute. Les Etats pourraient en effet se saisir de cela pour contester des contrats passs dans des conditions, disons, pas trs propres. Sil peut tre prouv que cest la prise dinfluence des firmes qui a conduit au dclenchement du processus alors ils faudra les pousser ce quils demandent tre rembourss. Mais a cest uniquement le ct financier, il y a aussi le ct humain, celui des personnes qui ont t vaccins avec des produits qui ont t insuffisamment tests.

Quel type de risque ont donc pris, sans quils le sachent, ces gens en bonne sant en se faisant vacciner ? Wolfgang Wodarg. Je le rpte les vaccins ont t labors trop rapidement, certains adjuvants insuffisamment tests. Mais il y a plus grave. Le vaccin labor par la socit Novartis a t produit dans un bioracteur partir de cellules cancreuses. Une technique qui navait jamais t utilise jusqu aujourdhui. Pourquoi, je ne suis videmment pas un spcialiste, mais comment peut-on prtendre faire un vaccin partir de cellules malades ? Wolfgang Wodarg. Normalement on utilise des ufs de poules sur lesquels les virus sont cultivs. On a besoin en effet de travailler sur des cellules vivantes. Car les virus ne peuvent se multiplier que de cette manire et donc, par dfinition, les prparations antivirus qui vont avec. Mais ce procd prsente un gros dfaut, il est lent, il faut beaucoup dufs. Et il est long et complexe sur le plan technique. Une autre technique au potentiel remarquable consiste cultiver les virus sur des cellules vivantes dans des bio-racteurs. Pour cela il faut des cellules qui croissent et se divisent trs vite. Cest un peu le procd que lon utilise pour la culture du yaourt que lon ralise dailleurs aussi dans un bio-racteur. mais dans ce contexte la cellule a t tellement bouleverse dans son environnement et sa croissance quelle crot comme une cellule cancreuse. Et cest sur ces cellules au rendement trs lev que lon cultive les virus. Seulement pour fabriquer le vaccin il faut extraire nouveau les virus de ces cellules sur lesquelles ils ont t implants. Et il peut donc se produire que durant le processus de fabrication du vaccin des restes de cellule cancreuse demeurent dans la prparation. Comme cela se produit dans la fabrication classique avec les ufs. On sait ainsi que dans le cas dune vaccination de la grippe classique des effets secondaires peuvent apparatre chez les personnes qui sont allergiques lovalbumine que lon trouve dans le blanc doeuf. Il ne peut donc pas tre exclu que des protines, restes dune cellule cancreuse prsentes dans un vaccin fabriqu par bio-racteur, engendrent une tumeur sur la personne vaccine. Selon un vrai principe de prcaution il faudrait donc, avant quun tel produit ne soit autoris sur le march, avoir la certitude 100% que de tels effets sont rellement exclus. Et cela na pas t fait? Wolfgang Wodarg. On ne la pas fait. LAME ( Agence Europenne du Mdicament), une institution sous la responsabilit du commissaire europen lconomie, base Londres, qui donne les autorisations de mise sur le march des vaccins en Europe, a donn son feu vert la commercialisation de ce produit en arguant, en loccurrence, que ce mode de fabrication ne constituait pas un risque significatif . Cela a t trs diffremment apprci par de nombreux spcialistes ici en Allemagne et une institution indpendante sur le mdicament, qui ont au contraire alert et fait part de leurs objections. Jai pris ces avertissements au srieux. Jai tudi le dossier et suis intervenu dans le cadre de la commission sant du Bundestag dont jtais alors membre pour que le vaccin ne soit pas utilis en Allemagne. Jai fait savoir que je ntais certainement pas oppos llaboration de vaccins avec cette technique. Mais quil fallait dabord avoir une garantie totale dinnocuit. Le produit na donc pas t utilis en Allemagne o le gouvernement a rsili le contrat avec Novartis. Quel est le nom de ce vaccin ?

Wolfgang Wodarg. Obta flu. Mais cela veut dire que dans dautres pays europens comme la France le produit peut tre commercialis sans problme? Wolfgang Wodarg. Oui , il a obtenu lautorisation de lAME et peut donc tre utilis partout dans lUnion Europenne. Quelle alternative entendez vous faire avancer pour que lon chappe de nouveaux scandales de ce type? Wolfgang Wodarg. Il faudrait que lOMS soit plus transparente, que lon sache clairement qui dcide et quelle type de relation existe entre les participants dans lorganisation. Il conviendrait aussi quelle soit au moins flanque dune chambre dlue, capable de ragir de faon trs critique o chacun puisse sexprimer. Ce renforcement du contrle par le public est indispensable. Nest ce pas la question dun autre systme capable de traiter une question qui relve en fait dun bien commun aux citoyens de toute la plante qui affleure? Wolfgang Wodarg. Pouvons nous encore laisser la production de vaccins et la conduite de ces productions des organisations dont lobjectif est de gagner le plus possible dargent ? Ou bien la production de vaccins nest-elle pas quelque chose du domaine par excellence , que les Etats doivent contrler et mettre en uvre eux mme ? Cest la raison pour laquelle je pense quil faut abandonner le systme des brevets sur les vaccins. Cest dire la possibilit dune monopolisation de la production de vaccin par un grand groupe. Car cette possibilit suppose que lon sacrifie des milliers de vies humaines, simplement au nom du respect de ces droits monopolistiques. Vous avez raison , cette revendication l a pris en tout cas pour moi laspect de lvidence.