WHO Blunders
Post #536
The World Health Organization (WHO) has a track record of being unreliable, and maybe even untrustworthy. By May of 2009, WHO declared a pandemic swine flu, even though, 15 months later, there had only been 86 deaths per territory:
After several committees to investigate the WHO, the criticisms included:
WHO retroactively changing the “definition” of influenza pandemic (to remove any reference to disease severity)
and
WHO keeping the identities of the WHO pandemic review panel anonymous — so that you could not tell if those behind “pandemic declarations” had personal, financial conflicts of interest, such as with the vaccine industry
In other words, because of the secrecy, you couldn’t tell if people like Bill Gates were on the panel for WHO pandemic declarations. WHO screwed up royally again with Ebola in West Africa, leading to even more investigations.
But another indicator of the unreliability of WHO is their final count of deaths from COVID infections contracted by passengers on the Diamond Princess cruise ship. The last 1% of infections were found on 19 Feb 2020:
Six weeks (42 days) after that last 1% of infections, WHO had reported 7 total deaths:
From prior COVID deaths, it was known by then that, by Day 42 after symptom onset, 98% of all expected COVID deaths will have occurred:
But WHO eventually went on to say that 13 total deaths occurred, with 46% of the sample of 13 deaths (6 of the 13 deaths) occurring after Day 42 — at a time when only 2% of any sample of deaths is expected to occur.
To get a rough picture of how improbable that is, picture in your mind 100 marbles, of which 2 of them are red. The probability of randomly selecting a red marble is 2%, or 0.02. After picking one, you record its color and then put it back.
Repeat 13 times.
The probability of selecting at least 6 red marbles inside of those 13 attempts is
0.000 000 097, or 97 chances in a billion.
In other words, there are 97 chances in a billion that WHO is telling the truth about those last 6 COVID deaths, and the probability that they are lying is 0.999 999 903.
Even regarding statements about COVID shots, the WHO appears to be lying. The WHO page below says that the protection you get from them is “strong” …
But “strong” protection means a 95% lower bound estimate of at least 50%, and up to 70%:
And “strong” protection also means at least 12 months (1 year) of protection:
And yet, after Omicron BA.2, not even the point estimate of effectiveness for the first booster shot (against hospitalization) reached 50% — and none of the lower bounds reached 50%:
The WHO even said that COVID jabs cut transmission. It appears that the WHO is “running cover” for the vaccine industry, instead of being a reliable outfit. If competing interests prevent the WHO from being disbanded, then individual nations should divest themselves.
Reference
[last Diamond Princess passenger infection was 19 Feb 2020] — Tetsuro Kobayashi, Keita Yoshii, Natalie M. Linton, Motoi Suzuki, Hiroshi Nishiura, Age dependence of the natural history of infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2): an analysis of Diamond Princess data, International Journal of Infectious Diseases, Volume 15, 2022, Pages 109-115, ISSN 1201-9712, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2021.12.319.
[appropriate model for evolution of COVID deaths is lognormal] — Linton NM, Kobayashi T, Yang Y, Hayashi K, Akhmetzhanov AR, Jung SM, Yuan B, Kinoshita R, Nishiura H. Incubation Period and Other Epidemiological Characteristics of 2019 Novel Coronavirus Infections with Right Truncation: A Statistical Analysis of Publicly Available Case Data. J Clin Med. 2020 Feb 17;9(2):538. doi: 10.3390/jcm9020538. PMID: 32079150; PMCID: PMC7074197. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32079150/
[booster shot VE against hospitalization is below 50%] — CDC Presentation. Slide 14. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2022-09-01/04-covid-link-gelles-508.pdf
When I read Pfizer's first clinical trial document, I thought the efficacy rate was fake. Later, I learned that Pfizer had effectively made the FDA a subsidiary.
Relative Risk Reduction=Number of cases with Placebo - Number of cases among vaccinated people}/Number of cases with Placebo*100[%]
Absolute Risk Reduction = [1-{1-Placebo cases/Total number of Placebo patients}/{1-Vaccinated cases/Total number of vaccinated persons}]*100[%]
FDA uses RRR as the efficacy rate.
Number of people vaccinated: 21,500 people | 8 people who developed symptoms | 21,492 people who did not develop symptoms
Number of non-vaccinated people: 21,500 people | Symptoms: 162 people | Non-symptomatic people: 21,338 people on Pfizer's report.
Let's try a thought experiment here.
The efficacy rate is 95% even if the symptoms occur in 1,075 vaccinated people and 21,500 unvaccinated people.
If this is the case, 100% of individuals will develop the disease if they are not vaccinated, so the vaccination is meaningful and an efficacy rate of 95% is sufficient. Even if there are no quacks who are not vaccinated for two weeks after vaccination, 2 out of 162 people cannot be said to be 95% effective.
If calculated using the ARR formula, the absolute effectiveness rate is only 0.716%. If the FDA had publicized this, most people would have chosen not to be vaccinated.
Vaccines are used for healthy people, unlike drugs used for sick people, so it is fundamentally wrong to use RRR as the efficacy rate.
Due to the FDA and CDC's reputation decades ago, health authorities in various countries have a certain degree of trust in them. In the end, the biggest problem is that the FDA and CDC have been taken over by major pharmaceutical companies.