Hearing On: 'Faked pandemics, a threat to health'

Friday, 08 January 2010 11:40

News - Highlighted News

Wolfgang Wodarg's nterview in France's L'Humanite translated into English by
Carolyn Dunning.

http://www.humanite.fr/2010-01-07_Societe_Grippe-A-L-implacable-requi...

Swine flu: "They organized the panic"

New Development: The German President of the Health Committee of the Council
of Europe, Wolfgang Wodarg, is issuing accusations against the
pharmaceutical lobbies and the governments. He has intitiated the start of
an investigation by that body concerning the role played by the
pharmaceutical in the campaign of panic about the virus.

A straight forward interview.

Ex-member of the SPD, Wolfgang Wodarg is a doctor and epidemiologist. His
request for a commission of inquiry into the role of pharmaceutical
companies in the management of swine flu outbreak by WHO and the nation
states was granted unanimously by the members of the Health Committee of the
Council of Europe.

What made you suspicious about the influence of pharmaceutical companies had
on the decisions being taken in respect of swine flu?

Wolfgang Wodarg. We are facing a major failure of national institutions
responsible for warning about risks and responding in case a pandemic
occurs. In April when the first alarm came from Mexico I was very surprised
at the figures furnished by the World Health Organization (WHO) to justify
the declaration of a pandemic. I was immediately suspicious: the numbers
were very low and the alarm level very high. There were not even in a
thousand patients when there was already talk of the pandemic of the
century. And the alert was decreed extreme based on the fact that the virus
was new. But the characteristic of influenza disease is to develop very
quickly with viruses which take on new forms each time, by dwelling in new
hosts, animal, human etc.

There was nothing new in itself to that. Each year a new virus of this
"flu"type appears. In reality there was no reason to sound the alarm at this
level. This was only possible because in early May the WHO changed its
definition of a pandemic. Before that date there had to be not only a
disease which had broke out in several countries at once but also one that
had very serious consequences with the number of deaths above the usual
average. This aspect was removed from the new definition, to retain the rate
of spread of disease as the only criteria. And they claimed that the virus
was dangerous because people had not been able to develop immunity against
it. Which was false for this virus. Because it was observed that people aged
over 60 years already had antibodies. That is to say they had already been
in contact with similar viruses. That is why also there are virtually no
people aged over 60 who have developed the disease. Yet those were the
people who were recommended to be vaccinated quickly.

Among the things that aroused my suspicions there was therefore on one side
this determination to sound the alarm. And on the other side, some curious
facts. Such as, for example, the recommendation by WHO to carry out two
injections for vaccines. That had never been done before. There was no
scientific justification for this. There was also the recommendation to use
only special patented vaccines. There was however no reason for not adding,
as it is done every year, specific antiviral particles of this new H1N1
virus, "completing" the vaccine used for seasonal influenza. This was not
done because they preferred to use patented vaccine materials that major
laboratories had designed and manufactured to be ready in case of a pandemic
developing. And by proceeding in this way they did not hesitate to endanger
the persons vaccinated.

What danger?

Wolfgang Wodarg. To provide products rapidly, adjuvants were used in some
vaccines, whose effects have not been adequately tested. In other words,
they wanted absolutely to use these new patented products instead of
developing vaccines according to traditional methods of production which are
much simpler, more reliable and less costly. There was no medical reason for
this. It was only for marketing purposes.

How could anyone justify that?

Wolfgang Wodarg. To understand we must return to the episode of avian
influenza from 2005 to 2006. It was then that new international plans were
defined for dealing with a pandemic alarm. These plans were officially
developed to ensure rapid manufacturing of vaccines in case of an alert.
This led to negotiations between pharmaceutical companies and governments.
On the one hand the labs committed themselves to keep ready to develop the
preparations, on the other hand, states assured them they would buy them
all. After this strange deal the pharmaceutical industry took no economic
risk by engaging in new fabrications. And it was sure to touch the jack pot
in the case of a pandemic outbreak.

Do you disagree with the diagnoses and even the potential severity of
influenza A?

Wolfgang Wodarg. Yes, it's just a normal kind of flu. It does not cause a
tenth of deaths caused by the classic seasonal flu. All that mattered and
that led to the great campaign of panic which we have seen was that it was a
golden opportunity for representatives from labs who knew they would hit the
jackpot in the case of a pandemic being declared.

Those are very serious accusations you're making. How was such a process
made possible within the WHO?

Wolfgang Wodarg. A group of people in the WHO is associated very closely
with the pharmaceutical industry.

Will the investigation by the Council of Europe also work in this direction?

Wolfgang Wodarg. We want to clarify everything that brought about this
massive operation of disinformation. We want to know who made decisions, on
the basis of what evidence and precisely how the influence of the
pharmaceutical industry came to bear on the decision-making. And the time
has come at last for us to make demands on governments. The purpose of the
inquiry is so that there are no more false alarms of this type in the
future. So that the people may rely on the analysis and the expertise of
national and international public institutions. The latter are now
discredited, because millions of people have been vaccinated with products
with inherent possible health risks. This was not necessary. It has also led
to a considerable mismanagement of public money.

Do you have any concrete figures on the extent of this mismanagement?

Wolfgang Wodarg. In Germany it comes to 700 million euros. But it is very
difficult to know the exact figures because we are talking on one side about
vaccines resold to foreign countries and most firms do not communicate due
to the principle of respect for "business secret" regarding the amounts in
contracts concluded with States and any indemnification clauses contained
therein.

Will the work of "lobbying" by pharma companies on the National Institutes
of Health also be dealt with by the investigation of the Council of Europe?

Wolfgang Wodarg. Yes we will examine the attitude of institutions like the
Robert Koch Institute in Germany or Pasteur in France who should in fact
have advised their governments from a critical standpoint. In some countries
certain institutions have done so. In Finland and Poland, for example,
critical voices were raised to say: "we do not need that."

Has the tremendous global operation of disinformation also been possible
because the pharmaceutical industry had "representatives" even within the
governments of the most powerful countries?

Wolfgang Wodarg. As regards the ministries, that seems to me to be obvious.
I can not explain how specialists, very smart people who know the problems
of the influenza disease by heart, did not notice what was happening.

So what happened?

Wolfgang Wodarg. Without going as far as saying direct corruption, which I
am certain does exist, there were many ways for labs to exercise their
influence over decisions. A very concrete example, is how Klaus Stöhr, who
was the head of the epidemiological department of the WHO at the time of
bird flu, and who therefore prepared the plans to cope with a pandemic that
I mentioned above, in the meantime had become a top executive of the company
Novartis. And similar links between Glaxo and Baxter, etc. and influential
members of the WHO. These large firms have "their people" in the cogs and
then they pull strings so that the right policy decisions are taken. That is
to say, the ones that will allow them to pump as much money from taxpayers.

But if your survey succeeds, will it not be a support for citizens to insist
their governments demand accountability from these large groups?

Wolfgang Wodarg. Yes, you're right, this is one of the major issues related
to this investigation. States could indeed take advantage of this to contest
contracts drawn up in, let us say, improper conditions. If it can be shown
that it was under the influence of firms that the process was initiated then
they will have to be push to ask for reimbursement. But that's just the
financial side, there is also the human side, persons who were vaccinated
with products that were inadequately tested.

So what kind of risk have these healthy people unknowingly taken by getting
vaccinated?

Wolfgang Wodarg. Again, the vaccines were developed too quickly, some
adjuvants were insufficiently tested. But there is worse to come. The
vaccine developed by Novartis was produced in a bioreactor from cancerous
cells. A technique that had never been used until now.

Why, I'm obviously not an expert, but how can one claim to make a vaccine
from diseased cells?

Wolfgang Wodarg. Normally one uses chicken eggs on which viruses are grown.
We need in fact to work on living cells. Because viruses can only multiply
in this way and so do, by definition, the virus preparations that go with
it. But this process has a big flaw, it is slow and it takes a lot of eggs.
And it is long and complex technically. Another potentially excellent
technique is to grow the virus in living cells in bioreactors. This requires
cells which grow and divide very quickly. It's a bit like the method used to
culture yogurt, which is also produced in a bio-reactor. but in this context
the cell was so upset in its environment and its growth that it grows like a
cancer cell. And it is on these rapidly multiplying cells that they grow the
virus. But to manufacture the vaccine the virus must be re-extracted from
these cells on which they were implanted. And it can therefore happen that
during the manufacturing process of the vaccine, residue of cancerous cells
remain in the preparation. In the same way as it happens in conventional
manufacturing with eggs. Thus we know that in the case of a classic
influenza vaccination, side effects can occur in people who are allergic to
egg albumin found in egg white. It can not be excluded that proteins,
remains of a cancer cell present in a vaccine produced by bio-reactor, may
generate a tumour on the person vaccinated. According to a true principle of
precaution, before such a product is allowed on the market, there should
therefore be 100% certainty that such effects are actually excluded.

And wasn't this done?

Wolfgang Wodarg. It was not. The EMEA (European Medicines Agency), an
institution under the responsibility of the European Commissioner for
Economic Affairs, based in London, which gives permission to release
vaccines on the market in Europe, gave the green light for commercializing
this product arguing, namely, that this mode of manufacture was not a
"significant" risk. This was very differently appreciated by many experts
here in Germany and by an independent drug institution, which instead
sounded the alert and voiced their objections. I took these warnings
seriously. I studied the case and intervened in the context of the Bundestag
health committee of which I was a member so that the vaccine would not be
used in Germany. I made it known that I was certainly not opposed to the
development of vaccines with this technique. But first it had to have a
total guarantee of innocuousness. The product has therefore not been used in
Germany where the government terminated the contract with Novartis.

What is the name of this vaccine?

Wolfgang Wodarg. Obta flu.

But that means that in other European countries like France the product can
be marketed without any problem?

Wolfgang Wodarg. Yes, it obtained permission from EMEA and can be used
anywhere in the EU.

What alternative do you intend to propose so that further scandals of this
type are avoided?

Wolfgang Wodarg. The WHO should be more transparent, so we know clearly who
decides and what type of relationship exists between participants in the
organization. It should also be flanked by at least one elected chamber,
which should be able to react very critically and where everyone can express
themselves. This enhanced public scrutiny is essential.

Isn't the question of another system capable of handling a matter which is
in fact a common good for citizens across the planet coming to the surface?

Wolfgang Wodarg. Can we go on allowing the production of vaccines and the
conduct of these productions to organizations whose goal is to win as much
money as possible? Or is the production of vaccines not something that
States must absolutely monitor and implement themselves? That's why I think
we should abandon the system of patents on vaccines. That is to say, the
possibility of monopolization of vaccine production by a large group. For
this option requires that we sacrifice thousands of lives, simply in the
name of respect for these monopoly rights. You're right, that particular
claim has become evident for me.

Interview by Bruno Odent