Alfred Dawes | Who’s advising WHO on the pandemic?
The sick joke through which we are living is more confusing than the Abbott and Costello classic skit “Who’s on First?” to which I paid homage with the title. The World Health Organization (WHO), tasked with ensuring health for the people of the world, has failed miserably and continues to oversee the loss of countless lives unnecessarily because of its approach to the black swan event it has been preparing for over decades.
Lest we forget it was the WHO that warned the world that closing borders to a country fighting an epidemic would ruin their economy and make fighting the outbreak even more difficult. So, the world kept their borders open with China, and the virus spread first to the south east Asian neighbours and later the entire world. Now it is the economies of every single country on earth lying in ruins while China’s economy grew by 18.3 per cent in the first quarter of 2021 compared with a year earlier. Although hindsight is twenty:twenty, one still has to ponder, who advises the WHO?
Those of us with medical school training for the past two years cringed and raised our eyebrows when we heard the advisory that asymptomatic patients could not transmit the coronavirus. Any medical student could have advised who wanted to know that viruses are shed in secretions even if your immune system is doing a good enough job of fighting the infection, so you are not displaying symptoms. It has now been shown, unsurprisingly, that it is the majority of persons who are asymptomatic or show mild symptoms, eighty percent of those infected, who are the primary drivers of viral spread.
Who advised that persons not showing symptoms should not wear masks? Who kept emphasising sanitisation and washing of hands as the primary means of preventing contracting the disease? The “sanitisation circus” is alive and well today with even the sand in the long jump pit at Boys and Girls’ Champs being sanitised. Numerous studies have shown that spread of the virus is almost negligible by touching contaminated surfaces versus inhaling microdroplets hanging in the air long after the infected persons who produced them left the room. Microdroplets are produced by sneezing, coughing, and even talking. They travel much further than the six feet recommended for social distancing. The plexiglass dividers installed in Parliament and for Schools’ Challenge Quiz are absolutely useless. Who would have thought mask wearing would stop the production of microdroplets at the source and reduce spread more than expensive deep cleaning and sanitising of surfaces?
HANDFUL OF ANTIGEN TEST KITS APPROVED
The development of antigen tests for rapid heralded a new day in the fight against COVID-19. However, WHO decided that it would only approve a handful of kits and delay the roll-out of rapid tests in countries that slavishly adhered to their recommendations. Months after the technology became available, many kits that have been up to standards and accredited by local and regional health authorities still have not made it to the exclusive list dominated by manufacturers from western nations and their allies. Who advises the WHO?
Perhaps the most egregious crime against humanity committed by WHO is the suppression of Ivermectin in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19. One expert wrote of “compelling evidence of what appears to be a deliberate disinformation campaign that is meant to mislead the public and silence doctors who do not follow the guidance from the WHO.” I have written and spoken publicly about the multiple high-quality studies that have shown that Ivermectin is highly effective in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19.
Ivermectin reduces the risk of contracting COVID-19 by over 90 per cent and the risk of dying by between 68 per cent and 91 per cent. Let those numbers sink in for a minute. There have been blessings and praises for drugs such as Remdesivir and Dexamethasone, whose effects are nowhere close to that of Ivermectin. The problem with Ivermectin, though, rests with the first part of the statement: Ivermectin use reduces the risk of contracting COVID-19 by over 90 per cent.
It is because of this preventative action, which directly competes with COVID-19 vaccines, that makes this drug so dangerous to the establishment. They fear that with a risk reduction of 90 per cent, more than the AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson vaccines, persons will opt for a prophylactic course of Ivermectin rather than take the shots. Whereas I am a proponent of vaccines, and will continue to be so, the hypocrisy of claiming to be attempting to save lives and ending the pandemic while at the same time recommending against the use of prophylactic and therapeutic options that can save hundreds of thousands of lives disgusts me.
The WHO has ignored the multiple high-quality studies that are continuously being published in favour of examining the poor-quality publications that justify the stance that Ivermectin is not shown to be effective or safe. To put the level of outright deceit in perspective, if one examines the best quality studies, the chances that all 55 of them would show a positive benefit when there was actually none, would be on in twenty-three trillion. That statistic, unfortunately, is another inconvenient truth.
Whose interest is being served? Who advises WHO? And more importantly, how many will die before we wake up and see who is the real curse behind the plague?
- Alfred Dawes is a general, laparoscopic, and weight-loss surgeon; Fellow of the American College of Surgeons; former senior medical officer of the Savanna-la-Mar Public General Hospital; former president of Jamaica Medical Doctors Association. @dr_aldawes. Email feedback to firstname.lastname@example.org and email@example.com.