July 2021
« Jun    

BBC’s horror as brilliant Trump tears the World Health Organisation to pieces

(Wednesday/ Thursday blog)

Absolute horror at the BBC this week as brilliant President Trump sent a letter to the useless, China-ass-licking, incompetent, corrupt, self-serving, ludicrously misnamed World Health Organisation (WHO) giving an ultimatum – either the WHO reforms within 30 days or else the US will withdraw all funding.

Quickly the BBC rushed to defend the WHO against the hated Trump. The BBC’s strategy had two parts:

  • heap ridicule on Trump for taking the anti-malarial drug Hydroxychloroquine to protect himself against the Chinese Covid-19 plague
  • finding supposedly ‘independent’ international experts to praise the WHO and claim that the WHO was doing such a great job controlling the Chinese plague that now was not the time for any distractions like the reforms demanded by Trump

On the Hydroxychloroquine story, the BBC claimed that there was no evidence that the anti-malarial could protect against Covid-19 and that taking it could be dangerous. Of course, there’s no evidence as there haven’t been any studies of the drug’s effectiveness in preventing the Chinese plague. The only studies of the drug (as far as I understand) have been when it was given to Covid-19 patients in intensive care. A French study said the drug was effective. A Chinese study said it wasn’t. And I think another study suggested the drug caused Covid-19 patients heart problems.

Hydroxychloroquine has been used for over 30 years to guard against malaria and it’s well known that it can cause heart arrhythmia and other unpleasant side effects. So it’s hardly surprising that it might have caused problems to Covid-19 patients who were already at death’s door. But while ridiculing Trump, the BBC failed to mention that there have been no studies of whether Hydroxychloroquine can help protect healthy people from the Chinese plague. Oh, and as a reader has just pointed out, the Grandian has an article today about the UK Government stocking up with Hydroxychloroquine in case it does actually work. Perhaps the Gurandian-loving BBC ‘forgot’ to mention that when mocking Trump?

As for the experts the BBC found to praise the WHO, the BBC never seems to have thought of asking them questions like why the WHO’s boss, Dr Tedros Whatever, was in Beijing praising China’s President for life, Xi Pingpong, for his brilliant handling of the Covid-19 plague just a couple of weeks after China was arresting any doctors who dared mention the existence of the new virus or why China stopped all internal flights from Wuhan to other parts of China while allowing tens of thousands of people from Wuhan to travel abroad.

Anyway, here’s the text of Trump’s letter to the utterly rotten, China-run WHO detailing all the mistakes the WHO made while helping China cover up China’s guilt for inflicting the Covid-19 disaster on the rest of the world. You won’t find the BBC mentioning any of the criticisms of the WHO that are made in Trump’s letter:

Dear Dr. Tedros

On April 14, 2020, I suspended United States contributions to the World Health Organization pending an investigation by my Administration of the organization’s failed response to the COVID-19 outbreak. This review has confirmed many of the serious concerns I raised last month and identified others that the World Health Organization should have addressed, especially the World Health Organization’s alarming lack of independence from the People’s Republic of China. Based on this review, we now know the following:

  • The World Health Organization consistently ignored credible reports of the virus spreading in Wuhan in early December 2019 or even earlier, including reports from the Lancet medical journal. The World Health Organization failed to independently investigate credible reports that conflicted directly with the Chinese government’s official accounts, even those that came from sources within Wuhan itself.
  • By no later than December 30, 2019, the World Health Organization office in Beijing knew that there was a “major public health” concern in Wuhan. Between December 26 and December 30, China’s media highlighted evidence of a new virus emerging from Wuhan, based on patient data sent to multiple Chinese genomics companies. Additionally, during this period, Dr. Zhang Jixian, a doctor from Hubei Provincial Hospital of Integrated Chinese and Western Medicine, told China’s health authorities that a new coronavirus was causing a novel disease that was, at the time, afflicting approximately 180 patients.
  • By the next day, Taiwanese authorities had communicated information to the World Health Organization indicating human-to-human transmission of a new virus. Yet the World Health Organization chose not to share any of this critical information with the rest of the world, probably for political reasons.
  • The International Health Regulations require countries to report the risk of a health emergency within 24 hours. But China did not inform the World Health Organization of Wuhan’s several cases of pneumonia, of unknown origin, until December 31, 2019, even though it likely had knowledge of these cases days or weeks earlier.
  • According to Dr. Zhang Yongzhen of the Shanghai Public Health Clinic Center, he told Chinese authorities on January 5, 2020, that he had sequenced the genome of the virus. There was no publication of this information until six days later, on January 11, 2020, when Dr. Zhang self-posted it online. The next day, Chinese authorities closed his lab for “rectification.” As even the World Health Organization acknowledged, Dr. Zhang’s posting was a great act of “transparency.” But the World Health Organization has been conspicuously silent both with respect to the closure of Dr. Zhang’s lab and his assertion that he had notified Chinese authorities of his breakthrough six days earlier.
  • The World Health Organization has repeatedly made claims about the coronavirus that were either grossly inaccurate or misleading.
    • On January 14, 2020, the World Health Organization gratuitously reaffirmed China’s now-debunked claim that the coronavirus could not be transmitted between humans, stating: “Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus (2019-nCov) identified in Wuhan, China.” This assertion was in direct conflict with censored reports from Wuhan.
    • On January 21, 2020, President Xi Jinping of China reportedly pressured you not to declare the coronavirus outbreak an emergency. You gave in to this pressure the next day and told the world that the coronavirus did not pose a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. Just over one week later, on January 30, 2020, overwhelming evidence to the contrary forced you to reverse course.
    • On January 28, 2020, after meeting with President Xi in Beijing, you praised the Chinese government for its “transparency” with respect to the coronavirus, announcing that China had set a “new standard for outbreak control” and “bought the world time.” You did not mention that China had, by then, silenced or punished several doctors for speaking out about the virus and restricted Chinese institutions from publishing information about it.
  • Even after you belatedly declared the outbreak a Public Health Emergency of International Concern on January 30, 2020, you failed to press China for the timely admittance of a World Health Organization team of international medical experts. As a result, this critical team did not arrive in China until two weeks later, on February 16, 2020. And even then, the team was not allowed to visit Wuhan until the final days of their visit. Remarkably, the World Health Organization was silent when China denied the two American members of the team access to Wuhan entirely.
  • You also strongly praised China’s strict domestic travel restrictions, but were inexplicably against my closing of the United States border, or the ban, with respect to people coming from China. I put the ban in place regardless of your wishes. Your political gamesmanship on this issue was deadly, as other governments, relying on your comments, delayed imposing life-saving restrictions on travel to and from China. Incredibly, on February 3, 2020, you reinforced your position, opining that because China was doing such a great job protecting the world from the virus, travel restrictions were “causing more harm than good.” Yet by then the world knew that, before locking down Wuhan, Chinese authorities had allowed more than five million people to leave the city and that many of these people were bound for international destinations all over the world.
  • As of February 3, 2020, China was strongly pressuring countries to lift or forestall travel restrictions. This pressure campaign was bolstered by your incorrect statements on that day telling the world that the spread of the virus outside of China was “minimal and slow” and that “the chances of getting this going to anywhere outside China [were] very low.”
  • On March 3, 2020, the World Health Organization cited official Chinese data to downplay the very serious risk of asymptomatic spread, telling the world that “COVID-19 does not transmit as efficiently as influenza” and that unlike influenza this disease was not primarily driven by “people who are infected but not yet sick.” China’s evidence, the World Health Organization told the world, “showed that only one percent of reported cases do not have symptoms, and most of those cases develop symptoms within two days.” Many experts, however, citing data from Japan, South Korea, and elsewhere, vigorously questioned these assertions. It is now clear that China’s assertions, repeated to the world by the World Health Organization, were wildly inaccurate.
  • By the time you finally declared the virus a pandemic on March 11, 2020, it had killed more than 4,000 people and infected more than 100,000 people in at least 114 countries around the world.
  • On April 11, 2020, several African Ambassadors wrote to the Chinese Foreign Ministry about the discriminatory treatment of Africans related to the pandemic in Guangzhou and other cities in China. You were aware that Chinese authorities were carrying out a campaign of forced quarantines, evictions, and refusal of services against the nationals of these countries. You have not commented on China’s racially discriminatory actions. You have, however, baselessly labeled as racist Taiwan’s well-founded complaints about your mishandling of this pandemic.
  • Throughout this crisis, the World Health Organization has been curiously insistent on praising China for its alleged “transparency.” You have consistently joined in these tributes, notwithstanding that China has been anything but transparent. In early January, for example, China ordered samples of the virus to be destroyed, depriving the world of critical information. Even now, China continues to undermine the International Health Regulations by refusing to share accurate and timely data, viral samples and isolates, and by withholding vital information about the virus and its origins. And, to this day, China continues to deny international access to their scientists and relevant facilities, all while casting blame widely and recklessly and censoring its own experts.
  • The World Health Organization has failed to publicly call on China to allow for an independent investigation into the origins of the virus, despite the recent endorsement for doing so by its own Emergency Committee. The World Health Organization’s failure to do so has prompted World Health Organization member states to adopt the “COVID-19 Response” Resolution at this year’s World Health Assembly, which echoes the call by the United States and so many others for an impartial, independent, and comprehensive review of how the World Health Organization handled the crisis. The resolution also calls for an investigation into the origins of the virus, which is necessary for the world to understand how best to counter the disease.

Perhaps worse than all these failings is that we know that the World Health Organization could have done so much better. Just a few years ago, under the direction of a different Director-General, the World Health Organization showed the world how much it has to offer. In 2003, in response to the outbreak of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in China, Director-General Harlem Brundtland boldly declared the World Health Organization’s first emergency travel advisory in 55 years, recommending against travel to and from the disease epicenter in southern China. She also did not hesitate to criticize China for endangering global health by attempting to cover up the outbreak through its usual playbook of arresting whistleblowers and censoring media. Many lives could have been saved had you followed Dr. Brundtland’s example.

It is clear the repeated missteps by you and your organization in responding to the pandemic have been extremely costly for the world. The only way forward for the World Health Organization is if it can actually demonstrate independence from China. My Administration has already started discussions with you on how to reform the organization. But action is needed quickly. We do not have time to waste. That is why it is my duty, as President of the United States, to inform you that, if the World Health Organization does not commit to major substantive improvements within the next 30 days, I will make my temporary freeze of United States funding to the World Health Organization permanent and reconsider our membership in the organization. I cannot allow American taxpayer dollars to continue to finance an organization that, in its present state, is so clearly not serving America’s interests.


Donald Trump

6 comments to BBC’s horror as brilliant Trump tears the World Health Organisation to pieces

  • Andy S

    Seems the UK government think hydroxychloroquine might have benefits too

  • A Thorpe

    Perhaps one good thing to come out of this crisis is that funding for international organisations and charities, as discussed recently, might decline rapidly because there will be less money and priorities will change. Funding for university research also needs to be questioned. It seems to be based on not getting answers or creating alarm to keep the money flowing in.

    You mention in the introduction that there is no evidence for some of the drug claims. Science is based on evidence and what we have is a pseudo-science generated by the media, but not backed up by evidence. A good example is the Wakefield MMR-Autism scare which caused untold problems from parents not getting children vaccinated. This was media generated. I don’t know all the background but it was based on poor research standards and it was a team effort. Nobody working on it blew the whistle. Why would they when their income would end? It was published in The Lancet which does not say much for the peer review process which we hear so much about.

    Science has been vital to human success and my view is that in our early years it was a practical understanding of nature that enabled us to survive and prosper. We needed mathematics, the language of science, for our scientific discoveries to take off and it still took thousands of years. What is astonishing now is how little most people know about science, even the basics, because it is so complex. This is how we are being deceived. Scientists have been corrupted by money and cannot be trusted. We have to consider only one issue when we don’t have a scientific background and that is simply that science is never settled. Just the opposite of the claims being made by the IPCC and its “scientists”. When different claims are being made we should ignore them all until scientists agree on the evidence and evidence can only produce a common view which will be the best we can do until something happens to change it. Even where there is a difference of view, both might be wrong. Science must work for us and not be used against us. Scientific fraud is now more common than scientific truth.

  • Bad Brian.

    Thanks for that article David. Well done !

    Why do we have to rely on you to bring this to our attention while the rest of the media wants to concentrate on banging pots and pans to celebrate the NHS ?

    Trump is spot on with his assertions. Why do the media not support him ?

  • denis

    Maybe I’m getting a bit soft, but is Donald Trump a complete fool for volunteering to be a guinea pig and taking hydroxychloroquine ? Or is he showing, typically, his strong individuality and readiness to take the lead in unpopular actions ?

    I’m ready to be convinced either way, doubt I would copy him.

  • Stillreading

    I wouldn’t copy him either regarding self-medication at this stage, but I do so admire his stance against the deplorable WHO. Wonderful letter. Would we had a political leader of his determination and strength here. I watch and listen daily to the ever more pathetic, mendacious attempts of our so-called “leaders” to convince us they have the situation in hand and our welfare at heart and they do little but demonstrate how totally ineffectual and unsuited to public office they are. Pathetic! As for the BBC, their determinedly left-wing anti-Trump stance is deplorable. As a pensioner who will be expected to re-commence paying to watch live TV – from ANY station – after the end of July, well all I can say is that I fervently hope tens of thousands of fellow pensioners similarly affected will do as I intend to do – refuse to pay. About the BBC channel worth watching is BBC4 and according to the news a few days ago, the BBC intend to do away with it, featuring as it does historians, scientists, artists of real merit. Apparently “the young”, whom the BBC are relentlessly chasing, do not watch such transmissions. What a surprise!

  • chris

    The Telegraph is reporting that Boris gave as good as he got at PMQ’s today. Not true! I watched it and Starmer made very good points concerning the NHS dumping CV patients in care homes. Boris’s baffling responses were not answers…just waffle. Starmer might not have charm but he gets to the point. However, just as with Trump, the MSM cannot bear to report honestly. Starmer seems to me a man of principle, perhaps not a man of the people, but at least he, like Trump is not a globalist puppet.

    As for Hydroxychloroquine, some weeks ago, I pointed out on David’s blog that many independent tests showed its usefulness. Along with Remdesevir and other anti clotting or anti viral drugs (see Medcram on youtube ep 69) The MSM is in cahoots with Gates, Vallance, Whitty, Faucci and drug companies etc to keep this fiasco going until there is a (nice profitable) vaccine.

    Hydroxychloroquine and other anti virals (many of which are not patented) make little profit for drug companies. Conversely, vaccinating the whole world will be a financial coup.

    Just another thought. The gov has shut down the economy. There are no riots because employees and self employed are being paid by the gov (i.e. me, my savings and my pension). This strategy can only be used once.

    The gov has already bankrupted the country. So it cant do that again. But this government’s abuse of its power may have a more dangerous legacy with unforeseen consequences. Who, setting up or running a business, will want to be subject to the ‘whim’ of idiot buffoons in parliament advised by a ‘fifth column’. Who will want to have a business where close contact between people is inevitable or desirable. Could this ‘Event’ lead to vaccination and licences to do everyday things like shopping, catching a bus, having a drink in the pub? Could it lead to rationing of transport, shopping, education, healthcare on the pretext of keeping us safe from each other?

    Could it lead to more robots in servics and manufacture’ Perhaps more AI and predictive tracking. Tracking us seems to be a large part of the solution to the ‘Event’ It seems to me that tracking and testing has taken on more importance than treating sufferers hence the MSM reaction to Hydroxychloroquine.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>