Memory-Holed: The WHO document from 2015 that can no longer be found

On September 1–2 of 2015, the usual suspects got together to write and discuss a document on how to quickly disseminate scientific information during public health emergencies (when time is of the essence).

Who were these usual suspects?:

- Vaxx dealers and propaganda/sales organizations: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, GAVI
- Big Pharma: J&J, GSK and others
- Prominent scientific journals who receive a major part of their revenue from Big Pharma ("Whose bread I eat, whose song I sing"): NEJM, Nature, BMJ, PLOS
- Universities: Imperial College (infamous for their doom and gloom fiction models which have no relation to reality whatsoever), Oxford, McMaster
- Public Health Agencies
- US Dept of Defense

The key points on data sharing in emergencies are excellent:

- Researchers should weigh public health consequences of withholding results.
- Every researcher... has the fundamental moral obligation to share preliminary results.
- Open data sharing is needed using pre-publication platforms.
- Sharing of population-based data should be strongly encouraged.
- Public disclosure of data should not be delayed.
- Researcher are responsible for data accuracy of preliminary results.
- Incentives for sharing data should be created.
- The risks of withholding data must be taken into account.

During the past 2 years, we saw all of these principles being broken:

- Researchers who shared points of view and data the conflicted with the narrative, were censored and attacked for spreading 'medical misinformation'.
- Because of the cancel culture, most researchers and other (medical) professional kept their heads down and their mouths shut. Researchers who spoke out risked career suicide, as did doctors, many whose licenses have been revoked.
- Population-based data were met with disdain as it was "not a (large) prospective randomized controlled trial" (RCT), and only RCTs were said to provide any useful data.
- Pre-prints were viewed as a waste of time: "Oh, it's just a pre-print. It hasn't even been peer-reviewed yet." (This is a false dichotomy: pre-prints are articles that have not been published in a journal. It's possible that pre-prints have already passed peer-review, even multiple times.) Those saying this, seemed to have no sense of urgency whatsoever. It seemed to be no problem to them that countless people died or were severely and irreversibly harmed and injured by for example measures of mass destruction, lack of (early) treatment, or toxic injections. It didn't matter to them that information was only available and used once the harm had already been done.
- Pre-print servers even started to censor articles that conflicted with the narrative and contradicted public health agencies. Journals even did the same. For example, an article by dr. Jessica Rose and dr. Peter McCullough was censored once it had already been published. The journal said it must be false, since if it were true, CDC would have stopped the mass injection campaign.
- Both Pfizer and the FDA fought to delay publishing of the 'vaccine' trial data by 75 years! In spite of promising to disclose all trial data, the TOGETHER trial has not done so, for instance regarding their ivermectin trial arm.
- Fraudulent articles on hydroxychloroquine were published in The Lancet (see: Lancetgate) and New England Journal of Medicine. The articles were subsequently retracted, but by then the reputational harm had already been done.
- Instead of "incentives for sharing data", cancel culture created strong DISincentives for sharing data.
- Instead of looking at "the risks of withholding data", the population, authorities and media only looked at the risks of publishing data the could be wrong (or just inconvenient for some).

However, all the principles WERE used to spread lies and propaganda on highly profitable measures and pharmaceutical compounds, such as remdesivir, molnupiravir, paxlovid, and the COVID 'vaccines'. Also negative information on cheap, repurposed medicines and treatments, such as on ivermectin, were quickly disseminated in prestigious journals and through the mainstream media by superspreaders of medical disinformation, such as Fauci.

The document also contained other excellent principles:

- Ethical requirements of informed consent must be respected.
- Research entities should exercise discretion in patenting and licensing genome-related interventions.
- Privacy concerns around data sharing should be taken into account.

Again, all these principles were broken:

- For both the jabs and the highly profitable medicines, there was no informed consent whatsoever. Instead, for many, there was only uninformed coercion such as "No jab, no job". The only message was, "Do your duty and roll up your sleeve whenever we tell you to, or else".
- Both public health institutions such as NIH and individual researchers hold patent rights to novel, highly profitable pharmaceutical products.
- Privacy concerns were broken when people were forced to provide medical information on PCR-test and vaccination status, even for regular everyday activities.

REFERENCES

The page used to be here, but if you try to access it now, you get a 404 error ('Page not found'):
https://www.who/int/medicines/ebola-treatment/blueprint_phe_data-share-results/en/

The page is still available on the internet archive:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160213142258/https://www.who.int/medicines/ebola-treatment/blueprint_phe_data-share-results/en/

However, I was unable to find and download the PDF called: "Background paper developed by the Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, University of Oxford, for 1-2 September 2015 consultation". If anyone has been able to find it, please share a link in the comments. Thank you!

SOURCE

View the full interview (segment starts around the 25 minute mark):
https://odysee.com/@Corona-Investigative-Committee:5/Session-107-Dr.-Tess-Lawrie--Odysee:5