Latest / The Slippery Slope / Are WHO Corrupt?

Transcript

Are WHO Corrupt? · The Slippery Slope

• 0:12
  And remember that group might have heard them.
• 0:16
  Who I'm not talking about the the band, as in the World Health
• 0:21
  Organization. You know the ones that kept
• 0:23
  recommending because you know, they put out the experts.
• 0:26
  The statement from experts have to trust who it will get kept
• 0:31
  getting told by our respected governments how the World Health
• 0:35
  Organization they've recommended this.
• 0:38
  They've got the experts that told us we have to do these
• 0:41
  things. You know, we we have to follow
• 0:44
  the lockdown rules. We have to to recommend that we
• 0:47
  should be getting vaccinated from the Charlie Victor.
• 0:50
  All that stuff because The Who, the World Health Organization.
• 0:57
  They are beyond reproach. They are the experts.
• 1:00
  They keep putting up. The experts trust us, trust the
• 1:03
  science. And why wouldn't we trust the
• 1:07
  science? Why wouldn't we trust them?
• 1:08
  I mean, you know, it's not like they've ever done anything to
• 1:13
  cause us to doubt them. Check this article out just came
• 1:17
  out today. This one's from that.
• 1:19
  I'll read for you from the Guardian title.
• 1:23
  Who, WHO? Aspartame safety Panel linked to
• 1:28
  alleged Cocacola front group There You Go pictures of Diet
• 1:35
  Coke, Coke. In May, the World Health
• 1:37
  Organization issued an alarming report that declared widely used
• 1:42
  non sugar sweeteners like aspartame are likely ineffective
• 1:47
  for weight loss and long term consumption may increase the
• 1:50
  risk of diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and mortality in
• 1:54
  adults. Comforting a few months later
• 1:59
  WHO declared aspartame, a key ingredient in Diet Coke, to be a
• 2:04
  possible carcinogen, then quickly issued 1/3 report that
• 2:09
  seemed to contradict its previous findings People could
• 2:14
  find could continue consuming the product at levels determined
• 2:18
  to be safe decades ago, before new signs cited by WHO raised
• 2:25
  health concerns. That contradiction stems from
• 2:28
  beverage industry corruption of the review process by
• 2:32
  consultants tied to an alleged Coca-Cola front group.
• 2:36
  So someone's making money out of it, basically, the public health
• 2:40
  advocacy group US Right to Know said in a recent report.
• 2:46
  It uncovered 8 WHO panelists involved with assessing safe
• 2:51
  levels of aspartame consumption who are beverage industry
• 2:55
  consultants who currently or previously worked with the
• 2:59
  alleged alleged Koch front group, International Life
• 3:04
  Sciences Institute, or ILSI for short.
• 3:08
  Their involvement in developing intake guidelines represents an
• 3:12
  obvious conflict of interest, said Gary Ruskin, US Right to
• 3:17
  Know Executive Director. Because of this conflict of
• 3:19
  interest, the daily intake conclusions about Ask aspartame
• 3:24
  are not credible and the public should not rely on them, he
• 3:28
  added. Who would have thunk aspartame
• 3:30
  was first approved for use in the US in the early 1980s over
• 3:34
  the objection of some researchers.
• 3:39
  Does that not sound a little familiar?
• 3:41
  First approved 1980s over the objection of some researchers
• 3:46
  who warned of potential health risks.
• 3:48
  In recent years, as evidence of health risks has mounted,
• 3:51
  industry has ramped up a PR campaign to downplay the issues.
• 3:55
  Sounded all familiar. Did we see that exact same thing
• 3:58
  happening now in the World Health Organization's 14 July
• 4:02
  aspartame Hazard and Risk assessments?
• 4:05
  Is cancer Cancer Research ARM the International Agency for
• 4:09
  Research on the Cancer Lark Because everyone's going to have
• 4:12
  an acronym classified ASPARTAME as possibly carcinogenic that
• 4:17
  same day. Whose World Health
• 4:19
  Organization's Joint expert committee on food additives
• 4:25
  otherwise known as JAKPA. I love how they've got to put
• 4:29
  expert who have to put their expert committee.
• 4:32
  You don't want their the second best people.
• 4:34
  We've got to put their experts in.
• 4:36
  Which makes consumption recommendations reaffirm the
• 4:39
  acceptable daily intake of 40 milligrams slash a kilogram of
• 4:46
  body weight. Assume ILSI describes itself as
• 4:51
  a nonprofit that conducts science for the public good and
• 4:55
  for their own good. But it was founded in 1978 by a
• 4:58
  Coca-Cola executive who simultaneously worked for the
• 5:02
  company through 2021, US Right to Know found.
• 5:07
  Other Coca-Cola executives have worked with the group, the US
• 5:10
  Right to Know detailed tax returns that show millions in
• 5:14
  donations from Coca-Cola and and other beverage industry players.
• 5:20
  Coke ended its official its official membership with the
• 5:24
  group in 2021, just three little 2 little years ago.
• 5:29
  Over the years, ILSI representatives have sought to
• 5:31
  shape food policy worldwide, and Ruskin, who has written multiple
• 5:35
  peer reviewed papers on the group, characterized the
• 5:39
  aspartame controversy as a masterpiece in how ILSI worms
• 5:43
  its way into these regulatory processes.
• 5:47
  US Right to Know identified 6 out of 13 jetka panel members
• 5:52
  with ties to the industry group after it's after released its
• 5:57
  report. The Who acknowledged 2 more of
• 6:00
  its members with industry ties after the report comes out.
• 6:03
  Then the World Health Organization says, oh better put
• 6:07
  a hand up and tell you we've got another couple of people in
• 6:10
  there. In statement to the Guardian,
• 6:12
  The Who a WHO spokesperson defended the industry
• 6:16
  consultants inclusion in the review process for the meeting
• 6:20
  on Aspartame. Jeffka selected the experts
• 6:24
  likely to make the best contributions to the debate,
• 6:28
  likely, likely to make the best contributions or likely to say
• 6:33
  what they wanted them to say. That's more likely, said
• 6:36
  spokesperson Fidella Chaeb. She said, whose guidelines only
• 6:43
  require disclosure of conflicts of interest within the last four
• 6:46
  years. Oh yeah, no corruption.
• 6:52
  Nothing to see here. To our knowledge, To our
• 6:55
  knowledge, it's like when it's like when people in the public
• 7:00
  service say, I did it in good faith, did it in good faith.
• 7:05
  To our knowledge, the experts you listed by name have not
• 7:08
  participated in any healthy activities for at least 10
• 7:11
  years, she said. But that partially contradicts a
• 7:16
  statement made by WHO Just weeks before to the news outlet La
• 7:20
  Parisian, in which it acknowledged two people
• 7:23
  currently working with Gulsi were involved in the process.
• 7:27
  So they can't even lie straight. They can't even get their facts
• 7:29
  straight. They can't even get their lies
• 7:31
  straight. The Guardian It also asked about
• 7:34
  those two people identified in the Parisian story but were not
• 7:37
  listed by name in its e-mail. The Who told a La Parisian.
• 7:41
  We regret that this interest was not declared by these two
• 7:45
  experts, either in the written statement or orally at the
• 7:48
  opening of the meeting, whose inclusion of list type
• 7:51
  consultants in this review press is especially alarming because
• 7:54
  who has in place much higher standards?
• 7:57
  Yeah, yeah, the World Health, World Health Organization has
• 8:03
  high standards, high standards for taking over the world.
• 8:08
  They're in Clash Schwab to ensure there are no conflicts of
• 8:12
  interest in the processes. But they just said how can they
• 8:17
  sit there and say who hasn't placed much higher standards
• 8:22
  when they've literally just said that, you know, you don't have
• 8:26
  to, you don't have to disclose any conflicts of interest.
• 8:31
  No required, only required disclosure of conflicts of
• 8:33
  interest within the last four years.
• 8:35
  Oh, but we've got such high, such high standards, Ruskin
• 8:43
  said. The move also marks a change in
• 8:45
  direction for WHO, which in 2000 precious 2015 distance itself
• 8:52
  from ill see when its executive board found the group to be a
• 8:54
  private entity and voted to discontinue its official
• 8:58
  relationship. Ruskin said the damage has been
• 9:01
  done in the avalanche of media coverage of whose designation of
• 9:05
  Aspartame is a possible carcinogen, Many outlets noted
• 9:09
  whose split decision or reported that WHO found the product to be
• 9:12
  safe. Those reports did not note
• 9:14
  Ilsi's fingerprints on the safety assessment.
• 9:18
  So much of the tone of it has been there was a split decision
• 9:21
  at WHO and we shouldn't be concerned, so go ahead and drink
• 9:24
  all you want, he said. That's so poorly served.
• 9:27
  The public just go ahead, just ignore it.
• 9:30
  You know, we make all this advice but hey, we're the
• 9:33
  experts. Like I said what else, What
• 9:37
  else? Here let's have a look some
• 9:40
  other headlines that you know a guide.
• 9:42
  This is from The Who their very own a guide to whose guidance on
• 9:47
  COVID-19. More you know expert advice from
• 9:51
  these people who I mean I bet you there's no way there was
• 9:54
  some group that's actually funded by you know big pharma.
• 9:58
  No way no way at all. And how about all those
• 10:03
  lockdowns and what about, you know if you got to get got to
• 10:07
  get the the JAB COVID-19 Charlie Victor advice for the public The
• 10:14
  Who Well trusted organization of course we should trust them and
• 10:18
  their panel of experts. No way.
• 10:21
  None of them are receiving any cash for making these advice,
• 10:30
  for giving advice. What do you reckon?
• 10:36
  I just think it it just amazes me that they find out the truth
• 10:42
  so easily in reality that they can.
• 10:45
  People dig up the truth, find that there's all this corruption
• 10:48
  within the World Health Organization, and yet they just
• 10:52
  seem to brush it off. So easy breezy, nothing to see
• 10:57
  here. They tell more lies, get found
• 11:00
  out for the lies of the telling, and then they still just
• 11:04
  downplay it all. It's nothing to see.
• 11:06
  It's nothing, nothing to worry about.
• 11:07
  Just millions of dollars pass through someone's hands, through
• 11:10
  someone's organization. Some people were involved with
• 11:14
  that organization, but hey, we we have high standards.
• 11:17
  They have to disclose public interest.
• 11:20
  They have to disclose conflict of interest within the last
• 11:24
  four, four years. Nothing to see here.
• 11:28
  You can trust. Trust the World Health
• 11:31
  Organization. Yeah, we should trust them.
• 11:37
  Them and the World Economic Forum.
• 11:40
  True. Too.
• 11:41
  Very trustworthy. What else have you heard about
• 11:45
  The Who? Anything else you should be
• 11:47
  talking about? Listen, before I go, there's
• 11:51
  been. I've updated my information.
• 11:54
  I put my e-mail address on there for people to e-mail me.
• 11:57
  Please do not inundate me with ridiculous emails.
• 12:01
  I will try to get back to everyone OK.
• 12:04
  I just that I receive all these messages and people trying to
• 12:07
  contact me and say stuff I wanna.
• 12:09
  I'd love to talk about the chat. People want me to chase up
• 12:12
  stories and do stuff. I'd love to do it.
• 12:14
  I just sometimes need a bit more info or yeah, so feel free to
• 12:20
  e-mail me. Don't get mad if I I don't
• 12:24
  e-mail back straight away. But yeah, and please, I know I'm
• 12:29
  talking to very intelligent people out there because I read
• 12:33
  your comments and you're all pretty switched on, I think.
• 12:36
  So just please don't send me rubbish, OK?
• 12:40
  But I appreciate your support and I look forward to talking to
• 12:44
  people. e-mail me. Thanks for listening to the
• 12:47
  Slippery Slope.