Is EU dancing to the tune of Big Pharma? Bye bye, € Trillions!

 The EU Commission Press conference today was about 

Commission puts forward declaration on digital rights and principles for everyone in the EU Today, the Commission is proposing to the European Parliament and Council to sign up to a declaration of rights and principles that will guide the digital transformation in the EU. The draft declaration on digital rights and principles aims to give everyone a clear reference point about the kind of digital transformation Europe promotes and defends. It will also provide a guide for policy makers and companies when dealing with new technologies. The rights and freedoms enshrined in the EU’s legal framework, and the European values expressed by the principles, should be respected online as they are offline. Once jointly endorsed, the Declaration will also define the approach to the digital transformation which the EU will promote throughout the world. A press release and factsheet are available online. The press conference was presented by Commission Executive Vice-President Margrethe Vestager, responsible for anti-Cartel operations, and Commissioner Thierry Breton.

Two Trillion euro Question for all Europeans 

I asked the Commission anti-cartel chief about what the EU was going to do about Big Pharma withholding raw data on which EU vax policy is based. There is huge money involved. 

The cost of Covid 19 to the EU?

More than 2 Trillion euros has been and will be spent on the 'pandemic' and recovery programmes.

The normal annual budget is about 180 billion euros. The sum involved is more than ten times the annual budget. 

Where is the rational evidence and approval for spending so much taxpayers' money?

I quoted BMJ editorial (British Medical Journal): Pharmaceutical companies are reaping vast profits without adequate independent scrutiny of their scientific claims. 

Thus trillions are being spent without democratic control and scientific justification.  Who are responsible for waste and fraud? The Pharma industry have a lamentable reputation as recipients of largesse. 

It is 'morally indefensible' not to provide doctors and the public with full data on vax trials that injure lives and cause deaths, beyond the symptoms of Covid-19. 

The BMJ wrote:The purpose of regulators is not to dance to tune of rich global corporations and enrich them further; it is to protect the health of the populations. 

Pharma firms reckon they own the raw data necessary to justify their vax policy and massive sales to the EU. They do not divulge the data about vaxed and unvaxed and the claimed effects of their experimental injections. Normally an experimental procedure would be tested over many years before being released to the public. The present operations are therefore 'experimental' based on data that the public has not seen.

Pharma firms have their employees and contractors publish papers showing positive results that stimulate sales. What data are they based on? In the Tarniflu case a decade ago governments paid for expensive stockpiles, only to find out that the approval of the drug and the trials were the result of papers, most of them unpublished, and those that were were written by ghostwriters paid for by the manufacturers. The researchers listed as principal authors lacked access to the raw data. Those who asked for access were fobbed off.

FRAUD Big Time!

The only access public and regulators have is via these published papers based on the restricted data. They never see the raw data. Then their response to Freedom of Information action is drip feed the info over many years. 

For the public 'we are left with publications but no access to the underlying data on reasonable request.' 

The BMJ Editorial is at https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o102

Are the EU politicians and regulators fully aware of the nature of the evidence before they commit trillions to Big Pharma? Can Pharma be trusted? The BMJ editorial points out that Pharma is the least trusted industry among the 25 main industries. They have paid billions in fines and for fraud.

 A Gallup poll showed that 58% of the public had a very negative or somewhat negative view of Pharma compared with a mere 27% giving positive views. 

My Question is at 12min 30s on https://audiovisual.ec.europa.eu/en/video/I-217300

'We are not here to enrich companies,' Vestager said. 'We are here to make sure data serve their purpose if their owners, the individual wants them to and that data can be made available for research and innovation.... We are in the process {to create} a health data space in order to let everyone know what data is available on what terms. Secondly trials have to be proved to be real trials.'

Too little, too late? 

Only after strenuous efforts were the first data on the injuries caused by the new breed vaxes released, a year late. Requested info under the US Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) showed more than 1200 deaths in the first 90 days up to 28 February 2021 and some 160,000 adverse effects and debilitating disorders.

Why wasn't this data released a year ago? 

As the BMJ wrote:

'We need complete data transparency for all studies, we need it in the public interest, and we need it now.'

EHC2 Schuman's European Health Community would have brought Europe-wide benefits

How should politicians unify Europe for the health of all its citizens? How can Europeans best gain the maximum of benefits with a minimum of disadvantages? Schuman‘s presentation of the European Health Community demolishes several myths about the European Community design and also its origin.

OEEC Headquarters at Chateau de la Muette in Paris established during Schuman’s first Government in April 1948.

The first striking feature of the EHC explodes the myth that all efforts must be centred on the same Member States. The first Community of Coal and Steel had six member States: France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Italy. Later Communities, Euratom and the Economic Community, with treaties signed in Rome in 1957 also had the same six countries as members.

Hard core Europe is wrong

Must a Community be based on these States only? The ‘hard core Europe‘ idea is wrong. The Community is provably based on values not geography. It reinforces those values in a positive way, wherever they are found.

The EHC shows that this idea of restricted membership was not part of Schuman’s thinking. It derives from later politicians who misunderstood or purposely wanted to change the design and founding concept. Their mistakes have proved costly. So it is important to study the original principles that brought Europe peace and prosperity.

The EHC also shows that it was even further from Jean Monnet’s ideas, vague though they were. (Documents that Jean Monnet Foundation subsequently released show that Monnet had little to do with the political and legal scheme behind the supranational Community idea. His office and relationship to the Prime Minister’s office allowed Schuman to bypass hostile interministerial committees. Other accounts of the Schuman Declaration co-authors, like Schuman’s legal adviser, Paul Reuter, show the same thing.)

Europe in its diverse needs and challenges

On 12 September Foreign Minister Schuman and Health Minister Paul Ribeyre presented the plans to the French Cabinet. The Cabinet agreed. But the decision was not to present it to the Six alone but to the much larger OEEC, Organisation of European Economic Cooperation.

The OEEC was the body set up in 1948 following the US Marshall Plan. The French Government invited all its Member States to join in this common European effort of well-being. Besides the Six, it included Austria, Denmark, Greece, Iceland, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom and Turkey. Ireland was the only State to decline.

Thus the invited countries included:

• One country that was still partially occupied by the Soviet Union (Austria),
• One country extracting itself slowly out of dictatorship (Portugal),
• Several countries that later joined the Economic Community including UK,
• Neutral countries like Switzerland and Sweden,
• Two States at the opposite extremities of Europe (Iceland and Turkey).

Geographical Spread
By making the Community open to countries like Turkey and Iceland, Schuman, Ribeyre and the whole French Government were saying that all European countries were potential members. That should not be surprising. But it is to modern ears.

Schuman’s original proposal for the European Coal and Steel Community was open to all European countries without exception. That included Russia.
Schuman was asked at the press conference on 9 May 1950 whether Russia could join. He answered: Yes, of course (Mais oui!).
Why did Russia not join? Simply because the European Community was based on the human rights provisions of the Council of Europe. Human Rights were the foundation for healthy rule of law. But Russia then part of the Communist system of the Soviet Union, did not allow freedom of thought or freedom of religion. It refused to join the Council of Europe.
The announcement of the Schuman Government on 20 July 1948 proposed that Europe should be built on a free Assembly and a Customs Union. The Assembly saw life as the world’s first international parliament in the Council of Europe. It was aided by a Committee of Ministers, representing the States. They decided conjointly that in order to establish a lasting European Union, all States must agree to the Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

The European Coal and Steel Community started with a Single Market of the main resources. This made a move to a Customs Union inevitable. At the time of the Schuman Declaration, Germany was not a member of the Council of Europe. In fact the Adenauer Cabinet were discussing whether they should join and many of the German politicians were against it. Adenauer saw the human rights guarantees as the most important decision that Germany could make as they would make a resurgence of Nazism impossible and they would block a Communist take-over of a Germany re-united with the Soviet occupied ‘German Democratic Republic’ DDR in the east. The Proposal made the Cabinet’s acceptance of membership to the Council of Europe possible. Human rights and a Community of resources with its own institutions were intimately linked together.

The Austrian anomaly

Austria occupied by UK, USA, France, USSR 1945-55

The European Health Community proposal proves that Schuman considered that the Community system is not an exclusive operation for the founding Six States. Nor must all future European integration be concentrated between Member States which had already joined the first Community or the EEC.

If human rights in the Council of Europe was vital for assuring the rule of law inside the Community, what lies behind the Austrian case? Austria did not join the Council of Europe until April 1956.

Did Schuman relax this guarantee on human rights for Austria?

No. Diplomatic papers of the time show that Schuman was leading the way in order to get Soviet troops to leave the country. He wanted Austria to have a chance to redeem itself as a normal country. After all Hitler had come from Austria and the Austrians had warmly welcomed the union or Anschluss with Nazi Germany.

The choice was to postpone the rehabilitation of Austria or to welcome it into a European Community that would help it get back on its feet again. Even though Austria was not yet a Member State of the Council of Europe, the potential of entering the Health Community would have boosted that possibility. That was already the case with its membership of the OEEC.

By making the offer for all States of the OEEC to join the Community, Schuman showed the positive aspects and benefits of a Community solution. Even though politicians did not persevere with the Health Community idea, the offer of membership to Austria underpinned its potential to have guarantees on human rights via the Community institutions. Portugal did not join the Council of Europe until 1976 but was not threatened by the USSR.

This shows the pragmatism of Schuman’s politics. The supranational institutions of the Health Community would have acted as an accelerator in the process of regaining human rights and ending dictatorship.

With all the advantages of arresting epidemics and solving health problems across Europe, and also reinforcing human rights, why did the European Health Community fail to gain the persistent support of politicians?

EHC1 Schuman's European Health Community would have saved Europe from Covid-19 Calamity

On 12 December 1952, before representatives of European States, French Foreign Minster Robert Schuman opened a conference on the proposed creation of a European Health Community.

If politicians had listened, Schuman’s Plan for a European Health Community would have solved today’s Covid-19 problems and much more besides.

How?

Robert Schuman, with Health Minister Paul Ribeyre on his right, opens the conference on the European Health Community.

This European Health Community would have given Europeans today a streamlined machine to deal with a broad range of problems.

It was not exclusively for the Europe of the Six. Those invited included Austria and Turkey to Portugal, UK and Iceland in the West.

Today’s Tumult

Today’s virus tumult has already cost untold billions in damage to the economy. It will cost untold billions more.

European top leaders met in an extraordinary five-day European Council in mid-June 2020 to work out a multi-trillion euro plan to rescue the European economy from mortal collapse. The world’s largest trading unit is in danger of falling down as the centre of its historic age of prosperity it had enjoyed since 1950. That’s when the first European Community set Europeans on a path to three-quarters of a century of peace and prosperity.

Today Europe is left with a ramshackle, uneven way for tackling the COVID-19 crisis. The Health Community, in contrast, aimed to provide a democratic and scientific way to reach consensus. It also had safeguards against global politics that today we see wrecking the western economy.

Would it have saved lives?

Yes.

Would the economy have avoided such a costly lockdown?

Yes.

Would it have replaced today’s secretive Councils that extract trillions of extra taxes without taxpayer representation?

Yes. It would have put all financial fiddling under the spotlight of open democratic control.

It would have also tackled the future problems that only some politicians will face Europe in the coming years when most people are closing their eyes.

The Community Thread

The European Community was a revolutionary idea of genius. Instead of war, it brought peace and prosperity. Instead of hatred, it brought trust among nations and cooperation between former foes.

Five short years after WW2, on 9 May 1950, the French Government had proposed a European Coal and Steel Community, ECSC.

What had the Health Community in common with Europe’s first Community?

A lot, it would seem.

Why did Schuman, the Father of Europe, consider that this further Community was required? What have medicine and pills in common with coal, steel, canons and battleships?

Schuman was not motivated by utopian ideas of a Federation of Europe (he denounced it as unrealistic) or by American theories of ‘functionalism‘. He was not interested in adding further bureaucracy, rather the reverse. He was not interested in creating a huge European budget. In contrast to many leaders today, he wished to reduce taxes and make individuals freer and more prosperous.

He worked for one goal.

Stopping War

Stopping the outbreak of a further war in Europe was the key concept behind the ECSC. It succeeded. By 2020 none of the Community’s Member States had had attacked another for three-quarters of a century. No period in Western European history has witnessed such an event.

How did it stop war? Schuman government in July 1948 proposed the formula: a democratic European Assembly — that saw light in Council of Europe and a customs union. The Assembly was instrumental in setting up Europe’s first Court of Justice, the Court that responded to governments’ abuse of power. All States who joined the Council of Europe had to sign up to the Convention of the Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Citizens could take their grievances to the Court, not only to get redress but to stop governments slipping down the slope of autocratic powers against the citizens, like the Nazis and the Fascists.

Armed with this shield to defend democracy, Europeans then benefited from the Coal and Steel Community that outlawed industrial cartels. In the lead up to two world wars industrial cartels had manipulated governments by stoking an arms race. The great national champions of Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Russia had been working together with a common design to make the national governments procure more arms, build more ships and exploit their patents for profit.

The European Coal and Steel Community combined with the Council of Europe created three major advances for all Europeans. They

• reinforced Democracy,
• outlawed war between themselves,
• strengthened their common defence against aggressors.

The later European Communities, Euratom and the Economic Community did the same things.

• Euratom outlawed Atomic war between European States,
• The EEC or Common Market outlawed Trade War.

The Council of Europe ensured that citizens’ rights, such as freedom of thought, assembly and religion were respected. And the freedom to criticise their leaders.

That stalwart defence of democratic values and human rights is now clear to all who wish to study European history. But what was behind the European Health Community that Schuman proposed in 1952?

Its Purpose and Compass

French detractors called the Coal and Steel Community Schuman’s ‘Pool‘ as if the only function was to share the resources of coal and steel. The European Health Community was therefore dubbed ‘the White Pool‘ to contrast it with the black pool of coal.

Was the proposed Health Community merely going to share or pool white bandages, garments and pills?

Far more!

If that had been the motive then there was no need for the elaborate draft treaty that had been prepared. It tells the whole story. Disease is as devastating as war. Health is the way to prosperity.

Schuman’s supranational idea of a European Community was focused on two goals:

Primarily his motive was to create a means to stop war. Schuman wrote:

‘We must remove any motive for a war {between Europeans Member States} suppressing it so no one has the temptation to undertake one.’

Secondarily, the peace-enhancing Community would seek out all means to create benefits for all by drawing on a single market, shared contributions and strategic outcomes.

Paul Ribeyre, the Minister for Health who worked on the project with Schuman, declared that the health of citizens was the first consideration of the State, to which all other values must be subordinated. The first duty of the Statesman was to assure the health of citizens because the foundation of the State depended on it.

But there is far more.

The agreement in the Cabinet of the French Government on 24 September 1952 was merely a first step to broadening the domain of better health to a wider geographical boundary. It extended far beyond France, far beyond the Europe of the Six of the black pool of coal and steel.

On 16 September M. Ribeyre presented his plans to the French Cabinet who gave him approval to take it to members of the OEEC, Organisation of European Economic Cooperation. This was the body set up following the US Marshall Plan, now called the OECD, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Ribeyre invited Member States to join in this common effort of well-being. Besides the Six, it included Austria, Denmark, Greece, Iceland, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom and Turkey. Ireland was the only State to decline.

The broad compass of States indicated the extent and importance of the plan.

Book to buy: Unrestricted Warfare

What is going on? WAKE UP AMERICA!

News release today from European Commission

Coronavirus: Chinese aid to the EU delivered to Italy. 

The EU has put international cooperation at the forefront of its response to the Coronavirus. Following an agreement reached between President von der Leyen and Premier Li Keqiang last month, a donation of protective equipment from China to the European Union has now arrived in Rome, Italy. “We are grateful for China’s support and, as President von der Leyen stated, we need each other’s support in times of need. The EU and China have been working together since the beginning of the coronavirus outbreak. In February, the EU already delivered 56 tonnes of equipment to China”, said Janez Lenarčič, Commissioner for Crisis Management. The Chinese plane delivered 2 million surgical masks, 200,000 N95 masks and 50,000 testing kits to Italy.

Unsaid:

The Netherlands, Belgium and other countries have sent back some Chinese masks, test kits and medical equipment as they seem to be (deliberately) so unfit they are 'rubbish'. China is also demanding payment for equipment donated by Italy when China was dire need. China, of course, gave Italy the CoronaVirus for free.

China says that its industry is now up and running again. It is ready to exploit this huge advantage.

Today I ordered a book called UNRESTRICTED WARFARE, It is written by two Chinese military generals, back in 1999. It is considered to be the major work on Chinese strategy. For many years only available in Chinese. 

It is a strategy about how to defeat and conquer USA.

How?

Key idea: Fight the fight that fits one's weapons. Chose your weapons first, then chose the battlefield. China's enemy is fighting the war with updated models of how they fought the last war. For example Russia has airplanes that can outclass USA and far outclass China. Should China worry? War can work on quite different dimensions and battlefields including disruption of its civic unity. What is high technology? Biotechnology can render it useless.

Second key idea: In war there are no rules, even though the enemy thinks there are. USA believes in the Rule of Law and the UN resolutions it helps pass.
What has happened now? China is back on its feet. The West is still in a chaotic condition. Industries are stopped. Till when? Economy is in ruins of debt. People are arguing about keeping 6 feet apart. They are getting angry staying at home all day. The media is blaming the leaders such as Trump.

The media is China's best ally. I published three articles on Covid-19 and EU on my websites eurdemocracy.com etc and there is no trace of them or articles posing similar questions using Google. 

The English language version of the book is subtitled WAKE UP AMERICA! The edition was published in 2017.

Covid-19: Is there a Priority Search for a Cheap Therapeutic?

My second question to the European Commission on Covid

To combat Covid-19, President Trump and other leaders have recommended use of anti-malaria drugs such as hydroxychloroquines, Azithromycin and Zinc sulphate. These are known and used for decades and are well tested products. The US Dept of Health (HSS) and is now recommending their use. Is the EU doing the same?

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/490110-fda-issues-emergency-use-authorization-for-anti-malaria-drugs-amid

Commission Response

“We are aware that Chloroquine is traditionally used for malaria, rheumatoid arthritis and Lupus. We are also aware that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are used ‘off-label’. We also know that in the EU trials are underway regarding the use of chloroquine. The European Medicines Agency, EMA, state that the efficacy of chloroquine in relation to Covid-19 patients has not to date been proven. While the pandemic spreads with great speed, robust clinical trials should remain the gold standard here. They are most likely to generate conclusive evidence that is needed to enable rapid deployment and approval of potential treatments of the virus disease. Clinical trials are a national competence. However we continue to explore with the EMA .possible joint clinical trials at the EU level to scale up evidence of any promising therapeutics.”

Comment

‘Off-label‘ refers to drugs that have been produced and tested but doctors use them for different purposes than originally intended. Some were introduced long ago, like the use of malaria drugs against Covid-19, and are now very cheap. Doctors know how they should be used and what the side-effects are. American Medical Association vice president Roy Schwarz estimated that “off-label” uses of drugs account for up to 60 percent of all drugs prescribed.

So why aren’t anti-malaria drugs that have been used for decades and have proved to be effective in now thousands of cases being supplied to doctors for use to patients in dire need of relief from Coronavirus? One factor is the economics of drugs. Anti-malaria drugs cost cents rather than dollars or thousands of dollars. A second factor is that a vaccine has higher profits for the big Pharmaceutical firms. A vaccine is likely to take a year or two to develop with control tests.

The Chinese have done small-size control trials for anti-Covid-19 malaria drugs with very positive results and symptoms ‘significantly relieved.’

Why isn’t there more wide-spread use of these drugs especially for those in intensive care? Is the medical bureaucracy being too cautious when, for many patients, it is a matter of life and death? Over-regulation is a general problem of the American and European drug system. Is red tape strangling patients?

One commentator says:

Stanford University professor Dale Geringer observed, “In terms of lives, it’s quite possible that the FDA bureaucracy could be killing on the order of three to four times as many people as it saves.” One study estimated that 150,000 heart attack victims may have lost their lives as a result of the FDA’s delays in approving the emergency blood-clotting drug TPA. National Cancer Institute officials accused the FDA of being “mired in a 1960’s philosophy of drug development, viewing all new agents as…poisons.“

Follow-up question to the European Commission

On the use of anti-malaria drugs that some doctors have shown to be very effective for hundreds of patients with Covid-19, the EU says more robust control tests are needed. These tests are the competence of Member States. European control test may be initiated.

Which States are conducting trials?

When are results expected?

Have Europe-wide control trials been organised and what is the plan?

European Commission written response

I draw your attention to the fact that the European Medical Agency has issued a statement yesterday regarding chloroquine and hydroxochloroquine (link: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/covid-19-chloroquine-hydroxychloroquine-only-be-used-clinical-trials-emergency-use-programmes). The Agency confirms that efficacy of these substances in treating corona is yet to be shown in studies.

We are aware that trials are ongoing at national level regarding the use of chloroquine in the context of the coronavirus, e.g. in Norway, Germany and France

When it comes to potential treatment for COVID-19, we need robust clinical trials to generate the conclusive evidence needed to enable rapid development and approval of potential treatments and to ensure safety and efficacy.

Clinical trials are a national competence. However, we continue to actively pursue with EMA possible joint clinical trials at EU level to scale up evidence on any promising therapeutics.

Covid-19: Lethal Fake News from 'Chinese' WHO?

Follow-up question to European Commission

As mentioned in my question of 30 March, the WHO tweeted on 14 January that it followed the Chinese authorities in saying Coronavirus was not transmissible to humans. This was lethal fake news and led to many deaths. Chinese doctors who wanted to present the facts like Dr Ai Fen of Wuhan hospital have ‘disappeared’ as have their research conclusions.

Japanese Deputy Prime Minister Aso Taro says that WHO should be renamed the Chinese Health Organisation and points out that Taiwan took intelligent measures to stop the spread of the contagion.

“Although the details are murky, the previous Director General of WHO (Dr Margaret Chan) was a Chinese national and at the time there were complaints all around. Now in the East, the petition (charging her with inadequate accountability) has gathered 300,000 or rather 500,000 signatures. The World Health Organisation should change its name. It should not be called the WHO. It should be called the CHO, the Chinese Health Organisation. … The present Director General is no better for giving in to Chinese spin about the Coronavirus. Earlier on if China had not insisted that it had no pneumonia epidemic, everyone would have taken precautions. The WHO which is a global organisation does not even include Taiwan. And precisely because Taiwan is not a member of the WHO, it becomes a world leader in fighting the epidemic. Then after that statement is made, the Chinese Communist Party corrects it, saying Taiwan is not a country; it is a region.”

Japanese Deputy PM Aso Taro condemns ‘Chinese’ WHO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6&v=U-746eJGyUI&feature=emb_logo

EU Commission President von der Leyen recommended on Tuesday that Europeans should follow the advice of WHO. Don’t Europeans deserve a more unbiased source of advice? How can they get this?

.

.

Commission reply

“The Commission has always insisted on the importance of a science based approach of our response to the Corona virus. The Commission therefore relies on the advice and recommendations of the scientific community, including the World Health Organisation, the ECDC but also the advisory panel of scientists established by the President.”

Coronavirus: WHO is behind viral Fake News?

My question to the EU Commission:

Coronavirus 19 broke out in Wuhan, China in November 2019.

What does the EU research conclude about its origin? Is it natural or artificial? The Chinese reports have proved unreliable. (See WHO Tweet). China blames the USA. https://qz.com/1817736/china-fuels-coronavirus-conspiracy-theory-blaming-us-army/

Chinese Spokesperson Zhao Lijian tweets that the USA brought Coronavirus to Wuham in October 2019 during the Military Games.

Background

The WHO tweet of 14 January 2020 denied that the virus was contagious for humans. This was based on Chinese data. (The Chinese were already destroying evidence to the contrary!) The origin of the virus? China blamed bats as food, not the high security Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Then Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian tweeted that it might be the US military that brought the Coronavirus to Wuhan during the October 2019 Military World Games.

That in itself reveals a massive secret about the origin and spread and specifically who is to blame for today’s global problem.

As with a plane crash, investigation is important for the public to know how this incident occurred so that such an event can be avoided in the future.

Why do so many officials want to hush up this question of governmental responsibility, while admitting that airline firms need to go through the same process when accidental manslaughter is concerned? Are governments, including Communist governments, above the law?

As Honest Broker for European Member States the European Commission is supposed to be impartial and seek out the truth for European citizens.

The Commission’s answer:

The first thing I obviously would like to stress here is that the Commission continues to follow the advice of the WHO and the ECDC, the European Centre for Disease prevention and Control. Both WHO and ECDC indicate that on 31 December 2019 a cluster of pneumonia cases of unknown cause was reported in Wuhan, China. On 9 January 2020 the Chinese authorities reported a new Corona virus as the cause of the outbreak. This being said, the Coronavirus pandemic is a global pandemic. We are talking about viruses here. Viruses do not have nationalities. These viruses do not respect borders. What is important here is global cooperation and international solidarity to combat the threat and mitigate the short- and long-term impact of the virus. Apportioning blame will not help a single person. As the EU, we are focusing on helping our citizens and people and countries in need. Regarding transmission, at this stage it is not possible to determine precisely how humans in China got infected. More research, which is on-going, will help us determine this. It is just announced that the Commission is providing €40.5 million for 18 projects to advance our understanding of the Coronavirus and to contribute to more efficient clinical maintenance of patients infected with the virus and contribute to public health preparedness and response to the outbreak.

Let’s examine the implications of this answer.

Analysis

The Chinese notified WHO on 31 December. But before this there were dozens of cases.

Here is the chronology from the New York Times. It too starts with Chinese notification to the World Health Organisation, WHO, on 31 December 2019. Why? At that date China had not banned western journalists in China.

It was not until 11 January that the Chinese reported the first death — a 61-year old who had chronic liver and abdominal disease. Was this the first case? Did the Chinese previously already know about the virus as a lethal problem?

This date was just days before the Chinese New Year, the Year of the Rat — a time of mass movement of the population. If there was one death, would this be the reason that the Chinese Communist authorities later decreed a lock-down of Wuhan, a city of 11 millions?

The danger must have been obvious. Just over a week later on 21 January other countries were hit. The United States, Japan, South Korea and Thailand notified the WHO that the disease had spread abroad to them. Hiding or controlling it within China was no longer an option. Human-to-human contagion could not be covered over with communist propaganda. Americans don’t eat bats.

The 61-year old Chinese who died was described by the Chinese as someone who frequented the Wuhan market where bats are sold as comestible. Scientists also knew that bats are both a reservoir and a vector of corona viruses. They can contain many corona viruses without being affected themselves. They present a great danger to the public, as scientific papers published over the last decade or more warned of their massive danger for pandemics.

But was the outbreak due to bats? Some doctors say some of the first victims did not frequent the Wuhan market. If the Chinese Communist government had acted sooner deaths could have been cut to a fraction. But the death rate increased from scores to multiple hundreds a day. More worryingly, Chinese doctors who warned of the seriousness of the outbreak suddenly disappeared. The WHO chief eulogised China inordinately.

Millions disappear

How serious was the outbreak? Chinese are required by law to carry personal cell phones indicating their level of health. A shock came when this years stats were released. During February, 21 million phone users disappeared, The Epoch Times reported.

China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) announced on March 19 the number of phone users in each province in February. Compared with the previous announcement, which was released on Dec. 18, 2019, for November 2019 data, both cellphone and landline users dropped dramatically. In the same period the year before, the number of users increased.

The number of cellphone users decreased from 1.600957 billion to 1.579927 billion, a drop of 21.03 million. The number of landline users decreased from 190.83 million to 189.99 million, a drop of 840,000.

The landline phones decreased by a much smaller amount — indicating that some businesses were closed. What happened to the 21 million? All Chinese are legally obliged to register their cell phones and be controlled by the Chinese Communist Party. If only a tenth of this figure is due to Covid-19 deaths then it amounts to millions, not the 3000 official deaths the Chinese admit to. Surely the EU research projects could check what is behind the mystery of the missing millions. The taxpayers have a right to know.

Date of Origin.

Chinese Spokesman Zhao Lijian made a Freudian error. When he blamed the US Military for the Coronavirus outbreak on USA, he unconsciously made everyone aware that he knew when the outbreak started. It was autumn 2019.

When did US take part in the 7th Military World Games in Wuhan, together with over a hundred other nations? In October 2019.

When did they finish? 27 October 2019.

When did China say the first death occurred? 11 January 2020 — two months later. Long after the US and hundreds of other national groups had left Wuhan! Just days after the Chinese announcement, President Trump, known to be a germaphobe, announced a travel ban, much to the protest of his US and international opposition. It turned out to be a wise move. But many Chinese moved to Italy and Spain, President Trump said.

Spokesman Zhao Lijian’s story does not jibe with the later Communist party story. Or the facts.

In December Chinese doctors were already battling with the novel form of Coronavirus, which they said was as dangerous as SARS, or even more dangerous. Dr Ai Fen spoke out about it in December and was told to stop this ‘fake news‘. She received an ‘unprecedented, extremely harsh reprimand‘ for ‘illegally spreading untruthful information online.’

A colleague Dr Li Wenliang warned about the fatal nature of the new virus. He was silenced and told to revoke all he had told others including those in the West. By the first week of February 2020 he was dead of virus at 34 years. In an article recently Dr Ai regretted she had not continued to speak out. The article has since disappeared– as has Dr Ai.

Cases were coming into the hospitals that had nothing to do with later cover story of the Wuhan wet market with its bats. Technicians analysed the genetic sequencing. Then on 27 December they were told to destroy all evidence and samples!

This was revealed on the reputed Australian TV programme 60 Minutes. The US Pulitzer-prize winning virology journalist Laurie Garrett calls the missing doctors ‘heroes‘.

The lunar New Year occurred on 25 January. This festival involves the largest movement of people on earth as families are re-united. But instead of stopping people, the Chinese government let an estimated 5 million people leave Wuhan alone. Neighbouring countries were immediately hit.

The medical Journal, The Lancet, said:

Had China allowed physician Li Wenliang and his brave Wuhan colleagues to convey their suspicions ,,, without risking sanction, and had local officials not for weeks released false epidemic information to the world, we might not now be facing a pandemic.

After two months, China has declared an end to the lock-down.

The Wuhan wet market re-opened for business on 30 March.