유럽서도 “FTA, 미국수준 자동차 재협상” 목소리
유럽의회 스페인 대표, 집행위에 공개 질의서
“미국이 얻은 양보, 한-EU 협정에도 반영돼야” 
 
  정은주 기자

출처 : 한겨레신문 2011-01-23 오후 07:33:26
http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/economy/economy_general/460142.html

» 한-미, 한-EU FTA 동등대우 주장 내용

유럽의회 일부 의원들이 한-미 자유무역협정(FTA) 재협상에서 한국 정부가 미국에 자동차 분야를 대폭 양보했다며 유럽연합(EU) 쪽도 동등 대우(패리티)를 요구할 것을 주장하고 나섰다. 퍼주기식으로 끝난 한-미 에프티에이 재협상을 지켜본 유럽연합이 우리에게 불리한 쪽으로 재협상을 요구할 것이라는 우려가 현실화할지 주목된다.

스페인 대표인 파블로 살바 의원은 지난 13일 유럽연합 집행위원회에 보낸 공개 서면질의서에서 “지난해 12월3일 타결된 한-미 자유무역협정의 재협상에서 한국이 미국 자동차업계에 여러 가지를 양보했는데 일부는 유럽 자동차업계에 견줘 미국이 이익을 얻는 중대한 변화로 보인다”며 “한-미 재협상에서 미국이 얻은 양보가, 한-유럽연합 자유무역협정에도 반영되도록 유럽연합 집행위가 나서길 바란다”고 밝힌 것으로 23일 확인됐다. 살바 의원은 지난해 3월 유럽연합 집행위가 제출한 세이프가드 법안을 54군데 뜯어고쳐 한-유럽연합 협정문과 정면으로 충돌하는 ‘초강력’ 세이프가드(긴급수입제한조처) 법안을 내놓았고, 같은해 6월 해당 상임위인 국제무역위원회에서 압도적인 표차(찬성 27명, 반대 0명)로 통과시켰다. 세이프가드 법안 마련은 한-유럽연합 협정 비준을 위해 유럽연합이 밟고 있는 이행 절차다.

살바 의원이 지적한 중대한 양보안은 네 가지다. 우선 미국 안전기준만 통과하면 한국 기준을 따를 필요가 없는 미국 자동차업체의 조건을, 연간 판매 대수 6500대에서 2만5000대로 4배나 늘린 것에 주목했다. 한국에 수입되는 미국산 자동차를 전부 합쳐도 1만대를 넘지 않은 상황이라, 한-미 협정이 발효되면 미국 자동차 업체는 수년간 한국 안전기준을 피해갈 수 있게 됐다. 반면 유럽 자동차 업체는 한-유럽연합 협정이 발효되더라도 한국 안전기준 42개 가운데 동등성이 인정되는 32개를 제외한 10개 항목을 준수하도록 돼 있다.

한-미 재협상에서 도입한 자동차 특별 세이프가드와 관련해 살바 의원은 “한국산 자동차 수입량이 급증하면 미국 쪽은 세이프가드를 4년간 발동할 수 있는 반면, 유럽연합 쪽은 처음 2년간 발동했다가 다시 2년 연장하려면 한국과 보상에 합의해야 한다”고 지적했다. 이밖에도 그는 한국은 자동차 관련해 주요 규정을 도입하거나 개정할 때 미국 쪽에 12개월간의 유예기간을 주고, 미국의 한국산 화물자동차 관세철폐 기간이 10년인 반면 유럽은 3~5년이라 불공평하다고 주장했다.

유럽연합 집행위는 서면 답변서를, 유럽의회가 다음달 14~17일 본회의에서 한-유럽연합 자유무역협정 세이프가드 법안을 최종 표결하기 전까지 살바 의원한테 제출할 예정이다. 이와 관련해 외교통상부 관계자는 “(한-미 에프티에이 재협상 내용에 대한) 사실관계를 잘못 파악해 질의한 부분이 있고, 유럽연합 집행위가 이를 고려해 적절히 답변할 것으로 안다”고 말했다.

정은주 기자 ejung@hani.co.kr

유럽의회, 한-EU FTA 수정법안 상정
 ’긴급수입제한’ 요건 확대…개별국에 발동권 부여

출처 : 한겨레 | 입력 2010.10.26 06:30 

본회의 통과땐 국제분쟁…”한국, 비준동의 중단을”

유럽의회가 지난 6일 양쪽 통상대표끼리 공식 서명한 한-유럽연합(EU) 자유무역협정(FTA)을 무력화하는 내용의 세이프가드(긴급수입제한조처) 이행 법안을 해당 상임위원회에서 통과시키고 다음달 23일 본회의 최종 표결만을 남겨둔 것으로 확인됐다. 이 때문에 애초 10월 말로 예정된 한-유럽연합 자유무역협정에 대한 유럽의회의 표결은 12월 중순으로 연기됐다.

유럽의회가 협정문과 충돌하는 세이프가드 조항을 일방적으로 통과시키면 두 나라는 재협상에 돌입하거나 국제분쟁에 휘말리게 된다. 반면에 우리 정부는 기존 협정문에 대한 비준동의안을 25일 국회에 제출했다. ▶관련기사 3면

한국과 유럽연합이 체결한 협정문의 무역규제 관련 조항을 보면, ‘협정에 따라 관세를 인하하거나 철폐한 결과 국내 산업이 심각한 피해를 입거나, 그럴 우려가 있으면 세이프가드를 발동해 관련 상품에 대한 관세율 추가 인하를 정지하거나 최혜국대우(MFN) 관세율까지 인상할 수 있다’고 명시돼 있다. 유럽연합 집행위원회는 이 협정문을 바탕으로 세이프가드 이행법을 입안해 유럽의회에 제출했다. 그러나 지난해 12월 발효된 ‘리스본 조약’에 따라 통상정책에 대한 공동결정권(co-decision)을 갖게 된 유럽의회가 한-유럽연합 자유무역협정과 정면으로 충돌하는 세이프가드 개정안을 마련해 심의중인 것으로 확인됐다.

유럽의회에 따르면, 스페인 대표인 파블로 살바 비데가인 의원이 발의한 개정안은 세이프가드 발동 요건을 ‘불확실한 경제활동으로 인한 피해’로까지 대폭 확대했다. 예컨대 관세와 직접 관련이 없는 한국의 비관세 장벽이나 산업정책 때문에 유럽 산업이 피해를 보더라도 세이프가드를 발동할 수 있다는 것이다. 세이프가드가 발동되면 협정에 따른 관세 철폐 또는 인하 혜택도 정지된다.

살바 비데가인 의원의 입법안은 이외에도 유럽의회도 세이프가드 발동을 위한 조사 권한을 갖고, 유럽연합 27개 회원국이 각각 별도의 세이프가드 발동 권한을 행사할 수 있다는 내용도 담고 있다. 특정 회원국에서만 수입이 급증할 경우를 대비해야 한다는 회원국의 요구 때문이다. 특히 자동차 분야는 한국의 농산품처럼 민간 품목으로 분류해, 완성차는 물론 자동차 부품의 수입량도 정기적으로 모니터하는 시스템을 갖추기로 했다.

이런 세이프가드 이행법안은 유럽의회 국제무역위원회에서 찬성 27명, 반대 0명, 기권 1명으로 통과해 다음달 23일 본회의 투표만 남겨두고 있다. 유럽의회는 이 세이프가드 이행법안을 처리한 다음 12월14일 한-유럽연합 자유무역협정 비준동의 투표를 하기로 했다.

이해영 한신대 교수(국제관계학)는 “우리 국회가 한-유럽연합 협정문을 비준동의하고 나서 유럽의회가 세이프가드 조항을 수정하면 기존 협정문은 원점에서 다시 다뤄져야 한다”며 “우리 국회의 비준동의 절차도 유럽의회의 결정이 내려질 때까지 중단해야 한다”고 말했다. 외교통상부 관계자는 “유럽의회의 입법에 관여할 수 없다”면서도 “다만 유럽의회의 세이프가드 입법안이 에프티에이 협정문과 충돌하면 국제분쟁에 회부할 수 있다는 원칙을 이미 유럽연합 집행위원회 쪽에 밝혔다”고 말했다.

정은주 기자 ejung@hani.co.kr

The pandemic that never was: Drug firms ‘encouraged world health body to exaggerate swine flu threat’

By Fiona Macrae

출처 : [dailymail] Last updated at 11:49 PM on 4th June 2010
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1284133/The-pandemic-Drug-firms-encouraged-world-health-body-exaggerate-swine-flu-threat.html

Declaring a swine flu pandemic was a ‘monumental error’, driven by profit-hungry drug companies spreading fear, an influential report has concluded.

It led to huge amounts of taxpayers’ money being wasted in stockpiling vaccines, it added.

Paul Flynn, the Labour MP charged with investigating the handling of the swine flu outbreak for the Council of Europe, described it as ‘a pandemic that never really was’.

The report accuses the World Health Organisation of grave shortcomings in the transparency of the process that led to its warning last year.

The MP said that the world relied on the WHO, but after ‘crying wolf’, its reputation was in jeopardy.

The report questions whether the pandemic was driven by drug companies seeking a profit. Mr Flynn said predictions of a ‘plague’ that would wipe out up to 7.5million people proved to be ‘an exaggeration’, with fewer than 20,000 deaths worldwide.

Britain braced itself for up to 65,000 deaths and signed vaccine contracts worth £540million.

The actual number of deaths was fewer than 500 and the country is now desperately trying to unpick the contracts and unload millions of unused jabs.

The focus on swine flu also led to other health services suffering and widespread public fear. 

Pharmaceutical companies, however, profited to the tune of £4.6billion from the sale of vaccines alone.

Mr Flynn said: ‘There is not much doubt that this was an exaggeration on stilts. They vastly over-stated the danger on bad science and the national governments were in a position where they had to take action.

‘In Britain, we have spent at least £1billion on preparations, to the detriment of other parts of the health system. This is a monumental failure on the WHO’s part.’

The Council of Europe inquiry heard allegations that the WHO had downgraded its definition for declaring a pandemic last spring  -  just weeks before announcing there was a worldwide outbreak.

Critics said the decision to remove any need to consider the deadliness of the disease was driven by drug companies desperate to recoup the billions of pounds they had invested in developing pandemic vaccines after the bird flu scares.

But the WHO said its basic definition of a pandemic never changed.

Mr Flynn said: ‘It doesn’t make any sense as to why they should have changed the definition a month before declaring an outbreak.

‘In this case, it might not just be a conspiracy theory, it might be a very profitable conspiracy.’

A Daily Mail investigation earlier this year revealed more than half of the swine flu taskforce advising the Government on its strategy had ties to drug companies.

Eleven of the 20 members of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies had done work for the pharmaceutical industry or are linked to it through their universities.

Concerns about drug companies’ influence are also highlighted by a separate investigation by the British Medical Journal and the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

It found that key scientists behind the WHO’s advice on stockpiling pandemic flu pills such as Tamiflu had financial ties with the drug companies that stood to profit. The WHO last night firmly rejected all the criticism.

Spokesman Gregory Hartl said: ‘There is no question of this being a fake pandemic. If fits the criteria for a pandemic, which is a new virus to which human beings have little or no immunity and which has spread around the world.

‘It spread from zero to 74 countries in the space of 9 weeks  -  that’s a pandemic.’

He said that not all ties to drug companies were necessarily conflicts of interest.

Press release – 455(2010)
https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=PR455%282010%29&Language=lanEnglish&Ver=original&Site=DC&BackColorInternet=F5CA75&BackColorIntranet=F5CA75&BackColorLogged=A9BACE

PACE Health Committee denounces ‘unjustified scare’ of Swine Flu, waste of public money

Strasbourg, 04.06.2010 – The handling of the H1N1 pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO), EU agencies and national governments led to a “waste of large sums of public money, and unjustified scares and fears about the health risks faced by the European public”, according to a report by the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) made public today in Paris.

The report, prepared by Paul Flynn (United Kingdom, SOC) and approved today by the committee ahead of a plenary debate at the end of this month, says there was “overwhelming evidence that the seriousness of the pandemic was vastly overrated by WHO”, resulting in a distortion of public health priorities.

Presenting his report, Mr Flynn told the committee: “this was a pandemic that never really was”, and described the vaccination programme as “placebo medicine on a large scale” (see video below).

In its adopted text, the committee identifies what it calls “grave shortcomings” in the transparency of decision-making about the outbreak, generating concerns about the influence of the pharmaceutical industry on decisions taken. Plummeting confidence in such advice could prove “disastrous” in the case of a severe future pandemic, it warns.

In particular, the WHO and European health institutions were not willing to publish the names and declarations of interest of the members of the WHO Emergency Committee and relevant European advisory bodies directly involved in recommendations concerning the pandemic, the parliamentarians point out.

However, attending the meeting was Fiona Godlee, the Editor-in-Chief of the British Medical Journal, who told the parliamentarians that, according to an investigation by her journal, scientists who drew up key WHO guidelines on stockpiling flu vaccines had previously been paid by drug companies which stood to profit.

The WHO has been “highly defensive”, the committee said, and unwilling to accept that a change in the definition of a pandemic was made, or to revise its prognosis of the Swine Flu outbreak.

The committee sets out a series of urgent recommendations for greater transparency and better governance in public health, as well as safeguards against what it calls “undue influence by vested interests”. It also calls for a public fund to support independent research, trials and expert advice, possibly financed by an obligatory contribution of the pharmaceutical industry, as well as closer collaboration with the media to avoid “sensationalism and scaremongering in the public health domain”.

The report is due to be debated by parliamentarians from all 47 Council of Europe member states on Thursday 24 June during PACE’s summer session in Strasbourg.

Contacts

In Paris: Francesc Ferrer, mobile: +33 (0)6 30 49 68 22

In Strasbourg: PACE Communication Division, tel. +33 (0)3 88 41 31 93, mobile: +33 (0)6 30 49 68 20

Mr Flynn’s report (provisional version) (PDF) http://assembly.coe.int/CommitteeDocs/2010/20100604_H1N1pandemic_E.pdf

Video of the committee’s exchange of views today (English)

Video of the committee’s exchange of views today (original languages)

Parliamentary Assembly Communication Unit
Tel: +33 3 88 41 31 93
Fax : +33 3 90 21 41 34
pace.com@coe.int
assembly.coe.int

세계보건기구(WHO)가 신종플루(돼지독감) 대유행과 관련하여 제약업계로부터 리베이트를 받은 혐의로 스캔들에 휘말렸다는 소식입니다.

WHO의 신종플루 대유행 스캔들로 인하여 호주의 제약회사 CSL, Ltd, 사노피-아벤티스(Sanofi-Aventis), 아스트라-제네카(Astra-Zeneca), 노바티스(Novartis) 등 백신제조회사들은 수조달러가 넘는 막대한 이익을 남겼습니다.

뿐만 아니라 타미플루를 생산하는 로슈, 릴렌자를 생산하는 GSK 등 항바이러스제 생산 제약회사들도 엄청난 수익을 올렸습니다.

최근 유럽의회는 “WHO가 H1N1 대유행을 선언한 방식에 따라 막대한 공공 기금이 소모되었으며, 유럽 시민들이 직면한 건강상 위험에 대한 공황과 공포는 근거가 없는 것이었다”는 결론을 내렸다고 합니다.

==========================================================

News

Flu experts rebut conflict claims

Reports throw unsubstantiated suspicion on scientific advice given to the World Health Organization.

Declan Butler

출처 : Published online 8 June 2010 | Nature 465, 672-673 (2010) | doi:10.1038/465672a
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100608/full/465672a.html?s=news_rss

“Drug firms ‘encouraged world health body to exaggerate swine flu threat’,” screamed Britain’s Daily Mail newspaper on 4 June. “2 European reports criticize WHO’s H1N1 pandemic guidelines as tainted,” headlined The Washington Post the next day. To judge from media coverage last week, a major scandal had been exposed in the handling of the H1N1 flu pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). But nothing could be further from the truth.

The news articles reported on two investigations: one by journalists at the BMJ and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, a non-profit body in London launched in April; the other by the health committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) — a human-rights body based in Strasbourg, France, independent of the European Union.

Both reports allege that the WHO might have been unduly influenced by the pharmaceutical industry in declaring H1N1 flu a pandemic, and in backing widespread vaccination and stockpiling of antiviral drugs, a claim often made by conspiracy theorists. They also complain that a 2004 WHO pandemic-preparedness document did not reveal that some of its authors had been paid for work by pharmaceutical companies — although the scientists had declared their competing interests elsewhere.

Suspicious minds

Paul Flynn, a UK Labour Member of Parliament and rapporteur of the PACE report (see go.nature.com/G9CvVL), and Fiona Godlee, editor-in-chief of the BMJ, presented their reports at a press conference together in Paris on 4 June, with Flynn asserting that “this was a pandemic that never really was”. Afterwards, he wrote on his blog: “One of the joys today was giving evidence with the editor of the splendid British Medical Journal. We have never met before but we cooed in harmony and just avoided saying it was the Pharmas that did it.”

Both reports say that it is suspicious, for example, that the WHO has kept secret the names of its Emergency Committee, an expert group that advises the WHO on the status of international public-health emergencies, including the declaration of a flu pandemic. Gregory Hartl, a spokesman for the WHO, says that the secrecy of the Emergency Committee’s membership is maintained to buffer its deliberations from outside pressure. The WHO says that it will make public the names, and any competing interests, once the pandemic is declared over.

“A key question will be whether the pharmaceutical companies, which had invested around $4 bn (£2.8bn, €3.3bn) in developing the swine flu vaccine, had supporters inside the emergency committee, who then put pressure on WHO to declare a pandemic,” says the article in the BMJ (D. Cohen and P. Carter Br. Med. J. 340, c2912; 2010). “It was the declaring of the pandemic that triggered the contracts.”

This is false. Many countries — including the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, Finland, Canada, the Netherlands and Switzerland — had already placed large orders for H1N1 vaccine weeks before the WHO declared H1N1 a pandemic on 11 June 2009. The United States, for example, ordered US$649 million of pandemic H1N1 influenza vaccine antigen and $283 million of adjuvant on 22 May 2009. So the Emergency Committee could not have influenced these in any way.

“You are absolutely right,” conceded the authors of the articles in the BMJ when challenged with this timeline.

Both reports also seize on the WHO’s April 2009 revision of its criteria on what constitutes a pandemic, which removed the need for an assessment of the ‘severity’ of the disease, based on estimates of future mortality. Flynn speculated in the Daily Mail that this was suspicious: “In this case, it might not just be a conspiracy theory, it might be a very profitable conspiracy.” Neither report provides any evidence to substantiate its implication that the WHO rushed to declare a pandemic to boost pharmaceutical company sales. Moreover, the WHO says that the revisions were finalized in February 2009, before pandemic H1N1 was on the horizon.

Scientists interviewed by Nature early on in the pandemic noted that severity is impossible to pin down until many months after it starts. Also, pandemic viruses can mutate or reassort to become more severe, so initial estimates are in any case of limited use.

Clear firewall

The BMJ also notes that three scientists who were involved in the preparation of a 2004 WHO document, WHO Guidelines on the Use of Vaccines and Antivirals during Influenza Pandemics, had received payments from pharmaceutical companies, including research funding, or consultancy or speaker fees. The scientists told the BMJ that they had declared these competing interests to the WHO, although the WHO had not included these in its report.

Michael Osterholm, director of the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy in Minneapolis, points out that the 2004 document was based on input from an international panel of 22 scientists and public-health officials, in response to the threat of the deadly H5N1 avian flu virus. “To suggest that the three scientists were able to direct and control the final recommendations is naive, and stated without a single shred of evidence,” he says.

The BMJ also claims that industry funding of the European Scientific Working Group on Influenza (ESWI), a group of flu scientists that provided advice to the WHO, presented a “potential conflict of interest”. It notes that several ESWI scientists also receive industry funding directly.

One of those scientists is Albert Osterhaus, a virologist at Erasmus Medical Centre in Rotterdam in the Netherlands, who chairs the ESWI. He says that the body has a “clear firewall” with its funders, and that it informs all partners about any of its competing interests — its sources of funding are also listed on its website. Private–public partnerships are essential in tackling pandemics, and excluding flu researchers with industry links would deprive advisory panels of world-class expertise, he says. “The critical thing is transparency,” says Osterhaus. “I have always declared my own competing interests.”

The BMJ acknowledges that the researchers had declared their interests elsewhere. But it takes issue with the WHO’s not having included them in its pandemic-planning documents.

David Ozonoff, an epidemiologist at the Boston University School of Public Health in Massachusetts, says that the reports “smear” the scientists involved in pandemic planning by “insinuating” that they would have offered different advice had they not had a relationship with drug companies. “This is a pretty serious charge,” he says.

“We think this is the researcher’s reading into it, not necessarily ours,” the BMJ authors respond.

Marc Lipsitch, an epidemiologist at Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, Massachusetts, says that the WHO’s advice on the pandemic has been sound, and has reflected the state of scientific opinion. Comparing the situation with the ongoing Deepwater Horizon oil spill, Lipsitch says that “it is ironic, as we watch for the second time in five years the catastrophic results of ‘best-case scenario planning’ in the Gulf of Mexico, to have the WHO coming under criticism for planning for, and raising awareness of, the possibility of a severe pandemic. That is what public-health agencies should do, and what most did in this instance, and they should be commended for it.” 

==========================

World Health Organization embroiled in swine flu kickback scandal

출처 : http://www.huliq.com/9990/world-health-organization-embroiled-swine-flu-kickback-scandal

The World Health Organization (WHO) is again in the spotlight and being accused of accepting kickbacks from the pharmaceutical industry. In return for monetary compensation, the WHO had to issue an H1N1 or “swine flu” pandemic worldwide.

The Health Advisory Board of the WHO made the decision to issue a worldwide statement, declaring the H1N1 threat a pandemic and encouraging countries to stockpile vaccines to protect the population from contact or aerosol contamination.

The vaccine, available since 2009, is made by CSL, Ltd, Melbourne, Sanofi-Aventis, Paris, Astra-Zeneca, London and Novartis, Basel. All companies promised financial kickbacks after a pandemic was officially declared by the WHO resulting in multi billion dollar gains for the pharmaceutical companies.

The scheme was first reported by the British Medical Journal in 2009 and later confirmed by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism but did not receive a lot of exposure until yesterday when the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (PACE) endorsed the conclusions of its Health Committee.

The conclusions from the committee stated that “the handling by the WHO of the H1N1 pandemic led to a waste of large sums of public money and unjustified scares and fears about health risks faced by the European public”.

The scheme, as set up by the WHO’s Health Advisory Board was a five step process. First they exaggerated the risk, they urged countries to stockpile, vaccine producers collected the cash, the board members cashed in the kickbacks and the WHO kept everybody afraid.

Secretary General of the WHO, Dr. Margaret Chan, was asked to release the names of all the members of her advisory board but insisted that the secrecy was crucial to protect the integrity and independence of the work the board members perform.

The pharmaceutical industry has a very big influence on the World Health Organization, an independent UN agency, whose reputation has been tarnished in light of the scandal.

Written by Nick Doms © 2010, all rights reserved

유럽연합 의회, WHO 신종플루 대유행 선언 스캔들 조사

유럽연합 의회에서 2010년 1월, 거대 제약회사들이 WHO가 지난 해 돼지 인플루엔자(신종플루) 대유행 선언을 하도록 영향력을 행사했는지에 대해 조사에 착수할 예정이라는 소식입니다.

약품을 둘러싼 제약업계, WHO(세계보건기구), 학계 전문가들로 구성된 황금의 3각지대(Golden Triangle=제약업계, WHO, 학계 전문가의 3대 세력의 결탁에 의한 부패를 상징적으로 표현한 용어)를 투명하게 파헤치는 뒤늦은 조치의 첫발을 디딘 셈입니다.

유럽의회의 조사는 예전에 독일사민당(SPD) 대변인을 지냈으며, 현재 유럽의회의 건강위원회 위원장인 볼프강 보다르크(Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg) 박사의 제안에 의해 이루어지게 되었다고 합니다. 볼프강 보다르크(Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg) 박사는 폐질환 및 환경의학 전문의로서 의사이자 역학자이기도  한데요… 그는 WHO의 2009년 신종플루(돼지독감) 대유행 선언을 ’21세기 최고의 의학 스캔들’ 중의 하나라고 간주하고 있습니다.

유럽의회는 제약회사들이 자신들의 독감 특허 약품과 백신의 판촉을 촉진하기 위해서 과학자들과 국제기구의 관료들에게 영향력을 행사했다고 판단하고 있습니다.

또한 유럽의회는 전세계 정부에게 신종플루의 위험성을 과장하여 불필요한 예방접종을 실시하도록 하여 수백만명의 건강한 사람들이 충분한 실험을 실시하지 않아 부작용이 제대로 알려지지 않은 백신의 위험성에 노출되도록 했다고 판단하고 있습니다.

조만간 유럽의회의 조사를 통해 진실이 밝혀질지 기다려봐야 할 것 같습니다.

=================

European Parliament to Investigate WHO and “Pandemic” Scandal

by F. William Engdahl

출처 :Global Research, December 31, 2009
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16667

The Council of Europe member states will launch an inquiry in January 2010 on the influence of the pharmaceutical companies on the global swine flu campaign, focusing especially on extent of the pharma‘s industry’s influence on WHO. The Health Committee of the EU Parliament has unanimously passed a resolution calling for the inquiry. The step is a long-overdue move to public transparency of a “Golden Triangle” of drug corruption between WHO, the pharma industry and academic scientists that has permanently damaged the lives of millions and even caused death.

The parliament motion was introduced by Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, former SPD Member of the German Bundestag and now chairman of the Health Committee of PACE (Parliamentary Assembly of the Council  of Europe). Wodarg is a medical doctor and epidemiologist, a specialist in lung disease and environmental medicine, who considers the current “pandemic” Swine Flu campaign of the WHO to be “one of the greatest medicine scandals of the Century.”[1]

The text of the resolution just passed by a sufficient number in the Council of Europe Parliament says among other things, “In order to promote their patented drugs and vaccines against flu, pharmaceutical companies influenced scientists and official agencies, responsible for public health standards to alarm governments worldwide and make them squander tight health resources for inefficient vaccine strategies and needlessly expose millions of healthy people to the risk of an unknown amount of side-effects of insufficiently tested vaccines. The “bird-flu”-campaign (2005/06) combined with the “swine-flu”-campaign seem to have caused a great deal of damage not only to some vaccinated patients and to public health-budgets, but to the credibility and accountability of important international health-agencies.”[2]

The Parliamentary inquiry will look into the issue of „falsified pandemic“ that was declared by WHO in June 2009 on the advice of its group of academic experts, SAGE, many of whose members have been documented to have intense financial ties to the same pharmaceutical giants such as GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Novartis, who benefit from the production of drugs and untested H1N1 vaccines. They will investigate the influence of the pharma industry in creation of a worldwide campaign against the so-called H5N1 “Avian Flu”  and H1N1 Swine Flu. The inquiry will be given “urgent” priority in the general assembly of the parliament.

In his official statement to the Committee, Wodarg criticized the influence of the pharma industry on scientists and officials of WHO, stating that it has led to the situation where “unnecessarily millions of healthy people are exposed to the risk of poorly tested vaccines,” and that, for a flu strain that is “vastly less harmful” than all previous flu epidemics.

Wodarg says the role of the WHO and its the pandemic emergency declaration in June needs to be the special focus of the European Parliamentary inquiry. For the first time, the WHO criteria for a pandemic was changed in April 2009 as the first Mexico cases were reported, to make not the actual risk of a disease but the number of cases of the disease basis to declare “Pandemic.” By classifying the swine flu as pandemic, nations were compelled to implement pandemic plans and also the purchase swine flu vaccines. Because WHO is not subject to any parliamentary control, Wodarg argues it is necessary for governments to insist on accountability. The inquiry will also to look at the role of the two critical agencies in Germany issuing guidelines on the pandemic, the Paul-Ehrlich and the Robert-Koch Institute.

Bravo!

F. William Engdahl is author of Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order. He may be contacted through his website, www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net.

Notes

1.  Rainer Woratschka,  Schweinerei mit der Grippe, Der Tagesspiegel, 16 December, 2009, accessed in http://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/international/Schweinegrippe-Europarat;art123,2976433.

2.  Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, Motion for a Resolution and a Recommendation: Faked Pandemics – a threat for health, accessed in http://www.wodarg.de/english/2948146.html.

F. William Engdahl is a frequent contributor to Global Research.  Global Research Articles by F. William Engdahl