Petition update

EXPOSED: Competing Interests (Researchers, WHO, IOC, and Bill Gates)

Rose Webster
Milton, Canada

Jun 19, 2016 — While Dr. Attaran et al. are invalidating the study that Brazil's health minister (and others) are citing as scientific proof that "the risk of catching the Zika virus during the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro is almost zero." Source:

I uncovered something truly shocking and utterly disturbing.

Note: I quickly skimmed the 12-page draft (which cannot be quoted yet) titled, "Why the World Health Organization is wrong about travel and Zika (June 13th, 2016)" on the Rio Olympics Later page: [Please find it posted in the right sidebar under "Updates"].

Arsonists Tend to Come Back to Watch Their Work . . .

Within 24 hours of writing my post: my Google Analytics revealed a huge chunk of visits from the UK. (Odd, since most of my readers are in North America).

Then, I remembered the "Oxford study" that I exposed in my last update – largely funded by Bill Gates.

Now, I am going to take you through what could be considered scientific fraud or something similar:

A competing interest—often called a conflict of interest—exists when professional judgment concerning a primary interest (such as patients' welfare or the validity of research) may be influenced by a secondary interest (such as financial gain or personal rivalry).

The "study" Mapping global environmental suitability for Zika virus:
lists two main groups of scientists:

These four (including the lead author, Jane P. Messina) are from the Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom:
Jane P. Messina (who put: "No competing interests declared" as shown in the photo, underlined in red)
Moritz UG Kraemer
Daniel J Weiss
Peter W Gething

These four are from Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom:
Simon I. Hay (listed one competing interest: "reviewing editor, eLife")
Oliver J Brady
David M Pigott
Freya M Shearer

I wanted to see how qualified these scientists and researchers were, since they left out crucial data [all of 2015] from their study. So, I searched for lead author Jane P. Messina and turned up this:

Global Distribution and Prevalence of Hepatitis C Virus Genotypes
Jane P Messina,1 Isla Humphreys,2 Abraham Flaxman,3 Anthony Brown,2 Graham S Cooke,4,* Oliver G Pybus,5,* and Eleanor Barnes2,*

A click on "Author Information" revealed this:

1Spatial Epidemiology and Ecology Group, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

When I Googled "Spatial Epidemiology and Ecology Group, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK" this turned up: and across the top is the tab "WHO CC".

I thought to myself 'no way does it mean the World Health Organization' Rose.

Then I clicked on it and HOLY COW, it does! Look for yourself:

Key statements:

"The University of Oxford has received designation as a World Health Organization (WHO) Collaborating Centre in Geospatial Disease Modelling. Based in the Spatial Ecology and Epidemiology Group (SEEG) in the Department of Zoology, University of Oxford ..."

And then the other group of four scientists led by Simon Hay (under the guise of the Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, United States) is uncovered:

"The SEEG group, led by Professor Simon Hay, investigate spatial and temporal aspects of infectious disease epidemiology ... supported by a coalition of funders, most notably the Wellcome Trust, The UK Medical Research Council, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation."

Floored? I am.

Again we have the WHO (who clearly has a conflict of interest with the IOC) as revealed by Dr. Attaran et al:

"WHO has a decades-long, high-level partnership with the International Olympic Committee. That partnership was last affirmed in 2010 at an event where the Director General of WHO and President of the IOC signed a Memorandum of Understanding, which is secret because neither has disclosed it."

"Inappropriately, WHO sees its role as not just providing public health advice. It established a “Virtual Interdisciplinary Advisory Group”, whose “important promotional point,” according to WHO is “that the Group can help in bidding for major events (like the Olympic Games} That is a clear conflict of interest, when WHO must also evaluate and make recommendations about Olympic travel during a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC)."

And It Gets Worse . . .

In Joel Achenbach's article: it unnerved me to read this quote:

"For example, in Brazil, authorities have approved a plan to fight the Zika virus using genetically engineered mosquitoes that carry a self-destruct gene."

And this contained the prudent warning:

"... such technology could have devastating unintended consequences 'such as the unintentional disruption of a non-target species or the establishment of a second, more resilient invasive species,' the researchers said."

In fact, Dr. Ricarda Steinbrecher published concerns in this report: that a known survival rate warranted further study BEFORE the release of the genetically-modified mosquitoes Aedes aegypti OX513A (NRE(S)609-2/1/3).

Her concerns were echoed by several other scientists but have been ignored or quashed — though they should not have been.

Did GM mosquitoes get released in Brazil in 2015? (And could that be why those scientists "forgot" to include 2015 data?) Perhaps only Bill Gates knows.

According to this PLOS research article published July 2nd, 2015:

Yes, the study was conducted in the Itaberaba suburb of the city of Juazeiro, Bahia in the semi-arid North East of Brazil (latitude—9.450, longitude—40.481), both treated and control sites were in the same suburb and, consequently, had similar characteristics.

Interestingly enough, Juazeiro, Bahia is located 1185 miles north of Rio de Janeiro.

I wonder why I keep getting comments on various articles like this:

Vascgm Gm
"rare or know anyone ever heard of someone with zika in Rio de Janeiro.
Olympic Games will be held in the winter and the mosquitoes does not play and the rio de janeiro is far from the epicenter Which is northeast of Brazil. It is over 2000 kilometers away.
microcephaly only finds only place in Pernambuco state in northeastern Brazil and the region in other states of Brazil is not is almost zero. test only met zika only 16 babies over 4000 cases. in colombia there more cases of zika than in Brazil are more 5000 and has zero cases zika in babies with microcephaly."

To which I responded:

Dr. Attaran tweeted: "Brazil says no Zika in Rio, but in just one week Rio's probable cases rose by over 6,000." Source (on page 3) translated from Portugese: Epidemiology Report from Ministry of Health Volume 47 N° 23 - 2016

"The analysis of incidence of probable cases (number of cases / 100,000 inhabitants), according to geographical regions, shows that the Northeast region had the highest incidence rate: 113.3 / 100,000 inhabitants."

Got that Vascgm Gm? The Northeast region (where Rio is) has the highest incident rate.

But I think Vascgm Gm (I wonder if the Gm stands for genetically modified) forgot that most of us know about the trade winds. And it just so happens that there is a strong south wind along that stretch of the east coast of Brazil.

Take a peek for yourself:

Looks like those scientists thought of temperature but forgot all about wind currents. Hmmm, makes me wonder what is really going on and the public has every right to know when human health is at stake.

NEW: Visit my new Facebook page devoted to keeping the public and athletes fully informed:

Authors note: I cannot use italics, hyperlink, or change petition updates. Ergo, my links are not hidden.

How your signature helps: each time a supporter signs a petition, an email is automatically sent directly to those being petitioned (governments, companies and individuals). When hundreds or even thousands of emails arrive in their inboxes, the message is impossible to ignore.

CC Dr. Attaran