The ESWI

The ESWI was officially founded in 1993 at the Pasteur Institute in Paris. Prior to formation, the first official meet took place at the ‘Options for the Control of Influenza II' in Courchevel, September, 1992. Kind of telling, really - Courchevel is the winter ski resort in France. A proper place for movers and shakers.

At the second meet in November, 1992, their objectives were approved. They were -

• Asthma

• Influenza prevention policies in Europe, and

• Pandemic Planning.

A third and fourth meet were arranged. The final in June, 1994, saw the launch of a new set of initiatives.

A new big pharma lobby group was born.

-

It’s rare that you find an organisation which so categorially document its past behaviour, especially when it paints this fairly conclusive, one-sided view of an industry as is the case with the ESWI. Because by reading these documents, their influence becomes absolutely undeniable.

Take the case of their bulletin as of September, 2004; ‘Recommendations of the seventh European meeting on influenza and its prevention‘, which goes on to list the following recommendations -

• Pandemic planning in Europe

• Stockpiling

• Media communication strategy

• Education

• The role of the WHO

• Surveillance

• Control (ie, vaccines)

• Vaccines

In fact, the final point is rather that large, it deserves bullet points of its own -

• Priority groups

• Quantities

• Arrangements between big pharma and authorities

• Liability waiver

• Expedited approval

• Production capacity

• Research

• Adjuvants

Impressive, no? Almost impossible to tell that the ESWI is wholly funded by the big pharmaceutical companies who manufactore said vaccines.

And almost impossible to ignore the similarlies with the Pandemic Treaty currently under negotiation.

-

Now, the ESWI even were to kind to list their publications. I took the liberty of color coding certain terms, and certain names. And you can somewhat spot a pattern here. Because right from the get-go, they were solidly on the side of ‘science’, and the ‘science’ states that vaccines are awesome.

But what’s of interest here is the part in yellow - every single author on the 1999 WHO Influenza Pandemic Plan was either an outright ESWI member, or listed as an advisor. In other words - that WHO plan is a production of team ESWI. I already went through this in part two over here, so no need to keep beating that dead horse.

-

In fact, there are plenty of other example of the ESWI becoming tightly integrated with politics and international organisations, with which, a big pharma lobby group should have absolutely no business. From their pandemic plan above, we also have workforce training, and it appears that the ESWI also took the lead on this initiative, naturally, in ‘close collaboration with the WHO’ -

They also had access to surveillance data, courtesy of the ‘European Influenza Surveillance Scheme’ - one of only 3 groups involved in the evaluation and improvements of this data. The used said, to establish a lack of standardisation, and on this account, suggested new methods, equipment, and even organised seminars on the topic.

Interestingly, there is no English article on the EISS, but there is one on the German equivalent - and yes, it’s an official EU program.

The ESWI - a big pharma funded organisation - had access to EU surveillance data in the year 2000. How the heck did they get said access?

And let’s just nail down that this information was not public at the time. The good bits required a login.

However, you know what was made public? This -

Oh, and if you think that ESWI members writing material for the EISS - an EU institution - wait until you see the members list. That should explain why.

Yes, really. Three members of the EISS were on the ESWI payroll at the time where the latter had access to EU surveillance data. Did anyone agree with this?

There are a few additional links, like this one on H5N1 specifically and Lars R Haahaim, but I think that point should be established.

-

The next item wasn’t initially an ESWI project, but became one down the road. It’s David Fedson’s project - the guy, who wanted to prescribe statins for influenza and ebola. Hey, he’ll probably insist they taste nice as a substitute for sugar in your morning tea, too.

It’s the Vaccine Distribution System…

… which was adopted by the WHO, as a tool to monitor global vaccine use as part of WHO's Global Agenda on Influenza under the leadership of the Influenza Vaccine Supply Task Force, a group belonging to the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Organization.

What - you never heard of them before?

That’s understandable, because here’s google’s search results on the matter. Yes, in spite of there being an alleged zero matches, it still adds the wikipedia article to the topic. Clearly no sign of corruption. You can furthermore find their own page here, or rather, the earliest cached version per wayback here.

-

They also contributed to early work on ‘correcting’ ‘misconceptions’ about vaccines. Yeah, 'misinformation’ in other words.

Feel free to run ‘Influenza.exe’ on your PC, via some random website. I’m not touching it with a barge pole. No-one rational would, it might contain a vir-…

-

The craziest thing here? That I’m not running out of information. In fact, the sheer quantity detailing hyper-cosy relations with the likes of the EU and the WHO leaves absolutely no room for interpretation. In regards to this former, the collusion with EISS is one thing, but quite another is this - the ‘European Influenza Task Force‘

The detailed plan is, well, more of the same. But there’s also an early call for a global equivalent.

The call was propagated via Surgisphere-pushing Lancet in 2005 -

And just a few months later, the European Union answered the call.

-

Also from the bulletin, EPIVAC can also be included. Their goal is increase vaccination rates, in fact, they previously worked with Germany, Poland, and Sweden in exactly this regard. Accepted by EU authorities - that’s right.

-

The ECDC has so far escaped attention. So let’s shine a light upon them. From their 2005 annual report -

‘External scientific input was provided to the EU Chief Medical Officers (CMOs) and Chief Veterinary Officers (CVOs) meetings in Brussels; the WHO/European Commission/ECDC meeting on influenza in Copenhagen, the European Scientific Working Group on Influenza (ESWI)‘

I have more on the ECDC, but that’s for a separate thread.

-

So, with the EU link hopefully firmly established, let’s move on to the WHO. In part One of this tale, I detailed how they influenced (wrote) the WHO’s Influenza Pandemic Plan of 1999, but there are more links in that regard (also not forgetting the vaccine distribution monitoring system detailed above).

No, specifically, the WHO and ESWI members have collaborated on a number of occasions. Here’s three.

Setting aside Neil Ferguson, we have Osterhaus, who features on several influenza working groups, H5N1 and H1N1. But we also have John Ward, who contributed to the working group on hepatitis B, along with the likes of Pierre Van Damme. And John kicks off a seperate line of inquiry in this regard.

See, as it transpires, the ESWI has received plenty of media coverage. It’s just that none of said coverage took place over the last decade.

-

In 2010, the BMJ wrote the following article on conflicts of interest - ‘WHO and the pandemic flu "conspiracies"‘. Penned by Deborah Cohen and Philip Carter, calling into question the ‘cosy relationship between ESWI connected experts and the WHO’

They, in fact, come to much the same conclusions as I independently arrived at - especially in regards to Osterhaus. However, at certain aspects they took a closer look, and late on in the article, they reveal that Dr Monto, John Wood, and Masato Tashiro were on a secretive emergency committee, relating to pandemic preparedness.

And it’s in that regard that the above is connected — John Wood was also a member of the ESWI.

-

While the ESWI was launched in 1992, with official founding in 1993, the parallel organisation Vaccines Europe was founded in 1991. I covered this already in part one.

However, what I did not cover was the funding.

The EVM (aka Vaccines Europe) was established in 1991 with a stated mission to ‘foster a favourable policy climate for the vaccine industry in Europe to bring new vaccines to the world‘. Quite literally a political lobbying organisation for the pharmaceutical manufacturers.

And with that in mind, let’s compare which organisations specifically back these initiative.

Aventis, Chiron, GSK, Solvay, Wyeth - check, check, check, check, check.

5 of 7 are identical. Yes, really. And those that differ, also manufacture vaccines. Yet, the ESWI are ‘independent’ exactly why? What level of evidence suggests any kind of independence, apart from this claim on their website?

And these two - Vaccines Europe and the ESWI - can be found collaborating on yet another venture.

The steering group on influenza vaccination.

Reason I say they collaborate is because of these sections - partners, and who we are.

Not only does the ESWI feature as a partner, but Thomas Szucs is a co-chair of the initiative. It may not list so, but scroll all the way up again and establish him being an ESWI member.

If anyone can perform the mental gymnastics required to detail said ‘independence’, I legit would like to hear. I could do with a good laugh.

-

There are further details and articles on ESWI, but beyond listing, I will not go into detail. If I haven’t yet made my case, chances are you refuse to accept to obvious.

Here’s William Engdahl’s 2009 piece on Ad Obsterhaus., which furthermore includes a Dutch investigation on Osterhaus, and throws in David Salisbury.

-

Then we have this article, from Tagesspiegel, which includes more detail from a German perspective.

-

And I really could go on. In fact, if I find anything particularly incriminating, I will update this thread.

But for the time being, I fail to see the point documenting further evidence of this obvious, gross levels of corruption and insider dealing.

Besides, even the ESWI fits within a bigger picture.

See you later.