The most politically compromised hypothesis

Is the WHO a reliable body on the subject?

The WHO has shown this year a notable lack of strength against the Chinese regime, one of its top foragers after the US government’s funding cut, so, is the WHO a reliable body on the subject?

Is the WHO a reliable body on the subject?
Tedros Ghebreyesus (OMS President) and Xi Jinping (China’s First Minister)

The WHO commission passively facilitated the Chinese attempt to hide the epidemic (which later became a pandemic). The commision behaviour caused important delays in evaluation that involved enormous worldwide damage. They replied that they did everything possible. After a year, an investigation into the origins of the virus began. With 17 world experts (including Peter Daszak, founder of Shi Zheng-Li’s studies on bat sars-related viruses). The team, after two weeks of quarantine, only had the opportunity to take a two-week guided tour in which high-ranking Chinese officials (mostly politicians) wisely chose what to show them and, above all, how.

A predicted failure

The result of the investigation was, therefore, perfectly matched with the narrative desired by the regime: <<SARS-CoV-2 probably reaches Wuhan via the cold chain>>. The WHO rejected the cold chain possibility before the inquiry and a few days after returned to consider it unlikely. Lastly, they reopened to the possibility of a laboratory leak. On March 5, waiting for the report on the inquiry, Jamie Metzl published a letter from 25 scientists for an independent investigation.

So, is the WHO a reliable body on the subject? In light of what we have observed, it would be natural to evaluate that the entire organization is totally unreliable on the SARS-CoV-2 issue for reasons of mere economical-political nature. Today, more than ever, a truly independent international investigation is needed.

Translate »