Coronavirus: the WHO does not cure, but cripples

2:28, 20 октября 2021

МОСКВА, 20 октября 2021, Институт РУССТРАТ.

The other day I got acquainted with the new recommendations of our Ministry of Health on the treatment of COVID, written under the watchful eye of the WHO, and bitterly thought that the bulk of my colleagues, seeing how “scientifically” nicely these recommendations are justified, will now exclaim: “Wow!” and no one will doubt the good intentions of those who wrote them.

Few people will try to analyse the indications and contraindications to the appointment of certain “modern” drugs. Most will simply rush to follow the instructions.

Yes, these recommendations are written by specialists from different fields of medicine. The work was carefully prepared – it was written in a “semi-scientific” language in order to impress an ordinary practitioner so that they would get confused and start pointlessly repeating certain memorised terms, such as, for example, “cytokine storm” and  “ground-glass opacification” which now are always on doctors’ lips.

The “creators” did not forget to reject all the arguments against the use of these expensive and “giving hope for recovery” drugs.

I am not a researcher, I am a doctor, paediatrician and anaesthesiologist-resuscitator, so it is not in my competence to enter into scientific discussions, it is the duty of those honest and brave professors and academicians who still remain in our country. I will write in simple language that is understandable to everyone, not just doctors.

So what did these leaders, “armed” with the achievements of modern science, want to convey to us, “ordinary” doctors, on 237 pages? A summary:

Covid is not just a viral infection, it is a particularly dangerous infection that requires special treatment. Forget all the algorithms for the treatment of acute respiratory viral infections and  practical experience, we work strictly according to these recommendations. Do not pay attention to what is written in the annotations to the drugs (indications and contraindications), in an emergency situation with a pandemic, everything is allowed.

“According to WHO recommendations, it is possible to prescribe drugs with the alleged etiotropic efficacy “off-label” (that is, their use for medical purposes does not comply with the instructions for medical use).”

So what drugs are recommended to us?

First of all, anti-viral ones. It has been written so many times that anti-viral drugs are ineffective. And how much information was there about useless, even harmful Remdesivir… This topic was “chewed up” by the entire English- and French-speaking press! The European Union purchased it at the end of 2019, and in November 2020, the WHO stated that the anti-viral drug Remdesivir does not help with COVID-19. And it is still here, in the front row! And what an amount of money BigPharma earns from it!

Next – monoclonal antibodies (MAB). They are not registered in Russia, but it doesn’t matter.

“These drugs, both one-component  and combined ones, are not registered in the Russian Federation, in connection with which their appointment is possible only with the decision of the Medical Commission and a permit for temporary treatment (resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation from 03.04.2020 № 441 “On the circulation of medicinal products for medical use, which are intended for use under the threat of appearance of emergency situations and emergency response”).

In addition, there are scientific papers (by the way, also from Russian scientists) proving the “antibody-dependent enhancement of infection”, that is, it is not a positive effect, but, on the contrary, the disease is more severe. But it doesn’t matter either! So that doctors do not doubt, they simply wrote in the recommendations: “MAB are characterised by the absence of an antibody-dependent enhancement of infection.”

It is recommended to prescribe immunosuppressive therapy from the first days of the disease (which suppresses natural immunity), and this has been “scientifically” justified. Of course, we are warned: “Against the background of therapy with IL‑6 blockers, one should remember about the occurrence of undesirable phenomena: infectious diseases – bacterial pneumonia, phlegmon, infections caused by Herpes zoster, etc.”

But doctors in coronavirus centres very boldly prescribe these drugs, not paying attention to such items.

If we considered this “special coronavirus infection” as just a viral infection, like the well-known acute respiratory viral infections and influenza, while at the same time not denying that it has its own characteristics (we will not touch on the question of its origin here!), often having a longer and more severe course, especially in people with concomitant diseases and in elderly people, i.e. with weakened immunity, so then in case of a persistent high temperature, a strong cough, and other symptoms of an attached bacterial infection, we (doctors) would prescribe an antibiotic.

If we do not prescribe it in time, we will get a generalisation of bacterial infection – sepsis. But the recommendations say:

“Bacterial infections infrequently complicate the course of COVID-19. Therefore, the vast majority of patients with COVID-19, especially with mild and moderate course, DO NOT NEED the appointment of antibacterial therapy. Antibacterial therapy is prescribed only if there are convincing signs of attachment of the bacterial infection.”

Please note that in the instructions DO NOT NEED is written in large letters! This means that only with laboratory indicators which show that the disease has already gone too far.

So let’s also “add fuel to the fire” – let’s prescribe immunosuppressive therapy, the effect will be terrific, exactly the one that is obtained in our coronavirus centres: blooming sepsis!

That is, the main strategic line is clear – to hit natural immunity, don’t prescribe antibiotics in a timely manner and thus get sepsis with all the ensuing consequences: DIC syndrome, respiratory and renal failure, etc.

And here’s another interesting aspect. It turns out (as it is written in the recommendations) that elderly patients with COVID have a risk of developing delirium. It is recommended to prescribe tranquilisers for such patients.

Given the depressing effect of tranquilisers on respiration, their use against the background of viral bacterial pneumonia is likely to lead to increased respiratory failure. The experience of their application in nursing homes in Europe speaks very eloquently about this.

And here it is – the beginning of solving the problem of overpopulation of our planet Earth. And vaccination is a control shot.

Of course, I did not cover the entire arsenal that our Ministry of Health armed itself with in the battle against COVID. These recommendations contain a lot of controversial, unjustified appointments, which, I hope, will still become the topic of honest scientific discussions, and, probably, judicial proceedings.


The 237-page recommendations are written very cunningly: a lot of special terms, a lot of sub-paragraphs, where indications and contraindications for prescription and possible side effects of drugs are written with more details. A practicing doctor, due to their fatigue and workload, will not see into them. They will fulfil the basic requirements.

These are traps for doctors, so that in case of negative results of such treatment, the blame falls on them, and for managers from the Ministry of Health it’s a way to evade responsibility. And patients and their relatives are even more unlikely to be able to figure out all these intricacies.

From my personal experience: an official appeal to the Ministry of Health about a violation of the treatment recommendations at the covid centre (for this I had to thoroughly study all the sub-items) was successful already 2 hours later: antibiotics were prescribed to my son-in-law.

My dear colleagues and peers, take interest in under whose auspices our medicine is currently working: almost a fifth of the WHO’s budget is in the hands of private lobbyists pursuing their own interests, including organisations officially recognised as undesirable in Russia – such as the Soros Open Society Foundation and the MacArthur Foundation.

The funds of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the world’s leading vaccine and pharmaceutical lobbyist, and the GAVI vaccine alliance they created together accounted for 18.75% of the WHO’s budget in the 2018-2019 fiscal year. It follows from this that the WHO is still where it was ordered to be from the very beginning of the pandemic. And who pays the piper “calls the tune”, including in our country.

Olga Buklina doctor-paediatrician, anaesthesiologist-resuscitator

publication-6689Институт международных политических и экономических стратегий Русстрат