Indian Charge of Offences Against Humanity by Spreading Ivermectin Disinformation

Here is the forty page legal notice filed on June 13, 2021 in India.

Contempt of Court and aggravated offences against humanity by spreading disinformation about the drug ‘Ivermectin’, despite having full knowledge of the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Goa dated May 28, 2021.

The present notice [June 13] is being served upon you [Dr. Soumya Swaminathan Chief Scientist World Health Organisation ] for your deliberate and continuous acts
of criminal offences against humanity.

8. After specific objection taken on oath by the State Government’s Health Secretary, it was binding on Noticee 1 & 2 to file your counter affidavit if you really have so called “SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE”. But neither you nor anyone else were able to produce any evidence to counter the serious allegations of flawed research by the state against WHO in their reply affidavit filed in the matter of said PIL

The Indian Bar Association cited various evidence of the effectiveness of Ivermectin.

The Indian Bar cited the FLCCC statements and referenced studies.

The Severely Limited Extent and Diversity of Ivermectin Data Considered by the WHO’s Ivermectin Panel

The WHO Ivermectin Panel arbitrarily included only a narrow selection of the available medical studies that their research team had been instructed to collect when formulating their recommendation, with virtually no explanation why they excluded such a voluminous amount of supportive medical evidence. This was made obvious at the outset due to the following:

No pre-established protocol for data exclusion was published, which is a clear departure from standard practice in guideline development.
The exclusions departed from the WHO’s own original search protocol it required of Unitaid’s ivermectin research, which collected a much wider array of randomized controlled trials (RCT).

Key Ivermectin Trial Data Excluded from Analysis

The WHO excluded all “quasi-randomized” RCTs from consideration (two excluded trials with over 200 patients that reported reductions in mortality).
The WHO excluded all RCTs where ivermectin was compared to or given with other medications. Two such trials with over 750 patients reported reductions in mortality.
The WHO excluded from consideration 7 of the 23 available ivermectin RCT results. Such irregularities skewed the proper assessment of important outcomes in at least the following ways:
Mortality Assessment
WHO Review: Excluded multiple RCTs such that only 31 total trials deaths occurred; despite this artificially meager sample, an estimate of up to a 91% reduction in the risk of death was found.[1]
Compared to the BIRD Review: Included 13 RCTs with 107 deaths observed and found a 2.5% mortality with ivermectin vs. 8.9% in controls; estimated reduction in risk of death=68%; highly statistically significant, (p=.007).
Assessment of Impacts on Viral Clearance
WHO Review: 6 RCTs, 625 patients. The Panel avoided mention of the important finding of a strong dose-response in regard to this outcome.
This action in (i) is indefensible given that their Unitaid research team found that among 13 RCTs, 10 of the 13 reported statistically significant reductions in time to viral clearance, with larger reductions with multiday dosing than single-day, consistent with a profound dose-response relationship.[2]
Adverse Effects
WHO: Only included 3 RCTs studying this outcome. Although no statistical significance was found, the slight imbalance in this limited sample allowed the panel to repeatedly document concerns for “harm” with ivermectin treatment.
Compare (a) to the WHO’s prior safety analysis in their 2018 Application for Inclusion of Ivermectin onto Essential Medicines List for Indication of Scabies:
“Over one billion doses have been given in large-scale prevention programs.”
“Adverse events associated with ivermectin treatment. are primarily minor and transient.”[3]
The WHO excluded all RCTs studying the prevention of COVID-19 with ivermectin, without supporting rationale. Three RCTs including almost 800 patients found an over 90% reduction in the risk of infection when ivermectin is taken preventively.[4]

Indian Bar Charges Vaccine Bias and Spreading Fear Without Evidence Against Soumya Swaminathan

Excerpts from the Indian Bar Association Charges.
It states;
“World Health Organisation’s Chief Scientist Dr. Soumya Swaminathan said on 23rd May that the nasal Covid-19 vaccines which are under development could be a “game-changer” in India.

But the WHO expert noted that the nasal vaccines may not be available in the country this year, while there is a possibility that in the coming months a third
wave of the corona pandemic could hit children in India.

“It is a piece of misinformation that subsequent waves of the COVID-19 pandemic are going to cause severe illness in children. There is no data – either from India or globally – to show that children will be seriously infected in subsequent waves.” This was informed by Director, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) Delhi, Dr. Randeep Guleria, during a media briefing on COVID-19, held at National Media Centre, PIB Delhi today.

Dr. Guleria cited that 60% to 70% of the children who got infected and got admitted in hospitals during the second wave in India, had either comorbidities or low immunity; healthy children recovered with mild illness without need for hospitalization.

33. It is obvious that, you Noticee No.1 are taking full liberty while issuing false warnings by shrewdly using words like ‘possibly’ ‘may be’ ‘might be’ etc. which ordinary people might not notice and would fall prey to your agenda of spreading fear and anxiety.

34. But let me warn you that such attempts will cost you dearly in Courts of Law where you would be required to state everything on oath and such U turn on one’s own statements would attract severe punishment for lying on oath.

35. It seems that you are desperate to target our children and you are viciously trying to leverage your educational degree of MD Pediatrics and the trappings of your position as the Chief Scientist at WHO, to fraudulently gain confidence of parents who would possibly fall in your trap and blindly believe your warnings.

WHO Not Responding to Indian Charges

39. The sum and substance of all your acts of commission and omission and also your act of deleting the tweet and not replying to the legal notice dated 25th May, 2021 is that you don’t have any scientific, logical, substantive and legally admissible proofs or even arguments to support your and WHO’s stand against Ivermectin. And therefore, you are neither replying to notice nor coming out in the open for a debate. On the other hand, you are trying to resort to hollow things, to frustrate the attempts of State & Union Governments and activists across the world and continue your deplorable acts of supplying and propagating misinformation with twisting and dishonestly concealing the material facts thereby trying to undermine the majesty and dignity of the binding precedents of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. Therefore you are guilty of Contempt of Court and liable to be punished as per Article 215 of the Constitution of India and
section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

In India, High Court and Supreme Court are bestowed with the power to punish for the contempt of the court. Under Section 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971, a contempt of court can be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both.

India Will Charge Conspiracy Against WHO Ghebreyesus and Dehli Health Services Kumar

40. The law regarding extent of proofs required to bring the charge of conspiracy is explained in the judgment of Raman Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan 2000 Cri. L.J. 800, wherein it is ruled as under;

“Conspiracy – I.P.C. Sec. 120 (B) – Supreme court made it clear that an inference of conspiracy has to be drawn on the basis of circumstantial evidence only because it becomes difficult to get direct evidence on such issue – The offence can only be proved largely from the inference drawn from acts or illegal omission
committed by them in furtherance of a common design – Once such a conspiracy is proved, act of one conspirator becomes the act of the others – A Co-conspirator who joins subsequently and commits overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy must also be held liable – Proceeding against accused should be continued and cannot be dropped even if the accused is holding a very high position of a Judge of the constitutional court. In such cases no permission is required before prosecuting such accused.”

41. As per above legal position the Noticee No. 2 & 3 Prof. (Dr.) Sunil Kumar are equally liable for same punishment as that of main conspirator for your act of commission & omission.

42. The other provisions applicable to all you Noticees [what India could charge the three with. Swaminathan, Ghebreyesus and Kumar – are capsulized as under for your ready reference:

2. Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus
Director General
World Health Organisation

3. Prof. (Dr.) Sunil Kumar
Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS)

42.1. Section 115 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):-
115. Abetment of offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life – if offence not committed. – Whoever abets the commission of an offence punishable with death or 1[imprisonment for life], shall, if that offence be not committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; If act causing harm be done in consequence. – and if any act for which the abettor is liable in consequence of the abetment, and which causes hurt to any person, is done, the abettor shall be liable to imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to fourteen years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Para II: Punishment – Imprisonment for 14 years and fine –
According as offence abetted is cognizable or non-cognizable – nonbailable – Triable by court by which offence abetted is triable – Noncompoundable.
42.2. Section 302 of the IPC
302. Punishment for murder. – Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or 1[imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.
42.3. Section 304 of the IPC
304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. –

The three who received the notice had 7 days to respond with evidence to support their claims. This means they had until June 20 after receiving the June 13 notice.

SOURCE Indian Bar Association
Written by Brian Wang,