The world's scientific and social network for malaria professionals
Subscribe to free Newsletter | 10447 malaria professionals are enjoying the free benefits of MalariaWorld today

Obliterated, erased. Bhy who? by WHO?

November 5, 2016 - 07:19 -- Pierre Lutgen

Several scientific papers have disappeared from internet.

For example the clinical trials with Artemisia annua in RD Congo from 2000 (attachment 1)

(M.S. Mueller , I.B. Karhagomba , H.M. Hirt , E. Wemakor. The potential of Artemisia annua L. as a locally produced remedy for malaria in the tropics: agricultural, chemical and clinical aspects. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 73 (2000) 487–493)

and clinical trials  2002 (attachment 2)

(Mûller M., Balagizi I., Wemakor E., Li S.M., Mechler E., Heide L.Artemisia annua: a plant with antiplasmodial activity for local production in the tropics? Etudes chimiques et pharmacologiques, 2002, page 432.)

Or the paper from Ethiopia (attachment 3)

(Gebeyaw Tiruneh, Yigzaw Kebede2, Tegbar Yigza. Use of the plant Artemisia annua as natur al anti-malarial herb in Arbaminch town Ethiop. J. Health Biomed Sci., 2010. Vol.2, No.2 75).

They all gave excellent results on a large number of patients.

As were never published the remarkable results obtained with Artemisia annua in 2005 in Kenya (Collaborative Project ICIPE, KEMRI and N.U.S.AG) and the  2008 results with 160 volunteers in Mozambique (A B Agostinho, A Vlyalko, J Massiringarela and J Fumane). There was some obvious pressure from lackeys of BigpharmaWHO not to publish them, as we were told.

Remains however on internet the 2004 paper from the same authors where they suddenly change their opinion.

(Müller MS, Runyambo N, Wagner I, Borrmann S, Dietz K, Heide L. Randomised controlled trial of a traditional preparation of Artemisia annua L. (Annual Wormwood) in the treatment of< /o:p> malaria. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 2004;98:318–21)

where Artemisia annua is compared with quinine and where, despite reasonable results with Artemisia annua, they come to the conclusion « . Therefore, monotherapy with Artemisia annua L. cannot be recommended as alternative to modern antimalarials, but may deserve further investigation. »

This is the mantra of WHO : Artemisia is a monotherapy, a rather stupid statement for a plant which contains dozens of active molecules against malaria. The Muller 2004 paper has been quoted endlessly over years although it is far from what could be called a large scale, randomized, double blind clinical trial.

The paper is the father of the »WHO Position Statement on Effectiveness of Non-tablet Forms of Artemisia annua L against Malaria » which was on the home page of WHO till 2012, not dated, not signed, not referenced, shameful for an organization of this reputation, but for African governments and European ACT pill sellers the ultimate truth broadcasted by Geneva.

In 2012 this WHO statement was erased and replaced by a formal interdiction of all clinical trials with Artemisia annua tea. Despite this veto large scale, randomized, double blind clinical trials have been run in several African countries since 2008 by couragous medical doctors. A team of young Galileo Galileis. All the trials give for Artemisia annua and Artemisia afra results far superior to ACTs : a cure rate of > 95%, no side effects, no recrudescence, no gametocytes on day 28.

Geneva has replaced Rome which had for centuries an « Index librorum prohibitorum.

It allowed the Vatican to run a business as vicious as the antimalarial pill business of BigpharmaWHO.

AttachmentSize
PDF icon attachment177.96 KB
PDF icon attachment263.09 KB
PDF icon attachment362.84 KB
PDF icon oldstatementWHO12.09 KB

Comments

Submitted by Miles Markus on

I have likewise noticed (thrice) the apparent disappearance of published articles from cyberspace. For instance, something I wrote went missing from "Trends in Parasitology" (2001, Immune response to Trichuris trichiura, 171 (3; March): 121) in that it was not listed online. Therefore, it could not be accessed via the Internet, despite being in the hard copy version of the journal. It was as if the contribution did not exist. Last year, the matter was drawn to the attention of Elsevier, and I note that the publication has become reincarnated. It is now listed amongst the journal issue's contents. The same applies to Mueller et al.'s 2000 paper in the "Journal of Ethnopharmacology", cited in Pierre Lutgen's blog (I have not looked for any of the other articles referred to there), so perhaps the problem was mentioned to the publisher (also Elsevier) and they have in the meantime fixed it.