Please disable your adblock and script blockers to view this page

Indian Charge of Offences Against Humanity by Spreading Ivermectin Disinformation |

World Health Organisation
the State Government’s
Noticee 1 & 2
Indian Bar Association
The Severely Limited Extent and Diversity of Ivermectin Data
Ivermectin Panel
Ivermectin Trial Data
Mortality Assessment WHO Review
the BIRD Review
Essential Medicines List for Indication of Scabies
Bar Charges
the Indian Bar Association
World Health Organisation’s
All India Institute of Medical Sciences
National Media Centre
PIB Delhi
MD Pediatrics
State & Union Governments
Bombay High Court
Contempt of Court
the Contempt of Courts Act
Supreme Court
Dehli Health Services Kumar40
Space, Robotics
Artificial Intelligence
the Head of Research for Allocations
Angel Investor at Space Angels
Singularity University

Soumya Swaminathan
Randeep Guleria
Noticee No.1
Raman Lal Vs
Sunil Kumar
Kumar –
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus
Sunil Kumar Directorate
Brian Wang
Nextbigfuture.comBrian Wang



No matching tags

the Indian Penal Code

No matching tags

Positivity     37.00%   
   Negativity   63.00%
The New York Times
Write a review: Next Big Future

Home » Medicine » Indian Charge of Offences Against Humanity by Spreading Ivermectin DisinformationHere 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 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 PILThe 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. 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). 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 SwaminathanExcerpts from the Indian Bar Association Charges. 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 Kumar40. 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 – 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.

As said here by Brian Wang