ER Editor: From the Irish Times of June 2020 re. Emer Cooke, head of the EMA since November 2020:
Ms Cooke moves to the EMA from a role as director of the WHO’s regulation and pre-qualification department, which she held since 2016, and will take over from after the term of current executive director Guido Rasi ends on November 15th. She was nominated for the post by the EMA’s management board, and will formally be appointed after giving a statement to the European Parliament’s Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety on July 13th. Ms Cooke began her career in the pharmaceutical industry in Ireland and holds a degree in pharmacy and masters degrees in science and business administration from Trinity College Dublin.
She has previously worked in the the European Commission’s pharmaceutical unit and in different roles at the EMA between 2002 and 2016 before moving to the WHO. The medicines body was one of the two major EU agencies that moved out of London due to Brexit along with the European Banking Authority. A bid by the Irish government to bring the agency to Dublin ultimately lost out to Amsterdam in the Netherlands.
And as the article below makes clear, she has been a big pharma lobby insider, working at the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, (EFPIA). We believe that this is what is meant by ‘FBA’ in the article below as she worked at the EFPIA / FBA during the ’90s.
She is referred to as ‘Dr.’ below, but nowhere in official publications is this mentioned. To the best of our knowledge, she is neither a medical doctor nor in possession of a Ph.D. Her training is in pharmacy.
Prof. Michel Chossudovsky recently noted the massive conflict of interest with her appointment, especially as AstraZeneca is getting sidelined in favour of Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna in terms of Covid vaccinations:
Does this mean that the Pfizer and Moderna Inc vaccines are “safe” in comparison to those of Astrazeneca?
While AstraZeneca has been the object of suspension, the vaccine-related deaths and injuries are significantly larger in regards to the Pfizer vaccine. Over 100,000 injuries and 64% of the deaths (relating to the Pfizer vaccine) (See data below).
How is it that AstraZeneca has been the object of restrictions by 18 European governments while no limitations have been considered with regard to Pfizer and Moderna Inc? The deaths and injuries related to the Pfizer vaccine have not made the headlines.
Are these Big Pharma vaccine companies competing with one another?
Is the EMA in conflict of interest?
According to EMA’s executive director Emer Cooke: “The risk of mortality from COVID is much greater than the risk of mortality from these rare side effects.”
Emer Cooke was appointed to head the EMA in mid-November 2020 coinciding with the launching of the mRNA vaccine. She previously worked for The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) which represents the major pharmaceutical companies.
European Medicines Agency essentially a lobbying outfit for Big Pharma
A member of the Austrian Parliament for the FPÖ [Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs], the Austrian Freedom Party has called out a woman named Emer Cooke, a former lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry who is now on the board of the EU agency that regulates medicines — including the notorious AstraZeneca “vaccine”, which is currently at the epicenter of a major controversy.
VIENNA – MP Gerald Hauser FPÖ noted that the European Medicines Agency is responsible for monitoring and evaluating medicines in the EU, and is also responsible for their approval.
Before there was even any discussion about vaccinations and the approval of vaccinations, a certain Dr. Emer Cooke was appointed on November 16, 2020 as the chairwoman of the EMA, responsible for a budget in 2020 of approximately €306 million.
The review process of the European Medicines Agency regarding medical issues has been criticized for its lack of transparency and issues of conflict of interest. In a rebuttal of an EMS review that included her work, Louise Brinth, a Danish physician, noted that “experts” reviewing data remain unnamed and seem to be bound to secrecy. Minutes are not released and diverging opinions are not reported, suggesting that all the “experts” are of the same opinion. In her view the process is unscientific and undemocratic.
The Agency has decentralised its scientific assessment of medicines by working through a network of about 4,500 “experts”. One these “experts” is Lynora Saxinger. According to her Twitter profile (ER: creepily she calls herself ‘AntibioticDoc’), she “offers informed Covid-19 opinions in media”.
“Any one who has a history of blood clots might have an increased risk of blood clots at any point anyway,” Saxinger, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, declared in a recent CBC News interview on the safety regarding the AstraZeneca vaccine.” But I don’t believe that there would be a rationale to make a recommendation against using [the vaccine],” she added.
This may present a huge conflict of interest because “91 percent of this [EMA] budget comes from fees paid by the pharmaceutical companies,” Hauser pointed out. “And if you now look at the CV of Dr. Emer Cooke, since 1985 she has been working in various positions in the pharmaceutical industry. It is interesting to note that from 1991 to 1998 she was a director of the FBA (ER: EFPIA).”
The FBA happens to be the lobbying organisation for the largest European Pharmaceutical Conglomerates. Cooke lobbied for eight years for the Big 30 of the European Pharmaceutical Industry.
“Her clients were Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novatis, Johnson and Johnson, and so on and so forth,” according to Hauser. “So, this Dr. Emer Cooke, who was appointed in mid-November of 2020 to the EMA board has, all her life, worked for the pharma industry. She has lobbied in an executive capacity for the pharma industry and is now responsible for the approval and for the control and the efficacy of vaccines like AstraZeneca“.
Hauser believes that this is a prime example of “outright insider deals, outright nepotism [and] bribery”. He added: “Please think about this when in future you use the EMA as proof of the correctness of the testing of medical drugs.”
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.