UPDATE 04. January 2021: How Bill Gates Created Bharat Biotech – India’s “Swadeshi” COVID-19 Vaccine COVAXIN Maker


UPDATE 11. December 2020: Yes, Bill Gates Said That (... we need Vaccine-Passports). Here’s the Proof

UPDATE 08. August 2020: James Corbett on Derailing the Gates Agenda

ICYMI: Bill Gates: "... be ready for pandemic two!" + Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Under Investigation +  WHY THE BILL GATES GLOBAL HEALTH EMPIRE PROMISES MORE EMPIRE AND LESS PUBLIC HEALTH - Behind a veil of corporate media PR, the Gates Foundation has served as a vehicle for Western capital while exploiting the Global South as a human laboratory. + Bill Gates lies: Why is Gates denying Event 201? + The coronavirus pandemic is likely to intensify this disturbing agenda.

MUST WATCH: A Dangerous Idea: The History of Eugenics in America (see bellow)

Why We Must #ExposeBillGates

By  - 08. August 2020

Welcome. If you’re reading these words, then it’s likely that you’re here because of the #ExposeBillGates global day of action.

Perhaps you’re here out of curiosity. Perhaps you came here to argue with crazy conspiracy theorists. Perhaps you already know about the #ExposeBillGates movement but just want to learn more.

Whatever your motivations for clicking on this link, I promise you this article is not clickbait. This is not a put-on or satire or a trendy internet listicle. The #ExposeBillGates movement is deadly serious, and it aims to alert the public to the real dangers of the world that are coming into view: a world of lockdowns and quarantines, masks and vaccines, checkpoints and immunity passports, cashless payments and biometric IDs.

So the first question you might be asking is: why Bill Gates? Why are all these people on the internet trying to warn about Bill Gates in the midst of this global pandemic? Isn’t Gates a philanthropist who’s trying to help the world out by donating his fortune to good causes?

It was to answer that very question that I created my feature-length documentary on this subject, Who Is Bill Gates?

If you haven’t watched it already, please do so in the player above. You can also follow this link to access the full transcript and audio/video downloads completely for free.

But if you need a bit more information before you invest your time in watching a two-hour documentary, here are some important issues for you to explore, along with some suggestions for further reading and viewing that will help you get caught up on the reasons that we need to #ExposeBillGates.

Bill Gates is not a selfless philanthropist

When he set up the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation with his wife and his father around the turn of the 21st century, Bill Gates went from villain to superhero in the public imagination seemingly overnight. No longer a reviled monopolist who built his Microsoft empire on the back of glitchy software and out of a ruthless desire to squash his competition, Gates was suddenly seen as a selfless philanthropist, generously giving away his fortune for the benefit of the world.

What few realize is that Gates’ philanthropy is hardly selfless. He “generously” donates to causes that directly benefit his family (like his $80 million gift to the prestigious private school that his own children attend) and his business interests. His foundation has even provided hundreds of millions of dollars in grants to corporations like Merck, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Vodafone, Sanofi, Ericsson, LG, Medtronic, and Teva in which his foundation trust holds corporate stocks and bonds.

This self-serving “giving” might account for the striking fact that, over the past decade of his “philanthropy,” Gates’ net worth has actually doubled, from $50 billion to over $100 billion.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has monopolized the global health industry

Gates’ unique brand of philanthropy doesn’t simply benefit his family financially. It also affords him unprecedented power in the field of global public health, where his foundation directs much of its funds. It is remarkable that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is the second-largest donor to the World Health Organization (WHO), right behind the US government. In fact, if the US government does withdraw its funding from the WHO next year as it is currently threatening to do, the Gates Foundation will be the single largest funding source for the group.

But Gates’ influence extends far beyond the WHO. The Gates Foundation co-founded the Global Fund to Fight AIDS; the Global Financing Facility for Women, Children and Adolescents; the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations; Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance; the Stop TB Partnership; and seemingly every other major global health initiative of the past two decades.

To many, the fact that Gates’ funding is behind all of these initiatives is just another sign that Gates is serious in his pledge to devote his wealth to charitable causes. But a growing number of people around the world see the outsized influence of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation as a cause for concern. By funding individual health initiatives and entire organizations into existence, Gates has garnered the ability to direct research priorities and even to determine what forms of medical intervention are used to treat various diseases.

As the WHO’s own malaria chief, Dr. Arata Kochi, warned in an internal memo, Gates’ influence means that the world’s leading malaria scientists are now “locked up in a ‘cartel’ with their own research funding being linked to those of others within the group” and that the foundation is “stifling debate on the best ways to treat and combat malaria, prioritizing only those methods that relied on new technology or developing new drugs.”

Suggested further reading: Bill Gates’ Web Of Dark Money And Influence – Part 1: Philanthropic Narrative Shaping

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has been involved in illegal and unethical research in developing countries

The Gates Foundation has been involved in a number of scandals involving illegal and unethical medical research and clinical trials of vaccines and drugs throughout the developing world.

In 2006, for example, Gates funds were used to help PATH—a global health nonprofit based in Gates’ hometown of Seattle—embark on a five-year project “to generate and disseminate evidence for informed public sector introduction of HPV vaccines.” In India, this project involved a “demonstration project” for GlaxoSmithKline’s and Merck’s HPV vaccines. The aim was to get those vaccines included on India’s national immunization schedule. The Hindu noted that this “shockingly unethical trial” involved flagrant breaches of basic ethical guidelines, including 2,800 cases of children being enrolled in the program by wardens or headmasters acting as “guardian.” The Indian parliament itself wrote a blistering report excoriating the parties involved for their violation of the human rights of the study’s participants.

Other shocking examples of Gates participation or funding in questionable or outright unethical trials include:

  • The Gates-founded and funded Meningitis Vaccine Project, which led to the creation and testing of MenAfriVac, a $0.50-per-dose immunization against meningococcal meningitis. The tests led to reports of between 40 and 500 children suffering seizures and convulsions and eventually becoming paralyzed.
  • The 2017 confirmation that the Gates-supported oral polio vaccine was actually responsible for the majority of new polio cases and the 2018 follow-up study showing that 80% of polio cases are now vaccine-derived.
  • The 2018 paper in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, which concluded that over 490,000 people in India developed paralysis as a result of being given the oral polio vaccine between 2000 and 2017.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has practiced philanthropic racism throughout the developing world

Critics of the Gates Foundation have noted that its efforts to limit population growth (including Melinda Gates’ promotion of the highly controversial Depo Provera drug and other forms of injectable birth control) have centered primarily on nations in Africa and Latin America. The charge that focusing population control programs on these countries constitutes “philanthropic racism” is bolstered by the specter of eugenics. Indeed, the eugenics philosophy has hung like a dark cloud over the realm of corporate foundation philanthropy ever since these philanthropic vehicles were pioneered by the Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation and similar organizations at the turn of the 20th century.

Eugenics is a pseudoscientific rationale for racism and classism that was massively popular in the United States during the Progressive Era of the early 1900s. It holds that the rich and powerful are fit, by virtue of their superior genes, to rule over the “infirm” and “feebleminded” and those with “defective germplasm”—terms that were used to refer to the handicapped, the poor, ethnic minorities and common criminals.

As a field of study, eugenics was largely funded by the philanthropic foundations that the late-19th-century robber barons had founded as a tax-free shelter for their enormous wealth. The Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Foundation in particular helped with significant cash infusions into the Eugenics Records Office and other key research facilities in the eugenic movement. This research led to the passage of involuntary sterilization laws across the US and even the T4 eugenic sterilization program in Nazi Germany.

After the name of eugenics was tarnished in the wake of World War II, many of the eugenics researchers continued their work under different names. Thus, many members of the American Eugenics Society took up work in the offices of John D. Rockefeller III’s Population Council, and Margaret Sanger’s Birth Control League—which had boasted prominent members of the American Eugenics Society on its board—morphed into Planned Parenthood, which was led for many years by a director of the American Eugenics Society, Alan Guttmacher. Bill Gates, Sr. also served on the board of Planned Parenthood, a fact that Gates cited as being influential in his early years as a population control advocate.

The shadow of eugenics and racism still hangs over the field of “population control” research, a stigma that the Gates Foundation has openly wrestled with in recent years.

Gates is helping to form a cashless payment and biometric identity grid

By now, the general public is used to seeing Gates as the public face of the coronavirus crisis. Mainstream media outlets have turned time and again to Gates for more information on the response to COVID-19 and the pressing need to vaccinate “basically the entire world” against SARS-Cov-2.

But, while Gates’ role in funding the global health field is by now well known, his role in funding other technologies that will shape the post-COVID world is not.

The Gates Foundation is tied to ID2020 through Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. Also known as the “Digital Identity Alliance,” ID2020 brings Gavi and Gates’ old company Microsoft and other corporate partners together to create a global digital ID system. This has led the Gates-tied Gavi alliance to focus increasingly on tying vaccine recipients with governmental digital health records and, ultimately, with biometric ID databases. Meanwhile, Gates himself has been a vocal advocate of India’s Aadhaar system, the ambitious project to enroll a billion Indian citizens in the largest biometric database ever constructed.

Gates is also interested in advancing the digitization of the economy. For example, he has addressed government fora in both India and the US about the benefits of digital payment systems. Also, the Gates Foundation helped co-found the Better Than Cash Alliance, a consortium of governmental and non-governmental organizations whose members are committed to creating a digital payment infrastructure for development programs and aid for the poor. This infrastructure, Gates and his cohorts argue, will help governments and aid groups to more effectively target and manage their aid.

But while the fields of global health, biometric identification and digital payments may seem distinct, they have begun to converge as governments and intergovernmental bodies start to imagine the “Great Reset” of the post-COVID “new normal.” Gates has argued that digital immunity certificates—combining the medical diagnostic field with the biometric identification field—will be necessary if life is to return to normal. That convergence is already reflected in the World Economic Forum-promoted “CovidPass” vision of a “health passport,” which would allow people to travel or prevent them from traveling based on their health status and proof of immunity or vaccination.

It does not take a great deal of imagination to see how such a health passport could be tied into the digital payment structure to prevent unvaccinated people from transacting in any number of situations that the authorities might frown upon. After all, Gates himself has touted the ability of governments to block transactions they disapprove of as a key part of the digital payments systems of the future.

This agenda does not begin and end with Bill Gates

Don’t let the hashtag in #ExposeBillGates fool you. True, you have seen in this article (and you will see when you watch the complete Who Is Bill Gates? documentary) that Bill Gates has played an integral role in almost every facet of the coronavirus pandemic and, more importantly, in the global response to it. But the point of #ExposeBillGates is not simply to stop one man, Bill Gates, from enacting this agenda and then to call it a day.

No, Bill Gates is merely the recognizable spider at the center of a web of organizations, institutions, corporations and government bodies that are acting in concert to transform the world as we know it. But these various bodies are all dedicated to the same vision of The Great Reset and the new normal that Bill Gates is, and they would continue to bring that vision about even if Bill Gates himself were somehow stopped.

There are many reasons to be concerned about this agenda and its implications. But even if we were to trust that Gates himself actually is a selfless philanthropist with the purest of intentions, no one should trust that the heads of the various groups, organizations, bodies, NGOs, foundations and governments who are spearheading this agenda are all similarly trustworthy. The amount of power that is being centralized in the hands of unaccountable institutions and nongovernmental bodies should be disturbing to anyone who understands the real danger of putting so much power in so few hands.

It is for this reason that people around the world are joining the #ExposeBillGates movement. They are seeking to draw attention to these issues, to work hand-in-hand with one another, and to begin a public discussion that will derail the agenda promoted by Gates and his fellow travelers.

If you share these concerns, please continue to research the information presented under the #ExposeBillGates hashtag and help spread this vital information far and wide. Together, we can make a difference.

Comments (1)

  1. Corbett says:

    08/08/2020 at 3:12 pm

    Thank you in advance to all those members of The Corbett Report community who help to spread the word about this article and this information as part of their #ExposeBillGates day activism.

    Feel free to spread the link to this article directly (corbettreport.com/exposebillgates/) or to repost this article, in whole or in part, to your own blog or website. Also, feel free to copy/paste any of this text into your own emails, flyers, social media posts or anywhere/everywhere else (with or without credit to me).

    Please keep us informed of your #ExposeBillGates day efforts on this thread: https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1566-derrick-broze-announces-exposebillgates-day-of-action-2/

    And post any general news/information/discussion on the 2020 Summer Open Thread: https://www.corbettreport.com/summer-2020-open-thread/

«   »

Suggested further reading:

Bill Gates’s Charity Paradox

Accountability of International NGOs: Human Rights Violations in Healthcare Provision in Developing Countries and the Effectiveness of Current Measures

Exposing the Gates Agenda in Africa

Bill Gates Calls for a “Digital Certificate” to Identify Who Received COVID-19 Vaccine



I Asked Bill Gates What's The Next Crisis?

•Feb 4, 2021


I got the chance to interview Bill Gates so I asked him: Will Covid-19 be the last pandemic? How does he deal with misinformation and conspiracy theories? And what is the next disaster? The Foundation Letter is here: https://ve42.co/BG21


Body Language: Bill Gates, and ‘Theories’

•Feb 3, 2021

Body Language Ghost

BACKUP ON BITCHUTE (In the likely case GooTube deletes the video above):



How Bill Gates Created Bharat Biotech – India’s “Swadeshi” COVID-19 Vaccine COVAXIN Maker

Contrary to popular belief, the “Swadeshi” Indian COVID-19 vaccine COVAXIN maker Bharat Biotech was backed since its inception by Bill Gates and the international pharma lobby. Bharat Biotech is the first Indian company to receive massive grants from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for vaccine against Rotavirus called Rotavac. The vaccine was given green light by the authorities even before its trials were complete and its efficacy is mired in controversy till today with cases pending in the Supreme Court.

How Bill Gates Created Bharat Biotech - India's Swadeshi Vaccine Company
How Bill Gates Created Bharat Biotech – India’s “Swadeshi” COVID-19 Vaccine COVAXIN Maker

Birth of Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

As the story goes, in 1996, Bill Gates read an article in the New York Times that sparked his passion for health. That moment was one of the factors that led him to co-found the Gates Foundation with his wife, Melinda

The story was about a disease he’d never heard of: Rotavirus.

So, over the next twenty years, Bill Gates poured massive funding in a huge international collaboration between scientists and policy makers across the globe to create a vaccine for Rotavirus.

The Bill Gates’ vaccine for Rotavirus was called Rotavac.

The Rotavac vaccine made waves as a case study for global health solutions created with help from a network of international powers. It was created in India.

Birth of “Swadeshi” Bharat Biotech

The central figure in the story of Rotavac is Duncan Steele, a virologist who has spent the bulk of his 35-year career studying rotavirus. He has spent time working at the World Health Organization (WHO) and another of Bill Gates’ funded Seattle-based global health nonprofit PATH, which coordinated Rotavac’s development. He now works in vaccine development at the Gates Foundation.


Duncan Steele, a longtime rotavirus researcher who has worked on Rotavac through roles at the World Health Organization, PATH and the Gates Foundation.
Duncan Steele, a longtime rotavirus researcher who has worked on Rotavac through roles at the World Health Organization, PATH and the Gates Foundation.

Steele collaborated with scientists at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) in New Delhi to looks for a cure for Rotavirus.

They found a strain in children at AIIMS which acted like a natural vaccine.

In late 1990s, as part of Indo-US Vaccine Action Program (VAP), a group of scientists at the National Institutes of Health in the U.S. modified this rotavirus strain so that it could be used as the basis for a vaccine.

The only problem now was the mass-scale manufacturing of Rotavac. India was the primary target for the new vaccine, but there weren’t any vaccine manufacturers that could do the job.

Hence, massive funding was poured by the network of international powers to create a “Swadeshi” Indian vaccine company – aptly named Bharat Biotech.

Dr. Krishna Ella founder of Bharat Biotech
Dr. Krishna Ella, a molecular biologist with no experience developing vaccines or treating viruses founded Bharat Biotech.

Dr. Krishna Ella, a molecular biologist with no experience developing vaccines or treating viruses was roped in. Despite his lack of expertise in the field or maybe because of it, the pharma lobby believed he was the right person for the job.

Bharat Biotech was headquartered in an area outside Hyderabad known as Snake Valley. Now, the area is known as Genome Valley and is now home to labs and offices of global pharma companies like Merck, Roche, Johnson & Johnson and even Monsanto.

Rotavac – The Controversial Vaccine

Years before the Phase 3 trial was complete, Bill Gates and Dr. Krishna Ella signed a contract agreeing to price Rotavac at $1 a dose. Maybe, because the results of these trials were never made public or are still controversial.

The Rotavac vaccine showed only 56% efficacy in phase III clinical trial and yet it was given a green light by the authorities. Jacob Puliyel, head of the Department of Pediatrics, St. Stephen’s Hospital, Tis Hazari, Delhi raised serious concerns over the Rotavac controversy:

“Do you know another vaccine with 50% efficacy that is used for public health programs? It is a toss-up if the vaccine will work for you. If 100% [of the] population is vaccinated it will reduce 50% [of the] rotavirus deaths. What are the numbers needed to treat [to prevent one death]?”

“I think the fact that this [vaccine] was announced before peer review, [means] it will never be properly reviewed. That is the story that must come out.”

In fact, the government announcement came before the study was even officially completed. According to the clinical trials registry, the estimated study completion date is April 2014, with an estimated primary completion date of December 2013, both months away.

A PIL filed in the Supreme Court by S Srinivasan from LOCOST, a Vadodara-based company that produces low cost medicines for the poor, asked for release of the segregated data from the Rotavac trial. The PIL said:

“concealment of this vital data does severe injustice to the thousands of infants who participated in this study, the researchers who painstakingly conducted the trials, and the medical/scientific community who depend on this data for their work.”

This case is still pending. Meanwhile, the vaccine continues to be used without vaccine recipients being informed of the risks – a clear violation of basic ethics.

The lack of transparency of data in the rotavirus vaccine case boils down to the motives of making profits off the vaccines. Misrepresenting research findings, cherry picking data, and concealing adverse events in clinical trials have become more common and are almost unquestioned practices to this end.

International Backers of Bharat Biotech

Bharat Biotech became the first Indian company to receive two grants from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation through Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH) to develop new vaccines against Malaria and Rotavirus.

The Gates Foundation, still a young philanthropy, made a pledge to fund Rotavac’s development and eventually put nearly $65 million into the project.

Again, in 2015, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation poured a whooping $18,500,000 grant into Bharat Biotech “to support construction of a manufacturing facility eligible for World Health Organization prequalification, thereby ensuring availability and access to second generation liquid rotavirus vaccine for India and Gavi-eligible countries.”

In 2012, Bharat Biotech received USD 4 Million ‘Strategic Translation Award’ from the British Wellcome Trust for clinical development of a new life-saving conjugate vaccine for Invasive Non-Typhoidal Salmonella (iNTS).

Bharat Biotech’s research for the Typhoid fever vaccine named Typbar TCV was supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Clinton Health Access Initiative, the Wellcome Trust and other donors.

Swadeshi vs Videshi COVID-19 Vaccine

There is a ridiculous argument being purposefully floated by vested interests pitting the so called “Swadeshi Vaccine” vs the “Videshi Vaccine”. The fact of the matter is that both of these vaccines and their manufacturers are funded by the same pharma lobby. The only reason they are being touted as “Made in India” is because India is their primary target.

British led GAVI has managed to infiltrate India’s healthcare policy-making thereby gaining a strategic position to dictate India’s response to coronavirus.

GAVI is largely funded by the British government and Bill Gates. While the UK is GAVI’s largest funder, its implementation follows what is known as the” Gates approach”. Known as the Vaccine Cartel or Pharma Cartel by critics, its vaccines have been accused of causing atleast 38 million premature deaths worldwide.

There are currently no laws in India that would protect victims of the COVID-19 vaccine side-effects according to legal experts. There is no law for vaccine compensation in India.

Moreover, governments have signed secret agreements with coronavirus vaccine manufacturers as per which the pharma companies cannot be held legally in case of an adverse reaction to the vaccine or in worst case if a patient dies from the vaccine.

In contrast, the US government paid over $57 million in compensation for vaccine injuries and deaths till March 2020 alone.

Truth of the Pharma Cartel

The pharma lobby behind these COVID-19 vaccines are directly tied to British Eugenics Movement. The Wellcome Trust, GAVI and the Galton Institute, have direct longstanding ties to the UK Eugenics movement.

The latter organization, named for the “father of eugenics” Francis Galton, is the re-named UK Eugenics Society, a group notorious for its promotion of racist pseudoscience and efforts to “improve racial stock” by reducing the population of those deemed inferior for over a century.

The new “wider definition of eugenics,” Galton has said, “would cover methods of regulating population numbers as well as improving genome quality by selective artificial insemination by donor, gene therapy or gene manipulation of germ-line cells.”

These vaccines are created for the developing world, specifically India – the very same areas the pharma lobby has called for reducing population growth.

Population control is a British policy to reduce the population of former colonies like India through various sterilization projects and other policies implemented through the United Nations and popularised by Hollywood to effectively keep nations under the Anglo-American orbit.



Republished on BITCHUTE February 3rd, 2021.



Yes, Bill Gates Said That. Here’s the Proof

By CHD - 11. December 2020

Gates and his minions insist the billionaire never said we’d need digital vaccine passports. But in a June 2020 TED Talk, Gates said exactly that. Someone edited out the statement, but CHD tracked down the original.

Some chiseler altered Bill Gates’ June 2020 TED Talk to edit out his revealing prediction that we will all soon need digital vaccine passports (slide 1). But after considerable effort, we tracked down the original video (slide 2). 

Gates’ minions on cable and network news, his public broadcasting, social media and fact-checker toadies all now insist that Gates never said such things. They say he never intended to track and trace us with subdermal chips or injected tattoos.

They dismiss such talk as “conspiracy theories.”

Well, here it is from the horse’s mouth.

In 2019, according to a not-yet-purged Scientific American article, Gates commissioned the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to build an injectable quantum dot dye system to tattoo stored medical info beneath children’s skin. The tattoo was designed to be readable by an iPhone app.

Gates’ company, Microsoft, has patented a sinister technology that uses implanted chips with sensors that will monitor body and brain activity. It promises to reward compliant humans with crypto currency payments when they perform assigned activities.

Gates also invested approximately $20 million in MicroCHIPS, a company that makes chip-based devices, including birth-control implant chips with wireless on/off switches for remote-controlled drug-delivery by medical authorities.

In July 2019, months before the COVID pandemic, Gates bought 3.7M shares of Serco, a military contractor with U.S. and UK government contracts to track and trace pandemic infections and vaccine compliance.

To facilitate our transition to his surveillance society, Gates invested $1 billion in EarthNow, which promises to blanket the globe in 5G video surveillance satellites. EarthNow will launch 500 satellitesallowing governments and large enterprises to live-stream monitor almost every “corner” of the Earth, providing instantaneous video feedback with one-second delay. 

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation also acquired 5.3 million shares of Crown Castle, which owns 5G spy antennas including more than 40,000 cell towers and 65,000 small cells. 

Please make your own copy of these clips — as Gates’ power to disappear inconvenient facts is expanding every digital day.


Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s avatar

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s reputation as a resolute defender of the environment stems from a litany of successful legal actions.


Interview 1570 – James Corbett on Derailing the Gates Agenda

By  • 08/08/2020

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

via Spiro Skouras: Bill Gates was recently asked by Yahoo Business what he would do if he were president of the United States. In this interview James Corbett of CorbettReport.com joins Spiro to ask the very same question, only to arrive at a much different conclusion.


Spiro BitChute channel

How Bill Gates would treat COVID-19 if he were President of the United States

Episode 373 – Medical Martial Law 2020

WHO Appoints H1N1 Cover-Up Committee

The Coronavirus CONSPIRACY – Did COVID-19 Come from America?

Donald Trump Partners with the Gates-Funded Global Vaccine Alliance
Bertrand Russell: “Diet, injections and injunctions…”

Looking Forward to the End of Humanity – #PropagandaWatch

Immunization Safety Review: SV40 Contamination of Polio Vaccine and Cancer

How Did Potatoes Get So Popular? – #PropagandaWatch


Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Under Investigation

•Apr 18, 2020

The Damage Report

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is under investigation. John Iadarola and Tim Schwab break it down on The Damage Report.


Bill Gates’s Charity Paradox

Nation investigation illustrates the moral hazards surrounding the Gates Foundation’s $50 billion charitable enterprise.

By Tim Schwab - 17. March 2020

Last fall, Netflix premiered a three-part documentary that promises viewers a rare look at the inner life of one of history’s most controversial businessmen. Over three hours, Inside Bill’s Brain shows us a rare emotional side to Bill Gates as he processes the loss of his mother and the death of his estranged best friend and Microsoft cofounder, Paul Allen.

Mostly, though, the film reinforces the image many of us already had of the ambitious technologist, insatiable brainiac, and heroic philanthropist. Inside Bill’s Brain falls into a common trap: attempting to understand the world’s second-richest human by interviewing people in his sphere of financial influence.

In the first episode, director Davis Guggenheim underlines Gates’s expansive intellect by interviewing Bernie Noe, described as a friend of Gates.

“That’s a gift, to read 150 pages an hour,” says Noe. “I’m going to say it’s 90 percent retention. Kind of extraordinary.”

Guggenheim doesn’t tell audiences that Noe is the principal of Lakeside School, a private institution to which the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has given $80 million. The filmmaker also doesn’t mention the extraordinary conflict of interest this presents: The Gateses used their charitable foundation to enrich the private school their children attend, which charges students $35,000 a year.

Illustration by Jason Seiler.

The documentary’s blind spots are all the more striking in light of the timing of its release, just as news was trickling out that Bill Gates met multiple times with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein to discuss collaborating on charitable activities, from which Epstein stood to generate millions of dollars in management fees. Though the collaboration never materialized, it nonetheless illustrates the moral hazards surrounding the Gates Foundation’s $50 billion charitable enterprise, whose sprawling activities over the last two decades have been subject to remarkably little government oversight or public scrutiny.

While the efforts of fellow billionaire philanthropist Michael Bloomberg to use his wealth to win the presidency foundered amid intense media criticism, Gates has proved there is a far easier path to political power, one that allows unelected billionaires to shape public policy in ways that almost always generate favorable headlines: charity.

The billionaire class: Warren Buffett (left) and Bill Gates, two of the Gates Foundation’s three trustees, sharing a laugh. (Jeff Christensen / WireImage)

When Gates announced in 2008 that he would step away from Microsoft to focus his efforts on philanthropy, he described his intention to work with and through the private sector to deliver public-goods products and technologies, in the same way that Microsoft’s computer software expanded horizons and created economic opportunities. Describing his approach by turns as “creative capitalism” and “catalytic philanthropy,” Gates oversaw a shift at his foundation to leverage “all the tools of capitalism” to “connect the promise of philanthropy with the power of private enterprise.”

The result has been a new model of charity in which the most direct beneficiaries are sometimes not the world’s poor but the world’s wealthiest, in which the goal is not to help the needy but to help the rich help the needy.

Through an investigation of more than 19,000 charitable grants the Gates Foundation has made over the last two decades, The Nation has uncovered close to $2 billion in tax-deductible charitable donations to private companies—including some of the largest businesses in the world, such as GlaxoSmithKline, Unilever, IBM, and NBC Universal Media—which are tasked with developing new drugs, improving sanitation in the developing world, developing financial products for Muslim consumers, and spreading the good news about this work.

The Gates Foundation even gave $2 million to Participant Media to promote Davis Guggenheim’s previous documentary film Waiting for Superman, which pushes one of the foundation’s signature charity efforts, charter schools—privately managed public schools. This charitable donation is a small part of the $250 million the foundation has given to media companies and other groups to influence the news.

“It’s been a quite unprecedented development, the amount that the Gates Foundation is gifting to corporations…. I find that flabbergasting, frankly,” says Linsey McGoey, a professor of sociology at the University of Essex and author of the book No Such Thing as a Free Gift. “They’ve created one of the most problematic precedents in the history of foundation giving by essentially opening the door for corporations to see themselves as deserving charity claimants at a time when corporate profits are at an all-time high.”

McGoey’s research has anecdotally highlighted charitable grants the Gates Foundation has made to private companies, such as a $19 million donation to a Mastercard affiliate in 2014 to “increase usage of digital financial products by poor adults” in Kenya. The credit card giant had already articulated its keen business interest in cultivating new clients from the developing world’s 2.5 billion unbanked people, McGoey says, so why did it need a wealthy philanthropist to subsidize its work? And why are Bill and Melinda Gates getting a tax break for this donation?

The Nation found close to $250 million in charitable grants from the Gates Foundation to companies in which the foundation holds corporate stocks and bonds: Merck, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Vodafone, Sanofi, Ericsson, LG, Medtronic, Teva, and numerous start-ups—with the grants directed at projects like developing new drugs and health monitoring systems and creating mobile banking services.

The Gates Foundation did not respond to specific questions about its work with the private sector, nor would it provide its own accounting of how much money it has given to for-profit companies, saying that “many grants are implemented through a mixture of non-profit and for-profit partners, making it difficult to evaluate exact spending.”

At business-friendly events, however, Bill Gates openly promotes his foundation’s work with companies. In speeches delivered at the American Enterprise Institute and Microsoft in 2013 and ‘14, he trumpeted the lives his foundation was saving—in one speech he said 10 million, in another 6 million—through “partnerships with pharmaceutical companies.”

Yet the foundation is doing more than simply partnering with companies: It is subsidizing their research costs, opening up markets for their products, and bankrolling their bottom lines in ways that, by and large, have never been publicly examined—even as you and I, dear reader, are subsidizing this work.

Bill Gates frequently boasts about having paid more taxes—​$10 billion—than anyone else. That may or may not be true; the Gates Foundation would not release his tax forms or provide any substantiating information. But he may also end up avoiding more taxes than anyone else, through charitable giving.

By Bill and Melinda Gates’s estimations, they have seen an 11 percent tax savings on their $36 billion in charitable donations through 2018, resulting in around $4 billion in avoided taxes. The foundation would not provide any documentation related to this number, and independent estimates from tax scholars like Ray Madoff, a law professor at Boston College, indicate that multibillionaires see tax savings of at least 40 percent—which, for Bill Gates, would amount to $14 billion—when you factor in the tax benefits that charity offers to the superrich: avoidance of capital gains taxes (normally 15 percent) and estate taxes (40 percent on everything over $11.58 million, which in Gates’s case is a lot).

Madoff, like many tax experts, stresses that these billions of dollars in tax savings have to be seen as a public subsidy—money that otherwise would have gone to the US Treasury to help build bridges, do medical research, or close the funding gap at the IRS (which has resulted in fewer audits of billionaires). If Bill and Melinda Gates don’t pay their full freight in taxes, the public has to make up the difference or simply live in a world where governments do less and less (educating, vaccinating, and researching) and superrich philanthropists do more and more.

Naturally, Big Philanthropy has special interest groups pushing back on the creation of such rules. The Philanthropy Roundtable defends the wealthiest Americans’ “freedom to give,” describing itself as fighting the “increasing pressures from some public officials and advocacy groups to subject private philanthropies to more uniform standards and stricter government regulation.”

At a certain point, however, the Philanthropy Roundtable seems primarily to serve the private interests of billionaires like the Gateses and Koch who use charity to influence public policy, with limited oversight and substantial public subsidies. It’s unclear how the Philanthropy Roundtable’s work contributes to the Gates Foundation’s charitable missions “to help all people live healthy, productive lives” and “to empower the poorest in society so they can transform their lives.”

While there is no credible argument that Bill and Melinda Gates use charity primarily as a vehicle to enrich themselves or their foundation, it is difficult to ignore the occasions where their charitable activities seem to serve mainly private interests, including theirs—supporting the schools their children attend, the companies their foundation partly owns, and the special interest groups that defend wealthy Americans—while generating billions of dollars in tax savings.

Philanthropy has also delivered a public relations coup for Bill Gates, dramatically transforming his reputation as one of the most cutthroat CEOs to one of the most admired people on earth. And his model of charity, influence, and absolution is inspiring a new era of controversial tech billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos, who have begun giving away their billions, sometimes working directly with Gates.

Gates was already one of the richest humans on earth in 2008, but he was also an embattled billionaire, still licking his wounds from a series of legal battles around the monopolistic business practices that made him so extravagantly wealthy—and that compelled Microsoft to pay billions of dollars in fines and settlements.

Gates did not respond to multiple requests for interviews, but in a recent Q&A with The Wall Street Journal, he revisited his legal face-off with antitrust regulators, saying, “I can still explain to you why the government was completely wrong, but that’s really old news at this point. For me personally, it did accelerate my move into that next phase, two to five years sooner, of shifting my focus over to the foundation.”

Gates’s view of Microsoft as the victim of overzealous antitrust regulations may help explain the laissez-faire ethos driving his charitable giving. His foundation has given money to groups that push for industry-friendly government policies and regulation, including the Drug Information Association (directed by Big Pharma) and the International Life Sciences Institute (funded by Big Ag). He has also funded nonprofit think tanks and advocacy groups that want to limit the role of government or direct its resources toward helping business interests, like the American Enterprise Institute ($6.8 million), the American Farm Bureau Foundation ($300,000), the American Legislative Exchange Council ($220,000), and organizations associated with the US Chamber of Commerce ($15.5 million).

Between 2011 and 2014 the Gates Foundation gave roughly $100 million to InBloom, an educational technology initiative that dissolved in controversy around privacy issues and its collection of personal data and information about students. To Diane Ravitch, a professor of education at New York University, InBloom illustrates the way Gates is “working to push technology in classrooms, to replace teachers with computers.”

“That affects Microsoft’s bottom line,” Ravitch observes. “However, I’ve never made that argument…. [The foundation] is not looking to make money from this business. They have an ideological interest in free markets.”

Education isn’t the only area where Gates’s ideological interests overlap with his financial interests. Microsoft’s bottom line is heavily dependent on patent protections for its software, and the Gates Foundation has been a strong and consistent supporter of intellectual property rights, including for the pharmaceutical companies with which it works closely. These patent protections are widely criticized for making lifesaving drugs prohibitively expensive, particularly in the developing world.

“He uses his philanthropy to advance a pro-patent agenda on pharmaceutical drugs, even in countries that are really poor,” says longtime Gates critic James Love, the director of the nonprofit Knowledge Ecology International. “Gates is sort of the right wing of the public-health movement. He’s always trying to push things in a pro-​corporate direction. He’s a big defender of the big drug companies. He’s undermining a lot of things that are really necessary to make drugs affordable to people that are really poor. It’s weird because he gives so much money to [fight] poverty, and yet he’s the biggest obstacle on a lot of reforms.”

Doing well while doing good: The Gates Foundation’s sprawling work with for-profit companies has created a welter of conflicts of interest. (Pius Utomi Ekpei / AFP via Getty Images)

The Gates Foundation’s sprawling work with for-profit companies has created a welter of conflicts of interest, in which the foundation, its three trustees (Bill and Melinda Gates and Buffett), or their companies could be seen as financially benefiting from the group’s charitable activities.

Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway has billions of dollars in investments in companies that the foundation has helped over the years, including Mastercard and Coca-Cola. Bill Gates long sat on the board of directors at Berkshire, announcing his departure just last week, and he and his foundation together hold billions of dollars of equity stake in the investment firm.

The foundation’s work also appears to overlap with Microsoft’s, to which Gates, in recent years, has devoted one-third of his workweek. (Gates announced last week he would be stepping down from the company’s board, but remain involved with the company as a technology advisor). The Gates Foundation’s $200 million program to improve public libraries partnered with Microsoft to donate the company’s software, prompting criticism that the donations were aimed at “seeding the market” for Microsoft products and “lubricating future sales.” Elsewhere, Microsoft is investing money studying mosquitoes to help predict disease outbreaks, working with the same researchers as the foundation. Both projects involve creating sophisticated robots and traps to collect and analyze mosquitoes.

“The foundation and Microsoft are separate entities, and our work is wholly unrelated to Microsoft,” a Gates Foundation spokesperson says.

In 2002, The Wall Street Journal reported that Gates and the Gates Foundation’s endowment made new investments in Cox Communications at the same time that Microsoft was in discussion with Cox about a variety of business deals. Tax experts raised questions about self-dealing, noting that foundations can lose their tax-exempt status if they are found to be using charity for personal gain. The IRS would not comment on whether it investigated, saying, “Federal law prohibits us from discussing specific taxpayers or organizations.”

“It’s hard to draw the line between a) Microsoft; b) his own personal wealth and investment; and c) the foundation,” says consumer advocate Ralph Nader, one of Microsoft’s fiercest critics in the 1990s. “There’s been very inadequate media scrutiny of all that.”

The foundation’s clearest conflicts of interest may be the grants it gives to for-profit companies in which it holds investments—large corporations like Merck and Unilever. A foundation spokesperson said it tries to avoid this kind of financial conflict but that doing so is difficult because its investment and charitable arms are firewalled from one another to keep their activities strictly separate. Bill and Melinda Gates are trustees of both entities, however, making it difficult to draw a sharp line between the two.

And in some places, the Gates Foundation explicitly marries its investing and charitable activities. Gates’s “strategic investment fund,” which the foundation says is designed to advance its philanthropic goals, not to generate investment income, includes a $7 million equity stake in the start-up company AgBiome, whose other investors include the agrochemical companies Monsanto and Syngenta. The foundation also gave the company $20 million in charitable grants to develop pesticides for African farmers. Similarly, the foundation has a $50 million stake in Intarcia and an $8 million investment in Just Biotherapeutics, to which it gave $25 million and $32 million in charitable grants, respectively, for work related to HIV and malaria. At one point, the foundation held a 48 percent stake in an HIV diagnostic company called Zyomyx, to which it previously awarded millions of dollars in charitable grants.

A league of their own: Bill Gates Sr. (left) and his son prepare to throw out the first pitch for the Seattle Mariners in 2013. (Elaine Thompson / AP)

Asked about these apparent conflicts of interest, the foundation says that grants and investments “are simply two tools the foundation uses as appropriate to further its charitable objectives.”

When Gates began his foundation in 1994, he put his father, Bill Gates Sr., in charge. A prominent lawyer in Seattle, Gates Sr. was also a civic leader and, later, a public advocate on issues related to income inequality.

Working with Chuck Collins, an heir to the Oscar Mayer fortune who gave away much of his inheritance during his 20s, Gates Sr. helped organize a successful national campaign in the late 1990s and early 2000s to build political power around preserving the estate tax, the taxes levied against the assets of the wealthy after they die.

In interviews Gates Sr. gave at the time (he has Alzheimer’s disease now and was not contacted for an interview), his advocacy work seemed designed not to generate tax revenues but to inspire philanthropy.

“A wealthy person has an absolute choice as to whether they pay the [estate] tax or whether they give their wealth to their university or their church or their foundation,” he told journalist Bill Moyers.

That’s because when the rich give away their wealth, they reduce the assets that the estate tax targets. But such an arrangement, whereby the wealthiest Americans get to decide for themselves whether they want to pay taxes or donate their money to charity—including to groups that influence government policy—sounds like a peak example of tone-deaf privilege. In many respects, that’s how the tax system works for the superrich.

“The richer you are, the more choice you have between those two,” says Collins, who today works on income inequality at the nonprofit Institute for Policy Studies.

For some billionaire philanthropists, it may be less of a choice than an entitlement. Buffett and Gates have recruited hundreds of millionaires and billionaires to sign the Giving Pledge, a promise to donate most of their wealth to charity, which some signatories explicitly cite as an alternative to paying taxes.

According to Collins, Bill Gates Sr. had a nuanced view that included limiting billionaires’ tax benefits.

“He said to me…it’s a problem that his son is going to give—at the time, it was like $80 billion—to the foundation and never have to pay taxes on any of that wealth,” Collins recalls. “His view was that there should be a cap on the lifetime amount of wealth that could be given to charity where you get a deduction.”

Around the time that Collins and Gates Sr. were putting pressure on Congress to make sure the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, the younger Gates was running a multinational company aggressively looking for tax breaks. According to the assessor’s office for King County, which includes Seattle, Microsoft has filed 402 appeals on its property taxes. Likewise, a 2012 Senate investigation examined Microsoft’s aggressive use of offshore subsidiaries to save the company billions of dollars in taxes. And The Seattle Times reported that Microsoft spent decades creating lucrative, tax-reducing barriers around corporate profits.

Bill Gates, nevertheless, has managed to become a leading—and seemingly progressive—public voice on tax policy. Every year around tax time, he and Buffett make media appearances decrying how little they pay in taxes, calling on Congress to raise taxes on the wealthy. At times, however, they advocate policies that may not actually touch their wealth, such as promoting the estate tax, which they will likely avoid through charitable donations.

Gates, along with a growing chorus of billionaires, has also used his public platform to push back on a proposed wealth tax, supported by both Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. A wealth tax would take a percentage of a billionaire’s assets every year, limiting the accumulation of wealth—and possibly the amount of money spent on philanthropy. Gates counters that charity work reduces income inequality.

“Philanthropy done well not only produces direct benefits for society, it also reduces dynastic wealth,” he wrote on his blog, GatesNotes.

When the Gates foundation has faced criticism in regard to its endowment—including investments in prisons, fast food, the arms industry, pharmaceutical companies, and fossil fuels—conflicting with its charitable mission to improve health and well-being, Gates has pushed back in black-and-white terms, calling divestment a “false solution” that will have “zero” impact.

The Gates Foundation’s investments are not an insignificant part of its charitable efforts. Its $50 billion endowment has generated $28.5 billion in investment income over the last five years. During the same period, the foundation has given away only $23.5 billion in charitable grants.

In 2007, in one of the few investigative journalism series ever published about the foundation, the Los Angeles Times profiled the foundation’s investments in mortgage lenders involved in subprime loans and for-profit hospitals accused of performing unneeded surgeries. The Times also noted the foundation’s investments in chocolate companies that depend on cocoa production using child labor.

The Gates Foundation spokesperson says it “does not comment on specific investment decisions or holdings,” but did note that the “sole purpose” of its endowment is “to provide income to support the Foundation’s mission and to be capable to do so over the long term.”

The Gates Foundation’s endowment currently has an $11.5 billion stake in Berkshire Hathaway, which in turn has $32 million invested in the chocolate company Mondelez, which has been criticized in relation to the use of child labor. The foundation made $32.5 million in charitable donations to the World Cocoa Foundation, an industry group whose members include Mondelez, for a project to improve farmer livelihoods. The project doesn’t appear to address child labor.

The tax reform act of 1969 created special rules to limit the influence that wealthy philanthropists could exercise through private foundations—in theory ensuring they produce public benefits rather than serve private interests.

In practice, these rules give wealthy donors like Bill and Melinda Gates enormous latitude in their philanthropic activities. For example, when it comes to self-dealing, the IRS prohibits only the most egregious conflicts of interest, such as foundations awarding grants to companies controlled by board members. Likewise, IRS rules broadly allow charitable donations to for-profit companies, as long as the foundations keep paperwork showing that the money was used to advance their charitable missions.

But because the Gates Foundation views market-based solutions and private-sector innovation as public goods, the line between charity and business can be indistinguishable. Sociologist Linsey McGoey says, “They’ve defined their charitable mission so broadly and loosely that literally any for-profit company could be said to be meeting the Gates Foundation’s general goal of improving social and global well-being.”

The IRS’s oversight of private foundations is constrained by recent budget cuts and its limited mandate to collect taxes from nonprofits like the Gates Foundation, which are largely free from paying them.

“If you’re the IRS commissioner and you’re given a finite sum to spend on the agency, and your job is to make sure the US Treasury has money in it, you are going to give a token nod to tax-exempt organizations,” says Marc Owens, a former director of the IRS’s tax-exempt division who is now in private practice. “One [IRS] agent looking at restaurants in Washington or New York City is going to generate a lot of money…. One agent looking at private foundations will probably pay their salary, but it’s not going to bring in tax dollars.”

Reputation repair: Bill and Melinda Gates leaving court after testifying in the 2002 Microsoft antitrust trial. They have become known as famous philanthropists rather than corporate predators. (Kenneth Lambert / AP)

According to IRS statistics, there are around 100,000 private foundations in the United States, housing close to $1 trillion in assets. However, foundations generally pay a tax rate of only 1 or 2 percent, and the IRS reports auditing, at most, 263 foundations in 2018.

State attorneys general can exercise oversight of private foundations, as the New York attorney general’s office did in 2018 when it investigated Donald Trump’s private foundation, which shut down amid allegations that he used it for his personal benefit. The Gates Foundation’s location in Seattle gives the state of Washington purview over its charitable work, but the state attorney general’s office there says it did not have full-time staff dedicated to investigating charitable activities until 2014, a decade after the foundation became the largest philanthropy in the world. The Washington AG’s office would not comment on whether it has ever investigated the Gates Foundation.

Bill Gates’s outsize charitable giving—​$36 billion to date—has created a blinding halo effect around his philanthropic work, as many of the institutions best placed to scrutinize his foundation are now funded by Gates, including academic think tanks that churn out uncritical reviews of its charitable efforts and news outlets that praise its giving or pass on investigating its influence.

In the absence of outside scrutiny, this private foundation has had far-reaching effects on public policy, pushing privately run charter schools into states where courts and voters have rejected them, using earmarked funds to direct the World Health Organization to work on the foundation’s global health agenda, and subsidizing Merck’s and Bayer’s entry into developing countries. Gates, who routinely appears on the Forbes list of the world’s most powerful people, has proved that philanthropy can buy political influence.

Gates’s personal wealth is greater today than ever before, around $100 billion, and at only 64 years of age, he may have decades left to donate this money, picking up a Nobel Prize along the way or—who knows?—a presidential nomination. The same could be said of Melinda Gates, who, at 55, recently took a big step into public life with a highly publicized book tour.

But it’s also possible that a day of reckoning is coming for Big Philanthropy, Bill Gates, and the growing number of billionaires following his footsteps into charity.

Economists, politicians, and journalists continue to put a spotlight on billionaires who aren’t paying their fair share of taxes but who shape politics through campaign contributions and lobbying. Charity is seldom regarded as a tax-avoiding tool of influence, but if income inequality continues to gain attention, there is simply no way to avoid asking tough questions of Big Philanthropy. Do billionaire philanthropists have too much power, with too little public accountability or transparency? Should the wealthiest Americans have carte blanche to spend their wealth any way they want?

It may seem like a radical proposition to challenge the ability or desire of multibillionaires to give away their fortunes, but such scrutiny has a historical precedent in mainstream politics. One hundred years ago, when oil baron John D. Rockefeller asked Congress to provide him with a charter to start a private foundation, his ambitions were soundly rejected as an anti-democratic power grab. As Theodore Roosevelt said at the time, “No amount of charities in spending such fortunes can compensate in any way for the misconduct in acquiring them.”

Editor’s note: this post has been updated.


Tim Schwab is a freelance journalist based in Washington, DC, whose investigation into the Gates Foundation was part of a 2019 Alicia Patterson Foundation fellowship.



Billionaire oligarch Bill Gates and his Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has effectively privatized global public health infrastructure, and is poised to profit handsomely after the Covid-19 pandemic (Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons)

Behind a veil of corporate media PR, the Gates Foundation has served as a vehicle for Western capital while exploiting the Global South as a human laboratory. The coronavirus pandemic is likely to intensify this disturbing agenda.

By  AND  - 08. 

President Donald Trump’s announcement this July of a U.S. withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO) set into motion a process that will have a dramatic impact on the future of global public health policy – and on the fortunes of one of the world’s richest people.

The US abandonment of the WHO means that the organization’s second-largest financial contributor, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, is soon to become its top donor, giving the non-governmental international empire unparalleled influence over one the world’s most important multilateral organizations.

Bill Gates has achieved a hero-like status during the pandemic. The Washington Post has called him a “champion of science-backed solutions,” while the New York Times recently hailed him as “the most interesting man in the world.” Gates is also the star of a hit Netflix docu-series, “Pandemic: How to Prevent an Outbreak,” which was released just weeks before coronavirus hit the U.S., and was produced by a New York Times correspondent, Sheri Fink, who previously worked at three Gates-funded organizations (Pro Publica, the New America Foundation, and the International Medical Corps). 

The tidal wave of mainstream media praise for Gates during the Covid-19 era has meant that scrutiny of the billionaire and his machinations is increasingly prevalent on the farright of the political spectrum, where it can be dismissed by progressives as the conspiratorial ravings of Trumpists and Q-Anon quacks. 

But beyond the public relations bonanza about Gates lies a disturbing history that should raise concerns about whether his foundation’s plans for resolving the pandemic will benefit the global public as much as it expands and entrenches its power over international institutions. 

The Gates Foundation has already effectively privatized the international body charged with creating health policy, transforming it into a vehicle for corporate dominance. It has facilitated the dumping of toxic products onto the people of the Global South, and even used the world’s poor as guinea pigs for drug experiments.

The Gates Foundation’s influence over public health policy is practically contingent on ensuring that safety regulations and other government functions are weak enough to be circumvented. It therefore operates against the independence of nation states and as a vehicle for Western capital.

“Because of the Gates Foundation, I have watched government after government fall in its sovereignty,” Dr. Vandana Shiva, a scholar and founder of the India-based Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, told The Grayzone.

Saving the world?

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the largest private foundation on Earth, reporting over $51 billion in assets at the end of 2019. Bill Gates says his foundation spends a majority of its resources “reducing deaths from infectious diseases,” and through this philanthropy, he seems to have bought a name for himself as an infectious disease expert.

Corporate media networks rolled out the red carpet for Gates as he advised the world on how to handle the Covid-19 outbreak. In just the month of April, while the virus was severely impacting the U.S., he was hosted by CNNCNBCFoxPBSBBCCBSMSNBC, The Daily Show and The Ellen Show. On the BBC, Gates described himself as a “health expert,” despite his lack of a college degree in medicine or any other field.

The billionaire’s media appearances are shot through with a single, undeniable theme: If global leaders listened to Gates, the world would be better equipped to fight the pandemic. As the fashion magazine Vogue asked, “Why Isn’t Bill Gates Running the Coronavirus Task Force?”

So what does a Gates-led COVID response look like?

The ultimate solution

According to Bill Gates, creating and distributing a Covid-19 vaccine to everyone on Earth is “the ultimate solution” to the outbreak. Gates Foundation CEO Mark Suzman echoed these sentiments, proclaiming that “a successful vaccine has to be made available for 7 billion people.” 

On CNN in April, the wife of Bill Gates the co-director of his foundation, Melinda Gates, lamented that she was “kept up at night” worrying about vulnerable populations in Africa and how unprepared they were for this virus. In June, she told TimeMagazine that, in the U.S., black people should get the vaccine first.

Bringing a life-saving vaccine to vulnerable black populations in Africa and the U.S., and then to everyone around the world, seems noble, and Bill Gates is certainly putting his money where his mouth is. In March, he stepped down from his position on the board of directors at Microsoft and is apparently “now spending the predominant amount of his time on the pandemic.”

The Gates Foundation, the “biggest funder of vaccines in the world,” has already directly donated more than $300 million toward the global response to the coronavirus. This includes backing vaccine trials by companies like Inovio Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, and Moderna Inc., all of which are being described as frontrunners in the race to develop a Covid-19 vaccine.

The foundation also co-founded and funds the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness (CEPI), which is investing up to $480 million in “a wide range of vaccine candidates and platform technologies.”

Even so, there might be cause for skepticism when examining the reality of a Gates-led global vaccination effort.

Conflicts of interest

As the second-richest person on Earth, Bill Gates has no reason to crave money. This is a common response to claims that Gates’ philanthropy isn’t motivated solely by the kindness of his heart. But despite these frequent characterizations of Gates “giving away” his fortune, his net worth has actually doubled in the last two decades.

At the same time, strong evidence suggests that the Gates Foundation functions as a trojan horse for Western corporations, which of course have no goal greater than an increased bottom line.

Consider the revolving door between the Gates Foundation and Big Pharma.

Former director of vaccine development at the foundation and current CEO of the Bill & Melinda Gates Medical Research Institute, Penny Heaton, hails from drug kingpins Merck and Novartis.

The foundation’s president of global health, Trevor Mundel, served in leadership positions at both Novartis and Pfizer. His predecessor, Tachi Yamada, was previously a top executive at GlaxoSmithKline (GSK).

Kate James, worked at GSK for almost 10 years, then became the foundation’s chief communications officer. The examples are almost endless.  

LEft: former Gates President of Global Health Tachi Yamada. Right: Gates Foundation President of Global Health Trevor Mundel. Both previously worked as pharmaceutical industry executives.

Moreover, the Gates Foundation invests in these corporations directly. 

Since shortly after its founding, the foundation has owned stakes in several drug companies. A recent investigation by The Nation revealed that the Gates Foundation currently holds corporate stocks and bonds in drug companies like Merck, GSK, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, and Sanofi.

The foundation’s website even candidly declares a mission to pursue “mutually beneficial opportunities” with vaccine manufacturers. 

Gates buys the World Health Organization

The WHO relies on two streams of revenue. One comes in the form of assessed contributions, or obligatory funding from UN member states which is assessed through population and income. The second is voluntary contributions, which can be earmarked for specific causes.

Voluntary earmarked contributions account for more than 80 percent of the current WHO budget. In other words, most of the WHO’s money comes with strings attached.

As Dr. David Legge, public health scholar emeritus at the School of Public Health at La Trobe University in Melbourne, told The Grayzone, “Obligatory contributions by nation states really only cover the cost of administration. It doesn’t cover any of the project costs, which means that all project funding is dependent on donors. [And] virtually all donor money is totally earmarked to highly specific projects that the donors want to fund.” 

Through these voluntary contributions, the WHO took in over $70 million from the pharmaceutical industry in 2018 (the last year for which complete data is available). Meanwhile, the Gates Foundation has provided Big Pharma with the perfect vehicle for influencing the WHO.

In 2018 alone, the foundation gave $237.8 million to the WHO, making it the second-largest contributor after the U.S.

The foundation also funds the WHO indirectly through Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations (GAVI), a “public-private partnership” that facilitates bulk sales of vaccines to poor countries. GAVI is the second-largest non-state funder of the WHO (after the Gates Foundation), and gave $158.5 million to the WHO in 2018. 

In the late 1990s, Bill Gates sponsored the meetings that led to the creation of GAVI, establishing it up with $750 million in seed money. To date, the Gates Foundation has given GAVI more than $4.1 billion, accounting for close to 20 percent of GAVI funds. It also occupies a permanent seat on the GAVI board.

GAVI itself discloses that the Gates Foundation “plays both a technical and financial role in [its] efforts to shape vaccine markets.” 

Citing GAVI as an example, the activist group Global Health Watchexplained that “other global health actors are accountable to the Gates Foundation, but not the other way round.”

If the foundation’s and GAVI’s WHO contributions are combined, they outweigh the U.S. government’s contributions, making the Gates Foundation the unofficial top sponsor of the WHO, even before the Trump administration’s recent move to withdraw from the organization.

To sociologist Allison Katz, who worked for 18 years in the WHO headquarters, the WHO “has become a victim of neoliberal globalization.” Katz wrote an open letter to then-WHO DirectorGeneral Margaret Chan in 2007, criticizing public bodies that “go begging to the private sector [and] to the foundations of celebrity ‘philanthropists’ with diverse agendas, from industry.”

To be sure, the WHO’s close financial relationship with a private organization is only a problem to the extent that it relies on quid pro quo donations. And that seems to be exactly what is taking place.

Because most of both the Gates Foundation’s contributions to the WHO are earmarked, the WHO doesn’t decide how these funds are spent – the foundation does. For example, the WHO program that receives the most money is its polio eradication program, because the Gates Foundation earmarks most of its contributions for polio.

Additionally, the sheer magnitude of the foundation’s financial contributions have made Bill Gates an unofficial  – albeit unelected – leader at the organization. That’s why the World Health Assembly that sets the WHO agenda adopted a “Global Vaccine Plan” in 2012 that was co-authored by none other than the Gates Foundation. 

According to Dr. David Legge, scholar emeritus at the School of Public Health at La Trobe University in Melbourne, Gates’ financial “donations” are actually a mechanism for agenda setting. Legge told The Grayzone that “his massive contributions totally distort the kind of budget priorities that the World Health Assembly would wish to see.”

According to Foreign Affairs, “few policy initiatives or normative standards set by the WHO are announced before they have been casually, unofficially vetted by Gates Foundation staff.” Or, as other sources told Politico in 2017, “Gates’ priorities have become the WHO’s.”

In an interview with Global Health Watch, one senior health policy officer from a large NGO put it this way: “The people at WHO seem to have gone crazy. It’s ‘yes sir’, ‘yes sir’, to Gates on everything.”

In 2007, the chief of the WHO malaria program, Dr. Arata Kochi, warned of the Gates Foundation’s financial dominance, arguing that its money could have “far reaching, largely unintended consequences.”

Seven years later, the organization’s then-Director General Margaret Chan noted that because the WHO’s budget is highly earmarked, it is “driven by what [she calls] donor interests.”

Former WHO Director General Margaret Chan and Bill Gates

When Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus became WHO Director General in 2017, Gates’ influence came under fire again.

Tedros was previously on the board of two organizations Gates founded, provided seed money for, and continues to fund to this day: GAVI and the Global Fund, where Tedros was chair of the board.

Today, Tedros, the first WHO director general who is not a medical doctor, can be found tweeting praise for Bill Gates’ op-eds.

Another mechanism the Gates Foundation employs to influence the WHO is the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE), the principal advisory group to the WHO for vaccines. SAGE is a board of 15 people, legally required to disclose any possible conflicts of interest.

During a recent virtual meeting, half of the board’s members who did so listed Gates Foundation connections as possible conflicts of interests.

The foundation’s influence in the international health arena goes well beyond the WHO. A 2017 analysis of 23 global health partnerships revealed that seven relied entirely on Gates Foundation funding and another nine listed the foundation as its top donor. 

As the UK-based NGO Global Justice Now noted, “the Foundation’s influence is so pervasive that many actors in international development which would otherwise critique the policy and practice of the Foundation are unable to speak out independently as a result of its funding and patronage.”

“The World Bank and the IMF look like midgets in front of the Gates Foundation, in terms of power and influence,” Dr. Vandana Shiva remarked to The Grayzone.

Molding the media

The Gates Foundation has also directed its wealth toward influencing news coverage of global health policy – and to perhaps suppress criticism of its more unsavory activities.

The foundation has donated millions to major media outlets, including NPR, PBS, ABC, BBC, Al Jazeera, the Daily Telegraph, the Financial Times, Univision, and The Guardian. In fact, The Guardian’s entire “Global Development” section was made possible through a partnership with the Gates Foundation.

The foundation has also invested millions in journalism training and in researching effective ways of crafting media narratives. According to the Seattle Times, “experts coached in Gates-funded programs write columns that appear in media outlets from the New York Times to the Huffington Post, while digital portals blur the line between journalism and spin.”

In 2008, the communications chief for PBS NewsHour, Rob Flynn, explained that “there are not a heck of a lot of things you could touch in global health these days that would not have some kind of Gates tentacle.” This was around the time when the foundation gave the NewsHour $3.5 million to establish a dedicated production unit to report on important global health issues.

Mickey Huff, the president of the Media Freedom Foundation, told The Grayzone that the Gates Foundation exerts influence in a way that is typical for foundations working through PR firms, grants, and endowments of professors. “In short,” Huff said, “Edward Bernays would be proud of the achievements of this type of propaganda.”

It is no wonder glowing coverage of the foundation is so common in mainstream media, or that its more unsavory activities in the Global South get so little attention.

Deadly double standards

The Gates Foundation has helped engineer global health policy for poor countries for over 20 years, working mainly in Africa and South Asia. Its close relationship with the drug industry seems to have colored that work.

While the foundation’s mission statement reads, “we see equal value in all lives,” an exploration of this recent history proves otherwise. The foundation appears to see the Global South as both a dumping ground for drugs deemed too unsafe for the developed world and a testing ground for drugs not yet determined to be safe enough for the developed world.

The so-called “flagship of Bill Gates’ / WHO African vaccine program” is the diphtheria tetanus pertussis (DTP) vaccine. It is a bundle of three immunization shots given to virtually every child on the African continent, but not currently administered in the U.S. or in most other developed nations.

As far back as 1977, a study published by British medical professionals in The Lancet established that the risks of the whole-cell pertussis jab (used in the DTP vaccine) are greater than the risks associated with contracting wild pertussis. After mounting evidence linking the drug to brain damageseizures, and even death, the U.S. and other Western countries phased it out in the 1990s and replaced it with a safer version (called DTaP) that did not contain the whole pertussis cell. 

However, African nations are still being financially incentivized to continue using the out-of-date, deeply dangerous DTP vaccine, with GAVI making DTP a priority for African children.

Shockingly, a 2017 study funded by the Danish government concluded that more African children were dying at the hands of the deadly DTP vaccine than by the diseases it prevented. The researchers examined data from Guinea Bissau and concluded that boys were dying at almost quadruple (3.93) the rate of those who had not received the shot, while girls suffered almost 10 times (9.98) the death rate. 

Yet these staggering numbers have not stopped the Gates Foundation from spending millions annually to push the DTP vaccine onto African healthcare systems.

There is perhaps no more famous element of the Gates Foundation’s work than its polio eradication effort. Yet once again, the polio drugs the Western world uses and the drugs given to the Global South are dramatically different.

The foundation has spent more than $1 billion distributing an oral polio vaccine (OPV) that contains a live polio virus to African and Asian countries. This live virus can replicate inside a child’s intestine and spread in places with poor sanitation and plumbing. That means people can contract the virus from the vaccine.

According to a 2017 study by the University of California San Francisco and Tel Aviv University, the polio virus used in the OPV has done just that in at least two dozen cases the researchers examined – it rapidly regained its strength and started spreading on its own.

In recent years, more children have been paralyzed by the vaccine strain of the virus in OPV than by wild polio. In an interview with NPR, professor of microbiology Raul Andino said, “It’s actually an interesting conundrum. The very tool you are using for polio eradication is causing the problem.”

Back in 2000, the U.S. halted its use of the OPV. But in the developing world, the Gates Foundation uses its instruments of influence to ensure governments continue administering it.

Polio outbreaks in both the Philippines and the Congo are the result of the OPV. In 2005, Oxford’s Clinical Infectious Diseases Periodical contended that polio outbreaks in China, Egypt, Haiti, and Madagascar were also caused by the OPV, declaring that “the time is coming when the only cause of polio is likely to be the vaccine used to prevent it.”

A few years later, the same periodical, while arguing that developing countries should shift to the Inactive Polio Vaccine (IPV) that the U.S. uses, wrote that the OPV is not only giving kids polio, but also “seems to be ineffective in stopping polio transmission” to begin with.

As the British Medical Journal reported in 2012, “the most recent mass polio vaccination programs [in India], fueled by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, resulted in increased cases [of polio].”

According to doctors in India, the OPV is also causing outbreaks of another disease called non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP). After an epidemic of NPAFP paralyzed 490,000 children between 2000 and 2017, the doctors published a report suggesting that “the increase in NPAFP and the later decrease in such cases was indeed an adverse effect of the [WHO’s] polio immunization program.”

NPAFP is “clinically indistinguishable from polio but twice as deadly.” Keith Van Haren, Child Neurologist at the Stanford School of Medicine explains that, “it actually looks just like polio, but that term really freaks out the public-health people.”

In 2012, the British Medical Journal wryly noted that polio eradication in India “has been achieved by renaming the disease.”

That same year, the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics observed both vaccine-derived polio outbreaks and the massive increase in NPAFP. It likened eradication efforts in India to the occupation of Iraq, stating:

“When the U.S. was badly mired in Iraq in 2005, Joe Galloway suggested that the U.S. must simply declare victory, and then exit. Perhaps the time is right for such an honourable strategy with regard to polio eradication.”

However, the Gates Foundation and the WHO have stayed the course, distributing the OPV in countries including Nigeria, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, where the foundation says the WHO is now providing “unprecedented levels of technical assistance” for polio vaccination campaigns. 

In Syria, the Gates-backed GAVI pledged $25 million for polio immunization in 2016. A year later, the WHO reported that 58 children in Syria had been paralyzed by the vaccine-derived form of the virus.

Despite the scientific consensus against the OPV, and the opposition to such programs in the target countries, OPV remains administered in Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia as part of “aid” programs, creating windfall profits for pharmaceutical giants who may not have been able to sell their products elsewhere.

With drugs discarded by the West, an illusion of choice for African women

The Gates Foundation’s practice of pushing dangerous drugs onto health systems of the Global South is not limited to vaccines. It also helps distribute long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs).

Melinda Gates often refers to LARCs as a way to empower women of impoverished countries and give them more control over their lives. However, some of these LARCs have had adverse effects, and the distribution of the products without informed consent offers women little self-determination.

One example is Norplant, a contraceptive implant manufactured by Schering (now Bayer) that can prevent pregnancy for up to five years. It was yanked from the U.S. market in 2002 after more than 50,000 women filed lawsuits against the company and the doctors who prescribed it. 70 of those class action suits related to side effects like depression, extreme nausea, scalp-hair loss, ovarian cysts, migraines, and excessive bleeding. 

A human development website called Degrees, which was bankrolled by the Gates Foundation, alleges that Norplant “never gained much traction globally” because inserting it and removing it “proved cumbersome.”

Slightly modified and rebranded as Jadelle, the dangerous drug was promoted in Africa by the Gates Foundation in conjunction with USAID and EngenderHealth. Formerly named the Sterilization League for Human Betterment, EngenderHealth’s original mission, inspired by the racist pseudoscience of eugenics, was to “improvethe biological stock of the human race.” Jadelle is not approved by the FDA for use in the U.S.

Then there is Pfizer’s Depo-Provera, an injectable contraceptive used in several African and Asian countries. The Gates Foundation and USAID have collaborated again to fund this drug’s distribution and introduce it into the healthcare systems of countries including Uganda, Burkina Faso, Nigeria, Niger, Senegal, Bangladesh, and India.

In 2012, Melinda Gates promised to supply contraceptives like Depo-Provera, which cost between $120 and $300 a year, to at least 120 million women by 2020. In 2017, Melinda Gates authored an article on Medium reporting that she and her partners were on track to keeping that promise, and pledging $375 million in additional funds to do so. That meant that Pfizer made between $14 and $36 billion through this program.

Disturbingly, Depo Provera’s active ingredient – depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) – has been associated with side effects like life threatening blood clots in the lungs, blindness, and breast cancer.

Pfizer’s one-time use version of the drug, called Sayana Press, is intended to be administered by “community health workers.” In Senegal, however, almost half of these workers had no more than a sixth grade education. 

Senegal’s Health Ministry was forced to change its laws so the health workers could legally distribute the drug. According to the Population Research Institute, USAID-funded NGOs “strong armed the government” into this decision.

Additionally, training materials for Sayana Press did not provide information on all the side effects of DMPA, violating principles of informed consent. According to WHO guidelines, DMPA shouldn’t be used by women with rheumatic disorders. But USAID funded patient screening checklists for Uganda did not instruct health workers to ask women about a history of such disorders.

Guidelines for trainers of providers of Sayana Press also don’t mention that the drug has been strongly associated with bone density loss and an increased risk of bone fractures. As the Population Research Institute put it, “The FDA requires that U.S. women be informed of this fact, but African women are kept in the dark.”

In 2015, 70 Indian feminist groups and scholars signed a statementprotesting the regulatory approval of Depo-Provera, citing side effects like excessive bone density loss, weight gain, excessive bleeding, and depression. Their statement argued that women’s organizations have consistently opposed the introduction of dangerous contraceptives like these, and that “there are risks that the women are not given enough information to make an informed choice of contraceptive method.”

Despite widespread domestic opposition and the mounting evidence of negative side effects, the Gates Foundation continues working with USAID to distribute drugs like Depo-Provera.

Guinea pigs in the Global South

Bill Gates’ channels of influence have also been instrumental in testing drugs on people in poor countries.

Before a drug can be sold to the public, the FDA and similar agencies in Europe mandate that a company test the drug on human subjects. The third and final phase of these tests before the drug can go to market are phase III clinical trials, during which companies are required to give the drug to large numbers of people in controlled studies.

It is estimated that about 90 percent of drug development costs are incurred in phase III trials. But these companies can avoid costs by conducting the trials in so-called developing nations.

This cost-cutting strategy has been outlined by the U.S. consulting firm McKinsey, which suggested including “emerging markets” in drug trials to reduce “the loss of significant revenues.”

So it comes as no surprise that the Gates Foundation, a McKinsey client, outwardly stated its “goal” was to help drug companies side-step safety trials and accelerate the drug approval process for pharmaceutical companies. Or, as they put it, to “refine potential interventions such as vaccine candidates before they enter costly and time consuming late-stage clinical trials.”

While conducting clinical trials on the poor is financially advantageous, it can also be dangerous. Citing numerous examples of the danger, a South African newspaper once declared, “We are the guinea pigs for the drug makers.”

From 2009 to 2011, phase III clinical trials of the first malaria vaccine – funded by the Gates Foundation and manufactured by GSK – took place in seven African countries (Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Burkina Faso, Gabon, and Tanzania).

In 2011, GSK’s own data showed female children were dying (from any cause) at more than twice the rate of those in the control group. Children who received the vaccine also had a risk of meningitis that was 10 times higher than those who didn’t.

Yet the WHO still coordinates the administration of the drug to more than 700,000 children in GhanaKenya, and Malawi,  as part of an unofficial clinical trial it calls a “pilot implementation.” (It was the Gates-aligned SAGE that recommended the pilot implementation.)

Since this product is administered to children as part of the countries’ vaccination schedule, the WHO claims consent is implied. But parents aren’t always given information regarding safety risks, again rendering them unable to give informed consent for their children. As the associate editor of the British Medical Journal put it, “an implied consent process means that recipients of the malaria vaccine are not being informed that they are in a study.”

The Gates Foundation also funded clinical trials of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines made by GSK and Merck. These drugs were given to 23,000 young girls in remote Indian provinces as part of an initiative by the Gates-backed Program for Appropriate Health and Technology (PATH).

Again, study participants were robbed of the ability to give informed consent, as the “pros and cons of vaccination [were not] properly communicated to the parents/guardians.”

According to Professor Linsey McGoey from the University of Essex, “Most of the vaccines were given to girls at ashram pathshalas (boarding schools for tribal children), side-stepping the need to seek parental consent for the shots.”

PATH also failed to implement a system for recording major adverse reactions to the vaccines, which is legally mandated for large-scale clinical trials. The Indian Committee on Health and Family Welfare brought PATH to court for this alleged transgression, accusing it of human rights violations and of child abuse. In 2013, the court’s two judge panel observed that while foreign companies “are treating India as a heaven for clinical trials, and it is proving hell for India.”

India’s parliamentary committee charged that the “sole aim” of the Gates-funded project was to promote “commercial interests of the HPV vaccine manufacturers, who would have reaped windfall profits if PATH had been successful in getting the HPV vaccine included in the universal immunization program of the Country.”

The editor emeritus of the National Medical Journal of India concurred with the panel’s report, writing that this was an “obvious case where Indians were being used as guinea pigs.”

Weakening the public health systems of states

In addition to pushing dangerous products onto poorer countries, the Gates Foundation actually stunts improvements to public health systems and access to health care. Thus, changes in social and economic determinants of health take a backseat to more profitable, technology-centric solutions like vaccines.

This phenomenon is reflected in the WHO budget. The foundation is the largest contributor to the WHO’s polio eradication program, but the largest funder of WHO’s “health systems” program is the government of Japan.

According to Global Justice Now, the foundation’s “heavy focus on developing new vaccines… detracts from other, more vital health priorities such as building resilient health systems.” 

As Dr. David Legge explains, Gates “has got a mechanistic view of global health, in terms of looking for silver bullets. All of the things he supports are largely framed as silver bullets … That means that major issues that have been identified in the World Health Assembly are not being addressed, including in particular the social determinants of health, and the development of health systems.”

In 2011, Gates spoke at the WHO, saying, “All 193 member states, you must make vaccines a central focus of your health systems.”

University of Toronto public health professor Anne Emanuelle Birn wrote in 2005 that the foundation had a “narrowly conceived understanding of health as the product of technical interventions divorced from economic, social, and political contexts.”

“The Gates Foundation has long championed private sector involvement in, and private sector profit-making from global health,” Birn told The Grayzone.

One of GAVI’s senior representatives even reported that Bill Gates often told him in private conversations “that he is vehemently ‘against’ health systems” because it is a “complete waste of money.”

This phenomenon is also reflected in how the policy agenda is set at GAVI. GAVI, too, focuses on vertical health interventions like vaccines, instead of horizontal approaches, like building and strengthening health systems in poor countries.

report by Global Public Health outlines the “Gates approach” to health systems, analyzing how disease-specific projects like vaccines have eclipsed efforts to work on publicly funded health systems. The article’s author, Katerini Storeng, pointed to GAVI as an example of how “global health initiatives have come to capture the global health debate about health systems strengthening in favor of their disease specific approach and ethos.”

According to a former GAVI staffer who spoke with Storeng, even former GAVI CEO Julian Lob-Levitt was aware of the “absurdity of vaccine campaigns that consume four weeks to plan, implement and clean up and that, when repeated eight times a year, totally paralyze the health system.”

At one point, Lob-Levitt commissioned a series of evaluations of GAVI, which identified weaknesses in health systems and the need to strengthen them. The push to do so, however, was “strongly resisted by many powerful actors [on GAVI’s board]” including USAID and the Gates Foundation, according to Storeng’s interviews.

Storeng writes that a GAVI staffer told her that the Foundation was a “very loud, vocal voice, saying that we do not believe in the strengthening of health systems.”

The report also notes:

“Gates’ reputation for being ‘not very good at listening’ has encouraged a non-confrontational approach within the global health arena … a former GAVI employee and HSS [health systems strengthening] proponent recounted how he and his colleagues used to ‘roll down the HSS posters’ when Bill Gates came to visit the GAVI headquarters in Geneva because he is known to ‘hate this part’ of GAVI’s work.”

The foundation’s preference for weak public health systems, and for techno-centric solutions to public health problems is not limited to its work with the drug industry. It also shapes policy in the crucial sector of food.

Early this year, Gates set up a new non-profit institute based in St. Louis, Missouri, home of Monsanto. The foundation said the new organization, dubbed Gates Ag One, will “enable the advancement of resilient, yield enhancing seeds” and introduce them into “crops essential to smallholder farmers, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.”

Yet while helping small farmers sounds like a noble endeavor, the foundation has worked to ensure that the Global South is dependent on Western industry, whether through drugs or high-tech seeds and agrochemicals.

Much of this activity began in 2006 when the Gates Foundation partnered with the Rockefeller Foundation to give birth to the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA). Gates committed $100 million, while the Rockefeller Foundation ponied up $50 million.

The approach of AGRA, which opened up African markets to U.S. agribusiness, is based on the belief that hunger is due to a lack of Western tech, instead of the result of inequality or exploitation.

According to a report by the African Center for Biosafety, “It is striking that none of those in the forefront of the revolution is African. No different from the colonial project in Africa, this new revolution is created and most ardently advocated by white men claiming to fight for the emancipation of Africans from the clutches of hunger and poverty.”

Through AGRA, the Foundation pushes for the introduction of patented, genetically modified (GM) seeds and fertilizers. While these technologies help seed and chemical giants like Monsanto, they often undermine food security.

Dr. Vandana Shiva maintains that the idea that GM crops increase yields is a “scientific falsehood.” For another, the foundation again ensures that valuable resources are diverted away from systemic solutions to hunger and poverty.

As The Ecologist asserted, Gates and Monsanto partner in the “inappropriate and fraudulent GMO project which promotes a technical quick fix ahead of tackling the structural issues that create hunger, poverty and food insecurity.”

What’s more, the Gates Foundation actually influences African governments to change laws to accommodate the agriculture industry

According to Grain.org:

“In Ghana … AGRA helped the government review its seed policies with the goal of identifying barriers to the private sector getting more involved. With technical and financial support from AGRA, the country’s seed legislation was revised and a new pro-business seed law was passed in mid-2010. Among other things it established a register of varieties that can be marketed. In Tanzania, discussions between AGRA and government representatives facilitated a major policy change to privatise seed production. In Malawi, AGRA supported the government in revising its maize pricing and trade policies.”

Commenting on the role of Gates in reshaping agriculture markets, Shiva told The Grayzone, “You create a new field, you invest in it. You force governments to invest in it, you destroy the regulation. You destroy the alternatives, you attack the scientists.  And you create a whole machinery for your monopoly.”

As in the case of Gates and Big Pharma, these moves can be explained by the Gates Foundation’s apparent conflicts of interest. And as before, the examples go on and on.

Former deputy director of the foundation’s agriculture program, Robert Horsch, was previously a high-ranking executive at Monsanto, where he worked for 25 years. Horsch led the team that manages agricultural grants, and according to Global Policy Forum, “he was asked to join the Gates Foundation particularly for the purpose of continuing his Monsanto research.”

Sam Dryden, the former director of the Gates Foundation’s agriculture program, previously led two of the largest genetically modified seed companies, Emergent Genetics and Agragentics Corporation. In 2005, Emergent was bought by Monsanto, where Dryen stayed for six months. While he was at the Gates Foundation, The Guardian called him “the most powerful figure in the global south’s agriculture.”

The former program officer for Gates’ agriculture program, Don Doering, was previously a founding member of Monsanto’s Biotechnology Advisory Council. Doering led an agricultural development team that directed money into “help[ing] poor farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa and Asia.”

Then there’s Florence Wambugu, who authored the book “Modifying Africa” and has been called “an apostle of Monsanto in Africa.” After receiving a scholarship from USAID, Wambugu became a researcher at Monsanto. She was then appointed to the Gates Foundation’s Global Development board.

As with several of its pharmaceutical endeavors, the Gates Foundation works with USAID in the agriculture sector. Pamela K. Anderson, the current director of agriculture development at the Gates Foundation, is currently on the board of USAID.

22,000 children die each day due to poverty. Yet socio-economic causes of health problems can be neglected when industry aligned interests call the shots. Such is the case with the Gates Foundation’s primacy in the global health arena.

In short, the foundation’s leadership in previous global health efforts displays an allegiance not to public health, but to the imperatives of Western capital. It prefers not to strengthen health systems, but to ensure nations remain dependent on Big Pharma and/or Big Agriculture for as long as possible.

It is in this light the Gates’ leadership in the global fight against Covid-19 can be understood.

Operation Warp Speed immunizes Big Pharma from lawsuits

In mid-May, the Trump administration unveiled its new coronavirus vaccine project: Operation Warp Speed. While announcing the new project, President Trump boasted that his administration “cut through every piece of red tape to achieve the fastest-ever, by far, launch of a vaccine trial.”

Like the Trump administration, Bill Gates is advocating for the acceleration of Covid-19 drug approval timeline. He writes that “governments will need to expedite their usual drug approval processes in order to deliver the vaccine to over 7 billion people quickly.” He says “there is simply no alternative” to this agenda.

In March, the U.S. passed federal regulations granting liability immunity to corporations producing coronavirus drugs, including vaccines. It also provided liability immunity to any entity distributing the drugs.

With more than 100 Covid-19 vaccines currently in development, this means products will be indemnified against lawsuits, even if they produce harmful effects.

If vaccine makers are indeed exempted by governments around the globe from legal penalties, these companies have little incentive to protect people from harmful side effects. As in the past, it seems that citizens of the world’s poorest countries are set to become “guinea pigs for the drug makers.”

Bill Gates’ advocacy for legal immunity for drug manufacturers dates back to at least 2015, when he lamented during the Ebola outbreak that there was no clear process for “providing indemnity against legal liability.” He suggested that during a “global epidemic,” drug companies should be indemnified to “avert long delays.” Now, his proposal is coming to fruition.

Gates justified his position on the grounds that companies will need to produce drugs as fast as possible to save lives, and these new drugs may not always be safe. “Understanding safety… is very, very hard,” he said to CBS. “There will be some risk and indemnification needed before [getting a vaccine out] can be decided on.”

Normally, a drug goes through a phase of animal testing before it gets tested on small (phase I), medium (phase II), and large numbers of people (phase III). But with Covid, Gates wants to “save time” by conducting tests on humans and animals at the same time.

Today, the U.S. is “compressing what is typically 10 years of vaccine development,” according to the head of the National Institute of Health (NIH).

This may produce some troubling effects. For one, a successful coronavirus vaccine has yet to be produced, and a new one could trigger lethal reactions. Tropical disease specialist Dr. Peter Hotez,who worked on a failed vaccine for another coronavirus (SARS), said that during experimental tests of the drug, animals fell victim to what he calls “immune enhancement.” The animals that were given the shot developed more severe (and often fatal) versions of the virus when compared with unvaccinated animals.

Hotez told Reuters, “The way you reduce that risk [for humans] is first you show it does not occur in laboratory animals.” The medical expert stated that while he understands “the importance of accelerating timelines for vaccines in general, but … this is not the vaccine to be doing it with.”

Without performing the initial phase of animal testing normally required to bring a vaccine to market, a biotech company named Moderna is now conducting human trials for its Covid-19 vaccine. Moderna’s vaccine is an mRNA type which has never been approved by the FDA for use on humans. 

This technology, which contains genetically engineered cells that can permanently alter human DNA, was developed with grants from both the Gates Foundation and the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). Moderna says it has a “strategic alliance” with DARPA, which gave the company $25 million in total.

Moderna’s mRNA technology has been singled out by Bill Gates as “one of the most promising options for COVID.” Gates even has a “global health project framework agreement” with Moderna to give it up to $100 million for the development of its mRNA technology, in exchange for receiving “certain non-exclusive licenses.”

Moderna’s co-founder Robert Langer has partnered with Gates in the past on projects such as the contraceptive microchip implantthat can be activated wirelessly.

When Moderna announced the completion of its phase 1 safety trial May 18, corporate news outlets parroted Moderna’s “good news.” But the fine print in the release revealed that three of the 15 participants injected with the highest dose of the vaccine developed grade three systemic symptoms, which the FDA defines as “severe,” “disabling,” and requiring “hospitalization,” although “not immediately life-threatening.”

On May 15, President Trump appointed Moncef Slaoui,  a boardmember of Moderna who until May 19 held more than $10.3 million in Moderna stock, as chief scientist of the nation’s effort to find a Covid-19 vaccine. 

Slaoui, who calls himself a “venture capitalist,” is also on the board of directors at the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI), a “public-private partnership” organization that has received more than $359 million from the Gates Foundation.

Slaoui also held leadership positions at GSK. While heading the company’s Research and Development, GSK pleaded guilty and paid $3 billion in what the U.S. Justice Department referred to as the “largest healthcare fraud settlement in U.S. history.” The fraud included the coverup of the link between the drug Paxil and suicidal and depressive side effects (predominantly in children), the coverup of the link between the drug Avandia and heart attacks, which the FDA estimated lead to 83,000 excess heart attacks, as well several bribery and illegal kickback schemes.

While he was GSK’s chairman of vaccines, Slaoui oversaw the development of the swine flu vaccine named Pandemrix, which was rushed to market without proper testing during the swine flu outbreak. The result was an unsafe shot that left at least 800 people with brain damage, 80 percent of them children. Since GSK only agreed to give governments the vaccine on the condition that it be indemnified from liability, U.K. taxpayer money was used to pay millions of pounds in compensation to the victims.

Slaoui was hired to be the Trump administration’s “vaccine czar” as a private contractor, not a government employee. This means, as Public Citizen explained, that Slaoui can “maintain an extensive web of conflicting financial interests without the need to divest of, recuse from, or disclose those conflicting interests.”

The corporate media likes to paint the Covid-19 response as a tug of war between anti-science blowhards like Donald Trump and “champions of science” like Bill Gates. However, Slaoui’s appointment to co-direct “Operation Warp Speed” indicates that, here, the Trump administration and the Gates Foundation are on the same team. 

After entering his new Trump administration role, Slaoui declaredthat Moderna’s clinical trial data made him confident “we will be able to deliver a few hundred million doses of vaccine by the end of 2020.”

Although the U.S. government has picked Moderna as one of its five coronavirus vaccine “finalists,” financial moves by some company executives suggest Moderna’s best days might be behind them.

According to SEC filings, the company’s Chief Financial Officer Lorence Kim sold 214,000 Moderna shares on the day of the press release, immediately profiting more than $16 million.

Thomas Lys, a professor of accounting at Northwestern University, was quoted by Stat News saying this could simply be a financial decision by Moderna to get some liquidity, but that “there’s always that other possibility – that these guys really know the whole thing is bogus and they’re selling while the selling is good.”

Chief Medical Officer Tal Zaks, who held close to 100,000 shares of Moderna stock at the beginning of the year, started dumping shares a few days before Moderna announced its vaccine was ready for human testing, has profited more than $18 million in 2020, and now owns zero shares.

A centralized stockpile to “make WHO dependent on the goodwill of Big Pharma”

In October 2019, the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security hosted “Event 201” in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Gates Foundation.

A former steering committee member of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security is now the Trump administration’s stockpile chief, and the CEO of Johns Hopkins Medicine is also on the board of directors at the pharmaceutical corporation Merck.

Event 201 was an exercise simulating the outbreak of a novel coronavirus. It included representatives from the U.S. National Security Council, as well as corporate leadership from drugmakers like Johnson & Johnson.

While similarities between the mock outbreak and the real outbreak have prompted unsubstantiated theories about Bill Gates “predicting” COVID 19, it is undeniable that the policy proposals that emerged out of the exercise are being implemented today.

Following the simulation, complete with chillingly realistic mock press conferences and newscasts by an imitation network called GNN, the three organizations issued recommendations for dealing with a “severe pandemic.” One recommendation was to have a “robust international stockpile” of medical countermeasures like vaccines. 

During the simulation, the Gates Foundation’s global health president, Chris Elias, urged such a stockpile. He explained that “a global stockpile would certainly help ensure a rational and strategic allocation,” but that a collaboration between the WHO and the private sector is necessary to make one effective.

From an objective standpoint, a centralized stockpile of medical countermeasures can be of value during a health crisis. But the question of who controls and distributes it raises troubling issues. 

Dr. David Legge told The Grayzone that Elias’s suggestion would further increase the influence of for-profit pharmaceutical corporations, because “undoubtedly, a public-private partnership with a procurement focus and distribution focus would involve Big Pharma and make WHO dependent on the goodwill of Big Pharma.”

Gates might argue that the control and distribution of such stockpiles should also be influenced by Western institutions like NATO. In 2015, he wrote that during a “severe epidemic,” “some global institution could be empowered and funded to coordinate the [epidemic response] system,” that there should be discussion about splitting authority between the WHO and “others (including the World Bank and the G7 countries),” and that “the conversation should include military alliances such as NATO.”

Gates has also argued that “low-income countries should be some of the first to receive” the Covid-19 vaccine. If NATO is playing a role in controlling and distributing vaccines, such aid could be used to further a Western military agenda, as such “aid” has been used in past humanitarian interventions.

Gates has nearly monopolized the realm of public health policy, both nationally and internationally. “Fauci and I are in constant contact,” he has proclaimed, referring to the face of the U.S. Covid response, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci.

At the same time, the mega-billionaire is apparently talking to both CEOs of pharmaceutical companies and heads of government “every day.”

While maintaining relationships with government organizations and the profit-driven private sector, the Gates Foundation has become perhaps the most influential player in the global Covid-19 response. So if the foundation’s work has favored Western multinationals at the expense of public health in the past, why should anyone expect a different result this time?

History repeats itself

This July, the Associated Press reported that South Africans had gathered in Johannesburg to protest the presence of the phase III AstraZeneca clinical trial in Africa. The Gates Foundation had poured $750 million into this vaccine effort in the last month, and protestors were photographed holding banners that read, “we not guinea pigs” and, “no to Gates poison.” 

Demonstration organizer Phapano Phasha told AP that vulnerable groups were being manipulated into participating in the trial without being able to make an informed choice. “I believe in science,” Phasha said. “I’m not against vaccinations, I’m against profiteering.”

Reports say both Moderna’s and AstraZeneca’s vaccine could be available for public distribution by the end of 2020.

The Grayzone contacted the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI), and the Program for Appropriate Technologies in Health (PATH) with requests for comment on this article, and has yet to receive a response. 

Jeremy Loffredo is a journalist based in Washington D.C. He has worked on various independent documentaries in New York and helped produce several international news programs. He is currently putting together a documentary on the Green New Deal which you can support at https://www.gofundme.com/f/the-green-new-deal-explained-for-real



Michele Greenstein is a journalist based in Washington D.C. A former correspondent for RT America, she produced a series on the technology war between the U.S. and China and a documentary from the field on 2019's anti-government movement in Hong Kong.



Bill Gates: "... be ready for pandemic two!"

Republished on BITCHUTE April 29th, 2020. Bill Gates on 24.4.2020

Bioterrorism: "... be ready for pandemic two! I call this pandemic one."


Why is Gates denying Event 201?

In October, 2019 Microsoft founder Bill Gates, who, together with his wife, runs the richest, most powerful foundation in the world, co-organised a simulation exercise on a worldwide corona epidemic

By Norbert Häring - 02. May 2020

In October, 2019 Microsoft founder Bill Gates, who, together with his wife, runs the richest and most powerful foundation in the world, co-organised a simulation exercise on a worldwide corona epidemic. Videos were posted documenting the exercise. But intriguingly Gates now denies such an exercise ever took place.

Why? On April 12, 2020, Bill Gates said in an interview to the BBC, “Now here we are. We didn’t simulate this, we didn’t practice, so both the health policies and economic policies, we find ourselves in uncharted territory.”

Why is Gates denying Event 201?

Bill Gates lies

This is the same person who, just six months before the outbreak of the pandemic, organised a series of four role-playing simulations of a corona pandemic with very high-ranking participants. Event 201 was a simulation of a corona pandemic conducted by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Economic Forum and Johns Hopkins University in October 2019.

Participants from the private and public sectors were presented with a scenario, not unlike the one that has unfolded in reality, and discussed what needed to be done. There are official videos of the four meetings and a best-of-video scenario presentation and discussion by the participants, who are members of a pandemic control council in the role play.

It is true that if a little less emphasis had been placed on opinion manipulation, more attention could have been paid to health and economic policy. One of the four meetings was entirely devoted to this. But health and economic policies did get discussed. Gates can hardly have forgotten that.

The video on control of public opinion is the most interesting one, as it helps to put in perspective the efforts in this regard, which we are currently experiencing. One participant tells us that Bill Gates is financing work on algorithms which comb through the information on social media platforms to make sure that people can trust the information that they find there.

And the Chinese participant, the head of the Chinese Centre for Disease Control muses about ways to counter rumours that the virus is man-made. Remember, this exercise took place in October 2019, before the current pandemic broke out.


Norbert Häring

Norbert Haering is a German commentator who also writes in English)


A Dangerous Idea: The History of Eugenics in America

Forced Vaccination was the Precedent to Forced Sterilization

... and "if you then are steilized you will be released from being locked up and are free!"


•May 10, 2019

National Constitution Center

Exactly 92 years after the infamous Buck v. Bell decision, the Center presents a partial screening of “A Dangerous Idea: Eugenics, Genetics and the American Dream”—an award-winning documentary exploring the legal history of the eugenics movement in the United States. Following the screening, join the film’s co-writer and executive producer Andrew Kimbrell, acclaimed author and journalist Daniel Okrent, and law and bioethics scholars Paul Lombardo and Dorothy Robertsfor a conversation exploring the dark history of eugenics and the Constitution. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates.