BY THE EXPOSÉ ON •
Bill Gates, a billionaire entrepreneur and philanthropist, has long been perceived as a benevolent figure, striving to improve global public health. However, the reality may be far different than this carefully cultivated image.
In this article, we delve into the influence Bill Gates wields in public health sectors and explore the reasons why he is often seen as a medical expert despite having no formal qualifications.
We also examine some of the questionable motives and connections that cast a shadow on his seemingly “charitable” endeavours.
Gates Foundation and the WHO
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has become one of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) most significant donors in recent years, contributing hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
In fact, the Gates Foundation’s financial support to the WHO has grown so much that it now outpaces the contributions made by many individual nations.
This considerable funding has raised concerns about the level of influence the foundation wields over the organization’s decision-making processes and global health policies.
Influence Over Global Health Policies
With the Gates Foundation being a substantial source of funding for the WHO, there are valid concerns about the Foundation’s impact on the Organization’s agenda and priorities.
The Bill Gates Foundation’s financial influence has the potential to divert the WHO’s attention from critical public health issues to projects that align more closely with the foundation’s interests.
This has resulted in a disproportionate focus on specific diseases or the promotion of certain interventions, such as mRNA Covid-19 vaccines, at the expense of other crucial health initiatives and the health and lives of the public.
Conflicts of Interest
The Gates Foundation’s funding of the WHO raises serious questions about potential conflicts of interest, given that the Foundation holds shares in pharmaceutical companies that develop and manufacture vaccines.
With the WHO being responsible for coordinating global health responses and providing guidance on vaccination policies, there is a concern that the Gates Foundation’s financial interests have and will continue to influence the WHO’s decision-making in ways that are more aligned with the foundation’s profit motives than with global health needs.
The Gates Foundation-MHRA Connection
In 2017, the UK Medicine Regulator, the MHRA, received a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation worth £980,000 to facilitate a “collaboration” between the two entities.
But according to a Freedom of Information request answered by the MHRA in May 2021, the Gates Foundation sent funds of over $3 million to the MHRA to support “a number of projects.”
While this relationship might not have raised eyebrows under different circumstances, the fact that the Gates Foundation owns shares in companies developing Covid-19 vaccines authorized for emergency use in children by the MHRA raises questions about potential conflicts of interest.
Gates Foundation’s Ties to Moderna
In 2016, Moderna announced that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation had granted them $20 million to support their initial project, which involved the evaluation of antibody combinations in a preclinical setting and the conduct of a Phase 1 clinical trial for a potential mRNA injection.
Moderna also revealed that the framework agreement between Moderna and the Gates Foundation could potentially result in total funding of up to $100 million for follow-on projects proposed and approved by the Gates Foundation through 2022.
As part of this agreement, Moderna is obliged to grant the Gates Foundation certain non-exclusive licenses.
A Profitable Arrangement
A non-exclusive license allows the licensee to use the intellectual property while the licensor retains the freedom to exploit the same property and grant additional licenses to other parties.
Therefore, because of their agreement with Moderna, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has been granted a non-exclusive license for Moderna’s mRNA Covid-19 vaccine, allowing them to profit from its use.
A vaccine, that may have been developed in 2019, at least a year before the alleged COVID-19 pandemic changed the world for the worse. This opens up a whole kettle of other questions surrounding the origins of the alleged Covid-19 virus, but you can read some evidence surrounding that here.
But the financial interest in Moderna also extends to other vaccine manufacturers as well, with the Gates Foundation having owned significant shares in both Pfizer and BioNTech during the height of the alleged Covid-19 pandemic.
A Lucrative Partnership
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation bought shares in Pfizerback in 2002 before “coincidentally” buying $55 million worth of shares in BioNTech in September 2019, just before the alleged Covid-19 pandemic struck.
The partnership between Pfizer and BioNTech has proven to be highly profitable, as their Covid-19 vaccine was among the first to receive emergency use authorizations worldwide.
This rapid approval and widespread distribution have resulted in a substantial increase in the stock prices of both companies.
Consequently, the Gates Foundation’s investments in these corporations have also grown in value, adding to the foundation’s already significant wealth.
Questions of Motivation and Objectivity
The Gates Foundation’s investments in Pfizer and BioNTech raise questions about the motivation behind the Foundation’s advocacy for vaccination programs and its influence on global health organizations.
While the Foundation’s support for vaccination efforts may seem to be genuinely driven by a desire to improve global health on the surface, its financial interests in the companies that produce these vaccines cast serious doubt on the objectivity of its recommendations.
Impact on Public Perception and Trust
The revelation of the Bill Gates Foundation’s investments in Pfizer and BioNTech, coupled with its funding of organizations like the WHO and the MHRA, should at the very least contribute to public scepticism and mistrust towards Covid-19 vaccination efforts.
Transparency regarding these financial interests is crucial in maintaining public confidence in the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, as well as the impartiality of the organizations responsible for their development, regulation, and distribution.
And as we know, with mortality rates per 100,000 lowest among the unvaccinated, 92% of Covid-19 deaths in the UK in 2022 confirmed to have been among the triple+ vaccinated, and 2 million excess deaths since their roll-out, there is nothing safe about the Covid-19 vaccines. But you can read more about that here, here, and here.
Bill Gates’ Questionable Associations
Despite the philanthropic image that Bill Gates has cultivated over the years, his associations with certain individuals have raised eyebrows and cast doubt on his motives. As a powerful and influential figure, Gates has mingled with an array of notable personalities, some of whom have been embroiled in controversies and scandals.
These connections warrant closer scrutiny, as they provide a broader context in which to evaluate Gates’ actions and intentions.
Sinister Implications of Gates-Epstein Meetings
One of Gates’ most infamous associations is with the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Although Gates has attempted to downplay the extent of their relationship, reports have emerged indicating that he met with Epstein on multiple occasions.
These interactions occurred AFTER Epstein’s 2008 conviction for soliciting a minor for prostitution, raising questions about Gates’ judgment in choosing to associate with Epstein.
These meetings included visits to Epstein’s New York City mansion where they allegedly discussed philanthropy and global health initiatives.
Given Epstein’s criminal history and the secretive circumstances surrounding their meetings, there are serious concerns that these discussions will have had sinister undertones and ulterior motives. The sinister implications of Gates’ meetings with Epstein raise concerns about the impact on vulnerable populations who are the intended beneficiaries of global health initiatives.
Could it be possible that Epstein agreed to provide funding for Gates’s profit-making public health schemes in exchange for children and underage girls?
After all, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has confirmed that an estimated 460,000 children are reported missing every year in the United States.
At the very least these meetings have added fuel to the fire surrounding Bill Gates’ true motivations. They are further evidence that his interests are not truly aligned with the greater good. The association raises serious concerns about Bill Gates’ judgment and the company he chooses to keep, casting a dark shadow over his seemingly benevolent endeavours.
Melinda Gates’ Concerns
Reports confirm that Melinda Gates, Bill Gates’ ex-wife, had expressed her concerns about her husband’s relationship with Epstein. According to a New York Times article, Melinda was uncomfortable with Epstein and his reputation after meeting him in 2013.
It has been reported that her concerns were significant enough to prompt discussions with lawyers, potentially contributing to the eventual decision to end their marriage.
The Gates’ Divorce
In May 2021, Bill and Melinda Gates announced their decision to divorce after 27 years of marriage. While the couple stated that they “no longer believe we can grow together as a couple,” the exact reasons behind the divorce remain private.
However, speculation has arisen about the possible influence of Bill Gates’ association with Jeffrey Epstein on the decision to end their marriage. The Wall Street Journal reported that Melinda Gates began exploring the possibility of divorce as early as 2019, with her concerns about her husband’s ties to Epstein allegedly playing a role in that decision.
Gates: An Expert in Marketing, Not Medicine
Bill Gates is, without a doubt, a highly intelligent and successful individual. However, as Steve Jobs, the founder of Apple, pointed out in his biography, Gates’ primary skill is marketing. He did not invent the computer or even the Windows operating system.
Instead, he capitalized on the ideas of others and successfully marketed them to become one of the wealthiest people in the world. While this skill is impressive, it does not qualify him as an expert in medicine or public health.
A Voice That Should Be Questioned
Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, mainstream media has given Bill Gates an amplified voice, allowing him to shape public opinion and promote the interests of the companies he had invested in, such as those producing Covid-19 vaccines.
However, it is crucial to remember that Gates is not a doctor or a scientist, and his financial interests may not align with the greater good.
Conclusion: The Importance of Scepticism
In conclusion, Bill Gates is a complex figure whose expertise lies in seizing opportunities and marketing them effectively. While on the surface it may look like he has made significant contributions to global public health through his foundation, it is crucial to recognize that he is not an infallible authority.
His associations, investments, and potential conflicts of interest should be carefully examined, as they may reveal more about his motives and true intentions.
As members of the general public, it is our responsibility to question everything and not blindly accept the narratives presented by powerful individuals like Bill Gates. This scepticism will ensure that we make informed decisions and hold those in positions of power accountable for their actions and influence.
From computers to global genocide – The staggering influence of Bill Gates on Public Health policy around the world
“TrustWHO,” a documentary film produced by Lilian Franck, reveals the clandestine influences that are controlling the World Health Organization (WHO) — and that have been since the very beginning. Founded in 1948 by 61 member states whose contributions initially financed the organization, WHO was quickly infiltrated by industry.
From Big Tobacco to the nuclear industry and pharmaceuticals, industry has historically dictated WHO’s global agenda and continues to do so in the present day, putting profits and power ahead of public health.
By Dr Joseph Mercola
- “TrustWHO,” a documentary film produced by Lilian Franck, reveals the clandestine influences that are controlling the World Health Organization, to the peril of public health.
- Bill Gates is WHO’s No. 1 funder, contributing more to WHO’s $4.84 billion biennial budget than any member-state government.
- Pharmaceutical companies previously influenced WHO’s 2009 pandemic declaration — experts later called swine flu a “false pandemic” that was driven by Big Pharma, which then cashed in on the health scare.
- WHO has strong allegiance to China, and its investigation into COVID-19’s origin was a “fake” investigation from the start.
- Even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, WHO released a statement that it had been in discussions with Facebook to “ensure people can access authoritative information on vaccines and reduce the spread of inaccuracies.”
- WHO’s history clearly illustrates its allegiance to Big Pharma and other industries, including downplaying the health effects caused by the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster and collaborating with opioid giant Purdue.
- Given the strong and ongoing evidence that WHO is heavily conflicted and controlled by industry, its usefulness as a guardian of public health needs to be seriously reevaluated.
Bill Gates is WHO’s No. 1 funder
In April 2020, Donald Trump suspended U.S. funding to WHO while the administration conducted a review into its “role in severely mismanaging and covering up the spread of the coronavirus.” This clearly propelled the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation into the WHO’s No.1 funder slot. Upon election, President Joe Biden reversed the Trump administration decision, restoring U.S. funding to WHO.
However, Bill Gates is still the No. 1 funder, contributing more to WHO’s $4.84 billion biennial budget than any member-state government. Gates has used his money strategically to infect the international aid agencies with his distorted self-serving priorities. The U.S. historically has been the largest direct donor to WHO.
However, Bill Gates contributes to WHO via multiple avenues, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation as well as GAVI, which was founded by the Gates Foundation in partnership with WHO, the World Bank and various vaccine manufacturers.
As of 2018, the cumulative contributions from the Gates Foundation and GAVI made Gates the unofficial top sponsor of the WHO, even before the Trump administration’s 2020 move to cut all his support to the organization. And in fact, Gates gives so much that Politico wrote a highly-critical articleabout his undue financial influence over the WHO’s operations in 2017, which Politico said was causing the agency to spend:
“… a disproportionate amount of its resources on projects with the measurable outcomes Gates prefers … His sway has NGOs and academics worried. Some health advocates fear that because the Gates Foundation’s money comes from investments in big business, it could serve as a Trojan horse for corporate interests to undermine WHO’s role in setting standards and shaping health policies.”
Plus, Gates “also routes funding to WHO through SAGE [Strategic Advisory Group of Experts] and UNICEF and Rotary International bringing his total contributions to over $1 billion,” Kennedy explains in the book, adding that these tax-deductible donations give Gates both leverage and control over international health policy, “which he largely directs to serve the profit interest of his pharma partners.”
As noted in the featured film, when it was founded, WHO could decide how to distribute its contributions. Now, 70% of its budget is tied to specific projects, countries or regions, which are dictated by the funders. As such, Gates’ priorities are the backbone of WHO, and it wasn’t a coincidence when he said of WHO, “Our priorities are your priorities.”
“Gates’ vaccine obsession has diverted WHO’s giving from poverty alleviation, nutrition, and clean water to make vaccine uptake its preeminent public health metric. And Gates is not afraid to throw his weight around,” according to Kennedy’s book. “… The sheer magnitude of his foundation’s financial contributions has made Bill Gates an unofficial — albeit unelected — leader of the WHO.”
Pharma & WHO cashing checks in previous pandemics
During the 2009 H1N1 (swine flu) pandemic, secret agreements were made between Germany, Great Britain, Italy and France with the pharmaceutical industry before the H1N1 pandemic began, which stated that they would purchase H1N1 flu vaccinations — but only if a pandemic level 6 was declared by WHO.
The “TrustWHO” documentary shows how, six weeks before the pandemic was declared, no one at WHO was worried about the virus, but the media was nonetheless exaggerating the dangers. Then, in the month leading up to the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, WHO changed the official definition of pandemic, removing the severity and high mortality criteria and leaving the definition of a pandemic as “a worldwide epidemic of a disease.”
This switch in definition allowed WHO to declare swine flu a pandemic after only 144 people had died from the infection worldwide. In 2010, Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, then head of health at the Council of Europe, accused pharmaceutical companiesof influencing WHO’s pandemic declaration, calling swine flu a “false pandemic” that was driven by Big Pharma, which cashed in on the health scare.
According to Wodarg, the swine flu pandemic was “one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century.” In the investigation into WHO and Big Pharma’s falsification of a pandemic, an inquiry stated:
“… in order to promote their patented drugs and vaccines against flu, pharmaceutical companies influenced scientists and official agencies responsible for public health standards to alarm governments worldwide and make them squander tight health resources for inefficient vaccines strategies, and needlessly expose millions of healthy people to the risk of an unknown amount of side effects of insufficiently tested vaccines.”
While governments ended up with stockpiles of vaccines they would never use, many of those who received the H1N1 swine flu vaccine suffered from adverse effects including Guillain-Barre syndrome, narcolepsy, cataplexy and other forms of brain damage.
The origins cover-up
WHO’s investigation into COVID-19’s origin was also a “fake” investigation from the start. China was allowed to hand pick the members of the WHO’s investigative team, which included Peter Daszak, Ph.D., who has close professional ties to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
The inclusion of Dazsak on this team virtually guaranteed the dismissal of the lab-origin theory, and in February 2021, WHO cleared the institte and two other biosafety level 4 laboratories in Wuhan, China, of wrongdoing, saying these labs had nothing to do with the COVID-19 outbreak.
Only after backlash, including an open letter signed by 26 scientists demanding a full and unrestricted forensic investigation into the pandemic’s origins, did WHO enter damage control mode, with Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and 13 other world leaders joining the U.S. government in expressing “frustration with the level of access China granted an international mission to Wuhan.”
A couple of noteworthy points — Gates handpicked Ghebreyesus as WHO’s director general, not because of his qualifications — Tedros has no medical degree and a background that includes accusations of human rights violations — but due to his loyalty to Gates, again according to Kennedy’s book.
Further, WHO’s allegiance to China was secured years earlier, when China secured WHO votes to ensure its candidates would become director-general. A Sunday Times investigation also revealed that WHO’s independence was severely compromised and its close ties to China allowed COVID-19 to spread in the early days of the pandemic while obfuscating the investigation into its origins. According to the Sunday Times:
“The WHO leadership prioritized China’s economic interests over halting the spread of the virus when Covid-19 first emerged. China exerted ultimate control over the WHO investigation into the origins of Covid-19, appointing its chosen experts and negotiating a backroom deal to water down the mandate.”
WHO’s China ties played ‘decisive role’ in pandemic
On Jan. 28, 2020, four weeks after Taiwan had alerted WHO that a mysterious respiratory illness was spreading in China, WHO had not yet taken action and continued to praise China.
Tedros even praised China for their transparency and said the Chinese president had “shown ‘rare leadership’ and deserved ‘gratitude and respect’ for acting to contain the outbreak at the epicenter,” the Sunday Times reported. “These ‘extraordinary steps’ had prevented further spread of the virus, and this was why, he said, there were only ‘a few cases of human-to-human transmission outside China, which we are monitoring very closely.’”
Speaking with the Sunday Times, professor Richard Ebright of Rutgers University’s Waksman Institute of Microbiology in New Jersey, said it was this close connection that ultimately steered the course of the pandemic:
“Not only did it have a role; it has had a decisive role. It was the only motivation. There was no scientific or medical or policy justification for the stance that the WHO took in January and February 2020. That was entirely premised on maintaining satisfactory ties to the Chinese government.
“So at every step of the way, the WHO promoted the position that was sought by the Chinese government … the WHO actively resisted and obstructed efforts by other nations to implement effective border controls that could have limited the spread or even contained the spread of the outbreak.
“It is impossible for me to believe that the officials in Geneva, who were making those statements, believed those statements accorded with the facts that were available to them at the time the statements were made. It’s hard not to see that the direct origin of that is the support of the Chinese government for Tedros’s election as director-general …
“This was a remarkably high return on [China’s] investment with the relatively small sums that were invested in supporting his election. It paid off on a grand scale for the Chinese government.”
WHO corruption runs deep
Even prior to the pandemic, WHO had released a statementthat it had been in discussions with Facebook to “ensure people can access authoritative information on vaccines and reduce the spread of inaccuracies.” At WHO’s first Global Vaccination Summit, held in Brussels in September 2019, Jason Hirsch, Facebook’s public policy manager, alluded to the censorship and media manipulation that was to come:
“The first thing that we are doing is reducing the distribution of misinformation about vaccinations and the second thing that we are doing is increasing exposure to credible, authoritative content on vaccinations.”
Rather than putting public health first, such as pushing for safety studies into vaccination, WHO’s history clearly illustrates its allegiance to Big Pharma and other industries. WHO, for instance, has downplayed the health effects caused by the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster, stating that only 50 deaths were directly caused by the incident and “a total of up to 4,000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure” from the disaster.
WHO signed an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is “promoting peaceful use of atomic energy,” in 1959, making it subordinate to the agency in relation to ionizing radiation.
WHO’s response to the Fukushima radiation disaster in 2011 was also criticized, with evidence of a high-level cover-up. WHO once again downplayed the risks, stating “the predicted risks are low and no observable increases in cancer rates above baseline rates are anticipated.”
WHO also received more than $1.6 million from opioid giant Purdue from 1999 to 2010 and used industry-supported opioid data to incorporate into its official pro-opioid guidelines. According to the Alliance of Human Research Protection, WHO’s collaboration with Purdue led to expanded opioid use and global addiction.
Due to its acceptance of private money, a review in the Journal of Integrative Medicine & Therapy went so far as to say the corruption of WHO is the “biggest threat to the world’s public health of our time,” particularly as it relates to WHO’s drug recommendations — including its “list of essential medicines” — which it believes is biased and not reliable.
Given the strong and ongoing evidence that WHO is heavily conflicted and controlled by industry, its usefulness as a guardian of public health needs to be seriously reevaluated
JULIMINATION 
Hinterlasse einen Kommentar