THE new incumbent at No 10 will have serious decisions to take. A foremost one must be to prove that he or she is not owned by Bill Gates, take a leaf out of Donald Trump’s book and do what he promised – leave the World Health Organisation.
The WHO’s original 1951 mandate to promote health, keep people safe and serve the vulnerable around the world has long been subverted. Its transformation into a vaccine-promoting machine from the 1980s was detailed by Paula Jardine in her recent TCW series ‘How Big Pharma sold vaccines to the world’. Paula has shown in a number of articles for TCW how the WHO’s public health agenda was long ago seized by private interests.
Recently it met to update its International Health Regulations, specifically the legal framework for responding to international health crises. The Biden administration proposed 13 amendments, which would turn its public health focus in even more authoritarian and undemocratic directions than before, granting authority to the WHO Director-General to declare a public health crisis without any consultation with the sovereign member states and the power to combat supposed disinformation and misinformation – yet a further transfer of power to an international organisation which has no transparency, no accountability to any member state, and an abysmal track record, already accused of colluding with the Chinese Communist Party in lying to the world about the danger of the Covid-19 virus.
Thankfully several African and other countries resisted this development and the amendments were not adopted, as TCW reported. However, worryingly a working group was created to discuss future amendments, such as the definition of a pandemic, managing global regulatory standards, the sharing of intellectual property and developing a universal travel vaccine certification on a digital platform.
What is really needed is an analysis of how politicised the WHO’s actions have become – the sort of analysis of its funding and failings made in TCW‘s pages. Presumably these were the some of the alarm bells which led to President Trump submitting the US’s notice of withdrawal from the WHO in 2021. He considered most global pacts to be disadvantageous for Americans.
President Trump then submitted a demand for ‘major, substantive improvements’ in exchange for continued US funding, which at that time was $553million per annum. Of course this all backfired with the election turn-around, and reform remains a remote prospect.
The WHO relies on contributions from member states and private donors. Apart from the US, the national donations are eclipsed by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, quoted at $751million for 20-21, plus a further $432million from GAVI, the unaccountable global vaccine operator, also controlled by Gates, a total sum approaching $1.2billion. This shows how the fourth-richest man in the world is able to exert such huge and undue influence on the direction of WHO policy. Most of Gates’s funding is tied to specific agendas of his foundation, of which global vaccination programmes including the inadequately tested Covid vaccines are paramount. Unlike nation states, the Gates Foundation has no democratic accountability.
Paula Jardine has detailed programmes supported by Gates funding, including polio eradication and immunisation generally, overlapping with WHO agendas, which have led to serious underfunding of other health strengthening in developing countries, notably sanitation, clean water and nutrition. But public health officials who disagree with Gates’s priorities have been reluctant to criticise him for fear of losing support. This self-censorship has become so widespread that it’s now referred to as the ‘Bill Chill’.
Professor Linsey McGoey of Essex University, author of No Such Thing as a Free Gift: The Gates Foundation and the Price of Philanthropy, cites the Gates defence of patents and resistance to a patent waiver on Covid-19 vaccines as among the most serious restraints. She believes the Gates strategy is not so much motivated by money – very useful though that is – as by his belief that there should be close relationships between pharmaceutical manufacturers, for-profit companies, and different providers of health services, which of course provides a secure source of profit. ‘The business community gets things done,’ she admits, ‘but they have adverse effects when it comes to affordability, to pricing, even when it comes to the incentive to sometimes undermine people’s health if it leads to an economic return.’
In her eyes, Gates (conveniently) sees no conflict between private profiteering and public health, and just acts as if that conflict doesn’t exist. He goes so far as to quantify his Foundation’s successes in dollars and cents, openly stating that the $10billion he invested in Gavi, the Global Fund, The Vaccine Alliance and GPEI is the best investment he ever made. Without doubt it is. Never mind the reality that pushing Big Pharma vaccines and medicines on regions of Africa has at times led to disastrous results and to his even being accused of using new vaccines for population control. He however believes that he has seen vastly better returns from his vaccine and medication investments than he ever could from typical corporate financing. ‘The $10billion that we gave . . . in developing countries created an estimated $200billion in social and economic benefits.’ It’s a moot point. Paula Jardine’s investigations suggest that the benefits are to Big Pharma and are of doubtful health help to developing countries – the markets his vaccine projects are so keen to target.
With global healthcare now in his pocket, he has been moving seriously into controlling global food supplies. As reported in Tuesday’s TCW, it has emerged that the Dutch minister who pushed the nitrogen law that grants the government the power to expropriate the protesting farmers’ land, also has a brother whose online supermarket is one in which Bill Gates has invested $600million.
According to The Land Report, Gates is the largest private owner of American farmland. He has just finalised the purchase of 2,100 acres of potato-growing land, adding to his Red River Trust’s ownership of nearly 270,000 acres across the US, valued in total at $13.5million.
While decisions about the WHO still hang in the balance, so does the amount of influence Gates will have over Britain’s next PM. As TCW reported, ‘Bill Gates’s private jet touched down in London on July 6 at around 9pm’, just as Prime Minister Johnson was teetering on the brink. The question is whether the Gates power and money will now have a hand in influencing the selection of his successor, and his or her priorities in office?
One of the candidates, Penny Mordaunt, already has the distinction of Bill Gates contributing the foreword to her co-authored book, proposing, essentially, a more managed and co-ordinated communitarian future for us all, and especially on ‘climate change’. It is worrying. For instead of this type of meek submission to a Gates-led globalist agenda, what the UK’s new leader should be asking is this: Is Gates the kind of megalomaniac ‘philanthropist’ we want controlling our health care choices and even the food policies that will determine our futures and our freedom?
I certainly don’t. Do you?