Who is Bill Gates? A software developer? A businessman? A philanthropist? A global health expert?
This question, once merely academic, is becoming a very real question for those who are beginning to realize that Gatesâ unimaginable wealth has been used to gain control over every corner of the fields of public health, medical research and vaccine development. And now that we are presented with the very problem that Gates has been talking about for years, we will soon find that this software developer with no medical training is going to leverage that wealth into control over the fates of billions of people.
GATES: [. . .] because until we get almost everybody vaccinated globally, we still wonât be fully back to normal.
Bill Gates is no public health expert. He is not a doctor, an epidemiologist or an infectious disease researcher. Yet somehow he has become a central figure in the lives of billions of people, presuming to dictate the medical actions that will be required for the world to go âback to normal.â The transformation of Bill Gates from computer kingpin to global health czar is as remarkable as it is instructive, and it tells us a great deal about where we are heading as the world plunges into a crisis the likes of which we have not seen before.
This is the story of How Bill Gates Monopolized Global Health.
Until his reinvention as a philanthropist in the past decade, this is what many people thought of when they thought of Bill Gates:
NARRATOR: In the case of the United States vs Microsoft, the US Justice Department contended that the software giant had breached antitrust laws by competing unfairly against Netscape Communications in the internet browser market, effectively creating a monopoly. Billâs first concern was that the prosecution could potentially block the release of his companyâs latest operating system, Windows 98.
STEVE JOBS: Weâre going to be working together on Microsoft Office, on Internet Explorer, on Java, and I think that itâs going to lead to a very healthy relationship. So itâs a package announcement today. Weâre very, very happy about it, weâre very, very excited about it. And I happen to have a special guest with me today via satellite downlink, and if we could get him up on the stage right now.
DAN RATHER: Police and security guards in Belgium were caught flat-footed today by a cowardly sneak attack on one of the worldâs wealthiest men. The target was Microsoft chairman Bill Gates, arriving for a meeting with community leaders. Watch what happens when a team of hit men meet him first with a pie in the face.
[GATES HIT IN THE FACE WITH PIE]
RATHER: Gates was momentarily and understandably shaken, but he was not injured. The hit squad piled on with two more pies before one of them was wrestled to the ground and arrested; the othersâat least for the momentâgot away. Gates went inside, wiped his face clean, and made no comment. He then went ahead with his scheduled meeting. No word on the motive for this attack.
But, once reviled for the massive wealth and the monopolistic power that his virus-laden software afforded him, Gates is now hailed as a visionary who is leveraging that wealth and power for the greater good of humanity.
KLAUS SCHWAB: If in the 22nd century a book will be written about the entrepreneur of the 21st century [. . .] Iâm sure that the person who will foremost come to the mind of those historians is certainly Bill Gates. [applause]
ANDREW ROSS SORKIN: I donât think itâs hyperbole to say that Bill Gates is singularlyâI would argueâthe most consequential individual of our generation. I mean that.
JUDY WOODRUFF: At a time when everyone is looking to understand the scope of the pandemic and how to minimize the threat, one of the best informed voices is that of businessman and philanthropist Bill Gates.
The process by which this reinvention of Gatesâ public image took place is not mysterious. Itâs the same process by which every billionaire has revived their public image since John D. Rockefeller hired Ivy Ledbetter Lee to transform him from the head of the Standard Oil hydra into the kind old man handing out dimes to strangers.
MAN OFF CAMERA:Â Donât you give dimes, Mr. Rockefeller? Please, go ahead.
More to the point, John D. Rockefeller knew that to gain the adoration of the public, he had to appear to give them what they want: money. He devoted hundreds of millions of dollars of his vast oil monopoly fortune to establishing institutions that, he claimed, were for the public good. The General Education Board. The Rockefeller Institute of Medical Research. The Rockefeller Foundation.
Similarly, Bill Gates has spent much of the past two decades transforming himself from software magnate into a benefactor of humanity through his own Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. In fact, Gates has surpassed Rockefellerâs legacy with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation long having eclipsed The Rockefeller Foundation as the largest private foundation in the world, with $46.8 billion of assets on its books that it wields in its stated program areas of global health and development, global growth, and global policy advocacy.
And, like Rockefeller, Gatesâ transformation has been helped along by a well-funded public relations campaign. Gone are the theatrical tricks of the PR pioneersâthe ubiquitous ice cream cones of Gatesâ mentor Warren Buffett are the last remaining holdout of the old Rockefeller-handing-out-dimes gimmick. No, Gates has guided his public image into that of a modern-day saint through an even simpler tactic: buying good publicity.
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation spends tens of millions of dollars per year on media partnerships, sponsoring coverage of its program areas across the board. Gates funds The Guardianâs Global Development website. Gates funds NPRâs global health coverage. Gates funds the Our World in Data website that is tracking the latest statistics and research on the coronavirus pandemic. Gates funds BBC coverage of global health and development issues, both through its BBC Media Action organization and the BBC itself. Gates funds world health coverage on ABC News.
When the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer was given a $3.5 million Gates foundation grant to set up a special unit to report on global health issues, NewsHour communications chief Rob Flynn was asked about the potential conflict of interest that such a unit would have in reporting on issues that the Gates Foundation is itself involved in. âIn some regards I guess you might say 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,â Flynn responded.
Indeed, it would be almost impossible to find any area of global health that has been left untouched by the tentacles of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
It was Gates who sponsored the meeting that led to the creation of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, a global public-private partnership bringing together state sponsors and big pharmaceutical companies, whose specific goals include the creation of âhealthy markets for vaccines and other immunisation products.â As a founding partner of the alliance, the Gates Foundation provided $750 million in seed funding and has gone on to make over $4.1 billion in commitments to the group.
Gates provided the seed money that created the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, a public-private partnership that acts as a finance vehicle for governmental AIDS, TB, and malaria programs.
When a public-private partnership of governments, world health bodies and 13 leading pharmaceutical companies came together in 2012 âto accelerate progress toward eliminating or controlling 10 neglected tropical diseases,â there was the Gates Foundation with $363 million of support.
When the Global Financing Facility for Women, Children and Adolescents was launched in 2015 to leverage billions of dollars in public and private financing for global health and development programs, there was the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation as a founding partner with a $275 million contribution.
When the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations was launched at the World Economic Forum in Davos in 2017 to develop vaccines against emerging infectious diseases, there was the Gates Foundation with an initial injection of $100 million.
The examples go on and on. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundationâs fingerprints can be seen on every major global health initiative of the past two decades. And beyond the flashy, billion-dollar global partnerships, the Foundation is behind hundreds of smaller country and region-specific grantsâ$10 million to combat a locust infestation in East Africa, or $300 million to support agricultural research in Africa and Asiaâthat add up to billions of dollars in commitments.
It comes as no surprise, then, thatâfar beyond the $250 million that the Gates Foundation has pledged to the âfightâ against coronavirusâevery aspect of the current coronavirus pandemic involves organizations, groups and individuals with direct ties to Gates funding.
From the start, the World Health Organization has directed the global response to the current pandemic. From its initial monitoring of the outbreak in Wuhan and its declaration in January that there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission to its live media briefings and its technical guidance on country-level planning and other matters, the WHO has been the body setting the guidelines and recommendations shaping the global response to this outbreak.
But even the World Health Organization itself is largely reliant on funds from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The WHOâs most recent donor report shows that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the organizationâs second-largest donor behind the United States government. The Gates Foundation single-handedly contributes more to the world health body than Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Russia and the UK combined.
Whatâs more, current World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus is, in fact, like Bill Gates himself, not a medical doctor at all, but the controversial ex-Minister of Health of Ethiopia, who was accused of covering up three cholera outbreaks in the country during his tenure. Before joining the WHO, he served as chair of the Gates-founded Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, and sat on the board of the Gates-founded Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, and the Gates-funded Stop TB Partnership.
The current round of lockdowns and restrictive stay-home orders in western countries was enacted on the back of alarming models predicting millions of deaths in the United States and hundreds of thousands in the UK.
HAYLEY MINOGUE: Imperial College in London released a COVID-19 report and thatâs where most of our US leaders are getting the information theyâre basing their decision making on. That 2.2 million deaths also doesnât account for the potential negative effects of health systems being overwhelmed.
[. . .]
The report runs us through a few different ways this could turn out depending on what our responses are. If we donât do anything to control this virus, over 80% of people in the US would be infected over the course of the epidemic, with 2.2 million deaths from COVID-19.
The work of two research groups was crucial in shaping the decision of the UK and US governments to implement wide-ranging lockdowns, and, in turn, governments around the world. The first group, the Imperial College COVID-19 Research Team, issued a report on March 16th that predicted up to 500,000 deaths in the UK and 2.2 million deaths in the US unless strict government measures were put in place.
The second group, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation in Bill Gatesâ home state of Washington, helped provide data that corroborated the White Houseâs initial estimates of the virusâ effects, estimates that have been repeatedly downgraded as the situation has progressed.
Unsurprisingly, the Gates Foundation has injected substantial sums of money into both groups. This year alone, the Gates Foundation has already given $79 million to Imperial College, and in 2017 the Foundation announced a $279 million investment into the IHME to expand its work collecting health data and creating models.
Anthony Fauci, meanwhile, has become the face of the US governmentâs coronavirus response, echoing Bill Gatesâ assertion that the country will not âget back to normalâ until âa good vaccineâ can be found to insure the publicâs safety.
ANTHONY FAUCI: If you want to get to pre-coronavirus . . . You know, that might not ever happen, in the sense of the fact that the threat is there. But I believe with the therapies that will be coming online and with the fact that I feel confident that over a period of time we will get a good vaccine, that we will never have to get back to where we are right back now.
Beyond just their frequent collaborations and cooperation in the past, Fauci has direct ties to Gatesâ projects and funding. In 2010, he was appointed to the Leadership Council of the Gates-founded âDecade of Vaccinesâ project to implement a Global Vaccine Action Planâa project to which Gates committed $10 billion of funding. And in October of last year, just as the current pandemic was beginning, the Gates Foundation announced a $100 million contribution to the National Institute of Health to help, among other programs, Fauciâs National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseasesâ research into HIV.
Also in October of last year, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation partnered with the World Economic Forum and the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security to stage Event 201, a tabletop exercise gauging the economic and societal impact of a globally-spreading coronavirus pandemic.
NARRATOR: It began in healthy-looking pigs months, perhaps years, ago: a new coronavirus.
ANITA CICERO: The mission of the pandemic emergency board is to provide recommendations to deal with the major global challenges arising in response to an unfolding pandemic. The board is comprised of highly experienced leaders from business public health and civil society.
TOM INGLESBY: Weâre at the start of whatâs looking like it will be a severe pandemic and there are problems emerging that can only be solved by global business and governments working together.
STEPHEN REDD: Governments need to be willing to do things that are out of their historical perspective, or . . . for the most part. Itâs really a war footing that we need to be on.
Given the incredible reach that the tentacles of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have into every corner of the global health markets, it should not be surprising that the foundation has been intimately involved with every stage of the current pandemic crisis, either. In effect, Gates has merely used the wealth from his domination of the software market to leverage himself into a similar position in the world of global health.
The whole process has been cloaked in the mantle of selfless philanthropy, but the foundation is not structured as a charitable endeavour. Instead, it maintains a dual structure: the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation distributes money to grantees, but a separate entity, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust, manages the endowment assets. These two entities often have overlapping interests, and, as has been noted many times in the past, grants given by the foundation often directly benefit the value of the trustâs assets:
MELINDA GATES: One of my favorite parts of my job at the Gates Foundation is that I get to travel to the developing world, and I do that quite regularly.
[. . .]
My first trip in India, I was in a personâs home where they had dirt floors, no running water, no electricity, and thatâs really what I see all over the world. So in short, Iâm startled by all the things that they donât have. But I am surprised by one thing that they do have: Coca-Cola. Coke is everywhere. In fact, when I travel to the developing world, Coke feels ubiquitous.
And so when I come back from these trips, and Iâm thinking about development, and Iâm flying home and Iâm thinking, weâre trying to deliver condoms to people, or vaccinations, you know? Cokeâs success kind of stops and makes you wonder: How is it that they can get Coke to these far-flung places? If they can do that, why canât governments and NGOs do the same thing?
AMY GOODMAN: And the charity of billionaire Microsoft founder Bill Gates and his wife Melinda is under criticism following the disclosure itâs substantially increased its holdings in the agribusiness giant Monsanto to over $23 million. Critics say the investment in Monsanto contradicts the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundationâs stated commitment to helping farmers and sustainable development in Africa.
LAURENCE LEE: The study from the pressure group Global Justice now paints a picture of the Gates Foundation partly as an expression of corporate Americaâs desire to profit from Africa and partly a damning critique of its effects.
POLLY JONES: You could have a case where the initial research is done by a Gates-funded institution. And the media reporting on how well that research is conducted is done, the media outlet is a Gates-funded outlet, or maybe a Gates-funded journalist from a media program. And then the program is implemented more widely by a Gates-funded NGO. I mean . . . There are some very insular circles here.
LEE: Among the many criticisms: the idea that private finance can solve the problems of the developing world. Should poor farmers be trapped into debt by having to use chemicals or fertilizers underwritten by offshoot of the foundation?
This is no mere theoretical conflict of interest. Gates is held up as a hero for donating $35.8 billion worth of his Microsoft stock to the foundation, but during the course of his âDecade of Vaccines,â Gatesâ net worth has actually doubled, from $54 billion to $103.1 billion.
The Rockefeller story provides an instructive template for this vision of tycoon-turned-philanthropist. When Rockefeller faced a public backlash, he helped spearhead the creation of a system of private foundations that connected in with his business interests. Leveraging his unprecedented oil monopoly fortune into unprecedented control over wide swaths of public life, Rockefeller was able to kill two birds with one stone: molding society in his familyâs own interests, even as he became a beloved figure in the public imagination.
Similarly, Bill Gates has leveraged his software empire into a global health, development and education empire, steering the course of investment and research and ensuring healthy markets for vaccines and other immunization products. And, like Rockefeller, Gates has been transformed from the feared and reviled head of a formidable hydra into a kindly old man generously giving his wealth back to the public.
But not everyone has been taken in by this PR trick. Even The Lancet observed this worrying transformation from software monopolist to health monopolist back in 2009, when the extent of this Gates-led monopoly was becoming apparent to all:
The first guiding principle of the [Bill & Melinda Gates] Foundation is that it is âdriven by the interests and passions of the Gates family.â An annual letter from Bill Gates summarises those passions, referring to newspaper articles, books, and chance events that have shaped the Foundationâs strategy. For such a large and influential investor in global health, is such a whimsical governance principle good enough?
This brings us back to the question: Who is Bill Gates? What are his driving interests? What motivates his decisions?
These are not academic questions. Gatesâ decisions have controlled the flows of billions of dollars, formed international partnerships pursuing wide-ranging agendas, ensured the creation of âhealthy marketsâ for Big Pharma vaccine manufacturers. And now, as we are seeing, his decisions are shaping the entire global response to the coronavirus pandemic.
Next week, we will further explore Gatesâ vaccination initiatives, the business interests behind them, and the larger agenda that is beginning to take shape as we enter the ânew normalâ of the COVID-19 crisis.
Part Two: Bill Gatesâ Plan to Vaccinate the World
POPPY HARLOW: Ten billion dollars. I mean, just speak about the magnitude of that. That is by far the biggest commitment of the foundation, isnât it, Bill? I mean, this is by far the largest.
BILL GATES: Thatâs right, weâve been spending a lot on vaccines. With this commitment, over eight million additional lives will be saved. So itâs one of the most effective ways that health in the poorest countries can be dramatically improved.
In January of 2010, Bill and Melinda Gates used the World Economic Forum at Davos to announce a staggering $10 billion commitment to research and develop vaccines for the worldâs poorest countries, kicking off what he called a âDecade of Vaccines.â
GATES: Today weâre announcing a commitment over this next decade, which we think of as a decade of vaccines having incredible impact. Weâre announcing that weâll spend over $10 billion on vaccines.
. . . and applauded by the pharmaceutical companies who stood to reap the benefits of that largesse, the record-setting commitment made waves in the international community, helping to underwrite a Global Vaccine Action Plan coordinated by the Gates-funded World Health Organization.
But contrary to the Gatesâ own PR spin that this $10 billion pledge was an unalloyed good and would save eight million lives, the truth is that this attempt to reorient the global health economy was part of a much bigger agenda. An agenda that would ultimately lead to greater profits for Big Pharma companies, greater control for the Gates Foundation over the field of global health, and greater power for Bill Gates to shape the course of the future for billions of people around the planet.
This is Bill Gatesâ Plan to Vaccinate the World.
Given Gatesâ pledge to make this a âDecade of Vaccines,â it should come as no surprise that, since the dawn of this coronavirus crisis, he has been adamant that the world will not go back to normal until a vaccine has been developed.
GATES: Weâre gonna have this intermediate period of opening up, and it wonât be normal until we get an amazing vaccine to the entire world.
GATES: The vaccine is critical, because, until you have that, things arenât really going to be normal. They can open up to some degree, but the risk of a rebound will be there until we have very broad vaccination.
GATES: They wonât be back to normal until we either have that phenomenal vaccine or a therapeutic thatâs, like, over 95% effective. And so we have to assume thatâs going to be almost 18 months from now.
More interestingly, since Gates began delivering this same talking point in every one of his many media appearances of late, it has been picked up and repeated by heads of state, health officials, doctors and media talking heads, right down to the scientifically arbitrary but very specific 18-month time frame.
ZEKE EMANUEL: Realistically, COVID-19 will be here for the next 18 months or more. We will not be able to return to normalcy until we find a vaccine or effective medications.
DONALD TRUMP: Obviously, we continue to work on the vaccines, but the vaccines have to be down the road by probably 14, 15, 16 months. Weâre doing great on the vaccines.
The fact that so many heads of state, health ministers and media commentators are dutifully echoing Gatesâ pronouncement about the need for a vaccine will not be surprising to those who saw last weekâs exploration of How Bill Gates Monopolized Global Health. As we have seen, the Gates Foundationâs tentacles have penetrated into every corner of the field of public health. Billions of dollars in funding and entire public policy agendas are under the control of this man, an unelected, unaccountable software developer with no medical research experience or training.
And nowhere is Gatesâ control of public health more apparent than in the realm of vaccines.
One of the Gates Foundationâs core funding areas is âvaccine development and surveillance,â which has resulted in the channeling of billions of dollars into vaccine development, a seat at the table to develop vaccination campaigns in countries around the globe, and the opportunity to shape public thinking around Bill Gatesâ pet project of the past five years: preparing rapid development and deployment of vaccines in the event of a globally spreading pandemic.
GATES: If anything kills over 10 million people in the next few decades, itâs most likely to be a highly infectious virus.
GATES: Whether it occurs by a quirk of nature or at the hand of a terrorist, epidemiologists show through their models that a respiratory-spread pathogen would kill more than 30 million people in less than a year. And there is a reasonable probability of that taking place in the years ahead.
BABITA SHARMA: Many high-profile personalities have been gathering at this yearâs World Economic Forum in Davos, which aims to discuss the globeâs most pressing issues. Amongst them is the Microsoft founder Bill Gates, whose foundation is investing millions in the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations to help combat infectious diseases. Hereâs some of what he had to say about his push to develop new vaccines.
GATES: Unfortunately, it takes many years to do a completely new vaccine. The design, the safety review, the manufacturing; all of those things mean that an epidemic can be very widespread before that tool would come along. And so after Ebola the global health community talked a lot about this, including a new type of vaccine platform called DNA/RNA that should speed things along.
And so this Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Initiative [sic], CEPI, is three countriesâJapan, Norway, Germanyâand two foundationsâWellcome Trust, [who] we work with on a lot of things, and our foundation, the Gates Foundationâcoming together to fund . . . actually trying to use that platform and make some vaccines. And so that would help us in the future.
NARRATORS: We know vaccines can protect us. We just need to be better prepared. So, âLetâs come together. Letâs research and invest. Letâs save lives. Letâs outsmart epidemics.â
What should be surprising is that this strangely specific and continuously repeated messageâthat we will not go âback to normalâ until we get a vaccine in 18 monthsâhas no scientific basis whatsoever. Medical researchers have already conceded that a vaccine for SARS-CoV-2 may not even be possible, pointing to the inability of researchers to develop any kind of immunization against previous coronavirus outbreaks, like SARS or MERS.
But even if such a vaccine were possible, serious concerns remain about the safety of developing, testing and delivering such an âamazing vaccineâ to âthe entire worldâ in this remarkably short timeframe. Even proponents of vaccine development openly worry that the rush to vaccinate billions of people with a largely untested, experimental coronavirus vaccine will itself present grave risks to the public.
One of these risks involves âdisease enhancement.â It has been known for over a decade that vaccination for some viral infectionsâincluding coronavirusesâactually enhances susceptibility to viral infection or even causes infections in healthy vaccine recipients.
ANTHONY FAUCI: Now, the issue of safety. Something that I want to make sure the American public understand: Itâs not only safety when you inject somebody and they get maybe an idiosyncratic reaction, they get a little allergic reaction, they get pain. Thereâs safety associated. âDoes the vaccine make you worse?â And there are diseases in which you vaccinate someone, they get infected with what youâre trying to protect them with, and you actually enhance the infection.
This is no mere theoretical risk. As researchers who were trying to develop a vaccine for the original SARS outbreak discovered, the vaccine actually made the lab animals subjected to it more susceptible to the disease.
PETER HOTEZ: One of the things that we are not hearing a lot about is the unique potential safety problems of coronavirus vaccines. This was first found in the 1960s with the Respiratory Syncytial Virus vaccines, and it was done in Washington with the NIH and Childrenâs National Medical Center. Some of those kids who got the vaccine actually did worse, and I believe there were two deaths in the consequence of that study. Because what happens with certain types of respiratory virus vaccines, you get immunized, and then when you get actually exposed to the virus, you get this kind of paradoxical immune enhancement phenomenon, and whatâand we donât entirely understand the basis of it. But we recognize that itâs a real problem for certain respiratory virus vaccines. That killed the RSV program for decades. Now the Gates Foundation is taking it up again. But when we started developing coronavirus vaccinesâand our colleaguesâwe noticed in laboratory animals that they started to show some of the same immune pathology that resembled what had happened 50 years earlier.
This specific issue regarding coronavirus vaccines is exacerbated by the arbitrary and unscientific 18-month timeframe that Gates is insisting on for the vaccineâs development. In order to meet that deadline, vaccine developers are being urged to use new and largely unproven methods for creating their experimental immunizations, including DNA and mRNA vaccines.
KELLY OâDONNELL: For a self-described wartime president, victory over COVID-19 equals a vaccine.
TRUMP: I hope we can have a vaccine, and weâre going to fast-track it like youâve never seen before.
OâDONNELL: Adding Trump-style branding, the administration launched âOperation Warp Speed,â a multi-billion-dollar research and manufacturing effort to shorten the typical year-plus vaccine development timeline.
ANTHONY FAUCI: Weâre gonna start ramping up production with the companies involved, and you do that at risk. In other words, you donât wait until you get an answer before you start manufacturing. You at risk proactively start making it, assuming itâs gonna work.
BECKY QUICK: Youâre thinking 18 months even with all the work that youâve already done to this point and the planning that you are taking with lots of different potential vaccinations and building up for that now
GATES: Yeah, so thereâs an approach called RNA vaccine that people like Moderna, CureVac and others are using that in 2015 weâd identified that as very promising for pandemics and for other applications as well. And so, if everything goes perfectly with the RNA approach, we could actually beat the 18 months. We donât want to create unrealistic expectations.
RHIJU DAS: So the concept of an RNA vaccine is: Letâs inject the RNA molecule that encodes for the spike protein.
ANGELA RASMUSSEN: Itâs making your cell do the work of creating this viral protein that is going to be recognized by your immune system and trigger the development of these antibodies.
DAS: Our bodies wonât make a full-fledged infectious virus. Theyâll just make a little piece and then learn to recognize it and then get ready to destroy the virus if it then later comes and invades us.
[. . .]
DAS: Itâs a relatively new, unproven technology. And thereâs still no example of an RNA vaccine thatâs been deployed worldwide in the way that we need for the coronavirus.
RASMUSSEN: There is the possibility for unforeseen, adverse effects.
AKIKO IWASAKI: So this is all new territory. Whether it would elicit protective immune response against this virus is just unknown right now.
Rushing at âWarp Speedâ to develop a new vaccine using experimental technology and then mass-producing and delivering billions of doses to be injected into âbasically the entire worldâ before adequate testing is even done amounts to one of the most dangerous experiments in the history of the world, one that could alter the lives of untold numbers of people.
That an experimental vaccineâdeveloped in a brand new way and rushed through with a special, shortened testing regimeâshould be given to adults, children, pregnant women, newborn babies, and the elderly alike, would be, in any other situation, unthinkable. To suggest that such a vaccine should be given to the entire planet would have been called lunacy mere months ago. But now the public is being asked to accept this premise without question.
Even Gates himself acknowledges the inherent risks of such a project. But his concern is not for the lives that will be irrevocably altered in the event that the vaccines cause damage to the population. Instead, he is more concerned that the pharmaceutical companies and the researchers are given legal immunity for any such damage.
GATES: You know, if we have, you know, one in 10,000 side effects, thatâs, you know, way moreâ 700,000âyou know, people who will suffer from that. So really understanding the safety at gigantic scale across all age rangesâyou know, pregnant, male, female, undernourished, existing comorbiditiesâitâs very, very hard. And that actual decision of, âOK, letâs go and give this vaccine to the entire world,â ah, governments will have to be involved because there will be some risk and indemnification needed before that can be decided on.
As we have already seen, in the arena of global health, what Bill Gates wants is what the world gets. So it should be no surprise that immunity for the Big Pharma vaccine manufacturers and the vaccination program planners is already being worked on.
In the US, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a declaration that retroactively provides âliability immunity for activities related to medical countermeasures against COVID-19,â including manufacturers, distributors and program planners of âany vaccine, used to treat, diagnose, cure, prevent, or mitigate COVID-19.â The declaration was issued on March 17th but retroactively covers any activity back to February 4th, 2020, the day before the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation announced an emergency $100 million to fund treatment efforts and to develop new vaccines for COVID-19.
The plan to inject everyone on the planet with an experimental vaccine is no aberration in Bill Gatesâ envisioned âDecade of Vaccines.â It is its culmination.
The âDecade of Vaccinesâ kicked off with a Gates-funded $3.6 million observational study of HPV vaccines in India that, according to a government investigation, violated the human rights of the study participants with âgross violationsâ of consent and failed to properly report adverse events experienced by the vaccine recipients. After the deaths of seven girls involved in the trial were reported, a parliamentary investigation concluded that the Gates-funded Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH), which ran the study, had been engaged in a scheme to help ensure âhealthy marketsâ for GlaxoSmithKline and Merck, the manufacturers of the Gardasil and Cervarix vaccines that had been so generously donated for use in the trial:
âHad PATH been successful in getting the HPV vaccine included in the universal immunization program of the concerned countries, this would have generated windfall profit for the manufacturer(s) by way of automatic sale, year after year, without any promotional or marketing expenses. It is well known that once introduced into the immunization program it becomes politically impossible to stop any vaccination.â
Chandra M. Gulhati, editor of the influential Monthly Index of Medical Specialities, remarked that â[i]t is shocking to see how an American organization used surreptitious methods to establish itself in India,â and Samiran Nundy, editor emeritus of the National Medical Journal of Indialamented that â[t]his is an obvious case where Indians were being used as guinea pigs.â
Throughout the decade, Indiaâs concerns about the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and its corporate partnersâ influence on the countryâs national immunization programs grew. In 2016, the steering group of the countryâs National Health Mission blasted the government for allowing the countryâs National Technical Advisory Group on Immunisationâthe primary body advising the government on all vaccination-related mattersâto be effectively purchased by the Gates Foundation.
As one steering group member noted: âThe NTAGI secretariat has been moved out of the [governmentâs health] ministry to the office of Public Health Foundation of India and the 32 staff members in that secretariat draw their salaries from the BMGF. There is a clear conflict of interestâon one hand, the BMGF funds the secretariat that is the highest decision making body in vaccines and, on the other, it partners the pharma industry in GAVI. This is unacceptable.â
In 2017, the government responded by cutting all financial ties between the advisory group and the Gates Foundation.
Similar stories play out across the Gates Foundationâs âDecade of Vaccines.â
Thereâs 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.
Thereâs 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 showing that 80% of polio cases are now vaccine-derived.
Thereâs the 2018 paper in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health concluding that over 490,000 people in India developed paralysis as a result of the oral polio vaccine between 2000 and 2017.
Thereâs even the WHOâs own malaria chief, Dr. Arata Kochi, who complained in an internal memo that Gatesâ influence meant that the worldâs leading malaria scientists are now âlocked up in a âcartelâ with their own research funding being linked to those of others within the groupâ and that the foundation âwas stifling debate on the best ways to treat and combat malaria, prioritizing only those methods that relied on new technology or developing new drugs.â
Kochiâs complaint, written in 2008, highlights the most common criticism of the global health web that Gates has spun in the past two decades: that the public health industry has become a racket run by and for Big Pharma and its partners for the benefit of big business.
At the time that Kochi was writing his memo, the executive director of the Gates Foundationâs Global Health program was Tachi Yamada. Yamada left his position as Chairman of Research and Development at GlaxoSmithKline to take up the position at the Gates Foundation in 2006 and left the foundation five years later to become Chief Medical and Scientific Officer at Takeda Pharmaceuticals. Yamadaâs replacement as head of Gatesâ Global health program, Trevor Mundel, was himself a clinical researcher at Pfizer and Parke-Davis and spent time as Head of Development with Novartis before joining the foundation.
This use of foundation funds to set public policy to drive up corporate profits is not a secret conspiracy. It is a perfectly open one.
When the Center for Global Development formed a working group to âdevelop a practical approach to the vaccine challenge,â they concluded that the best way to incentivize pharmaceutical companies to produce more vaccines for the third world was for governments to promise to buy vaccines before they were even developed. They titled their report âMaking Markets for Vaccines.â
ALICE ALBRIGHT: The project âMaking Markets for Vaccinesâ was really designed to address a problem thatâs existed for a long time, which is insufficient research and development budgets as well as investment capacity in vaccine development and production for the third world. How do you create better incentives to get the pharma communityâthe vaccine communityâto produce products that are specifically dedicated for the developing world.
RUTH LEVINE: Michael Kramer, a professor at Harvard, had been thinking about this problem for many years.
OWEN BARDER: He realized that if the rich countries of the world were to make a promise that they would buy a malaria vaccine if somebody produced it, that that would give an incentive to the pharmaceutical industry to go and do the research and development needed to make one. But this idea was unfamiliar. No government had made a commitment to buy a product that didnât already exist.
When the first such âAdvanced Market Commitmentâ was made in 2007âa $1.5 billion promise to buy yet-to-be-produced vaccines from Big Pharma manufacturersâthere was the Gates Foundation as the only non-nation sponsor.
If âintroducing new vaccinesâ and ensuring healthy markets for them was the aim of Gatesâ âDecade of Vaccines,â there can be no doubt that COVID-19 has seen that goal realized in spectacular fashion.
URSULA VON DER LEYEN: Letâs start the pledging.
KATIE STEPHENS: The EU kicked off its fundraising drive with 1 billion euros. In the hours that followed, pledges were beamed in from across the globe.
TAWFIG ALRABIAH: The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has pledged 500 million dollars.
STEPHENS: Even pop icon Madonna made a last-minute donation of a million euros.
MELINDA GATES: By combining the worldâs expertise and brainpower and resources, we can attack this disease in the way itâs attacking us: globally. Our foundation is proud to partner with you and Iâm pleased to announce today that we will pledge a hundred million dollars towards this effort.
KATIE STEPHENS: Germany was one of the leading donors, pledging over five hundred million euros. The money is earmarked for international health organizations and research networks in a bid to speed up the development of a vaccine.
And there, at the center of this web, is the Gates Foundation, connected to every major organization, research institution, international alliance and vaccine manufacturer involved in the current crisis.
Certainly, the Gatesâlike the Rockefellersâhave profited from their years as âthe most generous people on the planet.â As curious as it might seem to those who donât understand the true nature of this monopoly cartel, despite all of these grants and pledgesâcommitments of tens of billions of dollarsâBill Gatesâ personal net worth has actually doubled during this âDecade of Vaccines,â from $50 billion to over $100 billion.
But once again we come back to the question: Who is Bill Gates? Is he motivated simply by money? Is this incessant drive to vaccinate the entire population of the planet merely the result of greed? Or is there something else driving this agenda?
As we shall see next time, money is not the end goal of Gatesâ âphilanthropicâ activities. Money is just the tool that he is using to purchase what he really wants: control. Control not just of the health industry, but control of the human population itself.
Part Three: Bill Gates and the Population Control Grid
Itâs a strange fact that Bill Gatesâ hagiographersâPR hacks employed, more often than not, by large corporations that receive funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundationâconsistently depict this drab software developer as a cartoon superhero, using his âsuperpowerâ of being very rich to help âsave the planet.â
JOHN BERMAN: Behind closed doors on this New York campus, a secret gathering of some of the worldâs most powerful people: Gates, Buffett, Bloomberg, Winfrey. It was like . . . well, it was like the âSuper Friends.â
[Super Friends cartoon introduction plays]
ANNOUNCER: In the great hall of the Justice League, there are assembled the worldâs four greatest heroes.
SOURCE: Elite Billionaires Meet in Secret (video no longer online)
But these cartoon-fueled puff pieces reveal more than they know about Gates and the other mega-rich philanthropists they are attempting to idolize: they reveal that the idea of the selfless, billionaire do-gooder is a work of fiction so unbelievable it is only fit for Saturday morning cartoon fare.
As we have seen in our first two explorations of Bill Gatesâ role as global health kingpin, the seemingly selfless generosity of the Gates family through their eponymous foundation has in fact greatly increased their own wealth, with Bill Gatesâ personal net worth having doubled in the past decade alone.
But the takeover of public health that we have documented in How Bill Gates Monopolized Global Health and the remarkably brazen push to vaccinate everyone on the planet that we have documented in Bill Gatesâ Plan to Vaccinate the World was not, at base, about money. The unimaginable wealth that Gates has accrued is now being used to purchase something much more useful: control. Control not just of the global health bodies that can coordinate a worldwide vaccination program or the governments that will mandate such an unprecedented campaign, but control over the global population itself.
This is an exploration of Bill Gates and the Population Control Grid.
Youâre tuned in to The Corbett Report.
From a journalistic standpoint, Good Morning Americaâs inane report on the secretive billionaire meeting that took place in New York in 2009 was a failure. It listed some of the meetingsâ attendees and their combined net worth:
BERMAN: Gates, Buffett, Bloomberg, Winfrey [. . .] Together with others in the meeting, including George Soros, Ted Turner, David Rockefeller, theyâre worth more than $125 billion.
It turned to the senior editor of Forbes for a sound bite about what it would be like to witness such an assembly of wealth:
MATTHEW MILLER: To have been in the room and see this meeting of the minds really would have been a fascinating thing.
And it dutifully reported the participantsâ own stated reason for holding the meeting. . . .
BERMAN: That much money. That much power around one table. It begs the question, what were they doing? What were they scheming? Total world domination? This group, together for six hours, was talking about charity, education, emergency relief, global health.
. . . Before wrapping up with another juvenile appeal to comic book superhero lore.
[Video onscreen of various billionaires superimposed as Superheroes, such as Batman, Superman. Etc.]
BERMAN: The new supermen and wonder woman. The superrich friends. Not fighting bad guys, but fighting for good, nonetheless. For Good Morning America, John Berman, ABC News.
Yes, from a journalistic standpoint, Bermanâs report was an utter failure. There was no attempt to question the participants about the meeting, no space for any criticism of these billionaires or questions about their motives, no adversarial journalism of any kind.
But as a PR piece, it was brilliant. It leaves the viewer with a vague sense that some kind of gathering took place somewhere in New York in which rich peopleâwho, letâs not forget, are superheroesâtalked about charity.
One would have to turn to print sources to discover that the meeting was held at the personal residence of Sir Paul Nurse, then-president of Rockefeller University; that the invitation to the gathering was co-written by Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and David Rockefeller; or that the aim of the meeting was âto consider how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the worldâs population.â
Given that these extraordinarily rich and powerful menâincluding Warren Buffett, David Rockefeller, and Ted Turnerâhave all expressed their belief that the growing human population is the greatest threat faced by humanity, it should not be surprising that they would convene a conference to discuss how best to channel their vast wealth into the project of reducing the number of people on the planet. Particularly unsurprising is that attendees of the meeting later dubbed Bill Gatesâa man for whom population control is particularly close to his heartâas the âmost impressiveâ speaker at the event.
GATES: Here we can see a chart that looks at the total world population over the last several hundred years, and at first glance this is a bit scary. We go from less than a billion in 1800, and then 3, 4, 5, 6âand 7.4 billion, where we are today, is happening even faster. So, Melinda and I wondered whether providing new medicines and keeping children alive, would that create more of a population problem?
SCOTT PELLEY: . . . and what the developing world does not need is more children.
MELINDA GATES: And I think that was the biggest âah-haâ to Bill and me when we got into this work. Because we asked ourselves, of course, the same hard-nosed question youâd ask, which is: âIf you get into this work and you start to save these children, will women just keep overpopulating the world?â And thank goodness, the converse is absolutely true.
GATES: This is a very important question to get right, because it was absolutely key for me. When our foundation first started up, it was focused on reproductive health. That was the main thing we did, because I thought, you know, population growth in poor countries is the biggest problem they face. Youâve got to help mothers, who want to limit family size, have the tools and education to do that. And I thought, thatâs the only thing that really counts.
In recent years, critics have pointed to Bill Gatesâ own words linking vaccination programs with his goal of reducing population growth.
GATES: The world today has 6.8 billion people. Thatâs headed up to about nine billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.
SANJAY GUPTA: Ten billion dollars over the next 10 years to make it the year of the vaccines. What does that mean, exactly?
GATES: Well, over this decade, we believe unbelievable progress can be made both inventing new vaccines and making sure they get out to all the children who need them. We could cut the number of children who die every year from about nine million to half of that, if we have success on it. And the benefits there in terms of reducing sickness, reducing the population growth, it really allows society a chance to take care of itself once youâve made that intervention.
But as any number of âfact-checking websitesâânot to mention Bill Gates himselfâare quick to point out, this doesnât mean what it sounds like it means.
GATES: What we found out is that as health improves, families choose to have less children.
MELINDA GATES: The truth is that when peopleâs lives improveâwhen children survive, for instance, or when girls go to schoolâpeople start making decisions based on the expectation that their children will live and thrive. The result is smaller families and slower population growth.
GATES: I came across articles that showed that the key thing you can do to reduce population growth is actually improve health. And that sounds paradoxical. You think, âOK, better health means more kids, not less kids.â Well, in fact, what parents are doing is theyâre trying to have two kids survive to adulthood to take care of them. And so the more disease burden that there is, the more kids they have to have to have that high probability. So thereâs a perfect correlation that, as you improve health, within a half generation the population growth rate goes down.
Yes, the Gatesâ stated plan is to reduce population growth by improving health. But the idea of using vaccines as sterilization agentsâeven without the publicâs knowledge or consentâis not conspiracy lore, but documentable fact.
It its 1968 annual report, the Rockefeller Foundation addressed the âProblems of Population,â lamenting that â[v]ery little work is in progress on immunological methods, such as vaccines, to reduce fertility, and much more research is required if a solution is to be found here.â The Foundation vowed to correct this problem by funding âestablished and beginning investigators to turn their attention to aspects of research in reproductive biology that have implications for human fertility and its control.â
This was no empty promise. By the time of its 1988 Annual Report, the Rockefeller Foundation was able to report progress on its funding into contraceptive research, including NORPLANT, a contraceptive implanted under the skin of a womanâs upper arm and effective for five years. In its 1988 report, the Rockefeller Foundation was pleased to announce that NORPLANTâwhich was developed by the Rockefeller-founded Population Councilâwas ânow approved for marketing in 12 countries.â
The Rockefellersâ Population Council and other research organizations joined with the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1972 to create a Task Force on Vaccines for Fertility Regulation. By 1995, they were able to report progress in âdeveloping a prototype of an anti-hCG-vaccine,â which works by combining an immunogen formed from a synthetic peptide of human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG)âa hormone secreted by the surface of the early embryo to remain implanted in the wombâwith a toxoid carrier molecule. The vaccine stimulates an immune reaction, causing women to develop antibodies against the hormone, thus preventing them from carrying babies to term.
But beginning in the 1990s, a series of scandals over WHO-led vaccination programs in the third world led to allegations that tetanus vaccines in places like the Philippines and Kenya were being laced with hCG in order to implement population control by stealth. The controversy generated by these stories led global institutions to step back from the campaign to champion population control by vaccine.
But, as usual, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was there to renew interest, working with the UK government to host a âLondon Summit on Family Planningâ in 2012 at which the foundation announced their support for funding the research, development and deployment of injectable contraceptives to the developing world.
MELINDA GATES: You heard me talk earlier about Sadi, who I met in Niger. She was traveling fifteen kilometers to get an injection. But letâs ask ourselves, what if she didnât have to travel to that clinic? If we put it in her perspective, how can we keep her in her village to get the contraceptives she wants? Well, Pfizer is testing a new form of Depo, the injection that she gets fifteen kilometers to get. Theyâre now putting it in a new form, a new device that can be givenâitâs very, very small, itâs called Uniject. I think itâs going to be pictured here.
Itâs a high-quality product. Itâs effective. Itâs safe. Itâs tiny, as you can see. And it can be put in a healthcare workerâs kit to give to the woman at the village level. So Sadi wonât have to go fifteen kilometers any longer to get that injection.
But the Gates were not content to stop there. In 2014 it was announced that Microchips Biotech, Inc., a company in Lexington, Massachusetts, had developed a new form of birth control: âa wireless implant that can be turned on and off with a remote control and that is designed to last up to 16 years.â According to MIT Technology Review, the idea originated when Bill Gates visited Robert Langerâs MIT lab in 2012 and asked him if it would be possible to create an implantable birth control device that could be turned on or off remotely. Langer referred Gates to the controlled release microchip technology he had invented and licensed to MicroCHIPS Biotechnology, and the Gates Foundation granted $20 million to the firm to develop the implants.
Reducing population growth has, by Gatesâ own admission, been a core mission of the Gates Foundation since its inception. But in order to really understand what Gates means by âpopulation control,â we have to look beyond the concept of controlling population size. At its most fundamental level, the âpopulation controlâ that Gates speaks of is not birth control, but control of the population itself.
In order to understand the broader population control agenda and how it ties in to the Gates Foundationâs plans, we have to look at a puzzling development that took place in 2017. In that year, Gaviâthe Gates founded and funded alliance that partners the Gates Foundation, the World Health Organization and the World Bank with vaccine manufacturers to help ensure âhealthy marketsâ for vaccinesâtook a strange pivot away from its core mission of vaccinating every child on the planet to providing every child with a digital biometric identity.
The idea was first floated by Gavi CEO Seth Berkley in a Nature article that year, âImmunization needs a technology boost,â where he states that the goal of 100% immunization will not be reached without âsecure digital identification systems that can store a childâs medical history.â He then gives a specific example:
âWe are working with a company in India called Khushi Baby, which creates off-grid digital health records. A necklace worn by infants contains a unique identification number on a short-range communication chip. Community health workers can scan the chip using a mobile phone, enabling them to update a childâs digital record even in remote areas with little phone coverage.â
This sudden interest in digital identity was no mere passing fancy for the vaccine alliance. Gavi doubled down by becoming a founding member of the ID2020 Alliance, a public-private partnership dedicated to spearheading a global digital biometric identity standard. Other founding members of the alliance include Gatesâ first company, Microsoft, and The Rockefeller Foundation.
In 2018, Gavi issued a call for innovation in digital technologies âfor finding, identifying and registering the most vulnerable children.â The call specifically requested technologies for capturing, storing and enrolling the biometric details of infants on ârugged biometric devices.â
Berkley continued to follow up on this idea in public engagements as one of the new core missions of Gavi.
SETH BERKLEY: Whatâs interesting is that people tend to think of, you know, birth certificates as kind of a major document. But, you know, the most commonâas I mentioned beforeâis not a birth certificate, is not a death certificate, is not a marriage certificate. The most common connectionâvital registration for the populationâis actually a child health card, because we reach more than 90 percent of children with at least one dose of vaccine as part of a routine, so theyâre in the system. The challenge is that contact is not connected into the system. So, if you could connect it, then you have the ability to give them their basic identity papers. You have the ability, then, later on, if they want to own land or they want to have their rights, youâre able to help them with that. But, you know, weâre not currently taking advantage of that. And so the children get seen, they get enrolled in the health centers, but that information is not used for anything else.
Although vaccines and identity may seem unrelated, Bill Gates has spent the last few years funding research that can bring the two ideas together.
Late last year, Gates once again turned to Robert Langer and his MIT colleagues to investigate new ways to permanently store and record the vaccination information of each individual. The result of their research was a new vaccine delivery method. They found that by using âdissolvable microneedles that deliver patterns of near-infrared light-emitting microparticles to the skin,â they could create âparticle patternsâ in the skin of vaccine recipients which are âinvisible to the eye but can be imaged using modified smartphones.â
Rice University describes the quantum dot tags left behind by the microneedles as âsomething like a bar-code tattoo.â
So who was behind this development? As lead researcher Kevin McHugh explains:
âThe Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation came to us and said, âHey, we have a real problemâknowing whoâs vaccinated [. . .] So our idea was to put the record on the person. This way, later on, people can scan over the area to see what vaccines have been administered and give only the ones still needed.â
The microparticles that form the fluorescent quantum-dot tags are delivered along with the vaccine, but they cannot be delivered by a traditional syringe. Instead, they must be delivered by a patch of microneedles made from a mixture of dissolvable sugar and a polymer, called PVA, as well as the quantum-dot dye and the vaccine.
It should be no surprise, then, that Big Pharma vaccine manufacturersâin their scramble to produce the coronavirus vaccine that, Gates assures us, is necessary to âgo back to normalââhave turned to a novel vaccine delivery method: a dissolvable microneedle array patch.
NICK HARPER: The University of Pittsburgh is where the polio vaccine was first discovered. At the medical center, researchers are now developing a vaccine that is delivered using a dissolvable patch called a microneedle array.
LOUIS FALO: Think about them as almost like a band-aid. And so the microneedle array is simply applied to the skin topically, pressed into place very shortly, and then taken off and thrown away and then the antigen is already delivered.
As is becoming evident, this new vaccine-delivered bar- code-like tattoo is about much more than simply ensuring that children get all their Gavi-recommended immunizations.
On a recent âAsk Me Anythingâ thread on reddit, when asked âWhat changes are we going to have to make to how businesses operate to maintain our economy while providing social distancing?â Bill Gates answered: âEventually we will have some digital certificates to show who has recovered or been tested recently or when we have a vaccine who has received it.â
In his answer, Gates fails to mention that he has himself been instrumental in kickstarting and funding the research into the very type of digital certificates for vaccination that he is speaking about, or that these âdigital certificatesââlikely, at first, to be a digital marker linked to a biometric IDâcould very well one day take the form of vaccine-implanted quantum-dot tattoos.
But, as in so many other aspects of the unfolding crisis, Gatesâ unscientific pronouncement that we will need digital certificates to prove our immunity in the ânew normalâ of the post-coronavirus world . . .
GATES: Eventually, what weâll have to have is certificates of who is a recovered person, who is a vaccinated person.
. . .is now being implemented by a number of governments. It is now being reported that Onfido, a tech startup specializing in AI-based biometric ID verification, is in talks with the British government to provide the type of âdigital certificationâ Gates mentioned, dubbed an âimmunity passport.â The proposed system would require would-be workers to use the Onfido-provided app to scan their face or other biometric data, link that information to a SARS-CoV-2 antibody test (or, eventually proof of coronavirus vaccination), and then have their picture taken and immunity verified every time they wish to access a restricted space or work environment.
Last month, Onfido announced that it had raised $50 million in a round of investments led by Bill Gatesâ old company, Microsoft.
But this is not Gatesâ first experience with the field of biometric identity.
A decade ago, the government of India began what has been called âThe Largest Social Experiment on Earthâ: enrolling over one billion people in the largest biometric identification database ever constructed. The projectâinvolving iris scanning and fingerprinting the entirety of the Indian population, recording their biometric details in a centralized database, and issuing them a 12-digit identity number that could be used to prove residence and access government services, all within the span of a few yearsâpresented an incredible societal, legal and technological challenge.
Itâs no surprise, then, that the person who was brought in as the chief architect of the Aadhaar project when it was launchedâNandan Nilekani, co-founder of Indian multi-national Infosysâis also a long-time friend of Bill Gates and a partner with Bill and Melinda Gates on a âphilanthropicâ venture called Co-Impact, which supports âinitiatives to address major social challenges at scale.â
Nilekaniâs involvement in Aadhaar has even made him one of Gatesâs âheroes,â featured in slick video promotions produced by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
GATES: My friend, Nandan Nilekani, is one of Indiaâs best-known entrepreneurs. He led the creation of the worldâs largest biometric ID system. Now heâs working to promote his platform to improve the lives of the worldâs poorest people.
NANDAR NILEKANI: There are more than a billion people around the world who donât have any kind of ID. You canât do anything in life without an ID because people are mobile, they are migrant. And wherever they go, whether they want a job, or whether they want to board a train, or whether they want to get a bank account or get a mobile connection, if the person has no way of proving who they are, then they just wonât get access to those services. So the challenge we had was, how do we give a billion people, many of whom donât have birth certificates, how do we give them an ID?
Aadhaar is the worldâs largest digital ID system, and entirely based using biometrics to ensure uniqueness. Our enrollment was very simple: name, address, date of birth, sex, email ID and phone number if you wish, and the biometrics. The ten fingerprints of both the hands, the iris of both the eyes, and a photograph. And in a few days, he will get his Aadhaar number in the mail. And thatâs how a billion people got their IDs.
And Gates has personally praised the Aadhar scheme as âa huge asset for India.â
GATES: Well, Aadhaar is a huge asset for India. It was designed very well. The fact that you can make digital payments so easily, you can open a bank account . . . Indiaâs a leader in that. Our Foundation, you know, worked with the Reserve Bank. You know, Nandar Nilekani and a group of people that he pulled together did a great job.
But Gates is not merely an arms-length admirer of the Aadhaar experiment. He is not only personally connected to its chief architect. He is also connected to one of the key companies that spearheaded the technology that underlies the projectâs biometric database.
And now, Gates is funding a scheme to retool Aadhaar for a global rollout.
In 2014, the World Bank created a multi-sector working group to launch the âIdentification for Development Initative,â or ID4D, which aims to âsupport progress toward identification systems using 21st century solutions.â The World Bank cites goal 16.9 of the UN Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goalsâvowing to âprovide legal identity for all, including birth registrationâ in the next 10 yearsâas the basis for its initiative.
But ID4D was little more than a pipe dream until 2016, when the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation provided âcatalytic contributionsâ to launch the ID4D Multi-Donor Trust Fund, which enticed the UK, French and Australian governments, along with the Omidyar Network, into a partnership aiming to âshape global approaches and a shared vision on identification.â
Unsurprisingly, this World Bank ID4D initiative includes Nandar NilekaniâGatesâ partner and the chief architect of Aadhaarâon its advisory council and Gates has said that he is funding the World Bank âto take this Aadhaar approach to other countries.â
This headlong rush to capture the biometric details and assign digital identification to every person on earth is sold to the public under the guise of âfinancial inclusion.â The poorest people on the planet have trouble accessing financial services and receiving government aid because they donât have official government identification papers. In this formulation, being issued a government IDâhaving oneâs biometric details registered, tracked and databased by the governmentâis a âhuman rightâ that must be âsecured.â
It should be no surprise by this point that this âhuman rightâ also has direct benefits for big business and for the entities that are looking to exert greater control over the human population.
Gates provided insight into the real purpose of this identification control grid in a speech at the Financial Inclusion Forum hosted by the US Treasury in 2015.
GATES: Every country really needs to look through these KYCâknow your customerârules to make sure that customers are able to prove who they are. But of course in many countries you donât have any type of ID system. And the lack of an ID system is a problem, not just for the payment system, but also for voting and health and education and taxation. And so itâs a wonderful thing to go in and create a broad identification system.
Again, India is a very interesting example of this, where the Aadhaar system, which is a 12-digit identifier thatâs correlated to biometric measures, is becoming pervasive throughout the country and will be the foundation for how we bring this low-cost switch to every mobile phone user in India. The same type of thing is happening now in in Pakistan and thereâs early beginnings of creating these ID programs in Africa as well.
We expect to be able to use the IDs so that when you show up for any government serviceâsay, you walk into a primary health clinicâweâll be able to take that bio ID very quickly and bring up your electronic health record. Even if youâve moved from one part of the country to the other, you will be well tracked and well served without nearly as much paperwork or waiting. And so the ID system is foundational.
The ID control grid is an essential part of the digitization of the economy. And although this is being sold as an opportunity for âfinancial inclusionâ of the worldâs poorest in the banking system provided by the likes of Gates and his banking and business associates, it is in fact a system for financial exclusion. Exclusion of any person or transaction that does not have the approval of the government or the payment providers.
GATES: Once financial flows go undergroundâwhere you have lots of legitimate transactions mixed in with the ones you want to trackâand once theyâre going over a digital system that the US has no connection to, itâs far more difficult to find the transactions that you want to be aware of or that you want to block.
And, once again, this is no mere theoretical talk from Gates. He has been intimately involved in this process of switching the world over to a digital payment grid tied to biometric identity.
In 2012, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation helped found the âBetter Than Cash Alliance,â which brings together governments, international organizations and the private sector âto accelerate the transition from cash to digital payments globally.â
And, when the Indian government made a bold move to demonetize large amounts of its circulating currency in order to draw off-the-books funds back under the purview of the Indian tax office, there was Gates to praise the move as an important step toward the creation of a brave new digital economy, tied, of course, to the Aadhaar ID grid.
GATES: The bold move to demonetize high value denominations and replace them with new notes with higher security features is an important step to move away from a shadow economy to an even more transparent economy. And digital transactions really I think will rise dramatically here. In fact, I think in the next several years India will become the most digitized economy. Not just by size but by percentage as well. All of the pieces are now coming together.
One piece of this that we enjoyed consulting with the government on, making sure it comes together in the right way, is the pending roll out of payment banks. This for the first time really will mean that you have full currency capability on those digital phones. Once you have that digital infrastructure, the whole way you think about government benefits can be done differently. [. . .] Over time, all of these transactions will create a footprint and so when you go in for credit the ability to access the history that youâve paid your utility bills on time, that youâve saved up money for your childrenâs education, all of those things in your digital trail, accessed in an appropriate way will allow the credit market to properly score the risk and therefore loosen up more money for investments, not only in the agricultural sector but for all the entrepreneurs in the country.
The different parts of this population control grid fit together like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. The vaccination drive ties into the biometric identity drive which ties into the cashless society drive.
In Gatesâ vision, everyone will receive the government-mandated vaccinations, and everyone will have their biometric details recorded in nationally administered, globally integrated digital IDs. These digital identities will be tied to all of our actions and transactions, and, if and when they are deemed illegal, they will simply be shut off by the governmentâor even the payment providers themselves.
The Indian experiment in pioneering this biometric digital economyâan experiment with which Gates has been so intimately involvedâalso provides a perfect example of just how such a system will be abused.
In January 2018, a report in The Tribunerevealed that all of the details, including the name, address, postal code, photo, phone number and email, of all billion-plus Aadhaar-registered Indians, was available for purchase on WhatsApp for 500 rupees, or about USD$7. The Unique Identification Authority of India that administers the Aadhaar scheme was then forced to admit that approximately 210 websites, including websites of the central government and state government departments, were displaying the list of government beneficiaries, along with their name, address, other details and Aadhaar numbers.
Even more worryingly, newly obtained documents show that the Indian government is integrating Aadhaar-collected data to create a â360-degree databaseâ that will âautomatically track when a citizen moves between cities, changes jobs, or buys new propertyâ and integrate that data into a real-time geo-spatial database built by the countryâs space agency, ISRO.
Only the most willfully obtuse could claim to be unable to see the nightmarish implications for this type of all-seeing, all-pervasive society, where every transaction and every movement of every citizen is monitored, analyzed, and databased in real-time by the government. And Bill Gates is one of those willfully obtuse people.
SHEREEN BAHN: A current debate thatâs on in India and globally as well [is] around data. Now, youâve been an advocate of Aadhaar, youâve supported it, youâve defended it. And I think that the questions arise not on on whether itâs a good idea or not, but whether it should be made mandatory for every citizen for every service possible. Because it was envisaged as people accessing government subsidy, using the Aadhaar card to avoid duplication and leakages. The question, then, is that India today is still grappling with putting in place a privacy framework, a privacy regulation, a data protection regulation. In that context, then, does it make sense, even though the matter is in court today, to link Aadhaar to every possible service?
GATES: Well, Aadhar is just something that avoids you pretending to be somebody else. That, you know, you can have, you know, fake people on the government payroll. Aadhaar, you know, prevents you being on that payroll as as a ghost worker. It prevents you from collecting things that you shouldnât collect or accessing a health record you shouldnât have access to.
So the basic Aadhaar mechanism is an identity mechanism. And so itâs too bad if somebody thinks that because Aadhaar is there that in and of itself creates a privacy problem.
Gatesâ response is, of course, disingenuous. The very purpose of a globally integrated ID grid and cashless payment architecture is to remove privacy from our lives.
It should be no surprise, then, that this man who is not concerned about the privacy implications of a global, real-time electronic ID and digital payments grid, is also a prime investor in EarthNow LLC, a company promising to âdeploy a large constellation of advanced imaging satellites that will deliver real-time, continuous video of almost anywhere on Earth.â
No, this Gates-driven agenda is not about money. It is about control. Control over every aspect of our daily lives, from where we go, to who we meet, to what we buy and what we do.
The irony is that this billionaire âphilanthropist,â so often depicted as a cartoon superhero for his dazzling generosity, actually resembles nothing so much as a comic book supervillain, right down to the use of his vast wealth to sponsor Harvard University research into dimming the sun by spraying particles into the stratosphere.
But once again, we are driven back to the question. Who is this person? What ideology is driving this quest for control? And what is the end goal of this quest?
Computer whiz kid. Talented software developer. Shrewd businessman. Benevolent philanthropist. Global health expert.
There can be no doubt that Bill Gates has worn many hats on his remarkable journey from his early life as the privileged son of a Seattle-area power couple to his current status as one of the richest and most influential people on the planet. But, as we have seen in our exploration of Gatesâ rise as unelected global health czar and population control advocate, the question of who Bill Gates really is is no mere philosophical pursuit.
Given that we are currently living through a crisis that has been âpredictedâ by Bill Gates, which is triggering a response from the global health organizations that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has bankrolled, and driving us toward a vaccination and biometric ID âsolutionâ which Bill Gates has been working on for years, the answer to the question âWho Is Bill Gates?â is quickly becoming one of the most important questions of our lives. That answer will not only tell us about the world that we are living in, but about the one that we are being thrust into . . . and how we can avoid it.
Today we will attempt to answer that question as we examine the motives, the ideology, and the connections of this man who has been so instrumental in shaping the post-coronavirus world.
Meet Bill Gates.
Youâre tuned into The Corbett Report.
So who is Bill Gates?
Some argue that heâs a genius who leveraged his natural computer savvy into a billion-dollar fortune.
JANE PAULEY: Youâre called a genius and I willâwell, no, I donât think that embarrassed you at all. They call you a genius. Part of your genius is that you are a computer whiz, and the other is that you did have the business acumen to turn it into a working company. Are you a business genius, too?
Others insist that he is a visionary who changed our lives with his foresight and bold imagination.
ALAN GARBER: Bill had a visionâand I understand it went back even thenâthat computing would be ubiquitous. It would be part of all of our lives. And, indeed, as you all know, he executed on that vision. And the world today has changed so dramatically in large part due to the work that Bill has done throughout the years.
He has been hailed as a shrewd executive who built the Microsoft empire with his remarkable talent for business.
JAMES WALLACE: When the biographers and historians write the history of the 20th century, Bill Gates is going to go down as the best businessman of our century, and Microsoft as one of the greatest companies of the 20th century.
And he has been praised as a philanthropist who is selflessly devoting his wealth to improving the lives of people around the world.
JESSE KORNBLUTH: Bill, even your harshest critic would have to admit that your philanthropy work is, you know, planet-shaking incredible and could be, if you make it, a second act so amazing that it would dwarf what youâve actually done at Microsoft. [APPLAUSE]
But, like anyone of his status, he has his detractors. In the 1990s he was often portrayed as the greedy head of the evil Microsoft monopoly.
BENJAMIN WOOLEY: Bill Gates isnât content with his Windows system running just a few PCs. He wants it to run the world, spreading like a computer virus into our faxes, our phones, our TV sets, and, yes, even our toasters.
But in the age of the coronavirus crisis, he is most often treated like some sort of epidemiologist or leading health researcher.
ANDERSON COOPER: Back here with us once again to talk about this, as well as testing, treatments and more: Bill Gates, co-chair of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Bill, thanks so much for being back with us. Itâs been a little over a month since you were here and at that time you said the US had not hit its peak. So at this point do you think we have peaked and where do you think we are right now in kind of the arc of the pandemic?
But in truth, none of these perspectives are accurate.
Microsoftâs big break famously came from a deal to provide software for IBM as they moved into the personal computer market. But the deal was not the result of Gatesâ technical genius or amazing business acumen. As has been quietly admitted by IBM executives in the years since, Microsoft was given their shot at the chance to work with âBig Blueâ as a result of Gatesâ motherâs relationship with IBM CEO John Opel.
GORAN MILIC: You remember your partnership of IBM and Bill Gates? How did it break up?
EDWARD ANDRUS: I do remember very well, actually. Bill Gates at the time at the beginning of our relationship with them was living on pizza and Pepsi Cola in Albuquerque, New Mexico. And his mother happened to be on the United Way board with our chairman and asked our chairman to help him. And you know, when the chairman comes in and tells you to go help this kid, nine hundred people get on the plane Monday morning and they all go down to try to help Bill Gates.
[. . .]
So I donât see Bill Gates as this great, creative person. I see him as an opportunist. And, in fact, in those days there was a lot of sharing of software code. People gave it away in Silicon Valley; they would share everything. He came in and he tried to control everything and put a price on it.
Computer historians have long known how the basis for what became MS-DOS was not Bill Gatesâ brilliant imagination, but QDOS, a âQuick and Dirty Operating Systemâ that had been thrown together by Tim Patterson, a worker at Seattle Computer Products, as a placeholder until he could sell a proper operating system to his customers. And as even Gates himself admitted, the breakthrough Graphical User Interface that became the basis for Windows was ripped off from the researchers at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center.
As Bill would say after Apple unsuccessfully sued Microsoft for copyright infringement over Windowsâ GUI: âHey, Steve, just because you broke into Xeroxâs house before I did and took the TV doesnât mean I canât go in later and take the stereo.â
And, as Gates also admits, it is not a spirit of selfless generosity that motivates his interest in vaccines and other lucrative health interventions.
BECKY QUICK: Iâd like to talk to you about your approach to vaccinations. You wrote something recently, and, like you always do, you kind of looked at the problem from a scientific and business perspective on things. Youâve invested 10 billion dollars in vaccinations over the last two decades, and you figured out the return on investment for that. It kind of stunned me. Can you walk us through the math?
[. . .]
BILL GATES: You know, we see a phenomenal track record. Itâs been a hundred billion overall that the worldâs put inâour foundation is a bit more than 10 billionâbut we feel thereâs been over a 20-to-one return. So if you just look at the economic benefits, thatâs a pretty strong number compared to anything else.
As we have seen, Gatesâ âphilanthropicâ investment scheme has paid off well, with his $50 billion net worth having ballooned to over $100 billion after his decade of âaltruismâ in the vaccine market. As critics of his foundation have repeatedly pointed out, the 9,000,000 people who die every year of hunger would be best served by securing food supplies, running water and other basic necessities, not costly medical interventions for rare diseases. But there is no return on investment to be made from that kind of charity.
No, this is not about charity. It is about control. The population control grid that Gates has been quietly funding into existence for the past decadeâa biometric identification system tied to a digital payments infrastructure that will be used to track, catalogue and control every movement, every transaction and every interaction of every citizenâis just now coming into view.
But the real question is: Why is he doing this? What drives a man like Bill Gates, a man rich beyond the wildest dreams of avarice, to spend his time and invest his fortune in schemes to control the population? To find the answer to that question, we have to examine Gatesâ family background.
Bill Gates, it should not be surprising to learn, was born into money. His great-grandfather, J. W. Maxwell, was the president of National City Bank in Seattle. His grandfather, Willard, was also a banker, and his grandmother, Adele, a prominent Seattle civic leader.
Bill Gatesâ mother, Mary Maxwell Gates, was a scion of the Maxwell banking family and, by all accounts, as hard-driving as her forebears. She served as a director of several companies, including First Interstate Bancorp and KIRO-TV of Seattle. She served as a regent at the University of Washington. And she was appointed to the board of the United Way of America, where, as we have seen, she persuaded IBM CEO John Opel to help her son in his fledgling software development career.
Billâs father, William H. Gates, Sr., was a prominent Seattle-area lawyer. He co-founded a powerful law and lobbying firm, helped Howard Schultz in his bid to buy Starbucks, served on the boards of numerous companies and organizations, and, along the way, had a profound influence on his sonâs life and career.
GATES: My dad was a large presence, both physically and in terms of his wisdom. He worked very hard, so heâd leave in the mornings, often before we had breakfast, and get home in time for dinner. I always looked up to my dad in terms of how hard he worked.
At the dinner table my dad would go through various lawsuits and expect us to follow along. He had high expectations.
The young Bill Gatesâtechnically âWilliam H. Gates III,â although his card-playing family dubbed him âTreyââlearned much from his parents. From his motherâs banking family he inherited a ânose for the dollar,â as one childhood friendâs father called it. From his hard-driving legal-minded father, he learned the value of legalizing business arrangements. As a child, he even had a legal contract drawn up to grant him the use of his older sistersâ baseball mitt.
These traits would not earn him many friends, but they served him well as he began to bring order to the anarchic software development community of the 1970s. At that time, software for the brand new personal computer market was the realm of computer hobbyistsâpeople whose excitement about the microcomputer revolution and love of engineering and problem-solving led them to develop and share code freely with each other.
But this was no good for the young Bill Gates, who, even before Microsoft was off the ground, was already dreaming of commoditizing this hobby and turning it into the basis of a business empire. In 1976, with the ink still wet on Microsoftâs first contract with Micro Instrumentation and Telemetry Systems of Albuquerque, New Mexico, the then-21-year-old Gates wrote an Open Letter to Hobbyists excoriating the early computer enthusiasts, who represented his main market, for sharing Microsoftâs code for Altair BASIC.
As the majority of hobbyists must be aware, most of you steal your software. Hardware must be paid for, but software is something to share. Who cares if the people who worked on it get paid?
Is this fair? [. . .] The royalty paid to us, the manual, the tape and the overhead make it a break-even operation. One thing you do do is prevent good software from being written. Who can afford to do professional work for nothing? What hobbyist can put 3-man [sic] years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product and distribute for free? The fact is, no one besides us has invested a lot of money in hobby software. We have written 6800 BASIC, and are writing 8080 APL and 6800 APL, but there is very little incentive to make this software available to hobbyists. Most directly, the thing you do is theft.
The letter was awkward and tone-deaf, as many people have described the young Bill Gates in his social interactions. It heaped vitriol on the very people who would be the customers of any future business and tried to change an established culture of sharing software code merely by decree. Even Apple Computers, which would go on to be one of the prime purveyors of âwalled gardenâ systems that restrict usersâ ability to control their own computers, scored an easy marketing victory by responding to Gatesâ angry letter with a reminder that âYes, Folks, Apple BASIC is Free!â
But the gauntlet was thrown down, and Gates would have his way. Although freeware and other forms of open source software development still exist, the establishment of software code as legally protected intellectual property has led to the rise of billionaires like Gates.
A ânose for the dollarâ and a knowledge of how to use the legal system to get what you want were not the only things to emerge from Bill Gatesâ childhood, however. His parents also encouraged discussion about the familyâs charity work and the causes they held close to their heart.
As Gates revealed to Bill Moyers in 2003, those causes included âthe population issueâ which sparked a lifelong interest in âreproductive health.â
GATES: One issue that really grabbed me as urgent were issues related to population . . . reproductive health.
MOYERS: But did you come to reproductive issues as an intellectual?
GATES: When I was growing up, my parents were always involved in various volunteer things. My dad was head of Planned Parenthood. And it was very controversial to be involved with that.
Gates tips his hand when he equates âissues related to populationâ with âreproductive health.â The topic is particularly controversial, because âpopulation controlâ and âreproductive healthâ have been used for half a century as a euphemism for eugenics, the discredited pseudoscience that holds that certain families are fit to be leaders of society by virtue of their superior genes.
As we saw in âWhy Big Oil Conquered the World,â eugenics was a field named and codified by Francis Galton, cousin of Charles Darwin. Ostensibly concerned with heredity and what would later be known as genetics, the eugenicists believed that the rich and powerful were rich and powerful not because of luck or chance or happenstance, and certainly not from the deployment of cutthroat business tactics and underhanded dealings; no, the rich and powerful had attained their status because they came from âbetter stock.â Conversely, the poor were poor because of their âdefective germ plasm.â
As transparent as it seems to us today that this ideology was a self-serving self-justification for the ruling class, it was quickly taken up as the great social crusade of the early 20th century. From Teddy Roosevelt to H. G. Wells to Julian Huxley to Winston Churchill, there was widespread support for the eugenicist notion that society must strive to make sure that the rich and âwell-bornâ breed as much as possible, and the poor, infirm, and âfeeble-mindedâ be prevented from having children.
A common eugenicist argument was that the scarce resources of society should not be used to support the lower classes, as that only encouraged more of their kind. Instead, life-saving medical care and intervention should be rationed so that those resources can be best put to use elsewhere. So-called negative eugenicists even took things further, with some, like famed playwright George Bernard Shaw, calling for people to be called before a state-appointed board to justify their existence or be put to death.
GEORGE BERNARD SHAW: [. . .] But there are an extraordinary number of people whom I want to kill. Not in any unkind or personal spirit, but it must be evident to all of you â you must all know half a dozen people, at leastâwho are no use in this world. Who are more trouble than they are worth. And I think it would be a good thing to make everybody come before a properly appointed board, just as he might come before the income tax commissioner, and, say, every five years, or every seven years, just put him there, and say: âSir, or madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence?â
But, in the post-WWII era, as the name of eugenics became tarred by association with the Nazi atrocities, the talk of death panels and other harsh eugenicist notions was dropped from public conversation. Now, the quest to reduce the size of the poor population was spoken of as âpopulation controlâ and âreproductive health.â Still, occasionally, these old negative eugenics ideas are revisited in moments of candor.
GATES: Youâre raising tuitions at the University of California as rapidly as they [sic] can and so the access that used to be available to the middle class or whatever is just rapidly going away. Thatâs a trade-off societyâs making because of very, very high medical costs and a lack of willingness to say, you know, âIs spending a million dollars on that last three months of life for that patientâwould it be better not to lay off those 10 teachers and to make that trade off in medical cost?â But thatâs called the âdeath panelâ and youâre not supposed to have that discussion.
It is worth questioning why this man, who openly muses about death panels and the trade-offs of providing health care to the elderly, is to be taken completely at face value in his attempts to slow population growth in the third world or to handle a coronavirus health crisis that primarily affects the elderly.
That the Gates agenda is being driven by a eugenicist ideology is suggested by multiple lines of evidence, both historical and current.
As we have also seen in âWhy Big Oil Conquered the World,â the Rockefeller family was instrumental in funding and promoting eugenics, both in America and overseas.
The Rockefellers helped fund the Eugenics Record Office.
The founding director of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, William Welch, sat on the EROâs board and helped direct its activities.
The Rockefellers sponsored the studies of the eugenics researchers at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes in Germany, including Ernst RĂŒdin, who would go on to draft Nazi Germanyâs forced sterilization law.
And, when the American Eugenics Society became embarrassed of its own name, its long-time director, Frederick Osborne, merely took over as president of the Rockefeller-founded Population Council.
This dedication to the cause of âpublic healthâ did not escape the approving gaze of Bill Gates, Sr. In a chapter of his 2009 book, Showing Up for Life, called âWalking With Giants,â he writes admiringly of the Rockefellers and their influence in the field:
Every corner weâve turned in the field of global health, weâve found that the Rockefellers were already there and had been there for years.
When we committed to childhood immunization we found ourselves building on efforts the Rockefeller Foundation had helped launch and fund in the 1980s.
When we became interested in fighting malaria and tuberculosis, we learned that the Rockefellers had been studying the prevention and treatment of such diseases around the globe for, in some cases, as long as a hundred years.
A similar dynamic held true in the case of HIV/AIDS.
A lesson we learned from studying and working with the Rockefellers is that to succeed in pursuing audacious goals you need like-minded partners with whom to collaborate.
And we learned that such goals are not prizes claimed by the short-winded. The Rockefellers stay with tough problems for generations.
SOURCE: William H. Gates. Showing Up for Life (pp. 158-159)
As Gates, Sr., suggests, it is by working with âlike-minded partnersâ that such âgreatâ achievements in the field of global health can be made. For the Gates, these like-minded partners include the Rockefellers themselves. Bill Gates, Sr., got to discuss global health, agriculture and environment with the likes of David Rockefeller, Sr., and David Rockefeller, Jr., at a meeting on âPhilanthropy in a Global Centuryâ at Rockefeller University campus in 2000. And Bill Gates, as we have seen, co-hosted a meeting on reducing the population with David Rockefeller in 2009.
But the most salacious hints of a deeper agenda are not to be found in the Gatesâ public associations, but in the associations that they have tried to hide from the public.
STEPHANIE RUHLE: Jeffrey Epstein may be dead, but this story isnât. A shocking new report from The New York Times sheds light on the connection between Microsoft founder Bill Gates and the late Jeffrey Epstein. After Gatesâ name came up in connection with Epstein and MIT Media Lab, Gates gave a statement to The Wall Street Journal where he insisted he did not have any business relationship or friendship with Epstein. But a new report outlines conversations with Gates and Epstein and a conversation with Bill and Melinda Gatesâ Foundation. A connection between their foundation and JPMorgan Chase to set up a charitable fund to benefit Epstein. You know what I want to know: Why?
Beginning in August of last year, a string of information connecting Bill Gates to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein began to emerge.
Flight logs revealed that Gates had flown on Jeffrey Epsteinâs private jet.
An email surfaced showing disgraced MIT Media Lab Director Joi Itoâwho resigned from his position after it was discovered that he had helped cover up Jeffrey Epsteinâs identity as an âanonymousâ donor to the labâinforming his staff that a $2 million donation to the lab in 2014 was a âgift from Bill Gates directed by Jeffrey Epstein.â
As the story gained momentum, Gates tried to downplay the relationship, with a Gates spokesperson protesting that Gates âdidnât know it was Epsteinâs plane,â and Gates himself insisting that âI didnât have any business relationship or friendship with [Epstein].â
This was immediately contradicted by The New YorkTimes, who reported in October of 2012 that Gates had in fact met with Epstein on multiple occasions, even going so far as to discuss the creation of a multibillion dollar charitable fund with seed money from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and JPMorgan Chase.
According to the Times, Gates emailed his colleagues about Epstein in 2011: âHis lifestyle is very different and kind of intriguing although it would not work for me.â
Epsteinâs will even named Boris Nikolicâa Harvard-trained immunologist who served as the chief scientific advisor to both Microsoft and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and who appears in the sole publicly known photo of Epstein and Gatesâ 2011 meeting at Epsteinâs Manhattan mansionâas the backup executor of Epsteinâs estate.
It is not difficult to see why Gates would try to distance himself from his relationship with a child sex trafficker. Epstein, after all, is suspected of ensnaring high-ranking politicians, businessmen and even royalty in an intelligence-directed âhoneypotâ operation, recording them in the act of sexually abusing underage girls and using that evidence as blackmail.
But, as it turns out, the attempt to suppress the Gates-Epstein story may have been an attempt to suppress the revelation of an altogether different shared interest.
KRISTEN DAHLGREN: Sources say several accusers have come forward in New Mexico, where Epstein owns a sprawling ranch. According to a new report published in The New York Timesânot verified by NBC NewsâEpstein wanted to use the ranch for controlled breeding, using his DNA to improve humanity. Citing two award-winning scientists and an advisor to large companies and wealthy individuals, the article reports Epstein surrounded himself with leading scientists and would tell them he wanted to have 20 women impregnated at a time on the ranch.
The already scarcely believable Jeffrey Epstein story took another bizarre turn in August of 2019, when it was reported that Epstein âHoped to Seed the Human Race With His DNA.â As The New York Times explained, Epsteinâs plan to impregnate 20 women at a time at his New Mexico ranch in order to âseed the human race with his DNAââa plan he told to a number of the âscientific luminariesâ he kept in his orbitâput a modern gloss on a very old idea:
Mr. Epsteinâs vision reflected his longstanding fascination with what has become known as transhumanism: the science of improving the human population through technologies like genetic engineering and artificial intelligence. Critics have likened transhumanism to a modern-day version of eugenics, the discredited field of improving the human race through controlled breeding.
Epsteinâs interest in genetics led him to sponsor a number of scientists working in the field, including George Church, a Harvard geneticist whose lab received funding from Epsteinâs foundation from 2005 to 2007 for âcutting edge science.â Church publicly apologized for his connection to Epstein, which included several meetings a year from 2014 onward. This was neither the first nor the last time that this unassuming Harvard biologist, whose âcutting edge scienceâ often strays into controversial areas, caused a public scandal. In 2019, Church proposed a âgenetics dating appâ which was immediately denounced as applied eugenics.
Church also acted as scientific advisor to Editas Medicine, a startup seeking to use the genome-editing tool, CRISPR-Cas9, to eliminate diseases by deleting the parts of a genetic code responsible for the illness. In 2015, the company announced it had raised $120 million from a group led by Epsteinâs appointed backup executor, Dr. Boris Nikolic. Naturally, that group of investors included Bill Gates.
Yes, Bill Gates is certainly following his fatherâs advice to collaborate with âlike-minded partners.â
So, the question remains: Is Bill Gates motivated by eugenics? Given that eugenics went underground over half a century ago, we are unlikely ever to unearth a frank admission along those lines from Gates himself. After all, there are no longer any card-carrying members of the American Eugenics Society; the society was rebranded in the 1970s when, as the societyâs founder noted, âit became evident that changes of a eugenic nature would be made for reasons other than eugenics, and that tying a eugenic label on them would more often hinder than help their adoption.â
But there was an American Eugenics Society in the 1920s, and it just so happened to boast a âWilliam H. Gatesâ on its member roster. But perhaps that is just a coincidence.
And there was an American Eugenics Society in the 1960s, when William H. Gates II was preceded as head of Planned Parenthood by Alan Guttmacher, who simultaneously served as the Director of the American Eugenics Society.
And perhaps it was coincidence that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation organized their London Summit on Family Planning, at which the Gates recommitted themselves to funding population control in the third world, in July 2012, on the anniversary of the First International Eugenics Congress, held in London exactly 100 years prior.
And perhaps it is reaching to compare the young Bill Gatesâ dating preferences to the genetic-based dating favored by modern-day eugenicists.
JAMES WALLACE: I interviewed several women who had dated Bill just briefly and one told me the very first question Bill asked her was: âWhat did you score on your SAT test?â You know, this is not exactly what a young woman wants to hear. For Bill Gates, though . . . He had scored a perfect 800 on his math portion of the SAT and this was a matter of pride with him. And he wanted to make sure whoever he was dating, you know, had scored a pretty high grade.
No, we cannot expect an answer about Bill Gates true motives to come from Gates himself. By this point the question of Bill Gatesâ intentions has been buried under the combined weight of hundreds of millions of dollars of paid PR spin. Like the Rockefellers before them, the Gates have long since learned the secret of enlarging their family fortuneânot to mention their control over the human populationâby donning the mask of philanthropy.
There are many perspectives on Bill Gates; depending on who you ask, he is a computer savant, a genius businessman, or a saintly philanthropist. But all of these perspectives have been brought to you through PR outlets founded or funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Bill Gates is no longer a subject for historians but hagiographers.
Now we must confront the question of why this man is motivated to build such a web of controlâcontrol over our public health agenciesâ
GATES: And for all 193 member states, you must make vaccines a high priority in your health systems, to ensure that all your children have access to existing vaccines nowâand to new vaccines as they become available.
GATES: And the lack of an ID system is a problem, not just for the payment system, but also for voting and health and education and taxation. And so itâs a wonderful thing to go in and create a broad identification system
GATES: Once financial flows go undergroundâwhere you have lots of legitimate transactions mixed in with the ones you want to trackâand once theyâre going over a digital system that the US has no connection to, itâs far more difficult to find the transactions that you want to be aware of or that you want to block.
We must confront the possibility that this quest for control comes not from a selfless spirit of generosity that never seemed to exist before he became a multi-billionaire, but from the same drive for money, the same desire for domination and the same sense of superiority that motivated him on his way up the corporate ladder.
But if the answer to the question âWho is Bill Gatesâ is âBill Gates is a eugenicist,â that tells us some important things about the world that we are living in.
It tells us that Gates is deceiving the public into supporting his takeover of the world with a false front of philanthropy.
It tells us that the goal of the Gates, like the goal of the Rockefellers before them, is not to improve the world for humankind, but to improve the world for their kind.
And most importantly, it tells us that Bill Gates is no comic-book supervillain, single-handedly directing all of the chaos that is unfolding in the world or single-handedly bringing his own order to that chaos.
No, if Bill Gates is a eugenicist, driven by a belief in the superiority of himself and his fellow wealthy elitists, then what we are facing is not one man, or even one family, but an ideology.
This is not a trivial point. One man, whatever his wealth, can be stopped easily enough. But even if Bill Gates were to be thrown in jail tomorrow, the agenda that has already been set in motion would continue without missing a beat. An entire infrastructure of researchers, labs, corporations, governmental agencies and public health bodies exists, funded more often than not by Gates, but driven by the belief of all those millions of people working for these various entities that they are truly working in the best interest of the people.
No, an ideology cannot be stopped by stopping one man. It can only be stopped when enough people learn the truth about this agenda and the world of total, pervasive control that is coming into view.
If you have watched all four parts of this exploration on Bill Gates, then you are now one of the most informed people on the planet about the true nature of this agenda. You have seen how the takeover of public health has been used to railroad the world into a headlong rush toward mandatory vaccinations, biometric identification and digital payments. You have seen how the pieces of this puzzle fit together, and how they represent a far greater threat to the future of humanity than any virus.
Here is the good news: Armed with this information, you have the antidote to the scourge of this eugenicist ideology. The truth is that ideologies are viruses of the mind; they spread from person to person, infecting them with ideas that can lead to a disease of the body politic.
But here is the even greater truth: Inoculations do work. Inoculations of truth against the lies of those spreading their poisonous ideology.
If you have made it this far, it is incumbent on you to help inoculate those around you against the corrupt ideology of Bill Gates and all those who seek to control the population of the world. You must help to spread this information so that others have a chance to see the bigger picture and decide for themselves whether they are willing to roll up their sleeves and accept what is coming, or not.
But time is not on our side. Even as we speak, mass vaccination campaigns are being prepared:
ALLISON ARWADY: You know we are already building our plans to vaccinate the whole city of Chicago and working with others across the region on a major plan for this. Weâve bought syringes, weâve bought cold boxes, weâve planned out locations.
Biometric identification schemes and âimmunity passportsâ are already being rolled out:
CARYN SEIDMAN BECKER: And so while we started with travel, at our core weâre a biometric-secure identity platform, where itâs always been about attaching your identity to your boarding pass at the airport or your ticket to get into a sports stadium or your credit card to buy a beer. And so now with the launch of Clear Health Pass, itâs about attaching your identity to your COVID-related health insights for employers, for employees, for customers.
Programs for tracking, tracing, and surveilling the entire population are already being beta-tested:
DEENA HINSHAW: Today we are launching another useful tool that can supplement the critical detective work we are conducting in public health. Alberta Trace Together is a voluntary, secure, mobile contact tracing application to help prevent the spread of COVID-19.
And the digital payment infrastructure, the system of financial exclusion that will allow governments to turn off our access to the economy at will, is being put into place:
UHURU KENYATTA: In order to avoid the risk of transmission through physical handling of money, we encourage the use of cashless transactions such as mobile money, M-Pesa and otherwise, and credit cards.
NICHOLAS THOMPSON:Â People are using touchless payment systems much more than theyâre using cash, both because weâre not interacting with people directly as much anymore and also because cash is kind of skeezy.
We must spread the word about the dark nature of this population control agenda to as many people as we can before our ability to speak out against this agenda is taken away for good.
Thanks to the likes of Bill Gates, the virus of this population control agenda is already here. It is threatening to crash the system as weâve known it.
But if Bill Gates has taught us anything, itâs how to deal with a virus.
Prof. Maxwell J. Mehlman âImproved Humans: Legal and Political Aspects of the New Geneticsâ Templeton Research Lecture November 12, 2008 Listen to the podcast âDirected Evolution: Public Policy…
![ec36b30f2af51c3e815b410cee45449efe76e7d01cb2194992f7c7_640[1]](data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%20300%20200'%3E%3C/svg%3E "Tu quoque fallacy- Appeal to hypocrisy (personal inconsistency)")
![iu[1]dd](data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%20300%20292'%3E%3C/svg%3E "Daniel Kahneman - Nobel lecture")
![ec36b30f2af51c3e815b410cee45449efe76e7d01cb2194992f7c7_640[1]](https://cognitive-liberty.online/wp-content/uploads/ec36b30f2af51c3e815b410cee45449efe76e7d01cb2194992f7c7_6401-300x200.jpg "Tu quoque fallacy- Appeal to hypocrisy (personal inconsistency)")
![iu[1]dd](https://cognitive-liberty.online/wp-content/uploads/iu1dd-300x292.jpg "Daniel Kahneman - Nobel lecture")
