With the advent of technology what was before thought impossible is now considered very possible including loss of your freedom.
FAUCCI’S NEW MASK, BILL GATES AND MORE
Taken from Mercola.com
- By injecting millions of dollars into various industries, companies and organizations, Gates has risen to become one of the most influential individuals in the world, and he’s become increasingly insulated from negative reviews thanks to the fact that he also funds journalism
- Gates has given more than $250 million to media companies, including BBC, NBC, Al Jazeera, ProPublica, National Journal, The Guardian, Univision, Medium, the Financial Times, The Atlantic, the Texas Tribune, Gannett, Washington Monthly, Le Monde, PBS NewsHour and the Center for Investigative Reporting
- Journalistic organizations such as the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting, the National Press Foundation, the International Center for Journalists, the Solutions Journalism Network and The Poynter Institute have also received grants from the Gates Foundation
- The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation also has an agreement with Elsevier. Any research supported by the foundation must be published “gold open access.” This means all Gates Foundation’s sponsored research is free for anyone to read — thus maximizing the exposure of those studies
- Another recipient of grants is the Leo Burnett Company, an advertising agency owned by Publicis, the third largest ad agency in the world. Publicis also funds the self-proclaimed arbiter of truth in media, NewsGuard, and the newly launched “tool against online health care hoaxes,” HealthGuard
I’ve written several articles reviewing Bill Gates’ control of global health, technology and food policy agendas. Financial influence is, of course, at the heart of this power and not-entirely-obscure influence.
By injecting millions of dollars into various industries, companies and organizations, many of which further strengthen the connections by interlinking and doing business with each other, Gates has risen to become one of the most influential individuals in the world.
While he has faced public backlash a number of times in his career, especially when he was CEO of Microsoft in the ‘90s, he’s become increasingly insulated from negative reviews, thanks to the fact that he also funds journalism and major media corporations.
Buying Favorable Press
In an August 21, 2020, article1 in Columbia Journalism Review, Tim Schwab highlights the connections between the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and a number of newsrooms, including NPR.
In August 2019, NPR reported2 how Harvard University’s Opportunity Insights program had successfully helped low-income families obtain housing in wealthier “high-opportunity” areas identified by economist Raj Chetty, who heads the program, thereby allowing the children an opportunity to achieve greater success in life.
“According to researchers cited in the article, these children could see $183,000 greater earnings over their lifetimes — a striking forecast for a housing program still in its experimental stage,” Schwab writes.3
However, “If you squint as you read the story, you’ll notice that every quoted expert is connected to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which helps fund the project. And if you’re really paying attention, you’ll also see the editor’s note at the end of the story, which reveals that NPR itself receives funding from Gates.”
NPR denies that funding had anything to do with its decision to write the story, or its slant. Still, as Schwab notes, the article is just one of hundreds NPR has reported that is highly favorable to the Gates Foundation and the work it funds.
As such, it’s part of a much larger trend, he says, “with billionaire philanthropists bankrolling the news.” Naturally, when you hold the purse strings, you end up with a fair level of influence as to what gets run.
This is precisely why I decided against allowing advertisers on my website, opting to sell carefully vetted products instead. I never wanted to end up in a situation where an advertiser might try to influence my reporting by threatening to withdraw advertising. As noted by Schwab:4
“As philanthropists increasingly fill in the funding gaps at news organizations … an underexamined worry is how this will affect the ways newsrooms report on their benefactors. Nowhere does this concern loom larger than with the Gates Foundation, a leading donor to newsrooms and a frequent subject of favorable news coverage.”
Which Media Corporations Are Under Gates’ Thumb?
Schwab reports he examined the recipients of nearly 20,000 Gates Foundation grants, finding more than $250 million had been given to major media companies, including BBC, NBC, Al Jazeera, ProPublica, National Journal, The Guardian, Univision, Medium, the Financial Times, The Atlantic, the Texas Tribune, Gannett, Washington Monthly, Le Monde, PBS NewsHour and the Center for Investigative Reporting. (The timeframe of those grants is unfortunately unclear.)
The Gates Foundation has also given grants to charitable organizations that in turn are affiliated with news outlets, such as BBC Media Action and The New York Times’ Neediest Cases Fund.
Journalistic organizations such as the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting, the National Press Foundation, the International Center for Journalists, the Solutions Journalism Network and The Poynter Institute have also received grants from the Gates Foundation.
Ironically, “The foundation even helped fund a 2016 report5 from the American Press Institute that was used to develop guidelines6 on how newsrooms can maintain editorial independence from philanthropic funders,” Schwab writes.
The Gates Foundation has also participated in dozens of media conferences, including the Perugia Journalism Festival, the Global Editors Network and the World Conference of Science Journalism, and has an unknown number of undisclosed contracts with media companies to produce sponsored content.
According to Schwab, the only contract that has been publicly disclosed is one with Vox. An example of the advertising content produced through this kind of contractual agreement is the 2018 Vox article,7 “Human Capital and the Benefits, Explained,” which explains how changing world demographics are changing the perception of humans’ value.
Bias Is Clearly Evident
Upon scrutiny, it becomes abundantly obvious that when Gates hands out grants to journalism, it’s not an unconditional handout that these companies can do whatever they see fit with. It comes with significant strings, and really amounts to little more than the purchasing of stealth self-promotions that are essentially undisclosed ads. Schwab writes:8
“When Gates gives money to newsrooms, it restricts how the money is used — often for topics, like global health and education, on which the foundation works — which can help elevate its agenda in the news media.
For example, in 2015 Gates gave $383,000 to the Poynter Institute, a widely-cited authority on journalism ethics … earmarking the funds ‘to improve the accuracy in worldwide media of claims related to global health and development.’ Poynter senior vice president Kelly McBride said Gates’s money was passed on to media fact-checking sites …
Since 2000, the Gates Foundation has given NPR $17.5 million through 10 charitable grants — all of them earmarked for coverage of global health and education, specific issues on which Gates works …
Even when NPR publishes critical reporting on Gates, it can feel scripted. In February 2018, NPR ran a story headlined ‘Bill Gates Addresses ‘Tough Questions’ on Poverty and Power.’ The ‘tough questions’ NPR posed in this Q&A were mostly based on a list curated by Gates himself, which he previously answered in a letter posted to his foundation’s website.”
Schwab also recounts the experiences of freelance journalists looking into the “inadvertent consequences of the Gates Foundation’s relentless efforts to eradicate polio,” who found their efforts undermined when the Foundation “went over their heads to seek an audience with their editors” rather than answer the questions posed.
In 2016, one of those journalists, Robert Fortner, published an article in which he examined the trend of news articles failing to report financial ties to Gates. Among them were 59 news stories by the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting.
The Tangled Web of Gates’ Media Connections
Another recipient of grants from the Gates Foundation is the Leo Burnett Company, an advertising agency that creates news content and works with journalists. The Leo Burnett Company, in turn, is owned by Publicis,9 the world’s oldest and third largest advertising agency.
Publicis also funds NewsGuard.10 On top of that, NewsGuard and Microsoft — the tech company founded by Gates — are also partners.11 Other connections between Gates and NewsGuard include the following:
•The John S. & James L. Knight Foundation Inc., a venture capital fund and another of NewsGuard’s investors,12 has partnered with the Gates Foundation on other media-related projects.
In 2013, they launched the Media Impact Project, housed at the Norman Lear Center, which is part of the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism. The mission of this project was to “advance a better understanding of audience engagement and media impact” by “measuring how media influences the ways people think and act.”13
•NewsGuard investor, the Blue Haven Initiative,14 joined the Gates Foundation’s Global Health Investment Fund in 201315 — an investment fund that targets “high-impact technologies with public health applications in both developed and emerging markets.”
Through these few examples alone, you can see just how interconnected the tech industry, media and health organizations are, and how through interweaving connections they all stand to benefit from their financial support of the self-proclaimed arbiter of truth, NewsGuard, and its recently launched “tool against online health care hoaxes,” HealthGuard,16 which was launched June 2, 2020, in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Gates’ Influence Extends to Scientific Journals
But there’s more. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation also has an agreement with Elsevier,17 enacted in 2015, which requires authors to adhere to the Gates Foundation’s open access policy when publishing their research in any of Elsevier’s 1,700 journals. (A list of Elsevier journals and publications can be found on Elsevier’s website.18)
Any research “supported in whole, or in part, by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation” must be published “gold open access.”19 This means all of the Gates Foundation’s sponsored research is free for anyone to read and cannot be placed behind a paywall — thus maximizing the exposure of those studies.
While ostensibly this would appear beneficial, these studies are typically highly conflicted and promoting one of Gates’ many investments either directly or indirectly.
From Tech Geek to Undisputed Health Tsar
As noted by Schwab, Gates’ injection of cash into the media landscape has undoubtedly “helped foster an increasingly friendly media environment” for his various projects.
To garner attention for the issues it cares about, the foundation has invested millions in training programs for journalists … Experts coached in Gates-funded programs write columns that appear in media outlets from The New York Times to The Huffington Post, while digital portals blur the line between journalism and spin. ~ Seattle Times
This friendly media environment includes the widespread portrayal of Gates himself as a health expert, despite the fact that he has no medical background and is not a public official of any kind:
“PolitiFact and USA Today (run by the Poynter Institute and Gannett, respectively) — both of which have received funds from the Gates Foundation — have even used their fact-checking platforms to defend Gates from ‘false conspiracy theories’ and ‘misinformation,’ like the idea that the foundation has financial investments in companies developing COVID vaccines and therapies.
In fact, the foundation’s website and most recent tax forms clearly show investments in such companies, including Gilead and CureVac … News about Gates these days is often filtered through the perspectives of the many academics, nonprofits, and think tanks that Gates funds. Sometimes it is delivered to readers by newsrooms with financial ties to the foundation.”
Gates Foundation — A ‘Structure of Power’
I believe that Schwab is correct when he states that most journalists tend to “cover the Gates Foundation as a dispassionate charity instead of a structure of power.” This is problematic, as it hides and discourages investigation into any number of possible ulterior motives behind the Foundation’s generosity.
In 2011, the Seattle Times raised concerns about the Gates Foundation’s growing media influence, stating:20
“To garner attention for the issues it cares about, the foundation has invested millions in training programs for journalists. It funds research on the most effective ways to craft media messages. Gates-backed think tanks turn out media fact sheets and newspaper opinion pieces.
Magazines and scientific journals get Gates money to publish research and articles. Experts coached in Gates-funded programs write columns that appear in media outlets from The New York Times to The Huffington Post, while digital portals blur the line between journalism and spin.”
Philanthropy as a For-Profit Business Model
“Insofar as journalists are supposed to scrutinize wealth and power, Gates should probably be one of the most investigated people on earth — not the most admired,” Schwab writes.
Indeed. Many books could be written about Gates’ global spider web of connections that tightly integrate health, technology, finance and media for his personal agenda. To be frank, they seem to form the very framework for a global totalitarian regime. These connections are also the foundation of his ever-increasing wealth.
As discussed in “How Bill Gates Monopolized Global Health” and “Bill Gates — Most Dangerous Philanthropist in Modern History?” Gates doesn’t merely hand out money from his foundation. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust, a separate entity that manages the assets of the Foundation, invests in the very companies that are given these grants.
In other words, in many cases, the grants handed out by the foundation end up directly increasing the value of the assets held by the trust. He even “donates” money to corporations such as GlaxoSmithKline, Unilever, IBM, Vodafone, Scholastic Inc. and NBC Universal Media.21,22
If donating to for-profit companies sounds oddly illegal to you, you’d be right. Gates is a tax evader for doing so — he’s simply getting away with it. The nonprofit foundation is a disguise to avoid taxes while funding the research arms of for-profit organizations that his foundation is invested in.
Using nonprofit money to advance research for companies you’re invested in is also illegal. If you are as repulsed by the fact that Gates is getting away with this illegal behavior as much as I am, then I encourage you to contact the IRS Whistleblower Office and ask them to investigate Gates’ tax evasion. You can also file a consumer complaint with the Washington State Attorney General’s office.
Far from being a force for good, Gates appears to have chosen to use his wealth and intellect to further a distasteful social control plan to benefit his own nefarious agendas. Fortunately, people all over the world are finally starting to see his true colors. And this despite the fact that he can afford to buy good publicity, and has been doing so for years.
This really should be one of the biggest scandals in public health, but it’s given little attention – mainly because of the high-profile nature of the people and organisations involved.
The United Nations has been forced to admit that a major international vaccine initiative is actually causing the outbreak of the very disease it was supposed to wipe-out.
While international organisations like the World Health Organization (WHO) will regularly boast about supposedly ‘eradicating polio’ with vaccines, the opposite seems to be the case. Their decades-long campaign to eradicate polio is now killing scores of innocent young people living in poor countries.
Now it seems that health officials are beginning to admit that their plan to stop ‘wild’ polio is backfiring, as scores of children are being paralyzed by a deadly strain of the pathogen derived from a live vaccine – causing a virulent polio to spread.
This latest pharma-induced pandemic has broken out in the African countries of Chad and Sudan, and the culprit has been identified: a vaccine-derived polio virus type 2. Officials now fear this new dangerous strain could soon ‘jump continents,’ causing further deadly outbreaks around the world.
Shocking as it sounds, this Big Pharma debacle is not new. After spending some $16 billion over 30 years to eradicate polio, international health bodies have ‘accidentally’ reintroduced the disease in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and also Iran, as the central Asia region was hit by a virulent strain of polio spawned by the corporate pharmaceutical vaccine distributed there. Also, in 2019, the government of Ethiopia ordered the destruction of 57,000 vials of type 2 oral polio vaccine (mOPV2) following a similar outbreak of vaccine-induced polio.
It’s important to note that the oral polio vaccine being pushed on to the African population by the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) is a consortium which is supported and funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
All of this should be a cause for concern, especially with western governments and transnational pharmaceutical giants all rushing to roll-out their new Gates-funded experimental coronavirus vaccine for the global population.
Currently, the first experimental COVID-19 vaccine is being tested on the African population through GAVI Vaccine Alliance, another organization funded by the Gates Foundation. A large round of human trials will take place in South Africa, locally managed by the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg—yet another Gates-funded institution.
This latest revelation from Africa should prompt media and health advocates to ask hard questions about the efficacy and safety of the much-hyped COVID ‘miracle’ vaccine.
I believe the American people are starting to realize something stinks about the corona narrative. Just two or three weeks ago, surveys indicated that two-thirds of adults would eagerly take the corona vaccination when it is available. But reports I’ve read over the last few days say that at least half of the American people would firmly reject the vaccination.
I’ve documented in this column several times the scandalous nature of Bill Gates’ pharmaceutical experimentations. Durden’s report above is merely the latest in a long string of Gates-funded vaccinations gone badly.
It is no secret that Bill Gates is a rabid eugenicist and the son of a rabid eugenicist. He openly brags about using pharmaceuticals to significantly reduce the earth’s population. That’s not the record of a man who wants to save lives. The only reason anyone would consider Bill Gates any kind of an authority on medical healing is due solely to the fact that we live in a money-crazed culture in which politicians and the media elite give super-rich scumbags like Gates slave-like obeisance. If Gates declared himself to be an expert in alien life forms, those same politicians and media elite would fall all over themselves saying it was true. ”
Melinda Gates: ‘We Hadn’t Really Thought Through the Economic Impacts’
Bill and Melinda Gates donated $500 million to pro-lockdown efforts around the world since the beginning of the pandemic. In an interview with the New York Times, Melinda Gates seems to suggest that the pandemic, not the lockdowns, is to blame for the economic devastation.
Gates and his minions insist the billionaire never said we’d need digital vaccine passports. But in a June 2020 TED Talk, Gates said exactly that. CHD tracked down the original.
Some chiseler altered Bill Gates’ June 2020 TED Talk to edit out his revealing prediction that we will all soon need digital vaccine passports (slide 1). But after considerable effort, we tracked down the original video (slide 2).
Gates’ minions on cable and network news, his public broadcasting, social media and fact-checker toadies all now insist that Gates never said such things. They say he never intended to track and trace us with subdermal chips or injected tattoos. https://www.instagram.com/p/CIj3F0Rlsqs/
Taken from childrenshealthdefense.org
In a wide-ranging interview in the New York Times, Melinda Gates made the following remarkable statement: “What did surprise us is we hadn’t really thought through the economic impacts.” A cynic might observe that one is disinclined to think much about matters than do not affect one personally.
It’s a maddening statement, to be sure, as if “economics” is somehow a peripheral concern to the rest of human life and public health. The larger context of the interview reveals the statement to be even more confused. She is somehow under the impression that it is the pandemic and not the lockdowns that are the cause of the economic devastation that includes perhaps 30% of restaurants going under, among many other terrible effects.
She doesn’t say that outright but, like many articles in the mainstream press over this year, she very carefully crafts her words to avoid the crucial subject of lockdowns as the primary cause of economic disaster. It’s possible that she actually believes this virus is what tanked the world economy on its own but that is a completely unsustainable proposition.
Further, her comments provide a perfect illustration of the core problem all along: most of the people who have been advocating lockdowns in fact have no actual experience in managing pandemics. To many of these, COVID-19 became their new playground to try out an unprecedented experiment in social and economic management: shutting down travel, businesses, schools, churches, and issuing stay-at-home orders that smack of totalitarian impositions.
Here is what she says:
“You can project out and think about what a pandemic might be like or look like, but until you live through it, it’s pretty hard to know what the reality will be like. So I think we predicted quite well that, depending on what the disease was, it could spread very, very, very quickly. The spread did not surprise us.
“What did surprise us is we hadn’t really thought through the economic impacts. What happens when you have a pandemic that’s running rampant in populations all over the world? The fact that we would all be home, and working from home if we were lucky enough to do that. That was a piece that I think we hadn’t really prepared for.”
There are plenty of specialists who have lived through pandemics in the past and managed them by maintaining essential social and economic functioning. A major case in point is Donald A. Henderson, who as head of the World Health Organization is given primary credit for the eradication of smallpox. He wrote as follows in 2006:
“Experience has shown that communities faced with epidemics or other adverse events respond best and with the least anxiety when the normal social functioning of the community is least disrupted. Strong political and public health leadership to provide reassurance and to ensure that needed medical care services are provided are critical elements. If either is seen to be less than optimal, a manageable epidemic could move toward catastrophe.”
Melinda, together with her husband Bill, have been the major funding source for pro-lockdown efforts around the world, giving $500M since the pandemic began, but also funding a huge range of academic departments, labs and media venues for many years, during which time they have both sounded the alarm in every possible interview about the coming pathogen. Their favored policy has been lockdown, as if to confuse a biological virus with a computer virus that merely needs to be blocked from hitting the hard drive.
We can look at how this disease traveled around the world and see that the countries who locked down first are doing better. Many African countries saw it coming and locked it down early. Their replication rate just never got as high as many other countries. And that is a good thing.
While it is true that Africa is an odd outlier, the claim that this is due entirely to early lockdowns has no support. Those who have looked at the anomaly in Africa point to the very young population (just 3% are over 65), cross immunities with other coronaviruses as the main reason for the low death rate, and stronger overall immunities. Indeed, the demographics alone could account for nearly the whole of the mortality difference with Europe and the U.S.
In addition, Melinda says here what Bill has said for years: The only solution to a virus is to suppress it and develop a vaccine — the previously untested experiment that has brought poverty, death and despair to the entire world. Africa in particular was devastated by lockdowns.
It’s still a good thing that she is opening up to the New York Times so that we can gain better perspective on her outlook. There will be a reckoning in the coming year concerning why and how all this happened to us. There will be no chance of suppressing the reality of what has happened. Indeed the center-left press is already starting to admit what AIER has been saying since March 2020.
Consider this roundup from just the last several days:
What Has Lockdown Done to Us? By Drew Holden (New York Times):
“Some researchers worry that the social isolation has inflicted damage to mental health that will outlast even the worst of the pandemic. We may not have a full accounting of the consequences for years to come ….There will be significant long term consequences from school closures as well. About half of the country’s school districts held remote classes, either exclusively or partially, at the start of the year. This approach has meaningfully reduced educational quality, particularly for children of color.
“These losses don’t even take into account the direct effects of the lockdowns on the economy. Small businesses have closed their doors at very high rates as the American economy sputtered in response to stay-at-home orders. One study estimates that 60 percent of the millions of jobs lost between January and April were a result of the lockdowns, not the virus itself. The economic uncertainty caused by unemployment comes with its own health risks …
“These tragedies have become an ambient backdrop to everyday life: present but forgotten, real but ignored. Perhaps America has simply gotten comfortable ignoring the quiet suffering of others.”
“The Problem With Underestimating How Much People Want to Be Together,” by Julia Marcus (The Atlantic)
“When a public-health approach isn’t producing the desired outcome, it’s time to try something different. Instead of yelling even louder about Christmas than about Thanksgiving, government officials, health professionals, and ordinary Americans alike might try this: Stop all the chastising. Remember that the public is fraying. And consider the possibility that when huge numbers of people indicate through their actions that seeing loved ones in person is non-negotiable, they need practical ways to reduce risks that go beyond ‘Just say no.’”
“The state of civil liberties around the world is bleak, according to a new study which found that 87% of the global population were living in nations deemed “closed”, “repressed” or “obstructed” … A number of governments have used the pandemic as an excuse to curtail rights such as free speech, peaceful assembly and freedom of association, according to Civicus Monitor, an alliance of civil society groups which assessed 196 countries.”
The Parental Burnout Crisis Has Reached a Tipping Point, by Anna North (Vox)
“Lack of child care is likely a big reason more than 850,000 women dropped out of the workforce in September — more than in any other month on record except for this April, Covert reports. Overall, moms have borne a bigger share of the pandemic parenting burden than dads, with 80 percent of mothers of kids under 12 saying they are responsible for the majority of distance learning in their homes in one April survey. And single moms have been the hardest-hit of all: The share of unpartnered moms in the workforce dropped from 76.1 percent in September 2019 to 67.4 percent in September 2020, a significantly larger drop than those seen among partnered parents or single dads, according to a Pew analysis.”
“Health officials are up against a fatigued public, as well as a number of people who don’t believe in the danger of the virus, (Dr. Monica) Gandhi said. But she is also part of a growing number of experts who think there’s a better way to engage those who do want to take the pandemic seriously — by taking a lesson from the public health strategy known as harm reduction.”
“What about the benefits and costs of dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic? Much of the medical profession and politicians say that lockdowns, social distancing, and mask-wearing are the solutions. CDC data on death rates show if one is under 35, the chances of dying from COVID-19 is much lower than that of being in a bicycle accident. Should we lock down bicycles? Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, biostatistician, and epidemiologist, Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University and an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician and epidemiologist were the initiators of the Great Barrington Declaration. More than 50,000 scientists and doctors, as well as more than 682,000 ordinary people, have signed the Great Barrington Declaration opposing a second COVID-19 lockdown because they see it doing much more harm than good.”
The authors of the Great Barrington Declaration never had any doubt that eventually most everyone would come to see that the traditional principles of public health prevail over the previously untested and now failed policy of lockdowns. They spoke out when they did as a means of forcing the issue, and their courage will long echo in the annals of history. Now if we could only get Melinda Gates to see it.”
From Mike. The worst part is how we are so naive to listen to her in the first place.