Jump to content

Covid Conflicts of Interest

Recommended Posts

Bill Gates’ Web of Dark Money and Influence – Part 2: The COVID-19 Operation

May 28, 2020

in 2017 Independent Science News released a report detailing how the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation paid PR firm Emerging Ag $1.6 million to “recruit a covert coalition of academics to manipulate a UN decision-making process over gene drives.” Emails released by Freedom of Information Act Request reveal that the Gates’ recruitment effort was part of a plan to “fight back against gene drive moratorium proponents.” Gene drives are a controversial genetic extinction technology promoted as a way to eliminate mosquitoes with malaria, agricultural pests, and invasive species.


At the 2016 United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, 179 international organizations called for a UN moratorium on gene drives. The opponents of this technology also circulated a letter, “A Call for Conservation with a Conscience: No Place for Gene Drives in Conservation,” signed by 30 environmental leaders who called for a “halt to all proposals for the use of gene drive technologies, but especially in conservation.” The Gates Foundation is heavily invested in gene driving technology and was not happy to see a diverse and unified push-back against gene driving. The Foundation hired Emerging Ag — who have their own web of connections to Big Pharma and Big Ag — to shut down the opponents of gene driving. Emerging Ag was successful and the moratorium was shot down.

Coincidentally, in 2016, the US National Academy of Sciences released a report on gene driving which was co-funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. DARPA is also invested in gene drive research. As The Guardian noted after the release of the NAS report:

The same US defense research agency (DARPA) who paid for the NAS study have made it known that they are going all-in on gene drive research and development of ‘robust’ synthetic organisms. There is good reason to be worried.

Moreover, Jim Thomas of the ETC Group, which monitors the impact of emerging technologies and corporate strategies on biodiversity, agriculture and human rights, told ISN that he believes gene drives are potential biological weapons that could have a “disastrous” impact on human life and food security. “The fact that gene drive development is now being primarily funded and structured by the US military raises alarming questions about this entire field,” he stated.

Independent Science News also noted:

This is also not the first time that the Gates Foundation has used academics to influence public and private opinion on genetic engineering technologies, as witnessed by its funding of the Cornell Alliance for Science.

The private emails obtained by Independent Science News add to the mountains of evidence detailing how Gates is able to pressure organizations to carry out his interests, and that of his Foundation.

The Global Health Mafia

Bill Gtaes

Considering these alarming reports of Gates’ influence on public health policy, it is important to take a moment to examine the current response to COVID-19. When we look at the players and institutions involved, do we see Gates’ influence and money? If so, what does this mean for public health? Will Gates’ mammoth influence and finances allow him to personally direct the course of the COVID-19 recovery?

Let’s start by looking at Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, Director of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health, and a leader in the fight against COVID-19. Unfortunately, when it comes to Fauci and NIAID we clearly see the influence of Bill Gates. In 2010, NIAID and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation announced their “Decade of Vaccines Collaboration,” calling for coordination across the “international vaccine community” and the creation of a “Global Vaccine Action Plan.” Dr. Fauci was appointed to the Leadership Council of the partnership. Similarly, Bill Gates has been partnering with the NIH for several years.


In late April, the news broke that Fauci’s NIAID donated a total of $7.4 million to research involving bat coronaviruses. The investments added fuel to the theory that COVID-19 might be a bioengineered virus which was purposefully or accidentally released from the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China. The news of the funding begs the obvious question; did Gates’ money influence or fund the NIAID’s coronavirus research? Time will tell.

Another important player with connections to Gates is Dr. Deborah Birx, an American physician and diplomat serving as the United States Global AIDS Coordinator for Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump since 2014. She is currently the Coronavirus Response Coordinator for the Trump Administration’s White House Task Force. Birx also sits on the Board of The Global Fund, an organization which was promised a $750 million investment by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in 2012. The Global Fund also features board member Kieran Daly, the Deputy Director of Global Policy and Advocacy for the Gates Foundation.

“The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is a key partner of the Global Fund, providing cash contributions, actively participating on its board and committees, and supporting the Global Fund’s advocacy, communications and fundraising efforts,” the Global Fund states.

Johns Hopkins University has been an equally important member of the global response to COVID-19. The university’s calculations of global infection and death rates are commonly cited in mainstream media. Yet, once again, we find the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has been investing in Johns Hopkins for two decades.

Finally, it was recently reported that the organization known as the Wellcome Trust has partnered with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and MasterCard to “catalyze the initial work” of the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator. The Accelerator is supposed to accelerate and evaluate “new and repurposed drugs and biologics to treat patients with COVID-19 in the immediate term.” What was not mentioned is that the Gates Foundation has been a “Trustee” of the Wellcome Trust for several years. Interestingly, in 2017, Mark Henderson, Director of Communications for Wellcome Trust participated in a panel called “Deep Dive: Preventing Pandemics.” Dr. Anthony Fauci also participated in the panel discussion.

One could chalk up Fauci and Wellcome Trust’s involvement with a panel about pandemics as perfectly reasonable — after all, these are professionals who are focused on global health. However, to ignore that Bill Gates’ fingerprints are all over the global health industry would be a mistake.

Based on The Gates Foundation’s track record of hiring PR firms to shut down detractors or using their money to influence institutions, one could be forgiven for assuming that the foundation would not be high on the list of potential leaders for a public health crisis. Unfortunately, as of May 2020, Bill Gates and his Foundation are still being promoted as heroes in the fight against COVID-19.

Who Is Running the WHO?

Since the outbreak of COVID-19, both Bill Gates and the World Health Organization have stepped onto the center stage as the world looks to them for answers. By now, it is common knowledge that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is the number one non-state donor to the WHO. The United States has been the top state donor but that may change under the Trump administration. Gates was also the first non-state individual to give a keynote address to the WHO general assembly.

According to a report by Politico, Bill Gates’ opinion (and money) has so much influence on the WHO that officials privately call it “the Bill Chill.” Sixteen officials speaking on the condition of anonymity told Politico that Gates has an out-sized influence on the politics of the WHO and few dare challenge him. “He is treated liked a head of state, not only at the WHO, but also at the G20,” a Geneva-based NGO representative stated.

The accusations of Gates’ influence were seconded by Foreign Affairs when they reported that “few policy initiatives or normative standards set by the World Health Organization are announced before they have been casually, unofficially vetted by Gates Foundation staff.”

The WHO’s current Director General is Tedros Adhanom, a former Health Minister of Ethiopia and a physician. During his tenure as Minister of Health of Ethiopia, Tedros collaborated with the Clinton Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to work on vaccines, among other health measures. Politico reported that prior to Tedros being selected for the WHO position in 2017 Gates was accused of supporting Tedros and using his influence to help win the nomination.

While most of the member country delegates expressed their belief that Gates is well-intentioned, some feared that the Gates Foundation’s money comes from “big business” and could “serve as a Trojan horse for corporate interests to undermine WHO’s role in setting standards and shaping health policies.”

The most important takeaway is that the fees paid by WHO member countries account for less than a quarter of the $4.5 billion biennial budget — leaving Gates, governments, and other foundations to fill the gap. These donations are allocated for specific projects and the WHO cannot decide how to use them. In the case of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, those funds typically go towards vaccine programs.

No matter which way you approach the solutions being presented as the answer to the COVID-19 pandemic you will find Bill Gates’ fingerprints. Repeatedly he has used his money and influence to profit and steadily gain power without ever being elected to political office.

In part 3 of this investigation we will examine the strategies Bill Gates has called for in response to COVID-19. We will also see how Bill Gates and the Rockefeller family have both been predicting a situation like the one we are currently witnessing unfold. Finally, we will show how this crisis presents the perfect opportunity for Gates and his cohorts to reap massive profits and position themselves at the head of an emerging Technocratic State.

Source: The Last American Vagabond


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Patrick Vallance- Chief Science Officer Former head of GlaxoSmithKlein Research Major shareholder in GSK     Chris Whitty- Chief Medical Officer Awarded $40 million

The Conservative Woman website is gaining popularity due to the quality of its articles questioning the Covid narrative. Karen Harradine is currently undertaking a 3 part investigation into Bill Gates

On the back of the Ipsos Mori poll yesterday which apparently revealed overwhelming public support for vaccine passports, Unity News Network (UNN) have written this article on funding Ipsos Mori has r

Posted Images

Matt Hancock faces fresh 'cronyism' row after it emerges he and his sister own shares in firm that won NHS contracts

  • Matt Hancock declared getting 15 per cent of shares in shredding firm Topwood
  • The company has been awarded a contract worth £300,000 by NHS Wales
  • Mr Hancock did not declare publicly his sister also has shares in the company
  • Government spokesman insisted Mr Hancock had acted 'entirely properly'  

By James Tapsfield, Political Editor For Mailonline

Published: 08:10, 16 April 2021 | Updated: 09:16, 16 April 2021

Matt Hancock is facing a fresh 'cronyism' row today after it emerged he and his sister have shares in a firm that has won contracts from the NHS. The Health Secretary declared last month that he had acquired 15 per cent of the shares in Topwood Ltd, which specialises in the secure storage, shredding and scanning of documents. It was awarded £300,000 of business by NHS Wales this year. However, the entry on the MPs' register of interests did not mention that his sister Emily Gilruth also has shares and is a director of the firm, or that it has connections to the health service. 



Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
Posted (edited)

Buying a Single Version of the Truth


Monday, 3rd May 2021

The UK Column recently reported a £320 million media buy-in contract awarded to OMD Group, the brief for which was redacted from the publicly available information on the UK government’s Contract Finder website. This represents just 20% of the £1.6 billion in media buy-in contracts the government has awarded to Omnicom since 2018.

Headquartered in Manhattan New York, Omnicom is a global media, marketing and corporate communications holding company. It is currently considered the second largest advertising agency in the world, eclipsed only by WPP.

Omnicom is an advertising giant which specialises in public relations, lobbying, communications strategy, and the planning and purchasing of targeted advertising space. It builds comprehensive media campaigns for its extensive client list. Omnicom heads a North American based network of prominent advertising and public relations agencies with a world wide collective reach.

Omnicom has been awarded a number of sizeable contracts by the UK government. These have included a December 2018 advertising campaign contract for the Cabinet Office, worth up to £184 million, a £119 million October 2020 media buy-in contract with a £230 million extension clause, and a £112 million media contract for the Ministry of Defence.

According to the Crown Commercial Service (CCS), media buying enables the government to:

buy media channels (for example, advertising space, partnerships, events and sponsorship) regionally, nationally and internationally across off and online channels.

Omnicom is the single supplier for these public relations campaigns and their UK OMD Group operations are run by Manning Gottlieb OMD (MG-OMD).

Manning Gottlieb OMD was dissolved in 2011 and struck off the companies register. It isn't entirely clear, therefore, what the current legal status of MG-OMD is. Their website appears to be their only visible presence and it does not clarify their status. However the CCS has stated that MG-OMD is a division of OMD Group Ltd.

The CCS claim there are a number of advantages to be gained by having one US multinational corporation overseeing the UK government’s entire communication strategy, including robust pricing, neutrality and transparency. Putting aside Omnicom's obvious monopoly, as mentioned above, when the UK Column looked at the client brief for the recent £320 million media buy-in, it was enitrely redacted. We might question the CCS notion of transparency.

Who is the dominant partner in this arrangement?

Media buying is the process of acquiring space on media platforms (online and offline) to get a PR message out. In this case the UK government is the client and MG-OMD (Omnicom) is the sole supplier, often referred to as the Agent.

The supplier (Agent) is largely responsible for conducting market research and devising campaigns that will delver best value to the client. They are given a brief and then advise the client how they can achieve the client’s PR objectives.

As we have stated, it is not possible to examine the brief for the most recent contract. But the brief is available for the £112 million MoD contract. It raises some concerns.

Omnicom will agree the key performance indicators by which the efficacy of their campaigns are measured; they will evaluate and measure campaign performance and will be proactive and innovative; the Agent has the expertise to advise how to deliver all aspects of the service and it is MG-OMD (Omnicom) who deploy resources, implement the plan and collect and store the data generated by their PR campaigns on the client's (MoD's) behalf.

It seems that Omnicom, in the guise of MG-OMD, not only agrees what constitutes campaign efficacy, they plan, resource and operate the UK government's communications strategy. It is not unreasonable to suggest that Omnicom is leading this process.

In 2018 the UK government awarded a four year £800 million contract to Omnicom's OMD Group for media buy-ins. The CCS stated that the purpose of the contract was to:

Provide the best possible outcomes for communication campaigns ... The successful media buying agency ... will work in partnership ... to deliver ... fully integrated campaigns for government.

This contract is set to expire in May 2022.

Omnicom were running government PR campaigns when the World Health Organisation (WHO) declared a global Covid-19 pandemic in March 2020.

In an effort to maintain transparency, the signatories to the contract have been redacted as have the pricing criteria, Omnicom protected confidential commercial information and much of the Framework Agreement. However, the contract brief stated:

The Government Communication Plan is updated annually and CCS shall ensure that the Agency is notified when the plan is updated ... The Agency will (if required) co-operate and work with agencies on any of the other Crown Commercial Service agreements. This includes other Framework Agencies ... provision of specific single services and products including media planning and Campaign Solutions ... The Agency shall manage and deliver fully integrated campaigns, either by delivering services in-house or through Sub-Contracts.

Omnicom was in place, ready and able to adapt to the UK government's communication plans as they emerged.

Providing a “single version of the truth”

Omnicom was awarded the contract on 21st May 2018. On the 9th June (less than 3 weeks later), then UK Prime Minister Theresa May announced that the G7 had agreed to her Rapid Response Mechanism. Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK, the US and the EU agreed that they would assert a common narrative.

Omnicom responded almost immediately.

In early 2019 they launched their Learn Fast & Act Fast communications strategy. This was perfect for the Rapid Response Mechanism needs of their clients.

As the Covid-19 pandemic unfolded, Omnicom was able to help the UK government to "navigate the road to a new normal." They said they had deepened their "rapid response capabilities" which enabled their client, the UK government, to make "more informed decisions while providing a single version of the truth."

With operations in all of the G7 countries, and in both Russia and China, where they are discovering new opportunities for growth, Omnicom is well placed to deliver fully integrated campaigns. Whenever a rapid response is required to assert the common G7 narrative, Omnicom will provide the approved single version of the truth.

In September 2019, three months after the Rapid Response Mechanism announcement, the BBC convened the Trusted News Summit. To aid transparency, then BBC Director General Tony Hall said that the meeting was held behind closed doors. The BBC effectively formed a global media cartel with the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), Facebook, the Financial Times, First Draft, Google, The Hindu, The Wall Street Journal, AFP, CBC/Radio-Canada, Microsoft, Reuters and Twitter.

Less than two weeks after the WHO declared the global pandemic, the UK government's Scientific Advisory Group in Emergencies (SAGE) issued some key advice. They outlined how our behaviour could be changed to ensure it was in line with the single version of the truth.

SPI-B (SAGE's behaviour change experts) stated:

Guidance now needs to be reformulated to be behaviourally specific ... A substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened. The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting emotional messaging … Messaging needs to emphasise and explain the duty to protect others … Consideration should be given to use of social disapproval.

SPI-B recommended that the UK government should:

  1. Use the media (MSM) to increase sense of personal threat.
  2. Use the media (MSM) to increase sense of responsibility to others.
  3. Use social disapproval for failure to comply.

A free, plural and independent media could not be "used" to terrorise the population in this fashion. Only a controlled propaganda machine could possibly be instructed to do so. The Trusted News cartel was available. Omnicom, in the form of MG-OMD, was tasked with using it to do the hard hitting.

In doing so Omnicom has been supporting the mainstream media to stay afloat by pumping millions into their failed business models. The tax payer funded government buy-ins directly finance the UK's so called independent mainstream media. Like the banks, it seems they are too big to fail, and so once again the tax payer is being forced to bail them out.

OmniGOV = Fusion Doctrine

MG-OMD has given their propaganda operation the Orwellian sounding name of OmniGOV. They say they are very proud of it and recognise their responsibility as the "the single cross-HM Government agency partner."

OmniGov were behind the snappy slogans used to change our behaviour throughout the pandemic. Phrases like "flatten the curve", "stay home, protect the NHS, save lives" and "rule of six" all rely on a psychological mechanism called the rule of three. The £119 million Omnicom contract to modify our behaviour was in discussion long before the WHO made their pandemic declaration.

The hard hitting media campaigns designed to strike fear into the public imagination were OmniGOV public relations strategies. The now notorious "look into my eyes" campaign being another OmniGOV campaign.

"Look into my eyes" was pure propaganda. The UK government was the client and they wanted to increase the sense of personal threat and use social disapproval to compel compliance. OmniGOV created a campaign which presented a low mortality disease as some sort of plague. Covid-19 risks primarily affect older people and mortality distribution is indistinguishable from normal mortality.

OmniGOV ignored scientific and statistical evidence and presented a population scale threat that did not exist. They claimed, without evidence, that lockdowns, mask wearing and social distancing could stop the spread of a viral respiratory illness. They misled the public and suggested that following the rules would save lives.

The insinuation was clearly that those who did not obey were guilty of killing people and that their behaviour was wrong. While appearing to advocate social conscience and shared community responsibility the product was baseless fear and social division  As requested by OmniGov's client.

OmniGOV are also proud of the other projects that have been engaged with during the pandemic. For example, they have been working with the NHS and Snapchat to encouraging young people to think differently about donating their organs, introducing them to the concept of body-tracking Augmented Reality.

A Green New Deal

If we ignore the obvious risk of having a single US corporation in apparent control of the UK government's communication strategy, and if we set aside concerns about the vast sums we have paid them to propagandise us, some may still feel, given the claimed seriousness of Covid-19, that there is nothing to be concerned about and OmniGOV has acted in good faith.

But for that to be the case, they also have to overlook that the OmniGov led response to Covid-19 is transitioning us into a new global financial and economic model which, at the most senior level, Omnicom has being trying to engineer for years.

Omnicom is not a disinterested third party merely seeking to meet their contractual obligations. They have a significant conflict of interest. The post-Covid-19 recovery they are helping to define is in their interest, not ours.

The Chairman and CEO of Omnicom is John D. Wren. His personal Omnicom bio reads:

Mr. Wren was part of the team that created Omnicom Group in 1986. Mr. Wren is a member of the International Business Council of the World Economic Forum and is active in a number of philanthropic endeavors.

In 2012, Wren was a contributor and co-author of the World Economic Forum's publication More with Less: Scaling Sustainable Consumption and Resource Efficiency. The report stated:

The need for rapid action to shift towards a resource-efficient economy is high ... change is now urgently required at scale and greater pace than current initiatives, policies or strategies are likely to achieve ... Business can catalyse scale through transforming interactions with citizens.. and playing an active role in shaping the policies and investments that define the rules of the game ... The right rules of the game can catalyse citizen behaviour … and create new markets ... The private sector needs to be involved in most phases of policy-making … such collaboration should be forged as a productive adjunct to more traditional inter-governmental arrangements.

Omnicom is undoubtedly delighted that the public private partnership they have forged with the UK, and many other governments, has allowed them to help define the rules of the game. Certainly they have been busy catalysing citizen behaviour and seem to be fully involved in most phases of policy making.

In 2020 the WEF's International Business Council (IBC), with Wren as a member, released their Measuring Stakeholder Capitalism report.

Speaking about the need to shape the recovery, they noted that the global pandemic was a fantastic opportunity. They wrote:

We must mobilize all constituencies of our global society to work together and seize this historic opportunity ... The principles of stakeholder capitalism, championed by the World Economic Forum … have never been so important. In 2017, the IBC spearheaded a commitment from more than 140 CEOs to align their corporate values and strategies with the UN's Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) … The IBC has been leading the way in this initiative to deliver on the promise of stakeholder capitalism.

With the UK contingent of the Trusted News cartel being supported by OmniGOV, tax-avoidant members like Google can look forward to some tax payer subsidised profits. They will be free, alongside Omnicom, to spread the single version of the truth in line with the G7's wishes.

This is stakeholder capitalism in operation. It has nothing to do with us; we merely pay for it. Nor will we be allowed to object or even question the asserted common narrative.

Dissent will not be tolerated

The UK Digital Secretary, Oliver Dowden, recently convened a meeting of G7 technology ministers who signed a ministerial declaration on "Internet safety principles." The declaration was based upon the UK's Online Harms white paper and, as such, there is no specific definition of "harm." It simply means whatever the G7, the Trusted News cartel and other stakeholders like Omnicom want it to mean.

The G7 commit to "work together towards a trusted, values-driven digital ecosystem." They declare:

Our collective recovery from COVID-19 must be rooted in a desire to build back better. Leaders … signed a declaration containing a series of shared principles on how to tackle the global challenge of online safety, including that online firms should have systems and processes in place to reduce illegal and harmful activity.

As the UK government is contractually obliged to update Omnicom on their communications strategy, and seeing as OmniGOV are their sole media campaign managers, the 2020/2021 strategy must have been agreed with Omnicom.

Given Omnicom's long-standing commitment to creating sustainable market opportunities, they presumably welcome the fact that it is entirely based upon the rule of three with the "Build Back Better" slogan at its heart.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office Julie Lopez MP announced that control of government information campaigns will be centralised further. We can only speculate which stakeholder partner will win the 2022 contract bid.

In the meantime, practically everything we are told about Covid-19 and the allegedly inescapable global economic and monetary transformation forced upon us, will be fed to us by the Trusted News cartel, guided and financed by OmniGOV. Omnicom and their stakeholder partners have a bright future.



[Read more of Iain's work at his blog In This Together.]

Edited by Macnamara
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Conservative Woman website is gaining popularity due to the quality of its articles questioning the Covid narrative. Karen Harradine is currently undertaking a 3 part investigation into Bill Gates' influence. This is part 2 which delves into how UK public health policy is apparently dictated by Gates amidst "near-institutionalised conflicts of interest".

Revealed, how Bill Gates’s influence spreads virally into UK public health policy




THE influence of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (GF) extends right into the heart of the British medical and science establishment. It has been funding British companies, charities, universities and public bodies for almost 25 years.  


My research offers only a snapshot of the financing GF has provided them. Some have been paid millions of pounds to research and develop vaccines, others to facilitate ‘health systems’ delivery. 


Their influence works through the many interconnections that exist between certain private and public funding bodies, industry companies, public health officials and scientific advisory groups involved in, or party to, the Government’s responses to Covid-19. 


Best known of the latter is the publicly-funded Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE). Its status is not clear – though meant only to be activated short term in emergency, it has become a de facto standing body. 


SAGE itself draws on a number of other standing ‘expert’ groups with crossover membership, including the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (NERVTAG), advising the Government on threats posed by new respiratory viruses, and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI).  Two SAGE members are on NERVTAG.  Several members of SAGE are also part of a private initiative calling itself Independent Sage, set up to act as scientific advisers to the Government, and one of whom is also on the JCVI. 


Many members of these groups are connected to, or funded directly or indirectly by, the GF.  


One such connection is through GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) a British pharmaceutical company, dating back to 1715 which works closely with GF. It helps finance COVAX a private global health partnership which promotes immunisation in poor countries. 


In 2005, the GF gave GSK 107.6million dollars to develop malaria vaccines. In 2013, the GF and GSK partnered to form the Vaccine Discovery Partnership, investing a combined 1.8million dollars in it. 


Last March, GSK licensed a new tuberculosis vaccine to the GF Medical Research Institute. The amount they were paid is not documented. Currently, GSK is manufacturing a Covid-19 vaccine called Novavax at its Barnard Castle site. The Government bought 60 million doses of Novavax in advance. 


GSK has significant connections with the scientists on SAGE (whose advice has driven the Government’s stringent Lockdown and social distancing policies) listed here. It is hard from this not to see significant conflict of interest, or how their advice to the Government can be entirely dispassionate.   


Professor John Edmunds’s partner was an employee until May 2020. Professor Jonathan Van Tam is a consultant, Professor Andrew Morris is a shareholder and Sir Patrick Vallance had shares in GSK until March 2021. Professor Charlotte Deane is a recipient of their research funding. 


The Wellcome Trust, a British foundation which invests in research and advocacy programmes, is another body through which the influence of the GF extends. It has a £29.1billion investment fund and is the second-largest grant-giving organisation in the world after the GF. Matching the GF, it invested 50 million dollars  in the Gavi-run Covid-19 Therapeutics Accelerator (CTA), set up last March to research and develop Covid-19 vaccines.

The Wellcome Trust CEO, Paul Schreier, recently insisted that the 300million dollars invested so far in the CTA isn’t enough and that 7.2billion dollars is needed to ensure the project remains viable.


Despite its already huge investment fund, the Wellcome Trust has received funds from the GF. Between 2014 and 2016, the GF granted it 613,380 dollars for research and the study of enteric and diarrheal diseases. 


As with GSK, many SAGE members had, or have, connections with the Wellcome Trust. Professor Sir Mark Walport is a previous director, while Sir Jeremy Farrar is the current director. He is also an adviser to Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director-general of the Word Health Organisation. 


Professor Michael Parker is the director of the Wellcome Centre for Ethics and Humanities and has research funding for the Global Health Bioethics run by the Wellcome Trust in Africa and Asia.  


Professor Parker has also received funding for Epidemics Ethics, a collaboration between the Wellcome Trust and the WHO, and a collaboration on medical ethics between the Wellcome Trust and Johns Hopkins University in the US. He is also a member of the WHO Ethics Working Group on 2019-nCoV (coronavirus). 


Professor Yvonne Doyle is a co-applicant and collaborator on a Wellcome Trust award called Pathways to Healthy Cities. Professor Sharon Peacockis a recipient of a research funding grant called the Collaborative Award (2019 – 2024) and the Health Innovation Challenge Fund (2014 – 2021).  


Professor Andrew Rambaut received a research grant for viral genome sequencing, while Sir Venki Ramakrishnan is a recipient of the Research Investigator Award.  


Professor Russell Viner, Dr Laura Merson and Professor Dame Linda Partridge have also received research funding from the Wellcome Trust. 


Professor Andrew Morris is a member of the Wellcome/MRC/ESRC/Cancer Research UK Expert Advisory Group on Data Access.  


Other members of SAGE who have a significant interest in the Wellcome Trust include Professor Susan Michie. A member of both SAGE and Independent Sage, she received funding from the Wellcome Trust for research into the role of artificial intelligence in public health decision-making.


Professor Karl Friston, another Independent Sage member, is a Wellcome Trust Principal Research Fellow. 

As well as funding private science, medical companies and medical philanthropy in Britain, the GF also collaborates with UK Government’s UK Research and Innovation (UKRI).  It started in 2018  with a budget of £6billion to fund science and research in the UK. 


Last September it was involved in setting up the Oxford RECOVERY trial to research an antiviral called REGN-COV2 and its effects on Covid-19. Peter Horby (of SAGE) is the chief investigator. UKRI joined with the GF and Wellcome Trust in funding this initiative. The amount is not specified.  


Last February, UKRI donated £20million to the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), the partially GF-funded global initiative, matching the Government’s contribution for Covid-19 research.


The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC),  a subsidiary of UKRI, is collaborating with the GF on climate change solutions. 


Another body, set up under UKRI in January 2018, is Health Data Research UK, a national institute for health data science. In June 2020 received 1.7million dollars from the GF in June 2020.


Several SAGE members are connected to UKRI. 


Professor Sir Mark Walport, who was UKRI chief executive of until 2020. 


Professor Lucy Yardley is a Principal Investigator and Co-Investigator, Professor Phil Bly is a Co-Investigator, and Mr Allan Bennett is a Principal Investigator. 


Professor Neil Ferguson is a Co-Investigator. He is also the co-founder of the Medical Research Council (MRC) Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis (GIDA) that was granted £500,000 from UKRI to work on Covid-19 modelling when the pandemic began. MRC GIDA works closely with the GF and Gavi.


Professor Guy Poppy is the Director of UKRI’s Strategic Priorities Fund, while Professor Dame Anne Johnson is a Co-investigator and Chair of a UKRI scientific advisory group.  


Professor Sir Ian Diamond is a board member, Dr James Rubin a grant recipient and a consultant to UKRI, and Professor Cath Noakes is a member. Professor Sheila Rowan is a grant holder and council member of UKRI.  

Professors Sharon Peacock, Peter Horby, Julia Gog, Andrew Hayward, Timothy Sharpe, Deborah Dunn-Walters, Vittal Katikireddi, Janet Lord and Dr Declan T Bradley are all recipients of research funding from UKRI. 


It seems that few individuals advising the Government are outside this ‘club’ or without trails leading back to GF.

Public Health England (PHE), the Government’s health watchdog, is in direct receipt of GF funding. Between 2010 and 2015, it received 12million dollars, including 2.3 million dollars in 2012, to improve delivery of health systems. 

In 2013, the GF awarded PHE 1.7million dollars to research measles and tetanus testing, and in 2015, 500,076 dollars to fund research into tuberculosis.  


SAGE members connected to PHE include Dr James Rubin a consultant to PHE, Professor Brooke Rogers – who is a member – Dr Ian Hall, who has an honorary contract, and Dr Jenny Harries. 


This close network of connections between the GF and British companies, foundations, Government agencies and advisors suggests an unacceptable level of influence as well as near-institutionalised conflicts of interest. This cannot be in the public interest or in that of dispassionate medical and public health research and advice.   



  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Journalism’s Gates keepers

By Tim Schwab

August 21, 2020

Last August, NPR profiled a Harvard-led experiment to help low-income families find housing in wealthier neighborhoods, giving their children access to better schools and an opportunity to “break the cycle of poverty.” 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.

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’s funding from Gates “was not a factor in why or how we did the story,” reporter Pam Fessler says, adding that her reporting went beyond the voices quoted in her article. The story, nevertheless, is one of hundreds NPR has reported about the Gates Foundation or the work it funds, including myriad favorable pieces written from the perspective of Gates or its grantees.

And that speaks to a larger trend—and ethical issue—with billionaire philanthropists’ bankrolling the news. The Broad Foundation, whose philanthropic agenda includes promoting charter schools, at one point funded part of the LA Times’ reporting on education. Charles Koch has made charitable donations to journalistic institutions such as the Poynter Institute, as well as to news organizations such as the Daily Caller News Foundation, that support his conservative politics. And the Rockefeller Foundation funds Vox’s Future Perfect, a reporting project that examines the world “through the lens of effective altruism”—often looking at philanthropy.

As philanthropists increasingly fill in the funding gaps at news organizations—a role that is almost certain to expand in the media downturn following the coronavirus pandemic—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.

I recently examined nearly twenty thousand charitable grants the Gates Foundation had made through the end of June and found more than $250 million going toward journalism. Recipients included news operations like the BBC, NBC, Al Jazeera, ProPublica, National Journal, The Guardian, Univision, Medium, the Financial Times, The Atlantic, the Texas Tribune, Gannett, Washington Monthly, Le Monde, and the Center for Investigative Reporting; charitable organizations affiliated with news outlets, like BBC Media Action and the New York Times’ Neediest Cases Fund; media companies such as Participant, whose documentary Waiting for “Superman” supports Gates’s agenda on charter schools; journalistic organizations such as the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting, the National Press Foundation, and the International Center for Journalists; and a variety of other groups creating news content or working on journalism, such as the Leo Burnett Company, an ad agency that Gates commissioned to create a “news site” to promote the success of aid groups. In some cases, recipients say they distributed part of the funding as subgrants to other journalistic organizations—which makes it difficult to see the full picture of Gates’s funding into the fourth estate. 

read on here https://www.cjr.org/criticism/gates-foundation-journalism-funding.php

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why Does the FDA Get Nearly Half Its Funding From the Companies It Regulates?

Thanks to user fees drug companies pay the FDA, the number and speed of drug approvals have been increasing over time — so have the number of drugs that end up having serious safety issues.

By C. Michael White


How AIDS changed how the FDA is funded

The FDA continued its work fully funded by U.S. taxpayers for many years until this model was upended by a new infectious disease. The first U.S. case of HIV-induced AIDS occurred in 1981. It was rapidly spreading, with devastating complications like blindness, dementia, severe respiratory diseases and rare cancers. Well-known sports stars and celebrities died of AIDS-related complications. AIDS activists were incensed about long delays in getting experimental HIV drugs studied and approved by the FDA.

In 1992, in response to intense pressure, Congress passed the Prescription Drug User Fee Act. It was signed into law by President George H.W. Bush.

With the act, the FDA moved from a fully taxpayer-funded entity to one funded through tax dollars and new prescription drug user fees. Manufacturers pay these fees when submitting applications to the FDA for drug review and annual user fees based on the number of approved drugs they have on the market. However, it is a complex formula with waivers, refunds and exemptions based on the category of drugs being approved and the total number of drugs in the manufacturers portfolio.

Over time, other user fees for generic, over-the-counter, biosimilar, animal and animal generic drugs, as well as for medical devices, were created. As time passed, the FDA’s funding has increasingly come from the industries that it regulates. Of the FDA’s total U.S. $5.9 billion budget, 45% comes from user fees, but 65% of the funding for human drug regulatory activities are derived from user fees. These user fee programs must be reauthorized every five years by Congress, and the current agreement remains in effect through September 2022.


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Dark, Fascist Connections Of The UK's Vaccine Minister, Nadhim Zahawi

Judge Him By The Company He Keeps



The organisation, in which he has played a leading role, has a dark and murky history and was at one time, even instrumental in helping to oppress the black population of South Africa - garnering itself a reputation for pushing racism and discrimination. This group, the old boys’ club of Nadhim Zahawi, directly supported and actively promoted the pro-apartheid movements in South Africa in the 1980s. We should therefore not be surprised that he is now championing a new form of apartheid, one which will see widespread intolerance of the unvaccinated community in the United Kingdom.

Established by Freemason, Opus Dei member and Nazi collaborator, Jean Violet, along with former Prime Minister of France and Bilderberg Group Founding Member, Antoine Pinay and the last emperor of Austria, Otto von Habsburg in the 1950s, Le Cercle (sometimes referred to as Cercle Pinay) is a privately funded group that, for decades, has been shrouded in secrecy as it connects some of the world’s most powerful and influential political and financial elites, as well as the most distinguished intelligence veterans. This exclusive political club initially began as a Catholic, pro-European Union alliance between French, German and Vatican representatives, but from the 1970s onwards opened its doors to British powerbrokers. This led to the integration in later years of propagandist, Brian Crozier, British MP, Alan Clark and controversial former Cabinet Minister, Jonathan Aitken, to name but a few of its Anglo members.

This covert inner circle was chaired from the years 2015 to 2017, by the same man who heads up the United Kingdom’s vaccine rollout. Zahawi’s silence on Le Cercle has raised eyebrows and he has come under scrutiny due to his failure to disclose the connections between himself and the group.

The more we learn about them, the more we understand why he stay quiet about such an affiliation.

As Le Cercle grew over the years it attracted some very familiar names in the world of politics to their meetings, including Henry Kissinger, Margaret Thatcher and David Rockefeller. The group is believed to have exerted a great influence on the early days of the formation of the European Union. Much of their funding initially came from an Italian by the name of Carlo Pesenti, who was an heir to the fortune of Italy’s wealthiest family. Fiercely anti-communist, like all of Le Cercle members - Pesenti directed funds to the Italian Fascist terrorist movement, the National Vanguard. His money was used by Le Cercle to pay for terrorist attacks, the most infamous of which was the bombing of the Banca Nazionale dell’ Agricoltura in Milan, in which 17 people were killed. The National Vanguard is also known for having assassinated Italian magistrate, Vittorio Occorsio, as well as assisting with the murder of Basque separatist, Jose Miguel Benaran Ordenana. Pesenti died amid an investigation into his role in the collapse of an Italian bank, Banco Ambrosiano, in 1982. In his lifetime, he had eagerly funded some of Le Cercle’s main objectives, pushing for the reinstatement of Fascism in all European countries and the destabilisation of nations, resulting in order out of chaos - more commonly known back then as Strategy of Tension.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...