What Did Fauci Do?

Fauci’s Calendar: What Was He Doing in the Months Before the Pandemic?

After filing an expensive lawsuit, OpenTheBooks.com finally got the National Institutes of Health to release Dr. Anthony Fauci’s work calendar — here’s what it shows.

On Tuesday, Jan. 14, 2020, at 9 a.m., Dr. Anthony Fauci joined staff at the National Security Council (NSC) — the President’s national security and foreign policy advisory shop — for a meeting in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building about the novel coronavirus.

Fauci would continue to have meetings in classified settings throughout the month.

Fauci’s calendar entries included NSC meetings, White House Situation Room meetings and meetings in other classified settings, as COVID-19 was breaking in China. (To our knowledge, the existence of these meetings before Jan. 28, 2020, was not previously disclosed.)

On Friday, Jan. 24, four days after China admitted human-to-human transmission of the virus, Fauci started attending a small group COVID-19 discussion that first took place in “Anthony’s Office” in a building next to the White House. Anthony, in this case, appears to be an NSC employee and an expert in biodefense and China.

Flashing back to December 2019, when patients in Wuhan were showing up at hospitals with unidentified pneumonia cases, Fauci attended the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation — National Institutes of Health (NIH) dinner and workshops on Dec. 19 and 20 — the sixth annual event for NIH staff and Gates Foundation executives.

On the morning of Dec. 19, billionaire Bill Gates tweeted out his own hopes for the coming year and his now prescient prediction: “one of the best buys in global health: vaccines.”

Today, we only know about these meetings, because our organization at OpenTheBooks.com, in partnership with the public-interest law firm Judicial Watch, sued the NIH in federal court. NIH had refused to even acknowledge our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

So, for the first time, here is our exclusive release of Fauci’s official calendar.

For a government bureaucrat, this sure was one tightly held calendar.

The refusal by NIH to follow open records law was a strategy to delay transparency: NIH forced us into expensive taxpayer-paid litigation to slow-walk 156 pages of semi-redacted calendar production.

Fauci’s calendar has 933 events during this five-month period — including 224 media interviews and 84 redacted events (only significant redactions that prevented analysis and understanding were counted, for example, phone number redactions were not included).

It’s a document that NIH and Fauci didn’t want you to see …

Why? What did Fauci know? And when did he know it?

Following Fauci’s timeline — highlights

Nov. 6, 2019: Fauci’s calendar lists “GPMB Discussion Note.” This likely deals with the World Health Organization (WHO) and World Bank’s Global Preparedness Monitoring Board. Fauci is a past member of the GPMB board which was formed to “ensure[s] preparedness for global health crises.”

On Jan. 27, 2020, the GPMB convened regarding the COVID-19 outbreak and Fauci signed off on the group’s Jan. 30, 2020, statement commending the WHO and the “transparency of China.”

Judicial Watch’s FOIAs uncovered that this statement was organized and circulated by Wellcome Trust scientist and GPMB member Jeremy Farrar (who also organized a secret conference call with Fauci and others on Feb. 1, 2020).

Nov. 12, 2019: Fauci flies to the Netherlands. His multi-day itinerary is not listed. The Netherlands is home to the father of “gain-of-function,” high-risk researcher Dr. Ron Fouchier.

Fauci’s NIH institute, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), paused (2014) then restarted (Jan. 2019) funding to the controversial researcher who (using NIH funds) created an H5N1 bird flu in his lab with pandemic potential. He did so by passaging the virus through ferrets multiple times, until it gained a new function by going airborne and infecting a ferret in a different cage.

Nov. 25, 2019: Fauci joins Ambassador Deborah Birx, the Global AIDS Coordinator at a World AIDS Day evening event hosted by the Business Council for International Understanding. On Feb. 27, 2020, Birx is appointed to join Fauci on Trump’s COVID-19 Task Force.

Earlier that day, Fauci has a “Pre-Brief for US Japan Biodefense Meeting.” In 2004, as I previously reported at Forbes, Fauci received a permanent pay adjustment for his “biodefense” work. Fauci is the top-paid federal employee, specifically because he was paid to prevent the next pandemic.

Nov. 25, 2019: Fauci has a call with his future biographer, Janet Tobias, who later produces the “FAUCI” documentary.

Dec. 3, 2019: Fauci has a call with Victor Dzau, who is the president of the National Academy of Medicine, a Duke University professor and a man whose Chinese family fled to Hong Kong to escape China’s civil war.

Dec. 19, 2019: Fauci attends an “NIH Gates Fdn dinner” at “The Cloisters,” likely the one in Lutherville, Maryland, an hour from NIH.

Earlier that morning, Bill Gates tweeted out what has become a much-discussed prediction, “What’s next for our foundation? I’m particularly excited about what the next year could mean for one of the best buys in global health: vaccines.”

Fauci and top officials, such as NIH director Francis Collins and Health and Human Services (HHS) assistant secretary for health Brett Giroir, joined Gates Foundation executives during the dinner and on panels the next day, according to a press report from the time.

 

Jan. 17, 2020: Fauci has a call to discuss “CDC Gao Writing Request.” This is presumably related to George Gao, Director-General of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

Jan. 23, 2020: Fauci had an 8 a.m., in-person meeting with Dr. James LeDuc. LeDuc ran one of the few BSL-4 (biosafety level-4) biocontainment labs in the country (think: moon-suit stuff), at the University of Texas Medical Branch, where he has long-trained Chinese scientists from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) lab in BSL-4 biosafety procedures.

Emails acquired by FOIA from the U.S. Right To Know (USRTK) organization revealed that LeDuc was sending backchannel emails with his Wuhan colleagues to get information on the novel coronavirus outbreak, and even soliciting edits and corrections from Wuhan’s so-called “bat lady” Shi Zhengli for his April 2020 Congressional testimony.

LeDuc’s emails show he was communicating with his virologist colleague Yuan Zhiming, who was in charge of the WIV BSL-4 lab. LeDuc wrote an op-ed published on January 24 about his U.S.-China working relationship.

It’s possible this drop-by visit by LeDuc was to let Fauci know what he was hearing from Wuhan, and perhaps, not put that news in email.

By 4:30 that afternoon, LeDuc and former Ft. Detrick BSL-4 biolab director Dave Franz joined HHS Robert Kadlec for a conference call, a call revealed in USRTK’s document production from the University of Texas (page 3,409).

Franz emailed a brief note that same day “to facilitate [the] call.” The email described his and LeDuc’s work since 2007 as establishing a relationship with Chinese scientists (pg 115).

In other words, LeDuc was in town to talk about China and the Wuhan lab with top HHS and former military biolab officials.

Thus, while the public discussion was and would remain that the virus had a natural origin, behind the scenes, people were being briefed on the U.S.-Chinese scientists’ interactions and the Wuhan lab itself.

Top-secret meetings

Unreported until now, throughout late January and February 2020, Fauci was in meetings with the NSC and in top-secret settings — including in the White House Situation Room. Fauci was also in small, “restricted” meetings with the NSC.

Were all these top-secret meetings known to the president, and do they give the impression people-in-the-know thought the virus had a natural origin?

Jan. 14 and 16, 2020: Fauci has a 9 a.m. “Novel Corona Virus PCC/Synch Meeting” with Phil Ferro, NSC and Executive Office of the President, on the 14th and a “Novel Corona Virus Touch Base” with Ferro on the 16th.

Jan. 20: China announced to the world that the virus has human-to-human transmission, an admission that they had a possible pandemic virus on their hands.

Jan. 21: Fauci’s NSC meeting gets a new name (“nCoV-PCC”) and the meeting now includes secure video teleconference.

Jan. 21: Fauci is interviewed by The Wall Street Journal reporter Betsy McKay on the listed topic “Coronavirus & HIV Papers.”

Is she asking Fauci about an upcoming scientific paper (published Jan. 31 by Indian scientists, but quickly withdrawn by the authors, amid intense criticism) that noted an “uncanny similarity” between the HIV virus and the spike protein in the COVID-19 virus?

Because bats don’t contract HIV, such a similarity would point to a lab creation for the novel virus.

An hour earlier, Fauci had a call with Peter Hotez about an “Anti-SARS vaccine candidate.” Hotez is an NIH-funded, Texas-based scientist and vaccine researcher, who had a $6 million NIH grant since 2012 studying a “SARS vaccine for biodefense.”

Hotez developed a non-mRNA vaccine model, that won recent approval for distribution in some foreign countries, such as India.

Jan. 22: The COVID-19 meetings with Fauci rise to a new level as Fauci’s calendar shows him in the White House Situation Room (“WHSR”), from ~1:30-3 this day for “nCoV PCC.”

Jan. 24: From ~1:30-2:30 p.m. Fauci has a “nCoV Small Group Discussion” at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building (EEOB), next to the White House, in “Anthony’s Office” Room 381. (nCoV stands for novel coronavirus and was the reference given to COVID-19 before it was officially named SARS-CoV-2.)

This is one of the few times no last name is listed on Fauci’s calendar. The meeting entry in our FOIA production is cut off but includes “***Please”; the entry also includes an attachment, which NIH currently has not released to OpenTheBooks.com.

“Anthony’s Office” Clue from Feb. 5: From 2:30-3:30 p.m. on Feb. 5, Fauci’s calendar shows an EEOB “Restricted Small Group” meeting with Anthony Ruggiero, who is listed as with the Executive Office of the President/NSC.

Anthony Ruggiero, according to his public LinkedIn page, was NSC “Special Assistant to the President, Senior Director for Counterproliferation and Biodefense” at the time of the meeting. Thus, it’s likely the Jan. 24 EEOB meeting in “Anthony’s Office” was with the same man as the Feb. 5 meeting: Anthony Ruggiero.

Jan. 27: From 2:30-3:30 p.m., Fauci has an “NSC Deputy Call” in the NIH SCIF. (SCIF stands for “Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility” and is usually a room reserved for sensitive or classified briefings.) Trump’s NSC deputy at the time was Matthew Pottinger. The subject of the call is not noted on the calendar.

(Also on Jan. 27, Fauci met with the CEO of Moderna, Stephane Bancel.)

Jan. 28: A Fauci/NSC COVID-19 meeting was previously disclosed Sharri Markson, who reported in her book “What Really Happened in Wuhan” that Pottinger called the Jan. 28 meeting with Fauci, HHS Secretary Azar and CDC Director Redfield just after Pottinger heard from Chinese dissident and human rights activist Wei Jingsheng about the virus breaking in China.

From Jan. 16 through Jan. 29, with few exceptions, Fauci’s weekday calendar shows a COVID-19 meeting, either in person or by phone via secure video teleconference with Phil Farro, who is with the Office of the President and the NSC.

Jan. 22: Fauci has an hour and a half blocked off for the COVID-19 meeting in the White House Situation Room.

Jan. 27: If he didn’t know before, emails released to the U.S. House Oversight and Reform Committee reveal that on this date, Fauci got definitive word from his staff that NIAID, his institute, funded a bat coronavirus grant to EcoHealth Alliance who collaborated with the WIV and Ralph Baric. If the virus was from the WIV, Fauci now knew he had funded the Chinese lab.

Jan. 31: Fauci is in the Oval Office, meeting, presumably, with the president.

Feb. 4: By this date, according to released emails, Fauci and the federally funded scientists he consults with, have decided that COVID-19 came from nature via a bat, through some intermediate species. Behind the scenes, they are drafting papers arguing that any position besides a natural origin is a conspiracy theory.

Yet, Fauci keeps meeting with Anthony Ruggiero, NSC’s biodefense and China expert (1/25 and 2/5). Are they thinking COVID-19 may have come from a lab leak?

Feb. 11: Fauci has a meeting with Ralph Baric, the University of North Carolina coronavirus scientist, arguably the nation’s foremost expert on bat coronaviruses. The meeting includes Emily Erbelding, the director of the NIAID Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases.

Baric had a long working relationship with the Wuhan lab, and, it would later be revealed, applied (unsuccessfully) for a $14 million DARPA grant with the WIV and EcoHealth Alliance to insert a furin cleavage site into a chimeric bat virus and passage it through “humanized” mice to see if it had pandemic potential.

Some virologists have called that leaked document a recipe for the COVID-19 virus.

The Fauci/Baric meeting backs up against the NSC meeting with Phil Ferro. It’s not clear where Baric is during the meeting, if in-person or by phone. Was Baric on the NSC call or listening in?

(Previously at Forbes, I wrote about how Fauci continued to fund scientists like Baric and Fouchier by giving exemptions and narrowly defining scrutinized research — circumventing funding bans by Presidents Obama and Trump.)

Feb. 17: “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2,” a paper that Fauci apparently helped edit and was organized by NIH-funded Peter Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance, stated that the COVID-19 virus was from nature and called any suggestion otherwise a conspiracy.

Largely based on this paper, scientific discussion and social media posts suggesting a lab leak were censored as misinformation.

Other items of interest

Between Nov. 25, 2019, and Feb. 26, 2020, Fauci does three events with the American Society of Microbiology (ASM): a “Biothreats” discussion (11/25/2019); the ASM biothreats conference (1/29/2020); and meets with the ASM board (2/26/2020).

Jan. 7 and 9, 2020: Fauci did his first interviews on corona: 1. With CTV (Canadian TV) on the “pneumonia outbreak in China”; and 2. With Voice of America (VOA) on the “Wuhan pneumonia.” We couldn’t find the interviews published anywhere on the internet.

While the NIH keeps a public record of interviews Fauci conducted since Jan. 27, 2020, we identified 34 other interviews with him discussing the coronavirus from Jan. 7 to Jan. 26.

Between Jan. 27 and Feb. 24, Fauci meets or has calls with Stephane Bancel, the CEO of Moderna (1/27); Jeremy Farrar of Wellcome Trust (British health non-profit focused on vaccines) (2/1); BioNTech executive and former NIH staffer Gary Nabel (2/6) and Johnson & Johnson chief scientist Paul Stoffels (2/24).

Feb. 7: Fauci receives training on personal protective equipment (PPE). Given his varying recommendations on PPE early in the pandemic, it would be interesting to know what training he received.

March 18: Fauci logged a meeting entitled “code red” with a follow-up meeting on March 20. No further details were listed.

March 26: Fauci did four YouTube hits of 15 minutes each. Fauci’s calendar titled these events: “FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] Califf Request” — likely referencing Robert Califf. At the time, Califf was leading healthcare strategy at Alphabet (Google and YouTube parent company).

Robert Califf is the current Commissioner of Food and Drugs of the FDA and the former commissioner under Obama.

Summary

The official work calendar is an historic hour-by-hour documentation of Fauci in the months leading up to and during the publicly announced COVID-19 pandemic.

Even with this topline calendar transparency, NIH admits to holding an additional 60,000 pages of backup documentation. The federal court is allowing us to ask for specific items.

Therefore, if there is a specific document of oversight interest, please send our auditors at OpenTheBooks.com a message via the “Contact Us” portion of our website.

The historic release of Fauci’s work calendar leaves all of us with more questions than answers.

It’s incumbent upon Congress to exert its right to oversight.

Note: We reached out for comment to Fauci, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and other top scientists mentioned on Fauci’s calendar. None gave us comments by our deadline.

Originally published on Adam Andrzejewski’s OpenTheBooks Substack page.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.

from:    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/anthony-fauci-calendar-before-pandemic/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=84cfc378-168f-4950-b1ba-671f4546a6b0

Bill Gates & The Seeds of Doom

Bill Gates’ ‘Magic Seeds’ Won’t Solve World Hunger But Will ‘Create Ecological Disaster’

Bill Gates is rebranding genetically engineered seeds as “magic seeds” and says they’re the answer to world hunger, but according to Vandana Shiva, Ph.D., a “failed, clumsy crude manipulation of living systems does not create ‘magical seeds.’ It creates an ecological disaster.”

Bill Gates said he believes the global community must invest in engineered crops using what he calls his “magic seeds” to solve world hunger.

Food aid alone cannot address the problem, Gates said in an essay accompanying the  Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s (BMGF) Goalkeepers 2022 Report, released earlier this month.

What is needed, he said, are “magic” seeds that have been genetically engineered to be resistant to hot and dry climates or to grow three weeks faster than natural seeds.

“Temperature keeps going up,” Gates said. “There is no way, without innovation, to come even close to feeding Africa. I mean, it just doesn’t work.”

However, André Leu, organic farming expert, former president of IFOAM Organics International and author of “Growing Life: Regenerating Farming and Ranching,” criticized Gates for calling his genetically modified seeds “magical.”

“This is patently false and an example of spin doctoring by public relations companies to rebrand products that are widely regarded as Frankenfoods,” Leu told The Defender.

According to Vandana Shiva, Ph.D., environmental activist, author and founder of Navdanya International, “[Natural] seeds as the source of life are magical. They hold their implicate order within them, and unfold to relocate the unique patterns and structures of life in its diversity.”

In contrast, Shiva said, “Genetically engineered seeds have been made to own life through patents.”

Shiva told The Defender:

“[Genetically engineered seeds] are a failed technology.

“Herbicide-resistant crops were supposed to control weeds. They have created superweeds. Bt toxin crops were supposed to control pests. They have created super pests, increased the need for pesticides, increased farmers’ debt and driven farmers to suicide in India.

“A failed, clumsy, crude manipulation of living systems does not create ‘magical seeds.’

“It creates an ecological disaster of monocultures of GMOs [genetically modified organisms] displacing the rich diversity of crops that we need for the health of people and the health of the planet.”

According to Gates, he’s concerned about the planet — at least how it may be impacted by climate change.

The BMGF on Sept. 6 released an “Agriculture Adaptation Atlas” that uses predictive modeling to estimate how climate change may affect growing conditions for crops in African countries.

The BMGF is also promoting the use of artificial intelligence (AI) that processes the genome sequences of crops along with this environmental data to conjure up a data-based vision of what farms should look like in the future.

“From this computer model, researchers can identify the optimal plant variety for a particular place,” Cambria Finegold, director of digital development for CABI, an intergovernmental organization that is developing models for the BMGF, earlier this month told The Associated Press (AP). “Or they can do the reverse: pinpoint the optimal place to grow a specific crop.”

Finegold added:

“It’s not just, ‘how do we get through this crisis and get back to normal?’ It’s, ‘what does the future normal look like?’”

But critics pointed out this reliance on AI and genetically modified seeds would exacerbate environmental issues because the modified seeds require heavy use of fossil-fuel fertilizers, which must be transported across great distances, and pesticides that threaten biodiversity.

According to Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa and AGRA Watch, a group that “works with partner organizations in Africa and the US to support sustainable, agroecological, socially responsible, and indigenous alternatives,” the BMGF’s industrial agricultural programs in Africa, including its Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), cause biodiversity loss, hurt small-scale farmers and cause environmental harm — all while failing to solve hunger.

Rachel Bezner Kerr, a professor of global development at Cornell University, told the AP there are existing alternatives — such as locally managed seed banks, composting systems that promote healthy soil and non-chemical pesticide interventions — that can build more resilient farming systems and reduce the need for food aid.

Kerr, a lead author of the food chapter of the latest report from the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said that although the panel doesn’t make recommendations, “overall, the kind of focus on a few technologies and reliance on fossil fuel-based inputs isn’t in line with ecosystem-based adaptation” or a biodiverse future.

However, BMGF CEO Mark Suzman contended fertilizer is necessary. “You simply cannot meet overall productivity gains without it,” he said on a call with reporters, according to the AP.

Gates also dismissed alternative ideas.

“If there’s some non-innovation solution, you know, like singing ‘Kumbaya,’ I’ll put money behind it,” Gates told the AP in an interview. “But if you don’t have those seeds, the numbers just don’t work.”

Gates said, “When researchers in Kenya compared plots of this new [genetically modified] maize, which they called ‘DroughtTEGO®,’ with the old one, they saw the DroughtTEGO farms were producing an average of 66% more grain per acre.”

Shiva said genetically engineered crops and seeds aren’t the answer.

“To end world hunger we must stop treating food as a commodity and seeds as corporate ‘intellectual property,’” she told The Defender.

“To solve world hunger every farm must become biodiverse and ecological. Biodiversity intensification produces more nutrition per acre, with no dependence on external inputs of seeds and toxic agrochemicals as our report ‘Health Per Acre’ shows.”

“We can feed the people while regenerating the biodiversity of the planet,” Shiva said.

Leu agreed. “The scaling up of regenerative organic agriculture based on the science of agroecology would easily solve the global food insecurity crisis. It is low-cost, proven, and effective, and scaling it up globally would be less than the cost of developing one GMO crop.”

Claiming GMOs have no place in solving world hunger, Leu said:

“Despite more than 40 years of hype that GMO seeds were going to dramatically increase yields, solve pest and disease problems, reduce pesticide use, drought-proof crops, allow them to be grown in saline soils, and numerous other extravagant claims, this has not been achieved.

“The research by independent scientists — not by the scientists employed by the biotech companies who have an obvious conflict of interest — clearly shows that there have been no yield increases over conventional breeding.

“The only two things GMO crops have succeeded in doing are dramatically increasing the use of toxic pesticides such as glyphosate (Roundup) in our food, bodies, and environment and the profits of the large agribusiness pesticide companies.”

Leu emphasized the effectiveness of teaching organic farming methods to small-scale farmers to address hunger.

“The majority of food-insecure people are smallholder family farmers and others who depend on them in rural communities,” he said.

“We have proven many times that teaching good organic farming practices can increase their yields by over 100% so they can feed their families and local communities. They also get an income to pay for healthcare, education and many other things that are important for a good quality of life.”

Who really suffers and who profits from ‘philanthrocapitalism based on biopiracy’?

The BMGF and the Gates-led AGRA say they aim to transform agriculture in Africa by increasing incomes and food security for millions of smallholder farmers.

On July 13, Gates pledged to donate $20 billion to the BMGF so it can increase its annual spending to “mitigate some of the suffering people are facing right now.” The donation brought the foundation’s endowment up to $70 billion, CNBC reported in July.

The BMGF has spent $1.5 billion on grants focused on agriculture in Africa, according to Candid, a nonprofit that researches philanthropic giving.

But an independent evaluation of AGRA’s efforts, released in late February by the consulting firm Mathematica, found “mixed” outcomes on inclusive financial, output markets and farmer outcomes, The Defender reported.

According to Joeva Rock, Ph.D., assistant professor of development studies at the University of Cambridge who wrote a not-yet-released book about food sovereignty in Ghana, activists in Africa questioned whether the funds could have been better spent elsewhere.

In Ghana, field trials for four varieties of genetically modified seeds began in 2013, Rock told the AP.

“What would happen if those went into increasing funds to the national research centers in Ghana, to building roads, to building storage, to building silos or helping to build markets?” Rock said.

Food insecurity is not caused by low yields, Leu told The Defender. “It is caused by unfair and inefficient food distribution systems.”

Leu said:

“Industrial farming systems are not designed to feed the poor. The COVID-19  pandemic lockdowns and war in Ukraine are examples of why it is the wrong model.

“Growing food thousands of miles away from where it is needed instead of growing it locally is the problem. People are dependent on supply chains that can easily be disrupted.

“Also, food-insecure people are the poorest on the planet. Even if the food gets to their country, they can’t afford to buy it.

“On the other hand, we now have an obesity epidemic in the more affluent countries and regions due to an oversupply of calories empty of nutrition from industrial agriculture.”

In 2006, the BMGF joined with the Rockefeller Foundation to spur a “green revolution” in Africa by creating AGRA.

“Over the long term, the partnership, called Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), intends to improve agricultural development in Africa by addressing both farming and relevant economic issues, including soil fertility and irrigation, farmer management practices, and farmer access to markets and financing,” the groups said.

At its inception, AGRA declared Africa deficient in what it referred to as “improved inputs,” such as fertilizer and “advanced” seeds, and has worked to implement policies that would make African farmers use manufactured fertilizers, pesticides and engineered seeds — which are all patented products that generate profits for their owners.

AGRA Watch — founded to respond to and challenge AGRA’s policies — calls BMGF’s efforts “philanthrocapitalism based on biopiracy.”

Although the BMGF and AGRA claim to be “pro-poor” and “pro-environment,” their alignment with transnational corporations such as Monsanto, and foreign policy groups such as the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), makes their motives suspect, according to AGRA Watch:

“[BMGF] takes advantage of food and global climate crises to promote high-tech, market-based, industrial agriculture and generate profits for corporations even while degrading the environment and disempowering farmers.”

A three-part video series “Rich Appetites: How Big Philanthropy Is Shaping the Future of Food in Africa” explains why exporting the U.S. agribusiness model to Africa is a “grave mistake” and exposes how “Big Philanthropy” — namely the BMGF — is destroying farming and food in Africa by seizing control from local interests.

As of Sept. 20, Forbes estimated Gates’ net worth to be around $104.4 billion.

from:    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/bill-gates-genetically-engineered-seeds-world-hunger-ecological-disaster/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=8ad4e1dd-353b-431d-9c30-7212afb73ef1

Bill’s Ills

Bill Gates: The Figurehead of Modern Technocracy

Bill GatesImage courtesy of Wikipedia
Bill Gates is a ruthless monopolist with visions of global dominance. His tentacles manipulate education, geo-engineering, climate, agriculture, population surveillance, genetics, medicine and governments. He is singularly the most important driver of the pandemic and mandated vaccine policies. ⁃ TN Editor
(NOTE:  This is relatively long, but you can get a sense of the article by checking out the summary below.  The video is quite informative.)

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

> After years of building a reputation as a “ruthless tech monopolizer,” Bill Gates 2.0 was launched with the creation of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. With this foundation, he reinvented and rebranded himself as one of the world’s most generous philanthropists

> However, Gates’ brand of philanthropy creates several new problems for each one it solves and can best be described as “philanthrocapitalism”

> Today, Gates monopolizes or wields disproportional influence over the tech industry, global health and vaccines, agriculture and food policy (including biopiracy and fake food), weather modification and other climate technologies, surveillance, education and media

> According to Gates, vaccines are phenomenal profit makers, with more than a 20-to-1 return

> Gates is now promoting the technocratic “reset” plan, which includes an aggressive climate change agenda, yet Gates’ extensive travel by private jet makes him a top polluter

“Bill Gates — What You Were Not Told,” a segment of the Plandemic documentary,1 reviews the personal and professional background of the Microsoft mogul, Bill Gates. Contrary to popular myth, many see Gates as more of an opportunist than a genius inventor, and the video touches on several of the less honorable moments of his career.

After years of building a reputation as a “ruthless tech monopolizer,” Bill Gates 2.0 was launched with the creation of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. With this foundation, he reinvented and rebranded himself as one of the world’s most generous philanthropists.

Gates’ Charity Is Not What It Seems

Alas, as noted by AGRA Watch,2 Shiva Vandana, Ph.D., and others, Gates’ brand of philanthropy creates several new problems for each one it solves and can best be described as “philanthrocapitalism.” As noted in the AGRA Watch article, “Philanthrocapitalism: The Gates Foundation’s African Programs Are Not Charity,” published in December 2017, advocates of philanthrocapitalism:3

“… often expect financial returns or secondary benefits over the long term from their investments in social programs. Philanthropy becomes another part of the engine of profit and corporate control. The Gates Foundation’s strategy for ‘development’ actually promotes neoliberal economic policies and corporate globalization.”

Indeed, over the years, Gates has ended up in a position where he monopolizes or wields disproportional influence over not only the tech industry, but also global health and vaccines, agriculture and food policy (including biopiracy and fake food), weather modification and other climate technologies,4 surveillance, education and media.

Not surprisingly, he’s tied to online fact checker organizations that strangle free speech, and recently told “60 Minutes” that to combat mistrust in science, we need to find ways to “slow down the crazy stuff.”5 What’s “crazy” and what’s not, however, is rarely as clear-cut as the mainstream media would like you to believe.

And, like a true philanthrocapitalist, Gates’ generosity ends up benefiting himself most of all. In reality, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation donates billions to the very same companies and industries that the foundation owns stocks and bonds in. As Gates himself reveals in the featured video, he figured out that vaccines are phenomenal profit makers, saying they’re the best investment he’s ever made, with more than a 20-to-1 return.

The one thing that allows for this is the liability shield vaccine makers have been given by the U.S. government through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP).6,7 Under this law no vaccine maker can be sued directly by a consumer; if vaccine injury is suspected, the victim(s) must sue under the NVICP, which is run by special “masters” who determine the cases.

Gates, Global Climate Czar

As mentioned in the featured video, Gates is financing an effort to divert solar rays from the Earth’s surface in an attempt to combat global warming — an irrational approach at best, considering the potential this has to devastate global agriculture.

His latest book also details his climate change recommendations, which just so happen to include urging governments to support the very companies he’s invested in and similar sleight-of-hand gestures.

Meanwhile, as noted by The Nation, Gates himself is a serious polluter, with a 66,000 square-foot mansion, a private jet, 242,000 acres of farmland (which makes him the largest farmland owner in the U.S.) and investments in fossil fuel-dependent industries such as airlines, heavy machinery and cars.

“According to a 2019 academic study8 looking at extreme carbon emissions from the jet-setting elite, Bill Gates’s extensive travel by private jet likely makes him one of the world’s top carbon contributors — a veritable super emitter,” The Nation writes.9

“In the list of 10 celebrities investigated — including Jennifer Lopez, Paris Hilton, and Oprah Winfrey — Gates was the source of the most emissions. ‘Affluent individuals can emit several ten thousand times the amount of greenhouse gases attributed to the global poor,’ the paper noted. ‘This raises the question as to whether celebrity climate advocacy is even desirable …’”

Gates Leads the Technocratic Takeover

Gates’ focus on climate change makes perfect sense once you realize that he’s part of the technocratic elite that, for decades, have been working to gobble up the world’s resources in anticipation for the Great Reset,10 previously known as the One World Order.

Over the past year, the need for the Great Reset has been announced by government leaders around the world, the clarion call being that we need to “reset” the global economy and the way we live, work, travel and socialize in order to make the world more fair and sustainable. Addressing climate change under the banner of a global emergency is part and parcel of that PR campaign.

If you’ve paid attention, you’ve probably seen the hints. During the initial lockdowns in the early part of 2020, there were a slew of articles talking about how nature and wildlife were thriving in the absence of human socialization and travel. At other times, the COVID-19 pandemic has been presented as a warning to us all as to what happens when you get out of sync with nature.

No Real Food for You

Gates clearly feels pressure to do his part to realize the technocratic dream. He told “60 Minutes”11 he is eager to see his various visions come to fruition within his lifetime, and he guesses he might have 20 or 30 years left. As reported by ZeroHedge:12

“Gates is pushing drastic and ‘fundamental’ changes to the economy in order to immediately halt the release of greenhouse gasses — primarily carbon dioxide— and ‘go to zero’ in order to save the planet from long-prognosticated (and consistently wrong) environmental disaster. Changes we’ll need to make in order to realize Gates’ vision include:

  • Allocating $35 billion per year on climate and clean energy research.
  • Electric everything.
  • Widespread consumption of fake meat, since cows account for ‘4% of all greenhouse gases.’
  • Retooling the steel and cement industries, which Gates says account for 16% of all carbon dioxide emissions, to inject up to 30% of captured C02 into concrete, and create a different type of steel.
  • Widespread adoption of next generation nuclear energy to supplement wind and solar.

And since producing plants to make fake meat emits gases as well, Gates has backed a company which uses fungus to make sausage and yogurt, which the billionaire calls ‘pretty amazing’ … ‘The microbe was discovered in the ground in a geyser in Yellowstone National Park. Without soil or fertilizer it can be grown to produce this nutritional protein — that can then be turned into a variety of foods with a small carbon footprint.’”

Indeed, Gates would like wealthy Western nations to switch entirely to synthetic lab-grown beef, and he rails against legislative attempts to make sure fake meats are properly labeled as such, since that slows down public acceptance.13

Gates Again Proves Feudalism Is a Failed System

With his land ownership, Gates clearly is in a monopoly position (yet again!) to drive agriculture and food production in whatever direction he desires, and he wants us all to eat as much fake food as possible. As noted in a long and detailed article on Gates’ philanthrocapitalist endeavors by The Defender:14

“Thomas Jefferson believed that the success of America’s exemplary struggle to supplant the yoke of European feudalism with a noble experiment in self-governance depended on the perpetual control of the nation’s land base by tens of thousands of independent farmers, each with a stake in our democracy.

So at best, Gates’ campaign to scarf up America’s agricultural real estate is a signal that feudalism may again be in vogue. At worst, his buying spree is a harbinger of something far more alarming — the control of global food supplies by a power-hungry megalomaniac with a Napoleon complex.”

The article goes on to detail Gates’ “long-term strategy of mastery over agriculture and food production globally,” starting with his support of GMOs in 1994. Ever since then, Gates’ “philanthropic” approaches to hunger and food production have been built around his technology, chemical, pharmaceutical and oil industry partners, thereby ensuring that for every failed rescue venture, he gets richer nonetheless.

“As with Gates’ African vaccine enterprise, there was neither internal evaluation nor public accountability,” The Defender writes.15 “The 2020 study ‘False Promises: The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA)’ is the report card on the Gates’ cartel’s 14-year effort.

The investigation concludes that the number of Africans suffering extreme hunger has increased by 30 percent in the 18 countries that Gates targeted. Rural poverty has metastasized dramatically …

Under Gates’ plantation system, Africa’s rural populations have become slaves on their own land to a tyrannical serfdom of high-tech inputs, mechanization, rigid schedules, burdensome conditionalities, credits and subsidies … The only entities benefiting from Gates’ program are his international corporate partners …

His investment history suggests that the climate crisis, for Gates and his cronies, is no more than an alibi for intrusive social control, ‘Great Reset’-scale surveillance, and massive science fiction geoengineering boondoggles, including his demented and terrifying vanity projects to spray the stratosphere with calcium chloride or seawater to slow warming, to deploy giant balloons to saturate our atmosphere with reflective particles to blot out the sun, or his perilous gambit of releasing millions of genetically modified mosquitoes in South Florida.

When we place these nightmare schemes in context alongside the battery of experimental vaccines he forces on 161 million African children annually, it’s pretty clear that Gates regards us all as his lab rats.”

Gates Foundation Seeded Catastrophic COVID-19 Policies

Gates, of course, has also played a leading role in the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic. According to investigative journalist Jordan Schachtel, who has a channel on Substack,16 Gates had a hand in the “criminally negligent coronavirus response policies” that killed an inordinate number of senior citizens in nursing homes in New York, California, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Schachtel points out that a common thread in these instances is that they listened to the frightfully inaccurate modeling forecasts from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), which is funded and controlled by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. He writes:17

“In March and early April, politicians were informed by the modeling ‘experts’ at Gates-funded IHME that their hospitals were about to be completely overrun by coronavirus patients.

Modelers from IHME claimed this massive surge would cause hospitals to run out of lifesaving equipment in a matter of days, not weeks or months. Time was of the essence, and now was the time for rapid decision making, the modelers claimed.

On two separate April 1 and April 2 press conferences, Cuomo made clear that his policy decisions were based off of the IHME model … In an April 9 briefing, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer referred to the IHME model in order to project deaths and the PPE resources needed for the supposed surge. It was the same story with the government of Pennsylvania.”

White House Coronavirus Task Force members Drs. Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx, both of whom have substantial ties to Gates, also relied on the IHME forecast models. As noted by Schachtel:

“These models, and the policy decisions that were made by relying on them, set off a chain of events that led to indefinite lockdowns, complete business closures, statewide curfews, and most infamously, the nursing home death warrants.”

Delete That Which No Longer Serves

The Gates Foundation also co-sponsored Event 201, a scripted tabletop exercise held mere months before the COVID-19 outbreak that ended up being remarkably prophetic.

Strangely enough, in an April 2020 BBC interview, Gates denied the simulation had occurred, saying that “We didn’t simulate this, we didn’t practice, so both the health policies and economic policies, we find ourselves in uncharted territory.”18 In an article for National Herald India, Norbert Häring highlights Gates’ apparent forgetfulness, stating:19

It is true that if a little less emphasis had been placed on opinion manipulation, more attention could have been paid to health and economic policy. One of the four meetings was entirely devoted to this. But health and economic policies did get discussed. Gates can hardly have forgotten that.

The video on control of public opinion is the most interesting one, as it helps to put in perspective the efforts in this regard, which we are currently experiencing. One participant tells us that Bill Gates is financing work on algorithms which comb through the information on social media platforms to make sure that people can trust the information that they find there.”

Gates has also erased other evidence where the truth is coming back to haunt him. Case in point: Gates-funded fact checkers have vehemently denied claims that Gates ever said we’ll need digital vaccine passports, passing it off as yet another crazy conspiracy theory.

But Gates did say that in a June 2020 TED Talk. Someone just edited that specific statement out of his speech after the quote started making the rounds on social media. In a December 11, 2020, article, The Defender presented the proof.20

Fact checkers also dismiss claims that subdermal microchips or digital tattoos will eventually be used to track and trace us, yet as noted by The Defender, Gates did commission MIT to develop an injectable quantum dot dye system to “tattoo” medical data on your body, and has patented technology that uses implanted biosensors that monitor body and brain activity and is tied to a crypto currency system.

He’s also invested tens of millions into microchip devices with remote-controlled drug-delivery systems and military contractors that track and trace pandemic infections and vaccine compliance. He also has a greater than $1 billion investment in 5G video surveillance satellites and 5G antennas. When you put all of these things together, Gates’ plans start to take on a rather ominous feel.

Gates Is the Most Visible Figurehead of Modern Technocracy

Whether preplanned or not, the COVID-19 pandemic is clearly being used to usher in highly controversial changes that are unmistakably totalitarian-building, including the private take-over of government through public-private partnerships.

Surveillance has become the biggest for-profit industry on the planet, and your entire existence is now being targeted for profit. Among those who stand to profit the most is Gates himself. Time is running out. To have any chance of stopping it, we must understand our trajectory, and unite to change the course Gates and others like him have set for us.

from:    https://www.technocracy.news/bill-gates-the-figurehead-of-modern-technocracy/

“Equitable Math” Does Not Add Up

Michael Burry Slams “Out Of Touch, Rich White Man” Bill Gates

by Tyler Durden
Tuesday, Mar 02, 2021 – 4:11

Less than two weeks ago, we reported on the fact that The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is bankrolling an activist educational group that believes math is racist and that arriving at an objective answer is an example of “white supremacy.”

Yes, really.

Specifically, as Summit News noted at the time, a conglomerate of 25 educational organizations called A Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction asserts that asking students to find the correct answer is an “inherently racist practice.”

The organization’s website lists the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation as its only donor.

“In fact, over the past decade, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has awarded over of $140 million to a variety of groups associated with Pathway. Their “antiracist resources” are at the epicenter of a new training course for teachers offered by the Oregon Department of Education throughout the state,” reports National File.

“Three of the most prominent organizations receiving grant money from the Gates’ are The Education Trust, Teach Plus, and WestEd, all non-profit 501c organizations.”

A guidebook for teachers produced by Pathway called ‘Dismantling Racism in Mathematics Instruction’ ludicrously claims that mathematics “is used to uphold capitalist, imperialist, and racist views.”

Teachers are instructed to blame non-white students getting answers wrong on “white supremacist practices,” which are truly to blame for the “underachievement” of minorities.

This liberal, progressive insanity appears to have triggered Michael “Big Short” Burry who unleashed his usual acerbic, and entirely accurate, wit on Gates and the entire concept of math being racist…

“Math is a form of #whitesupremacy? Where I’m from, whites are the dummies in math. South and East Asians apparently didn’t get the message whites use math to #suppress them. Would be a #LOL moment at the local high school, at whites’ expense. “

Burry went on:

“Apparently an old rich white man is behind this. I’m really starting to think old white people are out of touch. Wait, I already knew that…”

The outspoken market savant concluded:

I am of a generation that I know junior people who worked with Gates. Brilliant, exacting, and intimidating. Could and would pick apart and embarrass anyone in the room who was not prepared. Open conflict was his weapon. The right answer was never wrong.

Ending with the all too telling hashtag: #formenotforthee

from:   https://www.zerohedge.com/political/michael-burry-slams-out-touch-rich-white-man-bill-gates?utm_campaign=&utm_content=Zerohedge%3A+The+Durden+Dispatch&utm_medium=email&utm_source=zh_newsletter

REturn on Investment

Why did Bill Gates Switch from Software to Vaccines?

The answer is given in the first 60 seconds of this documentary when Gates says the investment return on vaccines is 20 to 1. But the story does not end there. Beyond incredible profits there is the lure of power over the entire human race, even to using vaccines delivered by mosquitoes to reduce population. This is the madman who is shaping the future of humanity.
2020-12 – Source: Truth Comes to Light 

 

from:   https://redpilluniversity.org/2020/12/31/why-did-bill-gates-switch-from-software-to-vaccines/

Questioning Klaus

By Chris MacIntosh at Capitalist Exploits

Thought for the day: Totalitarians never view themselves as totalitarian. Utopians believe fervently that what they are forcing upon others is for their own good.

If you’ve not heard of the World Economic Forum, I’d urge you to pay extremely close attention because they’ve been driving much of the mayhem you’ve experienced this year.

Klaus Schwab, who is the founder of the World Economic Forum, and Thierry Malleret featured an article accompanying the launch of a co-authored book entitled “COVID-19: The Great Reset”.

This article is a rebuttal to Klaus and all technocrats like him.


 

Already, in barely six months, the COVID-19 pandemic has plunged our world in its entirety — and each of us individually — into the most challenging times we’ve faced in generations.

Incorrect. The virus is simply a virus, similar to other viruses that humans have overcome throughout our history as a species. Indeed, here are the CDC’s numbers themselves so that we may put things into context.

Survival rates by age group:

  • 0-19: 99.997%
  • 20-49: 99.98%
  • 50-69: 99.5%
  • 70+: 94.6%

It was Klaus, our governments and institutions that have plunged the world into “the most challenging times we’ve faced”, through their idiotic draconian tyrannical policies that have been forced upon the world with zero room for debate. Highly credentialed professionals (see the Great Barrington declaration) across the world are simply censored when pointing out the madness.

It is a defining moment — we will be dealing with its fallout for years, and many things will change forever. It has wrought (and will continue to do so) economic disruption of monumental proportions, creating risk and volatility on multiple fronts — political, social, geopolitical — while exacerbating deep concerns about the environment and also extending the reach of technology into our lives.

On this we agree. We will indeed be dealing with the fallout for years. And yes, the economic disruption is of monumental proportions. Take, for instance, suicides, Klaus, which in Japan are now 8.5X the number of deaths from covid. At this point those officials still locking down, since we know the virus is nothing more than a bad flu should be summarily fired and brought to justice for crimes against humanity.

At this point it would be worth listening to Dr Roger Hodkinson, the ex-president of the pathology section of the Medical Association and formerly certified by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada as a general pathologist in 1976 and a Royal College Fellow. Here is Dr Roger Hodkinson addressing the Edmonton City Council Community and Public Services Committee meeting on Nov. 13 about the city’s move to extend its face-covering bylaw.

Moving right along to your statement Klaus of “concerns about the environment”. Is it not time you simply dropped the mask and revealed that yes, this is what it was all about from the get go. Agenda 2030, after all, was conceived before the manufactured pandemic. One would have thought that after Al Gore’s ridiculous and demonstrably false “Inconvenient Truth”, the junk science behind “anthropogenic global warming” would have deservedly been ridiculed and discarded on the trash heap of history. But instead it’s been re-birthed as a mask to implementing Communism 3.0. under the guise of “the Great Reset”. We see through you.

No industry or business will avoid the impact of these changes. Millions of companies risk falling behind, and many industries face an uncertain future; a few will thrive.

Those that have thrived are unsurprisingly the very same clutch of folks that are your buddies from Davos. Enormous corporations that benefit from the tyrannical lockdowns. It comes as no surprise that Bezos’ Amazon, Zuckerberg’s Facebook and Dorsey’s Twitter have all sucked up more power, influence, and market share while SMEs have been squashed by — again — policy and not the virus. Amazingly you’ve the gall to talk about equality while ensuring all of this takes place. And then there’s your buddy, Bill.

On an individual basis, for many, life as they’ve always known it is unraveling at alarming speed. This said, acute crises favor introspection and foster the potential for transformation.

The only thing we can transform, without unintended consequences, is ourselves. Nature does the rest. This is because the world is complex, far more complex than anyone — certainly you — can imagine. And in believing “we” (which we know means you and your fellow accomplices complicit in this crime) can transform it implies a belief you’ve a handle on the infinite amount of data points each second that occur in the world and furthermore how each of those data points may react to any change in any other data points. In short, you’ve the same misguided belief that centralised planning works. It doesn’t.

This “opportunity” is manufactured to amass enormous attention and force feed your Marxist neo-feudal agenda of reshaping the world in a centralised approach. It is worth noting at this point that EVERY single time mankind has embarked on “reshaping the world” to meet the objectives of a small group of intolerant people it has ended in genocide. Every. Single. Time.

Systematic Connectivity

A new world could emerge, the contours of which it is incumbent on us to reimagine and redraw.

There you go again with this notion that you and your out of touch friends know what is required for the rest of us.

The sudden and violent nature of the shock the pandemic is inflicting can make the scale of this challenge seem overwhelming.

Yes, you’re quite correct on the violent shock to society. As my friend Doug Casey remarked, “Masks, social distancing, lockdowns, and non-gathering are doing immense damage to society at every level—health-wise, socially, and financially. This nonsense is rupturing the social fabric everywhere. That’s extremely dangerous.”

This impression is due in no small measure to the fact that in today’s interdependent and hyper-connected world risks amplify each other: Individual risks or issues harbor the potential to create ricochet effects by provoking others (like unemployment potentially fuelling social unrest and impoverishment triggering involuntary mass migration).

“Unemployment potentially fuelling social unrest…” Really? “Involuntary mass migration” is all due to policy, especially that of the EU, whether it be to create social justice or creating conflict. So far, all the trouble you refer to has been created by policy makers and influencers, not the average Joe. And here you are telling us to put our faith in — deep breath — policy makers.

The defining feature of today’s world is systemic connectivity: In such a world, silo-doing and silo-thinking have no place because risks converge. All the macro issues that exert direct and daily impacts on our societies, the global economy, geopolitics, the environment and technology do not evolve in a linear fashion.

If by “systematic connectivity” you mean the organised effort by the WEF, the world’s central banks, and the world’s governments to abandon sovereignty and cater to protecting international interests of a small elite, then sure. Surely, if you’re against “silo thinking,” censoring dissenting voices via the mainstream media and social media would be something you’d be dead against. In the immortal words of Homer Simpson, “Lord help me, I’m just not that bright.”

They play out as complex adaptive systems, and as such, share a fundamental attribute: susceptibility to matters cascading out of control and in so doing producing extreme consequences that often come as a surprise. COVID-19 has already given us a foretaste of this phenomenon.

Translation: Globalists have implemented policies they do not understand, cannot pay for, and cannot control. A fake pandemic is now being used as the catalyst to wipe the slate clean and steal all the assets and subjugate the world to full technocratic control.

Examining Fault Lines

To a considerable extent, occurrences as different as the sharp and dramatic rise in unemployment (an economic risk), the global wave of social unrest unleashed by the Black Lives Matter protests (a societal issue) and the growing fracture between China and the U.S. (a geopolitical risk) wouldn’t have taken place without the pandemic. At the very least, coronavirus exacerbated those trends.

Those more cynical among us might call that a coincidence. Rise in unemployment is because the government made it illegal to work, which our captured media justified by terrifying people. Global wave of social unrest was fueled by Marxist fanatics (see here). And fracture between US and China is a natural result of their economic relationship and the struggle for world supremacy.

The concurrence and severity of these fault lines mean that we are now at a critical juncture: The potential for change is unlimited and bound only by our imagination — for better or for worse.

Whose imagination, Klaus? Normal people don’t feel as though they have the right to dictate how the world should be run.

Societies could be poised to become either more equitable or the opposite; geared toward more solidarity or greater individualism; favoring the interests of the few or looking to the needs of the many; economies, when they recover, could be characterized by greater inclusivity and more attuned to our global connection, or they could simply return to business as usual — now revealed to be (in so many ways) an untenable status quo.

As I mentioned in a special report (What Happens Next) on the growing cancer in society, it is individualism which is the hallmark of a free society.

This is the fundamental question upon which the success of the Great Reset depends. The scope of change required is immense, ranging from elaborating a new social contract to forging improved international collaboration. Immense but far from insurmountable, as the case for smart investment in the environment shows.

Getting It Right

Build Back Better has been adopted by leaders all around the world.

One way to invest smartly is to embed climate and environmental resilience into stimulus packages and recovery programs.

The immediate post-crisis period offers a small window to build back better by not wasting the $10 trillion that governments around the world are investing to alleviate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

It is evident that”Build back Better” is more about destroying Western democracy and individual human rights than it is about building anything other than a complete hell on earth.

A recent policy paper to which the World Economic Forum contributed estimates that building a nature-positive economy could represent more than $10 trillion per year by 2030 — in terms of new economic opportunities, as well as avoided economic costs.

In the short term, deploying around $250 billion of stimulus funding could generate up to 37 million nature-positive jobs in a highly cost-effective manner. We should not view resetting the environment as a cost but rather an investment that will generate economic activity and employment opportunities.

The ultimate price that will be paid here will be measured in human lives lost and contrary to what your “think tanks” say a degradation of the world environment. I will invite you to read my banned article on Greenwashing where I lay bare the absurdities that your think tanks purposefully ignore.

We must get the Great Reset right. The challenges before us could be more consequential than ever imagined, but our capacity to reset could also be greater than we had previously hoped.

I think, Klaus, at this point I’m going to simply leave you with the great words of Thomas Sowell,

“It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.”

And now I’ll leave you with some quotes upon which to reflect.

“The theory of Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.” 
– Karl Marx

“You’ll own nothing, and you’ll be happy”
– World Economic Forum

And let’s not forget…

“The last capitalist we hang shall be the one who sold us the rope.”
– Karl Marx 

-Chris

from:    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2020-12-05/rebuttal-klaus-schwabs-article-covid-19-crisis

A Few Words from Elon Misk

‘Everybody dies’: Musk says neither he nor his family will take Covid-19 vaccine, blasts Bill Gates as ‘knucklehead’

29 Sep, 2020
‘Everybody dies’: Musk says neither he nor his family will take Covid-19 vaccine, blasts Bill Gates as ‘knucklehead’
SpaceX and Tesla founder Elon Musk has said that neither he nor his family will likely take future coronavirus vaccines even when they are readily available, saying the pandemic has “diminished [his] faith in humanity.”

Speaking during a podcast interview with Kara Swisher, 49-year-old Musk stated that neither he nor his children are at risk for Covid-19 and therefore would be unlikely to need the vaccine.

“This is a no-win situation. It has diminished my faith in humanity, this whole thing… The irrationality of people in general,” Musk said.

He also decried lockdowns across the globe and in the US in particular, having previously referred to them as “unethical” and “de facto house arrest.”

Musk said widespread lockdowns were a mistake and only at-risk people should quarantine “until the storm passes.”

When pressed about the risk to his own employees and their families, with Swisher asking what if someone dies, Musk pithily responded: “Everybody dies.”

“We’ve been making cars this entire time and it’s been great,” he said of Tesla keeping its factory doors open in defiance of lockdown rules, which at one point prompted an irate response from Musk and even a lawsuit against Alameda County. He added that SpaceX has been fully operational throughout the pandemic thanks to its national security clearance.

“Through this entire thing, we didn’t skip a day. We had national security clearance because we were doing national security work. We sent astronauts to the space station and back.”

Musk also took aim at Bill Gates, highlighting that his fellow billionaire’s criticisms of lockdown skeptics are unfounded and misplaced in Musk’s case.

“Gates said something about me not knowing what I was doing. It’s like, hey, knucklehead, we actually make the vaccine machines for CureVac, that company you’re invested in,” Musk explained, referring to the fact that Tesla manufacturers machines for CureVac. The entrepreneur also noted that he works closely with the Harvard epidemiology team which is currently working on Covid-19 antibody studies.

from:    https://www.rt.com/news/502013-elon-musk-wont-get-coronavirus-vaccine/

Dr. Atlas — Now the Weight of the World Is Truly Upon You

Memo to Dr. Scott Atlas, new White House coronavirus advisor

He’s already made two forward-looking points: positive PCR tests in asymptomatic people mean nothing; and the only way to establish mass immunity is through mass exposure out in the open, not lockdowns.

by Jon Rappoport.     September 8, 2020

Scott,

Where to begin? No new virus was ever shown to exist via proper proof. Worthless diagnostic test. Sixteen ways case and death numbers are being faked. If there were a virus, the only way to stop it would be through open massive public exposure and the gaining of natural immunity. Therefore, no lockdowns, no masks, no distancing, no vast economic destruction under the watch of a president whose whole program was based on expanding the economy. Is that enough for starters?

I’d really like to know what went on the room, back in March, when Fauci walked in with Neil Ferguson’s preposterous computer predictions of COVID deaths in the US and spoke with Trump.

Did no one bring up the fact that Ferguson’s whole career has been a string of failed predictions? Was there zero due diligence? Did some economic advisor open his mouth and tell the president what a long-term lockdown would do to the economy? Fifty million people unemployed? Well over a million businesses destroyed?

I hope you understand that Moderna is Fauci’s favorite vaccine company, and his agency, NIAID, stands to rake in cash if Moderna’s shot turns out to be the choice for COVID—when, in fact, no vaccine is necessary.

I hope you know Moderna is a little punk firm that has never brought a product of any kind to market, and yet garnered $500 million in fed funds to research a vaccine.

On top of that, Moderna is deploying RNA technology, which has never been approved for any pharmaceutical product, and has caused, in trials, serious adverse effects.

Are you aware the NY Times recently reported on a large study showing up to 90 percent of all US COVID cases have been false positives, owing to the extreme sensitivity of the PCR test? Not enough virus present in humans to harm a flea. No likelihood of contagion, either.

Have you read the results of a New York study revealing patients over the age of 65 who are put on ventilators die at the staggering rate of 97.2 percent? Yet, Cuomo and Trump keep pushing ventilators.

COVID is old people. Period. No virus necessary. They’re all suffering from long-term, multiple, serious health conditions. They’ve all been treated, for years, with toxic medical drugs. They’re terrified at the possibility of a COVID diagnosis. Then they are diagnosed with COVID. Then they’re isolated and cut off from family and friends. And they die. NO VIRUS NECESSARY.

And THAT makes the recent CDC revelation about death numbers more relevant than most people can fathom. The CDC states that only 6 percent of all US COVID deaths have been unambiguously caused by a virus alone. The other 94 percent are overwhelmingly the old people I just described. Get it?

And now comes a new group of lunatics—computer modelers from the University of Washington, who are predicting the US death toll from COVID will rise above 600,000 this winter. Pressed into their amateur thickly sliced baloney—they ignore the CDC “correction” of death numbers I just mentioned.

Do not let the White House buy this latest death-number projection. Tell Trump one unimaginable screw-up (accepting Ferguson’s criminal projection) is quite enough.

Gather up your forces, Scott. Talk to Dr. John Ioannidis and his merry band of colleagues who tried to get through to Trump and failed, just before you were appointed coronavirus advisor.

Bring the house. You know Fauci and Gates and their sub-honchos are angling for another serious lockdown this winter, when they’re going to make every possible case of flu-like illness over into COVID.

You accepted the White House invite. You bought the ticket, now take the ride. The full ride. Don’t stint.

In case you haven’t figured it out yet, this is an operation to wreck economies worldwide. The preposterous virus narrative is the cover story, concealing the objective of the actual war.

Don’t let the DC attack dogs back you into a corner and shut you up.

You have nothing to lose but your reputation in the eyes of people who don’t matter. They’ve already taken you off their dance card.

The country could lose itself.

In this situation, there is no defense. There is only offense.

If they kick you to the curb, you can come and work with us. You don’t get paid, but the one perk is enormous. You get to define the terms of the battle. And oh yes, you don’t have to speak with numbskulls, hustlers, shysters, and sociopaths.

from:    https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/09/08/memo-to-dr-scott-atlas-new-white-house-coronavirus-advisor/

Report: A Gates-ian Nightmare World

Columbia Journalism Review Explains How The Gates Foundation Manipulates The Media Narrative 

Most of the feature stories published by the Columbia Journalism Review, a mostly-digital biannual “magazine” published and edited by the Columbia School of Journalism and its staff, is sanctimonious media naval-gazing filtered through a lens of cryptomarxist propaganda, written by a seemingly endless procession of washed-up magazine writers.

But every once in a while, just like the NYT, Washington Post and CNN, even CJR gets it (mostly) right. And fortunately for us, one of those days arrived earlier this month, when the website published this insightful piece outlining the influence of the Gates Foundation on the media that covers it.

Most readers probably didn’t realize how much money the Gates Foundation spends backing even for-profit media companies like the New York Times and the Financial Times, some of the most financially successful legacy media products, thanks to their dedicated readerships. For most media companies, which don’t have the financial wherewithal of the two named above, the financial links go even deeper. Schwab opens with his strongest example: NPR.

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 outlets such as the Daily Caller, 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.

It’s just the latest reminder that all of NPR’s reporting on the coronavirus and China is suspect due to its links to Gates and, by extension, the WHO. Back in April, we noted this piece for being an egregious example of a reporter failing to make all of the sources links to China explicitly clear. Though a few clues were included.

Of course, even CJR left out certain salient examples of the media’s penchant for protecting Gates. He was reportedly a close friend of Jeffrey Epstein’s, even reportedly maintaining ties after the deceased pedophile’s first stint in prison.

That photo never gets old.

Of course, the Gates Foundation is unusual in the level of heft it exerts, but it’s not alone. The Clinton Foundation has benefited from equally light-touch treatment from the mainstream press, if not more so. Little unflattering reporting was done on the Clinton Foundation until Steve Bannon helped Peter Schweizer produce “Clinton Cash”.

Read some more of the CJR piece below:

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.

The foundation even helped fund a 2016 report from the American Press Institute that was used to develop guidelines on how newsrooms can maintain editorial independence from philanthropic funders. A top-level finding: “There is little evidence that funders insist on or have any editorial review.” Notably, the study’s underlying survey data showed that nearly a third of funders reported having seen at least some content they funded before publication.

Gates’s generosity appears to have helped foster an increasingly friendly media environment for the world’s most visible charity. Twenty years ago, journalists scrutinized Bill Gates’s initial foray into philanthropy as a vehicle to enrich his software company, or a PR exercise to salvage his battered reputation following Microsoft’s bruising antitrust battle with the Department of Justice. Today, the foundation is most often the subject of soft profiles and glowing editorials describing its good works.

During the pandemic, news outlets have widely looked to Bill Gates as a public health expert on covid—even though Gates has no medical training and is not a public official. 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.

In the same way that the news media has given Gates an outsize voice in the pandemic, the foundation has long used its charitable giving to shape the public discourse on everything from global health to education to agriculture—a level of influence that has landed Bill Gates on Forbes’s list of the most powerful people in the world. The Gates Foundation can point to important charitable accomplishments over the past two decades—like helping drive down polio and putting new funds into fighting malaria—but even these efforts have drawn expert detractors who say that Gates may actually be introducing harm, or distracting us from more important, lifesaving public health projects.

From virtually any of Gates’s good deeds, reporters can also find problems with the foundation’s outsize power, if they choose to look. But readers don’t hear these critical voices in the news as often or as loudly as Bill and Melinda’s. 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.

The Gates Foundation declined multiple interview requests for this story and would not provide its own accounting of how much money it has put toward journalism.

In response to questions sent via email, a spokesperson for the foundation said that a “guiding principle” of its journalism funding is “ensuring creative and editorial independence.” The spokesperson also noted that, because of financial pressures in journalism, many of the issues the foundation works on “do not get the in-depth, consistent media coverage they once did.… When well-respected media outlets have an opportunity to produce coverage of under-researched and under-reported issues, they have the power to educate the public and encourage the adoption and implementation of evidence-based policies in both the public and private sectors.”

As CJR was finalizing its fact check of this article, the Gates Foundation offered a more pointed response: “Recipients of foundation journalism grants have been and continue to be some of the most respected journalism outlets in the world.… The line of questioning for this story implies that these organizations have compromised their integrity and independence by reporting on global health, development, and education with foundation funding. We strongly dispute this notion.”

The foundation’s response also volunteered other ties it has to the news media, including “participating in dozens of conferences, such as the Perugia Journalism Festival, the Global Editors Network, or the World Conference of Science Journalism,” as well as “help[ing] build capacity through the likes of the Innovation in Development Reporting fund.”

The full scope of Gates’s giving to the news media remains unknown because the foundation only publicly discloses money awarded through charitable grants, not through contracts. In response to questions, Gates only disclosed one contract—Vox’s—but did describe how some of this contract money is spent: producing sponsored content, and occasionally funding “non-media nonprofit entities to support efforts such as journalist trainings, media convenings, and attendance at events.”

Over the years, reporters have investigated the apparent blind spots in how the news media covers the Gates Foundation, though such reflective reporting has waned in recent years. In 2015, Vox ran an article examining the widespread uncritical journalistic coverage surrounding the foundation—coverage that comes even as many experts and scholars raise red flags. Vox didn’t cite Gates’s charitable giving to newsrooms as a contributing factor, nor did it address Bill Gates’s month-long stint as guest editor for The Verge, a Vox subsidiary, earlier that year. Still, the news outlet did raise critical questions about journalists’ tendency to cover the Gates Foundation as a dispassionate charity instead of a structure of power.

Five years earlier, in 2010, CJR published a two-part series that examined, in part, the millions of dollars going toward PBS NewsHour, which it found to reliably avoid critical reporting on Gates.

In 2011, the Seattle Times detailed concerns over the ways in which Gates Foundation funding might hamper independent reporting…

* * *

Source: CJR

from:    https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/columbia-journalism-review-explains-how-gates-foundation-manipulates-media-narrative?utm_campaign=&utm_content=ZeroHedge%3A+The+Durden+Dispatch&utm_medium=email&utm_source=zh_newsletter