A critical look at Bill Gates plan the plan to vaccinate the world

A recent series of videos by the Corbett Report offer a critical look at the role of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in global health generally and in our response to covid-19 more specifically.

The report suggests that our rush to develop a vaccine for the entire world population isn’t necessarily in the interests of the people, but really about establishing a global population control grid through the rolling out of biometric ‘passports’ which prove people have been vaccinated.

Ultimately the normalisation of vaccines and vaccine passports will benefit big pharma companies, bit tech companies, Bill Gates himself and governments, and make populations easier to keep under surveillance and to control: once they have all our biometric data, it’s easy to link this to government records, and access to finance, for example.

This analysis is broadly in line with a modern day Dependency Theory/ Marxist perspective on global health which is critical of the role of biomedical intervention in dealing with global health problems.

The post below summarises a two hour long video by the Corbett Report, which is available here with the full transcript and links.

How Bill Gates Monopolised Global Health

In the late 1990s and early 2000s Bill Gates established something of a miraculous monopoly with his plagiarised, bloated and virus ridden software: Microsoft Windows, and he was rightly despised for that.

However, in 2021, Bill Gates is now presented to us as a generous philanthropist, one of the richest and most generous men in the world using his wealth for the great good of humanity, through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Bill Gates has somehow managed to transform his image from that of evil software monopolist into Global Health Guru, spearheading Global Health Initiatives which have helped to save millions of lives over the last decade.

However the Corbett Report suggests we should not be taken in by this reworking Bill Gate’s Image – it is a similar re-invention to that of J.D. Rockefeller – who used to be despised as the head of the wealthiest oil corporation in America but in later life used his wealth to establish charitable foundations such as the Rockefeller Foundation and re-invent himself as a kindly old man in the process.

Bill Gate’s Image as a modern day Saint is achieved by buying good publicity – the Foundation has spent tens of billions of dollars Media partnerships such as

  • Our World in Data
  • The Global Development section of The Guardian and
  • BBC Global Development news.
  • Among other sources

And funding these media outlets which report on Global Health means it is less likely that Gates is going to be criticised.

NB – crucial point here: while the the Gates Foundation has funding several global health initiatives over the last decade with billions of dollars in contributions, Bill Gates also controls another for-profit institution – the Bill Bill and Melinda Gates Trust with $46.8 Billion on its books, which tends to profit from the initiatives the foundation funds, AND Bill Gates as got richer over the past decade – in fact his wealth has doubled from around $50 billion to over $100 billion!

The Gates Foundation has funded every major global health initiative of the last two decades and is major player in global health and the response to Covid-19.

Just some of its donations over the last decade include:

  • Huge amounts to set up Gavi – the Global Vaccine Alliance
  • The Gates Foundation is the second largest donor to the the World Health Organisation after the United States.
  • It has pledged $250 to the Covid-19 Response
  • It funded the work of two research groups which were crucial to convincing governments around the world to go into Lockdown- The Imperial College Research Team (funded by 80 from B and G) and the Institute for health Metrics and Evaluation ($200 million received).

The response the Covid-19 has largely been driven by institutions funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the narrative of the importance of ‘developing a ‘Good Vaccine’ in order to get back to normal stems from institutions funded by the Foundation.

Ultimately we should be critical of the fact that our response to the largest pandemic of our times is being driven by The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation which isn’t a philanthropic institution, it is driven by the interests of the Gates Family, which seem to involve making Bill Gates richer, and which can change on a whim.

As is explored in part two, the agenda of the Foundation for the last decade has been to ‘develop markets’ for vaccines, benefitting pharmaceutical companies.

Bill Gates Plan to Vaccinate the World

In January 2010 Bill and Melinda Gates announced a $10 billion commitment to launch a ‘Decade of Vaccines’ which would save ‘eight million lives’, in line with one of its core funding areas, that of ‘vaccine development and surveillance’

This led to the development of the following:

  • A global vaccine action plan adminsitered by the Gate’s Funded World Health Organisation
  • The foundation of Gavi – the vaccine alliance with the aim of establishing ‘healthy markets for vaccines’
GAVI – Active in nearly 80 developing countries.

However, the Corbett Report’s view on this is that the main beneficiaries would be the Big Pharma companies who stood to profit from so many vaccines and greater power and control for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation over the global health agenda.

The entire Covid-19 agenda has been shaped by a narrative coming from institutions funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation – that we cannot get back to normal until a ‘good vaccine’ is developed, and this will take at least 18 months.

HOWEVER, the Corbett Report suggests that we should be wary of this message – thinking back to two recent other Pandemics – SARS and MERS – we did not develop a vaccine against them, many pro-vaccine scientists are skeptical about the possibility of being able to develop a truly effective vaccine, and an final problem is that vaccines may just make Coronavirus tougher – through ‘disease enhancement’.

What we are doing is rushing through an experimental vaccine, not testing it thoroughly before administering it to literally billions of people, and it is those people who bare the risk, not the Pharma companies who are being given legal immunity if anything backfires.

The report lists a few examples of where the Gates Foundation has worked with governments to establish vaccine programmes – for Polio and Meningitis – and there is some evidence that these vaccines actually led to hundreds of thousands of people developing chronic conditions because of being given the vaccines.

We are then reminded that the primary aim of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is to work with governments to establish vaccine programmes which in turn opens up vaccine markets for the large Pharmaceutical Companies they work with – all of this also benefits the Bill and Melinda Gates Trust and Bill Gates own personal wealth too!

Bill Gates and the Population Control Grid

Bill Gate’s PR hacks consistently depict him as a superhero, using his ‘superpower’ of being very rich to help ‘save the planet’.

However, the idea of the billionaire philanthropist helping the world is merely that, an idea, a fiction.

The Bill and Melinda Gate’s Foundation take over of public health and the mass vaccine programmes instigated through the bodies they have funded are really about gaining control of the global population.

In 2009 there was a secret billionaires meeting in New York attended by some of the richest people in the world such as….

This was about how to pool their wealth to reduce population growth, which ties into the vaccination programme because if you improve people’s health and thus standard of living (especially the child survival rate) they have fewer children.

By 2014 they were championing birth control implants – wireless tech that can be turned on and off with a remote control. The Gates Foundation granted $20 million to MicroCHIPS biotechnology to develop them.

Gates has long been introduced in reducing the size of the global population through birth control, but with vaccines he aims to take this a step further, by controlling the population itself.

In 2017 Gavi first floated the idea of providing every child with a digital biometric identity, or developing a ‘secure digital identification system which could store a child’s medical history.

One example of this is an Indian company called Khushi Baby who have designed a necklace to be worn by infants which contains a unique identification number with a communication chip – this can be scanned using a mobile phone enable health workers even in remote areas to update a child’s digital health record.

Robert Langer and colleagues at MIT have taken this a step further – they have been developing a new vaccine delivery method using dissolvable microneedles (delivered by a plaster like patch rather than a classic injecting needle) that create particle patterns in the skin which can be read using modified smartphones – quantum dot tags which act like a bar-code tattoo.

And lo and behold we now have a discourse surrounding the Covid-19 vaccination programme, led by Bill Gates, stating that we will need some kind of biometric digital ID system which shows who has been tested/ vaccinated/ recovered in order to ‘get back to normal’.

This is already underway, for example Onfido is a tech startup specialising in AI-based biometric ID verification which is in talks with the British government to provided the kind of digital certification which Gates has been talking about.

Oh, and Onfido has received $50 million in seed-money from Microsoft.

NB – Gates has already been involved with a biometric identity scheme in India – a decade ago one billion people had their biometric details recorded (fingerprints and iris scans), headed by Nandan Nilekani, a long time friend of Gates and partner in the Gates Foundation.

There have been similar schemes on a global scale, such as the World Bank’s 2014 ID4D Initiative, presented as means to help the world’s poor access finance, but really being about control and for the benefit of large corporations.

The Corbett Report in fact suggests that the global biometric control grid is really about financial exclusion – when people have a biometric ID, established because of ‘vaccines’ it is relatively easy to link this to access to finance – no vaccine, no doing what the government says, then no money!

‘The vaccination drive ties into the biometric identity drive which ties into the cashless society drive. ‘

Bill Gates is not at all concerned about people’s privacy, he is interested in controlling us, he is better off depicted as a super villain.

Meet Bill Gates

This final part investigates the motives and ideology of the man who is so central to shaping our post coronavirus world.

Firstly, he is not a genius – he got his break with a software company because of his mother’s connections with the CEO (he was from a wealthy background) and his Graphical Interface (Windows) idea was ripped off.

Secondly, he is primarily concerned with profit rather than saving lives – the poorest of the world would be best served by secure food supplies and clean water, not costly vaccines, but there is no profit in the former, hence why the Gates Foundation focuses on vaccines, for profit.

if you take a look back at Bill Gate’s involvement with Microsoft in the late 70s what he basically did was to change a culture of largely open source software development and establish software code as a property right, making it illegal for anyone else to modify the software Microsoft developed, even though he had ripped that off from someone else.

So his ‘genius’ lies in manipulating the legal system to establish property rights for his own benefit. He is a very selfish profit-motivated individual.

The video also suggests that Bill Gates might be motivated by A Eugenicist ideology – like the Nazis were. He has links to Jeffry Epstein who, like him, believes the wealth elites are superior and that we should use population control to seed the global population with the DNA of the wealthy in order to ‘improve it’.

And today Gates wants to set up a web to control:

  • our public health services
  • our identities
  • our finances
  • our bodies

It is likely that this desire for control comes from the same desire for domination and superiority that motivated him on the way up the corporate ladder in the first place.

Relevance to A-level sociology

This is mostly relevant to the option in Global Development, but it also has relevance to the Media option- it’s worth mentioning that the mainstream media would dismiss most of the above as a ‘conspiracy theory’, but you’ll have to make your own judgement call about that!

The 10,000 Hour Rule

The 10, 000 Hour Rule is the theory that it takes 10 000 hours of practice to become an expert in something – and seems to be most frequently applied to the fields of sport and music.

Below is a summary of Malcolm Caldwell’s perspective on the 10, 000 hour rule – he basically argues that it does seem to be true that you need 10, 000 hours to become a world-leader in any given field, but you also have to be extremely lucky and/ or privileged in some way to have the opportunities which give you the time to accumulate 10,000 hours of practice.

1. 

The University of Michigan opened its new Computer Center in 1971… its mainframe computers stood in the middle of a vast white room looking like something out the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Off to the side were dozens of keypunch machines – what passed in those days as computer terminals. In 1971, this was state of the art and the University of Michigan had one of the most advanced computer science programmes in the world. The most famous student who passed through this was a gawky teenager named Bill Joy who came to the Center the year it opened when he was 16. From that point on, the Computer Center was his life.

Bill Joy 2017.jpeg
Bill Joy in 2017

In 1975 he enrolled in graduate school at the University of Berkeley, where he rewrote UNIX in collaboration with others, which remains the main operating system on literally millions of computers around the world today, and then went on to co-found Sun Micro-systems where he rewrote JAVA.

Joy is sometimes called the Edison of the Internet, and is one of the most influential people in computing history.

The story of Bill Joy is normally told as one in which he existed in a pure meritocracy – because in a new tech field, there was no old-boy network and the field was open, all participants being judge on their talents…. It was a world where the best men won, and Joy was clearly one of those best men.

It would be easier to accept this story if one hadn’t have already have looked at the Hockey stats… whose story was also supposed to be a pure meritocracy. Only it wasn’t, it was a story of how outliers in a particular field reached their lofty status through a combination of ability, opportunity, and utterly arbitrary advantage.

Is it possible that these same factors work in the world of computing as well?

2

For many years psychologists have been involved in a debate over whether innate talent exists. This is something that most people accept – success = innate talent + preparation,  but the problem with the concept of innate talent, is that the more psychologists look at it, the bigger role that preparation seems to play.

Exhibit A in the talent argument is a study done in the early 1990s by the psychologist K. Anders Ericsson who divided violinists at Berlins’ elite Academy of Music up into three groups – those with the potential to become world class soloists, those who were judged to be merely good, and those who were unlikely to ever play professionally – they were asked a simple question – since you first picked up a violin, how many hours have you practiced?

The answer was that early on the practice regimes were the same, but when the students were around the age of eight, real differences began to emerge. By the age of twenty, the elite students had amassed a total of 10 000 hours, the good students 8000, and the future music teachers only 4000 hours.

10 000 hour rule.jpg

Ericsson also found that there were no people who simply coasted without practicing, and no grinds – students who tried but got nowhere, so he simply concluded that once you look at just the ‘elite students’ what differentiates the best students from the ordinary is simply the amount of practice they have amassed.

This pattern has been found among musicians, sports stars and grand-masters at chess.

This idea that to become an expert requires a critical mass of practice hours surfaces again and again, so much so that the magic number of 10 000 hours to be an expert has emerged.

Practice is the thing that makes you good – and the interesting thing about it is that it is an enormous amount of time….And if you’re a hockey player born young, the fact that you’re deselected early on means you’re unlikely to be in an environment where you’re going to get 10 000 practice before you’re 17, and  If your poor, you simply can’t fit it in the hours because you’ll probably need to work.

3.

While it is true that Bill Joy had an enormous aptitude for maths, he was also lucky enough to have been given the opportunity to get in 10 000 hours of programming practice, which was basically just down to luck.

Firstly, he was lucky enough to be at Michigan University at a time when that was pretty much the only place in the world which had a computer center in which programming had evolved to a ‘time sharing system’ – where the computers could handle more than one task at once, so multiple people could programme at the same time, rather than the old ‘punch card system’ in which it took hours of preparation to get in a few minutes of programming.

Secondly, he was lucky enough that the university kept the computer center open all night, which allowed him to programme 8-10 hours a day.

Thirdly, the computer center charged for people to use it, but a bug in the programme allowed him (and many others) to programme for free.

So yes, Joy was talented and put in the effort, but he also needed a whole of lot fortunes of circumstance  to come together so that he could amass his 10 000 hours of practice – which meant that by the time he was in his third year at Berkeley he was up to the task of rewriting UNX.

NB Joy hadn’t even gone to Michigan to study computing, but maths and engineering, he was just lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time.

4.

Is the 10 000 rule a general rule of success?

The Beatles came to America in 1964, by which time they had really ‘made it’. However, they had known each other for a long time before fame: Lennon and McCartney first met in 1957.

The Beatles.jpg

Interviews with The Beatles reveal that what really made them was their experience of playing in strip clubs in Hamburg where they were required to play 8 hours a night and 7 days a week.  They weren’t able to just do their best numbers, they had to learn a lot of covers, and, being foreign, they had to put more energy into their routines to come across effectively.

Just as with Bill Joy, it was sheer luck that got The Beatles their Hamburg experience – a particular promotor from Germany was in London scouting for bands, and met a guy from Liverpool who knew of The Beatles, just randomly in a bar in Soho – it was this connection that did for them.

Between 1960 and 1962, they played for a total of 270 nights in Hamburg – they went out average and came back uniquely excellent – no one else sounded like them.

By 1964, The Beatles had amassed a total of 1200 live performances, a figure which most professional bands struggle to achieve in their entire careers.

Bill Gates’ story is also told as one of individual grit – Brilliant young math whiz discovers computer programming and drops out of Harvard to form a little company called Microsoft… and so on.

Bill Gates.jpg

But let’s dig a little deeper… and there a shed loads of social factors from which Gates benefited…

  1. Gate’s father was a wealthy lawyer in Seattle and his mother the daughter of a well-to-do banker. They put him into the elite independent Lakeside School in grade 7.
  2. In 1968, the school set up a computer club, with money from the mother’s annual junks sale ($3000), unusually, they installed an ASR-33 Teletype which allowed Gates (who joined the club) to do real time programming in 1968, which was practically unheard of.
  3. Washington University set up a Computer Centre Corporation, and one of the founders of the firm had a son at Lakeside, and Gates was networked into being able to test out their software at weekends for free.
  4. This first firm went bankrupt, but another company, ISI established and need someone to write Payroll software – Gates took advantage of that opportunity
  5. Gates happened to live within walking distance of Washington State Univeristy
  6. WSU had free computer time between 3 and 6 a.m. that Gates took advantage of.
  7. A power station in Washington State needed people to write software, the only people with the skills in the area were the kids from Lakeside.
  8. Lakeside school allowed Gates (and some others) to go write software for that power station under the guise of an ‘independent project’.

All of the above opportunities gave Gates time to practice programming – by the time he dropped out of Harvard, he was way past 10 000 hours.

6.

What truly distinguishes Bill Joy, Bill Gates and The Beatles is not their extra-ordinary talent and effort (although all three cases had both), but rather their extraordinary opportunities…. This seems to be the rule rather than the exception with software engineers and rock stars.

Another examples of this ‘extra-ordinary’ opportunity thesis is revealed if we analyse the birth dates of the richest 75 people in history.

An astonishing 14 people on the list are American born, and born within 9 years of each other – thousands of years of human history, hundreds of countries, and 20% of the richest are born in one generation in one country.

What’s going on here? In the 1860s and 70s the American economy went through one the biggest expansions in its history: it is when the railroads were built, when Wall Street emerged and when industrialization started in earnest. However, if you were born in the late 1820s, you were too old: your mind set was shaped by pre-civil war paradigms, if you were born in the late 1840s, you missed it!

We can do the same analysis with people like Bill Joy and Bill Gates.

If you talk to veterans of Silicon Valley, they’ll tell you that the most important date in the history of the personal computer revolution was January 1975 when the first DIY computer kit, the Altair 8800, was released at a sale price of $397, a minicomputer kit to rival commercial models. This was the year when personal home computing became available to the majority of people.

If you were too old in 1975, born before 1952, then you’d already have a job at IBM, and have a hard time making the transition to the ‘new world’ and the possibilities for transformation that were opening up.  You’d be of an age in in 1975 where you’re established computer career meant it was just comfortable to stay put.

If you were born after 1958, then you were too young to get your foot in the door when this change took place.

Ideally you would have been born in 1954 or 1955, and just look….

  • Bill Gates – October 28th, 1955
  • Paul Allen, third richest man at Microsoft – Jan 21st 1953
  • Steve Ballmer, the cofounder of Apple computer, March 24 1956.
  • Steve Jobs – February 24, 1955.
  • Bill Joy – Nov 8th

 

 

How Private Aid Foundations Influence Economic Policy in Developing Countries

It could be used in the Global Development topics on ‘Organisations in Development’ or ‘the role of Private Aid in Development’

A flow chart of what’s below would run something like this…

TNCs (pump their profits into their) – Charitable Foundations (who established) – The Council of Foreign Relations (which influences) – The World Bank (which sets the economic policies of) – Developing Countries

Basically Roy argues that in the early 20th century, three of the largest corporations in the world (one of which was Ford) set up Philanthropic (charitable) organisations – In the middle of the 20th century, after World War Two, these organisations were key to establishing the Council of Foreign Relations, the World Bank, the United Nations and the CIA. Essentially, Roy is arguing that US Corporations run the biggest international organisations in the world, which in turn coerce Developing countries into doing what these Corporations want.

The enthralling history of ‘philanthropic foundations’ began in the United States in the early 20th century. Among the the first was the Rockefeller Foundation, endowed in 1914 by J.D Rockefeller, founder of Standard Oil Company.

Rockefeller was America’s first billionaire and the world’s richest man. He believed his money was given to him by God. Among the institutions financed with Rockefeller’s money are the United Nations, the CIA, and the Council on Foreign Relations.

Philanthropic Foundations are non tax-paying legal entities with massive resources with an almost unlimited brief. They are wholly unaccountable, wholly non transparent, and are basically about translating economic power into social, political and cultural capital.

They emerged in the 1920s because it was then that US Capitalism began to look outward for raw materials and overseas markets. Foundations began to formulate the idea of global corporate governance. In 1924 the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations formed the Council on Foreign Relations (the CFR), also funded by the Ford Foundation as well. By 1947 the CIA was working closely with the CFR and over the years the CFR’s membership has included 22 secretaries of state, and all eleven of the World Bank’s presidents have been members of the the CFR. The CFR also contributed a grant of £8.5 million to pay for the land in New York on which the United Nations building now stands.

Given that the World Bank has more or less directed the economic policies of the Third World, coercing them to open up their markets in return for loans and aid, and given that the World Bank is steered by the Council of Foreign Relations, which in turn is steered by Transnational Corporations, it seems to follow that it’s TNCs which really have really determined the foreign policies of third world countries over the past few decades.

By the 1950s the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations were funding international educational institutions began to work as quasi-extensions of the US government, which was at the time toppling democratically elected governments in Latin America, Iran and Indonesia.

The Ford Foundation established a US style economics course in Indonesia at the Indonesian University. Elite Indonesian students, trained in counterinsurgency by US army officers, played a crucial part in the 1965 CIA backed coup in Indonesia which bought General Suharto to power. He repaid his mentors by slaughtering hundreds of thousands of communist rebels.

Twenty years later, young Chilean students who came to be known as the Chicago Boys were taken to the US to be trained in neoliberal economics by Milton Friedman and the University of Chicago (endowed by J.D Rockefeller), in preparation for the 1973 CIA backed coup that killed Salvador Allende and brought General Pinochet and a reign of death squads, disappearances and terror that lasted for seventeen years. Allende’s crime was being a democratically elected socialist and nationalising Chile’s mines.

Like all good Imperialists, the Philanthropoids set themselves the task of creating and training an international cadre that believed that Capitalism and by extension the hegemony of the United States was in their own interests.

Corporate foundations also provide scholarships at universities for courses in development studies – and many of these are for people from the middle classes in the developing world – these are the future finance ministers, corporate lawyers and bankers of the developing world. Of course the courses funded are the ones which sing the virtues of neoliberal economic policy, rather than the ones which are critical of neoliberalism.

According to Roy, not only do Philanthropic Foundations control the agendas of International Economic Organisations, governments and education systems, they also control the media and social movements which emerge to protest neoliberal policies – she gives a few examples of how, but probably the best piece of supporting evidence for this point of view is that we don’t question the role of philanthropic foundations in society. When Corporate funded philanthropic foundations first appeared in the United States, there were debates about their accountability, and people suggested that if they had so much money they should maybe raise the wages of their workers instead, nowadays we just don’t question them.

In summary, Roy argues that Philanthropic Foundations are simply a way of using a minuscule percentage of profits to run the world.

A Question to Consider….

The largest philanthropic foundation on earth today is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Roy points out that it’s odd that Bill Gates*, who admittedly knows a thing or two about computers, is now designing education, health, and agriculture policies, not just for US governments but for governments all over the world.

The question that Roy makes us ask is this – Is Bill Gates really trying to help people through his organisation, or is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation really a just a way for Gates to translate his economic capital into global political power, and to make sure that government policies the world over benefit Microsoft?

*Or to refer to him by his full name – ‘The Man Child Bill Gates’.

Sources 

The above post is summarised from Arundhati Roy’s ‘Capitalism: A Ghost Story’ (2014).