Ten billion dollars. I mean, just speak about the magnitude of that.
That is by far the biggest commitment of the foundation, isn't it, Bill?
I mean, this is by far the largest.
That's right, we've been spending a lot on vaccines.
With this commitment, over eight million additional lives will be saved.
So it's one of the most effective ways that health in the poorest countries can be dramatically improved.
In January of 2010, Bill and Melinda Gates used the World Economic Forum at Davos
to announce a staggering $10 billion commitment to research and develop vaccines
for the world's poorest countries, kicking off what he called a "Decade of Vaccines."
Today we're announcing a commitment over this next decade,
which we think of as a decade of vaccines having incredible impact.
We're announcing that we'll spend over $10 billion on vaccines.
Hailed by the Gates-funded media...
For the record, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a NewsHour underwriter.
... and applauded by the pharmaceutical companies who stood to reap the benefits of that largesse,
the record-setting commitment made waves in the international community,
helping to underwrite a Global Vaccine Action Plan
coordinated by the Gates-funded World Health Organization.
But contrary to the Gates' own PR spin that this $10 billion pledge was an unalloyed good
and would save eight million lives, the truth is that this attempt to reorient the global health economy
was part of a much bigger agenda.
An agenda that would ultimately lead to greater profits for Big Pharma companies,
greater control for the Gates Foundation over the field of global health,
and greater power for Bill Gates to shape the course of the future
for billions of people around the planet.
This is Bill Gates' Plan to Vaccinate the World.
You're tuned into The Corbett Report.
Given Gates' pledge to make this a "Decade of Vaccines," it should come as no surprise
that, since the dawn of this coronavirus crisis, he has been adamant
that the world will not go back to normal until a vaccine has been developed.
We're gonna have this intermediate period of opening up, and it won't be normal
until we get an amazing vaccine to the entire world.
The vaccine is critical, because, until you have that, things aren't really going to be normal.
They can open up to some degree, but the risk of a rebound will be there
until we have very broad vaccination.
They won't be back to normal until we either have that phenomenal vaccine
or a therapeutic that's, like, over 95% effective.
And so we have to assume that's going to be almost 18 months from now.
And then the final solution—which is a year or two years off—is the vaccine.
So we've got to go full-speed ahead on all three fronts.
Just to head off the conspiracy theorists, maybe we shouldn't call the vaccine "the final solution."
Maybe just "the best solution." Good point!
More interestingly, since Gates began delivering this same talking point
in every one of his many media appearances of late,
it has been picked up and repeated by heads of state, health officials, doctors and media talking heads,
right down to the scientifically arbitrary but very specific 18-month time frame.
Realistically, COVID-19 will be here for the next 18 months or more.
We will not be able to return to normalcy until we find a vaccine or effective medications.
The hard fact is, until we have a vaccine, going back to normal means putting lives at risk.
This will be the new normal until a vaccine is developed.
The only thing that will really allow life as we once knew it to resume is a vaccine.
Obviously, we continue to work on the vaccines,
but the vaccines have to be down the road by probably 14, 15, 16 months.
We're doing great on the vaccines.
The fact that so many heads of state, health ministers and media commentators
are dutifully echoing Gates' pronouncement about the need for a vaccine
will not be surprising to those who saw last week's exploration
of How Bill Gates Monopolized Global Health.
As we have seen, the Gates Foundation's tentacles have penetrated
into every corner of the field of public health.
Billions of dollars in funding and entire public policy agendas are under the control of this man,
an unelected, unaccountable software developer with no medical research experience or training.
And nowhere is Gates' control of public health more apparent than in the realm of vaccines.
Gates launched the Decade of Vaccines with a $10 billion pledge.
Gates helped develop the Global Vaccine Action Plan
administered by the Gates-funded World Health Organization.
Gates helped found Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance,
aiming to develop "healthy markets" for vaccine manufacturers.
Gates helped launch Gavi with a $1 billion donation in 2011,
going on to contribute $4.1 billion over the course of the "Decade of Vaccines."
And so I'm pleased to announce to you that we're pledging an additional billion dollars to—
[APPLAUSE]
Thank you.
[CONTINUED APPLAUSE]
Alright, thank you.
[CONTINUED APPLAUSE]
It's not everyday we give away a billion dollars.
One of the Gates Foundation's core funding areas is "vaccine development and surveillance,"
which has resulted in the channeling of billions of dollars into vaccine development,
a seat at the table to develop vaccination campaigns in countries around the globe,
and the opportunity to shape public thinking around Bill Gates' pet project of the past five years:
preparing rapid development and deployment of vaccines in the event of a globally spreading pandemic.
If anything kills over 10 million people in the next few decades,
it's most likely to be a highly infectious virus.
Whether it occurs by a quirk of nature or at the hand of a terrorist,
epidemiologists show through their models that a respiratory-spread pathogen
would kill more than 30 million people in less than a year.
And there is a reasonable probability of that taking place in the years ahead.
Many high-profile personalities have been gathering at this year's World Economic Forum in Davos,
which aims to discuss the globe's most pressing issues.
Amongst them is the Microsoft founder Bill Gates,
whose foundation is investing millions in the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations
to help combat infectious diseases.
Here's some of what he had to say about his push to develop new vaccines.
Unfortunately, it takes many years to do a completely new vaccine.
The design, the safety review, the manufacturing;
all of those things mean that an epidemic can be very widespread before that tool would come along.
And so after Ebola the global health community talked a lot about this,
including a new type of vaccine platform called DNA/RNA that should speed things along.
And so this Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Initiative, CEPI,
is three countries—Japan, Norway, Germany—and two foundations—
Wellcome Trust, who we work with on a lot of things, and our foundation, the Gates Foundation—
coming together to fund... actually trying to use that platform and make some vaccines.
And so that would help us in the future.
We know vaccines can protect us.
We just need to be better prepared.
So, "Let's come together.
Let's research and invest. Let's save lives. Let's outsmart epidemics."
Given Gates' mammoth investment in vaccines over the past decade, his insistence that...
"Things won't go back to truly normal until we have a vaccine
that we've gotten out to basically the entire world."
... is hardly surprising.
What should be surprising is that this strangely specific and continuously repeated message
—that we will not go "back to normal" until we get a vaccine in 18 months—
has no scientific basis whatsoever.
Medical researchers have already conceded that a vaccine for SARS-CoV-2 may not even be possible,
pointing to the inability of researchers to develop any kind of immunization
against previous coronavirus outbreaks, like SARS or MERS.
But even if such a vaccine were possible,
serious concerns remain about the safety of developing, testing and delivering
such an "amazing vaccine" to "the entire world" in this remarkably short timeframe.
Even proponents of vaccine development openly worry that the rush to vaccinate billions of people
with a largely untested, experimental coronavirus vaccine
will itself present grave risks to the public.
One of these risks involves "disease enhancement."
It has been known for over a decade that vaccination for some viral infections
—including coronaviruses—actually enhances susceptibility to viral infection
or even causes infections in healthy vaccine recipients.
Now, the issue of safety. Something that I want to make sure the American public understand:
It's not only safety when you inject somebody and they get maybe an idiosyncratic reaction,
they get a little allergic reaction, they get pain.
There's safety associated.
"Does the vaccine make you worse?"
And there are diseases in which you vaccinate someone,
they get infected with what you're trying to protect them with, and you actually enhance the infection.
This is no mere theoretical risk.
As researchers who were trying to develop a vaccine for the original SARS outbreak discovered,
the vaccine actually made the lab animals subjected to it more susceptible to the disease.
One of the things that we are not hearing a lot about
is the unique potential safety problems of coronavirus vaccines.
This was first found in the 1960s with the Respiratory Syncytial Virus vaccines,
and it was done in Washington with the NIH and Children's National Medical Center.
Some of those kids who got the vaccine actually did worse,
and I believe there were two deaths in the consequence of that study.
Because what happens with certain types of respiratory virus vaccines, you get immunized,
and then when you get actually exposed to the virus,
you get this kind of paradoxical immune enhancement phenomenon,
and what—and we don't entirely understand the basis of it.
But we recognize that it's a real problem for certain respiratory virus vaccines.
That killed the RSV program for decades.
Now the Gates Foundation is taking it up again.
But when we started developing coronavirus vaccines—and our colleagues—
we noticed in laboratory animals that they started to show some of the same immune pathology
that resembled what had happened 50 years earlier.
This specific issue regarding coronavirus vaccines is exacerbated
by the arbitrary and unscientific 18-month timeframe
that Gates is insisting on for the vaccine's development.
In order to meet that deadline, vaccine developers are being urged
to use new and largely unproven methods for creating their experimental immunizations,
including DNA and mRNA vaccines.
For a self-described wartime president, victory over COVID-19 equals a vaccine.
I hope we can have a vaccine, and we're going to fast-track it like you've never seen before.
Adding Trump-style branding, the administration launched "Operation Warp Speed,"
a multi-billion-dollar research and manufacturing effort
to shorten the typical year-plus vaccine development timeline.
We're gonna start ramping up production with the companies involved, and you do that at risk.
In other words, you don't wait until you get an answer before you start manufacturing.
You at risk proactively start making it, assuming it's gonna work.
You're thinking 18 months even with all the work that you've already done to this point
and the planning that you are taking with lots of different potential vaccinations
and building up for that now
Yeah, so there's an approach called RNA vaccine
that people like Moderna, CureVac and others are using
that in 2015 we'd identified that as very promising for pandemics and for other applications as well.
And so, if everything goes perfectly with the RNA approach,
we could actually beat the 18 months.
We don't want to create unrealistic expectations.
So the concept of an RNA vaccine is:
Let's inject the RNA molecule that encodes for the spike protein.
It's making your cell do the work of creating this viral protein that is going to be recognized
by your immune system and trigger the development of these antibodies.
Our bodies won't make a full-fledged infectious virus.
They'll just make a little piece and then learn to recognize it and then get ready
to destroy the virus if it then later comes and invades us.
It's a relatively new, unproven technology.
And there's still no example of an RNA vaccine that's been deployed worldwide
in the way that we need for the coronavirus.
There is the possibility for unforeseen, adverse effects.
So this is all new territory.
Whether it would elicit protective immune response against this virus is just unknown right now.
Rushing at "Warp Speed" to develop a new vaccine using experimental technology
and then mass-producing and delivering billions of doses to be injected into "basically the entire world"
before adequate testing is even done
amounts to one of the most dangerous experiments in the history of the world,
one that could alter the lives of untold numbers of people.
That an experimental vaccine
—developed in a brand new wayand rushed through with a special, shortened testing regime—
should be given to adults, children, pregnant women, newborn babies, and the elderly alike,
would be, in any other situation, unthinkable.
To suggest that such a vaccine should be given to the entire planet
would have been called lunacy mere months ago.
But now the public is being asked to accept this premise without question.
Even Gates himself acknowledges the inherent risks of such a project.
But his concern is not for the lives that will be irrevocably altered
in the event that the vaccines cause damage to the population.
Instead, he is more concerned that the pharmaceutical companies
and the researchers are given legal immunity for any such damage.
You know, if we have, you know, one in 10,000 side effects, that's, you know, way more
—700,000—you know, people who will suffer from that.
So really understanding the safety at gigantic scale across all age ranges
—you know, pregnant, male, female, undernourished, existing comorbidities—it's very, very hard.
And that actual decision of, "OK, let's go and give this vaccine to the entire world,"
ah, governments will have to be involved
because there will be some risk and indemnification needed before that can be decided on.
As we have already seen, in the arena of global health,
what Bill Gates wants is what the world gets.
So it should be no surprise that immunity for the Big Pharma vaccine manufacturers
and the vaccination program planners is already being worked on.
In the US, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a declaration
that retroactively provides "liability immunity for activities
related to medical countermeasures against COVID-19,"
including manufacturers, distributors and program planners of
"any vaccine, used to treat, diagnose, cure, prevent, or mitigate COVID-19."
The declaration was issued on March 17th
but retroactively covers any activity back to February 4th, 2020,
the day before the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation announced an emergency $100 million
to fund treatment efforts and to develop new vaccines for COVID-19.
The plan to inject everyone on the planet with an experimental vaccine
is no aberration in Bill Gates' envisioned "Decade of Vaccines." It is its culmination.
The "Decade of Vaccines" kicked off with a Gates-funded $3.6 million observational study
of HPV vaccines in India that, according to a government investigation,
violated the human rights of the study participants with "gross violations" of consent
and failed to properly report adverse events experienced by the vaccine recipients.
After the deaths of seven girls involved in the trial were reported, a parliamentary investigation concluded
that the Gates-funded Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH),
which ran the study, had been engaged in a scheme to help ensure "healthy markets"
for GlaxoSmithKline and Merck, the manufacturers of the Gardasil and Cervarix vaccines
that had been so generously donated for use in the trial:
"Had PATH been successful in getting the HPV vaccine included
in the universal immunization program of the concerned countries,
this would have generated windfall profit for the manufacturers by way of automatic sale,
year after year, without any promotional or marketing expenses.
It is well known that once introduced into the immunization program
it becomes politically impossible to stop any vaccination."
Chandra M. Gulhati, editor of the influential Monthly Index of Medical Specialities,
remarked that "it is shocking to see how an American organization used surreptitious methods
to establish itself in India,"
and Samiran Nundy, editor emeritus of the National Medical Journal of India lamented that
"this is an obvious case where Indians were being used as guinea pigs."
Throughout the decade, India's concerns about the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
and its corporate partners' influence on the country's national immunization programs grew.
In 2016, the steering group of the country's National Health Mission
blasted the government for allowing the country's National Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation
—the primary body advising the government on all vaccination-related matters—
to be effectively purchased by the Gates Foundation.
As one steering group member noted:
"The NTAGI secretariat has been moved out of the government's health ministry
to the office of Public Health Foundation of India
and the 32 staff members in that secretariat draw their salaries from the BMGF.
There is a clear conflict of interest—on one hand, the BMGF funds the secretariat
that is the highest decision making body in vaccines and, on the other,
it partners the pharma industry in GAVI. This is unacceptable."
In 2017, the government responded by cutting all financial ties
between the advisory group and the Gates Foundation.
Similar stories play out across the Gates Foundation's "Decade of Vaccines."
There's the Gates-founded and funded Meningitis Vaccine Project,
which led to the creation and testing of MenAfriVac,
a $0.50-per-dose immunization against meningococcal meningitis.
The tests led to reports of between 40 and 500 children
suffering seizures and convulsions and eventually becoming paralyzed.
There's the 2017 confirmation that the Gates-supported oral polio vaccine
was actually responsible for the majority of new polio cases
and the 2018 follow up showing that 80% of polio cases are now vaccine-derived.
There's the 2018 paper in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
concluding that over 490,000 people in India developed paralysis
as a result of the oral polio vaccine between 2000 and 2017.
There's even the WHO's own malaria chief, Dr. Arata Kochi,
who complained in an internal memo that Gates' influence meant
that the world's leading malaria scientists are now "locked up in a ‘cartel'
with their own research funding being linked to those of others within the group"
and that the foundation "was stifling debate on the best ways to treat and combat malaria,
prioritizing only those methods that relied on new technology or developing new drugs."
Kochi's complaint, written in 2008,
highlights the most common criticism of the global health web that Gates has spun in the past two decades:
that the public health industry has become a racket run by and for Big Pharma and its partners
for the benefit of big business.
At the time that Kochi was writing his memo,
the executive director of the Gates Foundation's Global Health program was Tachi Yamada.
Yamada left his position as Chairman of Research and Development at GlaxoSmithKline
to take up the position at the Gates Foundation in 2006 and left the foundation five years later
to become Chief Medical and Scientific Officer at Takeda Pharmaceuticals.
Yamada's replacement as head of Gates' Global health program, Trevor Mundel,
was himself a clinical researcher at Pfizer and Parke-Davis
and spent time as Head of Development with Novartis before joining the foundation.
This use of foundation funds to set public policy
to drive up corporate profits is not a secret conspiracy.
It is a perfectly open one.
When the Center for Global Development formed a working group to
"develop a practical approach to the vaccine challenge,"
they concluded that the best way to incentivize pharmaceutical companies
to produce more vaccines for the third world was for governments to promise to buy vaccines
before they were even developed.
They titled their report "Making Markets for Vaccines."
The project "Making Markets for Vaccines" was really designed
to address a problem that's existed for a long time,
which is insufficient research and development budgets as well as investment capacity
in vaccine development and production for the third world.
How do you create better incentives to get the pharma community
—the vaccine community—to produce products that are specifically dedicated for the developing world.
Michael Kramer, a professor at Harvard, had been thinking about this problem for many years.
He realized that if the rich countries of the world were to make a promise
that they would buy a malaria vaccine if somebody produced it, that that would give an incentive
to the pharmaceutical industry to go and do the research and development needed to make one.
But this idea was unfamiliar.
No government had made a commitment to buy a product that didn't already exist.
When the first such "Advanced Market Commitment" was made in 2007
—a $1.5 billion promise to buy yet-to-be-produced vaccines from Big Pharma manufacturers—
there was the Gates Foundation as the only non-nation sponsor.
The Gates-founded Gavi Vaccine Alliance is an open partnership between the Gates Foundation,
the World Health Organization, the World Bank and vaccine manufacturers.
Their stated goal includes "introducing new vaccines into the routine schedules
of national immunization programmes" and engaging in "market shaping efforts"
to ensure "healthy markets for vaccines and other immunization products."
If "introducing new vaccines" and ensuring healthy markets for them
was the aim of Gates' "Decade of Vaccines,"
there can be no doubt that COVID-19 has seen that goal realized in spectacular fashion.
Let's start the pledging.
The EU kicked off its fundraising drive with 1 billion euros.
In the hours that followed, pledges were beamed in from across the globe.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has pledged 500 million dollars.
Even pop icon Madonna made a last-minute donation of a million euros.
By combining the world's expertise and brainpower and resources,
we can attack this disease in the way it's attacking us: globally.
Our foundation is proud to partner with you
and I'm pleased to announce today that we will pledge a hundred million dollars towards this effort.
Germany was one of the leading donors, pledging over five hundred million euros.
The money is earmarked for international health organizations
and research networks in a bid to speed up the development of a vaccine.
And there, at the center of this web, is the Gates Foundation, connected to every major organization,
research institution, international alliance and vaccine manufacturer involved in the current crisis.
Certainly, the Gates —like the Rockefellers— have profited from their years as
"the most generous people on the planet."
As curious as it might seem to those who don't understand the true nature of this monopoly cartel,
despite all of these grants and pledges —commitments of tens of billions of dollars—
Bill Gates' personal net worth has actually doubled during this "Decade of Vaccines,"
from $50 billion to over $100 billion.
But once again we come back to the question:
Who is Bill Gates?
Is he motivated simply by money?
Is this incessant drive to vaccinate the entire population of the planet merely the result of greed?
Or is there something else driving this agenda?
As we shall see next time, money is not the end goal of Gates' "philanthropic" activities.
Money is just the tool that he is using to purchase what he really wants: control.
Control not just of the health industry, but control of the human population itself.
So Melinda and I wondered whether providing new medicins and keeping children alive
would create more of a population problem.
Researchers are now developing a vaccine that is delivered using a dissolvable patch,
called a micro-needle array.
In Gates'vision, these digital identities will be tied to all of our actions and transactions.
Once you have that digital infrastructure,
the whole way you think about government benefits can be done differently.
So it's too bad if somebody thinks that creates a privacy problem.