How Bill Gates Used Money and PR Buy His Role as Pandemic Expert

Last Updated on November 4, 2021 by Shaun Snapp

Executive Summary

  • Bill Gates engaged in a multi year campaign to have himself and his foundation positioned as the world’s source for information on pandemics.

Introduction

Bill Gates put years and many millions to establish his position has a pandemic and pharmaceutical and IP source of information to the world.

Our References for This Article

If you want to see our references for this article and related Brightwork articles, visit this link.

Bill Gates Long Scam in Pandemic Management

Bill Gates has been building his position as a health policy authority for years. However, he neither has the background nor lack of financial bias to occupy this role that he has purchased through media contributions. The establishment media have served as shills for Bill Gates, accepting his money, in return for refurbishing his image and establishing him in the minds of the public as the world’s number one philanthropist and a top expert in infectious diseases and public health. However, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is simply a front for his corrupt spiderweb of financial interests.

This is very well explained in the following quotations.

Anxious governments spoke of shared interests and global public goods; drug companies pledged “precompetitive” and “no-profit” approaches to development and pricing. The early days featured tantalizing glimpses of an open-science, cooperative pandemic response. In January and February 2020, a consortium led by the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases collaborated to produce atomic-level maps of the key viral proteins in record time. “Work that would normally have taken months—or possibly even years—has been completed in weeks,” noted the editors of Nature.

“Early on, there was space for Gates to have a major impact in favor of open models,” says Manuel Martin, a policy adviser to the Médecins Sans Frontières Access Campaign. “But senior people in the Gates organization very clearly sent out the message: Pooling was unnecessary and counterproductive. They dampened early enthusiasm by saying that I.P. is not an access barrier in vaccines. That’s just demonstratively false.” – The New Republic

Gates History in Restrictive IP

Bill Gates opposes open-source software and was instrumental in creating the highly wasteful and elitist software industry that we have today. Microsoft made its initial money by being able for decades to repeatedly charge for the same IP in Windows and Office that changed little from year to year. Gates nor Microsoft even developed their first blockbuster product, DOS, but instead purchased it for roughly $50,000.

Naturally, Gates opposes any sharing of research primarily funded by the public through the government to be anything but handed over to pharmaceutical companies that then falsify clinical trials, as I cover in the article Are Pfizer and Moderna Exaggerating the Effectiveness of the Coronavirus Vaccines?

The quote continues.

Close to 130 countries containing 2.5 billion people have yet to administer a single dose. – The New Republic

This would be an even bigger problem if these vaccines worked, but they don’t as I cover in the article How Effective and Safe Are the Covid Vaccines?

The quote continues.

Mostly, the executives evinced ignorance and surprise over the imminent launch of C-TAP; only Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla openly denounced the pooling of intellectual property as “dangerous” and “nonsense.”

Gates can hardly disguise his contempt for the growing interest in intellectual property barriers. In recent months, as the debate has shifted from the WHO to the WTO, reporters have drawn testy responses from Gates that harken back to his prickly performances before congressional antitrust hearings a quarter-century ago. When a Fast Company reporter raised the issue in February, she described Gates “raising his voice slightly and laughing in frustration,” before snapping, “It’s irritating that this issue comes up here. This isn’t about IP.”

The closest Gates has come to conceding that vaccine monopolies inhibit production came during a January interview with South Africa’s Mail & Guardian. Asked about the growing intellectual property debate, he responded, “At this point, changing the rules wouldn’t make any additional vaccines available.”

Bill Gates’s position on intellectual property was consistent with a lifelong ideological commitment to knowledge monopolies, forged during a vengeful teenage crusade against the open-source programming culture of the 1970s. As it happens, a novel use of one category of intellectual property—copyright, applied to computer code—made Gates the richest man in the world for most of two decades beginning in 1995. That same year, the WTO went into effect, chaining the developing world to intellectual property rules written by a handful of executives from the U.S. pharmaceutical, entertainment, and software industries.

Why Pfizer Hates Pooling

Yes, “pooling” is very negative for Pfizer’s bottom line and is, of course, called nonsense by its CEO. However, how consistent is Pfizer on this position. When Pfizer pilfers publicly funded research — which is a form of pooling and based upon international public research, that type of pooling is ok — highly desirable even. However, Pfizer considers it critical that they receive all of the IP rights in return for falsifying clinical trials when it comes to commercialization. The question is why would anyone listen to either Pfizer or Moderna or AstraZeneca, or Bill Gates as to the effectiveness and fairness of biomedical IP? The only interest these companies have is in profit-maximizing, by capturing publicly funded R&D for commercialization.

The covid vaccines prove that all of these companies routinely falsify clinical trials and that they pushed out an ineffective vaccine in return for billions in profits. The vast majority of effective pharmaceuticals are decades old, and around 85% of new pharmaceutical patents are for re-patents on old drugs or copycat drugs of existing drugs. The vast majority of the pharmaceutical industry is a cancer on public health care that produces entirely unreliable clinical trials. They get rubber-stamped by an FDA that they control, as I cover in the article How Low Are The FDA’s Standards of Evidence for New Drug Approval? 

How Bill Gates Forced His Way Into Public Health Policy

James Love, who organized many of the civil society events around the 1999 Assembly, remembers seeing the Gates staffers joined in the distribution effort by Harvey Bale, a former U.S. trade official serving as director general of the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Associations.

“It was this nice full-color pamphlet about why patents don’t present an access problem, with the Gates Foundation logo at the bottom,” says Love. “It was strange, and I just thought, ‘OK, I guess this is what he’s doing now.’ Looking back, that’s when the pharma-Gates consortium set the markers down on intellectual property. He’s been sticking his nose into every intellectual property debate since, telling everyone they can go to heaven by paying lip service to a few discounts to poor countries.” There are signs of overdue scrutiny of Gates’s role in public health and lifelong commitment to exclusive intellectual property rights. But so far these are blips. More common is the deference on display in a March 21 New York Times article about the U.S. government’s role in developing the mRNA vaccines now under the monopoly control of Moderna and Pfizer. When the piece turned to Gates’s inevitable cameo, the Times reporter was hovering right over the target—and somehow managed to miss wide by a mile. Instead of probing Gates’s central role in preserving this paradigm, the paper linked to gentle boilerplate about pricing and access found on the Gates Foundation website. In response to a request for comment, a Gates Foundation spokesperson pointed me to a piece by its CEO, Mark Suzman, arguing that “IP fundamentally underpins innovation, including the work that has helped create vaccines so quickly.”

Yes, this IP model is fundamental to creating vaccines that have no evidence of being effective to treat a virus that is only deadly to the elderly or very obese, and that was required to open lockdowns that were supported on the basis of scientifically fraudulent computer forecasts models at Imperial College and The University of Washington that Bill Gates funded.

Bill Gates Lying About The Effect of IP Restrictions on Public Health

“If you said to an ordinary person, ‘We’re in a pandemic. Let’s figure out everyone who can make vaccines and give them everything they need to get online as fast as possible,’ it would be a no-brainer,” says James Love. “But Gates won’t go there. Neither will the people dependent on his funding. He has immense power. He can get you fired from a U.N. job. He knows that if you want to work in global public health, you’d better not make an enemy of the Gates Foundation by questioning its positions on I.P. and monopolies. And there are a lot of advantages to being on his team. It’s a sweet, comfortable ride for a lot of people.”

To reiterate, this IP is created primarily through the public sector, and is only commercialized by the private sector. Pharmaceutical industry-supported legislation like the Bayh-Dole Act has enabled the pharmaceutical industry to even more effectively steal from the public domain. Therefore, the “IP” that Bill Gates is referring to, begins its life as public domain and is only made private domain through underhanded tactics of the pharmaceutical industry. The industry, through the NIH, has the US government funding all of their R&D for them, while they walk away with the IP and the profits.

Conclusion

This article describes how Gates as able to accomplish his present role. It is a role that is not only unquestioned in the establishment media, but which is reinforced by the establishment media.