The Gates Foundation May Have Silenced Competing Research Ahead of New Gates Foundation-Funded ‘Study’; Gates Connected to Novartis
Summary: Opposition of the Gates Foundation-funded study is apparently silenced or suppressed; the vaccination goals of the Gates Foundation are still receiving scrutiny and it also invests in Novartis
Gates Foundation-Funded Washington University Study Challenged
Dr. Horton is quoted as saying: “there needs to be serious reflection among the global health community about how it responds to new data. Even before the paper by Hogan et al was submitted to us, we were invited to “delay” or “hold” publication. The justification for this concern was several fold: potential political damage to maternal advocacy campaigns; confusion among countries, policymakers, and the media, given the difference between this maternal mortality estimate and the previous UN number; undermining progress on global commitments to maternal health; and the risk of an unproductive academic debate while women continued to die. Although well-intentioned, these requests to slow the pace of scientific discussion for political considerations are likely to be far more damaging than fostering a serious debate about progress in reducing maternal mortality as and when new data appear. Is the global health community unable to accommodate diverse voices and sources of evidence? Is it unable to create constructive ways to bring scientists and policymakers together to reach agreement about the meaning of new research findings?”
Was Gates involved, maybe?
More on the pressure on Richard Horton to delay publication. Good on him.
Did the Gates Foundation pressure Horton? Who knows?
Let’s not forget that the head of global health for the Gates Foundation came under investigation after he had intimidated researchers who did not agree with him. These researchers were based in the University of North Carolina and the University of Pennsylvania.
From the New York Times:
Dr. Horton said the advocates, whom he declined to name, wanted the new information held and released only after certain meetings about maternal and child health had already taken place.
Why does he not name them? Did they pay him to stay quiet? Is he afraid of something?
There is more coverage about the original article in:
But wait. Here is the important bit. It is a Gates Foundation study which it paid the University of Washington (as usual) to conduct in support of its private agenda. As the Wall Street Journal puts it:
New data on the subject comes in a study published in the Lancet saying that the number of maternal deaths had fallen to 342,900 in 2008 from 526,300 in 1980, a 35% decline. The trend “for the first time in a generation, is one of persistent and welcome progress,” a Lancet editorial says.
But the editorial also notes that there are “wide uncertainty intervals around these numbers” in the study, which was led by researchers at the University of Washington and funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Indeed, the new numbers contradict data from the World Health Organization, which reported last May that mothers and newborns are no more likely to survive now than 20 years ago, notes Reuters.
The Gates Foundation and other affiliates are funding their own ‘studies’ to promote their own agenda. This is the same University of Washington which has just produced some lies and spin to defend Microsoft's tax dodge (after Microsoft had paid it to do this). This calls to question the credibility of Washington University as a whole, assuming it’s treated like a warehouse of “independent” reports for sale.
“The Gates Foundation and other affiliates are funding their own ‘studies’ to promote their own agenda.”Even NPR, whose financial connections to Gates we mentioned earlier today, is playing along with the Gates agenda by citing the Washington University study. It’s rather sad that many sources ignore Dr. Horton, despite the fact that other sources have refuted the Gates Foundation too. We gave an example last week and there are also older critiques such as this one from the New York Times
Gates and his circles may be trying to give a self-serving illusion that almost acts like a self-fulfilling prophecy defending his work (“fulfilling” as long as Gates funds the confirmatory studies).
Gates Foundation-Funded Vaccination and Deaths
Last week’s many illuminating articles from India showed that Gates’ vaccination projects are going awry and allegedly killing children. Three girls are still said to be dead and the Gates-backed project in India immediately halted (it has not resumed yet and perhaps it never will).
So, some of these vaccines are actually leading to deaths (there are contradictory reports) and enrichment of parties involved, some of which Gates invests in for personal reasons (like Merck, which is connected to Gates [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]). There are no contradictory reports about the financial benefit to pharmaceutical giants, regardless of the outcome of this whole experiment. They try out some stuff on a population that can hardly sue or demand high damages.
More Gates Foundation-Funded Studies
Two years ago we showed that NGOs in India may have been bribed by Microsoft for OOXML pressure. So the following Gates-funded NGO leaves us skeptical or at the very least cautious and apprehensive:
According to a study conducted by Population Foundation of India, a Delhi-based NGO funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, workers in the hotel and tourism industry had the highest HIV prevalence among groups tested in the state, followed by drivers and the unemployed. Truck drivers, who travel long distances, brought the infection with them, often to areas where the disease had not yet penetrated.
After a study conducted by the Population Foundation of India, a Delhi-based NGO funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, it was seen that the disease was found maximum in the worker working in the hotels and tourism industry. It was also seen in the people who were unemployed and the driver. The disease was spread by the truck drivers who travelled long distances.
Gates-funded studies are notoriously inaccurate. They usually push an agenda. This is certainly the case when it comes to Microsoft-funded studies, but the reputation of Gates-funded studies is equally poor (see the previous post for a new example). For those who believe that there is no money involved, well… the Gates Foundation works in mysterious ways. And “Revenue up at Aeras Global TB Vaccine Foundation,” according to this new article. Gates is listed as a “funder”, not a “donor” (and the Gates Foundation has many investments in other pharmaceuticals).
Aeras, which counts the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as one of its prime funders, also lists the Department for International Development, Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark, The Research Council of Norway, the Maryland Department of Business & Economic Development, The Mary Lynn Richardson Fund and National Institutes of Health as funders. Late last month, Aeras announced its first-ever grant, $12 million, from the United Kingdom government.
Gates Foundation Meets Novartis
We have also written a fair deal about the notorious patents of Novartis [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. Novartis is part of the infamous cartel with nearly 100,000 employees (more than Microsoft). Does the following new article connect Novartis to Gates’ investments again? The original article seems to confirm this.
“Fueled by new funding sources, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, companies have pushed almost two dozen drugs into clinical trials,” according to the San Diego Union-Tribune.
The article focuses on the pharmaceutical company Novartis’ work in “finding drugs for some diseases with little or no moneymaking potential,” and examines potential funding sources for drug development (Kupper, 4/11).
This article is republished with kind permission from our friends at The Kaiser Family Foundation. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery of in-depth coverage of health policy developments, debates and discussions.
“Today, nearly 40 percent of a senior’s healthcare spending is on pharmaceutical medications.“