Summary: GlaxoSmithKline, with staff in top positions at the Gates Foundation, continues to get favours from the Gates Foundation; the Lancet’s editor complains about the Gates Foundation
WE are beginning to regain a footing when it comes to tracking the Gates Foundation, even if some of our posts are a little belated (they get cited a lot nonetheless). Today’s post is also a little out of date, going several months back but covering what has not yet been covered.
Gates has a real business plan, one that may be more beneficial to him than today’s declining Microsoft. He probably wonders, “how can I claim to feed/cure/educate and make money from the crisis du jour?” Patents and other artificial scarcities perhaps, ”donating’ what monopolists took away. In his overly privileged mind, everything must be dealt with like a business venture. He calls it “gentle capitalism”, others call it philanthrocapitalism. It’s the shrewd way for the super-rich to keep their level of power over society while at the same time being portrayed as the necessary rail on which society strides forward. It’s all PR, it’s nonsense, it’s a distraction.
“God, there is no way around it. I must somehow accept that I have to learn to love the Gates Foundation. (On alternate days only.)”
–Lancet editorThe business model of Bill Gates is not hard to see. Consider how the Gates-backed initiative for GlaxoSmithKline relates to its chief, Tachi, who actually came from GlaxoSmithKline (only very recently did he leave). Read this blog: “Take for instance the launch of a new pneumoccal vaccine among children in Africa. Considering the number of childhood deaths attributable to pneumonia in this part of the world, the effort has an initial air of nobility. Many lives will be saved, many illnesses avoided. But if one looks more closely, serious ethical problems seem to emerge. There are two multinational pharmaceutical companies involved in the campaign — GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer/Wyeth — who have agreed to sell 30 million doses every year for ten years at $10.30 per child vaccinated. These companies also stand to each gain $225 million in subsidies through their involvement in this scheme. Doctors Without Borders worries that this price for vaccination is very high for many countries, and that the lock on the market exercised by GSK and Pfizer/Wyeth will strongly discourage local companies from developing cheaper generic equivalents. The companies are establishing their brand under favorable circumstances to themselves; after that, all bets are off.”
Guess who was in charge of Gates’ ‘health’ patents program? A man from GlaxoSmithKline. A lot of this stuff is rigged and scepticism of the pharmaceutical cartel is mostly with merit (putting aside some of the scare-mongering against vaccination). In recent years we showed how Gates even ‘infiltrated’ the Lancet [1, 2, 3], which is a well-respected publication in this field. Watch what the editor of the Lancet said recently: “God, there is no way around it. I must somehow accept that I have to learn to love the Gates Foundation. (On alternate days only.)”
Other publications, such as those who seek ratings/sales rather than accuracy, help the whitewashing of the Gates agenda, based on this post which says: “In the meantime, if anyone has a connection to Melinda Gates, have her give me a call (We’ve been unsuccessful). Since she has been listed as one of the top women in life sciences for her work with the Gates Foundation, I think she would make a great cover feature.”
Why? Because she is rich she would know better than actual female scientists? It’s that same misconception that if one is more wealthy, he or she must therefore be smarter and more worthy of quoting. We wrote about this fallacy before. Status by association is not genuine status; it’s helping some dangerous people without background in the said area legitimise their clueless, self-serving agenda. █