OUR VERY MANY GATES-THEMED POSTS which outline lesser-known facts about the Gates Foundation have occasionally led to us receiving mail from people who saw the same facts from the inside. They agree with the analysis and they want to say more even though they are often unable to do so, due to gag orders. Some of them, understandably enough, do so anonymously and some ask for their identity not to be publicly known (except by the NSA of course, for it is spying on everyone).
> Dr. Schestowitz, > > If I knew about a Gates-backed NGO that was intentionally wasting > funds to try to reinvent technology rather than expanding it for > malaria and clinics in low-resource settings, what would I do about > it? > > This group has burned through maybe [redacted] a year with zero > viable technology to help international clinics or even licenseable > products which would be consistent with the organization mission. > > The bottom line of this is PHDs right out of school who have never > seen clinics in the 3rd world or how simple technologies must be to > work there, and too arrogant to ask the people in the field or > spend time in those countries to build something that can help. > > What do you recommend?
I covered such examples over the years. I wrote ~200 articles about the Gates Foundation. If possible, can you provide more details from which I'll be able to construct an article? There is scarce documentation of the failed cases because Gates spends, on average, around 300 million dollars per year on press alone (i.e. on PR), beating the criticism only with a staggering amount of puff pieces from blogs, news sites and panels that he pays for this.
> Roy, > > Thanks for the reply. I have an NDA with this group and don't want > to be sued. That is part of their power. > > The did directly throw away a technology that had been proven to > work in international clinics for probably the most important > disease and decided that because they were PhD's newly out of > school that they could build a viable product without consulting > the people in African/Asian/Indian clinics, people from other NGO's > that have actually rolled out products that are making a > difference, rewriting years worth of incredibly complicated > algorithms, using a device that costs [redacted] that would never work > or be affordable by clinics, etc. > > Is there a group that oversees the Gates funds. I work with a > leading NGO also in [redacted] that uses their much inferior funding > to truly achieve impact in low resource areas, looks for meaningful > teammate organizations to ensure success, etc. > > What I saw from this Gates group that's mission statement is to > achieve impact and working technology to help in needful areas is > nothing short of fraud or misappropriation of funds. > > Is there any group that oversees these guys? > > Thanks!
Thanks for the additional information.
Gates Foundation is accountable mostly to itself, AFAIK. Over the years I saw many groups, including former partners, complaining about allocation of funds. This is documented by the press, too. In many cases, the funds disguise interest in patents and monopolisation of so-called solutions for the crowd Gates does not understand (can the richest person from the richest background since childhood really speak out for the poor and grasp their woes?). In some cases, the Gates Foundation claims "transparency" and releases face-saving reports when partners (or former partners) complain. For this too I can provide lots of references as I covered it at the time. I no longer have time to keep up with Gates, but last I saw he kept looking for ways to lobby politicians to pass taxpayers money to his pet projects, including GMO and GSK-connected patent-boosting investments/clinical trials on poor people.
Anyway, accountability assumes that there is separation between the corporate side and the federal side, and that one can monitor the other. But the boundaries have been blurred and there is now a marriage of tax-exempt 'charity', politics, and industrial partners. I fear that the only way to fight back is to inform civil rights groups and inform the public. Over the years I found that more and more people recognise the Gates Foundation for what it really is. It doesn't get a free pass.
If you want to shed light on this anonymously, without revealing your identity, the product, and company names, that would probably be possible. As you did not encrypt your messages or used a remailer, you can assume the intel' community is already aware of this communication, but that does not automatically extend to the private sector.
I am eager to shed light on this without exposing any identity. I have done this dozens of times over the years and never caused any retribution/trouble my sources. It is up to you how you want to deal with the situation, but all I can say at this stage is, the system has been set up in such a way that there is no credible body to report this to. A lot of institutions/non-profits blindly assume benevolence on the part of those who fund them*. The only time I see foundations being held accountable is when there's real journalism, such as what LA Times did 7 years ago.
___ *Some institutions/non-profits, including USAID for example, are de facto partners of these foundations, helping not only GMO monopolies but also the overthrow of "bad" leaders in Latin America.
> Roy, > > You know that any use of packet sniffing to intercept personal > email is illegal and not usable, anyone could spoof an email > account. > > Your interest in telling the truth about such a goliath is very > admirable, so I decided not to hide my email to you. I have used > relay servers, etc. to send feedback to the Gates Foundation. > > It is simply too dangerous for an individual to tell the truth when > the reality of these funds has nothing to do with their mission > statements and they have no interest in results, honesty, or > ethics. > > One example is the multiple millions spent on "setting up laser > fences over all of Sub-Saharan Africa", not doing any research on > the practicality of putting such devices all over a continent, or > that the vector for the disease evolves so quickly that going under > or over the fences would happen very quickly. > > It would have been more practical to spend the millions on a time > machine to try to go back in time to the beginning of the disease. > :) > > Unless there are investors in these funds who want actual returns > or any even occasional auditing to look at funds spent versus > tangible results, it appears that it is just a tragic loss for the > people of the world who could be helped. > > No money is spent on researching what works in the field, and the > "engineers" or "scientists" frittering away the funds and the > years without doing any research on what works in a low resource > setting. > > So, you have never had contact with any fund investors, governing > bodies, individuals at the parent Gates Foundation that audit > individual funds, etc.? > > If you do find those kind of people I would give them some > information. Unfortunately I don't think that a single newspaper > article would make a difference. > > Thanks.
No single article can make a huge difference, but every little helps. Due to the disproportionate distribution of wealth, few people now control the press and can overwhelm real journalism with a barrage of puff pieces and placements (paid for). The NSA leaks showed that even nearly a year of leaks with huge impact on public views hardly changed anything in policy (there is now, finally, talk about 'reform', but it is a bogus reform).
The Gates Foundation has shown over the years that it is very sensitive about critics. It spies on them and keeps track of coverage. There is dedicated staff for it; usually it's called "advocacy" (euphemistically) and "communication" (meaning PR). I have seen cases where criticism has been so effective that the foundation changed its strategy (e.g. won't support tobacco anymore) or stepped out (e.g. Melinda leaving Washington Post board after being disgraced for conflict of interests).
I think that assessors of grants, proposals etc. are hired by Gates to often align with financial interests (investments) of the foundation, e.g. people from Monsanto, GSK, and so on. So in order to reach out to those whose hands are in the cookie jar you'd probably have to go into the territories of the foundation. There is no proper separability or oversight there.