Gates has hijacked the WHO and turned it into a personal instrument of power

The World Health Organization has failed disastrously during the pandemic. But now a silent coup is attempting to seize even more power - for itself and for supporters and financiers like Bill Gates - at the expense of states and democratic control.

WHO is not what it used to be for a long time. It was founded after World War II to promote «the highest possible level of health» worldwide – where health was understood as «a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being». Responding to the totalitarian and colonial regimes of the 20th century - both associated with horrific cases of medical abuse - she also stressed the importance of democratizing medicine by Communities and individuals have been given responsibility for their health.

Things started to change in the 1980s when the WHO budget, under pressure from the Reagan administration was frozen, which saw the WHO as a socialist-oriented organization and a threat to the interests of US pharmaceutical companies. As a result, the organization was forced to rely increasingly on extrabudgetary funds provided by "stakeholders": not only governments and bilateral and multilateral organizations (like the World Bank), but also private and corporate donors. Over the years, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has risen among the private extrabudgetary donors: in the 2010s, it was the second largest donor to the WHO with around 10% of all funds.

The problem is that voluntary contributions are earmarked, meaning corporate-backed donors like Gates can largely direct the use of the funds they provide, as Margaret Chan, the former WHO director-general, lamented a few years ago. As a result, the WHO turned to a commercial approach single-mindedly focused on high-tech, largely vaccine-based solutions, with a particular interest in genetically engineered biotechnologies – an emerging industry at the time that was is potentially worth billions. Gates played a crucial role in this change. As the second-biggest donor to the WHO, Gates has used that leverage to vaccine-centric answers to global health issues to be promoted – both by the WHO and by related organizations, which are also funded by Gates.

In 2011 spoke Gates before the WHO and explained: «All 193 member states [must] put vaccines at the heart of their health systems». The following year, the World Health Assembly approved a "Global Immunization Plan," co-authored by the Gates Foundation. The Gates Foundation is closely associated with the pharmaceutical industry. Since its inception, she has held shares in several drug manufacturers and is open to seeking "mutually beneficial opportunities" with pharmaceutical companies. this is the Essence of Philanthrocapitalism – a for-profit approach to «solving the world's problems». This corporate-driven approach is an example of the conflicts of interest that come with WHO's reliance on unaccountable private donors like Gates.

As Vandana Shiva said: “Gates has hijacked the WHO and turned it into a personal instrument of power, which he uses for the cynical purpose of increasing the profits of the pharmaceutical industry. He single-handedly destroyed the public health infrastructure worldwide." Crucially, just as the WHO came increasingly under the dominance of private capital (and Gates in particular), it also began to expand its power. An important step was the third Revision of the International Health Regulations (IHR) in 2005. With the revision of the IHR, the agreements, which cover a wide range of rules for dealing with epidemics and pandemics, became binding for all member states for the first time (even if they are still formally responsible for health policy) into a system in in which governments are only one (rather than the most important) component of a global health system involving a multitude of “stakeholders” – such as private institutions and multinational companies – with the WHO as the ultimate mouthpiece of authority at its centre.

This has to thriving of a vast global biopharmaceutical industry, in which the world’s largest pharmaceutical and biotech companies, global and national public health organizations (most notably the WHO) and private “philanthropies” like Gates are involved. Clearly, these actors have unrelated interests, but over the years these interests have converged on the need to prepare for future pandemics and the opportunities for profit presented by those pandemics that are seen as almost inevitable. The pandemic has highlighted the power the global health industry has acquired in the years leading up to 2020 - and its impact on the WHO. As Covid took hold, the organization abandoned its long-established position on pandemic management in favor of an entirely new, vaccine-focused narrative — which happened to be the same approach taken by the top private funder, Bill Gates, who used his influence to 'control the global Covid response'.

To a large extent, this explains the disastrous management of the pandemic by the WHO. Here is a list of all the things the World Health Organization got wrong during the pandemic:

• She ditched her 2019 pandemic plan (which didn't even mention the term "lockdown") to Introduction of Chinese-style lockdowns to be promoted in all countries.
• She panicked, by claiming that Covid is far more deadly than was already known. As John Ioannidis noted at the time, "the World Health Organization's official rate of 3,4% is horrifying — and meaningless."
• It ignored the well-known age-strategic risks to promote the highly misleading notion that the virus is a threat that affects all humanity indiscriminately, laying the ideological foundation for the resulting bellicose, panic-mongering narrative of the "global war on Covid." .
• She encouraged testing and tracing, despite previously claiming that the Contact tracing "Under no circumstances" should be used, regardless of the severity of the outbreak, because of its limited effectiveness, but also because of "ethical concerns".
• She took the view that there were no therapeutics for Covid, although the Chinese had already published the first treatment protocols in March 2020 (as this on the basis of chloroquine, which «has shown an obvious effectiveness»).
• you promoted general masking, although she initially stated that the benefits of widespread use of masks by healthy people in the community were not proven (which has since been confirmed by the recent Cochrane review).
• She negated the benefits of natural immunity - even going so far as to say that Change definition of natural immunity on their websiteto promote the claim that herd immunity could only be achieved through vaccination.
• She refused (until April 2021) to acknowledge that SARS-2 is an airborne virus, although it there is ample evidence to the contrary thereby underestimating the potentially deadly effects of people being locked in their homes for long periods of time.
• She encouraged that Mechanical ventilation protocol, although it soon became apparent that a staggering number of patients put on ventilators ended up dying (the pressurized oxygen, as it later turned out, literally destroyed the alveoli of the patients' lungs).
• She promoted the strategy of mass vaccination despite the experimental nature of the vaccines and the lack of serious efficacy and safety data with which Aim to vaccinate 2022% of the world's population by mid-70.
• She played a crucial role in covering up the lab leak hypothesis and long promoted the unsubstantiated claim that the virus was almost certainly zoonotic (natural) origin. Even more incredible, she hired Peter Daszak, the head of a company that received a grant from Fauci's NIAID to conduct risky coronavirus research in its Wuhan lab, on a fact-finding mission to China, to investigate the origins of the virus. Not surprisingly, the "investigation mission" concluded that the lab certainly had nothing to do with it.
• But that is not all. The WHO then appointed Sir Jeremy Farrar, another key figurer in the lab leak cover-up, to their chief scientist. Farrar was one of the signatories to a letter ridiculing the lab leak theory as a "conspiracy theory." As we all know, the lab leak hypothesis, far from being a crazy theory, is now being used by several leading US authorities as the most likely theory.
• Finally, under the guise of fighting disinformation, the WHO promoted the Censorship of factually accurate claims on all of the above topics.

You can get a deeper insight into all these topics (and much more) in the book: “The Covid Consensus: The Global Assault on Democracy and the Poor—A Critique from the Left".

The WHO's many failures in fighting the pandemic are a stark reminder of what happens when an institution is taken over by private interests. So why are plans afoot to give the WHO even more power? This is the aim of two agreements that are currently being discussed. The first consists of a series of changes to the existing International Health Regulations, a legally binding instrument. The second is a new "pandemic treaty" that goes in the same direction. I will focus on the IHR changes because they are more advanced and a lot have a better chance of being accepted - they are less controversial than the proposed "treaty" and only need the approval of 50% of the countries to come into force.

The consequences would be just as far-reaching. The WHO proposes replacing the wording that the regulations are implemented “with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons” with the vague terms “equality, coherence, inclusiveness”. The amendments also seek to give WHO authority over States by proposing to change the definition of "recommendations" from "non-binding" to (by deletion) "binding" and specifying that States undertake to to “follow” (rather than “take into account”) WHO recommendations. Mandatory WHO recommendations may include: vaccination requirements, measures that require proof of vaccination (vaccination certificates), quarantine of people (lockdown), travel restrictions and all kinds of health measures.

In addition, a whole new article is proposed in which states "recognize WHO as the guiding and coordinating authority for international public health action in emergencies of international concern". This is of particular concern when considered in conjunction with another amendment that broadens the definition of a “public health emergency” to include “any risk with a potential public health impact” and gives the Director-General sole authority to post to declare an emergency at its discretion.

We should be very concerned about the WHO's attempt to usurp power - especially given that the WHO has largely fallen under the control of private capital and other interest groups. By giving even more power to the WHO, we would effectively be giving it to Gates and his corporate partners. This would mark the final transformation of global healthcare into an authoritarian, corporate-driven, tech-centric affair - and risk the Covid response becoming a blueprint for the future.