He who pays, commands: Bill Gates and the WHO

Sometimes a single tweet is enough to clear the fog. A cryptic sentence in December 2019, somewhere between New Year's Eve cheer and vaccine euphoria. The gist: What will next year bring? Could be one of the best years for our vaccine business. Spoiler alert: It was. For some, at least.

While the rest of the world was preoccupied with lockdowns, existential fears, and social distancing, a system ran like clockwork behind the scenes. The WHO, this supposedly independent guardian of global health, played the role it has now perfected: that of a neutral referee with a sponsorship deal.

Who actually funds the WHO? Spoiler alert: Not primarily the member states. Around 80 percent of the budget comes from voluntary, earmarked donations. Earmarked. A nice way of saying: The money comes with an instruction manual. And according to the WHO constitution, that's precisely what shouldn't be happening. Article 37 states, in essence: No mandates, no conditions, no interference. In reality, however, the annual report reads more like a sponsorship brochure.

Leading the pack: the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Year after year, they contribute hundreds of millions of dollars. Right behind them is the Gavi vaccine alliance, whose sole purpose is to promote vaccination programs worldwide. Surprise: the WHO does exactly the same thing. Coincidence? Sure. Just like how television commercials always seem to air when you're feeling emotionally vulnerable.

What exactly happens with this money remains secret. The so-called grants, which outline the purpose and conditions, are not published. Transparency, after all, is for small countries and naive citizens. Global health leaders don't need such things. Trust is enough. And if not, there's always the word "conspiracy theory."

Speaking of Bill Gates. The man whom a US federal judge has already described as cultivating a "Napoleonic self-image." Microsoft eventually became too small for him, so he switched from software to humanity. Vaccines became his new operating system. In 2010, he declared it the Decade of Vaccines, in 2019 he invested early in BioNTech, and in 2021 he sold it for a hefty profit. ROI 20:1, as he proudly announced. That's philanthropy with an Excel spreadsheet.

And while alternative treatment approaches like ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine were neatly sidelined by the WHO, natural immunity was simultaneously declared virtually non-existent. Only those who are vaccinated are immune. Anyone who disagrees is a risk. To society. To democracy.

Because parallel to the unified medical opinion, a communicative standardization was underway. Under the catchy term "infodemic," the WHO began classifying information even before Covid. From 2020 onward, monthly meetings were held with Big Tech companies: Google, Facebook, YouTube. They agreed on what was true and what would be deleted. This was later even celebrated as best practice in academic journals. Censorship, but evidence-based.

That doctors who deviated from this lost their license to practice or had to undergo psychiatric evaluation is not a dystopian novel. It's Swiss reality. Welcome to the land of direct democracy, as long as you don't say anything directly.

And then there are the international health regulations, which were quietly tightened. Without parliamentary debate. Despite clear resolutions. Permanent surveillance, gene sequencing, wastewater analysis, international financing mechanisms. And, as the icing on the cake, the planned pandemic treaty, including incentive systems for pathogen research. Who will find the next virus? Who will share it first? And who will profit from it?

Of course, it's all just to protect us. Security over freedom. Health over fundamental rights. And if anyone asks why these same structures keep creating states of emergency, the answer is: Because they can.

The call for withdrawal from the WHO is therefore not madness, but a logical reaction. Whether it's politically feasible or not is another question. At the very least, however, an honest reckoning is needed. An after-action review. Not a PR brochure, but a genuine analysis of what happened. Who bore responsibility. Who profited. And who paid.

Because a democracy that refuses to scrutinize massive interventions is not a democracy. It is an administrative zone with ballot boxes.

And if we don't ask these questions, we can expect an endless loop. New emergencies. New vaccines. New tweets. Always the best year for the vaccine business.

For everyone else, probably not…

Lawyer exposes Bill Gates | EDU Podcast (Part 2)