According to the reputed truth-gods of Fb, Gates and WHO and the other Event 201 attendees spewed Rona conspiracies in a video they made in October last year, which implies pre-science and vindicates the people calling covid a “plandem1c”
Many revere and admire the elites for their grandiose plan to enslave the whole humanity, but in fact all their plan is dumb AF from its fundamentals down to its executives, and this is just one of the many evidences. I mean you want to control the world but you can’t even automate censorship on Internet and you end up shooting yourself in the both knees relentlessly? Imagine a fanfare of clowns with megalomaniac delusions, applauded by a congregation of geese. Covidiocracy is destined to cannibalise itself, starting with its propaganda machine, see the SJW/cancel culture.
I made this post very visual and simple so fact-checkers can understand it: They targeted us but it’s their people’s video and it’s made last year. We work mainly with their sources precisely because they’re dumb and predictable and we knew we’ll have to deflect back these BS attacks when they occur. And they fell right into it as soon as they could. They’re a buncha morons with too much money and too many toys.
Basically, Facebook and a host of its “fact-checkers” such as USA Today, Factcheck.org and more, have claimed that one of our latest video uploads “repeats information identified by independent fact-checkers [themselves] as false”.
Thing is we’re not the authors of the content, we just mirrored (reuploaded) a video from Johns Hopkins, untouched, we’re just platforming these people, Facebook told us they’re good credible people :D.
So the authors of the missinformation in the video are, among others: WHO Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation World Bank World Economic Forum Johns Hopkins Lufthansa and many more
Bonus: the video has actually NOTHING, ZERO, 0 to do with the BS fact-checkers are munching there, it’s not about the man-made origins of the virus or anything like that. Remember:
It doesn’t matter what Facebook says
Silviu “Silview” Costinescu
I don’t know it but I bet factcheck.org took money from Gates to label him as a conspiracy head.
Please watch and share our Facebook upload, if not to raise awareness, at least just to piss off these douchebags!
First hour of the simulation is already on our Bitchute, Youtube, we have a BrandNewTube channel too now. All full of “conspiracies”.
At least good thing Facebook and its “independent fact-checkers” are not mere narrative-enforcers and smear-machines 😀
Every day I woke up hoping to find out Covidiocracy was but a nightmare, and every day I discover Humanity is more degenerated than I previously thought. What you are about to read… I couldn’t conceive presenting this to people even as a dark joke, but a reputed American ethics professor and a publication called “The Conversation” think this is feature-worthy.
Fifty years ago, Anthony Burgess wrote “A Clockwork Orange,” a futuristic novel about a vicious gang leader who undergoes a procedure that makes him incapable of violence. Stanley Kubrick’s 1971 movie version sparked a discussion in which many argued that we could never be justified in depriving someone of his free will, no matter how gruesome the violence that would thereby be prevented. No doubt any proposal to develop a morality pill would encounter the same objection.
New York Times, 2011
This was published one day prior to this article and I’m not going to comment much on it because you can’t handle it if I start, probably even I can’t. Just read what these people put out and the functional literates will be able to pull enough lessons from this. The author is Parker Crutchfield, Associate Professor of Medical Ethics, Humanities and Law, Western Michigan University. I have just one detail to highlight: The Conversation cites Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation as “strategic partner”. And now the original article as of August 10th, 2020:
‘Morality pills’ may be the US’s best shot at ending the coronavirus pandemic, according to one ethicist
A psychoactive substance to make you act in everyone’s best interest?
When someone chooses not to follow public health guidelines around the coronavirus, they’re defecting from the public good. It’s the moral equivalent of the tragedy of the commons: If everyone shares the same pasture for their individual flocks, some people are going to graze their animals longer, or let them eat more than their fair share, ruining the commons in the process. Selfish and self-defeating behavior undermines the pursuit of something from which everyone can benefit.
My research in bioethics focuses on questions like how to induce those who are noncooperative to get on board with doing what’s best for the public good. To me, it seems the problem of coronavirus defectors could be solved by moral enhancement: like receiving a vaccine to beef up your immune system, people could take a substance to boost their cooperative, pro-social behavior. Could a psychoactive pill be the solution to the pandemic?
It’s a far-out proposal that’s bound to be controversial, but one I believe is worth at least considering, given the importance of social cooperation in the struggle to get COVID-19 under control.
Public goods games show scale of the problem
Evidence from experimental economics shows that defections are common to situations in which people face collective risks. Economists use public goods games to measure how people behave in various scenarios to lower collective risks such as from climate change or a pandemic and to prevent the loss of public and private goods.
The evidence from these experiments is no cause for optimism. Usually everyone loses because people won’t cooperate. This research suggests it’s not surprising people aren’t wearing masks or social distancing – lots of people defect from groups when facing a collective risk. By the same token, I’d expect that, as a group, we will fail at addressing the collective risk of COVID-19, because groups usually fail. For more than 150,000 Americans so far, this has meant losing everything there is to lose.
For those of us in the United States, these conditions are out of reach when it comes to COVID-19. You can’t know what others are contributing to the fight against the coronavirus, especially if you socially distance yourself. It’s impossible to keep a running tally of what the other 328 million people in the U.S. are doing. And communication and coordination are not feasible outside of your own small group.
Even if these factors were achievable, they still require the very cooperative behavior that’s in short supply. The scale of the pandemic is simply too great for any of this to be possible.
It seems that the U.S. is not currently equipped to cooperatively lower the risk confronting us. Many are instead pinning their hopes on the rapid development and distribution of an enhancement to the immune system – a vaccine.
But I believe society may be better off, both in the short term as well as the long, by boosting not the body’s ability to fight off disease but the brain’s ability to cooperate with others. What if researchers developed and delivered a moral enhancer rather than an immunity enhancer?
Moral enhancement is the use of substances to make you more moral. The psychoactive substances act on your ability to reason about what the right thing to do is, or your ability to be empathetic or altruistic or cooperative.
These substances interact directly with the psychological underpinnings of moral behavior; others that make you more rational could also help. Then, perhaps, the people who choose to go maskless or flout social distancing guidelines would better understand that everyone, including them, is better off when they contribute, and rationalize that the best thing to do is cooperate.
Moral enhancement as an alternative to vaccines
There are of course pitfalls to moral enhancement.
One is that the science isn’t developed enough. For example, while oxytocin may cause some people to be more pro-social, it also appears to encourage ethnocentrism, and so is probably a bad candidate for a widely distributed moral enhancement. But this doesn’t mean that a morality pill is impossible. The solution to the underdeveloped science isn’t to quit on it, but to direct resources to related research in neuroscience, psychology or one of the behavioral sciences.
Another challenge is that the defectors who need moral enhancement are also the least likely to sign up for it. As some have argued, a solution would be to make moral enhancement compulsory or administer it secretly, perhaps via the water supply. These actions require weighing other values. Does the good of covertly dosing the public with a drug that would change people’s behavior outweigh individuals’ autonomy to choose whether to participate? Does the good associated with wearing a mask outweigh an individual’s autonomy to not wear one?
The scenario in which the government forces an immunity booster upon everyone is plausible. And the military has been forcing enhancements like vaccines or “uppers” upon soldiers for a long time. The scenario in which the government forces a morality booster upon everyone is far-fetched. But a strategy like this one could be a way out of this pandemic, a future outbreak or the suffering associated with climate change. That’s why we should be thinking of it now.”
You may say to yourself this is an accident, an isolated voice, whatever… it’s not. The article was republished by a ton of mainstream media outlets, from Foreign Affairs to Yahoo! The system is backing the concept.
You thought that was bad enough?
I found out that mr. Ethics not only reckons the state should drug people into submission, he argues that it should even be done covertly!
Some theorists argue that moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory. I take this argument one step further, arguing that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration ought to be covert rather than overt. This is to say that it is morally preferable for compulsory moral bioenhancement to be administered without the recipients knowing that they are receiving the enhancement. My argument for this is that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration is a matter of public health, and for this reason should be governed by public health ethics. I argue that the covert administration of a compulsory moral bioenhancement program better conforms to public health ethics than does an overt compulsory program. In particular, a covert compulsory program promotes values such as liberty, utility, equality, and autonomy better than an overt program does. Thus, a covert compulsory moral bioenhancement program is morally preferable to an overt moral bioenhancement program.
Yes, you read correctly, this is prison in a pill, prison for the mind, and the ethics professor finds it ethical to treat all mask-opposition as convicts.
<<Ruud ter Meulen, chair in ethics in medicine and director of the centre for ethics in medicine at the University of Bristol, warned that while some drugs can improve moral behaviour, other drugs – and sometimes the same ones – can have the opposite effect.
“While Oxytocin makes you more likely to trust and co-operate with others in your social group, it reduces empathy for those outside the group,” Meulen said.
The use of deep brain stimulation, used to help those with Parkinson’s disease, has had unintended consequences, leading to cases where patients begin stealing from shops and even becoming sexually aggressive, he added.
“Basic moral behaviour is to be helpful to others, feel responsible to others, have a sense of solidarity and sense of justice,” he said. “I’m not sure that drugs can ever achieve this. But there’s no question that they can make us more likeable, more social, less aggressive, more open attitude to other people,” he said.
Meulen also suggested that moral-enhancement drugs might be used in the criminal justice system. “These drugs will be more effective in prevention and cure than prison,” he said>>, according to The Guardian.
If you have my type of ethics and morals, you’re probably very sickened and angered and it takes time for judgement to cool off and ask the practical question: If these are mainstream media reports of 2011, how long have Covidiocracy and the planetary Auschwitz been in the making though?
Long enough, answers New York Times in an 2011 issue: “Why are some people prepared to risk their lives to help a stranger when others won’t even stop to dial an emergency number? Scientists have been exploring questions like this for decades. In the 1960s and early ’70s, famous experiments by Stanley Milgram and Philip Zimbardo suggested that most of us would, under specific circumstances, voluntarily do great harm to innocent people. During the same period, John Darley and C. Daniel Batson showed that even some seminary students on their way to give a lecture about the parable of the Good Samaritan would, if told that they were running late, walk past a stranger lying moaning beside the path. More recent research has told us a lot about what happens in the brain when people make moral decisions. But are we getting any closer to understanding what drives our moral behavior?”
But if our brain’s chemistry does affect our moral behavior, the question of whether that balance is set in a natural way or by medical intervention will make no difference in how freely we act. If there are already biochemical differences between us that can be used to predict how ethically we will act, then either such differences are compatible with free will, or they are evidence that at least as far as some of our ethical actions are concerned, none of us have ever had free will anyway. In any case, whether or not we have free will, we may soon face new choices about the ways in which we are willing to influence behavior for the better.
‘Writing in the New York Times, Peter Singer and Agata Sagan ask “Are We Ready for a ‘Morality Pill’?” I dunno. Why?’, writes WILL WILKINSON on Big Think, in January, 2012. He follows:
“The infamous Milgram and Stanford Prison experiments showed that given the right circumstances, most of us act monstrously. Indeed, given pretty mundane circumstances, most of us will act pretty callously, hustling past people in urgent need in simply to avoid the hassle. But not all of us do this. Some folks do the right thing anyway, even when it’s not easy. Singer and Sagan speculate that something special must be going on in those peoples’ brains. So maybe we can figure out what that is and put it in a pill!
If continuing brain research does in fact show biochemical differences between the brains of those who help others and the brains of those who do not, could this lead to a “morality pill” — a drug that makes us more likely to help?
The answer is: no. And I think the question invites confusion. Morality is not exhausted by helping. Anyway, help do what?
Singer is perhaps the world’s most famous utilitarian, so maybe he’s got “help people feel more pleasure and less pain” in mind. Since utilitarianism is monomaniacally focused on how people feel, it can be tempting for utilitarians to see sympathy and the drive to ease suffering as the principal moral sentiments. But utilitarianism does not actually prescribe that we should be motivated to minimize suffering and maximize happiness. It tells us to do whatever minimizes suffering and maximizes happiness. It’s possible that wanting to help and trying to help doesn’t much help in this sense.”
“Clearly, the science behind moral drugs has some credibility. It seems possible that one day we’ll live in a strange utopian or dystopian world that takes morality pills. But until that day comes, we’ll have to try being good on our own.”
The only glimpse of reason from an ethics professional I found came as late as 2017, and THAT’s an accident, as opposed to the media onslaught that has just re-started on the topic. “There’s nothing moral about a morality pill. We can’t even agree on what morality requires, so designing a morality pill is a conceptually impossible task”, writes Daniel Munro, who teaches ethics in the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa.
Professor Munro shows that two different “morality pills” induced opposite reactions in test subjects. Then which one is the morality pill?
“We could have different pills—lorazepam for consequentialists, citalopram for Kantians, and something else for Aristotelians—but this would amplify, not resolve, moral disagreement. In short, if we can’t agree on what morality requires, then designing a morality pill is a conceptually impossible task.”
Munro’s impeccable demonstration won’t stop anything, though, because Covidiocracy has never been about the common or individual good, but about domination. And domination ends when submission ends.
We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media deliver more, better, faster, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
Ghislaine Maxwell, George Soros, the Rockefellers, Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos… if you’re like me, almost everyone you despise is invested in Save the Children Fund. But the worst thing about this charity is the performance, not the funding.
Save the Children – the Fairfield, Connecticut-based non-profit in the US – is formally known as Save The Children Federation, Inc. and is part of the Save the Children Alliance (a group of 30 Save the Children groups throughout the world that also support Save the Children International). Established in 1932, Save the Children is a 501 (c) (3) and one of the most well-known charities in the world.
In 2017, the organization raised $760 million (including $322 million in government grants and contributions) – $108 million more than the previous year – and spent $720 million primarily on grants ($528 million), staff compensation and benefits ($103 million), fees for services ($41 million), and office-related expenses ($19 million).
The remaining $40 million (the difference between the revenue reported and the revenue spent) was retained by the organization, contributing to the increase in net fixed assets to $241 million at year end.
That means about 1/3 of the money raised are used by the Fund owners and employees.
Save the Children reported having 1,639 employees in 2017. With total compensation costs of $103 million, the average compensation package was $63,000 although 231 individuals received more than $100,000 in total compensation.
The 20 most highly compensated individuals were reported to be:
$540,883: Carolyn S Miles, President and CEO
$404,737: Carlos Carrazana, EVP and COO
$349,875: Sumeet Seam, VP and General Counsel
$338,463: Stacy Brandom, VP and CFO
$307,673: Michael Klosson, VP Policy and Humanitarian Relief
$306,082: Nancy A Taussig, VP Resource Development
$301,709: Diana K Myers, VP International Programs
$278,659: Janine L Scolpino, Associate VP, Mass Market Fund
$256,347: Gregory A Ramm, VP Humanitarian Response
$250,847: Brian White, VP Deputy General Counsel and CCO
$248,423: Robert M Clay, VP
$231,989: Daniel Stoner, AVP Education and Child Development
$227,535: Dana L Langham, Associate VP, Chief Corp Development
$213,491: Mark Shriver, SVP, US Programs (as of 8/17) plus $182,915 from a related organization
$201,460: Kenneth G Murdoch, VP IT and Building OP (end 6/17)
$195,754: William Corwin, Sr VP, US Programs (2/17-8/17)
$190,167: Phillip DiSanto, VP IT and Building OP (as of 5/17)
$161,943: Andrea Williamson, Corporate Secretary
$153,622: Debbie Pollock-Berry, VP and Chief of HR (as of 6/17)
$150,466: Susan E Ridge, VP Marketing and Communications (end 6/17)
Of the 20 most highly compensated individuals, 11 are men and 9 are women. Of the 10 most highly compensated individuals, 5 are men and 5 are women.
$1 MILLION AND ABOVE Carnival Corporation & plc / Carnival Foundation Facebook Inc. Ferrari North America, Inc. Hachette Book Group Mars Wrigley Foundation (formerly Wrigley Company Foundation) Media Storm MNI Targeted Media, Inc. P&G Penguin Random House Pfizer and the Pfizer Foundation PlowShare Group PVH Corp. Scholastic Corporation The Walt Disney Company
$100,000 TO $1 MILLION Adobe Amazon AmeriCares Apple Arconic Foundation Baby2Baby BlackRock BNY Mellon Bombas Burt’s Bees Baby Cargill CHARLES & KEITH Chevron Chobani and the Chobani Foundation Citi Foundation Colgate-Palmolive Cummins Inc. Direct Relief Dollar General Corporation ExxonMobil Flex Foundation Gabriela Hearst Inc. Godiva Chocolatier Good360 Google.org Heart to Heart International Highgate Hotels Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Lutheran World Relief Mastercard Mattel, Inc. and its American Girl division Morgan Stanley New York Life & New York Life Foundation Nike Foundation PayPal PepsiCo Foundation Sempra Energy Foundation Target The Baupost Group, LLC The Father’s Day/Mother’s Day Council, Inc. The Idol Gives Back Foundation The Microsoft Corporation The PwC Charitable Foundation, Inc. Toys “R” Us Voss Foundation Walmart Foundation Western Union Foundation
Comprised of senior leaders from Fortune 500 companies, social impact consultancies and academia, the Corporate Council functions as a strategic sounding board for Save the Children. From cause marketing to technology for development, the council helps Save the Children deepen and evolve our work with the private sector in a mutually beneficial way. We are proud to recognize the thought leadership and advisory contributions of our 2018 Corporate Council members:
Pernille Spiers-Lopez,* IKEA North America (formerly), Council Chair
Perry Yeatman, Perry Yeatman Global Partners LLC, Council Vice Chair
David Barash, GE Foundation
Sean Burke, Accenture
Sarah Colamarino, Johnson & Johnson
Andrea E. Davis, The Walt Disney Company
Mark Freedman, Dalberg
Sebastian Fries, Columbia University
Jim Goldman,* Eurazeo
Rebecca Leonard, The TJX Companies, Inc.
PJ Lewis, Mattel, Inc.
Sean Milliken, PayPal
Christine Montenegro McGrath, Mondeléz International
Paul Musser, Mastercard
Sunil Sani,* Heritage Sportswear, LLC
*Also serves on our Board of Trustees
Ann Hardeman and Combs L. Fort Foundation Bainum Family Foundation Bezos Family Foundation Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Briar Foundation Bruderhof Communities The Catalyst Foundation for Universal Education The Charles Engelhard Foundation Charles Stewart Mott Foundation Cogan Family Foundation Comic Relief USA – The Red Nose Day Fund & Hand in Hand Hurricane Relief Community Foundation of Northern Colorado Connie Hillman Family Foundation Crown Family Philanthropies Derfner Foundation Dubai Cares Educate A Child, a programme of the Education Above All Foundation The Edward W. Brown, Jr. and Margaret G. Brown Endowment for Save the Children and Region A Partnership for Children, a fund of the North Carolina Community Foundation FIA Foundation GHR Foundation The Gottesman Fund Harrington Family Foundation Hau’oli Mau Loa Foundation The Hearst Foundation, Inc. Heising-Simons Foundation Humanity United / Freedom Fund Kenneth S. Battye Charitable Trust LDS Charities MacMillan Family Foundation Margaret A. Cargill Philanthropies Margaret A. Meyer Family Foundation Margaret E. Dickins Foundation Martin F. Sticht Charitable Fund Matthew W. Jacobs & Luann Jacobs Charitable Fund New Hampshire Charitable Foundation Oak Foundation Open Society Foundations (George Soros) Owenoke Foundation Robert Wood Johnson Foundation The Rockefeller Foundation Roy A. Hunt Foundation Schultz Fund Share Our Strength SOMOS UNA VOZ South Texas Outreach Foundation STEM Next Opportunity Fund The Stone Family Foundation Wagon Mountain Foundation The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation World Impact Foundation Anonymous (9)
The Mirror organised a Disney day out for the kids at Lord and Lady Bath’s Longleat House, in Wiltshire. A great fun day in which Ghislaine Maxwell presented a cheque for 2000 UK Pounds for the Save the Children Fund. Ghislaine meets Henry Thynne, Lord Bath and his wife Virginia. 13th September 1985. (Photos by George Phillips/Mirrorpix/Getty Images)
‘Save The Children’ Receives $50 Million Grant From The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to push vaccines and birth control in Africa and Asia.
Political stunts with children’s money? Why not, we make anything look like charity. “Last week, Save the Children weighed into the controversy surrounding Madonna’s attempt to adopt a child in Malawi. Recently it created a new head of UK campaigning to enhance its profile as the country’s leading organisation for defending “children’s rights”. Its current advertising pitch is aimed at persuading the Chancellor to give £3 billion more in his Budget later this month”, writes Philip Johnston, The Telegraph columnist. He follows: “You could be forgiven for thinking that charities are forbidden from political activism by their tax-free status. Yet the Charity Commission’s own guidelines state that it “can be [a] legitimate and valuable activity”. In other words, the charity is fully entitled to campaign, and operate in the UK; but I am equally at liberty not to give it any money if it no longer does what it says on the rattling tin. Save the Children says the money for its UK venture is not coming from its regular contributors but from corporate donors. But that is beside the point.”
“Another children’s charity was rocked last night after a senior executive at Save The Children resigned over allegations of ‘inappropriate behaviour’ “, Daily Mail reports.
Chief strategist Brendan Cox denied allegations against him but left in September. The charity’s £160,000-a-year chief executive Justin Forsyth has also resigned for unconnected reasons.
Both were senior advisers to former Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Mr Cox’s wife, Jo, is a Labour MP and former aide to Mr Brown’s wife Sarah. Mrs Cox also runs the Labour Women’s Network where she is ‘equalities and discrimination’ adviser.
Mr Cox, Save The Children’s director of policy and advocacy, left in September after complaints against him by women members of staff. A well-placed source said Mr Cox strenuously denied any wrongdoing but agreed to leave his post, according to Daily Mail.
Alexia Pepper de Caires, an ex-Save The Children employee, says that sexual abuse in the charity sector is a systemic problem and that she had to storm her former employer’s boardroom to be heard, The Telegraph reported.
Ah, and also this:
After investing millions in Save the Children, Disney Chairman and CEO Bob Iger finally honored with Save the Children’s Centennial Award. He received the trophy from the hands of Oprah Winfrey, star of Epstein’s flight logs. The event was hosted by Jennifer Garner and speakers included Save the Children CEO Carolyn Miles and Disney Legend Oprah Winfrey, Disney informed on their website.
Leaked details of the inquiry, published in the Times, in which the commission accused Save the Children of “serious failures and mismanagement” of the way it dealt with the allegations in 2015, led to calls for the resignation of Kevin Watkins, the charity’s chief executive. He said “no”.
This is just a figment of the larger picture, just to say “watch you hashtag” to whoever made #Savethechildren trend on social media lately (Fakebook’s Suckerborg mainly, we know it was him)
We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media deliver more, better, faster, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
The Information was revealed in a book by a Pulitzer-awarded NYT reporter
“One of the best reporters of his generation . . . a gifted storyteller and thorough reporter.” —New York Review of Books
“A first draft of history that reminds us just how bizarre these times really are. A New York Times columnist and Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter, Stewart has assembled a gripping blow-by-blow account of President Trump’s years-long showdown with the FBI — from the first inklings of something about an email server through the release of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report on Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election . . . Encountering it all smashed between the pages of a single book is a new experience, less the stop-start jerkiness of a tweetstorm than the slow-build dread of a dramatic tragedy . . . . The events recounted in ‘Deep State’ help explain how we ended up at our latest impasse and how Trump is likely to react as it unfolds. What makes the book more than a recitation of unseemly facts is its well-rendered human drama.” — The Washington Post
About the Author
James B. Stewart is the author of Tangled Webs, Heart of a Soldier, Blind Eye, Blood Sport, and the blockbuster Den of Thieves. He is currently a columnist for TheNew York Times and a professor at Columbia University School of Journalism, and in 1988 he won a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting on the stock market crash and insider trading.
We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media deliver more, better, faster, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
In recent years, there has been a growing debate about what role foundations should play in global health governance generally, and particularly vis-a-vis the World Health Organization (WHO). Much of this discussion revolves around today’s gargantuan philanthropy, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and its sway over the agenda and modus operandi of global health. Yet such pre-occupations are not new. The Rockefeller Foundation (RF), the unparalleled 20th century health philanthropy heavyweight, both profoundly shaped WHO and maintained long and complex relations with it, even as both institutions changed over time
According to the Rockefeller Foundation official website, John D. Rockefeller Sr.’s interest in health was in large part influenced by Frederick T. Gates, who was Rockefeller’s philanthropic advisor. Gates had a personal interest in medical research, and he believed strongly that it could be of universal benefit. In 1901, Gates persuaded Rockefeller to fund the creation of the Rockefeller Institute of Medical Research (RIMR) to research the causes, prevention and cures of disease. While financial support for the RIMR was initially disbursed in small increments, by 1928 the organization had received $65 million in Rockefeller funding.
Born in 1853 to a Baptist minister, Gates was raised with a strong dedication to his faith. After graduating from the University of Rochester in New York in 1877 and the Rochester Theological Seminary in 1880, he was ordained as a Baptist minister and spent the next eight years as pastor of the Central Baptist Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
In 1888 while working as Secretary for the American Baptist Education Society, Gates came to the attention of John D. Rockefeller (JDR). JDR was approached by Gates as part of a campaign to create a major Baptist university in the Midwest. Convinced by Gates’ arguments for such an institution, JDR became the principal benefactor of what became the University of Chicago in 1892.
JDR was impressed by Gates’ fundraising and planning skills and proposed that Gates come to manage his philanthropic and business activities.
From this position Gates established his legacy in the field of philanthropy. In 1897, inspired by the lack of medical research facilities in the U.S., Gates laid out a plan for opening an American medical research institution. This plan – his first major endeavor as Rockefeller’s philanthropic advisor – led to the creation of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research. He also played an essential role in creating and organizing the General Education Board (GEB) in 1902 and the Rockefeller Sanitary Commission (RSC) for the Eradication of Hookworm Disease in 1909.
His most notable contribution to early philanthropy, however, was his role in the establishment of the Rockefeller Foundation (RF). It was Gates’ vision of a large, professionally staffed foundation that could work for the general purpose of “the welfare of mankind” that convinced JDR to provide the resources for the new foundation. During his time on the RF Board of Trustees, Gates encouraged a focus on health initiatives (setting an agenda that prevailed for decades) and oversaw early activities of the Foundation, including the development of the International Health Division (IHD) and the China Medical Board (CMB). He served a ten-year term on the RF Board of Trustees before retiring in 1923.
Any lawsuit against the Rockefeller Foundation is a lawsuit against the ones who funded not only Mengele’s, but all the others’ grotesque Auschwitz experiments and are behind serious threats to humanity in the present.
Rockefellers funded the Nazi experiments in the concentrations camps
Jews who know the history of WWII are aware that it was IG Farben, the pharmaceutical and chemical giant, which put Hitler into office and ran the camps. And they know that the Rockefellers had half interest in IG Farben and IG Farben had half interest in the Rockefellers’ Standard Oil.
But while they know that Auschwitz was the site of hideous forced human “medical experiments,” most Jews believe that the horrors of Nazi experiments ended in Nazi Germany.
Rockefellers brought the Nazi doctors and researchers to the US
The Rockefellers and OSS (now the CIA) brought Nazi “doctors” and “researchers” to the US under a program called Operation Paperclip. Nazis were given new identities, false passports, and inserted into medical institutions, and bioweapons, aerospace, military, and spy agencies here, and also were helped to escape to and do similar work for other countries and global agencies. There is reason to believe based on the actions of those global agencies, that some also became part of the newly established UN – including WHO, UNICEF, and UNESCO.
Henry Kissinger, “Rockefeller’s best employee”, and Jewish, helped manage the program that brought Nazi murderers to the US.
“… it was Henry Kissinger’s job to seek and find such Nazi’s that might be of service to America, and Kissinger became the chief of Army Counter-Intelligence in this regard. He trained other agents to hunt down Nazi’s at the European Command Intelligence School in Oberammergau, not to be tried for war crimes necessarily, but rather to serve U.S. military rather than Russian interests.
“It was this operation that principally spirited the creation of the CIA as a cover agency for the powerful Gehlen Org, the German intelligence agency run by Reinhard Gehlen–an organization whose power superseded even the Nazi SS because of its prewar connections with German military intelligence. ….
“You may be interested to know who paid for the importation of Nazis into American central intelligence, the military, and industry? Three groups: The first was “The Sovereign Military Order of Malta” (SMOM), perhaps the most powerful reactionary segment of European aristocracy, that for almost a thousand years, starting with the crusades in the Twelfth Century, funded military operations against countries and ideas considered a threat to its power; Second was the Nazi war chest that was largely funneled through the Vatican and the Rockefeller owned Chase Manhattan Bank, whose Paris branch conducted business as usual throughout the Nazi occupation of France, and thirdly, some of us and our parents–American taxpayers. ….
“Eisenhower, you may remember, warned America that the gravest threat to world security, democracy, and even spirituality, was the growing military/industrial complex. And the Rockefellers and Kissinger played leading roles in its evil expansion.” From: CIA’s Denial of Protecting Nazis is Blatant Lie – Part 1
Among Henry Kissinger’s most influential patrons as he worked his way up the ladder of success to become Nixon’s ‘Deputy to the President for National Security,’ was Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller, the son of Standard Oil, that is Exxon, heir John D. Rockefeller, Jr.
The Rockefeller family’s involvement in the medical/industrial complex, health science research, and American politics is clearly important.
Before World War II, major administration of medical research, or financing by federal agencies, had been generally opposed by America’s scientific community. In fact, it was only during times of war that organizations like the NAS or the NRC received major funding. Both the NAS, established during the Civil War, and the NRC, set up during the First World War, were largely ignored in times of peace.
Between 1900 and 1940, private foundations and universities financed most medical research. According to Paul Starr, author of The Social Transformation of American Medicine: The rise of a sovereign profession and the making of a vast industry, ‘the most richly endowed research center, the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research was established in New York in 1902 and by 1928 had received from John D. Rockefeller $65 million in endowment funds.’ In contrast, as late as 1938, as little as $2.8 million in federal funding was budgeted for the entire U.S. Public Health Service. Therefore, it is easy to see that Rockefeller family investment in health science research predated, and far surpassed, even the federal government’s.
More than the New Deal, the Second World War created the greatest boom in federal government and private industry support for medical research. Prior to the war, American science and medicine was heavily influenced by German models. This precedent was bolstered during the 1930s when the Nazis purged Jewish scientists from German universities and biological laboratories. These changes, according to Starr, significantly altered the course of American health science and medicine. Many of Germany’s most brilliant Jewish researchers emigrated to the United States just as the movement burgeoned to privatize war related biological and medical research.
At this time, the Rockefeller led medical/industrial complex was fully poised to influence, and take advantage of, Congress’s ‘first series of measures to promote cancer research and cancer control.’ In 1937, the new federal legislation authorized the establishment of the National Cancer Institute under the National Institutes of Health, and, for the first time, ‘the Public Health Service to make grants to outside researchers.’ The Rockefellers exercised significant control over the outcomes of these grants and research efforts through the foundations they established.
Following the war, Henry Kissinger, who had become General Alexander Bolling’s German translator and principle assistant (Bolling, of course, was the ‘Godfather’ to the Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency that ran “Project Paperclip,” the secret exfiltration of approximately 2,000 high level Nazi’s, about 900 of whom were military scientists and medical researchers, including Erich Traub, Hitler’s top biological weapons developer and virus expert. Bolling also served as a high ranking member of the Inter-American Defense Board, a Washington based group that delivered Walter Emil Schreiber, Hitler’s chief medical scientist, the “Angel of Death” Joseph Mengele, and his assistant, “the butcher of Lyon,” Klaus Barbie, among others, to safe havens in South America where they worked on CIA projects.) In fact it was Henry Kissinger’s job to seek and find such Nazi’s that might be of service to America, and Kissinger became the chief of Army Counter-Intelligence in this regard. He trained other agents to hunt down Nazi’s at the European Command Intelligence School in Oberammergau, not to be tried for war crimes necessarily, but rather to serve U.S. military rather than Russian interests.
It was this operation that principally spirited the creation of the CIA as a cover agency for the powerful Gehlen Org, the German intelligence agency run by Reinhard Gehlen–an organization whose power superseded even the Nazi SS because of its prewar connections with German military intelligence.
After Hitler, Gehlen served Allen Welsh Dulles, whose “Operation Sunshine” brought Nazis into the U.S. spy service.
You may be interested to know who paid for the importation of Nazis into American central intelligence, the military, and industry? Three groups: The first was “The Sovereign Military Order of Malta” (SMOM), perhaps the most powerful reactionary segment of European aristocracy, that for almost a thousand years, starting with the crusades in the Twelfth Century, funded military operations against countries and ideas considered a threat to its power; Second was the Nazi war chest that was largely funneled through the Vatican and the Rockefeller owned Chase Manhattan Bank, whose Paris branch conducted business as usual throughout the Nazi occupation of France, and thirdly, some of us and our parents–American taxpayers.
Moreover, during this period, the Council on Foreign Relations, along with the CIA, grew in power under the leadership of Nelson Rockefeller, and in 1955, while serving as President Eisenhower’s assistant for international affairs, Rockefeller invited Kissinger to discuss national security issues at the Quantico (Virginia) Marine Base. Following their meeting, according to Walter Isaacson’s biography of Kissinger, the diplomat became Rockefeller’s ‘closest intellectual associate,’ and soon after, Kissinger authored several military proposals for Eisenhower to consider. Unimpressed, Eisenhower turned them down.
As a result, Rockefeller sent Eisenhower his resignation and then launched a Special Studies Project that explored the ‘critical choices’ America faced militarily in the coming years. Kissinger agreed to direct this new project and published a 468-page book on his findings. The treatise proposed that tactical nuclear weapons be developed and ‘a bomb shelter [be built] in every house’ in preparation for limited thermonuclear war. ‘The willingness to engage in nuclear war when necessary is part of the price of our freedom,’ Kissinger argued.
So those of you my age can recall the anxiety grade school students felt while drilling for possible nuclear attacks. You can thank Kissinger and the Rockefeller-led military-industrialists for this “price for freedom.”
Eisenhower, you may remember, warned America that the gravest threat to world security, democracy, and even spirituality, was the growing military/industrial complex. And the Rockefellers and Kissinger played leading roles in its evil expansion. Bent on creating what President Bush openly heralded as a “New World Order,” few people realize the current international alignment of economic powers is a direct result of actualizing Henry Kissinger’s contemporary manifesto–a tribute to the Sovereign Military Order of Malta–entitled “The Meaning of History.” In this Kissinger 1955 Harvard doctoral thesis he argues that the concept of peace on earth is naive. Peace must be secured by the creation of small wars around the planet on a continuing basis so as to maintain an international order of economic powers, and of course, keep the military industrialists happy. – from “Kissinger and Rockefeller Connections to American Central Intelligence and the Origins of AIDS and Ebola”, A Speech Before the Citizens Against Legal Loopholes Rally, The Capitol Mall, Washington, D.C. Labor Day Weekend, 1996, by Dr. Leonard G. Horowitz
“Jacobsen opens Operation Paperclip in November 1944, …. two American bacteriology experts pore over a cache of documents in the apartment of Dr. Eugene Haagen, a German virus expert. Within hours they find a chilling letter from Haagen to a colleague:
“Of the 100 prisoners you sent me, 18 died in transport. Only 12 are in a condition suitable for my experiments. I therefore request that you send me another 100 prisoners between 20 and 40 years of age … .”
“The letter proved that the Nazis were bent on creating biological weapons for use in warfare ….”The people carrying out this barbaric work were no minor Nazi thugs: Before the war, Haagen held a fellowship with the Rockefeller Foundation ….
A document I’ve just dug out from the RF archives shows that around the time they were salvaging Hitler’s scientists through Operation Paperclip, the Rockefellers were already deeply involved in eugenics, genetics, human reproduction too. For the near future I’m considering an article on this topic only.
How Rockefeller Foundation Shaped Modern Medicine in Communist China
This chapter comes in RF’s own words, it’s no secret, most of the truth is not hidden, it’s people running from it: The China Medical Board (CMB) was created in 1914 as one of the first operating divisions of the Rockefeller Foundation (RF). Provided with a $12 million endowment and separately incorporated as CMB, Inc. when the Foundation was reorganized in 1928, the Board’s aim was to modernize medical education and to improve the practice of medicine in China.
Doctors graduating from Peking Union Medical College, Beijing (China), 1947
China was a long-standing interest of both John D. Rockefeller, Sr. (JDR Sr.), and his son. For decades they and their fellow Baptists had supported missionary work in Asia. Beginning in the early 1900s, Frederick Gates encouraged them to devote even more attention to that region. In 1908, five years before the Foundation was created, the Rockefellers funded a commission headed by Edward D. Burton, a University of Chicago professor of theology. He and other educators traveled to China to explore the potential for philanthropic work there.
In its final report the Burton Commission argued that a Western-sponsored educational program in science and medicine for elite Chinese students could succeed, despite a difficult political climate. One of the first actions of the newly created RF was to organize a conference about China in New York in early 1914. The Foundation later dispatched two additional survey groups, the China Medical Commissions of 1914 and 1915, to gather more information about how such an educational program could operate.
Following the model established by Abraham Flexner’s survey of U.S. medical education, the 1914 Commission set out to appraise medical education in both missionary and Chinese schools. It found appallingly low standards throughout the country. The report concluded that “the country is so vast, and the resources available for dealing with the problem are so limited as yet, that the need of outside assistance is still very great.” The CMB was formed to meet those challenges, and Wallace Buttrick was named its first director.
The Foundation’s approach to Chinese medical education would inevitably follow the general patterns for reforming U.S. medical education advocated in the 1910 Flexner report and most fully embodied in the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. Medical education in China would be scientifically rigorous and adhere to Western standards. And, in a decision with long-term consequences, instruction would occur in English. Consequently, the school could reach only a small, elite percentage of the population. Yet in a country of 400 million people then served by fewer than 500 well-trained doctors, such an approach stood to be criticized. Nevertheless, the CMB set out to build a medical school in China that it hoped to make the equal of Johns Hopkins.
The RF entered China with an ambitious goal: to build modern medical schools in both Peking and Shanghai. By purchasing the Union Medical College from the London Missionary Society in 1915, the Foundation took its first steps toward that goal. Over the next six years the Foundation assembled a faculty of fifty professors and upgraded and enlarged the facilities of what was soon called the Peking Union Medical College (PUMC). Particular attention was paid to the school’s architecture and campus plan. According to the RF’s 1917 Annual Report, “While the buildings will embody all the approved features of a modern medical center, the external forms have been planned in harmony with the best tradition of Chinese architecture. Thus they symbolize the purpose to make the College not something foreign to China’s best ideals and aspirations, but an organism which will become part of a developing Chinese civilization.”
PUMC opened its doors in 1919, under the de facto directorship of Roger S. Greene, resident director of CMB. The 70-acre campus would ultimately encompass more than 50 buildings, including a hospital, classrooms, laboratories, and residences. But in New York Rockefeller officials grew concerned about the mounting costs of PUMC and were soon forced to scrap their plans for Shanghai. From an initial construction estimate of $1 million in 1915, expenses ballooned to $8 million in capital expenditures by 1921. The operating budget more than doubled between its first year of operation and 1921. Nevertheless, the medical school and its new campus were deemed worth celebrating. John D. Rockefeller, Jr. (JDR Jr.) led an impressive delegation to China for the 1921 dedication ceremonies.
PUMC’s initial contributions toward the improvement of medicine in China, though consequential, were inevitably limited in scale. Its graduating classes were small, in part because its standards remained high and its curriculum at the outset was exclusively in English. Between 1924 and 1943, PUMC produced only 313 doctors, more than half of whom would continue their studies abroad through CMB fellowships. Upon their return many of these doctors ultimately became leaders in medical administration, teaching and scientific research both before and after the Chinese Revolution.
PUMC also transformed the nursing profession in China. When PUMC opened, there were fewer than 300 trained nurses in the country, many of them affiliated with various missionary organizations and most of them male. Because the Chinese had never considered nursing to be an appropriate profession for women, the task of PUMC was both to train qualified women nurses and to elevate the status of the profession. Those responsibilities fell to a twenty-eight-year-old nurse from Johns Hopkins, Anna D. Wolf. She arrived in 1919 to create a training program for nurses and to organize the hospital’s nursing staff. Recruiting her initial faculty from the best U.S. nursing schools, she devised pre-nursing and nursing curricula. Within five years she established a school capable of meeting U.S. accrediting standards.
John Grant, a professor of public health at PUMC from 1921 to 1934, sought to offer medical services beyond the campus walls. He collaborated with the city’s police in 1925 to create a public health station serving the 100,000 people living in Peking’s first ward, the neighborhood surrounding PUMC. As Grant knew, the station also provided learning opportunities for students at the university. He persuaded his faculty colleagues that PUMC students should spend a four-week rotation there.
Grant’s interest in pursuing broader public health work in rural areas found responsive allies in New York. Selskar Gunn, who had worked with the International Health Division in Eastern Europe before joining RF’s Division of the Social Sciences, traveled to China in 1931 to assess the Foundation’s work. While there he met Yan Yangchu (known to his American associates as Jimmy Yen), a pioneer in mass education and leader of the Rural Reconstruction Movement, with which Grant was already working. After several trips to China, Gunn produced a report that envisioned a coordinated program of basic education, health, and economic development.
Gunn was critical of PUMC and of RF’s and CMB’s disproportionate investment in it. By 1933 almost $37 million had been spent on an institution that would never solve China’s most pressing health problem: the severe shortage of trained medical personnel. A 1931 League of Nations Health Organization survey had concluded that China would need 50,000 physicians in order to have just one doctor per 8,000 people.
Few as they were, the cadre of professionals produced by PUMC would play important roles in shaping China’s health system. In 1946 an observer wrote to Raymond Fosdick, commenting on the small number of PUMC graduates. “Both doctors and nurses are in positions of leadership and many of them are effective in leadership…we found plenty of evidence that this small group had had an influence quite out of proportion to its size.”
But many in China had expected more. A Chinese Ministry of Education assessment of PUMC in the mid-1930s urged not only that enrollment be increased but also that more classroom instruction be in Chinese. Other recommendations soon followed: increase the courses in public health, parasitology, and bacteriology; teach Chinese medical terminology; and publish papers in both Chinese and English so that they would reach a larger audience.
Henry Houghton, who had directed PUMC during its formative years in the 1920s, returned in 1934 to address these criticisms. But by the mid-1930s relations with some departments of the Chinese government had soured. Tensions between the New York office and PUMC had led to the firing of Roger Greene, and there were continuing difficulties in transforming PUMC into a more fully Chinese institution. By 1937 Houghton and his colleagues were making substantial moves toward bilingual instruction, reducing the numbers of Western faculty, and placing Chinese professors in positions of departmental leadership. Plans for a graduate medical school were also under discussion with the Ministry of Education, but the Japanese invasion in 1937 interrupted this work.
Surviving War and Revolution
At PUMC limited teaching continued for a time even though some prominent faculty and staff fled in 1937 to southwest China to assist with war-related training and rural health programs. The school closed completely only after the U.S. declaration of war on Japan in December 1941. The Japanese occupied the grounds of PUMC, imprisoning Houghton for the war’s duration. Heroically, the nurses moved their school in its entirety to Chengdu and reopened there in 1942.
PUMC resumed limited operations in 1947, but RF staff debated the Foundation’s role as nationalist and Communists factions fought for supremacy. Could they stay above the fray and continue their work? What was the Foundation’s role likely to be as a new political order took shape? Alan Gregg saw that Communism, which in the U.S. represented a challenge to capitalism, meant something else to the Chinese. Communism in China battled a feudal order. He concluded that this “puts American aid in combating Chinese Communism into some odd attitudes and curious commitments.”
In 1947, amid the uncertainty about PUMC’s future, the Foundation made a terminal grant of $10 million to the CMB. But in 1951 the People’s Republic of China nationalized PUMC and severed ties with the RF and CMB, Inc.
Between 1915 and 1951, the RF and CMB, Inc. spent well over $50 million on medical initiatives in China, nearly $45 million of it to establish PUMC. Other missionary hospitals benefited from smaller Foundation contributions. Fellowships helped doctors and nurses to travel abroad for advanced training. Medical texts were translated, and medical libraries were built. But the greatest RF legacy was PUMC and the enduring contributions its graduates have made to China’s health system. PUMC’s buildings, dedicated in 1921, still stand in the center of Beijing. A bust of JDR Sr. greets visitors to PUMC’s auditorium. The hospital still ranks as one of China’s most advanced. Today, the Chinese Academy of Medicine operates from the campus.
The Rockefeller Foundation and the birth of WHO
The launching of WHO in 1948 coincided with and helped stimulate the disbanding of the RF’s International Health Division (IHD) and the waning of the RF’s in international health. But, as we shall see, because the RF’s influence on international health’s institutions, ideologies, practices, and personnel was so pervasive from the 1910s through the 1940s, the WHO’s early years were imbued not only with the RF’s dominant technically-oriented disease-eradication model but also with its far more subordinate forays into social medicine, an approach grounded in political, economic, and social terms as much as the biomedical. – Source
During World War II, the LNHO was denuded of resources and staff (maintaining neutrality, while its rival, Paris-based Office International d’Hygie`ne Publique, in charge of sanitary conventions and surveillance, was accused of collaborating with the Nazis).19 In 1943 the new US-sponsored and generously funded United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA) largely absorbed and expanded upon the LNHO’s functions through the massive provision of medical relief, sanitary services, and supplies in war-torn countries, with a staff of almost 1400 health professionals from some 40 countries and expenditures of up to $US80 million/year. UNRRA, too, had a deep RF imprint: it was devised and planned by IHD veteran Selskar Gunn, while IHD director Wilbur Sawyer became head of UNRRA health operations following his retirement from the RF in 1944.21 Not only were the LNHO and UNRRA the immediate precursors to WHO, they acted as a pipeline for WHO’s first generation of personnel. However, the hoped-for full transfer of funds to WHO upon UNRRA’s closing in 1947 consisted of a far more modest sum under five million dollars.
The Rockefeller Foundation pushed US into WHO
The RF was also invoked in the bitter US Congressional debate over joining WHO. Fearing that the country would repeat the error of not having joined the League of Nations, respected US Surgeon-General Thomas Parran (a presumed candidate for WHO director) gave impassioned testimony at the Senate on June 17, 1947: ‘Health has been termed by [RF President] Mr Raymond Fosdick as a ‘rallying point of unity’ in international affairs. Cooperation . in the interest of health represents one of the most fruitful fields for international action. When one nation gains more of health it takes nothing away from any other nation. By learning how to work together in the interest of health, the lesson will be of value in other and more difficult fields.’ By this time the RF was busy mobilizing backstage in the context of unfolding Cold War rivalries. Rolf Struthers, Associate Director of the RF’s Medical Sciences Division, reported on his reconnaissance: ‘If U.S. insists on Parran . Russia will not join and it will not be a World Health Organization.’ This problem, together with the perception that Parran ‘does not enjoy wide support’ despite his distinction as a public health leader, led IHD Director George Strode to suggest backing Chisholm ‘because he is thoroughly honest, understanding and deeply interested,’ although questions remained about his leadership effectiveness. As late as March 12, 1948, the US Senate tabled a vote on WHO membership, leaving American public health leaders angry and embarrassed. The US finally joined WHO in July 1948 (almost three months after WHO’s April 7, 1948 ‘birthday’) following a compromise Joint Congressional resolution allowing the US to withdraw unilaterally from WHO on one year’s notice. Ironically, the USSR delegate formally proposed US acceptance intoWHO, but it would be the USSR and Soviet bloc, not the US, that would later pull out of WHO (1949e1956). With US membership settled, the RF began to judge the new organization’s first steps.
How the Rockefellers shaped the early WHO
Well into the 1950s the RF served in a retired emperor’s role, no longer the quotidian wielder of power but playing a crucial part behind the scenes in various ways. With the IHD’s impending demise, senior WHO administrators were keen that the RF’s Struthers spend a week in Geneva to get to know WHO technical staff, ‘learning both of their personalities and their fields of competence.’ Struthers found Chisholm ‘particularly anxious that the close association between the WHO and the RF’ continue, ‘both with the object of avoiding duplication of effort, and also that the RF was able to do some things which WHO could not do, and that our long experience, and objective and independent outlook were of value to the personnel of WHO. A parade of RF officers was invited to serve on WHO expert committees, intensively so in the 1950s, and more sporadically in subsequent decades. After the IHD folded, RF staff wondered whether they should sit on WHO expert panels in areas that were no longer RF priorities, but DMPH director Warren assured them that such positions were useful for maintaining contacts, for example in malariology. Several RF nurses were asked to serve on the Expert Advisory Panel on Nursing, another colleague on the yellow fever panel in 1954, and so on. The RF was also involved in joint WHO/RF seminars in the early 1950s, supporting mostly travel costs to garner the interest of scientists in such areas as sanitary engineering.
A subset of RF men also became involved in WHO work in the areas of medical education, healthcare policy, and community health and development (the first two being major foci of the RF’s new DMPH). Launched with vigour under Chisholm, this back door support for social medicine, even as WHO’s disease campaigns were proliferating, included: RF officer John Grant participating as ‘observer’ to the 1952 Expert Committee on Professional and Technical Education and various public health expert meetings through the 1950s; RF Vice President Alan Gregg serving on the Expert Panel on Medical Education in 1952; and panel membership of several leftwing social medicine experts who had been supported by the RF, such as Stampar and Sigerist. The reports produced by these panels made powerful recommendations about the need to incorporate comprehensive, community-based social welfare approaches rather than a narrow focus on clinical care. In this regard, John Maier, a DMPH staff member, noted that WHO and the RF were facing similar dilemmas. At a WHO European study conference of Undergraduate Training in Hygiene, Preventive Medicine and Social Medicine, for example, Stampar although far more politically radical than his patrons outlined the difficulties caused by a ‘separation and antagonism between preventive and curative medicine’ and suggested calling medical schools ‘schools of health. The RF’s effort to undo its longstanding compartmentalization of medicine and public health was partially linked to WHO, involving for example, RF support for several medical schools in Colombia, which in the 1960s informed WHO’s call for the teaching of community-based, preventive, social and occupational medicine as part of internationally accepted standards. In the early 1950s, Grant was at the fulcrum of RF-WHO collaborative social medicine efforts. His commissioned paper on the ‘International Planning of Organization for Medical Care,’ was presented before WHO’s Department of Advisory Services in 1951, informing the recommendations of related expert panels.77 This work emphasized the importance of regionalized health systems and village health committees. Later that year he was nominated by WHO to be a member (funded by the RF) of a three-person UN survey mission on community organization and development in India, Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), Thailand, and the Philippines. The survey, building on Grant’s prior scouting of inter-agency cooperation possibilities among WHO, UNICEF, and the US government to ‘rebuild’ Southeast Asia,78 highlighted the economic and social aspects of community programs, again stressing self-help efforts, in part as a means of fending off communism.
9 WHO’s European office was also keen to have Grant’s participation, inviting him on a study tour of Sweden, Scotland, and Belgium,80 and receiving almost $US50,000 from the RF over three years to study personnel needs under Europe’s new health and social welfare laws. Grant observed that some believed that they were so far advanced, there was little room for improvement, with Norway and Sweden serving as paradoxical ‘exceptions to this attitude.’ By the mid-1950s, RF leaders believed that the RF need no longer be represented at every WHO meeting and ‘should maintain good relations and reasonably close contact.
Soon enough, WHO invitations for RF participation were turned down. With its resources now focused elsewhere, the RF sought to rally other philanthropic players. It had already tested these waters in 1949, suggesting that WHO approach the Ford Foundation for a subsidy towards a new building, and in early 1951, the RF and the Kellogg Foundation each provided PASB with $US150,000 interest free loans to purchase a building to serve as headquarters.86 Kellogg also joined the RF in providing fellowships. The role of the RF’s flagship fellowship program was an important ongoing issue. At first, the IHD sought to retain public health fellowships ‘in significant fields which are not major interests of WHO’ because of WHO’s tendency to let member countries select fields and individuals for fellowships, which might ‘preclude senior men who may be developing newer areas. The RF also questioned WHO’s preference for fellowships to be held at non-US schools, a policy WHO justified by the large number of foreign students attending these institutions. Another problem was due to WHO’s poaching of fellows who had been trained specifically for RF projects. The RF called for mutual ‘consideration and unusual courtesies,’ meaning that WHO should ‘refrain from offering attractive employment’ to men destined for RF work. Chisholm was so alarmed by these personnel raiding accusations that he sought RF permission to use the RF fellowship directory to recruit candidates for field projects. The RF was careful not to bankroll WHO projects without participating in their design. DMPH director Warren was particularly troubled by a request that it work with WHO to support Manila’s Institute of Hygiene, declaring, ‘the only categorical statement I can make is that we will not operate through WHO or any other intermediary.’ The DMPH ultimately granted $US20,000 but only to support visiting Johns Hopkins faculty. By 1952 it was mutually decided that there would be ‘no further joint projects, but that we will maintain a relatively close liaison’ in training courses in insect control and biological testing of insecticides.94 On the other hand, the RF sought to take advantage of WHO demonstration projects to organize particular studies. Despite these changes, the RF remained on the pulse of WHO politics. Numerous Americans involved in WHO confided to RF staff about developments under Chisholm. Some were concerned with decentralized regionalization; others believed that Henry Sigerist, self-exiled from Johns Hopkins back to Switzerland, was exerting ‘undue influence’ public health on Chisholm in regards to both national health insurance and medical education reform.96 Grant, meanwhile, kept a close eye on social medicine developments and praised WHO’s increasing emphasis on program evaluation. But his critique of technical assistance in Thailand was met by defensive WHO staff intent on gaining RF understanding and approval.
In 1952, the big storm was around Norwegian Executive Board chair Karl Evang’s speech and motion on WHO’s recognition of and involvement in population studies and control of reproduction. A ‘highly emotional controversy’ ensued over the following days, with France, Belgium, Ireland, and Italy threatening to resign from WHO. Following a ‘tense debate,’ these countries, facing ‘religious political pressure,’ defeated attempts at any technical discussions: Evang’s motion was not brought to a vote but advisory birth control work in India was allowed to continue. This incident, which nearly broke WHO apart, also delineated an area for RF work that would not overlap with WHO efforts. Just a month later, John D Rockefeller III convened an invitation-only ‘Conference on Population Problems’ with top experts.He founded the Population Council shortly thereafter, separately from the RF because its own board was divided, thus partially (though not intentionally) shielding WHO from this problematic arena.
Another difficulty faced by the young WHO was financial. In both 1953 and 1954, the US paid only $US8 million of $US12 million pledged, even while the UN had asked WHO to increase its technical assistance to member countries. With a $US30 million shortfall, WHO was forced to freeze spending. One RF officer berated, ‘The WHO is just learning the wisdom of setting aside all funds for each project out of current budget.’105 RF staff also learned that WHO was fearful of the ‘empire-building aspects’ of UNICEF, which was more solidly (largely US) funded and ‘will tend to use its stronger autonomous position’ to build its own technical staff rather than rely on WHO as per the original agreement. Concerns about the urgency of US support for WHO were so great that advocates approached the RF for help from all angles. Esteemed US public health man Frank Boudreau (who rose to deputy director of the LNHO and then executive director of the Milbank Memorial Fund), chair of the National Citizens Committee for World Health, appealed to Nelson Rockefeller107 to attend the National Conference on World Health in 1953. The Committee, set up in 1951 to generate public interest and support for international health and save the United Nations from the fate of the League of Nations, already had Chisholm, Eleanor Roosevelt, the US SurgeonGeneral, and RF President Dean Rusk lined up as speakers at its conference, but the presence of a Rockefeller family member was deemed essential
The RF’s stamp on WHO was reinforced with the May 1953 election of Dr. Marcolino Candau as its director-general. Candau had been an RF fellow and had worked with Soper in IHD’s Anopheles gambiae campaign in Brazil, then briefly served as his deputy at PASB. Initially there were close interactions. Grant learned early that Chisholm would be resigning in June 1953, after a single term. Because of Soper’s continued relations with former colleagues, the RF was privy to the internal battles and ‘considerable hard feelings’ over Chisholm’s successor. With British support for a Pakistani candidate and Vatican support for an Italian, ‘through Chisholm’s intervention, and after very close voting, Candau of Brazil was nominated, and presumably will be elected.’110 Soper ‘has confidence’ that Candau would ‘bring strong leadership to WHO Secretariat.
In October 1954, new RF President Dean Rusk invited Candau for lunch and a ‘relaxed discussion’ about WHO programs and ‘what a private organization might do in the world today in the field of medical education and medical care.’ Candau suggested RF support for education, research, and training in strong regional institutions such as Mexico’s Institute of Cardiology, the Sao Paulo and Santiago schools of public health, and the new Central American Institute of Nutrition. Rusk saved the ‘Mars bars’ question for after dessert: Candau’s position on birth control. After pretending he had to leave, Candau explained that he had been instructed to keep mum on this issue, though he was well aware of the ‘population-food problem’ and that other UN agencies were accusing WHO of ‘creating more problems than it was solving.’ As such, Candau argued, birth control work was well-suited to private organizations. Once the RF became satisfied with Candau’s agenda for WHO, more routine matters resumed. Tensions over fellowships resurfaced under Candau because the RF was getting growing numbers of WHO staff applications for fellowships that had not been approved institutionally. Candau lobbied several RF men, hoping for ‘sympathetic consideration’ so that a few outstanding fellows could become key personnel for permanent WHO positions, both at headquarters and regional offices. He also wrote DMPH director Warren, promising to screen all candidates, and hoping for continued support: ‘It is fully realized that you cannot envisage continuing the granting of fellowships for an indefinite period. We are, however, most grateful for your agreeing to assist WHO in the development of its staff during these early critical years.’120 RF staff suspected Candau wanted much of WHO staff trained at RF expense and ‘is now trying to hedge a bit on his agreement in the hope that he can wangle more fellowships than you had in mind..Hence, the training program would seem to be a more or less continuous process. Warren concluded the discussion by promising: ‘As you know, we are anxious to do all we can to help you and your colleagues . develop a sound corps of well-trained people for permanent and long term work. [but] Because of limited funds, and need to train personnel closer to home, [we] will not support operating field personnel. For a few years, new RF-WHO fellowships again rose, going from 2 in 1953 to 8 in 1959, but by 1963 there was only 1, in 1964 2, and only 1 new RF fellow from WHO in 1968.123 By this time the WHA had approved major funding for fellowships,124 and the RF was no longer needed.
In 1955 another conflict brewed around WHO’s job offer to the director of an RF-funded community health centre in France. John Maier, now an assistant RF division director, wanted to draft a harsh letter to Candau about the matter but was told this was ‘inadvisable,’ and he would ‘simply have to grin and bear it.’126 Further confidential, high level discussions about the case called for informal approaches: ‘It was decided that the RF was not justified in taking such a stand.on the basis that we should not try to play God.’ Around this juncture, the RF-WHO relationship began to grow more distant. The New York meeting with Rusk led to unofficial RF approval of Candau’s indefinite posting as director-general, which lasted until 1973. Candau oversaw the establishment of WHO’s global malaria and smallpox eradication campaigns, a growing WHO bureaucracy, and a massive effort to provide public health training fellowships to over 50,000 health personnel from across the world. Ironically, or perhaps due to this connection, the late 1950s and 1960s was the period of least interaction between the RF and WHO. To be sure, Soper was a central shaper of its malaria campaign, and Paul Russell and other RF men were involved. But the growth in membership of WHO following the liberation struggles of dozens of new nations in Africa and Asia (and later, the Caribbean), accompanied by increasing bureaucratization, and the malaria effort e significantly financed by the US government (and a few others) through ‘voluntary’ contributions rather than regular member country dues, moved the RF further away from WHO’s centre stage. The RF’s period as prime advisor was over and WHO went from being swayed by the priorities and agenda of the foundation to becoming subject to powerful, far larger donors, most notably the United States, in the context of Cold War exigencies. Certain collaborations did continue. In 1958 the RF granted $US25,000 for a WHO manual of operations.129 Joint efforts, such as $US250,000 in RF support for research to combat protein malnutrition carried out in 12 countries, involved WHO in an advisory capacity, among other agencies. In 1960 the RF’s new Division of Medical and Natural Sciences joined WHO to support a rural public health centre in Kenya and a School of Nursing in Congo Republic, as well as various efforts in medical education. As in the past, numerous RF-trained and supported experts from around the world rose to prominent positions at WHO.
But the RF began to turn down WHO requests as often as it accepted them, and focused on narrowly targeted efforts such as funding a WHO bibliography on hookworm.133 For its part, WHO was also reluctant to commit to co-sponsoring RF projects. When USAID administrator Leona Baumgartner suggested in 1963 that USAID, the RF, and WHO carry out a joint study on training of ancillary health personnel and staffing needs, Candau offered support of a WHO statistician but insisted ‘WHO cannot be considered as a Sponsoring Agency.’ Meanwhile, the RF had also changed tolerance of social medicine on the margins of its main efforts dwindled with Alan Gregg’s and John Grant’s respective retirement and death and amidst the continued red-baiting of the McCarthy era. For example, since his posting by the RF to Puerto Rico in 1954 to set up a coordinated medical and public health system of research and practice,36 Grant had been keen to make WHO aware ‘that their present categorical activities must be replaced by polyvalent permanent local organizations. After four years, a possibility finally materialized only circuitously when the National Citizens Committee for the World Health Organization obtained grants from the RF, as well as the Milbank, Kellogg, and Avalon foundations and various industrial concerns, to fund key public health delegates to the 1958 WHA (held in Minneapolis) to travel to Puerto Rico to attend a series of professional sessions arranged by Grant and see the island’s ‘progressive public health and medical services.’136 But this was an anomalous episode: after 1954, the RF’s European office (a vital link to WHO) shrank by 90% and public health RF programming moved even further away from public and international health (though support for bench research on arboviruses and other tropical diseases, and some community medicine efforts, continued apace). From backstage to backdrop It is not surprising that the RF left such a deep impression on WHO, for the IHD was the most influential international health actor of the era. Before WWII, European powers were focused on their colonial networks, with inter-imperial commercial rivalries impeding strong international agencies, while the US government was testing its own international health leadership in the Americas. Thus by default and through its own protagonism, the RF was the de facto international health leader. Even after the IHD closed down shortly after WHO was founded, this was no disappearing act. The RF’s disease control ideology and approach to international health were infused into the agenda and practices of WHO. This took place both directly, through the discreet advice it purveyed and the generations of RF personnel and numerous RF fellows and grantees WHO employed and consulted, and indirectly, through the RF having shaped the international health scene via scores of in-country cooperative efforts over almost forty years and through its hand in designing and supporting major multilateral health institutions over several decades. What is remarkable is that not only was the RF’s predominant technobiological paradigm adopted by WHO, but so was its modest entre´e into social medicine, advanced by a small contingent of left-leaning longtime IHD officers. This was particularly marked during WHO’s early years, when Chisholm, himself not an RF man, opened the organization to this alternative perspective even as the RF’s main approach bore down on his administration. In those years, the RF was subtly ever present conveying both of its legacies, albeit at different scales.
How and why the RF subsequently became less visible at WHO also illuminates the constraints of shifting power blocs at WHO. The bulk of Candau’s period would mark a distancing between WHO and the RF, even as the RF’s disease control model had become fully entrenched at WHO, most visibly through the launching of the global malaria eradication campaign. On one level, this paradoxdCandau’s rise coinciding with the RF’s demise at WHO indicated that because its approach was firmly in place at WHO, the RF’s presence was superfluous. On another level, this estrangement meant that some openings to social medicine enabled by the RFeWHO relationship now faded. While RF-sponsored advocates of social medicine remained on certain expert committees, the hard line of McCarthyism wiped out many American health leftists in particular. A notable target was health systems and policy expert Milton Roemer, who left the repressive context of the United States to work at WHO in 1950, only to lose his WHO appointment in 1953 after the US government revoked his passport due to his refusal to sign a loyalty oath.137 In the late 1950s and 1960s, some social medicine advocates involved in WHO came from other quarters, including Latin America and Africa. Sidney and Emily Kark, for example, who had innovated a successful community health centre model in South Africa (in part thanks to RF officer John Grant’s backing), participated in various WHO activities. But under Candau and with heightened Cold War rivalries at WHO sparked by the return to active membership of the Soviet bloc in the mid1950s, this health internationalist tenor was marginalized at WHO, only to resurface, as we shall see in Part II, starting in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The RF became but a backdrop not only at WHO but also on the international health scene writ large. Indeed, the subtitle of a 1959 US Senate report about the US and WHO, ‘Teamwork for Mankind’s Well-Being,’130 echoed, perhaps inadvertently, the RF’s 1913 motto: ‘For the Well-Being of Mankind throughout the World.’ This 150-page document cited the RF’s link to WHO on just two pages and only in regards to interagency research collaboration, with no mention of the RF’s pivotal prior role in setting the international health agenda. The importance of the RF’s advocacy, legitimacy, and seed funding for projects diminished considerably after the US’s financial support of WHO efforts soared starting in 1956-7, in the wake of the influenza pandemic, the Soviet bloc rejoining WHO, and US recognition of the potential of the malaria eradication campaign to combat communism. As such, the RF’s organizational power was waning even as its ideological approach to international health had become solidly institutionalized within WHO.
In sum, the Rockefeller Foundation had enormous bearing on WHO, just as it did on the overall international health arena: WHO’s very configuration was unthinkable without the RF. Yet as WHO found firm ground in the 1950s and the RF abandoned its primordial international health role, there was a tacit understanding that the RF would not interfere in day-to-day operations, even as WHO leaders and champions remained conscious of the RF’s underlying influence. After the US government brashly moved onto WHO’s turf at the height of the Cold War, particularly through its role in the global malaria eradication campaign, there was a further distancing between the RF and WHO. As will be discussed in Part II, it was only in the 1970s that the relationship resumed, just when WHO began to question the RF’s disease campaign model, and, backed by the bulk of its member countries, it pursued a more community-grounded approach to primary health care amidst calls for a new antihegemonic economic order. By this time, the RF’s support for such social justice-oriented efforts was much narrowed in the context of the dominant ideological shift towards neoliberalism, and it played what many perceived as an antagonistic role in seeking to resurrect its disease control paradigm.
Backstage: the relationship between the Rockefeller Foundation and the World Health Organization, Part I: 1940se1960s by A.-E. Birn – 2013 The Royal Society for Public Health
To be continued maybe. I wish to continue this, but I don’t have the necessary security, hope and any future, so I don’t know what tomorrow brings.
Coming up: The Rockefeller – Bill Gates connection The Rockefeller – Soros connection The Rockefeller – Clinton connection The Rockefeller – Trump connection The Rockefeller – Covid-19 connection
We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media deliver more, better, faster, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
MUST SEE: One of the best documentaries I know, from the best journalist I know.
This has been revealed to me while investigating Trump’s new “Vaccine Czar” Moncef Slaoui, in his home-town Agadir, Morocco, under a coronavirus lockdown and a hunger-strike. Energy and time are scarce, I’ll be making a brief sum-up here, and for more details please read my other investigations on this site.
The scheme is simple and efficient:
Bill Gates: Money, influence and organizing
Tony Fauci (NIAID): Influence, research and power
through US Government and media with all their capabilities
Moncef Slaoui (GSK, Moderna), US’ new “Vaccine Czar”: concocts the vaccines, connects the industry
Together they control WHO and GAVI, which serve as common platforms and global marketers
The following vaccines have been elaborated and marketed by this group, mostly with disastrous effects:
“This is not the big game changer that we were hoping for,” said Dr. Martin De Smet, a malaria expert at Doctors Without Borders. “The vaccine itself remains disappointing but this is an important step forward,” he said. Still, De Smet said the vaccine could help reduce the huge burden of malaria: there are about 200 million cases and more than 500,000 deaths every year, mostly in African children.
Moroccan budget is largely dependent on investors to subsidise its large deficit. Two of its best partners are a couple of banks not quite known in the Western world. Until now. Bill Gates has his hands deeply in both of them. And this sting is now hurting Morocco and costing it $3Billion a month. I’m just scratching a surface here, but you can peep in now. Something like this might be happening in your country too.
Disclaimer: For now, this article is more dry than others and demands from the reader to join some dots, maybe, because it was completed in my 9th day of hunger strike, under an insane and scientifically unjustified lockdown in Morocco. It was important to publish it now, while I still can, and if my destiny is generous, I will perfect it. The point is made anyway.
The African Development Bank (ADB / AfDB)
Veteran banking partner of Morocco, The African Development Bank Group or Banque Africaine de Développement is a multilateral development finance institution. The AfDB was founded in 1964 and comprises three entities: The African Development Bank, the African Development Fund and the Nigeria Trust Fund. – Wikipedia CEO: Akinwumi Adesina (Sep 1, 2015–) Headquarters: Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire Founded: September 10, 1964 Leader: Akinwumi Adesina Subsidiaries: African Development Fund, Nigeria Trust Fund, and more
“In this first academic study of the ADB, Karen Mingst argues that the bank is a political institution, not the functional, economically neutral organization originally envisioned. Using bank archives and extensive interviews with ADB personnel, contractors, the economic development community, and national government officials, Mingst analyzes the changing political relationships in the ADB in three arenas: intraorganizational politics with effects on the secretariat and on policy issues, political relations with other development organizations, and hegemonic politics among politically and economically powerful state members.”
However, I suspect some big voters are not on that list, are not even countries, but are richer than some countries. Riddle me this…
Did you know? Bill Gates’ fortune in 2017 was roughly equal to Morocco’s GDP.
The Islamic Development Bank (IsDB)
Not a new actor on the local market either, IsDB is a multinational based in Saudi Arabia and it describes itself as “a multilateral development bank (MDB), working to improve the lives of those we serve by promoting social and economic development in Member countries and Muslim communities worldwide, delivering impact at scale.
We provide the infrastructure to enable people to lead better lives and achieve their full potential.
We bring together 57 member countries across four continents – touching the lives of 1 in 5 of the world’s population.
We are one of the world’s most active MDBs, and global leaders in Islamic Finance, with an AAA rating, and operating assets of more than USD 16 billion and subscribed capital of USD 70 billion.
We are a truly global institution, headquartered in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, with major hubs in Morocco, Malaysia, Kazakhstan and Senegal, and gateway offices in Egypt, Turkey, Indonesia, Bangladesh and Nigeria.
We foster collaboration between our members nations in a uniquely non-political environment, as we focus on the betterment of humanity.
IsDB seems to have earned contract after cotract with the government, too many to mention, they’re seriously competing AfDB. Competing or completing…
Until 2017, Morocco has received a total of USD 7.6 billion from the Islamic Development Bank (IDB) group since its establishment in 1974, according to Bandar Al-Hajjar, president of the IDB.
You know who else is an even more “fervent” collaborator for IsDB? I mean so close they should share offices?
Yeah, Bill Gates, of course.
THE TIMELINE (incomplete)
June 4, 2009
World Bank, the African Development Bank, Gates Foundation, and DEG set up “Health in Africa Fund” under Chinese management
From the official press release: “IFC, a member of the World Bank Group, the African Development Bank, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the German development finance institution DEG – Deutsche Investitions- und Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH announced June 4, 2009 that they have created a new private equity fund that will invest in Africa’s health sector.
The Health in Africa Fund, managed by Aureos Capital, will invest in small- and medium-sized companies in sub-Saharan Africa, such as health clinics and diagnostic centers, with the goal of helping low-income Africans gain access to affordable, high-quality health services. The fund will be measured not only by fiscal performance but also by its ability to cultivate businesses serving the poor.
The Health in Africa Fund is part of IFC’s Health in Africa Initiative under which IFC intends to mobilize up to $1 billion in investment and advisory services over five years, following publication of its 2007 Business of Health in Africa report, which focuses on how to improve people’s lives by partnering with the private sector. Besides the equity vehicle, IFC is improving access to long-term financing for smaller companies involved in health care through local financial intermediaries. Together with the World Bank and other partners, IFC is working with governments to help them better harness the private sector to achieve national health goals and is producing the first biennial report on Africa’s health care investment climate.
IFC, a member of the World Bank Group creates opportunity for people to escape poverty and improve their lives. We foster sustainable economic growth in developing countries by supporting private sector development, mobilizing private capital, and providing advisory and risk mitigation services to businesses and governments. Our new investments totaled $16.2 billion in fiscal 2008, a 34 percent increase over the previous year.
Guided by the belief that every life has equal value, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation works to help all people lead healthy, productive lives. In developing countries, it focuses on improving people’s health and giving them the chance to lift themselves out of hunger and extreme poverty. In the United States, it seeks to ensure that all people—especially those with the fewest resources—have access to the opportunities they need to succeed in school and life. Based in Seattle, Washington, the foundation is led by CEO Jeff Raikes and Co-chair William H. Gates Sr., under the direction of Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett.
DEG, a member of KfW Bankengruppe (KfW banking group), is one of the largest European development finance institutions. DEG invests in profitable projects that contribute to sustainable development in all sectors of the economy, from agribusiness to infrastructure and manufacturing to services. DEG’s aim is to establish and expand private enterprise structures in developing and emerging countries and thus create the basis for sustainable economic growth and a lasting improvement in the living conditions of local populations. In 2008 DEG invested around 1.22 billion euros which is about 1.6 per cent more than the previous year.
About Aureos Capital Limited
Aureos Capital Ltd. is a private equity fund management company which specializes in providing expansion and buy-out capital to unlisted small to mid-cap businesses across Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Since its establishment in 2001, Aureos has increased its funds under management to over $1 billion and established 15 regional private equity funds. It has extended its geographical footprint to over 50 emerging markets covering Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Investors in Aureos funds include institutional investors, bilateral and multilateral development finance institutions, pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, fund of funds, family offices and foundations, and high net worth individuals.”
The phosphate industry gets some love. But who’s the phosphate industry?
Morocco’s state-run phosphate, OCP Group, (Office Cherifien des Phosphates) has received a $150 million loan from IsDB to improve its infrastructure and repair facilities at Jorf Lasfar, a deepwater commercial port located on Morocco’s Atlantic coast. Phosphates are “Morocco’s white gold”, according to Bloomberg, the main natural resource for export in Morocco. “King Mohammed VI owns more than half the world’s phosphate reserves. James Prokopanko, chief executive officer of Plymouth (Minn.)-based fertilizer giant Mosaic (MOS), has called Morocco the Saudi Arabia of phosphate, with all that implies about the King’s power to influence prices and economies.”
If you want to harvest some billions, you need to seed some millions
According to Morocco World News, in 2014, the IDB amounted to $0.18 billion to Morocco in order to carry out drinking water supply projects in the regions of Agadir and Chtouka Ait Baha, as well as the olive sector for small farmers.
In the same year, oil refiner Samir received a loan of $240 million to finance crude oil imports. Which allegedly refines oil from a company that belongs to the minister of Agriculture, coincidentally Morocco’s richest man, besides the King. By the way, agriculture loves oil and phosphates.
The IDB has also embarked on signing agreement with partners to invest in Morocco. In 2014, it signed a joint agreement with Kuwait Investment Authority (KIA) to invest in Moroccan private sectors.
And so forth
February 25, 2015
Moroccan Government employs AfDB to diagnose economy
“Working in close collaboration, the Kingdom of Morocco, African Development Bank (AfDB) and the United States Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), have conducted an exhaustive study on constraints and strengths impeding the country’s determination to promote a strong, sustained and shared growth. The study, entitled Morocco’s Economic Growth Analysis: Identifying Constraints to Broad-Based Growth* is derived from in-depth data-driven analysis supported by consultations with all government ministries, private sector, academia and civil society in Morocco. Its objective is to clearly identify constraints to private investment in Morocco and identity priority issues to be addressed in order to grow a strong, dynamic economy.” This report was officially launched on February 25, 2015 at Rabat Conference Centre. AfDB president Donald Kaberuka participated in the event alongside the Head of the Government of Morocco, Abdelilah Benkirane, and the Ambassador of the United States of America to Morocco, Dwight Bush (a banker as well), among others.
“The 2015 Growth Diagnostic conducted by Morocco, the African Development Bank and the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) identified education and certain aspects of the legal framework (taxation, the justice system and land ownership) as major constraints to the development of small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). The size of the informal economy has also been regularly blamed. The new “self-entrepreneur” status created in 2015 and the gradual extension of social benefits to the self employed should allow some of those operating in the informal economy to move into the formal sector.”, reports African Economic Outlook
March 11, 2015
AfDB Board approves The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Trust Fund
The Board of Directors of the African Development Bank Group on Wednesday, March 11, 2015 in Abidjan approved the establishment of the Bill and Melinda Gates Trust Fund to be hosted by the Bank.
The Fund’s US $2.4 million initial contribution will support forward-thinking on the issue of concessional finance in development by an African Development Fund (ADF) Policy Lab. It would also support other future Bank activities.
It is the first bilateral fund with a non-sovereign entity, and the first bilateral fund with the Foundation aimed to provide structure to the long-standing collaboration with the Bank and scale up areas of intervention.
The Bank currently manages about 39 trust funds most of which are depleted.
There was overwhelming support for the collaboration, which fits squarely with the Bank’s Ten Year Strategy. The Strategy looks to engage in strategic partnerships to disseminate knowledge and lead new policy initiatives.
The ADF Policy Lab will complement the Mid-Term Review of the ADF, which is the pool of concessional resources dedicated to less endowed Regional Member Countries.
Bill Gates joins Monsanto in an attempt to take over Africa’s food with GMO’s
If you think Gates has a passion or obsession for medicine, I’m afraid that’s just one of his many tools for control and power grabs. An even more powerful tools in this kit is food, so of course Billy Boi has been long involved in this too. The other mega-company that shared his views almost in verbatim copy is the infamous Monsanto. So no one should be surprised that The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation met Monsanto to discuss business behind closed doors in London, in March 2015. Which event even sparked street protests at the time, the Gates Foundation getting picketed in several locations.
Bill Gates visits Morocco and unveils collaboration with IsDA, becomes news sensation
Gates’ Foundation representatives attended a meeting with the regional head of the Tangier-Tetouan-Al Hoceima region and representatives from the Islamic Development Bank to discuss Bill Gates’ first visit Morocco in the coming months.
Bill Gates’ trip to Morocco comes after a two-month long effort made by Ilya El Omari, head of the Tangier-Tetouan-Al Hoceima and President of the Party of Authenticity and Modernity (PAM) to convince Microsoft’s founder to visit the North African country. The information was not denied by the PAM.
It seems however, that news, which went viral and was published by most news outlets, including Morocco World News, is not accurate.
According to an email sent by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to Moroccan journalist Anas Bendrif, the “media reports about funding of projects in Morocco are not correct.”
While the Foundation’s did not deny the visit reported by Moroccan media, it pointed out, however, that that no investment is being planned yet in Morocco, adding that any decision in this regard is made by the Islamic Development Bank.
“The Bill and Melinda Gates works with partner organization around the world, including the Islamic Development Bank, to explore new ways of cooperation on initiatives that will help lift the poor out poverty and provide then with brighter future. This includes on-the-ground visits to various communities and regions to learn more about their greatest needs, which may benefit from our joint initiative: the Lives and Livelihoods Fund,” Cecilie, the foundation’s representative said in the email.
“We have no confirmed any projects at his time in Morocco, but we continue to explore potential opportunities wen we will announce those once they materialize.” – Source
Bill Gates Foundation grant for African Development Bank
November 16, 2018
The African Development Bank announces a new initiative to promote innovation and citywide inclusive sanitation services for sub-Saharan Africa’s urban inhabitants. The Bank’s Africa Urban Sanitation Investment Fund Program, with support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, is funding the initiative designed to focus on the poor.
The Gates Foundation, in partnership with the Government of the People’s Republic of China, showcased the new initiative at the Reinvented Toilet Expo in Beijing from 6-8 November 2018. The Reinvented Toilet Expo brought together private and public-sector leaders pushing for faster adoption of innovative, pro-poor sanitation technologies in the world’s developing regions.
“Support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation enhances the Fund’s ability to address sanitation in urban areas for greater outcomes, including in health, nutrition, environment, and employment,” bank officials said.
“The Bill & Melinda Gates Trust Fund funded a study on how to improve connectivity between payment systems and create greater financial inclusion for West Africans, as well as an investment to the Africa Digital Inclusion Fund. Originally $2.4 million, the trust fund now tops $17.9 million due to additional funding by the Gates Foundation.” reports Devex
Meet Rodrigo Salvado
“Before joining the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Rodrigo worked for the African Development Bank Group where he was in charge of the Performance Based Allocation System of the African Development Fund”. So AfDB is so bad-ass it has people in Gates’ Foundation?!
Salvado holds a Master in Public Administration in International Development from Harvard Kennedy School of Government, a Master in Economics from the Centro de Estudios Monetarios y Financieros in Madrid, and a Bachelor of Science in Economics from the Universidad Torcuato Di Tella in Argentina.
26 March 2018
AfDB reveals it’s also in cahoots with the Rockefellers and Soros
ABIDJAN — Purse-string tightening by traditional international development donors in recent years has prompted the African Development Bank to cast a wider net in seeking aid funding. One of the areas that has seen success, the bank told Devex, is securing financing from philanthropic organizations.
In February, the Rockefeller Trust Fund provided an initial $3 million to support two of the AfDB’s “High 5” development priorities. The financing will go toward the Leadership for Agriculture Platform — in alignment with the “Feed Africa” pillar — and a youth coding skills training program in connection with the “Improving the Quality of Life for People in Africa” pillar.
The department is currently developing relationships with other socially responsible NGOs including the Ford Foundation and the Open Society Foundations (George Sorors). But Dabady added that the AfDB needs to better communicate the tangible results produced from funding in order to sustain and form partnerships with private foundations.
May 17, 2018
African Development Bank drops 200 million Eu in Morocco’s Agriculture
Rabat – African Development Bank (BAD) has outlined EU 200 million loan dedicated to finance the program of support for the inclusive and sustainable development of agricultural sectors in Morocco.
The new operation aims to support job creation in rural areas through the inclusive development of agricultural value chains, the African bank said in a statement.
The country manager of the BAD in Morocco, Leila Farah Mokaddem, highlighted how the project is projected to boost Morocco’s exports revenues to MAD 45 million by 2030 and save 990 million cubic meters of water. By 2020, it aims to mobilize MAD 4 billion of private investment in the agricultural sector to create thousands of jobs for young people and women in rural areas.
While Africa still doesn’t have clean water, Gates and AfDB bestow it with “digital financial services”. For the people
In 2019, the Bank partnered with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Government of Luxembourg and Agence Française de Développement to set up the Africa Digital Financial Inclusion Facility (ADFI). ADFI is a blended finance vehicle that aims to scale up digital financial services in Africa to accelerate financial inclusion and ensure that digital financial systems include and empower everyone, especially women.
January 22, 2019
Moroccan Government sign a new agreement for Agenda 2030 implementation
Rabat – “The Moroccan high commissioner for planning (HCP), Ahmed Lahlimi Alami, the deputy resident representative at the UN Development Assistance Framework, Martine Therer, and 10 UN agencies in Morocco signed an agreement in the framework of the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)on Tuesday.
During a ceremony at the HCP headquarters in Rabat, the two officials discussed the agreement which is also part of the UNDAF 2017-2021 framework.
The agreement will facilitate the tracking of and reporting of SGD progress in the country to better “inform the policymaker and the public on the progress” of sustainable development in their country.
The agreement is valid for three years and will focus on the following objectives: “The use of performance and statistical data of the Sustainable Development Goals program, the preparation of periodic reports concerning the progress of these goals on national and regional levels, with the help of consultation mechanisms put by the program and through south-south cooperation networks.”
Morocco has made advances in a significant number of SDGs, according to a report by the Economic Commission for Africa released in November.
The report, however, entailed that youth employment, climate change, food security, and industrial transition were some of the complex challenges that Morocco still needs to address.”
Apr 3-6, 2019
Islamic Development Bank holds annual meeting in Morocco, discusses Agenda 2030
The event convenes the bank’s Board of Governors each year to discuss institutional and development issues, pulling in experts and development specialists from around the globe. 2018’s event took place in Tunis.
This year, the meeting’s slogan is “Transformation in a changing world,” a reference to the new development strategy the bank’s president Bandar Hajjar will unveil. The new strategy dovetails with the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), according to IsDB. “Morocco is one of IsDB’s most important partners. The institution has worked extensively with the kingdom, most recently launching a multimillion dollar fund for science and technology in Morocco.” reports local media.
In February, lauding Morocco’s use of private-public partnerships, one of the new “core pillars” of the IsDB, Hajjar called the North African country a “model and a reference” for its other member countries, writes MWN. Allow me to translate: Private-public partnerships is code for “siphoning public funds”. New “core pillars” of the IsDB is code for “Morocco’s budget has become our main provider now”.
Who else loves Agenda 2030 and works to implement it? If you think Bill Gates, you’re not wrong, but if you think Morocco’s government you’re also right.
And then Covid-19 hit
May 18, 2020
Economy Minister: Lockdown Costs Morocco MAD 0.1 Billion a Day
Rabat – Morocco’s Minister of Economy, Finance, and Administration Reform, Mohamed Benchaaboun, stated that the country loses up to MAD 1 billion ($100 million) during each day under lockdown, noting it is expected that the two months of quarantine will cause the national economy to lose 6 points of GDP growth for 2020.
“The loss would have been greater if financial support had not been provided by the COVID-19 pandemic management fund, which was created on royal instructions,” explained Benchaaboun in the weekly session dedicated to parliamentary questions on Tuesday.
On the fiscal level, he added that “the economic recession is expected to cause a shortfall in Morocco’s treasury revenues of approximately MAD 500 million per day during the quarantine period.”
Benchaaboun went on to say that Morocco has been largely affected by the repercussions of the health crisis at the economic and financial levels, as shown by a set of economic indicators.
Meanwhile, the small-time local bankers get pushed around by Covid too
Rabat – International ratings agency Fitch Ratings has downgraded three Moroccan banks’ outlooks from “stable” to “negative.”
The study included Attijariwafa Bank (AWB), BMCE Bank of Africa (BOA) and Credit Immobilier et Hotelier (CIH).
The evaluations follow Fitch Ratings’ latest revision of Morocco’s outlook to “negative” from “stable” on April 28, due to the coronavirus crisis.
Fitch Ratings indicated that AWB and BOA are classified as domestic systemically important banks (DSIB) in Morocco, and believes that the government would have a high propensity to support them if needed.
However, the ratings agency classifies the overall probability of Moroccan support as moderate, given the negative repercussions of the pandemic on Morocco’s economy.
Despite Morocco’s proactive response to address the negative shocks of the pandemic, Fitch expects the Moroccan economy to contract 4.5% in 2020. The agency also predicts general government debt to rise to 58% of GDP in 2020 from 52.5% in 2019.
If the projection proves true, it will interrupt 22 successive years of growth – Morocco World News
May 20, 2020
Heavily impacted by the lockdown, a significant number of Moroccan companies have declared bankruptcy
Rabat – Morocco’s Minister of Economy and Finance, Mohamed Benchaaboun, has called on companies to resume their activities after the end of Ramadan, Eid Al Fitr, to revive the lockdown-stressed national economy.
The economic resumption concerns companies that have not been prohibited from continuing their activities, and the proposed measure does not include companies that opted for remote work.
Companies excluded from the call are those active in catering services, hotels, and places of gathering.
Benchaaboun made the request during a Parliament session dedicated to the government’s economic and financial measures to mitigate the repercussions of the COVID-19 crisis on Tuesday, May 19.
Seizing the opportunity, Benchaaboun shared with parliamentarians an update on expenses of the Special Fund for the Management and Response to COVID-19. The minister also highlighted measures the government implemented to support companies, employees, and impacted citizens.
He stated that the fund’s revenues reached MAD 32.7 billion ($3.27 billion) as of Monday, May 18. He added that more than MAD 2.2 billion ($220 million) was allocated to upgrade the health sector while a further MAD 11.5 billion ($1.15 billion) was dedicated to the Economic Watch Committee’s (CVE) measures in favor of impacted businesses and employees.
May 27, 2020
COVID-19: African Development Bank Allocates €264 Million to Morocco
If you had enough influence over a cuntry’s rulers to persuade them to implement some suicidal measures, just so you can appear as saviour later, would you do it? Historically speaking, banksters are usually quite inclined towards such opperations, not t mention Gates. But I digress, check the latest news:
Rabat – The African Development Bank (AfDB) approved today In Abidjan, Cote d’Ivoire the financing of €264 million for Morocco, as part of its COVID-19 response support program (PARC-19).
“With rapid deployment of resources, PARC-19 contributes to bolster the Kingdom’s response efforts to the health, economic and social crisis triggered by the COVID-19 epidemic,” the AfDB said in a press release.
“Faced with this unprecedented situation, we are doing everything in our power to support Morocco to curb the spread of the virus and mitigate its economic and social repercussions,” said AfDB Director General for North Africa, Mohamed El Azizi.
AfDB indicates that protecting the population requires the primary objective of stopping the spread of the COVID-19 virus. The first step also includes improving the effectiveness of the authorities’ response, as well as increasing the number of virological tests.
“The second objective of this operation is intended to help preserve the purchasing power of Moroccans. In this perspective, the program will support public financial support measures, which benefit employees in the formal and informal sectors during the lockdown period,” said the AfDB.
“It will also reinforce [the] government’s efforts to provide support to 4.3 million households in the informal sector as well as 800,000 employees affiliated to the National Social Security Fund (CNSS),” the Bank added.
“Faced with this unprecedented situation, we are doing everything in our power to support Morocco to curb the spread of the virus and mitigate its economic and social repercussions.”
II.ECONOMIC ANDSOCIAL IMPACT OF COVID-19AND GOVERNANCE
“2.1.Recent Developments:Alongside South Africa, Egypt and Algeria, Morocco is among the African countries with the highest COVID-19 cases. The first case was detected on 2 March 2020 in Casablanca, before spreading to all other regions in the country. On 4May2020, Morocco reported 5,053confirmed COVID-19cases, 179 deaths and 1,653 cured cases. With 1,306 confirmed cases, the Casablanca-Settat region is the most affected region, followed by Marrakech-Safi (1,076 cases), Fès-Meknès (662 cases) and Daraa-Tafilalet (548 cases) (Technical Annex4& 5). At the onset of the COVID-19pandemic, the Moroccan authorities declared a state of emergency, adopted confinement measures, including isolation, suspended all international passenger flights, prohibited public gatherings and closed all mosques,schools, universities, eateries and cafés. Similarly, they limited urban/inter-urban land transport and downsized Government and corporate staff. Compulsory confinement, which started on 20 March 2020 and was later extended to 20 May 2020 (and then to 10th of June – writer-s note), has had a significant adverse impact on the national economy.Donors mobilised to support Morocco address the crisis. Under the Precautionary and Liquidity Line (PLL 2018-2020)agreement concluded with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Morocco withdrew all resources under this line, equivalent to USD 3billion.For its part, the World Bank disbursed a loan of USD 275 million. 2.2.Economic Situation: Like its key trading partners, Morocco’s economy was hard hit by the crisis caused by COVID-19. The tourism sector has lost an estimated MAD 34.1 billion in turnover in 2020, with nearly 6 million fewer tourists,according to the Moroccan Tourism Confederation(CMT). In the automobile sector,the crisis affected the 250 equipment manufacturers operating in the country, leading to a significant drop in Morocco’s balance of trade. The automobile sector accounted for 27% of total exports in 2019, making itthe leading export sector. In the long run, this might impact the 180,000 jobs in the industry. The textile/dress-making sector is also affected by disruptions in supplies, especially from China and falling foreign demand particularly in the European Union. The textile sector, which employs over 160,000 individuals in 1,200 firms, is threatened.With the double shock of drought and COVID-19, the real GDP growth rate will continue to decelerate in 2020. According to AfDB forecasts(Table 1), it will range from -4.6% to -3.3% in 2020, before rising to between 4.1% and 4.3% in 2021, based on worst-case and best-case scenarios. Various structural and contextual factors will contribute these scenarios. The economy will also suffer from the global recession, particularly in its four key economic partners (Spain, France, Italy and Germany) who make up 76% of its external trade”
The most painful reality here is that most, if not all of this is as legal as obvious. You can watch the money flow, witness the suffering of the people, get enraged, but if the law is your moral compass, nothing happened, move on.
And if anyone ever gets arrested, it’s…
May 30, 2020
Test acquisitions are a scandal in Morocco, as everywhere else
Morocco’s Ministry of Health rebutted on May 30 reports claiming a single company with two government contracts worth MAD 400 million ($41 million) is responsible for the procurement of COVID-19 rapid diagnostic tests.
The ministry said it signed a contract for two million rapid diagnostic tests worth MAD 212 million ($21.7 million) that did not entirely cover Morocco’s needs, according to the press release.
The agreement was in accordance with health emergency laws and in full compliance with the principle of competitive contracting, the health ministry explained.
The statement added that the ministry consulted “world-leading” companies in the field to ensure technical and financial evaluation of the offers.
The acquired tests are technically efficient and compatible with national laboratories’ equipment, rendering the purchase and cost of new screening equipment unnecessary, the statement continued.
The Ministry of Health said it benchmarked Morocco’s contract to those of other countries, with the statement explaining, “It is the same price paid by several European and Asian countries for the acquisition of quantities ranging from 6 to 10 million tests.”
The ministry affirmed that it “ensures exemplary application of all legal provisions in order to properly manage the resources placed at its disposal.”
The news comes amid Morocco’s efforts to curtail the spread of misinformation during the COVID-19 crisis.
In March, the Director of Epidemiology at the Ministry of Health, Mohamed Lyoubi, had to deny reports that Morocco purchased 100,000 COVID-19 test kits from a South Korean manufacturer. Basically accusing South Korean media and manufacturers of spreading fake news.
“Since the start of the outbreak in the country, Moroccan laboratories have conducted more than 200,000 tests on suspected carriers, of which 197,805 came back negative”, officials claim.
What Moroccan Government and most world governments have never done since the beginning of the crisis: 1. A risks & costs assessment of their Covid policies, prior to enactment 2. A side-effects assessment of of their Covid policies, post enactment 3. Transparent acquisitions
What did they all do?
Control of media narrative, repression of unaligned speech.
Morocco arrested an old woman for spreading panic by saying there’s no reason to panic. Among other dissenters. And this is the logic of all restrictive Covid-19 policies
Mi Naima literally said in a censored video “don’t be alarmed by the government and media, Coronavirus is a farce”. “Fake news is the first cause of panic among citizens,” said Prime Minister Saad Eddine El-Otmai, in a press conference after Mi Naima’s arrest, comparing the spread of misinformation with the contagion of the disease.
Other people were arrested for opposing strict measures against public gathering, urging people to ignore them, or saying a lockdown had been implemented when it had not.
On the same day, the government approved a draft law governing the use of social media, aiming to deter fake news and cyber crimes undermining public order and the economy.
Rights groups have criticised Morocco for what they see as an increasing crackdown on free speech over the past year, including prison terms for people who have expressed dissent on social media, reports Reuters
Guess which is the only Moroccan business unaffected by Covid
If you paid attention, you guessed right: It’s the Royal phosphate business. QED.
“With the exception of Morocco’s stable phosphates sales, the country’s major export sectors have suffered from the fall in world demand, the breakdown of supply chains, and the disruption of several activities in Morocco, all consequences of the global COVID-19 pandemic.
Morocco’s automobile exports fell by 39% at the end of April, textiles by 28%, aeronautics by 34%, and foodstuffs by 7%.
The losses range from MAD 1.8 billion to MAD 11 billion ($184 million to $1.1 billion).” – reports Morocco World News.
To be continued?
Probably so. I leave you with a mystery: How come Moroccan government approved a famous international Israeli spy and child trafficker like Epstein to land his jet (aka “Lolita Express”) on their airports? Official flight registries and press reports show that it happened at least twice. Seeing that Gates and Epstein were partners, did they use Morocco as a secret meeting ground?
We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media deliver more, better, faster, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
I’m reporting from captivity in Agadir, a Moroccan city which I’ve just found out it’s the birth-place of Moncef Slaoui, the newly appointed head of “Operation Warp Speed” , Trump’s mass-vaccination campaign. And the that’s the least disturbing thing I have to tell you. I probably need protection now, I’m warned, authorities here are not big fans of free speech, people have been arrested for much less. But this isn’t much of a life anyway; all worth it if you spread this knowledge like fire. May the public eye be my protection, if any.
US President Donald Trump selected Moroccan immunology expert Moncef Slaoui to be the head of his administration’s COVID-19 vaccine development team, working on “Operation Warp Speed.”
The Moroccan expert, 60, will serve as the US government’s “therapeutics czar” to help coordinate the development of vaccines and treatments. The role is shared between the US Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Defense.
Slaoui will be assisted by Army Gen. Gustave Perna, the commander of United States Army Materiel Command.
Slaoui earned a Ph.D. in molecular biology and immunology from the Free University of Brussels, Belgium, and completed his postdoctoral studies at Harvard Medical School and Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston.
He was the former head of the vaccines division at GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), where he oversaw the development of various vaccines: Rotarix, Synflorix, and Cervarix. In 2007, he announced plans to establish a neurosciences research group in Shanghai that would employ a thousand scientists and cost $100 million; it failed miserably and ceased operations in August 2017.
In 2008, Slaoui led the $720 million acquisition of Sirtris Pharmaceuticals, which folded in 2013. In 2012, he oversaw GSK’s purchase of Human Genome Sciences for over $3 billion. In 2015 he won European approval for the world’s first malaria vaccine (Mosquirix).
When he retired from the drugmaker in 2017, GSK was still working on the vaccine for Ebola.
GSK is now working on a COVID-19 vaccine with Sanofi, the French multinational pharma giant.
“Not long after leaving GSK, the enthusiastic and outgoing Slaoui started joining biotech boards, with welcomes at SutroVax, mRNA player Moderna as well as the public outfit Intellia $NTLA, one of a handful of CRISPR/Ca9 gene editing startups dominating the field. Then, a little over a month ago, he dropped off the Intellia crew, citing a conflict but not explaining it.” – Endpoints
But his biggest business move was becoming a partner at Medicxi Capital, a biotechnology venture capital firm in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania area.
Medicxi has built a highly experienced team and, through the scientific advisory boards (SABs) of each of its funds, has access to some of the most respected names in the pharma industry. As well as Medicxi’s senior team, now including Dr Slaoui, external members and observers on the SABs to Medicxi’s funds included (2017):
Dr Vasant (Vas) Narasimhan, Global Head of Drug Development, Chief Medical Officer and Chief Executive Officer Elect
Dr Evan Beckman, Global Head of Translational Medicine at NIBR
Nigel Sheail, Head of Business Development and Licensing
From Verily Life Sciences:
Dr Andy Conrad, Chief Executive Officer
Dr Robert Califf, Advisor and former US FDA Commissioner
Dr Patrick Vallance President, R&D
Dr Paul-Peter Tak Senior Vice President R&D Pipeline, Global Development Leader and Chief Immunology Officer
From Johnson & Johnson:
Dr. Paul Stoffels, Executive Vice President, Chief Scientific Officer
Dr. Bill Hait, Global Head, Janssen Research & Development
Dr Patrick Verheyen Global Head, Janssen Business Development
Michèle Ollier, co-founder and Partner at Medicxi, said: “Moncef has made a tremendous contribution through his role on our SABs and we look forward to his continued energetic and insightful contribution as a Partner at Medicxi. Our SAB meetings are challenging, insightful and inspiring, and contribute hugely to how we steer and advise our portfolio companies.”
Medicxi is based in London, Geneva and Jersey. The Company’s mission is to invest across the full healthcare continuum. Medicxi was established by the former Index Ventures life sciences team. Medicxi manages the legacy life science portfolio of Index Ventures as well as the new funds launched as Medicxi, Medicxi Ventures 1 (MV1) and Medicxi Growth 1 (MG1) focusing on early-stage and late-stage investments in life sciences.
GSK, Johnson & Johnson and Novartis, three of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies back Medicxi along with Verily, an Alphabet company. These companies, whilst participating in the SABs of the funds, do not receive any preferential rights to the portfolio companies.
Medicxi’s team has been investing in life sciences for over 20 years and has backed many successful companies, including Genmab (NASDAQ Copenhagen: GEN), PanGenetics (sold to AbbVie), Molecular Partners (SWX: MOLN), XO1 (sold to Janssen) Egalet (NASDAQ: EGLT), Minerva Neurosciences (NASDAQ: NERV) and Versartis (NASDAQ: VSAR).
Since 2017, Slaoui has been also sitting on the board of Moderna, a biotechnology company also pursuing a COVID-19 vaccine, based in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
The other problem, because they always come in pairs: Trump awarded Moderna almost $0.5Billion from public money a few days before nominating Slaoui. CNN reported on May 18th:
“Valera’s efforts (Moderna subsidiary) have resulted in the demonstration of preclinical efficacy of Moderna’s mRNA-based vaccines in multiple viral disease models, Moderna said.
In the partnership with the Gates Foundation, Valera will apply its mRNA vaccine platform as well as Moderna’s drug platform Messenger RNA Therapeutics™. Designed to produces human proteins, antibodies, and entirely novel protein constructs inside patient cells, the therapeutics are secreted or active intracellularly.” – Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News
What, you think that’s bad? What if I told you this is the last one in a very long series of collaborations between the two?
Why is no one talking about this chapter of Moncef Slaoui’s career? Well, I am:
I find most relevant this transhumanist project Slaoui worked on with Google from 2016, as reported by Bloomberg:
<<The recent partnership between GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Alphabet (Google) further opens the door for development in the biotechnology industry’s experimental “bioelectronics” segment. Chairman of Vaccines at GlaxoSmithKline Dr. Moncef Slaoui thinks the partnership could create an entirely new industry. “I think this is a whole new industry as big as the pharmaceutical industry … there’s a whole new world that we’re opening here which is dealing with electrical signals to connect with our biology and changes functioning,” Slaoui told CNBC’s Meg Tirrell on “Squawk Box” Monday morning. Calling Alphabet’s Verily Life Services a “really exciting partner,” Slaoui says GlaxoSmithKline shares “a very common vision of integrating electronics and big data analytics and technologies with medicines and biology.” “They bring to us the engineering capabilities, the electronics, the low power technologies and the wireless technologies that are critical to miniaturize these devices, power them and extract information from them,” Slaoui noted.>>
“GSK has been interested in this field for years, and in 2013 announced a $1 million prize for innovative bioelectronics research. In a press statement, GSK’s Moncef Slaoui said: “Many of the processes of the human body are controlled by electrical signals firing between the nervous system and the body’s organs, which may become distorted in many chronic diseases.” He said bioelectronic seeks to “correct the irregular [electrical] patterns found in disease states, using miniaturized devices attached to individual nerves.” – The Verge
And having in mind the technological terror, the transhumanist/eugenicist obsessions brought by the coronavirus policy-makers today, one quote from the same source above hits home. This whole business falls right in the arms of anyone associating the coronavirus pandemic with human microchipping. Slaoui cited animal models as the indicator that bioelectronics can treat chronic diseases with a number of different devices.
The devices themselves are very small, about “the size of a rice grain”, and can “either stimulate or black the electric signals that our brains sense through our nerves to control the functioning of our organs… The limitations are around power as power requires energy and energy means heat and heat doesn’t go well with biology.
It gets weirder
Slaoui rejected reports in late March of his involvement with a US government task force for COVID-19 vaccine development and denied as recently as May 11 any intention to work with the Trump administration. WHY?? Morocco World News reported in March 31st: “The doctor said he has no working arrangements with the US government in a statement to Moroccan French-language newspaper L’Economiste. Several local news outlets claimed that the former chairman of pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) is part of a task force that is researching a vaccine to clamp down on the spread of the virus. The international expert is currently a member of the board of directors of American biotechnology company Moderna. Slaoui explained that he is part of the company’s research and development committee. The committee has received support from federal organizations to help fund the development of a COVID-19 vaccine. “
White House senior adviser Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of President Trump, was among the officials who interviewed Slaoui for the role.
Jared Kushner went there. Jared Kushner personally picked America’s new “Vaccine Czar” Moncef Slaoui precisely one year after the meeting. Jared Kushner is a Zionist. Jared Kushner is Trump’s son law.
To avoid a conflict of interest, Slaoui resigned from the board of the Massachusetts-based biotech firm Moderna, which had been developing a vaccine for the coronavirus. He stepped down but he didn’t give up his stakes in Moderna, as the Daily Beast reports:
“Slaoui’s ownership of 156,000 Moderna stock options, disclosed in required federal financial filings, sparked concerns about a conflict of interest. Democratic Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren called Slaoui out over the matter on Twitter: “It is a huge conflict of interest for the White House’s new vaccine czar to own $10 million of stock in a company receiving government funding to develop a COVID-19 vaccine. Dr. Slaoui should divest immediately.” The company’s shares skyrocketed last month after news broke of the $483 million in federal funding to work on a coronavirus vaccine. Slaoui could not immediately be reached for comment on the matter.”
Slaoui also sits on the boards of SutroVax, the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, and the PhRMA Foundation
The Moroccan expert’s main contenders for the position of chief advisor at “Operation Warp Speed” were Algeria’s Elias Zerhouni and US’ Arthur Levinson.
Zerhouni, born in 1951, is an Algerian scientist, radiologist, and biomedical engineer. The expert has held several important positions in a number of institutions, ranging from medical schools to pharmaceutical companies and government task forces.
In 2009, under the Obama administration, Zerhouni served as the first science envoy in the US and worked towards fostering scientific and technological collaboration with other countries.
Between 2011 and 2018, as a final stage in his career, Zerhouni was the President for Global Research and Development at, well, Sanofi.
The third main candidate in the race for Trump’s COVID-19 operation, Arthur Levinson, is an American businessman specialized in biotechnology.
Levinson has served as senior advisor for several companies and institutions, including Swiss healthcare multinational Hoffmann-La Roche, Amyris Biotechnologies, the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, the California Institute for Quantitative Biosciences, and Princeton University.
The American businessman is currently the chairman of tech giant Apple and CEO of biotechnology company Calico.
“We will get to [vaccines] eventually, but we’re not there yet. If we want to lift the lockdowns, we need to fully respect them first”
Outlook on the pandemic
During an interview on April 12, Slaoui said he expects life to begin its return to normal at the beginning of 2021 after global leaders rein in the pandemic, adding that he considers his prediction “optimistic.”
He is confident “that due to the high number of COVID-19 cases, clinical studies will reach results quickly.” He believes that “by the end of May or by early June, we will know if some of these drugs work.”
“I am very optimistic that we’ll have several vaccines for COVID-19. However, the problem is not having a vaccine. The problem is producing enough to protect eight billion people,” he continued.
Which is weird, because US Government has just announced same day spending $138mil. to turbo-boost vaccine production, and I’ve published a massive investigation piece on that.
In another interview with Moroccan television channel 2M on April 13, Slaoui forecast that the COVID-19 pandemic will heavily scar the global population.
“I believe that by 2021 our reality will not be completely back to normal but it will be improved,” he argued.
Moncef Slaoui said if the virus continues to spread, there will be no way to control it other than to create a vaccine and administer it on a massive scale.
“We will get to [vaccines] eventually, but we’re not there yet. If we want to lift the lockdowns, we need to fully respect them first,” he explained.
He said countries can phase out lockdowns when there is a proven COVID-19 treatment.
Slaoui acknowledged that there are now hundreds of clinical studies underway in many countries.
He expressed optimism that due to the increasing number of COVID-19 cases, clinical studies will achieve preliminary results quickly. “I believe that by the end of May or by early June, we will know if some of these drugs work.”
Government watchdog Public Citizen on Thursday “condemned the Trump administration’s reported appointment of a former pharmaceutical executive to the White House’s task force aimed at swiftly developing a Covid-19 vaccine as another example of the White House putting management of the pandemic in the hands of private industry. “
“If the Trump administration approaches vaccine development as it has Covid-19 prevention, testing, and treatment, the world may be in for years of more extraordinary pain,” Maybarduk added. “The dangers of global vaccine rationing are profound. No one corporation has the capacity to deliver a vaccine to all the world’s people.”
In March, Trump’s FDA came under fire for awarding monopoly status to Gilead Sciences for Remdesivir, a drug it was developing for Covid-19 treatment. The company backed off its claim after a pressure campaign led by Public Citizen.
“The U.S. government must commit to sharing clinical trial data, patents, and know-how among manufacturers and with the world, to quickly achieve the mountainous scale of production that humanity needs,” the group said.