DEEPER ENTANGLEMENTS FOR SOROS AND GATES – BILLIONAIRES, CORONAVIRUS AND THE W.H.O.

After the dust settles – one question would be relevant in all of this are questions about the origins of coronavirus and whether it’s a natural occurrence or perhaps a manufactured one.

If Chinese authorities refuse to disclose testing data for animal samples, it could imply an intentional cover-up of the true origin of the 2019-nCoV outbreak.

So, do the bond holders lose their bond money since it is a pandemic?

BILL GATES

The angle on Gates is a simple one – he owns the WHO through funding (just like Soros did with Gilead, Unitaid and the treatment.) In fact, aligning perfectly with the ancient and reliable adage, ‘follow the money,’ left-leaning Politico ascribed to Gates the title of “world’s most powerful doctor.” Consider what the 04 May 17 Politico piece sourced HERE has to say about Gates and the World Health Organization (emphasis mine),

Over the past decade, the world’s richest man has become the World Health Organization’s second biggest donor, second only to the United States and just above the United Kingdom. This largesse gives him outsized influence over its agenda, one that could grow as the U.S. and the U.K. threaten to cut funding if the agency doesn’t make a better investment case.

The result, say his critics, is that Gates’ priorities have become the WHO’s. Rather than focusing on strengthening health care in poor countries — that would help, in their view, to contain future outbreaks like the Ebola epidemic — the agency spends a disproportionate amount of its resources on projects with the measurable outcomes Gates prefers, such as the effort to eradicate polio.

Evidence of Gates’ unprecedented influence abounds in ways subtle and showy.

“He is treated liked a head of state, not only at the WHO, but also at the G20” — Geneva-based NGO representative

The Gates Foundation has pumped more than $2.4 billion into the WHO since 2000, as countries have grown reluctant to put more of their own money into the agency, especially after the 2008 global financial crisis.

Dues paid by member states now account for less than a quarter of WHO’s $4.5 billion biennial budget. The rest comes from what governments, Gates, other foundations and companies volunteer to chip in. Since these funds are usually earmarked for specific projects or diseases, WHO can’t freely decide how to use them.

Most of the Gates Foundation’s influence in the WHO is very discreet, she said, adding that it can also decide to take initiatives outside of the organization, as it did with GAVI, which helps the poorest countries buy vaccines in bulk at a discount, or with a recently launched Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, an alliance to develop vaccines for emerging infectious diseases.

But the foundation’s focus on delivering vaccines and medicines, rather than on building resilient health systems, has drawn criticism. And some NGOs worry it may be too close to industry.

NATALIE HUET & CARMEN PAUN – POLITICO
Why the focus on delivering vaccines and medicines rather than building resilient health systems? Follow the money – the former is sustainable over time, has little relative overhead cost and is entirely more profitable than the latter. It’s medicine for profit – plain and simple. Or, rather, profit for profit but using medicine as the vehicle and people as the mechanism (prevent and make money or treat and make money; but make money nonetheless and do it off the world population regardless.)

GEORGE SOROS

Let’s now drag Soros into the fold before tying it all together. As for Soros, veneer-level, limited research has established some looser and more direct ties between him, his ventures (NGOs) and the WHO; and there’s plenty of evidence entangling Soros and the WHO over long periods of time.

According to the WHO as sourced HERE,

Philanthropist George Soros, founder of the Open Society Institute, announces a $3million two-year grant to Boston-based NGO Partners in Health to immediately strengthen TB control in Lesotho, a country devastated by the dual TB/HIV epidemic. WHO invites FIND to collaborate with Partners In Health in Lesotho to begin work on transforming TB diagnosis services.

WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION
Soros’ WHO entanglements, as mentioned, are deep over time and importantly, we should recall that in 2017, Soros donated $18B of his personal wealth to his foundations – a very curious decision. Notably and as sourced HERE and HERE, he was a major player and partnered with the WHO in a global effort to combat TB and HIV. Sidebar – recall, the coronavirus strain COVID-19 is reported to have four bio-engineered HIV insertions as noted in previous articles (linked at top.)

Soros’ own Open Society Foundations has 3,626 hits on the WHO when searched from its own site HERE. Reciprocally and understanding that the WHO is more likely to link back to Soros’ NGOs rather than Soros directly, the WHO’s own site returns 49 hits HERE.

Now consider the deep entanglements of the Soros Economic Development Fund sourced HERE in this World Economic Forum document and dating back to 28 Nov 17; with a March 2017 publication date. The document is a ‘Workshop Summary’ entitled ‘Market-Based Solutions and Innovative Finance New Approaches to Addressing Humanitarian Needs,’ and therein it directly establishes a nexus between George Soros, his NGO, pandemic risk-transfer (bonds) and the WHO.

Lessons learned from NewRe’s risk-transfer facilitiesNewRe, a Swiss reinsurance company, is engaged in a number of schemes to facilitate emergency relief, for example, the Caribbean Risk Insurance Facility (CRIF) and a similar facility in the Pacific Islands, set up with the World Bank in 2013, which paid out after Cyclone Pam. A similar drought insurance scheme in Africa set up in 2014 paid out in the aftermath of crop failure to prevent the crisis from escalating. The World Bank is now working with NewRe to develop a pandemic risk-transfer facility triggered by the early stages of an infectious disease outbreak. In the view of NewRe, all these schemes add value if they can make an impact on mitigating crises.

‘Workshop Summary’ entitled ‘Market-Based Solutions and Innovative Finance New Approaches to Addressing Humanitarian Needs

WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM: WORKSHOP SUMMARY – MARKET-BASED SOLUTIONS AND INNOVATIVE FINANCE NEW APPROACHES TO ADDRESSING HUMANITARIAN NEEDS

Let’s now consider the technical definition of a pandemic according to the WHO and as sourced HERE (emphasis mine),

A pandemic is defined as “an epidemic occurring worldwide, or over a very wide area, crossing international boundaries and usually affecting a large number of people.”

WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION

For the record, COVID-19 coronavirus ticks-off on everything listed above (it’s worldwide, over a wide area, over international boundaries and affecting a large number of people; not to mention the number of total deaths thus far.) Further complicating the matter is the demonstrable inaccurate (intentional?) reporting via the MSM that could be painted as misinformation, disinformation and/or narrative. The headlines do little to give us an accurate analysis of the actual nature of the yet to be declared but actual pandemic.

The WHO continued to expand anecdotally on the definition including implications of a history of political and financial maneuvering germane to pandemic response (emphasis mine),

A true influenza pandemic occurs when almost simultaneous transmission takes place worldwide.

Simultaneous worldwide transmission of influenza is sufficient to define an influenza pandemic and is consistent with the classical definition of “an epidemic occurring worldwide.”

It is tempting to surmise that the complicated pandemic definitions used by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of the United States of America involved severity 1,10 in a deliberate attempt to garner political attention and financial support for pandemic preparedness. As noted by Doshi, the perceived need for this support can be understood given concerns about influenza A(H5N1) and the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). However, conflating spread and severity allowed the suggestion that 2009 A(H1N1) was not a pandemic. It was, in fact, a classical pandemic, only much less severe than many had anticipated or were prepared to acknowledge, even as the evidence accumulated.

In 2009 WHO declared a pandemic several weeks after the criteria for the definition of a classical pandemic had been met. Part of the delay was no doubt related to the nexus between the formal declaration of a pandemic and the manufacture of a pandemic-specific vaccine. If a classical pandemic definition had been used, linking the declaration to vaccine production would have been unnecessary. This could have been done with a severity index and, depending on the availability and quality of the emerging evidence on severity, a pandemic specific vaccine may have been deemed unnecessary. Alternatively authorities may have decided to order vaccine in much smaller quantities.

WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION

Consider how Webb accurately closes her article (emphasis mine),

The WHO’s decision to refuse to use the “p-word” may be the result of several factors, though the pandemic bonds loom large as a $425 million incentive for not doing so. While avoiding the use of the term may please pandemic bondholders, it is set to have major negative consequences for global public health, particularly given the fact that early action against epidemic and pandemic outbreaks is widely considered to be an imperative.

WHITNEY WEBB – MINT PRESS NEWS

kommonsentsjane