Tag Archives: Crimes Against Humanity

Senate Report Slams Bidens for Conflicts of Interest, Flags Possible Criminal Activity

John Solomon
September 23rd, 2020

A year-long Senate investigation concluded Wednesday that Hunter Biden’s efforts to cash in on foreign business deals during his father’s vice presidency raised alarm among U.S. government officials, who perceived an ethical conflict of interest and flagged concerns about possible criminal activity ranging from bribery to sex trafficking.

The long-awaited joint report by the GOP-led Senate Homeland and Government Affairs and Senate Finance Committees delivered several blockbuster revelations less than two months before Election Day, suggesting Obama administration officials ignored clear warning signs about ethical conflicts and possible extortion risks involving Joe Biden’s family.

Perhaps the most explosive revelation was that the U.S. Treasury Department flagged payments collected overseas by Hunter Biden and business partner Devon Archer for possible illicit activities.

The so-called Suspicious Activity Reports flagged millions of dollars in transactions from the Ukrainian gas company Burisma Holdings, a Russian oligarch named Yelena Baturina, and Chinese businessmen with ties to Beijing’s communist government, the report said. Senate investigators have yet to determine if the FBI or others investigated the concerns.

“The Treasury records acquired by the Chairmen show potential criminal activity relating to transactions among and between Hunter Biden, his family, and his associates with Ukrainian, Russian, Kazakh and Chinese nationals,” the 87-page report disclosed, confirming an earlier report in Just the News.

The report, citing U.S. government records, also raised concerns about possible ties to sex and human trafficking rings. “Hunter Biden paid nonresident women who were nationals of Russia or other Eastern European countries and who appear to be linked to an Eastern European prostitution or human trafficking ring,” the report said.

An attorney for Hunter Biden has yet to respond to a emailed request for comment.

Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Ron Johnson told Just the News Wednesday morning that the sheer volume of suspicious activity in Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings left the Vice President vulnerable to illicit influence or extortion. 

“The report raises serious questions that former Vice President Biden needs to answer. There are simply too many potential conflict of interest, counterintelligence and extortion threats to ignore,” he said. 

You can read the full report here:File FINAL DRAFT_CLEAN COPY (2).pdf

The findings are certain to roil the final weeks of the presidential election and present a starkly different picture of the Biden family than the one House Democrats offered a year ago when they impeached President Trump for seeking a Ukrainian investigation into Hunter Biden’s dealings with Burisma while his father served as vice president.

Back then, Democrats insisted any concerns about Joe Biden and Hunter Biden were Russian disinformation or debunked conspiracy theories.

But State Department records and testimony from Obama-era appointees confirmed Just the News’ extensive reporting over the last year that State officials held serious concerns that Burisma was corrupt and had paid a $7 million bribe in 2014 to Ukrainian prosecutors while under investigation during Hunter Biden’s tenure there.

In addition, State official George Kent, one of the Democrats’ star impeachment witnesses, testified and wrote in contemporaneous memos that Hunter Biden’s role on Burisma’s board created the appearance of an “awkward” conflict of interest that undercut U.S. anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine being led by Vice President Joe Biden, the report said.

Kent was so concerned that he canceled a State Department partnership with Burisma, reported the alleged Burisma bribe to the Justice Department, and tried to raise concerns directly to Vice President Joe Biden but was rebuffed, the report said, citing testimony and U.S. government records.

In October 2015, another senior State Department official, energy adviser Amos Hochstein, raised concerns with Joe Biden, as well as with Hunter Biden, that Hunter Biden’s position on Burisma’s board enabled Russian disinformation efforts and risked undermining U.S. policy in Ukraine. But nothing further happened  

“The Obama administration knew that Hunter Biden’s position on Burisma’s board was problematic and did interfere in the efficient execution of policy with respect to Ukraine,” the report concluded. “Moreover, this investigation has illustrated the extent to which officials within the Obama administration ignored the glaring warning signs when the vice president’s son joined the board of a company owned by a corrupt Ukrainian oligarch.”

In all, Hunter Biden and Archer received more than $4 million from Burisma during a time when the firm aggressively lobbied the State Department to make long-standing corruption allegations go away, at times invoking the vice president’s son’s name for pressure.

But the U.S. government’s worries about Hunter Biden’s globetrotting business pursuits didn’t stop in Ukraine.

“In addition to the over $4 million paid by Burisma for Hunter Biden’s and Archer’s board memberships, Hunter Biden, his family, and Archer received millions of dollars from foreign nationals with questionable backgrounds,” the report said.

Senate investigators flagged transactions in at least three other foreign countries:

  • Archer received $142,300 from Kenges Rakishev of Kazakhstan, purportedly for a car, the same day Vice President Joe Biden appeared with Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk and addressed Ukrainian legislators in Kyiv regarding Russia’s actions in Crimea.
  • Hunter Biden received a $3.5 million wire transfer from Elena Baturina, the wife of the former mayor of Moscow and Russia’s only female oligarch.
  • Hunter Biden opened a bank account with Chinese national Gongwen Dong to fund a $100,000 global spending spree for the Biden family.
  • Hunter Biden had business associations with Ye Jianming, Gongwen, and other Chinese nationals linked to the communist government and the People’s Liberation Army. “Those associations resulted in millions of dollars in cash flow,” the report said.

The report did not expand much on its sensational claim of alleged links to sex trafficking or prostitutes, reserving most of the discussion to two footnotes.

“There is extensive public reporting concerning Hunter Biden’s alleged involvement with prostitution services. Records on file with the Committees do not directly confirm or refute these individual reports,” investigators wrote. “However, they do confirm that Hunter Biden sent thousands of dollars to individuals who have either: 1) been involved in transactions consistent with possible human trafficking; 2) an association with the adult entertainment industry; or 3) potential association with prostitution. Some recipients of those funds are Ukrainian and Russian citizens.

“The records note that it is a documented fact that Hunter Biden has sent funds to nonresident alien women in the United States who are citizens of Russia and Ukraine and who have subsequently wired funds they have received from Hunter Biden to individuals located in Russia and Ukraine. The records also note that some of these transactions are linked to what ‘appears to be an Eastern European prostitution or human trafficking ring,” the footnote added.

The report said the Senate probe will continue in part because investigators have been thwarted by a lack of cooperation and have not yet been able to determine whether the FBI, U.S. intelligence or other agencies fully investigated the concerns about the Bidens.

The report does not accuse either Joe or Hunter Biden of a specific crime; rather it flags warning signs about their conduct and questions whether officials turned a blind eye. Both Bidens have long denied wrongdoing and called the Senate investigation a partisan endeavor.

Democrats are certain to contest the findings, but they will face the awkward challenge that the key evidence supporting the Republicans’ conclusions came from Obama-Biden era files and witnesses, including Kent, the bowtied diplomat who was a star witness for Democrats at impeachment.

Kent’s testimony and emails cited in the report paint a compelling portrait of the difficulties Joe Biden created by continuing to preside over Ukraine anti-corruption policy as Obama’s vice president while his son served on the board of a company under investigation for corruption and run by an oligarch named Mykola Zlochevsky.

“The presence of Hunter Biden on the Burisma board was very awkward for all U.S. officials,” Kent wrote in a Sept. 6, 2016 email to senior State officials, including then-U.S. ambassador Marie Yovanovitch.

In his testimony to the committees, he expounded on the impact those concerns had on U.S. policy in Ukraine, especially in fighting corruption.

“People who talk the talk need to walk the walk, and for the U.S. government, collectively, when we talk about the need to have high standards of integrity, again, as I’ve said, the presence of [Hunter Biden] on the board created the perception of a potential conflict of interest,” he testified.

Kent also discussed the extraordinary specter of having to report to the Justice Department that the very firm paying Hunter Biden in Ukraine was believed to have paid a bribe to Ukrainian prosecutors to make corruption allegations disappear.

“Burisma’s owner was a poster child for corrupt behavior,” Kent testified to the committees. “… I would have advised any American not to get on the board of Zlochevsky’s company.” 

Hunter Biden finally left Burisma in 2019 as his father began his quest to win the presidency in 2020.

Bill Gates’ Web of Dark Money and Influence – Part 2: The COVID-19 Operation

Derrick Broze,
May 28th, 2020

This piece will continue our look into Bill Gates and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Please see part 1 before reading. In part 2,  we will focus on the role the Foundation has played in the response to COVID-19, as well as the influence the organization has on global health institutions.

Further reading: Bill Gates EXPOSED: Web of Dark Money and Influence – Part 1: Philanthropic Narrative Shaping

Before we dive into the current COVID-19 crisis, a bit more background on Gates is needed. In the last piece we discussed the history of the Gates Foundation’s investments. What is important to note is that by using the Foundation as the front organization, Gates can donate and influence hospitals, universities, media, governments, and health organizations. The Foundation clearly has the ability to shape the decisions made by some of the institutions they fund, including when these decisions go against the desires of the masses they claim to be helping.

For example, in 2017 Independent Science News released a report detailing how the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation paid PR firm Emerging Ag $1.6 million to “recruit a covert coalition of academics to manipulate a UN decision-making process over gene drives.” Emails released by Freedom of Information Act Request reveal that the Gates’ recruitment effort was part of a plan to “fight back against gene drive moratorium proponents.” Gene drives are a controversial genetic extinction technology promoted as a way to eliminate mosquitoes with malaria, agricultural pests, and invasive species.

At the 2016 United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, 179 international organizations called for a UN moratorium on gene drives. The opponents of this technology also circulated a letter, “A Call for Conservation with a Conscience: No Place for Gene Drives in Conservation,” signed by 30 environmental leaders who called for a “halt to all proposals for the use of gene drive technologies, but especially in conservation.” The Gates Foundation is heavily invested in gene driving technology and was not happy to see a diverse and unified push-back against gene driving. The Foundation hired Emerging Ag — who have their own web of connections to Big Pharma and Big Ag — to shut down the opponents of gene driving. Emerging Ag was successful and the moratorium was shot down.

Coincidentally, in 2016, the US National Academy of Sciences released a report on gene driving which was co-funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. DARPA is also invested in gene drive research. As The Guardian noted after the release of the NAS report:

The same US defense research agency (DARPA) who paid for the NAS study have made it known that they are going all-in on gene drive research and development of ‘robust’ synthetic organisms. There is good reason to be worried.

Moreover, Jim Thomas of the ETC Group, which monitors the impact of emerging technologies and corporate strategies on biodiversity, agriculture and human rights, told ISN that he believes gene drives are potential biological weapons that could have a “disastrous” impact on human life and food security. “The fact that gene drive development is now being primarily funded and structured by the US military raises alarming questions about this entire field,” he stated.

Independent Science News also noted:

This is also not the first time that the Gates Foundation has used academics to influence public and private opinion on genetic engineering technologies, as witnessed by its funding of the Cornell Alliance for Science.

The private emails obtained by Independent Science News add to the mountains of evidence detailing how Gates is able to pressure organizations to carry out his interests, and that of his Foundation.

The Global Health Mafia

Bill Gtaes

Considering these alarming reports of Gates’ influence on public health policy, it is important to take a moment to examine the current response to COVID-19. When we look at the players and institutions involved, do we see Gates’ influence and money? If so, what does this mean for public health? Will Gates’ mammoth influence and finances allow him to personally direct the course of the COVID-19 recovery?

Let’s start by looking at Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, Director of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health, and a leader in the fight against COVID-19. Unfortunately, when it comes to Fauci and NIAID we clearly see the influence of Bill Gates. In 2010, NIAID and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation announced their “Decade of Vaccines Collaboration,” calling for coordination across the “international vaccine community” and the creation of a “Global Vaccine Action Plan.” Dr. Fauci was appointed to the Leadership Council of the partnership. Similarly, Bill Gates has been partnering with the NIH for several years.

In late April, the news broke that Fauci’s NIAID donated a total of $7.4 million to research involving bat coronaviruses. The investments added fuel to the theory that COVID-19 might be a bioengineered virus which was purposefully or accidentally released from the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China. The news of the funding begs the obvious question; did Gates’ money influence or fund the NIAID’s coronavirus research? Time will tell.

Another important player with connections to Gates is Dr. Deborah Birx, an American physician and diplomat serving as the United States Global AIDS Coordinator for Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump since 2014. She is currently the Coronavirus Response Coordinator for the Trump Administration’s White House Task Force. Birx also sits on the Board of The Global Fund, an organization which was promised a $750 million investment by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in 2012. The Global Fund also features board member Kieran Daly, the Deputy Director of Global Policy and Advocacy for the Gates Foundation.

“The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is a key partner of the Global Fund, providing cash contributions, actively participating on its board and committees, and supporting the Global Fund’s advocacy, communications and fundraising efforts,” the Global Fund states.

Johns Hopkins University has been an equally important member of the global response to COVID-19. The university’s calculations of global infection and death rates are commonly cited in mainstream media. Yet, once again, we find the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has been investing in Johns Hopkins for two decades.

Finally, it was recently reported that the organization known as the Wellcome Trust has partnered with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and MasterCard to “catalyze the initial work” of the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator. The Accelerator is supposed to accelerate and evaluate “new and repurposed drugs and biologics to treat patients with COVID-19 in the immediate term.” What was not mentioned is that the Gates Foundation has been a “Trustee” of the Wellcome Trust for several years. Interestingly, in 2017, Mark Henderson, Director of Communications for Wellcome Trust participated in a panel called “Deep Dive: Preventing Pandemics.” Dr. Anthony Fauci also participated in the panel discussion.

One could chalk up Fauci and Wellcome Trust’s involvement with a panel about pandemics as perfectly reasonable — after all, these are professionals who are focused on global health. However, to ignore that Bill Gates’ fingerprints are all over the global health industry would be a mistake.

Based on The Gates Foundation’s track record of hiring PR firms to shut down detractors or using their money to influence institutions, one could be forgiven for assuming that the foundation would not be high on the list of potential leaders for a public health crisis. Unfortunately, as of May 2020, Bill Gates and his Foundation are still being promoted as heroes in the fight against COVID-19.

Book The pH Miracle: Balance Your Diet, Reclaim Your Health

Who Is Running the WHO?

Since the outbreak of COVID-19, both Bill Gates and the World Health Organization have stepped onto the center stage as the world looks to them for answers. By now, it is common knowledge that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is the number one non-state donor to the WHO. The United States has been the top state donor but that may change under the Trump administration. Gates was also the first non-state individual to give a keynote address to the WHO general assembly.

According to a report by Politico, Bill Gates’ opinion (and money) has so much influence on the WHO that officials privately call it “the Bill Chill.” Sixteen officials speaking on the condition of anonymity told Politico that Gates has an out-sized influence on the politics of the WHO and few dare challenge him. “He is treated liked a head of state, not only at the WHO, but also at the G20,” a Geneva-based NGO representative stated.

The accusations of Gates’ influence were seconded by Foreign Affairs when they reported that “few policy initiatives or normative standards set by the World Health Organization are announced before they have been casually, unofficially vetted by Gates Foundation staff.”

The WHO’s current Director General is Tedros Adhanom, a former Health Minister of Ethiopia and a physician. During his tenure as Minister of Health of Ethiopia, Tedros collaborated with the Clinton Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to work on vaccines, among other health measures. Politico reported that prior to Tedros being selected for the WHO position in 2017 Gates was accused of supporting Tedros and using his influence to help win the nomination.

While most of the member country delegates expressed their belief that Gates is well-intentioned, some feared that the Gates Foundation’s money comes from “big business” and could “serve as a Trojan horse for corporate interests to undermine WHO’s role in setting standards and shaping health policies.”

The most important takeaway is that the fees paid by WHO member countries account for less than a quarter of the $4.5 billion biennial budget — leaving Gates, governments, and other foundations to fill the gap. These donations are allocated for specific projects and the WHO cannot decide how to use them. In the case of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, those funds typically go towards vaccine programs.

No matter which way you approach the solutions being presented as the answer to the COVID-19 pandemic you will find Bill Gates’ fingerprints. Repeatedly he has used his money and influence to profit and steadily gain power without ever being elected to political office.

In part 3 of this investigation we will examine the strategies Bill Gates has called for in response to COVID-19. We will also see how Bill Gates and the Rockefeller family have both been predicting a situation like the one we are currently witnessing unfold. Finally, we will show how this crisis presents the perfect opportunity for Gates and his cohorts to reap massive profits and position themselves at the head of an emerging Technocratic State

SOURCE: https://www.activistpost.com/2020/05/bill-gates-web-of-dark-money-and-influence-part-2-the-covid-19-operation.html

Bill Gates EXPOSED: Web of Dark Money and Influence – Part 1: Philanthropic Narrative Shaping

Derrick Broze,
May 23rd, 2020

In the first few months of 2020, business tycoon and billionaire Bill Gates saw his popularity soar through the roof. According to YouGov, 58 percent of Americans polled about Gates had a positive opinion of him, he is equally liked by men and women, and both Boomers and Millennials adore him. Gates’ popularity might have increased due to a viral Netflix documentary about his life being released in late 2019. Combine that positive press with a wave of media interviews seeking the guidance of the man who “predicted” the next major pandemic, and voila – Bill Gates is a superhero here to save the planet from impending doom.

Of course, this rather cartoonish view ignores several incontrovertible facts, and a few strong theories regarding Gates’ true intentions. First, the facts. Bill Gates has used his immense wealth to garner influence and media time, spreading his message of fixing global health issues while he continues to make billions. Using the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to dole out grants and donations, Gates has created a web of organizations who owe their budget to the Foundation or answer directly to Gates. By tracing the Foundation’s investments and Gates’ relationships we can see that nearly every person involved in the fight against COVID-19 is tied to Gates or his Foundation by two degrees or less. This gives Bill Gates and his Foundation an unchallenged influence over the response to the pandemic. Equally worrisome is Gates’ call for global lock down until the entire world has been vaccinated and given a digital certificate to prove immunity.

Now, the theories: when taking a careful listen to several speeches and statements made by Gates, it becomes clear that he has a penchant for discussing reducing population growth. Despite “fact checkers” claiming Gates’ words have been taken out of context, his words speak for themselves. He believes the population should be reduced or prevented from growing, and he believes this can be done with vaccines and healthcare.

As we attempt to peel back the layers of PR stunts and puff pieces fawning over Bill Gates, we hope to illustrate that the man being propped up on the global stage and sold to the people as their savior, is anything but. Despite the apparent growth in support for Bill Gates, there is also evidence on social media that people are beginning to question him and challenge the savior narrative. This is the first step in unraveling Bill Gates’ Web of Dark Money and Manipulation.

The Global Influence of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

In 1994, the story goes, Bill Gates asked his father, William Gates Sr., to help him “improve reproductive and child health” by founding and leading the William H. Gates Foundation. Gates Sr. agreed and by 2000, the Foundation was merged with the Gates Learning Foundation to become the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. According to the Foundation, Bill Gates has donated $36 billion of his personal wealth to the foundation. The Foundation is estimated to be valued at $46.8 billion.

For the last two decades the Foundation has invested in a range of controversial companies and projects while pursuing their goal of improving global health and access to vaccines and reproductive care. This has all been done as part of Gates’ plan to reshape his public image as that of a friendly and kind billionaire whose only aim is to help the world. The reality is much more suspect.

Let’s take, for example, the Netflix documentary mentioned above,Inside Bill’s Brain: Decoding Bill Gates. Rather than being a genuine look at the life and personality of Gates, the documentary failed to acknowledge conflicts of interest which might portray the film – and Bill Gates – in a different light. In a recent explosive investigation examining the reach of Gates’ money, The Nation noted that, “in the first episode, director Davis Guggenheim underlines Gates’s expansive intellect by interviewing Bernie Noe, described as a friend of Gates.” Noe goes on to tell of Gates reading 150 pages an hour with 90 percent retention. However, The Nation reported, “Guggenheim doesn’t tell audiences that Noe is the principal of Lakeside School, a private institution to which the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has given $80 million.” Coincidentally, this is the same school that the Gates’ children attend.

Of course, using the Foundation’s wealth to influence media coverage is not new for Bill Gates. Although The Guardian claims editorial independence, their Global Development section is funded in part by The Gates Foundation. The Foundation has also given more than $9 million to The Guardian, over $3 million to NBC Universal, over $4 million to French newspaper Le Monde, over $4.5 million to NPR, $1 million to Al-Jazeera, and $49 million to the BBC’s Media Action program. In light of these investments it’s easy to understand how Gates could quickly organize a speaking tour of his favorite media outlets.

Corporate media outlets are not the only beneficiaries of the Gates Foundation. They have also invested in controversial technologies and companies, including Monsanto, geoengineering, 5G technology, and vaccines.

MintPress News recently reported on how the Gates Foundation helped highly controversial pharmaceutical and chemical giant Monsanto Corporation “gain a stronger foothold in Africa.” MPN also notes that the Foundation funded a, “flawed clinical trial of the HPV vaccine in India in 2009, where 23,000 impoverished girls aged 9-15 were exposed to potentially lethal drugs without even their parents’ consent, leading to seven deaths.”

In 2010, it was also reported that since 2007, Gates had given $4.5 million to study geoengineering methods for altering the stratosphere to reflect solar energy, techniques to filter carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere, and brightening ocean clouds. Geoengineering is the deliberate mass scale manipulation of the weather for the stated purpose of reducing heating on the planet. The Guardian previously noted that Gates gives “an undisclosed sum” to geoengineering proponent and Harvard professor David Keith. Gates also owns majority stake in Keith’s geoengineering company, Carbon Engineering. Prominent geoengineering researcher Ken Caldeira says he receives $375,000 a year from Gates and works for Intellectual Ventures, a private geoengineering research company part-owned by Gates and run by Nathan Myhrvold, former head of technology at Microsoft.

The Foundation has also invested $10 million towards developing antennas which will accelerate the roll out of controversial 5th generation cellular technology, otherwise known as 5G.

The concerns around Bill Gates fortune and his use of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to influence pet projects is not the only worry expressed by critics of the Foundation. The larger – and more immediate – is that unelected billionaires like Gates are using their fortunes to shape public policy using their philanthropic foundations. This method of investing billions of dollars in the form of tax-deductible charity donations to private companies is allowing Gates to shape policy and profit by holding stock in the same companies supported by the Gates Foundation.

A recent investigation by The Nation uncovered more than 19,000 charitable grants from the Gates Foundation in the last two decades. They also found $2 billion in these tax-deductible charitable donations to private companies. Companies receiving these donations include GlaxoSmithKline, Unilever, IBM, and NBC Universal Media. The Nation noted that the Gates Foundation has given $250 million to media companies and “other groups to influence the news.”

The Nation found close to $250 million in charitable grants from the Gates Foundation to companies in which the Foundation holds corporate stocks and bonds: Merck, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Vodafone, Sanofi, Ericsson, LG, Medtronic, Teva, and numerous start-ups.

You might see the previous statement and ask, “how can this be legal? Is it not a conflict of interest to hold stock in a company which you also give tax-free donations?” The simple fact is there are not rules or laws against doing exactly what the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are doing. While some might argue that Bill Gates’ scheme is brilliant – donate your fortune by forming a foundation which can give tax-deductible donations to companies you partly own and reap profits while avoiding taxes – it is allowing him to hide his money in a myriad of ways. It has almost become impossible to track every donation, investment, or other partnership.

The Nation concluded,

it is difficult to ignore the occasions where their charitable activities seem to serve mainly private interests, including theirs—supporting the schools their children attend, the companies their foundation partly owns, and the special interest groups that defend wealthy Americans—while generating billions of dollars in tax savings.

Other notable facts from the investigation include that the Gates Foundation’s “$50 billion endowment has generated $28.5 billion in investment income over the last five years” while only giving away $23.5 billion in charitable grants. Additionally, a 2007 LA Times investigation found that the organization was involved in subprime mortgage loans and for-profit hospitals which reportedly performed unneeded surgeries. The Gates Foundation is also reportedly invested in chocolate companies that use child labor.

It would be a mistake to see the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as merely a vessel for a rich man to hide his money and reap immeasurable profits. No, the Foundation is “more than a collection of grants and projects” says Dr David McCoy, a public health doctor and researcher at University College London and an advisor to the People’s Health Movement. McCoy says the Foundation “operates through an interconnected network of organizations and individuals across academia and the NGO and business sectors” which allows Bill Gates to “leverage” influence” in a kind of “group think.”

In part 2 of this investigation we will sift through the myriad of connections between Bill Gates, his Foundation, and the many players involved in the COVID-19 response. We will also attempt to answer the essential question: Is Bill Gates a force for good or a force for harm?

SOURCE: https://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/top-news/bill-gates-web-dark-money-influence-part-1-philanthropic-narrative-shaping/