Članek
Spoznajmo Billa Gatesa in njegovo agendo
Objavljeno Oct 28, 2020

https://vimeo.com/472528514

https://vimeo.com/472535263

https://vimeo.com/470928125

https://vimeo.com/472538780

*

pred 15 urami 19.3. 2021


DEJSTVO: Bill Gates financira in vpliva na skoraj vse večje institucije, ki vodijo pripoved o "globalni pandemiji"

Na kateri točki naključje ni več le naključje?

Najsi gre za nepovratna financiranja generacije za londonski Imperial College (delodajalec Neila Fergusona), Londonsko šolo za higieno (nekdanji delodajalec Chrisa Whittyja) ali Ameriški center za nadzor bolezni (CDC) ali Nacionalni inštitut za zdravje Anthonyja Faucija (NIH), Dobrodošli zaupanje, GAVI, združenje cepiv, Koalicija za pripravljenost na epidemije (CEPI), Svetovni ekonomski forum in Svetovna zdravstvena organizacija - v ozadju je en skupni imenovalec financiranja in izvajanja vpliva in nadzora nad vsemi temi institucijami, ki vozijo "pripoved o globalni pandemiji" od prvega dne krize.

Odgovor: Fundacija Billa in Melinde Gates.

Zloglasni monopolist in njegova žena trdijo, da želijo svet rešiti le pred raznimi in raznolikimi smrtonosnimi virusi, a je to res njihova prava motivacija? Ali njihovo izjemno bogastvo zagotavlja nevarno raven moči in vpliva na "globalno javno zdravje" (izraz, ki je zdaj sinonim za množična cepljenja, distribucijo zdravil in nadzor prebivalstva)?

Bill Gates je od prvega kriznega časa in medtem, ko je bil pol sveta prisiljen zapreti zaradi domnevnega "novega" koronavirusa, non-stop v osrednjih medijih in na YouTubu zagovarjal še več drakonskih zapor, zapiranja podjetij in zapiranja šol. , obvezne maske in zahtevajo spoštovanje javnosti za množično kampanjo cepljenja brez primere, poleg tega pa se zavzemajo za sprejetje novih potnih listov Digital ID-Vaccine, da bi omejili gibanje „necepljenih“ ter za sledenje in sledenje svetovnega prebivalstva.

V tem trenutku je trditi, da ta človek ne vodi svetovne agende, očitno smešno.


Astrološka analiza psihopata Billa Gatesa, ki je rojen v znamenju Škorpijona s podznakom Raka, leta 1955

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6Uxn_CRPv8

*

In October 2019, shortly before the COVID outbreak, Gates and other powerful individuals began planning how to censor vaccine safety advocates from social media during a table-top simulation of a worldwide pandemic, known as Event 201.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/gates-planned-social-media-censorship-vaccine-safety/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=a1ef7de7-5e87-4ee7-b576-214dd0dd2985

*

Bill Gates in COVID-19: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUQEFZkU1xw

*

Kdo je Bill Gates Corbett Report: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajZF8kgK8Os&feature=emb_logo&ab_channel=VividLight888&fbclid=IwAR3MCzxzdH9kgyPBibjpXJ4anPHXJQtTftm5RVP1rWiqV86lnsiwam_Ag84

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajZF8kgK8Os

*

Kdo je Bill Gates Corbett Report- hrvaški podnapisi: https://dokumentarac.com/novosti/video-tko-je-bill-gates-corbettov-izvjestaj-s-prevodom/

+

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbSOt00CddI&feature=youtu.be

+

Kako Bill Gates kupuje regulatorne agencije na področju medicine https://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Quick-Links/Grants-Database#q/k=Medicines%20Healthcare%20Regulatory%20Agency

*

* * *

Kaj za vas načrtuje Bill Gates?

Slogan New World Order The Great Reset:

"Ničesar ne boste posedovali in srečni boste."

Kitajski komunizem z nadzornim sistemom javnega sistema je osnova The Great Reset, ki je digitalna tehnokracija in transhumanizem, v katerem bodo človeka povezali z umetno inteligenco preko BCI vmesnika, da bi ga imeli pod totalitarnim nadzorom.

Pandemija COVID-19 je del tega načrta, ki ga je kasta bogatašev vadila manj kot dva meseca pred začetkom pandemije na srečanju The Event 201.

Med tem ko se ukvarjamo z COVID-19, Bill Gates napoveduje še več pandemij v prihodnosti in še več cepljenja s smrtno nevarnim mRNA cepivi. Med tem je kupil več kot 200.000 ha zemlje v ZDA in s tem je postal največji lastnih zemlje, na kateri bo gojil sintetično meso in gensko spremenjene škodljive pridelke, ki bodo povečali različne vrste bolezni in profit Big Pharma.

Na telefonu bo sledilna aplikacija, ki bo vohunila, ali kašljate, kar bo poročala svetovni nadzorni organizaciji, ki bo poslala ekipo in odločbo o karanteni. To se že dogaja v Kanadi.

https://www.facebook.com/stojakovic.marija/videos/10225048242175913

*

VEČ KOT OČITNO JE V ŠVICI PRAVO GNOJIŠČE VSEGA ZLA
Zakaj ne morejo Billa Gatesa v Švici zapreti
V Švici lahko GAVI Alliance (Globalno zavezništvo za cepiva in imunizacijo) počne, kar hoče. Izključena sta pregon in aretacija njihovih predstavnikov, na primer tudi Billa Gatesa. Razlog: obsežen pogodbeni sporazum s Švicarskim zveznim svetom iz leta 2009.
Člani GAVI so vlade industrializiranih držav in države v razvoju, WHO, UNICEF, Svetovna banka, fundacija Bill & Melinda Gates, nevladne organizacije, proizvajalci cepiv iz industrializiranih držav in držav v razvoju ter zdravstvene in raziskovalne ustanove ter drugi zasebni donatorji. GAVI Alliance je bila ustanovljena 29. januarja 2000 na Svetovnem gospodarskem forumu v Davosu, da bi preprečilo stagnirajoče in v nekaterih primerih celo upadajoče stopnje cepljenja v najrevnejših državah sveta, ki stagnirajo od konca devetdesetih let.
23. junija 2009 je bil med švicarskim zveznim svetom in GAVI sklenjen sporazum, ki ureja pravni status GAVI-ja v Švici. Veljati 1. januarja 2009 za nazaj.
V sporazumu je zapisano: „Med svojimi dejavnostmi GAVI Alliance uživa imuniteto pred sodno pristojnostjo in njegovim izvrševanjem, razen:
a) če je izvršitev v posameznih primerih izrecno razveljavil izvršni direktor ali oseba, ki jo je imenoval;
b) v primeru tožbe zaradi civilne odgovornosti, vložene proti družbi GAVI Alliance zaradi škode, ki jo je povzročilo motorno vozilo, ki pripada GAVI Alliance ali GAVI z njim upravlja;
c) je v primeru sodne odločbe odredil zaseg plač in drugih prejemkov, ki jih je GAVI Alliance dolžan enemu od svojih uradnikov;
d) v primeru nasprotne tožbe, ki je neposredno povezana z glavno tožbo, ki jo je
vložila GAVI Alliance; in
e) v primeru izvršitve arbitražne odločbe, sprejete v skladu s členom 29 tega
sporazuma. "
Omenjeni člen 29 ureja predložitev GAVI zasebnemu arbitražnemu postopku, v katerem stranke imenujejo po enega člana in se običajno dogovorijo za tretjega člana. Sodišče določi in predpiše svoj postopek; zunanje kontrole ni.
Osebe, ki zastopajo Allianz, vključno z Billom Gatesom, se lahko izognejo roki oblasti:
"Ob upoštevanju člena 20 tega sporazuma izvršni direktor ali, če tega ne more, njegovi namestniki in visoki uradniki uživajo privilegije, imunitete in ugodnosti, ki jih diplomatski predstavniki priznavajo v skladu z mednarodnim pravom in prakso."
Enako velja za upravni odbor, javne uslužbence in druge osebe, ki delujejo za GAVI.
Edina izjema (20. člen) so primeri odgovornosti za motorna vozila: „Če je zoper osebe vložena tožba zaradi škode, ki jo povzročilo vozilo, ki jim pripada, ali ga vozijo, ali v primeru kršitev predpisov o cestnem prometu, pod pogojem, da se to lahko kaznuje z globo, te osebe niso oproščene imunitete . "
GAVI lahko deluje tudi v svojih prostorih brez nevarnosti dostopa organov pregona ali drugih švicarskih organov: »Stavbe ali deli stavb in sosednji prostori, ki jih zavezništvo GAVI uporablja za svoje namene, so nedotakljivi, ne glede na prevladujoče lastništvo. Noben predstavnik švicarskih oblasti ne sme vstopiti vanj brez izrecnega soglasja izvršnega direktorja GAVI Alliance ali osebe, ki jo ta določi. Arhivi GAVI Alliance z vsemi vsi dokumenti in nosilci podatkov, ki ji pripadajo ali so v njihovi lasti, so vedno in vsepovsod nedotakljivi. "
Izvršitev v nepremičninah, ki so lasti GAVI je tako nemogoča: „Stavbe ali deli zgradb, pripadajoča zemljišča in sredstva, ki so v lasti GAVI Alliance ali jih ta uporablja za svoje namene, so ne glede na lokacijo in neodvisno od lastnika oproščeni: ) kakršne koli oblike rekvizicije, zaplembe ali razlastitve; b) kakršno koli izvršbe, drugih uradnih prisilnih ukrepov ali ukrepov pred sodbo, z izjemo primerov iz odstavka 1. "
Poleg tega je GAVI Allianz v Švici večinoma neobdavčena.
V 21. členu pa sporazum jasno določa: „Privilegiji in imunitete, zabeleženi v tem sporazumu, niso podeljeni, da bi upravičencem ustvarili osebne koristi. Podeljeni so izključno za zagotovitev svobodnega izvajanja dejavnosti GAVI Alliance in popolne neodvisnosti njihovih uradnikov pri njihovem delu za GAVI Alliance v vseh okoliščinah. "
Tjaša Vuzem 5.3. 2021
*

Silvia (WHO) in dr. rainer Fuellmich o Gatesu : https://www.bitchute.com/video/s8ywf3Y47oZ4/?fbclid=IwAR1dqjYlvuSEQzp90nPFBA1n0mwLn7ZUK0CNlPdSLU59rLOSgCM201AdynI in hrvaški podnapisi: https://www.facebook.com/GregorKosZaZdravoDruzbo/videos/2792044607726527

*

By DFID - UK Department for International Development - https://www.flickr.com/photos/dfid/19111683745/, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=88747754

Image

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/bill-gates-neo-feudalism-farmer-bill/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=f8fa725c-3c66-44b3-a261-d688fccd6a99

*

https://eclj.org/geopolitics/coe/how-soros-open-society-and-microsoft-invest-in-the-council-of-europe--the-united-nations?lng=en

https://nova24tv.si/svet/fundaciji-georgea-sorosa-in-billa-gatesa-si-na-taksen-nacin-prizadevata-za-nastanek-novega-mednarodnega-svetovnega-reda/

*

COVID-19 plandemija in vloga Billa Gatesa (23.00 min): https://odysee.com/@ninamvseeno:0/nova-normalnost-dokumentarni-film:9?fbclid=IwAR1wHYOrJp8xCjft1I0ovWOwnBmTJQkPJiMtN0GES70nmhtTSQvLv096cRA

*

NEMŠKA ZUNAJPARLAMENTARNA PREISKAVA ZOPER SVETOVNO ZDRAVSTVENO ORGANIZACIJO TER GAVI IN BILLU GATESU
podobno se dogaja na Nizozemskem
Razkritja izjave prijaviteljev WHO o korupciji in neizmerni moči Billa Gatesa v WHO in GAVI
V tem videu je prijaviteljica WHO dr. Astrid Stückelberger govori o nedotakljivosti in neizmerni moči Billa Gatesa v Svetovni zdravstveni organizaciji (WHO) in GAVI - združenju cepiv - in korupciji teh organizacij. To pojasnjuje nemškemu zunajparlamentarnemu preiskovalnemu odboru (Außerparlamentarischer corona Untersuchungsausschuss), ki ga vodijo odvetniki dr. Reiner Fullmich, dr. Justus Hoffmann, Antonia Fischer in Viviane Fischer. Nemška zunajparlamentarna preiskovalna komisija (BPOC), tako kot nizozemska BPOC, izvaja sistematične in znanstveno utemeljene preiskave o neprimernem upravljanju oblasti s korono.
Dr. Stückelberger je mednarodno priznana znanstvenica na področju zdravstva z doktoratom iz javnega zdravja, ki več kot 25 let izvaja klinične in epidemiološke znanstvene raziskave za oblikovalce zdravstvenih politik organizacije, kot so WHO, Združeni narodi (OZN), Mednarodna organizacija dela (ILO) in Svetovna banka in je zelo cenjena. Objavila je več kot 12 strokovnih knjig in 180 znanstvenih člankov. Med zaslišanjem ji pomaga dr. Silvia Behrendt. Pravnica za obvladovanje pandemije in nekdanja pravna strokovnjakinja Svetovne zdravstvene organizacije. Delala je tudi za sekretariat Mednarodnih zdravstvenih predpisov, epidemiološkega opozarjanja in odziva v Ženevi. Je tudi podporna članica pobude "Odvetniki za temeljne pravice".
Viri:
Izjava dr. Silvije Behrendt o SZO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBx2w32dOsw
Izraža resno zaskrbljenost glede etike obveznega cepljenja:
Izčrpno poročilo Corbetta o monopolu Billa Gatesa v svetovni zdravstveni politiki: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lolE6dYzQN0...
Študija o denarnih tokovih fundacije Bill & Melinda Gates do WHO, GAVI in drugih pomembnih zdravstvenih teles ter svetovnih zdravstvenih voditeljev:
Video zaslišanja pri nemški zunajparlamentarni preiskovalni komisiji z dr. Astrid Stückelberger in dr. Silvijo Behrendt. Trajanje 28:53 min.
WHO deluje kot korporativna agencija, v imenu zdravja so izdali 3. izdanje Mednarodnih zdravstvenih predpisov, drugo je iz 2005, prvo iz 1969, tretje je postalo veljavno 2016, ki je zdravstveno varovanje zdravja pretvorilo v diktaturo. Generalni direktor WHO lahko po novem kar sam odloča o prodaji cepiv in o PCR testih, kljub zahtevam v dokumentih, ki določajo da to lahko naredi samo po odobritvi kliničnih zdravnikov. Kar koli izjavi Tedros, generalni direktor teroristične (šala) SZO (Svetovne zdravstvene organizacije), morajo vse države to zakonsko upoštevati, saj je to omogoča »ustava« WHO in velja za vse države te organizacije z izjemo ZFA ion Irana. Bill Gates je 2017 govoril da daje veliko denarja za WHO obenem je zahteval da postane član Upravnega odbora WHO¸ tako kot to delajo države članice. Bill Gatesa WHO zaradi donacij tretira neformalno kot državo. Menim, da je podpisal isti sporazum z vsako državo posebej. Swissmedic, ki je Švicarsko regulatorno telo za odobritve zdravil in cepiv (podobno kot FDA v ZDA), je podpisal dogovor z Bill Gatesom in WHO in nato podpisuje dogovore s posameznimi državami. To je praksa korporacije in ne WHO ! Torej privatno podjetnik, trgovec podpisuje dogovor o izboru in nadzoru zdravil s svetovno zdravstveno organizacijo kateri se morajo na področju zdravja podrejati skoraj vse države. Zato govorijo vsi isto, prenašajo iste informacije…
*

Why Is the Gates Foundation Funding the UK’s Medicines Regulator?

Just as importantly, why is the regulator laying off 20-25% of its workforce in the midst of a global pandemic?

On August 13, the UK government published a response to a freedom of information request in relation to the Medicine and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) — the UK’s equivalent of the FDA. The question it was in response to enquired as to whether or not the agency had received funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The answer was yes:

We do receive funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as well as other sources outside government such as WHO. This funding mainly supports work to strengthen regulatory systems in other countries…
The current level of grant funding received from the Gates Foundation amounts to approximately $3 million. This covers a number of projects and the funding is spread across 3-4 financial years. We are an executive agency of the Department of Health and Social Care.

The story didn’t attract much attention at the time. In fact, not a single newspaper or broadcaster even bothered to cover it, perhaps because there didn’t see much in it. After all, $3 million (with an “m”) is not even that much money these days. And the Gates Foundation (GF) is a charitable organization — the biggest of its kind, with roughly $60 billion in assets — so what could possibly be wrong with it granting funds to an organization in charge of deciding which pharmaceutical products and medical devices reach the market and which don’t? Well, quite a lot, actually.

Blatant Conflict of Interest

Firstly, $3 million may not be a lot of money to the GF but it’s still a substantial sum to the cash-strapped MHRA. Secondly, the Gates Foundation’s roughly $60 billion in assets include, among other things, shares and other forms of investments in some of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies, whose products the MHRA has to regulate on a regular basis. Those companies include Sanofi, Merck, Eli Lilly and Company and Abbott Laboratories, all of which have developed or are developing covid-19 treatments and/or vaccines that are yet to receive authorisation in the UK. They also include Pfizer and its German partner BioNTech, which together have developed and marketed the most profitable vaccine in history.

This is a blatant conflict of interest. It’s also worth noting that the MHRA’s former CEO, Ian Hudson, now works as a senior advisor at the GF.

When it comes to global healthcare, the GF is anything but a disinterested third party. Its co-founder, Bill Gates, is as committed as ever to intellectual property rights. In January we learned that Gates had played a key role in convincing Oxford University to drop a prior commitment to donate the rights to its vaccine to any global drug maker. The idea was was to provide the vaccine to poorer countries at a low cost or even free of charge. But Gates persuaded the British university to sign a vaccine deal with AstraZeneca instead that gave the pharmaceutical behemoth exclusive rights and no guarantee of low prices.

We have also learnt that Gates was instrumental in blocking attempts by a coalition of countries led by South Africa and India to bring a patent waiver proposal to the World Trade Organization’s TRIPS (Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) Council. A waiver would allow poorer countries to produce the vaccines themselves. And that would massively accelerate global take-up of vaccines, which could help in the global fight against Covid. But Gates argued that poor countries were not prepared to scale up manufacturing. A waiver would also eliminate incentives for future research, he said. His argument won the day and even today the TRIPS waiver is still under discussion at the WTO, going nowhere slowly. 

In an article for Wired magazine Mohit Mookim, a former researcher at the Stanford Center for Ethics in Society, asks whether we should be surprised that a monopolist-turned-philanthropist maintains his commitment to monopoly patent rights as a philanthropist too?

“Throughout the last two decades, Gates has repeatedly advocated for public health policies that bolster companies’ ability to exclude others from producing lifesaving drugs, including allowing the Gates Foundation itself to acquire substantial intellectual property. This continues through the Covid-19 pandemic.”

Now we learn that the foundation, with its vast holdings in pharmaceutical companies and substantial intellectual property interests, has also been helping to fund the MHRA for the past four years. In other words, an organization that has poured billions of dollars into the research and development of vaccines, other novel treatments and medical devices has also been funding the UK agency responsible for approving those vaccines, novel treatments and medical devices. . 

The MHRA is not the only public health agency in the UK to have benefited from the foundation’s largess:

  • Public Health England, a health watchdog set up by the Government in 2013 to protect and improve health and wellbeing and combat health inequalities, has received $7,785,336 from the foundation. The agency is set to close in the coming months and will be replaced by the Orwellian-titled “UK Health Security Agency”.
  • Health Data Research UK has received $3.5 million from the GF since the pandemic began. The organisation has courted controversy in recent months for its role in bringing together the health and biometric data of all 55 million of the NHS’ patients. That data was then supposed to be flogged to any interested third parties, but the plan was scrapped at the last minute due to public opposition.
  • The GF has also partnered with the UK Government’s UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), which began life in 2018 with a budget of £6 billion, ostensibly to support science and research in the UK.

Funding Crisis

As I wrote last week, the UK Government is ramping up its plans to privatise the NHS. This is leaving many parts of the health system starved of funds, which in turn opens up fresh opportunities for private-sector companies, trusts and foundations. The MHRA, like the FDA, is primarily funded by the “user fees” it charges its “customers” (i.e., the companies it regulates).    

In the US, user fees fund account for around 65% of the FDA’s operating budget for regulating prescription drugs. In the case of the MHRA, 100% of its budget for regulating medicines comes from user fees. Its other activities are funded by a combination of private and public sources. The MHRA’s regulation of devices is primarily financed by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), with approximately 10% of its revenue derived from fees. The National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC) raises around half of its revenue from fees charged for services.

Nonetheless, the MHRA is facing a funding crisis. And it’s largely a result of Brexit. Before the UK’s departure from the EU, in January this year, the MHRA formed part of the European system of medicines approval. Under that system, national regulators can serve as rapporteur or co-rapporteur for any given pharmaceutical application, providing most of the verification work on behalf of all members. It was an important source of fee-income but now it’s dried up. And the government is not replacing it.

As a consequence, the regulator has announced plans to lay off between a fifth and a quarter of its 1,200-strong workforce as part of cost-cutting measures. According to the FT, the goal is to transform how the MHRA operates by redeploying staff to new areas of regulation and science. Documents leaked to the British Medical Journal reveal that the MHRA is offering early redundancy packages to staff from its divisions on vigilance and risk management of medicines (not exactly comforting), licensing, devices, inspection enforcement and standards (also not comforting), as well as its committee secretariat. The document, marked “official sensitive,” also notes that the MHRA’s income is forecast to fall by 15-20% in the next financial year and beyond.

Despite the drastic downsizing, the MHRA says it wants to still serve as a world-class regulator that delivers positive outcomes for patients while modernizing the services it provides to industry. With 15-20 percent less operating income and 20-25 percent fewer workers, that’s likely to be a tall order.

User Fees: A Principal-Agency Problem

User fees are being used more and more to fund medicine regulators around the world. They are seen as a way of shifting some of the financial burden to manufacturers who stand to benefit from the sale of of medicines. But they also raise serious ethical issues. In a 2017 blog post for the BMJ, Joel Lexchin, a professor emeritus at the School of Health Policy and Management at York University, warned that the widespread introduction of user fees had created a principal-agent problem.

When the FDA’s operating budget used to be funded exclusively by the government (up til the early ’90s), there was essentially one principle and one agent in each interaction. Each of their roles was relatively clear. The principle needed something done (in this case, patients in the US needed effective, safe medicines to be approved and ineffective and/or unsafe medicines to be blocked) and the agent (in this case, the FDA) was contracted to do the task. However, since the introduction of user fees a new principal has been added (the pharmaceutical industry) and now the regulatory agency has two principals with directly competing values:

In the case of the public, the primary value is to have effective and safe drugs, but in the case of the pharmaceutical industry, its primary goal is to get its products through the approval system as quickly as possible and to sell those products to as wide an audience as possible. At times, it seems that regulatory agencies prioritize the latter at the expense of the former. Shortly after Canada introduced user fees, the head of the part of Health Canada that regulates prescription drugs issued a memo in which he said that “the client is the direct recipient of your services. In many cases this is the person or company who pays for the service.” The one page document focused on service to industry and relegated the public to the secondary status of “stakeholder” or “beneficiary”…
User fees are reauthorized in the US on a five year cycle. When they came up for renewal in 2007, a number of prominent American commentators, including Marcia Angell, a former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine and Jerry Avorn, a leading pharmacoepidemiologist, opposed its reauthorization and instead called for increased Congressional appropriations in order to allow the FDA to undertake its responsibilities free from any apparent conflict-of-interest.

“Safety in a world of user fees” is of paramount concern, concluded Lexchin. That was was back in 2017. Four years on, we are in the biggest health crisis of our lifetimes and the tasks performed by medicines regulators are more important than ever. New experimental vaccines and therapeutic treatments are rolling off the line in record time. But they’re also being authorised in record time — in some cases despite scant evidence of benefits (e.g., Remdesivir).  And they’re earning record profits for their manufacturers. At the same time, promising repurposed off-patent medicines that do not offer lucrative financial returns are largely being ignored or are even being demonised by our medicines regulators.

In its quest to remain globally relevant as it loses money and staff and in the absence of increased government support, the MHRA will need to raise even more funds from the companies it regulates. Further handouts from the likes of the Gates Foundation will also be welcome, one can imagine. But that, one can imagine, will come with even more strings attached. https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2021/08/why-is-the-gates-foundation-funding-the-uks-medicines-regulator.html

*

Umazana resnica o Bill Gatesu: https://www.facebook.com/redactedtonight/videos/414943849986067/?extid=NS-UNK-UNK-UNK-AN_GK0T-GK1C&ref=sharing

*

   

*

Bill Gates: Vložil sem 3 milijarde USD v ta respiratorni virus, ki se širi po svetu https://www.facebook.com/stojakovic.marija/videos/10222288569305816

https://www.index.hr/vijesti/clanak/gates-kafice-i-restorane-zatvoriti-na-46-mjeseci-nema-povratka-u-normalu-do-2022/2238595.aspx

Soros osebno povezan z več vplivnimi člani mednarodnih organizacij Od leta 2015 dalje o neposrednem financiranju ni več sledi, ker je Svet Evrope ustanovil ločen sklad za “neproračunske prostovoljne prispevke”. Zahvaljujoč temu Svetu Evrope ni potrebno prikazovati denarja v v svojih finančnih poročilih. Ta zadeva pa se ne dotika le Sveta Evrope, temveč tudi Mednarodnega kazenskega sodišča, ki je leta 2017 od Fundacije za Odprto družbo prejelo 115 tisoč ameriških dolarjev. Finančno podporo sta prejeli tudi Svetovna zdravstvena organizacija (WHO) in Združeni narodi. Dejansko je Gatesova fundacija postala drugi največji donator WHO potem, ko je organizaciji leta 2019 namenila 530 milijonov dolarjev – zaostala je le za ZDA. Osemdeset odstotkov proračuna WHO temelji na prostovoljnih prispevkih fundacij in vlad. Ta način financiranja ustvarja dvome o neodvisnosti organizacije. Skozi mednarodne organizacije želijo namreč “progresivni” donatorji doseči svoje globalne cilje. Zlasti milijarder George Soros je osebno povezan z več vplivnimi člani teh mednarodnih organizacij. Nekdanji generalni sekretar Sveta Evrope Thorbjørn Jagland je Sorosa denimo označil za “dobrega prijatelja”, komisar za človekove pravice pri Svetu Evrope med leti 2012- 2018 Nils Mulznieks je bil celo zaposlen pri Sorosu. Nekdanji predsednik Evropske komisije Jean-Claude Juncker in visoka komisarka Združenih narodov za človekove pravice Michelle Bachelet sta Sorosa prav tako označila za prijatelja. Seznam z imeni, kjer ne manjka vplivnih ljudi, se seveda nadaljuje naprej. V intervjuju za francoski tednik Valeurs Actuelles je Puppinck razkril, kaj je pravzaprav v ozadju teh osebnih odnosov s Sorosom. Milijarder in njegovi lobisti so se med leti 2014 in 2018 kar 64-krat sestali s komisarji EU. Med sestanki pa so pogosto naredili celo prijateljske selfije, kar nedvomno priča o sproščenosti. Puppinck namiguje na zelo močan in privilegiran lobistični položaj Sorosa in njegovih aktivistov, saj številni predsedniki in evropske vlade nikoli niso smeli imeti takšnih tesnih odnosov z uradniki Evropske komisije. https://nova24tv.si/svet/fundaciji-georgea-sorosa-in-billa-gatesa-si-na-taksen-nacin-prizadevata-za-nastanek-novega-mednarodnega-svetovnega-reda/