Joe Schaeffer of Corporate Watch writes the following long review of Bill Gates and the IHME forecasts.
Why is Bill Gates getting to decide when Americans can leave their homes and go outside?
Gates, a dyed-in-the-wool globalist, is the founder and funder of the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington.
The IHME’s coronavirus model “has been cited by members of the White House coronavirus task force and has been used to assist the task force’s recommendations on social distancing,” according to national news reports, and has been positioned by our big-box media outlets as an unquestionably key decision-making factor on when Americans can finally begin living their lives again after weeks of being locked down under government order.
Bill Gates’ dream of controlling world health is currently getting a startling boost in authority via his IHME initiative as Americans remain shut in their homes. / YouTube
Even leading “conservative” website Breitbart has touted IHME’s prominent role in its reporting, without so much as mentioning the Gates association.
In an April 9 interview with NPR, Gates was positively acting like this is all his call. “As we follow the numbers into May and see if we can get them down to a very low level, then in parallel, this debate about which things have benefits to society and can be formatted so the infection risk is very low, which things should we resume?” Gates pondered aloud. “I do think manufacturing, construction, a lot of things we’ll do, but large public gatherings may have to await until we have that vaccine.”
It’s always about vaccines with Gates, the biggest individual promoter of immuno-inoculations on the planet. But Gates’ dream of controlling world health is currently getting a startling boost in authority via his IHME initiative as Americans remain shut in their homes and breathlessly await word from “experts” as to when they might be liberated.
Make no mistake, this is a role IHME is fully embracing. One of its professors, Ali H. Mokdad, had the arrogance to write an article April 22 for the Think Global Health website, which is run by the notorious globalist organization the Council on Foreign Relations, that lists when the group deems it acceptable for each state in the nation to reopen. “Americans owe it to those who have lost their lives, their loved ones, and their livelihoods to proceed with caution,” Mokdad asserted. “To help states weigh the risks of easing physical distancing measures against the economic consequences of prolonged lockdowns, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) has projected when it could be safe for states to begin to reopen, if and only if appropriate public health strategies are in place.”
Here is a look at
the IHME map showing the various dates when the group thinks it may possibly be
feasible to let 330 million Americans out of their rooms
And of course mainstream media outlets swallow this claim to authority whole, thus further buttressing it. An article in The Hill dutifully promoted the IHME guidelines. “When will it be safe for your state to reopen during the ongoing coronavirus pandemic?” read the alarmist headline that accompanied the piece.
Trump-bashers have actually claimed that IHME is running an overly optimistic model that the president favors because he wants to reopen America as soon as possible. However, we are seeing IHME, after first being positioned as an authority on the subject, now pushing for much longer lockdown scenarios. Mid-June for Florida, and – insanely – July 19 for North Dakota!
But whatever dates IHME proposes is immaterial. The question that needs to be asked is just why the American people are allowing globalist elitists who package themselves as experts to have this much say over their everyday lives in the first place?
Since IHME apparently does wield significant pull with our governing officials in this matter, it would behoove us to examine just what this organization is about.
“The announcement of the 10-year, $279-million investment in IHME by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation this year provides a moment in time to reflect and to look ahead,” writes Dr. Christopher J.L. Murray in his Director’s Statement on IHME that is posted on the organization’s website. Above all IHME is a Bill Gates operation from stem to stern.
IHME is pro-abortion and pro-population control. A 2016 IHME Global Burden of Disease study co-authored by Director Murray bluntly declares:
“Several challenges to improving reproductive health lie ahead in the [Sustainable Development Goal] era. Countries should establish or renew systems for collection and timely dissemination of health data; expand coverage and improve quality of family planning services, including access to contraception and safe abortion to address high adolescent fertility; invest in improving health system capacity, including coverage of routine reproductive health care….”
IHME openly boasts that the United Nations Population Fund relies on its Global Burden of Disease Data to more effectively push population control around the world:
“In some places, improvements in health are lagging behind development – but how can funding agencies figure out where, and by how much?” a May 2019 IHME article reads. “At the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), health innovators are using Global Burden of Disease (GBD) metrics to answer those questions.
“UNFPA’s primary mission is to improve child health, increase access to family planning services, and make childbirth safer. Their programs touch on access to contraception, health worker training, and teen pregnancy prevention. UNFPA also works to improve data collection for population planning.”
In 2018 IHME gave its annual Roux Award to a doctor running a clinic on the Burma-Thailand border that is widely celebrated in progressive circles. Dr. Cynthia Maung is the co-author of a 2016 study titled “Establishing a Referral System for Safe and Legal Abortion Care: A Pilot Project on the Thailand-Burma Border.”
“We detail the three-year, collaborative effort by the Mae Tao Clinic in Mae Sot, Thailand, and a multidisciplinary team of North American reproductive health specialists to determine the feasibility of establishing a referral system for abortion care,” the study explained of its mission.
A look at IHME’s Governing Board shows a litany of cozy ties to globalist elites. Lincoln Chen “is President of the China Medical Board of Cambridge, MA,” his IHME bio reads. “Started in 1914, the Board was endowed by John D. Rockefeller as an independent foundation that seeks to advance health in China and Asia by strengthening medical education, research, and policies.”
The Rockefeller family is not the only globalist financial behemoth that Chen has worked with. “In the five years 1997-2001, Dr. Chen served as Executive Vice-President of the Rockefeller Foundation, and in 1973-1987, he represented the Ford Foundation in India and Bangladesh,” the bio further states.
And there’s more. “From 2001-2007, Dr. Chen was Chair of the Board of Directors of CARE/USA, one of America’s leading international relief and development organizations,” the bio continues. CARE is one of the largest organizations aiding the Third World refugee invasion of the U.S. and Europe today.
Chen “currently serves as a Board member of the Social Science Research Council, the Secretary-General’s Global Advisory Board to the UN Fund for International Partnership (Ted Turner’s UN Foundation),” the bio goes on to say.
Julio Frenk, President of the University of Miami and former president of the Carso Health Institute in Mexico, is the IHME Board chair. Carso is heavily financed by Mexican billionaire and New York Times owner Carlos Slim, much to the delight of the World Health Organization. In 2008 Frenk “received the Clinton Global Citizen Award for changing ‘the way practitioners and policy makers across the world think about health.’”
Frenk wrote quite frankly about his globalist medical vision in a 2013 article for the New England Journal of Medicine titled “Governance Challenges in Global Health.” In the article Frenk declares that the sovereignty of individual nations is a stumbling block to full global health. The following key excerpt speaks volumes:
“In a world of sovereign nation states, health continues to be primarily a national responsibility; however, the intensified transfer of health risks across borders means that the determinants of health and the means to fulfill that responsibility lie increasingly beyond the control of any one nation state. In the absence of a world government, there is an inherent tension between the reality of national sovereignty and the imperative of international collective action to properly manage interdependence. Sovereignty can confound attempts at transnational coordination, rulemaking, and adjudication.”
Another IHME ally is Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of the international medical journal The Lancet. IHME awarded its 2019 Roux Prize to Horton. The IHME article on the award strikingly reveals the activist purpose hidden behind the “health data” mantra espoused by IHME.
“Dr. Horton’s use of data to promote health has been a hallmark of his career,” the article notes. “He leads the flagship weekly Lancet publication and its 15 other medical journals, overseeing an integrated editorial mission for equity, the right to health, and social justice,” IHME openly states.
Here’s where they give the game away. “The idea behind what we do is really going back to the age of the Enlightenment. The idea that the purpose of creating knowledge isn’t just to publish it, or to put it on a website, or be in a journal, but actually that knowledge needs to do some work,” Horton is quoted as saying. “Knowledge published in order to accelerate social progress.”
Yes, the good doctor is just another political partisan hiding behind a white coat. “An issue on which Dr. Horton was an early champion is the health effects of climate change,” the article unsurprisingly reveals. In fact the bogus science of climate change is just one branch of what Horton calls his “planetary health” agenda.
“For me, planetary health is about re-politicizing everything we do in science and human health,” Horton says. “It’s not about publishing papers. It’s not simply about publishing a journal. What it’s about is taking that work and making sure that it has a political impact.”
These are the experts that the American people are allowing to rule their everyday lives. When did we become so timid and racked by fear that we decided to throw away our personal freedoms, hide under our beds and implore Bill Gates and his globalist cohorts to make sure that we all don’t die?
No comments:
Post a Comment