In 2021 the Guardian ran a series of adverts claiming the newspaper was “not funded by billionaires”, and “our readers’ backing gives us the independence to hold the powerful to account”. Not perhaps all the powerful. The Guardian is backed by a number of billionaire philanthropic foundations, including the European Climate Fund and the Rockefeller Family Fund. According to the investigative journalist Ben Pile, an additional $12 million grant from the Gates Foundation is equivalent alone to $116 for every reader of the print version.
This information is contained in a sensational and wide-ranging report from Pile that lifts the lid on the extraordinary influence a few wealthy individuals have recently gained in directing public policy across many political issues, including medicine, climate and Net Zero. Funding mainstream media plays a large part in driving public policy, and the amounts of money involved are staggering. So are the clouds of smoke produced to hide the scale of the subsidy. Pile notes that although the Guardian has run many articles denouncing the lack of transparency around the funding of Right-of-centre civil society organisations and the influence of ‘dark money’, neither the newspaper nor many of its backers detail their own funding relationships.
The Guardian is not the only mainstream media outlet in the U.K. to benefit from cash injections from Bill Gates. The BBC collects a handsome $58 million, while sizeable gifts have been pocketed by the Daily Telegraph and the Financial Times.
Climate-related grants between 2013-2021 by principal and strategic foundations are estimated to total $2.7 billion. This compares with an average 2018-2022 annual income for the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a critical climate and Net Zero think tank demonised by green activists, of $470,238. All this green largesse buys a lot of the useful smoke. The European Climate Fund, for instance, funds InfluenceMap which suggested in 2018 that the five largest oil companies spent $200 million a year on “narrative capture and lobbying on climate”. Earlier investigative work by Pile revealed that most of the claimed expenditure was based on speculation and estimation. Meanwhile, InfluenceMap’s own 11 funders were shown to have spent $1.2 billion on funding climate change campaigning and lobbying.
The latest Pile report is published by Together and Climate Debate U.K. and is titled ‘“Clean” Air, Dirty Money, Filthy Politics‘. It focuses on the “big bucks” behind the U.K. anti-car policies and air pollution panics. Its range is wide and the Daily Sceptic will report on some of the issues it raises in subsequent articles. But the main gist of its sensational findings is that a few ‘philanthropists’ now have “extraordinary influence” in global agencies such as the United Nations and the World Health Organisation, and their interest aligns academic research and non-governmental organisations of all kinds. In the process, they exclude the wider society and promote and often implement policies that have no grassroots support.
In London, Mayor Sadiq Khan chairs the C40 group of world mayors. Backed by billionaires such as Michael Bloomberg and Extinction Rebellion funder Sir Christopher Hohn, the group promotes a variety of lifestyle changes surrounding restriction of diet, travel and many other personal freedoms. It claims to represent “over 82 million people from diverse global contexts and around one fifth of the global economy”. Pile observes that it seems extremely unlikely that eight million Londoners have even heard of C40, let alone agree to its radical visions for the reorganisation of their lives.
Air pollution policies such as London’s Ultra Low Emissions Zone are said to be “proxy battles” of the climate war. Organisations involved in air pollution policies are wholly funded by climate change interests. “There are no grassroots air pollution campaigns of consequence,” states Pile. The public has been excluded from politics, he continues. Experts that depart from the policy agenda are routinely excluded from the public debate by research agendas, editorial policy and cancel culture. This deprives the public of debate about costs and trade-offs of far reaching policies. As an example it can be noted that the move to full Net Zero by 2050 was nodded through the British Parliament during the death throes of a May Government desperately seeking what was considered at the time as a virtuous legacy.
It is all possible because well-funded green organisations have worked to form a cross-party consensus. At the local level, continues Pile, air pollution policies have been imposed on populations without due democratic process. This of course has ended in London with a Labour Mayor punching down hard on car ownership among the less affluent members of society. Independent local organisations are “overwhelmed” by extremely well-funded and well-connected green organisations’ campaigns, he notes.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Ben Pile’s work has been brilliant for years. He produces reports and videos that would close down the whole climate movement in an afternoon if they were seen by a wider public.
Find him @clim8resistance on XTwitter
100% agreed.
Ben is also on Substack for those of us who don’t Twatter…
https://substack.com/@benpile
That’s the whole point of Online ‘Harms’ Bill & Trusted News highlighted in the Gates funding above. Also the EU is pushing the digital ID that has been warned about. And with that ID there is a digital wallet that we all know where that ends.
The Guardian is merely the Volkisch Observer of it’s day, except rather better funded. Ben Pile has fought this thankless war without any of the largesse enjoyed by the alarmist side who only spit out lies and hate.
Glad I stopped reading the G a while back. Years ago I used to read the printed version (before there was any alternative), but never subscribed to it, and gave it up in 2020.
There is more joy in heaven over 1 sinner who repents than over 99 righteous ppl.
I was brought up on the Manchester Guardian. Abandoned it’s mutant deformed London version years ago.
The rich still lording over we proles. And socialists, who used to be fighting for the poor and ordinary people, are now staffed with middle class, midwit intelligence- working class haters. Socialism has always been a rich person’s control system (thr Webbs were both wealthy socialists busy telling working proles how to luve their lives and who to vote for).
Need a good clear out of the wealthy socialists.
So these ‘news’ outlets are just cheap hoares for for the veiws of gates and his chums! You’d have thunk?
‘Whores’ Dinger.
Pom pom girls for big pharma!
But on the contrary isn’t it reassuring to see that in the multi billionaire class philanthropy still exists?
I mean without controlling the MSM people may have become sceptical of :-
Covid – and it being a new and deadly disease.
Vaccination with mRNE gene therapies being the only salvation.
The supremacy of modern medicine.
Natural immunity being inferior.
Ivermectin being dangerous and useless.
The earth boiling thus having to stop oil.
Russia bad Ukraine good.
The NOT billionaire lie is priceless. I saw the lie again a couple of weeks ago and would have drawn their attention to the mistake were it not for the fact that 3 years ago I was banned from their comments section (deemed an anti vaxxer – which I am).
It really did do fearless journalism until 2006 when MI6 etc got hold of them after they released some Snowden papers. Most seniors lost jobs as a result and they’re now run by Head Girls and read only by teachers.
Jeremy Vine today talking about Boris and “well he did get that rollout going”….They fail to mention that the UKs own AZ has been deemed ‘defective’, but no surprise that never gets a mention.
I’m posting this again as I think the enormity of it is mind-blowing.
I asked the DS to look into it, but they don’t seem interested for some reason.
Five staff, already hugely overworked. Why don’t you chase it and help them out?
Because, believe it or not, I have a day job myself. I’m not a journalist or reporter of any kind. But I pass on the stuff I do find to people who are, that have the ability and resources to do something with it. My ask of the DS was that they post an article about it to raise awareness. All I can do is post little-seen comments. Understand?
So you are as busy as they are. Pleased to hear it.
I don’t understand. BMGF exists primarily to address third world health and development projects. Since 2002 they have funded ICL to do 86 projects in this field for a total of $336M addressing killers such as malaria, polio, HIV and TB – what’s the problem? where’s the conflict of interest?
Billy the Gates never puts money into anything he doesn’t expect profit from. While he had sort-of of head start because he came from a rich family and mommy negotiated his first big contract (supplying the QDOS¹ operating system he bought frome some hacker to IBM as PC-DOS), he has also made a real lot of money on his own since then.
¹ Quick and Dirty Operating System
There are many rumours about how he got started (I worked for IBM at the time). But there is no reason to suppose he is making any money out of the foundation.
In a world without walls and fences, who needs Windows and Gates?
:->
To utilize an English proverb, the leopard never changes its spots and the Gates doesn’t ever become a true friend of anyone but himself. Unless he’s in the process of succumbing to dementia, which is obviously a possibility.
Foundation invests massively in vaccination.
Gates profits hugely from shares in vaccination.
Pure coincidence, I guess…
Gates profits hugely from shares in vaccination.
How? And how do you know?
Remember he doesn’t profit from foundation investments. That money stays within the foundation. I don’t think his personal investments are public knowledge.
Surely you understand that money influences decisions, outcomes and motivates bias and corruption, and the significance of the dates? I’m not sure there’s a lot I can say to help you better understand I’m afraid.
The conclusion would appear to be that no institution or person should make a large donation to any cause however worthwhile because they will be influencing decisions, outcomes and motivating bias and corruption. Right?
There are places in Africa, India that would not entertain Gates again. Maybe the rope variety though!
https://thediplomat.com/2021/06/why-are-indians-so-angry-at-bill-gates/
“Last month, Bill Gates’ divorce and allegations of sexual misconduct made headlines in Western media. But in India, the billionaire philanthropist and his foundation have been under criticism for months for completely different reasons. Indians have called for Gates’ arrest over alleged violations of medical ethics and laws by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) in the country. #ArrestBillGates trended on Indian Twitter in May, part of a campaign calling Indian authorities to charge the BMGF and Gates for conducting illegal medical trials on vulnerable groups in two Indian states.
This is not the first time the BMGF or Bill Gates has been at the receiving end of public anger in India. This latest outburst is part of constantly growing anger against Gates and his foundation in India. As early as April 2021, Gates received flak for expressing his reluctance about sharing COVID-19 vaccine technologies with developing countries like India. After severe public criticism in India and abroad, BMGF Chief Executive Officer Mark Suzman officially supported a temporary waiver on vaccine IP.”
There has also been controversy over Gates and also Monsanto in India regarding the seed farmers. Many farmers committed suicide there.
Colin Todhunter regularly updates on the Gates food malevolence over at Off-G.
Where’s the conflict of interest….
Philanthropaths do not give money without expecting a return. Witness Gates donations to the WHO. Private donors get to direct how their money is spent. Now, in the Third World, is is known that the best lifts for health are
Clean water
Sanitation
Hygiene.
Where does Gates’ money go?
Jabbing. Usually with trial vaccines he has invested in. Usually in countries with lax medical testing regulation.
Get it? This man is EVIL. Sharmeen Ahmed, Golden Gate University School of Law
Accountability of International NGOs: Human Rights Violations in Healthcare Provision in Developing Countries and the Effectiveness of Current Measures
AbstractIn recent years, the number of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) working in the international arena has vastly increased, generally making a positive impact. But, as this influence has deepened, governments in the developing world and scholars have scrutinized the work and accountability of NGOs given they are mostly independent and not subjected to international law. While NGOs must adhere to the domestic laws of the places within which they work, adherence is dependent upon the strength of enforcement of those laws. Proponents argue that this independence is essential for NGOs to effectively carry out their work. However, a review of healthcare programs funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (Gates Foundation) calls into question current accountability measures of NGOs in the healthcare sector and can shine a light on weaknesses and potential areas of improvement in the current accountability regime for NGOs.
The shortcomings of the current accountability regime for NGOs must be addressed in two critical areas: monitoring projects and monitoring potential influences and exploitation between donors and NGOs. Through the review of recent Gates-funded healthcare campaigns in Africa and India, this paper seeks to highlight and analyze these shortcomings by looking at the failures of the current accountability regime to prevent and resolve human rights abuses committed during these programs. This paper will offer recommendations to strengthen the accountability regime for NGOs through a more active role by the local governments and through community outreach and development. The findings in this paper will have implications for all NGOs working in the healthcare sector and potentially other sectors.
https://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/annlsurvey/vol22/iss1/6/
Where does Gates’ money go?
According to the list of grants $1.6 billion went on Water, Sanitation and Hygiene. It is hard to interpret this as the categories are not that clear But the foundation certainly spends a bit on this.
What makes you think Gates profits from vaccines?
In an interview with the BBC he admitted his return on investments in “vaccines” were the best investments he had ever made with a return of $20 to $1
That proves nothing. He might have invested a $1 and got $20 back.
That would still be a profit of $19. BTW, can you name a vaccine producing company whose share price is $1? Pfizer is $29.60, Moderna $75.56, Astrazeneca $126.17 and Biontech $98.77.
I don’t think anyone on planet earth could properly unravel the sources of his wealth and its distribution.
That said, the profit he derives from vaccines is more of a philanthropic nature. I believe he sees himself as a,or even the, saviour of the world as regards effecting cures for disease,
Unfortunately for mankind he and his ilk might actually just be wrong in that thinking, and if he has his way, mandating mRNA gene therapies for the whole of mankind. I understand he’s recently said unless properly vaccinated, those who refuse will not be able to partake in Society.
Proper research needs to be done as regards the possible harmful and permanent effects said therapies may have on the immune system.
For example –
https://www.authorea.com/users/455597/articles/552937-innate-immune-suppression-by-sars-cov-2-mrna-vaccinations-the-role-of-g-quadruplexes-exosomes-and-micrornas
And a new one –
https://arkmedic.substack.com/p/5-ways-to-skin-a-genetically-modified?utm_source=cross-post&publication_id=413756&post_id=137412013&utm_campaign=579085&isFreemail=false&r=x6a6a&utm_medium=email
In my view he’s the biggest threat to mankind there has ever been.
UK Column looks into things like this all the time. They should collaborate with them and share articles.
Well done, Mr Pile.
Follow the money
Other extraordinary influencers:
‘2020 Iran gave Hezbollah $700 million a year. In the past, Tehran has historically given $100 million annually to Palestinian groups, including Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.’
The Wilson Centre
‘Britain First—a far-right group in the United Kingdom…….has long been suspected of receiving support from Russia. Its leader, Paul Golding, has made at least three visits to Russia…….U.K. police have investigated his financial affairs on the suspicion that he has been receiving money from sources in Moscow, and charged and convicted him for refusing to cooperate with an investigation after returning from a trip to Russia. Many other mainstream far right politicians in Europe have also cultivated relations with Russia.’
Raffaello Pantucci, Lawfare 09 Apr 2023
Sir Chris Hohn, hedge fund manager both funds extinction rebellion, Sadiq Khan’s ulez and invests in green energy funds which appreciate as a consequence of extinction rebellion and the London mayor’s activities.
Where does Khan invest his own money?
WTF is BBC Media Action? And why would they get over $54m? I’m going to lose another chunk of time looking at that today.
Part of Trusted News Initiative, I guess.
Updated: From Wikipedia:
Ah, external grants.
Please see my comment. BBC Media Action is nothing to do with the Trusted News Initiative. It is an international development charity that has been receiving grants from BMGF since 2006 almost all for health and development project in developing countries.
Put a sock in it for crying out loud.
soundofreason thought BBC Media Action might be something to do with TNI. I was able to show it wasn’t and he very graciously accepted the correction. What’s the problem?
Thanks for the link to the BMGF spreadsheet. As you could see, I wrote my guess about TNI before realising that ‘BBC Media Action’ was the charity run by the BBC.
I don’t think that the BBC should be running a charity at all. Especially not one that focusses on development outside or inside Britain. To drive development there has to be some idea about a direction – and too much wokery disguises itself as development.
Many countries’ leaders would be well advised to treat BBC related ‘development’ aid with deep suspicion. Look at what it promotes within the UK and consider whether that’s the desired direction.
I think just like USAID, the ‘charity’ slogan is a disguise so as to meddle in political affairs. like in Ukraine and many other places.
It is equivalent to USAID.
Hmmmm
https://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/annlsurvey/vol22/iss1/6/
“Sharmeen Ahmed, Golden Gate University School of Law
Accountability of International NGOs: Human Rights Violations in Healthcare Provision in Developing Countries and the Effectiveness of Current Measures
AbstractIn recent years, the number of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) working in the international arena has vastly increased, generally making a positive impact. But, as this influence has deepened, governments in the developing world and scholars have scrutinized the work and accountability of NGOs given they are mostly independent and not subjected to international law. While NGOs must adhere to the domestic laws of the places within which they work, adherence is dependent upon the strength of enforcement of those laws. Proponents argue that this independence is essential for NGOs to effectively carry out their work. However, a review of healthcare programs funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (Gates Foundation) calls into question current accountability measures of NGOs in the healthcare sector and can shine a light on weaknesses and potential areas of improvement in the current accountability regime for NGOs.
“
“Charity” LOL!
Or “Saint Bill” as I gather he is known at that shithole of a rag
Or as I am wont to describe him:
Lord Bill of the Gates of Hell.
What a deceptive headline!
The report does not say what the time period is for the grants but luckily the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation provides a spreadsheet of all grants since 1994. During this period the Guardian has received four grants from BMGF:
2011 $5,686,494 Global Health and Development Public Awareness and Analysis. to support an online micro-site focused on providing compelling, evidence-based content, discussion and debate on the Millennium Development Goals and related health and development themes.
2017 $2,893,865 Global Health and Development Public Awareness and Analysis. to support the global coverage on economic opportunity and empowerment for women and girls and other critical global development and health issues.
2018 $150,000 Public Awareness and Knowledge Sharing. to support the global coverage on youth demographics in the Global South and implications for global development and health issues
2020 $3,499,032 Global Health and Development Public Awareness and Analysis. to support The Guardian to produce regular reporting on global health and development topics in its Global Development section
which add up to the $12,339,291 in the table.
The Guardian group annual turnover is in the order of £250 million.
To suggest that this amounts to Bill Gates funding the Guardian is just ridiculous.
That’s correct, although there’s another $4m listed in grants to The Guardian’s captive US-registered journalism charity guardian.org. Most of the opinion-forming funding for the media has come from the UK government in recent years. https://bylinetimes.com/2020/06/05/why-is-the-guardian-accepting-a-dodgy-subsidy-from-this-dodgy-government/ The UK goverment has spent hundreds of millions on advertising annually over the last few years https://web.archive.org/web/20220809094619/https:/inews.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-government-spends-1bn-advertising-campaigns-1785241
Likewise it’s often said that Gates is the WHO’s biggest funder, he’s not, he’s the WHO’s biggest private funder; even GAVI which he helped set up is mostly funded by governments. It’s much more cost effective to fund the WEF and the Tony Blair Institute (“teams embedded in more than 20 countries” during COVID) to persuade politicians to spend our money instead.
I glad you agree.
Well, you’re a sceptic
No “side” has a monopoly on cognitive bias and Asch conformity, people are happy to go with something that’s plain wrong as long as it emotionally resonates for them and people around them are applauding it.
People are also happy for back handers, funding etc too!
Donations to national media outlets should be illegal, especially from overseas.
Brilliant work. This is what DS should be doing.
I am looking forward to further exposès.
It was also a good exposes of PM May’s speech funding from a company that no longer exists. Keep it coming, not that the MSM or even GBN, TTV would run with that though.
This “expose” is embarrassingly bad. I did some more poking around. Here is are the $54m worth of grants to BBC Media Action – when they were made and what they were for.
2006-08 $394,601 to inform and contribute to professional media training by supporting improved provision of and access to information regarding global health
2006-11 $6,392,782 to prevent HIV/AIDS transmission in high prevalence districts of four Indian states by using mass media to promote condom use
2009-03 $1,323,302 to support improved media coverage of development issues in Africa through a facility to coordinate and streamline media development investments, research, and activities across the continent
2010-12 $27,637,483 to shape demand and social norms and improve family health practices in Bihar, through an integrated and sustainable communication strategy, empowering those who currently lack the information to make informed decisions about their health
2013-11 $4,179,158 to implement an effective, integrated, and sustainable multi-channel communication strategy to increase early care-seeking for childhood pneumonia and diarrhea in two Northern Nigerian states
2014-11 $511,282 to leverage high and growing mobile phone penetration in India to provide a national platform for mobile health services capable of mobilizing large-scale changes in knowledge, attitudes and behavior on key maternal, newborn and child health and family planning issues
2015-01 $1,449,689 to leverage high mobile phone penetration in India to provide a national platform for mobile health services to mobilize changes in knowledge, attitudes and behavior on key maternal, newborn and child health and family planning issues
2015-11 $510,474 to document case stories of communities which have successfully eradicated or reduced open defecation in India so that stakeholders can better learn about what works and why, with the aim of replicating these successes elsewhere
2016-10 $1,396,647 to support the Government of India in design, development, implementation and evaluation of strategic and effective sanitation communications focusing on behaviour change, reducing open defecation and management of faecal sludge
2017-11 $1,874,283 to support the training and refresh knowledge of 200,000 rural sanitation facilitators across eight states in India using an on-demand IVR driven curriculum
2018-05 $599,974 to support the State Health Society and ICDS in Bihar for delivering Mobile Kunji for AWWs and ASHAs and Mobile Academy for AWWs, use the call center to promote usage and to provide technical support to Government of Bihar to take over the services
2019-03 $3,198,524 To create effective social and behaviour change communication interventions to shape demand and practices on Faecal Sludge Management in four focus states, and leverage government resources to disseminate them.
2019-08 $2,034,790 to help us learn deepen our underpinning of processes and user journeys for different sets of women’s empowerment collectives, develop use cases for where digital can help amplify effects bring efficiencies, and close gender gaps for women
2020-11 $1,010,356 to demonstrate the strengths and ease of use for D2C platform in the context of IEC and BCC across different program areas
2021-11 $961,854 to develop and broadly deploy multi-faceted messaging targeting 30% of Nigerians (aged 15+) with the intent of countering misinformation and disinformation and considerably increasing Covid-19 vaccine uptake
2022-11 $868,395 to understand social norms that impact the mobile gender gap
The BBC should not be receiving grants from any external entity. It is meant to be an impartial state broadcaster.
The state has no business running a global media behemoth nor any business forcing us to pay for it.
Almost all this grant money (over the last 17 years) is on projects abroad to do with health and development in less developed countries. The BBC has/had the skills and resources. The BMGF has/had the money. Would you prefer the tax payer to fund it? Or perhaps just not get it done?
Yes, I would. Similarly, the WHO and the regulators that are supposed to protect us.
My default position on “projects to do with health” is that they harm rather than enhance health and are run for the benefit of the project leaders, sponsors and others, not for the purported recipients.
You present a false binary choice. I’d rather the BBC didn’t get involved in such “projects” – and I would rather it didn’t exist. If they are ever privatised they can do what they like.
The world would be a better place without Gates, WHO et al. That is not to say people who work lower down in the WHO don’t have good intentions, but cutting the head off a Snake comes to mind.
100% tof.
Also Trusted News is building a monopoly in news outlets that would push independent news providers into obscurity. RFK Junior is challenging them in court.
Good point.
The BBC has no business participating in such organisations, and really major news providers should ideally NOT collaborate at all. We want them to compete, not collude.
You’re very trusting. The declared purpose of a payment from Bill Gates is not necessarily the same as the actual purpose. He is a strange kind of philanthropist whereby the more he gives away the richer he gets. That’s before you get to the possibility that his overarching aim might be to reduce the number of people on the planet.
Oh come on – BMGF is an organisation with nearly 2,000 employees. It’s accounts are formally audited and it is subject all the reviews and scrutiny of any large charity.
Pfizer is a large organisation too
He wants his name on every patent!
MTF Do you supose all those grants don’t buy influence on other topics? Your gaslighting is embarrassingly bad.
So an organisation or philanthropist can’t donate money to something as worthwhile as preventing malaria in developing countries without being accused of ulterior motives.
Malaria is an unfortunate example; Gates funded the Mosquirix anti-malarial vax, which was so damaging and ineffective that even he dropped support for it although the WHO is still promoting it.
WHO appears to have behaved badly in running a clinical trial without informed consent. I don’t see that BWGF did anything wrong. They took a risk on funding a malaria vaccine and it didn’t work out. Anyhow it is a very small part of what BWGF have contributed in the battle against malaria. Over 850 grants amounting to over $7 billion.
It’s worse than not working out; it doubled the child death rate during the trials, and the vax is still being administered. $7 billion is a drop in the ocean compared to the worldwide damage done by the COVID vax propaganda which the Gates Foundation was promoting.
It’s worse than not working out; it doubled the child death rate during the trials, and the vax is still being administered.
Every medical intervention needs trials and there is always the possibility that the trials will reveal poor efficacy and/or safety. That’s the risk you take and that’s why you have them. As long as you have informed consent it is ethical. In the case of malaria the prize of a successful vaccine would be enormous. Funding such trials is surely not a bad thing to do?
I don’t agree about Covid vaxx – but that is another story.
Have a look at Bill Gates’ involvement in Tetanus vaccines in Kenya and tell me he does not have ulterior motives
Scrip.org
Infertility: A Diabolical Agenda
Gates Foundation Neonatal Tetanus
And this – egregious breaches of human rights in his Third World activity
https://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/annlsurvey/vol22/iss1/6/
“Accountability of International NGOs: Human Rights Violations in Healthcare Provision in Developing Countries and the Effectiveness of Current Measures
Abstract
In recent years, the number of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) working in the international arena has vastly increased, generally making a positive impact. But, as this influence has deepened, governments in the developing world and scholars have scrutinized the work and accountability of NGOs given they are mostly independent and not subjected to international law. While NGOs must adhere to the domestic laws of the places within which they work, adherence is dependent upon the strength of enforcement of those laws. Proponents argue that this independence is essential for NGOs to effectively carry out their work. However, a review of healthcare programs funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (Gates Foundation) calls into question current accountability measures of NGOs in the healthcare sector and can shine a light on weaknesses and potential areas of improvement in the current accountability regime for NGOs.
The shortcomings of the current accountability regime for NGOs must be addressed in two critical areas: monitoring projects and monitoring potential influences and exploitation between donors and NGOs. Through the review of recent Gates-funded healthcare campaigns in Africa and India, this paper seeks to highlight and analyze these shortcomings by looking at the failures of the current accountability regime to prevent and resolve human rights abuses committed during these programs. This paper will offer recommendations to strengthen the accountability regime for NGOs through a more active role by the local governments and through community outreach and development. The findings in this paper will have implications for all NGOs working in the healthcare sector and potentially other sectors.”
No.
All of the above are poorly concealed covers for propoganda and indoctrination.
Do NOT treat DS readers as idiots.
Promoting condom use is propaganda and indoctrination? Wow!
Recent events have led me to be very sceptical about the motives and likely outcome when some group of well-funded “educated” people decide they are going to tell some other group of “less well educated” people how they ought to be living their lives, for their own good of course….
Years ago The Guardian ran a TV advert video showing a skinhead pushing over a well dressed man walking on the pavement.
The camera would pan out showing the skinhead was saving the man from being crushed by falling bricks.
Their catch line was “there is always two sides to every story”.
Unfortunately, now, The Guardian only show one side of the story and that is of the establishment corporatists and their Globalist, neoliberal, warmongering propaganda.
I used to buy the paper for 35 years and have witnessed it’s decline.
I stopped buying it about 15 years ago and now only comment on their page every time they get something wrong, which is quite often.
Surprised you can still comment on there!
My comments below the line were “moderated” years ago.
I now comment on their facebook and Twitter/X page without censorship from The Guardian but limited by social media restraints.
That’s good to know.
Hopefully I can upset them again…
“unlikely that eight million Londoners have even heard of C40, let alone agree to its radical visions for the reorganisation of their lives”
Same with the Great Reset, that is all part of the same thing. GB News why don’t you apply the same scrutiny to King Charles as you do for Sir Kier?
This used to be the Guardian:
2002:
“The drug pushers
US pharmaceutical firms are increasingly plying doctors with expensive gifts in the hope that they will prescribe their drugs. It couldn’t happen here, could it?”
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2002/apr/11/nhsfinance.lifeandhealth
2003:
“Revealed: how drug firms ‘hoodwink’ medical journals”
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2003/dec/07/health.businessofresearch
2004:
“The drugs industry and its watchdog: a relationship too close for comfort?”
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2004/oct/04/health.businessofresearch1
2006:
“Drug companies use unscrupulous and unethical marketing tactics not only to influence doctors to prescribe their products but also subtly to persuade consumers that they need them, a report claims today.”
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2006/jun/26/health.medicineandhealth1
2007:
“Drug firms try to bribe doctors with cars”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/oct/31/international.mainsection1
2009:
“Pfizer drug breach ends in biggest US crime fine”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/sep/02/pfizer-drugs-us-criminal-fine
2011:
“How drug companies’ PR tactics skew the presentation of medical research“
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/may/20/drug-companies-ghost-writing-journalism
2012:
“GlaxoSmithKline fined $3bn after bribing doctors to increase drugs sales”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/jul/03/glaxosmithkline-fined-bribing-doctors-pharmaceuticals
This is what The Guardian became:
2020:
“Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine has 95% efficacy and is safe”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/18/pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-95-effective-and-safe-further-tests-show
2021:
“Are Covid-19 vaccines safe?
Yes.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/18/covid-vaccine-side-effects-pfizer-moderna-johnson-is-it-safe
2021:
“Pfizer finds Covid vaccine safe and effective for children 12 to 15”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/31/pfizer-covid-biontech-vaccine-safe-effective-children
2021:
“Undermining the AstraZeneca jab is a dangerous act of political folly”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/03/undermining-the-astrazeneca-jab-is-a-dangerous-act-of-political-folly
2021:
“Don’t fear the AstraZeneca jab, the risks are minimal”
https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/commentisfree/2021/mar/21/do-not-fear-the-astrazeneca-covid-jab-the-risks-are-minimal
2022:
“Anti-vaxxers should face penalties for their selfish choices”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/12/anti-vaxxers-should-face-penalties-for-their-selfish-choices
2022:
“From medical advances to expanding equity and access, the Guardian US’s solution-driven healthcare coverage puts people first, making our platform the perfect match for Pfizer’s messaging. At the same time, our audience is uniquely tuned-in to healthcare topics: some 74% of Guardian readers are very interested in learning about the behind-the-scenes evolution of treatments, research and innovations.”
https://advertising.theguardian.com/us/labs/projects/elevate-pfizers-scientific-innovation-via-powerful-video-storytelling
Well done.
Absolutly brilliant.
I would not have been able to do what you did. I’d have choked on my own vomit.
Maybe send multiple copies to the bastards, lest they forget.
I hope they all got repeated doses of the real batches.
I always wondered why the Spectator carried no climate sceptic or vaccine sceptic articles. Now I know. Disgusting.
The Guardians readership of 4 must be devastated
I wonder how much Politicians are collecting! Sceptics are at last waking up