Press "Enter" to skip to content


29 Feb 20 (FIFTH article in a series)

This is how the world works – two billionaires, partnered up, side-by-side and pulling on opposite ends of the same global pandemic rope.

(Fifth in a series of five articles)

If you’ve not read previous articles from this site on the coronavirus and patent-sharing strategies, I highly encourage you to start HERE because it links back to all of the previous work and more importantly, it gives you the backdrop for the balance of this article. The backdrop is critical because it represents one end of a global pandemic rope. This article establishes the other end of that same rope. Without understanding one you will lose meaning in the other.

Here’s a very, very thin recapitulation of the premise and know that there is much more to it for full understanding (and most certainly stuff I don’t know about and haven’t found yet – working man writing as a hobby and with limited time),

The meat and potatoes/Cliff’s Notes version of those three articles reads like this – I tracked all of it back to George Soros, Gilead Sciences and Unitaid, which were working to penetrate China’s closed pharmaceutical market with patent-sharing strategies that could produce enormous royalties going back to the patent holders. Gilead specifically was looking to overcome stagnant products and expiring patent protections resulting in losses. In this case it’s Gilead Sciences which holds the patent on Remdesivir, which is the only known effective treatment at this time.


In short, we have George Soros in league with corporate patent-holders to the only known coronavirus treatment (treat after infection) at the same time Bill Gates holds a patent on a strain of coronavirus that may just serve as the only known cure (prevent before infection by vaccine.) How convenient that they each stand to add a king’s ransom to their already absurd and gaudy respective levels of personal wealth and through different vectors congruent with the same pandemic?

What if I told you they (or their organizations and/or their colleagues) potentially stand to lose absurd amounts of money due to the same cronoavirus epidemic? Or, rather, pandemic? It’s the delineation between those two precise terms and who gets to make that decision that is the crux of it all.

Here’s how. Consider this excerpt from Whitney Webb at Mint Press News sourced HERE (emphasis mine),

In June 2017, the World Bank announced the creation of “specialized bonds” that would be used to fund the previously created Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility (PEF) in the event of an officially-recognized (i.e. WHO-recognized) pandemic.

They were essentially sold under the premise that those who invested in the bonds would lose their money if any of six deadly pandemics hit, including coronavirus. Yet, if a pandemic did not occur before the bonds mature on July 15, 2020, investors would receive what they had originally paid for the bonds back in addition to interest and premium payments on those bonds that they recieve between the date of purchase and the bond’s maturation date.

The PEF, which these pandemic bonds fund, was created by the World Bank “to channel surge funding to developing countries facing the risk of a pandemic” and the creation of these so-called “pandemic bonds” was intended to transfer pandemic risk in low-income countries to global financial markets. According to a World Bank press release on the launch of the bonds, WHO backed the World Bank’s initiative.

However, there is much more to these “pandemic bonds” than meets the eye. For example, PEF has a “unique financing structure [that] combines funding from the bonds issued today with over-the-counter derivatives that transfer pandemic outbreak risk to derivative counterparties.” The World Bank asserted that this structure was used in order “to attract a wider, more diverse set of investors.”

Critics, however, have called the unnecessarily convoluted system “World-Bank-enabled looting” that enriches intermediaries and investors instead of the funds intended targets, in this case low-income countries struggling to fight a pandemic. These critics have asked why not merely give these funds to a body like the Contingency Fund for Emergencies at the World Health Organization (WHO), where the funds could go directly to affected countries in need.

Notably, WHO determines if a pandemic meets the criteria that would see investors’ money be funneled into PEF as opposed to their own pockets, which would take place if no pandemic is declared between now and when the bonds are set to mature this upcoming July.


How does the declaration of whether or not coronavirus is a pandemic or epidemic tie directly to Soros and Gates? That’s the nexus we have to establish to continue in this direction. Here it is and let’s start with Gates.

Before we start, though, it’s imperative to view it all through this lens – recall that all of this is predicated on this simple notion – the pandemic bonds are triggered when a pandemic is declared and the World Bank gets to make that decision. That decision is predicated on the pandemic declaration that would come only from the World Health Organization. Ergo, if we want to know who is pulling the strings here, we have to look at who pulls the strings at the WHO and that’s what we’re doing.

Let’s get to it starting with Gates and building on the information about him and Soros as outline in the previous articles.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

According to the WHO as sourced HERE,

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

It is tempting to surmise that the complicated pandemic definitions used by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of the United States of America involved severity1,10 in a deliberate attempt to garner political attention and financial support for pandemic preparedness. As noted by Doshi, the perceived need for this support can be understood given concerns about influenza A(H5N1) and the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). However, conflating spread and severity allowed the suggestion that 2009 A(H1N1) was not a pandemic. It was, in fact, a classical pandemic, only much less severe than many had anticipated or were prepared to acknowledge, even as the evidence accumulated.

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


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

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


This is how the world works – two billionaires, partnered up, side-by-side and pulling on both/opposite ends of the same global pandemic rope. Gates and Soros stand to earn a king’s ransom with their patent sharing strategies while at the same time, huge sums of money stand to be lost if the COVID-19 coronavirus strand epidemic is officially classified as a ‘pandemic.’ Of course the World Bank is compelled to trigger the bonds based upon a declaration by the WHO, and of course the WHO is controlled by Bill Gates and, to a lesser but still highly influential extent, George Soros.

It all serves to remind us all just how far the nefarious, entangled and broader global corruption and criminality vectors actually go. More importantly, it’s further concrete evidence of why the 2020 election serves as the fulcrum for the posterity of the United States of America and, quite frankly, the world.


  1. SF April 9, 2020

    Covid-19 Indepth Investigation

    Please take some of your time to watch and listen to this Epoch Times independent investigative journalist who at much risk to himself, and risk to the scientists and others, who spoke up to tell us the truth about the Covid-19 virus. He provides the facts, the scientific knowledge, and much more information.

    No sensationalism here…no wild conspiracy theories…this is the first information that I think I can really believe. Make up your own minds.

  2. Peggy May 19, 2020

    This is an untruth and you lack any logical proof. I’m sure that Soros would do anything to hurt the US but not this time.

  3. […] help victims immediately, which Dr. Fauci strongly opposes and recommends Remdesevir, patented by Gilead Sciences.  Gilead, George Soros and Unitaid are working to penetrate China’s closed pharmaceutical market […]

  4. […] help victims immediately, which Dr. Fauci strongly opposes and recommends Remdesevir, patented by Gilead Sciences.  Gilead, George Soros, and Unitaid are working to penetrate China’s closed pharmaceutical […]

Leave a ReplyCancel reply