You are viewing the NationofChange archives. For the latest news and actions, visit the new www.NationofChange.org.
Wednesday, October 01, 2014 / PROGRESSIVE JOURNALISM FOR POSITIVE ACTION
Get Email Updates | Log In | Register

World Bank Nominee Tied to Monsanto Shareholder Bill Gates, Soros

Tim McCoy
Natural Society / News Analysis
Published: Wednesday 28 March 2012
“If the UN World Bank was truly a benevolent organization, the focus for the Third World would be on support for independent farming, clean water and food.”
Article image

Obama nominated Dartmouth University president Jim Yong Kim, M.D. to head the United Nations World Bank. Most people think that UN agencies benefit poor people, but this is far from the truth.

The UN World Bank claims to fight poverty in developing nations by financing infrastructure projects. But the UN World Bank is really a tool used to acquire Third World natural resources through conditions on loans that are extremely difficult to repay. The raw resources are then privatized by insider multi-national corporations. The World Bank actually creates more poverty.

The nomination of Jim Yong Kim indicates that the World Bank may shift away from focusing on infrastructure and will instead turn toward providing health care in Third World countries. Jim Yong Kim’s areas of interest include vaccines for tuberculosis as well as drugs for HIV and AIDS.

Kim brokered a deal with Big Pharma and the UN World Health Organization for expanding the pharmaceutical drug market to a larger populace in exchange for lower drug prices for second-line tuberculosis drugs. Second-line drugs are used when basic treatment fails because of drug resistance. Drug resistance similar to the new ‘resistant White Plague‘ brought about by big pharma’s drugs. Many in the medical community believed it would be dangerous to distribute second-line drugs widely. Kim is also responsible for pushing HIV/AIDS retroviral drugs in developing nations.

HIV/AIDS drugs used in the Third World have profound side effects that include eye, kidney, liver and heart problems.

Jim Yong Kim says that the highest point in his career was when George Soros donated to Kim’s tuberculosis vaccine program, which was followed by a a huge grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for $44.7 million. Monsanto shareholder Bill Gates, who has repeatedly stated that Monsanto’s GMOs are the answer to starvation despite scientific proof of the contrary, gave a controversial speech at a Ted conference outlining the controversial population reduction plan through ‘healthcare’:

“The world today has 6.8 billion people… that’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”
Additionally, Kim is the co-founder of Partners in Health along with Paul Farmer who is famous for saying that healthcare is a right. Healthcare as a “right” disables health freedom to escape the medical health paradigm and choose your own methods of healing. In addition, it also enables the government to determine whether or not an individual may receive care — the ‘right’ to live or die. Therefore, this shocking and disturbing program falls into the category of a eugenics-based plan.
 
Conclusion:
 
The objective of Jim Yong Kim heading the UN World Bank appears to be to promote ludicrous policies by expanding healthcare through dangerous drugs. Kim’s support for redistribution of wealth and socialized medicine may come with a tremendous price tag for developed countries (especially the US). If the UN World Bank was truly a benevolent organization, the focus for the Third World would be on support for independent farming, clean water and food.



This story was bad the first

This story was bad the first time around and you choose to run it again?

I've just written to the

I've just written to the editors of NationofChange alerting them to the fast-fading reputation of their "news" outlet. My primary focus was on the sleazy, faux-investigative work of Anthony Gucciardi. This article by Tim McCoy is just as bad. Both work for Natural Society and the articles published in NOC are often either reprints or slightly changed versions of articles that appeared in Natural Society. My new advice to NOC editors: don't hire Natural Society hacks. Meanwhile a host of legitimate ethical issues surrounding the practices and products of Monsanto, Bayer, Syngenta and many others go begging for serious discussion while many of the good people who read NOC are seduced by the tabloid science of these journalistic charlatans.

I get the idea that one of

I get the idea that one of the 2 women who choose articles here are fans of Natural Society which I agree with you are charlatans, not just journalistic, but scientific.

Where to start -- Responsible

Where to start -- Responsible editors would have stopped this article from making it into print. First of all the World Bank is not a UN organization. Second, it is beyond ridiculous to associate international campaigns for health rights with eugenics, or to suggest that movements for rights to healthcare oppose freedom to choose forms of treatment (Western or not). Third, there is little merit in trying to tar any organization associated with accepting Gates Foundation funding by associating them with some corporation Gates holds shares in -- Does the author take care not to use any Microsoft product (and good luck with that) out of the same concern? And fourth, since I conducted an anthropological study of the Partners in Health campaign for cheaper and easier to obtain drugs for drug-resistant TB [published in Medical Anthropology Vol. 24 (3): pp 265, 2005], I can say with some authority that the writer shows a poor understanding of the very high mortality and risk of rapid spread (via airborne means) associated with the drug-resistant TB epidemic which was threatening poor populations (and AIDS patients) in TB "hot-spots" around the world at the time of Farmer and Kim's campaign. Far more dangerous than the programs they were advocating were the haphazard forms of TB treatment being offered by poorly run state health programs which [together with neoliberal economic policies] had contributed to the emergence of the epidemic. Also, in reference to those who leap to the assumption that anyone nominated to run the World Bank is an imperialist profiteer, I recommend doing your homework first. Kim is actually a tough critic of neoliberal programs, and was the lead editor of a book collection called "Dying for Growth" which contained devastating critiques of Washington Consensus-type programs "structurally-adjusting" the poor. I know, because I wrote one of the articles making such arguments in the book. The critiques of Kim and associated, (and Perkins' critiques of the IMF), together with the recent object lesson of the 2008 stock market crash, have had some effects on the international lending institutions. They are still caught up in capitalist dynamics, but someone like Kim is exactly the right kind of person to try and provoke change from the inside. I know him, and he remains dedicated to social justice, and is neither cynical, nor naive.

The IMF is the International

The IMF is the International Monetary Fund and UN stands for United Nations, so why don't you tell me how these organizations differ? They are both setup to merge Nations into the New World Order. I am sure these guys are working side by side, and moving money among themselves to carry out their goals. We, the people are being had. I don't see any problem at all with this story or the content. I would believe this way before I'd ever believe anything you see on CNN.

57girl-umm take your meds.

57girl-umm take your meds.

Please tell me that N of C

Please tell me that N of C has been hacked by another Internet moron.

Very poorly written or

Very poorly written or ?edited article. I believe every point the author wishes to make is confused to begin with and only gets murkier as he goes along. A lot of hot-buttons floating around, a lot of non-connected 'connections' that point in ambiguous directions. I mean WTF? The World Bank has steadfastly served what outside the US is called a 'neo-liberal' agenda. An agenda of using unfortunate events or manufactured crises to undermine national economies (when they are most vulnerable nd in shock) selling off their resources, ripping off as much wealth as possible. I'd like to think that Dr. Kim's appointment is the beginning of a turn around and I'm very interested in information either way. This article is not only not helpful it is just abominable.

It's a bad sign when an

It's a bad sign when an author makes a basic factual error in his or her first sentence. The World Bank is not part of the UN.

On the whole, Natural Society is a poor source for information, and should not be re-posted by Nation of Change if it wants to maintain a reputation for quality.

To those who say this article

To those who say this article sounds unbelievable, read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by John Perkins.

I agree with you Ogblogeld, I

I agree with you Ogblogeld, I think anyone that can't see the ties, between the NWO globalists, the IMF, the UN, Monsanto (and other huge corporations) haven't done enough research on their own. People have either buried their heads in the sand, or sold their souls to those that would have us believe that our Governments are working in the interest of the people. I think people forget the UN is sliding in the backdoor and calling the shots where they don't belong. Who was it that condoned bombing Libya? The UN has no right whatsoever to be sending American warplanes anywhere. Our President should be tried for Treason for the role in played in bombing Libya with "CONGRESSIONAL" approval as outlined in our Constitution. I think there are trolls trying to discredit news sources such as this that have not be bought and paid for by the 1% ers.

Ogblofed- We've read it

Ogblofed-
We've read it Perkins book and heard him speak numerous times. We know about the World Bank and the IMF and their tactics. What is your point as you have posted this twice? It has nothing to do with providing health care to 3rd world countries which the author of this article seems to think is a plot.

We've read it. We know about

We've read it. We know about the World Bank and the IMF and their tactics. What is your point as you have posted this twice. It has nothing to do with providing health care to 3rd world countries which this author seems to think is a plot.

I have long believed that the

I have long believed that the World Bank mostly a capitalist tool for moving public wealth to private pockets, rather than a benefactor to the nations who most need their money.

Tim McCoy's leads me to re-examine that view: McCoy's criticism makes about as much sense as a Fox News commentary, or peons of praise from the Yes Men. Any organization which draws such dubious fire is probably doing work I would applaud. Several of the items attributed to Jim Yong Kim sound like good work. For example, McCoy states " Kim is also responsible for pushing HIV/AIDS retroviral drugs in developing nations." Getting meds to countries which can't afford to buy them doesn't sound very evil.

Does McCoy think that the 10% to 15% reduction in population (more than a billion people) is bad? Or that Gates is wrong? Or -- the most important point in this context -- does McCoy think that Kim thinks that the prediction is valid? Without looking into that point, McCoy's comments are no more than an unfounded guilt-by-association attack on Kim (Fox News strikes again?)

McCoy says "Kim’s support for redistribution of wealth and socialized medicine ..." however McCoy finishes that sentence, he is merely quoting the Republican attack on Obama, rather than presenting any argument. A handful of code words and buzz words simply is not useful.

Perhaps the most startling and silly point raised by McCoy is: Healthcare as a “right” disables health freedom to escape the medical health paradigm and choose your own methods of healing."

Living as I do in Canada, I see more counter-examples than support for this statement. About 50 types of psychiatric and counseling services are covered. Not only is orthopedic surgery covered, but so is chiropractic service and some forms of yoga. Of course, not everything is covered (e.g. most vitamins), but very little is actually forbidden (buying organs, for example). In most cases, if you have money and don't like the covered treatment, you get to choose another. If you want to escape the local health paradigm, just walk out the door.

But back to the main point -- Jim Yong Kim's malevolence or otherwise: Does he support or oppose the "Chicago School" strategy, which has been World Bank's primary tool for subjugating and colonizing underdeveloped countries.

I have long believed that the

I have long believed that the World Bank is mostly a capitalist tool for moving public wealth to private pockets, rather than a benefactor to the nations who most need their money.

Tim McCoy's leads me to re-examine that view: McCoy's criticism makes about as much sense as a Fox News commentary, or peons of praise from the Stephen Colbert . Any organization which draws such dubious fire is probably doing work I would applaud. Several of the items attributed to Jim Yong Kim sound like good work. For example, McCoy states " Kim is also responsible for pushing HIV/AIDS retroviral drugs in developing nations." Getting meds to people who would die without them doesn't sound all that evil.

Does McCoy think that the 10% to 15% reduction in population (more than a billion people) is bad? Or that Gates is wrong? Or -- the most important point in this context -- does McCoy think that Kim thinks that the prediction is valid? Without looking into that point, McCoy's comments are no more than an unfounded guilt-by-association attack on Kim (Fox News strikes again?)

McCoy says "Kim’s support for redistribution of wealth and socialized medicine ..." however McCoy were to finish that sentence, he is merely quoting the standard Republican attack on Obama, rather than presenting any argument. A handful of code words and buzz words should persuade no-one.

Perhaps the most startling and silly point raised by McCoy is: Healthcare as a “right” disables health freedom to escape the medical health paradigm and choose your own methods of healing." Again, just rephrased Republican dogma.

Living as I do in Canada, I see more counter-examples than support for McCoy's statement. About 50 types of psychiatric and counseling services are covered. Not only is orthopedic surgery covered, but so is chiropractic service and some forms of yoga and some exercise classes, etc. True -- not everything is covered (e.g. most vitamins), but very little is actually forbidden (buying organs, for example). In most cases, if you have money and don't like the treatment covered by the Government, you get to choose another. You are not in a cage: If you want to "escape the [local] medical health paradigm, just walk out the door.

But back to the main point -- Jim Yong Kim's malevolence or otherwise: Raise some relevant question, such as "does Kim support or oppose the "Chicago School" strategy, which has been World Bank's primary tool for subjugating and colonizing underdeveloped countries." And then propose a relevant answer.

The author makes some good

The author makes some good points (re the World Bank, Big Pharma) but I agree with Annie K, Julie C Z and others that this article's serious distortions and falsehoods undermine the author's and Nation of Change's credibility-- to my sorrow, as I generally appreciate and applaud N of Change. If he is selected, we will see what Kim does in his new position-- perhaps he will become a front man for Big Pharma and other multinational corporate interests-- but to portray Kim and Paul Farmer as eugenicists or even as irresponsible promoters of dangerous, unnecessary, and expensive drugs is itself irresponsible, or worse. For years Farmer, with the help of Kim and a few others, fought almost alone to bring decent health care to impoverished countries such as Haiti. For years they have warned of the dangers of drug resistance when most others didn't seem to care. Now he and Kim are famous, powerful, and well-connected, but that wasn't always the case. To portray the distribution of second-line TB drugs in areas of drug-resistant TB and of HIV drugs in places where huge numbers of people were formerly dying of AIDS as a plot to kill off these populations and undermine individual "liberty" is disgusting, equivalent to Michelle Bachman's ignorant pronouncements or Tea Party accusations of "death panels". Previously, many voices were (rightly) crying for Big Pharma to make anti-HIV drugs cheaper and more widely available in these countries, which were in danger of losing whole generations to the disease. Yes, the drugs have side effects, but the alternative is death. I never heard of a natural remedy curing AIDs-- though I do favor natural and homeopathic medicines in many circumstances. I am not a troll or a shill for Big Pharma-- God forbid-- but I do want fact-based, well-considered opinion and reporting or we risk descending to the level of the right-wing talk-radio demagogues and FOX News. Articles such as this play right into their hands, painting as "enemies" some we should embrace, misinforming supporters, and providing fodder for our critics.

Another dubious article by

Another dubious article by Nation of Change. A controversial population reduction plan through healthcare -- what does that mean? That the plan uses healthcare to kill people by distributing pills with horrific side affects? Yes, the U.S. and the world are greatly overpopulated. And yes we need contraceptive healthcare to save us from our folly of over procreation. Much like the efficiencies of industrialization that have significantly reduced the need for a large workforce, large families are now counterproductive. Bottom line, Nation of Change needs better writers, not the above B.S.

I have seen a lot of articles

I have seen a lot of articles relative to the topic of eugenics. I don't doubt for a minute, that population control is a topic of discussion at the Bilderberg meetings.

In Malawi, where I have

In Malawi, where I have conducted research since 1991, folks I knew died on a regular basis until the retrovirals were made widely available. The parade of daily funerals has diminished significantly. They can have side effects or they can die. Personally, I would choose side effects! I agree that Big Pharma is evil, especially Monsanto, but it is a mixed picture!

This article is poorly

This article is poorly written and disjointed. How can stating that healthcare is a right make it consequently a requirement to accept a certain paradigm of care? Almost all developed countries in the world statutorily proclaim peoples' right to healthcare.

I have no doubt that Jim Yong

I have no doubt that Jim Yong Kim is a servant of the international capitalist power structure, as I would not expect any other type of person to be even considered for the post of head of the World Bank. However, some of the statements of the author here are bizarre and verge on new agey style nonsense. Such as his assertion that declaring healthcare a "'right' disables health freedom to escape the medical health paradigm and choose your own methods of healing." Which I guess means in plain English the "right" to choose to treat AIDS and TB with "natural" herbs and vitamin pills and a visit to the local witch doctor instead of with scientifically proven medications. Yeah, some real compassion for the wretched of the earth!

What is this article trying

What is this article trying to say? It's not a given that Kim is going to focus on health care but even if he does the comments on 2nd line TB drugs are ludicrous.
Nobody is planning to distribute them widely thus creating resistance to them also. They are as stated, for areas where resistance to 1st line drugs has developed.

There's nothing here to back up the statement on HIV drugs except a woefully inadequate description in one country by one doctor. What drugs is the author talking about? All drugs have side effects. As for the Gates Foundation, they have donated millions to international health care and their misguided donations for GMO agriculture although detrimental, should not detract from the former.

It's pretty obvious who

It's pretty obvious who Republicans serve, isn't it? And Billy ain't no liberal. Listen to Bill and Millinda Gates advertising blurb. It says "Everyone deserves a chance to live a productive life." It doesn't say everyone has a right to live one.

Also, from the Gates Foundation website we also see how the administration of the foundation isn't interested in curing problems, only sustaining them in order to profit: "The global demand for rice is booming [and thus profit from it--DW]. To keep up with this demand, rice production must increase by about 70 percent over the next two decades." (Sourcehttp://www.gatesfoundation.org/Pages/home.aspx) (enter Monsantos' genetically altered foodstuffs)

How about a global effort to start reducing populations? Wait, that would mean a shrinking economy and less money for the unsustainable capitalist system that needs ever increasing populations to push the ever increasing economic "growth."

Better to have unsustainable practices and profit short term while letting ever increasing populations eventually end in mass starvation from the lack of water--which can't be produced in a factory.

Actually the Gates Foundation

Actually the Gates Foundation does work in maternal health, contraception etc.

Revealing article. Jim Yong

Revealing article. Jim Yong Kim is a corporatist, appointed by another corporatist.
The World Bank has never done anything good or benevolent for poor people. Paul Wolfowitz was president of the World Bank before he crawled back into his hole.

Keep up the good work, Tim.

Keep up the good work, Tim. Anyone with a minimal amount of remedial reading can catch themselves up to the Gates Foundation's lies when it comes to GE-GMO-Top Down agriculture for the least developed nations. Well researched, no axes to grind, and scholarly or deeply humanistic work that exposes the Foundation's goals and overarching profit driven reach.

Go to metacrawler.com and do your Boolean searches on Gates Foundation and . . ."fill in the blank."

As far as my current expertise close to my heart - education -- we have a thousand works looking at Gates and his anti-public education/for profit agenda. Read Diane Ravitch's The Life and Death of the Great American School System.

....Or, this one.....

A critical look at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation that includes a chapter by Michael Klonsky, "Power Philanthropy: Taking the Public Out of Public Education."

Foreword Deron Boyles.
Acknowledgments.
1. From Carnegie to Gates: The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Venture Philanthropy Agenda for Public Education Kenneth J. Saltman
2. Power Philanthropy: Taking the Public Out of Public Education Michael Klonsky
3. The Gates Foundation’s Interventions into Education, Health, and Food Policies: Technology, Power, and the Privatization of Political Problems David Hursh
4. Marketing New Schools for a New Century: An Examination of Neoliberal School Reform in New York City Jessica Shiller
5. Corporatism, KIPP, and Cultural Eugenics Jim Horn
6. Disabusing Small-Schools Reformism: An Alternative Outlook on Scaling Up and Down Aimee Howley and Craig B. Howley
7. Governing Identity Through Neoliberal Education Initiatives: "Get[ting] Schooled" in the Marketplace Leslee Grey
8. The Gates’ Foundation and the Future of U.S. Public Education: A Call for Scholars to Counter Misinformation Campaigns Philip E. Kovacs and H.K. Christie
9. The Giving Business: Venture Philanthropy and the NewSchools Venture Fund Jim Horn and Ken Libby
10. Dear Bill: "Grokking’ Education Patti Lather
11. An Open Letter to Bill Gates, Jr. (With a Message to My Colleagues) David Gabbard
12. Why Current Education Reform Efforts Will Fail Marion Brady

There has been much public praise for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s efforts to reform public education. However, few scholars have engaged substantively and critically with the organization’s work. While the Gates Foundation is the single largest supporter by far of "choice" initiatives particularly with regard to charter school formation, it is pushing public school privatization through a wide array of initiatives and in conjunction with a number of other foundations. What are the implications for a public system as control over educational policy and priority is concentrated under one of the richest people on the planet in ways that foster de-unionization and teacher de-skilling while homogenizing school models and curriculum?

The Gates Foundation and the Future of U.S. "Public" Schools addresses this crucial, unanswered question while investigating the relationships between the Gates Foundation and other think tanks, government, and corporate institutions.

Nor does Gates contributions

Nor does Gates contributions to US education have anything to do with this article.

What? Get your butt to

What? Get your butt to Seattle, hang out with Gates Foundation folk, and figure out how they operate. The education think tank within the Foundation is working hard to reframe education on many levels, including have young folk accept the Gates' version of science, biology, agronomy, social justice, food policy, and culture.

http://www.nationofchange.org/outrageous-lies-monsanto-and-friends-are-t...

Decently deep article, thanks to Nation of Change.

The point is clear -- people know what Gates is doing with his 19.3 billion dollar portfolio, including Exxon, McDonalds, Monsanto, CocaCola, Goldman Sachs, biotech companies. Just giving another ugly reality behind Gates and Company.

Those with doubts should read

Those with doubts should read BLOOD BANKERS by James Henry. It details a number of sordid games played on the third world by banksters. They should also visit: http://www.submergingmarkets.com/ where he reveals a lot more information.

The "shills" posting negative

The "shills" posting negative remarks about this article can do the same net searching others have done with the same results;
The truth is, these trolls KNOW the facts but either CHOOSE to ignore them or are benefiting from Rothschild owned organizations such as the one being focused on in the article. There's a book they can, (or have already), read called Confessions of an Economic Hitman that neatly lays out how those "benevolent" vulture-like organizations feed off of people and to whom they owe their allegiance. Although the West has cornered the market on arrogantly ignorant societies, the inherent evil and treachery of these organizations is so obvious to those doing just cursory research that to assume they don't believe it or cannot find evidence of it on their own is as ludicrous as stating that Rothschild shills Rockefeller and Morgan are "people persons".

No one has said they love the

No one has said they love the world back. Just that this is a hack job with the facts regarding persons, foundations and drugs.

or should I say, accurate and

or should I say, accurate and logical.

This article is disapointing

This article is disapointing in its overly simplified assumptions and undocumented explanations. It errodes my trust in Nation of Change as, sorry to use the hackneyed catch phrase, fair and balanced.

What a cynical, irresponsible

What a cynical, irresponsible hack job McCoy has done here, IMHO. Being no apologist for the rich and famous, I'm in the peculiar position of pointing out that each of the would be malefactors named here has done some serious soul-searching and now devotes massive time and resources to solve globe spanning problems facing humanity. While individual foci differs, they all appear to be making significant improvements in the lives of true "grass roots folks".

The entry or contact points for billionaire benefactor causes are radically different than those of the many volunteer folks working on the same causes, but know that each without the other greatly diminishes chances for real benefit to suffering populations. It would be far better to facilitate collaboration than division in these efforts. Where approaches seem in conflict, learning opportunities may appear.

Dr Kim in particular was not given proper appreciation for his noble, sometimes revolutionary service in medicine and at the helm of a prestigious university. I'd strongly recommend that McCoy go back and do some remedial homework.

the statements made in this

the statements made in this article are beyond absurd. the author's ignorance is nearly unforgivable and has made me decide to stop reading and donating to N of C.

Norman Allen's picture

All banks benefit from

All banks benefit from creating dependent relationship between those who have money and those who have raw material/labor. Banks have become the agents of capital holders against those who need money to develop their resources or business. Everything else you hear about job creation/care for the poor/benevolence/etc. are fictions to mask the true nature of money and relationships.

Comment with your Facebook account



Comment with your Disqus account

Top Stories

comments powered by Disqus

NationofChange works to educate, inform, and fight power with people, corruption with community.

If you would like to stay up to date with the best in independent, filter-free journalism, updates on upcoming events to attend, and more, enter your email below:

7 Compelling Reasons Why You Should Support NationofChange

Our readers often tell us why they’ve decided to step up and become supporters. Here are some of the top reasons people are giving.

1. You’re keeping independent journalism alive
The corporate owned media has proven that it can’t be trusted. In a media landscape wrought with spin and corruption, NationofChange stands in very scarce company.

2. You’re sticking it to the rich, powerful, and corrupt
When you have money in this country you can get away with damn near anything, and they do. NationofChange isn’t afraid to expose these criminals no matter how powerful they are.

3. Your donation is 100% tax-deductible
NationofChange is a 501(c)3 charity. People tend to assume that many other organizations are (most nonprofits are NOT) but it’s that 501(c)3 status is a bit more rare than you think.

Read the rest...