In what may be the first legal case of its kind globally, a petitioner in India is seeking to prosecute\u00a0Bill Gates<\/a>, Indian vaccine czar Adar Poonawalla, and Indian government and public health officials over the death of a 23-year-old man who died after receiving AstraZeneca\u2019s Covishield vaccine.<\/p>\n Kiran Yadav late last year filed a criminal writ petition for murder,\u00a0Smt. Kiran Yadav v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.<\/a>\u00a0(herein referred to as Yadav v. Maharashtra), with the Bombay High Court of Judicature, on behalf of her deceased son, Shri Hitesh Kadve.<\/p>\n Her son was vaccinated on Sept. 29, 2021. According to the complaint, he died that same day due to side effects brought on by the vaccine.<\/p>\n The complaint alleges Kadve died \u201cdue to [an] act of willful commission and omission attributable to some public servants who are misusing their position to bring policies to help the pharma mafia and thereby [are] responsible [for] mass murders.\u201d<\/p>\n The complaint further states Yadav\u2019s son was \u201cunwillingly\u201d\u00a0compelled<\/a>\u00a0to get vaccinated based on the \u201cfalse narrative\u201d that the vaccine was entirely safe, and because the State of Maharashtra\u00a0prohibited<\/a>\u00a0the non-vaccinated from riding on railroads or entering retail spaces such as shopping malls.<\/p>\n The complaint alleges Maharashtra\u2019s restrictions \u201care against the Central Government\u2019s policy that, there cannot be any discrimination between vaccinated and unvaccinated people.\u201d<\/p>\n Other defendants in the case include the commissioner and director-general of the Maharashtra State Police, the Indian Central Bureau of Investigation and the principal secretary of the Indian Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.<\/p>\n The complaint also brings charges against Bill Gates and Adar Poonawalla, CEO of the Serum Institute of India, the world\u2019s\u00a0largest<\/a>\u00a0vaccine manufacturer by number of doses produced and sold.<\/p>\n The Serum Institute produces the Covishield vaccine, as well as\u00a0over half<\/a>\u00a0of the world\u2019s vaccines that are administered to babies.<\/p>\n In all, Yadav is requesting 1,000 crores (10 billion rupees, or $134 million USD) in compensation, including 100 crores ($13.4 million USD) in interim compensation.<\/p>\n She is seeking lie detector and narcoanalysis tests from Gates, Poonawalla and others.<\/p>\n According to the complaint, the Indian government\u00a0admitted the<\/a>\u00a0Covishield vaccine may have harmful, and potentially fatal, side effects, but the vaccine was administered despite this knowledge.<\/p>\n The complaint in Yadav v. Maharashtra was filed by attorneys Shivam Mehra and Siddhi Dhamnaskar of Mumbai, and appears to have first been\u00a0publicized<\/a>\u00a0in English by the Indian Bar Association, an informal group of Indian lawyers (the Bar Council of India is the country\u2019s official bar association).<\/p>\n Judges of the Supreme Court of India have generally adopted a\u00a0pro-vaccine stance<\/a>. Nevertheless, Yadav\u2019s\u00a0265-page complaint<\/a>\u00a0stands out for the extensive legal precedent it draws upon, from Indian and\u00a0common law<\/a>, calling into question the legality of mandatory vaccination and other compelled medical acts.<\/p>\n The complaint also stands out for the specific allegations made against figures such as Poonawala and Gates, a figure of extensive controversy in India.<\/p>\n Extensive legal precedent casts doubt on legality of Indian state\u2019s mandatory vaccination policy<\/strong><\/p>\n One of the main\u00a0court rulings<\/a>\u00a0referenced in the Yadav v. Maharashtra complaint is that of\u00a0Registrar General, High Court of Meghalaya v. State of Meghalaya<\/a>\u00a0(herein referred to as Meghalaya). The\u00a0central finding<\/a>\u00a0of the ruling, issued June 23, 2021, held that vaccination by force or deception, or through the introduction of restrictions on the non-vaccinated, is a violation of fundamental human rights and a civil and criminal wrong.<\/p>\n This judgment overturned an order in the state of Meghalaya that\u00a0required<\/a>\u00a0vendors, taxi drivers, shopkeepers and other individuals to get vaccinated before resuming or reopening their businesses.<\/p>\n In reference to this, the court\u00a0held<\/a>\u00a0that while vaccination was \u201cthe need of the hour,\u201d the vaccination policy of a welfare state \u201ccan never affect a major fundamental right, i.e. the right to life, personal liberty and livelihood.\u201d<\/p>\n Referring to Article 21 of the\u00a0Indian Constitution<\/a>, the court in Meghalaya addressed the right to health, arguing that when such healthcare is provided through coercive means, it encroaches upon the fundamental right to privacy.<\/p>\n The court also drew from another Indian court ruling,\u00a0Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India<\/a>\u00a0(2018), which held the fundamental right to health is violated when individuals are deprived of their right to personal choice, bodily autonomy and integrity, and the overarching right to privacy.<\/p>\n The court in Meghalaya\u00a0added<\/a>:<\/p>\n \u201c[V]accination by force or being made mandatory by adopting coercive methods, vitiates the very fundamental purpose of the welfare attached to it. It impinges on the fundamental right(s) as such, especially when it affects the right to means of livelihood which makes it possible for a person to live.<\/p>\n \u201cCompulsory administration of a vaccine without hampering one\u2019s right to life and liberty based on informed choice and informed consent is one thing. However, if any compulsory vaccination drive is coercive by its very nature and spirit, it assumes a different proportion and character.\u201d<\/p>\n The court in Meghalaya also referenced English common law, specifically, the case of\u00a0Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland<\/a>\u00a0(1993), a decision which held that if an unwilling adult is compelled to receive a flu vaccination through force, this action would amount to a crime and to a civil wrong.<\/p>\n Remarking on this, the Indian court\u00a0found<\/a>:<\/p>\n \u201c[T]hus, coercive element of vaccination has, since the early phases of the initiation of vaccination as a preventive measure against several diseases, have been time and again not only discouraged but also consistently ruled against by the Courts for over more than a century.\u201d<\/p>\n The court in Meghalaya also\u00a0referred<\/a>\u00a0to Article 19 of the Indian Constitution regarding the \u201cfreedom to practice any profession or carry on any occupation, trade or business,\u201d and that vaccine-related restrictions were \u201cpalpably excessive.\u201d<\/p>\n The court\u00a0added<\/a>:<\/p>\n \u201cIn this case, there is a clear lack of legitimacy in prohibiting freedom of carrying on any occupation, trade or business amongst a certain category or class of citizens who are otherwise entitled to do so, making the notification\/order ill-conceived, arbitrary and\/or a colourable exercise of power.\u201d<\/p>\n From an administrative point of view, the court in Meghalaya also\u00a0found<\/a>\u00a0not only had the central Indian government not mandated vaccinations, instead holding that vaccination must remain voluntary, but there was no regulation or directive that allowed state governments to impose vaccination requirements within their own territory.<\/p>\n Yadav case draws upon extensive Indian legal precedent, scientific studies<\/strong><\/p>\n The criminal complaint in Yadav v. Maharashtra also\u00a0drew upon<\/a>\u00a0several other Indian court rulings, including recent\u00a0COVID\u00a0<\/a>vaccines-related decisions such as\u00a0Dinthar Incident v. State of Mizoram and Others<\/a>\u00a0(2021) and\u00a0Madan Mili v. Union of India<\/a>\u00a0(2021).<\/p>\n These rulings found vaccinated individuals can also get infected with COVID and can spread infection, just as those who are unvaccinated, and accordingly, there cannot be any discrimination between those who are vaccinated or unvaccinated. Such discrimination would contravene Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution.<\/p>\n Yadav v. Maharashtra also references the following cases and English common law:<\/p>\n \u201c[A]ll adults with capacity to consent have the right of self-determination and autonomy. The said rights pave the way for the right to refuse medical treatment \u2026 [a] competent person who has come of age has the right to refuse specific treatment or all treatment or opt for an alternative treatment \u2026<\/p>\n \u201cThe best interest of the patient shall override the State interest.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cRestraining people who are yet to get vaccinated from opening institutions, organizations, factories, shops, etc., or denying them their livelihood by linking their employment \u2026 to their getting vaccinated would be illegal on the part of the State, if not unconstitutional.<\/p>\n \u201cSuch a measure would also trample upon the freedom of the individual to get vaccinated or choose not to do so.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cAn adult person of sound mind is entitled to decide which, if any, of the available forms of treatment to undergo, and her consent must be obtained before treatment interfering with her bodily integrity is undertaken.\u201d<\/p>\n Yadav v. Maharashtra also references an Oct. 8, 2021, directive from Satyendra Singh, the undersecretary of the Indian Health Ministry, reaffirming that vaccination remains voluntary, that the Indian government \u201chas not formulated or suggested any policies for discrimination between citizens of India on the basis of their vaccination status,\u201d and that no citizen can be forced to be vaccinated.<\/p>\n The complaint also draws upon Indian legislation, specifically the\u00a0Disaster Management Act of 2005<\/a>, which holds that state governments cannot formulate any rules that contravene the guidelines of the national government. Nor can such prohibitions be circumvented indirectly, according to the Yadav v. Maharashtra complaint, referring to another Indian court case,\u00a0Noida Entrepreneurs Association v. Noida<\/a>\u00a0(2011).<\/p>\n The complaint also refers to several clauses from UNESCO\u2019s\u00a0Universal Declaration on Bioethics & Human Rights<\/a>\u00a0(2005), including:<\/p>\n The complaint then goes on to name specific individuals, such as\u00a0Venugopal G. Somani<\/a>, the Drug Controller General of India, and\u00a0Randeep Guleria<\/a>\u00a0of the All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS), as individuals who participated in a \u201cdishonesty and cheating campaign\u201d and the \u201cfurtherance of [a] conspiracy,\u201d by making the \u201cfalse and misleading statement\u201d that the COVID vaccines were completely safe.<\/p>\n The complaint accuses Somani and Guleria of following a \u201cone-line agenda to give wrongful profit to the vaccine companies\u201d and goes on to cite Indian case law holding that because \u201cconspiracies are hatched on secrecy \u2026 no direct evidence is required to prove it. The offense can be proved from circumstantial evidences.\u201d<\/p>\n A total of 81 research papers were also referenced in the complaint, addressing, among other issues, the higher protection those with\u00a0natural immunity<\/a>\u00a0have against COVID, as opposed to those who are vaccinated, as well as the lower efficacy of the vaccines against variants such as\u00a0Delta<\/a>.<\/p>\n The vaccine-related death of Dr. Snehal Lunawat<\/strong><\/p>\n The Yadav v. Maharashtra complaint references the\u00a0case<\/a>\u00a0of Dr. Snehal Lunawat, an Indian doctor from Maharashtra who\u00a0died<\/a>\u00a0March 1, 2021, from complications stemming from the Covishield vaccine he received on Jan. 28, 2021.<\/p>\n This incident gained visibility in India due to the efforts of Lunawat\u2019s family to get an investigation launched regarding her death.<\/p>\n Lunawat, who was 33 years old,\u00a0experienced<\/a>\u00a0a \u201crare blood-clotting event\u201d after taking the Covishield vaccine.<\/p>\n Subsequently, her family wrote to the Indian government and the Serum Institute,\u00a0requesting<\/a>\u00a0that Lunawat\u2019s death be investigated, as it had not been registered as an adverse event in the country\u2019s \u201cAdverse Event Following Immunisation\u201d (AEFI) database.<\/p>\n However, a satisfactory response was not provided, prompting the family to reach out to the World Health Organization (WHO), which then\u00a0investigated<\/a>\u00a0the incident.<\/p>\n Ultimately, due to the family\u2019s\u00a0pressure<\/a>\u00a0and the intervention of the WHO and the All India Drugs Network, the AEFI committee\u00a0accepted<\/a>\u00a0on Sept. 25, 2021, after nearly seven months, that Lunawat\u2019s death was vaccine-related.<\/p>\n Specifically, the rare\u00a0blood clotting complication<\/a>\u00a0resulted in her blood platelet count decreasing because of increased bleeding in her brain.<\/p>\n This was only the\u00a0third<\/a>\u00a0vaccine-induced death recognized by AEFI. The process of reporting vaccine-related deaths to the AEFI database is\u00a0reportedly<\/a>\u00a0\u201cnot easy.\u201d<\/p>\n The Yadav v. Maharashtra complaint refers to Lunawat\u2019s death, and its subsequent classification as vaccine-related, as \u201cex facie\u201d evidence of the \u201cfalsity of claims by the \u2026 accused officials and doctors\u201d regarding the safety of the COVID vaccines<\/p>\n #ArrestBillGates: Controversy, legal battles in India surrounding Gates and his foundation<\/strong><\/p>\n The Yadav v. Maharashtra\u00a0complaint<\/a>\u00a0makes extensive references to Bill Gates, who is described as a \u201chabitual offender of mass murder by vaccination in conspiracy with Government officials.\u201d<\/p>\n Gates is also referred to as a \u201cmastermind \u2026 who is manufacturing \u2018Covishield\u2019 in partnership with [the] Serum Institute.\u201d<\/p>\n The complaint seeks lie detector, brain mapping and narcoanalysis tests of Gates, Poonawalla and others to \u201cunearth the complete conspiracy,\u201d and demands the registration of a \u201cfirst information report<\/a>\u201d (FIR) against individuals who marketed the vaccines as completely safe.<\/p>\n The request for Gates and others to undergo narcoanalysis tests is considered\u00a0perplexing<\/a>\u00a0by some analysts, as such tests are\u00a0not legally admissible<\/a>\u00a0in Indian courts, as the person being interrogated is in a state of semi-consciousness.<\/p>\n The complaint argues Gates and Poonawalla should be considered \u201cco-conspirators to mass murder\u201d who were \u201cworking for the welfare of the vaccine companies only,\u201d charges which would result in them facing the death penalty and confiscation of their assets in India.<\/p>\n The complaint\u00a0notes<\/a>\u00a0that under Indian law, one can be found guilty for false marketing of a product via \u201ccommission and omission.\u201d<\/p>\n The complaint also references the activity of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) in India, including its alleged encouragement of a partnership between AstraZeneca and Oxford University to develop the Covishield vaccine, which was then\u00a0delivered<\/a>\u00a0to countries such as India.<\/p>\n The BMGF is also noted to have previously\u00a0committed<\/a>, in June 2020, $750 million towards the development of the AstraZeneca vaccine at Oxford University, and conditional funding of $150 million to the Serum Institute.<\/p>\n In a\u00a0posting<\/a>\u00a0on his official blog in December 2020, Gates wrote that his foundation \u201ctook on some of the financial risk\u201d for the vaccine, so that if the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine was not approved, the Serum Institute \u201cwon\u2019t have to take a full loss.\u201d<\/p>\n The Yadav v. Maharashtra complaint references prior court rulings against Gates and the BMGF in India. One such example is an Indian Supreme Court ruling in\u00a0Kalpana Mehta v. Union of India<\/a>\u00a0(2018) regarding the death of eight female children who took part in an\u00a0unauthorized trial<\/a>\u00a0of\u00a0two<\/a>\u00a0Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines:\u00a0Gardasil<\/a>, manufactured by Merck, and Cervarix, produced by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK).<\/p>\n The trial, which\u00a0began in 2009<\/a>, took place in\u00a0two Indian states<\/a>, Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat. It was carried out by an American NGO, the Seattle-based\u00a0Program for Appropriate Technology in Health<\/a>\u00a0(PATH), which is\u00a0connected<\/a>\u00a0to the BMGF\u2019s\u00a0Children\u2019s Vaccine Program<\/a>.<\/p>\n In reference to these deaths, the Yadav v. Maharashtra complaint refers to a\u00a0report<\/a>\u00a0by an Indian parliamentary committee that found government officials were \u201cinvolved in the conspiracy,\u201d along with a recommendation that the BMGF and other NGOs associated with Gates be investigated.<\/p>\n According to the complaint, \u201cthe evidentiary value\u201d of the report was upheld in the Kalpana Mehta v. Union of India case.<\/p>\n The controversy over the deaths that resulted from the HPV vaccine trial led to a grassroots\u00a0campaign<\/a>\u00a0in India in May 2021, calling for Gates and his foundation to be charged for these deaths, as they had funded the vaccination program.<\/p>\n The\u00a0#ArrestBillGates<\/a>\u00a0hashtag trended on Indian Twitter that month as a result of this campaign,\u00a0accusing<\/a>\u00a0Gates and his organization of using the girls as \u201cguinea pigs.\u201d<\/p>\n Parental consent was in many cases\u00a0not obtained<\/a>\u00a0for the participation of the girls in the trial, which involved 14,000 tribal girls between the ages of 10 and 14, many of whom lived not with their parents but in government-run hostels.<\/p>\n In some\u00a0instances<\/a>, parental \u2018consent\u2019 consisted of a thumbprint impression from the girls\u2019 poor and illiterate parents, while for many girls, no consent forms whatsoever could be located.<\/p>\n Symptoms the girls experienced\u00a0included<\/a>\u00a0epileptic seizures, early onset of menstruation, heavy bleeding, severe menstrual cramps, severe stomach aches, headaches and mood swings.<\/p>\n An Indian government\u00a0investigation<\/a>\u00a0concluded the girls\u2019 deaths were unconnected to the vaccination, but\u00a0ethical and regulatory failings<\/a>\u00a0in the vaccine trial were discovered, which resulted in the BMGF being\u00a0restricted<\/a>\u00a0from the country\u2019s vaccination program in 2013.<\/p>\n Despite this, the foundation\u00a0continued to work<\/a>\u00a0with the Indian Health Ministry via the latter\u2019s\u00a0Immunization Technical Support Unit<\/a>\u00a0(ITSU).<\/p>\n Nevertheless, the investigative committee\u2019s conclusion that the deaths were not vaccine-related, but instead due to such causes as suicide, accidental drowning, malaria, viral infections and subarachnoid hemorrhage, did not go unquestioned.<\/p>\n Representatives of the\u00a0Sama Women\u2019s Health<\/a>\u00a0NGO visited one of the affected regions, Khammam, in March 2010, on a fact-finding mission. As\u00a0reported<\/a>\u00a0by India\u2019s Economic Times, the Sama report found \u201cHPV vaccine as a possible, if not probable, cause of suicidal ideation cannot be ruled out\u201d for the girls\u2019 deaths.<\/p>\n The Yadav v. Maharashtra complaint also calls out the activities of Gates and the BMGF with regard to the administration of polio vaccines in India,\u00a0funded<\/a>\u00a0by the BMGF to the tune of $450 million.<\/p>\n The program foresaw the administration of 50\u00a0doses<\/a>\u00a0of the vaccine to children below the age of five, via\u00a0overlapping vaccination programs<\/a>.<\/p>\n This campaign\u00a0was blamed<\/a>\u00a0for \u201ca devastating non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP) epidemic that paralyzed 490,000 children [in India] beyond expected rates between 2000 and 2017.\u201d<\/p>\n In 2017, Gates\u2019 involvement in the polio vaccine campaign was \u201cdialed back<\/a>.\u201d Following this, \u201cNPAFP rates dropped precipitously<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n As detailed in a\u00a0scientific study<\/a>\u00a0published in 2012:<\/p>\n \u201cNationally, the non-polio AFP rate is now 12 times higher than expected. In the states of Uttar Pradesh (UP) and Bihar, which have pulse polio rounds nearly every month, the non-polio AFP rate is 25- and 35-fold higher than the international norms \u2026 children who were identified with non-polio AFP were at more than twice the risk of dying than those with wild polio infection.<\/p>\n \u201cThe international incidence of non-polio AFP is said to be 1 to 2\/100,000 in the populations under 15 \u2026 In 2011, an additional 47,500 children were newly paralyzed in the year, over and above the standard 2\/100,000 non-polio AFP that is generally accepted as the norm \u2026 [t]his large excess in the incidence of paralysis was not investigated as a possible signal, nor was any effort made to try and study the mechanism for this spurt in non-polio AFP.<\/p>\n \u201cFrom India\u2019s perspective the exercise has been extremely costly both in terms of human suffering and in monetary terms. It is tempting to speculate what could have been achieved if the $2.5 billion spent on attempting to eradicate polio were spent on water and sanitation and routine immunization.\u201d<\/p>\n The specific vaccine administered to Indian children was the oral polio vaccine. As of Jan. 1, 2000, the CDC\u00a0withdrew<\/a>\u00a0this vaccine from immunization schedules except in \u201cspecial circumstances,\u201d as the oral vaccine was itself\u00a0found<\/a>\u00a0to be causing polio.<\/p>\n Nevertheless, Gates had\u00a0reportedly hired<\/a>\u00a0a well-known Indian actor, Amitabh Bachchan, to\u00a0promote<\/a>\u00a0the oral polio vaccine via a\u00a0series<\/a>\u00a0of\u00a0television<\/a>\u00a0advertisements<\/a>.<\/p>\n Gates, Poonawalla at the center of vaccine controversy in India<\/strong><\/p>\n India has stood out among most of the world\u2019s countries by not offering blanket immunity to manufacturers of COVID-19 vaccines.<\/p>\n In 2021, the Indian government\u2019s negotiations with\u00a0Pfizer<\/a>\u00a0fell through when Indian regulators\u00a0refused<\/a>\u00a0to provide it legal protection via indemnity.<\/p>\n Such protection was not provided to the three COVID-19 vaccines that received an emergency use authorization in India: Covishield, Covaxin and Sputnik V.<\/p>\n This did not occur without dissent, however. Poonawalla, as head of the India-based Serum Institute, had\u00a0called<\/a>\u00a0for protection from lawsuits for COVID vaccine injuries.<\/p>\n The Yadav v. Maharashtra\u00a0complaint<\/a>\u00a0describes Poonawalla and other personnel of the Serum Institute, which manufactures the Covishield vaccine, as \u201ccomplicit\u201d in Kadve\u2019s death, and as \u201chabitual offenders of earning profits by selling vaccines with death-causing side effects,\u201d placing them \u201cin the category of mass murderers.\u201d<\/p>\n However, the controversy over Gates\u2019 and Poonawalla\u2019s vaccine-related work in India spans beyond the Yadav v. Maharashtra case.<\/p>\n In April 2021, for instance, Gates and the BMGF received\u00a0criticism<\/a>\u00a0for their refusal to share COVID-19 vaccine technologies with India and other developing countries.<\/p>\n This criticism prompted the CEO of the BMGF, Mark Suzman, to reverse course and support a\u00a0temporary waiver<\/a>\u00a0on vaccine-related intellectual property.<\/p>\n In 2006, the BMGF co-founded, with the Indian government, the Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI) as a public-private partnership. The PHFI is funded, in part, by pharmaceutical companies,\u00a0including<\/a>\u00a0Pfizer and Merck.<\/p>\n The PHFI has also been active in producing\u00a0research<\/a>\u00a0related to COVID-19, with at least one such\u00a0study<\/a>, titled \u201cImpact of Crop Diversity on Dietary Diversity among Farmers in India during the COVID-19,\u201d also crossing over into the agricultural realm.<\/p>\n In Gates\u2019 aforementioned Nov. 2019 visit to India, he heaped\u00a0praise<\/a>\u00a0on three Indian vaccine manufacturers, including the Serum Institute.<\/p>\n But Gates\u2019 connection to the Serum Institute goes beyond verbal praise. Since\u00a0November 2012<\/a>, the Serum Institute has been the recipient of BMGF grants \u2014 in that initial instance for the development of an HPV vaccine. Gates\u00a0toured<\/a>\u00a0the Serum Institute earlier that year.<\/p>\n The Serum Institute received a $4 million\u00a0grant<\/a>\u00a0from the BMGF in October 2020 to support research and development as part of the COVID-19 response, while in August 2020, the Serum Institute, in partnership with the BMGF and GAVI-The Vaccine Alliance,\u00a0agreed<\/a>\u00a0to produce up to 100 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines for low- and middle-income countries.<\/p>\n Also known as the \u201cVaccine Alliance,\u201d GAVI proclaims a\u00a0mission<\/a>\u00a0to \u201csave lives and protect people\u2019s health,\u201d and states it \u201chelps vaccinate almost half the world\u2019s children against deadly and debilitating infectious diseases.\u201d<\/p>\n GAVI was\u00a0established<\/a>\u00a0in 1999, with the BMGF as one of its co-founders and one of its four permanent board members.<\/p>\n GAVI then goes on to\u00a0describe<\/a>\u00a0its core partnership with various international organizations, including the WHO, UNICEF,\u00a0the World Bank<\/a>\u00a0and the BMGF.<\/p>\n As previously\u00a0reported by The Defender<\/a>, GAVI, through its\u00a0INFUSE initiative<\/a>, has called for \u201cinnovations that leverage new technologies to modernize the process of identifying and registering the children who are most in need of life-saving vaccines.\u201d<\/p>\n GAVI also closely collaborates with the\u00a0ID2020 Alliance<\/a>, founded in 2016, which claims to advocate in favor of \u201cethical, privacy-protecting approaches to digital ID,\u201d adding that \u201cdoing digital ID right means protecting civil liberties.<\/p>\n Microsoft is a\u00a0founding member<\/a>\u00a0of the ID2020 alliance (in 2018) and appears to\u00a0partner<\/a>\u00a0with it, while Kim Gagn\u00e9, ID2020\u2019s board chairman, is a\u00a0former Microsoft executive<\/a>.<\/p>\n Controversy has surrounded GAVI\u2019s activity in India. GAVI, along with the PHFI and the BMGF, have\u00a0promoted<\/a>\u00a0the Pentavalent vaccine, which combines five vaccines \u2013 diphtheria, hepatitis B, tetanus, whooping cough, and haemophilus influenza type B (which causes pneumonia and meningitis) \u2013 into one.<\/p>\n The Indian Health Ministry\u00a0found<\/a>\u00a0the deaths of three infants in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu to have had \u201ca consistent causal association to immunization\u201d \u2014 that is, to the Pentavalent vaccine, while in total, 54 infant deaths were classified with the AEFI as adverse reaction deaths.<\/p>\n GAVI\u00a0provided<\/a>\u00a0a $165 million grant in August 2009 for the phased introduction of Pentavalent in India, in addition to subsidizing each injection for five years thereafter.<\/p>\n Regulatory capture and a \u201crevolving door\u201d between the Indian government and GAVI also appears to exist, as in the\u00a0example<\/a>\u00a0of Anuradha Gupta, formerly an official with the Indian Health Ministry and director of the National Health Mission. Gupta in 2014 was named deputy CEO of GAVI, and\u00a0remains<\/a>\u00a0in the position to this day.<\/p>\n Gates involved in controversial digital ID schemes in India<\/strong><\/p>\n In 2009, the Indian government launched a national digital identification card system known as\u00a0Aadhaar<\/a>, now the world\u2019s largest biometric identification system.<\/p>\n The Aadhaar Card contains biometric and demographic data and provides individuals with a unique 12-digit identity number, though it is in and of itself\u00a0not considered<\/a>\u00a0proof of Indian citizenship, just of Indian residence.<\/p>\n The Aadhaar identification number was linked with numerous public and private services,\u00a0including<\/a>\u00a0the opening of bank accounts, verification of electoral identity, filing income tax returns, making digital payments, receiving government pensions, subsidies and welfare payments and\u00a0registration<\/a>\u00a0of mobile SIM cards.<\/p>\n Aadhaar has generated controversy in India, such as over the government\u2019s\u00a0plans<\/a>\u00a0to link it to the national voter database.<\/p>\n And in 2017, it was\u00a0reported<\/a>\u00a0that HIV patients in India were being coerced into submitting their Aadhaar number, leading them to drop out of treatment programs due to privacy concerns.<\/p>\n Chinese hackers also\u00a0reportedly<\/a>\u00a0targeted the Aadhaar database.<\/p>\n Aadhaar also was at the center of legal controversy. A 2013 ruling by the Indian Supreme Court\u00a0found<\/a>\u00a0no person should be denied government services, benefits or subsidies for not possessing the Aadhaar card.<\/p>\n A subsequent Supreme Court ruling in 2018 upheld the constitutionality of the Aadhaar system, but\u00a0found<\/a>\u00a0it cannot be made mandatory for use by private organizations, such as banks or mobile providers.<\/p>\n Civil society groups in India, such as the Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties,\u00a0expressed opposition<\/a>\u00a0to Aadhaar on the basis of privacy concerns. The National Advisory Council and the Central Employment Guarantee Council of India\u00a0opposed<\/a>\u00a0Aadhaar \u201con the grounds of civil liberties.\u201d<\/p>\n Nevertheless, Gates, on his personal blog,\u00a0praised<\/a>\u00a0Aadhaar \u2014 describing it as \u201ca valuable platform for delivering social welfare programs and other government services\u201d \u2014 and Nandan Nilekani, who developed the Aadhaar system and who now works with the World Bank Group to help other countries develop similar schemes.<\/p>\n Gates also dismissed privacy concerns surrounding Aadhaar,\u00a0stating<\/a>\u00a0that \u201cAadhaar in itself doesn\u2019t pose any privacy issue because it\u2019s just a bio ID verification scheme,\u201d adding that \u201cWe [the BMGF] have funded the World Bank to take this Aadhaar approach to other countries.\u201d<\/p>\n In 2020, the Indian government\u00a0announced<\/a>\u00a0the launch of the\u00a0Ayushman Bharat Digital Mission<\/a>, a system that would complement Aadhaar by\u00a0providing<\/a>\u00a0a unique\u00a0digital health ID<\/a>\u00a0to all citizens and that would be linked to their personal health records.<\/p>\n The program was initially trialed in six Indian regions and was launched nationally on Sept. 27, 2021. As of Nov. 2021, 96% of Ayushman Bharat Digital Mission users were\u00a0linked<\/a>\u00a0with Aadhaar.<\/p>\n The launch earned Gates\u2019 praise. He\u00a0tweeted<\/a>\u00a0congratulations to Indian President Modi, stating the program \u201cwill help ensure equitable, accessible healthcare delivery and accelerate progress on India\u2019s health goals.\u201d<\/p>\n Notably, in October 2021, the Ayushman Bharat Digital Mission received a $350,690\u00a0grant<\/a>\u00a0from the BMGF to support its \u201crollout and strengthening,\u201d raising\u00a0concerns<\/a>\u00a0regarding privacy, informed consent and data leakage.<\/p>\n Freedom of information requests\u00a0revealed<\/a> that Indian authorities generated health IDs for individuals who provided their Aadhaar number when receiving a COVID-19 vaccine, enrolling them in the Ayushman Bharat Digital Mission without informed consent.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n ___ Bill Gates, Indian Government Targeted in Lawsuit Alleging AstraZeneca Vaccine Killed 23-Year-Old A lawsuit against Bill Gates, the Indian government and others, citing extensive case law, is attracting renewed scrutiny of Gates and his long-term, controversial involvement in India\u2019s vaccine … Continue reading \n
\n
\n
\n
\nhttps:\/\/childrenshealthdefense.org\/defender\/bill-gates-indian-government-lawsuit-astrazeneca-vaccine-killed-shri-hitesh-kadve\/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=78691755-4889-4368-beac-7f6dcda2531e<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"