Jay, first of all, you give totally useless links to push your argument. For example, Gates kissing Modis' feet and praising swatch bharat campaign. Second an rNDTV (which is an anti-national news channel) talking about Gates kissing Modi's feet and praising India's digital finance. Then again you bring in Gates kissing Modi's feet for flattening the curve. And again Gates praising India's vaccine efforts and kissing Modi's feet.
In all of this, you do not wonder why Gates is kissing Modi's feet? But I let that wonderment for you to wonder.
One thing I do have to thank you is for following my suggestion and doing a search. But sir, you give it up so easily and call me a conspiracy theorist.
Let me give you the google search links on search terms "Gates PATH GSK Cervical cancer" and here are the links:
1. 2nd link from top: Indian Parliament Comes Down Hard on Cervical Cancer Trial ...https://www.sciencemag.org
› news › 2013/09
2. 3rd link from top: https://m.economictimes.com/industry/healthcare/biotech/healthcare/controversial-vaccine-studies-why-is-bill-melinda-gates-foundation-under-fire-from-critics-in-india/articleshow/41280050.cms
I wonder why the Indian Parliament came down hard on Cervical Cancer Trial. The trial was supported by Bill Gates' org PATH with GSK.
I may be a conspiracy theorist according to you. Are the Indian parliamentarians as well? Or shall I claim that you are selectively picking up links to confirm to your bias and hence your biased search for information.
Okay, let me add to the search terms two more words: "gates path gsk cervical cancer ethical issues".
And here is the sixth link (the others are already reproduced above and I am ignoring similar links)https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25101547/
And what does the article published by NIH of USA say? Here is the quote:
To date, at least 254 women in unscreened control groups have died of cervical cancer. The United States Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) determined that the subjects in the studies were not given adequate information for the purpose of providing informed consent. The determinations of the OHRP contradict assurances given by other American medical and bioethical leaders. CONCERNS: Defective scientific design required inadequate informed consent. US-funded measurements of death rates may have needlessly delayed development of indispensable, life-saving public health infrastructure. US-funded measurements of incidence and death rates proved to be scientifically irreproducible and unreliable. Predictably, nothing was learned from these measurements that was not already known. Statistical bias embedded in measurement of death rates yielded the absurd conclusion that Papanicolaou screening does not prevent cervical cancer, leading to a marketing campaign for a proprietary human papillomavirus (HPV) screening test unaffordable for the women among whom death rates had been measured. Inexplicably, measurements of death rates among unscreened women were continued even after the mortality benefit of screening had been confirmed. Quality management of NCI funded visual screening (VIA) in Mumbai failed catastrophically, with unsettling implications for VIA conducted by those with less expertise.
To you 254 women dying painfully because they needed to be in unscreened control groups is mere statistic and anybody pointing out to such an issue is a conspiracy theorist.
To me, those people are real. And Gates be damned. And all his followers too.