Since early 2020, the world has been going through a grueling pandemic that requires constant innovation and adaptation to withstand. Several manufacturers have since developed vaccines for the SARS-CoV-2 catastrophe. Evidently, though, these manufacturers own the rights to the vaccine. When they were developed, specific engineering was applied to create said vaccines, making them the companies intellectual property. Since it is their creation, they have a legal right to it. Several African countries have tried to create their own as well, but these corporations refuse to publicize the trademark or even give it temporary ownership. They use legal loopholes, media influence and secrecy to take advantage of the vulnerable.

Several parties are perpetrating unfair acts upon the African people, and this is truly a war crime. It is a crime in a war of prosperity, with several societies fighting to not be the one chosen as the loser. The corporations are only watchers of the battle, waiting to hurt the chosen one for their own gain.

I'm sure most are familiar with the several organizations that target helping those in need in African 3rd world countries. They were especially popular in the 90’s-early 2000.’s. These non-profit organizations usually filmed their international affairs; the images shown became the overwhelming consensus of how Americans viewed Africa. Most thought that these slums and mud huts without clean water must be what all of Africa is, as if it's not an entire continent. The perception of African countries since then has been heavily based off of poor media representation, which has had long-lasting ill effects, especially the current debacle with the vaccines.

Since then, this overall belief that Africa is a dirty, undeserving place, has been subliminally used by companies and countries to get away with what they do. Pharmaceutical commercials make sure to have nonprofits use their medicine in aid efforts in bad areas of Africa, which makes these companies seem like the good guys. They know that if you see them “helping” those in need, you'll forget what they've done, or even purposely dismiss it.

It is somewhat difficult to understand why countries such as Nigeria, Ghana, Tunisia, etc. are so urgent for vaccine access, as they have low fatality rates. The issue is though, the stats are very misunderstood. A lot of those dying as a result of the virus are people without access to adequate healthcare. Countries like Eritrea, Chad and some others. The deaths aren't being recorded since those dying essentially have no way of being recorded officially as dead. There is no hospital or mortician in rural areas of 3 world regions, so the death rate can't even be calculated as you would have to go by word of mouth.

In a 2021 Bloomberg article, Pfizer is reportedly hiding the specific rNA formation used to make Covid vaccines. Multiple countries have expressed disdain for Pfizer's actions, but some like the US and a select few EU countries, are supportive of Pfizer. Ghanian researchers and other professionals have repeatedly expressed that it would be impossible for them to create their own vaccine without infringing on copyright. It's not as if they can just ignore the trademark and do it anyways, as countries like Eritrea are in poor economic conditions, and after not fit to handle a large lawsuit Even after pleas from diplomats, Moderna and Pfizer have yet to offer any sign of helping those in need, even after announcing plans for new cures and antibiotic releases in the next year. While there is no documented fault by the courts, these companies are putting their own greed and wealth over the lives of innocents, further fueling the capitalist bubble markets that they control.

In conclusion, there is no official fault legally, but these corporations and their greed are creating an unsafe environment internationally. These injustices leave several third world countries unable to really take control of the pandemic, further fueling the fire that is the pandemic. They cannot say they want progress and improvement in the world, when they themselves are blatantly trying to hinder societal progression.

This story is about somebody that has made an unwise and greedy decision. Allow me to introduce to you: Elon Musk, The CEO of Tesla and now the owner of Twitter. Because of the debt the purchase creates, the firing of most if not all the previous employees, and finally, how it is made clear that this purchase was mostly a political stunt, this is why the reckless purchase of Twitter by Elon Musk will be it’s downfall

The recent Twitter purchase he made was to spread his influence on social media, but it has also put Tesla in a debt that Musk knows he can't afford without outside influences. It was immediately revealed in a tweet by Stephen King that Twitter was now charging $8.00 a month to keep the blue verification check mark on his profile, but since November 22nd, he has put this on hold until he is sure he can stop impersonation. The fact that this was only introduced after the purchase reveals that this was a desperate attempt to gather funds to pay off the debt that was created after the Twitter purchase.

But once he acquired the website, he also had more employees to pay. In response to this, Elon laid off thousands of employees stationed around the world, giving him more control over who is employed to the website and what they do with it. With this newfound power, he pledged to cut back on moderation to promote free speech stating “the bird is freed”.

Speaking of freedom, Musk’s purchase was made clear to be a political issue, due to his words on the subject matter. Not only did he want to expand his presence in the world, but he also wanted to expand Former President Donald Trump’s influence by intending to reverse his account suspension, giving him his Twitter account back, so he doesn’t have to remain in his own little echo chamber.

Now what can you do? You as an individual could boycott Twitter, convince your friends, your family, anybody you can reach to not install Twitter, or uninstall it. If there is no demand, the supply becomes worthless.

United States occurred on the background of racial segregation and discrimination against minority populations. It had its origins in sales practices of the National Association of Real Estate Boards and theories about race and property values codified by economists surrounding Richard T. Ely and his Institute for Research in Land Economics and Public Utilities, founded at the University of Wisconsin in 1920. With the National Housing Act of 1934 the federal government began to be involved in the practice and the concurrent establishment of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). 

The FHA's formalized redlining process was developed by their Chief Land Economist, Homer Hoyt, as part of an initiative to develop the first underwriting criteria for mortgages. The implementation of this federal policy accelerated the decay and isolation of minority inner-city neighborhoods through the withholding of mortgage capital, making it even more difficult for neighborhoods to attract and retain families able to purchase in the United States. 

Redlining is a discriminatory practice in which services (financial and otherwise) are withheld from potential customers who reside in neighborhoods classified as "hazardous" to investment; these neighborhoods have significant numbers of racial and ethnic minorities, and low-income residents. While the most well-known examples involve denial of credit and insurance, also sometimes attributed to redlining in many instances are: denial of healthcare and the development of food deserts in minority neighborhoods, even healthcare. In 1935, the Federal Home Loan Bank Board asked the Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC) to look at 239 cities and create "residential security maps" to indicate the level of security for real-estate investments in each surveyed city. On the maps, the newest areas—those considered desirable for lending purposes—were outlined in green and known as "Type A". These were typically affluent suburbs on the outskirts of cities. "Type B" neighborhoods, outlined in blue, were considered "Still Desirable", whereas older "Type C" were labeled "Declining" and outlined in yellow. "Type D" neighborhoods were outlined in red and were considered the most risky for mortgage support. While about 85% of the residents of such neighborhoods were white, they included most of the African-American urban households. 

These neighborhoods tended to be the older districts in the center of cities; often they were also African-American neighborhoods. Urban planning historians theorize that the maps were used by private and public entities for years afterward to deny loans to people in black communities. Redlining maps even became prominent under private organizations, such as appraiser J. M. Brewer's 1934 map of Philadelphia. 

Private organizations created maps designed to meet the requirements of the Federal Housing Administration's underwriting manual. The lenders had to consider FHA standards if they wanted to receive FHA insurance for their loans. FHA appraisal manuals instructed banks to steer clear of areas with "inharmonious racial groups", and recommended that municipalities enact racially restrictive zoning ordinances. Between 1945 and 1959, African Americans received less than 2 percent of all federally insured home loans.

Home-insurance agents may try to assess the ethnicity of a potential customer just by telephone, affecting what services they offer to inquiries about purchasing a home insurance policy. This type of discrimination is called linguistic profiling. There have also been concerns raised about redlining in the automotive insurance industry. Reviews of insurance scores based on credit are shown to have unequal results by ethnic group. The Ohio Department of Insurance in the early 21st century allowed insurance providers to use maps and collection of demographic data by ZIP code in determining insurance rates. 

The FHEO Director of Investigations Sara Pratt, wrote: “There was documented overt discrimination in practices relating to residential housing—from the appraisal manuals which established an articulated "policy" of preferences based on race, religion and national origin. to lending practices which only made loans available in certain parts of town or to certain borrowers, to the decision-making process in loans and insurance which allowed the insertion of discriminatory assessments into final decisions about either.

Another method of redlining is in the healthcare sector. The over-representation of minorities in various disease categories, including AIDS, is partially related to environmental racism. The national response to the AIDS epidemic in minority communities was slow during the 80s and 90s, showing an insensitivity to ethnic diversity in prevention efforts and AIDS health services.Environmental justice scholars such as Laura Pulido, Professor at the University of Oregon, and David Pellow, argue that recognizing environmental racism as an element stemming from the entrenched legacies of racial capitalism is crucial to the movement, with white supremacy continuing to shape human relationships with nature and land.

The effects of this exclusion on black Americans' health continues to play out daily, generations later, in the same communities. This is evident currently in the disproportionate effects that COVID-19 has had on the same communities which the HOLC redlined in the 1930s. Research published in September 2020 overlaid maps of the highly affected COVID-19 areas with the HOLC maps, showing that those areas marked “risky” to lenders because they contained minority residents were the same neighborhoods most ravaged by COVID-19. The CDC points to discrimination within health care, education, criminal justice, housing, and finance, direct results of systematically subversive tactics like redlining which led to chronic and toxic stress that shaped social and economic factors for minority groups, increasing their risk for COVID-19.    

Sufficient resources must be allocated to establishing a governance structure that can oversee health equity work. This includes taking specific action to address the social determinants of building intergenerational wealth, as well as confronting institutional racism within health systems themselves. 

Bill Gates. co-founder of Microsoft and the Bill and Melinda Gates Charity Foundation. There isn’t much news coverage of any dirty deeds he has allegedly committed. Some may see them as crimes but you can be the judge.

Microsoft saturates the PC market to have them as an unstoppable kingpin. They use tactics such as taking a measure for all use software called "embrace, enhance, and innovate", where they take software intended for use across multiple different environments and make it so it only works with Windows and has trouble working with other computers from competitors, thereby extinguishing competition simply because their PCs bring less value to the table. Not to mention that their search engine, Internet Explorer, is notably hard to get rid of once it is on your computer and violates the Sherman Empty Trust Act.

Now there is also the way Microsoft treats their employees, and spoiler alert, they don’t treat them very well. Most employees are offered perma-temp positions to start, which means workers who can work for years work in temporary positions to start, which means Microsoft doesn’t have to give them benefits. The work environment also has been stated to be not that good either unsurprisingly, overworking workers and creating a competitive workplace with a system that degrades workers if they aren't trying to beat out their peers.

And finally, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation isn’t as charitable as you think. They don’t donate just to donate, they donate so they can get a hold of power over certain places, such as the World Health Organization, as they donate 10% 's worth of their operating funds, causing them to gain a frankly ridiculous amount of authority over it’s priorities. In 2013, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was the single largest donor to the UN health agency, donating more than the US government. While it's beneficial that these sectors are getting funded, it's bad that individuals hold so much power.

What you can do is support Microsoft competitors by buying other PCs and buying other companies operating systems, and not donate to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.