In 2007 he tried to warn us about the Bill Gates Foundation

Former Japanese WHO chief called the Foundation "accountable to none other than itself."

Back in 2008 when you could discuss the dangerous influence of Bill Gates on world politics, the New York Times published an article on his questionable role in public health ("Gates Foundation’s Influence Criticized. By Donald G. McNeil Jr. Feb. 16, 2008"). A leaked 2007 memo from the WHO malarial chief at the time Dr. Arata Kochi warned then WHO director Dr. Margaret Chan about the Gates Foundation's influence. This memo was circulated to the heads of several health agency departments to ask if they also had struggles with the Foundation.

Also, [Dr. Kochi] argued, the foundation’s determination to have its favored research used to guide the health organization’s recommendations “could have implicitly dangerous consequences on the policy-making process in world health.”

Dr. Kochi, an openly undiplomatic official who won admiration for reorganizing the world fight against tuberculosis but was ousted from that job partly because he offended donors like the Rockefeller Foundation, called the Gates Foundation’s decision-making “a closed internal process, and as far as can be seen, accountable to none other than itself.” Moreover, he added, the foundation “even takes its vested interest to seeing the data it helped generate taken to policy.”

There is an incident with one drug that is eerily reminiscent with what is happening now with the booster shots of waning vaccines. As an example of the Foundation's "vested interests", Dr. Kochi cited an intervention "intermittent preventive treatment for infants, known as IPTi":

Other experts said IPTi involved giving babies doses of an older anti-malaria drug, Fansidar, when they got their shots at 2 months, 3 months and 9 months. In early studies, it was shown to decrease malaria cases about 25 percent. But each dose gave protection for only a month. Since it is not safe or practical to give Fansidar constantly to babies because it is a sulfa drug that can cause rare but deadly reactions and because Fansidar-resistant malaria is growing, World Health Organization scientists had doubts about it. Nonetheless, Dr. Kochi wrote, although it was “less and less straightforward” that the health agency should recommend it, the agency’s objections were met with “intense and aggressive opposition” from Gates-backed scientists and the foundation. The W.H.O., he wrote, needs to “stand up to such pressures and ensure that the review of evidence is rigorously independent of vested interests.”

Dr. Kochi was not alone in his criticism of the Foundation:

Amir Attaran, a health policy expert at the University of Ottawa who has criticized many players in the war on malaria, said he thought Dr. Kochi’s memo was “dead right.” His own experience with Gates-financed policy groups, he said, was that they are cowed into “stomach-churning group think.”

Perhaps Dr. Kochi was destined to run up against Gates, as even in 2006, Kochi was praised “for being one of the first at the agency to realize that AIDS could be treated in Africa with standard regimens of cheap drugs and simple blood tests, instead of Western-level care costing tens of thousands of dollars a year.”

Yet it looks like none of the warnings about the Foundation and pharmaceutical industry influence were heeded.

Here is one from 2008 that is now considered 'conspiracy theory':

There have been hints in recent months that the World Health Organization feels threatened by the growing power of the Gates Foundation. Some scientists have said privately that it is “creating its own W.H.O.”