Health and Peace
How We Know
Railways for Regional Peace described what is being built: a trade corridor cleared by three wars, routing every flow of goods, energy, data, and money between the developing world and Europe through a single clearinghouse node.
This essay presents the documentary trail showing how the architecture was assembled in private — who funded it, who carried the plans between parties, and how the origins were removed before the frameworks reached public institutions.
The evidence is drawn from several archives, including the Epstein releases.
The pattern that emerges is consistent: private funding develops a concept, the concept is branded during development, the branding is removed before institutional deployment, the architecture acquires governance authority, and the origin quietly disappears.
The framing
In 1986, the World Health Organisation’s Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion established peace as a prerequisite for health1.
If peace is merely helpful for health, then health programmes can proceed without it. But if peace is a prerequisite, then the institutions that define and govern peace acquire authority over the health agenda — and, by extension, over everything the health agenda touches.
The International Peace Institute, where Terje Rød-Larsen served as president, adopted this framing wholesale2. A November 2013 concept paper for a proposed Nexus Centre for Conflict Resolution in Vienna3 laid out seven focus areas: health, conflict resolution, transnational threats, peacebuilding, urban security, humanitarian challenges, and development — all connected through the argument that instability, disease, crime, and poverty reinforce each other. The document was sent to Epstein with instructions to treat it as ‘highly higly confidential’4.
A separate internal email from August 2012 records IPI’s Senior Director of Research sending Rød-Larsen finalised versions of the Nexus Centre documents with the note5: ‘All references to the foundation have been deleted (there was only one in the talking point)’.
The health-peace thesis gave IPI something a peace institute does not ordinarily possess: a reason to sit at the same table as the World Health Organisation, the Gates Foundation, and the US Centres for Disease Control.
The email chain
In late March 2013, IPI staff met Bill Gates and his team in Strasbourg to pitch the argument that polio eradication in its last holdouts — Pakistan, Afghanistan and Nigeria — was fundamentally a security and political problem rather than a medical one6.
Walter Kemp, IPI’s Director for Europe and Central Asia, drafted a follow-up letter to Joe Cerrell, the Gates Foundation’s Director for Europe and the Middle East.
The letter went to Rød-Larsen, who passed it to Andrea Pfanzelter at IPI Vienna. Pfanzelter forwarded it to Fabrice Aidan — seconded to the United Nations as Rød-Larsen’s special assistant — with the instruction: ‘Pls let terje read and approve — Or not!’ Aidan forwarded it to Epstein, asking7: ‘Is it ok to send the letter below to Joe and follow up as indicated, or shall he wait?’
Epstein replied ‘not good’8, and rewrote the letter himself. The rewritten version — rougher, less polished than Kemp’s original — was the one that went to the Gates Foundation.
Five people handled a single letter before it could be sent. A programme to vaccinate children against polio in the world’s most dangerous places was being routed, for approval, through Epstein’s gmail account.
When the formal channel stalled — when Cerrell at BMGF deflected Pfanzelter rather than engaging at the level IPI wanted — Pfanzelter emailed Epstein directly9: ‘What to do?’ Epstein personally intervened10, bypassing Cerrell entirely through his direct channel to Boris Nikolic11, Gates’s chief science and technology adviser.
In October 2013, when the WHO confirmed polio in Syria, IPI’s Maureen Quinn proposed connecting Arab foreign ministers to the Gates Foundation about vaccination ceasefires — ‘days of tranquillity’ in conflict zones12. The proposal was forwarded to Nikolic within hours. The formal BMGF channel and the Nikolic back-channel were operating in parallel, both controlled by Epstein.
By February 2014, BMGF was setting the terms of reference, the templates, the deadlines, and the page limits for IPI’s analytical briefs on Pakistan. IPI was functioning as a subcontractor. Rød-Larsen forwarded the entire exchange to Epstein13, keeping him informed of operational details1415.
The Rothschild Conference
In late 2014, Michael Sarnitz at IPI Vienna sent Rød-Larsen a concept note for a proposed conference on health and security, responding to the Ebola crisis16. It envisioned two high-level meetings in New York and Geneva in early 2015, with a total budget of approximately $1 million17. The named partner was the Edmond de Rothschild Foundations.
Rød-Larsen forwarded it to Epstein.
The concept note was titled the Rothschild Conference on Health and Security18.
By September 2015, the event had taken place in Geneva under a different name19: ‘Preparing for Pandemics: Lessons Learned for More Effective Responses’20.
The participant list carries no Rothschild branding. It reads as a pure IPI production. But the participants tell the story: Margaret Chan, Director-General of the World Health Organisation; Chris Elias, President of Global Development at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; Kevin Rudd, former Prime Minister of Australia; and Marine Buissonnière, Director of the Public Health Programme at the Open Society Foundations — alongside representatives from the US Centres for Disease Control, UNHCR, the IOM, and multiple UN permanent missions.
Michael Sarnitz appears on the list as ‘Adviser for Polio Eradication and Health & Peace, International Peace Institute’.
The programme Sarnitz proposed under the Rothschild name was now operating under the IPI name. The Rothschild interest had funded the concept, and developed it with Rothschild branding during the internal phase. Before it became a public institutional framework, the name was removed.
The September 2015 participant list deserves a second look. The people who would later govern the global pandemic response were already seated at the same table, under the same health-peace framing, four years before the WHO’s Global Health and Peace Initiative21 was formally launched and five years before COVID-19.
The pattern
The Rothschild Conference was not an isolated instance. The same sequence — private funding, branded development, public deployment with the origin removed — appears in at least two other documented cases within the same network.
The first is climate finance. Between 2014 and 2018, seven private forums were held at Waddesdon Manor, Jacob Rothschild’s estate in Buckinghamshire, developing the framework for climate-related financial risk. The central argument was that fossil fuel assets would become ‘stranded’ as climate policy tightened, and that financial institutions needed to reprice them in advance.
The forums fed the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, which fed the Network for Greening the Financial System, which sets capital requirements through Basel 3.1. By the time the framework reached the regulatory architecture, the Waddesdon origin was invisible.
The forum proceedings themselves acknowledge that democratic legislation was the proper route — but they proceeded through regulation regardless.
The second is impact investing. In February 2011, Epstein sent Jes Staley and Mary Erdoes at JPMorgan a blueprint for a donor-advised fund linked to the Gates Foundation’s Giving Pledge. ‘Donor advised fund’, he wrote22.
You could tie it initially just to the gates program, minimum gift 100 million. It could then be opened up later. It will be the largest foundation in the world. Done right its 100 billion dollars in 2 years. The tension is making money from a Charitable Org. Therefore the money making parts need to be arms length.
JPMorgan internally named it Project Molecule23. It became the Global Health Investment Fund24 — the proof of concept for the impact investing model in which private capital earns returns on health outcomes, with the Gates Foundation absorbing the initial downside risk. The design chain does not appear in any of the public-facing literature on the GHIF or the impact investing field it helped establish.
In each case — pandemic governance, climate regulation, development finance — private funding developed the concept, the concept was branded during development, the branding was removed before institutional deployment, and the origin disappeared.
The financial model
Impact investing is the point where the health-peace framing meets the financial architecture. Once private capital can earn returns on an unchallengeable social good — and public money absorbs the risk — the model can be applied to any unchallengeable good: climate, biodiversity, gender equity, financial inclusion.
The Sustainable Development Goals provide seventeen of them. Each is a potential impact investing proposal, each justified by the same logic: this social good is a precondition for stability, therefore capital must be allocated toward it, therefore the institutions that define the metrics acquire governance authority over capital flows.
Health was the entry vector because it was the most unassailable.
Nobody argues against protecting children. The IPI-Gates-Epstein pipeline established the precedent: private capital directed by social objectives defined outside democratic processes, with public money absorbing the downside.
The Rockefeller Foundation coined the term ‘impact investing’ at a 2007 convening at its Bellagio conference centre25. JPMorgan co-founded the Global Impact Investing Network in September 2009 at the Clinton Global Initiative26 — the same month Epstein was scripting Staley’s promotion to sole CEO of the investment bank and editing his organisational announcement before it was released internally27. The man managing the career of the bank’s investment bank chief was doing so while the bank was co-founding the field for which he would design the flagship product eighteen months later28.
Epstein’s own assessment of the product came in October 2011, when the deal began falling apart. He wrote to Staley in capitals29: ‘This is not about SOCIAL INVESTING’. The philanthropic framing was the authorisation layer — profit extraction at arm’s length from the charitable purpose.
Greg Wyler, founder of OneWeb, confirmed the assessment independently in June 201430: ‘I know you don’t care about the social good, but you can have fun and make money as well’.
The currency
Three days after the Project Molecule blueprint, on 9 February 2011, Epstein sent Boris Nikolic a separate email connecting the financial vehicle to a currency operation31:
I think you might suggest to bill that there are many types of pseudo-currencies. Airline miles. Special Drawing Rights. Military offsets. Aid. The most difficult part of my new currency is taxes. However, if we limit its participants to governments and charities, they do not pay tax. 80% of the problems disappear. We could start a CCU — a charitable currency unit. Like special drawing rights for the poor.
The tax problem was already solved: restrict the currency to entities that do not pay tax, and the regulatory obstacles largely vanish.
The donor-advised fund and the charitable currency unit were designed in the same week, through the same network, for the same purpose. The charitable framing eliminates both the political resistance to profit extraction and the technical barrier to currency adoption.
The BIS Innovation Hub now calls this architecture ‘purpose-bound money’32. Epstein described it, named it, and sent the specification to Bill Gates’s chief adviser eight years before the Innovation Hub existed.
Epstein’s research agenda provided the technical components.
Madars Virza received funding for zero-knowledge proofs — the cryptographic technique that allows a transaction to be verified as compliant without revealing the transaction itself.
Joscha Bach received approximately $300,000 for artificial intelligence work at the MIT Media Lab; in December 2016, he described to Epstein what might replace failing institutions as ‘an API for integrating all fields of knowledge and control’.
Martin Nowak received $6.5 million for the Programme for Evolutionary Dynamics at Harvard, modelling how populations respond to incentive structures.
The MIT Media Lab’s Digital Currency Initiative, which received Epstein funding, partnered with the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston in 2020 to build Project Hamilton — a central bank digital currency prototype capable of handling 1.7 million transactions per second.
In April 2016, Larry Summers emailed Epstein a specification for sovereign digital currency: each unit uniquely numbered, every transaction traceable, aid disbursement as the entry vector into developing economies33. In the same month, Joi Ito sent Epstein a draft paper proposing to replace the global accounting system with algorithmically governed ledgers where the value of an asset changes depending on context. Epstein edited the draft. His key addition: ‘the locality of money is crucial’34.
In June 2023, the BIS published ‘Blueprint for the Future Monetary System’ — the unified ledger. Tokenised assets, programmable contracts, conditional logic, real-time settlement, central bank money alongside commercial bank money on a single platform.
The sovereign pipeline
The sovereign clients who would adopt the programmable currency were generated at forums like Sir Bani Yas.
Fabrice Aidan — who routed IPI’s Gates Foundation correspondence through Epstein — was the operational manager of the inaugural Sir Bani Yas Forum in 2010. He sent Epstein the confidential attendee list35 and draft agenda3637. Rød-Larsen personally obtained clearance from the UAE Foreign Minister for Epstein’s attendance3839. Epstein arrived aboard his Boeing 727.
Within weeks, the contacts were being converted. Aidan brokered a dinner between Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed and Bill Gates, with Nikolic handling the other side. Epstein briefed Nikolic40: ‘Abdullah is brother to the crown prince, he is the foreign minister. His brother controls the 1 trillion dollars of assets’.
Prince Andrew confirmed the forum’s function in a November 2010 email to Epstein41: ‘You are in big time. He thinks you are great and would like to introduce you to Sheikh Mohammed, the Crown Prince’.
The same contact book was deployed in multiple directions simultaneously. Through the banking channel, Gulf sovereign contacts represented wealth management mandates — the commercial value that French prosecutors are now investigating at Edmond de Rothschild42. Through the health-peace channel, those same contacts were foreign ministers who could agree to vaccination ceasefires and sign pandemic preparedness frameworks. Through the JPMorgan channel, they were among the fourteen sovereign representatives Epstein had security clearance to meet privately43. Through the Gates Foundation channel, they were the ministers Maureen Quinn proposed connecting to BMGF about polio in Syria.
The forum serviced both channels simultaneously — the ‘peace and security’ framing that authorised the physical corridor, and the ‘health and peace’ framing that authorised the governance architecture. Same sovereign relationships. Same convening mechanism. Same intermediary.
Epstein pitched the programmable currency directly to these contacts. In 2013, he emailed a senior Russian official arguing that Russia could ‘leapfrog the global community by reinventing the financial system of the 21st century’44. In October 2016, he pitched a Sharia-compliant digital currency to a Saudi royal court adviser45. In 2017, he proposed to Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem that Dubai, through DP World’s eighty-three-country logistics network, could attach a sovereign digital currency to actual international commerce46. India’s Aadhaar programme — biometric identity linked to financial services — was confirmed operational at a summit at Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse in September 201347.
Each pitch was tailored to the recipient, and each recipient was accessible through the contact book assembled at Sir Bani Yas. And the forum’s host country, the UAE, is now IMEC’s central Gulf node48, an Abraham Accords signatory49, and the operator of DP World’s 30-year concessions for Syrian ports along the corridor’s path50.
The traceable career
Fabrice Aidan’s career traces the full arc of the architecture, from health-peace framing through sovereign access to private banking.
From 2006 to 2013, he was seconded to the United Nations as Rød-Larsen’s special assistant51. During this period, he managed the Sir Bani Yas Forum, facilitated Epstein’s insertion, brokered sovereign introductions, routed IPI’s Gates Foundation correspondence through Epstein, and executed financial transfers between Rød-Larsen and Epstein — including a $130,000 promissory note repayment to Epstein’s Deutsche Bank account52.
On 12 February 2014 — the same day Aidan was troubleshooting the wire transfer — Ariane de Rothschild wrote to Epstein53:
I’m flying in tomorrow. Do you want to have lunch with me at 1:00? Then I have a meeting in the afternoon about the hotel. We’re supposed to have dinner with Terje and Fabrice Aidan at L’Ami Louis at 9:00.
The four people at dinner that evening at one of the most expensive restaurants in Paris were the bank’s CEO, Epstein, the UN Special Envoy, and the UN assistant who was executing everything. The $130,000 moving through the wire that day was attached, at every institutional level, to the words ‘health and peace’.
One week later, Rød-Larsen forwarded Aidan’s operational coordination with the Gates Foundation on Pakistan-specific polio work to Epstein.
In 2014, Aidan joined Edmond de Rothschild as International Adviser for the Middle East54. His recruitment was reportedly facilitated by Olivier Colom, who appears more than 2,000 times in the Epstein archive and sat on the bank’s executive committee. Reuters reports that Epstein acted as intermediary between Aidan and the bank during the placement55.
In November 2017, a year after the bank dismissed Aidan, Ariane de Rothschild wrote to Epstein56: ‘I saw an amazing picture of a very happy Fabrice Aidan with MBS. Wow!’ The UN assistant who had assembled a sovereign contact book through the health-peace architecture was now photographed with the Saudi Crown Prince — and the Rothschild branch of the network was still tracking that access through Epstein.
On 20 March 2026, French anti-corruption officers searched the Paris offices of Edmond de Rothschild with Ariane present. The charge is passive corruption of a foreign public official57.
The five layers
The documentary trail, taken together, reveals an architecture with five layers. Health and peace is the thread connecting all of them.
The first is the ethic: peace as a precondition for health — and, by extension, for every Sustainable Development Goal the health agenda touches. Established by the Ottawa Charter, adopted by IPI, and extended through the Nexus Centre concept — the unchallengeable good that authorises everything built on top of it.
The second is the cognitive standard — the definitions, metrics, and classifications. ISO technical committees write the data formats, the environmental frameworks, the sustainable finance taxonomies, and the governance benchmarks. The OECD produces the SDG indicators against which countries are scored. The forums — Sir Bani Yas, Waddesdon, the Geneva pandemic conference — are the mechanism through which these standards are developed: private convening under Chatham House rules producing the frameworks that later become institutional architecture.
The third is the evaluative clearing — surveillance data assessed by expert panels against the standards defined above. FATF conducts mutual evaluations of national financial systems against its compliance standards. Basel stress tests assess bank balance sheets against capital requirements. The WHO’s health-peace monitoring framework collects data on conflict, disease, and social conditions and assesses them against the health-peace criteria. In each case, the structure is the same: data flows in, an expert clearinghouse judges it against the cognitive standard, and a pass or fail determination flows out.
The fourth is the behavioural settlement — the enforcement of the clearing judgment. The capital requirement is applied or the bank is sanctioned. The country is greylisted or retains access. The programmable currency executes the payment or refuses it. Impact investing, blended finance, and purpose-bound money operate at this layer: private capital earns returns on social objectives, public money absorbs the risk, and the profit extraction is at arm’s length — the exact distance Epstein specified in February 2011.
The fifth is compliance: conditional access to economic life, enforced through standards that no affected population was asked to approve, ultimately derived from an ethic no-one was invited to vote on.
Each layer was built through Epstein’s switchboard. The health contacts went through him to the Gates Foundation. The sovereign contacts came through him from Sir Bani Yas. The financial product went through him to JPMorgan. The research went through him to MIT, Harvard, and the Santa Fe Institute. The regulatory architecture went through him to the Rothschilds58. The currency specification went through him to Summers and Nikolic.
The deployment pipeline went through him to Dubai, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and India.
Deployment
The architecture described in this essay is now embedded in the World Health Organisation, operating through the Global Health and Peace Initiative59 — launched four months after Epstein’s arrest, formalised by WHO resolution in May 202460, and still expanding61.
The programme that was developed through the Nexus Centre, branded as the Rothschild Conference on Health and Security, rebranded as ‘Preparing for Pandemics’, and built through a channel controlled by Epstein, is generating WHO resolutions and IPI policy papers a decade later.
IPI’s 2024 annual report lists five closed-door retreats at Le Mirador Resort in Mont-Pèlerin, Switzerland62, bringing together thirty lead pandemic treaty negotiators — private convening producing institutional output, the same pattern the Rothschild Conference demonstrated.
A 2020 WHO paper contributed to the Secretary-General’s report on Peacebuilding and Sustaining Peace63 shows where the framing has arrived. It names IPI as an operational partner and includes a recommendation to international financial institutions to ‘soften the conditioning of loans for macro-economic stabilization by introducing conditions of equitable access to essential services such as health, if necessary with third party monitoring of success with organizations such as WHO’64.
It further recommends that the OECD reclassify health spending as peacebuilding investment — routing health budgets through peacebuilding channels and giving the peacebuilding architecture oversight of health expenditure.
The health-peace framing has moved from an IPI concept paper sent to Epstein in 2013 to a WHO recommendation that sovereign loans be conditioned on health metrics defined and monitored by international organisations.
In the Middle East, ‘peace and security’ authorised four wars (Syria, Gaza, Lebanon and Iran), a physical corridor, and is presently considering a programmable stablecoin geofenced to approved zones65. Globally, ‘health and peace’ authorised a governance architecture that reaches into every domain the health agenda touches.
Different channels and theatres. But same word, clearing function, and ultimate destination: conditional access to economic life, enforced through standards that no affected population was asked to approve.
The word ‘peace’ has been used to expand institutional jurisdiction for over a century. Carnegie endowed it in 1910 — architecture designed before crises, ready when the moment arrived. The RIIA and CFR bridged peace to finance and trade. NATO’s Committee of Three bridged peace to security. The Ottawa Charter, in 1986, bridged peace to health.
Each application used the same grammar: X requires peace, therefore whoever governs peace acquires authority over X. The International Peace Institute operationalised the health bridge, and the WHO is presently implementing it in practice. The architecture described in this essay is what it looks like when the bridge is fully built.
However, should you refuse peace, the ‘impact’ finance stops flowing at the sovereign level, and the conditional CBDC transaction refuses to settle at the individual. And that tells you what sits above peace itself.
Somewhere in Pakistan, a child is being vaccinated against polio. The programme that delivers the vaccine was built through the architecture described in this essay.
Neither the parent nor the child will ever know, and that is the point.
Any time someone reveals humanity's most nefarious gangsters piece by piece involvement, in the biggest plots against humanity, he/she is a saint! Thank you!!
This proves that the release of the redacted Epstein files triggered the early "war" on Iran. That is, destroying the western economies, that are and have been controlled by the now bankrupt privately owned speculative global financial system, to usher in their final goal of digital concentration camps. We better start doing something. Maybe Iran can help us demolishing data centers as a starter.