Did Bill Gates order the COVID lockdowns?
Is he Neil Ferguson’s—and everybody else’s—boss?
Nobody would have predicted that I and Dr. [Anthony] Fauci would be so
prominent in these really evil theories
The COVID model authored by Neil Ferguson and his Imperial College team was endorsed by the World Health Organization (WHO), where Ferguson directed the WHO’s Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Modelling. Thanks to that endorsement, Ferguson created a mass panic and thus helped his bosses to get almost the entire planet to go on his recommended lockdowns, which cost people everywhere their fundamental liberties and plunged 150 million into extreme poverty.
The model was a spectacular failure: the official death toll (though probably grossly inflated) came in at only 7-8% of Ferguson’s predicted deaths. I have considered two possibilities to explain what happened: incompetence and Machiavellianism.
The incompetence hypothesis might seem to gain support from the undeniable pattern: the utter failure and catastrophic human and economic costs, over the years, of Ferguson’s every major model and policy recommendation. By the time COVID came along, Ferguson’s disastrous performance as a modeler, coupled with his unassailable influence, had already harmed many millions of people. Paradoxically, however, this evidence undermines the incompetence hypothesis, for two reasons.
One is the sheer scale of incompetence that must be invoked, which beggars belief. Ferguson is consistently off by one, three, and even six orders of magnitude! The latter case happens when, for instance, you predict that 200,000,000 people will die and just 282 persons die. Ferguson did that with bird flu in 2005.
The other is that, since Ferguson’s bosses tolerate his every failure and, moreover, seek him again and again for projections and policy recommendations, followed always to the letter, they must be presumed incompetent on the same astonishing level—devoid, in fact, of the most basic faculties for learning. This, too, is implausible.
In the alternative Machiavellian hypothesis, the powerful Western bosses mean to do strip Western citizens of their rights and liberties, to which end they do two things:
impoverish the citizens, because poor citizens find it harder to defend themselves, as they lack resources and must focus entirely on survival;
habituate the citizens to see the State assumption of totalitarian emergency powers as something legitimate.
So they regularly trot out this dishonest flunkie—Ferguson—to make nonsense predictions of catastrophe and justify lockdown policies.
In support of the Machiavellian hypothesis we have already considered, in previous pieces, two important items. One is that Ferguson has revealed himself to be fundamentally dishonest. The other is evidence from 2005 that the Western bosses have been ready, for a while, to impose totalitarian emergency powers the minute one of Ferguson’s catastrophic predictions can be effectively sold to the public.
The Machiavellian hypothesis, however, must row upriver against a prejudice widespread in WEIRD, university-educated, ‘polite society’: the ‘conspiracy theory’ taboo, which throws extra bales of weight on the burden of proof. Yet this burden can be met.
One hurdle the Machiavellian hypothesis must clear is to present convincing evidence of corruption in both the generation and official acceptance of Neil Ferguson’s nonsense models and recommendations. I will argue here that Neil Ferguson is but a fleck of foam on a tidal wave loosed by a submarine earthquake of corruption with a name: Bill Gates.
Neil Ferguson, and everyone he influences, has been getting (lots of) money from Bill Gates
Sometimes ranked as the fourth-richest person in the world, sometimes higher, the software billionaire cum ‘philanthropist’ Bill Gates is the world’s biggest financial force in public health, and his money tsunami explains the bobbing presence of Neil Ferguson upon its crest.
Indeed, when disclosing his interests, Neil Ferguson lists two items that involve Bill Gates:
“Principal Investigator, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [BMGF]”; and
“Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance grant – Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium.”
The first needs no elaboration: Ferguson is getting money from Bill Gates.
The second one is a bit more opaque, but it means the same. GAVI (Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization) was launched by Bill Gates in 1999 with a $750 million donation.2 And GAVI and the BMGF foot the entire bill for the Vaccine Impact Modeling Consortium, at Imperial College (London), where Neil Ferguson works.
But it ain’t just the grant money.
Neil Ferguson’s professor salary at Imperial College also appears to be coming substantially, and perhaps entirely, from Bill Gates. Because, according to Vipul Naik’s preliminary analysis, Imperial College—as such—gets a huge chunk of its money from the Gates Foundation, its second most important funder.
Neil Ferguson was also employed as director of the World Health Organization (WHO) Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Modelling. And Bill Gates has been showering more money on the WHO than anyone on Earth—more, even, than any government!
The graph above, sourced from the WHO itself and reproduced in a US NEWS & World Report piece, compares contributions to the WHO from the Gates Foundation and the US government.3 It conveys the message that the US government gives the WHO a bit more than Bill Gates, but that’s because the graph doesn’t reflect the indirect contributions Gates makes to the WHO.4
Finally, Neil Ferguson was also moonlighting as a member of the UK government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE), advising the United Kingdom on emergency health policies. Is Bill Gates relevant with UK health policymakers too? Yes.
The Medicine & Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the UK’s equivalent of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), has been getting large grants from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. One of them, for “over £980,000,” was to strengthen “collaboration [of the MHRA] with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the World Health Organisation [WHO].”5 It was awarded right before the pandemic, that is, right before Neil Ferguson, on Gates’ payroll, produced a COVID model, endorsed by the WHO, that pressured UK health bureaucrats to follow the policy recommendations of the UK government’s own advisor for medical emergencies: Neil Ferguson.
On medical emergencies, the key health bureacrats were at the UK’s Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), within its executive agency called Public Health England (PHE), whose responsibilities, Wikipedia explains, included disease surveillance and emergency preparedness and response. Upon a Freedom of Information request, it has been acknowledged that “PHE has received grants from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.”6
As Wikipedia also explains, “From 1 October 2021, PHE’s health protection functions were formally transferred into the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA).” This seems to have increased Bill Gates’ influence. The reason is that, shortly before the transfer of “health protection functions” from PHE to UKHSA, the British government announced (June 2021) a “landmark partnership” that was “agreed by UK Health Security Agency [UKHSA] and US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] to strengthen global response to future pandemics,” according to which US and UK agencies will work hand-in-hand “with global partners including the World Health Organization (WHO) and philanthropic funders, like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation” (my emphasis).7 (That was the only private funder specifically named.)
It’s a tight little circle.
In sum, Bill Gates pays Ferguson’s bills, Imperial College’s bills, the WHO’s bills, and the UK health bureaucracy’s bills. And his money is carefully spent to increase the collaboration of all such institutions on medical emergencies with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. So perhaps incompetence is not the best explanation for why Neil Ferguson’s nonsense COVID model was quickly endorsed by the WHO, and why UK policymakers quickly adopted Ferguson’s … just … crazy lockdown recommendations for the UK. Perhaps all of that happened because Bill Gates, everybody’s boss, wished it so.
But we are not done, for Ferguson’s COVID model and recommendations also became influential across the Atlantic, in the United States. Does Gates have his fingers in that pie as well?
Yes he does.
We have seen above that the Gates Foundation is heavily involved with the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC).
And it is a well-known fact that Dr. Anthony Fauci, until very recently head of the NIAID (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases), and also the de facto leader of the NIH (National Institutes of Health), has had a close working relationship with Bill Gates ever since a famous year-2000 handshake between the two.
Following that handshake, Gates acquired a vast influence over the NIH, which became the subject of a 2008 paper in the Journal of the European Molecular Biology Organization: ‘The Grand Impact of the Gates Foundation. Sixty Billion Dollars and One Famous Person Can Affect the Spending and Research Focus of Public Agencies.’8 One summary of that article explains:
“The article outlines the technical details of the Gates/NIH partnership; the Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust funneled their donations through the NIH Foundation, which administers the money while Gates determines how it is spent. In this way, Gates has cloaked his pet projects with the imprimatur and credibility of the United States government. He has effectively purchased himself an agency directorate.” (my emphasis)9
(Notice: the claim above is that the Wellcome Trust and Bill Gates do not act independently: they may be considered a combine under Bill Gates’ personal direction. That is interesting because, as Vipul Naik documents, the Wellcome Trust is the other major funder of Imperial College, Neil Ferguson’s employer.)
Now, it is a fact that Dr. Anthony Fauci was in charge of the US response to the COVID crisis, and a fact that he bragged on television about using Neil Ferguson’s model to convince Donald Trump to impose COVID lockdowns in the United States.10
We have enough, I believe, to support an attractive hypothesis. It is Bill Gates’ money that has turned Neil Ferguson into “the epidemiologist that the whole world listens to”, as one French headline celebrated. Gates can get the WHO, the UK health bureaucracies, and the US health bureaucracies to do what his pet modeler says because he pays them all. Once those three—WHO, UK, and US—are moving in lockstep, they become tremendously influential over other countries.
Bill Gates can move the world.
If this hypothesis is correct, then Bill Gates is a Machiavellian hypocrite. He astutely prances around the world pretending to be a philanthropist but in reality he is taking over the most powerful bureaucracies to grow his own power and that of his allies.
Is there some way to test this hypothesis? I think there is, by asking the question:
Under what conditions will Bill Gates keep Neil Ferguson?
I asked chatGPT3, the world’s best discursive artificial intelligence—one that exists thanks to Bill Gates’ investments—what to do if a modeler performs according to Ferguson’s specs, and it replied that “it would be appropriate for policymakers to reevaluate the scientist’s role in advising on policy decisions,” recommending that we seek out “alternative sources of information or expertise.”11
Well, yes… This exercise confirms only that chatGPT3 is not a complete idiot.
Now suppose, for the sake of argument, that Bill Gates—who is quite obviously not a complete idiot—is also not an evil Machiavellian. Assume, rather, that he is, to the contrary, an honest philanthropist. Under these assumptions, Bill Gates wants to make people better off. But Neil Ferguson, on Bill Gates’ payroll, is always spectacularly wrong and harms millions of people. We must therefore ask: Under what conditions would an honest Bill Gates allow Neil Ferguson to survive with his jobs and influence intact?
For that to happen, it seems to me, honest Bill Gates would have to be:
supremely tolerant of incompetence; or
very shy about throwing his weight around; or
There is another set of conditions under which Neil Ferguson can survive with his jobs and influence intact. Suppose that Bill Gates—the fourth richest person in the world (at least)—is the kind of guy who gets what he wants because he is paying for it and woe betide anyone who stands in his way. In this case, Neil Ferguson can keep his jobs and influence only if his models—for all their absurdity from the scientific point of view—are precisely what a dishonest Bill Gates wants and needs from his politically and financially functional point of view.
Now, it is a historical fact that Neil Ferguson has survived on Bill Gates’ payroll, and also that he has remained the most influential epidemic modeler in the world, one whose forecasts and recommendations are followed to the letter by the various powerful bureaucracies that Bill Gates is also paying for. So which set of conditions in fact account for Neil Ferguson’s remarkable survival? Has Ferguson survived because Gates, though he means well, is too tolerant and timid to do something about him? Or has Ferguson survived because Gates is a dangerous Machiavellian?
This can be discovered by answering the following question: How does Bill Gates typically deal with incompetence? Much has been written about that—it is quite famous.
Reporting on a biography of Bill Gates by James Wallace and Jim Erickson, Hard Drive, CNBC writes that “Gates earned a reputation as the office bully.”
“Gates was notorious for sending ‘critical and sarcastic’ emails—often referred to as ‘flame mail’—to his employees in the middle of the night. More than one ‘unlucky programmer received an email at 2:00 a.m. that began, “This is the stupidest piece of code ever written,” ’ the book recalls. Former Microsoft employees described the office as a very confrontational environment, with Gates being ‘demanding’ and the work ‘intense.’ ”12
Through a spokesperson, Gates has denied mistreating anyone. But in other contexts he has admitted to being a bully. Vanity Fair reports that
“[Gates’] fanaticism led to him tracking the comings and goings of employees, so he could monitor just how much midnight oil they were burning. ‘You know, I knew everyone’s license plates so I could look out in the parking lot and see, when did people come in, when were they leaving,’ he said.”13
Even those who defend this self-confessed control freak sound like an amicus brief for the prosecution.
“Some Microsoft workers … defended Gates with one saying he ‘yelled at everyone the same’ and that she appreciates his candor but conceded that his management style could intimidate some employees.”14
About all that yelling, reported in the Daily Mail, people claim that Gates “was known for swearing at his employees.” Former Microsoft employees have “accuse[d] Bill Gates of being an office ‘bully’ whose catchphrase was ‘that’s the stupidest f*****g idea I’ve ever heard.’ ”15
So what would Bill Gates probably say to a computer modeler on his payroll—Neil Ferguson—when that modeler predicted in 2005 that bird flu—killer of only 282 humans worldwide—would kill 200,000,000?
Well, honest Bill Gates, with characteristic impoliteness, would say: “This is the stupidest piece of code ever written!” and “that’s the stupidest f*****g idea I’ve ever heard!”
Now, as I review elsewhere, that model was not the exception, just the worst offender; Neil Ferguson has had a consistent track record authoring major epidemic models that predict giant catastrophes and then turn out, always, to be spectacularly wrong. According to the National Review, “Ferguson has been wrong so often that some of his fellow modelers call him ‘The Master of Disaster.’ ” So about Neil Ferguson himself, an honest Bill Gates, with characteristic impoliteness, would say something like: “That’s the stupidest f*****g modeler that ever lived!”
We have, then:
that Bill Gates is violently intolerant of incompetence, all the more so when he is passionately obsessed with an issue, as he is in the case of epidemic modeling and government health policy.
that Bill Gates is the closest thing to a living god (his money is, for all practical purposes, infinite), so he gets what he wants—he pays for it and he gets it.
It follows that an honest and ethical Bill Gates, infuriated with Neil Ferguson after just one major failure, would make sure, at the very least, that none of the health-policy bureaucracies swimming in Bill Gates’s money, starting with the WHO, would ever listen to Neil Ferguson again.
Yet this is a historical fact: flop after catastrophic flop, though they have cost—literally—many billions of dollars and terrible human suffering, Neil Ferguson has remained, over the years, the most influential epidemic modeler in the world. And he has remained on Bill Gates’ payroll.
Was Ferguson’s COVID model precisely what Bill Gates wanted?
Two interesting things happened right after Neil Ferguson published his COVID model. The first was that Bill Gates’ Microsoft apparently took over Ferguson’s model and didn’t let anyone see the code (take a look especially at Ferguson’s second tweet in his thread on this).
The second was that Bill Gates publicly called Ferguson’s model “too negative” because, he said, an even swifter imposition of more draconian lockdowns than even Ferguson had recommended would avoid, he said, the many deaths Ferguson had predicted.16
Gates, you will notice, was not really criticizing Ferguson. He was accepting Ferguson’s nonsense predictions of COVID deaths if lockdowns were not imposed and urging that Ferguson’s recommended policies—the lockdown suspension of citizen rights and liberties—be made harsher and adopted faster. In fact, Gates praised the Chinese lockdowns, the most draconian in the world, imposed by a totalitarian government.
This was an instance of a much larger production, with Gates starring as himself in a multitude of articles, news shows, interviews, and documentaries that made him the world’s most visible and ardent advocate for defining COVID as a ‘catastrophic emergency,’ which Neil Ferguson’s COVID model helped him do. He was indefatigable.
So we must ask:
Was Bill Gates making money on Ferguson’s nonsense forecasts?
The Machiavellian hypothesis, as stated earlier, asserts that Gates and his bureaucratic cronies are after power, because emergency lockdowns habituate us to the imposition of totalitarian control. But money is itself power, so the hypothesis is further strengthened if Gates makes even more money with Ferguson’s nonsense models.
And he does. This is easily established.
The lockdowns Gates relentlessly campaigned for increased everyone’s dependency on Big Tech for remote communications. The effect was dramatic. On 27 July 2021, the headline in The Guardian was: “Google, Apple and Microsoft report record-breaking profits: ‘Perfect positive storm’ for big tech as pandemic fuels huge quarterly sales and stock market gains.” Apple, wealthiest company in the world, had had its “best fiscal third quarter in its 45-year history”: $21.7 billion in profit. “Microsoft, too, beat expectations, reporting revenues of over $46bn (£33bn) for the quarter—a rise of 21% compared to the same quarter last year.” In consequence, for these tech companies, “share prices have soared during the pandemic,” wrote The Guardian.17
Gates is heavily invested in Microsoft, of course, but also in Apple. Famously, it was Gates’ 150 million investment in Apple that once saved the latter company from bankruptcy.18 Since then, Gates acquired a 2.7 billion stake (yes, billion) in Apple.19
The way out of the lockdowns, Gates urged the world in his ubiquitous media appearances, was for everyone to get the Big Pharma COVID ‘vaccines.’ Governments around the world didn’t merely recommend these inoculations—which the taxpayers footed the bill for—they coerced people to get injected. The pharmaceutical companies made (many) billions from this rent-seeking arrangement. And so did Bill Gates, one of the world’s bigest investors in Big Pharma.
In a recent investigation,
“The Nation found close to $250 million in charitable grants from the Gates Foundation to companies in which the foundation holds corporate stocks and bonds: Merck, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Vodafone, Sanofi …”20
Bill Gates has giant investments also in Pfizer, BioNTech, CureVac, Vir Biotechnology, and others.21
The pharmaceutical companies receiving these ‘charitable’ donations are called ‘Big Pharma’ for having annual profits into the billions of dollars. Bill Gates is one of the most important investors in Big Pharma.
Writes The Nation:
“the [Gates] foundation is doing more than simply partnering with [pharmaceutical] companies: It is subsidizing their research costs, opening up markets for their products, and bankrolling their bottom lines in ways that, by and large, have never been publicly examined (…)
[Gates’] foundation has given money to groups that push for industry-friendly government policies and regulation, including the Drug Information Association (directed by Big Pharma) (…)
the Gates Foundation has been a strong and consistent supporter of intellectual property rights, including for the pharmaceutical companies with which it works closely. These patent protections are widely criticized for making lifesaving drugs prohibitively expensive, particularly in the developing world. (…)”22
And Bill Gates’ activities—his philanthropy in the health space—has made so much money for the Big Pharma companies he invests in that Gates has become something of a Big Pharma world leader.
You may recall from above that the Wellcome Trust—the other major donor to the US National Institutes of Health (NIH)—is happy to let Gates decide how their donated monies are spent. That is significant because the Wellcome Trust is Big Pharma.23
Get MOR for your inbox!
This is all consistent with the Machiavellian hypothesis.
And Gates, as we saw above, has already locked in agreements with the US and UK health agencies and the World Health Organization to coordinate “to strengthen global response to future pandemics.” Not surprisingly, Gates is already saying that he expects another pandemic soon “which could be far worse than COVID.”24 Such claims—if heeded—may institutionalize the state of emergency from which Gates, perhaps more than anyone, personally profits.
In closing, let us observe that the Machiavellian hypothesis is further strengthened if Big Pharma—for whom Bill Gates has become a financier, world leader, and spokesperson—can be shown to have a frankly psychopathic business model, as I will consider in a future piece:
‘Crazy and Evil’: Bill Gates Surprised by Pandemic Conspiracies; Haaretz; 27 January 2021; by Reuters.
Kennedy Jr., Robert F. The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health. Children’s Health Defense. Skyhorse. Kindle Edition. (p. 634).
‘Gates Foundation Donations to WHO Nearly Match Those From U.S. Government’; 29 May 2020; US NEWS & WORLD REPORT; By Deidre McPhillips.
“The United States historically has been the largest direct donor to WHO with a contribution of $604.2 million in 2018–2019 … That year BMGF [Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation] gave $431.3 million and GAVI [Gates’ creation] gave $316.5 million. Plus, Gates also routes funding to WHO through SAGE [the WHO’S Strategic Advisory Group of Experts] and UNICEF [strongly funded by BMGF] and Rotary International [“the Gates Foundation and Rotary began working together in 2007”], bringing his cumulative total contributions to over $1 billion, making Gates the unofficial top sponsor of the WHO…” [my emphasis]
SOURCE: The Real Anthony Fauci… (op. cit) pp. 631-632
‘MHRA awarded over £980,000 for collaboration with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the World Health Organisation’; Press Release, MHRA; 15 December 2017.
‘MHRA and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to look at the safer, effective use of medicines during pregnancy’; Press Release, MHRA; 17 December 2019.
‘UK and US agree new partnership to fight future pandemics and tackle health inequalities’; Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC); 10 June 2021.
Matthews, K. R., & Ho, V. (2008). The grand impact of the Gates Foundation: Sixty billion dollars and one famous person can affect the spending and research focus of public agencies. EMBO reports, 9(5), 409-412.
The Real Anthony Fauci… (op. cit) p.616
‘What's behind Trump's striking reversal on the coronavirus timeline?’; ABC NEWS; 30 March 2020; By Jordyn Phelps and Ben Gittleson.
Question: If a scientist has been making forecasts that are consistently off by as much as three to six orders of magnitude, and policies based on those forecasts have cost billions of dollars and harmed millions of people, should that modeler be advising government on policy?
chatGPT3’s Answer: If a scientist has been making forecasts that are consistently off by as much as three to six orders of magnitude, and the policies based on those forecasts have cost billions of dollars and harmed millions of people, it would raise serious concerns about the scientist's credibility and expertise. In such cases, it would be appropriate for policymakers to reevaluate the scientist's role in advising on policy decisions.
Scientific models and forecasts are an important tool for policymakers in making informed decisions, but they must be used with caution and with a clear understanding of their limitations and uncertainties. If policies based on flawed or inaccurate forecasts have resulted in significant harm or negative outcomes, it is important to identify the root causes of the errors and take steps to address them.
In some cases, the errors may be due to shortcomings in the underlying data or models used to generate the forecasts. In other cases, the errors may be due to biases or assumptions in the way the forecasts were developed or communicated. Regardless of the cause of the errors, it is important for policymakers to thoroughly evaluate the reliability and accuracy of any forecasts before using them to inform policy decisions, and to seek out multiple sources of information and expert guidance to ensure that their decisions are based on accurate and actionable information.
In cases where a scientist has consistently produced inaccurate or unreliable forecasts that have resulted in significant harm or negative outcomes, it may be appropriate for policymakers to reconsider the scientist's role in advising on policy decisions. This could involve seeking out alternative sources of information or expertise, or taking steps to improve the reliability and accuracy of the scientist's models and forecasts through additional research, data collection, or peer review. Ultimately, the goal should be to ensure that policymakers have access to the most reliable and accurate information possible to inform their decisions and minimize the potential for harm or negative outcomes.
‘Bill Gates was an angry, difficult boss in early Microsoft days—here’s why employees still liked him’; CNBC Make it; 24 February 2020; by Rainer Zitelmann.
‘Bill Gates Admits He Was a Nightmare Boss’; Vanity Fair; 1 February 2016; by Jane Fox.
Four Microsoft employees accuse Bill Gates of being an office ‘bully’ whose catchphrase was ‘that’s the stupidest f*****g idea I’ve ever heard’ and claim he pursued sexual affairs with employees and journalists; Daily Mail; 30 June 2021; by Adam Schrader.
Four Microsoft employees accuse Bill Gates… (op cit)
Bill Gates says US lockdowns should have come sooner to slow the coronavirus’ spread, and that social distancing ‘can get the cases down to low levels’; Business Insider; 19 March 2020; by Holly Secon.
‘Google, Apple and Microsoft report record-breaking profits’; The Guardian; 27 July 2021; Rupert Neate and Dominic Rushe.
‘When Microsoft saved Apple: Steve Jobs and Bill Gates show eliminating competition isn’t the only way to win’; CNBC; 29 August 2017; by Catherine Clifford.
‘Why Microsoft founder Bill Gates owns a $2.7 billion stake in Apple’; Yahoo Finance; 5 February 2020; by Anastasia Santoreneos.
‘Bill Gates’s Charity Paradox’; The Nation; 17 March 2020; by Tim Schwab.
‘4 Coronavirus Vaccine Stocks the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Is Betting On’; The Motley Fool; 24 September 2020; By Keith Speights.
‘Bill Gates’s Charity Paradox…’ (op. cit.)
“Drug developer Sir Henry Wellcome established Wellcome Trust with a donation of his stock in Burroughs Wellcome, the British pharmaceutical behemoth. In 1995, the Trust sold its stock to Burroughs Wellcome’s chief competitor, GlaxoSmithKline [GSK], to facilitate the merger of England’s two pharmaceutical giants. Wellcome Trust’s $30 billion endowment makes it the world’s fourth-largest foundation and the globe’s most prodigious financier of biomedical research.”
SOURCE: The Real Anthony Fauci… (op. cit.) p. 753
‘Bill Gates call for huge global effort to prepare for future pandemics’; The Guardian; 4 November 2021; by Ian Sample.