Did BILL GATES order the COVID lockdowns?
Is Bill Gates 'il capo di tutti capi'? Is he everybody's boss?
Nobody would have predicted that I and Dr. [Anthony] Fauci would be so
prominent in these really evil theories.
—Bill Gates1
It was by weaponizing our values and emotions that our governments imposed the COVID lockdowns, which abolished fundamental liberties and plunged 150 million people into extreme poverty.
The lockdowns were not lifted except on condition that we renounce our most sacred human right: sovereignty over our bodies.
To justify themselves, our authorities wielded Professor Neil Ferguson’s COVID model, endorsed by the World Health Organization (WHO).
But who was ultimately behind all that? Was it BILL GATES?
Well, Bill Gates is 1) the boss of Neil Ferguson; and 2) the boss of … the WHO!
Early in the COVID crisis Neil Ferguson—a professor at Imperial College (London) specializing in modeling epidemics and such—authored a computer model that predicted COVID would produce unheard-of numbers of fatalities for an infectious disease in the modern world: 2.7 million people just in the United States and Great Britain! Everybody should be put on lockdown, was his recommendation.
This singularly influential—but now infamous—COVID model made a poor forecast. The official death toll came in at only 7-8% of Ferguson’s prediction, quite in spite of health policies that made COVID worse—including the lockdowns themselves—and in spite of various tricks that were employed to artificially inflate the official numbers.
I have considered two possibilities to explain the twin facts of Ferguson’s spectacular scientific failure yet enormous—unprecedented—policy success: incompetence and Machiavellianism.
Any consideration of the innocence hypothesis must deal with an important historical fact: long before COVID, Ferguson had established already, over many years, a consistent pattern of failure: his every major model and policy recommendation had been a scientific disaster. Moreover, thanks to his tremendous influence with policymakers, each of Ferguson’s major models had also been a human and economic disaster whose costs were borne by millions of people.
Ferguson’s COVID model was no exception.
I can understand that, on first glimpse, it may seem as if the above is good evidence in favor of the incompetence hypothesis. But I argue—to the contrary—that this evidence in fact fatally undermines the incompetence hypothesis. For two reasons.
The first is the sheer scale of incompetence that must be invoked. In the models he produced before COVID times, Ferguson had missed the mark by one, three, and even six orders of magnitude. In 2005 he predicted that 200,000,000 (two-hundred million!) people would die of bird flu; total fatalities (worldwide) came in at 282.
The problem is not that Ferguson was wrong—the problem is that a chicken pecking at graph paper would have done better. Ferguson is a ‘modeler’ in the same way that someone who shoots himself in the foot is a ‘marksman.’
Secondly, since Ferguson’s bosses tolerate his every failure and, moreover, seek him again and again for projections and policy recommendations (as if he were a genius instead of a once-in-a-generation scientific flop), these bosses must be presumed incompetent on Ferguson’s astonishing world-champion level—devoid even of primitive faculties for behavioral modification in response to costs and benefits that even the simplest animals (without nervous systems) such as sponges and single-celled organisms can pull off.
If you can agree with me that the necessary incompetence in this case is at least implausible, then we must give a fair hearing to some alternative, Machiavellian hypothesis—an ‘evil theory,’ as Bill Gates would say.
One Machiavellian hypothesis says that the powerful Western bosses mean to strip Western citizens of their rights and liberties. To this end, they are working hard to:
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—which abolish basic rights and liberties—as something legitimate.
So the bosses regularly trot out this dishonest flunkie—Ferguson—to make nonsense predictions of catastrophe with which to justify draconian policies.
In support of this Machiavellian hypothesis I have considered 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 the right virus allowed them to sell Ferguson’s catastrophic predictions effectively to the public. At long last, this happened with COVID.
The Machiavellian hypothesis, however, must row upriver against a prejudice widespread among natives of WEIRD (Western, university-Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic) ‘polite society’: the conspiracy theory taboo. This taboo throws extra bales of weight on the burden of proof.
Yet this burden can be met.
One important hurdle that 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. That will be my quarry.
Indeed, I will present evidence below to suggest that Neil Ferguson is but a fleck of foam on a tidal wave loosed by a submarine earthquake of totalitarian corruption. And I will give that earthquake of corruption a name: Bill Gates.
Neil Ferguson, and everyone he influences, have 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.
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 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 is an important figure.
Indeed, apparently all (or almost all) of Ferguson’s income comes from Gates.
Imperial College’s latest financial statement reports that grants, research grants, research contracts, and donations—the very categories in which Gates contributes and from which Ferguson makes most of his money—together account for well over half of Imperial’s income. According to Vipul Naik’s preliminary analysis, the Wellcome Trust has donated £400,322,589 and the Gates Foundation £184,872,228 to Imperial. Incidentally, Wellcome allocates donations according to the wishes of Bill Gates (see below). These are, by far, the two biggest donors. I dare say Imperial College—Ferguson’s employer—cannot survive without Gates.
It appears the entire research space on ‘health’ in the UK subsists largely on Gates’ money. It was reported in 2021 that, just over the previous 5 years, Gates had distributed £1 billion for health-related research to key UK universities (including Imperial College, of course).3
But it hardly stops there.
The World Health Organization (WHO) has also employed Neil Ferguson as director of its Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Modelling (no less). And guess what? Bill Gates likewise pays Ferguson’s salary at the WHO, because Bill Gates showers 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.4 It conveys the message that the US government gives the WHO just a bit more than Bill Gates. That would already be amazing, but it’s worse. The graph doesn’t reflect the indirect contributions that Gates makes to the WHO. When those are counted, even the US government gives the WHO less money than Bill Gates.5
Now, since the whole lockdown business began in the UK, it is interesting to observe that Bill Gates has been working hard to strengthen the WHO’s tentacles, tightening the WHO’s grip over the health bureaucracies of the United Kingdom, with a special focus on questions of medical-emergency response.
In the UK, disease surveillance and emergency preparedness and response, were once housed in the executive agency Public Health England (PHE), within its Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), Wikipedia explains. Upon a Freedom of Information request, it has been acknowledged that
“PHE has received grants from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for work in public health which aligns to our strategic priorities, through contracts to support research commissioned by the Gates Foundation.”6
Then, 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.
I say that because, shortly before the transfer of “health protection functions” from PHE to UKHSA, the British government announced (June 2021) a
“landmark partnership 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 this officially celebrated “landmark partnership,”
“the UK–US partnership … will work with global partners including the World Health Organization (WHO) and philanthropic funders, like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.”7
That was the only “philanthropic funder” specifically named!
Consider now the functional articulations. During the COVID-19 crisis, PHE and then UKHSA—which Gates funds to ensure policy coordination on pandemic response with the Gates Foundation—supplied the United Kingdom’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) with critical information on alleged infection rates, alleged transmission patterns, and public health interventions, which SAGE then used to make policy recommendations.
Now, it appears that Bill Gates was not giving money to SAGE itself, as an institution. But perhaps he didn’t need to, as his key asset Neil Ferguson also had a perch at SAGE, where he proved to be the decisive influence—so much that, in the media, they called him ‘Professor Lockdown,’ identifying him as the single person most obviously responsible for SAGE’s recommendation to force lockdowns on formerly free citizens.
If all that weren’t enough, 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 (BMGF).
Most interestingly, shortly before the COVID crisis, the BMGF awarded a grant to the MHRA for “over £980,000” to strengthen “collaboration [of the MHRA] with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the World Health Organisation [WHO].”8
How tightly did they collaborate?
The MHRA played a crucial role in the approval and regulation of the COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ that Bill Gates and the WHO so energetically pushed for everyone to get if they wanted to get out of the lockdowns—lockdowns imposed on the authority of Bill Gates’ pet modeler Neil Ferguson, whose model was endorsed by the WHO (which employs Neil Ferguson and survives on Bill Gates’ donations), and then by the UK’s SAGE (whose data came from Gates’ influenced PHE and UKHSA, and where the key advisor was… Neil Ferguson).
Hm…
Perhaps incompetence is not the best explanation for why, despite Neil Ferguson’s track record, his nonsense COVID model was quickly endorsed by the WHO, and why UK policymakers quickly adopted Ferguson’s insane 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.
As mentioned, Bill Gates awarded monies to the United Kingdom’s UKHSA in order to create a health-policy combine that would get the UKHSA and the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to coordinate more closely with the WHO and the Gates Foundation (see above).
Moreover, 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 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.9
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.’10 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)11
(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.)
Now, it is a fact that Dr. Anthony Fauci was in charge of the US response to the COVID crisis. It is also 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.12
The Machiavellian hypothesis
We have enough, I believe, to support a scientifically attractive (if politically scary) hypothesis.
Machiavellian Hypothesis. By spending money on the WHO, the UK health bureaucracies, and the US health bureaucracies—much of it specifically to bring these agencies together into a global, Gates-coordinated, health-policy combine—Bill Gates turned Neil Ferguson into “the epidemiologist that the whole world listens to,” as one French headline celebrated. And this is how Bill Gates got these combined agencies to do whatever his pet modeler recommended.
This is world power, because once those three—WHO, UK, and US—are moving in lockstep, they become tremendously influential over other countries, as the COVID crisis indeed demonstrated.
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 world power and that of his allies at the World Economic Forum.13
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 chatGPT, an artificial intelligence 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.”14
Well… duh. This exercise confirms only that chatGPT is not a complete idiot.
And yet, through his spectacular disasters, Neil Ferguson has not only survived on Bill Gates’ payroll, but 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 let us now ask:
Under what conditions will someone as catastrophic as Neil Ferguson—who is always spectacularly wrong and has harmed millions of people—keep the jobs and influence that his patron, Bill Gates, pays for?
Consider first a hypothetical scenario where Bill Gates really is a well-meaning philanthropist, as he claims to be, who just wants to make people better off. Under that assumption, Neil Ferguson can keep his jobs only if Bill Gates is:
supremely tolerant of incompetence; or
very shy about throwing his weight around; or
both.
Gates certainly cannot be described as “very shy about throwing his weight around.” He works very hard to get his way all over the world. So only one question remains: is he very tolerant of gross incompetence?
If he is, that can explain why Neil Ferguson has survived on his payroll.
But if he isn’t, it follows that Neil Ferguson cannot keep his jobs and influence—all of them arranged and paid for by Bill Gates—unless Ferguson has been giving Bill Gates precisely the bogus models that Bill Gates wants.
Our test, then, turns on the following question: Just how intolerant is Bill Gates of incompetence in his subordinates?
You should already suspect that ‘tolerant of incompetence’ cannot describe Gates, because nobody tolerant of incompetence can likely become the fourth-richest person in the world. But thankfully there is no need for us to speculate on this question, for much has been written about it—this 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.’ ”15
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.”16
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.”17
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.’ ”18
We have, then, that Bill Gates, the closest thing to a living god (his money is, for all practical purposes, infinite), gets what he wants because he pays for it, and woe betide those who upset him. He is violently intolerant of incompetence.
So, if Bill Gates were really interested in making people better off, what would he 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?With characteristic impoliteness, he’d say: “This is the stupidest piece of code ever written!” and “that’s the stupidest f*****g idea I’ve ever heard!”
And then he would fire Ferguson.
But Bill Gates did none of that. And he’s had ample opportunity, because Ferguson’s COVID model was not the exception—just the worst offender in a long list of scientific and human catastrophes (as I review elsewhere). Indeed, according to the National Review, “Ferguson has been wrong so often that some of his fellow modelers call him ‘The Master of Disaster.’ ”
And yet he stays on Bill Gates’ payroll!
Not only that. 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, consulted and followed by the very institutions that Bill Gates essentially controls.
We must therefore ask this question:
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.19
Gates—mind you—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—he was indefatigable—that made him the world’s most visible and ardent advocate for defining COVID as a ‘catastrophic emergency,’ an interpretation that Neil Ferguson’s model helped him to sell.
It does indeed appear that Neil Ferguson’s model was precisely what Bill Gates wanted and needed.
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. And since money is itself power, the hypothesis is further strengthened if Gates made even more money than he already was making thanks to Ferguson’s nonsense models.
And he did make more money. The added profits came from vastly increased remote communications and from Big Pharma COVID ‘vaccines.’ I will examine each in turn.
First, the lockdowns—which Gates relentlessly campaigned for—increased everyone’s dependency on Big Tech for remote communications. The effect of that on Gates’ income 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.20
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.21 Since then, Gates acquired a 2.7 billion stake (yes, billion) in Apple.22
The way out of the lockdowns, as 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 biggest investors in Big Pharma.
How big? 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 …”23
The Gates Foundation makes ‘charitable’ donations to giant pharmaceutical companies that make billions of dollars in profits (that’s why they call it Big Pharma)—companies in which Bill Gates invests his money. Don’t you just love that?
Gates also has giant investments in Pfizer, BioNTech, CureVac, Vir Biotechnology, and others.24
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. (…)”25
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.26
Thanks to Neil Ferguson’s model, then, Bill Gates made spectacular gains with both his software and Big Pharma investments. This is all consistent with the Machiavellian hypothesis.
Moreover, 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 has been saying that he expects another pandemic soon “which could be far worse than COVID.”27 Such claims—if heeded—may institutionalize the state of emergency from which Gates, perhaps more than anyone, personally profits.
A very big attempt to institutionalize all that is the pandemic treaty, which, if signed, would allow Bill Gates, from the WHO, to control essentially all of the world’s governments if another pandemic is declared. The first attempt to get the pandemic treaty signed failed, apparently. But they will keep trying.
‘Crazy and Evil’: Bill Gates Surprised by Pandemic Conspiracies; Haaretz; 27 January 2021; by Reuters.
https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/2021-01-27/ty-article/crazy-and-evil-bill-gates-surprised-by-pandemic-conspiracies/0000017f-f039-d497-a1ff-f2b993420000
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).
‘Bill Gates warns on aid cuts after £1 billion UK spend’; Times Higher Education; 5 November 2021; by Chris Havergal
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/bill-gates-warns-aid-cuts-after-ps1billion-ukspend
‘Gates Foundation Donations to WHO Nearly Match Those From U.S. Government’; 29 May 2020; US NEWS & WORLD REPORT; By Deidre McPhillips.
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2020-05-29/gates-foundation-donations-to-who-nearly-match-those-from-us-government
“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
‘UK and US agree new partnership to fight future pandemics and tackle health inequalities’; Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC); 10 June 2021.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-and-us-agree-new-partnership-to-fight-future-pandemics-and-tackle-health-inequalities
‘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.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/mhra-awarded-over-980000-for-collaboration-with-the-bill-and-melinda-gates-foundation-and-the-world-health-organisation
‘MHRA and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to look at the safer, effective use of medicines during pregnancy’; Press Release, MHRA; 17 December 2019.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/mhra-and-the-bill-melinda-gates-foundation-to-look-at-the-safer-effective-use-of-medicines-during-pregnancy
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. writes:
Two years after Gates announced IAVI, he summoned Dr. Fauci to Seattle to propose a partnership that, two decades later, would have profound impacts on humanity. Dr. Fauci first met Bill and Melinda Gates during that Seattle trip. Ostensibly for a conversation about combating tuberculosis, the Microsoft billionaire had invited the NIAID chief to a muster of global health honchos at his 40,000-square-foot, $127 million mansion rising from forty wooded acres on the banks of Lake Washington. After dinner, Gates culled Fauci from the herd and corralled him into his spectacular blue-domed library overlooking the lake. Fauci remembered: “Melinda was showing everyone on a tour of the house. And he said, ‘Can I have some time with you in my library,’ this amazingly beautiful library. . . . And we sat down. And it was there that he said, ‘Tony, you run the biggest infectious disease institute of the world. And I want to be sure the money I spend is well spent. Why don’t we really get to know each other? Why don’t we be partners?’”
SOURCE: 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) (p. 599). Skyhorse. Kindle Edition.
The following New York Times podcast is the source for the key moment when Gates and Fauci began their intimate partnership:
‘Can Bill Gates Vaccinate the World?’; The New York Times; 3 March 2021; Hosted by Michael Barbaro; produced by Austin Mitchell, Rachelle Bonja and Leslye Davis; edited by M.J. Davis Lin; and engineered by Corey Schreppel.
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.
https://www.embopress.org/doi/full/10.1038/embor.2008.52
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.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-striking-reversal-coronavirus-timeline/story?id=69876573
I had the following exchange with chatGPT (which now searches the web for updated information). I asked, “Does Gates fund the WEF?” I got the following reply:
Bill Gates has been closely associated with the World Economic Forum (WEF) for many years. Here’s a summary of their relationship:
1. Participation and Leadership: Gates has frequently participated in WEF annual meetings held in Davos, Switzerland. He often speaks on issues related to global health, development, and technology.
2. Philanthropy: Through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Gates collaborates with WEF on various global initiatives, particularly in areas such as health, poverty alleviation, and education. The foundation's work aligns with many of the WEF’s goals of addressing global challenges.
3. Influence and Advocacy: Gates' involvement in the WEF also includes advocating for policies and strategies to tackle global issues. His views and the Gates Foundation’s work often influence discussions and initiatives within the WEF framework.
4. Partnerships: The Gates Foundation partners with WEF on specific projects and initiatives aimed at improving global health and development outcomes. These collaborations help bring attention and resources to critical global challenges.
Overall, Gates and the WEF share a common interest in addressing global issues and promoting sustainable development, with Gates’ involvement adding significant expertise and focus to these efforts.
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 answered:
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.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/24/bill-gates-was-difficult-boss-in-early-microsoft-days-but-employees-still-liked-him.html
‘Bill Gates Admits He Was a Nightmare Boss’; Vanity Fair; 1 February 2016; by Jane Fox.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/02/bill-gates-admits-he-was-a-nightmare-boss
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.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9739145/Four-Microsoft-employees-accuse-Bill-Gates-office-bully-pursued-sexual-affairs.html
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.
https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-gates-coronavirus-social-distancing-reddit-ama-2020-3?r=MX&IR=T
‘Google, Apple and Microsoft report record-breaking profits’; The Guardian; 27 July 2021; Rupert Neate and Dominic Rushe.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/jul/27/google-apple-and-microsoft-to-report-record-breaking-profits
‘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.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/29/steve-jobs-and-bill-gates-what-happened-when-microsoft-saved-apple.html
‘Why Microsoft founder Bill Gates owns a $2.7 billion stake in Apple’; Yahoo Finance; 5 February 2020; by Anastasia Santoreneos.
https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/microsoft-founder-bill-gates-owns-billions-apple-232946230.html
‘Bill Gates’s Charity Paradox’; The Nation; 17 March 2020; by Tim Schwab.
https://web.archive.org/web/20210310230247/https:/www.thenation.com/article/society/bill-gates-foundation-philanthropy/
‘4 Coronavirus Vaccine Stocks the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Is Betting On’; The Motley Fool; 24 September 2020; By Keith Speights.
https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/09/24/4-coronavirus-vaccine-stocks-the-bill-melinda-gate/
‘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.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/04/bill-gates-call-for-huge-global-effort-to-prepare-for-future-pandemics