Did BILL GATES order the COVID lockdowns?

Is Bill Gates ‘il capo di tutti capi’? Is he everybody’s boss?

Francisco Gil-White | August 8, 2024

Bill Gates. Credit: Ian Langsdon/Pool/REUTERS

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 worseincluding 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:

  1. impoverish the citizens, because poor citizens find it harder to defend themselves, as they lack resources and must focus entirely on survival;
  2. 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!

Continue Reading Article

August 11, 2024 | 2 Comments »

Leave a Reply

2 Comments / 2 Comments

  1. Gill-White is correct that Bill Gates is the world’s “Capo di Tutti Capi.” The ultimate boss of the WHO mafia. A one-man threat to the survival of the human race. He has openly proclaimed that his goal is to reduce the world’s human population by 95 percent by 2100, supposedly to rescue the survivors from “global warming.”

  2. haveknown for some years that Gates was behind the Covid lockdowns. The whole operation was planned and acted out on a kind of large game board at a conference on the campus of tJohns Hopkins University. The the “players”of the game were all officials of every one of the “democratic” countries of the world, plus a representative of the World Health Organization and one from China. Hundreds of officials of health regulatiory agencies from nearly every country in the world were invited to this invitation before the lockdown was was imposed worldwide. Bill Gates gave the opening address to the assembled “players” and delegates. The very first cases of the Covid virus were reported in Wuhan, China, even while the conference was still going on.

    The game-plan outlined at the conference predicted more than 140 deaths from the soon-to-be-released virus. The ‘players” did identify the virus to be released as part of the Covid “family” of viruses that had first been detected by scientists, and had already caused some illnesses and deaths about ten years before.

    The Covid virus that was first detected by Chinese health officials in Wuhan in October 19 proved to be something of a flop from the point of view of Gates and his “players,” The death toll worldwide death proved to be considerably leess than the 140 million predicted by Gates and his operatives, even after the worldwide lockdown was implemented. But hell, you can’t blame a man for trying, can you?