How Bill Gates and his Foundation Fund Facebook’s Fact Checking

Last Updated on November 21, 2021 by Shaun Snapp

Executive Summary

  • Bill Gates has bought off Facebook to censor content that opposes Bill Gates’ Foundation.

Introduction

Bill Gates has bought off Facebook to censor articles that oppose and tell the truth on Bill Gates.

Our References for This Article

If you want to see our references for this article and related Brightwork articles, visit this link.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s Donations to the NIH

The statement made by Max Blumenthal that the person who censored Sandanistas in Nicaragua is part of something called the Minerva Research Initiative, which is out of the Pentagon. This means that Facebook censors users and articles both for Bill Gates and for the Pentagon. 

What is the Minerva Research Initiative

I went to their website to see what they say about themselves.

The Minerva Research Initiative supports social science research aimed at improving our basic understanding of security, broadly defined. All supported projects are university-based and unclassified, with the intention that all work be shared widely to support thriving stable and safe communities. The goal is to improve DoD’s basic understanding of the social, cultural, behavioral, and political forces that shape regions of the world of strategic importance to the U.S. – Minerva 

This smells like a lot of lies. You can read it five times and still not understand what it means. And according to Max Blumenthal, they pay off social media companies to censor speech they don’t like.

There is little on this website. They have around 9 blog posts that are rambling and idiotic and don’t have any clear direction. It would be very interesting to see how Minerva distributes money to social media companies. 

Fact Checking Media Entities With Undisclosed Financial Ties

This is addressed in the following quotation.

A so-called independent fact-checker website FactCheck.org is exposed to be funded by the same $1.9 billion vaccine lobby group that it is supposed to check. The site is a Facebook partner whose articles are used to censor critical voices on the social media platform. It is headed by the former CDC director, which is again a conflit of interest.

Robert Malone is one of the inventors of mRNA technology. He completely opposes how the mRNA vaccine have been developed.

Naturally, the Atlantic, flush with pharma money, decided to write an article discrediting Malone. Let us review some of the quotes.

In that alternate media universe, Robert Malone’s star is ascendant. He started popping up on podcasts and cable news shows a few months ago, presented as a scientific expert, arguing that the approval process for the vaccines had been unwisely rushed.

What is the problem with his star being ascendant? He knows much more about mRNA vaccines than does Fauci, and The Atlantic has no problems with Fauci near domination of the interview circuit.

Secondly, the vaccines are both not effective and have been rushed. Looking at the studies submitted by the FDA, I see no reason the Emergency Use Authorization was approved as I cover in the article How Safe Are the Covid Vaccines? There is no question about those points.

He told Tucker Carlson that the public doesn’t have enough information to decide whether to get vaccinated. He told Glenn Beck that offering incentives for taking vaccines is unethical. He told Del Bigtree, an anti-vaccine activist who opposes common childhood inoculations, that there hadn’t been sufficient research on how the vaccines might affect women’s reproductive systems.

Yes these assertions are all true — however notice how The Atlantic article just states what Malone says without addressing these claims.

Wherever he appears, Malone is billed as the inventor of mRNA vaccines. It’s in his Twitter bio. “I literally invented mRNA technology when I was 28,” says Malone, who is now 61. If that’s true—or, more to the point, if Malone believes it to be true—then you might expect him to be championing a very different message in his media appearances.

This is a moronic claim. Just because one invents something decades ago, does not mean that they approve of its use in every circumstance. Did Robert Oppenheimer who led the Manhattan Project need to approve of the mega bombs that Edwin Teller proposed to the government?

Yet instead of taking a victory lap, Malone has emerged as one of the most vocal critics of his own alleged accomplishment.

Again, not a valid critique.

Malone says he deserves credit for more than just sparking hope. He dropped out of graduate school in 1988, just short of his Ph.D., and went to work at a pharmaceutical company called Vical. Now he claims that both the Salk Institute and Vical profited from his work and essentially prevented him from further pursuing his research. (A Salk Institute spokesperson said that nothing in the institute’s records substantiates Malone’s allegations.

Well, Salk would probably say that, wouldn’t they? Malone claims his work was stolen by an Indian named Inder Verma, who has recently been outed as a multi-decade sexual harasser who abused his power. For anyone who has worked with Indians, this is what Indians do.

This article by The Atlantic goes on and on, but the primary claim of the article is that Malone can’t be as prominent in the history of the development of mRNA technology if he opposes mRNA vaccines. The article contains good information, but its claims against Malone are moronic. And nowhere does The Atlantic disclose its financial ties to vaccine benefiting contributors.

This article discusses how Gates controls media entities through “charitable donations.” 

This video explains how Gates controls media and his fake charity. 

Conclusion

When Bill Gates buys off establishment media and social media companies to censor independent coverage, it makes it difficult to find out what is really happening.