Last Updated on February 5, 2022 by Shaun Snapp
- The covid forecast model used as a rationale to justify lockdowns has been exposed as science fraud.
- This model was funded by Bill Gates to be deliberately exaggerated.
Bill Gates-funded research that was designed to be wrong but fit with the objectives of Bill Gates to exaggerate a pandemic. This is faux research at Imperial College and a lesser-known model from The University of Washington. We will explore the financial bias of these models.
Our References for This Article
If you want to see our references for this article and related Brightwork articles, visit this link.
Financial Bias of Gates Foundation Funding for Imperial College and The University of Washington
Two major models are being used in the West since the alleged spread of coronavirus to Europe and USA to “predict” and respond to the spread of COVID-19 illness. One was developed at Imperial College of London. The second was developed, with emphasis on USA effects, by the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) in Seattle, near the home of Microsoft founder Bill Gates. What few know is that both groups owe their existence to generous funding by a tax exempt foundation that stands to make literally billions on purported vaccines and other drugs to treat coronavirus—The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. – Global Research
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a fake charity that exclusively supports false science that is then used to support the business interests of Bill Gates. As soon as this foundation funds anything, it means that the results will be false, as is covered in this article.
In early March, Prof. Neil Ferguson, head of the MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis at Imperial College London issued a widely-discussed model that forecast possible COVID-19 deaths in the UK as high as 500,000. Ferguson works closely with the WHO. Ferguson and his Imperial College modelers have a notorious track record for predicting dire consequences of diseases. In 2002 Ferguson predicted that up to 50,000 people in UK would die from variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, “mad cow disease”, possibly to 150,000 if the epidemic expanded to include sheep. A total of 178 people were officially registered dead from vCJD. In 2005, Ferguson claimed that up to 200 million (!) people worldwide would be killed by bird-flu or H5N1. By early 2006, the WHO had only linked 78 deaths to the virus. Then in 2009 Ferguson’s group at Imperial College advised the government that swine flu or H1N1 would probably kill 65,000 people in the UK. In the end, swine flu claimed the lives of 457 people. Ferguson and his Imperial College group have a notoriously bad track record for predicting disease consequences. – Global Research
Why was anyone at this point listening to Nail Ferguson’s forecasts?
This forecast accuracy was never evaluated before approving the lockdowns.
What Dr. Fauic Based His Lockdown Recommendation Upon
Yet the same Ferguson group at Imperial College, with WHO endorsement, was behind the panic numbers that triggered a UK government lockdown. Ferguson was also the source of the wild “prediction” that 2.2 million Americans would likely die if immediate lockdown of the US economy did not occur. Based on the Ferguson model, Dr Anthony Fauci of NIAID reportedly confronted President Trump and pressured him to declare a national health emergency.
Neil Ferguson and his modelling group at Imperial College, in addition to being backed by WHO, receive millions from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Ferguson heads the Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium at Imperial College which lists as its funders the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Gates-backed GAVI-the vaccine alliance. From 2006 through 2018 the Gates Foundation has invested an impressive $184,872,226.99 into Ferguson’s Imperial College modeling operations. Notably, the Gates foundation began pouring millions into Ferguson’s modelling operation well after his catastrophic lack of accuracy was known, leading some to suggest Ferguson is another “science for hire” operation. – Global Research
None of the funding of Imperial College was reviewed before following the lockdown path. Curiously, the WHO, which was instrumental in exaggerating the impact of covid, is a co-founder, right along with Bill Gates.
Bill Gates Corrupt University of Washington IHME Fake Forecasting Mill
Like Neil Ferguson at the Imperial College London, the University of Washington’s IHME is another project of the Gates Foundation. It was created in 2007 with a major grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. In May 2015 IHME and the World Health Organization signed a major agreement to collaborate on data used to estimate world health trends. Then in 2017 IHME got an additional $279 million from the Gates Foundation to expand its work over the next decade. That, in addition to another a $210 million gift in 2016 from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to fund construction of a new building to house several UW units working in population health, including IHME. In other words, IHME has been a crucial piece of the Gates global health strategy for more than 13 years. – Global Research
Naturally, Bill Gates calls any accusations that he was instrumental in driving the coronavirus panic with his corrupt funding is called a conspiracy theory by Bill Gates. However, what he can’t argue is that any of the pandemic forecasts that he funds are accurate, and he can’t explain why they constantly produce exaggerated forecasts.
Microsoft co-founder turned philanthropist Bill Gates says he has been taken aback by the volume of “crazy” and “evil” conspiracy theories about him spreading on social media during the COVID-19 pandemic, but said on Wednesday he would like to explore what is behind them. – Reuters
The funny thing about this is that Bill Gates is listed as a philanthropist by Reuters when he is not. Bill Gates contributes to causes that allow him to either dodge taxes or influence public policy to benefit his business interests. His foundation also receives money from the US government, which is odd if he is a philanthropist.
Reuters On Conspiracy Theories
Since the pandemic began a year ago, millions of conspiracies have spread over the Internet, fuelling misinformation about the coronavirus, its origins and the motives of those working to fight it. They include claims that Fauci and Gates created the pandemic to try and control people, that they want to profit from the virus’ spread, and that they want to use vaccines to insert trackable microchips into people. – Reuters
Curiously, Reuters accuses those that provide evidence of Gates’ funding of false science of engaging in conspiracy theories and misinformation. Why does Reuters not consider the Imperial College and University of Washington’s discredited covid computer models misinformation? Do Reuters views and their fact checking have anything to do with their own financial connection to Pfizer as is covered in the article How the Fake Covid Fact Checker Reuters Does Not Disclose Pfizer Financial Connections?
Why Was Neil Furgeson Not Entirely Discredited Covid First Broke?
Neil Furgeson only had history of highly exaggerated pandemic forecasts when the covid pandemic began. He was one of the worst pandemic forecasters in the world. The following quotation is from March of 2020 and is very odd.
“A lot of it is not what they say, but who says it,” said Devi Sridhar, director of the global health governance program at Edinburgh University. “Neil Ferguson has a huge amount of influence.”
However, the question should be “Why?” That is why did Ferguson have any credibility left?
What this means is a person can have horrendous accuracy in previous predictions and continue to have a “huge amount of influence.”
Ferguson Declares The Only Option is to Lockdown
“The U.K. has struggled in the past few weeks in thinking about how to handle this outbreak long term,” Dr. Ferguson said in an interview on Monday, just after the report was released. “Based on our estimates and other teams’, there’s really no option but follow in China’s footsteps and suppress.”
Really. That is a curious observation. There was no history of the scientific literature supporting locking down societies, and since when do other countries take their ideas of what to do, and how to treat their citizens from China? But instead of using the scientific literature on this topic, Dr. Ferguson apparently concluded that his “Bill Gates” forecast model was the only thing that one should use to come to a determination.
The Facts Reuters Cannot Contradict
Gates did fund false science that was entirely baseless. Secondly, there is clear evidence that both Gates and Fauci exaggerated the pandemic.
Irrefutable Point #1: A Highly Exaggerated Pandemic Forecast
The Gates funding of false science at Imperial College and the University of Washington is irrefutable. This matches a pattern of rigged, exaggerated and highly inaccurate forecasts from both of these Gates funded institutions. If these institutions did not produce the exaggerated forecasts that allowed Gates to receive his desired ROI on his biotech investments, they would not longer receive funding from Bill Gates.
Irrefutable Point #2: Gates Investments Went Up Due to the Pandemic
Bill Gates made quite a lot of money from the pandemic, and there are many open questions regarding how much Fauci benefits from patents he has on virus technology that the Bayh Dole Act allows him to profit from. He has over $10.4 million in drug investments.
Let us see how Gates benefited from the pandemic from this quotation.
The (Gates) foundation reported a $40 million stake in CureVac– on of dozens of investments the foundation reports having in companies working on covid vaccines, theraputics, diagnostics or manufacturing…Revelations of the Gates Foundation’s financial stake in Covid-19, which Bill Gates does not appear to have publicly disclosed in dozens of recent media appearances, speak to broader criticisms about the lack of transparency in the foundation’s increasingly central role in the pandemic. “Who are they accountable to. They don’t even have a governance structure that is clear.” notes Kate Elder, senior vaccines policy advisor to Doctors Without Borders. “Increasingly, I see less information coming from the Gates Foundation. They don’t answer most of the questions. They don’t make their technical staff available for discussions with us when we’re trying to learn more about their technical strategy.” And Gates’ priorities in developing and distributing a covid vaccine, Elder says are increasingly the world’s priorities, as multilateral institutions like the WHO have ceded leadership to a group of public private partnerships where Gates provides key funding.
Jörg Schaaber, executive director of the German advocacy group BUKO Pharma-Kampagne, sees the Gates Foundation as having an ideological investment in this business model, pointing to many of the foundation’s senior staff who come from the pharmaceutical industry, including the president of Gates’s global health program. Other critics note how the Gates Foundation’s endowment could benefit from the foundation pushing Covid vaccine development toward exclusive licenses. – The Nation
Gates and Big Pharma — Conspiracy Theory or Conspiracy Fact?
Bill Gates likes to shoot down objective observations of collusion with pharmaceutical companies as crazed conspiracy theories. However, the linkages between the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are child’s play to trace. For years the Bill and Hillary Clinton Foundation maintained a positive reputation (among the left-leaning and ill-informed) until it was exposed as a faux charity that served as a money-laundering operation for the Clintons. The covid pandemic may finally be the point where the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is exposed for what it is, just a way to influence policy in a way that Bill Gates can maximize the returns on his investment portfolio.
Gates’ Self Incrimination
Observe how Gates essentially incriminates himself in the following quotation while actually meaning to brag about how much he collaborates with pharmaceutical companies.
“Our foundation has a lot of vaccine expertise and deep relationships with the manufacturers, and so, we’ve taken our staff and now are looking at each of these [potential vaccine] constructs and the data and making sure that for the ones that are the most promising, there is a plan to have multiple factories in Asia, multiple factories in the Americas, multiple factories in Europe…. We understand which of these vaccines we can scale up the production, and I’m hopeful that it will be at that large number, because the cooperation from the pharma companies, of saying, ‘yes, you can use my factory to make someone else’s vaccine,’ we’re getting a very good response to that, and that’s really unprecedented.”
During Gates’s remarks, he made no mention of his foundation’s investment in any pharmaceutical companies working on Covid. Similarly, in an August interview with Wired, the former head of Microsoft said that if he were infected with Covid, he would want to be prescribed the therapeutic drug Remdesivir—failing to mention his foundation’s stock position in the drug’s owner, Gilead, according to the charity’s most recent tax return, from 2018. (The foundation refused to provide details about its current investment portfolio.) – The Nation
The Asinine Way the White House Interpreted The Two Forecast Models
The way this quote is phrased is inconsistent with my understanding of who interpreted the forecast models. My understanding is that Fauci performed in interpretation and presented it to the White House. This is the appropriate role for the head of the infectious diseases division of the NIH, which is Fauci.
However, did Fauci not find it odd that there was no convergence between the Imperial College and UW models? One model is 2.2 million deaths and the other has an average of 100,00 deaths. That is a range from one to 20x. So the White House took a mid number of 170,000 deaths?
Typically one would say that the models are inconclusive, but instead, Fauci took a curious point between the two models.
How It Was Known the Bill Gates Funded Covid Models Were Unreliable
Many will say that claims around the inaccuracy of the Bill Gates funded models are an example of hindsight being 20/20. And that “no one could have known” how inaccurate the forecasts were. However, this is not true. Neil Ferguson already had a long history of being wrong about every pandemic forecast he had ever produced. And the UW IHME had no history of making any accurate predictions either.
Furthermore, it is not as if there were not others with expertise that criticized the covid forecast models at the time. One very well-established epidemiologist named John Ioannidis explained in an article in March of 2020 that the models were unreliable, as described in the following quotation.
The data collected so far on how many people are infected and how the epidemic is evolving are utterly unreliable. Given the limited testing to date, some deaths and probably the vast majority of infections due to SARS-CoV-2 are being missed. We don’t know if we are failing to capture infections by a factor of three or 300. Three months after the outbreak emerged, most countries, including the U.S., lack the ability to test a large number of people and no countries have reliable data on the prevalence of the virus in a representative random sample of the general population. This evidence fiasco creates tremendous uncertainty about the risk of dying from Covid-19. Reported case fatality rates, like the official 3.4% rate from the World Health Organization, cause horror — and are meaningless. Patients who have been tested for SARS-CoV-2 are disproportionately those with severe symptoms and bad outcomes. – Statnews
Ioannidis’ Warning About Making Projections Without Sufficient Data
If we decide to jump off the cliff, we need some data to inform us about the rationale of such an action and the chances of landing somewhere safe.
However, John Ioannidis was ignored entirely (in terms of setting policy), as was the previous scientific literature that recommended against lockdowns.
Instead, the world listened to what was in effect people being remotely controlled by Bill Gates. Furthermore, no one was told that these forecast models were funded by Bill Gates, nor Bill Gates’ financial connections gave him a strong financial incentive to promote a pandemic. None of this was explained to the public.
Gates Foundation Funds the Faulty PCR Test
As I have established already, anything funded by the Gates Foundation is going to be false. Bill Gates funds things that allow him to profit maximize his investment portfolio. And it turns out the PCR test for covid, without which there would have also been no pandemic as of January 2021 was disavowed by the WHO as a legitimate teat for covid. This is only after a year of being used to drive the pandemic numbers of dizzying heights.
This is explained in the following quotation.
The Real Time Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (rRT-PCR) test was adopted by the WHO on January 23, 2020 as a means to detecting the SARS-COV-2 virus, following the recommendations of a Virology research group (based at Charité University Hospital, Berlin), supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (For Further details see the Drosten Study)
Exactly one year later on January 20th, 2021, the WHO retracts. They don’t say “We Made a Mistake”. The retraction is carefully formulated. (See original WHO document here as well as in Annex)
The World Health Organization (WHO) tacitly admits one year later that ALL PCR tests conducted at a 35 cycle amplification threshold (Ct) or higher are INVALID. But that is what they recommended in January 2020, in consultation with the virology team at Charité Hospital in Berlin.
If the test is conducted at a 35 Ct threshold or above (which was recommended by the WHO), genetic segments of the SARS-CoV-2 virus cannot be detected, which means that ALL the so-called confirmed “positive cases” tabulated in the course of the last 18 months are invalid.
From the outset, the PCR test has routinely been applied at a Ct amplification threshold of 35 or higher, following the January 2020 recommendations of the WHO. What this means is that the PCR methodology as applied Worldwide has in the course of the last 12-14 months led to the compilation of faulty and misleading Covid statistics.
At the time of writing (mid-March 2021), despite the WHO retraction, the PCT test is being used extensively to hike up the numbers with a view to sustaining the fear campaign, justifying the ongoing lockdown policies as well as the implementation of the Covid vaccine.
The WHO confirms that the Covid PCR test procedure as applied is invalid. There is absolutely no scientific basis for implementing the Covid Vaccine. – Global Research
The establishment media does not cover the disavowing of the PCR test by the CDC, nor does it expose that Bill Gates funded and pushed the use of this test. Knowing Bill Gates, this test was deliberately designed to be far too sensitive and to give false positives.
Constant Inaccurate Forecasts
Pandemic forecasting has a terrible history.
This is explained in the following quotation.
Failure in epidemic forecasting is an old problem. In fact, it is surprising that epidemic forecasting has retained much credibility among decision-makers, given its dubious track record. Modeling for swine flu predicted 3,100–65,000 deaths in the UK (https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/jul/16/swine-flu-cases-rise-britain. (Accessed 2 June 2020)). Eventually, 457 deaths occurred (UK government, 2009). Models on foot-and-mouth disease by top scientists in top journals (Ferguson et al., 2001a, Ferguson et al., 2001b) were subsequently questioned (Kitching, Thrusfield, & Taylor, 2006) by other scientists challenging why up to 10 million animals had to be slaughtered. Predictions for bovine spongiform encephalopathy expected up to 150,000 deaths in the UK (Ferguson, Ghani, Donnelly, Hagenaars, & Anderson, 2002). However, the lower bound predicted as low as 50 deaths (Ferguson et al., 2002), which is a figure close to eventual fatalities. Predictions may work in “ideal”, isolated communities with homogeneous populations, not the complex current global world.
Despite these obvious failures, epidemic forecasting continued to thrive, perhaps because vastly erroneous predictions typically lacked serious consequences. – NCBI
Yes, none of the entities that create horribly inaccurate forecasts pay the price.
In fact, erroneous predictions may have even been useful. A wrong, doomsday prediction may incentivize people towards better personal hygiene. Problems emerge when public leaders take (wrong) predictions too seriously, considering them crystal balls without understanding their uncertainty and the assumptions made. Slaughtering millions of animals may aggravate animal business stakeholders – but most citizens are not directly affected. However, with COVID-19, espoused wrong predictions can devastate billions of people in terms of the economy, health, and societal turmoil at-large. – NCBI
What is amazing is that in this entire article, the term financial bias was not written one time.
- The lockdowns were justified based on computer models that were funded by Bill Gates, who had been planning to take advantage financially of a pandemic going back at least until 2015.
- For years, Bill Gates used fake charitable contributions and media appearances to create credibility in the infectious disease area. He then used this built-up credibility to make enormous sums of money from a pandemic that he was instrumental in having exaggerated. The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation follows no disclosure rules and is highly connected to pharmaceutical investments and pharmaceutical companies.
It is expected, but disingenuous for Bill Gates and his defenders to refer to this tracing of common financial interests and admitted collusion between Bill Gates and the pharmaceutical industry as a “conspiracy theory,” when they are clearly working in concert to create demand for vaccines, though doing things like funding science fraud in pandemic forecasts, lobbying against vaccines that are in part publicly funded from falling into the public domain and benefiting enormously from these activities.
Something that also should go without having to be mentioned is that Bill Gates has a long history of unethical behavior. He has been caught numerous times lying, and Microsoft has always been known as a highly unethical company. The idea that Bill Gates is up to some nefarious activities and unprincipled behavior should not be considered news or different from his long and well-established reputation. Rather it should be expected. Bill Gates has hired PR firms and has distributed money across many media entities to refurbish his image, but that image is a media construction.