Melinda Gates Slams Social Media for Spreading ‘Disinfo’

By | September 29, 2020

In a September 2020 interview with Axios on HBO, Melinda Gates said “It may be time for a reckoning” with social media’s role in spreading disinformation. According to Axios:1

“Bill and Melinda Gates … [have] seen firsthand the impact of disinformation, as they’ve become targets of conspiracy theories amplified and spread via social media … [Melinda] Gates … said society may need to start holding social media companies to account for their role in helping such disinformation spread.”

It’s ironic, to say the least, considering the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation funds and influences mainstream media companies, which in turn write whatever the Gates desire, be it truthful or not, without disclosing their conflict of interest.

Through its grants to the Leo Burnett Company, an ad agency owned by Publicis, the Gates Foundation is also financially linked to NewsGuard and HealthGuard, as both of these “fact-checking” sites are funded by Publicis. As such, Gates already has the power to pull strings and censor content they don’t like.

Gates Foundation Funds Scientific Disinformation

The Gates Foundation also has a history of funding disreputable and flawed to the point of being fraudulent science. What they call “disinformation” and “conspiracy theories” are to a large extent merely information exposing the Gates Foundation’s own disinformation campaigns.

Case in point: The Gates Foundation funds the MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis to the tune of millions of dollars per year. The MRC Centre is the leading body advising world governments and the World Health Organization about infectious disease outbreaks.

Neil Ferguson, a professor of mathematical biology at Imperial College London and co-founder of the MRC Centre, has produced a string of pandemic predictions that have turned out to be spectacularly incorrect:2,3

In 2001, Ferguson’s team produced a model for the spread of foot and mouth disease in British livestock, concluding that even in cases where there was no evidence of infection, animals had to be culled to curtail the outbreak.  

The projection led to the slaughter of more than 6 million cattle, sheep and pigs in the U.K. that year, costing the national economy an estimated £10 billion. As reported by Spectator:4

“It has been claimed by experts such as Michael Thrusfield, professor of veterinary epidemiology at Edinburgh University, that Ferguson’s modelling on foot and mouth was ‘severely flawed’ and made a ‘serious error’ by ‘ignoring the species composition of farms,’ and the fact that the disease spread faster between different species.”

In 2002, Ferguson predicted that by 2080, beef tainted with mad cow disease could kill up to 50,000 people, with a worst-case scenario killing 150,000.5 As of 2015, there had only been 177 human deaths attributable to Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in the U.K., the human version of mad cow disease.6

In 2005, Ferguson forecasted that 200 million people would die from bird flu. Meanwhile, in the real world, just 282 people died from bird flu, worldwide, between 2003 and 2009.7

In 2009, Ferguson predicted the swine flu would have a case fatality rate of 0.3% to 1.5%, with the most likely fatality rate being right around 0.4%. Based on this model, the U.K.’s projected death toll was 65,000. Once the pandemic ended, it turned out to have a death rate of just 0.026%, killing just 457 Britons.8

In 2020, Ferguson’s Imperial College model for COVID-19, relied on by governments around the world, led to the most draconian pandemic response measures in modern history. It predicted9 the U.K. would be looking at a death toll of more than 500,000, and the U.S. some 2.2 million, if no action was taken.

Based on the experiences of certain countries that chose not to lock down or mandate draconian disease prevention measures, such as Sweden, we can now see that authoritarian pandemic responses have had little if any beneficial impact. 

According to Ferguson, his woefully incorrect prediction was based on “undocumented, 13-year-old computer code that was intended to be used for a feared influenza pandemic,” the National Review reported.10

Analyses11,12 of the problematic bugs in the code have been published by a software engineer on According to the author, the Imperial College has made a number of false statements and claims about this code.

In May 2020, Ferguson — nicknamed “Professor Lockdown” — resigned as government adviser to the U.K. after being caught breaking the very lockdown and social distancing rules he so strongly advocated for, to meet up with his married lover.13

Science for Hire

Ferguson’s predictions have been so far off the mark, fellow academics have started referring to him as “The Master of Disaster.”14 Jan Schnitzer, a vascular biology expert and former scientific director of the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center in San Diego is quoted15 saying Ferguson “dances on the edge of being a publicity-seeking charlatan.”

You’d think that with this kind of abysmal track record, funding would have dried up long before COVID-19 hit. But no. This is precisely the kind of convenient disinformation and gross overestimation of risk that Gates needs and relies on to drive his own vaccine and tech agendas forward.   

Gates also has close links to Dr. Anthony Fauci, a key member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, so it’s hard to imagine Fauci has not been given a few talking points here and there to help shepherd the masses.

Fauci was a member of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Global Grand Challenges scientific board16 (described as a “family of initiatives fostering innovation to solve key global health and development problems”17) from 2003 until 2010, at which time he joined the Leadership Council of the Gates Foundation’s Decade of Vaccines Collaboration.18

In 2012, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, of which Fauci has been the director since 1984, also began forging close ties with GAVI, The Vaccine Alliance.19 The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation founded GAVI in 1999 and has permanent seats on its board of directors.20

Gates’ War on Life

In a September 2020 article,21 environmental activist Vandana Shiva reviews Gates’ global agenda and “war on life,” highlighting the March 2015 TED Talk22 he gave in which he showed an image of a coronavirus. This, he said, was what “the greatest catastrophe of our time would look like,” Shiva writes, adding:

“When the coronavirus pandemic swept over the earth like a tsunami five years later, he revived the war language, describing the pandemic as ‘a world war’ … In fact, the pandemic is not a war. The pandemic is a consequence of war. A war against life …

The health emergency of the coronavirus is inseparable from the health emergency of extinction, the health emergency of biodiversity loss … [T]hese emergencies are rooted in an economic model based on the illusion of limitless growth and limitless greed, which violate planetary boundaries, and destroy the integrity of ecosystems and individual species

According to the International Labour Organization,23 ‘1.6 billion informal economy workers (representing the most vulnerable in the labor market), out of a worldwide total of 2 billion and a global workforce of 3.3 billion, have suffered massive damage to their capacity to earn a living. This is due to lockdown measures and/or because they work in the hardest-hit sectors.’

According to the World Food Programme,24 a quarter of a billion additional people will be pushed to hunger and 300,000 could die every day … Killing cannot be a prescription for saving lives.

Health is about life and living systems. There is no ‘life’ in the paradigm of health that Bill Gates and his ilk are promoting and imposing on the entire world. Gates has created global alliances to impose top-down analysis and prescriptions for health problems.

He gives money to define the problems, and then he uses his influence and money to impose the solutions. And in the process, he gets richer. His ‘funding’ results in an erasure of democracy and biodiversity, of nature and culture. His ‘philanthropy’ is not just philanthrocapitalism. It is philanthroimperialism.

The coronavirus pandemic and lockdown have revealed even more clearly how we are being reduced to objects to be controlled, with our bodies and minds as the new colonies to be invaded … The extended coronavirus lockdown has been a lab experiment for a future without humanity.”

Cryptocurrency System Based on Human Body Activity

Shiva goes on to review a patent granted to Microsoft the last week of March 2020, for a cryptocurrency system based on human body activity. Everything from brain activity and body fluid flows to organ activity and various muscle movements is to be used to mine for cryptocurrency in this system.

Coincidentally, the number on this patent is 060606. Remove the zeros and you end up with the ill-fated number “666,” which also happens to show up in the monstrously unconstitutional U.S. surveillance bill H.R. 6666.

The patent is an intellectual property claim over our bodies and minds,” Shiva writes.25 “In colonialism, colonizers assign themselves the right to take the land and resources of indigenous people, extinguish their cultures and sovereignty, and in extreme cases exterminate them.

Patent WO 060606 is a declaration by Microsoft that our bodies and minds are its new colonies. We are mines of ‘raw material’ — the data extracted from our bodies.

Rather than sovereign, spiritual, conscious, intelligent beings making decisions and choices with wisdom and ethical values about the impacts of our actions on the natural and social world of which we are a part, and to which we are inextricably related, we are ‘users.’ A ‘user’ is a consumer without choice in the digital empire.”

Ultimately, Gates vision, Shiva says, includes the colonization of our children’s minds and bodies “before they even have the opportunity to understand what freedom and sovereignty look and feel like.” To this end, Gates is working on reinventing education.

“The dystopia is one where children never return to schools, do not have a chance to play, do not have friends. It is a world without society, without relationships, without love and friendship,” she writes.

Indeed, the COVID-19 lockdowns and social distancing rules have repeatedly been referred to as “the new normal.” If the technocrats get their way, there will essentially be three kinds of people in the world: The uber-rich top echelon to whom rules don’t apply, digital slaves, and disposables — people who have no value in this new digital empire. If this doesn’t sound like the life we want to live, we must, as Shiva proposes, resist. And we must start now.

“We can seed another future, deepen our democracies, reclaim our commons, regenerate the earth as living members of a One Earth Family, rich in our diversity and freedom, one in our unity and interconnectedness. It is a healthier future. It is one we must fight for. It is one we must claim,” Shiva writes.

Are We in a Deadly Dilemma?

We now face what, for some, is a choice between two evils: Living with SARS-CoV-2, or continue hiding from it. I say “for some,” because others have accepted the data showing that COVID-19, in terms of lethality, is no worse than influenza, poses an exceptionally low risk for people under the age of 40 and virtually no risk at all to young adults and children.

The WHO has published data showing the overall infection mortality rate COVID-19 is about 0.6%,26 and according to CDC data27 released August 26, 2020, only 6% of the total COVID-19-related deaths in the U.S. had COVID-19 listed as the sole cause of death on the death certificate.

A September 2, 2020 study28 found the overall noninstitutionalized infection fatality ratio was a mere 0.26%. Among those under the age of 40, the infection fatality ratio is 0.01%, while those over 60 have an infection fatality ratio of 1.71%.

The estimated infection fatality rate for seasonal influenza is 0.8%,29 so this shows the only people for whom SARS-CoV-2 infection is more dangerous than influenza is those over the age of 60. Everyone else has a lower risk of dying from COVID-19 than they have of dying from the flu.

White House coronavirus task force coordinator Dr. Deborah Birx also confirmed a lower than typically reported mortality rate when she, in mid-August 2020, stated that it “becomes more and more difficult” to get people to comply with mask rules “when people start to realize that 99% of us are going to be fine.”30

In her August 16, 2020, Doctor for Disaster Preparedness31 lecture, Dr. Lee Merritt points out that based on deaths per capita, the death rate for COVID-19, worldwide, is a minuscule 0.009% (709,000 people have died from or with COVID-19 around the world, and the global population is 7.8 billion). So, the average person’s chance of surviving this disease is 99.991%.

Live Life or Hide Until You Die

Under normal circumstances, these data would convince just about everyone that COVID-19 is not a significant threat. Certainly, not sufficient to meekly relinquish our most basic human rights. Unfortunately, months of hardcore fear-mongering and censorship, largely spearheaded by Gates and the WHO, which Gates is the largest funder of, has led to a situation where people fear COVID-19 more than just about everything else.

It is with that mindset that some people find themselves having to make a choice to either live with the threat of COVID-19, or continue hiding from it, which means ceasing to live indefinitely. As noted in an “open letter to world leaders” published on, the path of hiding:32

“… has but one outcome, to condemn entire populations to misery, poverty, hunger, economic ruin and physical death. There is no hope in this path. COVID is here to stay. We will probably never have an effective vaccine (viruses by their very nature constantly mutate) and so there is no hope of a safe exit from this strategy …

The endgame of this strategy of closing a country, is the total destruction of that country’s economy, immense damage to the health and welfare of society, and plunging that country’s future into darkness.”

Meanwhile, the other path, the path of accepting the risks associated with life, COVID-19 included:

“… offers a path where there is hope for the future. Where life can go on as normal for the vast majority. It is a path where the rewards will far outweigh the cost … [It] has become clear that for the vast majority of people COVID presents no real risk of harm or even symptomatic illness.

But is it possible to live without risk? Clearly not. A life without risk is impossible. Is it possible to escape death? No. It is the very condition of living; life is terminal for us all. And death comes to us in 1000s of forms, not simply COVID. We cannot hide from death. How many people have died through hiding in fear from a perceived threat from COVID?

How many people are dying daily as a direct result of COVID policies through limited access to hospitals, health screening not happening, cancer treatments not happening in a timely manner, economic ruin driving people to make poor life choices and turning to alcohol, drugs or suicide as the solution to the problems dealt to them by COVID policies? …

What do we gain from these lockdowns, border closure policies? Between a certain death and a hypothetical risk, isn’t it better to choose the risk? The risk of living life. Why do you, our world leaders, continue to choose to keep us all locked within this eel trap of your own making?

Why don’t you make what is clearly, and backed by the science … the only sensible choice, of learning to live with COVID and allowing us to get back to living LIFE? …

Let’s dare to live with risk, as humans have done successfully since the dawn of time. We are at risk of jeopardizing the vast majority in the name of possibly protecting the few people who are at risk of serious illness or death from COVID.

And it is only ‘possibly protecting’ as even with these policies in place the risk of infection is still there and always will be. COVID is here now, and it is going nowhere, it is time we learned to LIVE with it.”

Bill and Melinda Gates’ fight against “disinformation” is really a fight against facts showing that the technocratic takeover is not an inevitable outcome of a global pandemic, but rather the result of a long-term well-planned effort.

If you haven’t taken steps to extricate yourself from their digital grasp as of yet, now’s the time to do it. For tips and guidance, see “Harvard Professor Exposes Surveillance Capitalism.”