We live in a corrupted system. The way to tackle corruption is to first acknowledge it exists. Only then is it possible to come up with ways of dealing with it, but don't make the mistake of believing the system can or will uncorrupt itself.

Bill Gates and the Amazing Self-Congratulatory Models

4 July 2022 - 2:23 am

“COVID-19 jab saved 20 million lives in its first year, study suggests” screeches the Sky News headline on the 24th June 2022. As the title ends with one of the signature ‘please switch off your brain, just read and believe’ motifs, i.e. “study suggests”, one hardly needs to read further. In fact it is a wonder they bothered with an article at all seeing as any text after that is largely redundant, but I guess it allows budding Government stenographers a chance to showcase their skills.

For those heretics out there that might ask those inconvenient questions, you know, questions like…

  • Is there any actual evidence to support that claim?
  • Who performed the study?
  • Who funded the study?

We will briefly examine the answers to those questions, and we will then be able to ascertain if the Unbelievers have a point, or if they really are just Science Deniers.

Question 1: Is there any actual evidence to support that claim?

The simple answer is no. The reason why it is as simple as that, is you cannot prove something that never happened. The claim that 20 million lives were saved, given that the outcome of an alleged COVID-19 case can vary from not even knowing you were ill, to being dead, which is literally the two furthest extremes you could possibly get when referring to a health outcome, is not remotely evidenced.

The figure of 19.8 million was churned out by a computer model, from Imperial College London, who have a track-record of accuracy with their COVID-19 related computer models resembling a Diane Abbott budget and economics statement compilation. They have been so laughably wrong the entire time, even to the point where the basic mathematics behind it would have required more people to be simultaneously ill with the COVIDS than there are people in the country, their credibility at this point is non-existent.

That in itself is not evidence that the latest model is wrong, after all a million monkeys and a million typewriters etc. but computer models are NOT evidence of anything. Not with the COVIDS, not with Climate Change™, not with anything. They are projections, based on inputs that cannot possibly take into account all the variables, and are hugely dependant on the construction of the model, and the inputs they are provided, none of which are legitimate, but you can be sure included the now provably false claimed “vaccine efficacy” figures.

In the supplementary appendix document, which is over 200 pages of mostly graphs, this revealing statement appears…

Given the absence of accurate data on the specific vaccine doses given in each country, we model the most commonly distributed known vaccine type in each country

Page 6 – https://www.thelancet.com/cms/10.1016/S1473-3099(22)00320-6/attachment/cf5ca979-59f2-496b-81ab-fb356d7881bd/mmc1.pdf

No accurate data on doses either, but trust the Science.

So no, there really is NO evidence to support the claim that the “vaccines” have saved a single person, let alone the 20 million the headline demands you believe. This is a now commonly used trick by all kinds of deceitful organisations known as an unfalsifiable claim. The website Logically Fallacious describes this as…

Confidently asserting that a theory or hypothesis is true or false even though the theory or hypothesis cannot possibly be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of any physical experiment, usually without strong evidence or good reasons.

Making unfalsifiable claims is a way to leave the realm of rational discourse, since unfalsifiable claims are often faith-based, and not founded on evidence and reason.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Unfalsifiability

We’re not here to criticise faith, but it doesn’t have a place in evidence-based science due to its nature. We have clearly left the “realm of rational discourse”, that happened quite some time ago. It is evident the faith-based nature of the belief in the COVID-19 injectable products exists because just like aspects of most organised religion, you’re not allowed to question any aspect, only total unquestioning obedience and devotion will be accepted.

Question 2: Who performed the study?

As we have already identified, Imperial College London performed the study. The rigorous journalistic integrity at Sky News is on show in their article, as they don’t even link to the actual study, just to the Lancet Infectious Diseases home page. Here is the link to the study. The authors were:

  • Oliver J. Watson
  • Gregory Barnsley
  • Jaspreet Toor
  • Alexandra B Hogan
  • Peter Winskill
  • Azra C Ghani

…all of which are affiliated with the MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, and Imperial College London. Under the “Declaration of Interests” section it says…

ACG has received personal consultancy fees from HSBC, GlaxoSmithKline, and WHO related to COVID-19 epidemiology and from The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria for work unrelated to COVID-19. ACG is a non-remunerated member of scientific advisory boards for Moderna and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness. ABH and PW have received personal consultancy related to COVID-19 work from WHO.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(22)00320-6/fulltext

Right. So the authors are connected with GSK, Moderna, the WHO and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness, a Bill Gates vaccine sales machine. Imperial College itself is also the recipient of a large amount of funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Hardly impartial and most definitely financially conflicted, if not ideologically conflicted. It’s like asking the Gambino family to be objective and honest about the Mafia.

Question 3: Who funded the study?

Thanks for asking. Looking at the study on the Lancet website that Sky News thoughtfully neglected to link to, there is a section titled “Acknowledgements” that says…

This work was supported by a Schmidt Science Fellowship in partnership with the Rhodes Trust (OJW), Centre funding from the UK Medical Research Council (all authors), grant funding from WHO (OJW, ABH, PW, and ACG), Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (JT and ACG), support from the Imperial College Research Fellowship (PW and ABH), and support from the National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Modelling Methodology and Community Jameel (all authors). We thank Sondre Ulvund Solstad from The Economist for developing excess mortality statistics and their help in interpreting these estimates.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(22)00320-6/fulltext – Emphasis added

The UK Medical Research Council is “a non-departmental public body sponsored by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS)” according to their website. The BEIS is a UK Government department.

Then there is the World Health Organisation (WHO), which needs no introduction, and is funded by Governments and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance is another Bill Gates vehicle for injecting people with expensive and usually harmful pharmaceutical products.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, despite already funding this via several proxies, also directly contributed.

Community Jameel is the “philanthropy” arm of a wealthy Saudi-Arabian family who’s website states they are “committed to advancing United Nations Sustainable Development Goals”.

And the Economist, mostly owned by the Italian Agnelli family, the Rothschild family, and several other “dynasties”. An influential globalist publication currently edited by Zanny Minton Beddoes, who is married to Sebastian Mallaby, the son of an English diplomat and senior fellow for international economics at the Council on Foreign Relations, which previously had David Rockefeller as its director and counts among its current directors, Larry Fink of Blackrock and Ruth Porat of Alphabet/Google.

A veritable who’s who of super-wealthy, globalist types and pharma-related commercial interests, with Bill Gates significantly over-represented. What a surprise then, that the alleged findings of this “study” turn out to be that Bill’s Holy Vaccines saved “tens of millions” from death by the COVIDS.

This Imperial College “study” is obvious self-congratulatory, fallacious garbage, not science or evidence. Please treat it as such.