Home Gates Family Complicity in Global Genocide

Gates Family Complicity in Global Genocide

 

by

Stephen Fox

As a preface, I ask the reader to fully recognize that we are completely
surrounded by World War III, a War of Attrition by Chemshots-not-Vaccines,
using corporate controlled and initiated-with-malice-aforethought
biological and virological weapons, followed by the second planned phase,
that of global chemshot manufacturing to profit off of killing up to a
billion or more humans with moderated RNA from for example aborted human
embryos and pig embryos, wrapped in propylene glycol the main ingredient
in anti-freeze, and why? to make it slide more easily into the original
genuine maternal mitochondrial RNA, hence the term MODERNA, which of
course has nothing to do with being “modern.”

Thus, whatever people are not killed outright by the euphemistic “adverse
reactions,” will face increasing and impending health repercussions,
including sterility, because the now fatally flawed RNA cannot replicate
normally, increasing the cell deaths, also called apoptosis, a brand new
kind of cell death on an unprecedented level brought to 7 billion people
courtesy of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. [Apoptosis means the
death of cells which occurs as a normal and controlled part of an
organism’s growth or development].

Mothers who have been vaccinated by Moderna, Johnson and Johnson, and
AstraZeneca will think they are passing on great “antibodies” when they
are nursing their child, but they are in fact not doing that at all.

_______________

Historical background:

In 2005, William Henry Gates III was knighted by Elizabeth Saxe Coburg
Gotha as a Knight Commander of the British Empire.

In 2015, in the Ted Talks, Gates clearly stated that the human population
growth could be reduced by 10-15% “if we do a good job with vaccinations.”

In late 2015, Gates tried to patent his weaponized coronavirus in USA’s
patent process. That was rejected, so he tried again in Her Majesty’s
London patent office, and was granted the patent, WO 2016 012793 A1.

THIS HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT OF SEVERAL OF MY ARTICLES PUBLISHED BY
PENNSYLVANIA’S OPEDNEWS, THE EARLIEST MARCH 14, 2020!

____________________

Was a Coronavirus Strain Patented in 2015-2016 by a Bill Gates company?
Here is the 69-page PDF

https://www.opednews.com/articles/Was-a-Coronavirus-Strain-P-by-Stephen-Fox-Bill-And-Melinda-Gates_Corona-Virus-Patent-Holders_Coronavirus_Patents-Trademarks-Copyrights-200324-195.html

______________________

International Court of Justice Filing Regarding Gates’ Coronavirus Patent
Number

https://www.opednews.com/articles/International-Court-of-Jus-by-Stephen-Fox-Botswana_Cameroon-Constitution_Cameroon-Strikes_Equatorial-Guinea-200805-646.html

______________

External silence thus far from the International Court of Justice
regarding an injunction to stop Bill Gates doesn’t indicate that the 15
top jurists in the world have given tacit approval for Gates’ actions in
African nations and in Europe. Delays are inherent in the judicial
process, but while time goes by, more Africans are being murdered by Gates
and his Pandemic Profiteering Vehicle, the World Health Organization.

See prior article Sci Tech 3/24/2020 at 03:27:31

Was a Coronavirus Strain Patented in 2015-2016 by a Bill Gates company?
Here is the 69-page PDF

https://www.opednews.com/articles/Was-a-Coronavirus-Strain-P-by-Stephen-Fox-Bill-And-Melinda-Gates_Corona-Virus-Patent-Holders_Coronavirus_Patents-Trademarks-Copyrights-200324-195.html

___________________________________________

Both Gates and his wife Melinda have made \statements along the lines of
“the rich nations don’t have to worry about the weaponized virus, as only
the poor ones do.” For example:

https://www.bellanaija.com/2020/04/melinda-gates-covid19-africa

[In an interview with CNN, Melinda warned that if the world does not act
fast enough, then there will be dead bodies “out on the streets“ of
Africa.

She said:

It’s going to be horrible in the developing world. Part of the reasons you
are seeing the case numbers still do not look very bad is because they
don’t have access to many tests. Look at what is happening in Ecuador,
they are putting bodies out on the streets, you are going to see that in
countries in Africa.

She added, “what China had to do to isolate an enormous part of its
population. My first thought was Africa. How in the world are they going
to deal with this? I have been in townships all over Africa and slums.
When we talk in country physical distancing and hand-washing, if you live
in slums who can’t physical distance, you have to go out and get your
meals. You don’t have clean water to wash your hands”.

Well, this statement didn’t go down well with Nigerians, with many
‘casting and binding’, and rejecting ‘evil forces and powers’.

Melinda Gates, who has visited several African countries, and has donated
her time and money in ensuring the wellbeing of children suffering from
malnourishment, malaria and other health issues, pointed out that slums in
Africa will be more vulnerable to the COVID-19.

Well, Nigerians are still very upset with the statement.

See the video here:

I listened to that interview and Melinda Gates was implying that if
necessary measures are not put in place to prevent the Covid-19 outbreak
in Africa, then we will be done for it. pic.twitter.com/subTDIThCx ]

___________________________

The word “genocide” was first coined by Polish lawyer Raphäel Lemkin in
1944 in his book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe. It consists of the Greek
prefix genos, meaning race or tribe, and the Latin suffix cide, meaning
killing. Lemkin developed the term partly in response to the Nazi policies
of systematic murder of Jewish people during the Holocaust, but also in
response to previous instances in history of targeted actions aimed at the
destruction of particular groups of people. Later on, Raphäel Lemkin led
the campaign to have genocide recognised and codified as an international
crime.

Genocide was first recognised as a crime under international law in 1946
by the United Nations General Assembly (A/RES/96-I). It was codified as an
independent crime in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment
of the Crime of Genocide (the Genocide Convention). The Convention has
been ratified by 149 States (as of January 2018). The International Court
of Justice (ICJ) has repeatedly stated that the Convention embodies
principles that are part of general customary international law. This
means that whether or not States have ratified the Genocide Convention,
they are all bound as a matter of law by the principle that genocide is a
crime prohibited under international law. The ICJ has also stated that the
prohibition of genocide is a peremptory norm of international law (or ius
cogens) and consequently, no derogation from it is allowed.

The definition of the crime of genocide as contained in Article II of the
Genocide Convention was the result of a negotiating process and reflects
the compromise reached among United Nations Member States in 1948 at the
time of drafting the Convention. Genocide is defined in the same terms as
in the Genocide Convention in the Rome Statute of the International
Criminal Court (Article 6), as well as in the statutes of other
international and hybrid jurisdictions. Many States have also criminalized
genocide in their domestic law; others have yet to do so.

Definition
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts
committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national,
ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to
bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Elements of the crime
The Genocide Convention establishes in Article I that the crime of
genocide may take place in the context of an armed conflict, international
or non-international, but also in the context of a peaceful situation. The
latter is less common but still possible. The same article establishes the
obligation of the contracting parties to prevent and to punish the crime
of genocide.

The popular understanding of what constitutes genocide tends to be broader
than the content of the norm under international law. Article II of the
Genocide Convention contains a narrow definition of the crime of genocide,
which includes two main elements:

A mental element: the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national,
ethnical, racial or religious group, as such”; and
A physical element, which includes the following five acts, enumerated
exhaustively:
Killing members of the group

Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to
bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

The intent is the most difficult element to determine. To constitute
genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to
physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply
disperse a group. It is this special intent, or dolus specialis, that
makes the crime of genocide so unique. In addition, case law has
associated intent with the existence of a State or organizational plan or
policy, even if the definition of genocide in international law does not
include that element.

Importantly, the victims of genocide are deliberately targeted – not
randomly – because of their real or perceived membership of one of the
four groups protected under the Convention (which excludes political
groups, for example). This means that the target of destruction must be
the group, as such, and not its members as individuals. Genocide can also
be committed against only a part of the group, as long as that part is
identifiable (including within a geographically limited area) and
“substantial.”

___________________

Gates’ years since 2016 have included aligning investments in vaccine
corporations before his weaponized virus was even released!

Chemshots-dba-vaccine profiteering sould best be examined with this in mind:

Profiteering refers to taking advantage of unusual or exceptional
circumstances to make excessive profits. It is the generation of
disproportionate or unfair profit through manipulation of prices, abuse of
dominant position, or by exploiting a bad or unusual situation such as
temporary scarcity.

Webster’s:  the act or activity of making an unreasonable profit on the
sale of essential goods especially during times of emergency.

__________________________

Dr. Mike Yeadon was a Chief Science Officer and VP for the development of
treatments for respiratory illnesses at Pfizer for 16 years. He now
licenses biotechnology owned by his biotech start-up to companies such as
Novartis.

https://www.educationviews.org/former-pfizer-vp-yeadon-no-need-for-vaccines-pandemic-is-effectively-over/

2.1.12 — Principia Scientific International

“Former Pfizer VP Yeadon: ‘No Need For Vaccines, Pandemic Is Effectively
Over’”

by Patrick Delaney

Former Pfizer VP: ‘No need for vaccines, pandemic is effectively over’

Excerpts from this article:

Dr. Mike Yeadon, Pfizer’s former Vice President and Chief Scientist for
Allergy & Respiratory, states that the drive for a universal vaccine has
‘the whiff of evil’ which he ‘will oppose
vigorously.’

Pfizer pharmaceutical made headlines announcing the imminent release of
their COVID-19 vaccine, to much fanfare,  but a former Vice President and
Chief Scientist for the company has flatly rejected the need for any
vaccines to bring the COVID-19 pandemic to an end.

In a recent article, Dr. Michael Yeadon, who “spent over 30 years leading
new [allergy and respiratory] medicines research in some of the world’s
largest pharmaceutical companies,” and retired from Pfizer with “the most
senior research position in this field,” wrote:

{There Is Absolutely No Need For Vaccines To Extinguish The Pandemic. I’ve
Never Heard Such Nonsense Talked About Vaccines. You Do Not Vaccinate
People Who Aren’t At Risk From A Disease. You Also Don’t Set About
Planning To Vaccinate Millions Of Fit And Healthy People With A Vaccine
That Hasn’t Been Extensively Tested On Human Subjects.}

The British national’s [Dr. Yeadon’s] comments come at the end of a
comprehensive criticism of the Scientific Advisor Group for Emergencies
(SAGE), a government agency of the U.K. tasked with advising the central
government in emergencies. SAGE has played a predominant role in
determining public lockdown policies in the U.K., including those recently
implemented, as a response to the COVID-19 virus.

After pointing out that SAGE lacked essential expertise in the field they
are addressing, with “no clinical immunologists” as members, Yeadon
highlights two fundamental errors they have made in their presuppositions
which cause their overall conclusions to go radically awry leading to the
“torturing [of] the population for the last seven months or so.”

First Fundamental Error: “Ridiculous” Presumption Of 100% Susceptibility

The first erroneous assumption SAGE makes is that “100% of the population
was susceptible to the virus and that no pre-existing immunity existed.”

Yeadon states this notion is “ridiculous because while SARS-CoV-2 is
indeed novel, coronaviruses are not
” Indeed, he points out, there are at
least “four, endemic, common-cold inducing coronaviruses
[which]
circulate freely in UK and elsewhere.” Those who have been infected by
“one or more of these endemic, common-cold producing coronaviruses in the
past, have a long-lived and robust [T-cell] immunity, not only to those
viruses, but to closely related viruses. SARS-CoV-2 is one such
closely-related virus.”

Striking once again at the competence of SAGE, Dr. Yeadon states, “To not
expect such cross-over is
to demonstrate the lack of the requisite
understanding to build a model reliable enough to use.”

Further, he states, that the common PCR test which is used for detecting
COVID-19 “cases,” may come out positive when someone is infected with one
of these common cold coronaviruses rendering this test that much less
reliable. Of course, based on the final results of these tests, many
thousands of individuals have been ordered to disrupt their lives and
“self-quarantine” for up to 14 days.

Finally, drawing from the scientific data, Dr. Yeadon concludes that due
to previous exposure to common-cold coronaviruses, “a significant
proportion (30%) of the population went into 2020 armed with T-cells
capable of defending them against SARS-CoV-2, even though they had never
seen the virus
SAGE was naively wrong to assume ‘everyone was
susceptible’.”

Second Fundamental Error: An “Amateur Underestimate” Of The Infection Rate

SAGE’s second erroneous assumption is “The belief that the percentage of
the population that has been infected can be determined by surveying what
fraction of the population has antibodies” developed due to infection with
COVID-19.

Because of this assumption, “SAGE believes that less than 10% of the
population have so far been infected by SARS-CoV-2.”

However, Yeadon clarifies that it’s “well understood that not every
person, infected by a respiratory virus, goes on to produce antibodies.
And many people, having prior immunity, never get properly infected
anyway.”

While almost all of those with significant symptoms, who were admitted to
a hospital, produce antibodies, those with “milder responses to the virus”
do not “all produce antibodies.” Nevertheless, all of those infected have
been shown to have “T-cells in their blood, capable of responding to
SARS-CoV-2,” and thus they still develop immunity.

Drawing from two independent methods, which arrive at the same general
conclusion, Yeadon demonstrates that the real infection rate is “in the
mid-20s to low-30’s per cent,” and thus SAGE’s estimate of 7% “is a gross
and amateur underestimate.”

Why It Matters
“The Pandemic Is Effectively Over”

With a false presumption that 100% of the population is susceptible to the
virus, along with only 7% having been infected, it is the view of SAGE,
that “the pandemic has only just begun.” Yeadon clarifies, however, that
this is “palpable nonsense.”

Since it is demonstrable that “around 30% of the population had prior
immunity,” and if one includes some young children who are “resistant,”
40%, and while considering that the infection rate is “somewhere [in] the
mid-20s to low-30s per cent,” this means that around 65 to 72% of the
population currently has immunity to COVID-19.

And considering the reality of herd immunity, when susceptibility to a
virus falls this low, at around 28 to 35%, “that population can no longer
support an expanding outbreak of disease,” and thus the virus “wanes and
disappears.”

Therefore, Yeadon concludes, “the pandemic is effectively over and can
easily be handled by a properly functioning NHS (National Health Service).
Accordingly, the country should immediately be permitted to get back to
normal life.”

Concerns With Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine: Severe Complications

Despite an estimated 65 to 72% of the population now having immunity to
COVID-19, a percentage which indicates a critical level of herd immunity,
Operation Warp Speed in the United States appears intent to follow the
globalist campaign advanced by Bill Gates and vaccinate all 328 million
people in the nation with the Pfizerproduct or others emerging for
approved distribution in the coming months.

Notwithstanding the fact that no vaccine has ever been successfully
developed for any coronavirus, and such an endeavor would normally take
years to safely and adequately complete, the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) has permitted the fast-tracking of this process skipping the
standard stage of testing on animals to directly test these vaccines on
humans.

Immediate results from some of these trials have included “severe”
complications, involving headaches, fever, body aches and symptoms similar
to a “severe hangover.” Further, as the New York Times emphasized,
Pfizer’s initial claim that their vaccine was “more than 90 percent
effective,” was “delivered in a news release, not a peer-reviewed medical
journal. It is not conclusive evidence that the vaccine is safe and
effective.”

Expected ‘High Volume’ Of Adverse Reactions

And given the enormous scale of the stated goal, of administering these
chemicals to hundreds of millions of people, when there is normally some
rate of severe complications to the use of vaccines, the negative results
may be significant. For example, one study of influenza vaccines
administered to adults over 65 years of age, found a rate of approximately
1% which experienced severe side effects. If a COVID-19 vaccine is merely
similar for individuals in the same age bracket (54M in population), that
would equate to 540,000 individuals in this age bracket alone who may need
medical care in a hospital system which provides less than 925,000 total
beds

New ‘Unproven’ MRNA Technology: 20% ‘Serious Injury Rate’

Other concerns about the Pfizer vaccine is that it would be the first to
use “an as-yet-unproven technology platform that relies on something
called messenger RNA, usually shortened to mRNA.” Moderna, another
corporation striving to develop a COVID-19 vaccine, is also venturing to
utilize this mRNA platform. In May, Children’s Health Defense reported
that clinical trials for Moderna’s vaccine had a 20% “serious injury rate”
in its high-dose group

Manipulation Of The Public

Serving to counteract this trend, Yale University, in collaboration with
the U.S. government, sponsored a study to determine the most effective
means of persuading Americans to take the COVID-19 vaccine.

The study tests a variety of approaches, such as appeals to “Personal
freedom,” “Economic benefit,” “Self-interest,” fears of “Guilt,”
“Embarrassment,” and actually being a coward.

While several of the appeals are straightforward arguments, others hint at
a willingness to use public shaming to elicit compliance.

One, for instance, “asks the participant to imagine the guilt they will
feel if they don’t get vaccinated and spread the disease,” with variants
exchanging guilt with anger or embarrassment. Another suggests someone who
refuses vaccination “doesn’t understand how infections are spread or who
ignores science.” Another declares that “those who choose not to get
vaccinated against COVID-19 are not brave.”

The findings of this study will likely influence the messaging of state
officials and academic institutions who have discussed mandating
vaccination, as well as advertising campaigns surrounding a vaccine once
it is completed.

Coercion Of Black Communities And Children

Other strategies of coercion being developed include the “bundling” of
vaccine mandates “with other safety net services,” for the poor, including
“food security, rent assistance, and free clinic services” for “vulnerable
populations,” with “Black and minority communities” receiving special
mention.

And the District of Columbia (DC) is advancing a bill which circumvents
parental consent when it comes to their minor children being given a
vaccine. The “Minor Consent for Vaccinations Amendment Act of 2019,”
states, “this bill permits a minor of any age to consent to receive a
vaccine where the vaccination is recommended by the United States Advisory
Committee on Immunization Practices. It also establishes that if a minor
is able to comprehend the need for, the nature of, and any significant
risks inherent in the medical care then informed consent is established.”

According to The Vaccine Reaction, “The bill would not only permit
children aged 11 years and older to give consent for doctors and other
vaccine administrators to give them vaccines without their parents’
knowledge or consent, but would also require insurance companies, vaccine
administrators and schools to conceal from parents that the child has been
vaccinated.”

The report clarifies, “If this bill passes, it is clear that minor
children will be at risk of being pressured and coerced into getting a
COVID-19 vaccine behind their parents’ back.”

Pfizer A “Convicted Serial Felon”

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., nephew of former U.S. president John F. Kennedy,
environmental attorney, author, and founder of Children’s Health Defense,
has been raising awareness about vaccines injuring children for decades.
In addition to the organization’s firm opposition to the DC bill above,
Kennedy has singled out Pfizer as one of several vaccine producers with a
record of incurring criminal penalties for their products.

In a July debate, Kennedy emphasized that Pfizer, and three other leading
developers of coronavirus vaccines, Glaxo, Sanofi, Merck, are “convicted
serial felon[s].”

“In the past 10 years, just in the last decade, those companies have paid
35 billion dollars in criminal penalties, damages, fines, for lying to
doctors, for defrauding science, for falsifying science, for killing
hundreds of thousands of Americans knowingly,” Kennedy said during the
debate.

“It requires a cognitive dissonance for people who understand the criminal
corporate cultures of these four companies to believe that they’re doing
this in every other product that they have, but they’re not doing it with
vaccines.”

Following the announcement of Pfizer’s “90 percent effective” coronavirus
vaccine, with the anticipation of imminent release, the firm’s stock price
rose “15 per cent from $36.40
to $41.94 per share,” at which point the
company’s CEO and Chairman, Albert Bourla, sold 61.8 per cent of his
shares in the company “for almost $5.6 million.”