Home Gates Family Complicity in Global Genocide

Gates Family Complicity in Global Genocide



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.



Was a Coronavirus Strain Patented in 2015-2016 by a Bill Gates company?

Here is the 69-page PDF



International Court of Justice Filing Regarding Gates’ Coronavirus Patent



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


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:


[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: 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.


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;


Malicious Intent

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


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 Pfizer product 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.”