The (New) God Delusion
Big bucks, philanthropy and pandemics
The BBC has been releasing several trailers to highlight a new interview with Bill Gates that will be broadcast today: “Amol Rajan visits Kenya, where Bill Gates through his foundation is supporting local farms and hospitals. Gates talks about wealth and recent conspiracies and controversies.”
‘Controversies’ is a better word. Because most of what Gates has been getting up to of late has been about defending himself about projects and relationships that he’d prefer not to be in the public domain. There’s his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. And, of course, there’s his bizarre fixation with vaccinating and funding the World Health Organisation.
The New Era is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
He’s at pains to get across his “philanthropy” in the Rajan interview. But then there’s his fondness for popularising the likelihood of pandemics. No other figure bangs on so much about vaccines and the need for humanity to protect itself from pandemics like Bill Gates. Why? Because he can. He has the money to buy attention. But the inevitable conclusion seems to be that he has some type of weird God Delusion…that he is completely, stark-raving, insane. Oh and likes making a return on his self-fulfilling prophecies.
Interestingly, Rajan asks him the question: Are you God? Gate’s answer isn’t especially definitive. It’s given by someone who might just think he is.
And, like the gods, he dithers a bit in terms of how he’s going to proceed. In 2018 it was all-in to mRNA as a salvation - the ‘technology’ that would inject hope into billions of arms in the fight against Covid-19. So much so that Gates invested $55million into Biontech (the co-developer of Pfizer’s mRNA jab). Some of that stock was purportedly sold last year at a significant price premium.
That, in essence, is what this piece is about. It’s about how the gods - and their yes-men - set about creating markets for their latest pharmaceutical projects and then mandating their use, without any democratic accountability.
Another of Gates’ chosen up-and-coming companies was Moderna. Had it not been for Covid-19 it was looking like it may end up more like Theranos.
The New New Thing
Theranos and Moderna were very good at hyping their technology (that didn’t work). But that didn’t seem to stop people investing in it. The key difference with Moderna was that it developed a relationship with Gates who is, quite simply, the ultimate king-maker given his near total control of the new philanthropy that is vaccine peddling.
Quite why the investors came does not involve any molecular biochemistry. You will not be required to understand how mRNA technology works (because, clearly, it doesn’t work). Nor will you have to get your head round gain-of-function research or experiments on gibbons. Nope. You’ll just have to understand a little bit about how financial markets work, the process of IPOs, and why investors like sure things.
Let’s get back to the Moderna IPO.
For those of you reading this that don’t know what an IPO is, let me explain. Firstly, it’s an American English acronym that means Initial Public Offer. In the United Kingdom we used to use the term “going public” or “floating”. It’s what happens when a company offers to trade its stock on a public exchange. The initial public offer details what the company has been up to prior to the IPO. It also lists all the officers, their backgrounds, details of the products and services, and lots of financial information. The process of going public is typically guided by an army of specialists - law firms acting on behalf of the company, tax advisors, accountants - all of whom earn vast amounts of fee income on the back of the IPO. But the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) oversees the process and insists that as much information as possible is made available to potential investors. For example, a detailed risk assessment must be articulated in the S1 - the main information prospectus that’s published prior to the IPO on the SEC website.
I’m going to return to IPOs - and specifically the Moderna IPO - a little later in this piece. But at this stage I want you, dear reader, to hold this thought. The IPO represents a liquidity event. When company stock is listed on a public exchange the shares in that company can be bought and sold. It may be that the stock is relatively illiquid if held by institutions unwilling to sell. But this, too, has a market effect. It can drive the quoted price up. And this effect is why hedge funds often get involved in buying significant holdings in recently quoted firms. They can dip in and out of the market - selling when the stock price is high and buying back when it’s cheap. And they tend to work very closely with the main underwriters of IPOs - typically the major investment banks like JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs - to fully understand the IPO opportunity. The investment roadshow is an opportunity for the investment banks to brief institutional investors on the opportunity. Some 11 investment banks were involved in Moderna’s IPO. They all wanted a share of the action, despite the obvious risks articulated in the Moderna S1:
No mRNA drug has been approved in this new potential category of medicines, and may never be approved as a result of efforts by others or us. mRNA drug development has substantial clinical development and regulatory risks due to the novel and unprecedented nature of this new category of medicines.
Now, I’ve hinted in the subtitle of this piece that it’s about the Covid-19 “pandemic”. If you’re subscribing to this site, or even a visitor, you’ll probably know - based on the dozens of previous articles I’ve written, or my Twitter feed - that I’ve always been in the libertarian camp. Like many others - and many of the campaign groups I’ve supported - I’ve always voiced my opinion that lockdown was the greatest act of self-harm that nation-states could ever have imposed on themselves. But the reason I’ve written this article is because I’m pretty sure I know now why they were imposed. I’m also pretty sure I know why so many nations coerced their people to take mRNA shots that were known not to be efficacious - and, potentially, even damaging. And, clearly, I’m suggesting that financialization is at the heart of the theory.
Media Myth Peddling.
Over the last couple of weeks there were a number of big social media stories. One was the bizarre non-interview of Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer, as he tried to find his way to the entrance of the World Economic Forum conference centre in Davos. Bourla was intercepted by Avi Yemini of Rebel News, and a few of his colleagues. Bourla said precisely nothing as he was asked a barrage of questions. And the video featuring Bourla’s non-responsive interrogation was viewed, last time I looked, over 20 million times. To put that in context, the BBC news bulletins in the UK reach around 10-15 million in a week.
Clearly, Bourla said nothing to incriminate himself. But seeing him subjected to these questions was, in itself, interesting. He looked a bit pathetic. He couldn’t engage or defend himself because he would have almost certainly have made a fool of himself or caused his PR help to have a word. But the unanswered questions were left hanging in the air. Questions about the damage his mRNA vaccines were having. Questions about the vaccines failing to stop transmission, failing to provide protection, requiring multiple jabs.
Now, according to George Webb, the self-styled “investigative journalist,” the folks over at Project Veritas were a tad spooked by the fact that the Rebel News people got the Bourla scoop (even though he didn’t actually say anything). The proof was in the number of video eyeballs. Therefore, enter Jordan Walker, the subject of the Project Veritas sting operation. Walker, who was secretly video recorded over a dinner date, was apparently a senior scientist at Pfizer who proceeded to spill the beans on Pfizer’s use of “Directed Evolution” - experimentation on monkeys to hone new mRNA vaccine formulas effective on new Covid-19 variants.
This mainstream media style “gotcha” sting got everyone in a bother. Project Veritas pushed the hell out of the video sequences, George Webb spun it all into a new theory about the Boston Consulting Group (all terribly confusing), and everyone went hunting for proof that Walker was, in fact, a pizza thrower, a double-agent, a dodgy consultant, an actor, or all of the above. Meanwhile Pfizer put out some dodgy statements that said nothing much.
Over on mainstream media we had former UK Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, being “grilled” on morning TV about his breach of the Covid laws at the time he was groping a staffer’s arse and attending parties in Whitehall.
The mainstream media has been popularising a series of side-shows that assiduously ignore the obvious. Meanwhile the new ‘resistance’ media is using the same ‘gotcha’ tactics (in the case of Project Veritas) that don’t really move the narrative on. Indeed one is often left with the impression that the alternative media are creating a new, contorted narrative that obfuscates rather than focuses on the heart of the issue - market manipulation and greed and the egos of god-delusionists.
Faster Pandemic Fixes
A few weeks ago I published a short documentary on this site. The video illustrated just one thing. It showed how more people died of a disease called Covid-19 after receiving an experimental vaccine, than before.
There’s no way we can know for sure if they did die of this disease - a disease we’d never heard of before 2019. Many people are reliant on the governments of the world, and organisations funded by ‘philanthropists’, to know what Covid-19 is, and where it came from. An eager media tells us how to think, how to believe, and what conclusions we should reach about Bill Gates and pandemics. But, the fact remains, many more died of the disease (as defined by health authorities) after the vaccination programme than before - according to their data. Perhaps the statisticians messed up. Perhaps not. And, meanwhile, excess deaths are going up just as Bill Gates exits the mRNA market.
I remember when I first visited New York City with my wife. We stayed in the Vista Hotel. It was the hotel that was tucked between the twin towers of the World Trade Centre. On leaving the hotel, luggage by our side, we looked up at the towers, reaching to infinity it seemed. Lots of taxi drivers and limo service touts encircled us. All were offering spectacular deals on rides to the airport. We were saved by the hotel concierge who escorted us to a yellow cab. “The thing about New York City,” he told us, “is that everyone’s an entrepreneur.”
No more so than in Wall Street, it seems. Over the last few decades “entrepreneurs” have dreamt up some incredible get rich quick schemes. Everything has become financialised. Businesses and industries have been transformed to feed the entrepreneurs of Wall Street. Slow moving industries have been forced to be fast.
Vaccines were never fast. It took forever to make vaccines. All that testing, brewing, cajoling of nasty pathogens to become kindlier, and to work with the human immune system, to protect. But there’s little money to be made with that business model. Very limited prospects to IPO that methodology.
Hence, a new breed of healthcare companies came into being. These were companies founded by visionaries who could talk the talk of Wall Street. The founders much preferred the company of investment banks than cancer patients. They knew how to work the networking opportunities at Davos rather than a tropical diseases summit in Lesotho. Case in point: Moderna.
Moderna’s IPO was in late 2018. The company unashamedly built itself on mRNA (messenger RNA “technology”). In effect, Moderna modelled itself more on a Silicon Valley technology start-up than a typical drugs company. mRNA, it claimed, was essentially software.
The prospectus summary made clear that it was in the business of creating a platform technology out of which many drugs could emerge:
We are creating a new category of transformative medicines based on messenger RNA, or mRNA, to improve the lives of patients. From the beginning, we designed our strategy and operations to realize the full potential value and impact of mRNA over a long time horizon across a broad array of human diseases. We built and continue to invest in a platform to advance the technological frontier of mRNA medicines. We made and continue to make forward investments in scalable infrastructure and capabilities to pursue a pipeline of potential medicines that reflect the breadth of the mRNA opportunity. Since we nominated our first program in late 2014, we and our strategic collaborators have advanced in parallel a diverse development pipeline of 21 programs, of which 10 have entered clinical studies and another 3 have open INDs. Our therapeutic and vaccine development programs span infectious diseases, oncology, cardiovascular diseases, and rare genetic diseases. We have assembled an exceptional team of approximately 680 employees and have established strategic alliances with leading biopharmaceutical companies, including AstraZeneca, Merck & Co., and Vertex Pharmaceuticals, as well as government-sponsored and private organizations focused on global health initiatives, including Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, or BARDA, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. As of September 30, 2018, we have raised over $2.6 billion in total funding from our strategic collaborators and investors, and have cash, cash equivalents, and investments of $1.2 billion. As we unlock the inherent advantages of mRNA, we aim to address as many diseases and impact as many patients as our technology, talent, and capital permit.
However, this summary hid systemic problems in the company. Whitney Webb’s analysis of Moderna’s business model and IPO, published in 2021, detailed the mess that was unfolding in the company even after the IPO:
Not only did the COVID-19 crisis obliterate hurdles that had previously prevented Moderna from taking a single product to market, it also dramatically reversed the company’s fortunes. Indeed, from 2016 right up until the emergence of COVID-19, Moderna could barely hold it together, as it was shedding key executives, top talent, and major investors at an alarming rate. Essentially, Moderna’s promise of “revolutionizing” medicine and the remarkable salesmanship and fund-raising capabilities of the company’s top executive, Stéphane Bancel, were the main forces keeping it afloat. In the years leading up to the COVID-19 crisis, Moderna’s promises—despite Bancel’s efforts—rang increasingly hollow, as the company’s long-standing penchant for extreme secrecy meant that—despite nearly a decade in business—it had never been able to definitively prove that it could deliver the “revolution” it had continually assured investors was right around the corner.
Whitney’s paper detailed just how these problems dogged the company even as it worked to develop a Covid-19 “vaccine”. In particular, there were fundamental issues with the method for delivering the mRNA to the patients’ bodies using a system called V1GL - a nanoparticle delivery system. This technology was not even developed by Moderna. It was licensed from a company called Acuitas. But even this licensing arrangement was complicated.
After the IPO in December 2018 the company’s stock price unperformed - sliding down from the offer price. Candidate drugs were seen to be too toxic to be delivered to subjects - and the delivery system seemed to be the major issue. Indeed the toxicity was such that the company started looking for use-cases where only one dose might be required - hence vaccines. And either by coincidence, or design, both Anthony Fauci of the NIAID and Rick Bright of BARDA, became champions for Moderna and its claimed ability to develop vaccines more rapidly than was considered previously possible.
The Bright-led BARDA and the Fauci-led NIAID in just a few months’ time became the biggest backers of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, investing billions and co-developing the vaccine with the company, respectively. The partnership between Moderna and the NIH to co-develop what would soon become Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine was being forged as early as January 7, 2020, long before the official declaration of the COVID-19 crisis as a pandemic and before a vaccine was proclaimed as necessary by officials and other individuals. Not only did the COVID-19 vaccine quickly become the answer to nearly all Moderna’s woes but it also provided the disruptive scenario necessary to alter the public’s perceptions of what a vaccine is and eliminate existing safeguards and bureaucracy in vaccine approval.
Clearly, Moderna’s business plan and stock performance was considerably enhanced by the happy coincidence that the great and the influential in the global public health fraternity were essentially gaming a scenario where a pandemic might suddenly spring from nowhere (or, even better, China) and spread over the air, across the world, almost instantly.
The tipping point between slow and meticulous research and clinical trials for new vaccines - to super fast development of a “technology” with no proven efficacy and roll-out to billions of people under emergency use authorisation - happened remarkably quickly. And, in the process, a relatively modest number of people made a spectacularly large amount of money in stock in a company that had just IPO’ed a few months before. And in the process of the IPO the management of Moderna benefited greatly from a technology and some fundamental tenets of virology that collectively could only be described as pseudoscience.
Much is written about proteins and RNA and the unique characteristics of nanoparticle delivery to achieve a causal outcome from an mRNA “vaccine”. Indeed there’s a widespread acceptance - even among those who question the efficacy of the vaccine - that genomics and biochemistry can come together to prove, beyond doubt, that a miniscule airborne particle can literally sweep across the world and fundamentally reprogram our bodies for the worse. But many even extend this argument to suggest that we can manufacture antidotes to this little devastating particle, by using shambolic technology that’s never been proven or manufactured at scale. It literally beggars belief.
As so this is my second observation: that virology and its associated commercialisation, is laughably absurd. There was no need for Moderna’s products - or Pfizer’s (based on similar conjectures and duff science). The drugs have no efficacy because the viruses they purport to protect people against have never been proven to exist (throat swabs and electron microscopes still don’t show causality). And it’s almost certainly the case that the manufacture of such products at such scale will also expose people receiving such products to risks that are simply unnecessary.
Virology and Pseudoscience
You will appreciate that holding such a view will lead to an obvious consequence. Inevitably it means that Covid-19 is a narrative, a myth. It also means that the testing regimes for Covid-19 were also myths. It means that all the regulations, lockdowns, hand sanitisers, masks, everything…they too were part of the global lie that there was such a thing as a deadly disease that had never existed before and could spread like wildfire. And that this happened just weeks after the very idea of such a “pandemic” had already been gamed by the global public health vaccine myth-makers.
My suggestion is that the spike in deaths from “Covid-19” didn’t arise from a virus but came about because of a fear campaign, mainstream media propaganda, lockdown and the effective removal of acute hospital care facilities during the months when respiratory diseases were at their peak in Northern Europe, and the United States. Covid-19 deaths among the groups that are most likely to suffer the most severe consequences from respiratory disease - the elderly - were clearly the result of negligent healthcare. Invasive ventilation - recommended by the Chinese - resulted in deaths that could have been avoided. The use of proven therapies - including antibiotics to treat infections associated with respiratory illness, like pneumonia - were considered inappropriate. Elderly people died alone in care homes, denied treatment regimens that were proven to be effective prior to Covid-19.
In early 2021 I released a video - based on research compiled by Joel Smalley - that showed that the spikes in deaths in 2020 and 2021 were not wildly different from other years with severe respiratory spikes: like 2018 and 2015.
The difference was that during the so-called Covid-19 “pandemic waves” the nature of care was fundamentally altered. Patients were denied access to general practitioners. Surgical procedures were cancelled. Diagnoses were missed. And the kill rate increased markedly. The entire focus of the government and the media was focused on a myth. And the myth was made worse by a mythical test for a mythical thing. And lots of signs and masks and stuff made in China.
I’m not alone in suggesting that virology and the mRNA snake oil salesmen were the root causes of the faux pandemic.
This thread by Alec Zeck on Twitter provides a compelling argument.
And Nick Hudson, writing on the Panda blog, articulated a similar view.
Viruses are likely ancient, and our deep evolutionary history is surely a tale of intricate co-evolution. It is hard to imagine how any significant ecological niche would not have been colonised by them many times. Why then is there an expectation of a ‘novel’ virus arising? We discern only the narrowest slice of viral reality as we probe sequences. Yet seldom is any viral taxonomy or phylogeny accompanied by appropriate expressions of doubt or uncertainty. The pace with which conjecture is taken as axiomatic is breathtaking.
As SARS-CoV-2 has made blindingly obvious, morbidity is multifactorial. Healthy, fit individuals were not decimated by Covid. The whole idea of a deadly virus seems dubious. A story must always be told of accompanying poverty, poison, life choices, self-abuse, diet or cognition. This is so much the case with SARS-CoV-2 as to render pointless any attempt to set a point estimate for its fatality rate, other than to observe that it is very low—negligible for most.
As Nick points out in his piece the virology-based myth making is the starting point for a myriad other virology conjectures about lab leaks, gain-of-function research and “variant” research by the mRNA crowd. But the null hypothesis, in my view, is much more compelling: there was no novel virus. There was, simply, incompetence, money-making, greed and terrible inhumanity inflicted on people who were most in need of care and the love of their families.
And then came the mRNA “vaccines”. And the associated excess deaths (this time skewed towards younger age groups).
For this to have happened required the work of psychopaths. CEOs of large corporations tend not to be challenged. Their views are held in high esteem by others who may ultimately succeed them and who emulate them. I have met people I know to have revolting personality disorders but who can spew diversity or climate emergency mantras extremely effectively because they know that by doing so they perhaps might signal virtues that they know they don’t have. Unchallenged egos need to be fed, constantly, with projects, wealth and power. They seek each other out - and no annual convention feeds the souls of the soulless more than the World Economic Forum.
The WEF doesn’t see international borders and despises nation states. It, and the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group and World Health Organisation and GAVI (Bill Gates’ vaccine charity) see themselves as moral custodians in projects that result in shareholder value to their corporate “partners”. The internecine relationship between the power players allow them to model and game rather than produce anything of value. And so it stands to reason that liquidity events that value the funders, “partners”, global leaders, hedge funds and NGOs will be hot-housed, nurtured and promoted by embedded media organisations.
And this, in essence, is the new theory of everything from a virology perspective. It’s a tale of greed, inhumanity, market manipulation, and duff science.
Something wicked came in 2020. It wasn’t a pandemic.
“A stranger is shot in the street, you hardly move to help. But if, half an hour before, you spent just ten minutes with the fellow and knew a little about him and his family, you might just jump in front of his killer and try to stop it. Really knowing is good. Not knowing, or refusing to know is bad, or amoral, at least. You can’t act if you don’t know.”
Ray Bradbury, Something Wicked This Way Comes
The New Era is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.