The Defendants & Their Gates Connections | Chris Whitty

The 2nd Defendant & His Gates Connections | Chris Whitty

Here lies the second in a series of posts exposing the multitude of frauds, of which Matt Hancock, Chris Whitty, Patrick Vallance and Neil Ferguson stand accused in PUB’s Private Criminal Prosecution, focusing upon the connections between the UK’s Chief Medical Officer and Bill Gates. In the following passages, Whitty is referred to as the 2nd defendant, whilst Hancock is the 1st, Vallance is the 3rd and Ferguson is the 4th defendant.


For the purposes of understanding the critical part the 2nd defendant has played in perpetrating the crimes alleged, it is somewhat illuminating to consider the role Bill Gates played in his professional career, before he became the UK Government’s Chief Medical Officer in late 2019.

According to his Wikipedia page, the 2nd defendant was educated at Windlesham House School in Pulborough, West Sussex, and Malvern College, Worcestershire, Pembroke College, Oxford (BA in Physiology, DSc in medical science), Wolfson College (BM BCh in Medicine), and London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (DTM&H in Tropical Medicine and Hygiene).

He also has an MSc in Epidemiology and an LLM in Medical Law from Northumbria University, an MBA in Business Administration from Heriot-Watt University and a DipEcon in Economics from the Open University.

In short, the 2nd defendant is highly qualified in medicine, medical law and economics, so he has no excuse for not knowing that:

a. The COVID treatments granted emergency licenses by the MHRA are not ‘vaccines’, under the long established medical and legal definitions, given that it has been widely reported that ‘vaccination’ does not prevent people from contracting or passing on the ‘virus’, thereby entirely negating it as a preventative treatment.

b. The administration of the UK Government approved untested COVID vaccines is a breach of the Nuremberg Code, on the ground that it is tantamount to involuntary medical experimentation.

c. The consequences of the lockdown policies imposed would be catastrophic for civil liberties, the ‘National Debt’ burden on the taxpayer and the nation’s solvency.

d. The results of the flu and COVID ‘vaccine’ safety studies emphatically showed that there were and still are potentially debilitating and fatal side effects.


In 2008, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine [LSHTM] was awarded grant funding of over $46.4 million by the Gates Foundation and $12.7 million from other partners for research into treatment and prevention of malaria, tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS.

The largest portion of that funding went to the ACT Consortium, a body of research institutions around the world that conducted research into treatment for malaria and of which the LSHTM was a member. The ACT Consortium received around $40 million of the funding.

At the time, the 2nd defendant was a director and Principal Investigator of the ACT Consortium. According to reports from the Gates Foundation, the money went via the LSHTM, which the 2nd defendant represented at a senior level and took material benefit from upon its receipt, since it funded his research into malaria.

This research grant was an integral part of the Gates Foundation’s drive to maximise the ‘vaccination’ uptake in Africa and the rest of the world, which developed into the ‘Decade of Vaccines’ project, from 2010-2020. The project was singularly dedicated to maximising ‘vaccination’ uptake worldwide over the course of a ten year plan, in which the 2nd defendant was engaged to play his integral part.

From the moment the 2nd defendant accepted the benefit of the funds donated by Gates, as director and Principal Investigator of the ACT Consortium, he had a vested material interest in the maximisation of ‘vaccination’ uptake, on the basis that he accepted monies intended and used for the research and development of ‘vaccines’ to be used in the fulfilment of that specific purpose in Africa, in relation to the treatment of malaria and in accordance with the UN Sustainable Development Goal to immunise the entire population of the world from every conceivable illness and disease they declare into existence.


The 2nd defendant’s Wikipedia page also states that, the year after he accepted the £31 million grant from Gates, he was appointed Chief Scientific Adviser and director of research for the Department for International Development (DFID); and that he led the Research and Evidence Division, which worked on health, agriculture, climate change, energy, infrastructure, economic and governance research.

From 2016 to 2017, the 2nd defendant was Chief Scientific Adviser (CSA) and head of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), funded by the DHSC. From 2017 till the appointment of the 3rd defendant, he was interim Chief Scientific Adviser and head of the science and engineering profession in government.

During this period, Novichok, the military nerve agent, was held responsible for the 2018 Salisbury poisonings, in relation to which Whitty chaired the government SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group in Emergencies) and advised COBR for the duration of the crisis.

By which time the 2nd defendant could reasonably be described as a primary influencer of UK Government health policy, second only to the long serving former Chief Medical Officer, who refrained from advising the UK Government to adopt the totalitarian lockdown policies which the 2nd and 4th defendants have been proposing since the Ebola ‘outbreak’ in 2014, as the public record affirms.


It is somewhat less well known that the 2nd defendant was appointed to the WHO’s Executive Board, which is composed of thirty four technically qualified members elected for three-year terms. The annual board meeting is held in January, when the members agree upon the agenda for the World Health Assembly and the resolutions to be considered by the Health Assembly.

A second shorter meeting takes place in May, as a follow-up to the Health Assembly. The main functions of the board are to implement the decisions and policies of the Health Assembly and advise and generally to facilitate its work.

The 2nd defendant began his three year term as an Executive Board member on 01/01/2020, two weeks after the board recommended the Global ‘Vaccine’ Action Plan to the Health Assembly, in which it was declared:

“(16) The Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on immunization, at its meeting in October 2019, proposed that a post-2020 immunization strategy should:

(1) ensure more timely and comprehensive implementation at global, regional, national and subnational levels;

(2) focus on countries, specifically: – place countries at the centre of strategy development and implementation to ensure context specificity and relevance; – strengthen country-led evidence-based decision-making; – encourage the sourcing and sharing of innovations to improve programme performance; – promote use of research by countries to accelerate uptake of vaccines and vaccine technologies and to improve immunization programme performance.

(3) maintain the momentum toward the goals of the global vaccine action plan: – incorporate key elements of the global vaccine action plan, recognizing its comprehensiveness and the importance of sustaining successes in immunization every year; – add a specific focus on humanitarian emergencies, displacement and migration, and chronic political and socio-economic fragility; – encourage stronger integration between disease-elimination initiatives and national immunization programmes; – encourage greater collaboration and integration within and outside the health sector.

(4) establish a governance model better able to turn strategy into action: – create a robust and flexible governance structure and operational model based on closer collaboration between partners; – incorporate the flexibility to detect and respond to emerging issues; – develop and maintain a strong communications and advocacy strategy.

(5) promote long-term planning for the development and implementation of novel vaccine and other preventive innovations, to ensure that populations benefit as rapidly as possible;

(6) promote the use of data to stimulate and guide action and to inform decision-making;

(7) strengthen monitoring and evaluation at the national and subnational levels in order to promote greater accountability.”

The prosecution alleges that evidence shows that the 2nd defendant was committed to achieving the aims and objectives set out in the WHO’s Global ‘Vaccine’ Action Plan, no later than the day he took his position on the Executive Board that ratified it on 16/12/2019.

Furthermore, it is simply undeniable that those aims and objectives are identical to the aims of objectives of the Gates agenda to maximise ‘vaccination’ uptake worldwide, by and through establishing ‘safe markets’ for ‘vaccines’, via the criminal monopolisation of international government policy.


Nevertheless, perhaps the most compelling example of the 2nd defendant’s senior position in the fulfilment of the UN Sustainable Development Goal to ‘immunise’ the vast majority of the world’s population, is his integral role in the formation of CEPI.

CEPI is the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, which was launched at Davos in 2017, by the governments of Norway and India, the Gates Foundation, the British-based Wellcome Trust ‘global health charity’ and the World Economic Forum.

CEPI state on their website that they are:

“…working together to accelerate the development of vaccines against emerging infectious diseases and enable equitable access to these vaccines for people during outbreaks.”

The 2nd defendant was on the interim board of CEPI, until the permanent board was announced in 2018. His continuing vested interests in Gates’ plan to maximise vaccination uptake worldwide are therefore beyond reasonable doubt, as his memberships of the UK Government’s ‘Vaccine’ Taskforce, the UK ‘Vaccine’ Network and the WHO’s Executive Board emphatically affirm.

Moreover, when the 2nd defendant assumed the office of the UK Government’s Chief Medical Officer, on 02/10/2019, the prosecution contends that he effectively became the most powerful scientist in government; at which point there was a definitive shift towards adopting the totalitarian ‘pandemic’ policies which the 2nd and 4th defendant devised for the government of Sierra Leone in 2014, in a UK Government funded response to an alleged Ebola ‘pandemic’, about which the prosecution will elaborate in the section about the 4th defendant.

However, the prosecution alleges that the 2nd defendant and Bill Gates had both the motive and opportunity to agree that a future ‘pandemic’ should be used to maximise ‘vaccination’ uptake in the UK and the rest of the world, during the 2nd defendant’s tenures at the LSHTM, CEPI, the WHO’s Executive Board and as long-serving Chief Medical and Scientific Officer to the UK Government.


On 17/04/2020, it was announced in a press release signed off by the 1st defendant that the UK Government had granted £250 million of taxpayer’s money to CEPI, in relation to the launch of the UK’s ‘Vaccine’ Taskforce, of which the 2nd defendant was named as a member and the 3rd defendant was named as its chair.

The stated purposes of the ‘Vaccine’ Taskforce were as follows:

“A new Vaccine Taskforce will drive forward, expedite and co-ordinate efforts to research and then produce a coronavirus vaccine and make sure one is made available to the public as quickly as possible.

21 new research projects combating coronavirus will receive government funding from a £14 million pot investment to rapidly progress treatments and vaccines.

This follows the government’s £250 million pledge to develop a vaccine, putting the UK at the forefront of international efforts to fight the virus.”

As confirmed by the 1st defendant in the press release, the £250 million pledge referred to was made to Gates funded CEPI, which the 2nd defendant played a key role in the formation and establishment of at board level.

Furthermore, the 2nd defendant is quoted in the press release as stating:

“The UK has some of the best vaccine scientists in the world, but we need to take account of the whole development process. This taskforce will ensure the UK can take an end-to-end view. This includes funding research, like the recent NIHR/UKRI call, and ensuring manufacturing capability to deliver a COVID19 vaccination as quickly as possible.”

The prosecution alleges that what the 2nd defendant meant by the foregoing somewhat couched language was this:

The UK has Imperial College, UCL, LSHTM, Sheffield University and Oxford University researching ‘vaccines’ but we need to control every part of the development process, so we will force the creation of a COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ monopoly, controlled by Bill Gates and his partners and paid for by the UK taxpayer. We will also enforce the indemnification of both manufacturers and those who administer the jabs, ensuring the ‘vaccines’ we have developed can skip the pre-requisite decade of safety tests and be offered as soon as possible to everybody in the UK and then the rest of the world.


In the expanded National Influenza Immunisation Programme, the 2nd defendant signed off on a letter to every GP practice in the UK on 05/08/2020, launching the full-blown practice of the aggressive strategies to maximise flu ‘vaccination’ uptake, which were developed by Gates funded Sheffield University in 2011.

The letter stated as follows:

“Dear Colleague,

The national flu immunisation programme 2020 to 2021- update

  1. We write with more information about this year’s programme, further to the letter published on 14 May .

Expansion of the programme

  1. In light of the risk of flu and COVID-19 co-circulating this winter, the national flu immunisation programme will be absolutely essential to protecting vulnerable people and supporting the resilience of the health and care system.
  2. As indicated in our letter of 14 May, providers should focus on achieving maximum uptake of the flu vaccine in existing eligible groups, as they are most at risk from flu or in the case of children transmission to other members of the community. Appendix A provides the full list of those eligible in 2020/21 as part of the NHS funded flu vaccination programme.”

The letter goes on to state:

“36. The flu vaccination programme will be supported with a major new public facing marketing campaign to encourage take up amongst eligible groups for the free flu vaccine, due to launch in October. More detailed plans will be shared as these are developed.

  1. PHE will make available a toolkit of adaptable campaign assets, highlighting the protective benefits of the flu vaccination, for NHS Trusts and social care organisations to use in their own staff vaccination campaigns.”


From these statements alone, it is abundantly clear that the purpose of the front facing marketing campaign described was to maximise the UK uptake of the flu ‘vaccine’ and that this strategy was prioritised upon the 2nd defendant’s advice, in the middle of the supposed ‘COVID-19 Pandemic’, at a time when the ONS reported that flu deaths had virtually flat-lined.

The prosecution alleges that the public statements made by the 2nd defendant over the course of his tenure as CMO have unequivocally confirmed him as a vocal advocate of the maximisation of ‘vaccination’ uptake, as per the mutual agenda of the UN, the WHO, GAVI, CEPI, Oxford University, UCL, LSHTM, Sheffield University, Imperial College and the UK Government.

It is also contended that it is not unreasonable to conclude that the 2nd defendant has become one of the two most powerful scientists the world has ever known, the other being the 4th defendant, as a direct result of relying upon the false statements and non-disclosures documented in these proceedings.

Which must be held to be the most sought after of intangible material gains for the morally bankrupt – power over life and death. Especially given that, were it not for the ‘COVID-19 Pandemic’, the 2nd defendant would never have obtained such power.

Read More in Critical Thinking

Posted in Critical Thinking and tagged , , , , .