The Defendants & Their Gates Connections | Neil Ferguson

The Defendants & Their Gates Connections | Neil Ferguson

Here lies the fourth 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 Imperial College modeler and Bill Gates. In the following passages, Ferguson is referred to as the 4th defendant, whilst Hancock is the 1st, Whitty is the 2nd and Vallance is the 3rd defendant.


According to Ferguson’s biography on the London Centre for Neglected Tropical Disease Research (LCNTDR) website, “much of [his] work as a mathematical biologist and epidemiologist is applied informing disease control policy making by public and global health institutions.”

Whilst this implicitly acknowledges he is largely engaged in forming the ‘pandemic’ identification, control and response policies of both the WHO and the UK Government, what isn’t mentioned is the fact that the 4th defendant worked as a consultant for pharmaceutical companies, Roche and GSK, from an undisclosed date until 2007.


However, it is somewhat well known that, in 2002, the 4th defendant predicted that up to 50,000 people would die from variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob, better known as “mad cow disease”, increasing to a prediction of 150,000 if the epidemic expanded to include sheep.

According to the National CJD Research and Surveillance Unit at the University of Edinburgh: “Since 1990, 178 people in the United Kingdom have died from vCJD.”

It is similarly common knowledge that, in 2005, the 4th defendant claimed that up to 200 million people would be killed by bird-flu or H5N1. By early 2006, the WHO had only linked 78 deaths to the ‘virus’, out of 147 reported cases.

In addition, he and his team at Gates and Wellcome Trust funded Imperial College advised the government that the 2009 swine flu or H1N1 would probably kill 65,000 people in the UK. In the end, swine flu is recorded to have claimed the lives of 457 people.


On 06/11/2014, with co-authors the 4th defendant and Jeremy Farrar, the 2nd defendant wrote an article in Nature titled “Infectious disease: Tough choices to reduce Ebola transmission”, explaining the UK government’s response to Ebola in support of the government of Sierra Leone’s national lockdown, which the 2nd and 4th defendants took a leading role in designing, including the proposal to build and support centres where people could self-isolate voluntarily if they suspected that they could have the disease.

In the article, the authors wrote that:

“According to our analyses, R in Sierra Leone is currently between 1.2 and 1.5. In some areas, R is considerably higher. If R remains above 1, any public-health intervention (except a vaccine) will eventually be overwhelmed by the number of new infections. Getting R below 1 is the single strategic aim of the UK effort at this stage of the outbreak. […]

The ideal approach would be active case-finding combined with isolating patients in fully equipped and staffed hospitals, but this is not practical in the current situation. In some areas, the outbreak has already overrun hospitals; many suspected Ebola cases are being turned away for lack of beds. An unknown proportion of cases remain at home. For those who seek medical care, the current median time between becoming symptomatic (and thus infectious) and isolation in Sierra Leone is four days. Many wait more than a week.

These delays will only get longer. Current UK aid efforts — which have so far pledged more than £200 million (US$320 million) and the largest UK troop deployment outside Afghanistan — will help to increase Sierra Leone’s bed capacity threefold by January. But at current measures of R, the projected increase in new cases (thousands per week) will far exceed the number of possible new hospital beds. To avoid that scenario, beginning this month, affected regions must substantially increase rates of early isolation for suspect and confirmed Ebola cases.

One proposed strategy — giving families information and basic personal protective equipment (PPE) to minimize transmission while nursing patients at home — is problematic. Using PPE safely is difficult even for professionals, as infection rates in health-care workers demonstrate. And identifying cases and training families requires staff that Sierra Leone does not have. This approach is acceptable only as a desperate humanitarian measure when there is no space available in health facilities. It is not a good strategy to reduce transmission.”


In the words of the 2nd and 4th defendants, six months after the purported outbreak, the strategies they devised to deal with the Ebola ‘pandemic’ in Sierra Leone were distinctly reminiscent of the strategies the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants proposed to the UK Government, upon the advise of the 4th defendant, six months into the ‘COVID-19 Pandemic’.

In fact, some might see Ebola as a dummy run for COVID-19, given that it involved three of the defendants in this case, in almost identical circumstances.

It is certainly worthy of note that, just before the Ebola ‘outbreak’ in the spring of 2014, the Sierra Leone Government introduced the Rotavirus ‘vaccine’, upon the recommendation of Gates funded GAVI and the WHO.

The Rotavirus ‘vaccine’ was manufactured by GSK, which started developing it in 2013, one year after the 3rd defendant became the company’s President of Research and Development and the same year GSK and the Gates Foundation formed a partnership which continues to this day.

Upon the evidence, the prosecution alleges that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants played key roles in the identification of the Ebola ‘pandemic’, the lockdown policies imposed on Sierra Leone to deal with it and the research, development, manufacture and distribution of a GAVI and WHO approved ‘vaccine’ to treat it.

According to the WHO, a little over 1,552 people died of Ebola in West Africa, despite initial disease model-based predictions that more than 5,000,000 would perish if the recommended ‘pandemic’ policies were not imposed.

This unbridled fiasco would appear to have been disingenuously used to artificially bolster the ‘scientific’ esteem the 2nd 3rd and 4th defendants are held in, with regard to the identification, management and treatment of worldwide ‘pandemics’, whether the actual cause of the sudden outbreak of ‘Ebola Symptoms’ in West Africa was the Rotavirus ‘vaccine’ or not,


Notwithstanding the 4th defendant’s proven track record of either incompetence or dishonesty, since 30/04/2019, he has been head of the WHO Collaboration Centre For Infectious Disease Modelling.

The terms of reference for his position are as follows:

a. Upon request of WHO provide rapid analysis of urgent infectious disease problems, notably outbreaks and events of international concern.
b. Upon request of WHO provide technical assistance to WHO infectious disease programs including coordination of expertise in modelling and contribute to WHO information products.
c. Upon request of WHO provide training and contribute to capacity building in modelling in accordance with WHO needs and planning.

The subjects the 4th defendant is responsible for are health information; statistics; measurement and trend assessment, influenza and viral haemorrhagic fevers, whilst the types of activity he focuses on are outbreaks and emergencies, providing technical advice to WHO, as well as training and education.

The 4th defendant is also required to output control strategies, plans and capacities developed for diseases such as cholera, viral haemorrhagic fever, meningitis and influenza and those due to vectorborne, emerging and re-emerging pathogens; new events detected and public health risks assessed and global expert networks; and innovative mechanisms developed to manage new and evolving high-threat infectious hazards (such as for clinical management, laboratories, social science, and data modelling).

According to the Gates Foundation website, in March 2020, the 4th defendant’s employer, Imperial College, received $79 million from the foundation, for the purposes of pursuing research into the development of a new tool for malaria control and elimination in Sub-Saharan Africa.

However, this comprises only the tip of an iceberg of Gates funding received by Imperial College and Wellcome Trust during the 1st defendant’s tenure.


Ferguson’s Imperial College Model was generated under the auspices of the Vaccine Modelling Impact Consortium, hosted by Imperial College — both effectively funded by Bill Gates and Britain’s Wellcome Trust.

The VIMC is hosted by the Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology at Imperial College. It is funded by the Gates Foundation and by “GAVI, the vaccine alliance” (GAVI’s own title for itself).

Gates began funding Imperial College in 2006, four years before the Gates Foundation launched the Global Health Leaders Launch Decade of Vaccines Collaboration (GHLLDVC) and four years after the 4th defendant had demonstrated his penchant for overblown projections on mortality numbers from H5N1.

Up to the end of 2018, the Gates Foundation had sponsored Imperial College with $185 million. That makes Gates the second largest sponsor, second only to the Wellcome Trust, a British ‘vaccine’ research charity, which, by the end of 2018, had already provided Imperial with over $400 million in funding.

In December 2018, CEPI went into partnership with Imperial College. CEPI provided funding of $8.4 million for Imperial to work on a ‘vaccine’ platform that can be used to “rapidly develop vaccines against pathogens — even unknown ones”.


The platform was appropriately named RapidVac and was focused on producing ‘vaccines’ for H1N1, rabies and Marburg virus as “proof of concept”. The next step would be to develop ‘vaccines’ rapidly in responses to “new and unknown pathogens, known as ‘Disease X’”. In other words, one year before the ‘Covid–19 outbreak’, Imperial College was working on a ‘vaccine’ for “Disease X”.

An Imperial College statement claimed that the partnership of CEPI and IC aimed to develop ‘vaccines’ “against new and unknown pathogens within 16 weeks from identification of antigen to product release for trials”.

This is an extraordinary claim, when ‘vaccines’ previously had a typical R&D gestation period of up to fifteen years before being safely approved for public consumption.

It is therefore obvious that the 4th defendant has a long term vested material interest in the Gates plan to maximise ‘vaccination’ uptake, given that he has for the better part of two decades financed his work at Imperial College and the WHO, with monies from GSK, Bill Gates, the Wellcome Trust and CEPI; and because Imperial College were already engaged in the development of ‘vaccines’ for a ‘disease’ which sounds all too similar to COVID-19, before the purported declaration of a Public Health Emergency.

Big Pharma Players Behind Lockdown


Since all of the above is a matter of pre-existing public record, the prosecution does not intend to rely upon any other evidence sustaining these statements, unless challenged by the 4th defendant, who has maintained from 16/03/2020 to the present day, that the maximisation of ‘vaccination’ uptake is the only route out of the lockdown policies he recommended, both to the WHO and the UK Government.

Upon the evidence, the prosecution alleges that, at any time since his consultancy work for GSK, through his ‘vaccine’ related research at Imperial College, to his ‘pandemic’ policy design for the WHO, the 4th defendant and Bill Gates had both the motive and opportunity to agree that the Imperial College Model would be used to justify the 4th defendant’s advice to the WHO that a worldwide ‘pandemic’ should be declared; that the predicted threat of millions of deaths should be used to justify his proposed lockdown policies [just like it was in Sierra Leone]; and that the maximisation of ‘vaccination’ uptake should be the non-negotiable condition of those Draconian impositions being lifted; for the purposes of creating the ultimate ‘safe market’ for ‘vaccines’, as per Gates’ agenda and in pursuance of the UN Sustainable Development Goal to immunize the population of the world from every illness and disease imaginable.

Read More in Critical Thinking

Posted in Critical Thinking and tagged , , , .