Bill Gates has used the same M.O. in all of his fraud-related crime since the beginning of his depraved career. Beginning with his computer software company, the strategy was to implement Hegelian dialectics consisting of 1) Thesis: Problem, 2) Antithesis: Reaction, and 3) Synthesis: Solution. This was accomplished by his Microsoft technicians devising viruses to infect Microsoft computer software programs, causing users PCs to become infected, and then supplying the antidote in terms of Microsoft-designed Anti-Virus programs.
The user would then make the online purchase of the Anti-Virus software program and install it on their computer, and presto—problem solved, or so the user thought. What has really transpired is that, while the Anti-Virus program had neutralized the culprit virus, yet another had been seeded in the user’s hard drive, so that another virus alert would occur a few week’s later, advising the user to download another Anti-Viral software program to attend to the latest viral infection in their PC. Few ever questioned the suspicious Anti-Viral software program pop-ups that immediately appeared on the user’s PC to warn them that their computer had been infected. Could they not see that the so-called PC vaccine was linked to the virus itself and that they were each aiding and abetting each other?
As with the computer software programs, their viruses and the vaccines for the virus, so the bioweapon lab technicians experimenting with gain-of-function viruses are the same scientists working on the so-called vaccines for those weaponized viruses. And not surprisingly Dr. Evil Gates and his foundation are behind the same problem-reaction-solution strategy game to seed the viruses, provide the vaccine, implanting yet another virus or at least the appearance of one through the production of auto-immune symptoms by means of the vaccine itself, which would require yet another vaccine in an endless positive feedback loop of infection, sickness and death.
Now the operating system of the human being—the DNA—is being altered by an operating system devised by Gates’ brilliant but diabolical mind. With funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Moderna and Pfizer have embarked upon the creation of what are described as mRNA ‘vaccines’, which are really operating systems meant to program changes in the DNA through reprogrammed RNA transcription and translation hacking the software of life. What will occur is that the mRNA will be reprogramed to instruct the cells to generate the same protein spikes found in the CoViD-19 virus. This will have the effect of producing symptoms matching the effects of the virus itself, resulting in an auto-immune response, in which the body’s immune system will start attacking its own healthy tissues in targeting the embedded spike proteins planted there.
On top of that, Gates and company have implemented a plan to implant the enzyme Luciferase in the vaccine, so that when people pass through the military checkpoints of the future, scanners will be able detect that the person has received the CoViD-19 vaccine. Gates call for vaccine certificates will ultimately lead to nanobot implants aimed serving not only as certificates as well as a means of interfacing with 5G communication towers.
Of course, there are the usual attempts by the mainstream media outlets to debunk all these claims as outlandish conspiracy theories, which most respectable people are inured into accepting as the hairbrained ideas of disaffected, embittered, and deservedly marginalized trouble-makers.
Slapping its usual prophylactic of the disseminators of such claims, the BBC recently investigated what it refers to as “a conspiracy theory” that the coronavirus ‘pandemic’ is a cover for a plan to implant trackable ‘microchips’ in vaccine recipients and that Bill Gates is behind it. And so, I find myself in the bunker once again, debunking the conspiracy debunkers.
According to the BBC, there is no vaccine “microchip” and there is no evidence to support claims that Bill Gates is planning any such measure for the future. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation told the BBC the claim was “false.” It is hardly convincing to receive such a denial from the organization. Since when does a corporate entity speak? Who was the spokesperson? Why did they fail to identify themselves? Besides, if you pose a question related to a criminal action to criminals, they are hardly likely to admit to it. And how much do the spokespersons at the foundation actually know about the vaccine anyway? Such spokespersons may be responding on the organization’s behalf based on what little they know and have been told. They may not even be in a position to offer an expert opinion on the subject. They are, after all, acting as spokespersons for the organization, and since they are drawing a paycheck from the organization, they are hardly likely to speak ill of it or question the merits of a vaccine promoted by it.
One TikTok user created a video about people being “microchipped” and referring to the vaccine as the “Mark of the Beast.”
The BBC then confirmed that Gates admitted in an interview that eventually “we will have some digital certificates,” which would be used to show who’d recovered, been tested, and ultimately, who received a vaccine. According to the BBC, Gates made no mention of microchips. This is really a question of semantics, the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. What is meant by “digital certificates” and how are they distinguishable from microchips? They may not be chips as such, but they are still embedded in the body subcutaneously with the vaccine injection for the purpose of serving as vaccine receipt certification.
The BBC then refers to an article titled, “Bill Gates will use microchip implants to fight coronavirus.” According to the BBC, the article refers to a study, funded by The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, into a technology that could store someone’s vaccine records in a special ink administered at the same time as an injection. Well, it may not technically be the same as a microchip, but it does the same thing for which a microchip is intended—to store the person’s data so that it can be scanned and verified. It amounts to a different label or name for something that does essentially the same thing.
Still, the BBC defends the technology, claiming, “However, the technology is not a microchip and is more like an invisible tattoo. It has not been rolled out yet, would not allow people to be tracked and personal information would not be entered into a database, says Ana Jaklenec, a scientist involved in the study.” Semantics Ana, semantics. Whether it’s a microchip or an invisible tattoo, it is still invasive technology being injected subcutaneously into our bodies without our permission, and in the case of many people without their “informed consent,” which violates the provisions of the Nuremburg Code. How quickly and easily it has been for governments worldwide to repeat the past regimes without the least resistance from the public. All the authorities need to do is use a respected institution like the BBC to affirm that it is all good and everyone is lulled into a sense of compliance and acceptance. The BBC would never lie, they will say, when the fact is that skirting the issue and obfuscating is often worse because it is a grey area that is neither true nor false and leaves people in a No Man’s Land of complete uncertainty.
The BBC then defends one of the greatest criminals on the planet, Bill Gates, doubtless because, like other mainstream media agencies, it has received funding and advertising revenue from the very vaccine manufacturers the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation fund and support, hence BBC’s defense of the man: “The billionaire founder of Microsoft has been the subject of many false rumors during the pandemic. He’s been targeted because of his philanthropic work in public health and vaccine development.”
The truth is he is not the victim of false rumors. Many of the claims about him are true. He has been found liable of causing vaccine injury in thousands of Indians, and has had legal proceedings launched against him in India on that account. He has also more recently been accused of causing a polio outbreak in sub-Saharan African with a polio vaccination campaign, when this disease is not even a concern in the region, diarrhea and malaria posing far more serious disease threats.
According to the BBC, in May 2020 a YouGov poll of 1,640 people suggested 28% of Americans believed Gates wanted to use vaccines to implant microchips in people. Well, it may not be a microchip per se, but implanting an “invisible tattoo” called Luciferase, which emits a red glow subcutaneously detectable by a scanner, amounts to something just as dystopian and just as invasive as microchipping the population. Implanting an “invisible tattoo” in people is a breach of human rights and highly dehumanizing and degrading. It obviously shows that we are being treated like cattle by being forced to have something invasive embedded in our bodies. Microchip or not, it is an implant and it is scannable. Whatever the truth of these claims an “invisible tattoo” is hardly something people should be accepting and lining up for.
The BBC then attempts to debunk claims that vaccines contain the lung tissue of an aborted fetus, which the BBC alleges is false, appealing to the authority of Dr. Michael Head of the University of Southampton: “There are no fetal cells used in any vaccine production process.” Well that settles it then, doesn’t it? God has spoken. Since when is the University of Southampton the be all and end all? And who is Dr. Michael Head besides another talking head?
The BBC then refers to a video posted on an anti-vaccine Facebook page, in which “the narrator” claims is evidence of what goes into the vaccine developed by AstraZeneca and Oxford University. Why doesn’t the BBC identify the Facebook page and the video in question so those reading the article can check it out for themselves? Is it because the BBC is afraid that they might be more persuaded by the video than the broadcaster’s lame attempts to debunk and dismiss the argument? The BBC alleges that narrator had misinterpreted the study. According to the broadcaster, the study involved exploring how the vaccine reacted when introduced to human cells in a lab. However, this is merely semantics and obfuscation again. Clearly, what is implied is that cells were grown in a lab that were the descendants of embryonic cells “that would otherwise be destroyed.”
The BBC explains further, alleging that the YouTube video narrator did not understand the science:
Confusion may have arisen because there is a step in the process of developing a vaccine that uses cells grown in a lab, which are the descendants of embryonic cells that would otherwise have been destroyed. The technique was developed in the 1960s, and no fetuses were aborted for the purposes of this research.
Many vaccines are made in this way, explains Dr. David Matthews, from Bristol University, adding that any traces of the cells are comprehensively removed from the vaccine “to exceptionally high standards.”
The developers of the vaccine at Oxford University say they worked with cloned cells, but these cells “are not themselves the cells of aborted babies.”
Dr. Matthews further explains that the cells work like a factory for manufacturing a greatly weakened form of the virus adapted to function as a vaccine. However, even though the weakened virus is created using these cloned cells, these cells are removed when the virus is purified and are not used in the vaccine, he assures us.[i]
Biologist Pamela Acker, who has a master’s degree in Biology from the Catholic University of America, has presented evidence that cell lines derived from aborted babies used in the production or testing of various vaccines, including a number of CoViD vaccines, most likely came from babies who were aborted alive, and according to the general practice outlined in medical literature, may have been placed in a fridge alive, awaiting an operation to have their organs harvested.
“A number of these abortions that were done in that way were termed ‘abdominal hysterectomies’ in the medical literature. So in some cases, the women were actually being sterilized in the process as well,” she said. “So these babies were literally placed into the fridge alive and then stored between one and 24 hours until they could be dismembered, basically. And this is right there in the scientific literature.”
Acker made these comments during an online conference hosted by LifeSiteNews titled “Unmasking CoViD-19: Vaccines, Mandates, and Global Health.”
About a decade ago, Acker spent about nine months working in a lab to develop an HIV vaccine with a grant provided by The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, but when her team decided to use HEK-293 cells for the project, she became troubled by the ethics of such a decision.
“At this point, most people have heard of these (cell lines) because they are connected with the CoViD vaccines, but at that time I hadn’t. So I asked (my colleague) what ‘HEK’ stands for, and she told me, ‘Human Embryonic Kidney,”’ Acker stated.
It was after reading Dr. Alvin Wong’s paper titled, “The Ethics of HEK 293,” that appeared in the 2006 autumn issue of The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, that Acker was able to come to a proper moral position.
Acker explained the meaning behind the letters and numbers HEK 293, the cell line developed by Dr. Frank Graham in the Netherlands in 1973.
“HEK stands for Human Embryonic Kidney. But 293 stands for the 293rd experiment that this particular researcher did to develop the cell lines,” she explained.
The kidney was taken from a “completely normal” preborn girl aborted in 1972 who, according to Alex van der Eb, the doctor leading the team to develop the cell line, had “nothing wrong” with her.
Acker speculates that there were probably far more abortions behind the final development of the cell line, since “for 293 experiments you need far more than one abortion. We’re talking probably 100s of abortions,” she said.
Graham, however, recently told Ian Jackson, who was conducting research in the HEK-293 cell line, that only one fetus was involved.
“On my arrival at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands I kept lab books in which I numbered my experiments in the order in which I carried them out starting in 1970. None of these experiments used human embryo kidney cells (HEK) until very late in my studies in Leiden (1973) when I carried out 2 (two!) experiments that utilized kidney cells from 1 (one!) human fetus.”
“Since abortion was illegal in the Netherlands at that time except to save the life of the mother I have always assumed that that fetus resulted from a therapeutic abortion. However, the kidney cells I used had been prepared and frozen away before I even arrived in Leiden. Consequently, I do not have first hand knowledge of the circumstances relating to that single abortion. The second of the two experiments I carried out with these HEK cells was experiment 293 and resulted in the cell line of the same name. The bottom line is that the 293-cell line resulted from cells obtained from a single fetus.”
Acker insists that Graham’s statement is “misleading at best.”
“When a cell line is developed, it is usually produced using a sample of tissue from a single individual unless it’s a hybrid cell line. So on the one hand, it is technically correct to say that the cell line was developed using one aborted baby. However, this is not an accurate representation of how many lives were actually sacrificed in the whole process of developing an aborted fetal cell line.”
Acker pointed out that there is every indication that the cells were derived from an “electively aborted” baby. “In particular, the fact that the cells were stored in the freezer lends further credence to the conclusion that HEK-293 was derived from an electively aborted fetus,” she said.
“The success and longevity of HEK-293 suggests that the specimen was remarkably well-suited for culturing, and anyone who has studied cell theory should know that you cannot derive a living cell culture from tissue that is already dead. Because of the biological impossibility of creating a live cell line from dead tissue, and the practical and biological implausibility of obtaining live tissue from a spontaneously miscarried fetus, it is far more likely that the baby from whom HEK-293 was derived was electively aborted and alive at the time of tissue extraction.”
Acker believes that the tissue from the baby used for the production of HEK-293 was likely obtained through the surgical method of whole-fetus extraction or “C-section abortion,” which can include the removal of the uterus along with the living baby still inside.
Acker then quoted Dr. Gonzalo Herranz, Professor of Histology and General Embryology at the University of Navarra, Spain, who described how abortions must be done to obtain uncontaminated fetal material.
“To obtain embryo cells, embryos from spontaneous abortions cannot be used, nor can those obtained by means of abortions performed via the vagina: in both cases, the embryo will be contaminated by micro-organisms,” wrote Herranz.
“The correct way consists in having recourse to Caesarian section or to the removal of the uterus. Only in this way can bacteriological sterility be guaranteed. In either case, then, to obtain embryo cells for culture, a programmed abortion must be adopted, choosing the age of the embryo and dissecting it while still alive to remove tissues to be placed in culture media,” (bold added) he added.
After reading Herranz account, Acker concludes, “Because of the necessity of maintaining a sterile culture of tissue for developing a cell line, it seems reasonable to conclude that there would—at minimum—had to have been some pre-arrangement to obtain sterile, unmacerated tissue from the fetus used for HEK-293. The easiest and surest way to do this is by the surgical method of whole-fetus extraction.”
Acker concludes that the formation of other cell lines derived from aborted babies and used for research purposes, as well as the development of numerous vaccines, must have involved hundreds of abortions.
“Many aborted fetal cell lines and all the aborted fetal cell lines used in currently licenced vaccines are the culmination of a series of experiments that include multiple abortions,” she said. Acker listed the following examples:
- The WI-38 cell line (used in MMR and shingles vaccines) came from the 32nd aborted baby that was used in a series of experiments. Other cell lines that came out of the Wistar Institute include WI-26 (from the 20th aborted baby) and WI-44 cell (from the 38th aborted baby).
- The MRC-5 line (used in hepatitis A, measles, and shingles vaccines) required five abortions to the course of development.
- WALVAX2, the most recent aborted fetal cell line, came from the ninth aborted baby in a series.
- RA273, which is the virus used in the rubella vaccine, originated in the 27th baby that was aborted in an effort to obtain the virus required for vaccine development. Mothers who were infected with the rubella virus during pregnancy were actively encouraged to abort their children. Forty more elective abortions for rubella virus were performed after this, though RA273 was the strain that ended up in the final vaccine preparation.
Acker said that the use of aborted fetal cell lines in medical research, at any level, “fuels a growing acceptance of using aborted babies in other types of medical research.”
“This problem is irrespective of the original number of abortions performed to obtain a cell line, and will only be exacerbated by the acceptance of HEK-293-derived CoViD vaccines,” she added.[ii]
Returning to Dr. Matthew’s explanation and justifications for the use of aborted fetal tissue in cell lines seem comforting, but where did the embryonic cells really come from? He claims they are cloned cells, but that the cloned cells did not come from an aborted fetus. Where did they come from then? Another point that is concerning is the claim that all remnant of this cell tissue is removed. How can they be sure that it has all been removed and that no trace of its genetic material remains in the vaccine?
The danger is being overlooked here that any human cell tissue contained in the vaccine could cause the vaccine recipient’s immune system to turn on its own health human cell tissue in an autoimmune response. Biases that involve psychological denial and a desire to ignore danger may be the greatest danger of all in scientific procedure.
The BBC then addresses arguments against a CoViD-19 vaccine, questioning why we need one at all if the chances of dying from the virus are so slim. A meme shared by people who oppose vaccination put the recovery rate at 99.97%, suggested getting CoViD-19 is a safer option than taking a vaccine.
The BBC argues that the figure referred to in the meme as the “recovery rate” is incorrect. About 99.0% of people who catch CoViD-19 survive, says Jason Oke, senior statistician at the University of Oxford. Around 100 in 10,000 will die, far higher than three in 10,000, as suggested in the meme. This translates as a 1.0% death rate. Does a 1.0% death rate justify mass worldwide vaccination? Why is it being hyped so strongly? When there have been similar death rates related to other illnesses, what makes CoViD-19 so special that vaccination is being pushed at never-before-seen levels? There’s got to be an agenda here that our political and health authorities are not revealing. There has to be a reason they are pushing the vaccine agenda so strongly, when there really isn’t a need. The fact that they are being so secretive about it should give us all cause for concern.
In all fairness, Mr. Oke does make a valid point when defending the numbers. He argues that “in all cases the risks very much depend on age and do not take into account short and long-term morbidity from CoViD-19.” It does not just come down to an issue of survival. For every person who dies, there are also those who survive, but often with long-lasting health effects.
This can contribute to a health service overburdened with CoViD-19 patients, competing with a hospital’s limited resources to treat patients with other illnesses and injuries. Concentrating on the overall death rate, or breaking down the taking of a vaccine to an individual act, misses the point of vaccinations, argues Professor Liam Smeeth of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. It should be seen as an effort by society to protect others, he says.
Mr. Oke’s point about vaccines being a means of safeguarding public health might be valid if it were true. However, there are plenty of studies showing that vaccines do damage people’s health and should never be recommended unless absolutely necessary. Unfortunately, that is not the case in most health scenarios. In most cases they are unnecessary. Whenever there is a case of medicine causing as much harm in the form of side effects and long-term health damage as the illnesses it was designed to protect people against, the wisdom of prescribing it should be questioned.
In October of 2019, a “germ game,” similar to a war game, called Event 201 was held at the behest of the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and hosted by John Hopkins University, an institution known to conduct gain-of-function research on disease germs in order to weaponize them ostensibly for learning how to defend against such agents. What was the scenario of Event 201? A pandemic outbreak of a coronavirus which would spread ‘virally’, as the saying goes, and kill a predicted 65 million people. The simulation was held only two months before the event it rehearsed for actually transpired. In the year since the outbreak, the globalists have attempted to enforce nearly every plan outlined during Event 201, including using social media to censor or restrict any news or information outside of the establishment approved narrative.[iii]
Unfortunately, we are being cajoled into not questioning any of the official narrative, and being accused of criminality for daring to do exercise our democratic right of free speech. It seems we have made no progress as a society since the days of Socrates. We should remember that, for his act of questioning the standards and beliefs of his society, he was accused of the crime of corrupting the youth, and when convicted, faced execution by drinking poison hemlock. In our case, the situation is more tragic. We may be poisoned not for asking questions, but for being forbidden to ask any.[iv]
Check out my Bill Gates’ video: “Microsoft Gates’ Limp Needle Will Never Fly” https://www.shakesaspear.com/bill-gates/microsoft-gates-limp-noodle-will-never-fly/#t=4
[i] Flora Carmichael and Jack Goodman, “Vaccine rumours debunked: Microchips, ‘altered DNA’ and more,” December 2, 2020, bbc.com/news/54893437.
[ii] Pete Batlinkski, “Babies were aborted alive, placed in fridge to harvest cell lines used in some vaccines: researcher,” February 19, 2021, https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/babies-were-aborted-alive-placed-in-fridge-to-harvest-cell-lines-used-in-some-vaccines-researcher.
[iii] Brandon Smith, “Is the Globalist “Reset” Failing? The Elites May Have Overplayed Their Hand,” Alt-Market.us, December 9.2020, https://alt-market.us/is-the-globalist-reset-failing-the-elites-may-have-overplayed-their-hand/
[iv] Flora Carmichael and Jack Goodman, “Vaccine rumours debunked: Microchips, ‘altered DNA’ and more,” December 2, 2020, bbc.com/news/54893437