Tuesday, May 5, 2020

Guest Submission: Bill Gates Interview

Analysis by Colin Ector 




Bill Gates

The global lockdown continues on into the end of April with different countries having varying numbers of infected and deceased. Most people have been  accepting of lockdown although some now are beginning to question whether it should now be cautiously lifted. 

Bill Gates has been on television repeatedly discussing a vaccine for COVID19.

This is a segment from an interview he did with the BBC posted online on April 12th.

Bill Gates BBC Interview segment April 12th 2020

BGAnd the thing that will get us back to the world that we had before corona virus is the vaccine and getting that out to all 7 billion people and we’ll need to fund about 10 the 10 most promising constructs because we won’t know in advance which one will prove to be safe and effective, and being effective for older peoples immune system is weak is a huge challenge. If you really amp up the vaccine to do that then you can run into safety issues. The people like myself and Tony Fauci are saying 18 months. If everything went perfectly, we could do slightly better than that but there will be a trade-off. We’ll have less safety testing than we typically would have and so governments will have to decide you know do they indemnify the companies and really say let’s, let’s go out with this ahh when it’s, we just don’t have the time to do what we normally do.”

Interviewer (IR) 

IR So, as I understand it then what you’re saying is that it may be that there needs to be some compromise in some of the safety measures that normally be expected to create a vaccine because time is so crucial?

BG   “Well of course if you want to wait and see if a side effect shows up 2 years later that takes 2 years so we will I think be able to get some safety indications but it, this is a public good and so you know those trade-offs, the governments working on a cooperative basis will be involved in a decision to say hey the regulators says go ahead even though you haven’t taken the normal time period”


Questions for analysis

1.     Does Gates have a specific vaccine in mind?
2.     Does he expect the vaccine to be safe without detrimental side effects?
3.     Is there anything else within the language  that is of interest to us?

“And the thing that will get us back to the world that we had before Corona Virus is the vaccine and getting that out to all 7 billion people,”

1.     The subject (Bill Gates) identifies one thing that is needed to get us back.  This is the vaccine. It is not, “what will get us back” or “the steps that will get us back” it is the vaccine.  No other options are in the mind of the subject.  Herd immunity is not a consideration in the perception of the subject, nor is any effective treatment protocol. 

2.     The subject uses the article “the” for a vaccine.  This can be an indication of prior knowledge or his pre-accepted sole solution. 

 For example, if a shopkeeper reporting a robbery says “the man pulled the gun on me” it is an indication that the subject knew of the gun before it was pulled on him.  This may mean he is an accomplice in the robbery. Articles are important indicators in Analysis.

What has caused the article “the” in the verbal perception of reality for the subject?  The expected is “a vaccine”.  At this point, the article “the” is an indicator that the subject has knowledge of a vaccine.  Is this because there is one showing more promise than others, that he has in mind or does he know which one will be used?  We do not know. 

3.     Can the article “the” be appropriate in that the subject is describing the cure to a specific virus? The Corona virus.

 and we’ll need to fund about 10, the 10 most promising constructs because we won’t know in advance which one will prove to be safe and effective

1.     Who is “we’ll” regarding the funding?  Does the subject wish to be involved with all of the most “promising constructs”?  He does not say the most promising constructs will need to be funded.  He wishes to be involved with all.

2.     The subject then gives us the reason why 10 need to be funded.  This is an indication of sensitivity.

3.     The subject tells us in the negative making it increased in importance.   How else could this be said?  The subject could have said, “we will need to fund about 10 to find the safest and most effective”.  The negative and unnecessary wording increases the sensitivity.

4.     “in advance” is unnecessary wording.  The sentence works without these words.  Unnecessary words may seem unnecessary to us, but they are doubly important to the subject.  

Why does he have the need to tell us he would not know in advance?

Combined with the article “the” for “the vaccine” and now the need to use the unnecessary words “in advance”, the question of whether the subject knows which vaccine is to be used becomes stronger.  Does Gates know what vaccine is to be used?

5.     The word “one” is also unnecessary.  Is it not possible that more than one will prove to be safe and effective?  Why are the ten being singled down to one this early on in the process of finding a vaccine?  Is this another indicator that “one” in particular has been singled out or is the subject simply moving forward in his mind to where only one will be needed?

6.     Note the order of what “we” are looking for.  Safe and effective.  This is good.

 and being effective for older people’s immune system is weak is a huge challenge. If you really amp up the vaccine to do that then you can run into safety issues.

1.     When speaking of older people’s immune systems, which the subject describes as “weak” the word “safe” has been removed. 

2.     The challenge of being effective on older people is qualified by the word “huge” and it will need to be “really amped up”. 

3.     What is “amping up” a vaccine?  Whatever it is, it has caused the subject to remove “safety”.

4.     The subject has changed from “we” to “you” at this point in the statement.  He is distancing himself from the “amp up” of the vaccine.

5.     The distancing continues with the word “that” within the sensitive reason why.  We distance ourselves from “that” and we bring ourselves close with the word “this”.

6.     Note the pronouns.  The subject continues with the distance.  Who can run into safety issues. Not “we”. It is “you”.

The people like myself and Tony Fauci are saying 18 months.

1.     The subject here distances himself from the statement of 18 months, by referring to himself as “the people like myself”.  Why?  Is he unsure of his timeframe?

2.     He brings in Tony Fauci to buttress his words. He does not want to be alone in this prediction of time.

 If everything went perfectlywe could do slightly better than that, but there will be a trade-off.

1.     There is no room for error in perfectly. It is not “goes well”.  

Does anything ever go perfectly in the field of scientific medical research?

2.     Even under everything going perfectly doing better is qualified by “slightly” and then distanced by “that."

3.     The pronoun “we” returns.

4.     The word “but” minimizes or refutes what came before it.  


We’ll have less safety testing than we typically would have and so governments will have to decide, you know do they indemnify the companies and really say let’s, let’s go out with this ahh when it’s, we just don’t have the time to do what we normally do.

1.     The sensitivity increases as the subject gives us the reason why governments will have to decide.

2.     The subject places the responsibility on the Governments. Please note that this is about indemnity for the companies. There is no mention upon the impact upon the people where the maker would warrant indemnity. 

3.     The subject distances himself from the companies at this point.  

4.     Why does the subject not say “And give the people the vaccine”?  He minimizes to “really say let’s, let’s go out with this”.  Is this an indication of a lack of confidence in the vaccine?  It reduces “the vaccine” to an expression of commitment to “go out” which the subject brings close to him with the word “this."

Does the subject believe the release and implementation of the vaccine is a foregone conclusion at the time of this interview? 




IR So, as I understand it then what you’re saying is that it may be that there needs to be some compromise in some of the safety measures that normally be expected to create a vaccine because time is so crucial?


BG: Well of course if you want to wait and see if a side effect shows up 2 years later that takes 2 years,

1.     The subject recognizes the potential for side effects of the vaccine.

2.     Is the subject annoyed at this question?  Is he suggesting that waiting is a ridiculous idea in the circumstances even though safety will be compromised? Note the pronoun “you”.  Not “we” or “I”. Gates does not want to wait. The prior use of "we" indicates a distance (lack of cooperation) between the subject, company and  governments. 

3.     The subject has introduced the two-year period.  Has there been side effects at the two-year period for other trials?

Note the switch to "we" here: 

 so we will I think be able to get some safety indications but it,

1.     I think” is a point of weakness.
2.     be able” is not to do.  It lacks commitment.
3.     “some” is inconclusive.
4.     but” weakens further the already weak assertion about the safety of the vaccine.
5.     The subject self-censors his words. What was he going to say? “But it what”?

 this is a public good and so you know those trade-offs,

1.     This is very sensitive.  The reason why and then the subject self-censors again. Those trade offs what?  
2.     The subject distances himself from the trade-offs by his use of the word “those”, as oppose to “these” or “the."
3. Note the word "we" is now "you" again.  

 the governments working on a cooperative basis will be involved in a decision to say hey the regulators says go ahead even though you haven’t taken the normal time period.


1.     “will be”.  Is this something that has already been decided?

2.     The subject only raises one outcome for the decision.  There is no whether to, or not stated.

3.     Who are the regulators? Who appoints them and who do they answer to? The "regulators" are separate, in his language, from the "government." 




Analysis Conclusion 

Question 1.  Does Gates have a specific vaccine in mind? 

It is likely at the time of this interview Gates has something in mind. It is not conclusive in this short interview, but the topic warrants exploration. 

This could be the case because his company worked immediately upon the spread of Covid 19, or it could indicate that he was aware of a coming need. This may include knowledge of the work being done in the Wuhan lab. 

Note the inclusion of Dr. Fauci in the overall context of possible knowledge of a need for said vaccination. 



Question 2. Does he expect the vaccine to be safe without detrimental side effects?


No.  

From the language it is likely that Gates expects there to be safety issues with the vaccine.  Gates prioritizes safety before effectiveness but then further categorizes the safety issue when referencing the “huge challenge” presented by older people.

Please note that Gates shifts the burden of safety issues to the government and the element of time, even as he distances himself from it.  This is likely insight into a possible latter explanation of "well, they rushed us..." or that the virus presence rushed them.  

Question 3. Is there anything else within the language of interest?

a.     Gates does not offer confidence of either safety or effectiveness, yet he states that all seven billion people will take the vaccine. 

b.     Gates linguistically removes himself from the people taking the vaccine in this interview.  He does not say “All seven billion of us”. He is psychologically not present, including his change from "we" to "you" in the language. 

 It would be interesting to learn whether he and his loved ones take the vaccine.

c.     Gates will likely seek indemnity for any vaccine he is involved with which will leave him out of reach for anyone who suffers side effects in both the short term and long term.

The element of time is very important to Gates. 

Based upon the language, we may see a demand for indemnity with the vaccine being held back by Gates until this is granted.    From the same portion, it is likely that he will be concentrating on politicians, rather than 

.






30 comments:

Heather said...

Thank you. The clear sighted analysis presented here is invaluable to human beings.

Anonymous said...

Does "trade-offs" have something to do with the stock market?
Does "regulators" refer to banking regulations?

The context of this interview is a global billionaire, who recently stepped down from his company (and is no longer required to report certain transactions), speaking as a global expert on vaccine development, where untold amounts of money are at play.

See Gore's climate credits. $$$$$$$$

Giordano Downes said...

I've known about Gates vaccine-pushing and "population reduction" for awhile. I had no idea how involved in food "Production" he was as well. This is horrifying:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kD0vAqUQyGs

Anonymous said...

Why does Gates have a monopoly on vacines?

Autumn said...

Thanks for this highly interesting analysis.

”(…) and we’ll need to fund about 10, the 10 most promising constructs because we won’t know in advance which one will prove to be safe and effective (…)”

Gates seems to be quite sure that “one” will prove to be safe and effective. As you say Colin: isn’t it possible that more “constructs” turn out to be safe and effective? Or: none at all?

Who is “we”, indeed. I listened to part of the annual meeting of Berkshire Hathaway yesterday and Warren Buffett highly praised dr. Fauci and Bill Gates (a long term friend of his) for their role in fighting the virus. Buffett has mentioned Gates’ involvement in vaccines in a recent interview as well (saying – if I remember correctly – that they spoke about it quite a bit). So I wondered: is Buffett also going to be involved in funding this vaccine business? It certainly seems to be on his mind a lot and he has billions in cash (and Berkshire Hathaway recently sold all its stock in 4 major US Airlines -> perhaps he wants to put these billions in vaccine development? -> "trade off"?)

I don’t like how eager Gates jumps on this. He clearly only wants the upsides (profits) and not the downsides (liabilities, claims). That’s not how it normally works when companies develop medication is it? And who is Gates to determine how the pandemic has to be dealt with? He’s not elected by the “7 billion people” (-> he has billions on his mind).

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Colin rightfully limited his analysis to just this interview.

Even though it does not answer the question, "Did Gates know ahead of time...?", I believe the analysis raises the question.

Peter

Autumn said...

Anonymous, that's what I would like to know as well. I've heard/read several times on/in the news that Gates has a "patent" for the virus. Who/which organisation would even have the authority to grant a worldwide (exclusive?) patent for the cure of a certain disease (and on top of that the cure isn't even developed)?

Autumn said...

^ correction: I mean a patent for a vaccine against the corona virus (NOT: a patent for the virus, of course)

Anonymous said...


Event 201, carried out in October 2019, complete with "projected" news clips and health care's lack of supplies.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/dsaYD_MMgaU/


Predictive Programming?

https://www.bitchute.com/video/8LjILBTPL3k/

General P. Malaise said...

great analysis Colin.

for those who follow the vaccine debate.

the vaccines are not safety tested. they do not fall under the same regulations that drugs do. there is no double blind with placebo done. some will argue that there is but reading the literature it is a limited double blind only looking for antibody production, not safety.

for those who would argue the above please read the literature that accompanies the vaccine (ask your doctor for it) before saying they are safe.

many widely distributed vaccines were and likely continue to be contaminated with virus from the medium that the vaccines are cultivated in. several of these viruses are linked to cancers.

this is knowledge I expect Bill G ates is familiar with and could account for his distancing and passivity regarding safety.

Tom said...

Off Topic: Peter and commenters, from Biden's interviews, do you think he is hiding stuff not related to Tara Reide in the Univ of Delaware archives that could make him look very bad? He mentions he needs to keep sealed "conversations with the President of the United States" and "conversations with heads of state overseas"...could someone please tell me if linguistically his statements suggest he is hiding something bad?

Autumn said...

Interesting General P. Malaise, thanks.

I've looked into the "patent / monopoly" question. Reportedly a patent for a coronavirus - not the same as the Wuhan virus - WAS applied for in 2015 by an institute that receives funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (but not for this patented virus). The patent was applied for (and granted by the European Patent Office) with the aim of eventually developing that particular coronavirus (not the Wuhan virus) into a vaccine against the disease for birds and other animals. So it IS actually possible to get a patent for a virus. The European Patent Office considers that biological material which is isolated from its natural environment, or produced by means of a technical process, is patentable even if it previously occurred in nature.

So if I understand correctly, Gates does not have a patent for the Wuhan virus (unless he filed for it recently?). But he presents it (i.m.o.) as if it's certain he/his foundation will provide THE vaccine against the virus and governments will be working with him on this. Has he entered into contracts (or is he negotiating) with governments and all universities/researchers that are working on a promising vaccine?

Anonymous said...

Autumn, watch videos posted for your answers.

Autumn said...

many widely distributed vaccines were and likely continue to be contaminated with virus from the medium that the vaccines are cultivated in. several of these viruses are linked to cancers.

Sounds like injecting 7 billion people with a vaccine could be much worse than the Wuhan virus itself.

Autumn said...

Anonymous, I'm watching them now (and have also watched the video linked by Giordano), thanks.

Anonymous said...

‘ ... this is a public good so you know those trade-offs...’. the public good, sensitivity indicator ‘so’, then ‘trade-offs’. Gates is hitting here on the deeper but avoided/unexpressed matter of compulsion. Is he envisioning compulsory vaccines for every human being? Of one refuses, then what? Will the coercive power of governmental authority come into play with those who may refuse? I wish the interviewer had explored that part of it. Indemnifying a government from legal liability from the effects of a vaccine not thoroughly tested then enforced on the populace is alerting but avoided here.

General P. Malaise said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
General P. Malaise said...

"trade offs" raises a lot of concerns.

it indicates that vaccines are not safe and that he is aware of that.

Giordano Downes said...


Now Andrew Cuomo backs new education in NY schools from Gates

https://twitter.com/NYGovCuomo/status/1257699944137359360



Franken meats, food manipulation, health care and now education.

Bill Gates: Master of the Universe per Time magazine


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgL9bXEa5Ww

Autumn said...

Well put Anonymous. That is a huge underlying issue: will the vaccine be mandatory. Gates simply presumes that all 7 billion people will be vaccinated. Surely it must have occurred to him that some people are resolutely against vaccination (if only because of the heavy and very widespread criticism he and his plans received on social media). But he completely ignores it in his statements.

From what I now understand he wants to arrange the development and roll out of the vaccine under the umbrella of CEPI. CEPI was founded by:
- the governments of Norway and India,
- the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation,
- the Wellcome Trust, and
- the World Economic Forum.
CEPI has already gotten donations from many countries in connection with the pandemic. So they’ve probably already made arrangements (or are in the process) with governments. I would not be surprised if governments intend to make vaccination mandatory.

The following article written by Gates is also interesting:

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/05/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-covid-19-vaccine/

In it he writes among other things that a drug to treat the virus is not a solution because:

“We’d need a miracle treatment that was at least 95 percent effective to stop the outbreak. Most of the drug candidates right now are nowhere near that powerful.”

Therefore, thus Gates, the only solution is that almost every person on the planet is vaccinated against coronavirus (“almost” -> who are the exceptions?). Later on in the article he writes:

“you’d ideally want a vaccine to have 100 percent efficacy, many don’t. For example, this year’s flu vaccine is around 45 percent effective”.

So the question arises: why does Gates on the one hand state that a drug to treat the virus has to be 95 percent effective to stop the outbreak but on the other hand sees a possibly only 45% effective vaccine as a miracle cure?

Also: Gates discards the "drug" solution because most of the drugs "right now are nowhere near powerful enough". But doesn't the same apply to the vaccines that are being developed? They too are nowhere near powerful enough right now. After all it will take around 18 months to develop (and even at the end of that period safety issues cannot be excluded). So again: why according to Gates are vaccines the only solution?

The John Hopkins Institute along with two of the CEPI parties – The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the World Economic Forum – organized “Event 201” only two months before the outbreak of the Wuhan virus. “Event 201” was a “global pandemic exercise” featuring a pandemic eerily similar to the Wuhan pandemic. It was introduced as follows:

”The event 201 scenario is fictional, but it’s based on public health principles, epidemiologic modelling and assessment of past outbreaks. In other words, we’ve created a pandemic that could realistically occur.”

And this slogan was written on posters “Event 201” posters:

”We need to prepare for the event that becomes a pandemic. ”

Side note: Gates is one of the biggest donors of the John Hopkins Institute (and also of the WHO). Both the Gates Foundation and the John Hopkins Institute have close ties with Planned Parenthood and all of these three organizations are involved in “reproductive health”.

MizzMarple said...

Thank You, Colin, for this analysis. And Thank You, Peter, for posting this great analysis.

What stood out to me the most from BG interview is this:
BG “And the thing that will get us back to the world that we had before corona virus is the vaccine and getting that out to all 7 billion people and …"

In my opinion, the "thing" Gates is referring to is NOT the vaccine - his goal is to have "Digital Certificates" / Implantable Microchips - implanted into each individual in the entire human race which will track ever single action of an individual, 24 hours a day.

Gates' is NOT a scientist and he is NOT a doctor.

Gates is a TECHNOCRAT, who wants to rule the world through Technology.

The question is: why would a Technocrat be interested in a vaccine to cure a virus? What does he care about the health of individuals around the world?

Bill Gates is a very dangerous, narcissistic psychopath who wants to rule the world through technology and implantable microchips. And he has aligned himself with TPTB (the powers that be) who are on the "frontlines" of this so-called Coronavirus Pandemic, i.e.: W.H.O., C.D.C., Tony Fauci, Birx, etc., who are also "screaming" for a vaccine.

I trust NONE of them … vaccines have never worked, and implantable microchips is against God and the Bible.

May God save this country!

Giordano Downes said...

A guy who preaches Population Reduction is NOT interested in saving lives.

Mizzmarple said...

Exactly!

Autumn said...

The Gates foundation founded CEPI (Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations) in August 2016. CEPI finances the development of vaccines against emerging infectious diseases such as MERS and SARS (among other things). MERS and SARS are coronaviruses. In minutes of a meeting of the CEPI Scientific Advisory Board dated 10 January 2020 it is mentioned that the Wuhan virus is 89% similar to “SARS-related bat coronavirus in the Sarbecovirus group of beta coronaviruses”, see link below. If CEPI was already working on/financing a SARS vaccine before the Wuhan outbreak, they may have already had an idea which vaccine is most promising to fight the Wuhan vaccine as soon as the outbreak started (given the similarity between the viruses). If CEPI knew that, Gates knew it too. That may explain why he already had one particular vaccine in his head (“in advance”)? In the article mentioned in my previous comment (see link below) he explains that two vaccines look promising.

https://cepi.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/100120-SAC-Meeting-Summary-1-1.pdf

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/05/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-covid-19-vaccine/

M said...

Thanks Mizz Marple and all, your commments are spot on and a valuable source of info.

God save the whole world, this is a global plot against humanity, the Event 201 scenario, technocrats and PTB who own media sources and create their own narrative, regardless of facts, with a clear totalitarian agenda. They want us completely controlled and enslaved, vaccinated and cashless, and scared of each other.

Vigilant Citizen, Max Igan, and the Corbett Report are voices of truth in this storm of a psy op, as is this blog and the comments. Thank you, Peter, you have come through again for freedom of thought.

TimA said...

An article was published in the Virology Journal https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/ about the use of Chloroquine against Coronavirus infection in 2005. It has been suggested that Fauci knew of this because of his involvement with NIH and the Virology Journal. The story as presented to the public is that the use of HCQS originated in France by Doctor Didier Raoult, but the treatment has been known for 15 years. Bill Gates seems to want legal immunity.

Anonymous said...

A tv show from 2003 talks about a SARS-like virus from China dealing with respiratory issues and highly contagious in which everyone should wear masks and be locked-down and using Chloroquine as a remedy. More Predictive Programming.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Grv9vffo59w

M said...

Thanks, Autumn.
James Corbett is excellent, love his propaganda watch.

Capt. Daylight said...

That "we" continue to be passive about all this, sitting back and accepting whatever restrictions and supporting narratives "they" impose on us, serves to reinforce their apparent opinion that the future belongs to those bold enough to seize it for themselves and leaving the rest of us with no one but ourselves to blame for allowing them to do so.

It also points to the effectiveness of their mass conditioning efforts via education, justice systems, the media, food and pharma to make us mice so passive as to sit back and watch the global capitalist cat establish and impose the rules of the game.

Thus is the age-old question raised, yet again but this time for OUR generation: "Are we mice or are we men?"

I, for one, have never held with squeaking.

Mike Dammann said...

What is interesting are "analyses" of the statements given in response to this post. Those are not what the comments used to be here.
It would be more useful to skip subjects like these rather than analyzing them with fear-driven nonsense.