Top 7 Reasons Bill Gates Is a Literal Psychopath Who Cannot Be Trusted in Any Capacity Whatsoever

Here is an 8,000-word deep dive into the top 7 reasons Microsoft founder and “philanthropist” Bill Gates should be thought of as a literal psychopath. Gates, under the guise of “global health” and “family planning” has, for example, pushed “vaccines” that cause infertility on unsuspecting women in Kenya, and subjected women in India to “vaccine” trials deemed by the country’s health ministry to be “unethical” and conducted without the informed consent of its participants.

Gates’ Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation also invests *against* its stated goals of promoting “green energy” and good nutrition (it’s pumped billions into the likes of ExxonMobil and McDonald’s), and the tech tyrant himself has even referred to Jeffrey Epstein’s lifestyle as “intriguing” after spending time with the disgraced financier despite his being found guilty of soliciting a minor for prostitution prior to the two billionaires meeting.

While it may seem ludicrous to claim that Microsoft’s founder and former CEO Bill Gates is literally a psychopath—i.e. an egocentric and antisocial person who has a lack of remorse for his actions, an absence of empathy for others, and often criminal tendencies, per the word’s definition—there is a beyond-robust, and ever-growing, body of evidence showing that is indeed the case. In fact, once one investigates past the famous (or infamous) “philanthropist’s” ostensible reasons for doing anything that is, on its face, a positive act for humanity’s wellbeing, his true, and truly vile, motives quickly become clear.

In the list below the top seven reasons Gates is an enormously unethical human who cannot be trusted in any capacity whatsoever are outlined, and, in summary, paint a picture of a wannabe tyrant whose sole aims in life appear to be to maximize his own power and wealth along with the pain, suffering, heartbreak, and death brought upon the general populace.


Although Gates’ urge to diminish the number of people on the planet is often excused as mere conspiracy theory—despite occasions on which the billionaire has said himself that is indeed one of his central goals—there are, nonetheless, multiple examples of the former Microsoft CEO and “philanthropist” working in an underhanded manner to outright sterilize people. With the most blatant example being, perhaps, the case of the World Health Organization’s tetanus “vaccine” campaign in Kenya in the early 2010s, which the Catholic Church in the country claimed—with overwhelming evidence—was a covert sterilization effort.

Image: John W. Oller, et al. / Open Access Library Journal

In a 2017 study published in the Open Access Library Journal a team of researchers and doctors outlined how the WHO’s tetanus “vaccine” campaign between the years of 2013 and 2015 in Kenya was, in their expert opinions, likely “a front for [a] population growth reduction” agenda in the country.

In November of 2014 the Kenyan Catholic doctors asserted that such a covert sterilization campaign was underway in the country, claiming that an abortifacient “vaccine”—that is, an injection that renders women infertile by causing spontaneous abortions—was being disguised and disseminated as a tetanus vaccine. After extensive scientific research, and investigation into the claims made by the Church, the team came to the conclusion that was indeed what was happening.

Image: John W. Oller, et al. / Open Access Library Journal

The team of researchers and doctors describe the reasoning behind their conclusion extensively—highlighting, amongst several other highly relevant points, the WHO’s established, public history of wanting to reduce population growth, as well as the organization’s public development of “birth-control vaccines.” The authors also show how the supposed tetanus “vaccine” was not being administered according to a normal tetanus vaccine schedule. On the contrary, the injections were being administered along a schedule that aligned perfectly with the one for the WHO’s antifertility vaccines. (See graphs comparing the two schedules immediately below; note the antifertility vaccine is in red.)

The authors also note specifically that it was money from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation specifically that allowed for the campaign to take place. In the infographic from the study immediately above, the study’s authors show how the Gates Foundation committed $10 billion to the WHO for “vaccines and population reduction” leading up to October 2013, when the WHO administered the first round of the disguised abortifacient injections in Kenya.

In 1999 the Gates Foundation also gave $26 million to UNICEF—which, like the WHO, is an agency of the UN—as a “gift” to help fight tetanus in the developing world.

“Bill and Melinda Gates are dedicated to improving the health of families in the world’s poorest countries,” Bill’s now-deceased father, William H. Gates, Sr., then-Co-Chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, said in a press release announcing the $26 million gift. He added that “Eliminating maternal and neonatal tetanus is a dream that’s within reach and will save the lives of many newborns and mothers who needlessly die from the preventable disease.”

Interestingly, the authors of the 2017 paper in the Open Access Library Journal note that after World War II had ended “‘Planned Parenthood,’ headed up by Bill Gates’s father… was promoting the idea that population growth, unless halted or reduced by governmental intervention, would inevitably lead to world-wide famine, disease, the destabilization of governments, and at least one more world war.” The authors also write in their study that Planned Parenthood was originally called the American Birth Control League and was publicly criticized as “anti-family” and “pro-promiscuity.”

As for number of women affected by the covert abortifacient vaccine, the Kenyan Catholic doctors estimated in 2014 that it was more than one million at the time. The head of the Kenya Catholic Doctors Associations Dr. Stephen Karanja, who was also a co-author on the 2017 paper, said at the time that “The hormone, Beta HCG [a subunit of the hCG hormone that, if present in the wrong amount, can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg], is neither a byproduct of, nor a component required for, the manufacture of the tetanus vaccine.” Karanja added that “It being part of the vaccine is nothing short of a scheme to forcefully render our women incapable of bearing children.”


Like many powerful politicians and big-time celebrities, Bill Gates also had a connection to the now-deceased American sex offender and disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. Gates developed at least an acquaintanceship with Epstein while still married to his then-wife Melinda Gates; seeking “resources” for “world health” over the course of “several dinners” with Epstein.

Significantly, Gates developed his relationship with Epstein after the billionaire and presumed sex trafficker—who “hanged himself” in prison in 2019—had pled guilty to soliciting a minor for prostitution in 2008. Gates also reportedly spoke somewhat fondly of his experiences with Epstein to colleagues.

“His lifestyle is very different and kind of intriguing although it would not work for me,” Gates said an in email to colleagues according to The New York Times (via Newsweek). The Times also reported that Gates said he stayed with Epstein deep into the night on one occasion, and recounted to colleagues in an email that “A very attractive Swedish woman and her daughter dropped by and I ended up staying there quite late.”

Gates’ relationship with Epstein reportedly began in 2011, although the former Microsoft CEO told the Wall Street Journal in 2019 that he had met Epstein, but “didn’t have any business relationship or friendship with him.” Gates added that he “didn’t go to New Mexico or Florida or Palm Beach or any of that.”

Interestingly, in a Reuters’ “false claim” article in May of 2020 the outlet wrote that, according to flight logs, “It appears Gates flew on an aircraft of Epstein’s once, but this was to Florida.”

Unlike her husband, Melinda Gates was apparently able to see through Epstein in just a few moments into their first and only meeting.

“I also met Jeffrey Epstein exactly one time… because I wanted to see who this man was,” Melinda told CBS Mornings co-host Gayle King in March of 2022 (immediately above). She added that “I regretted it from the second I stepped in the door; he was abhorrent, he was evil personified. I had nightmares about it afterwards.” Melinda added in her interview that her “heart breaks” for the young women who were assaulted and enslaved by Epstein.


In December of 2013 Mother Jones researched the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s investment picks via the company’s 2012 tax returns. The article, titled “The Gates Foundation’s Hypocritical Investments,” reported that the foundation’s $36 billion investing arm, the Gates Foundation Trust, had its money in everything from fast food to oil to private, for-profit prisons.

Despite having the goal of “delivering proven interventions and developing better tools and strategies for providing pregnant women and young children with the foods and nutrients they need,” for example, the Gates Foundation Trust had, at the time of the article’s writing, $2.2 billion invested in Coca Cola. As well as $871 million in McDonald’s, $7.8 million in PepsiCo, and $1.4 million in Burger King.

In another set of contradictory investments, the Gates Foundation Trust also had $662 million invested in ExxonMobil, $17.8 million in BP, and $16.3 million in Shell Oil, along with multi-million dollar investments in other oil and coal producers like Devon oil and gas and ArchCoal. All of this despite the foundation’s ostensible belief “that climate change is a major issue facing all of us, particularly poor people in developing countries… .”

In this same, hypocritical vein, Elon Musk also said in April of 2022 that Bill Gates confirmed he had a $500 million “short position” on Tesla. Meaning the “philanthropist” was, and perhaps still is, betting against the growth of perhaps the most impactful “green energy” company on the planet.

Mother Jones also reported in 2014 that the Gates Foundation Trust had $2.2 million invested in The GEO Group Inc., which is a for-profit prison company. As well as $2.5 million invested in the military contractor DynCorp.

In May of 2014 The Seattle Globalist reported that the Gates Foundation Trust “resist[ed] pressure to pull [its] private prison investment[s]” even after it faced a demand to divest from GEO from Native American and Latino rights groups, which rallied outside of the foundation’s Seattle headquarters.

“The foundation invests in life-saving technologies, in US schools, in making sure people living with AIDS in Africa are less likely to die,” Foundation spokesman Jonah Goldman told the press, defending the investment in a for-profit prison company. “The trust invests in a lot of things to make sure we have the most money we can have to do that job.”

In July of 2019, Bloomberg reported the Gates Foundation Trust had increased its existing stake in Serco Group, one of the U.K.’s largest for-profit prison operators. The Foundation’s investment in Serco at the time amounted to $6.6 million.


Along with funding the WHO’s antifertility vaccine campaign in Kenya, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) also funded a highly unethical human papillomavirus (HPV) “vaccine” trial in India. As Science Insider reported in September of 2013, the Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH), using $3.6 million from the Gates foundation, launched an HPV “vaccine” trial including 24,777 adolescent girls in the states of Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat in 2009. Several months into the trial, however, “the government pulled the plug after news outlets reported the deaths of seven girls.”

The Science Insider article notes that despite the fact that state investigations absolved the trial’s managers of wrongdoing, “a panel appointed by the Indian health ministry in 2010 uncovered a number of shortcomings and alleged ethical lapses in the vaccine trial.” Science Insider went on to write that:

“[The panel’s] report in 2011 noted that the trial on several occasions failed to obtain proper informed consent of participants. It also revealed that trial managers did not set up a mechanism for reporting any adverse effects, and it criticized the lack of a control group and the trial’s inclusion of girls from India’s protected tribal communities without gaining individual consent.”

Maharaj Kishan Bhan, an immunologist who led a large clinical trial on a rotavirus vaccine approved in 2013 in which PATH was also a partner, told Science Insider that “The HPV trial was not handled well. The trial did not comply and meet the standards of good clinical practice.”

Furthermore, an all-party parliamentary panel came down on PATH and the other trial managers, noting they failed to conduct postmortems on the women who died during the trial. There were seven deaths during the trial in total.

“Rather than endeavoring to protect women’s health, PATH, [the panel] charged, was a willing tool of foreign drug companies hoping to convince the Indian government to include the HPV vaccine in its universal vaccine program, a roster of mandatory immunizations that the government is required to pay for,” Science Insider reported. The accusation was leveled as a three-dose HPV “vaccine” series was going for approximately $150 in India at the time of the trial.

Chandra M. Gulhati, editor of the Monthly Index of Medical Specialities, an influential journal in India, told Science Insider the fact that Merck, which makes the Gardisil HPV “vaccine,” and GalxoSmithKline, which makes the Cervarix HPV “vaccine,” donated almost $6 million worth of their injections to PATH “was not philanthropy.” On the contrary, Gulhati said that “It is shocking to see how an American organization used surreptitious methods to establish itself in India.” The journal editor added that “This is an obvious case where Indians were being used as guinea pigs.”

Sarojini N.B., the Director of Sama Resource Group for Women & Health, said in a 2010 interview (immediately above) that the Gates Foundation-funded PATH had, effectively, collaborated with the state government in such a way that the organization wouldn’t be held directly responsible for the unethical “vaccine” trial; instead, the Indian states in which the trials were conducted were held accountable.


Another instance of Gates—and, more generally, BMGF—failing to ensure informed consent for their “family planning” products in developing countries concerns the Pfizer birth control shot known as Depo-Provera. The Foundation (largely through efforts ostensibly led by Melinda) pushed the birth control shot extensively in the early 2010s, when the “philanthropic” organization “announced plans to collaborate to reach approximately three million women in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia from 2013-2016 with up to 12 million doses of an injectable contraceptive at affordable price levels.”

The Foundation made its announcement in July of 2012 at the London Summit on Family Planning, which was then part of a “new, coordinated effort to ensure that voluntary family planning services reach an additional 120 million women and girls in the world’s poorest countries by 2020.”

“USAID provided more than 15 years of technical oversight and funding support to advance this technology [Depo-Provera],” USAID (U.S. Agency for International Development) Administrator Rajiv Shah said in a BMGF press release. “This product is one of a number that we are supporting that expand contraceptive method choice, respond to women’s needs, and help make methods more accessible to more than 200 million women in the poorest countries of the world who lack adequate access to contraceptives,” Shah added.

Despite the Gates Foundation’s ostensibly noble goals with Depo-Provera, however, a scathing report from the Washington-based Rebecca Project for Human Rights (now online as the Rebecca Project for Justice) called out BMGF for pushing an antifertility agenda (once again). As well as failing to provide informed consent (once again).

In its extensive, well-cited report, dubbed “Depo-Provera[:] Deadly Reproductive Violence Against Women,” the Ghana-based Rebecca Project, which has as its Director (at least at the time of the report) human rights lawyer Kwame Fosu and bills itself as “a transformational organization that advocates protecting life, dignity, and freedom for people in the United States and Africa,” outlined the “egregious intent” of the Gates Foundation; noting specifically that it “insidiously exploited” girls and women in developing countries with “an unprecedented Depo Provera campaign with serious racist implications to prevent their very births.”

The Rebecca Project cites, for example, numerous news articles from 2013 that reported Ethiopian women immigrating to Israel had been injected with Depo-Provera without their consent. An article from The Guardian published in February of 2013, for example, reported that “Ethiopian women are being injected with a controversial contraceptive without their knowledge or consent” and that the birth control shot had been “linked to fertility problems and osteoporosis.” The news outlet added that “The phenomenon was uncovered when social workers noticed the birth rate among Ethiopian immigrants halving in a decade.”

The Ethiopian women immigrating to Israel were apparently first given the contraceptive jabs while still in transit. Although they were not told that what they were receiving was a birth control shot.

“Findings from investigations into the use of Depo Provera are extremely worrisome, raising concerns of harmful health policies with racist implications in violation of medical ethics, Sharona Eliahu Chai, a lawyer for the Association of Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), told the Rebecca Project.

In an interview with journalist Gal Gabbay (via The Young Turks’ video immediately above), one Ethiopian woman said “They [the Israeli health workers] told us they [the Depo-Provera shots] are inoculations. They told us people who frequently give birth suffer. We took it every three months. We said we didn’t want to.”

Not only was Depo-Provera evidently deployed to diminish the population of Ethiopian Jews in Israel, but also semi-encouraged to be used in a way—in developing countries in general—that the Rebecca Project asserts “circumvent[ed] FDA Black Box warning[s] by obviating health professional counseling requirements” and did not allow for “[explanation of] potentially lethal side-effects.”

Image: User:Ciell

The Rebecca Project noted in its report, more specifically, that the informed consent document being used for the Depo-Provera shots was “void” of the words “FDA,” “Black Box,” “warning,” and “osteoporosis.” All words that should’ve been included in the informed consent forms, as Depo-Provera has a black box warning on its label indicating that it can have potential adverse effects; specifically regarding loss of bone mineral density. BMGF money also funded research that encouraged at-home injection of Depo-Provera; something the Rebecca Project notes potentially violated FDA statutes and regulations and superseded those of the Department of Health and Human Services because, in order to give informed consent, a healthcare provider must be the one administering the injections and counseling recipients as to the shots’ dangers.

“Depo-subQ in Uniject increases the possibility for a woman to successfully self-administer a DMPA injection in her own home… While depo-subQ is currently labeled only for administration by a trained clinical provider, WHO, in addition to the previously cited researchers, acknowledges the potential for self-injection associated with [Depo-subQ],” a PATH literature review funded by BMGF reads.

Commenting on this practice, the Rebecca Project wrote in its report:

“The governmental imprimatur is supplied by the pro-Depo Provera policies of the USAID. This policy provides the cover for private foundation money, and our government policy is influenced and advocated by the Population Council, Planned Parenthood and population control advocates, ostensibly advocating for a woman’s right to choose. To administer Depo Provera injections, especially if one is receiving federal funding, Medicaid and USAID payments, without enforcing full information requirements about side-effects and harm, robs millions of women of their dignity and fundamental civil rights, denying them of their inalienable right to be free to reject a dangerous drug and choose safer contraceptives. BMGF, Planned Parenthood, Pfizer and Depo Provera advocates constructively arrogate to themselves a separate standard of regulatory oversight. They illegally promote and administer Depo Provera by concealing its danger, minimizing fatal harm to women and making false claims with impunity. They are legally required to disclose side effects of Depo Provera and other drugs with Black Box warnings to patients/consumers.”

Not only was BMGF castigated for the way it pushed Depo-Provera on poor women from developing countries, it also appears the Foundation had a financial incentive to do so. In a 2012 MarketWatch article titled “Gates’s $4 billion foray in global family planning,” the financial news outlet noted that “we know investing in R&D can have huge payoffs, creating major new marketing and sales opportunities for the commercial drug world.” MarketWatch added that “If 120 million new women users chose Depo-Provera, at an estimated average cost between $120-$300 per woman annually, that works out to $15 billion to $36 billion in new sales annually, a nice payoff from leveraging $4 billion in research money.”


While it’s easy to see how overwhelmingly unethical Bill Gates’ “philanthropic” endeavors have been over the past couple of decades, it’s also easy to forget that when he was in the business sector, Gates also, evidently, didn’t have much scruples. On the contrary, the software company he founded and helmed as CEO for decades, Microsoft, was frequently accused of anti-competitive practices; culminating in a noted American antitrust lawsuit (United States v. Microsoft Corporation) in 2001.

Although the software company—valued at $1.76 trillion as of this writing—never received more than slap-on-the-wrist fines and judgments, Silicon Valley competitors often referred to Gates as a “bully” and “monopolist.” For example, under the guiding hand (and principles) of Gates, Microsoft was accused of inducing many OEMs (original equipment manufacturers) to execute anticompetitive “per processor” licenses. In a competitive impact statement, the Department of Justice wrote:

“Beginning in 1988, and continuing until July 15, 1994, Microsoft induced many OEMs to execute anticompetitive “per processor” licenses. Under a per processor license, an OEM pays Microsoft a royalty for each computer it sells containing a particular microprocessor, whether the OEM sells the computer with a Microsoft operating system or a non-Microsoft operating system. In effect, the royalty payment to Microsoft when no Microsoft product is being used acts as a penalty, or tax, on the OEM’s use of a competing PC operating system. Since 1988, Microsoft’s use of per processor licenses has increased. In fiscal year 1993, per processor licenses accounted for an estimated 60% of MS-DOS sales to OEMs and 43% of Windows sales to OEMs. Collectively, the OEMs who have such per processor contracts are critical to the success of competing operating system vendors, but those OEMs effectively are foreclosed to Microsoft’s competitors.”

The Department of Justice went on to write that:

“Through [its] practices, Microsoft has excluded competitors by unreasonable and anticompetitive means, thereby lessening competition and maintaining a monopoly in the PC operating system market. Microsoft’s licensing practices deter OEMs from entering into licensing agreements with operating system rivals and discourage OEMs who agree to sell non-Microsoft operating systems from promoting those systems. By depriving rivals of a significant number of sales that they might otherwise secure, Microsoft makes it more difficult for its rivals to convince ISVs to write applications for their systems, for OEMs to offer and promote their systems, and for users to believe that their systems will remain viable alternatives to MS-DOS and Windows.”

The Department of Justice even went on to say that “Microsoft’s exclusionary contracts harm consumers” because “Even consumers who do not receive a Microsoft operating system still pay Microsoft indirectly. Thus, Microsoft’s licensing practices have raised the cost of personal computers to consumers.”

Microsoft also infamously tried to maintain a monopoly over the internet browser market. “With the browser threat to its operating system monopoly still robust after its failure to divide markets with Netscape, Microsoft embarked on a calculated campaign to protect its monopoly by thwarting the widespread adoption of rival browser products,” the Department of Justice wrote in a finding of fact. “That campaign had as its object increasing Microsoft’s share of the browser market and sufficiently weakening Netscape and other rivals to ensure that non-Microsoft browsers (or other middleware) did not become an important platform to which developers wrote applications that ran on PCs.”

Microsoft internally obeyed an Embrace, extend, and extinguish (or EEE) dictum, which summarized the corporation’s strategy for entering product categories involving widely used standards, extending those standards with proprietary capabilities, and then using those differences in order to strongly disadvantage its competitors.

There was also the unethical deployment of the so-called AARD code, a segment of code in a beta release of Microsoft Windows 3.1 that would, as Wikipedia notes, “determine whether Windows was running on MS-DOS or PC DOS, rather than a competing workalike such as DR-DOS, and would result in a cryptic error message in the latter case.” Wikipedia adds that “This XOR-encrypted, self-modifying, and deliberately obfuscated machine code used a variety of undocumented DOS structures and functions to perform its work.”

Gates himself was deposed for the major antitrust lawsuit brought against Microsoft. In excerpts from the full near-12-hour-long deposition (above), we see what is perhaps a truer glimpse of the tech titan’s character. In his interview the then-CEO of Microsoft seems completely disingenuous, asking over and over again for definitions of simple words; smirking whenever he comes up with another way to dodge a simple, straightforward question.

Regardless of the deposition, Gates’ reputation for being an unscrupulous businessman has been widespread for some time. In an episode of The Simpsons from the show’s ninth season (titled “Das Bus”), for example, Gates appears at the Simpsons’ house in order to crush Homer’s nascent tech company as a competitor. The Gates character notes that he’s there to “buy out” Homer’s startup, and then proceeds to have two (nerdy) bullies trash his house.


Gates’ monopolistic character shows itself spectacularly well with his approach toward his ostensible goal of “invest[ing] in nutrition to reduce preventable deaths and improve maternal and child health, with a particular focus on the 1,000-day window of opportunity from the onset of pregnancy to the child’s second birthday.” Or, put another way, “ensur[ing] that all women and children have the nutrition they need to live a healthy and productive life.”

On their face, those goals are noble, but the result of Gates’ efforts to achieve them has, evidently, only resulted in more power for himself, BMGF, and his business ties—including Philip Morris (Kraft, General Foods), Kellogg’s, Procter & Gamble and Amazon (Whole Foods)—as well as suffering for those he’s supposedly trying to help.

There is a deluge of information on this topic online, with one particular post by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on The Defender (the website belonging to his Children’s Health Defense organization) from February of 2021 outlining, in particularly extensive detail, how Gates has used his Foundation’s money to crush independent farmers in developing nations, propagate the use of dangerous chemicals on farms, and lay claim to naturally occurring seeds and even big data.

The Gates Foundation’s foray into Africa is emblematic of what is apparently a vile philanthropic ethos that focuses on building out top-down control in developing nations rather than lifting people out of poverty. A report titled “Bill Gates’ Big Money Attempts to Rule African Agriculture” by the independent policy think tank Oakland Institute, for example, notes that:

“The BMGF is best known for using its money to push for an agricultural “Green Revolution” in Africa, based on the use of synthetic fertilizers and patented seeds. This agenda largely benefits the agribusiness corporations that dominate input markets and global agricultural value chains. The Gates Foundation’s trust invests in the same companies it serves through its development programs, including Monsanto, BASF, Coca Cola, PepsiCo, Unilever, and many others.”

Using its “Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa” (or AGRA) as a vehicle, BMGF—in partnership with the Rockefeller Foundation—has invested $424 million into what the Oakland Institute calls “the corporate takeover of African agriculture.” Focused on promoting the use of hybrid seeds and synthetic fertilizers, AGRA has sprayed money around Africa for endeavors like the Water Efficient Maize for Africa project; a research collaboration with Monsanto that ran from 2008 through 2018 and sought to facilitate the acceptance of genetically modified crops in Africa.

While perhaps an innocuous enough goal on its own, the Oakland Institute notes in its report that “AGRA’s push to introduce plant variety and intellectual property rights laws may [have criminalized] the traditional saving, use, and exchange of seed varieties that many African farmers rely on for the supply and breeding of adapted varieties, while making farmers dependent on commercial seeds.”

Kennedy adds in his post on Gates that the billionaire “built the supply chain infrastructure for chemicals and seeds and pressured African governments to spend huge sums on subsidies and to use draconian penalties and authoritarian control to force farmers to buy his expensive inputs and comply with his diktats.”

A scathing study spearheaded by policy think tanks in Germany, including INKOTA network and Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung, described overwhelming harm done to African farmers by AGRA. A summary on Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung’s website notes that “AGRA in fact harms small-scale food producers, for example by subjecting them to high levels of debt.” The summary adds that “In Zambia and Tanzania, small-scale food producers were unable to repay the loans for fertilizer and hybrid seeds after the first harvest” and that “AGRA projects also restrict the freedom of choice for small-scale food producers to decide for themselves what they want to grow.”

Rather than see key crops boom with the use of the chemicals and GMO seeds provided by AGRA, they declined; millet production, the authors noted in their report, fell by 24 percent between 2006 and 2018 in the 13 African countries infected with AGRA. The policy study also highlighted the fact that AGRA “lobbies governments on behalf of agricultural corporations to pass legislation that will benefit fertilizer producers and seed companies instead of strengthening small-scale food production and alternative structures.”

Vandana Shiva, an Indian physicist and social activist who founded the Research Foundation for Science, Technology, and Natural Resource Policy (RFSTN) in 1982, has been especially critical of Gates. Highlighting the same kinds of unscrupulous behavior as Kennedy, the Oakland Institute, et al. have, in both Africa as well as in India. And in numerous other developing countries as well.

“Bill Gates is actually continuing the work of Monsanto because… when Bill Gates pours money into Africa for feeding the poor in Africa and preventing famine, what’s he doing? He’s pushing the failed Green Revolution. He’s pushing chemicals, pushing GMOs, [and] pushing patents…” Shiva said in an interview with France 24 (above) in October of 2019. “He is absolutely ignoring all of this new knowledge that new science is giving us and imposing a failed technology with a huge cost to the planet only so they can be monopolies and people and farmers are not free to have their seed,” the activist added.

“Bill Gates is still imposing and forcing GMOs, which is a failed enterprise,” Shiva added in the interview with France 24. “My government threw… Monsanto out, Bill Gates resurrect[ed] it in Bangladesh. We rejected the golden rice for solving the plant problem of blindness, [but he financed] it to continue through [the] Philippines.”

In an article by The Institute for Food and Development Policy from 2006, BMGF’s “Green Revolution Ecological Disaster” is described as increasing crop yields “at the expense of heavy pesticide use and excessive irrigation, soil infertility, and… pest and disease susceptibility.” The article even goes as far as to link the “Green Revolution” to an “epidemic of farmer suicides” in India.

Furthermore, Gates is now literally the largest private owner of farmland in the U.S. Gates “has been quietly snatching up 242,000 acres of farmland across the U.S. — enough to make him the top private farmland owner in America,” Forbes reported in January of 2021. The farmland owned by Gates (as of the Forbes‘ article publication date) includes 69,071 acres in Louisiana, 47,927 acres in Arkansas, and 20,588 acres in Nebraska. Forbes also noted that Gates had bought up an additional 25,750 acres of land in the west side of Phoenix, Arizona, although that is supposedly being developed as a new suburb.

“[A]t best, Gates’ campaign to scarf up America’s agricultural real estate is a signal that feudalism may again be in vogue,” Kennedy says in his post on The Defender. “At worst, his buying spree is a harbinger of something far more alarming — the control of global food supplies by a power-hungry megalomaniac with a Napoleon complex.”

Indeed, there is an endless number of independent news outlets, bloggers, and farmers who all say that Gates has nefarious plans for all of his farmland. The World Tribune wrote in June of 2021, for example, that “Farmer Bill wants to change your diet. Whether you want him to or not.” The outlet went on to explain, using evidence from various sources, that Gates wants to “end livestock production” and replace it with “lab-grown” faux meat.

Dr. Joseph Mercola—an osteopathic physician board-certified in family medicine who’s been a staunch defender of individual rights, liberty, and medical freedom throughout his career—wrote in an article re-posted by The Defender that “Allowing technocrats [like Bill Gates] to take over the food system — which is what they’re trying to do by criminalizing and making it ever more difficult to grow food and raise livestock — is a death knell humanity may not be able to recover from.” Mercola added “Synthetic beef is ultraprocessed food, and processed foods have repeatedly been shown to increase your risk of chronic disease and early death. Real food is a necessity for health, and must be protected and fought for at all cost.”

Along with those seven major examples of Gates’ blatantly unethical behavior and egregious violations of human rights, there are countless other examples of the self-proclaimed “nerd” behaving as an absolute tyrant. Immediately below are just several bonus examples of even more unscrupulous behavior from Gates that reveals who he really is.


As with all of the other unethical endeavors listed above, Gates’ pushing of the so-called “Common Core Standards Initiative” (or just “Common Core”) has done more harm than good; given Gates more power; and, according to many people (including major news outlets) failed outright.

While Common Core has been pushed largely by the National Governors Association (NGA), funding from BMGF—which already amounts to more than $200 million—has been key to expanding and imposing the educational agenda on nearly every state in the U.S.

“The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation didn’t just bankroll the development of what became known as the Common Core State Standards,” Lyndsey Layton wrote in The Washington Post in June of 2014. “With more than $200 million, the foundation also built political support across the country, persuading state governments to make systemic and costly changes.”

In her article Layton went on to discuss how educational professionals were saying at the time that “it is increasingly difficult to buy classroom materials and send teachers to professional development programs that are not influenced by the Common Core… .” Layton also noted that “because of the way education policy is generally decided, the Common Core was instituted in many states without a single vote taken by an elected lawmaker.”

Layton highlighted intensification of “anti-Common Core sentiment,” particularly amongst conservative Republicans. The WaPo deputy editor also quoted former Harvard professor and education policy expert at the Brookings Institution Tom Loveless as saying Common Core was “built on shaky theory.” Loveless told Layton that “Everyone who developed standards in the past has had a theory that standards will raise achievement, and that’s not happened.”

Layton also conducted an interview with Gates in 2014 (immediately above), in which Gates became enormously defensive over the idea that he was funding the Common Core standards for personal gains. “In a technocratic way we [BMGF] are funding pilot studies of peer evaluations… we’re funding people doing software things, and so yes… we create more options, but our voice is not there when the final choice of what to scale up is made,” Gates told Layton, pushing back on the idea that funding Common Core meant he was developing more and more control over what’s taught in America’s classrooms. As well as creating yet another avenue (classroom education) through which he could push Microsoft products.

“Having financed the creation of the standards, the Gates Foundation has entered into a partnership with Pearson [a British-owned education publishing and assessment service] to produce a full set of K-12 courses aligned with the Common Core that will be marketed to schools across the country,” Stan Karp wrote in a Rethinking Schools article from 2014, however. “Nearly every educational product now comes wrapped in the Common Core brand name.”

Karp went on to note that Common Core—using Pearson-developed tests—have triggered outcries from students, parents, and teachers who think they have been disruptive to real learning and pushed more kids out of K-12 programs than otherwise would’ve been without the standards. (Karp even noted that “Pearson included corporate logos and promotional material in [their tests’] reading passages.”)

Outlining how Microsoft benefits from promoting Pearson via Common Core Long Island Business News reported in May of 2015 that “Bill Gates said he gave millions of dollars to Pearson to develop Common Core curriculum and testing because he believes in the concept and, presumably, the company… So maybe it’s no surprise that the firm he founded is now partnering with the firm he funded.” The Business News report continued on to say that “Microsoft last year announced a testing and certification partnership with Pearson, using the cloud to make exams accessible.”

Despite the glaring ethical issues with Gates funding Common Core—as well as his tacit admittance that the standards have been a failure—his foundation is still spending billions to “to fix the US education system.”


Although most people think of pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, and AstraZeneca when looking for who to blame for the enormous dangers and downsides of the COVID “vaccines,” one family in India has specifically called out Bill Gates by name as responsible for the damages inflicted by the novel injections. The Indian family apparently has legal grounds for its lawsuit, as an Indian court has ordered Bill Gates, along with the Indian government and the Serum Institute of India, to provide formal responses to the death of 33-year-old doctor Snehal Lunawat, who was killed by the AstraZeneca “vaccine.”

“An Indian court ordered Bill Gates, the Indian government and the Serum Institute of India — the world’s largest vaccine manufacturer — to provide formal responses relating to a case filed by the father of a woman who died after receiving AstraZeneca’s Covishield COVID-19 vaccine,” The Defender reported in September of 2022. “In a lawsuit filed in February, Dilip Lunawat alleged his daughter, Snehal Lunawat, died March 1, 2021, of complications arising from the Covishield vaccine” the Children’s Health Defense website added.

The Defender noted the Indian family behind the lawsuit—which is suing for compensation of approximately $126 million as well as action to be taken against social media platforms such as Facebook for their role in propagating “false narratives” about the safety and efficacy of the COVID “vaccines”—names the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation “for its role in helping to speed up the process of manufacturing and delivering up to 100 million doses of Covishield for distribution in India and various developing countries.”


In a the viral video immediately below retired nurse and YouTuber Dr. John Campbell gives his analysis of why Bill Gates referred to robust natural immunity from Omicron as a ‘sad’ thing. While this may seem like a relatively minor example of questionable ethics relative to Gates’ other unscrupulous behavior on this list, it still stands as a shining example of how the power-hungry “nerd” views the world: as a place to be conquered with technology (in this case, his COVID “vaccines”) rather than a place to understand and interact with sensibly.

Gates says in the video:

“Sadly, the virus itself, particularly the variant called Omicron, is a type of vaccine. That is it creates both B cell and T cell immunity, and it’s done a better job of getting out to the world population than we have with the vaccines. If you do serosurveys in African countries you get well over 80% of people have been exposed either to the vaccines or to various variants. And so what that does is it means the chance of severe disease, which is mainly associated with being elderly and having obesity or diabetes, those risks are now dramatically reduced because of that infection exposure. And it’s sad, we didn’t do a great job on therapeutics. Vaccines, it took us two years to be in oversupply.


Whether the act is considered in the context of the rest of his unethical endeavors or on its own, BMGF funding the “guidance document” for the WHO’s “Digital Documentation of COVID-19 Status” for countries around the world is fascistic at its core. A truth that is evinced by the fact that the COVID “vaccines” do not stop transmission of the disease.

The fact that it is now universally known—and acknowledged by the likes of the Director of the CDC Rochelle Walensky as well as Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla—that the COVID injections don’t create any kind of lasting immunity to COVID (including all of its variants ad infinitum), means the idea of a “vaccine passport” is plainly mad. The very basis for the WHO’s digital certificate is a lie, pure and simple; the evidence that has amassed since the injections’ rollout shows, unequivocally, they do not work to stop infection or transmission of the disease.

Image: World Health Organization

Yet BMGF, which is the largest funder of the WHO, has still decided to fund research, and this “guidance document,” for the passports anyway; something that only makes sense if Gates were more focused on controlling people’s behavior, as well as what they stick in their bodies, rather than their health.

“In the context of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, the concept of Digital Documentation of COVID-19 Certificates (DDCC) is proposed as a mechanism by which a person’s COVID-19-related health data can be digitally documented via an electronic certificate.” the WHO guidance document says. “A digital vaccination certificate that documents a person’s current vaccination status to protect against COVID-19 can then be used for continuity of care or as proof of vaccination for purposes other than health care.”

Image: World Health Organization

The guidance document notes that the vaccine IDs work specifically as “Proof[s] of Vaccination”; distinct from their implementation for “continuity of care”—i.e. as a vaccine record actually used in relation to health and medicine. As a “proof” card, the WHO’s COVID-19 vaccine ID would supposedly “[establish] the vaccination status of individuals in coverage monitoring surveys; [establish] vaccination status after a positive COVID-19 test; to understand vaccine effectiveness; for work; for university education; for international travel.”

The WHO notes “The primary target audience of this document is national authorities tasked with creating or overseeing the development of a digital vaccination certificate solution for COVID-19.” The WHO also says the vaccine ID can be used for “government partners” such as “local businesses, international organizations, nongovernmental organizations and trade associations, that may be required to support Member States in developing or deploying a [COVID injection ID] solution.”

Clearly these IDs could—and have—been abused as a control mechanism. It’s also crystal clear that Gates had the intention of rolling out the utterly unnecessary IDs long before the WHO’s document publication date (August 21, 2021). In fact, in an interview Gates did with Chris Andersen of TED on March 25, 2020, Gates said the following:

“Eventually what we’ll have to have is certificates of who’s a recovered person, who’s a vaccinated person, because you don’t want people moving around the world where you’ll have some countries that don’t have it under control, sadly, you don’t want to completely block off the ability for those people to go there and come back and move around.”

Not only is it notable that Gates was planning on a vaccine ID before any kind of vaccines were even available, but it’s also important to remember that these COVID injections (including every one of them; from Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca, etc.) do not stop—or even slow—the transmission of the disease. Which means they don’t create immunity. Which means they are, in fact, not vaccines. Which means, of course, that Gates’ idea for a “vaccine certificate” is, and always has been, ludicrous.

Furthermore, Gates echoes—precisely—a so-called “scenario planning exercise” from 2010 funded by The Rockefeller Foundation dubbed “Lock Step.” In the scenario, excerpts of which are immediately below, its authors describe a nasty pandemic breaking out around the world; one that harshly damages most countries, save for China, which is able to spare itself from millions of deaths thanks to its authoritarian “mandatory quarantine” policy. Other countries around the world, Lock Step notes, subsequently follow China’s lead.

Link to planning exercise
Link to planning exercise

Incredibly—or believably, if one understands the complete plan that is unfolding before our very eyes—in his March 2020 interview with Andersen Gates said that “the isolation in China drove [the] reproductive number [of COVID-19] to well below… one.” Gates also noted that “what we need is [an] extreme shutdown so that in 6 to 10 weeks, if things go well, then you can start opening back up.”

Gates also went on to flash his bully persona, noting that countries that do obey “mandatory quarantines” (a.k.a. “lockdowns”) “will treat whoever goes for this ‘ignore the disease’ strategy… as a pariah state… .” Gates added “South Korea did not have to do the extreme shutdown because they did such a good job on testing.”

Of course, not only is it notable that Gates regurgitates this “planning exercise” from 2010 to describe 2020 reality to a tee, but it’s critical to remember that—like the COVID injections—none of the measures pushed by Gates worked. At all. In fact, overwhelming evidence that has continued to roll in and build over time has shown that lockdowns do not work and are harmful; masks are dangerous, cumbersome, and utterly ineffective; and social distancing was based on nothing more than a flimsy guess.


Although the idea of a remote-controllable form of birth control for women may sound reasonable out of context (or perhaps not), knowing Gates’ background in population control makes the fact that BMFG funded research and development of such a device makes it stand out as particularly unethical and vile.

In 2014 it was reported that BMGF gave $4.6 million to the Massachusetts-based startup MicroCHIPS in order to “develop a personal system that enables women to regulate their fertility.” According to a CBS New York report from 2014 (immediately below), BMGF heard about one of MicroCHIPS success stories when the company and MIT professor Bob Langer tested the tech in 2012 with osteoporosis patients. In response to hearing about the reportedly successful test, the Gates Foundation “asked if the chip could be used to prevent pregnancy.” CBS New York added in its report that the Foundation’s goal with the remote-controllable birth control chip was to “revolutionize family planning in third world countries.”

It’s not clear where the remote-controllable birth control chip is in its development cycle of this writing. It’s not even clear if MicroCHIPS has a company website online after a cursory search for one. Regardless, it’s clear that the overwhelming likelihood is that BMGF (or, really, Gates himself), would’ve wanted to deploy this device not as a “birth control” mechanism, but rather as a “population control” mechanism. One that would’ve focused on poorer people in developing countries who, if misled and kept from full informed consent, would’ve had little recourse to protect themselves or address their grievances in regards to an insidious plan to rid their kind from Earth launched upon them by “philanthropists.”


This list, which only scratches the surface of the crimes Gates has perpetrated on his fellow man, evinces how the supposed do-gooder has in reality used the $53 billion Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) to advance a population-control agenda—under the guise of “family planning”—that seeks to annihilate birth rates, particularly amongst poor people in developing countries. Something that makes far more sense when one realizes that Gates’ father, William H. Gates, Sr., helmed Planned Parenthood—originally dubbed the “American Birth Control League”—after World War 2 and was promoting the idea that population growth, unless halted or reduced by governmental intervention, would inevitably lead to world-wide famine, disease, the destabilization of governments, and at least one more world war.

With its billions in funds, BMGF has pushed tetanus “vaccines” laced with hormones that induce sterility on more than a million women in Kenya—without informing them of what they were taking into their bodies, nor what it would do to their ability to have children. (A 2017 study, authored by Kenyan doctors familiar with the “vaccine” rollout, et al. found that the tetanus “vaccines” were actually “a front for [a] population reduction [agenda].”)

Along with funding the antifertility vaccine campaign in Kenya, BMGF also funded a highly unethical human papillomavirus (HPV) “vaccine” trial in India. As Science Insider reported in September of 2013, the Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH), using $3.6 million from the Gates foundation, launched an HPV “vaccine” trial including 24,777 adolescent girls in the states of Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat in 2009. Several months into the trial, however, “the government pulled the plug after news outlets reported the deaths of seven girls.” A panel appointed by the Indian health ministry in 2010 uncovered a number of shortcomings and alleged ethical lapses in the vaccine trial,” and one prominent Indian journalist even said BMGF was using the Indian girls as “guinea pigs.”

Gates’ foundation also invests as if it has no philanthropic goals, but rather only profit motives. It has been pointed out, for example, that BMGF funding goes toward businesses that actually produce products or services that are counter to the Foundation’s stated goals. Despite pushing for a “green energy” future, for example, BMGF has been heavily invested in companies like ExxonMobil, Shell Oil, and ArchCoal. Despite ostensibly caring about nutrition, BMGF has had billions invested in Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, and PepsiCo. BMGF has even funded multiple private-prison corporations.

Gates—who was considered a “bully” during his tenure as Microsoft CEO, using anti-competitive practices to edge out other players in the software space and paying penalties for the unscrupulous behavior along the way—is also now the largest owner of farmland in America; something that wouldn’t necessarily be an issue except for the fact that he’s constantly called out by people like physicist and activist Vandana Shiva in India for pushing out small-scale farmers (and forcing them into debt); benefiting his corporate agribusiness partners like Monsanto; commandeering proprietary seed types; and demanding the use of dangerous and damaging pesticides and other chemicals.

On a more personal level, Gates has also shown himself to be utterly without a moral compass. The billionaire, for example, spent time with Jeffrey Epstein on his plane and at “several dinners”—after the disgraced financier was found guilty of soliciting a minor for prostitution in 2008. Gates told his co-workers in an email at one point that he found Epstein’s lifestyle “kind of intriguing.”

The litany of immoral campaigns Gates has undertaken in his career continue on (seemingly ad infinitum), with his coercive push for so-called “Common Core” standards in America’s education system (which are often detested by teachers and students alike, and have allowed for Microsoft’s business partners, and, indirectly, Microsoft itself to benefit monetarily) and his funding of a remote-controlled birth control device with an on-off switch standing as just another two examples. Not to mention his overzealous push during the COVID-19 “pandemic” for utterly ineffective, and wildly harmful, policies like universal masking and testing, lockdowns, and social distancing. As well as, of course, so-called “COVID vaccine IDs” that he believes will be necessity for every human on Earth. Despite the fact the COVID-19 “vaccines” don’t actually provide immunity and therefore render the idea of vaccine IDs as absolutely mad.

Feature image: World Economic Forum

(Visited 2,348 times, 1 visits today)

Tags from the story:

Accessibility Toolbar