Albanese, Gates and the Gothic Horror Mosquitoes.

We dont want your ideas or money Mr. Gates. You are not trained, qualified and experienced in any biological discipline whatsoever. Please stay away from us and pretending you care. Albanese must go!

The Gothic Horror Mosquitoes: Unmasking the Albanese Government’s Partnership with Gates and Oxitec

The release of genetically modified mosquitoes into the wild is a deeply troubling issue that demands national attention: . Dubbed by myself as the "gothic horror mosquitoes," this project, initiated by the Albanese government in collaboration with Oxitec—a UK-based biotechnology company—has sparked outrage. The initiative’s purported goal is to combat diseases like dengue, Zika, and yellow fever. However, the profound public and environmental risks and the unsettling ties between the Albanese government, Bill Gates, and corporate interests warrant serious scrutiny.

At the heart of this controversial initiative are Oxitec and CSIRO, Australia’s national science agency. Together, they have formed Oxitec Australia to introduce the gothic horror mosquitoes into the Australian landscape. Notably, the project receives substantial backing from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, a major financier of Oxitec’s research. Gates, often portrayed as a philanthropist with a vested interest in global health (he has made hundreds of billions of dollars from dangerous vaccines), has a track record of pushing genetic technologies under the guise of eradicating diseases. Yet, his involvement in this project raises questions about his true motives and the unchecked influence of billionaire-backed initiatives.

Compounding concerns is the troubling history of Gates and Albanese’s joint promotion of genetically based mRNA vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic. These vaccines, pushed into Australians' arms under the guise of public health, have been linked to immune system damage, extremely serious adverse reactions, and excess early deaths. The Albanese-Gates alliance must be regarded as toxic to the Australian people, with their shared initiatives prioritising experimental technologies over genuine public welfare.

The decision to make Australia the testing ground for these gothic horror mosquitoes is perplexing. Diseases like malaria, dengue, and Zika are rare in the country, thanks to strict biosecurity measures. Why, then, is a nation with minimal exposure to these diseases being used as a laboratory for a project that has faced rejection in countries like the United States? The rationale presented—to prevent the potential spread of diseases—rings hollow. Australia’s low incidence of these illnesses does not justify the ecological risks posed by releasing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into its unique ecosystems. Instead, the move appears to serve the interests of private corporations and influential figures like Gates rather than the Australian public.

Oxitec’s platform involves releasing genetically engineered male mosquitoes carrying a self-limiting gene. This gene causes female offspring to die before reaching adulthood, gradually reducing mosquito populations. While marketed as a sustainable alternative to insecticides, this technology is fraught with uncertainties.

What if the gothic horror mosquitoes fail to perform as expected? Potential scenarios include interbreeding with wild populations, genetic contamination of native species, or even the emergence of new “super mosquitoes.” The lack of long-term studies on these genetically modified insects makes the project’s consequences alarmingly unpredictable. Could this lead to the disruption of ecosystems reliant on mosquitoes as a food source? These are not hypothetical questions—they are real risks.

The introduction of gothic horror mosquitoes into Australia’s environment represents a Pandora’s box of ecological and public health risks. Aedes aegypti, the primary target, plays a role in food webs as prey for birds, bats, and other species. Eliminating or altering this mosquito could cascade into widespread ecological disruption.

Furthermore, the potential for unintended genetic spillover remains a glaring concern. Could other mosquito species acquire these genetic modifications, leading to unpredictable outcomes? The specter of new health risks or unforeseen environmental damage looms large, particularly in the absence of robust oversight and long-term environmental monitoring.

The involvement of the Albanese government and Albanese’s dubious potentially conflicted role raises significant questions about their motivations. What does Australia stand to gain from this project? The answer seems elusive, especially given the country’s low burden of mosquito-borne diseases. Instead, the real beneficiaries appear to be Oxitec and its backers, including Gates and possible Albanese in the long run..

Gates’s role, in particular, invites skepticism. While he frames his involvement as altruistic, the financial ties between his foundation and Oxitec suggest otherwise. This initiative exemplifies how private funding can steer public health policy, often sidelining transparency and accountability. The Albanese government’s partnership with Oxitec hints at a troubling alignment with corporate interests, raising the spectre of private entities dictating public health and environmental policies.

Gates’s role, in particular, invites skepticism. While he frames his involvement as altruistic, the financial ties between his foundation and Oxitec suggest otherwise. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has a well-documented history of investing in genetic technologies, often under the banner of public health, but these initiatives frequently raise concerns about their true motivations and outcomes.

For example, Gates has heavily funded research into genetically engineered crops through partnerships with organizations like Monsanto (now part of Bayer), sparking debates about corporate control over global food systems. His foundation has also championed the deployment of genetically modified mosquitoes in Brazil, which faced significant backlash due to ecological concerns and reports that the modified genes had unintentionally spread to wild mosquito populations.

In addition to Oxitec, the Gates Foundation has invested in pharmaceutical companies developing cutting-edge, albeit controversial, technologies. Moderna, a key player in mRNA vaccine development, received substantial funding from Gates during the COVID-19 pandemic. While the mRNA vaccines were initially heralded as groundbreaking, we know that this failed experiment has devastated humanity.

Gates’s support for such projects often comes with strings attached, embedding his foundation deeply into the health policies of nations worldwide. This creates extreme conflicts of interest, where initiatives framed as philanthropic are instead serving to expand Gates’ financial portfolio and influence. These investments reveal a pattern: Gates’s initiatives align with corporate profits and experimental technologies, leaving vulnerable populations to bear the risks. These are historical facts.

This troubling trend reinforces the need to scrutinise his involvement in Australia's gothic horror mosquito project. Australians must ask whether Gates’s actions genuinely prioritise global health or whether they reflect a broader strategy to exert control over scientific innovation and public policy for personal gain. The people are starting to see through Bill Gates.

When viewed in conjunction with their joint promotion of the mRNA vaccines, the Albanese-Gates relationship becomes even more concerning. Australians were subjected to experimental vaccine mandates that, far from being a panacea, have led to widespread reports of extreme adverse effects and death. This toxic alliance will continue to undermine public trust, placing profit and experimental technologies above the welfare of the people.

Australians deserve full transparency about the gothic horror mosquitoes and the motivations behind their release. Rigorous scientific studies, environmental impact assessments, and genuine public consultations are non-negotiable prerequisites for any project with such far-reaching implications. Yet, the lack of meaningful public dialogue signals a troubling disregard for democratic accountability.

This initiative is emblematic of a broader trend where corporate interests and billionaire-backed projects wield disproportionate influence over public policy. As the election approaches, Australians must confront a critical question: Do they want a government that prioritises private profit over public safety and environmental stewardship?

The release of genetically modified gothic horror mosquitoes is a high-stakes gamble with Australia’s ecosystems and public health. The Albanese government’s opaque dealings with Oxitec and Gates underscore the urgent need for vigilance and scrutiny. The gothic horror mosquitoes must not be allowed to set a precedent for unchecked scientific experimentation at the expense of public and environmental safety.

In essence, the Gates-Albanese relationship reflects a toxic blend of private influence, questionable priorities, and disregard for public accountability, with far-reaching implications for Australians’ health, environment, and trust in governance.

Ian Brighthope