New Epstein file dump reveals Bill Gates was 'begging Jeffrey Epstein for antibiotics to discreetly slip to wife Melinda after Bill contracted STDs from Russian girls.'
Executive summary
The recent Department of Justice release of Jeffrey Epstein’s files includes draft emails written by Epstein to himself that allege Bill Gates contracted a sexually transmitted infection from “Russian girls” and asked Epstein to obtain antibiotics to “surreptitiously” give to then-wife Melinda French Gates; those draft allegations appear throughout multiple news reports but are unverified and come from Epstein’s own notes [1] [2] [3]. Bill Gates and his representatives have emphatically denied the specific claims in those emails as “absolutely absurd and completely false,” and the Justice Department’s release does not equate presence in the files with proof of wrongdoing [4] [5] [6].
1. What the files actually show — draft memos and accusations authored by Epstein
The documents at issue include emails Epstein sent to himself in July 2013 in which he, sometimes writing in the voice of others, alleges Gates sought drugs to “deal with consequences of sex with Russian girls” and asked for antibiotics that could be given to Melinda without her knowledge, language that has been excerpted widely in media coverage [1] [7] [3]. Multiple outlets cite the same passages — a draft with the subject “Bill” that urges deletion of emails “regarding your STD, your request that I provide you antibiotics that you can surreptitiously give to Melinda” — but these are Epstein-authored drafts rather than contemporaneous corroborated communications from Gates or his advisers [2] [8] [7].
2. How major outlets and reporters are framing the allegation
British, U.S., and international outlets have reported the passages prominently and sometimes sensationally, repeating Epstein’s phrasing about “Russian girls” and secret antibiotics while noting the material comes from the DOJ’s large tranche of Epstein files [2] [8] [9]. Some coverage treats the texts as new, explosive allegations implicating Gates in clandestine behavior [10] [11], while other outlets emphasize the documents’ origin in Epstein’s files and the lack of independent corroboration [6] [3].
3. Gates’ response and the evidentiary gap
Bill Gates’ team has categorically rejected the specific STD-and-antibiotics claims as “absurd” and “completely false,” stressing that Gates regrets his prior association with Epstein but denies the conduct alleged in those drafts [4] [12] [5]. Crucially, the documents in the DOJ release are not proof in themselves: news reports and the Department’s posting note that inclusion in Epstein’s files does not establish the truth of every entry, and key assertions here are contained in Epstein’s own draft statements that could reflect invention, blackmail, or attempts to entrap [6] [2].
4. Context and motives worth weighing — Epstein’s pattern of compilation and alleged blackmail
Longstanding reporting has shown Epstein collected compromising material and at times sought leverage on powerful figures, and some commentators and outlets suggest these drafts may reflect Epstein’s frustration at being cut off and a pattern of concocting damaging narratives when rebuffed [2] [7]. At least one prior report cited in today’s coverage described Epstein’s attempted blackmail of Gates around a previously reported alleged affair, underscoring that these documents sit within a broader history of allegations, denials, and claims of kompromat rather than settled proof [7] [13].
5. Bottom line — allegation present in Epstein’s drafts, but unproven
The short answer is that the new Epstein file dump contains Epstein-authored draft emails that allege Gates contracted an STD from “Russian girls” and sought antibiotics to surreptitiously give to Melinda, but the only primary source for that specific narrative is Epstein’s own documents and related drafts; there is currently no independent public evidence corroborating those claims and Gates’ camp denies them as false, while the DOJ release itself cautions that presence in the files is not proof of guilt [1] [7] [4] [6].