“The first time is tragedy and the second time is farce.” Karl Marx
In March 2020, we were required to “flatten the curve” via the medium of lock-downs, mask mandates and other social restrictions. These capricious measures were foisted on us either in the absence of evidence as to their efficacy or in outright contradiction of evidence that was well established; this was not a circumstance where the science was “followed” as it developed. Lock-downs had never previously been contemplated – isolation for the afflicted was about as draconian as previous advice had got, because the societal and economic collateral damage that a mandated lock-down would inflict was so obvious – and as for masks:
“It is a long-established conclusion from the scientific world that face masks achieve no appreciable reduction in viral transmission.”(1)
It is well documented, despite protestations to the contrary, that Covid mitigations had no beneficial impact. Furthermore,
“...forcing people to stay indoors, avoid exercising, avoid social contact, and a bevy of other things that dramatically raised the stress levels and obesity of the population at large made people far more susceptible to covid disease (as well as a host of other medical conditions).”(2)
Regimes accomplished this by dint of a scare campaign that married another previously unknown phenomenon – asymptomatic spread – with a PCR test that was deliberately configured to register false positive results, a subterfuge that was exposed by Tanzanian President John Magufuli in May 2020, when samples he took from a papaya, a quail and a goat tested positive for Covid.(3) He may have been better advised to keep quiet about these results; less than a year later, he became one of several 'vaccine' skeptical leaders to shuffle off this mortal coil rather earlier than expected.(4) In each case, the replacement was rather keener to toe the line.(5)
The myth of asymptomatic spread was vital to the lock-down narrative, putting the fear of God into the germophobes and the vulnerable; the specter of a silent killer stalking the populace served to keep the skeptical and the knowledgeable in their boxes. Common sense and critical thinking are never the first ports of call once panic has set in and so it proved in 2020, magnified by the legacy media. However, it had always been accepted that it was people with symptoms that passed on disease, which is exactly what one might expect. In fact, it wasn't even easy to pass on Covid when an individual was symptomatic.
A meta analysis, a study of studies, published in December 2020 (and therefore analyzing studies of earlier provenance) found that, among individual households, symptomatic transmission ran at around 18%. Asymptomatic transmission, on the other hand, was pegged at 0.7%.(6) So, roughly one in five symptomatic people passed on the disease, which is a much lower rate than expected and less than 1% of asymptomatic people did same. This finding was from 54 studies and 77,000 participants.
At the time, in 2021, I wrote the following assessment of these measures and why they gained traction:
“They have been allowed to stand because of a combination of state and media manipulation of the populace and because of activists within that same populace who have enlisted the fearful and credulous in silencing any questioning or dissent.
They've been allowed to stand because people have forgotten what risk management is. What it isn't is 'an abundance of caution'. That is not a virtue and never has been. That is the refuge of the incompetent, of the cowardly and, latterly, of the corrupt. Anybody can overreact to a crisis; in these circumstances, anyone can 'cover their ass' by closing everything and telling everyone to stay at home, provided that they have sufficient disregard for the laws of their country as to think that they possess that authority to begin with. That is the opposite of leadership and maybe it's intended to be just that.
A wise person, a skilled and empathetic person (the sort of person you'd like to be in charge) would weigh the different factors within the framework of their authority and they would continue to evaluate as circumstances changed, as they inevitably do. They would understand that, as well as care, there is fairness and proportionality. There is the obligation to do as little harm as possible, on both sides of that equation.”(7)
I see now that I was overly charitable, although I did still conclude that we weren't in a war against Covid, but rather against our leaders. However, as time has passed and each brand spanking new brazen iniquity has been added to the existing pile, we can no longer be in any doubt that they were by design. One may balk at that assessment, but when one looks at the totality of government actions, bad intent is the only explanation that fits. They actively suppressed and destroyed early Covid treatments that were known to be effective against the original SARS of 2003 (ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine chief amongst them) and assisted in enabling biased, fraudulent trials that purportedly proved that these treatments were not efficacious.(8) The trials overdosed patients and killed large numbers.
These instances were far from the only homicidal interventions. Hospitals and care homes became the new killing fields. Remdesivir (now nicknamed Run Death Is Near) started life as an investigational drug, an antiviral treatment for Ebola virus. Yet, since early 2020, it managed to gain Emergency Use Authorization (1st May 2020) and then full approval (22nd October, the same year). It outpaced even the 'vaccine' approval process and was the only drug authorized for the treatment of Covid in the US. It is also authorized in around 50 other countries, despite being a drug that even the WHO, no friend to patients worldwide, has said has absolutely no effect on the disease. But it does have an effect on the kidneys.
There have been two correctly configured clinical trials of the drug, neither in any way connected to Covid. The first trial, an Ebola study in the Democratic Republic of Congo, ran from November 2018 to August 2019, but was supposed to last a year. Remdesivir was so toxic that it had to be discontinued by the safety board after 53% of patients died in the first eight months and severe side affects, including renal failure, were also commonplace.
The second trial was no better. 60% of the group had adverse events and some were in a bad way:
“A total of 12 patients (23%) had serious adverse events. The most common serious adverse events — multiple-organ-dysfunction syndrome, septic shock, acute kidney injury, and hypotension — were reported in patients who were receiving invasive ventilation at baseline.”(9)
But no matter. One more experimental drug that was clearly harmful and incapable of being approved for use in any competent clinical trial was nonetheless granted an EUA (Emergency Use Authorization):
“The emergency use authorization allows for remdesivir to be distributed in the U.S. and administered intravenously by health care providers, as appropriate, to treat suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in adults and children hospitalized with severe disease. Severe disease is defined as patients with low blood oxygen levels or needing oxygen therapy or more intensive breathing support such as a mechanical ventilator.”(10)
Reports state that around 80% of those enduring the double whammy of remdesivir and a ventilator (plus a sedative) died in the ICU. We might, at some point, have wondered how it can be that a drug that is known to be toxic to humans, that has a non-existent safety record and unproven effectiveness in the treatment of Covid, could possibly be approved for use. But it's not much of a mystery any more.
A patient that tested positive in a US hospital, whatever the reason for their admittance, automatically became both a cash cow and a potential fatality. Leaving now became their major problem, not the disease, as the administrators that run hospital trusts do so for profit and the government made the internment of a Covid patient very profitable indeed.
There were payments for testing, admittance, treatment with remdesivir, for every patient on a ventilator and for every Covid death. It is estimated that the full set is worth nearly $100,000. I don't know exactly what justification the federal government used at the outset, but I assume it was danger money or similar, an incentive to fearful medical staff to treat the dangerously unclean. It really doesn't take the brains of an archbishop to see that, even at the best of times, that amount of money represents a serious temptation. One patient who managed to escape observed:
"They gave me $37,000's worth of Remdesivir, but it obviously didn't help because I wound up on a ventilator. My hospital bill was $920,000 for the 44 days I was there. Nobody offered me ivermectin, which is cheap, effective, has no side effects, and you can take at home."(11)
When these funds are offered at the same time that hospitals were floundering and going bankrupt due to staff shortages and a lack of income from elective surgery, the net effect was that there was no incentive for hospitals to treat patients with known, effective medications and discharge them swiftly. In fact, the opposite was true and waivers granted by authorities enabled hospitals to remove critical rights such as informed consent. So, once again, are we to believe that this consequence is unintended?
The UK did a nice line in euthanasia also, although the drug of choice was midazolam instead and the venue was just as likely to be care facilities as hospitals:
“In care homes, they were given midazolam and morphine, respiratory depressant drugs which in combination are all but contraindicated in patients with breathing difficulties. If used, close monitoring is required, most usually automated alarm systems attached to vital cardiorespiratory monitoring, including fingertip monitoring for blood gases. That didn’t happen in care homes.”(12)
Liberal use was made of involuntary DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) notices,which were one of the mechanisms by which the disabled community and the elderly were culled; that is not a statement that cannot be backed up by the facts. DNR notices can only be stipulated by the patient or patient's rep. This is accepted practice (13) ever since their introduction, but large numbers were nonetheless issued without consent.
The full horror is yet to be revealed but we know that the NHS asked care homes to implement blanket DNRs on all their patients and that around 10% of care homes did so – again without agreement.(14) At the same time, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) was issuing guidance (that word, again) which promoted the use of morphine and midazolam, neither of which is an anti-viral and both of which are sedatives.(15)
“Between 2 March and 12 June 2020...28,186 “excess deaths” were recorded in care homes in England, representing a 46% increase compared with the same period in previous years.”(16)
Leaving aside the fact that the vulnerable and elderly, the obvious at-risk category, were clearly not shielded at all, the DNR rules were flagrantly abused. There was supposed to be protection in law, as established by the courts. But, as elsewhere, there is the law....and then, there is yet more guidance, which can supersede the law if unchallenged. NICE issued guidance early in the 'pandemic', which targeted vulnerable and disabled people. Targeted is the correct word. The document introduced a “frailty” scoring system;
“...with the guideline suggesting that those with a score as low as five – those seen as “mildly frail”, who often need help with transportation, heavy housework and medication (nine represents someone who is terminally ill) – might not be considered appropriate for critical care and might be steered towards end-of-life care instead if their condition deteriorated.”(17)
Governments went after any doctor who wouldn't get with the programme and any dissident journalist who dared to question their narratives. They were responsible for a campaign of misinformation, de-platforming and de-licensing that deliberately sabotaged the health of nations and must have been responsible for millions of unnecessary deaths. There is nothing opaque here, no possibility of special pleading that claims ignorance of the facts; regimes aggressively pursued the most pernicious policies in open defiance of the known facts and attempted to destroy those individuals offering resistance.
And that's before any mention of the experimental gene therapies (EGT) masquerading as 'vaccines'. How is it in any way defensible to maintain that it was necessary to license therapies that were effectively untested, unapproved and of an entirely experimental nature, when the available data showed that mRNA technology was not safe for humans? The mRNA platform has always been acknowledged to be a gene therapy – even now, it fits the FDA definition.(18) And it's never been safe. Moderna, the pioneer of the technology, was founded in 2009 and still hadn't brought a product to market come the onset of the 'pandemic'. Other companies were also in the hunt, initially.
But nobody could find a way to use them without inducing serious, short term side effects, which increased in line with the number of shots required. It was believed that the polyethylene glycol (PEG) element of the vaccine, the coating on the nano particles, was responsible. As a report from an executive at Moderna itself stated,
“Currently, no mRNA therapeutic is approved for use in humans, and a beneficial safety profile in patients still has to be demonstrated. A first clinical application will likely not be a prophylactic vaccine, because the tolerance for side effects is very low for a drug that is injected into healthy individuals.”(19)
Additionally, it was found that a majority of people have anti PEG antibodies in their immune systems and that approximately 10% of vaccinated people may therefore have an adverse effect. For that reason, it was recommended that all patients should be screened prior to the administration of a PEGylated drug, which obviously didn't happen anywhere.(20)
It's worth noting that long term effects were never studied, as coronavirus vaccine testing never got that far. In the light of these adverse findings, Moderna delved into the less lucrative field of vaccines (they had been targeting other therapeutic avenues previously), as one or two shots (rather than multiple) would hopefully reduce the severity of side effects. This is the technology that governments approved. This is the absolute minimum of what was known at the time; never mind the antigen, the spike protein. The mRNA platform itself was a bigger problem, but emergency authorizations were still issued.
One can suppose that it was pure greed on behalf of Big Pharma and captured regulatory agencies, and nothing more - that the opportunity to swell their coffers at the taxpayers' expense was too good to pass up. Had the mRNA technology been known to be no better than a placebo, that interpretation might have legs. But the experimental gene therapy was known to be harmful, to cause injury. Quite how much was perhaps yet to be discovered at the outset of the pitifully inadequate clinical trials, but the first human trials of any mRNA product would surely have been an opportunity to find out.
Except, perhaps inevitably, that's not how it went. The choreography surrounding the effective banning of alternative treatments was clearly designed to leave the playing field clear for the 'vaccines'. That being the case, the emphasis of the clinical trials was on ensuring that the regulatory authorities had no reason to deny the likes of Pfizer and Moderna their place at the trough, not on an honest appraisal of the usefulness of the products.
Despite public assertions to the contrary, if one read between the lines, it was apparent that the trials would be kabuki theater. They were only tested on the young and healthy – not on the group allegedly most at risk – and, even at the time, it was acknowledged that
“...none of the trials currently under way are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths. Nor are the vaccines being studied to determine whether they can interrupt transmission of the virus.”(21)
The Pfizer document dump (court ordered) showed that the design of the clinical trials' was clearly faulty. A persistent theme was the way in which the trials avoided seeking outcomes that could be negative and simply ditched data altogether with no explanation. It's known that 780 people dropped out of the trials after receiving one shot, but it is not known what their reasoning was nor what effect the inoculation had on them.(22)
Pfizer also made it difficult for the clinical trials participants to report side effects. They partnered with a company called Signant Health and produced an app that was used to notify adverse events. However, the app used a drop down menu that only listed various types of inflammation. Any other suspected event was incapable of being recorded.(23) Once again, this was unethical and misleading. Clinical trials are required to list all side effects.
In addition, Pfizer eliminated the original placebo control group after four months of the trial by inoculating them with the EGT, thus making it impossible to compare and contrast longer term effects. They made sure to give this group a third and fourth shot (and only this group), thus muddying the waters still further.(24) This last action may well have been undertaken in an effort to make the placebo group sicker, in the long term, than the jabbed group.
Another little known fact – the EUA wasn't granted on the basis of 44,000 trial participants. There were many different regimens within the trial groups; there were a large number of dosing protocols and the timing of the jab was also tinkered with. The one that was chosen – two doses, 21 days apart with 30 microgrammes of mRNA (allegedly) - had only been given to 170 participants. The proof that the injection worked? Not a particularly high bar; efficacy was assumed if there was no evidence of infection in the participants seven days after dose two.(25)
Additionally, no study was done of the rate of degradation of the mRNA.(26) Nor was there any attempt to study the toxicity, nor whether the mRNA could be reverse transcribed into DNA. This is almost certainly because they knew that, not only was the jab toxic, it did alter DNA. Scientists had spent many years denying that this was even possible, only to be undone by the AIDS virus;
“...the HIV virus, which causes AIDS...reverse integrates itself into human DNA so that the sufferers’ reprogrammed cells endlessly produce copies of HIV. This is why HIV cannot be cured, only suppressed by drugs.”(27)
However, enzymes called 'reverse transcriptases' are needed for this task. If we were to find that a product created by a human hand (such as the Pfizer 'vaccine') caused calls to produce such an enzyme, we would be entitled to believe that this was by design, would we not? Well, the 'vaccine' does just that.(28) A Swedish study has since confirmed what Pfizer already knew; mRNA can enter liver cells and be so transcribed. In fact, within six hours of the Pfizer shot, the DNA of the affected cell is permanently altered.(29) The net result?
“Pfizer mRNA vaccine changes our genetic code that determines how our organisms operate, that you inherited from your mom and dad. Now your DNA was changed from what your mom and dad gave you, by adding a little mysterious "edit" from Pfizer.
Your organism acts in accordance with your DNA program, and now, well, the program has been hacked and modified by Pfizer.”(30)
A reminder; this is what was known prior to the first jab going into anybody's arm. To be sure, the exact outcomes this particular reverse transcription caused had not yet been observed in humans, but Pfizer (and Moderna) intended to find out. The lack of curiosity as to toxicity – of a spike protein that was clearly already toxic – and the fraud and malpractice associated with the clinical trials are all of a piece with the clear intent to harm that had already been exhibited.
Furthermore, when the jabs themselves made their entrance, regimes went all in on dehumanizing the the 'unvaccinated'. This campaign proved remarkably effective, particularly among those of a Leftist persuasion – which shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone who understands that politics is always downstream of character and those who wish to enforce their will upon us are always more likely to be found embracing the pathological care and vindictiveness of the Far Left:
“55% of Democrats wanted fines for unvaxxed Americans.
59% of Democrats wanted the unvaccinated forcefully confined to their homes.
48% of Democrats wanted prison time for anyone that questioned the vaccines.
47% of Democrats were in favor of government tracking of the unvaxxed.
29% of Democrats were in favor or taking children away from the unvaxxed.”(31)
There's more, of course, but you get the gist; that was where we'd got to by early 2021, before the first hint of a shift in momentum – before the concerns of the 'hesitant' started to be validated. The entire year comprised one long assault on fundamental freedoms, which ramped up incrementally. Mandates were everywhere, although the tyrants always liked to claim that they weren't. They were simply choices; no-one is going to pin you down and inoculate you, but you can't go on public transport without a mask (Italy and many other locations)(32) and you'll either lose your job (in countries too numerous to list) or be fined if you won't get jabbed (Greece and Austria)(33).
Now, of course, regimes are not keen to be reminded of the recent past, but by early 2022 – still only around eighteen months ago - Germany, not be outdone by Austria, was pushing for mandatory 'vaccinations' by February,(34) as well as immediately imposing a nationwide lock-down on the 'unvaccinated'.(35) The European Commissioner was sufficiently emboldened by the sudden shift of the Overton Window as to make the following statement:
“How we can encourage and potentially think about mandatory vaccination within the European Union. This needs discussion. This needs a common approach, but it is a discussion that I think has to be led.“(36)
That's how close we were to forcible inoculation. The Digital ID was all the rage, as was the globalists' desire for widespread co-ordination of pandemic responses (code for WHO hegemony) and we witnessed the sudden emergence of the Build Back Better mantra touted by the cut-price Blofeld at the WEF. However, they couldn't quite get over the hump; not because there was too much resistance, but seemingly more down to timing issues and a split in the ranks.
Since then, they've had to content themselves with persecuting Trump at every turn, banging on about the 'climate crisis', destroying the finances of the middle and working classes and enriching the Military Industrial Complex while feeding every last Ukrainian male into the Russian meat grinder; which is not work that should be sniffed at, but it doesn't have quite the same heady, authoritarian feel as the pandemic scam. They've still not got us exactly where they want us and I suspect that grieves them.
But they have one big advantage – they're still there. They got away with it. We didn't hold them to account and the same tyrants and criminals are still in situ. And that's because the leonine resistance is led by donkeys. Most of those who have real influence have not been able to bring themselves to the point where they tell it like it is (which is presumably why they've been allowed to hold power to begin with).
“Of course, as long as the people behind these schemes remain unpunished, they will be free to try again and again until something sticks.”(37)
The list of egregious criminal acts, of acts of genocide are there for all who have eyes to see. There can be no serious talk of incompetence on behalf of the ruling class; the totality of their actions dictates that there must be intent. The 'vaccines' alone are devastating societies:
“In 2022 alone, Dowd figured 30% of the workforce had been killed, disabled and cannot work or is working chronically ill. Dowd says the death and disability trend for 2023 is way up. Thousands everyday are reporting they are getting sick, and Dowd says the CV19 bioweapon injections are to blame.”(38)
Figure 1
That is clearly a genocide. You'd think that a crime like that would be impossible to hide; but, seemingly not. Only what is reported is real in our pretend world. If it is ignored, it still sort of exists, but only in either a sub-culture that can be ignored (or persecuted; take your pick) or between the ears. The over-riding problem is what it has always been, as illustrated by the farcical 'lab leak' debate.
It was clear, from very early in the piece, that the natural origins story was deeply implausible. The debate should then have been about whether a lab created virus had escaped or whether it had been deliberately released – but it wasn't and it still isn't, because the resistance lacked the courage necessary to raise the possibility that Covid was a bioweapon released by their own governments; this, despite the pandemic's central position in the Build Back Better/New Normal racket.
And our 'leaders' are not going to change the paradigm any time soon. As long as this cowardice pertains, the only pushback that can be countenanced must perforce be performative – it must exist between guardrails. It cannot be genuine and full throated and, for that reason alone, the ball must be firmly in the ruling class' court. If they are disciplined enough to play the game properly, if they can incrementally increase the pressure and negate every controlled protest in turn, they can still inch towards those cherished mandates. But how will they do it this time?
They have one ace-in-the-hole that is currently simmering away on the back burner, attracting little in the way of attention at present. There was been intermittent talk of it, but the protracted timescales involved have allowed it to be superseded by whatever else the media wants us to panic about. I speak of the WHO Pandemic Treaty and the much less noted proposed amendments to the WHO charter.
These amendments would empower WHO’s Director-General to declare health emergencies or crises in any nation and to do so unilaterally and despite the opposition of the target nation. The D-G would be able to declare these health crises based merely on “his personal opinion” or “consideration” that there is a “potential or possible” threat to other nations. While we aren't currently hearing much about any such machinations, that doesn't mean that they have been concluded. Both the treaty and the amendments are still live issues.
What could meet the definition of a public health emergency, if we are to accept that it doesn't now only involve disease? Anything that detracts from a “state of complete physical, mental and social well-being”, that's what. Which could be anything that they say it is; 'misinformation', diet, an alleged surfeit of atmospheric CO2 or methane, you name it. The Director General could allege that a racial group is being disadvantaged in some way (remember, it no longer has to be anything to do with disease) and redress must be offered.
Or he may decide that the inequality of health provision in different countries – for which read the uptake of 'vaccines' – is problematic and those countries who haven't had the alleged benefits of the Covid 'vaccine' better shape up sharpish. Where 'vaccine' take-up, in developed countries, is less than the DG deems acceptable, governments may be encouraged to fulfil their responsibilities by providing 'adequate health and social measures' of the WHO's devising. All these options (and many more that I haven't thought of, I'm sure) are allowable under such a vague and wide-ranging remit.
This is the immediate threat, not the treaty. Without these amendments, the treaty will be so much hot air, because the WHO will still be operating in an advisory role. Granted, nations can (and do) treat their pronouncements as holy writ – when it suits their purposes – but, at present, they are not obliged to and there is no signed and sealed retributive process if they decide thanks, but no thanks. All that is set to change and, as soon as regimes have that scrap of paper to give them top cover, there will be a reason to invoke what is recorded on it.
That is not to say that the treaty wouldn't be a problem; it definitely would be. In addition to the usual blurb about pandemic preparedness and early detection – which will allow all manner of intrusions into ordinary life, without the need of an actual, current pandemic – there is another reference to “universal and equitable access to medical solutions” and a stealthy nod to “the “One Health” approach, connecting the health of humans, animals and our planet.”(39)
“By linking humans, animals and the environment, One Health can help to address the full spectrum of disease control – from prevention to detection, preparedness, response and management – and contribute to global health security.”(40)
And the digital IDs and vaccine passports that the treaty wishes to introduce? Bill Gates, of course. The WHO is also working on a QR Verification Code Project, with a stated aim of creating a global digital data bank of every last one of us, in partnership with? ID2020 and the GAVI Alliance, both funded by Gates.(41)(42) So, what would be the point of one of those, apart from its stated purpose? It doesn't take much energy to connect the dots:
“A worldwide digital ID system is in the making. [The aim] of the WEF—and of all the central banks [is] to implement a global system in which everyone’s personal data will be incorporated into the Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) network.”(43)
The digital ID is the Holy Grail. Without it, digital currencies, carbon scoring, social credit scores and mandatory 'vaccinations' are unachievable. But, first, the treaty and the amendments need to be nursed into existence. With the WHO finally calling the (mandatory) shots, governments can shrug their shoulders and are under no obligation to cop a mea culpe. The Shaggy Defense (“it wasn't me”) could ride again. Currently, while they follow WHO advice slavishly, they cannot hide from the fact that they are exercising choice in doing so.
So, the necessary ingredients for a globalist takeover and the imposition of 'vaccine' passports comprise a ratified Pandemic Treaty, amendments voted through and then, a 'pandemic' in short order. One might think that, whatever the malign intent of regimes (which will undoubtedly sign away national sovereignty – that's the whole point of the exercise), the traditional checks and balances of parliamentary democracy would offer a reprieve.
But the bad actors have thought of a workaround for that, too. It won't matter what the US Congress or the UK Parliament (or any other signatories' national assemblies) have to say; not in the short term. Because, once it passes the Assembly vote and is signed by a member country, it immediately becomes live due to a completely illegal provisional clause, thus:
“The WHO CA+ may be applied provisionally, in whole or in part, by a signatory and/or Party that consents to its provisional application...”(44)
This provision is materially in breach of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and is a blatant attempt to sideline national legislators who might just be influenced by the citizens they represent.(45) Whoever drafted the treaty has absolutely no regard for individual or national rights. True ratification by national assemblies doesn't matter; that process can be dragged out for whatever period is necessary and, all the while, the treaty will be provisionally operational. All it needs is a 'pandemic'.
But, as we've seen, it doesn't have to be a real pandemic. In fact, it almost certainly won't be, because there's always the law of unintended consequences waiting in the wings – the chance that one of the anointed accidentally falls victim to a genuine disease. (For that reason, the 'pandemic' is merely the primer for the real whammy – the 'vaccine'.) And why would they make it possible for something as esoteric as a 'climate change' emergency to fit the criteria unless they intended to invoke it, or something similar? Answer; they wouldn't. Nor would they have to break sweat in providing their justification:
“The wording of the amendments specifically removes the requirement of harm to trigger the DG assuming power over countries and people. The need for a demonstrable “public health risk” is removed, and replaced with a “potential” for public health risk....
This will enable them to issue orders, supposedly binding under international law, to restrict movement, detain, inject on a mass scale, yield IP and know-how, and provide resources to WHO and to other countries...”(46)
So, pretty much any engineered panic will fit the bill and it's anybody's guess what they will plump for. The timing may well be a pointer, depending on how swiftly they feel they can act once the framework is in place. The next World Health Assembly is in May 2024 and both the amendments and the treaty are up for a vote then, so anytime after that will do.
I suggest that there are two important dates that may well have a bearing on the timing of the new plandemic; the signatories have ten months in which to reject any agreements, so if parliamentary matters were not progressing smoothly, it would be useful if events overtook the process, and the US presidential elections are in November '24. If Trump is on the Republican ticket, the Democrats are going to have manufacture phantom absentee ballots by the truckload and another lock-down (or martial law) would probably be favorite, if not essential.
It may be that this summer's inter-continental arson campaign, augmented by the mockingbird media's promotion of climate change as the catalyst for the 'wildfires', (see Climate Lock-downs, Anyone?) is laying the groundwork for a WHO generated lock-down in twelve months' time. If the attempt were to be made this year, I suspect the resultant 'victory' would be somewhat piecemeal and pyrrhic. And while there has definitely been a seismic uptick in climate alarmism this year, it's now September and there doesn't seem to be sufficient momentum for imminent draconian measures.
But, if the last three and a half years are to be our guide – as they must – we can be sure that the ruling elites do not intend to give us a breather for the next eight months. That would never do, both tactically and temperamentally. They are the masters of the double down, due to a toxic mix of hubris, impatience and vindictiveness and there is very little evidence of any attempt to genuinely curry favor with the electorate at large; special interest groups only need apply and, even then, only so that they unwittingly perform the role allocated to them, not because of any intrinsic worth. And, as previously noted, allowing the mewling masses time for reflection is a mug's game that can only end badly.
However, the next contrived panic must possess at least one non-negotiable characteristic – it must be capable of being controlled. And there's a high probability that it will be another 'pandemic'. The great and the good have been force-feeding us the future pandemic narrative for several years in an attempt to normalize the highly unlikely. Gates says that his money is on a bioterrorist attack or a non-coronavirus pathogen,(47)(48) and other non-experts are piling on, as per their cue-cards.(49)(50) They want us to believe in the awful inevitability of it all.
The UK government's assessment is that there is a one-in-four chance of a new pandemic within five years.(51) As the Chief Executive of the UK Health Security Agency has it:
“Covid, of course, is not a one-off....We say it [Covid] was the biggest public health incident for a century, but I don’t think any of us think it’ll be a century before the next.”(52)
There, of course, speaks a medical 'expert' who doesn't appear to have received the memo; distrust in experts is now mainstream. Even the normies are starting to get it,(53) but that fact will likely have absolutely no impact on the unshakable smugness of the establishment. The usual suspects are given another run out; namely climate change, urbanization and (simultaneously and confusingly) people living closer to animals, the combination of which means that we're facing a “rising tide of risk.”(54) However, the inherent intellectual laziness that births analyses such as this has an epic quality to it.
Firstly, climate change (as defined by the alarmists) is a scam and always has been. It's a cult that is nurtured by neurotic authoritarians and indulged (and exploited) by the elites. Secondly, urbanization - in this context – is presumably being referenced due to the supposedly increased potential for the transmission of a pathogen, when a lack of sanitation and/or clean drinking water would be far bigger impediments to health. Additionally, if urbanization is to be a factor in a pandemic, there would need to be an infectiousness pathogen which would, perforce, have come from nature.
Which, of course, leads us to the third alleged risk factor; disease ridden animals, festering reservoirs of zoonotic disease, with whom we are increasingly in contact. It may no longer come as a shock if I tell you that they're not and that, once again, 'expert' gaslighting and the attempted excision of virological norms has been embraced by the Fourth Estate. In truth, there are perhaps as many as 1.6 million animal viruses – only 219 of them are known to infect humans, a rate of around 0.01%. So, before we start, we are breathing rarified air.(55)
More precisely;
“...zoonosis requires that human-compatible viral variants pre-exist in the animal reservoir, arising before these viruses have ever even experienced the selective constraints of the human body. For the vast majority of animal viruses in nature, there are just too many protein–protein interactions to master by chance in a random encounter with humans.”(56)
It's complicated, but the gist of it is that it's a two stage process. The virus has to be 'off the shelf', already able to infect human cells and then, once it has gained a foothold, to mutate sufficiently so as to become as infectious as possible. The virus has to penetrate non specific barriers (such as the skin, stomach acid), then specific barriers (the make-up of the exterior of the human cell, in order to successfully 'dock'), then recruit hundreds of human proteins to replicate, without encountering a single non matching protein that could scupper the whole deal, even before adaptive immunity kicks in after a few days.
Adaptive immunity helps the host recover, but won't prevent potential spread if viral titers are high enough. If the virus is not well adapted to transmission, inasmuch as it may cause low levels of inflammation for example, it may not spread well or, indeed, at all. If the virus pops up in areas with low population density, it may not spread well either, regardless of its virility. As I hope is clear, an awful lot of ducks have to be in a row for a virus to transfer from animals to humans and then between humans.
So, the chances of crossover pathogens causing a pandemic within the human population are extremely remote, as evidenced by the fact that they are extremely rare. There were only three viral pandemics in the 20th century; in chronological order, the Spanish Flu of 1918-20, the Asian Flu of 1956-58 and the Hong Kong Flu of 1968-69. The Spanish Flu was the most devastating, killing perhaps 50-100 million people, affecting young healthy adults most of all.
The Hong Kong variant – a mixture of two strains, one of which was the H1N1, the Spanish flu type – killed an estimated 1 million people worldwide, with a case fatality rate of approximately 0.5%. The Asian flu (H2N2) was in circulation for over two years, killing between 2-4 million people, disproportionately the elderly and vulnerable, and most closely resembles the current pandemic in terms of alleged outcomes.
And that was it until 2002 and the onset of the original SARS, another allegedly wild virus, which has a genome that is similar to both a bat virus and a mouse virus. This came out of China, reached 29 countries and culminated in 8,000 illnesses and 700 deaths. Then it just disappeared, which is a development that has vexed investigators ever since, as this is not how viruses work. Despite this fact, there is a beautifully innocent theory; according to a virologist at the University of California
“...it likely existed in a wild animal, probably a bird. It jumped species only recently when it came into contact with a human being.”(57)
This was followed by the Swine Flu of 2009, which (serendipitously) appeared shortly after the WHO's previous upgrading of powers had been ratified. It may be that you remember that pandemic; or perhaps not. This was flu variant H1N1 again, but a mild version thereof. It is believed that around 285,000 people died from this outbreak and older people were not disproportionately afflicted.(58)
Next up was the Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), which emerged in 2012 in Saudi Arabia and is a mix of a bat virus and a camel virus. At least bats and mice can coexist in the same environment. But bats and camels are unlikely ever to meet, let alone infect each other.(59) And I wonder how often bats could infect any human other than a bat scientist.
It is, regrettably, necessary to question all these outbreaks, particularly the Spanish Flu (a topic for another essay) and the 21st century editions; there are numerous implausible elements involved, including the novel virological processes that some exhibit, the sudden ubiquity of viral pandemics – including Covid, four in nineteen years, compared to three in the previous century – and the fact that no actual animal host could be identified in any.
The debate about the origin of the Wuhan virus is unlikely to have totally passed you by and, as no natural source has been identified here either and the structure of the SARS-COV-2 genome is clearly manipulated, one may begin to draw a fairly straightforward hypothesis, namely that it is probable that attempts to start an epidemic/pandemic have been made repeatedly, whether to normalize the phenomenon, rake in a profit from a vaccine, achieve what was achieved with Covid by way of the destruction of rights, or a combination of some or all of the above. But all of the attempts (prior to Covid) failed to launch and none of them caused huge loss of life.
A genuine pandemic of a potentially deadly pathogen is not, therefore, a heavily favored candidate. There must also be a question mark about the selected pathogen's infectiousness, if control is to be retained. It might be better if the disease of choice infects a human that comes into contact with it, but does not transmit to other humans. In other words, it only fulfills the manufactured equivalent of stage one of zoonosis. In that way, its scope can be limited and targeted – unintentional further contamination is avoided and, if a precise outcome is the aim (excess mortality in care homes, for instance), it isn't obscured by the clutter of other data. But it must also be capable of being presented as infectious; without that feature, most authoritarian measures are rendered moot.
I'll come on to what might be in the works for some indeterminate point in the future (indeterminate, but not distant) but, for now, there is no pressing need to reinvent the wheel. They've done the hard work already with Covid and, amazingly, with the boosters, which were an even more impressive sell than the original jabs. Lining up for the first two jabs while enveloped in a fog of panic is one thing; still being sufficiently inanimate in the thinking department to go back for one or two more, when it had already become obvious that the 'vaccines' didn't work, is different level.
Nonetheless, it seems that the Covid is not going to be allowed to die. Just when we thought it was safe to go back in the water, suddenly it's back. The mainstream is doing what it does, laying the groundwork for a winter surge of variants with confusing designations. There is talk of masking; charts detailing hospital admissions and testing are featuring once again.
And here's the kicker – nothing is what it seems. We are not experiencing the downstream effects of the original Wuhan virus which, once released, followed a course that is recognizably natural although this is, of course, what we have been told. I suspect that outcome was thought to be too random and rejected in the planning stage. This is what should have happened, if the Wuhan strain was actually infectious to begin with.
The original virus would certainly have mutated but, generally, viral mutations are silent, or synonymous – tiny changes that make next to no difference to the functionality of the virus. Additionally, natural mutations in a virus are small and haphazard. It is well known that viruses mutate over time, due to unfaithful or faulty replication of their genetic code. Different viruses mutate at different rates; coronaviruses are middle of the road, speed wise. Over time, the variants that survive are the ones that don't cause the population to self isolate, as those variants that do are far more likely to die out.
Attenuation (the gradual loss of intensity) is achieved by benign variants spreading and the more harmful kind fizzling out (Spanish flu). This is why a virus may initially have a relatively high sickness/mortality rate before it becomes less serious and a greater proportion of the population present as asymptomatic. By way of example, the Hong Kong Flu is still with us, as a virulent part of the seasonal flu and the Asian Flu morphed into a part of the regular flu also, having gone extinct in the wild in 1968.(60)
If we accept the narrative, the journey looks a little like the following. Despite our best efforts (widespread 'vaccination' in the midst of an alleged pandemic not being one of them), the virus still proliferated. (Perhaps at some point, regimes will be gracious enough (in their eyes) to admit that we shouldn't have locked down – even if the caveat is sure to be that they couldn't have known at the time). The original strain should be allowed to run wild, attenuating (growing milder) as it goes, with no need to significantly mutate; locking down, by contrast, put the original Wuhan strain under pressure and it adapted to survive and, because hosts were limited, it had to become more infectious.
So, by locking down, we forced what's known as an antigenic shift; we made the virus mutate quicker than it otherwise would have and in more infectious ways. The result of that would be variants that supersede the original strain and assume dominance. Enter the 'vaccines'.
If an explanation as to why continued 'vaccinations' are necessary is even proffered, it'll go something like this. A 'vaccinated'' individual produces antibodies that only target the spike protein part of the virus (12%-13% of the genome), but because the variants no longer sufficiently resemble the Wuhan strain on that very same spike protein, an encounter with the live virus will stimulate what is quaintly termed a sub-optimal response in a 'vaccinated' individual.
Or, in layman's terms, you'll get the virus despite your 'vaccination'. That was the explanation for Omicron. Of course, if the 'vaccine' targeted the entire virus, as a naturally adaptive immune system does, things would have been different; the virus, in its entirety, would still look similar enough to be neutralized. But, no matter. What's deliberately done is done.
The 'vaccines' therefore continue the work started by lock-downs. In order to survive, the virus must mutate further and further away from the original strain if it is to survive. The more we chase it with increased 'vaccinations', the more it will adapt. And the more we 'breed' highly infectious variants, the more chance there is of everyone becoming infected in the end. That's when innate immunity becomes much more important. Herd immunity is largely due to innate immunity.
This is the unfortunate tale of woe that emerges if one does a little thinking, but it's still an approved counter narrative, unacknowledged but also unthreatening. as it doesn't derail the 'vaccine' gravy train and it doesn't assign malign intent, but instead infers that the serial incompetence that we believe we've been subjected to for decades is alive and kicking. Regrettably, it's utter nonsense. We know this because the 'variants' aren't of natural origin, either. Not just the ones that are going to be the subject of much airtime in the near future; this goes back to Omicron, at the latest.
There are some virtually insurmountable oddities about Omicron that indicate that yet another gain of function programme has gone rogue. For starters, SARS-COV-2 cannot infect wild type mice – Omicron can. That being the case, for Omicron to be a direct descendant of Wuhan, an unfeasible amount of evolution would have to have occurred in an impossibly short time period. Furthermore, natural mutations in viruses always occur randomly; most have no real effect. These types of mutations are known as synonymous.
It's the non-synonymous ones that we are interested in, the ones that prove to be impactful, and there is a consistent proportion of one to the other in cases of natural evolution. Not so with Omicron; almost all the mutations are impactful.(61) This outcome must logically be one arrived at via manipulation. There are also no intermediate versions of it, no discernible lineage. It seems to have landed fully formed, with no recent ancestors.(62)
All of this points to the overwhelming probability that Omicron is another manufactured virus, not a variant of the Wuhan strain. But how could this have been accomplished and who could be responsible? And what would be the purpose of releasing a variant that also infects animals? Well, it probably won't surprise you to learn that, far from being chastened by the hue and cry over gain of function research and its probable role in the 'pandemic', scientists have been further manipulating Covid itself to make it capable of infecting mice as well. They aren't hiding it – Ralph Baric, from North Carolina and others published a scientific paper in Nature magazine, detailing the method by which they accomplished it.(63)
It's difficult to credit the arrogance. Baric's project is, in microcosm, the perfect example of how gain of function has gone far beyond any justifiable remit. Why would it be necessary (or even useful) to adapt a virus so that it infects mice, in order that a counter-measure might be created, when the chances of such an event happening in nature are extremely slim to none and, in any event, many years away? It is far from certain that, even if man had the same close interaction with mice that he does with cats and dogs, any mutations would ever cause the disease to jump from one species to the other and yet we find scientists pursuing this line of research anyway. Surely, there must be more pressing matters to attend to.
But no, apparently not, despite the fact that there is no moral justification for carrying out risky research for no discernible benefit. Baric did it anyway and then patented the methodology.(64) So, the timeline is a) paper published in August 2020, b) Omicron allegedly discovered November/December 2020 and c), patent filed February 2021. Baric's virus is also engineered to be particularly pathogenic to aged mice.
To be clear, this virus (SARS-COV-2MA) and Omicron are not identical, but both are mouse adapted and computer designed.(65) The timing is persuasive. Could it be that Baric also designed Omicron, using the same methods? It's not possible to be definitive, but it would be a hell of a coincidence if he or his colleagues didn't.
The revelation that an alleged variant isn't actually a variant at all, but a separate engineered pathogen which is superficially similar to SARS-COV2-MA is given further credence by the fact that researchers have found exact matches to Omicron variants in sequences from Puerto Rico deposited in databases in 2020 – more than twelve months before its 'discovery' in South Africa and contemporaneous with the Wuhan strain.(66) But it's not just Omicron that's a problem – it's every variant.(67)
Two Japanese gentlemen innocently embarked on a review of the evolution of Omicron. In doing so, they found over 100 separate sub-variants that couldn't have evolved naturally, but instead
“...the variants appear[ed] to form comprehensive panels of mutations typical of those used in "reverse genetics" experiments to systematically test the properties of different parts of viruses.”(68)
This unexpected (and probably unhoped for) result nonetheless piqued their curiosity. They then set about examining the other 'variants' that have appeared since the original Wuhan master-strain and found that all of them were unnatural. Their reasons for such conclusions revolve around the mutations themselves, which mimic Omicron in having wholly implausible ratios between synonymous and non-synonymous:
“But the official omicron variants ... have just a single synonymous mutation in the gene encoding the spike protein - as compared to 31 to 38 non-synonymous mutations....this makes no sense. Natural evolution would always be expected to create neutral synonymous mutations at a greater rate than non-synonymous mutations that can only persist if, against high odds, they result in a design improvement in the protein they encode.”(69)
These 'variants' also perfectly reverse mutations in the Wuhan strain which, again, is wholly implausible. The ramifications are immense. If further proof of human origins for SARA-COV-2 were still needed, these revelations provide it. There can also be no doubt as to Covid's status as a bioweapon; or rather, as many bioweapons. Further, there is clearly some kind of ongoing test, probably in furtherance of establishing the most effective 'variant', although we aren't in a position to know how 'effective' is being defined.
Questions must also be raised as to a), how infectious are these strains (if at all) and b), how are they being released? Because if the answer to a) is “not at all” then the answer to b) probably involves aerosols and/or contamination of food or the water supply. After all, if none of the variants are naturally occurring and, by definition, none of them is a descendant of the Wuhan strain, our working hypothesis must be that the original virus was not infectious. All of which sounds like a venture into tin foil hat territory but, “when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."(70)
The hunt for that truth has barely begun – even the authors of the paper in question couldn't bring themselves to explicitly assert that what they had discovered was clearly an experiment – and it seems reasonable to assume that the scientific community will not be beating a path to their door. Indeed, the paper itself is a pre-print and it would be in the least surprising if it failed to be published and then disappeared without trace.
Nonetheless, this information is of service when analyzing current events and seeking clues as to the immediate future. Currently front and center are Eris ('variant' EG.5.1) and Pirola (BA.2.86), both supposedly 'variants of interest', the former active in Europe and the US, the latter about to overwhelm the NHS (just for a change) in the UK.(71) Interestingly, despite the doom and gloom, nobody in authority is claiming that either of these strains poses any more of a threat than any of the other, mostly anonymous strains that have allegedly proliferated over the past three years.
Instead, regimes seem to be using the 'news' to gradually re-introduce some of the softer measures, such as nonsensical mask wearing and widespread, utterly uninformative testing, in a likely attempt to incrementally return to the days of yore. Some institutions (especially universities in the blue states in the US and, inevitably, in New York) are re-instituting mask mandates or issuing advisories,(72)(73)(74) despite the fact that there is no evidence that they perform any useful function (75) and plenty that demonstrates the opposite, including their potential role in 'long Covid'.(76) But, as we ought to know by now, mask mandates were never about health, but instead all about compliance and virtue-signalling.
Some other old favorites are being re-introduced; 'case' numbers are said to be rising (what you and I might call what is laughably referred to as a positive PCR test, not a stay in hospital). Tedros the Terrorist has momentarily eschewed his climate alarmism to announce that
“...there is still a risk that a more dangerous variant will emerge, which could lead to a sudden increase in cases and deaths.”(77)
which might technically be true if one includes “emerges from a lab” as a possibility, but which is emphatically not true if one limits oneself to what is known about virological processes; but perhaps we are thought to have forgotten all about actual science by now, due to the tsunami of pseudo-science that has been sent our way.
Either way, it's a possible pointer to what they have in store for us, although the “more dangerous variant” narrative would likely be cover for more medical malpractice in care homes and hospitals. The Lazarus-like return of Covid is also being used to promote the inevitable booster shots (and new, improved 'vaccines' to be released by Pfizer, Moderna and Novavax this autumn) although, interestingly, there are signs that medical authorities are tacitly tailoring their pitch to the previously jabbed, perhaps banking on both their continued gullibility and the sense that they may feel that they have no choice but to continue on the path they've chosen.
“Based on what CDC knows now, existing tests used to detect and medications used to treat COVID-19 appear to be effective with this variant. BA.2.86 may be more capable of causing infection in people who have previously had COVID-19 or who have received COVID-19 vaccines. Scientists are evaluating the effectiveness of the forthcoming, updated COVID-19 vaccine. CDC’s current assessment is that this updated vaccine will be effective at reducing severe disease and hospitalization.”(78)
Ironically, these renewed attempts to deceive the public come hard on the heels of a peer-reviewed study that conclusively demonstrates that the greater the number of Covid jabs, the greater the risk of infection by Covid itself.(79) A ruined immune system will, of course, tend to produce results like that.
Assessing the ruling elites' grasp of reality is always an endeavor fraught with uncertainty, so how much take-up they are expecting is anyone's guess. We do know that they are investing heavily in “the development of a new generation of tools and technologies to protect against Covid for years to come”; $1.4 billion, at the last count.(80) We also know that the Biden regime has signed contracts with four separate companies that supply Covid testing equipment.(81)(82)(83)(84) And Biden himself has said
"I signed off this morning on a proposal we have to present to the Congress – a request for additional funding for new vaccine that is necessary that works...Tentatively it is recommended, it would likely be recommended, everybody get it. No matter whether they got before or not."(85)
Which sounds somewhat ominous, but doesn't sound particularly imminent. Disease X, on the other hand, could be upon us in no time, if the plan called for it. Disease X is code for whatever the next 'pandemic' will be and, wouldn't you know it, scientists are working on all sorts of vaccines purely for our benefit. In particular, vaccines for bird flu and other Covid 'variants', antibiotic-resistant superbugs and X, something unforeseen which the scientists will, in actual fact, have foreseen and will have helpfully developed a 'vaccine' for.(86)
This concept predates the infamous Event 201 and the subsequent 'pandemic'. The great and the good followed the same template, however:
““Disease X” too was rehearsed ... this time the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security hosted the Clade X pandemic tabletop exercise on May 15, 2018, in Washington, DC.”(87)
The conceit is that the scientists have no idea which disease will “break through”. At Clade X, the pathogen was a novel human parainfluenza virus (HPIV), to which the flu vaccine offered no protection; the fatality rate was high, naturally. But, because of the perspicacity of own scientific brethren, a new 'vaccine' will be waiting in the wings when the real thing is released.
Granted, it won't have been adequately tested (if at all). It will also almost certainly be another from the mRNA stable, which will automatically make it toxic, regardless of the antigen of choice. But, when a 'crisis' hits, as we now know, corners will be cut, rights will be circumvented. Like the right to informed consent, for instance, which has already been wholly subverted and will be again. Or the right of the 'unvaccinated' to work, or use public transport or have a night out and a meal for two. The unproven 'vaccine' will be granted an EUA and, this time around, opting out will not be an option. And, as before, some will be just fine with that.
Again, the time-line is uncertain and I suspect that Disease X is likely to be triggered after the WHO power grab next year, so we are still (potentially) left with a panic vacuum this winter. I think the most likely nominee for a crisis de jour is probably a combination of RSV (respiratory syncytial virus), influenza and Covid – the niftily titled tripledemic. We haven't heard a great deal of chatter about any such condition lately, but there was talk of it a year ago with the usual rogue's gallery of 'experts' lining up to pontificate.(88)
Flu has been a winter scare story for decades, Eris and Pirola are being increasingly name-checked by Big Pharma sponsored media and, with its usual impeccable timing, the CDC is now bleating about rising RSV cases.(89) In a not unconnected development, the FDA approved the first ever RSV vaccines this past summer, allegedly suitable for the over-60s.(90)(91) And our two favorite 'vaccine' companies, Pfizer and Moderna, are both developing tripledemic combo jabs, coming to you next summer – or before in an emergency, of course.(92)(93) Any RSV 'vaccine' will suffer from the same suite of problems that bedevilled coronavirus vaccines prior to Covid and attempts to bring a vaccine to market have been ongoing for sixty years; they've all been unsuccessful due to safety concerns, but we are now living in a post safety concerns world.
A plan for a tripledemic might explain other current dissonance. Whistleblowers (plural) are sounding the alarm about regime plans for more Covid lock-downs, to commence within the next couple of months in the US (which almost certainly means everywhere else, also). The claim is that mask mandates are just the beginning,(94) but it's a little difficult to see how the ruling class are going to pivot from “a variant of no concern” to yet more enforced lock-downs. It may not be quite so difficult to envisage if they can somehow manufacture a triple threat; they have all the tools needed at their disposal, should they so desire. Google “triple pandemic 2023” and take your pick of 41.2 million articles.
They also have much sicker populations to work with this time, as demonstrated by Ed Dowd, ex Wall Street/current citizen journalist:
“In 2022 alone, Dowd figured 30% of the workforce had been killed, disabled and cannot work or is working chronically ill. Dowd says the death and disability trend for 2023 is way up. Thousands everyday are reporting they are getting sick, and Dowd says the CV19 bioweapon injections are to blame.”(95)
This epidemic of excess mortality is attracting no official interest, naturally, but it is clear that even a small wave of whatever they have in store will not be lacking targets of opportunity. Any one of the ingredients in a potential tripledemic would fit the bill; a disease that doesn't hurt anybody in robust health (which category, I suspect, is also populated by hordes of elites who either didn't get the jab or faked it with saline, as well as the hesitant unvaxxed), but which could decimate the ranks of the 'vaccinated'.
We'll know soon enough, as further clues will be seeded. Meanwhile, we must once more marvel at a modern lesson in what regimes can get away with if they control the means of communication. Granted, we are not living in 1930s Germany – the truth cannot be completely suppressed, but it can still be confined. The battle then becomes one of links and re-tweets and the key regime goal is preventing a breakthrough that is impossible to ignore.
But, as we are discovering, there are other layers of defense. Witness Biden's corruption, news of which is now unconfined. Or the persecution of Trump. Or the suppurating sore that is the US southern border. All these topics are out there, so another tactic – normalization – is deployed instead. The ruling class ignores the existence of any of these issues, is allowed to do so by the media (who do likewise) and the clock is simply run out.
The impossibility of getting a fair hearing is, eventually, an outrage that dims, news cycles pass and other outrages pile up continuously. In general, revenge might be a dish best served cold but, currently, if it's not served hot, it's not served at all and anybody who won't let things go, insisting on a reckoning, finds themselves deeply unpopular with all sides.
Some of the above is conjecture – I don't know what the next pandemic will be, but I do know that it'll be soon, as strenuous attempts to normalize that outcome are coming thick and fast. Would the globalists devise ways to award themselves more power? Of course they would. Would they utilize another fake pandemic so soon after the last one? We might suppose that would be over-egging the pudding, but we would not be thinking like the enemy. And so, abuses are mainstreamed and we are powerless to interrupt the process.
A transfer of power is intended. Accountability will, henceforth, be non-existent if the globalists get their way. This is the whole point – it doesn't matter if you complain about it. The idea is that the powers that be will simply defer to the orders they have received, because that's the game that they have been playing and now they can say they don't even have a choice any more. Tedros (Gates) said so.
The Amendments and the proposed treaty, taken together, will set in place a platform for global governance. Another pandemic could make it virtually impossible for dissidents to refuse to play ball again. Add in a manufactured food crisis and famine and then consider how easy it will be to provide solutions to those who want to co-operate and to justify action against those who will not. Gates' digital ID's will be compulsory, but it won't allow you to collect your food ration (of processed delicacies and fake meat) unless you're up to date on your 'vaccinations.'
But that is perhaps next year's game. This year we seem to have a choice between climate change lock-downs or some sort of Covid lock-down – one or the other. And, we'll deserve it as we've done nothing about what was inflicted upon us last time:
“Those responsible are without remorse, so there must be a reckoning. Barring that reckoning, we promise you they will make us remorseful later for not holding them accountable now.”(96)
Of course, there hasn't been a reckoning and that's the way human nature always works. At present, we are not short of people who insist that they will not comply this time.(97) But there are also plenty who would welcome the return of all manner of restrictions, largely due to their defective character.(98) Any attempt to mandate masks, lock-downs or 'vaccines' will be an acid test – nobody can claim ignorance this time.
“To be sure, if no one went along, all the lockdown regulations would effectively be null and void. There aren’t enough enforcers to bring about compliance if the whole population doesn’t go along. But that’s not usually how it works. Typically in these cases, the government can always count on a portion of the population to do the work of coercion for them.”(99)
The question is, how big a portion? And how big a portion will oppose it? And how vigorously? It will interesting to find out (although not necessarily in a good way), as all the available indicates that 'vaccine' skepticism is rife. We all probably know many people who are either outspoken critics, or who suspect that they have lost people to the 'vaccine', or – the biggest group – who quietly decided to abjure a booster shot.
This latter cohort is one that will likely never admit that they made a mistake, nor will they publicly disavow the narrative, but I suspect that it is they who hold the balance of power. If they aren't on board with the resistance, mass non-compliance is likely to be a non-starter. If I had to guess their intentions, I'd say that the strength of this group's breaking strain is probably on a par with the strength exhibited by a strand of wet spaghetti.
I appreciate the fact that I am repeating myself once again, but the enemies of freedom will always double down. They will not stop; they will have to be stopped. We can quibble over timing, but we all know (if we are honest with ourselves) that it's only a question of when, not whether. They've not been shy about signalling their intended destination and they can't get there without forcing compliance in what one would hope to be at least a sizeable minority. So, they'll try and force compliance.
Whether that's via climate lock-downs or through a further iteration of the pandemic genre matters not, in the grand scheme of things, but it would be helpful to be fully prepared. Judging by the confluence of clues (and factoring in the profits that can be made), I suspect that a respiratory pathogen will be the weapon of choice this winter.
However, it may not be capable of transmission between humans and it may initially be localized, before the ever-reliable PCR test confirms that whatever it is is now widespread, and off we go again. Why change tactics when the existing ones work so well? But, if they manage to get away with it again, despite over three years' worth of evidence of their malfeasance, we will find ourselves some distance down the slippery slope.
Citations
(1) https://dailysceptic.org/2023/08/24/will-scientific-evidence-ever-silence-the-pro-mask-cult/
(2) https://brownstone.org/articles/how-my-views-on-government-have-changed/
(3) https://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/2020/06/who-trial-using-potentially-fatal.html
(5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Magufuli#Death
(6) Zachary J Madewell, et al Household Transmission of Sars Cov 2. A systematic Review & Meta Analysis 2020
(7) Endurance Weathering The Storm, Lies, Lies and More Lies, April 17th 2021
(8) https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-africa-leaderscovid-idUSL1N2OY23Y
(14) https://dailyexpose.uk/2022/01/26/cwh-discusses-blanket-dnrs-and-litigation-prospects/
(15) https://www.amnesty.org.uk/files/2020-10/Care%20Homes%20Report.pdf
(16) Ditto
(19) Berenson, Alex. Unreported Truths About Covid-19 and Lockdowns: Part 4: Vaccines (p. 13). Blue Deep, Inc.. Kindle Edition.
(20) https://jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(15)01667-X/fulltext
(21)Peter Doshi, Will Covid vaccine s save lives? Current trials aren't designed to tell us, BMJ 21/10/20.
(22) https://expose-news.com/2022/06/15/pfizer-documents-800-people-never-finished-trial/
(24) https://dailyclout.io/inconsistencies-in-pfizer-clinical-trials-are-surfacing-report/
(25) https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780471462422.eoct341
(26) https://www.phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/125742_S1_M2_24_nonclinical-overview.pdf
(29)
(30) Ditto
(33) https://unherd.com/thepost/inside-austrias-lockdown-for-the-unvaccinated/
(34) https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/12/germany-imposes-nationwide-lockdown-unvaxxed/
(35) https://www.politico.eu/article/scholz-wants-mandatory-vaccination-for-germans-by-february/
(37) https://www.zerohedge.com/political/covid-climate-change-vehicles-global-authoritarianism
(38) https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/too-big-hide-ed-dowd-slams-covid-vax-injuries-cover-its-crime
(39) https://www.who.int/health-topics/one-health#tab=tab_1
(40) Ditto
(41) https://id2020.org/alliance
(42) https://www.gavi.org/investing-gavi/funding/donor-profiles
(43) https://www.globalresearch.ca/canada-our-home-native-dictatorship/5772052
(44) https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/pdf_files/inb4/A_INB4_3-en.pdf
(45) https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf
(46) https://expose-news.com/2023/02/28/ihr-enable-totalitarianism-on-global-scale/
(49) https://www.npr.org/2021/10/03/1042883030/why-we-need-to-prepare-for-the-next-pandemic
(50) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59542211
(55) Anthony SJ, Epstein JH, Murray KA, Navarrete-Macias I, Zambrana-Torrelio CM, Solovyov A, et al. A strategy to estimate unknown viral diversity in mammals. MBio. 2013;4: e00598–13. Pmid:24003179
(56) Warren CJ, Sawyer SL (2019) How host genetics dictates successful viralzoonosis. PLoS Biol 17(4): e3000217. https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pbio.3000217
(57) https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-apr-27-sci-swine-history27-story.html
(59) https://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2003-07/sars-where-did-it-come/
(60) https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.14.472632v1.full.pdf
(61)
https://www.sinobiological.com/
(63) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2708-8?error=cookies_not_supported&code=ccdc1f30-dd1f-4e90-bccb-19a475a9b6b0
(64) https://patents.justia.com/patent/11225508
(66) https://minervanett.no/files/2020/07/13/TrueEvidenceNoNaturalEvol.pdf
(67)
(68) https://zenodo.org/record/8254894
(69)
(70) Ditto
(71) http://www.bestofsherlock.com/top-10-sherlock-quotes.htm
(73) https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/09/here-we-go-new-yorkers-told-mask-up/
(76) https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/09/masks__theyre_back.html
(77)
(79) https://www.cdc.gov/respiratory-viruses/whats-new/covid-19-variant.html
(82) https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_AWD_W81K0223F0027_9700_W81K0421D0010_9700
(83) https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_AWD_36C24123N1005_3600_36C24121A0078_3600
(84) https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_AWD_36C24123N0983_3600_36C24121A0048_3600
(85) https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_AWD_36C10B23N00040009_3600_36C10B21D0004_3600
(88) https://finance.yahoo.com/news/covid-hospitalizations-climbing-us-braces-100000547.html
(89) https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/cdc-warns-rsv-cases-are-rising-among-infants-babies
(90) https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/08/just-time-election-biden-regime-reinstate-covid-19/
(91) https://www.empr.com/home/news/rsv-vaccine-abrysvo-approved-for-individuals-60-years-and-older/
(92) https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/03/health/first-rsv-vaccine-approved/index.html
(94) https://www.weforum.org/events/the-davos-agenda-2022/sessions/covid-19-what-s-next
(95) https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/too-big-hide-ed-dowd-slams-covid-vax-injuries-cover-its-crime
(96) https://brownstone.org/articles/why-are-they-talking-about-ufos-instead-of-covid-fascism/
(97) https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/09/01/never-again-no-return-arbitrary-covid-19-lockdown-state/
(99) https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/will-you-comply
Figure 1 https://expose-news.com/2023/07/27/europes-child-deaths-soared-in-2022/