Coronavirus – Serious Pandemic Or Something Else? Part 2
In Part 1 of this article we demonstrated that Covid-19 (CV-19) is nowhere near the threat we were warned of at the outset, that it hardly registers on the scale of past pandemics and that the measures taken by governments to combat it will prove many times more harmful than the disease. Instead of recognising this, releasing the lockdown and allowing people to freely live their lives, governments are doubling down – even while they produce the evidence of their own stupidity. Why? Who or what is really driving policy on CV-19 – governments, the World Health Organisation or something entirely different?
It is amazing how easily people have accepted the controls that governments around the world have forced upon their citizens. People generally seem completely happy to accept as truth whatever the government and the media tell them and surrender their freedom on demand. This is, of course, what populations have done throughout history – accepting whatever they are told without question. It has happened time and again all over the world, most notably in Hitler’s Germany. The excuse is always the same – we didn’t know! The reasons are also always the same – laziness, complacency, misplaced trust.
CV-19 has been the subject of a series of confused, disjointed statements and messaging. Since the very beginning, the differing approaches by governments, the huge variations in methodology for reported infection and fatality rates and the constant changes in policy are all, we are told, dictated by “the science”. It’s enough to spin the head of even the most unquestioning person. In fact, increasingly, people have begun articulating their feelings that something about the official story just doesn’t add up: even if they are not quite sure what it is.
The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes.
Conservative politician, Michael Gove is quoted as saying, “I think the people in this country have had enough of experts from organisations with acronyms saying that they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong.” Yet governments continue to rely on their advice and people continue to sit in front of their television sets lapping up the supposed wisdom of the latest talking head and accepting massive restrictions on their freedom and liberty as a result of what they say. The most recent absurd proclamation from the “scientists” is that the virus is disappearing too fast! Apparently there may not be enough cases left to test a vaccine.
Bill Gates (whom might easily be mistaken for a renowned epidemiologist, rather than the computer science university drop-out he actually is) tells us that only a vaccine will stop CV-19. Real epidemiologists say that there is no certainty a vaccine will work at all. Everyone agrees that, even if it does work, the effect will be short-lived – as little as 6 months – and may require annual topping up. This acknowledgement by “scientists” that the effect of a vaccine renders it effectively useless, is unlikely to curb the enthusiasm of drug company investors who see only dollar signs.
Whilst “scientists” point to the 3-15 years it has taken to develop previous vaccines, Gates says one might be ready by Autumn! Indeed a number of companies in China, one in India and Astrazenica in the UK (more on that later) have each begun manufacturing millions of doses ahead of human trials that are expected to confirm their efficacy and safety. A cynic might say that it’s almost as if vaccines were already in preparation long before the virus emerged.
Attempts to create a vaccine specifically for coronaviruses have, since the 1950s, always ended in failure. A study on potential vaccines for SAR CoV 1, a very similar pathogen, concluded that whilst effective, the rDNA vaccine (the type currently under production for CV-19) also caused cytokine storms (a violent often fatal immune reaction) when laboratory mice subsequently encountered the disease.
Meanwhile, researchers across the globe are homing in on just exactly how, not if, Gates will benefit from a vaccine that he is desperate should become compulsory for all of us.
Gates’ private foundation, which is the world’s largest, also poured a chest-clutching $301 million into US drug discovery software firm Schrodinger — more than three times its Google investment. Schrodinger is quietly participating in the hunt for a COVID-19 vaccine, and raised $232 million with a successful public offering in February.
Those who have been beguiled by the claims of Gates’ generous philanthropy, might reflect on the fact that since his announcement that most of his money will be given to his foundation for the benefit of the human race, he has actually doubled his personal wealth He is not alone in benefiting from CV-19: whilst millions have lost their jobs since the start of the “crisis”, the world’s billionaires have made a killing.
Gates’ interest in CV-19 is not confined to its elimination. His influence was there right at the beginning, as we shall see later in this article. Given Gates’ prominence in the CV-19 story, everyone would do well to know this man better.
Decades of evidence demonstrating Gates’ involvement in eugenics, population control and the exploitation of poverty-stricken populations in pursuit of huge wealth, is readily accessible. Yet, a Google search will reveal a profusion of manipulative articles ridiculing anyone making such claims and painting Gates as a hero of the downtrodden and all-round saint. Such articles seek to confuse and discredit detractors by citing extreme and ignorant accusations, such as the claim that Gates is planning to inject tracking devices hidden in vaccines. No serious person would make such a claim. Yet sadly, this nonsense appears to effectively neutralise the general population’s questions; particularly the millennial generation, poisoned as they are by the (re)education system.
Creating confusion in the population is a recurring weapon. It is often used to distract attention from the central issue and focus it upon some irrelevant sideshow. The great mask controversy provides another example. First we were told that they are completely ineffective, then later that they were essential to protect others. Now we must now wear them on public transport. Yet the “science” has shown all along that masks are completely ineffective against CV-19. Masks serve to move the debate away from questions about the virus itself, to maintain a sense of “danger” and to stoke up fear.
Now that the fear phase of the epidemic is over and we’ve moved on to race wars, I would like to predict that by 21st June (it’s the 13th today) we’ll be told about an amazing scientific discovery: a cough doesn’t travel 2 metres, it only travels 1 metre. The public, of course, will simply accept this new information and happily go back to the shops and pubs as if nothing had happened. Nevertheless, we should not rule out the possibility that a second wave will be claimed if the first round of disinformation has not fully achieved the objectives of those perpetrating this mayhem.
The media has been key to shaping the CV-19 narrative. Since March the broadcast media in the UK and the US has discussed almost nothing else. On many days the BBC News website, despite the organisation’s remit to educate and inform, carried literally no other stories. The same is true of Sky News. You might think that for two months nothing else whatsoever happened in the world. A US media company estimates that by June 1st CV-19 had been mentioned 1,500,000,000 times in Western broadcast media.
As governments continue lockdowns, regardless of the social and economic carnage they are causing, a simple truth is being ignored. CV-19 is causing fewer and fewer deaths among those that contract it. It appears that the disease is losing its potency: something virologists say rarely occurs in natural viruses, but often occurs in lab-designed ones.
One message that has been prevalent across the media is a completely false alternative: lives or money. The idea is that anyone who points out the disastrous cost to the economy of the lockdown, is putting money before lives. The truth is that both the disease and the lockdown will cost lives, but only one is self-inflicted.
The dishonest “money versus lives” implied relationship, was largely facilitated by the dire warnings of Professor Neil Ferguson, an epidemiologist and virus modeller from Imperial College London. Using a 15-year-old computer model, he warned that the virus would claim 510,000 lives if the lockdown measures, which he later broke himself, were not introduced.
Michael Thrusfield, a professor of veterinary epidemiology at Edinburgh University, told Business Insider that he had ‘déjà vu’ after reading the Imperial paper on CV-19. He went on to recite details of Ferguson’s chequered past.
Ferguson had been responsible for excessive animal culling during the 2001 “Mad Cow” disease outbreak when he warned the government that 150,000 people could die. Six million animals were slaughtered as a precaution, costing the country billions in farming revenue. In the end, 177 people died. In 2009, Ferguson’s models predicted 65,000 deaths from the Swine Flu outbreak in the UK — the final figure was just 457. In 2005, Ferguson said that up to 200 million people could die from bird flu. Between 2003 and 2009, just 282 people died worldwide from the disease.
This appalling track record raises an important question: why do a number of western governments continue to rely upon his advice – particularly to the exclusion of other highly respected academics, epidemiologists and health professionals? Why indeed!
Ferguson co-founded the MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis (CGIDA), based at Imperial, in 2008. It is the leading body advising national governments on pathogen outbreaks. The Centre was established just months before the 2009 Swine Flu outbreak. Ferguson reportedly joked with students in a 2016 lecture, “conspiracy theorists feel this is not a coincidence”.
The principal funder of the CGIDA listed on their website is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Other funders include Jhpiego Corporation which is an affiliate of Johns Hopkins University who have played a significant role in the CV-19 story. Johns Hopkins are closely linked with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, particularly in the area of population control and have received a number of significant grants from the Foundation.
As the “science” produced by Imperial often seems extraordinarily wide of the mark, would it be too conspiratorial to suggest that other influences might be driving the professor’s pronouncements? Could those same interests also be driving governments to listen to him?
Another funder of the CGIDA are Gilead Sciences Inc., an American biopharmaceutical company who are currently in merger talks with British company Astrozenica. Astrozenica recently signed a $750 million deal with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to channel vaccines to the third world. The UK Dept of Health and the Wellcome Trust are also listed as funders. Wellcome have themselves received at least one grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
President Trump has accused the World Health Organisation (WHO) of acquiescing to China in its handling of the pandemic. He has threatened to suspend US funding of the organisation until a full investigation into the outbreak is completed. Trump’s concerns that the WHO is politically biased may have some justification. America is the largest funder of WHO, but only just ahead of the second largest: the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is also working with China’s health agency to help authorities there “improve their standards”, potentially creating a challenger to the world’s two most powerful regulators, billionaire Bill Gates said. (source: Bloomberg).
It isn’t only Trump that has questioned the series of unsubstantiated pronouncements, u-turns and misinformation pouring out of the World Health Organisation. The effectiveness of masks, the question of whether asymptomatic people can spread the disease and the testing of Hydroxychloroquine have all seen violent u-turns.
Since February, when the disease began to accelerate outside China, dozens of doctors and research teams have warned that asymptomatic people could spread the disease. On 8 June 2020, citing “the data we have”, WHO’s Maria Van Kerkhove claimed that asymptomatic transmission is “very rare”. The WHO’s new advice that people should now wear masks (which contradicted previous advice) was based upon their warning that asymptomatic people could transmit the disease. On 10 June the WHO clarified their statement and accepted that asymptomatic people could indeed transmit the disease. The walkback prompted Fox News medical contributor Dr. Marc Siegel to ask: “How can we possibly trust the WHO at all?”
The Hydroxychloroquine issue is even more concerning. Anecdotal evidence from doctors around the globe suggests that early prescription of the drug could significantly reduce the severity of symptoms – in particular deadly, cytokine storms. The WHO initially denied this but later succumbed to pressure to test the drug with a series of trials. Subsequently, articles appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine and the Lancet of a study by a tiny US data company, Surgisphere, supposedly based upon data from over 1000 hospitals. The “study” claimed that Hydroxychloroquine actually increased the risk of death in seriously ill patients. On the basis of these articles the WHO halted all studies into the benefits of Hydroxychloroquine. Under a storm of protest from around the world the WHO have subsequently accepted that the Surgisphere study was faulty and has resumed the previous clinical studies.
That Surgisphere was given any credence by any scientific body is astounding. According to The Guardian, “A search of publicly available material suggests several of Surgisphere’s [handful of] employees have little or no data or scientific background. An employee listed as a science editor appears to be a science fiction author and fantasy artist whose professional profile suggests writing is her fulltime job. Another employee listed as a marketing executive is an adult model and events hostess, who also acts in videos for organisations.”
There is a question that should have popped into the heads of every reader: who paid Surgisphere and why? Obviously, anyone who has invested in the search for a vaccine, that will undoubtedly be hugely profitable when it is found, would be disappointed to learn that a cheap drug already exists to control the disease.
Despite recommending the restart of studies, the WHO continue to claim that there is no evidence that Hydroxychloroquine has a role in CV-19. Yet, it appears, none of the studies underway are investigating the circumstances in which the anecdotal evidence claims a benefit; that is prior to hospitalisation. This detail is apparently understood by President Trump’s doctor who is prescribing it to him as a preventative.
Recovery, a major Hydroxychloroquine study carried out by Oxford University Nuffield Department of Population Health, assessed Hydroxychloroquine administration in a hospital setting. The doses given in the trial were 10 times the usual dose of the drug when used to fight malaria. The data sheet for Hydroxychloroquine warns against overdosing which can be potentially lethal. Unsurprisingly, the study resulted in a claim that no benefits were derived from the use of Hydroxychloroquine. A major funder of Nuffield, along with the WHO is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
In October 2019 a table-top exercise called Event 201 was carried out, ostensibly to identify gaps in the global response to a possible future coronavirus pandemic. Two months later a virus emerged in China in circumstances that were eerily similar to the fictional ones envisioned by the exercise. The event was organised by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Johns Hopkins University.
In 2018 two investigators John Moynihan and Larry Doyle, exposed the Clinton Foundation tax fraud whilst giving evidence to a Congressional hearing. Now, these same investigators claim that representatives from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation met with U.S. Congressman Bobby L. Rush at a “sit down” in Rwanda, East Africa in mid August 2019. Their purpose was to organise a government virus testing and contact tracing program. Last month – nine months after the meeting with the Gates Foundation – Rush, a Democrat from Illinois, introduced the $100 billion HR6666, COVID-19 Testing, Reaching and Contacting Everyone (TRACE) Act.
Assuming that this revelation is true, some questions arise: how did the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation know that a testing and contact tracing requirement would arise 3 months before the virus appeared? Why should the Foundation seek involvement in a government contract? Why would Rush travel to Rwanda to hold such a meeting?
On June 26th, Bloomberg reported the following:
Global health advocates on the front lines of the effort to develop vaccines against Covid-19 outlined an $18 billion plan to roll out shots and end the pandemic’s worst phase by the end of next year.
The goal is to secure 2 billion doses by 2021 to try to halt the contagion that has sickened about 10 million people in a matter of months and created economic turmoil around the world. The World Health Organization, Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations are coordinating the initiative to deploy the shots, which must still show they can work in human tests. The broader campaign to combat Covid, including vaccines, drugs and tests, will need about $28 billion in funding.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funds the WHO. It is a founding member of GAVI and a principal funder of the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness. Only one conclusion can be drawn: Covid-19 is Bill Gates and Bill Gates is Covid-19. He predicted it, planned for it, manages it and will “solve” it. Anyone reading this that finds that fact reassuring does not comprehend the implications for mankind.
Wherever one looks in the field of healthcare, Bill Gates is there. How did this software engineer come to position himself as the unelected supremo of global health? Whether or not the virus originated in a Chinese wet market, as the official story has it, or it was designed and manufactured and then leaked, or escaped, from mainland China’s first biosafety level 4 (BSL–4) laboratory (which just happens to be just across the Yangtze river from the wet market), it has certainly been hijacked by some for their own Machiavellian purposes. Part 3 considers what those purposes might be and asks, did the Bible predict this?
Please comment below.
If you found this article interesting please share it and comment below. If you are in Lincolnshire and would like to meet up with like-minded people in these last days, please consider joining taG