The covid pandemic was rehearsed beforehand. We were stampeded into vaccines. By David Archibald.

A lot of people are aware that Bill Gates sponsored a pandemic narrative exercise, Event 201, just before the outbreak of the covid virus in Wuhan. To be clear, Event 201 wasn’t about reducing the harm caused by a virus outbreak — it was about keeping everyone on the same message in order to maximise harm. That narrative-building exercise was successfully predictive, so it is worthwhile looking at a similar, previous effort.

This is a document called The SPARS Pandemic 2025 – 2028. It was produced by the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and describes itself as a “hypothetical scenario designed to illustrate the public health risk communication challenges that could potentially emerge during a naturally occurring infectious disease outbreak requiring development and distribution of novel and/or investigational drugs, vaccines, therapeutics, or other medical countermeasures.”

The term ‘naturally occurring’ would have been included to obscufate the lab origin of the virus. People would normally assume that a viral outbreak was natural because otherwise it would be a hostile act. … The purpose of the document was so that health officials could rehearse their response:

While engaged with a rigorous simulated health emergency, scenario readers have the opportunity to mentally “rehearse” responses while also weighing the implications of their actions.

The first big lie in the document was on the mode of viral transmission:

As transmission of SPARS was determined to occur via droplet spread, the CDC initially recommended that everyone diligently maintain hand hygiene and frequently disinfect potentially contaminated surfaces.

You may remember when SARS broke out that the WHO and others were emphatic that covid was spread by droplets as opposed to aerosol transmission. It took ages for that lie to die. The following sentence is telling:

WHO reported that the overall case fatality rate for SARS was 14-15% and over 50% for people over the age of 64. Later in the SPARS outbreak, data that included more accurate estimates of mild SPARS cases indicated a case fatality rate of only 0.6%.

SARS killed people too quickly to be an effective bioweapon. The scenario planners based their scenario on a variant of SARS even though SARS only occurred in a lab. They predicted that the case fatality rate of the new virus will be 0.6% for under 50 years olds. This is close to the 0.84% case fatality rate of the Alpha variant of covid. This points to an understanding that the bioweapons researchers were proceeding to detune SARS so that:

Thus, infected persons could spread the virus for up to nearly a week before showing symptoms of the disease themselves.

The John Hopkins scenario planners knew, somehow, that the bioweapon developers were trading killing people immediately for a higher transmission rate. So that their bioweapon would work by cumulative damage. They even knew the target case fatality rate the bioweapon developers were going for.

Too many correct predictions is too much coincidence:

The project team decided on setting the storyline around a novel coronavirus that caused a mild, flu-like disease in most instances, but pneumonia and/or hypoxia requiring hospitalization and extensive medical treatment in a small minority of cases.

The meat of the document is how to manage the public’s perception of the vaccine that would be rolled out in response to the pandemic. Thus on page 12:

1) How might federal health authorities avoid people possibly seeing an expedited SPARS vaccine development and testing process as somehow “rushed” and inherently flawed, even though that process still meets the same safety and efficacy standards as any other vaccine?

2) How might federal health authorities respond to critics who propose that liability protection for SPARS vaccine manufacturers jeopardizes individual freedom and wellbeing?

By comparison there is no mention in the body of the document about development of antivirals. The globalists were fixated, and remain fixated, on vaccination.

So that begs the question: was this to make money for the vaccine developers, or to make sure people were damaged by the vaccinations? That anyone who escaped the virus was hit by the vaccines?

The John Hopkins document made yet another correct prediction on page 48:

Japan announced that it would not approve the vaccine for use in Japan due to concerns that it had not been vetted properly through full clinical trials.

Japan wasn’t happy with Pfizer’s initial vaccine documentation and asked for more data. No other country asked for more data; Australia’s health officials didn’t bother to read Pfizer’s submission before approving it. From the extra data the Japanese received we know that the spike protein has a predilection for accumulating in the ovaries. Japan did approve use of the vaccines but subsequently stated that the unvaccinated should not be discriminated against. That is the Japanese way of saying that the vaccines are useless and vaccination will not be mandatory. …

Kill news of anti-virals like ivermectin and HCQ:

It has been important to the globalists that no effective antivirals be allowed to compete with their vaccines. And they happily kill millions in making that happen. All it took was US$40 million to delay the use of ivermectin in the West. In late 2020, Dr. Andrew Hill, a researcher at the University of Liverpool, was leading a team of researchers studying the drug ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of Covid-19. Their meta-analysis of ivermectin came out in January, 2021. The study concluded that the use of ivermectin resulted in reduced inflammation and a more rapid elimination of the Sars-Cov-2 virus from the body. Six of the eighteen trials examined showed that the risk of death from covid-19 was 75 percent lower in patients who had moderate to severe disease.

But just one month later, Dr. Hill’s original, positive study conclusions on ivermectin fell off the rails. Dr Hill changed his study conclusions from positive to negative because he was under pressure from his funding sponsors to do so. One week prior to Dr. Andrew Hill’s pre-print posting of his revised paper, the University of Liverpool, where Hill works, received a $40 million grant from Unitaid to study infectious diseases — Dr. Hill’s specialty. Unitaid is a WHO agency largely supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. To put that in perspective, if the delay in ivermectin use in Western countries (places like India, Indonesia, El Salvador and Japan are using it to great effect) results in four million dead, Bill Gates’ investment in bribing Dr Hill only cost US$10 per dead Westerner.

The uselessness of the vaccines:

The vaccines have another problem in that they are quite ineffective. To the extent that they work at all, they only last a couple of months and then they need boosters. The European Medicines Agency has come out to say that continual boosters is not a good idea as it may cause immunological exhaustion, a concept first put forward on Wentworth Report. Without boosters the vaccines themselves are useless.

Higher standards for cows:

A story about a Pfizer veterinary vaccine illustrates the lowering of standards necessary to get them approved in the first place:

In 2010, German scientists found that a Pfizer veterinary vaccine, Pregsure, used to reduce diarrhoea in cows, caused a fatal bleeding disease in their calves. Even after pressure from Germany caused Pfizer to stop selling the vaccine there, the company kept selling it elsewhere.

A top Pfizer official told British farmers it was safe to use and that “other factors” were likely involved. A month later, Pfizer stopped selling the vaccine. European regulators later found it caused a 1-in-6000 risk of the bleeding disease. “For a prophylactic measure such as vaccination this figure was considered unacceptable for a potentially fatal disorder,” the regulators found.

The risk of Covid-vaccine induced myocarditis — which can be fatal — in young men is now estimated at somewhere between 1 in 2000 and 1 in 3000. Apparently the rules are stricter for cows. …

Latest UK data on catching omicron:

Starting from the age of 18, the vaccinated have 2.5 times the risk of infection of the unvaccinated. While the immediate death rate for the vaccinated is lower, this will translate to a higher proportion of long covid and thus death by heart attack, cancer and dementia.

All the above is known to all of Australia’s health ministers, health officials, prime minister and premiers. Yet they keep pushing, pushing, pushing the narrative of vaccination.

There will be hell to pay if the public ever find out the full story.