Was WA ex-Premier Colin Barnett Yet Another Remorseless Globalist?
by David Archibald
19 January 2022
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. You would not have to state that it was naturally occurring. 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.
The John Hopkins document from 2015 may solve the sweet mystery of Section 158 of the Western Australian Public Health Act 2016 which states
If an authorised officer gives a direction to a person under section 157(1)(j) to undergo medical observation, medical examination or medical treatment or to be vaccinated, an authorised officer or police officer may use reasonable force to ensure that the direction is complied with
Normally vaccination would be considered to be included in medical treatments, so it would not have to be separately specified. But it is specified separately in the Act and is mentioned last, which means that it is the author’s main intent, just disguised as much as possible. This was in the penultimate year of Colin Barnett’s regime. Barnett’s Health Minister at the time was a bloke called John Day, an ordinary sort of simpleton who wouldn’t have known what was going on around him.
Why did Barnett, in 2016, have a bee in his bonnet about vaccination? Perhaps he got the globalist message on how important vaccination was going to be. Seemingly Barnett, who had complete contempt of all his colleagues, responded by making it compulsory. Similar things have happened at the Federal level. In 2011, I was a speaker at an anti-carbon tax rally in Canberra. I took the opportunity to go into Parliament House to speak to Senator Nick Minchin, painted by the media as a hard-right numbers man. He said that nobody in cabinet asked John Howard why he had pushed the carbon tax and neither did John Howard say why he was doing it; cabinet just went along. We subsequently found out that John Howard thought he would use global warming hysteria to push Australia towards nuclear energy; all we got was useless renewables instead.
Also at the federal level, in 2017 the globalists of the World Economic Forum started an offshoot in Brussels call the Hydrogen Council to shore up the global warming narrative. Within a couple of years Australia’s federal government was wasting hundreds of millions of dollars per annum on hydrogen projects. These ideas didn’t come from the rank and file of the Liberal Party, they were orders from Brussels and Geneva.
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 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.
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.
And of course the covid vaccines increase the risk of infection for most age groups relative to the unvaccinated. This is the result for Week 2 of 2022 in the UK:
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.
You have to have respect for people like Australia’s federal health minister, Greg Hunt. When he banned the import and sale of ivermectin, he knew he was killing perhaps hundreds of thousands of his fellow Australians, including work colleagues, friends, family, people he met in the lift.
No empathy and no fear – the definition of a psychopath. With the SPARS Pandemic 2025 – 2028 document we have solved the sweet mystery of Barnett’s compulsory vaccination edict of 2016. When he was Premier, I had thought that Barnett was just another scheming, nasty leftie doing what he could to traduce Western Civilisation. He was all that and more. Up there with Greg Hunt, it turns out he had the morality of a concentration camp guard — overseeing the orderly deaths of the inmates.
David Archibald is the author of The Anticancer Garden in Australia