Part 2:   Steps leading to the creation of a pandemic: (Part 1 is accessible here) Although we were unable to deviate from our path of profit maximization, until recently there was serious opposition both within populations as well as within the power structure.

It is mainly since the fall of the Soviet Union that any opposition – regardless of its political affinities – has been weakened, and thus obstacles removed.  Since the march towards a more total control, needed at this globalized stage for profits to continue unabated, has accelerated by exploiting the fear of epidemics to extend this control from external living conditions to the body and mind, in the process hoping to collect the profits that the vaccines necessary for this will generate.

4. Fabricating a vaccine craze within an epidemic perspective: Phase 2

In the 1997 WHO Health Report, insistence on vaccination is renewed: one of its goals is affirmed “to enable the provision of sufficient high-quality affordable vaccines to be sustained. … A new evaluation tool is helping countries to … ensure  the long-term financial viability of immunization programmes.”[1] Follows details of the development of specific vaccines, with mention of standardization.  In the twenty years between 1979 and 1997, the other goals endorsed by WHO remained unfulfilled, namely “achieving and maintaining universal access to basic education for all, basic health care for all, reproductive health care for all women, adequate food for all and safe water and sanitation for all”, to quote a 1997 UN human development report, according to which 40 billion dollars or less than 4 per cent of the combined wealth of the 225 richest people in the world would suffice to cover any “additional cost” involved.[2]

In 2000, the pharmaceutical industry became the most profitable, thereby overtaking armaments.[3]   Its resilience was however mainly due to “drug revenue”.  But patents are not eternal, and according to Bain and Company, it was “struggling to compensate” for resulting losses.[4]  Hence the sale of vaccines needed to be artificially boosted.

That very same year, Bain founded its philanthropic arm, Bridgespan, while Bill Gates, who owes his success to Bain and Company, established the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation –  since then one of Bain’s main clients,[5] it in turn funds Bridgespan.[6]  Others have followed their lead.  It is through these supposedly non-profit foundations that corporates, following on the footsteps of Carnegie, Ford and Rockefeller,  now “shape the thinking of policymakers, attract social innovators, and exert influence to bring together the private sector, government, and civil society”.[7] The aim is to enable the “social change”[8] needed for the interests of profit-making.

To create a vaccine craze, the classic tactic, used by Rockefeller, was successfully exploited, albeit in the more sophisticated form described on the Bridgespan website[9]:

1) “Building a Field”, i.e. creating the illusion of a problem,

2) “Building a New Organization” to deal with the new field, i.e. to create and maintain a collective scare, and implement a pre-planned solution.

Vaccination was from the outset the focus of the Gates Foundation and even though, Bridgespan, like some others, targets all areas, its website takes the eradication of polio as its first main example of the success of former philanthropy.[10]

Immediately following their foundation, also in 2000, the necessary new organization, GAVI, the vaccine alliance, was established by the Gates Foundation, from which it received major initial funding, together with, among others,  the UK, the Netherlands, and Norway governments. Indeed its a “unique public-private partnership … bring[ing] together … key UN agencies, governments, the vaccine industry, private sector and civil society”.[11]

Public money is donated to GAVI by the various governments, which then buys stocks of vaccines from pharmaceutical firms, who, together with their other private associates –  pharmaceutical, consulting and philanthropic firms recoup multifold their investments and donations.   “Investing in global health organizations aimed at increasing access to vaccines created a 20-to-1 return in economic benefit”, as recognized by Bill Gates himself, namely $200 billion over a period of 20 years for the $10 billion invested. This he acknowledged to be his “best investment”.[12] A very clever transfer of the populations’  assets to a few individuals, at the cost of how many of the lives philanthropy claims to save?  In 2007, the Gates Foundation joined the “Global Polio Eradication Initiative to help eliminate the disease through a mass immunization campaign … contributing nearly $3 billion”.[13] This suggests that the former attempt by the Rockefeller foundation was not all that successful.   As stated in Part 1, it was unnecessary, and probably the cause of paralysis.  So in what sense is it promoted as a most noteworthy philanthropy of former times?

Whatever be the case, in September 2020, the World Health Organization recognized that “a new polio outbreak in Sudan [is] caused by oral vaccine”.[14] In India, according to a 2018 study,[15] it led to 491 000 cases of paralysis between 2000 and 2007.   There is also much evidence to suggest that “the cause of infantile paralysis (polio) is not a virus”, but  “pesticides such as DDT and heavy metals”.[16]

In fact side-effects are a major issue with vaccines.  The effectiveness of vaccines remains a matter of controversy since all major diseases had reduced prior to their introduction simply as a result of improved environmental conditions,  hygiene and diet.  In fact, as mentioned in Part 1, evidence all too often indicate a rise in cases after mass vaccinations.  Artificially boosting immunity may well be impairing natural immunity, leaving individuals susceptible to more diseases.   There is some corroboration between massive post WW1 vaccination campaigns and the 1918 flu.[17] [18]    However, this suggests that vaccination is an Eldorado not just because it targets everyone, but thanks to the increase in health problems it generates, more drugs and vaccines can be developed to then deal with these and thus guarantees unlimited opportunities for profit.

Yet the discourse cleverly portrays the various actors as saviours of mankind, while obscuring that only the other goals of the 1977 Alma-Ata conference will reduce premature diseases and premature.  To this day, they remain unfulfilled.   This appears to be conveniently disregarded by corporate philanthropy.

3. From vaccines to a pandemic

Still in 2000, the vaccines had to be sold.  Enticing populations always proved insufficient.  From long before the WW2, the CDC had tried to scare populations with viruses and epidemics, but had kept failing.   So was it thought that the obvious solution was to create a panic justifying mandatory vaccination?

In 2005, the IHR were revised[19] and became an  “instrument of international law that is legally-binding on 196 countries”  regarding their “rights and obligations in handling public health events and emergencies that have the potential to cross borders”,

“designed to prevent the international spread of disease”.  In other words, these measures implemented are based on foresight.  Assigning probabilities to events that occur only a few

times is especially problematic. The frequency interpretation is unsuited for this. So is the equal likelihood assumption since we cannot know that such phenomena display any regularity. In this case a probability value is subjectively assigned by the investigator depending on his personal assessment of an event in the future. Until the event actually happens, there is no way of checking the quality of the assessment. After the event has happened, it has become fully certain, and this is no indication of the correctness of the probability assigned to it prior to its occurrence. Hence these assessments are not of the order of science but rather of divination, while providing them with the veneer of scientific ‘respectability’ and apparent objectivity.[20]

Indeed the differences between the 2005 revision and the initial IHR are critical. To begin with, it is no longer a matter of simply allowing countries to follow the WHO recommendations, but  they are now obligated “to take all appropriate measures for furthering the purpose and eventual implementation of” these regulations, in particular by making any appropriate “legal and administrative” changes.  Vaccination and measures no longer concern specific listed diseases, but any can be included: the IHR “also outline the criteria to determine whether or not a particular event constitutes a  `public health emergency of international concern’.”   Still in this document, they include severity, notably large numbers of victims.   Although these regulations stipulate that measures should not be “more restrictive of international traffic and trade”, nor “more intrusive to persons than reasonably available alternatives that would achieve the appropriate level of health protection”, they provide States with the legal right to:

“– review travel history in affected areas;

– review proof of medical examination and any laboratory analysis;

– require medical examinations;

– review proof of vaccination or other prophylaxis;

– require vaccination or other prophylaxis;

– place suspect persons under public health observation;

– implement quarantine or other health measures for suspect persons;

– implement isolation and treatment where necessary of affected persons;

– implement tracing of contacts of suspect or affected persons;

– refuse entry of suspect and affected persons;

– refuse entry of unaffected persons to affected areas; and

– implement exit screening and/or restrictions on persons from affected areas.”

In the above “medical examination” means “the preliminary assessment of a person by an authorized health worker or by a person under the direct supervision of the competent authority, to determine the person’s health status and potential public health risk to others, and may include the scrutiny of health documents”,[21] thereby suggesting these will become obligatory.  Note that the vague expression “competent authority”  leaves open their definition.   Most importantly, the

definition of “quarantine” has critically changed from what it was in the 1969 IHR.  There, it is used only in the expression “in quarantine” defined to be a “state or condition during which measures are applied by a health authority to a ship, an aircraft, a train, road vehicle, other means of transport or container, to prevent the spread of disease, reservoirs of disease or vectors of disease from the object of quarantine”.[22]  The 2005 revised IHR use the term by itself, and define it as “the restriction of activities and/or separation from others of suspect persons who are not ill or of suspect baggage, containers, conveyances or goods in such a manner as to prevent the possible spread of infection or contamination”.  This represents a subtle but critical shift from a focus on the purpose, that of this age-old method to protect the community, to a focus on the restriction of liberties of individuals.  The implementation of quarantine and other coercive measures on all, including surveillance and vaccination, is legalized: the expression “suspect persons”  criminalizes every individual, both healthy and unhealthy.  Indeed, it covers anyone “considered by a State Party as having been exposed, or possibly exposed, to a public health risk and that could be a possible source of spread of disease”; of significance here being the use of “possibly” and “possible”, hence not just anyone definitely known to be a factor of risk.

Alongside, in accord with its standardization philosophy, the WHO implemented the “National Action Planning for Health Security (NAPHS) … a country owned, multi-year, planning process that can accelerate the implementation of IHR core capacities, and is based on a One Health for all-hazards, whole-of-government approach.”[23]

In 2006,  Dr Richard Hatchett, “an oncologist turned White House adviser” the previous year, and Dr Carter Mercher, “a Department of Veterans Affairs physician” proposed the idea of self-isolation and social distancing for future epidemics, and thus, to continue quoting the New York Times, to “turn back to an approach … first widely used in the Middle Ages”,[24] leaving conveniently aside the fact that an approach from periods that cannot be compared to our modern hygienic conditions is nonsensical.  The evidence advanced was a model invented by a 14 year old, Laura Glass, for a school assignment.  Her “name appears on the foundational paper arguing for lockdowns and forced human separation.”[25]

In 2007, the CDC released an  “Interim Pre-pandemic planning guidance”,[26] which apart from vaccination, proposes:

• Voluntary isolation of the sick at home or in a hospital
• Voluntary home quarantine of potentially exposed family members of the sick
• Child social distancing, including dismissal of students from schools, closure of childcare programs, and reduced out-of-school social contacts and community mixing
• Adult social distancing, including cancellation of large public gatherings and alteration of work environments and schedules.

This step should not be ignored as it ensconces the divinatory art on which the IHR is based, and further weakens the need of a pandemic to implement these measures.  On the one hand a title referring to any period, since any period can be said to be prior to a hypothetical pandemic of the future, on the other it specifies that their full or partial implementation will be based on a novel  “Pandemic Severity Index (PSI)”. So does this imply that the severity of a future pandemic can be assessed beforehand?  And given that any future event is always hypothetical, does this enable the maintenance of the measures for an indeterminate period given that the term “interim” means

the “intervening time”?  For it can always be claimed that a pandemic will occur, and certainly will were the measures lifted.

This step also also implicitly furthers the IHR’s import “suspect person” by including not only family members, who may be neither contagious, nor ill, but any child and adult, and makes official the recommendation of Drs Hatchett and Mercher, substantiated by a child of fourteen: reduced social contacts, notably via social distancing.

In 2009, the WHO and other institutions tried to raise alarm for what they termed the swine flu.   Only some governments bought massive doses of the rapidly developed vaccine, and most did not impose any of the above measures, possibly because it was then not possible to do so:   the digitalization process was not yet sufficiently advanced – 4G had only begun to be implemented in a handful of countries, the video-conferencing tools were not yet available, the healthcare apps were still being developed.  A massive transfer of essential human activities via the internet was thus infeasible and without that populations would have rebelled against any forms of lockdowns, the economy would have come to a standstill, even government could not have functioned, nor any monitoring be done.   Maybe the swine flu event, whose virality still remains uncorroborated,[27] was not meant to succeed, but only a step in the creation of fear, or merely a dress rehearsal.

Whatever the case may have been, it might have highlighted that a pandemic in the sense of a plague is unrealistic under today’s hygienic conditions.  That very same year, in May, the definition of a pandemic was altered by WHO, and the severity criteria removed: even one case was now legally sufficient, in view of the IHR, to trigger the entire gamut of measures.   Did this suggest that the aim should therefore be to create the illusion of a pandemic?

In 2010, the Behavioural Insight Team was founded, thereby systematizing the use of psychology.

In 2011, conferencing tools were ready, Zoom Video Communications Inc was created.  Among its principal owners can be found BlackRock Fund Advisors,[28] a minority owner of Halliburton Co.,[29] known for its closeness with the military, and one of whose former CEO was Dick Cheney.[30]

In 2012, the digitalization of healthcare was nearing completion and being heralded by Bain and Company.[31]  Alongside the Rockefeller Foundation published a lockstep scenario with striking similarities with what the world has been living through since the winter of 2020.   The report states: “scenario planning allows us to achieve impact more effectively.  The results of our first scenario planning exercise demonstrate a provocative and engaging exploration of the role of technology and the future of globalization”.[32]

Each of the following years, economic policies implemented to keep facilitating profit-maximization brought us that much closer to the brink of a total socio-economic catastrophe.   Russia’s unexpected reaction to the Ukrainian and Syrian adventures, its renewed protective role vis-à-vis some other nations, showed that pure exploitation of any remaining resources was unrealistic, those within Russia being totally out of bounds.  Throughout the world, social discontent kept mounting, threatening the globalization process and the pursuit of yet more profit, especially in the West, where due to the rapid disappearance of anything to pillage from the rest of the world and the advanced stage of financial capitalism that profit-making had led to, populations could no longer be kept acquiescent by sharing widely some of the loot – populations that unlike their counterparts elsewhere are very savvy about political protest.  The threat was now inside the Western house.

Hence taking action may have been deemed urgent.

In 2017, The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), another “global partnership between public, private, philanthropic, and civil society organisations” was formed “to accelerate the development of vaccines”.  Its CEO is Dr Hatchett.[33]

In a September 2019 report, the Global Preparedness Monitor Board, co-convened by the World Bank and the WHO, states among “Progress indicator(s) by September 2020”: “All countries that have completed an assessment of their capacities by 1 July 2019 have developed a costed National Action Plan for Health Security (NAPHS), identified required resources and started to implement the plan”, namely the measures described in the IHR.  In other words, it integrates the CDC’s notion of an “interim pre-pandemic”, thereby going beyond the requirement of a pandemic to implement measures.

In October 2019, the “Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation host[ed] Event 201: a high-level simulation exercise for pandemic preparedness and response”, which brought “together business, government, security and public health leaders”.[34]

All was now in place for the next critical stage, the actual pandemic.  Or should one say the endless pre-pandemic?