by Chauncey Tinker – 13 Dec 2021
First a quick recap in case you haven't yet read my previous post. The Center for Health Security partnered with the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to host a coronavirus pandemic exercise called Event 201 in October 2019, six weeks before the first case of symptom onset of COVID-19. As promised I have now watched the Event 201 video series in full, and in this post I am going to look at the first 3 videos (in the next post I will look at the other 2).
I found another even stranger coincidence since I wrote the first post, because their scenario even suggested a coronavirus (called CAPS) had originated in bats, and they speculated that it could spread from bats via pigs to humans. Here is the scenario outline from their website:
Event 201 simulates an outbreak of a novel zoonotic coronavirus transmitted from bats to pigs to people that eventually becomes efficiently transmissible from person to person, leading to a severe pandemic. The pathogen and the disease it causes are modeled largely on SARS, but it is more transmissible in the community setting by people with mild symptoms.
The eery similarities with what the WHO was soon reporting, as the "crisis" unfolded, should be plain for all to see:
Increasing evidences demonstrate the link between the 2019-nCoV and other similar known coronaviruses (CoV) circulating in bats ...
However, the route of transmission to humans at the start of this event remains unclear. ... The current most likely hypothesis is that an intermediary host animal has played a role in the transmission.
An intermediary host animal such as - PIGS perhaps?
Event 201 wasn't a debate, there were no serious disagreements, the participants sitting around the table all nodded along as other participants were speaking, some noticeably even began to nod almost as soon as others began to speak, before the speaker's meaning had become clear. It was almost as if the whole thing had been scripted in advance.
For example, in the first video, there is emphasis from the very start promoting the "importance of public/private partnerships", and nobody at any point expresses any reservations about such a cozy relationship between govt. and big business. Tom Inglesby (the chairman) who is Director of the Centre also added his support to this notion at @15:30:
There are problems emerging that can only be solved by global business and governments working together.
This point, re-phrased a little but essentially the same point, was made over and over again by different participants during the event.
There were scary predictions (@19:40) (as part of the simulation) of huge numbers of deaths (hundreds of millions), and reports of cases rising "exponentially". It should be remembered that later computer modelling predictions of Neil Ferguson (from Imperial College London) which also predicted huge numbers of deaths turned out to be very wrong. It should be noted that Imperial College also receives funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. A search at the foundation's website for information on grants to Imperial College returned 73 results:
Vaccinations were touted as a solution from early in the first video, including by the chairman (@21:20), which is hardly surprising since Bill Gates is clearly obsessed with vaccinations, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was one of the main sponsors of the event (along with the WEF). He does however say that vaccinations are unlikely to be available within the first year (which is exactly how it subsequently played out in 2020/21 of course).
However a fictional antiviral drug that is already available is mentioned by the chairman at this point, which was given the fictitious name Extranavir (I can't be sure of the exact spelling). There is a fictional "news" segment following the chairman's statement on vaccinations which really resembles a commercial advertisement for this fictional drug.
In reality there are indeed a number of HIV treatments available which have been considered for use to treat COVID-19:
The above article concludes:
.. drugs widely used to treat HIV infection, could be evaluated in clinical trials for the treatment of COVID-19.
I suspect the name Extranivir could possibly be a suggestion that some of these drugs might be effective in combination against COVID-19.
Remdesivir was also mentioned in the above article, and that drug was later approved for emergency use against COVID-19, despite the fact that it has been criticized as being ineffective against COVID-19 and it is a very expensive treatment. From science.org:
... both decisions baffled scientists who have closely watched the clinical trials of remdesivir unfold over the past 6 months—and who have many questions about remdesivir's worth. At best, one large, well-designed study found remdesivir modestly reduced the time to recover from COVID-19 in hospitalized patients with severe illness. A few smaller studies found no impact of treatment on the disease whatsoever.
Dr Anthony Fauci, (Chief Medical Advisor to the US President), has been an enthusiastic supporter of the drug Remdesivir. From the Washington Times:
There have also been claims that Remdesivir causes renal (kidney) failure, a claim which seems to be somewhat supported by this article in the New England Medical Journal:
A total of 32 patients (60%) reported adverse events during follow-up. The most common adverse events were increased hepatic enzymes, diarrhea, rash, renal impairment, and hypotension.
A total of 12 patients (23%) had serious adverse events.
The Event 201 discussion moves back to the subject of vaccinations, with Adrian Thomas, who is the Vice President Global Public Health at Johnson & Johnson (who incidentally make vaccinations), speaking in favour of governments rushing through emergency use authorisations (@31:54):
we need to really challenge ourselves on the vaccine production ... it requires flexibility on the regulatory side
He also makes a pitch for finance @32:40
what we've seen working very well in the HIV field is in fact procurement through the global fund ... financially able to procure on behalf of affected countries
In other words he is calling for a global fund to be available to buy the medicine ahead of demand.
Near the end of the first video, Avril Haines (the current US Director of National Intelligence) speaks about international control through the UN to co-ordinate the response to the pandemic, and the chairman Tom Inglesby (@49:40) asks a follow-up question about what percentage different states will be contributing, and says:
We've already heard from George [the Chinese CDC representative] that China is not making nearly enough medication to take care of China
Avril Haines's rather vague answer seemed to be to suggest that this sort of deficit should be made up by "international" contributions to "contain the issue" in order to "prevent the downstream impact". Listening to this bit a second time I couldn't help interpreting what was happening was that the chairman was putting pressure on the US Government to make disproportionate contributions to make up for China's lack of medication, and that the Biden administration's representative was prepared to agree. This is all the more surprising when we consider the fact that the US is hugely indebted to China, apparently to the tune of over a trillion US dollars:
The second video focuses on trade and travel. There is an announcement from the fake news channel GNN that essentially warns that bad actors on social media (including some politicians) are calling for travel bans from affected countries (@3:10):
In some countries politicians are adding to the noise and confusion through social media
They show an example comment with the text:
Ban all goods and travel from infected countries. We don't need the risk!!!
The news presenter then seamlessly turns into a political pundit (without even so much as a costume change to indicate that she is assuming a different role), and expresses the opinion that:
It's safe to say we face a tough dilemma, the movement of people may facilitate the spread of CAPS but interruptions to travel and trade may have economic consequences that are just as bad.
The camera then moves back to the discussion where they discuss this problem in more detail (@4:00). Jane Halton, who is on the board of ANZ bank, which apparently is Australia and New Zealand's second largest bank, makes a rather astonishing statement (@9:50):
Unless we bring this pandemic under control, the question of the economy is redundant.
Let's just pause and reflect for a moment on the fact that she is a banker and here she is making statements about the impact of a possible pandemic caused by an airborne respiratory virus; shouldn't an epidemiologist be making such assessments?
Adrian Thomas, (the Vice President Global Public Health at Johnson & Johnson) makes another pitch for financing in this video (@11:00):
we need help, we need public funding to be able to expand the capacity of our anti-retrovirals, without that we cannot meet the demand.
Obviously to those who believe that the pandemic that was to come just six weeks later was a real pandemic, this could sound like a very public-spirited request for funding to help. However, if you take a more critical view and question whether the supposed pandemic that followed was at best vastly exaggerated, then you might consider the above statement to be a cynical attempt by the private sector to lobby for finance from the government. Although AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson both claimed that they would provide the injections at cost, as time goes by and there are increasingly calls for regular boosters, it is looking increasingly as if they are going to abandon their apparently altruistic stance, indeed AstraZeneca has already hinted at this:
AstraZeneca's promise to keep prices low extends only for the "duration of the pandemic". It could start charging higher prices as early as next year, depending on the path of the disease.
In short, obviously private companies cannot go on operating "at cost" indefinitely. What seems beyond doubt is that some countries have already made huge profits, and in March The Guardian reported that Johnson & Johnson's share price had risen by 7.7%:
The companies in line for the biggest windfalls – and the shareholders who have already made fortunes
The claim that some critical players were too big to fail was made (@19:40), Eduardo Martinez (who is described as President of the UPS Foundation and UPS Chief Diversity & Inclusion Officer):
I would like to think that we are too big to fail, or let fail, but I do believe you need to keep the supply chains open
Here are representatives of a number of very big corporations basically telling governments that they will have to give them cash in the event of a major pandemic, and that they, the corporations should be considered to be too big to fail in such an "unfolding crisis". A representative of Johnson & Johnson also called for a relaxation of regulations (i.e. of safeguards) for vaccination approval. Just 6 weeks later the world's media began reporting that a real pandemic was underway, a pandemic with very eery similarities to the one they had been simulating. Was this simply an incredible coincidence, is Bill Gates just a well-meaning philanthropist with incredible foresight, or is something more sinister going on here? Perhaps you should withhold judgement on that until you read my next and final post on Event 201, coming soon.
More on Gates Foundation entanglements with the pharmaceutical industry:
A USA Today headline falsely claiming Anthony Fauci and Bill Gates have “no ties” to Moderna is illustrative of a major problem with our media.
This article draws our attention to a page at the Moderna website that confirms they have received funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation:
In January 2016, we entered a global health project framework agreement with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to advance mRNA-based development projects for various infectious diseases.
What do you think? Please leave a comment below.