Pandemic Preparedness Exercises

Preparing for what?

As is often the case, it was a BBC article that caught my eye and inspired me to write about the topic. The article in question, published on 16th January, is entitled Large UK-wide pandemic preparedness tests planned this year and begins,

“Emergency service teams, local councils and government officials will take part in a full, multi-day pandemic preparedness exercise, to help the UK prepare for potential future threats.”

If you don’t live in the UK, you may think this article is not relevant to you, but I’d suggest otherwise and ask you to continue reading.

The starting point is to become aware, if you aren’t already, of ‘the bigger picture’, which is that this is intended to be applied everywhere, as can be seen on the June 2024 WHO web page entitled Pandemic prevention, preparedness and response accord that states,

“Member States of the World Health Organization have agreed to a global process to draft and negotiate a convention, agreement or other international instrument under the Constitution of the World Health Organization to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.”

In other words, it seems more than likely that this type of ‘pandemic preparedness exercise’ will be introduced into all of the WHO 194 Member States at some stage - if they can.

On that WHO web page are various questions and responses that can be seen on dropdown boxes. Below is one question and response that is extremely pertinent to my point about the likelihood of these ‘exercises’ being implemented in many, if not all WHO Member States; or attempts to implement them if they can. In support of this idea, I would draw your attention to the reference to ‘a global commitment to work together’.

What I find particularly noteworthy is the last point about ‘a stronger and more accountable WHO’, except that I’d also ask the question: To whom are they accountable? It is clear that the WHO is attempting to gain ‘strength’ - but I’d suggest that it is more accurate to say it is attempting to gain ‘greater control’.

So what is going on?

In common with virtually all of these topics, there are many aspects to consider.

The first - taking the statements at face value for the time being at least - is to question why they are able to claim that there is likely to be another ‘pandemic’. After all, even in their own terms, the last one, often referred to as the Spanish Flu, occurred more than a century ago. What is the basis for the idea that there will be another one in the near future?

I know being prepared for emergencies has its uses, but resources are claimed to be limited for dealing with real, existing emergencies, so why are they diverting funds to this?

Failed Citizens

The reason for the new ‘pandemic preparedness tests’ is stated to be because, according to the UK Covid Enquiry that was launched in June 2022, the ‘Covid pandemic’ was not handled correctly, as the BBC article states,

“The test, which is likely to take place in the autumn, will involve thousands of people across different parts of the UK, minister Pat McFadden has announced.

The plans come in response to the first set of recommendations made by the Covid-19 Inquiry - the ongoing public inquiry into the handling of the pandemic.

The chair of the inquiry, Baroness Hallett, found the UK was "ill-prepared" for the coronavirus pandemic, and "failed" its citizens.”

I totally agree - but we were all failed, not just those of us who live in the UK. Except that the failure was not for the reasons they’re claiming, but because we were all propagandised about an allegedly ‘new and deadly virus’.

Within the BBC article there are links to 2 other articles both dated July 2024, one of which, UK ‘failed citizens’ with flawed pandemic plans, continues the ‘failed’ theme, as the title indicates, and states,

“The national pandemic response exercise will be the first of its kind in nearly a decade, designed to test capabilities, plans and procedures in the face of new threats, the government says.”

This is followed by the extremely interesting comment that,

“The government has also committed to training 4,000 people a year to be better prepared for crises such as pandemics, through a UK resilience academy, planned to open in April.”

So a ‘resilience academy’ is to be set up to train people to be prepared!

Anyone familiar with the 2030 Agenda will recognise that ‘resilience’ has become one of the words du jour of the establishment. Yes, we do need to be resilient, but not in the way it is being used within these agendas.

For me, this ‘academy’ can be better described as yet another ‘indoctrination camp’, where students will be conditioned to believe in stories about ‘germs’, especially ‘viruses’, being responsible for a vast range of diseases - despite the fact that there is no evidence, and never has been, that any ‘germ’ is the cause of any disease.

Continuing the theme of resilience, the BBC’s ‘failed citizens’ article refers to the problems within the health system, as described in the first report of the ‘Enquiry’, and states that,

“It also pointed out the UK lacked resilience, with high rates of ill-health and public services running close to - if not beyond - capacity.”

This is yet more propaganda, as witnessed by the allegedly ‘overworked’ staff who still managed to find time to create dance routines, and share them on social media, at the ‘height’ of the pandemic.

Furthermore, there is ample evidence from people who work in the system, as well as from people who managed to take video footage, to show that many hospitals were far from ‘running beyond capacity’ but instead were reported to have been close to or even completely empty!

The Report

I have no intention of reading all 217 pages - there’s no point when I know it’s full of propaganda - but I did scan through the Report for the relevant ‘highlights’ that provide some useful insights, such as this statement in the Introduction by Baroness Hallett,

“The impact of the disease did not fall equally. Research suggests that, in the UK, mortality rates were significantly higher among people with a physical or learning disability and people with pre-existing conditions, such as dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, heart disease, high blood pressure and diabetes. People from some ethnic minority groups and those living in deprived areas had a significantly higher risk of being infected by Covid-19 and dying from it.”

It is true that there was a higher mortality rate among people with pre-existing conditions - but not because they ‘caught Covid’. There are a few different reasons for the higher mortality rate in this group. One of them is that they were subjected to high dose ‘antiviral’ treatments or other ‘medications’ that worsened their health and precipitated their death. And there is no evidence that ‘viruses’ target people living in deprived areas, so the claim that these people have a higher risk of being ‘infected’ is ridiculous. They may well have a higher risk of ill-health, but that would be for other reasons - for the real reasons people experience poor health.

The above-cited BBC article also referred to ‘vulnerable groups’ and indicated what this information is to be used for,

“The Covid-19 inquiry report found the pandemic had a disproportionate impact on vulnerable groups.

“A new national "vulnerability map" will be produced, Mr McFadden says, to highlight populations who may be vulnerable in a crisis, using data on age, disability, ethnicity and whether someone is receiving care.

“It is designed to help people get more targeted local support.”

The reference to ‘targeted support’ suggests to me that one of the objectives of this ‘exercise’ is to create justification for obtaining personal details from certain groups of people, if not everyone, under the claim that it is required in order to ‘help the most vulnerable’.

It also seems to me that this ‘targeted support’ may be connected to efforts to introduce ‘Assisted Dying’ legislation, because it would permit the use of information gathered from people classified as ‘vulnerable’ to target them for what will euphemistically be called ‘information campaigns’. This is speculation on my part of course, but…

Science and Experts

The second BBC article dated July 2024 that is linked in the 16th January article, is entitled How the UK planned for the wrong pandemic.

My initial thought was: What on earth do they mean by ‘wrong’ pandemic?

According to the article, the idea is based on the approach that was taken during what is referred to as the ‘swine flu pandemic’ - except there was no such ‘pandemic’ in 2009, which is a whole other topic. The key point about that episode was the attempt to roll out a massive vaccination programme, which did not work as they had anticipated. Clearly they are attempting a different approach this time.

The article also refers to ‘missed opportunities’ and states that,

“The UK did not learn from east Asian countries like Taiwan, South Korea and Singapore. They had used their experience of other coronavirus outbreaks, of Mers (Middle East respiratory syndrome) and Sars (Severe acute respiratory syndrome), to put in place plans to quickly scale-up test and trace systems and introduce quarantine processes. Border control measures, including travel restrictions and testing, could also deployed (sic).”

Yet again, there were no ‘Mers’ or ‘Sars’ outbreaks caused by any ‘virus’.

There is an interesting section in the article that claims, under the heading Science groupthink,

“But it was not just the politicians and the system that contributed to mistakes.

The scientists – so often lauded at the start of the pandemic – also have a case to answer, Baroness Hallett’s report makes clear.

She said they had become infected with groupthink – no-one was challenging the orthodoxy.”

The idea that ‘no-one was challenging the orthodoxy’ would be highly amusing, if the consequences weren’t so tragic.

The truth is that there were many of us who were challenging the orthodoxy from the very early days of the ‘pandemic’, but our voices were not heard because what we were saying did not follow the script.

The article continues,

“It said ministers did not do enough to challenge what they were being told and there was not sufficient freedom or autonomy in the way the various advisory groups were set up for dissenting voices to be heard.”

The fact is that no genuine ‘dissenting voices’ were allowed to be heard.

None of the ‘scientific advisors’ involved would have been those who know the truth about the ‘germ theory’. So the discussions were limited to those ‘scientists’ who accepted the ‘germ theory’ narrative, even if they may have had slightly different ideas about the measures that should have been adopted and about the injections when they were introduced.

The discussions that were allowed were only within a narrow framework, one that strictly adhered to the notion that there was a new and dangerous ‘virus’ causing widespread disease! This can be seen by the Introduction to the Report by Baroness Hallett which refers to the situation using the standard propaganda message about the ‘pandemic’,

“In late December 2019, a cluster of cases of pneumonia of an unknown origin were detected in the city of Wuhan in the Hubei province of China. A new virus, a strain of coronavirus, was subsequently identified and named as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The viral pathogen SARS-CoV-2 and the disease that it caused, Covid-19, spread across the globe.”

In addition, the report claims that ‘Covid’

“…killed millions of people worldwide and infected many millions more. As at March 2024, the World Health Organization stated that there had been more than 774 million confirmed cases and over 7 million deaths reported globally, although the true numbers are likely to be far higher.”

This is grossly misleading. Yes, people were ill and people died, but there were no deaths due to ‘Covid’.

The Introduction to the Report states that,

“The Covid-19 pandemic caused grief, untold misery and economic turmoil. Its impact will be felt for decades to come.”

This is absolutely true; the impact of the alleged ‘pandemic’ will certainly be felt for a very long time.

Planning or Creating?

According to the Report, a better system of giving advice is required, but will they accept advice from genuine experts, not just those who follow the narrative?

One of the statements in the Introduction seems to me to be the Key message they are attempting to convince us all to accept as true,

“It is not a question of ‘if’ another pandemic will strike but ‘when’. The evidence is overwhelmingly to the effect that another pandemic – potentially one that is even more transmissible and lethal – is likely to occur in the near to medium future. Unless the lessons are learned, and fundamental change is implemented, that effort and cost will have been in vain when it comes to the next pandemic.”

The questions I would raise about this are:

• Where is the ‘evidence’ that another pandemic is likely to occur?

• What is the idea that it could be ‘even more transmissible and lethal’ based on?

• What ‘evidence’ do they have that it will happen in the ‘near to medium’ future?

In addition, I would like to highlight what has become a recognised phenomenon; which is that ‘exercises’ have a strange habit of becoming reality. This can be seen with Event 201, an exercise held at the Johns Hopkins Center in October 2019 that discussed a scenario that very closely mirrored what soon afterwards became the ‘Covid pandemic’.

Coincidence? I think not!

This is how the event is described on the website,

“The exercise will illustrate the pandemic preparedness efforts, response decisions, and cooperation required from global businesses, governments, and public health leaders that the world will need to diminish the large-scale economic and societal consequences of a severe pandemic.”

This sounds very similar to what the UK government is proposing, albeit on a different scale, don’t you think?

However, my purpose is not to add to the fear-mongering.

I agree that we do have the opportunity to change the outcome of any new ‘pandemic’, although not in the way it’s being suggested to us.

Instead, to make a difference, what it will take is for a significant percentage - not necessarily 100% - to become aware that there is no evidence, and there never has been, that any so-called ‘germ’ is the cause of any so-called ‘disease’. The decisions of the people who are fully aware of this will therefore be based on all of the information they need to make their decisions about what actions to take.

And this is the reason I continue to write about this topic; to help provide as much information as I can to as many people as possible, so that you can all make informed decisions in the face of any reports about any new ‘pandemic’.