Remember Silverstein, the dude who cashed some billions insurance for the WTC towers that fell on 9/11?
I’ve often likened that event and the Plandemic and guess what: the Plandemic has its own Silversteins. Possibly same ones at the top of the tops.

About a year ago I wrote a big expose on how the banksters and the mob that gravitate around the World Bank set up the current world order and the Plandemic. I’m afraid you have to start there, no way around it if you want to get the big picture.
Also read: (1ST ANNIVERSARY SPECIAL) SOROS A ROTHSCHILD FRONTMAN, FORGED IMF-CHINA ALLIANCE. WE’RE LIVING THE CONSEQUENCES
I’ve never stopped adding evidence since and it’s overflowing. This new piece deserves its own feature.

THE SHORT COURSE FOR THE ADD-AFFLICTED

THE LONG COURSE, BECAUSE EVIL HIDES IN DETAILS

May 2016 – The World Bank announces the creation of the Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility (PEF)

The event took place at the G7 Finance Ministers and Central Governors meeting in Sendai, Japan. The PEF is a scheme to channel funding to countries facing a major disease outbreak with pandemic potential.

2017 – The creation of the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board

The Global Preparedness Monitoring Board (GPMB) is an independent monitoring and accountability body co-convened by the World Bank and World Health Organization, created in response to recommendations by the UN Secretary General’s Global Health Crises Task Force in 2017.

Despite progress made since the West Africa Ebola crisis in 2014/15, GPMB’s 2019 report, A World At Risk noted an increasingly dire risk of widespread epidemics, and found that the world remained unprepared. GPMB warned that epidemic-prone diseases like Ebola, influenza and SARS were increasingly difficult to manage in the face of prolonged conflict, fragile states, and forced migration.

June 2017 – World Bank Launches First-Ever Pandemic Bonds to Support $500 Million Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility

Washington, DC, June 28, 2017 – The World Bank (International Bank for Reconstruction and Development) today launched specialized bonds aimed at providing financial support to the Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility (PEF), a facility created by the World Bank to channel surge funding to developing countries facing the risk of a pandemic.

This marks the first time that World Bank bonds are being used to finance efforts against infectious diseases, and the first time that pandemic risk in low-income countries is being transferred to the financial markets.

The PEF will provide more than $500 million to cover developing countries against the risk of pandemic outbreaks over the next five years, through a combination of bonds and derivatives priced today, a cash window, and future commitments from donor countries for additional coverage.

The transaction, that enables PEF to potentially save millions of lives, was oversubscribed by 200% reflecting an overwhelmingly positive reception from investors and a high level of confidence in the new World Bank sponsored instrument. With such strong demand, the World Bank was able to price the transaction well below the original guidance from the market. The total amount of risk transferred to the market through the bonds and derivatives is $425 million.

“With this new facility, we have taken a momentous step that has the potential to save millions of lives and entire economies from one of the greatest systemic threats we face,” World Bank Group President Jim Yong Kim said. “We are moving away from the cycle of panic and neglect that has characterized so much of our approach to pandemics. We are leveraging our capital market expertise, our deep understanding of the health sector, our experience overcoming development challenges, and our strong relationships with donors and the insurance industry to serve the world’s poorest people. This creates an entirely new market for pandemic risk insurance. Drawing on lessons from the Ebola Outbreak in West Africa, the Facility will help improve health security for everyone. I especially want to thank the World Health Organization and the governments of Japan and Germany for their support in launching this new mechanism.”

Source

The World Bank announced the creation of the PEF in May 2016 at the G7 Finance Ministers and Central Governors meeting in Sendai, Japan. The PEF will quickly channel funding to countries facing a major disease outbreak with pandemic potential. Its unique financing structure combines funding from the bonds issued today with over-the-counter derivatives that transfer pandemic outbreak risk to derivative counterparties. The structure was designed to attract a wider, more diverse set of investors.

The PEF has two windows. The first is an ‘insurance’ window with premiums funded by Japan and Germany, consisting of bonds and swaps including those executed today. The second is a ‘cash’ window, for which Germany provided initial funding of Euro 50 million. The cash window will be available from 2018 for the containment of diseases that may not be eligible for funding under the insurance window.

The bonds and derivatives for the PEF’s ‘insurance’ window were developed by the World Bank Treasury in cooperation with leading reinsurance companies Swiss Re and Munich Re. AIR Worldwide was the sole modeler, using the AIR Pandemic Model to provide expert risk analysis. Swiss Re Capital Markets is the sole book runner for the transaction. Swiss Re Capital Markets and Munich Re are the joint structuring agents. Munich Re and GC Securities, a division of MMC Securities LLC are co-managers.

Swiss Re Capital Markets Limited, Munich Re and GC Securities were also joint arrangers on the derivatives transactions.

The bonds will be issued under IBRD’s “capital at risk” program because investors bear the risk of losing part or all of their investment in the bond if an epidemic event triggers pay-outs to eligible countries covered under the PEF.

The PEF covers six viruses that are most likely to cause a pandemic. These include new Orthomyxoviruses (new influenza pandemic virus A), Coronaviridae (SARS, MERS), Filoviridae (Ebola, Marburg) and other zoonotic diseases (Crimean Congo, Rift Valley, Lassa fever).

PEF financing to eligible countries will be triggered when an outbreak reaches predetermined levels of contagion, including number of deaths; the speed of the spread of the disease; and whether the disease crosses international borders.

The determinations for the trigger are made based on publicly available data as reported by the World Health Organization (WHO).

Countries eligible for financing under the PEF’s insurance window are members of the International Development Association (IDA), the institution of the World Bank Group that provides concessional finance for the world’s poorest countries. The PEF will be governed by a Steering Body, whose voting members include Japan and Germany. WHO and the World Bank serve as non-voting members.

The World Bank has developed some of the most innovative catastrophe risk insurance instruments in the market to help developing countries manage risk. In the past ten years the institution has executed approximately $1.6 billion in catastrophe risk transactions.

IBRD Pandemic Bonds Distribution by Investor Type and Location
Distribution by Investor TypeClass AClass B
Dedicated Catastrophe Bond Investor61.7%35.3%
Endowment3.3%6.3%
Asset Manager20.6%16.3%
Pension Fund14.4%42.1%
Distribution by Investor LocationClass AClass B
US27.9%15.0%
Europe71.8%82.9%
Bermuda0.1%2.1%
Japan0.2%0.0%
IBRD Pandemic Bonds Summary Terms and Conditions*
Type of NoteClass AClass B
Issuer:International Bank for Reconstruction and DevelopmentInternational Bank for Reconstruction and Development
Trade Date:June 28, 2017June 28, 2017
Final Size (Bond only)**USD 225 millionUSD 95 million
Settlement Date:July 7, 2017 July 7, 2017
Scheduled Maturity Date:July 15, 2020 extendable monthly in whole or in part, up to a maximum of 12 months following the Scheduled Maturity DateJuly 15, 2020 extendable monthly in whole or in part, up to a maximum of 12 months following the Scheduled Maturity Date
Issue Price:100%100%
Bond Coupon:6m USD LIBOR +6.50%6m USD LIBOR +11.10%
Covered Perils:Flu, CoronavirusFilovirus, Coronavirus, Lassa Fever, Rift Valley Fever and Crimean Congo Hemorrhagic Fever
Redemption Amount:The Notes will not be fully repaid if an event occursThe Notes will not be fully repaid if an event occurs

 (*) Please see the Supplemental Prospectus for a detailed description of the Terms and Conditions of the bonds, the related risks with regard to an investment in the bonds and the relevant offering restrictions. Any offer of the bonds will solely take place on the basis of the Supplemental Prospectus prepared by the World Bank or on behalf of the World Bank. 
(**) There was an additional $105 million size done in the derivatives market.

Our take out from this?
Remember the strange numbers reported during the first “casedemic of 2020”? They determined how much money WB pays and to whom.
But WB and the funky bunch are also behind WHO, so it’s safe to say controlled the situation at all times and could arbitrarily decide whatever.

WORLD BANK SAYS COVID-19 TEST KITS ARE BEING SOLD SINCE 2017

2018 – World Bank Group’s Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility (PEF) Welcomes Australia as New Donor

WASHINGTON, JUNE 21, 2018 — The World Bank Group’s Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility (PEF)  welcomes Australia as a donor to the PEF, joining Japan and Germany. Australia is contributing US$7.2 million to the PEF’s Cash Window, which was set up through an initial contribution from Germany. Australia will also now be a voting member of the PEF Steering Body.

“With this contribution to the PEF, Australia is supporting the scaling up of national and international responses to infectious disease outbreaks,” said the Hon Julie Bishop MP, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Australia“We are committed to working with international partners to reduce the risk of global pandemics and improve health security for all.”

“The PEF ensures that we break the cycle of panic and neglect which has so far characterized the global approach to pandemics,” said Annette Dixon, Vice President, Human Development at the World Bank Group. “It is a key example of the World Bank Group’s commitment to creating innovative financing mechanisms to tackle complex global challenges, working with country governments, donors, international partners and the private sector.”

“The robust and swift contribution of the PEF just in the past week has underlined its role as a new model for financing pandemic response with speed and flexibility,” said Mukesh Chawla, Coordinator of the PEF and Advisor, World Bank Group. “It ensures that money is never the reason holding back effective response.”

The PEF, set up by the World Bank Group in partnership with Japan, Germany, the World Health Organization (WHO), and private sector partners, has been operational since July 2017 and consists of both a cash and an insurance component.  The PEF’s $425 million Insurance Window with premiums funded by Japan and Germany, consists of bonds placed on the capital markets. This would be triggered if a much larger, multi-country response is needed. All activation criteria are based upon publicly available data provided by the WHO. The PEF covers 78 of the world’s poorest countries against pandemic threats and is the first mechanism to be expressly designed for this purpose.


Source

May 2019 – updates on Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility


Image

Click here to zoom in.


The Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility (PEF) – a financing mechanism housed at the World Bank  –  is designed to provide an additional source of financing to help the world’s poorest countries respond to cross-border, large-scale outbreaks.  The PEF complements the much larger role that IDA, the World Bank’s fund for the poorest countries, and other international organizations and donors play in financing outbreak response. The PEF’s design is unique in that payments can go directly to governments and pre-approved frontline responder organizations (such as WHO & UNICEF) and it can do so through either its cash window — or once triggered through its insurance window.

Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility (PEF) Framework

PEF Operational Brief

PEF Operations Manual

PEF Accreditation Guidelines

PEF Prospectus (Term Sheet)

PEF Brochure | Spanish | French | Russian

February 2020 – Is the whole thing is designed to fail?

The Street does a really good job at explaining the scheme:
“In June 2017, the World Bank — the international financial institution that provides loans to poorer countries — sold around $425 million (€391 million) worth of bonds and derivatives aimed at providing financial support to developing countries facing the risk of a pandemic.

The less risky tranche of the bonds will not be paid back to investors if there are more than 2,500 deaths in developing countries as a result of a pandemic. Although China has recorded more than this number of deaths, the World Bank does not designate it a developing country.

By far the riskier of the two bonds is “Class B,” which sold $95 million in bonds (compared to $225 million for the less risky “Class A,” explained above). For Class B, if the disease crosses an international border and if there are at least 20 deaths in that second country, the investors’ money will be paid to developing countries dealing with the outbreak.

I do not come up with $425 million total. $225 million plus $95 million does not total $425 million.

Only those class B bonds are going to trigger.

An international crisis is brewing. There are 19 deaths in Iran, 12 in Italy, and 12 in South Korea.

One more death in Iran is all it takes unless there are other restrictions.

Designed to Fail

Bodo Ellmers, the director of the Global Policy Forum’s sustainable development finance program told the Financial Times the instrument was “useless.”

You obviously want to prevent a pandemic but it only pays out when it becomes a pandemic,” he said.

Olga Jones, who worked as an economist at the World Bank for three decades, said it was absurd that discussions for a second round of bonds for what is known officially as the Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility (PEF) had begun, as they were effectively “designed to fail.”

Many critics have also pointed to the fact that the severe attack of Ebola that hit the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2018 did not meet the conditions to trigger payment of the pandemic bonds despite the fact that almost 500 people died and that it was one of the largest outbreaks ever recorded.

Payout and Maturity

The Class A bonds feature an interest rate of 7% while the Class B bonds’ rate is 11%.

According to the PEF, around $75.5 million had been paid to bondholders in the form of premiums as of August 2019. The full amount paid in interest and coupons has not been disclosed. The bonds are set to mature in July 2020.

Painful Problem

The Wall Street Journal discusses the Painful Problem With Pandemic Bonds

“The idea behind pandemic bonds, issued by the World Bank in 2017, is simple: They pay investors a solid return, but if a pandemic breaks out, the principal is redirected to help low-income countries pay for their emergency response.

An investor who doesn’t do the legwork is liable to get burned when the bonds don’t behave as expected. At 386 pages, the prospectus for the World Bank’s class-B securities isn’t a light read.

The second and larger problem with pandemic bonds is one they don’t share with other catastrophe-related securities. During extreme events, they don’t offer a source of returns uncorrelated with major capital markets—one of the things buyers like most about the asset class.

Pandemic bonds are most likely to be triggered just as equities tumble and concerns about companies’ ability to finance themselves come to the fore, as now. In short, the asset class is uncorrelated with wider markets—except at the exact moment when that matters most. Then it is suddenly very correlated.”

Questions Abound

These bonds pay interest. How does the Wold Bank pay that interest?

Generally, companies issue bonds for expansion and expect to pay the debt back from future profits or current income.

What is the World Bank invested in or doing with the money to pay way above market rates?

Only the $95 million in class B bonds will trigger. But at 11% interest with a maturity date coming up, most of that money has been paid out.

Even if some developing nations do end up receiving pandemic bond money, it will be a trivial sum when compared with the economic damage from a sustained coronavirus pandemic.

Meanwhile the class A bond buyers have been collecting 7% with virtually no chance of losing their money by July of 2020 because China is not a developing nation.

The whole setup makes no sense unless failure was the intent all along.” – The Street

Or, unless it’s designed to not trigger more than conveniently, like electronic poker. – Silview

Intent is the hardest thing to demonstrate in the justice system. Except in this case. WB put years of effort in elaborating a “maze of confusion” when it comes to the bonds’ triggers, to avoid payment, as a former WB expert testifies in the Bloomberg video below. All that effort weighs now as evidence of premeditation. There’s literally a few kilos of evidence available, if printed.

The Guardian got it, but can’t fully say it

World Bank’s $500m pandemic scheme accused of ‘waiting for people to die’

Bonds designed to provide fast funding for poor countries branded ‘obscene’ because of complex payout criteria

A flagship $500m World Bank scheme to help the poorest countries deal with a health emergency is “too little too late” for the coronavirus outbreak, say health experts.

The first pandemic emergency financing (PEF) bonds were launched in 2017 by Jim Yong Kim, the bank’s president at the time, after the Ebola outbreak in west Africa. Designed to potentially “save millions of lives and entire economies” by speedily funnelling money to nations facing pandemics.

But critics say the “insanely complicated” terms of the high-interest bonds are heavily skewed towards investors, while for the victims any payouts may come too late, if at all.

One economist described the bonds, payouts from which depend on how deadly the outbreak is, as “obscene”.

Olga Jonas, a senior fellow at Harvard Global Health Institute who was an economist at the World Bank for three decades, said: “The whole mechanism is highly unfortunate. The objectives were to help the poorest countries respond quickly to outbreaks. Infectious disease spreads exponentially and the coronavirus has a very rapid growth rate. But the bonds only get triggered when the disease has spread for a long time.”

Jonas, who has analysed the bonds’ terms, said they were “so convoluted, it is not at all clear whether they will pay out at all. It is too little, too late – and in this case, maybe never.

“What’s obscene is that the World Bank set it up this way. It waits for people to die.”

Funds can only be released after a certain amount of time and in accordance with complex criteria including outbreak size, growth rate, deadlines and death tolls. In the case of coronavirus, the bonds would not pay out until 12 weeks after the World Health Organization (WHO) publishes its first “situation report”, which would not be until 23 March. Another criterion is that the outbreak is still growing.

The bonds, funded by donor nations Japan and Germany, deliver interest payments to investors until the conditions for an infectious disease outbreak are triggered.

The value of the bonds has halved as the coronavirus outbreak has spread, raising fears investors could face losses.

Meanwhile, the WHO has appealed for £520m for “frontline efforts” to contain coronavirus. The disease has infected more than 82,000 people and killed over 2,800 people in 51 countries to date, but has not yet been declared a pandemic by the WHO.

Clare Wenham, assistant professor in global health policy at the London School of Economics, said: “If you really wanted to ensure global health security you would link the payout of the bonds to a decision around declaring a public health emergency of international concern or a national emergency.”

Wenham co-authored a paper criticising pandemic bonds in which it was found that more money was paid out to investors than to countries facing disease outbreaks. Payments would have only been triggered in two out of more than 60 disease outbreaks analysed – Ebola in west Africa and rift valley fever in 2006, the paper found.

Wenham said: “If the aim of it is to prevent pandemics, why would you wait for arbitrary numbers? Global health security is predicated on prevention rather than response, so waiting for it to get to a certain number of deaths in a certain number of countries before they pay out, is counterintuitive. It is not fit for purpose.

“No one has thought about it holistically. If public health officials have made a declaration of a global health emergency of international concern, there should be some mechanism for financing so that the WHO doesn’t have to go around the houses asking for money.”

Bodo Ellmers, director of Global Policy Forum’s sustainable development finance programme, said: “The idea was that it would be a quick instrument, but it was set up with such stringent criteria that the risk for investors is very low. The design, taking the number of dead people as a criteria, is very cynical.”

The scheme’s “fundamental flaw” is that it was aimed at preventing a pandemic but would only pay out when a pandemic was already underway, said Ellmers.

The World Bank said a PEF payout had been triggered after the Ebola outbreak of 2018 and 2019 in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, providing a total of $61.4m to fight the disease.

The bank added that it has rolled out a series of tools to better assist countries during critical outbreaks, epidemics and pandemic threats.

It is capable of fast-tracking funds via existing projects and could fund emergency operations within three months – although in past cases, such as Ebola, it had provided support within two weeks.

Around the same time, February 2020, Washington Examiner doesn’t have the guts to put out such conclusion, but confirms pretty much everything else:

“Investors betting big against catastrophic diseases are watching the World Health Organization closely as insurance bonds tied to whether the organization labels COVID-19 a pandemic are set to mature in June.

In 2017, the World Bank designed a new way to raise money: Pandemic Emergency Financing bonds. Over $425 million worth of such bonds, which bet against a global outbreak of infectious diseases and will default if WHO declares the coronavirus a pandemic, were sold by the World Bank in its first-ever issuance of catastrophe bonds. In the event of no pandemic, investors would be paid a healthy annualized return. Meanwhile, the World Bank could use the bonds to insure itself against the risk of a global outbreak.

“As an investor, we do not want to lose money,” said Chin Liu, a portfolio manager at Amundi Pioneer, a Boston-based firm that purchased the bonds as a way to diversify the company’s $1 billion catastrophe fund. “But then, we also understand if it’s unfortunately triggered, it benefits every single person, including ourselves, to keep the virus controlled.”

For large-scale investors looking for above-average returns in a bloated market, the bonds were the next logical place to hedge against disaster. At the time of issuance, then-World Bank President Jim Yong-Kim heralded the bonds as an opportunity to leverage “capital market expertise to serve the world’s poorest people.”

The bonds were administered in two tranches, with Class A bond investors receiving a return of 6.9% annually. Class B bond investors received 11.5% annually. The World Bank raised $225 million in Class A bonds and $95 million in Class B bonds.

The investors, mainly endowments and pension funds, have long bet against natural disasters such as hurricanes, but the 2017 issuance of the bonds marked a shift in the market. Before, investors were betting on the wind speed of hurricanes, but now, they were betting on the likelihood of an infectious disease that could tear through nations across the globe.

“This marks the first time that World Bank bonds are being used to finance efforts against infectious diseases, and the first time that pandemic risk in low-income countries is being transferred to the financial markets,” read a statement from the World Bank at the time of issuance.

The conditions under which the payout on bonds will default are staggered based on how rapidly the disease spreads, the number of deaths associated with the illness, and whether the virus crosses international borders.

March 2020 -more people start to wake up to the scam.

Jacobin Mag: “Twelve weeks passed on March 23, and death is raining down on countries rich and poor. More than 770,000 cases of coronavirus have been reported worldwide, and in some places, infections and deaths are doubling every few days. Yet the World Bank says that eligible countries — so far Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria, Cambodia, Senegal, and Nepal — won’t know if they will get any money until April 9 at the earliest.

This is despicable. Even wealthy countries are failing to contain the deadly virus. Poor countries that, for centuries, have seen their wealth and resources pilfered and plundered by rich nations, are facing down a tidal wave of infection and death without adequate medical supplies and facilities. Millions of people in these countries have compromised immune systems due to malnutrition, live in housing and communities that make social distancing impossible, and lack even the most basic necessities of disease prevention, such as access to water and soap for handwashing.

However, in this moment of crisis, when every second counts, global capital is sitting on its hands, holding desperately needed funds hostage as investors decide whether they are required to honor their end of the deal.

The pandemic bonds were advertised by the World Bank as a great way to “tackle social ills through private investment.” Instead, the bonds are yet another example of how hollow most so-called ESG investment is. They demonstrate how private investors have an uncanny ability to profit from social ills — and how, even in times when global solidarity is desperately needed, global capital can’t seem to look past the bottom line.”

APRIL 2020 – THE WORLD IS SCANDALIZED, THE WORLD BANK ACCEPTS TO PAY A LITTLE OVER HALF THE MONEY

The beginning of the month sees surprising attacks on WB, even from usual allies, who probably have to think of their media reputation before WB’s

So, finally, on April 20, 2020, WB makes the big announcement:

“All activation criteria including outbreak size, spread and growth have been met,” the World Bank said in an update on its website, referring to the coronavirus outbreak, adding PEF bonds and swaps were expected to pay out $195.84 million. (Out of 322 milion – S.m)

A steering body will now meet to determine how to allocate the funds to so-called IDA countries – a group of 76 of the world’s poorest nations, the World Bank said. The committee is made up of Australia, Germany, Japan, the World Health Organization, UNICEF, the World Bank, and two IDA countries – currently Haiti and Liberia…

Campaigners have also been critical of the complex structure of the instrument, which requires five variables on the number of deaths, the velocity of its spread and its geographical spread to be reached before paying out.

This had been an obstacle to quick deployment, said Bodo Ellmers, director of sustainable development finance at Global Policy Forum, an independent policy watchdog.

“If those funds had been paid out earlier they could have been used to prevent the spread in some of those poor countries – the later you intervene the costlier it gets, in terms both of lives and money needed to remedy the situation,” he said.

Deutsche Welle reports: “The World Bank’s bond sale was 200% oversubscribed, meaning investors saw moneymaking opportunities with the high-yield returns on offer. Most buyers came from Europe, and included specialized catastrophe bond investors as well as asset managers and pension funds.

According to Bloomberg, asset managers including Bailie Gifford, Amundi and Stone Ridge Asset Management are among those who hold the riskier Class B bonds.

The interest and coupon payments made to investors have been funded largely by the donor nations Japan and Germany.  The Class A bonds feature an interest rate of 7% while the Class B bonds’ rate is 11%.

According to the PEF, around $75.5 million had been paid to bondholders in the form of premiums as of August 2019. The full amount paid in interest and coupons has not been disclosed. The bonds are set to mature in July 2020.”

We later found out that investors made about 96 million in 2020.
The governments who donated for this have no money of their own, they spend your money.

December – 2020 WB still pounded by media and investors for PEF’s failure:

India Times delivered the best indictment in mainstream media, from what I’ve seen so far:

How pandemic bonds became the world’s most controversial investment

In late January 2015, just after the deadliest outbreak of Ebola in history, then-World Bank President Jim Yong Kim stood in front of a group of Georgetown University students and professors to introduce a new approach to fighting pandemics.

Fresh from the annual gathering of power brokers and policy makers in Davos, Kim described a new type of financial product – “pandemic bonds” – that he hoped would persuade private investors to swell the World Bank’s coffers. …

Five years later, Summers had some different words for Kim, though you probably won’t hear the former World Bank president repeat them in public. The approach was “a dumb idea,” Summers said in a February 2020 email to a Harvard colleague seen by Bloomberg News. Modeled on catastrophe debt that pays insurance claims on natural disasters, the program was too complicated and ultimately unnecessary, he suggested, “like me insuring my toaster.”

Trumpeted by the World Bank at their launch as an innovative example of a public-private partnership, pandemic bonds have since become the subject of intense criticism for failing to divert money fast enough to battle deadly waves of Ebola and Covid-19. Academics from Harvard to the London School of Economics have lambasted the program for being ineffective and expensive, and the World Bank has confirmed it won’t issue a second round of the debt.

But the pandemic bonds weren’t designed to default at the earliest sign of a pandemic. The 386-page prospectus for the debt covered a range of outbreaks including Ebola, influenza and coronaviruses and spelled out very specific conditions for writedown – an effort to automate the typically political process of distributing funds. The list of triggers was long and complex, balancing investors’ desires for a long payout stream with the World Bank’s need to disburse the money to countries that need it. “We had to think through how this instrument should actually function, what kind of diseases should be addressed,” said Ivo Menzinger, who leads the group responsible for public sector solutions at Swiss Re. “During that process it got considerably broader.”…

when Ebola returned in 2018 to ravage West Africa again, the bonds failed to trigger. The virus killed almost 2,300 in the Democratic Republic of Congo, but per the criteria in the prospectus, it didn’t spread far enough, fast enough to qualify as a pandemic. In an effort to avoid political grappling over donor funds, the pandemic bonds relied on mechanical triggers that failed to fire. So investors kept getting paid interest and retained their principal. Meanwhile, the World Bank allocated $61 million from the PEF’s “cash window” – the discretionary portion of money funded by donor contributions – to help fight the outbreaks.

Even when Covid-19 began to sweep the globe earlier this year, it was unclear whether the bonds would get written down. The coronavirus had killed almost 150,000 people in dozens of countries before the casualty rates aligned with the “exponential growth” requirement set out in the bond prospectus. On April 16, more than five weeks after the WHO had declared a global pandemic, AIR Worldwide issued a report confirming that the conditions for a writedown had been met, diverting $132.5 million to the World Bank for disbursement. A further $63.3 million came from the swaps struck with Munich Re and Swiss Re.

“The triggers had to be late and they had to be convoluted and complex to reduce the probability that the financing would be triggered,” says Olga Jonas, a critic of the bonds who worked for more than three decades at the World Bank …

Meanwhile, the World Bank quietly announced it would not be issuing a second round of the debt. Unlike the launch of the pandemic bonds, the news came with little fanfare; it was just one line added to their website.

“The issues raised by COVID-19 are profound and require a deep rethinking of our pandemic response infrastructure,” Kim said. “If we can say that the PEF got it wrong, it wouldn’t be the only institution or instrument that got it wrong.”

Read more at:
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/markets/bonds/how-pandemic-bonds-became-the-worlds-most-controversial-investment/articleshow/79655582.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

What silview.media makes of all these facts

Learning what we have learned about the World Bank worrying about an impending economic collapse and, in parallel, setting up this pandemic, one may be confused how all this falls together in the grand scheme. Failing to see it is due to overcomplication, I suspect. Brush off the meaningless details and go for the essential questions:

How did this work, most basically?
Fabricated disease fearmongering and unrealistic promises persuaded some fools to transfer money to some con artists, under various pretenses.
WHO benefitted?
The con artists and the Great Reset budgets.
Who lost?
The total morons who haven’t yet learned why it’s not good to swim with sharks, no matter how you see yourself. And if it’s not good to swim with them, giving them money sounds even dumber.
Where have we seen this “business model” before?
Vaccines / WHO / GAVI…

EPILOGUE

APRIL 2021: WHO BOSS MENTIONS THE BONDS ON THE LIST OF THEIR PAST SUCCESSES

Around min. 13 in the video below.

MARCH 2021: WB RELAUNCHES CATASTROPHE BONDS

We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

ORDER

History​ lessons we haven’t learned. After the Renaissance, most human abominations had been backed by fabricated “science​ consensus”, it became a good sales pitch in some cases. The idea that the health of the public is more important than the health of the individual is older, and it’s the perfect excuse for eugenics; it has been revitalized and modernized by Nazis, and the Fourth Industrial Revolution aka The Fourth Reich is normalizing it now​. Pharmafia​ and its lemmings are deeply involved in the Nazi experiments (Bayer/Monsanto/BASF especially).
No abuse could’ve happened without the participation of those who took on themselves to protect us from suffering. Today, the people who “care” have aligned behind our planetary kidnappers, and the people who science for health have since normalized cancer in kids. It’s a never-ending self-feeding pandemic​ of moral failure and low intellectual effort

“Cizik School of Nursing has created a REMI Platinum Award-winning documentary film that tells the grim cautionary tale of nurses who participated in the Holocaust and abandoned their professional ethics during the Nazi era. The 56-minute film, Caring Corrupted: the Killing Nurses of the Third Reich, casts a harsh light on nurses who used their professional skills to murder the handicapped, mentally ill and infirm at the behest of the Third Reich and directly participated in genocide.” – Cizik School of Nursing

The Cizik School of Nursing at Health University of Texas is ranked in the Top 12 Percent of graduate nursing programs nationwide, according to the latest survey results by U.S. News and World Report. Nurse Anesthesia master’s/doctorate program (at No.8) still is ranked by U.S. News in the Top 10 in the U.S. Since 1972, Cizik School of Nursing has granted more than 12,022 nursing degrees to its graduates. For more information, go to: https://nursing.uth.edu/

DOWNLOAD PDF

UPDATE;

AMAZING INTERVIEW WITH HOLOCAUST SURVIVOR AND HUMAN RIGHTS CHAMPION VERA SHARAV CONFIRMS EVERYTHING WE’VE SHOWN AND MORE

Stand for Health Freedom recently had the honor of sitting down with Holocaust survivor Vera Sharav and capturing her personal story on film. It’s a story that every individual needs to hear.

Ms. Sharav is the founder and president of the Alliance for Human Research Protection, a nonprofit public watchdog organization dedicated to upholding informed consent in medicine. A renowned champion of human rights and expert in biomedical research ethics, Ms. Sharav offers rare and valuable insights into the public health arena and state of emergency affecting each and every one of our lives. She also shines a light on the corruption plaguing our national vaccine program —  and the decades-long targeting of Blacks, Hispanics and other minorities for unethical medical experiments.

You can learn more about Ms. Sharav and her pioneering work to protect children and human research subjects at ahrp.org.

Epilogue:

We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

We gave up on our profit shares from masks, if you want to help us, please use the donation button!
We think frequent use, even short term use can be bad for you, but if you have no way around them, at least send a message of consciousness.
Get it here!

Are the (Over)Lords Predictable or What?!

What actual African people think on this matter (say hello from me!):

WHAT AFRICAN HEADS OF STATE MAKE OF THIS:

We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

We gave up on our profit shares from masks, if you want to help us, please use the donation button!
We think frequent use, even short term use can be bad for you, but if you have no way around them, at least send a message of consciousness.
Get it here!

Whatever happened to Rule #0 in true journalism: “verify every statement from three or more independent sources”?! Mainstream media is just commentary and unverified press releases. This research below gets as close to the requirements as it can in this heavily censored and gate-kept environment. But it also aligns with everything we’ve already published on this matter (quite a lot) unlike Fauci’s words align with themselves.
You may have heard already some of this news as it goes viral, but it’s our original combo that puts to rest the entire official pandemic narrative.

Judicial Watch has just uncovered correspondences from Dr. Anthony Fauci outlining his focus on being in compliance with the Chinese Communist Party and their demands on the USA for COVID restrictions. And two more bombshells align.

“These new emails show WHO and Fauci’s NIH special accommodations to Chinese communist efforts to control information about COVID-19,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

From the press release Judicial Watch has put out on Monday :

Judicial Watch announced today that it and the Daily Caller News Foundation (DCNF) received 301 pages of emails and other records of Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. H. Clifford Lane from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services showing that National Institutes of Health (NIH) officials tailored confidentiality forms to China’s terms and that the World Health Organization (WHO) conducted an unreleased, “strictly confidential” COVID-19 epidemiological analysis in January 2020.

Additionally, the emails reveal an independent journalist in China pointing out the inconsistent COVID numbers in China to NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases’ Deputy Director for Clinical Research and Special Projects Cliff Lane.

The emails were obtained in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by Judicial Watch on behalf of the DCNF (Daily Caller News Foundation v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services(No. 1:20-cv-01149)).

The lawsuit was filed after HHS failed to respond to the DCNF’s April 1, 2020, FOIA request seeking:

  • Communications between Dr. Fauci and Deputy Director Lane and World Health Organization officials concerning the novel coronavirus.
  • Communications of Dr. Fauci and Deputy Director Lane concerning WHO, WHO official Bruce Aylward, WHO Director General Tedros Anhanom, and China.

The new emails include a conversation about confidentiality forms on February 14-15, 2020, between Lane and WHO Technical Officer Mansuk Daniel Han. Han writes: “The forms this time are tailored to China’s terms so we cannot use the ones from before.”

A WHO briefing package sent on February 13, 2020, to NIH officials traveling to China as part of the COVID response ask that the officials wait to share information until they have an agreement with China: “IMPORTANT: Please treat this as sensitive and not for public communications until we have agreed communications with China.”  

In an email dated January 20, 2020, a WHO official discusses the epidemiological analysis they conducted of COVID-19 earlier that month and states that it is “strictly confidential,” is “only for,” the Strategic and Technical Advisory Group for Infection Hazards (STAG-IH), and “should not be further disseminated.”

In an email dated March 4, 2020, from Chinese journalist Zeng Jia to Lane, a reporter for Caixin Media, points out to Fauci deputy Cliff Lane that the number of cases reported in the WHO Joint China Mission’s report are inconsistent with the number reported by the Wuhan Public Health Committee:

It says on Page 6 [in the WHO report] that there was at least one clinically diagnosed case of coronavirus on December 2th, 2019, in Wuhan; and from Jan 11th to 17th there were new clinically diagnosed and confirmed cases every day in Wuhan, which is not consistent with Wuhan Public Health Committee’s numbers.

In an email dated February 15, 2020, Gauden Galea, head of the WHO office in China, informs the joint mission members traveling to China that all of their activities in China would be arranged by the Chinese Government’s National Health Commission.

“These emails set the tone early on in the coronavirus outbreak. It’s clear that the WHO allowed China to control the information flow from the start. True transparency is crucial,” said Ethan Barton, editor-in chief for the Daily Caller News Foundation.  

“These new emails show WHO and Fauci’s NIH special accommodations to Chinese communist efforts to control information about COVID-19,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

This is the latest information obtained in Judicial Watch and the DCNF’s ongoing investigation into Fauci’s and NIH’s response to the coronavirus pandemic. Judicial Watch and the DCNF previously uncovered emails showing a WHO entity pushing for a press release, approved by Dr. Fauci, “especially” supporting China’s COVID-19 response.  

And this comes just 10 days after Taiwan News unearthed another bombshell we’ve just learned about:

TAIPEI (Taiwan News, 2021/01/18 00:31) — Video taken just days before the start of the coronavirus pandemic shows a current World Health Organization (WHO) inspector discuss the testing of modified coronaviruses on human cells and humanized mice in the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), just weeks before the first cases of COVID-19 were announced in the city of Wuhan itself.

In a video that was originally taken on Dec. 9, 2019, three weeks before the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission announced an outbreak of a new form of pneumonia, virologist Vincent Racaniello interviewed British zoologist and president of EcoHealth Alliance Peter Daszak about his work at the nonprofit to protect the world from the emergence of new diseases and predict pandemics. Since 2014, Daszak’s organization has received millions of dollars of funding from the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), which it has funneled to the WIV to carry out research on bat coronaviruses.

In the first phase of research, which took place from 2014 to 2019, Daszak coordinated with Shi Zhengli, (石正麗), also known as “Bat Woman,” at the WIV on investigating and cataloging bat coronaviruses across China. EcoHealth Alliance received US$3.7 million in funding from the NIH for this research and 10 percent was channeled to the WIV, reported NPR.

The second, more dangerous phase, which started in 2019, involved gain-of-function (GoF) research on coronaviruses and chimeras in humanized mice from the lab of Ralph S. Baric of the University of North Carolina. Funding for the program was withdrawn by the NIH under the Trump administration on April 27 amid the pandemic.

At the 28:10 mark of the podcast interview, Daszak states that researchers found that SARS likely originated from bats and then set out to find more SARS-related coronaviruses, eventually finding over 100. He observed that some coronaviruses can “get into human cells in the lab,” and others can cause SARS disease in “humanized mouse models.”

He ominously warned that such coronaviruses are “untreatable with therapeutic monoclonals [antibodies] and you can’t vaccinate against them with a vaccine.” Ironically, he claims that his team’s goal was trying to find the next “spillover event” that could cause the next pandemic, mere weeks before cases of COVID-19 were beginning to be reported in Wuhan.

When Racaniello asks what can be done to deal with coronavirus given that there is no vaccine or therapeutic for them, Daszak at the 29:54 mark appears to reveal that the goal of the GoF experiments was to develop a pan-coronavirus vaccine for many different types of coronaviruses.

Based on his response, it is evident that just before the start of the pandemic, the WIV was modifying coronaviruses in the lab. “You can manipulate them in the lab pretty easily.” What he then mentioned has become the telltale trait of SARS-CoV-2, its spike protein: “Spike protein drives a lot of what happens with the coronavirus, zoonotic risk.”

Daszak mentions the WIV’s collaboration with Baric: “and we work with Ralph Baric at UNC [University of North Carolina] to do this.” As has been suggested by proponents that SARS-CoV-2 is a chimera made in a lab, he speaks of inserting the spike protein “into a backbone of another virus” and then doing “some work in the lab.”

Providing evidence of the creation of chimeras for the sake of a vaccine, he states “Now, the logical progression for vaccines is, if you are going to develop a vaccine for SARS, people are going to use pandemic SARS, but let’s try to insert these other related diseases and get a better vaccine.”

Based on Daszak’s statements, it appears that just before the start of the pandemic, the WIV was using GoF experiments with chimeras in an attempt to create a vaccine. These experiments appeared to have included infecting mice genetically modified to express the human ACE2 protein with these chimeras.

In a presentation titled “Assessing Coronavirus Threats,” which was delivered four years before the pandemic in 2015, Daszak points out that experiments involving humanized mice have the highest degree of risk. Demonstrating his close ties with the WIV, he also listed the lab as a collaborator at the end of the presentation. – Taiwan News

WHO inspector caught on camera revealing coronavirus manipulation in Wuhan before pandemic
(Assessing Coronavirus threats, Peter Daszak image)

Controversially, Daszak has been included among a team of experts from the WHO that has finally been allowed by Beijing to investigate the origin of the outbreak of COVID-19, over a year after it started. Scientists such as Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University in New Jersey, are condemning Daszak’s participation due to conflicts of interest “that unequivocally disqualify him from being part of an investigation of the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic,” reported the Daily Mail.

“Peter Daszak’s organisation channelled cash to Wuhan scientists at the centre of growing concerns over a cover-up – and also collaborated on the sort of cutting-edge experiments on coronaviruses banned for several years in the United States for fear of sparking a pandemic.

The Wuhan Institute of Virology has been carrying out this risky research on bat viruses since 2015, including the collection of new coronaviruses and hugely controversial ‘gain of function’ experiments that increase their ability to infect humans.Peter Daszak¿s organisation channelled cash to Wuhan scientists at the centre of growing concerns over a cover-up

Peter Daszak’s organisation channelled cash to Wuhan scientists at the centre of growing concerns over a cover-up

Many leading scientists argue that deliberately creating new and infectious microbes poses a huge danger of starting a pandemic from an accidental release, especially as leaks from laboratories have often occurred.

Despite his close ties to the Wuhan Institute of Virology – and the way he has orchestrated efforts to stifle claims that the pandemic might not have happened naturally – Dr Daszak was invited by the World Health Organisation to join its team of ten international experts investigating the outbreak.

The prominent scientist, who runs a conservation charity originally founded by the famous naturalist and best-selling author Gerald Durrell, is also leading an investigatory panel on the pandemic’s origins set up by The Lancet medical journal

‘Peter Daszak has conflicts of interest that unequivocally disqualify him from being part of an investigation of the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic,’ said Richard Ebright, bio-security expert and professor of chemical biology at Rutgers University in New Jersey.

‘He was the contractor responsible for funding of high-risk research on Sars-related bat coronaviruses at Wuhan Institute of Virology and a collaborator on this research.’

Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance, has seen his career take him from researching rare land snails at Kingston University to his new key role investigating the eruption of the most destructive pandemic for a century.

The pugnacious scientist, originally from Manchester, spent much of the past year trying to counter claims of a possible laboratory leak while defending his friend Shi Zhengli, the Wuhan scientist known as Batwoman for her virus-hunting trips in caves.

‘Ignore the conspiracy theories: scientists know Covid-19 wasn’t created in a lab,’ ran the headline to one typical article he wrote in The Guardian.

But other scientists say there is no firm evidence at this stage to back Daszak’s insistence that Covid-19 crossed from animals to humans via natural transmission. Many point to the simple yet startling coincidence that Wuhan is home to Asia’s main research centre on bat coronaviruses as well as the place where the pandemic erupted.

Emails released through freedom of information requests have shown Daszak recruited some of the world’s top scientists to counter claims of a possible lab leak with publication of a landmark collective letter to The Lancet early last year. He drafted their statement attacking ‘conspiracy theories suggesting that Covid-19 does not have a natural origin’ and then persuaded 26 other prominent scientists to back it. He suggested the letter should not be identifiable as ‘coming from any one organisation or person’.

The signatories include six of the 12-strong Lancet team investigating the cause of the outbreak.

Yet it has emerged that Daszak had previously issued warnings over the dangers of sparking a global pandemic from a laboratory incident – and said the risks were greater with the sort of virus manipulation research being carried out in Wuhan.

In October 2015, he co-authored an article in the journal Nature on ‘spillover and pandemic properties of viruses’ that identified the risk from ‘virus exposure in laboratory settings’ and from ‘wild animals housed in laboratories’.

Seven months earlier, Daszak was a key speaker at a high-powered seminar on reducing risk from emerging infectious diseases hosted by the prestigious National Academies of Science in Washington. 

Among materials prepared for the meeting was a 13-page document by Daszak entitled ‘Assessing coronavirus threats’ that included a page examining ‘spillover potential’ from ‘genetic and experimental studies’.

This identified steps that increased dangers from such research – rising from lower risk sampling of viruses through to the highest risk from experiments on infecting isolated cells and on so-called ‘humanised mice’ – animals created for labs with human genes, cells or tissues in their bodies.

Yet on January 2 – three days after news broke outside China of a new respiratory disease in Wuhan – Daszak boasted on Twitter of isolating Sars coronaviruses ‘that bind to human cells in the lab’.

He added that other scientists have shown ‘some of these have pandemic potential, able to infect humanised mice’.

Another tweet two months earlier talked about ‘great progress’ with Sars-related coronaviruses from bats through identifying new strains, finding ones that bind to human cells and ‘using recombinant viruses/humanised mice to see Sars-like signs and showing some don’t respond to vaccines’.

Daszak also told a podcast that bat coronaviruses could be manipulated in a lab ‘pretty easily’, explaining how their spike proteins – which bind to human receptors in cells – drive the risk of transmission from animals to humans.” – Daily Mail

We gave up on our profit shares from masks, if you want to help us, please use the donation button!
We think frequent use, even short term use can be bad for you, but if you have no way around them, at least send a message of consciousness.
Get it here!

In light of the WHO’s trip to Wuhan, a researcher who goes by the pseudonym Billy Bostickson and his colleagues at DRASTIC (Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19) have created a petition demanding that the international investigation team answer 50 key questions about the outbreak in Wuhan. Among the questions is a request to access to the facility’s database and laboratory records, which are supposed to go back 20 years and include a look at its safety procedures, safety audit reports, and safety incident reports.

And it gets even more explosive when we put all these in line with Daily Caller’s discovery that Daszak and his WHO commission boss have a long history of sucking China’s heels:

The chairman of a blue-ribbon commission working with the United Nations and the World Health Organization to investigate the origins of the coronavirus pandemic has a history of praising and working with China while criticizing the U.S. government.

Jeffrey Sachs, a Columbia economist, formed the Lancet COVID-19 Commission, affiliated with the prominent British medical journal of the same name, in July 2020 to investigate the virus’s origins.

Commission member Peter Daszak, a zoologist who is on the Lancet commission, served as the only American on a WHO team that recently visited Wuhan, China, to investigate the spread of the virus.

Daszak has been accused of having conflicts of interest due to millions of dollars of grants he has received from the U.S. government for research with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which some U.S. officials have said may have been the initial, accidental source for the coronavirus.

Daszak, Sachs and the Chinese government have all vehemently disputed the so-called lab leak theory.

Also: Google has stakes in the Astrazeneca Covid jab

Sachs has also come under some scrutiny in the past for his praise of Chinese government initiatives and his appearances on China state-controlled media outlets criticizing the Trump administration.Does the COVID commission chief have a history of praising China?Yes No  Completing this poll entitles you to WND news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

In June 2020, Sachs accused the U.S. government of “trying to create a new cold war” with China.

“The U.S. is a force for division, not for cooperation,” he told the BBC in a June 21, 2020, interview.

In December 2018, he called the U.S. government “today’s greatest threat to the international rule of law” and “global peace” after the U.S. asked Canada to arrest an executive with the Chinese tech firm Huawei.

And in an interview last month, Sachs deflected questions about China’s human rights abuses against Muslim Uighurs, saying that there are “huge human rights abuses committed by the U.S. on so many fronts.”

He also accused former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo of “stirring the pot to raise tensions” after the diplomat criticized Chinese authorities’ crackdown on pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong.

The Lancet COVID-19 Commission has afforded Sachs access to both the United Nations and the WHO, both of which have been accused of appeasing the Chinese government amid fallout over Beijing’s early cover up of the severity of coronavirus.

The commission’s website says it partners with The Lancet, the prominent medical journal, and with the United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network, which was formed in 2012 by then-UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon.

It is unclear what influence the Lancet commission has had on WHO and UN’s coronavirus related efforts, but Sachs co-hosted an online forum on Dec. 17 with the WHO to discuss Asian countries’ handling of the pandemic.

Sachs, who served as an adviser to the UN from 2002 to 2018, also met with the president of the United Nations General Assembly on Jan. 22 to discuss the Lancet commission’s work.

Sachs has also appeared on CNN to tout a study he co-authored at Columbia in October that estimated that then-President Donald Trump’s policies were responsible for between 130,000 and 210,000 additional COVID-19 deaths.

The Lancet commission claimed in its early statements that it would investigate all theories about the virus origins with an open mind, though remarks from Daszak and Sachs both suggest that they dismissed the lab leak theory long ago.

The commission listed 10 priorities for action in its initial statement on Sept. 14, 2020.

The top priority, the commission said, was to “Track down the origins of the virus in an open, scientific, and unbiased way not influenced by geopolitical agendas.”

Daszak, who leads the New York-based EcoHealth Alliance, said in a statement on Nov. 23 that the commission would conduct “a thorough and rigorous investigation” into the early spread of the virus.

But emails recently released by U.S. Right to Know, a health care watchdog group, show that Daszak organized a group of 27 scientists back in February 2020 to sign a letter published by The Lancet calling the accidental lab leak hypothesis a “conspiracy theory.”

U.S. Right to Know asserted that the emails show Daszak had made up his mind about the theory nearly a year before he joined the WHO team investigating the virus origins in China.

Daszak, along with many other scientists, have embraced the theory that the virus jumped from an animal species to humans, likely at a food market in Wuhan.

The watchdog group has also accused Daszak and the EcoHealth Alliance of having a conflict of interest because of grants the group has received from the U.S. government for work with the Wuhan lab.

Sachs also dismissed the lab leak theory before the Lancet commission had investigated the virus’s origins.

In a virtual discussion in September, Sachs called the lab leak hypothesis “an extremely dangerous point,” but said it was “important” to publicly dispute it.

Daszak has been one of the more vocal members of the 17-member WHO investigative team.

After State Department spokesman Ned Price said on Feb. 9 that the U.S. government planned to independently review the WHO team’s findings, Daszak shot back on Twitter, urging: “don’t rely too much on U.S. intel.”

The leader of the WHO team, Peter Ben Embarek, said last week that the theory that the virus was the result of an accidental lab leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology was “extremely unlikely.”

The New York Times declared Embark’s remarks a “public relations win” for the Chinese government since officials there have long denied the lab leak hypothesis.

The WHO’s assessment has been met with wide skepticism, even within President Joe Biden’s administration, which has defended the WHO against conservative threats to defund it over its alleged appeasement of China.

Jake Sullivan, the Biden administration’s national security adviser, issued a statement Saturday saying the U.S. was “deeply concerned” by reports that Chinese authorities withheld raw data on early coronavirus cases from the WHO investigators.

Some scientists have cast doubt on the WHO’s findings, pointing to Daszak’s role on the team.

“I was not surprised at all about the conclusions of the WHO. Having Daszak on board and deciding to visit a few labs in Wuhan only after pressure from the media was not very promising,” Rossana Segreto, a researcher at the University of Innsbruck, told the Daily Caller.

While Sachs has no apparent financial ties to the Wuhan lab, he has for years been a reliable defender of China’s foreign and domestic policy. From 2001 to 2002, he advised China’s State Development Planning Commission, which sets the communist regime’s economic policies.

Sachs became a frequent guest of China’s state-controlled media outlets to voice criticism of Trump’s aggressive stance toward Beijing. The Washington Free Beacon reported some of his comments last year after progressive Democrats floated Sachs for a position in the Biden administration’s Treasury Department.

In an interview in April 2020 with CGTN, which the U.S. government considers a Chinese propaganda outlet, Sachs called Trump’s threat to cut funding to the WHO “disgusting” and “disgraceful.”

Trump had called for defunding the WHO based on allegations that it had failed to hold the Chinese government accountable for withholding data about the coronavirus.

Republicans accused WHO leaders of avoiding confrontation with China over the communist regime’s early handling of information about the coronavirus. In some cases, Beijing provided false information about the transmission of the virus and the number of cases detected in China.

On Jan. 14, 2020, the WHO cited Chinese authorities making the now-debunked claim that coronavirus was likely not infectious.

Sachs does not appear to have criticized the Chinese government over its bungled pandemic response.

Prior to the pandemic outbreak, Sachs contributed to a position paper released in November 2018 by Huawei, which manufactures surveillance equipment that the Chinese government has used to track Uighurs.

Sachs praised China’s poverty alleviation program during an interview with another state-controlled TV network.

“China has done more to reduce extreme poverty in a short period of time than any other country in history,” Sachs told the Beijing-controlled Xinhua News Agency in an interview that aired earlier this month.

The Chinese consulate in Australia tweeted out the video.

Sachs has also refused to condemn the Chinese government for engaging in intellectual property theft, and for human rights abuses against Uighurs in western China.

Instead, he accused the U.S. in an interview last month of engaging in similar human rights abuses and underhanded business tactics.

“It strikes me as odd that American policymakers think that the United States alone ought to run the show, or that the United States ought to gang up with other countries to corner China, as if this was the Cold War with the Soviet Union,” he said in an interview with The Wire China.

“Thereʼs no purity in this topic,” Sachs continued. “Thereʼs a lot of industrial espionage and cheating by U.S. companies.”

Sachs deflected questions about China’s human rights abuses against Uighurs, which Tony Blinken, the secretary of state under Biden, recently characterized as a “genocide.”

“We have huge human rights abuses committed by the U.S. on so many fronts,” Sachs said in the interview.

Sachs was on the advisory board to the China Energy Fund Committee, a think tank funded by CEFC China Energy, a now-defunct energy conglomerate affiliated with China’s People’s Liberation Army.

Sachs appeared at several events hosted by Patrick Ho, the chairman of the think tank.

During one event, Sachs praised China’s economic sustainability initiative, One Belt, One Road, at a China Energy Fund Event held in 2016.

“This plan is a pivotal one for China,” Sachs said at the event, according to China Daily.

Patrick Ho, the chairman of the think tank, was indicted and convicted on charges that he offered bribes on behalf of CEFC China Energy to two African leaders to purchase oil rights in their countries.

CEFC China paid Hunter Biden $6 million from August 2017, including $1 million to represent Ho.

Federal prosecutors obtained a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant on Ho based on the suspicion that he was working as a secret foreign agent, according to court filings in his case.

Sachs is also on the board of the Center for International Relations and Sustainable Development, a Serbian think tank founded by Vuk Jeremic, a former Serbian foreign minister who served as president of the UN General Assembly through 2012.

Jeremic testified at Ho’s trial that he made the introductions to the African officials who Ho tried to bribe.

Jeremic lobbied Hunter Biden to help him with his failed campaign for UN secretary-general in 2016, according to emails from Biden’s laptop.

The Lancet commission did not respond to questions about Sachs’ and Daszak’s past remarks, saying instead that the task force “will thoroughly and objectively review all publicly available evidence, and conduct interviews with key leaders in diverse fields.”

A spokesperson for the commission said that investigators “will carefully assess all leading hypotheses that have been raised about the origins of COVID-19, from a natural zoonotic event to a laboratory release.”

The commission plans to publish a final report in the Lancet.

Sachs did not respond to a detailed list of questions. – the Daily Caller News Foundation

As reported by GreatGameIndia last year, Chinese officials deleted 300 studies of Batwoman Shi Zhengli from the top secret Wuhan lab linked to the origins of COVID-19. Details of more than 300 studies, including many investigating diseases that pass from animals to humans are no longer available.

Last year a Beijing-based media group Caixin published a shocking report that the Hubei Provincial Health and Medical Commission ordered the destruction of Coronavirus samples.

Five years ago, Italian state owned media Company, Rai – Radiotelevisione Italiana, exposed these Chinese experiments on viruses.

The video, which was broadcast in November, 2015, showed how Chinese scientists were conducting biological experiments on a SARS connected virus believed to be Coronavirus, derived from bats and mice, asking whether it was worth the risk in order to be able to modify the virus for compatibility with human organisms.

The person who covered-up this biological experiments and orchestrated the myth of the natural origin of COVID-19 is Peter Daszak.

The President of EcoHealth Alliance, Peter Daszak is the one who orchestrated the myth that COVID-19 is natural in origin.

Emails obtained by U.S. Right to Know show that the statement in The Lancet authored by 27 prominent public health scientists condemning “conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin” was organized by employees of EcoHealth Alliance.

I mean, correlation does not prove causation, but it proves correlation, and that’s bad enough. No way in hell can anyone claim the “autoritah” is telling the truth.

Also read:

BREAKING! CHINA ADMITS THE BIGGEST LIE, THE WEST AND BIG TECH COMPLICIT
trailer
EXCLUSIVE: GATES, FAUCI AND SLAOUI HAVE LONG BEEN COOKING AND SELLING SCANDALOUS VACCINES TOGETHER. IT’S A CARTEL
(1ST ANNIVERSARY SPECIAL) SOROS A ROTHSCHILD FRONTMAN, FORGED IMF-CHINA ALLIANCE. WE’RE LIVING THE CONSEQUENCES

We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

Sometimes my memes are 3D. And you can own them. Or send them to someone.
You can even eat some of them.
CLICK HERE

The testimonies may be only implicit, but they can’t be any more solid and legit.

Let’s play in a paradigm where we and YTFT (YouTube, Facebook, Twitter) recognize same figures as authoritative.

What would happen if I made a video claiming no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus, like this Twit above, which is still live on many platforms?
What if I’d be just genuinely naive (like they assume we all are) and I’d bump into this Twit without following up for updates and retractions? And then I’d spread that claim around?
I’d go straight to internet jail, maybe even offline jail. Unlike other people.

Don’t trust us, verify and consider the following facts:

  1. Each and every medical organization on the planet has retracted or adjusted medical information, since 2020 more than ever. Thus, they admitted the initial publications were actually wrong aka “misinformation”. It’s part and parcel of sciencing and that’s not the issue here, that’s the point: errors are scientist’s best teachers.
  2. YTFT has actively promoted this admitted misinformation, its terms and policies did nothing to stop it, proving they can’t arbiter jack shit.
  3. This misinformation has not been retracted from YouTube, persists there to this day. In fact, most of the science believed to be true today has been retracted
  4. Users who argued this misinformation have been deplatformed and their content has been erased, while the misinformation persists on all platforms.
  5. YTFT are not independent from, but massive investors in medical business.
  6. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy that has been abhorred by most science icons ever and only denotes scientific illiteracy.

Therefore, YTFT’s claim that they are in position to arbiter what is medical information is not only a blatant con job and misinformation, as proven by everything they do, it’s utterly insane. Anyone supporting it is accomplice in all their crimes. They can’t do better than the authorities they subject to, which have admitted to failure.
Which makes YTFT a huge threat to the global public health and security, given their immense global reach.

What happened to HCQ supporters on YTFT?

Bonus: Where is risk, there has to be freedom of choice, where is risky speech there has to be freedom of choice for speech (free speech, in short).


And if you needed me to explain such super-basic logic, you’re not intellectually equipped for survival and most likely you don’t have anymore time to catch up because the mental lazies stole the horizon from everyone. You are the virus, in fact. We’re better off if you go get a vaccine!
If you did figure this out by yourself, in your own terms, we need you to put some daily effort into spreading the truth and making our objection more powerful, it’s the only antidote to lies. You know what you have to do, thank you!
Ah, and also this:

We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

This just happened. And much more. As we’ve warned you since March, but people thought WHO can take better care of them. OK then…

It’s World Mental Health Day!
-Close to 1 billion people have a mental disorder
-Depression is a leading cause of illness & disability
-1 person dies every 40 seconds from suicide
-3 million people die every year due to harmful use of 🍻#MoveForMentalHealth: Let’s invest!

WHO

Meanwhile at CDC:

How did we end up here:

Me, March 2020:

The caring people: meh

Everyone in April:

Source

The caring people: meh

And so forth gradually building up until The Daily Telegraph and Sky News Australia ended up talking about “harrowing statistics” today:

Source

“Very sadly, more boys under the age of 18 in nine-months alone, than we’ve ever seen in Victoria over a full 12-month period have taken their life this year,”

Sky News

Per coincidence as ever, the suicide rates among Victoria’s teenagers are up over 30% this year, just like among US Army soldiers. I wonder what they had in common, right?

Army active-duty suicides are up 30% during the same time frame as COVID-19.

ABC News, October 2020

The caring people: meh

These “meh people” are the same ones who loudly and aggressively act as if they are entitled to free heaith care (mask-wearing) from their victims. How about some warm flegm instead?


We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

According to the reputed truth-gods of Fb, Gates and WHO and the other Event 201 attendees spewed Rona conspiracies in a video they made in October last year, which implies pre-science and vindicates the people calling covid a “plandem1c”


Many revere and admire the elites for their grandiose plan to enslave the whole humanity, but in fact all their plan is dumb AF from its fundamentals down to its executives, and this is just one of the many evidences.
I mean you want to control the world but you can’t even automate censorship on Internet and you end up shooting yourself in the both knees relentlessly? Imagine a fanfare of clowns with megalomaniac delusions, applauded by a congregation of geese. Covidiocracy is destined to cannibalise itself, starting with its propaganda machine, see the SJW/cancel culture.

I made this post very visual and simple so fact-checkers can understand it:
They targeted us but it’s their people’s video and it’s made last year. We work mainly with their sources precisely because they’re dumb and predictable and we knew we’ll have to deflect back these BS attacks when they occur. And they fell right into it as soon as they could. They’re a buncha morons with too much money and too many toys.

Basically, Facebook and a host of its “fact-checkers” such as USA Today, Factcheck.org and more, have claimed that one of our latest video uploads “repeats information identified by independent fact-checkers [themselves] as false”.

Thing is we’re not the authors of the content, we just mirrored (reuploaded) a video from Johns Hopkins, untouched, we’re just platforming these people, Facebook told us they’re good credible people :D.

Original source, pls watch all their videos, preferably the mirrors on our channel so we can benefit, not these conspiracy theorists! 😉



So the authors of the missinformation in the video are, among others:
WHO
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
World Bank
World Economic Forum
Johns Hopkins
Lufthansa
and many more

Bonus: the video has actually NOTHING, ZERO, 0 to do with the BS fact-checkers are munching there, it’s not about the man-made origins of the virus or anything like that.
Remember:

It doesn’t matter what Facebook says

Silviu “Silview” Costinescu
I think Facebook’s combat style is called Fact-Fu


I don’t know it but I bet factcheck.org took money from Gates to label him as a conspiracy head.

Please watch and share our Facebook upload, if not to raise awareness, at least just to piss off these douchebags!

First hour of the simulation is already on our Bitchute, Youtube, we have a BrandNewTube channel too now. All full of “conspiracies”.

At least good thing Facebook and its “independent fact-checkers” are not mere narrative-enforcers and smear-machines 😀

And if you got to here, you also need to read:

DIY: HOW TO EASILY PROVE FACEBOOK STEALS MONEY BY FAKING REPORTS

JOIN THE PEOPLE FOR FAUCI FASHION NOW! [UPDATED]

[EXCLUSIVE] FINAL EVIDENCE COVID-19 IS A ‘SIMEX’ – PLANNED SIMULATION EXERCISE BY WHO AND WORLD BANK

Our current Facebook cover

We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

SOURCE

It all comes round now…
World leaders dealt above our heads, played their games and kept the plebs in the dark using smoke-screens of technocratic lingo. The elites are resetting our lives. All about The Great Reset.

We got encores from Henry Makow for this one, which is cool, because he is one of the early truthers who helped me when information was scarce and I was hungry.

TIMELINE

  • 2005 WHO member countries sign the new International Health Regulations (IHR) which is basically the implementation of the Health Management chapter in The Great Reset, the tactical manual for the New World Order aka New Normal. The document envisions using drills to perfect the new system.
    Download IHR in PDF
  • 2010
Click here to watch the full speech
  • 2014 – The creation of The Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA), “a group of 69 countries, international organizations and non-government organizations, and private sector companies that have come together to achieve the vision of a world safe and secure from global health threats posed by infectious diseases”.
    It was launched by a group of 44 countries and organizations including WHO, as a five-year multilateral effort with the purpose to accelerate the implementation of IHR, particularly in developing countries. In 2017, GHSA was expanded to include non-state actors. It was also extended through 2024 with the release of the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) 2024 Framework (called “GHSA 2024”). The latter has the purpose to reach a standardized level of capacity to combat infectious diseases.
    All financed through the World Bank, of course. Which is controlled by the Rothschild cartel.
  • Rothschilds patent the first Covid-19 test kit in the Netherlands.
    According to Dutch Government’s website for patent registrations: “A method is provided for acquiring and transmitting biometric data (e.g., vital signs) of a user, where the data is analyzed to determine whether the user is suffering from a viral infection, such as COVID-19. The method includes using a pulse oximeter to acquire at least pulse and blood oxygen saturation percentage, which is transmitted wirelessly to a smartphone. To ensure that the data is accurate, an accelerometer within the smartphone is used to measure movement of the smartphone and/or the user. Once accurate data is acquired, it is uploaded to the cloud (or host), where the data is used (alone or together with other vital signs) to determine whether the user is suffering from (or likely to suffer from) a viral infection, such as COVID-19. Depending on the specific requirements, the data, changes thereto, and/or the determination can be used to alert medical staff and take corresponding actions.”
  • 2015
  • 2017-2018 – World Bank’s website reports massive shipments of COVID-19 medical devices (tests, mainly). See our previous reports.
  • 2019 In its first annual report, WHO and WB’s Global Preparedness Monitoring Board identifies the most urgent actions required to accelerate preparedness for health emergencies. This first report focuses on epidemics and pandemics.
    The document is “co-convened by the World Health Organization and the World Bank Group”.
    Under “Progress indicator(s) by September 2020“, the report states:

The United Nations (including WHO) conducts at least two system-wide training and simulation exercises, including one for covering the deliberate release of a lethal respiratory pathogen.
WHO develops intermediate triggers to mobilize national, international and multilateral action early in outbreaks, to complement existing mechanisms for later and more advanced stages of an outbreak under the IHR (2005).


Global Preparedness Monitoring Board

Countries, donors and multilateral institutions must be prepared for the worst.

A rapidly spreading pandemic due to a lethal respiratory pathogen (whether naturally emergent or accidentally or deliberately released) poses additional preparedness requirements. Donors and multilateral institutions must ensure adequate investment in developing innovative vaccines and therapeutics, surge manufacturing capacity, broad-spectrum antivirals and appropriate non-pharmaceutical interventions. All countries must develop a system for immediately sharing genome sequences of any new pathogen for public health purposes along with the means to share limited medical countermeasures across countries.

The United Nations must strengthen coordination mechanisms.


The Secretary General of the United Nations, with WHO and United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), must strengthen coordination in different country, health and humanitarian emergency contexts, by ensuring clear United Nations systemwide roles and responsibilities; rapidly resetting preparedness and response strategies during health emergencies; and, enhancing United Nations system leadership for preparedness, including through routine simulation exercises. WHO should introduce an approach to mobilize the wider national, regional and international community at earlier stages of an outbreak, prior to a declaration of an IHR (2005) Public Health Emergency of International Concern.


Progress indicator(s) by September 2020


• The Secretary-General of the United Nations, with the Director-General of WHO and Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs strengthens coordination and identifies clear roles and responsibilities and timely triggers for a coordinated United Nations systemwide response for health emergencies in different countries and different health and humanitarian emergency contexts.
• The United Nations (including WHO) conducts at least two system-wide training and simulation exercises, including one for covering the deliberate release of a lethal respiratory pathogen.
• WHO develops intermediate triggers to mobilize national, international and multilateral action early in outbreaks, to complement existing mechanisms for later and more advanced stages of an outbreak under the IHR (2005).
• The Secretary General of the United Nations convenes a high-level dialogue with health, security and foreign affairs officials to determine how the world can address the threat of a lethal respiratory pathogen pandemic, as well as for managing preparedness for disease outbreaks in complex, insecure contexts.

The chances of a global pandemic are growing. While scientific and technological developments provide new tools that advance public health (including safely assessing medical countermeasures), they also allow for disease-causing microorganisms to be engineered or recreated in laboratories. A deliberate release would complicate outbreak response; in addition to the need to decide how to counter the pathogen, security measures would come into play limiting information-sharing and fomenting social divisions. Taken together, naturally occurring, accidental, or deliberate events caused by high-impact respiratory pathogens pose “global catastrophic biological risks.” (15)


The world is not prepared for a fast-moving, virulent respiratory pathogen pandemic. The 1918 global influenza pandemic sickened one third of the world population and killed as many as 50 million people – 2.8% of the total population (16,17). If a similar contagion occurred today with a population four times larger and travel times anywhere in the world less than 36 hours, 50 – 80 million people could perish (18,19). In addition to tragic levels of mortality, such a pandemic could cause panic, destabilize national security and seriously impact the global economy and trade.


Trust in institutions is eroding. Governments, scientists, the media, public health, health systems and health workers in many countries are facing a breakdown in public trust that is threatening their ability to function effectively. The situation is exacerbated by misinformation that can hinder disease control communicated quickly and widely via social media.

“Who could’ve seen it?!” – September 2019 version
Independent” 😉

No, they are not worried about misinformation. They are worried about their agenda being countered by truths leaking out on social media.

In the “Progress to Date” section, we find the following snippet (page 19):

In 2017 Germany, India, Japan, Norway, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Wellcome Trust and the World Economic Forum founded the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) to facilitate focused support for vaccine development to combat major health epidemic/pandemic threats.

On page 25, they are worried about armed resistance to their imposition of vaccines. To quote,

Challenges to poliomyelitis (polio) eradication efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan and those experienced while containing the tenth Ebola outbreak in the DRC vividly demonstrate the impact that a breakdown in citizens’ trust and social cohesion can have on health emergency response. Consequences include attacks on both national and international health-care workers and delays or stoppages in response efforts. In some countries, waning trust in public health and government officials together with cultural and religious beliefs lead to is decreasing vaccination rates and leading to the re-emergence of measles and other vaccine-preventable diseases, a phenomenon found in communities at all economic and educational levels.

Page 34 proposes making ’emergency preparedness” a precondition for receiving loans and financial support from the IMF and the World Bank. To quote,

To mitigate the severe economic impacts of a national, regional epidemic and/or a global pandemic, the IMF and the World Bank must urgently renew their efforts to integrate preparedness into economic risk and institutional assessments, such as the IMF’s next cycle of Article IV consultations with countries, and the World Bank’s next Systematic Country Diagnostics for IDA credits and grants. The funding replenishments of the IDA, Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria, the and Gavi Alliance should include explicit commitments regarding preparedness.

Now here are the wonderful people who are members of the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board. Remember Fauci? Remember the Bill Gates Foundation? Other notables include a member of the Communist Party of China.

SOURCE: WHO

more info and resources:

We got banned for this! WEF openly admitted they ran a massive viral pandemic simulation in 2019

“Simulation exercises have been identified as a key voluntary instrument in the validation of core capacities under the “Implementation of the International Health Regulations: Draft 5-year draft global strategic plan to improve public health preparedness and response”, which was adopted by the seventy first World Health Assembly. Simulation exercises, along with After Action Reviews, represent the functional assessment of capacities and complement States Parties annual reporting, independent reviews, and joint external evaluations. They play a key role in identifying the strengths and gaps in the development and implementation of IHR capacities and to support countries to assess the operational capability of their national capacity for public health preparedness and response.” – WHO

Full-scale/field exercises (FSX):
“A full-scale exercise simulates a real event as closely as possible and is designed to evaluate the operational capability of emergency management systems in a highly stressful environment, simulating actual response conditions. This includes the mobilization and movement of emergency personnel, equipment and resources. Ideally, the full-scale exercise should test and evaluate most functions of the emergency management plan or operational plan. Differing from the FX, a full-scale exercise typically involves multiple agencies and participants physically deployed in an exercise field location.” – WHO

WHO elaborates on what a SimEx is in October 2019


Field exercises:
“See full-scale exercise. A field exercise is one form of full-scale exercise, focusing on more specific capacities or series of capacities, such as procedures for Rapid Response Teams (RRT), laboratory analysis or other sample collection and transport.”- WHO

Exercises are not one-time events, but should be undertaken as part of a carefully designed exercise program which ensures a common strategic objective is addressed. A comprehensive exercise program is made up of progressively complex exercises, which build upon the previous, until they are as close to reality as possible. This ‘building-block approach’ should start with basic exercises that test specific aspects of preparedness and response, followed by progressively complex exercises requiring additional preparation time and resources.

WHO

The figure below provides an illustration of the level of preparation and capacity needed for each exercise type.

Situation map as of September 10, 2020. US, Brasil, Australia, Scandinavia and other countries seem to conduct their own drills following a different agenda, and that matches the actual field situation
So what is WHO planning out for Ukraine?
Ukraine is certainly being “groomed” for a 2nd wave of Covidiocracy. Source

WHO has been laying out the plans to control mass gatherings since 2019

Read more
Read more
Source

Ever heard of “event 201”, the “crimson contagion”, “Clade X“, “Dark Winter“, or “Atlantic Storm“?

While Covid-19 is the largest so far, these simulations have a long history.

DOWNLOAD PDF

The photo above represents “The Department of Health and Human Services’ Covid-19 operations center in Washington. The department ran an extensive exercise last year simulating a pandemic” – NY Times

“The exercise played out in four separate stages, starting in January 2019.

The events were supposedly unspooling in real time — with the worst-case scenario underway as of Aug. 13, 2019 — when, according to the script, 12,100 cases had already been reported in the United States, with the largest number in Chicago, which had 1,400.

The fictional outbreak involved a pandemic flu, which the Department of Health and Human Services says was “very different than the novel coronavirus.” The staged outbreak had started when a group of 35 tourists visiting China were infected and then flew home to Australia, Kuwait, Malaysia, Thailand, Britain and Spain, as well as to the United States, with some developing respiratory symptoms and fevers en route.

A 52-year-old man from Chicago, who was on the tour, had “low energy and a dry cough” upon his return home. His 17-year-old son on that same day went out to a large public event in Chicago, and the chain of illnesses in the United States started.

Many of the moments during the tabletop exercise are now chillingly familiar.

In the fictional pandemic, as the virus spread quickly across the United States, the C.D.C. issued guidelines for social distancing, and many employees were told to work from home.” – NY Times

About the Event 201 exercise

According to their own website, “Event 201 was a 3.5-hour pandemic tabletop exercise that simulated a series of dramatic, scenario-based facilitated discussions, confronting difficult, true-to-life dilemmas associated with response to a hypothetical, but scientifically plausible, pandemic. 15 global business, government, and public health leaders were players in the simulation exercise that highlighted unresolved real-world policy and economic issues that could be solved with sufficient political will, financial investment, and attention now and in the future.

The exercise consisted of pre-recorded news broadcasts, live “staff” briefings, and moderated discussions on specific topics. These issues were carefully designed in a compelling narrative that educated the participants and the audience.

The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, World Economic Forum, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation jointly propose these recommendations.”

Purpose

In recent years, the world has seen a growing number of epidemic events, amounting to approximately 200 events annually. These events are increasing, and they are disruptive to health, economies, and society. Managing these events already strains global capacity, even absent a pandemic threat. Experts agree that it is only a matter of time before one of these epidemics becomes global—a pandemic with potentially catastrophic consequences. A severe pandemic, which becomes “Event 201,” would require reliable cooperation among several industries, national governments, and key international institutions.

Recent economic studies show that pandemics will be the cause of an average annual economic loss of 0.7% of global GDP—or $570 billion. The players’ responses to the scenario illuminated the need for cooperation among industry, national governments, key international institutions, and civil society, to avoid the catastrophic consequences that could arise from a large-scale pandemic.

Similar to the Center’s 3 previous exercises—Clade XDark Winter, and Atlantic Storm—Event 201 aimed to educate senior leaders at the highest level of US and international governments and leaders in global industries.

It is also a tool to inform members of the policy and preparedness communities and the general public. This is distinct from many other forms of simulation exercises that test protocols or technical policies of a specific organization. Exercises similar to Event 201 are a particularly effective way to help policymakers gain a fuller understanding of the urgent challenges they could face in a dynamic, real-world crisis.

Scenario

Details about the scenario are available here.

Recommendations

“The next severe pandemic will not only cause great illness and loss of life but could also trigger major cascading economic and societal consequences that could contribute greatly to global impact and suffering. The Event 201 pandemic exercise, conducted on October 18, 2019, vividly demonstrated a number of these important gaps in pandemic preparedness as well as some of the elements of the solutions between the public and private sectors that will be needed to fill them. The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, World Economic Forum, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation jointly propose these recommendations.”

Audience

An invitation-only audience of nearly 130 people attended the exercises, and a livestream of the event was available to everyone. Video coverage is available here.

Exercise team

Eric Toner, MD, is the exercise team lead from the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. Crystal Watson, DrPH, MPH and Tara Kirk Sell, PhD, MA are co-leads from the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. Ryan Morhard, JD, is the exercise lead from the World Economic Forum, and Jeffrey French is the exercise lead for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.”

Main organisers:
The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, World Economic Forum, and Bill & Melinda Gates.
World Economic Forum as in the ideologists that redacted The Great Reset.

In order to create momentum for the Great Reset, UK royal Prince Charles said the imagination and will of humanity “will need to be captured” so that they can set the world on a new trajectory.
This is taken from his historical but largely ignored speech at the official launch event for The Great Reset.

He further suggested that longstanding incentive structures that have adverse effects on the environments must be reorientated, and that systems and pathways will need to be redesigned to advance net zero emissions globally.

“This reset moment is an opportunity to accelerate and align our efforts to create truly global momentum. Countries, industries and businesses moving together can create efficiencies and economies of scale that will allow us to leapfrog our collective progress and accelerate our transition,” the Prince said.

Also read about the spectacular Clade XDark Winter, and Atlantic Storm.

More very soon, come back later!

If you want to get the larger picture later, also read:

HENRY KISSINGER: “I USED TO ASSIGN MAO’S WRITINGS TO MY CLASSES AT HARVARD”

ABOVE BILL GATES: THE ROCKEFELLERS. FROM OPERATION PAPERCLIP TO CHINA AND WHO (PART. 1)

We know WB slaves are reading this and scratching their deranged heads. Clowns will be clowns.

Also read: THE ROADMAP FOR THE 2025-2028 PANDEMIC ALREADY PUBLISHED BY EVENT 201 ORGANISERS

We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

We just want to signal to our readers this piece from Forbes which would seem inconceivable to print in 2020. It wasn’t often even back then to read such stuff in major mainstream media, but it wasn’t mindblowing either, hence the weak or missing backclash. Read it now, integrally, with your 2020 mind.

by Michael Fumento

Originally published by Forbes on Feb 5, 2010,04:35pm EST

The World Health Organization has suddenly gone from crying “The sky is falling!” like a cackling Chicken Little to squealing like a stuck pig. The reason: charges that the agency deliberately fomented swine flu hysteria. “The world is going through a real pandemic. The description of it as a fake is wrong and irresponsible,” the agency claims on its Web site. A WHO spokesman declined to specify who or what gave this “description,” but the primary accuser is hard to ignore.

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), a human rights watchdog, is publicly investigating the WHO’s motives in declaring a pandemic. Indeed, the chairman of its influential health committee, epidemiologist Wolfgang Wodarg, has declared that the “false pandemic” is “one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century.”

Even within the agency, the director of the WHO Collaborating Center for Epidemiology in Munster, Germany, Dr. Ulrich Kiel, has essentially labeled the pandemic a hoax. “We are witnessing a gigantic misallocation of resources [$18 billion so far] in terms of public health,” he said.

They’re right. This wasn’t merely overcautiousness or simple misjudgment. The pandemic declaration and all the Klaxon-ringing since reflect sheer dishonesty motivated not by medical concerns but political ones.

Unquestionably, swine flu has proved to be vastly milder than ordinary seasonal flu. It kills at a third to a tenth the rate, according to U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates. Data from other countries like France and Japan indicate it’s far tamer than that.

Indeed, judging by what we’ve seen in New Zealand and Australia (where the epidemics have ended), and by what we’re seeing elsewhere in the world, we’ll have considerably fewer flu deaths this season than normal. That’s because swine flu muscles aside seasonal flu, acting as a sort of inoculation against the far deadlier strain.

Did the WHO have any indicators of this mildness when it declared the pandemic in June?

Absolutely, as I wrote at the time. We were then fully 11 weeks into the outbreak and swine flu had only killed 144 people worldwide–the same number who die of seasonal flu worldwide every few hours. (An estimated 250,000 to 500,000 per year by the WHO’s own numbers.) The mildest pandemics of the 20th century killed at least a million people.

But how could the organization declare a pandemic when its own official definition required “simultaneous epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness.” Severity–that is, the number of deaths–is crucial, because every year flu causes “a global spread of disease.”

Easy. In May, in what it admitted was a direct response to the outbreak of swine flu the month before, WHO promulgated a new definition matched to swine flu that simply eliminated severity as a factor. You could now have a pandemic with zero deaths.

Under fire, the organization is boldly lying about the change, to which anybody with an Internet connection can attest. In a mid-January virtual conference WHO swine flu chief Keiji Fukuda stated: “Did WHO change its definition of a pandemic? The answer is no: WHO did not change its definition.” Two weeks later at a PACE conference he insisted: “Having severe deaths has never been part of the WHO definition.”

They did it; but why?

In part, it was CYA for the WHO. The agency was losing credibility over the refusal of avian flu H5N1 to go pandemic and kill as many as 150 million people worldwide, as its “flu czar” had predicted in 2005.

Around the world nations heeded the warnings and spent vast sums developing vaccines and making other preparations. So when swine flu conveniently trotted in, the WHO essentially crossed out “avian,” inserted “swine,” and WHO Director-General Margaret Chan arrogantly boasted, “The world can now reap the benefits of investments over the last five years in pandemic preparedness.”

But there’s more than bureaucratic self-interest at work here. Bizarrely enough, the WHO has also exploited its phony pandemic to push a hard left political agenda.

In a September speech WHO Director-General Chan said “ministers of health” should take advantage of the “devastating impact” swine flu will have on poorer nations to get out the message that “changes in the functioning of the global economy” are needed to “distribute wealth on the basis of” values “like community, solidarity, equity and social justice.” She further declared it should be used as a weapon against “international policies and systems that govern financial markets, economies, commerce, trade and foreign affairs.”

Chan’s dream now lies in tatters. All the WHO has done, says PACE’s Wodart, is to destroy “much of the credibility that they should have, which is invaluable to us if there’s a future scare that might turn out to be a killer on a large scale.”

Michael Fumento is director of the nonprofit Independent Journalism Project, where he specializes in health and science issues. He may be reached at fumento@pobox.com.

We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them