Re “I reject the core assertion that pandemics are recurring events throughout history and that there will be future pandemics.”
What’s the evidence for previous ‘pandemics’, eg the purported 1918 influenza pandemic that supposedly killed up to 100 million people?
Call out the fear-mongering…
"...is this actually about creating a lucrative pandemic industry, overseen by the empire-building World Health Organization, at the behest of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, GAVI, and other vested interests?" https://elizabethhart.substack.com/p/is-this-actually-about-creating-a
Yes. BUT, the scamdemic industry in the USA really got jump-started by GW Bush (in cooperation with globalist institutions, especially the W.H.O.) when he was President. First he catastrophized about biothreats (and other terrorism and war threats/theoretical mass casualty events), and then he got all worked up about pandemics after he read a book about the 1918 scamdemic (so the story goes). Hard to say what was in his heart back then (or if he even has a heart), but it didn't really have much to do with Bill Gates in 2001-2008, as far as I know.
Btw, if you're looking for culprits, make sure you don't leave out former U.S. Senator Richard Burr (now lobbyist and so forth). Here's an intro, Ms. Hart, but it's not even half of the story:
Re Bill Gates, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has been influencing international vaccination policy for years, e.g. “In 2000, the foundation made an initial US$ 750 million commitment to the Vaccine Fund, which was catalytic in bringing other donors to support vaccine delivery and creating Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance.” https://www.gavi.org/investing-gavi/funding/donor-profiles/bill-melinda-gates-foundation
…misguided [covid] pandemic strategies and decisions [] ignored years of pandemic preparation guidance crafted by numerous public health agencies, nationally and internationally.
FROM THE HOCKETT ARTICLE:
It’s true that some of that guidance was apparently ignored, but it should also be recognized that pandemic prep and bioterrorism prep had effectively become the same thing in the U.S.
--------------------
Because you're smart (and also, it's not the focus of your commentary), you, Ms. Jessica, do not run whole hog with the mythology that years of pandemic plans ("public-health agencies' preparation guidance") were ignored in the "covid" response. This "urban legend" has come from Left, Right, middle/nonpolitical—as well as laity and pros alike (similar claims but different cites; too much to get into). And—notably—it has come from the Brownstone brain trust (my moniker for the Brownstone Institute et al). The claim has made it into many Brownstone articles (and books)—and BEYOND. I would argue that Brownstone is more responsible than anyone/any-other-entity for the mischaracterization/distortion (mostly un-sourced and poorly sourced out-of-context) that has been turned by all comers into asserted "fact" (I see it constantly). And I suspect Dr. Jay has A LOT to do with it (it echoes throughout the Norfolk paper).
I have done extensive research on the popular but ~90+%-false claim. I've read the official pandemic plans—not every single one on earth, but virtually all USA (from Federal public-health agencies and DHS—and SARS 1.0 as well as influenza) and some States; W.H.O. 2019; U.K. 2011; and some of Australia's. I've read the early March 2020 Gonsalves et al open letter and the 2006 Henderson et al paper and the Johns Hopkins 2019 report. I've watched old seminar videos and listened to contemporary podcasts—and more….
I've addressed the claim many times in my X posts, including a couple threads—and have composed a 30-piece thread on the matter (that I still haven't gotten around to finalizing & posting). I've courteously challenged/replied-to many X accounts (including but NOT limited to Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Jeffrey Tucker, Dr. David Bell, Stinson Norwood, and Trish "I know everything and I am right" the Dish) with evidence/documentation that the claim is false. But overall I've made relatively little headway with them (at least that is conceded/acknowledged).
Though I've been unable to slay the beast (the largely-false claim that the 2020 "pandemic" response—especially lockdowns—came out of nowhere and/or was ad hoc), I have made some dents/wounds. For example, after several attempts, I FINALLY got Jeffrey Tucker to acknowledge (somewhat) that social-/physical-distancing measures (pun intended) existed in official pandemic plans / official public-health mitigation-strategies guidance BEFORE 2020. I also got Dr. Jay and Mr. Tucker (through Dr. Jay) to acknowledge, after numerous direct attempts by me, that "essential/nonessential" also was not a 2020 creation that came out of nowhere or originated with CISA. Mr. Tucker ran with it (once it finally penetrated his skull) and gave me zero credit (which is fine).
I can write more (but don't want to write a book here), and can give cites (many or a select few), and can expound till the cows come home, but I don't want this tangential-to-your-article comment to be a project. I also will not address your (Ms. JH) accurate statement that there is some significant overlap among biodefense/"bioterrorism" and pandemic preparedness/pandemic plans—other than to say that this IS a relevant factor in the entire topic before us, and that *I can do* upon request (and time/space permitting). Me educating myself on all of this began ~3 years ago and it started with key word "biodefense" (biodefence in British English).
If anyone has any thoughts/questions/requests re what I've written, please let me know herein. (FYI: my X account is @mdmstakeholder.)
P.S. I may have conflated/mixed-up a little the versions of events re Dr. Jay, Mr. Tucker, social distancing, and essential/nonessential. I'd have to check which is which or be less tired than I am to remember or confirm exactly, but both (pandemic-plan-based) topics *were* pressed by me to both men, and finally both topics were acknowledged to some extent by them (and I got no credit from Mr. Tucker for either, which is fine).
P.S.S. The Norfolk Group paper *does* define "lockdown/lockdowns" for its purposes (page 29), and it does not—I repeat DOES NOT—repudiate them (most of which are also known as NPIs/nonpharmaceutical interventions). The paper utilizes terminology of "suppression" (a/k/a infection control) and "intervention(s)," but never seems to register a direct connection between the public-health ideology of "suppression" and its evil twin "lockdowns." The only intervention any of these public-health aficionados ever seem to denounce is universal quarantine (and even that is dicey).
The paper also never directly questions whether there ever was a warranted/legitimate need for vaccines/vaccination. And despite mentioning it in the intro, the paper does not revisit with ANY explicitness "early critical window" (that I can find [I looked]); maybe it's found in the part that says that we didn't start testing soon enough (🙄).
And, in other shocking news, there is zero indication whatsoever that any of the "Norfolkers" have read any of the hundreds and hundreds of pages of official USA pandemic plans (and similar) issued over the past ~20 years (by Fed Govt and/or State/Local Govts). One might even say that this apparent failure to read the plans (and "preparedness") isn't very evidence-based ("evidence based" is one of the top invocations of the "establishment dissenters," including head cheerleader Dr. Jay). I could go on, and on….
Perhaps the hardest-hitting truth Ms. Hockett offers in this article is when she writes: "It seems rather short-sighted to assume that the same fields that helped get us into this mess are the way out." I'll go farther and say (in fact, I'll proclaim it from my rooftop) that the Norfolk Group are definitely NOT the crew who are going to save us from the next scamdemic.
Yes, there is much to take issue with in the paper as a whole.
I focused on the Intro because the thrust of my point is around the Presumption of a Pandemic. It's fine for the 8 authors to believe what they believe - it is NOT fine for the claims and beliefs in any single group's paper to be foisted on everyone who challenges the government's narrative on COVID. That's why Jay Bhattacharya's reactions on X are so important (and why I captured them in my previous post): It's the perfect example of an ongoing problem that is stifling debate in the name of winning a political battle and helping secure "victory" for a platform I cannot adopt.
"Your assumptions are your windows on the world. Scrub them off every once in a while, or the light won't come in."
-- Isaac Asimov
https://substack.com/@jessicahockett/note/c-69312799?r=jjay2&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
Re “I reject the core assertion that pandemics are recurring events throughout history and that there will be future pandemics.”
What’s the evidence for previous ‘pandemics’, eg the purported 1918 influenza pandemic that supposedly killed up to 100 million people?
Call out the fear-mongering…
"...is this actually about creating a lucrative pandemic industry, overseen by the empire-building World Health Organization, at the behest of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, GAVI, and other vested interests?" https://elizabethhart.substack.com/p/is-this-actually-about-creating-a
Yes. BUT, the scamdemic industry in the USA really got jump-started by GW Bush (in cooperation with globalist institutions, especially the W.H.O.) when he was President. First he catastrophized about biothreats (and other terrorism and war threats/theoretical mass casualty events), and then he got all worked up about pandemics after he read a book about the 1918 scamdemic (so the story goes). Hard to say what was in his heart back then (or if he even has a heart), but it didn't really have much to do with Bill Gates in 2001-2008, as far as I know.
Btw, if you're looking for culprits, make sure you don't leave out former U.S. Senator Richard Burr (now lobbyist and so forth). Here's an intro, Ms. Hart, but it's not even half of the story:
https://bio.news/biosecurity/project-bioshield-20th-anniversary-senator-richard-burr-pandemic-all-hazards-preparedness-act/
And here's part of DICK Burr's connection (these days) to Bill & Melinda:
https://www.csis.org/programs/global-health-policy-center/csis-bipartisan-alliance-global-health-security
Correct re GW Bush
Thanks for the links Bubblz.
Re Bill Gates, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has been influencing international vaccination policy for years, e.g. “In 2000, the foundation made an initial US$ 750 million commitment to the Vaccine Fund, which was catalytic in bringing other donors to support vaccine delivery and creating Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance.” https://www.gavi.org/investing-gavi/funding/donor-profiles/bill-melinda-gates-foundation
The Democracy Manifest substack refers to Richard Burr in this article: The Biosecurity Superpower: https://democracymanifest.substack.com/p/the-biosecurity-superpower
FROM THE NORFOLK GROUP PAPER:
…misguided [covid] pandemic strategies and decisions [] ignored years of pandemic preparation guidance crafted by numerous public health agencies, nationally and internationally.
FROM THE HOCKETT ARTICLE:
It’s true that some of that guidance was apparently ignored, but it should also be recognized that pandemic prep and bioterrorism prep had effectively become the same thing in the U.S.
--------------------
Because you're smart (and also, it's not the focus of your commentary), you, Ms. Jessica, do not run whole hog with the mythology that years of pandemic plans ("public-health agencies' preparation guidance") were ignored in the "covid" response. This "urban legend" has come from Left, Right, middle/nonpolitical—as well as laity and pros alike (similar claims but different cites; too much to get into). And—notably—it has come from the Brownstone brain trust (my moniker for the Brownstone Institute et al). The claim has made it into many Brownstone articles (and books)—and BEYOND. I would argue that Brownstone is more responsible than anyone/any-other-entity for the mischaracterization/distortion (mostly un-sourced and poorly sourced out-of-context) that has been turned by all comers into asserted "fact" (I see it constantly). And I suspect Dr. Jay has A LOT to do with it (it echoes throughout the Norfolk paper).
I have done extensive research on the popular but ~90+%-false claim. I've read the official pandemic plans—not every single one on earth, but virtually all USA (from Federal public-health agencies and DHS—and SARS 1.0 as well as influenza) and some States; W.H.O. 2019; U.K. 2011; and some of Australia's. I've read the early March 2020 Gonsalves et al open letter and the 2006 Henderson et al paper and the Johns Hopkins 2019 report. I've watched old seminar videos and listened to contemporary podcasts—and more….
I've addressed the claim many times in my X posts, including a couple threads—and have composed a 30-piece thread on the matter (that I still haven't gotten around to finalizing & posting). I've courteously challenged/replied-to many X accounts (including but NOT limited to Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Jeffrey Tucker, Dr. David Bell, Stinson Norwood, and Trish "I know everything and I am right" the Dish) with evidence/documentation that the claim is false. But overall I've made relatively little headway with them (at least that is conceded/acknowledged).
Though I've been unable to slay the beast (the largely-false claim that the 2020 "pandemic" response—especially lockdowns—came out of nowhere and/or was ad hoc), I have made some dents/wounds. For example, after several attempts, I FINALLY got Jeffrey Tucker to acknowledge (somewhat) that social-/physical-distancing measures (pun intended) existed in official pandemic plans / official public-health mitigation-strategies guidance BEFORE 2020. I also got Dr. Jay and Mr. Tucker (through Dr. Jay) to acknowledge, after numerous direct attempts by me, that "essential/nonessential" also was not a 2020 creation that came out of nowhere or originated with CISA. Mr. Tucker ran with it (once it finally penetrated his skull) and gave me zero credit (which is fine).
I can write more (but don't want to write a book here), and can give cites (many or a select few), and can expound till the cows come home, but I don't want this tangential-to-your-article comment to be a project. I also will not address your (Ms. JH) accurate statement that there is some significant overlap among biodefense/"bioterrorism" and pandemic preparedness/pandemic plans—other than to say that this IS a relevant factor in the entire topic before us, and that *I can do* upon request (and time/space permitting). Me educating myself on all of this began ~3 years ago and it started with key word "biodefense" (biodefence in British English).
If anyone has any thoughts/questions/requests re what I've written, please let me know herein. (FYI: my X account is @mdmstakeholder.)
I agree the "pandemic plans were thrown out the window" idea isn't true and became a trope that few people question.
We alluded to this here: https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/us-covid-19-ventilation-policy-made
I would argue disaster med plans were implemented; it is simply a matter of which ones.
P.S. I may have conflated/mixed-up a little the versions of events re Dr. Jay, Mr. Tucker, social distancing, and essential/nonessential. I'd have to check which is which or be less tired than I am to remember or confirm exactly, but both (pandemic-plan-based) topics *were* pressed by me to both men, and finally both topics were acknowledged to some extent by them (and I got no credit from Mr. Tucker for either, which is fine).
P.S.S. The Norfolk Group paper *does* define "lockdown/lockdowns" for its purposes (page 29), and it does not—I repeat DOES NOT—repudiate them (most of which are also known as NPIs/nonpharmaceutical interventions). The paper utilizes terminology of "suppression" (a/k/a infection control) and "intervention(s)," but never seems to register a direct connection between the public-health ideology of "suppression" and its evil twin "lockdowns." The only intervention any of these public-health aficionados ever seem to denounce is universal quarantine (and even that is dicey).
The paper also never directly questions whether there ever was a warranted/legitimate need for vaccines/vaccination. And despite mentioning it in the intro, the paper does not revisit with ANY explicitness "early critical window" (that I can find [I looked]); maybe it's found in the part that says that we didn't start testing soon enough (🙄).
And, in other shocking news, there is zero indication whatsoever that any of the "Norfolkers" have read any of the hundreds and hundreds of pages of official USA pandemic plans (and similar) issued over the past ~20 years (by Fed Govt and/or State/Local Govts). One might even say that this apparent failure to read the plans (and "preparedness") isn't very evidence-based ("evidence based" is one of the top invocations of the "establishment dissenters," including head cheerleader Dr. Jay). I could go on, and on….
Perhaps the hardest-hitting truth Ms. Hockett offers in this article is when she writes: "It seems rather short-sighted to assume that the same fields that helped get us into this mess are the way out." I'll go farther and say (in fact, I'll proclaim it from my rooftop) that the Norfolk Group are definitely NOT the crew who are going to save us from the next scamdemic.
Yes, there is much to take issue with in the paper as a whole.
I focused on the Intro because the thrust of my point is around the Presumption of a Pandemic. It's fine for the 8 authors to believe what they believe - it is NOT fine for the claims and beliefs in any single group's paper to be foisted on everyone who challenges the government's narrative on COVID. That's why Jay Bhattacharya's reactions on X are so important (and why I captured them in my previous post): It's the perfect example of an ongoing problem that is stifling debate in the name of winning a political battle and helping secure "victory" for a platform I cannot adopt.