The real agenda may be global depopulation.
On August 10, the UK tabloid Daily Express warned that a new pandemic, possibly caused by a yet unknown “Disease X”, could lead to “civil unrest and food shortages” worldwide.
The world is already experiencing a surge in “civil unrest and food shortages” due to a raft of senseless global policies pushed by an unhinged West and its institutional lackeys. A new “pandemic” would conveniently mask this inevitability.
Disease X is the placeholder name for a hypothetical pandemic caused by a yet-unknown virus. The operative word here is “hypothetical”. Billions in taxpayer money will be spent on developing a vaccine for a phantom virus that has yet to emerge or evolve from an indeterminate origin.
Following a depressingly familiar pattern, the World Health Organization (WHO) is lending its scientific gravitas to this absurdity. Global “statesmen” are correspondingly providing the political gravitas. From mid-2021 onwards, then senior minister of Singapore and WEF board trustee Tharman Shanmugaratnam repeatedly warned that “future pandemics” and “new viruses” are “coming”. This assertion was based on “blue sky research” undertaken by the “global scientific community”. Shanmugaratnam also pledged that an “all-in-one vaccine” was also on the cards. (Ergo, expect a renewed crackdown on vaccine refuseniks.)
Is it possible to preempt a disease that has yet to exist with an all-in-one-vaccine? That is exactly what the UK government is attempting at the moment. It will be justified based on the known pestilential potentials of select viruses and their hypothesised pathogenic pathways and morphologies (including their potential to cross the species barriers). To provide a veneer of scientific rigour, elements of artificial intelligence will be thrown into the viral potpourri. From a statistical standpoint, this feat would be akin to firing a bullet into the sky and expecting it to take down a drone, an aircraft or a flying saucer on the very first attempt.
Since we are frequently bombarded by the rancid call to “listen to The Science”, let me elaborate further. From a systems science perspective, the feat of developing an all-in-one vaccine for a Disease X may arguably surpass the two century-old quest to resolve the Unified Field Theory – something a host of scientific luminaries, including Albert Einstein himself, could not accomplish. It may be mathematically easier to predict next month’s jackpot-winning lottery number than to develop a vaccine for a phantom virus. Accomplishing this feat would be broadly equivalent to resolving physics conundrums such as Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle which states that “we cannot know both the position and speed of a particle, such as a photon or electron, with simultaneous accuracy”. Some theoreticians claim that if this uncertainty is ever resolved, we will be able to predict the future.
Certitudes parroted by proponents of The Science can be tricky. Let us consider an example from the medical world, particularly over a drug that has been tried and tested for more than four decades. Prof Andy Crump, who had worked with Nobel Prize-winning scientist Satoshi Omura – who discovered the microorganism that led to the synthesis of ivermectin – recently made the following observation: “Surprisingly, despite 40 years of unmatched global success, plus widespread intensive scientific study in both the public and private sectors, scientists are still not certain exactly how ivermectin works. Moreover, whereas ivermectin-resistant parasites swiftly appeared in treated animals… no confirmed drug resistance appears to have arisen in parasites in human populations, even in those that have been taking ivermectin as a monotherapy for over 30 years.”
If we do not even know how yesterday’s ivermectin fully works, how can we be confident of tomorrow’s all-in-one Vaccine X that will supposedly neutralise a Virus X that in turn may cause Disease X (or a new coronavirus pandemic)? Science is governed by its immutable laws; but then again, we are living in an age of lawlessness which pervades every sphere of human life, including scientific activity. In the aftermath of the Covid-19 hysteria, Crump lamented that the days when we could “unquestioningly trust science and scientists are long gone”.
All in all, I would place the advent of a naturally occurring Disease X on the same probabilistic plane as the arrival of Planet X. But what if it is not “naturally occurring”?
Gain of Function Madness
Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov, head of the Russian Armed Forces’ Radiological, Chemical and Biological Defense (RCBD) Troops, recently held a briefing on US military-biological activities worldwide which he viewed as a threat to global security.
According to Kirillov, gain of function (i.e. dual use) research into anthrax, tularemia, coronavirus, avian influenza and African swine fever have ironically – and perhaps unsurprisingly – caused the very outbreaks they were supposed to prevent. Even more damning was his observation that on October 18, 2019 – two months before official reports emerged over a new coronavirus phenomenon in China – Johns Hopkins University had conducted an Event 201 exercise in New York which suspiciously preambled the Covid-19 pandemic. Kirillov suggested that this sequence of events was artificially engineered. More ominously, there appears to be a mechanism in place to handle another “outbreak”.
Kirillov warned: “We do not rule out that the United States may use so-called defensive technologies for offensive purposes, as well as for global governance by creating crisis situations of biological nature.” It is worth checking out Kirillov’s translated presentation (the original documents are either blocked, shadow-banned or deliberately taken down).