The Pandemic Threat Theater
Pandemic Threat is Grossly Misrepresented - Part 1
On May 31, 2024 a special session of the IPAK-EDU Director’s Science Webinar featured the important and timely research of Garrett Wallace Brown and David Bell. Their talk was entitled, “Pandemic Threat is Grossly Misrepresented”.
This is Part 1. You can find Part 2 here.
For over a century, the public has been exposed to horror films.
Many of these are rooted in stories that come to us via folklore, and more than a few were inspired by the writings of authors such as Poe, Stoker, and Shelley. Nearly all share the themes of monsters and death.
Britannica defines the film genre in this way:
Horror film, motion picture calculated to cause intense repugnance, fear, or dread. Horror films may incorporate incidents of physical violence and psychological terror; they may be studies of deformed, disturbed, psychotic, or evil characters; stories of terrifying monsters or malevolent animals; or mystery thrillers that use atmosphere to build suspense.
As anyone who has watched a horror film can attest, the intent of the production is to elicit an emotional response rooted in fear. The tools used are suspense, mystery, and most significantly, partial, incomplete and distorted imagery. When combined with recognizable icons of fear, these can turn the mind toward dark places of imagined dread. The storytelling often builds on established, deeply-ingrained, cultural themes. In a distinctive way, the genre depends on a planned, calculated, and designed experience. When it is skillfully done, it can make you jump out of your skin; when done poorly, it is almost inevitably laughable.
Disaster films have much in common, a key distinction being that one utilizes outsized representations of familiar visible natural phenomenon (flood, fire, earthquakes, storms, etc); while the other employs shadowed, partially-visible, supernatural, or invisible antagonists.
A concise summary of the disaster genre goes like this:
Disaster films, a sub-genre of the action film genre, captivate audiences with their dramatic portrayals of catastrophic events and the human struggle for survival. Defined by their focus on natural or man-made disasters, these films explore themes of heroism, resilience, and the fragility of civilization. As a significant component of popular culture and cinema, disaster films offer more than just thrilling spectacle; they reflect societal fears and the collective imagination of disaster scenarios.
Another important distinction worth noting is that disaster films tend to focus on a catastrophic event in progress. Horror films, on the other hand, build on the fear of the unknown that comes via anticipation and the revealing of a threat shrouded in mystery.
In film, the imagery employed is the primary form of information; toogether with sound, it is how the story is told, the audience experience shaped, and an emotional response elicited. In the real world, the tools and outlets are certainly more diverse, but the very same manipulations may be at play.
What does the threat of the ‘Next Pandemic’, as promulgated by international health organizations, share with the theater of horror?
More than anyone should be comfortable with.
The WEF, WHO, World Bank, and G20
The recent claims of these organizations appears unified: there is a looming existential threat to humanity, and it is coming in the form of an infectious disease pandemic.
Most prominently, something christened ‘Disease X’.
Not unlike the tales of Vampires, Werewolves, and demons, this warning builds on a cultured narrative which mixes history and beliefs, with mythology and lore. And like the boogeyman, or J.K. Rowling’s Voldemort, it shall not be named; but it must be feared: Disease X.
The framing around ‘Disease X’ harkens back to horror films.
We are being stalked by an unknown, unnamed—and thus, changeable and interchangeable—monster.
Like an unseen or shadowed nightmare, it lurks somewhere in the future, waiting to unleash havoc. This carefully cultivated anticipation of catastrophe is precisely the psychology driving the pandemic preparedness response (PPR) agenda.
This agenda is being promulgated by elephantine money and influence, and all the major international institutions have raised the banner. The WHO, the WEF, the G20, and the World Bank are all pushing this agenda forward, supported by the likes of CEPI, GAVI, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.1
Claims about the nature of the threat, its likelihood, the costs, and so-called ‘return on investment’, have been published and are being used as the basis for policy at the highest levels.
It’s not that infectious diseases that kill aren’t real, mind you.
There’s a fundamental misrepresentation at play.
The framing being employed is a horror film writ large. The purported urgent severity of the threat has the potential to make many of the most nightmarish aspects of the COVID debacle (notably lockdown and mass injection campaigns) a matter of course, policy-wise. Further, that urgency employs a subtext which is likewise to be exploited: this is an emergency—questions are dangerous and deadly in their own right. Censorship, as we’ve seen, will be rationalized as necessary for public health.
But the framing is dependent on an interpretation of evidence that claims to support a particular conclusion; namely, that an existential threat posed by increasing pandemic frequency and severity exists and is right around the corner.
These conclusions are presented to the lay-public as if they are unquestionable truths. Dogma, in fact. And in the aftermath of the last 4 years, too many assume that no debate is necessary. Many, on the other hand, having observed (or been subjected to) the misuse of science, authority, and outright censorship, know all too well that the evidence absolutely must be queried.
If not, then public health is nothing more than an all-you-can eat buffet for the biosecurity complex: a spread laid in the interest of corporate profiteering and power-hungry tyrants. Indeed, many will note that a good deal of the pro-PPR messaging seems to have more in common with a commercial marketing campaign than public health policy.
Socrates’ infamous quote comes to mind:
“To believe without evidence and demonstration is an act of ignorance and folly.”
So what does the evidence base actually show?
The REPPARE Project
Spurred on by his experience in global health research, and as a participant in the preparation of WHO reports related to PPR, Garrett Wallace Brown, together with David Bell, founded the REPPARE Project (Re-Evaluating the Pandemic Preparedness And REsponse agenda) out of the University of Leeds. They have been working to closely examine the underpinnings of the PPR agenda.
REPPARE states clearly its mission:
We recognize the need for publicly available evidence to support a measured approach to pandemic preparedness that is independent and methodologically robust. The REPPARE project will contribute using a team of experienced researchers to examine and collate evidence, and develop assessments of current and proposed policies weighed against this evidence base. REPPARE’s findings will be open-access and all data and sources of data will be publicly available through a dedicated portal at the University of Leeds.
REPPARE’s intent is to facilitate rational and evidence-based approaches to pandemic and outbreak preparedness, enabling the health community, policy makers, and the public to make informed assessments, with an aim to develop good policy.
Exactly how solid is the data underlying the PPR agenda?
Enter: David Bell
David Bell is a clinical and public health physician with a PhD in population health and background in internal medicine, modeling and epidemiology of infectious disease. Previously, he was Director of the Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund in the USA, Programme Head for Malaria and Acute Febrile Disease at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) in Geneva and worked on infectious diseases and coordinated malaria diagnostics strategy at the World Health Organization. He has worked for 20 years in biotech and international public health, with over 120 research publications. David is based in Texas and is the Co-Principal Investigator on the REPPARE project.
Bell has looked closely at the data being used to justify pandemic preparedness. Here, in this clip, he gives his assessment.
This analysis has been documented by REPPARE in a report entitled, ‘Rational Policy Over Panic’.2 Key takeaways, in a public-friendly document, can be found here.
The basic summary is reprised below.
The full REPPARE ‘Rational Policy Over Panic’ report can be accessed here.
But this is about more than a narrative. It is also intimately tied to vast piles of money.
The policies being pursued come with a massive price tag.
Up next, we’ll hear from Garrett Wallace Brown on the financial aspects of the PPR agenda.
What do the numbers tell us?
Stay tuned.
Information wants to be free—and over 90% of the content here is accessible to anyone. But everything takes care and time. If you like what you see, and you’re willing and able, consider leaving a tip. Every little bit helps. Thank you!
Subscribers to the IPAK-EDU Director’s Science Webinar get full access to webinar recordings, including this session with Garrett Wallace Brown and David Bell.
Your support of the webinar and IPAK-EDU makes this possible!
Learn more about the REPPARE Project—click the image below.
Go here to listen to Geert Vanden Bossche’s thoughts on CEPI, GAVI, and Disease X:
Bell, G.W. Brown, B. Tacheva &.J von Agris (2024). Rational Policy over Panic: Reexamining Pandemic Risk within the Global Pandemic Prevention,Preparedness and Response Agenda, REPPARE Report, University of Leeds, UK: https://essl.leeds.ac.uk/dir-record/research-projects/1260/reevaluating-the-pandemic- preparedness-and-response-agenda-reppare