What began as an outbreak toward the end of 2019 grew into a global emergency whose social and economic repercussions are affecting us more than two years later, and that will probably continue to affect us for the foreseeable future. Unlike previous pandemics, the COVID-19 pandemic is one of unprecedented collateral damage that has dragged societies and their economies into a state of disaster. Plainly, this is unheard of. It is not that pandemics are unheard of, but rather, it is the fact that this pandemic has provoked social and economic upheaval on a scale not seen before. Hence, we may justifiably ask ourselves how we arrived at this situation. Although the answers and their details are not entirely clear at this point, what is clear is that this situation needn’t have taken place if more people had been paying closer attention to what the science was indicating, rather than placing all of their trust in authorities who for all intents and purposes were not working, and continue to not work in the best interests of the public.
In accordance to the philosophy of Ecohumanism Research, it is important to emphasize the relationship between the environment and all things dependent upon it, and how the former shapes the behavior of the latter, which includes viruses and humans. What this means in this context is acknowledging (contrary to popular belief) that neither the SARS-COV-2 virus nor the related COVID-19 disease are either contagious or infectious, and that the politicization of science is an almost inevitable outcome of the capitalist system.
The Ecology and Virology of COVID-19
The year is 2020. We are told that there is an outbreak of a new coronavirus, which may have occurred during the month of December in 2019 in the Wuhan province of China.1 We are also told that this outbreak may have been caused by a virus originating from bats and that it has the potential to spread rapidly across the globe.2 Before we know it the situation escalates to the point where the World Health Organization (WHO) declares a global emergency on March 11th, 2020, thus marking the beginning of the pandemic.3 Study after study, we find that the virus allegedly causing the new coronavirus disease known as COVID-19 has been virologically isolated, hence, identified, and that its genetic structure, transmission, and pathogenicity have been characterized.4-9 However, this is where we find the problem with regard to the virus’ alleged pathogenicity; namely, the assumption that it is a disease-causing germ, which is something that has never been proven. How can this be?
In order to understand this topic we must first review the scientific underpinnings of the so-called COVID-19 disease, bearing in mind that it has no unique symptoms of its own.10 Firstly, what do scientists have to say about the virus that allegedly causes the disease? One of the first scientific publications to characterize it, and which has been relied upon for justifying the declaration of the pandemic and the enactment of the emergency measures is “A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019”. Of significance, the authors of this article have the following to say regarding their study “Although our study does not fulfill Koch’s postulates, our analyses provide evidence implicating 2019-nCoV in the Wuhan outbreak”.11 In simple terms what the authors are saying is that although they discovered a new virus that is associated with a spike in the number of sick people in the vicinity of Wuhan, they cannot say with certainty as to whether the virus itself is responsible for it. Before proceeding any further, it would be helpful to review Koch’s postulates as their use is or at least was common practice in bacteriology and virology, both of which are specialist divisions of microbiology.
Koch’s postulates represent a methodical procedure for identifying a germ/microorganism and the disease that relates to it. It was developed during the 19th century by Robert Koch, a bacteriologist who accordingly became renowned due to having contributed toward the advancement in our understanding of how diseases manifest. Or, in this context, we may cunningly assert that he contributed to our temporary misunderstanding of disease! Below, we observe the postulates as they appear today.12
1. The microorganism must be found in the diseased animal, and not found in healthy animals.
2. The microorganism must be extracted and isolated from the diseased animal and subsequently grown in culture.
3. The microorganism must cause disease when introduced to a healthy experimental animal.
4. The microorganism must be extracted from the diseased experimental animal and demonstrated to be the same microorganism that was originally isolated from the first diseased animal.
The problem with these postulates is that they are based upon a theory that diseases are solely caused by microorganisms entering the human body from the exterior and attacking it through its cells in a haphazard manner, and thus, “infecting” it. This is what is known as “germ theory”. Needless to say, it is the dominant theory upon which modern medicine rests, and where societies across the world base their assumption regarding how diseases manifest.13 The reason why this is a problem is that unbeknownst to most, the theory has never been scientifically proven. Since its inception, which was arguably during the 19th century, it has since been subject to criticism due to awareness that it failed to account for diseases that were not directly caused by a germ.14 Technically, this is old news; as G. T. Stewart states in an article published by The Lancet journal in 1968, the germ theory has:
become a dogma because it neglects the many other factors which have a part to play in deciding whether the host/germ/environment complex is to lead to infection. Among these are susceptibility, genetic constitution, behaviour, and socioeconomic determinants.15
In spite of germ theory being at least a century old and never scientifically validated, it is only recently that the scientific consensus has begun to shift with regards to what the appropriate way is to perceive the cause(s) of diseases. That is to say, there is mounting awareness in the scientific community that we have gone astray in understanding the cause(s) of diseases because, as suggested previously, scientists generally study microorganisms in laboratory conditions.16-18 This is potentially problematic because in order for them to obtain detailed information about these organisms they must analyze them in an environment that is isolated from the natural conditions in which they are found. As a result, they risk making erroneous observations about the state and behavior of the microorganisms they are attempting to understand. Yet, if we were to take a look at this argument from the perspective of virology there is nothing erroneous about observing a virus entering a cell and therefore “infecting” it. However, from the perspective of ecology such an observation represents at best a partial understanding of disease for the reason that it is a science that is less specialized.
Let’s put the above-mentioned into a perspective that is more appropriate for reducing the risk of misperception. For instance, the virologists studying the SARS-COV-2 virus are doing so by growing it in a cellular culture that contains certain “growth factors” that are necessary for it to appear. The reason for this is because the virus is dependent upon this culture for its existence, permitting virologists to “isolate” it. Thus, when virologists state that they have “isolated” the virus, what they mean is that they have identified it within the anatomical fluids that are necessary for it to appear. Notably, this kind of isolation is distinct from that found in English dictionaries, which is “to separate from another substance so as to obtain pure or in a free state”.19 Technically, this kind of isolation is impossible in virology. Analogically, it would be similar to attempting to isolate humans from the environment that is ideal for their survival, which is one that (roughly) consists of oxygenated air, alkaline water, organic food, etc… In other words, in the same way humans would cease to exist, so too would viruses. In simple terms, virologists are making observations that are limited in their capacity to shed light on the relation between SARS-COV-2 and COVID-19.
What are the implications of this? In accordance to ecological concepts and principles, the germ theory represents at best a partial view of disease manifestation. At worst, it is a dangerous fallacy due to how it has mislead health institutions and medical doctors regarding the appropriate ways of addressing the health and safety of humans in full consideration of their circumstances. The result is iatrogenesis, which is a term that in this sense describes the undesired and unintended effects of therapeutic failure. Iatrogenesis is one of the world’s leading causes of sickness, disease or death for reasons including but not limited to: medical error/negligence, medical malpractice, adverse drug reactions, and the commercialization of medicine.20
What is a more appropriate way of perceiving COVID-19? The answer is to be found in “terrain theory”, which in some ways may be viewed as the antithesis to germ theory. This theory of disease is mainly attributable to Antoine Béchamp, a little-known scientist who was a contemporary to Louis Pasteur. What Béchamp revealed to the world is that germs can be bodily expressions that contribute toward health maintenance, and that are not necessarily related to disease.21 Through his work, he was able to describe how the “terrain” of the body is what dictates a person’s health, given that it represents the interior environment, i.e. everything that is observable when peering inside their bodies such as the respiratory system, lymphatic system, skeletal system, and so on. Hence, by studying terrain theory, we are able to view the body as a whole and how its integrity changes in accordance to the external environment; for example, a person living in an environment whose air quality is poor, hence, heavily polluted, is more likely to develop symptoms of pneumonia than a person who does not.22 Therefore, if someone becomes sick, it is generally because their external environment is less than ideal for maintaining their health. In the context of this article this means acknowledging that SARS-COV-2 is actually a symptom of COVID-19 rather than the cause of it. Viewed this way, it should come as no surprise to learn that those suffering from the disease greatly (e.g. in the form of severe pneumonia) tend to have other risk factors affecting them, with malnutrition being among a number of examples.23-25
What are we to deduce about the relation between SARS-COV-2 and COVID-19? The first thing we may take away from studying ecology and virology is that the root cause of the disease is not the virus, but rather, a combination of factors. Hence, the notion that the disease has one cause whereby that cause is a single microorganism has no longer any scientific basis if we assume that it had one to begin with. In principle, the same applies to all other bacterial and viral diseases.
The second thing we may take away is that scientists can behave as foolishly as non-scientists. The implication is that the former have been confounded as they were not aware of the relation between what was happening through the gaze of their microscopes in an artificial, laboratory environment and the planet’s biosphere, which forms a part of the natural environment. Fundamentally, they have mislead people into thinking that viruses, as with SARS-COV-2, are contagious and infectious, which they have technically never proven. At the most, what they have helped us to see when we account for the component of ecology is that viruses are products of the body that respond to the presence of toxins to aid in their elimination; as such, we may view them as scavengers. It is almost impossible to do this topic any justice here, therefore, I provide information sources toward the end of this article should the reader wish to learn more about this aspect of biology that is both underexplored and underappreciated.
With everything being considered, we must be skeptical toward any claim that there is (or was) a pandemic, given that by its definition, it requires a germ that is contagious and infectious, spreading across the world and causing people to become sick or die.26 However, no such evidence exists in the scientific literature. What we are presented with is claim after claim regarding an association or a correlation between a germ and a disease without there being any observable proof of causation. Suffice it is to say that what we are looking at in this context is an issue of dogmatism. However, it is not merely dogmatism that has led to this pandemic, as well as others before it; it is also politics meddling with science that has allowed certain entities to exploit the ignorance of the public in order to pursue an agenda determined by profits and the political power that comes with it.
Pandemics and Politics Equals Pandemonium
The COVID-19 pandemic is exceptional in many ways, however, this does not relate in any way to the virus itself. What is extraordinary is the way in which governments have responded to the pandemic by announcing and enacting emergency measures in the form of lockdowns, masking, physical/social distancing, quarantine, and penalties for failing to adhere to the measures. It is well documented in academia that the rise in authoritarianism has led to the curtailment of democratic values such as freedom of movement, for instance.27-30 How did we arrive at this point in our history where hundreds of countries around the world have apparently acted in near unison in terms of enacting measures that are drastically unscientific?
Part of the answer as to how there as been unprecedented coordination between government, the news industry and pharmaceutical corporations can be found in the months leading to the pandemic. On the 18th of October, 2019, Event 201 was a pandemic tabletop exercise that was hosted by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, the World Economic Forum, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which was intended to simulate “a series of dramatic, scenario-based facilitated discussions, confronting difficult, true-to-life dilemmas associated with response to a hypothetical, but scientifically plausible, pandemic”.31 There are a number of things that are interesting about this exercise, one of which is that it took place only months before the “real” pandemic. Another, is that it featured a coronavirus as the germ of choice for modelling a hypothetical outbreak of pandemic potential. In consideration of these coincidences, and due to the organizers having received questions regarding whether they predicted (planned) the pandemic, it is not surprising that they felt the need to present a statement on the 24th of January, 2020, part of which reads as thus:
the Center for Health Security has received questions about whether that pandemic exercise predicted the current novel coronavirus outbreak in China. To be clear, the Center for Health Security and partners did not make a prediction during our tabletop exercise.32
Regardless, as we shall soon observe, there is reason for us to question as to whether at least some of the hosts have had conflicts of interest. This is because during the pandemic there has been a significant discrepancy between the science and the political rhetoric, and one that we cannot afford to ignore if we wish to avoid such a situation from ever occurring again.
Not long after the pandemic had been declared by the WHO, scientists and medical doctors had begun questioning the political narrative. In particular, Dr. John Ioannidis from Stanford University made a statement about the pandemic response being a “once-in-a-century evidence fiasco” on the basis that governing authorities were making decisions devoid of any reliable data concerning the infectivity of the virus and the mortality rate of the disease.33 Something similar can be said for all emergency measures (see above), given that there isn’t any scientific evidence to support their justification.
Insofar as the COVID-19 pandemic is a phenomenon that implicates health, safety, and well-being, it is first and foremost political. When the WHO declared the pandemic on the 11th of March, 2020, was this a decision that was free from conflicting interests? Judging by the some of the available evidence, it appears that this is not so. We will now analyze some of this evidence, which will help us not only to understand the significance of Event 201 and the “conspiracy theories” about how the pandemic was supposedly planned, but it will also help us to see how the capitalist system grants certain individuals and corporations the opportunity to profit financially or otherwise from a situation of pandemonium.34
Note: Given that the topic of “conspiracy theories” may elicit cognitive imagery about a raving lunatic who has been visiting too many websites promoting ideas and concepts about Earth being as flat as a pancake, this should cause anyone to be especially careful when parsing through information.
Let’s very briefly rewind. The Rockefeller Foundation publishes a report in 2010 entitled “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development”, which unsurprisingly grows in popularity since the start of the pandemic.35-40 It is unsurprising because it features a scenario that is uncannily similar in theme when comparing it to the simulation exercise of Event 201.41 From page 18 of the report, we find a scenario narrative called Lock-Step, which in accordance to its name consists of a “world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian leadership, with limited innovation and growing citizen pushback” in response to a viral pandemic. Reading this scenario almost corresponds to reading a newspaper account of the COVID-19 pandemic itself. A question that almost immediately arises when considering everything we have covered so far is whether or not this is just a major coincidence.
If we return our attention to the hosts of Event 201, we notice a name that stands out – the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Though we do not wish to be cynical, we must nonetheless be critical and ask ourselves whether philanthropy may act as a curtain for covering an organization’s conflicts of interest. We are about to find out some of the reasons why. According to a publication featured on the Columbia Journalism Review website, the foundation has given at least $250 million during 2020 for supporting journalism. The media institutions that have received funding include but are not limited to: the BBC, NBC, Al Jazeera, ProPublica, National Journal, The Guardian, Univision, Medium, the Financial Times, The Atlantic, the Texas Tribune, Gannett, Washington Monthly, Le Monde, and the Center for Investigative Reporting.42 This would help to explain why the coverage of the pandemic has been overwhelmingly in favor of supporting the political rhetoric and the emergency measures enacted by governments worldwide. Indeed, when reviewing the highlights reel of Event 201, we observe that the attendants discuss the ways in which it would be possible to engage established media institutions for limiting the spread of misinformation and disinformation in order to help maintain trust in the authorities who are responsible for maintaining public health and safety.43 However, it is precisely this trust that has eroded rapidly since the start of the pandemic.
From Politico, we find an article with the title “Meet the world’s most powerful doctor: Bill Gates”, published about three years prior to the pandemic, which questions Bill Gate’s influence over the WHO.44 Another more recent article reveals that between 2018-2019, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation was the 2nd biggest donor to the WHO, granting it over $530 million.45 Perhaps it should come as no surprise to find that the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) mentions on its website not only the names of The World Bank, UNICEF, and the WHO, but also that of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which reveals that the latter pledged $750 million for helping to launch the organization.46 On the website of GAVI, we find something else that is of interest; the formation of two models that distinguish it from other entities in global health. Those are the partnership model and the business model, with the former emphasizing a closer relationship between business and government, and the latter emphasizing the funding and shaping of vaccine markets.47 Theoretically, these models help us to see how it becomes possible for collusion to occur without there being any obvious signs of it. Of course, what is “obvious” in this sense is vague as the news industry generally does not report this collusion, which is most likely due to the fact that it receives funding from the same foundation that has financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry.
The Influence of Capitalism
To trust or not to trust? In our world that is becoming increasingly interconnected, this means that corporations must forge ties with different stakeholders so as to be able to compete globally. In order to understand this “pandemic”, we must bear in mind the impetus that gave it the opportunity to manifest. This means we must acknowledge that it is the capitalism system that has allowed the pandemic to come into being. After all, if the profit motive wasn’t there in the first place, then it would have never been to anyone’s benefit for the pandemic to be declared. In this context, one only needs to study the simulation exercise of Event 201 and The Rockefeller Foundation’s scenario narrative to see as to how certain entities can use these as part of a plan to exercise greater control over the world’s population and its resources, whether financial or otherwise.
To recapitulate on what has been said before, this pandemic is unprecedented not because of the virus that is implicated, but because of the way in which political power has drastically shifted toward business conglomerates and governments. In our time, it is becoming increasingly apparent that business and government are almost one and the same. And this is not by accident. Due to the nature of the capitalist system, businesses have little choice other than to seek markets whether domestic or abroad so that they can continue to compete and ensure profitability. Such is the nature of the so-called “free market”, granting pharmaceutical giants such as Pfizer the freedom to what essentially amounts to the blackmailing and/or bribing of governments to purchase its products, as revealed in a report by Public Citizen, a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization.48 From a Forbes article, we find that the same corporation is expected to dominate in the pharmaceutical industry for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic.49 We also find that the company faces accusations of pandemic profiteering, partly in response to the discovery that it is on track to make record-breaking sales revenue in 2022.50
What else do we know that is of concern from the perspective of public health and safety? The British Medical Journal published an article early during the pandemic revealing that COVID-19 vaccine trials were not designed to demonstrate whether the vaccines would save lives or prevent transmission of SARS-COV-2.51 To add to this, a more recent study has raised serious concerns about the safety of the vaccines being used to treat COVID-19 on the basis that their risks have been largely ignored by health institutions and government authorities.52 The authors of this study pose the following questions that are pertinent to the discussion of public health and safety:
What are the legal rights of patients if they are harmed by a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine? Who will cover the costs of medical treatment? If claims were to be settled with public money, has the public been made aware that the vaccine manufacturers have been granted immunity, and their responsibility to compensate those harmed by the vaccine has been transferred to the tax-payers?53
To add insult to injury, for example, a Romanian member of European Parliament has revealed redacted documents during a speech in 2021 that show how pharmaceutical companies have been able to coerce governments into accepting secretive agreements for the purchase of vaccines.54 It goes without saying that “secretive” in this sense means that the public was not properly informed about this transaction; this is beneficial for the pharmaceutical companies because had the latter been properly informed it is likely that they would have outright rejected it.
What makes all of this highly concerning is the lack of accountability and transparency. Some of the biggest beneficiaries during the pandemic have been Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and AstraZeneca.55 All three of these companies were previously convicted about a decade ago for fraudulent marketing and were forced to settle some of the largest lawsuits in U.S. history, amounting to billions of dollars in compensation.56-58 In spite of these lawsuits, and without accounting for any other legal offences they may have committed, it seems little has changed. What the evidence suggests is that the nature of capitalism is as such that it incentivizes the prioritization of profits above all else, even at the expense of democracy and the freedoms that relate to it. Although this may seem like an unfair criticism of a socioeconomic system that has brought unprecedented prosperity, we must bear in mind that alternatives such as socialism, communism, and fascism have historically proven themselves to be overall no better. As the adage goes – money talks.
A Note on the Aftermath
Before discussing the end of the pandemic, it is worth taking a look at some of the aftermath, which invariably relates to global transformation.
Several months after the WHO declared the pandemic, the World Economic Forum announced the launching of The Great Reset, which is an initiative that will:
offer insights to help inform all those determining the future state of global relations, the direction of national economies, the priorities of societies, the nature of business models and the management of a global commons.59
More recently on March 29th, 2022 the World Government Summit presented a session entitled “Are we Ready for a New World Order?”, which featured global thought leaders sharing “their reflections on the changing world order and its impact on the course of history, illustrating the need for a new statecraft that advances trust, inclusion, and future preparedness”.60 This comes amid calls by a number of leading political and economic figures such as Klaus Schwab, the founder of the World Economic Forum, to “build back better” in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which is based upon the notion that there is a need for a complete transformation of the global socioeconomic system and the role of governments in managing human affairs.61
If all of this seems ambitious and progressive, then this is because that is how the leading figures have marketed it to the public. Not everyone is convinced, however. Let’s consider the term “new world order” as an example due to its relation to this discussion. As we can observe by reviewing the Wikipedia entries for the term, we notice that it has two distinct meanings, which are outlined below, in part.
New world order (politics):
The term “new world order” refers to a new period of history evidencing dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power in international relations.62
New World Order (conspiracy theory):
The New World Order (NWO) is a conspiracy theory which hypothesizes a secretly emerging totalitarian world government.63
Thus, which of these meanings is correct or at least the most correct? Perhaps we need to rephrase the question. Hence, we may ask ourselves the following – how correct are both of these meanings for grasping the state of the world today and in the future? For anyone in doubt, they may wish to read the following piece by OffGuardian editor Kit Knightly entitled ““Pandemic Treaty” will hand WHO keys to global government”.64 This article discusses how the formation of a new treaty in response to the COVID-19 pandemic would incentivize the reporting of future pandemics, and lead to more political power being conferred to global governing bodies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the WHO. In the article, Knightly points out that:
Two African countries – Burundi and Tanzania – had Presidents who banned the WHO from their borders, and refused to go along with the Pandemic narrative. Both Presidents died unexpectedly within months of that decision, only to be replaced by new Presidents who instantly reversed their predecessor’s covid policies.
After which Knightly adds:
Less than a week after the death of President Pierre Nkurunziza, the IMF agreed to forgive almost 25 million dollars of Burundi’s national debt in order to help combat the Covid19 “crisis”.
Just five months after the death of President John Magufuli, the new government of Tanzania received 600 million dollars from the IMF to “address the covid19 pandemic”.
What is it that we are confronting? Are we confronting conspiracy, lunacy, or perhaps a bit of both? This is something that the readers should decide for themselves once they have reflected upon what the evidence suggests, bearing in mind that what we have covered in this article only scratches the surface in terms of what there is to learn about this pandemic, including its social, economic, ecological, and political repercussions.
Ending the Pandemic and Preventing Future Pandemics
The COVID-19 pandemic will end once the authorities have decided that it must end. The only role that “science” plays in this regard is to serve as a marketing tool for supporting the pandemic narrative. A possible alternative is that the public ends the pandemic by ignoring the rules and regulations imposed by authorities and living their lives as they would have before it was declared. However, this is improbable. As a result, the bad news is that there has and there will continue to be suffering and death as a result of corruption and ignorance. However, the good news is that we can do something about this problem not only to help put an end to it, but also to help prevent such a situation from ever arising again.
How do we end a future pandemic? Of course, to “end” a future pandemic implies that we prevent it before it happens. Below, Table 1 presents sources which provide information that is vital for taking back control of our health and safety, including our freedoms, which we have given away in exchange for a false sense of security. If there is anything that we may conclude is that knowledge is power. Without knowledge we are at the mercy of circumstance.
As a side note, I do not necessarily endorse all of the information that these books and websites espouse; I mention them as they are among the best that I have encountered in terms of their logic and facticity. Something else that is worth mentioning is that these sources are controversial, in general, because they convey information that contradicts the status quo. For this reason, it is important to not dismiss their ideas, concepts, and theories because of beliefs and/or biases that one may have.
| Books | Websites |
| Title: The Blood and its Third Anatomical Element Author: Antoine Béchamp | URL: www.cvpandemicinvestigation.com Owner: Andrew Johnson |
| Title: What Really Makes You Ill? Authors: Dawn Lester and David Parker | URL: www.whatreallymakesyouill.com Owners: Dawn Lester and David Parker |
| Title: Dissolving Illusions Authors: Suzanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianyk | URL: www.virusesarenotcontagious.com Owner: Jeff Green |
References
1 Du Toit, A., 2020. Outbreak of a Novel Coronavirus. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 18(3), pp.123-123. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-020-0332-0.
2 Bogoch, I., Watts, A., Thomas-Bachli, A., Huber, C., Kraemer, M. and Khan, K., 2020. Potential for Global Spread of a Novel Coronavirus from China. Journal of Travel Medicine, 27(2). Available at: https://academic.oup.com/jtm/article/27/2/taaa011/5716260.
3 Sohrabi, C., Alsafi, Z., O’Neill, N., Khan, M., Kerwan, A., Al-Jabir, A., Iosifidis, C. and Agha, R., 2020. World Health Organization declares global emergency: A review of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19). International Journal of Surgery, 76, pp.71-76. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7105032/.
4 Kim, J., Choe, P., Oh, Y., Oh, K., Kim, J., Park, S., Park, J., Na, H. and Oh, M., 2020. The First Case of 2019 Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia Imported into Korea from Wuhan, China: Implication for Infection Prevention and Control Measures. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 35(5). Available at: https://jkms.org/DOIx.php?id=10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e61.
5 Sun, J., Zhu, A., Li, H., Zheng, K., Zhuang, Z., Chen, Z., Shi, Y., Zhang, Z., Chen, S., Liu, X., Dai, J., Li, X., Huang, S., Huang, X., Luo, L., Wen, L., Zhuo, J., Li, Y., Wang, Y., Zhang, L., Zhang, Y., Li, F., Feng, L., Chen, X., Zhong, N., Yang, Z., Huang, J., Zhao, J. and Li, Y., 2020. Isolation of infectious SARS-CoV-2 from urine of a COVID-19 patient. Emerging Microbes & Infections, 9(1), pp.991-993. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/22221751.2020.1760144.
6 Wölfel, R., Corman, V., Guggemos, W., Seilmaier, M., Zange, S., Müller, M., Niemeyer, D., Jones, T., Vollmar, P., Rothe, C., Hoelscher, M., Bleicker, T., Brünink, S., Schneider, J., Ehmann, R., Zwirglmaier, K., Drosten, C. and Wendtner, C., 2020. Virological assessment of hospitalized patients with COVID-2019. Nature, 581(7809), pp.465-469. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2196-x.
7 Bahrami, A. and Ferns, G., 2020. Genetic and pathogenic characterization of SARS-CoV-2: a review. Future Virology, 15(8), pp.533-549. Available at: https://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/pdf/10.2217/fvl-2020-0129.
8 Khailany, R., Safdar, M. and Ozaslan, M., 2020. Genomic characterization of a novel SARS-CoV-2. Gene Reports, 19. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7161481/.
9 Harrison, A., Lin, T. and Wang, P., 2020. Mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2 Transmission and Pathogenesis. Trends in Immunology, 41(12), pp.1100-1115. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7556779/.
10 The disease apparently exhibits symptoms ranging from those that are characteristic to a mild flu all the way to those that emanate from having severe pneumonia. The following link provides more information: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/symptoms-testing/symptoms.html.
11 Zhu, N., Zhang, D., Wang, W., Li, X., Yang, B., Song, J., Zhao, X., Huang, B., Shi, W., Lu, R., Niu, P., Zhan, F., Ma, X., Wang, D., Xu, W., Wu, G., Gao, G. and Tan, W., 2020. A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019. New England Journal of Medicine, 382(8), pp.727-733. Available at: https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2001017?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori%3Arid%3Acrossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub++0www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.
12 Berman, J., 2019. Taxonomic Guide to Infectious Diseases. 2nd ed. London: Academic Press, an imprint of Elsevier, p.321.
13 This is apparent in how the news industry has had the tendency to portray viruses as infectious and their related illnesses such as influenza as contagious.
14 Richmond, P., 1954. Some Variant Theories in Opposition to the Germ Theory of Disease. Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, IX(3), pp.290-303.
15 Stewart, G., 1968. Limitations of the Germ Theory. The Lancet, 291(7551), pp.1077-1081.
16 Plowright, R., Sokolow, S., Gorman, M., Daszak, P. and Foley, J., 2008. Causal Inference in Disease Ecology: Investigating Ecological Drivers of Disease Emergence. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 6(8), pp.420-429. Available at: https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1890/070086.
17 Sullivan, M., Weitz, J. and Wilhelm, S., 2017. Viral Ecology Comes of Age. Environmental Microbiology Reports, 9(1), pp.33-35. Available at: https://sfamjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/1758-2229.12504.
18 Ayoade, S., 2017. The Differences Between the Germ Theory, the Terrain Theory and the Germ Terrain Duality Theory. JOJ Nursing & Health Care, 4(2), pp.1-3. Available at: https://juniperpublishers.com/jojnhc/pdf/JOJNHC.MS.ID.555631.pdf.
19 This definition is found in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Link: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/isolating.
20 Peer, R. and Shabir, N., 2018. Iatrogenesis: A review on nature, extent, and distribution of healthcare hazards. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, 7(2), pp.309-314.
21 Young, R., 2016. Who Had Their Finger on the Magic of Life – Antoine Bechamp or Louis Pasteur?. International Journal of Vaccines & Vaccination, 2(5). Available at: https://medcraveonline.com/IJVV/who-had-their-finger-on-the-magic-of-life—antoine-bechamp-or-louis-pasteur.html.
22 If we consider the outbreak that supposedly took place in Wuhan, China, it becomes apparent upon closer analysis that it is a location whose atmosphere is one of the most heavily polluted in the country due to the presence of volatile organic compounds such as carbon monoxide. This is one of the many possible contributing factors that can lead to the development of pneumonia, which coincides with the appearance of a “novel” coronavirus. The following link offers more information about Wuhan’s air quality: https://www.iqair.com/us/china/hubei/wuhan.
23 Bedock, D., Bel Lassen, P., Mathian, A., Moreau, P., Couffignal, J., Ciangura, C., Poitou-Bernert, C., Jeannin, A., Mosbah, H., Fadlallah, J., Amoura, Z., Oppert, J. and Faucher, P., 2020. Prevalence and Severity of Malnutrition in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients. Clinical Nutrition ESPEN, 40, pp.214-219.
24 Mertens, E. and Peñalvo, J., 2021. The Burden of Malnutrition and Fatal COVID-19: A Global Burden of Disease Analysis. Frontiers in Nutrition, 7. Available at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2020.619850/full.
25 Liu, H., Zhou, L., Wang, H., Wang, X., Qu, G., Cai, J. and Zhang, H., 2021. Malnutrition is Associated with Hyperinflammation and Immunosuppression in COVID‐19 Patients: A Prospective Observational Study. Nutrition in Clinical Practice, 36(4), pp.863-871.
26 The Encyclopedia Britannica offers a description of what a pandemic is. Link: https://www.britannica.com/science/pandemic.
27 Maerz, S., Luhrmann, A., Lachapelle, J. and Edgell, A., 2020. Worth the Sacrifice? Illiberal and Authoritarian Practices during COVID-19. Gothenburg: The Varieties of Democracy Institute, pp.1-23. Available at: https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/handle/2077/66624/gupea_2077_66624_1.pdf;jsessionid=FA56EAF8A0ACAC0BEF69475FA0BF7CFE?sequence=1.
28 Dodds, K., Broto, V., Detterbeck, K., Jones, M., Mamadouh, V., Ramutsindela, M., Varsanyi, M., Wachsmuth, D. and Woon, C., 2020. The COVID-19 pandemic: territorial, political and governance dimensions of the crisis. Territory, Politics, Governance, 8(3), pp.289-298. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/21622671.2020.1771022.
29 Hartman, T., Stocks, T., McKay, R., Gibson-Miller, J., Levita, L., Martinez, A., Mason, L., McBride, O., Murphy, J., Shevlin, M., Bennett, K., Hyland, P., Karatzias, T., Vallières, F. and Bentall, R., 2021. The Authoritarian Dynamic During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Effects on Nationalism and Anti-Immigrant Sentiment. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(7), pp.1274-1285. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1948550620978023.
30 Maher, P., Roth, J., Griffin, S., Foran, A., Jay, S., McHugh, C., Ryan, M., Bradshaw, D., Quayle, M. and Muldoon, O., 2021. Pandemic Threat and Group Cohesion: National Identification in the Wake of COVID-19 is Associated with Authoritarianism. The Journal of Social Psychology, pp.1-17. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00224545.2021.2024122.
31 Link: https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/about.
32 Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. 2020. Statement about nCoV and our Pandemic Exercise. Available at: https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/news/center-news/2020/2020-01-24-Statement-of-Clarification-Event201.html.
33 Ioannidis, J., 2020. A Fiasco in the Making? As the Coronavirus Pandemic takes Hold, we are Making Decisions without Reliable Data. STAT. Available at: https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/.
34 I insert the term “conspiracy theories” in between quotation marks to signify that I am using a term that some have used for discrediting those who hold opposing views regarding the pandemic. For more information, I suggest conducting an internet search by combining the keywords “covid-19 pandemic” and “conspiracy theories”.
35 Engdahl, F., 2020. LOCK STEP: This is No Futuristic Scenario. New Eastern Outlook. Available at: https://journal-neo.org/2020/03/10/lock-step-this-is-no-futuristic-scenario/.
36 Hubbard, Z., 2020. Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development, a Rockefeller Foundation document that goes hand in hand with the coronavirus pandemic. Gematria Effect News. Available at: https://gematriaeffect.news/scenarios-for-the-future-of-technology-and-international-development-a-rockefeller-foundation-document-that-goes-hand-in-hand-with-the-coronavirus-pandemic/.
37 Freeman, M., 2020. Rockefeller Foundation Paper Revealed Plan to Exploit Pandemic. The Freedom Articles. Available at: https://thefreedomarticles.com/2010-rockefeller-foundation-paper-plan-exploit-pandemic/.
38 Icke, G., 2020. Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development – Full Rockefeller Foundation Document. [online] David Icke. Available at: https://davidicke.com/2020/05/08/scenarios-future-technology-international-development-full-rockefeller-foundation-document/.
39 World Mysteries Blog. 2022. Scenarios for the Future – The Rockefeller Foundation Agenda. Available at: https://blog.world-mysteries.com/modern-world/scenarios-for-the-future-the-rockefeller-foundation-agenda/.
40 Cain, R., 2021. Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development. No Agenda Lockdown. Available at: https://noagendalockdown.com/scenarios/.
41 2010. Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development. The Rockefeller Foundation and Global Business Network. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/43023323/Scenarios_for_the_Future_of_Technology_and_International_Development.
42 Schwab, T., 2020. Journalism’s Gates keepers. Columbia Journalism Review. Available at: https://www.cjr.org/criticism/gates-foundation-journalism-funding.php.
43 This discussion begins approximately 08:15 into the video. Please see the following link: https://youtu.be/AoLw-Q8X174.
44 Huet, N. and Paun, C., 2017. Meet the world’s most powerful doctor: Bill Gates. POLITICO. Available at: https://www.politico.eu/article/bill-gates-who-most-powerful-doctor/.
45 Crawford, J., 2021. Does Bill Gates have too much influence in the WHO?. SWI swissinfo.ch. Available at: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/does-bill-gates-have-too-much-influence-in-the-who-/46570526.
46 Gavi – The Vaccine Alliance. 2022. Gavi’s partnership model. Available at: https://www.gavi.org/our-alliance/operating-model/gavis-partnership-model.
47 Please review reference 46.
48 Rizvi, Z., 2021. Pfizer’s Power. Public Citizen. Available at: https://www.citizen.org/article/pfizers-power/.
49 Klebnikov, S., 2021. This Vaccine Maker Can ‘Dominate’ The Covid Market For Years To Come, Wells Fargo Predicts. Forbes. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/sergeiklebnikov/2021/12/09/this-vaccine-maker-can-dominate-the-covid-market-for-years-to-come-wells-fargo-predicts/?sh=174e37231181.
50 Kollewe, J., 2022. Pfizer Accused of Pandemic Profiteering as Profits Double. The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/feb/08/pfizer-covid-vaccine-pill-profits-sales.
51 Doshi, P., 2020. Will covid-19 vaccines save lives? Current trials aren’t designed to tell us. BMJ, pp.1-4.
52 This study is available for review through the following link: https://www.authorea.com/users/414448/articles/522499-sars-cov-2-mass-vaccination-urgent-questions-on-vaccine-safety-that-demand-answers-from-international-health-agencies-regulatory-authorities-governments-and-vaccine-developers?commit=123b84611353b243b6d09320ac98cb07db022771.
53 See reference 52.
54 2021. Vaccine contract speech at European Parliament – Cristian Terhes EU – “you call this transparency?”. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNKQbrvuKvM.
55 Kollewe, J., 2021. From Pfizer to Moderna: who’s making billions from Covid-19 vaccines?. The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/mar/06/from-pfizer-to-moderna-whos-making-billions-from-covid-vaccines.
56 The United States Department of Justice, 2009. Justice Department Announces Largest Health Care Fraud Settlement in Its History. Available at: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-largest-health-care-fraud-settlement-its-history.
57 The United States Department of Justice, 2010. Pharmaceutical Giant AstraZeneca to Pay $520 Million for Off-label Drug Marketing. Available at: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/pharmaceutical-giant-astrazeneca-pay-520-million-label-drug-marketing.
58 The United States Department of Justice, 2013. Johnson & Johnson to Pay More Than $2.2 Billion to Resolve Criminal and Civil Investigations. Available at: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/johnson-johnson-pay-more-22-billion-resolve-criminal-and-civil-investigations.
59 World Economic Forum. 2022. The Great Reset. Available at: https://www.weforum.org/great-reset.
60 World Government Summit – Session Detail. 2022. Are We Ready for A New World Order?. Available at: https://www.worldgovernmentsummit.org/events/2022/session-detail/a0f3z0are-we-ready-for-a-new-world-order.
61 2020. “Build Back Better” Compilation – “The Great Reset” Montage. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkcaeaD45MY.
62 Wikipedia. 2022. New world order (politics). Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_world_order_(politics).
63 Wikipedia. 2022. New World Order (conspiracy theory) – Wikipedia. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_(conspiracy_theory).
64 Knightly, K., 2022. “Pandemic Treaty” will hand WHO keys to global government. OffGuardian. Available at: https://off-guardian.org/2022/04/19/pandemic-treaty-will-hand-who-keys-to-global-government/.