A novel coronavirus causes worldwide deaths and panic. . . the US government uses social media to spread medical narratives and support for a coronavirus vaccine. . . the government pushes Americans to get a vaccine that is not properly tested and proves to have very grave side effects. . .
No, I am not talking about the Covid-19 pandemic.
The handbook or roadmap for the Covid-19 plandemic was published almost three years before the latter even happened. In 2017, Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security published a study called “The Spars Pandemic 2025 – 2028: A Futuristic Scenario for Public Health Risk Communicators.”
In reading this report, it is absolutely astounding how certain aspects of the current pandemic (which is, incidentally, an imaginary “novel coronavirus” pandemic in the study), were predicted. For instance, the study predicted that a rush-produced vaccine would be heavily pushed by the government, but would ultimately have terrible side effects. What is perhaps even more interesting, however, is what is different about the Spars pandemic and the Wuhan virus pandemic—and how the study points to and treats “failures” of the imaginary figures in the scenario.
The “Spars Pandemic” not only laid out a roadmap for Covid-19, but it also, as it were, “tried” certain methods and found they didn’t answer, then highlighted how these methods ought to be changed in the event of a real pandemic. One of the most significant “failures” of the Spars scenario is the fact that the US government and its allies do not use social media well enough to push certain narratives—at least at first. Yet we know that Big Tech has been 100% behind every lie and infringement of liberty pushed on Americans since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic.
The fictional characters in this study did “learn” from their “mistakes.”
For instance, “Having dealt with multiple communications issues over the course of the Spars pandemic, federal leaders successfully applied communications lessons learned from past failures and coordinated a rapid and effective response (p. 57).” But one might say the real-life powers-that-be also learned from this hypothetical situation, as they seem to have taken all its lessons carefully to heart.
Some of the striking differences do show that Spars was in fact thoroughly hypothetical. While Covid-19 affected children and young people very little, Spars is supposed to affect young children very badly. Spars originated in the Philippines, while Covid-19 came out of a Chinese lab. In the study, the government actually did originally push a therapeutics drug, called “Kalocivir,” while in the Wuhan virus pandemic the government deliberately repressed effective therapeutics.
The highly questionable “Corovax” (coronavirus vaccine) does not seem to be forced on people by employers or the government itself, while people are being coerced into receiving the Covid-19 jab. In the study, college students are generally heavily anti-vax, while during Covid-19 large numbers of college students are vaxxed—although this provides a segue into the next topic, which is “learning from prior failures.”
In the study, colleges do not require vaccination, and the government does not use social media enough. In reality, many colleges have forced students to get the Covid jab and the CDC is paying college students to be “vaccine influencers” on social media. Perhaps the biggest “learning from prior failures” point is indeed the fact that the government and medical “experts” and allies do not use social media well to get across their point in the case of Spars for most of the pandemic, while anti-vaxxers (for instance) use social media as their main platform to voice their concerns and form community, a situation which the study considers very negative. In the Covid-19 plandemic, the government and Big Tech took care to use Soviet-style restrictions on free speech and the power of propaganda on social media to spread their lies and effectively shut down anyone trying to tell the truth.
The third category for this study compared to the real plandemic is “similarities.” For example, “the US government added a new, aggressive advertising campaign to its pro-vaccination efforts. This campaign provided targeted internet advertisements to individuals as they conducted web searches or visited anti-vaccination websites (p. 55).” In fact, Covid jab propaganda is being forced continually on the internet. I constantly see website ads, YouTube ads, and Google search suggestions all pushing the “vaccine.” Indeed, the ad campaign has extended farther than that—for instance McDonald’s (at least in my town) has added a pro-vaccine message to every single coffee cup.
The similarities between Spars and Covid-19 and “warnings” against “failures” in this astounding 2017 study are in fact so numerous and important, that I will examine them in greater detail in the second part of this article series.