OPINION: This piece includes the author’s opinions.
This article is the second in a two-piece series by Catherine Salgado. Part one can be read here.
The Johns Hopkins 2017 study “The SPARS Pandemic 2025-2028: A Futuristic Scenario for Public Health Risk Communicators,” with its dangerous vaccine, government-social media tag-teaming, inflated mortality rates, and exaggerated hysteria, could qualify as the handbook or roadmap to the real 2020-21 Covid-19 pandemic. In my first article on this topic, I discussed how both the similarities and differences between SPARS and Covid-19 are worthy of note; I will examine these in more detail in this second article.
The SPARS study emphasizes how key the internet, particularly social media, are when the US government endeavors to push the coronavirus vaccine (called Corovax in the study), as I noted in my first article. The study specifically mentions YouTube ads and Google searches, and significantly adds, “This advertisement campaign required government officials to leverage relationships in the information technology industry, including the many companies involved with social media, but the impact was worth the effort.” (55)
If you have used Google or YouTube lately, I am willing to bet you have seen numerous ads for the Covid-19 jabs. The “US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and other public health agencies have increasingly adopted a diverse range of social media technologies” throughout the study, just as these agencies did (directly or indirectly) during the 2020-21 pandemic. On the subject of “other public health agencies,” NIH funds are provided to produce the dangerous coronavirus vaccine in the study—Fauci, anyone?
There were two points which the 2017 study knew would be key in the event of a real pandemic, points which seem to have been in the minds of the tyrants manipulating the world during the real Covid pandemic. These points fall under the category of differences or potential “failures” against which the study is “warning” decision-makers.
“Specifically, two dominant trends likely to influence regulatory and public responses to future public health emergencies were selected: one, varying degrees of access to information technology; and two, varying levels of fragmentation among populations along social, political, religious, ideological, and cultural lines. . .Ultimately, a world comprised of isolated and highly fragmented communities with widespread access to information technology—dubbed ‘the echo-chamber’” is depicted in the study (p. 1-2).
Information technology and highly fragmented communities. Could anything sound more similar to the global—and particularly the US—experience in 2020 and 2021? But unlike in the SPARS study, the government and Big Tech fully exploited the weaknesses created by these two aspects. The decision-makers “learned” what to do before the real pandemic.
The similarities are still more significant than the differences in this study, I believe. Just as the Covid jab now is predicted by experienced medical experts like Dr. Richard Fleming to have serious potential neurological effects, based on effects during studies using animals, for SPARS “Several parents claimed that their children were experiencing neurological symptoms similar to those seen among livestock exposed to the GMI vaccine.”
Even more fascinating, the SPARS study complains that so-called non-experts on social media were making the government’s vaccination push hard by gathering evidence from individuals themselves as well as VAERS (a government website) to spread information about the negative vax side effects on social media.
As we know now, people using evidence from individuals and VAERS data to speak about the Covid-19 vaccine side effects are being harassed or even shut down on social media (Sydney Powell and Dr. Robert Malone, for instance) and VAERS is in fact only reporting a fraction of the real number of incidents.
But still, the study admits, “Nearing the end of 2027, reports of new neurological symptoms began to emerge. After showing no adverse side effects for nearly a year, several vaccine recipients slowly began to experience symptoms such as blurry vision, headaches, and numbness in their extremities.” (60)
The study claims that there was no direct evidence that Corovax caused the symptoms, and that the number of such cases was supposedly “small” (definitely different from the Covid jabs’ massive effects), so compensation was generally not accorded, even though the clinical trials of Corovax had in fact given every indication the vax would have terrible side effects. Does this not sound like Fauci’s “I am science” assessment? “Displaying a fundamental misunderstanding of scientific research, many demanded proof that the vaccines did not cause long-term effects.” (61) How dare they!
There are three other parts of the 2017 Spars study which particularly stand out to me, besides the use of social media and the Corovax. The first is the fact that the study predicts official fatality rates from the novel coronavirus will be grossly inflated.
“[E]arly case fatality estimates were inflated. By late November, the CDC reported an initial estimated SPARS case fatality rate of 4.7% (By contrast, WHO reported that the overall case fatality rate for SARS was 14-15% and over 50% for people over the age of 64. Later in the SPARS outbreak, data that included more accurate estimates of mild SPARS cases indicated a case fatality rate of only 0.6%).” (6) This could almost be a quote from a recent news article.
The inflated death rates are connected in the SPARS study to the heavy push for the dangerous coronavirus vaccine. “Data provided by GMI suggested that the vaccine was effective at preventing SPARS-like illnesses in cows, pigs, and other hooved mammals, but internal trials revealed several worrisome side effects, including swollen legs, severe joint pain, and encephalitis leading to seizures or death. Because any animals experiencing these side effects were immediately killed, and because animals were typically slaughtered within a year of vaccination, further information regarding the short- and long-term effects of the GMI vaccine was unavailable. Lacking a viable alternative—and considering the potentially high morbidity and mortality associated with SPARS (at the time the case fatality rate was still considered to be 4.7%). . .[GMI was contacted anyway etc.]”
(12) People were ultimately told to take a vaccine that lacked proper testing and was believed to be dangerous, based on false mortality rates (see p. 49). Talk about a playbook for the Covid pandemic.
The second quote which is so similar to the Covid-19 experience is when the study discusses which efforts pushed by authorities did not, in fact, work against SPARS. “WHO’s efforts promoted interventions originally designed for influenza and other similar respiratory pathogens, such as hygiene, social distancing, and isolation of suspected cases, all of which were less effective against SPARS.” (9, emphasis added)
If this really were a study for “Public Health Risk Communicators,” how is it that the US government seems to take some advice from the study, such as utilizing social media as much as possible and making healthcare workers priority for the vax, while simultaneously ignoring the science-based predictions about the dangers of a coronavirus vaccine not properly tested, and the ineffectiveness of measures such as social distancing against such a virus? Was the purpose of the study truly to assess how to limit deaths and dangers in a pandemic, as it seems to claim, or how to enforce government solutions (however ineffective and damaging)?
Finally, there is this statement in the SPARS study regarding vax campaigns: “In contrast to most Christian religions, however, the Muslim faith is not at all centralized, and the statements of an imam from Washington, DC held little validity for many local Muslim communities.” (44-45) This is fascinating because, in the SPARS study, the secular authorities try to use the influence of religious leaders to push the vaccine (which is the situation in this quote). Of course, this is precisely what is happening in our world now. Pope Francis, to name just one religious leader, has aggressively pushed the Covid jab, while many churches, dioceses, and houses of worship of all faiths have made different rules for the vaxxed and the unvaxxed.
There is so much in this 2017 Spars study that is relevant to our Covid-19 experience which I cannot cover fully in my articles. But I believe the material I have covered—including the manipulation of information on social media, the dangerous vaccine, the inflated death tolls, and the ineffective yet promoted containment efforts—proves beyond a doubt that Johns Hopkins’ 2017 SPARS Study could practically have been a roadmap and guidebook for the real Covid-19 pandemic.