Predictive Programing

Dr. Weeks’ Comments: With so much disinformation (deep fakes) now more than ever one needs to be able to think..

How The WHO Misled Us All: The Predictive Programming Of The Pandemic
By Guest Author
May 28, 2020

By James Grundvig

On Monday, May 18, the World Health Organization (WHO) held the 73rd World Health Assembly via remote teleconference. While the WHO’s Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus made opening congratulatory remarks, related to “130 countries co-sponsoring a resolution that was adopted by consensus,” U.S. President Donald Trump sent a four-page letter to the director-general deflating that praise.

The contents of the letter explained why the United States suspended payments to the WHO, with the Trump Administration continuing its investigation into the organization’s “failed response” to the coronavirus pandemic. The letter exposed the WHO’s “alarming lack of independence from China” and its delayed response in alerting nations of the emerging crisis. It further excoriated the WHO for “choosing not to share any of the critical information with the rest of the world, probably for political reasons.” Finally, it labeled the claims made by the WHO as “grossly inaccurate or misleading.”

The World Health Organization’s role as an international gatekeeper of epidemics went much deeper than being a first alert system for pandemics. In May 2018, the WHO and the World Bank launched a “new mechanism to strengthen global health security,” called the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board (GPMB). By that September, they announced the GPMB would publish its first annual report the following autumn assessing the “global state of preparedness.”

The ‘predictive programming’ for the novel coronavirus began much earlier than people realize. It started on September 18, 2019, a full three months before the outbreak tripped circuit breakers that would lead to locking down the world. That day an armada of media outlets broadcast warnings about the world being unprepared for a global pandemic. All of these pre-pandemic warnings have since been forgotten and overlooked.

Why did some future epidemic receive so much media coverage on the same day? What was the source for the unseen outbreak when not a blip showed on any health radar?

“Predictive programming,” a theory coined by Alan Watt, is the psychological conditioning of the public vis-à-vis the deliberate seeding of ideas or events through the media for planned societal changes to come in the future.

‘A World at Risk’

The Global Preparedness Monitoring Board sent details to media outlets of its first annual report, “A World at Risk,” which was published four days later. The GPMB’s 48-page critical assessment and plan for addressing gaps in preparedness served as the fodder for the media blitz with lockstep messaging. On the same day, Chinese authorities held a coronavirus training drill at Wuhan Tianhe Airport. The industrial city would go on to host the World Military Games one month later on October 18.

In retrospect, the timing of the media canvas aligning with the Wuhan coronavirus exercise, in the future hot zone for the global outbreak, does stretch the logic of chance. What was the purpose of conditioning the public about a global infectious disease that wouldn’t show up until the end of the year?

The predictive programming, if it happened, didn’t end with the GPMB report and the Wuhan coronavirus drill. On the same day at the start of the World Military Games, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, John Hopkins University, and the World Economic Forum launched its coronavirus exercise, called Event 201, that simulated the deaths of 65 million virtual people. On November 6, they war-gamed a mock emergency meeting that included members from the WHO, the CDC, and other global health experts in New York City.

Of the seven recommendations, the consortium came up with from the model data; the seventh conveniently meant to steer governments to develop “methods to combat mis- and disinformation.” It included governments partnering with social media companies to “counter misinformation.” That is what started to happen in May. 

Twitter deleted pandemic related hashtags and shadow-banned discussions on COVID19. Google purged users’ copies of the “Plandemic” documentary off Google Drive. YouTube, for its part, demonetized podcasts, videos, and researcher channels that challenged the WHO, CDC, and mainstream narrative on the novel virus.

Is that what happened with the GPMB report, the Wuhan coronavirus drill, the blanketing by the media of an impending virus outbreak, and the Gates Foundation Event 201 exercise? It does seem odd that all of these links in a coronavirus chain occurred independently of one another over four weeks.

The WHO’s Plan to Drill “Live” Viruses

The GPMB published “A World at Risk: Annual Report on Global Preparedness for Health Emergencies” to assess the “world’s ability to protect itself” and identify “critical gaps to preparedness.” None of the goals or language were new. They have been seen before in other documents produced by the UN, WHO, CDC, and the World Economic Forum.

What is new and disturbing emerged on page 39, “Progress indicator(s) by September 2020.” The second of four points revealed the United Nations, in concert with the World Health Organization, planned to war game pandemic drills.

2. “The United Nations (including WHO) conducts at least two systemwide training and simulation exercises, including one covering the deliberate release of a lethal respiratory pathogen.”

For that goal, the GPMB stated that the UN and the WHO would conduct “at least two systemwide training and simulation exercises” during the calendar year from the release of the report.

If that is the case, did the WHO participate in the Wuhan coronavirus drill on September 18, 2019? Did the global agency help plan the release of the novel coronavirus in October, before or during the World Military Games, if indeed that is what happened? Or will the live drill come later on, as predicted by Anthony Fauci and Bill Gates’ warning about a second wave of the virus?

We know from the Event 201 website that the WHO participated in the coronavirus simulation coming out of South America in their model.

In early May, reports surfaced showing cellular tower transmissions, and vehicular traffic in and around the Wuhan BSL-4 Lab stopped on October 6 for a week. The theory is that a leak or security breach occurred at the lab. What if the reason to close the lab was to prepare for yet another coronavirus drill? And what if the WHO was a participant or planner in the exercise that might have gone awry?

Does that seem implausible or conspiratorial now in hindsight?

Not at all. Not when one sees the decision-makers who sat on the GPMB board of directors during the production of its risk report last summer. The names are familiar; their activities and objectives, however, go far beyond conflicts of interest.

# # #

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *