‘Plandemic’: Fake pandemic

By Jude Josue L. Sabio .

JUST like in the ongoing covid-19 pandemic, the WHO was targeted in a credible organizational criticism for staging a fake pandemic in the 2009 H1N1 swine flu.

On 11 June 2009, the WHO declared the first-ever H1N1 swine flu pandemic in the 21st century. But after several months, when pandemic data had been collected from many countries in the midst of the pandemic, the 2009 H1N1 influenza failed to turn out to be deadlier than it was imagined at its inception, its case fatality rate being lower than 0.1% and being in line with other known human influenza viruses, which, by the way, is turning out to be the same for this “influenza-like Covid-19.”

Since the H1N1 was not that severe, several countries decried the fact that they were canceling part of their vaccine orders while others were trying to resell unused stocks. Due to the huge economic costs and disruptions, governments and WHO came under stinging rebuke for the way they had handled the pandemic. The WHO became the target of sharp attacks especially from the Council of Europe.

The Council of Europe mounted the most prominent and first organizational and political line of attack against the WHO in relation to the H1N1 pandemic. One of the loudest critics of the actions of the WHO came from Wolfgang Wodarg.

In December 2009, Wodarg, a German physician and former member of the German Parliament for the Social Democratic Party, introduced a motion that was scathing in its indictment: “Fake Pandemic: A Threat to Health”

Wodarg studied medicine in Berlin and Hamburg and was trained in epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University. He was also a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and signed that motion together with 14 members of that group’s Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee.

He was the first institutional critic of the WHO’s handling of H1N1, emphasizing what he thought was the “undue influence of pharmaceutical manufacturers upon the WHO’s actions”. His voice was prominent in the Council of Europe’s discussion of the events.

He categorically called the pandemic a “fake”, because the virus is no different from existing flu strains. According to him, big pharma prevailed upon the WHO to declare a pandemic in order that its vaccine could be produced and sold. Wodarg stated in his Web site: “WHO in cooperation with some big pharmaceutical companies re-defined pandemics and lowered the alarm-threshold.”

The motion contained two paragraphs. The first paragraph stated: “In order to promote their patented drugs and vaccines against flu, pharmaceutical companies have influenced scientists and official agencies, responsible for public health standards, to alarm governments worldwide. They have made them squander tight health care resources for inefficient vaccine strategies and needlessly exposed millions of healthy people to the risk of unknown side-effects of insufficiently tested vaccines”.

The second paragraph stated: “The “birds-flu”-campaign (2005/06) combined with the “swine-flu”-campaign seem to have caused a great deal of damage not only to some vaccinated patients and to public health budgets, but also to the credibility and accountability of important international health agencies. The definition of an alarming pandemic must not be under the influence of drug-sellers.”

Key expert witnesses were utilized by the Council of Europe to testify on the scientific evidence regarding the issue. They were the epidemiologists Ulrich Keil and Tom Jefferson who represented the arguments and narrative of the Council in the use of evidence regarding the H1N1.

On 20 January 2010, this motion was heard by the Committee on Social, Health and Family Affairs on the second day of the parliamentary assembly, in which the WHO and representatives of a group of pharmaceutical companies attended and defended their position. Wodarg principally spoke and argued in favor of the motion.

In a lengthy article published online on 16 September 2016 in “Science as Culture” entitled “Contesting a Pandemic: The WHO and the Council of Europe”, Sudeepa Abeysinghe, Social and Political Sciences, University of Edinburg, Edinburg, UK, analyzed the contentions between the WHO and the Council of Europe.

In the article, Sudeepa Abeysinghe said: “First and foremost amongst these critics was the intergovernmental organization of the Council of Europe, which, following a series of discussions and debates, concluded that the WHO’s actions had caused both undue panic and excessive expense. In making these claims, the Council of Europe mobilized its own narrative of the science of H1N1 to contradict the WHO’s policy-making and actions.”

Just like in the present covid-19 pandemic, the WHO promoted the use of vaccines against the H1N1 pandemic. The WHO’s preference for vaccine use as its “best practice” reflects a “historical tendency” to rely on such a technique to manage a pandemic. But for the Council of Europe, this technique formed the focal point of its contention against WHO, claiming that the WHO exaggerated the pandemic in a bid to allow big pharma to produce and sell its vaccines.

The Council of Europe opposed the use of vaccines, stating: “It seems that the exaggeration of the pandemic was perhaps neither a mistake nor a coincidence. The pharmaceutical industries that earned a fortune from the pandemic had their people in the WHO, which had the power to declare the pandemic and thereby oblige a number of countries to buy large supplies of products from those industries.” According to the Council of Europe, big pharma which had people working inside the WHO was able to capture the WHO with its business and financial interests.

Prior to the WHO declaration of the H1N1 pandemic, or specifically, sometime in April 2009, the WHO took away the standard of “severity” in its definition of a pandemic. Wodarg was quoted in a January 26, 2010 report in CIDRAP as saying in the Committee hearing that the new pandemic definition “made it possible to turn the run-of-the-mill flu into a pandemic and translate into millions for vaccine for no good reason.” As it turned out, had it not been for such a change of definition, the H1N1 pandemic declaration would not have been possible, because it was not as severe as initially imagined to be. Wodarg saw the last-minute change as being tailor-made to suit the big pharma.

In a recent video titled “Plandemic” that went viral on social media, but which was later removed from Youtube and Facebook, the controversial Dr. Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., when asked if the SARS Covid 2 is created at a lab, responded saying: “I wouldn’t use the word created. But you can’t say naturally occurring if it was by way of the laboratory. So it’s very clear this virus was manipulated. This family of viruses was manipulated and studied in a laboratory where the animals were taken into the laboratory, and this is what was released, whether deliberate or not. That cannot be naturally occurring. Somebody didn’t go to a market, get a bat, the virus didn’t jump directly to humans. That’s not how it works. That’s accelerated viral evolution. If it was a natural occurrence, it would take up to 800 years to occur.”

When asked further if she had any ideas where it occurred, she said: “Oh yeah, I’m sure it occurred between the North Carolina laboratories, Fort Detrick, the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, and the Wuhan laboratory.”

In the “Plandemic” video, the interviewer asked Dr. Mikovits if big pharma will stand to make hundreds of billions of dollars that own the vaccines, and she replied: “And they’ll kill millions, as they already have with their vaccines. There is no vaccine currently on the schedule for any RNA virus that works.”

When Dr. Mikovits stated that the Covid-19 virus is “manipulated”, she appears to imply that it is meant to benefit the big pharma to be able to produce and sell its vaccine, just like what Wodarg contended in 2009 in relation to the H1N1 pandemic.

In the case of the Philippines, following the usual “best practice” of the WHO, Health Secretary Francisco Duque requested in July 2009 from Congress the amount of P19.8 billion for H1N1 resistance. He said that part of the money would be used for buying vaccines at PhP 16 billion. But the House Committee on Health questioned the huge amount, saying that there were yet no vaccines to buy at the time during the H1N1 swine flu pandemic. This episode clearly reveals how a pandemic is ridiculously exploited as a trigger for big pharma to able to potentially benefit even if there is yet no vaccine.

“We don’t need a vaccine,” Dr. Judy Mikovits claims on April 15, 2020, YouTube video with more than 80,000 views. ”All you have to do is have a healthy immune system,” she said.

(Jude Josue Sabio is a lawyer from Misamis Oriental. The views in this do not necessarily reflect the position of this paper on the matter.)