The SPARS Pandemic 2025–2028: A Futuristic Scenario to Facilitate Medical Countermeasure Communication, is a document wargaming the possible scenarios that could occur during a pandemic. The paper was written in 2017 and published by The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. Here is the opening paragraph on the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security webpage, where you can download a copy for yourself.

Updated: the original link to UCF no longer resolves, I searched and it’s gone. This link is through The Internet Archive. There's also a condensed version available here at the University of Central Florida website.

The Center’s SPARS Pandemic exercise narrative comprises a futuristic scenario that illustrates communication dilemmas concerning medical countermeasures (MCMs) that could plausibly emerge in the not-so-distant future. Its purpose is to prompt users, both individually and in discussion with others, to imagine the dynamic and oftentimes conflicted circumstances in which communication around emergency MCM development, distribution, and uptake takes place. While engaged with a rigorous simulated health emergency, scenario readers have the opportunity to mentally “rehearse” responses while also weighing the implications of their actions. At the same time, readers have a chance to consider what potential measures implemented in today’s environment might avert comparable communication dilemmas or classes of dilemmas in the future.

While this document doesn't seem too odd at first, there are quite a few aspects of this document that are strangely similar to the way that things have unfolded during the current SARS-Cov-2 pandemic. Take a look at the table of contents:

It only gets more interesting after that.

So now you have this medication Kalocivir, which sounds eerily similar to Remdesivir.

They even fake Twitter posts echoing negative sentiments about the Kalocivir treatments.

This part here is the most interesting to me. Once they find out that the virus is much less deadly than originally though, and, "public interest in SPARS had begun to wane". "...the new, lower case fatality rate estimate led the public to grow increasingly hostile toward continued SPARS messaging."

Why would the government then start a public messaging campaign to make people more afraid of something that's not very deadly? What is the point of that? That, I think, is the most important question to ask about this whole scenario. Wouldn't it make more sense to just treat the outlying cases and let herd immunity take care of the rest? That's how it's worked with any other virus outbreak.

As part of this fear campaign, they begin targeting the population with an adds designed to quell doubts about the "approved" forms of treatment. They are also using the help of celebrity endorsements to push the vaccines and or treatments.

They even cover a mock interview in which a former President shows hesitation when asked about her grandson taking the treatment!

Once vaccinations start, there is confusion in the public because the prioritization of those who will first receive the vaccine.

This has to be the strangest part. There is a huge power outage that occurs. Kind of like the one that happened in Texas! But that's most likely coincidental, still odd though.

It goes on to say how Muslims didn't want to participate in the vaccine program because pigs were used in the manufacturing process.

Next it get to where we are right now.

The paper concludes with the following.

After reading this, you have to ask yourself. How much of what's happened in the last year or so was not planned? Maybe not all of it, but some of it definitely seems like it's been well thought out, the outbreak, how it would be handled, how the government needs to have messaging that thwarts opposition to whatever they (government bureaucrats) deem relevant. And what I consider the be the most important aspect. The need to scare people into believing that something which is not that deadly --is that deadly.

UPDATE: 08-31-21

Now there are people in the FDA who are "stepping down" AKA "retiring" because they have taken issue with what's gone on thus far.

Two of the FDA’s most senior vaccine leaders are exiting from their positions, raising fresh questions about the Biden administration and the way that it’s sidelined the FDA.

Marion Gruber, director of the FDA’s Office of Vaccines Research & Review and 32-year veteran of the agency, will leave at the end of October, and OVRR deputy director Phil Krause, who’s been at FDA for more than a decade, will leave in November. The news, first reported by BioCentury, is a massive blow to confidence in the agency’s ability to regulate vaccines.

The bombshell announcement comes at a particularly crucial moment, as boosters and children’s shots are being weighed by the regulator. The departures also come as the administration has recently jumped ahead of the FDA’s reviews of booster shots, announcing that they might be available by the week of Sept. 20.

A former senior FDA leader told Endpoints that they’re departing because they’re frustrated that CDC and their ACIP committee are involved in decisions that they think should be up to the FDA. The former FDAer also said he’s heard they’re upset with CBER director Peter Marks for not insisting that those decisions should be kept inside FDA. What finally did it for them was the White House getting ahead of FDA on booster shots.

FDA’s former acting chief scientist Luciana Borio added on Twitter, “FDA is losing two giants who helped bring us many safe and effective vaccines over decades of public service.”

“These two are the leaders for Biologic (vaccine) review in the US. They have a great team, but these two are the true leaders of CBER. A huge global loss if they both leave,” Former BARDA director Rick Bright wrote, weighing in on the news. “Dr. Gruber is much more than the Director. She is a global leader. Visionary mastermind behind global clinical regulatory science for flu, Ebola, Mers, Zika, Sars-cov-2, many others.”

So there are people stepping down from the FDA because they disagree with approving the shots for children. This was also in the SPARS Pandemic Scenario paper. It goes on to say, "As the investigations grew in intensity, several high-ranking officials at the CDC and FDA were forced to step down and withdraw from government in order to "spend more time with their families." Exhausted employees of these agencies, many of whom worked long hours six or seven days a week throughout the pandemic, simply wanted to put the whole respond behind them."

What do you think?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

The QR code below links to WindUpRubberFinger.com for easy sharing.

I don't remember hearing about anyone between the ages of 16 and 24 having heart issues, unless they were on drugs of some sort. If someone this young were to have a heart issue, drugs would be the very first thing they would be looking for, when it comes to those who have been vaccinated, they immediately write it off as a coincidence. Does that sound objective to you?

Epoch times covered the fact that the CDC is holding an emergency meeting to address the increased rates of heart illnesses following a second dose of the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines.

The first portion of the meeting will feature an update on COVID-19 vaccine safety, including myocarditis cases seen after the administration of vaccines built on messenger RNA technology, according to the meeting agenda.

The CDC has so far identified 226 reports in people ages 30 and younger that might meet the agency’s “working case definition” of heart inflammation following the shots, Dr. Tom Shimabukuro, a deputy director at the agency, told the Food and Drug Administration’s vaccine advisory group during a virtual meeting. That was out of about 12.2 million who had received a vaccine as of May 31.

While the vast majority of the patients have recovered, 41 had ongoing symptoms, 15 are still hospitalized, and three are in intensive care units.

Shimabukuro told members that the CDC will continue to evaluate myocarditis following vaccination and assess the benefits and risks of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, which both use mRNA technology, ahead of the emergency meeting next week.

“I think the myocarditis is something that needs to be looked at closely because we’re likely seeing the tip of the iceberg,” added Dr. Michael Kurilla, director of the Division of Clinical Innovation at the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, which is part of the National Institutes of Health.

Pfizer said it supports the CDC’s assessment of the heart inflammation cases, noting that “the number of reports is small given the number of doses administered.”

“It is important to understand that a careful assessment of the reports is ongoing and it has not been concluded that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines cause myocarditis or pericarditis,” the company told The Epoch Times in an email.

While the general public is told that this is a rare occurrence. It's so damn rare that, "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccine advisory committee plans to hold an emergency meeting this month [June, 2021] to discuss the higher than expected reports of heart inflammation in young males following a second dose of the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines."

Many now believe that the SARS-Cov-2 virus itself was not what caused the majority of severe reactions in people who were infected by the virus. It appears that there's more of an issue with the "spike protein" that the virus uses to attach itself to human cells. The following is just one example.

“We made a big mistake. We didn’t realize it until now,” said Byram Bridle, a viral immunologist and associate professor at University of Guelph, Ontario, in an interview with Alex Pierson last Thursday, in which he warned listeners that his message was “scary.”

“We thought the spike protein was a great target antigen, we never knew the spike protein itself was a toxin and was a pathogenic protein. So by vaccinating people we are inadvertently inoculating them with a toxin,” Bridle said on the show, which is not easily found in a Google search but went viral on the internet this weekend.

Bridle, a vaccine researcher who was awarded a $230,000 government grant last year for research on COVID vaccine development, said that he and a group of international scientists filed a request for information from the Japanese regulatory agency to get access to what’s called the “biodistribution study.”

“It’s the first time ever scientists have been privy to seeing where these messenger RNA [mRNA] vaccines go after vaccination,” said Bridle. “Is it a safe assumption that it stays in the shoulder muscle? The short answer is: absolutely not. It’s very disconcerting.”

It will be a VERY long time before we can get to the truth on this, because nobody likes being wrong. Just keep in mind that all of these vaccines were released under Emergency Use Authorization, meaning that nobody can sue the manufacturers.

Keep that in mind next time you're asked to take part in any medical procedure.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

While Republicans are happy because the audits in Arizona and Georgia are producing hard proof of widespread fraud, the Leftists are not worried in the least. Why? Because they already have this all planned out.

President* Joe Biden has tapped Vice President Kamala Harris to lead the administration’s push for voting rights legislation, he said in a speech Tuesday in Tulsa, Okla.

In a statement following the speech, Harris said she would work with Congress, community and voting rights organizations, and the "private sector" to push voting rights efforts both nationally and in statehouses.

"The work ahead of us is to make voting accessible to all American voters, and to make sure every vote is counted through a free, fair, and transparent process," Harris said in the statement. "This is the work of democracy."

“I hear all of the folks on TV saying why doesn't Biden get this done? Well because Biden only has the majority of effectively four votes in the House and a tie in the Senate. With two members of the Senate who vote more with my Republican friends,” Biden said in a thinly-veiled swipe at Manchin and fellow moderate, Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.).

Neither Manchin nor Sinema’s office immediately returned a request for comment.

Democrats have renewed calls to get rid of the filibuster after Republicans last week blocked an independent, bipartisan commission to look into the January 6 riots at the Capitol.

All roads lead to voting law changes on the federal level.

I’ve been saying this from DAY ONE! It’s not as if the Republican legislators in the stolen states didn’t know about the lawsuits and voting law changes brought forth by Democrats –in their own states!

That’s why the audits won’t really matter. The Republican state legislators are just window dressing. Once the leftists pass (H.R. 1 / S.1) it won’t matter. The "For the People Act of 2021" is the left’s cover.

When fraud is found, which it will be, Democrats will say, “All the stuff Republicans are worried about from 2020 IS legal (now)! Why worry about it? It's over. If we held the election today, Biden would win!” That’s exactly where I think they are going with this.

I think I’ve seen one article, maybe two about H.R. 1 and S.1 being peddled by Schumer. They WILL get the "For the People Act of 2021" passed using the nuclear option. And now we are hearing more calls from the left to use the nuclear option. There is no meaningful Republican opposition to the "For the People Act of 2021" either, we know this because of the state legislators. They could have stopped all this before the 2020 election, and they didn't.

It's dangerous to see inaction and assume it's incompetence, the two are very different things. What people need to wake up to is the fact that the American people are being played from both sides. In fact we have been for a very long time. Much longer than I was aware. It's in any politician's interest to allow changes that result in their power being maintained. These are largely NOT people of virtue. Had they been people of virtue, we wouldn't be where we are today.

Democrats, leftists, AND REPUBLICANS have this all planned out, otherwise they wouldn’t have allowed the steal to go through in the sloppy way they did.

The Uni-Party WILL have their day in the sun.

The only question is, for how long?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

Try to get this out to as many people as you can. People need to see this to see the parallels to what we're dealing with right now with the COVID-19 "vaccines."

I don't know how much longer this will be on YouTube. They'll probably take it down once it gets enough views.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

There's a lot to cover here, and I want to get it in with as few words as possible.

Most of the people who are speaking out about vaccine passports are doing so on the basis that your health information is private. They quote the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act or HIPAA. Your health information is NOT private. In fact it can be released for the following reasons:

As you can see the list is extensive. HIPAA was really designed to keep individuals from getting ahold of your medical records. What most people don't know is that HIPAA greatly increased access to your medical records for a number of reasons and for a number of institutions. Like anything else in the political world, those institutions and their designations can change over time. HIPAA was like any other law passed in Congress, it's intended purpose was the opposite of what its name suggests.

How many reasons can the government, or an agency (add company) get ahold of your medical history? Before relaxing the rules? See above, think of how many of those reasons could be used in a "pandemic." Now you understand why HIPAA will work against you when it comes to vaccine passports, not for you.

This brings me to my next point. HIPAA laws have recently been relaxed, giving the government and its designated authorities greater access to medical records in general.

In light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the need for an informed and coordinated public health response, U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Alex Azar has declared a limited waiver of the following provisions of the HIPAA Privacy Rule. Beginning March 15, 2020, these provisions have been waived:

• Requirements to obtain a patient's agreement to speak with family members or friends involved in the patient’s care
• Requirement to honor a request to opt out of the facility directory
• Requirement to distribute a notice of privacy practices
• Patient's right to request privacy restrictions
• Patient's right to request confidential communications

This limited waiver is designed to facilitate the disclosure of patients’ protected health information in a number of specific circumstances connected to the ongoing pandemic

This waiver issued by Secretary Azar only applies under limited circumstances and is applicable:

• In the emergency area identified in the public health emergency declaration
• To hospitals that have instituted a disaster protocol
• For up to 72 hours from the time the hospital implements its disaster protocol. If the public health emergency declaration is terminated by the President or the Secretary before the end of this 72-hour period, then the hospital must return to compliance with the provisions of the Privacy Rule.

The whole country is the "emergency area identified in the public health emergency declaration!"

Coronavirus Disease 2019

When a national emergency was declared on March 13, 2020, we took action nationwide to aggressively respond to COVID-19.

You can read the blanket waivers for COVID-19 in the List of Blanket Waivers (PDF) UPDATED (4/9/2021).

The Public Health Service Act was used to declare a public health emergency (PHE) in the entire United States on January 31, 2020 giving us the flexibility to support our beneficiaries, effective January 27, 2020. The PHE was renewed on April 21, 2020, July 23, 2020, October 2, 2020, January 7, 2021, and April 15, 2021, effective April 21, 2021.

If you thought HIPAA was going to stop them from issuing vaccine passports, you were dead wrong.

How do we stop this from happening? I'm not sure. What I do know is that they desperately wish to implement a Corporate Social Credit System like in China.

The term “Corporate Social Credit System” is a somewhat of a misnomer, and the use of the word “system” is misleading, as it implies that the CSCS is a single, holistic, techno-regulatory apparatus, and that each policy under the social credit banner is a node in an integrated regulatory framework. In fact, while the data aggregation is centralized, the policy environment surrounding the CSCS is a disjointed mix of national and sector-specific policies, municipal pilot projects, and hybrid public-private sector cooperative agreements, loosely centered around the goal of enhancing market “trustworthiness.”

The CSCS has been chronically misunderstood outside of China. The system’s broad scope and technical and legal complexity, coupled with a lack of English-language primary source documentation on social credit, present significant barriers to understanding the realities of the system’s aims and functions. Without clear insight into the CSCS’s design, technologies, functions, policies, goals, and limits, U.S. policymakers and businesses are at a disadvantage in assessing how the CSCS may or may not evolve to negatively impact U.S. companies operating in China, or be leveraged by Chinese regulators to disadvantage or otherwise impact U.S. businesses. In this report, we draw on several thousand Chinese primary sources to describe what the system is and what it does.

So similar to our credit bureaus here, only in China they are determining your credit based on how you act, not your ability to repay debt. Apparently steering people with economic incentives just doesn't work well enough for the Chinese.

Multiple government bodies and state regulators control various blacklists relevant to their jurisdictional mandate and have administrative authority to determine which companies are added to such lists. Companies and individuals cannot be blacklisted on a completely arbitrary basis, as there are pre-determined types of violation that lead to blacklisting, but officials still hold discretionary power in terms of which violations are pursued and how severely violations are treated. China is currently working to further standardize the procedures for the creation of new blacklists, notifications, objections, blacklist removal and credit repair.

So yes, they can do whatever they want and there's nothing you can do about it.

This is a dark path to a dystopian future. If we start down this road, as the Chinese already have, we most likely will never come back.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"