Covid Timeline: Part 1

Includes events from Feb 2016 to Sept 2020

We keep digging into the Covid-related sh*tf*ckery of globalists, politicians and their collaborators. Every time we find somthing new I think that nothing could possibly exist to surprise or disgust me more…

… and every time we go on to find something even worse.

Before we get to the most recent revelation, I want to spend the next post or two recapping everything by constructing a timeline¹ of some of Covid-19’s greatest hits to date…

Consider this a living timeline. As people suggest elements and events I have missed, I will return to revise this article. In the background, we are preparing an Information Visualisation on a separate website that will support linking of related events and reference materials and produce dynamic interactive timelines of some of the most egreggious things that have been exposed thus far.

2016: February 04 - Moderna patent Covid-19 Spike Gene Sequence

In 2016 Covid-19 vaccine manufacturer Moderna’s cancer division filed a patent. On December 13, 2021 a research team submitted a paper to the journal Frontiers in Virology showing that Moderna’s 2016 patent included a 19 neucleotide gene sequence that is a 100% match for and encompases Covid-19’s furin cleavage site (FCS). The paper’s authors describe that the FCS transcribes to MSH3 mRNA that they say, appears to be codon optimised to humans. Because of it’s unusual optimisation for humans, the FCS is believed to be the key to Covid-19’s pathogenesis. Even as other researchers stand in agreement that it was unlikely that this sequence came to be in the Sars-CoV-2 spike protein by random chance (here and here), a small number of agressively vocal and paid contrarians whose Covid-19 related work is funded almost entirely by Anthony Fauci and Bill Gates - like Robert F Garry (below), have repeatedly and sometimes strenuously denied the lab leak theory and on the basis of no real concrete argument at all claim any ‘accusation’ that the FCS was created rather than an accident of pure chance is totally wrong.

While the jury is still out on whether the FCS was an act of evolution or manipulation, the one fact that still remains is that its presence in the spike protein of Sars-CoV-2 was a specific and well-defined goal of the gain of function research funding proposal made to and refused by DARPA in 2018 because they deemed it ‘too dangerous’. Project Veritas found that Fauci through NIAID went on to fund the research that DARPA had refused to fund.

It does seem a convenient coincidence… Covid-19…….. 19 neucleotides… ?

2017: December - World Bank Begins Selling Covid-19 Test Kit

The World Integrated Trade Solution shows that countries were already importing something called Covid-19 Test Kits in 2017, for a disease that would supposedly not emerge until the end of 2019. While Reuters Fact Checkers claim that unnamed World Bank staff verbally told them that it was a labelling issue - that these particular test kits had been labelled as something else prior to March 2020 and due to a change in classification for the real Covid-19 test kits in March 2020, these 2017 and 2018 test kits also got relabelled. However, they have never told us exactly what these kits were, and their explanation doesn’t explain why the WayBack Machine (web.archive.org) screen captures from 2017 that were provided in several articles and social media posts show that they were infact already labelled as Covid-19 Test Kits during 2017 and 2018. Suggesting that they had at least been caught out in something, and only three days after they had first been exposed, on September 7th, 2020 the World Bank removed all Covid-19 related products from the WITS website. To this day the question remains - What were these “Covid-19 Test Kits” (or whatever they were) and why was the World Bank recording the sale of tens of millions of them to countries all around the world two years before the emergence of Covid-19?

2019: October - Event 201

The Johns Hopkins Centre for Health Security in Partnership with the World Economic Forum (WEF) and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) run yet another of their pandemic readiness role playing tabletop games called Event 201 in New York City. Event 201 would go on to be both prophetic and ironic for many reasons. The Event 201 scenario:

1. ‘Simulated’ the outbreak of a novel zoonotic coronavirus transmitted from bats. The real Covid-19 situation was played out as a novel coronavirus that had its origins in bats, and that even in the face of overwhelming evidence of human involvement through gain-of-function manipulation in a laboratory, some researchers still tried to make a name for themselves by claiming information was fragmentary or that Sars-CoV-2 had naturally evolved. Others remain wilfully blind to any evidence to the contrary and continue to cling to the claim that Sars-CoV-2 arose magically out of a wet market in Wuhan, China.

2. Constructed a narrative that said a vaccine would not be ready for mass distribution for about a year, and there was a fictional antiviral drug helped the sick but did not significantly limit spread of the disease. In the real world we are told that virus sequences were published online in mid-January 2020, internal test samples were ready in Pfizer and Moderna’s labs 6-9 days later, sent to the CDC within weeks, and public deployment of the vaccine began around a year after the world had first been made aware of the disease’s existence. Also, there was an antiviral drug called Ivermectin that many front-line clinicians not only claimed significantly helped the sick if delivered early enough, others demonstrated that if given prophylactically it reduced incidence of infection by up to 86%.

3. Took place in New York City. In a cruel twist of fate, New York City would in real life go on to be called the worst-affected area in the United States of America (USA).

2020: January 9th - WHO announces Coronavirus in Wuhan

2020: January 21st - CDC confirms first US Covid-19 case

There’s no test for it… but somehow we are already ‘confirming cases’???

2020: January 23rd - Corman-Drosden PCR paper released

On January 23rd the journal EuroSurveillance released online the now (in)famous Corman-Drosden paper that is equally credited with describing what would become the gold-standard PCR test to identify Covid-19 cases, and with causing the whole pandemic. Thorough independent analysis of the Corman-Drosden paper highlighted ten scientific inadequacies, errors and flaws that Christian Drosden is yet to address. These include that (1) the PCR assay was based on unverified in silico sequences with no recourse to any actual viral samples as these have never been collected and isolated by the authors; (2) that the Corman-Drosden authors acknowledge their PCR test creates a large number of false positives (remember this, because Drosden and manufacturers who licensed his work would go on to tell Governments and the mainstream media that PCR assays based on Corman-Drosden were 99% accurate. Politicians like Matt Hancock would repeat this claim - saying in one interview that the PCR test produced 1% or fewer false positives); (3) Corman-Drosden assumed a challenge for public health laboratories where no evidence of an outbreak existed; (4) used erroneous primer concentrations; (5) recommended a cycle threshold of 45 PCR cycles which is significantly above the established upper threshold of 35 cycles an therefore scientifically and diagnostically meaningless (and likely a source of false positive test results); and (6) assumes that Sars-CoV-2 is the only Sars-like beta-coronavirus that infects humans and the only possible source of the genes used in the test assay.

2020: January 25th - Australian Govt confirms first Aust. Covid-19 case

There’s still no test for it… but we are again somehow confirming cases?

What if what the person had was really a bad case of pneumonia? miners lung? something else?

2020: March 16th - Ferguson releases (in)famous 500,000 deaths report

Imperial College serial exaggerator Neil Ferguson, along with a bevy of unknown coauthors, pulled out his now infamous 13+ year old software program for predicting infectious disease spread and cases and turned it on the Covid-19 problem. In this report (that Imperial College keep shifting around their webservers, so I will add it to the post below) he predicted 510,000 deaths in eight weeks. His model was programmed with inputs that included an arbitrarily assumed R0 referenced to two prior works: (1) a paper by two Swiss researchers that estimated the R0 in China using a simulation model, ‘estimations of uncertainty’ and a process of elimination using sparse available data, a ‘wide range of parameter combinations’ and the incredibly named variable ‘comparison to past emergencies’; and (2) a paper from a large group of Chinese researchers who acknowledge their lack of key epidemiological data had meant they had to guestimate several important variables, outputting a weakly estimated R0 value and the only definitive conclusion of their paper - that human-to-human transmission had occurred. It is interesting to note that Ferguson’s model assumes values for R0 that are respectively 10% and 20% higher than those of either paper specifically cited for that value.

2020 03 16 Covid19 Report 9(1)

764KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

It was shocking to see the unfailingly doomsday predictions of Neil Ferguson being used yet again as a false premise to direct important government health policy response. At the time Ferguson presented his now infamous COVID-19 report that almost everyone now agrees was erroneous and exaggerated, he had a contentious history - having already delivered numerous wildly exaggerated predictions for disease transmission and death that were the cause of controversial and expensive UK policymaking (here, here, here, here, here and here).

In spite of overwhelming reporting that the Ferguson model erroneously predicted 510,000 deaths in the UK (and over 2.2 million in the USA), and even as they link to a report containing that exact number, some journalists including BBC correspondent James Gallagher appear to have curiously reported a number exactly half of that amount:

Irrespective of whether one reports a lower bound or an upper bound or from which of Ferguson’s reports, the report that suggests the figure is for 8 weeks or the more expansive one that suggests it was meant to be for two years, the truth for every country he made predictions for demonstrates his predictions were always going to be exaggerated by several orders of magnitude.

In seeking the total number of Covid-19 deaths for 2020 (that is, not just for Ferguson’s 8 weeks but for the whole of March to December 2020) the variation and inaccuracies in the Covid-19 data that prominent researchers have previously identified several times (here, here and here) persist. No two government datasources agree on any number. For Covid deaths in 2020 the UK Govt Coronavirus Data website reports 86,765. The ONS reports 69,711. The UKHSA reports 72,178. And the number reported to Our World in Data goes even higher, peaking at 94,998. Is it any wonder that everybody disagrees with everybody else’s work when, depending on which starting source you use, you can be as much as 15,000-25,000 different? In any event, every one of these numbers is only a fraction of the Ferguson prediction.

And finally, here is an example of what one research group found when using the Ferguson model to predict Covid-19 deaths in Sweden:

2020: March 16th - UK Govt announces Social Distancing Rules

Boris Johnson, unelected Prime Minister at the time, announced the first UK social distancing rules - which were extended on March 20th.

The entire concept, and even the basic rules, for social distancing had been the construct of then 15 year old Laura Glass’ Science Fair project, which had been written up and published in 2006 in the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases by her father, a US government scientist. The basic premise for: (i) contact tracing; (ii) closing schools and other public locations; (iii) social distancing; and even (iv) modelling infectivity based on a ‘case rate’ are all found in the teenager’s project and her father’s resulting academic article. Being as the various aspects of social distancing and contact tracing discussed in the teenager’s work had never been applied to what we were told was both a highly virulent and highly contagious disease, their use for Covid-19 was new and experimental.

We now know that social distancing rules caused significant psychological stress and harm from the effects of loss of social network and isolation (here), and evidence (here) suggests coping strategies ranged from avoidance of media regarding Covid-19 (which led to poorer mental health outcomes) through to hedonistic consumption of needs-satisfying media (which was associated with better moderation of stress and anxiety and thus improved mental health outcomes).

2020: March 23rd - UK Govt announces lockdown

Boris Johnson, unelected Prime Minister at the time, announced the first UK lockdown.

During an April 2nd, 2020 press conference Chris Witty described the lockdown as absolutely necessary to stop people dying because the scientists made clear that with no measures at all half a million people would die. In this statement he is referring to the Ferguson modelling paper discussed above.

Even while heavily biased government-funded researchers published incredible (meaning: not credible) papers dubiously claiming government interventions for Covid-19 were not and could not be associated with suicides (here), we now know that isolation, depression, anxiety, stress and income loss due to lockdowns increased excess mortality rates - from suicides (here, here, here, here and here); delayed diagnosis and inaccessibility of treatment for cancer (here and here); and delayed presentation to hospital for emergency care as a result of fear of the virus caused by the media propaganda and fear campaign (here, here and here);

2020: March 25th - UK Govt announces need for testing of self isolators

During the March 25th press conference Chris Witty tells the UK people that there is a global shortage of antigen tests for Covid-19, that the government does not want to go ahead with a ‘bad test’ because the only thing worse than no test is a bad test, that telling someone inaccurately either that they have had the disease, or have not had the disease, could lead to dangerous mistakes being made. The ministers claim that they will only go ahead with a test if the quality is 100%, and make the claim that upcoming antibody tests will tell us how many people have had Covid-19 asymptomatically. The ‘only thing worse than no test is a bad test’ mantra was repeated again in another press conference on the 30th of March. Wait and see how that comes back to haunt them.

2020: July - Covid-19: The Great Reset

On July 9th, 2020, World Economic Forum (WEF) self-appointed Czar Klaus Schwab released the now infamous book Covid-19: The Great Reset. On first blush the book reads as yet another utopia promoting father knows best sermon, and it has been (rightly, in this writers opinion) compared to Hitler’s Mein Kampf.

However, the undertone of the book is that Schwab: (i) wants to cede the world to a single globalist government, presumably one under his control; and (ii) elevate the elite class, erase the middle class, and dictate the lives of the un-elite to little more than digital serfdom in self-contained, climate locked-down neighbourhoods. It promotes as ideal the concepts of communism and socialism, that whether we talk of education, healthcare or law, The State knows best and that ceding all control to this Globalist State (which sounds a lot like the now familiar New World Order totalitarianism) will bring the promise of a ‘better life’. Release of the book within 6-8 weeks of the Covid-19 pandemic supposedly overtaking most countries was also either fortuitous and expeditious, or a convenient part of a much greater contrivance.

Klaus would go on to brainwash many members of his WEF cult into reciting the Build Back Better and Great Reset mantras…

Including Prince King Charles (reset video):

Bill Gates:

Justin Trudeau (reset video):

Jacinda Adern:

Joe Biden:

Angela Merkel:

And many, many others.

And who can forget their Build Back Better malarkey? (here and here)

2020: September 18th - Matt Hancock TalkRadio Interview

Manufacturers were claiming extreme levels of accuracy for their PCR tests.

During an interview by Julia Hartley-Brewer, Matt Hancock firmly stated that the PCR tests were exceptionally accurate and had a false positive rate of 1% or less, which he then incorrectly described as meaning that if 200,000 tests are performed each day and 2,000 people test positive, that this means only 20 will be false positives. His error was to infer false positives are a percentage of the positive test results when they are actually a percentage of the overall number of tests performed. As one professor pointed out in written evidence to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee Data Transparency and Accountability panel, if 200,000 tests are performed with a test that produces 1% false positives, that would mean 2,000 false positives would be produced - an amount equal to the 1% of the population at the time that were known to have Covid-19. Therefore in Matt’s example, 4,000 people in total would test positive and 50% of those would be false positives.

What all this means, and as prominent academics have also pointed out using published data from a 2020-2021 Cambridge University study of asymptomatics, is that where an individual received a positive test result for Covid-19 there was at best only a 20.5% chance that they actually had the virus. When compared and contrasted to the official UK Office of National Statistics (ONS) estimate that 1 in every 141 people in Cambridge had the virus, the Cambridge University data showed that in fact only 1 in every 4,967 asymptomatic people tested in Cambridge was confirmed positive. UK Government representatives like Matt Hancock had not only exaggerated the accuracy of PCR tests beyond credibility, they were also inflating the ‘case’ numbers of infected people. The punch line was that the Cambridge University study had unintentionally shown through confirmatory testing that a significantly higher 84% of positive test results were false positives.

So much for the only thing worse than no test being a bad test, and the idea that we waited for the PCR test because the government wanted to ensure we got a high quality 100% accurate test?

In the next post I will continue this timeline - including identifying the various issues members of the group I work with (and others) have exposed, have endured the name calling (conspiracy theorists, anti-vaxxers), and have gone on to be (often quietly) proven right.

1. This thread is the culmination of work aided by a team of amazing people, including: Norman Fenton, Martin Neil, Clare Craig, Arkmedic, Jikky the Mouse, Joel Smalley, Josh Guetzkow, Jessica Rose, Jonathan Engler, RuminatorDan