Devils advocate here. I'm on your side. The archive of the World Bank link was refreshed in Sept 5 2020. There is not a snapshot or capture of the 2017 link before then. The 2018 archived link shows the same refresh time frame and calls them "medical test kits" but references Covid-19 supplies at the bottom.
Your link shows the 2017 page but not before the 202O refresh.
I could be wrong, wouldn't that lend credibility to their claim they likely changed it in 2020?
Look into the similarities between the vaping deaths in mid-2019 (lung damage) and true covid-19 deaths (lung damage) and where the initial cases seemed to originate - in the Maryland area which is where Fort Detrick is.
"The SPARS Pandemic 2025-2028" a tabletop exercise published in 2017 (devised 2015-2017) by the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Center for Health Security.
2. Encouraging extensive use of DNR notices around the same time.
3. Substantial increase in UK Midazolam orders
"A spokesperson from Accord Healthcare, one of five manufacturers of the drug, told The Pharmaceutical Journal that it had to gain regulatory approval to sell French-labelled supplies of midazolam injection to the NHS, after having already sold two years’ worth of stock to UK wholesalers “at the request of the NHS” in March 2020"
The first piece of coronavirus legislation was actually in Feb 2020, not the March as commonly thought. The one you mention is the 2nd piece of legislation:
The first piece of “coronavirus” legislation was introduced at 2.30 pm on the 10th February 2020 without Parliamentary oversight or debate and is now revoked.
This was The Health Protection (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020 Statutory Instrument and it was subsequently amended on the 25th February 2020.
This piece of legislation required a statement of "serious and imminent threat” by the Chief Medical Officer to justify any measures to be taken.
Rather prophetically there was an unannounced and totally unpublicised release of a statement on the 30th January 2020 (the exact same day the WHO declared pandemic) by the 4 Chief Medical Officers of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland on this very subject.
It stated:
"the 4 UK Chief Medical Officers consider it prudent for our governments to escalate planning and preparation in case of a more widespread outbreak.
For that reason, we are advising an increase of the UK risk level from low to moderate. This does not mean we think the risk to individuals in the UK has changed at this stage, but that government should plan for all eventualities.”"
This statement was made 11 days before the piece of legislation it was required for was written and laid before Parliament and came into force the very same afternoon.
But why did the UK Government, namely Matt Hancock who was in charge of Health at the time, think a statement hat did NOT include the words serious, imminent nor threat be used as a serious and imminent threat statement?
How did the 4 CMOs know 11 days in advance of a Statutory Instrument being written that “medical advice” would be required?
Why was this “advice” basically hidden on a webpage on a different department’s section and not on the DHSC webpages and why was it not linked to the Serious and Imminent Threat Declaration?
As this was part of a FOI request answer then either the above is the only advice given by the CMOs or the DHSC have withheld more detailed advice.
Devils advocate here. I'm on your side. The archive of the World Bank link was refreshed in Sept 5 2020. There is not a snapshot or capture of the 2017 link before then. The 2018 archived link shows the same refresh time frame and calls them "medical test kits" but references Covid-19 supplies at the bottom.
Your link shows the 2017 page but not before the 202O refresh.
I could be wrong, wouldn't that lend credibility to their claim they likely changed it in 2020?
Look into the similarities between the vaping deaths in mid-2019 (lung damage) and true covid-19 deaths (lung damage) and where the initial cases seemed to originate - in the Maryland area which is where Fort Detrick is.
Why did you say BJ was an unelected prime minister? He was leader when the C & U party gained a majority of Westminster seats in December 2019.
Sure our "democracy" is a sham, but, in its own terms, BJ was as much of an elected PM as anyone has been for the past 100 or so years.
"The SPARS Pandemic 2025-2028" a tabletop exercise published in 2017 (devised 2015-2017) by the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Center for Health Security.
Someone noticed, that that scenario was just too close, so they later added a not to the top of the page. This is a pre-note version https://web.archive.org/web/20200428002545/https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/Center-projects/completed-projects/spars-pandemic-scenario.html
And these are some thoughts about the SPARSdemic...
https://rumble.com/v29sray-sparsdemic.html
Another few points you may like to consider:-
1. Coronovirus Act 2020, which relaxed the death certification procedure, meaning a doctor no longer needed to actually attend and Covid 19 alone become an acceptable cause of death. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Chief-Coroners-Office-Summary-of-the-Coronavirus-Act-2020-30.03.20.pdf
2. Encouraging extensive use of DNR notices around the same time.
3. Substantial increase in UK Midazolam orders
"A spokesperson from Accord Healthcare, one of five manufacturers of the drug, told The Pharmaceutical Journal that it had to gain regulatory approval to sell French-labelled supplies of midazolam injection to the NHS, after having already sold two years’ worth of stock to UK wholesalers “at the request of the NHS” in March 2020"
https://pharmaceutical-journal.com/article/news/supplies-of-sedative-used-for-covid-19-patients-diverted-from-france-to-avoid-potential-shortages
4. Spike of Midazolam prescriptions coinciding with spike in deaths attributed to Covid, just following Coronavirus Act and lockdown implementation.
https://openprescribing.net/analyse/#org=regional_team&numIds=0408020W0,1501041T0,0408020V0,0401010Q0&denom=nothing&selectedTab=chart
Are these just coincidences or genuine red flags ?
The first piece of coronavirus legislation was actually in Feb 2020, not the March as commonly thought. The one you mention is the 2nd piece of legislation:
https://awkwardgit.substack.com/p/first-uk-covid-legislation-dates
The first piece of “coronavirus” legislation was introduced at 2.30 pm on the 10th February 2020 without Parliamentary oversight or debate and is now revoked.
This was The Health Protection (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020 Statutory Instrument and it was subsequently amended on the 25th February 2020.
This piece of legislation required a statement of "serious and imminent threat” by the Chief Medical Officer to justify any measures to be taken.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/129/contents/made
Rather prophetically there was an unannounced and totally unpublicised release of a statement on the 30th January 2020 (the exact same day the WHO declared pandemic) by the 4 Chief Medical Officers of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland on this very subject.
It stated:
"the 4 UK Chief Medical Officers consider it prudent for our governments to escalate planning and preparation in case of a more widespread outbreak.
For that reason, we are advising an increase of the UK risk level from low to moderate. This does not mean we think the risk to individuals in the UK has changed at this stage, but that government should plan for all eventualities.”"
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/statement-from-the-four-uk-chief-medical-officers-on-novel-coronavirus
This statement was made 11 days before the piece of legislation it was required for was written and laid before Parliament and came into force the very same afternoon.
But why did the UK Government, namely Matt Hancock who was in charge of Health at the time, think a statement hat did NOT include the words serious, imminent nor threat be used as a serious and imminent threat statement?
How did the 4 CMOs know 11 days in advance of a Statutory Instrument being written that “medical advice” would be required?
Why was this “advice” basically hidden on a webpage on a different department’s section and not on the DHSC webpages and why was it not linked to the Serious and Imminent Threat Declaration?
As this was part of a FOI request answer then either the above is the only advice given by the CMOs or the DHSC have withheld more detailed advice.
Furin Cleavage Site (FCS) was deliberately inserted by US Bioweapons effort in 2005
https://geoffpain.substack.com/p/pfizer-used-synthetic-life-derived