In a November 27, 2017 article, the UK calls for parent to get their ‘super spreader’ children in daycare, vaccinated with a free flu jab so that they “protect” their grandparents from the risk of the flu!

The vaccines are simply “assumed” to be safe and effective, yet the CDC state that influenza vaccines are only 40-60% effective, but in some years is as low as 10%!  So what is the real benefit, and at what risk both short and long-term?

It would seem most people don’t realise that influenza & pneumonia statistics are lumped together and advertised as deaths due to flu – its a “death certificate” conundrum.  Flu estimates are based on ever changing models such as Canada’s estimate flu deaths going from 500/yr to 8000/yr.   Every year there are many influenza-like-illness (ILI) which is generally called the flu, but is this yearly flu jabbing actually making things worse? [@45:50] [1]

Doctors are educated by marketers to increase flu-shot demand.  So is this really about health, protection or big-pharma money!

In a private meeting in February 2017, Dr Barney Graham pitched his “brainchild” Prototype Vaccine Project to the NIAID executives which included Dr. Fauci who said the idea struck him and others in the executive committee “as something that is really doable.”

Following that meeting, on December 14, 2017, Dr Graham published a review paper outlining the proposal in Nature Immunology titled “Emerging viral diseases from a vaccinology perspective: preparing for the next pandemic“, in which Fauci provided “editorial comments” and the NIAID supported.  This paper sets the stage for moving forward with “prototype vaccines” for all pathogens with pandemic potential!

The paper stated “developing rational candidate vaccines directed against at least one prototype virus within each major phenotypic category within each family of viruses is advisable”

The paper concluded that “[p]reparation for emerging viral disease will be an inherent component of achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDG)”

“But without the urgency of a threatening pandemic, his [Dr Graham‘s] idea remained just that.” stated the New York Times on July 25, 2021, as Fauci seeks funding the “brainchild” project!

On December 20, 2017 the Australian TGA announced that it would make use of assessments from comparable overseas regulators (CORs) and international assessment bodies, where possible, in the regulation of medicines, to reduce the duplication of effort where an assessment has already been conducted outside Australia.

In response to the Medicines and Medical Devices Review (MMDR), which led to the March 20,2018, Provisional Registration reglatory pathway, the TGA also reformed the way it collaborated with comparable overseas regulators, another way of seemingly speeding up drug approvals.

CORs are deemed to be Canada, Japan, Singapore, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States and European Union- in time most of these will come together to form the ACCESS consortium [5] , and form bodies like the Access COVID-19 Vaccine Working Group, working with WHO and the International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities (ICMRA) to achieve global regulatory alignment. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

“In December 2020, the Access Consortium released information regarding the regulatory evidence requirements for COVID-19 vaccine authorisations and considerations for post-market pharmacovigilance which built on the Consortium’s pledge to work together to counter the COVID-19 global pandemic.”

Then as early as March 2021, only 2 months after the COVID-19 vaccines rolled out, the Access Consortium released “guidance clarifying the information required by medicine regulators to approve any modifications to authorised COVID-19 vaccines should virus mutations make them less effective at preventing the disease.” [1]

On January 2, 2018 the TGA announced their criteria for working on opportunities for enhanced international collaboration in the regulation of prescription medicines with their Comparable Overseas Regulators (CORs) on prescription medicines criteria for jointly assessing dossier submissions.  [1, 2]

• “In response to the Medicines and Medical Devices Review (MMDR) we are reforming the way we collaborate with comparable overseas regulators” – and “implementing a formal process for work-sharing with CORs on prescription medicines applications.”
• Under this process, multiple regulators would be able to work simultaneously on different parts of a dossier submitted for evaluation in each jurisdiction. A joint evaluation report would then be provided to each agency to allow independent decision-making.”
• They start out by sharing the work load on reassessing generic medicines [3]

Regulators around the world in 2020 did not review COVID-19 vaccine information separately.  They shared the workload!

At a annual WHO R&D Blueprint meeting held February 6-7, 2018, “a group of experts” which Peter Daszak belongs to coined the term “Disease X”. They were “referring to the next pandemic, which would be caused by an unknown, novel pathogen that hadn’t yet entered the human population.” and of which there was an “absence of efficacious drugs and/or vaccines”. [1]

The objective of the blueprint and meeting was “to reduce the time between declaration of a public health emergency and the availability of effective diagnostic tests, vaccines, antivirals and other treatments that can save lives and avert a public health crisis”

Disease X would likely:

• Result from a virus originating in animals and would emerge somewhere on the planet where economic development drives people and wildlife together.
• Be confused with other diseases early in the outbreak and would spread quickly and silently; exploiting networks of human travel and trade, it would reach multiple countries and thwart containment.
• Have a mortality rate higher than a seasonal flu but would spread as easily as the flu.
• It would shake financial markets even before it achieved pandemic status.

On October 15, 2019, “CEPI launches new call for innovative platform technologies to rapidly respond to Disease X”, their first call for fast new vaccine platforms went out in 2017.

At Davos 2024 the WEF “preparing for Disease X” with “disinformation” threatens! [2, 3].

On April 10, 2018, Dr Anthony Fauci co-authors a viewpoint paper in JAMA Network setting the stage for novel genetic vaccines (mRNA or DNA) to shorten the time “to design, manufacture, and evaluate vaccines for clinical use…in response to newly emerging infections”.

“The time-honored approach to vaccinology,… has not adequately met” the challenge of “emerging viral diseases with pandemic potential.”  So this paper looks to “exploit modern-day technological advances.”

[Reading this paper in retrospect summarises  the “vaccine solution” response to Pandemic 2020.]

“Historically, the process of vaccine development through to licensure requires decades…[i]n total, 15 to 20 years would be a typical timeframe from virus discovery to vaccine availability if the process proceeds smoothly and there are no major biological or logistical challenges.”

…[H]owever, clinicians and public health officials are often faced with outbreaks of viral diseases, sometimes of a pandemic nature that would require vaccines for adequate control.”

“Rapid genetic sequencing allows both early identification of new pathogens and the identity of the genes encoding structural proteins that can form the basis for vaccine immunogen development.”

“Synthetic vaccinology and platform manufacturing are important innovations that can speed the initial vaccine immunogen design and vaccine development process, and shorten the time needed for manufacturing and initial regulatory approval to begin phase 1 testing.”

“The process of gene synthesis is now extremely rapid…[t]hese genetic vectors (DNA and mRNA) can be used directly for immunization whereby intramuscular immunization leads to muscle cells producing the viral proteins. Alternatively, the genetic vectors can be used to express recombinant protein antigens, in vitro, that can be used for immunization.”

“The term platform …in vaccine production… implies that the method for generating and presenting a vaccine immunogen can be applied across multiple pathogens.”  “DNA or mRNA nucleic acid vaccines are good examples of how platform manufacturing can shorten timelines from pathogen identification to phase 1 clinical trials.” [1, 2]

“DNA vaccine delivery and immunogenicity have evolved and improved over the last 2 decades, making it a viable platform for vaccination.”

Based on NIAID experience “Once these pathogens were identified, the time from viral sequence selection to initiation of the phase 1 clinical trial was shortened from 20 months to slightly longer than 3 months.”

“Traditional approaches, such as live-attenuated virus vaccines (eg, Sabin polio) or whole-inactivated virus vaccines (eg, Salk polio) would not qualify as platform approaches because the requirements for growth in cell culture and purification are usually different among virus families. Protein-based approaches … may not be amenable to platform approaches.”

“Having a standard manufacturing approach reduces the time needed for current Good Manufacturing Procedures process development and simplifies regulatory approval because the safety database that has accumulated for a given platform can be applied to multiple vaccine products.”

Dr Fauci published another paper on “novel vaccine technologies” in Nature in November 2019…all in time for pandemic 2020.

mRNA vaccines are still in “preclinical studies” in September 2018.

On May 15, 2018, hosted by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security and held in Washington, DC, high level officials participated in a day-long pandemic tabletop exercise called Clade X. [1, 2]

“Drawing from actual events, Clade X identifies important policy issues and preparedness challenges that could be solved with sufficient political will and attention.”

A fictional elitist cult had financed the creation of a deadly virus called “Clade X ” in a bio-lab in Zurich, with the aim of reducing the global population. A Global pandemic resulted upon it’s fictitious release.

“In the end, the outcome was tragic: the most catastrophic pandemic in history with hundreds of millions of deaths, economic collapse and societal upheaval” — Clade X pandemic simulation (May, 2018)

The simulation concluded that the world wasn’t prepared for a global pandemic.

Bill Gates writes in a NEJM perspective on May 31, 2018, “Thanks to better vaccines” we’ve made headway on diseases.

“Yet there is one area where the world isn’t making much progress: pandemic preparedness. This failure should concern us all, because history has taught us there will be another deadly global pandemic. We can’t predict when, but given the continual emergence of new pathogens, the increasing risk of a bioterror attack, and the ever-increasing connectedness of our world [population growth] , there is a significant probability that a large and lethal modern-day pandemic will occur in our lifetime.”

“What the world needs is a coordinated global approach to pandemics that will work regardless of whether the next pandemic is a product of humans or of nature.”

The percentage of people who choose to get a seasonal influenza vaccine is fairly small, but modelling simulations suggest a “highly contagious and lethal airborne pathogen” could see “33 million people worldwide would die in just 6 months”.

[2 1/2 years into the COVID-19 pandemic 6.3 million deaths have been recorded worldwide]

On May 29, 2018 the Gates foundation “launched a $12 million Grand Challenge … to accelerate the development of a universal influenza vaccine” in order to end the “pandemic threat”.  He noted “the current influenza vaccines significantly underperform.”

“However, the next threat may not be influenza at all.”

Late 2018 CEPI will award grants “to several companies, working with a variety of technologies, including nucleic acid vaccines, viral vectors, and other innovative approaches. The goal is the capability to develop, test, and release new vaccines in a matter of months rather than years.”

“If we can learn how to use RNA or gene delivery effectively, we may not need to make the antibodies at all. Instead, new methods of gene delivery could enable our own cells to produce these antibodies directly.”

“In the case of biologic threats, that sense of urgency is lacking.”  The “world needs to prepare for pandemics in the same serious way it prepares for war.”

On June 8, 2018 the Bill And Melinda Gates Foundations launched a subsidiary, non-profit company, a “biotech-within-a-charity” with an initial $273 million 4-year grant injection.  It is called the Bill & Melinda Gates Medical Research Institute (Gates MRI) and is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts. [1, 2]

The start up company is said to “focus on developing interventions to fight persistent epidemics, such as malaria, tuberculosis, and enteric and diarrheal diseases”.

“Gates MRI hopes to apply new understanding of the human immune system learned from cancer research to prevent infectious disease, and plans to take drugs, vaccines and other assets from preclinical stages all the way through clinical trials to regulatory approval” [3]

On August 10, 2018 the FDA approved  patisiran (Onpattro) by Alnylam pharmaceuticals.  This is a “first-in-class” drug is a small interfering RNA (siRNA) drug that work inside the cell at the RNA level.    The FDA anticipates that [RNA-based Medicine] is the beginning of a new and exciting generation of therapeutics”  [1, 2, 5]

The phase 3 trial included 225 patients with a “rare and frequently fatal” hereditary disease called transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis (hATTR), 148 were given the treatment  [3]

Onpattro drug formulation contains “lipid excipients (DLin-MC3-DMA, DSPC, cholesterol, and PEG2000-C-DMG)”, because of this registration, the lipid nanoparticle ingredient DSPC (1,2-Distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine), which is also used in Pfizer’s mRNA COVID-19 vaccine as a structural lipid, is thus not conidered as “novel”, unlike the functional lipids ALC-0315 and ALC-0159. [4]

On October 9, 2018 the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Secuirty released a report highlighting 15 emerging technologies or categories of technologies, with further scientific attention and investment, as well as attention to accompanying legal, regulatory, ethical, policy, and operational issues have the potential to reduce global catastrophic biological risks (GCBR), as they present “potentially transformative” technologies which would “complement traditional approaches to prevention, preparedness, and response”.  GCBRs is a concept defined in July 2017. The technologies include Self-Spreading Vaccines and Self-Amplifying mRNA Vaccines, and Micro-needle vaccine Patch. [1, 2, 3, 4]

This report highlights 15 technologies or categories of technologies that, with further scientific attention and investment, as well as attention to accompanying legal, regulatory, ethical, policy, and operational issues, could help make the world better prepared and equipped to prevent future infectious disease outbreaks from becoming catastrophic events.

“This report looks at technologies that are already available but have not been applied to an emergency situation before or are so new that they are still in development”, and “admits there are “substantial technical challenges” in genetically engineering a vaccine but technology such as the Crispr gene editing tool should make the job easier.”

2020 was too early for the self-spreading vaccines, but they are planned to be used for existing infectious diseases!! The WHO knowingly allowed this to occur for polio – they call it vaccine-derived polio!