Roger Watson & Niall McCrae
Jumping to conclusions too early could be considered irresponsible. But ignoring evidence when it is available is negligent. Within weeks of the declaration by the WHO that there was a global pandemic, placards were appearing at anti-lockdown demonstrations about a ‘plandemic’, implying that what was happening had been predetermined, meticulously planned and deliberately engineered. The purported reasons included the first signs of a New World Order and global government as evidenced in The Great Reset proclaimed by Davos (The World Economic Forum), oppressive social control through the introduction of a social credit system to the introduction of a new vaccine to be enforced by vaccine passports. Freedom of association would be limited, freedom of movement would be restricted, and freedom of speech would be suppressed. How we laughed!
But the evidence was there to show that the range of measures that have been inflicted on us: wearing masks, social distancing and enforced quarantine had been described in detail by the Rockefeller Foundation in 2010 in the Lock Step described as ‘A world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian leadership’. This is precisely what we have now to varying degrees across the world with the state of Victoria in Australia leading the way. Now more has been uncovered of plans, preceding the pandemic, to introduce a global vaccination programme, one that bypassed the usual strict approval methods, and which made use of messenger RNA technology. And the plot involves none other than global pandemic supremo Dr Anthony Fauci who, in October 2019 was recorded in cahoots with the usual suspects (including a member of the Rockefeller Foundation) on C-SPAN at a Milken Institute Future of Health Summit discussing, indeed, advocating ‘blowing the system up’ which meant finding a way to bypass the usual methods of ensuring the safety of the public when new vaccines are introduced.
Discussing a universal flu vaccine, Fauci and colleagues are heard advocating for a process where the public can be convinced to accept a ‘vaccine that hasn’t been given to anyone before’ as stated by Michael Specter of the The New Yorker. Specifically, Fauci decries the usual method of testing vaccines through phase 1, phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials and advocating an ‘improved’ process. Remarkably, in the wake of the pandemic, this is precisely what we got. Another speaker, Rick Bright of BARDA (The Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority) refers to the need for an ‘entity of excitement out there that is completely disruptive’ and ‘not beholden to bureaucratic processes’. Which experimental scientist would not, in his heart of hearts, like that? Imagine, free rein to do what you like to whom you like. He goes on to imagine that a ‘novel avian virus could occur in China, or somewhere’ from which the RNA sequence could be beamed to local centres or even into your home where the vaccine could be ‘printed onto patches and self-administered’.
The above immediately preceded the Covid-19 pandemic but even earlier, in 2017 at the start of the Trump administration, Fauci was recorded as predicting that during that administration ‘there will be a surprise outbreak’. How could he possibly know that? The Covid-19 pandemic was precisely the opportunity that Fauci and his health fascists had been waiting for. Imagine their joy, having only discussed this in October 2019, to be presented with evidence of a novel strain of SARS emerging in China before the end of the year. This relatively harmless virus, which was killing the usual suspects—the old and medically compromised (remarkably like the flu)—and from which the vast majority of people recovered was blown out of all proportion by a willing mainstream media and used as the excuse for all of the measures with which we are now familiar including lockdown. One of us was in Wuhan when the novel virus, later described as Covid-19, was allegedly ripping through the population and saw no evidence of anything amiss.
For many years the US Institutes of Health, steered by Fauci, were funding ‘gain-of-function’ research on bat coronaviruses. This was done offshore, in the secretive environment of a city in communist China, far from Western scientific and ethical governance. The plan? It would not be too far-fetched to suggest that China was chosen as the source of a novel viral pandemic not only because of its impenetrability but also associations with other deadly disease scares in the Far East such as bird flu and SARS.
The WHO recommended neither the routine wearing of face masks nor lockdowns, but were soon brought to heel as were the UK government SAGE and almost every government in the world. It has to be said that in both cases—face masks and lockdowns—this was against and continues to be against all evidence that they were effective. And now we have a vaccine rollout described as ‘effective’ due to the numbers vaccinated while turning a blind eye to their minimal efficacy, their demonstrable harm and that, ultimately, they lead to greater susceptibility to Covid-19.
And here we are. People speak, with relief, about how we now have our freedoms back, which is patently ridiculous. We have the ever present threat of future lockdowns, the likely prospect that vaccine passports will be introduced for social events, bars and restaurants, people still wear masks without being required to and an endless stream of forms and tests must be completed before you leave or enter the country. So, freedom of movement is restricted, and we have seen severe clampdowns on legitimate protests. Freedom of speech persists, but only provided you express it in the mainstream media and agree with the Covid narrative. Pandemic or plandemic? You make up your mind.
Opinions from the Unity News Network (UNN) editorial team & various contributors. | UNN always clearly distinguishes between news and opinion pieces and as an open minded outlet we publish views from a variety of people and organisation that do not necessarily reflect the views of UNN or its writers. Articles published under UNN Opinions are always opinion pieces and if published on behalf of a contributor will contain that authors name at the start of the piece.
