Swine flu/Panic
| Date | January 2009 - 10 August 2010 |
|---|---|
| Exposed by | Wolfgang Wodarg |
| Interest of | Jane Bürgermeister, Ab Osterhaus, Stephen Redd, Sanofi |
Swine flu/Panic 
Panic
Related Quotations
| Page | Quote | Author | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation | “The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funded two models to “predict” the spread of COVID-19. The Imperial College London and the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation in Seattle predicted that 2.2-million Americans would die unless drastic lockdown measures were followed. Both colleges quickly reduced their predictions, but the world is still in lockdown as a result of it. In 2005, the Imperial College of London predicted that 200-million people worldwide would be killed by bird flu. When the “crisis’ was over, the virus had killed 78 people worldwide. In 2009, the College predicted that the swine flu would kill 65,000 people in the UK, but the final number was 457. From 2006 through 2018, the Gates Foundation donated $185-million to the College to continue their good work.” | William Engdahl Jon Rappoport | 1 May 2020 |
| Warren Buffett | “In the pharmaceutical world of economic durable competitive advantages, having a patent on a best-selling drug is about as good as it gets. The next best thing is having a monopoly on selling a country’s national health program the vaccines it needs for its childhood inoculation programs. Both of these businesses are hugely profitable and GSK (GlaxoSmithKline) excels in both these categories.
The vaccine business is particularly attractive because an individual shot (or jab) costs GSK approximately $1.50 to manufacture and it sells to national vaccine programs for approximately $9 a shot. That gives GSK a net profit of approximately $7.50 a shot. This markup gives GSK a very healthy profit margin that improves with each and every new disease that the company develops a vaccine for. Consider this: GSK's profits rose 10% with the 2009 Swine Flu outbreak—a disease for which the company had a state-of-the-art vaccine ready to inoculate the masses. In addition to its patents and the durable competitive advantage GSK has with the vaccines, it also established the relationships with the world's governments, and it has the financial capital to create, manufacture, and sell vaccines on a world scale. If you were in charge of the health of a nation's 30 million-plus children, who would you buy your vaccines from? Every year? Year after year? You’d pick the biggest and the best. There are only four pharmaceutical giants that control most of the vaccine production in the world and GSK is one of them. There is another component to the vaccine equation that also spells BIG MONEY: Every year, women all over the world give birth to approximately 133 million new babies, 4.3 million babies in the U.S. alone. With the United States Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommending that children aged birth through six receive 34 individual vaccine shots/jabs, that means the market for those 34 vaccine shots/jabs increases every year by 4.3 million in just the U.S. alone. This in turn means that the vaccine manufacturers selling in the U.S. have the potential to earn a profit of $1.09 billion every year (4.3 million x 34 x $7.50 = $1.09 billion). Consider the number of yearly vaccines worldwide and the numbers are staggering—approximately $34 billion a year (133 million x 34 x $7.50 = $33.9 billion). After ten years, in the U.S. alone, vaccine manufacturers will see more than $10 billion in net profit. On a world scale, the number jumps to a potential $340 billion in profits. And wait, it gets even better. With the invention of each new vaccine comes a patent that is good for twenty years and guarantees that no one else can make the vaccine. In other words, the company has a monopoly. Even when the patents expire, other companies rarely step into the market because the major manufacturers have a permanent relationship with the government health departments of the world. This enables manufacturers to continue making the same vaccines year after year while maintaining their large profit margins even after their patents have expired. And last but not least, vaccine manufacturers in the US are completely immune from lawsuits. Back in the 1980s several bad batches of vaccines injured so many children that the resulting successful lawsuits threatened to bankrupt the manufacturers, so the manufacturers lobbied a bill through Congress making them a protected class.” | Warren Buffett Mary Buffett | 2011 |
| National Level Exercise 2009 | “If this readiness exercise took place, it went unnoticed to the public. The question is, was it originally going to concern the Swine flu pandemic? If so, was it altered due to the bold actions taken from an Irish Austrian across the Atlantic, named Jane Bürgermeister? Was the Swine flu originally going to be the international crisis that according to Joe Biden was going to "test the metal of this guy"?
We may never know the answer. Was it a coincidence that when Bürgermeister brought forth her charges to the FBI in June of 2009 that the true number of reported cases and deaths from the Swine flu were actually minimal, and the exaggerated climbing numbers were never mentioned again on mainstream media? Swine flu was all hushed up? The summer passed, and all was well, and then, slowly the vaccines were reintroduced, this time more calmly. The media carefully explained the importance of the vaccines in the fall, and softly warned of a pandemic that was scheduled for the upcoming flu season that could kill millions of people without it. At the time of writing this book, I do not know what fall and winter will bring but I have one serious question. Was a tragedy averted by the actions of Bürgermeister whose criminal charges are still in the legal court systems? We may never know if the two were connected. But even though all are innocent until proven guilty, the charges have brought the Swine flu scandal into the light, slowing down what appeared to many to be the ominous plans of an alleged non-transparent syndicate and their plans for a "North American Union".” | Dianne Marshall | April 2010 |
| Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies | “The lack of complete transparency has echoes of the way the World Health Organisation operated during the 2009 swine flu crisis, when it refused to disclose the names of the scientists it relied on for advice.” | 'Investigations Team' | 24 April 2020 |
| WHO | “It was a multibillion bonanza for Big Pharma supported by the WHO’s Director-General Margaret Chan.
(...) The WHO did not act to reassure and inform World public opinion. Quite the opposite: A “Fear Pandemic” rather than a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) was launched. Outright panic and uncertainty were sustained through a carefully designed media disinformation campaign. (...) An atmosphere of fear and intimidation prevailed. The data was manipulated. (...) Several critics said that the H1N1 Pandemic was “Fake”:The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), a human rights watchdog, is publicly investigating the WHO’s motives in declaring a pandemic. Indeed, the chairman of its influential health committee, epidemiologist Wolfgang Wodarg, has declared that the “false pandemic” is “one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century.” (Forbes, February 10, 2010)” | Michel Chossudovsky | 6 March 2020 |
