How The Epidemic Intelligence Program Created A False Pandemic Narrative
The words “epidemic intelligence program” and “false pandemic” have an odd connection to each other. In this article, we take a look at the events in the past that led us to to our gloomy present that could theoretically turn out to be a complete hoax.
Analysis
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) “epidemic intelligence” program was changed months before COVID-19 to provide legislative protection for hidden public health “drills and exercises,” implying yet another indication of a largely fabricated COVID pandemic. The very same legislation, passed in June 2019, also authorized the application of “genome editing” and “related technologies” “as a part of preparedness and response activities to advance national health security.”
Numerous prior articles suggested that COVID-19 was a national and multinational hoax, farce, stratagem, operational drill, national security exercise, or something similar carried out by the US government and other governments. This article gives more substantial evidence to back up that allegation. Whereas the enormous quantity of relevant information supplied in prior articles cannot be presented here, a quick overview of some of those articles, with updated citations, is required as support for the new material covered in this article.
The FBI and the Department of Justice were directed to be pioneers in “linking public health with law enforcement” and to “facilitate implementation and coordination of FBI programs to further the GHSA [Global Health Security Agenda], as well as provide technical expertise to measure and evaluate progress in countries the United States has made a commitment to assist” by the Obama-Biden government’s executive order in 2016, just a few days before Democrats lost the White House to the Trump administration.
Connecting public health and law enforcement
The very same Obama-Biden executive order also was cited as being one of the major documents in the 2019 “United States Government Global Health Security Strategy,” which “guides the Federal Government in protecting the United States and its partners abroad from infectious disease threats by working with other nations, international organizations, and nongovernmental stakeholders.” (Page 5)
This crucial evidence reveals that perhaps the Obama-Biden administration’s executive order, which directed the FBI to integrate public health and law enforcement, was still being used as a key US government public health guidance merely a few months before the COVID-19 pandemic was announced.
Exempt from Ban on false information
The Obama-Biden government’s executive order mandating the FBI to link public health and law enforcement, enable implementation as well as coordination of FBI programs to continue to pursue the Global Health Security Agenda, and collaborate with the International Criminal Police Organization (which includes countries such as China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, and others) on the effective execution of the Global Health Security Agenda is substantial for a number of purposes.
One explanation is that “law enforcement agencies” are exempt from the US statute against “false information and hoaxes” (which not just supports the COVID-19-is-a-hoax argument, but it might also explain a number of many other apparently flawlessly scheduled public and political occurrences throughout the years). The legislation makes it illegal to engage in certain activities like
any conduct with intent to convey false or misleading information under circumstances where such information may reasonably be believed and where such information indicates that an activity has taken, is taking, or will take place [etc.].
However, the portion of the legislation allows for the following exception:
ACTIVITIES OF LAW ENFORCEMENT.—This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of a law enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or political subdivision of a State, or of an intelligence agency of the United States. (emphasis added)
The phrasing in the law is strikingly similar to that used by the FBI and the Department of Justice to describe a “law enforcement exemption.” (Pages 1158-1160)
Put in different terms, the law’s phrasing would seem to imply what a non-lawyer could very well think it signifies: “law enforcement” organisations (the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, local and state police, and so on) or “an United States intelligence agency” may potentially perpetrate or participate in “hoaxes” or “conduct with the intent to convey false or misleading information under circumstances where such information may reasonably be believed and where such information indicates that an activity has taken, is taking, or will take place.”
Reasonable doubt
Owing to the need to represent the innocent, it is essential to briefly touch on several aspects that are not immediately relevant to the main theme of this article. The exemption for law enforcement from the restriction on fraudulent information and hoaxes might be read to suggest that the US government’s law enforcement or intelligence community potentially could falsely accuse one or more people for “investigative, protective, or intelligence” purposes. That exemption, combined with the fact that clandestine procedures and possibly advanced remote technology used by bodies such as the FBI are kept under wraps, would appear to provide “reasonable doubt” in many charges.
Non-criminal allegations, for example, were directed against a Catholic who was allegedly accountable for the conversion or “re-conversion” of a considerable amount of Catholics. This person frequently condemned abortion, contraception, euthanasia, homosexuality, socialism, voting for liberal candidates, and sometimes even openly and vehemently condemned the Obama-Biden government and its political organization.
As a consequence of the allegations accompanied by publicised material from an atypical “fact-finding team,” this specific Catholic was hushed, or decided to keep silent, during the Obama-Biden administration. Throughout the proceedings, the accused person asserted their innocence.
Appropriate suspicion must therefore prevail in this specific person’s situation due to the possible application of the aforementioned law enforcement and intelligence agency exemption from the restriction of false information and hoaxes. If law enforcement and intelligence services are excluded from laws forbidding misleading information and hoaxes, there are numerous additional occasions wherein reasonable suspicion must also emerge.
COVID-19 and other exemptions
Another one major reasons why the Obama/Biden administration’s executive order requiring the FBI to combine “public health with law enforcement” has become such a huge concern seems to be the perceived “law enforcement exemption” from the prohibition of hoaxes – since by connecting the two, the executive order would seem to offer what now seems to be a constitutional manner for the FBI, DHS, the intelligence community, and others to work collaboratively with the CDC as well as other public health organizations to presumably implement a public health emergency hoax, a hoax pandemic/epidemic, or to continue to “convey false or misleading information under circumstances where such information may reasonably be believed and where such information indicates that an activity has taken, is taking, or will take place.”
Another federal statute in the United States that has an exemption could be helpful in assessing for certain if COVID-19 is a hoax. The exception is identified in a segment of US federal law that forbids creating or utilizing “any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation” or “any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry” “in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States.”(18 U.S. Code §1001)
An exemption to the legislation declares that the law “does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.” (18 U.S. Code §1001(b))
Consequently, a non-lawyer could ask just what exemption’s phrasing implies. The exemption, on the other hand, is comparable to wording used to portray the FBI possibly falsifying or providing fraudulent documents. The FBI may “supply falsely sworn testimony or false documentation in any legal or administrative proceeding,” according to a Department of Justice regulation, which would be identical to the aforementioned exemption. To put it another way, the exemption in 18 U.S. Code §1001(b)) seems to be a formalized rendition of the FBI’s policy allowing it to conceivably provide fraudulently sworn testimony or fake paperwork.
Can these blatant misrepresentations be used in COVID-19 “judicial proceedings,” particularly those involving mRNA COVID-19 injections ostensibly serving as vaccines? How about the governmental regulations requiring Americans to receive mRNA COVID-19 injections? Is it acceptable for the US federal authority – and certain of the corrupted human individuals who the phrase “US federal government” denote – to fabricate documentation or testimonies amid judicial procedures involving coerced injections?
National security exercises
However, as described in earlier articles, examining US federal laws established prior to COVID-19 can help determine whether US government authorities were seeking to “lawfully authorize” a fabricated epidemic or pandemic for “investigative, protective, or intelligence” purposes.
An modification to a statute governing the US “National Exercise Program” was one of the most significant amendments made to US federal legislation leading up to COVID-19, which implies the likelihood that the US federal government was preparing for a faked pandemic national exercise. The amendment ensured that the US government could conduct national security exercises for “emerging” threats was incorporated into law (that is, the amendment attempted to “lawfully authorise” it). (133 STAT. 1123)
In government records, coronaviruses, epidemics, and pandemics are frequently referred to as “emerging threats” or “emerging infectious disease threats.”
The 2019 amendment, which attempted to legitimately authorise nationwide exercises for “emerging” dangers, may be seen as a hint that the US federal government was planning a national simulation of a “emerging” threat or an evolving infectious disease threat. The modification was adopted in October of 2019, just several months ahead of COVID-19, an “emerging infectious disease threat.”
2019 CDC Program
COVID-19 could be a hoax, ruse, ploy, operational exercise, or national security exercise, according to a number of different US federal laws, tactics, plans, as well as other documents.
The “Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act of 2019” (Pandemic Preparedness Act of 2019) is one similar US legislation that grants a wealth of evidence hinting that COVID-19 might be a national security drill. On June 24, 2019, this was enacted into law.
A portion of the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act of 2019 labeled “Strengthening the Epidemic Intelligence Service” has a possibly substantial amendment.
It may be beneficial to have some background knowledge. The “epidemic intelligence service” at the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cannot be discussed in detail here. The CDC, on the other hand, provides the following explanation, which was last revised in 2018:
EIS [epidemic intelligence service] officers serve on the front lines of public health, protecting Americans and the global community, while training under the guidance of seasoned mentors. When disease outbreaks or other public health threats emerge, EIS officers investigate, identify the cause, rapidly implement control measures, and collect evidence to recommend preventive actions.
The presence of such CDC “epidemic intelligence service” officers as “investigators” of “public health threats” that “emerge” shows that the FBI’s involvement in public health preparation may not include researching animals, or humans, if a new or “emerging” contagious disease is identified.
Alternatively, the FBI’s capabilities in trying to execute the Global Health Security Agenda and use in public health preparedness, as instructed in the Obama-Biden executive order referenced above, could be massive groups of non-uniformed FBI personnel for “ruses or ploys” (or, as the US federal law above would seem to characterize them, “false information and hoaxes”) that were once said to be utilized “often” by the FBI and may still be used. (Page 133)
It’s also unclear if the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s “epidemic intelligence service” is deemed a “intelligence agency of the United States.” This is significant because “intelligence agencies of the United States” are excluded from the above-mentioned legislation prohibiting misleading information and hoaxes.
However, the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act of 2019 makes a potentially illuminating amendment to a law that governs the epidemic intelligence service, which could supply more evidence to endorse the assumption that the US federal administration was planning a fake global epidemic exercise.
The pertinent portion of the section was worded as such well before modification in the Pandemic Preparedness Act of 2019:
the Secretary may carry out a program of entering into contracts with appropriately qualified health professionals under which such health professionals agree to conduct prevention activities, as employees of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, in consideration of the Federal Government agreeing to repay, for each year of such service, not more than $35,000 of the principal and interest of the educational loans of such health professionals. (42 USC §247b–7) before 2019 amendment, emphasis added)
The priority is on the “prevention activities” that the law enables for the CDC’s epidemic intelligence service.
The very exact legislation was revised in 2019, just a few months ahead of the COVID-19 epidemic being revealed. “Strengthening the Epidemic Intelligence Service” is the title of the amendment. (133 STAT. 932-933) The earlier citation contains the exact phrasing of the amendment, which might be challenging to interpret. The essential part of the US legislation after the 2019 amendment states the following:
the Secretary may carry out a program of entering into contracts with appropriately qualified health professionals under which such health professionals agree to conduct prevention activities or preparedness and response activities, including rapid response to public health emergencies and significant public health threats, as employees of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, in consideration of the Federal Government agreeing to repay, for each year of such service, not more than $50,000 of the principal and interest of the educational loans of such health professionals. (42 U.S. Code § 247b–7(a)(1), emphasis added)
The usage of the CDC’s epidemic intelligence service for “prevention actions” was already permitted. It’s worth noting that the 2019 amendment intended to legally license or mandate the use of the CDC’s epidemic intelligence service for “preparedness and response activities, including rapid response to public health emergencies and significant public health threats.”
In other words, the US federal government was planning to hire people for the CDC’s “epidemic intelligence service” for “preparedness and response activities” as well as “public health emergencies and significant public health threats” in 2019.
So why does the US federal government consider it essential to constitutionally approve, or at least strive to lawfully oblige, the CDC’s epidemic intelligence service to “agree to conduct…preparedness and response activities”? What’s all the fuss about? The solution could be found in the definition of “preparedness and response activities” in the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act of 2019.
Drills and Exercises
A much more explicit description of “preparedness and response activities” throughout the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act of 2019 incorporates “drills and exercises.”
“Emergency preparedness and response activities” might comprise “drills and exercises,” according to 133 STAT. 938, the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act of 2019.
“State emergency preparedness and response activities, including related drills and exercises pursuant to the preparedness goals under section 2802(b),” is described by the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act of 2019, which is specified at 133 STAT. 940. Section 2802(b) is a federal legislation in the United States that requires the National Health Security Strategy incorporate measures promoting
the periodic evaluation of Federal, State, local, and tribal preparedness and response capabilities through drills and exercises, including drills and exercises to ensure medical surge capacity for events without notice (42 U.S. Code § 300hh–1(b)(1)(A), emphasis added)
In other words, the CDC’s “epidemic intelligence service” was amended in the Pandemic Preparedness Act of 2019 to encompass “agree to conduct…preparedness and response activities,” which could be perceived to mean that the CDC planned to utilize those very “epidemic intelligence” staff members for preparedness and response “drills and exercises.”
A further important juncture: particularly amending US federal law to “lawfully authorize,” or lawfully require, the use employment of the CDC’s epidemic intelligence service in “preparedness and response activities, including rapid response to public health emergencies and significant public health threats” might be regarded to indicate that future large-scale “preparedness and response activities” were anticipated to be destructive enough to ensue in legal acquiescence. It’s possible that 2019 will be an effort at legal coverage. Of course, it’s possible that the law needed to be changed for some obscure and insignificant procedural reason. However, the date and phrasing of the modification may indicate differently.
The CDC may well have started striving to constitutionally sanction the implementation of the epidemic intelligence service for “drills and exercises” only a few months before the alleged emergence of COVID-19, and the revision explicitly stipulates: “public health emergencies and significant public health threats.”
COVID-19 apparently began shortly after the modification constitutionally permitting the use of the CDC’s epidemic intelligence service for “preparedness and response activities,” involving “public health emergencies,” and the US government, predictably, declared it a public health emergency. The COVID-19 pandemic public health emergency, as reported, would fulfil the criteria of just such a national public health emergency exercise.
Genome Editing
A section of the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act of 2019 that may be pertinent to the subject of mRNA COVID-19 injections is worthwhile addressing. This should likely be examined in more detail in a future post, but because of the gravity of the discovery and the prospective implications it could have on the decision to accept or reject COVID-19 injections, it is being summarized in this one.
As previously stated, “drills and exercises” might be incorporated in the wording “preparedness and response activities” in the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act of 2019. A possibly eye-opening reference of “preparedness and response activities” can be found inside this section of the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act of 2019:
(b) REPORT.—Not later than 270 days after the meeting described in subsection (a) is held, the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response shall issue a report to the congressional committees of jurisdiction on the topics discussed at such meeting, and provide recommendations, as applicable, to utilize innovations in genomic engineering (including genome editing) and related technologies as a part of preparedness and response activities to advance national health security. Such report shall be issued in a manner that does not compromise national security. (133 STAT. 959, emphasis added)
“Utilize innovations in genomic engineering (including genome editing) and related technologies as a part of preparedness and response activities to advance national health security,” for example, appears to imply that such “innovations in genomic engineering (including genome editing) and related technologies” could be “utilized,” apparently implying “used,” in “preparedness and response activities;” and repeated again, according to the very same Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act of 2019, “preparedness and response activities” may contain “drills and exercises.”
It’s also possible that the phrase “provide recommendations…to utilise innovations in genomic engineering [etc.]” is noteworthy. It doesn’t explicitly “recommend whether” or “if” genetic engineering technologies could be used in emergency planning and reaction drills. The text tends to indicate “provide recommendations” on how to employ or how genomic engineering technologies will be used as part of preparedness and response efforts.
The statute appears to imply that the aim was to integrate genomic engineering (including genome editing) and similar innovations as component of preparedness and response efforts, and that the “recommendations” were simply to figure out how to do so.
The section would seem to suggest that “innovations in genomic engineering (including genome editing) and related technologies” will be employed in “drills and exercises” to “advance national health security,” as the paragraph suggests. Is this implying that national genomic engineering and genome editing “and related technologies” may be attempted “as a part of,” that is, as elements of “preparedness and response activities,” which could entail national drills and exercises?
Consider this: how many Americans would consciously and willingly be genomically altered or genome edited “to advance national health security,” and would deliberately and freely enable someone else to be? In other words, the idea itself of genomic engineering or genome editing to “advance national health security” may imply the use of covert, secretive, or hoax “preparedness and response activities” or “drills and exercises” at the national level.
There isn’t much conspiracy theory in federal public health and national security law in the United States. There is still additional evidence to support the idea that the COVID-19 pandemic was a hoax, but that evidence will not be presented here.
- Source : GreatGameIndia
