A closer look at the 2018 ‘Clade X’ fictional pandemic event and what it might tell us about the COVID-19 crisis
LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.
May 24, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – When researching universities which significantly influence the U.S. federal government, one will probably discover Johns Hopkins University. Much of the university is located within a relatively short distance of Washington D.C. and includes a Bloomberg School of Medicine, Bloomberg School of Public Health, and a Center for Health Security. Johns Hopkins University also has locations in China and Italy.
The university has had numerous alumni and fellows who went on to U.S. federal government positions; for example, Dr. Tara O’Toole, an alumnus of Johns Hopkins who was President of Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, went on to a high-level national security position under President Obama. President Biden’s recently named Director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Dr. Rochelle Walensky, is an alumnus of Johns Hopkins. And prior to being named Director of National Intelligence by President Biden, Avril Haines was a Senior Fellow at Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory.
Johns Hopkins University has a location in China, as well as other links to the Chinese Communist Party. The first is former Democratic Mayor and Johns Hopkins’ alumnus Michael Bloomberg, who has reportedly donated at least $3.35 billion to Johns Hopkins. Mr. Bloomberg reportedly has extensive business dealings with China and the Chinese Communist Party.
Another reported influence from China is a high-ranking Chinese Communist Party billionaire funding policy research and partnership with Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies. An article describing the Chinese Communist Party’s influence on Johns Hopkins notes how the university’s School of Advanced International Studies’ graduates “feed into a variety of [United States’] government agencies, from the State Department to the CIA, and military.”
And Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security focuses on “global health security” as well as “[p]roviding decision makers with the in-depth analysis and recommendations they need to prepare for and respond to public health emergencies and disasters.” “Decision makers”, of course, are often U.S. federal and local government officials.
Thus, Johns Hopkins University may have a significant influence on decisions made by the U.S. government, including the U.S. government’s decisions on COVID-19. In philosophy it is common to study not only the thought of a specific philosopher but also the thought of those who influenced the particular philosopher. Similarly, because of Johns Hopkins’ potential influence on U.S. and global government planning for pandemics, it may be worthwhile to study the thinking expressed at fictional pandemic events planned and enacted by Johns Hopkins before COVID-19.
Clade X and Event 201 – The Johns Hopkins University 2018 and 2019 fictional pandemic events
Two events which could be considered of particular significance are the 2018 and 2019 fictional pandemics, which were planned and enacted by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Center for Health Security. Previous articles have mentioned these events, but this article further elaborates on significant points. Former and current U.S. government officials involved with U.S. national security and international leaders including the Director-General of the CDC in China participated in the events. The 2018 fictional pandemic event was in Washington D.C., while the 2019 fictional pandemic took place in New York City, only a few months prior to the reported COVID-19 beginning in New York City. Prior to 2018, Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security had not held such an exercise since 2005.
There are several parts of the 2019 planned pandemic exercise which are noteworthy. For instance, the Director-General of China’s CDC, George Gao, was a major participant in the event. So too was Avril Haines, a Senior Fellow at Johns Hopkins and former principal at WestExec Advisers (another entity with ties to China), who was later named by President Biden to be the Director of National Intelligence.
Decisions US and the rest of the world ‘will need to pursue’ to diminish the pandemic’s consequences
This article, though, will focus on the 2018 simulated pandemic, entitled “Clade X.” Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security explains that the purpose of the Clade X event was:
to illustrate high-level strategic decisions and policies that the United States and the world will need to pursue in order to prevent a pandemic or diminish its consequences should prevention fail.
Some interesting parts of the 2018 simulated pandemic exercise which cannot be elaborated on in this article include the following time-stamped sections from the event (note that some of the highlighted sections below are quotes, while others are paraphrased):
The virus chosen for the fictional pandemic normally causes the common cold. (9:18-9:45)
The fictional TV news station, “Global News Network” (“GNN”), focuses on virus cases and deaths. The World Health Organization declares a “Public Health Emergency of International Concern” when there were 400 cases and 50 deaths. (7:13-8:30)
It was known that after news media causes panic about a virus which typically causes the common cold, emergency rooms would be flooded with people who merely had a cough and fever. (54:39)
Private sector companies want assurances of long-term funding for vaccines. (18:31)
Even without a pandemic, hospital intensive care units (ICUs) typically operate at a 90% capacity on a daily basis. (4:14)
On models which predict future pandemic virus cases and deaths: “all models are wrong, some are useful.” (36:49)
When there were 60,000 cases and 3,500 deaths in the U.S. during the fictional pandemic, some states consider cancelling in-person voting in the 2018 election. (5:20-6:36)— Article continues below Petition —Show Petition Text0 have signed the petition.Let's get to 1!Thank you for signing this petition!Hide Petition Text
Participants included former US Government national security officials strongly opposed to President Trump
The participants at the Clade X 2018 simulated pandemic exercise are also somewhat noteworthy. First, let us consider Dr. Julie Gerberding. Gerberding was the Director of the U.S. CDC from 2002 to 2009 and in 2010 became the President of Merck Vaccines.
Next are a few former U.S. federal government national security officials, some who still maintain influence on the U.S. government national security and intelligence. One participant was a former council at the CIA, Jeffrey H. Smith. Smith is still tied to the U.S. federal government intelligence community through his work with In-Q-Tel, which is funded by the U.S. federal government intelligence community, including the FBI and CIA.
Shortly before the Clade X 2018 simulated pandemic event at Johns Hopkins in May of 2018, Smith clearly expressed his extreme opposition to President Trump for Trump’s criticism of the FBI. Smith also praised Rod Rosenstein’s appointment of Robert Mueller for what was later determined to be a falsified FBI investigation of Trump. He apparently considered Trump a national crisis, apparently thinking that the FBI’s falsified investigation of Trump would end up with law reform. On the topic, he suggested that
Every time we’ve been through a national crisis, our institutions have responded well, and our democracy has become more perfected as a result. Civil War gave us the Emancipation Proclamation [and] the 14th Amendment. World War II gave us the U.N.; it gave us the beginnings of the integration of the armed forces and the beginnings of the civil rights movement. Watergate gave us a lot of reform and law that is good.
That particular statement is interesting because during the Johns Hopkins 2018 simulated pandemic exercise he made a statement with seemingly similar principles about preparing for pandemics:
We also need a way of incentivizing American people and industry to participate in this [pandemic preparedness with vaccines and medical countermeasures]…Something very innovative, I’m a fan of In-Q-Tel. Something that is a way of incentivizing industry, the markets, Wall Street, to make this worthwhile, to build up America’s industrial capacity, just like the Manhattan Project, or other things that have been done, that advanced more than just healthcare. (1:12:27-1:12:58)
Soon thereafter, Dr. Julie Gerberding, the former Director of the U.S. CDC and then later President of Merck Vaccines, concurs, saying that “she certainly can’t argue with a Manhattan Project for medical countermeasures” (1:16:39), which would include vaccines.
Most probably know that the Manhattan Project was the major secretive and long-term project involving hundreds of thousands of people to develop the atomic bomb. So the suggestion of an innovative Manhattan Project to advance “more than just healthcare” appears to be much more than merely suggesting the usual scientific research by pharmaceutical companies.
It is interesting to ponder whether a “Manhattan Project” on pandemics to advance “more than just healthcare” could have been achieved without a (false or real) pandemic. World War II, a crisis mentioned by Smith above, was a condition used as a basis for the Manhattan Project which developed the atomic bomb and, in Smith’s words of approval, “gave us the UN.” Would a crisis like a falsified pandemic be necessary for a “Manhattan Project” to develop and fund vaccines as well as advance “more than just healthcare”? Could “more than just healthcare” include, for example, a whole raft of fundamental changes to our way of life that promote an anti-freedom, anti-human, globalist ideology?
Most globalists are of the mindset to “never let a good crisis go to waste”. But if a pandemic only occurs every 100 years or more, and if the globalists are getting tired of waiting, it is reasonable to wonder if globalists would actually create a falsified crisis.
Other participants in the Johns Hopkins 2018 simulated pandemic exercise included Dr. Tara O’Toole, a former national security official for President Obama who is also still tied to the U.S. government national security realm through her work as Senior Fellow and Executive Vice President of In-Q-Tel. And yet another former U.S. federal government national security employee, John Bellinger III, participated in the 2018 pandemic exercise. Bellinger vehemently opposed President Trump and labeled him as a risk to national security in 2016.
Geographic quarantines are ‘not scientifically valid’ but nations should respond to pandemic with the same methods
Interestingly, throughout the exercise, most, if not all, of the participants oppose lockdowns which they called “geographic quarantines” or simply “quarantines” (35:50-46:00 and 55:36-1:18:54). The participants in the exercise said that geographic quarantines don’t make sense from a medical, public health point of view, and that there is a reason why a lockdown or mass quarantine is unprecedented, which is that it “just doesn’t work” (40:50). Another participant described travel bans, quarantines, and/or lockdowns as building fortresses around cities or states and said that this is “not scientifically valid” (13:35).
However, it may be noteworthy that the former director of the U.S. CDC and others suggest that the U.S. must make a joint decision with other countries on how the pandemic is handled, at the very least with G20 or G7 and the World Health Organization (1:23:12-1:23:50 and 1:24:30-1:25:45). This is interesting because the COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns, or “geographic quarantines”, were led by China and Italy and other G20 nations, and then many parts of the U.S. followed and enacted some sort of China-like lockdown.
Participants opposed the President of the US leading the US pandemic response
At the time of the Johns Hopkins 2018 fictional pandemic the President of the United States was Donald Trump. While it is never mentioned directly, there appears to be some implied hostility for President Trump’s (and his voters’) opposition to globalism throughout the fictional pandemic exercise.
It may be noteworthy that the participants of the 2018 fictional pandemic continually fret over who in the U.S. federal government would be in charge of responding to a pandemic (11:38). The moderator of the exercise from Johns Hopkins says what most people would probably say, “I think the President would say that the President is in charge” (12:20) of responding to a pandemic, to which former Democrat congressman and “leading thinker on climate change”, Tom Daschle, responds:
…on the day-to-day managerial question? I doubt it. I mean, he’s got all these other issues he’s gonna have to deal with. Then, if that’s the answer, I think we’re in trouble, not because of any particular presidential ability, but just because of the nature of his role as President...somebody has to be in charge and take day-to-day, uh, responsibility, and I don’t think it can be the President. (12:23-12:47)
Some participants then suggest the Vice President or the Secretary of Health and Human Services to be put in charge, while others discuss a czar like the Democrat Ron Klain, President Biden’s current Chief of Staff at the White House.
That particular discussion is interesting because many of the participants at the 2018 Johns Hopkins fictional pandemic event were apparently of the globalist mindset. And President Trump was elected, at least in part, because of his anti-globalist stances.
Thus, most globalists possibly thought that President Trump would not follow a global, or G20-led, pandemic response.
In other words, hypothetically speaking, if a planned, secretive, falsified pandemic required the U.S. to implement never before used China-like lockdowns, and if it was known that the President of the U.S. would oppose such anti-freedom measures, then the planners of the future falsified pandemic might “show their cards”, so to speak, by fretting over the potential of the President being in charge of pandemic response. Of course, it could be merely coincidence that such persons who apparently vehemently opposed President Trump would also vehemently oppose a President of the United States being in charge of future pandemic response in the U.S.
CDC vaccine promoter, not President Trump, was one of the first to publicly suggest US imitating China’s draconian measures
Compare the above discussion from the fictional 2018 pandemic to what really occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic response. It is definitely noteworthy that one of the first to publicly suggest draconian, China-like lockdowns and take charge of responding to the pandemic in the U.S. was not President Trump. Instead, one of the first to suggest draconian measures was Dr. Nancy Messonnier, head of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the CDC:
Messonnier pointed to China, where schools and businesses have been shuttered for weeks to contain the outbreak there, saying the U.S. may eventually need to do the same.
“The day may come where we may need to implement such measures in this country,” she said.
Dr. Messonnier is also the sister of Rod Rosenstein, the former Department of Justice official who oversaw the FBI Russia investigation and reportedly discussed removing President Trump.
Soon thereafter, Dr. Messonnier was not among the pandemic response leaders. A Coronavirus Task Force was implemented, which was first led by Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar and was “coordinated through the National Security Council”. Azar was later replaced by Vice President Pence to be in charge of the response to COVID-19. Azar was named Secretary of HHS in 2018, but in 2005 was involved with developing a pandemic vaccination plan.
Thus, the COVID-19 response followed a similar trajectory as that suggested at the 2018 Clade X fictional pandemic event enacted by Johns Hopkins University: the President of the United States was not officially in charge of the pandemic response. Instead, multiple persons were apparently attempting to take charge until ultimately the Vice President was put in charge. And one of the first persons to publicly suggest China-like draconian measures was a vaccine promoter from the U.S. CDC.
Those are only a few interesting discussions from the 2018 fictional pandemic planned and enacted by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Center for Health Security. And because of Johns Hopkins’ ties to China and potentially significant influence on U.S. government, public health, and “national security”, one may find it worthwhile to thoroughly study both fictional pandemics.