🔴🔘🔴Update— Vaccines 💉 Covid-19 Plus

𝒜 𝒫𝓁𝒶𝒸𝑒 𝐹𝑜𝓇 𝐻𝑜𝓅𝑒 𝒶𝓃𝒹 𝒟𝓇𝑒𝒶𝓂𝓈 𝒶𝓃𝒹 𝐵𝑒𝓈𝓉 𝐵𝑒𝒶𝓊𝓉𝒾𝒻𝓊𝓁 𝐵𝑜𝑜𝓀𝓈 𝒶𝓃𝒹 𝒥𝑜𝓊𝓇𝓃𝒶𝓁𝓈 𝐼𝓃 𝒯𝒽𝑒 𝒲𝑜𝓇𝓁𝒹 ~ 𝐼𝓃𝒸𝓁𝓊𝒹𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝐿𝒾𝓉𝓉𝓁𝑒 𝐻𝑜𝓊𝓈𝑒 𝑜𝒻 𝑀𝒾𝓇𝒶𝒸𝓁𝑒𝓈 All books and journals by Laurel Sobol are available online at Barns and Noble bn.com ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️🔴💉

 

🔴🔘🔴🔘🔴🔘🔴🔘🔴🔘🔴Vaccines 💉 Covid-19 Plus

🔐💉 UPDATES VACCINES COVID-19 PLUS!  

⚪️⚪️⚪️⚪️

https://kidsworldplus.blogspot.com/2025/01/all-books-and-journals-by-laurel-sobol_31.html?m=1

⚪️⚪️⚪️⚪️⚪️⚪️⚪️⚪️🦋

🔺🔻🔺🔻🔺🔻🔺🔻🔺🔻🔺🔻🔺🔻🔺

⭐️⭐️⭐️Enjoy thousands of books and journals and videos to improve, educate and thrive in times of yet more change! Organic non toxic lifestyle every day! Independently published by Laurel Sobol

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/s/Laurel%20Sobol

🔴🔘🔴🔘🔴🔘🔴🔘🔴🔴🔴🔘🔴🔘🔴🔘🔴

Hospital Says to Earn Religious Exemption from Vaccine, Devout Employees Can't Take Tylenol

https://kidsworldplus.blogspot.com/2021/12/power-isnt-pain.html?m=1

le="clear: both;">d-row-end: title; grid-row-

start: title; line-height: 1.2; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; margin-top: 0px; max-width: var(--block-max-width); width: calc( 100% - 2 * var( --block-side-margin ));">

Enjoy 1,000’s of books and journals and videos

Laurel is a seeker of justice and life, well being for God's creation.

Believer in good stories about almost all genre, ages, subjects and materials. Believe once again that stories can be great and productive, teach with honor and love, made with honor and love of God for the world to be a better more splendid place. Whether it is nature stories, fairy tales, animals, poetry, education, planners, calendars, journals, home and garden, school and office, it is about bringing more of a good thing into your life. Soli Deo Gloria forever.

Global human rights life and liberty. Subjugating the social media criteria complicit and complacent with War Lord genocide globally.

Translations in most languages for The Magical Polar Bears series and The Magical Albatross!

⭐️Class materials books, journals and videos!

⭐️Two Polar Bears Travel the World

⭐️Two Wandering Albatrosses Make A Difference in the World

⭐️Journals

⭐️National Parks

⭐️Organic Lifestyle Today

⭐️Fairy Tales

⭐️Nez Perce Legends

⭐️Rain Forest Legends

⭐️Honey Bee Fairy Tales

⭐️Mindfulness

COVID-19 5G 6G MK Ultra Toxic Electromagnetic emissions ignite toxic unprecedented diseases and genocide in all systems.

Manmade Apocalyptic Star Geo Weather Disease Dispersal Warfare by War Lords' ideologies whose ancestors were the Watcher Angels and Giant Nephilim, to this day use stolen technologies from our Creator, unwillingly paid for by the people around the world to destroy all of our creator's creation. Warfare with UFO technology that generates and steers storms, layering volcanos, earthquakes, tsunamis, tornados, hurricanes, typhoons, and disease dispersal, steering and maneuvering these disasters by along with mile wide meteorites directed at us all. Resilient Cities 100, UN, NWO, NASA and ISS, and all others complicit and complacent are guilty of these war crimes. It was never our creator who did these dastardly crimes since Noah's time and since, but the War Lords of Darkness. They will claim our creator did this.

Prolific scribe, author of over two thousand books!

https://www.amazon.com/-/e/B006UYOMAO

https://laurelsobol.tumblr.com

http://livewelllivefreeforever.tumblr.com

http://beeautifulbees.tumblr.com

http://nationalparksglobal.tumblr.com

🆘🆘🆘

Hospital Says to Earn Religious Exemption from Vaccine, Devout Employees Can't Take Tylenol

As progressive politicians continue to institute vaccine mandates across the country, more Americans are attempting to secure a religious exemption from the jab. One hospital in Arkansas is now trying to render that option ineffective, too.

According to KARK-TV, Conway Regional Hospital is requiring a COVID-19 vaccine. The hospital said an increasing number of people were attempting to secure a religious exemption from the requirement.

Many of the employees applying for the exemption were reportedly citing an issue with fetal cell lines being used in the development of vaccines. The practice involves growing cell lines in a lab using cells from aborted fetuses.  Since Christians and people of many other religions tend to be against abortion, one could see why they would be against taking a vaccine that they feel makes them complicit in (or at least profiting from) the act of abortion.

Matt Troup, Conway Regional’s CEO and president, did not take too kindly to that line of thinking.  “We require the flu vaccine to work here,” Troup said. “With the COVID vaccine, we saw a dramatic increase in the number of exemption requests related to this fetal cell issue.”

Troup said he believed this increase signaled that employees may be filing for a religious exemption because of health concerns about this specific vaccine rather than deep moral convictions.

In response, he and other administrators developed a so-called “attestation form” that employees requesting an exemption would be forced to sign. The form requires those employees to commit to refraining from everyday medicines such as Tylenol, Pepto-Bismol, ibuprofen, Benadryl and Claritin, among others.

The form says these medicines have used fetal cells during their development, so employees must not take them in order to “support your claim of a ‘sincerely held religious belief.'”

“We feel that if you request an exemption then attesting to that form really should follow,” Troup said. “A lot of this, I believe, is a hesitancy about the vaccine, and so that’s a separate issue than a religious exemption.”

There are multiple issues with Troup’s line of reasoning, but they all revolve around the central idea that groups from the federal government all the way down to a local hospital feel they have the right to impose authoritarian mandates on every American.

First of all, there are other religious reasons for not getting the vaccine other than the concern about fetal cells. For example, some people believe their religion teaches them not to inject things into their bodies.

By requiring every employee who applies for a religious exemption to fill out an attestation form, the hospital is ignoring the fact that some of those people may have religious concerns about the vaccine outside of the fetal cells used in its development.

Second, Troup is probably correct that some employees are using the religious exemption as an excuse not to get the vaccine. But the very reason they have to do so is because of the dictatorial demands they are being subjected to.

Related:

Way Worse Than Mean Tweets: Biden Admin Issues Chilling Message to Americans Just 1 Week Before Christmas

If the federal government and Conway Regional Hospital would allow people to make their own decisions about whether to get the vaccine, those people would not have to turn to special exemptions to protect their freedom.

Of course, neither the hospital nor the federal government truly cares about those concerns. They simply want to force the vaccine on every person they possibly can, and they want to close any avenue allowing people to avoid such treatment.

Very few people would view abstaining from medicines like Tylenol and ibuprofen as a viable option. By making that a prerequisite for a religious exemption from the COVID-19 vaccine, the hospital is effectively removing the exemption for the vast majority of its employees, if not all of them.

Progressive politicians and power-hungry business owners alike continue to show they have no empathy for any of their constituents, religious or otherwise. They feel they are morally superior to anyone under them, and they will continue to try to control them at all costs.

webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: serif; font-size: 19px; margin: 30px auto; max-width: var(--block-max-width); width: calc( 100% - 2 * var( --block-side-margin ));">

⭐⭐⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

5G and Manmade Toxic Deadly Covid-19 Plague and Vaccines...All Business Globally Who Discriminate Against The Down Trodden, Abused, Bullied, Outcast From Homes,  Schools, Businesses, Job Positions, Debased Humiliated Berated--Through Tyrannical Diabolical Ways and or Means...Face Global Lawsuits Against Such Illegal Discrimination!    The Present Means of Depopulation and Taxation of Global Citizens Via Any Channel, Especially Evil Corrupt WHO, UN, NWO, Pentagon, Monarchies, Corporations or Sole Proprietorship, Groups or Any Other Entities Conspiring To Depopulate The World Especially Through Manmade Apocalyptic COVID-19 5G 6G MK Ultra Toxic Electromagnetic emissions ignite toxic unprecedented diseases and genocide in all systems.  Manmade Apocalyptic Star Geo Weather Disease Dispersal Warfare by War Lords' ideologies whose ancestors were the Watcher Angels and Giant Nephilim, to this day use stolen technologies from our Creator, unwillingly paid for by the people around the world to destroy all of our creator's creation. Warfare with UFO technology that generates and steers storms, layering volcanos, earthquakes, tsunamis, tornados, hurricanes, typhoons, and disease dispersal, steering and maneuvering these disasters by along with mile wide meteorites directed at us all. Resilient Cities 100, UN, NWO, NASA and ISS, and all others complicit and complacent are guilty of these war crimes. It was never our creator who did these dastardly crimes since Noah's time and since, but the War Lords of Darkness. They will claim our creator did this.

https://kidsworldplus.blogspot.com/2021/12/enjoy-thousands-of-books-and-journals.html?m=1

 

⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️Enjoy thousands of books and journals and videos to improve, educate and thrive in times of yet more change! Organic non toxic lifestyle every day! Independently published by Laurel Sobol—if book links are broken or no longer available then find books on Amazon. This is the home and supporter sponsor of Organic Lifestyle Today. Join over 8 billion people global in healthy creation of Elohim, our Creator. The timeless manmade Apocalyptic Star Wars with UFO technology, Geo, Weather, Disease Dispersal Warfare against Bene' Qodesh must end forevermore. People must dream, believe, hope. strive for the world and space they know is fantastical, beautiful, exotic, wonderful and miraculous --just the way our great I Am our God made it all. Soli Deo Gloria forever. ⭐️ https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLhOT-ktlXXHs3D-QzjVFVlr9Lu48ndise Sponsored by Organic Lifestyle Today! ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️Laurel Sobol https://www.amazon.com/-/e/B006UYOMAO

5G and Manmade Toxic Deadly Covid-19 Plague and Vaccines...All Business Globally Who Discriminate Against The Down Trodden, Abused, Bullied, Outcast From Homes,  Schools, Businesses, Job Positions, Debased Humiliated Berated--Through Tyrannical Diabolical Ways and or Means...Face Global Lawsuits Against Such Illegal Discrimination!  

The Present Means of Depopulation and Taxation of Global Citizens Via Any Channel, Especially Evil Corrupt WHO, UN, NWO, Pentagon, Monarchies, Corporations or Sole Proprietorship, Groups or Any Other Entities Conspiring To Depopulate The World Especially Through Manmade Apocalyptic COVID-19 5G 6G MK Ultra Toxic Electromagnetic emissions ignite toxic unprecedented diseases and genocide in all systems.

Manmade Apocalyptic Star Geo Weather Disease Dispersal Warfare by War Lords' ideologies whose ancestors were the Watcher Angels and Giant Nephilim, to this day use stolen technologies from our Creator, unwillingly paid for by the people around the world to destroy all of our creator's creation. Warfare with UFO technology that generates and steers storms, layering volcanos, earthquakes, tsunamis, tornados, hurricanes, typhoons, and disease dispersal, steering and maneuvering these disasters by along with mile wide meteorites directed at us all. Resilient Cities 100, UN, NWO, NASA and ISS, and all others complicit and complacent are guilty of these war crimes. It was never our creator who did these dastardly crimes since Noah's time and since, but the War Lords of Darkness. They will claim our creator did this.  

⭐ Homebound, House Arrest, Hospice, Memory Care, Videos For Every Occasion.

Enjoy thousands of books and journals and videos to improve, educate and thrive in times of yet more change! Laurel Sobol Author https://www.amazon.com/-/e/B006UYOMAO Join 9+ billion people in healthy creation of Elohim, our Creator. The timeless manmade Apocalyptic Star Wars with UFO technology, Geo, Weather, Disease Dispersal Warfare against Bene' Qodesh must end. People believe, hope. strive for the world and space they know is fantastical.

⭐️

⭐️

⭐️

⭐️

⭐️

SPARS Pandemic 2025–2028: Truth has always been hard if not impossible to find since the beginning of time.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/KqUjuIzJsIsK/
The genome 🧬 chromosome 20
The SPARS Pandemic 2025–2028:
https://stars.library.ucf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1029&=&context=jicrcr&=&sei-redir=1&referer=https%253A%252F%252Fwww.bing.com%252Fsearch%253Fq%253Dspars%252Bcovid%252Bpdf%2526form%253DAPIPH1%2526PC%253DAPPL#search=%22spars%20covid%20pdf%22 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CRISIS AND RISK COMMUNICATION RESEARCH
2020, VOL 3, NO 1, 71–102 https://doi.org/10.30658/jicrcr.3.1.4
Nicholson School of Communication and Media University of Central Florida www.jicrcr.com

The SPARS Pandemic 2025–2028:
A Futuristic Scenario to Facilitate Medical Countermeasure Communication
Emily K. Brunson1 , Hannah Chandler2 , Gigi Kwik Gronvall3 , Sanjana Ravi3 , Tara Kirk Sell3 , Matthew P. Shearer3 , and Monica Schoch-Spana3
Department of Anthropology, Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas, USA
Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, New York, USA
Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security and Department of Environmental
Health and Engineering, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
ABSTRACT
Effective communication about medical countermeasures—including drugs, devices, and biologics—is often critical in emergency situations. Such communication, how- ever, does not just happen. It must be planned and prepared for. One mechanism to develop communication strategies is through the use of prospective scenarios, which allow readers the opportunity to rehearse responses while also weighing the implica- tions of their actions. This article describes the development of such a scenario: The SPARS Pandemic 2025–2028. Steps in this process included deciding on a time frame, identifying likely critical uncertainties, and then using this framework to construct a storyline covering both the response and recovery phases of a fictional emergency event. Lessons learned from the scenario development and how the scenario can be used to improve communication are also discussed.
KEYWORDS: prospective scenario, medical countermeasures, risk communication, public health emergency, crisis communication
Medical countermeasures (MCM)—including drugs, devices, and biologics (e.g., vaccines)—often play critical roles in curtail- ing the impacts of natural disease outbreaks as well as chemical,
CONTACTS Monica Schoch-Spana, PhD • E-mail: mschoch@jhu.edu • Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, 621 East Pratt Street, Suite 210, Baltimore, MD 21202
© 2020 by Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research. All rights reserved.
 
71
72 BRUNSON, CHANDLER, GRONVALL, RAVI, SELL, SHEARER, and SCHOCH-SPANA
biological, radiological, or nuclear (CBRN) incidents (Courtney & Sadove, 2015). It is not uncommon for members of the public, however, to misuse or hesitate to take recommended MCM (Liu et al., 2017; Quinn et al., 2008; Steelfisher et al., 2011). New and unfamiliar technology, an accelerated regulatory approval process, or discordant expert views may heighten perceived risks of MCM, leading to public aversion to the countermeasure and/or dimin- ished public trust in MCM regulators or recommenders (Belongia et al., 2005; Carlsen & Glenton, 2016; Henrich & Holmes, 2011). In other cases, strong feelings of vulnerability in an emergency sit- uation may prompt persons to demand unnecessary MCM, pro- test their lack of access to MCM with limited availability, and/or use an excessive amount of prescribed MCM (Dart et al., 2015; Durigon & Kosatsky, 2012; Whitcomb et al., 2015). In still other situations, certain social groups may have limited access to MCM because some institutions are still in the process of learning how culture, race, language, and citizenship status produce barriers to health information sharing (Lin et al., 2014; Uscher-Pines et al., 2011). To mitigate all of these issues and ensure proper and timely use of MCM, good communication is key.
From 2014 to 2016, the Center for Health Security undertook a research project to catalog MCM communication “dilemmas” (in the broad sense of a problem) in emergency situations and provide practical and strategic recommendations on how better to obtain desired population health outcomes through improved communication. The principal product was a casebook featuring recent health crises (e.g., 2014–2015 West Africa Ebola outbreak and 2011 Fukushima nuclear plant accident) that helped to illus- trate the principles and conditions for effective MCM communi- cation (Schoch-Spana et al., 2016).
Much of the practice-oriented literature relies upon real cri- ses to illustrate successful (or failed) approaches to risk and crisis communication (e.g., Centers for Disease Control and Preven- tion [CDC], 2018; Ulmer et al., 2017). The project team similarly used past health emergencies to advance understanding of how communication enables appropriate public use of MCMs, because case studies have compelling benefits for learning: People rea- son effectively through analogy and not just abstract principles,
The SPARS Pandemic 2025–2028 73
contextualization makes broader principles meaningful and mem- orable, and cases promote reflective thinking and reinforce users’ abilities to apply that knowledge in novel settings (Allchin, 2013; Epling et al., 2003).
Leveraging the same didactic qualities as retrospective cases (Varum & Melo, 2010), the project team subsequently developed a fictionalized prospective scenario—The SPARS Pandemic 2025– 2028—to further prepare users for MCM-related risk and crisis communication dilemmas on the horizon. A scenario is an “ana- lytically coherent” and “imaginatively engaging” story about a pos- sible future state (Bishop et al., 2007) that spurs users to envision and exercise their role in shaping potential outcomes (Borjeson et al., 2006; Mahmoud et al., 2009; Wilkinson & Eidinow, 2008). Outlined in this paper and available in full online (Schoch-Spana et al., 2017), the SPARS scenario is intended to help authorities better anticipate MCM emergency communication dilemmas, understand the larger contexts, practice effective responses, and develop acuity and agility for addressing unforeseen problems. The SPARS Pandemic 2025–2028 features MCM communication dilemmas both of the enduring and emerging kind—especially those in relation to evolving information and communication technologies (ICT).
Benefits of Scenarios and Simulations in Preparing for Disasters and Epidemics
The forward-looking SPARS scenario is a tool meant to prompt readers to imagine the dynamic and oftentimes conflicted circum- stances in which MCM emergency communication takes place. By engaging readers with a rigorous, simulated health emergency the scenario provides opportunities for readers to mentally “rehearse” responses while also weighing the implications of their actions (Borjeson et al., 2006). Apart from testing out responses to fore- seeable events, the scenario also provides readers opportunities to consider potential measures in today’s environment that might avert comparable problems or classes of problems in the future; that is, consider how to create a preferred future (Bishop et al.,2007; Borjeson et al., 2006; Mahmoud et al., 2009; Wilkinson & Eidinow, 2008).
74 BRUNSON, CHANDLER, GRONVALL, RAVI, SELL, SHEARER, and SCHOCH-SPANA
Producing coherent and imaginative narratives about the future to inform decision-making in the present is an approach to planning and risk management that businesses, think tanks, gov- ernments, and non-governmental organizations have embraced for a half century or more, and a wide range of aims, applica- tions, and techniques have evolved (Bishop et al., 2007; Varum & Melo, 2010; Wilkinson & Eidinow, 2008). In the case of a low- probability high-consequence event like a pandemic or CBRN incident in which MCM may be deployed, scenario development provides a way—absent an actual emergency—for stakeholders to characterize specific impacts (based on the accepted science), cre- ate a shared vision of the threat, weigh alternatives futures with or without risk-reducing interventions, and stimulate action (Earth- quake Engineering Research Institute [EERI], 2019; Preuss & God- frey, 2006). Earthquake and bioterrorism scenarios, for instance, have played important roles in motivating creative thinking about the need for novel policies and programs and in mobilizing new constituencies around seismic risk reduction (National Research Council [NRC], 2011) and public health emergency preparedness (Hamilton & Smith, 2006; O’Toole et al., 2002), respectively.
Scenarios that depict an unfolding crisis are valuable tools that can heighten awareness about complex hazards and also enable practical training for the management of disasters and epidemics through exercises (European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control [ECDC], 2014; Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA], 2019; World Health Organization [WHO], 2018). Discussion-based exercises (often called tabletop exercises) help participants, typically decision-makers, become more familiar with emergency plans and procedures, individual and organiza- tional roles and responsibilities, and special challenges posed by a particular threat to public health and safety. By contrast, opera- tion-based exercises (such as drills, functional exercises, and field exercises) attempt to incorporate, to a lesser or greater degree, the front-line personnel, equipment, and physical spaces expected to be in play during an actual emergency (FEMA, 2019; Skryabina et al., 2017). A majority of studies on the effectiveness of train- ing in emergency risk communication, in particular, conclude
The SPARS Pandemic 2025–2028 75
that the impacts of tabletop exercises and simulation for training include enhanced awareness, readiness, and knowledge (Miller et al., 2017).
Social Media Challenges/Opportunities for Health and MCM Communication
Like the previously mentioned earthquake and bioterrorism sce- narios, the SPARS scenario is meant to prepare risk and crisis communicators for future emergencies, and in particular the com- plex conditions that rapidly-evolving ICT, including social media, are now generating around medicine/public health generally and MCM specifically.
ICT use, including text, illustrations, photo, audio, videos, and diagrams communicated through blog posts, instant messages, video chats, and social network platforms, is now widespread and often used for health-related activities. Among members of the public, a 2010 survey by the Pew Research Center, for instance, showed that 8 in 10 internet users look online for health infor- mation, making it the third most popular online activity in the U.S. (Fox, 2011). Likewise, practitioners, public health officials, and other health experts are increasingly turning to ICT—which provides a means to reach the broadest possible population in the fastest, easiest, and least expensive manner (Hinton & Hjorth, 2013)—for a variety of purposes. Clinician-to-patient and peer- to-peer communication, investing individual patients in their own care, information exchanges among diverse healthcare and pub- lic health stakeholders, and detecting and managing disease out- breaks have been transformed through ITC (Charles-Smith et al., 2015; Grajales et al., 2014; Kreps & Neuhauser, 2010; Rice & Sara, 2018). While this situation may appear overwhelmingly positive, some aspects of ITC use and its popularity remain problematic.
First, ITC use has altered the dynamics between health experts and the patients and populations they serve (Hawn, 2009). Social media in particular has provided a mechanism for laypersons to readily share their health-related experiential knowledge with each other, thus dislodging the centrality of health professionals’ authoritative knowledge in people’s decision-making and behavior (Hawn, 2009; Househ et al., 2014).
76 BRUNSON, CHANDLER, GRONVALL, RAVI, SELL, SHEARER, and SCHOCH-SPANA
Second, ITC can, and is, used to spread false information. Wolfe and associates (2002), for example, found that 32% of anti- vaccine websites surveyed included pictures of “menacing needles” and 23% had pictures of children reported to have been harmed or killed by vaccines. As parents come across these images and their associated stories this can lead parents to place greater emphasis on personal and emotional experience rather than scientific evi- dence. Referred to as false consensus bias in the social psychology literature, parents may then hesitate to vaccinate or reject vaccines for their children altogether.
What is particularly challenging in regard to social media is that such images and negative stories tend to have a greater impact than facts and positive messages. In their research of vaccination- related YouTube videos, for example, Keelan and associates (2007) found that while the majority (48%) of the 153 identified vid- eos promoted vaccination and only 32% were negative toward vaccination, the most liked and viewed were the ones with neg- ative content. The lowest rated and watched videos were pro- vaccination public service announcements.
These positive and negative aspects of ITC, in turn, influence what practitioners and the broader public understand about MCM safety and efficacy, thus presenting new challenges and opportuni- ties for crisis and risk communicators. Medication users, for exam- ple, are increasingly sharing personal knowledge and experience of drug benefits and risks via online disease support networks, patient and drug forums, and microblogging (Matsuda, 2017; Sloane et al., 2015). Through social media, these individuals can find both practical information and a sense of community, while drug safety professionals have a new, rich data source with which to mine for potential evidence of adverse events, supplementing uneven healthcare provider reports (Edwards & Lindquist, 2011; Inch et al., 2012).
At the same time, great potential exists for the public to encounter misleading or dangerous information about pharma- ceuticals, as non-expert consumers deliver their own drug product testimonials and illegal online pharmacies promote their services via social media (Tyrawski & DeAndrea, 2015). Misinformation is proving especially challenging in connection with vaccines where
The SPARS Pandemic 2025–2028 77
social media users encounter disproportionate negative reporting and images, are more swayed by personal narratives about vacci- nation’s adverse effects than the science, and tend to judge dispa- rate ideas about vaccines as equally valid, regardless of expertise (Guidry et al., 2015; Kata, 2012; Poland et al., 2009; Witteman & Zikmund-Fisher, 2012). Thus, in this current ITC-rich environ- ment, good communication, and good training for effective com- munication, is critical.
Methods
To develop the SPARS scenario a project team with expertise in a variety of areas, including epidemiology, public health prepared- ness, risk communication, and the biological and social sciences, was assembled. Utilizing these diverse perspectives, the team used a combination of the inductive and deductive heuristics delineated by Ogilvy and Schwartz (2004) to develop the scenario premise (Figure 1). This process began with selecting the timeframe for the scenario—the years 2025–2028. These dates, which were 10–13 years in the future at the time, were chosen to provide a timeline that allowed the development of future possibilities, but was not so far in the future as to make the scenario become a work of sci- ence fiction. After the timeframe was established, the project team turned to the focal question: What emergency communication issues around MCM are most likely to exist 10 years from now?
To begin answering this question, the project team consid- ered the key economic, environmental, political, social, and tech- nological factors they felt were likely to emerge by 2025. Factors considered by the project team included prominent ones such as technological advances like the proliferation of tools to access the internet, increased use of the internet for things like social media and telemedicine, greater political and social polarizations, chang- ing demographics in the United States including an aging baby boomer population, and climate change and urbanization that could result in the (re)emergence of zoonotic diseases.
After careful discussion of each of these factors, which included consideration of existing literature and theoretical approaches, the team considered which factors seemed inevitable given present
78 BRUNSON, CHANDLER, GRONVALL, RAVI, SELL, SHEARER, and SCHOCH-SPANA
FIGURE 1 The scenario generation process, adapted from Ogilvy and Schwartz (2004).
 
#1 - Identify focal issue and time frame
#2 - Brainstorm a list of "key drivers"
#3 - Sort "drivers" into "predetermined trends" and "critical uncertainties"
#4 - Select top 2 "critical uncertainties" and build 2x2 scenario matrix
#5 - Select 1 of the 4 futures and elaborate on a complete storyline
Deepen the plot through systems thinking
Tell a story with a beginning, middle, and end
Create characters
Employ standard plot lines
# 6 - Refine the plot through an iterative process of reflection, research, and revision
#7 - Explore the strategic implications of the scenario
Single out a key decision or a strategic uncertainty that has long-range consequences important to the organization
Consider notable forces shaping and influencing the focal issue: social, technological, economic, natural, political
Distinguish inevitable trends that will play out the same no matter what *versus* important trends whose impacts are unsure
Reduce each critical uncertainty to an axis with polar cases at each extremity; overlay the 2 axes and produce 4 futures to explore
Think of critical events, then delve into under- lying patterns and structures that these events signal; use diagrams to see how forces interact
Capture time and causality dimensions; first
this, then that; generate a series of headlines describing events over the course of the scenario
Personify the magnitude and direction of change by using real or iconic figues
Build on common narratives ("winners and losers" and "David and Goliath")
Return to initial focal issue to determine gaps, vulnerabilities, options facing the organization
             
The SPARS Pandemic 2025–2028 79
conditions and which were the most likely to impact the direction of the scenario. From this process, two critical uncertainties were identified: the extent of access to information technology, that the team felt was inevitable, and the degree of fragmentation among populations along social, political, religious, and cultural lines, which the team felt would lead to novel communication issues. The project team then used these uncertainties to construct a scenario matrix illustrating the four possible futures that could be shaped by these trends (Figure 2). After careful consideration, the team ultimately chose the “echo-chamber”—a world comprised of iso- lated and highly fragmented communities with widespread access to information technology—as the future in which the prospective scenario would take place.
FIGURE 2 Final Scenario Framework: Four possible futures in which the SPARS pandemic unfolds.
Isolated communities, social fragmentation
Diverse but integrated communities, “melting pot”
Unbridled access and openness to information technology (including social media)
“Echo-chamber”
“UN Security Council”
  
“Solitary Confinement”
Erratic, unequal access to information technology (including social media)
“Shangri-La”
 
“Echo-Chamber”—a technologically savvy, plugged in, but fragmented society in which groups that hold diverse worldviews consume information that continues to validate their own positions, allowing them to live in their own mental bubble; government agencies and citizens alike have ready access to all the latest informational tools.
“Solitary Confinement”—a society (including general population and public sector) with an uneven access to informational technology (due to lack of net neutrality, uneven infrastructure) that isolates differently minded communities.
“UN Security Council”—a technologically savvy, plugged in society where diversity reigns, but difference and tolerance are socially valued, and where information flows freely across different groups.
“Singapore”—a melting pot society, with peaceful co-existence of differently minded groups, but uneven levels of access to information technology.
80 BRUNSON, CHANDLER, GRONVALL, RAVI, SELL, SHEARER, and SCHOCH-SPANA
From this point, scenario-specific storylines were developed, drawing on the subject matter expertise of the project group, interviews with expert working group (EWG) members associated with the larger project, historical accounts of past MCM crises, contemporary media reports, and scholarly literature in sociology, emergency preparedness, health education, and risk communica- tion. This process allowed the project team to identify expected and new communication dilemmas to include in the scenario. As one example of this, the project team considered how the internet and social media affect the social dynamics of health communica- tion. Using the theory of false consensus bias and the findings on vaccination in social media (described previously in the literature review section), the project team identified specific communica- tion dilemmas to include in the scenario. One of these involved responding to a particularly emotional video that was widely spread via social media and then maintained in the public view for months afterward by teenagers who enjoyed the shock value of the images. This specific case, titled “Going Viral,” is presented later in this paper.
Once different dilemmas were identified, the team considered how the different storylines could reasonably fit together and what characters were necessary in order for these events to occur. An outline for the scenario was then constructed using newspaper and other social media headlines as markers for key events; in many instances, these remained in the scenario in order to intro- duce the different dilemmas. Finally, the entire storyline was writ- ten in draft form as if the SPARS outbreak had occurred in the recent past, allowing some outcomes and conclusions to be drawn within the scenario.
From this point, scenario development entailed a recursive process of continued research and analysis by the project team, review and feedback from EWG members (summer 2015), and two rounds of external review by authorities on risk communica- tion and the MCM enterprise (four individuals in fall 2015, three individuals in summer 2017). Comprising the project EWG were risk and crisis communication scholars; MCM developers, pro- ducers, and regulators; practitioners in medicine, public health,
The SPARS Pandemic 2025–2028 81
and pharmacy science; and experienced public health emergency managers at all levels of government. Revisions were made after each review in order to increase the accuracy and usefulness of the material presented in the scenario.
The final product, referred to hereafter as the SPARS scenario, is not intended to be a crystal ball of things to come; rather, it is meant to serve as a plausible narrative that illustrates a broad range of serious and frequently encountered challenges in the realm of risk and crisis communication. To increase the usefulness of the scenario, each response- and recovery-phase dilemma is followed by food for thought questions that are meant to prompt readers, reading as individuals or in training groups, to consider how they might respond to similar situations or how they might prevent similar problems or classes of problems from occurring in the first place. Like the studies of scenario-driven exercises (Skryabina et al., 2017) show, including those featuring emergency risk commu- nication (Miller et al., 2017), the SPARS scenario is intended to prepare users for mitigating public health emergencies and man- aging MCM communication dilemmas more effectively. In the following sections, we outline the scenario environment and how the fictional outbreak begins. We then provide excerpts of two dilemma sections as examples of the larger document.
The SPARS Scenario: An Introduction
Scenario Environment
The setting of SPARS is the world in 2025–2028. For this time period, the project team imagined a world that is simultaneously more connected and yet more divided. There is nearly univer- sal access to wireless internet for even the poorest persons in the United States. Additionally, technological innovations and com- petition between technology companies have made an even wider range of information technology readily available to all. Despite the possibilities for these advancements to facilitate broad commu- nication between individuals and communities, the project team also envisioned a future where many have chosen to self-restrict the sources they seek for information, often electing to interact
82 BRUNSON, CHANDLER, GRONVALL, RAVI, SELL, SHEARER, and SCHOCH-SPANA
only with those whom they agree with on significant issues. This trend increasingly isolates cliques from one another, making com- munication across and between these groups more difficult.
In relation to MCM communication more specifically, gov- ernment agencies like the CDC have increasingly adopted social media technologies, including long-existing platforms such as Facebook, Snapchat, and Twitter, as well as emerging platforms like ZapQ—an interface that enables users to aggregate and archive media content from other platforms and communicate with cloud-based social groups based on common interests and current events. Federal and state public health organizations have also developed agency-specific applications and ramped up efforts to maintain and update agency websites.
Challenging this technological grip, however, are the diversity of new platforms and the speed with which social media commu- nities evolve. Moreover, while technologically savvy and capable, these agencies still lag in terms of their “multilingual” skills, cul- tural competence, and ability to be present on all forms of social media. These agencies also face budget constraints, which com- plicates their efforts to improve public communications efficiency and effectiveness by increasing their presence in existing and emerging social media platforms.
SPARS
After much consideration of possible emergency situations that would require MCM use, the project team decided on setting the storyline around a novel coronavirus that caused a mild, flu-like disease in most instances, but pneumonia and/or hypoxia requir- ing hospitalization and extensive medical treatment in a small minority of cases. The project team named this fictional pathogen the St. Paul Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus, or SPARS for short, because in the scenario it is first identified in St. Paul, Minnesota.
Two features of this disease are important to note because they impact how the storyline of the scenario plays out, as well as some of the communication dilemmas that occur. First, the project team decided to make SPARS have an extended incubation period
The SPARS Pandemic 2025–2028 83
(7 to 10 days) but a short latent period (4 to 5 days). This compli- cates the scenario because infected persons in the story are capable of spreading the virus for up to 6 days before showing symptoms of the disease themselves. This feature of SPARS makes isolation procedures in the scenario, like urging people to stay home if they think they might be sick, less effective than what is typically expected for airborne pathogens and thus introduces novel dilem- mas in the storyline. Second, the project team decided to make the morbidity and mortality from SPARS both significantly higher in children than adults, and among pregnant women and those with chronic respiratory conditions. This parallels disease characteris- tics associated with past disease outbreaks, including the H1N1 pandemic, and allowed for some communication dilemmas from the past to be revisited under different future circumstances.
In all, the SPARS scenario provides 19 specific storylines, and an associated 23 communication dilemmas for readers to consider. An outline of the entire storyline is available in Table 1, and a list of the communication dilemmas provided in the scenario can be found in Table 2. The following sections provide excerpts of two dilemmas included in the scenario as well as their associated com- munication dilemmas and food for thought questions.
TABLE 1 Timeline of Events in the “SPARS Pandemic 2025–2028” Scenario

2025

October November December The first US deaths occurred due to SPARS. Initially, these deaths were thought to have been caused by influenza. Cases of SPARS were reported across Minnesota and in six other states. Thanksgiving holiday travel and Black Friday shopping facilitated spread of SPARS beyond the Midwest (26 states and multiple other countries by mid-December). The WHO declared the SPARS pandemic to be a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. No treatment or vaccine for SPARS existed, but there was some evidence that the antiviral Kalocivir could be effective as a therapeutic.

84 BRUNSON, CHANDLER, GRONVALL, RAVI, SELL, SHEARER, and SCHOCH-SPANA

A proprietary vaccine developed and manufactured by a multinational livestock conglomerate (GMI) was proposed as a potential foundation for a human vaccine. The vaccine was developed to combat an outbreak of a similar respiratory coronavirus in hooved mammal populations in Southeast Asia, but the vaccine had not been licensed by any regulatory authority or tested in humans. There were concerns over potential side effects.

2026

January The US government contracted CynBio to develop and produce a human SPARS vaccine based on the GMI animal vaccine. The HHS Secretary invoked the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) to provide liability protection for the vaccine manufacturer and providers. Congress authorized and appropriated emergency funds under the PREP Act to provide compensation for potential adverse side effects from the vaccine. Following reports of Kalocivir’s limited success in treating patients with severe SPARS infections, the FDA issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the antiviral. Kalocivir had been evaluated as a therapeutic for SARS and MERS, and several million doses were maintained in the SNS, which could be deployed as necessary while production capacity was established to meet demand. The FDA, CDC, and NIH provided seemingly conflicting communications regarding the safety and efficacy of Kalocivir. In the United States, public anxiety around SPARS resulted in extensive use of Kalocivir, frequent self-reporting of SPARS symptoms, and a surge in demand for medical care. By late January SPARS was detected in 42 countries and all US states. A lack of cultural competency in FDA and other governmental communication became apparent among various ethnic groups in the United States. A video of a 3-year-old vomiting and fainting after taking a dose of Kalocivir was widely and rapidly spread via social media, strengthening opposition to the EUA. February

The SPARS Pandemic 2025–2028 85
The UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency and the European Medicines Agency jointly authorized the emergency use of a new antiviral, VMax, in the United Kingdom and throughout the European Union. Some Americans attempted to gain access to VMax online or by traveling to Europe.
April The CDC publicized an updated (and significantly lower) case fatality rate in the United States; the perception of lesser risk triggered a drop in public interest.
May Production of Corovax, the SPARS vaccine produced by CynBio, was well underway.
Federal agencies initiated a communications campaign using well-known public figures with mixed results. Polls indicated a 15–23% increase in SPARS and Kalocivir knowledge nationwide. Hip-hop icon BZee had success promoting public health messaging with an online video clip, but he
lost credibility when he compared volunteers for Corovax trials with “volunteers” from the Tuskegee syphilis study. Similarly, former President Bennett provided a non-committal response when asked if she would want Kalocivir for her new grandson.
Public health agencies discovered that a relatively new social media platform, UNEQL, was being used as a primary means of communication in college-aged populations.
June Corovax entered the final stage of its expedited review, and production capacity was increased. Ten million doses were expected to be available by July with fifty million more in August.
The CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice (ACIP) announced vaccine priority groups. Healthcare providers were not included as a priority, inciting protests by doctors and nurses across the country.
In order to prioritize distribution of limited Corovax supply, the federal government requested that states report summary information for patient electronic health records (EHRs) to estimate the number of individuals in high-risk populations. This effort was met with resistance from the public, who protested the federal government accessing their private medical information.
86 BRUNSON, CHANDLER, GRONVALL, RAVI, SELL, SHEARER, and SCHOCH-SPANA

July A week prior to initiating the nationwide vaccination program, damage to a power grid in the Pacific Northwest resulted in a widespread power outage that lasted two weeks. State and local public health agencies initiated communications programs using posters and flyers to promote the vaccination program in the absence of electronic media. Social media efforts across the country promoted the vaccination campaign, and crowdsourced data helped to increase efficiency in distributing the vaccine. The Corovax vaccination program met resistance from several groups: alternative medicine proponents, Muslims, African Americans, and anti-vaccination activists. Initially operating independently, these groups banded together via social media to increase their influence. Japan announced that it would not approve Corovax for use in Japan in favor of developing and producing its own vaccine. College students predominantly on the East and West coasts staged protests against the unequal global availability of Corovax. Vaccination rates among these students were below average for college students in other areas of the country. The anti-anti-vaccine movement, formed in the wake of the 2015 measles outbreak in the United States, reignited their efforts to combat the anti-vaccination super-group. The FDA, CDC, and other federal agencies also redoubled their communications efforts to promote the Corovax campaign. An increasing number of post-SPARS pneumonia cases were reported across the country. The nationwide vaccination program was expanded beyond the initial priority populations to include the rest of the country. Federal agencies initiated a vaccination communication program involving targeted online advertisements. August September October November December

2027

February Post-SPARS pneumonia cases stressed inventories of antibiotics across the country. The HHS Secretary authorized distribution of the oldest lots of antibiotics from the SNS to supplement the antibiotic supply nationwide. Tests of antibiotics in the SNS inventory determined that 94% of the remaining antibiotics in the oldest lots maintained

The SPARS Pandemic 2025–2028 87

March April May November sufficient potency. Tests conducted in August 2026 provided the basis for extending the expiration of these lots from 2027 to 2029. Rumors spread via traditional and social media that the government was dispensing expired antibiotics. Alyssa Karpowitz, a leader in the natural medicine movement, sought medical care at an emergency department after natural remedies failed to resolve her son’s bacterial pneumonia. After successful treatment with proper antibiotics from the SNS supply, she touted the benefits of “expired” antibiotics in her social media circles. Crowd-sourced and independent epidemiology analysis of Corovax side effects conflicted with official federal reports. The independent analyses gained popularity in traditional and social media due to visual presentation and interactive content. Government attempts to respond with data and press releases largely failed. Reports of Corovax side effects began to gain traction. Several parents of children who experienced neurological symptoms after receiving the vaccination sued the federal government and CynBio. The lawsuit was dropped when they learned of compensation funds available through the PREP Act and the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund. Initial reports of long-term side effects of the Corovax vaccine emerged. These reports arose primarily from those in the initial priority (high-risk) populations and were few in number. With little available data and numerous pre- existing conditions, initial studies were unable to identify a statistically significant association with any long-term effects. Claims for compensation were placed on indefinite hold until further data could be gathered and analysis completed. In response to public demand for long-term side effect compensation, the HHS Secretary invited Congress to conduct an independent investigation of the federal compensation process to alleviate concerns of impropriety. The public and media pressured Congress to increase the funds authorized for compensation under the PREP Act.

2028

August The SPARS pandemic was officially declared to be over; however, experts remain concerned about domestic animal reservoirs and the potential for future outbreaks.

88 BRUNSON, CHANDLER, GRONVALL, RAVI, SELL, SHEARER, and SCHOCH-SPANA
TABLE 2 Emergency Communication Dilemmas Featured in the “SPARS Pandemic 2025–2028” Scenario

Response Phase

▶  Engendering public trust and a sense of self-efficacy when a crisis is still evolving and critical health information is incomplete ▶  Responding to public and political pressure to share information about potential MCMs in the development pipeline even though information may be incomplete or proprietary ▶  Maintaining trust in government processes for ensuring the timely development of safe and effective vaccines when novel threats arise ▶  Harmonizing inconsistent messaging across health agencies ▶  Appropriately tailoring public health messages to address the concerns and culture of specific communities ▶  Responding to the power of graphic images of a child in distress: one story that is elevated to a population-level problem ▶  Responding to demand for an alternative antiviral drug not available in the United States ▶  Responding to misinformation or doubt about an MCM generated by a prominent public figure ▶  Overlooking communication platforms used by specific groups; quickly gaining fluency and effectively engaging the public using a new media platform ▶  Responding to public criticism about potential unequal access to MCMs like Kalocivir ▶  Maintaining public support after changing positions on MCM safety and efficacy ▶  Communicating the need for and reasoning behind the prioritization of scarce resources ▶  Publicizing MCM programs and availability to promote uptake and efficient distribution ▶  Providing real-time data on vaccine availability to align MCM supply with public demand ▶  Maintaining consistent messaging across electronic and non-electronic media and implementing a secondary communications plan if electronic media are not available ▶  Addressing multiple independent MCM concerns simultaneously ▶  Meeting the information needs of citizens who come from diverse cultural, social, and demographic backgrounds and who may have varying degrees of trust in health authorities ▶  Supporting the current MCM product in the face of opposition from a foreign regulatory agency

The SPARS Pandemic 2025–2028 89

▶  Responding to complex ethical issues that are beyond the United States government’s control ▶  Responding to questions regarding safety and efficacy of drugs that have extended shelf lives

Recovery Phase

▶  Communicating with the public about trustworthy sources of data and options for legal recourse in a climate of mistrust ▶  Bringing a sense of resolution to a period of crisis while striking a balance between the need to affirm collective grief/loss and the need to move forward ▶  Institutionalizing communications lessons from the 2025–2028 SPARS pandemic

Response Scenario Excerpt
The following excerpt from the scenario takes place early on in the pandemic. One month previously the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the antiviral Kalocivir. The drug had been evaluated as a therapeutic for other coronavirus-caused diseases and several million doses were maintained by the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS), which meant the drug could be deployed as necessary while production capacity was established to meet demand. The FDA and CDC provided information on the drug, but some differ- ences in their messaging caused concern among certain groups including parents of young children. The specific communication dilemma this excerpt considers is how to confront the power of a single graphic image of a child in distress when one story is ele- vated to a population-level problem.
“Going Viral”
Reports of negative side effects associated with Kalocivir began gaining traction in February 2026. Despite the negative response, public health agencies continued to make forward progress until February 22, when a video of a 3-year-old boy in North Carolina projectile vomiting immediately after taking a dose of Kalocivir went viral. In the video clip, the boy swallows a pediatric dose of liquid Kalocivir, vomits profusely, chokes, and then faints in the pool of his own vomit while his mother shrieks in the background.
90 BRUNSON, CHANDLER, GRONVALL, RAVI, SELL, SHEARER, and SCHOCH-SPANA
This clip was widely shared across the United States with a variety of captions including #AntiviralsDontWork, #DontTake TheDrugs, and #NaturalCuresAreBetterThanThis. The hashtags, in turn, provided a way for people sharing these views to find one another and band together on social media. They formed ZapQ and other online discussion groups, which allowed them to receive any messages from group members via smartphones and internet accessing technology (IAT) instantaneously as they were posted. Some members of these ZapQ groups even began to use full-sized (12"×12") IAT screens on the backs of their jackets, coats, and backpacks to loop the vomiting video for all in their immediate vicinity to see.
The social media groundswell quickly overwhelmed the capac- ity of local, state, and federal agencies to respond, and compliance with public health and medical recommendations dropped consid- erably. The FDA and other government agencies quickly attempted to remind the public that correlation does not equate to causation, and that vomiting was not a known side effect of Kalocivir. This message, while scientifically accurate, lacked appropriate empathy and failed to assuage the public’s mounting fears. As a result, it was largely ignored, and public concern continued to grow.
In the following weeks, officials from the FDA, CDC, and other government organizations attempted to promote positive, accurate information about Kalocivir on several traditional and social media platforms in order to quell public fear. This messag- ing, however, was less than optimal both in terms of timing and dissemination. While the government took several days to provide an emotionally appropriate message, the spread of the viral video on social media was exponentially faster. By the time the govern- ment responded, most people across the country had already seen the vomiting video and formed their own conclusions. Addition- ally, in their responses, governmental organizations were not able to effectively access all social media platforms. ZapQ groups, for example, had closed memberships and typically could only be accessed via invitations from group members.
Both of these issues prompted government organizations to improve the timing and impact of their social media responses. While most government agencies, including the CDC and HHS,
The SPARS Pandemic 2025–2028 91
had long-established offices that were directed to coordinate social media and other communication efforts, the protocols of indi- vidual agencies and different agency cultures led to delayed and sometimes uncoordinated messages.
Despite the many outreach efforts by various government officials and entities, the government was ultimately unable to develop a suitable replacement for the initial vomiting video. By early June 2026, the video had become the most shared Zap clip among junior high and high school students across the country who appreciated the shock factor of the video. As a result, the pub- lic was continually re-exposed to the anti-Kalocivir message for several months after the initial incident and subsequent responses.
Food for Thought Questions:
Why might communicating the science around MCM adverse effects alone not be enough to address people’s fears and con- cerns about an MCM like Kalocivir? Why is it also important to communicate with compassion, concern, and empathy?
To what extent is having sufficiently skilled staff and organi- zational capacity to communicate via traditional media and social media platforms critical to influencing public debates and awareness about an MCM like Kalocivir?
What MCM communication challenges are likely to emerge among up-and-coming youth audiences who are avid consum- ers of interactive and visual forms of information?
Recovery Scenario Excerpt
The following excerpt from the scenario considers issues related with recovery, and how to communicate with the public about trustworthy sources of data and options for legal recourse in a cli- mate of mistrust. At this point in the storyline, Corovax, the FDA- approved vaccine for SPARS, has been released for more than 9 months and the United States is solidly in the recovery phase of the pandemic. SPARS is now uncommon in the US and public focus has shifted from the disease to the potential side effects of SPARS treatments including the Corovax vaccine.
92 BRUNSON, CHANDLER, GRONVALL, RAVI, SELL, SHEARER, and SCHOCH-SPANA
“Vaccine Injury”
As time passed and more people across the United States were vaccinated, claims of adverse side effects began to emerge. Several parents claimed that their children were experiencing neurolog- ical symptoms similar to those seen among livestock exposed to the GMI vaccine. By May 2027, parental anxiety around this claim had intensified to the point of lawsuits. That month, a group of parents whose children developed mental retardation as a result of encephalitis in the wake of Corovax vaccination sued the federal government, demanding removal of the liability shield protecting the pharmaceutical companies responsible for developing and manufacturing Corovax.
The growing plaintiff cohort quickly withdrew their suit upon learning that the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund (NVICTF) and an emergency appropriation of funds autho- rized by Congress under the PREP Act existed to provide financial reimbursement to those who were adversely affected by the Cor- ovax vaccine in order to cover healthcare costs and other related expenses. Given the positive reaction to the federal government’s response and the fact that the majority of US citizens willing to be vaccinated had already been immunized, the negative publicity surrounding adverse reactions had little effect on nationwide vac- cination rates. The focus on adverse side effects, however, resulted in a considerable increase in the number of compensation claims filed, and many grew concerned about the long-term effects that Corovax could have on their health. This concern was particularly high among some African American parents who continued to question the government’s motives regarding the Corovax vacci- nation campaign.
While the FDA, CDC, and other agencies were busy research- ing possible connections between Corovax and the reported neu- rological side effects, their efforts were continually undermined by epidemiological analyses produced by various non-governmental individuals and groups. The popular science blogger EpiGirl, for example, began posting interactive maps of the incidence of Cor- ovax side effects in April 2027. To create the maps, EpiGirl col- lected anecdotes of adverse Corovax side effects using Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube and combined them with data downloaded
The SPARS Pandemic 2025–2028 93
from the HHS Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a national vaccine safety surveillance program maintained by the CDC and FDA. EpiGirl also encouraged those among her sub- scribers who were Apple product users to share health data with her via Apple’s ResearchKit and HealthKit applications. EpiGirl’s maps were consequently shared widely in social media circles and even included in local and national news reports.
The federal government became concerned about the validity of EpiGirl’s anecdotal data and the widespread sharing of patient information via the internet. EpiGirl’s data showed a significantly higher incidence rate of nearly every reported side effect; how- ever, federal officials believed that this was largely due to dupli- cate entries resulting from compiling data from multiple sources. Additionally, EpiGirl’s data did not seek to address the cause of the reported side effects, only the incidence rate. Publication of sim- ilar results from organizations such as Patients-Like-Me, a group closely associated with the natural medicine movement, further legitimized these independent reports. The government attempted to respond to these claims through formal press releases, but these were neither as visually appealing nor as interactive as EpiGirl’s maps and were, therefore, largely ignored.
Food for Thought Questions:
How might advance development and testing of recovery mes- sages that specifically address the topics of adverse side effects and the NVICTF help improve health authorities’ ability to respond to public distress about medical issues emerging after an MCM campaign? What are some messages that would war- rant such testing?
Despite the uncertain science about the link between Coravax and the reported neurological symptoms, why should health officials still communicate with compassion and genuine sym- pathy toward those in the vaccinated population who experi- ence medical issues subsequent to being vaccinated?
Given growing interest in open data systems and the appli- cation of “crowd sourcing” to solve complex problems, how
94
BRUNSON, CHANDLER, GRONVALL, RAVI, SELL, SHEARER, and SCHOCH-SPANA
might public health officials take greater advantage of two-way communication with an interested public in the aftermath of the SPARS outbreak? For instance, how might input and anal- ysis from members of the public help improve adverse event monitoring or assess the strengths and weaknesses of a specific MCM campaign?
Crafting Scenarios: Lessons Learned
Creating the scenario described above was a months-long process that involved many iterative steps. While the basic process of sce- nario development is both described above and detailed by others including Ogilvy and Schwartz (2004), the following are offered as lessons learned in order to assist in the development and design of scenarios in the future:
▶  Having a project team with different academic backgrounds (i.e., medicine, public health, and the social sciences) provided a solid foundation for developing the premise of the future in which the scenario would take place. Different perspectives, disagreements, and even lively debates were essential to devel- oping a premise that was both realistic and meaningful. This process also provided forward momentum for the develop- ment of specific storylines.
▶  Storyboarding the timeline of events was important to main- taining coherency in the project. In the development of the SPARS scenario, storyboarding was not a one-time process but rather an ongoing exercise that occurred throughout scenario development.
▶  As storyboarding was occurring, it was essential to keep in mind the audiences for the project. In several cases, lessons specific audiences needed to walk away with were the starting point; the project team used these to work backward to make sure those lessons were fully incorporated into the storyline.
▶  A focus on small details, including using supporting illustra- tions like newspaper and social media headlines, was neces- sary to make the scenario as realistic as possible. This process
The SPARS Pandemic 2025–2028 95
of “sweating the small stuff” also provided a mechanism for the project team to check and recheck the accuracy of the over- all product.
▶  Vetting the scenario with a group of subject matter experts was critical. In the SPARS scenario, this process helped iden- tify dilemmas that were of particular relevance to specific target audiences as well as detect plot holes and inaccuracies that were necessary to fix in order for the storyline to be both believable and useful.
▶  Finally, developing facilitator guides along with the scenario was a way to increase the facility of the scenario as a teaching tool.
Conclusion
Effective communication about medical countermeasures— including drugs, devices, and biologics (e.g., vaccines)—is often critical in emergency situations. Such communication, how- ever, does not just happen. It must be planned and prepared for. Prospective scenarios, like the SPARS scenario described in this paper, offer important opportunities for communication planning and preparation by enabling readers, both individually and in discussion with others, to rehearse responses to communication dilemmas; encouraging readers to envision what the next gener- ation of best practices in MCM emergency communication may entail, given technological and social trends such as the growing influence of social media and increasing levels of social isolation; and prompting readers to consider and prepare for other future communication dilemma possibilities. In today’s world of rapidly- evolving ICT, such preparation is especially crucial.
ORCID
Emily K. Brunson Hannah Chandler Gigi Kwik Gronvall
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6321-1882 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0262-2295
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2514-146X
96 BRUNSON, CHANDLER, GRONVALL, RAVI, SELL, SHEARER, and SCHOCH-SPANA
Sanjana Ravi https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9769-6814
Monica Schoch-Spana https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8397-8367 Tara Kirk Sell https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8342-476XMatthew P. Shearer https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2031-2904
References
Allchin D. (2013). Problem- and case-based learning in science: An introduction to distinctions, values, and outcomes. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 12(3), 364–372. https://doi.org/10.1187/ cbe.12-11-0190
Belongia, E. A., Kieke, B., Lynfield, R., Davis, J. P., & Besser, R. E. (2005). Demand for prophylaxis after bioterrorism-related anthrax cases. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 11(1), 42–47. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1101.040272
Bishop, P., Hines, A., & Collins, T. (2007). The current state of sce- nario development: An overview of techniques. Foresight, 9(1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1108/14636680710727516
Borjeson, L., Hojer, M., Dreborg, K. H., Ekvall, T., & Finnveden, G. (2006). Scenario types and techniques: Towards a user’s guide. Futures, 38, 723–739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures. 2005.12.002
Carlsen, B., & Glenton, C. (2016). The swine flu vaccine, public attitudes, and research interpretations: A systematic review of qualitative research. BMC Health Services Research 16(1), 203. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1466-7
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2018). Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication (CERC) man- ual. Retrieved from web archive at https://web.archive.org/ web/20190614141121/https://emergency.cdc.gov/cerc/ manual/index.asp
Charles-Smith L. E., Reynolds, T. L., Cameron, M. A., Conway, M., Lau, E. H. Y., Olsen, J. M., Pavlin, J. A., Shigematsu, M., Streichert, L. C., Suda, K. J., & Corley, C. D. (2015). Using social media for actionable disease surveillance and outbreak man- agement: A systematic literature review. PLOS ONE, 10(10): e0139701. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139701
The SPARS Pandemic 2025–2028 97
Courtney, B., & Sadove, E. (2015). Medical countermeasures: Emergency preparedness and response roles and authorities. In: D. G. Adams, R. M. Cooper, M. J. Hahn, J. S. Kahan (Eds.), Food and Drug Law and Regulation (3rd ed., pp. 791–815). Food and Drug Law Institute.
Dart, R. C., Bronstein, A. C., Spyker, D. A., Cantilena, L. R., Seifert, S. A., Heard, S. E., & Krenzelok, E. P. (2015). Poisoning in the United States: 2012 emergency medicine report of the National Poison Data System. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 65(4), 416– 422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2014.11.001
Durigon, M., & Kosatsky, T. (2012). Calls managed by the BC Drug and Poison Information Centre following the 2011 nuclear reactor incident at Fukushima, Japan. Canadian Pharmacy Journal, 145(6), 256–258. https://doi.org/10.3821/145.6.cpj256
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI). (2019). Developing earthquake scenarios. Retrieved from web archive at https://web.archive.org/web/20190416215029/http://www. nehrpscenario.org/
Edwards, I. R., & Lindquist, M. (2011). Social media and networks in pharmacovigilance: Boon or bane? Drug Safety, 34(4), 2676– 2271. https://doi.org/10.2165/11590720-000000000-00000
Epling, J. W., Morrow, C. W., Sutphen, S. M., & Novick, L. F. (2003). Case-based teaching in preventive medicine: Rationale, devel- opment, and implementation. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 24(4Suppl), 85–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749 3797(03)00028-X
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). (2014). Handbook on simulation exercises in EU public health settings. Retrieved from web archive at https://web.archive.org/ web/20191107180459/https://ecdc.europa.eu/sites/portal/ files/documents/simulation-exercise-manual.pdf
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (2019). Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP). Retrieved from web archive at https://web.archive. org/web/20191004155411/https://www.fema.gov/hseep
98 BRUNSON, CHANDLER, GRONVALL, RAVI, SELL, SHEARER, and SCHOCH-SPANA
Fox, S. (2011). Health topics: 80% of internet users look for health information online. Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from web archive at https:// web.archive.org/web/20191107180641/https://www.issuelab. org/resources/9648/9648.pdf
Grajales, F. J., Sheps, S., Kendall, H., Novak-Lauscher, H., & Eysenbach G. (2014). Social media: A review and tutorial of applications in medicine and health care. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 16(2), e13. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2912
Guidry, J. P. D., Carlyle, K., Messner, M., & Yin, J. (2015). On pins and needles: How vaccines are portrayed on Pinterest. Vaccine, 33, 5051–5056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.08.064
Hamilton, D. S., & Smith, B. T. (2006). Atlantic Storm. EMBO Reports, 7(1), 4–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.7400606
Hawn, C. (2009). Take two aspirin and tweet me in the morning: How Twitter, Facebook, and other social media are reshap- ing health care. Health Affairs, 28(2), 361–368. https://doi. org/10.1377/hlthaff.28.2.361
Henrich, N., & Holmes, B. (2011). What the public was saying about the H1N1 vaccine: Perceptions and issues discussed in on-line comments during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. PLoS One, 6(4), e18479. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0018479
Hinton, S., & Hjorth, L. (2013). Understanding Social Media. Sage. Househ, M., Borycki, E., & Kushniruk, A. (2014). Empowering patients through social media: The benefits and chal- lenges. Health Informatics Journal, 20(1), 50–58. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1460458213476969
Inch, J., Watson, M. C., Anakwe-Umeh, S., on behalf of the Yellow Card Study Collaboration. (2012). Patient versus healthcare professional spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting: A systematic review. Drug Safety, 35(10), 807–818. https://doi. org/10.1007/bf03261977
Kata, A. (2012). Anti-vaccine activists, Web 2.0, and the postmod- ern paradigm—an overview of tactics and tropes used online by the anti-vaccination movement. Vaccine, 30, 3778–3789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.11.112
The SPARS Pandemic 2025–2028 99
Keelan, J., Pavri-Garcia, V., Tomlinson, G., & Wilson, K. (2007). YouTube as a source of information on immunization: A content analysis. Journal of the American Medical Association, 298(21), 2482–2484. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.298.21.2482
Kreps, G. L., & Neuhauser, L. (2010). New directions in eHealth communication: Opportunities and challenges. Patient Education and Counseling, 78, 329–336. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.pec.2010.01.013
Lin, L., Savoia, E., Agboola, F., & Viswanath, K. (2014). What have we learned about communication inequalities during the H1N1 pandemic: A systematic review of the literature. BMC Public Health, 14(1), 484. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458- 14-484
Liu, B. F., Quinn, S. C., Egnoto, M., Freimuth, V., & Boonchaisri, N. (2017). Public understanding of medical countermeasures. Health Security, 15(2), 194–206. https://doi.org/10.1089/ hs.2016.0074
Mahmoud, M., Liu, Y., Hartmann, H., Stewart, S., Wagener, T., Semmens, D., Stewart, R., Gypta, G., Dominguez, D., Dominguez, F., Hulse, D., Letcher, R., Rashleigh, B., Smith, C., Steer, R., Ticehurst, J., Twery, M., van Delden, H., Waldick, R., White, D., & Winter, L. (2009). A formal framework for scenario development in support of environmental decision- making. Environmental Modeling & Software, 24(7), 798–808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2008.11.010
Matsuda, S., Kotonari, A., Tomizawa, S., Sone, M., Tanaka, R., Kuriki, H., & Takahashi, Y. (2017). Analysis of patient narra- tives in diseases blogs on the internet: An exploratory study of social pharmacovigilance. JMIR Public Health and Surveillance, 3(1), e10. https://doi.org/10.2196/publichealth.6872
Miller, A. N., Sellnow, T., Neuberger, L., Todd, A., Freihaut, R., Noyes, J., Allen, T., Alexander, N., Vanderford, M., & Gamhewage, G. (2017). A systematic review of literature on effectiveness of training in emergency risk communication.Journal of Health Communication, 22(7), 612–629. https://doi. org/10.1080/10810730.2017.1338802
100 BRUNSON, CHANDLER, GRONVALL, RAVI, SELL, SHEARER, and SCHOCH-SPANA
National Research Council (NRC). (2011). National Earthquake Resilience: Research, Implementation, and Outreach. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13092
Ogilvy, J., & Schwartz, P. (2004). Plotting Your Scenarios. Global Business Network. Retrieved from web archive at https://web. archive.org/web/20190803235747/http://www.meadowlark. co/plotting_your_scenarios.pdf
O’Toole, T., Mair, M., & Inglesby, T. V. (2002). Shining Light on “Dark Winter.” Clinical Infectious Diseases, 34(7), 972–983. https://doi.org/10.1086/339909
Poland, G. A., Jacobson, R. M., & Ovsyannikova, I. G. (2009). Trends affecting the future of vaccine development and deliv- ery: The role of demographics, regulatory science, the anti- vaccine movement, and vaccinomics. Vaccine, 27, 3240–3244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2009.01.069
Preuss, J., & Godfrey, J. (2006). Guidelines for Developing an Earthquake Scenario. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI). Retrieved from web archive at https://web. archive.org/web/20190812010728/https://mitigation.eeri.org/ files/Developing.a.Scenario.pdf
Quinn, S. C., Thomas, T., & Kumar, S. (2008). The anthrax vaccine and research: Reactions from postal workers and public health officials. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science, 6(4), 321–333. https://doi.org/10.1089/ bsp.2007.0064
Rice, L., & Sara, R. (2018). Updating the determinants of health model in the information age. Health Promotion International, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/day064
Schoch-Spana, M., Brunson, E. K., Shearer, M. P., Ravi, S., Sell, T. K., Chandler, H., Gronvall, G. K. (2017). The SPARS Pandemic, 2025–2028: A Futuristic Scenario for Public Health Risk Communicators. Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. Retrieved from web archive at https://web.archive. org/web/20190329230151/http://www.centerforhealth security.org/our-work/pubs_archive/pubs-pdfs/2017/ spars-pandemic-scenario.pdf
The SPARS Pandemic 2025–2028 101
Schoch-Spana, M., Gronvall, G. K., Brunson, E. K., Sell, T. K., Ravi, S., Shearer, M. P., & Collins, H. (2016). How to Steward Medical Countermeasures and Public Trust in an Emergency—A Communication Casebook for FDA and Its Public Health Partners. Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. Retrieved from web archive at https://web.archive. org/web/20190628210856/http://www.centerforhealth security.org/our-work/events/2016%20FDA%20MCM/FDA_ Casebook.pdf
Skryabina, E., Reedy, G., Amlôt, R., Jaye, P., & Riley, P. (2017). What is the value of health emergency preparedness exer- cises? A scoping review study. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 21, 274–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ijdrr.2016.12.010
Sloane, R., Osanlou, O., Lewis, D., Bollega, D., Maskell, S., & Pirmohamed, M. (2015). Social media and pharmacovig- ilance: A review of the opportunities and challenges. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 80(4), 910–920. https://doi. org/10.1111/bcp.12717
Steelfisher, G., Blendon, R., Ross, L. J., Collins, B. C., Ben-Porath, E. N., Bekheit, M. M., & Mailhot, J. R. (2011). Public response to an anthrax attack: Reactions to mass prophylaxis in a sce- nario involving inhalation anthrax from an unidentified source. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science, 9(3), 239–250. https://doi.org/10.1089/bsp.2011.0005
Tyrawski J., & DeAndrea, D. C. (2015). Pharmaceutical companies and their drugs on social media: A content analysis of drug information on popular social media sites. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 17(6), e130. https://doi.org/10.2196/ jmir.4357
Ulmer, R. R., Sellnow, T. L., & Seeger, M. W. (2017). Effective Crisis Communication: Moving from Crisis to Opportunity. SAGE Publications, Inc.
Uscher-Pines, L., Maurer, J., & Harris, K. M. (2011). Racial and ethnic disparities in uptake and location of vaccination for 2009—H1N1 and seasonal influenza. American Journal of Public Health, 101(7), 1252–1255. https://doi.org/10.2105/ ajph.2011.300133
102 BRUNSON, CHANDLER, GRONVALL, RAVI, SELL, SHEARER, and SCHOCH-SPANA
Varum, C. A., & Melo, C. (2010). Directions in scenario planning literature—A review of the past decades. Futures, 42(4), 355– 369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2009.11.021
Whitcomb, R. C., Ansari, A. J., Buzzell, J. J., McCurley, J. M., Miller, C. W., Smith, J. M., & Evans, D. L. (2015). A public health per- spective on the US response to the Fukushima Radiological Emergency. Health Physics, 108(3), 357–363. https://doi. org/10.1097/hp.0000000000000198
Wilkinson, A., & Eidinow, E. (2008). Evolving practices in envi- ronmental scenarios: A new scenario typology. Environmental Research Letters, 3(4), 045017. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748- 9326/3/4/045017
Witteman, H. O., & Zikmund-Fisher, B. J. (2012). The defining characteristics of Web 2.0 and their potential influence in the online vaccination debate. Vaccine, 30, 3734–3740. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.12.039
Wolfe, R. M., Sharp, L. K., & Lipsky, M. S. (2002). Content and design attributes of antivaccination web sites. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287(24), 3245–3248. https:// doi.org/10.1001/jama.287.24.3245
World Health Organization (WHO). (2018). A practical guide for developing and conducting simulation exercises to test and val- idate pandemic influenza preparedness plans. Retrieved from web archive at https://web.archive.org/web/20191107181633/ https://extranet.who.int/sph/sites/default/files/document- library/document/9789241514507-eng.pdf

🔆🔆🔆🔆🔆🔆🔆🔆🔆🔆🔆🔆🔆🔆🔆🔆

https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4119101

This is the home and supporter sponsor of Organic Lifestyle Today. Join over 8 billion people global in healthy creation of Elohim, our Creator. The timeless manmade Apocalyptic Star Wars with UFO technology, Geo, Weather, Disease Dispersal Warfare against Bene' Qodesh must end forevermore. People must dream, believe, hope. strive for the world and space they know is fantastical, beautiful, exotic, wonderful and miraculous --just the way our great I Am our God made it all. Soli Deo Gloria forever. ⭐️ https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLhOT-ktlXXHs3D-QzjVFVlr9Lu48ndise Sponsored by Organic Lifestyle Today! ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

🆘🆘🆘CRITICAL UPDATES ‼️This Is What Our Taxpayer Money Buys—Nothing But Evil Genocidal Manmade Toxic Body Altering And Body Dysfunction Unto Death-  COVID-19 and Manmade Covid-19 Vaccines   Propaganda—The Thick Lies Won’t Stop, The Brainwashing Is Non-Stop Pollution ‼️  —-Dr. Death Anthony Fauci and White House COVID Updates Lies, More Lies, and All Lies—The New Build It Better Movement Is All Lies‼️

https://kidsworldplus.blogspot.com/2021/12/this-is-what-our-taxpayer-money.html?m=1

Top public health figures accused of GENOCIDE in historic complaint sent to the International Criminal Court

 WHO inspector has conflict of interest in Wuhan COVID probe: Prominent biologist

Richard Ebright says Peter Daszak has conflict of interest in WHO and Lancet investigations of Wuhan outbreak

Shi Zhengli (left), Peter Daszak (right). (Emerging Viruses Group photo)

TAIPEI (Taiwan News) — A prominent molecular biologist at Rutgers University claims that a member of the World Health Organization (WHO) team investigating the origins of COVID-19 in Wuhan has a conflict of interest, due to his ties with the Wuhan lab at the center of the inquest.

British zoologist and the president of EcoHealth Alliance Peter Daszak is the only individual to be part of both the WHO and The Lancet teams investigating the origins of the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic. However, he has long-term professional and financial ties with the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), which represents a conflict of interest.

Richard H. Ebright is the Board of Governors Professor of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Rutgers University, and Laboratory Director at the Waksman Institute of Microbiology. He told Taiwan News that Daszak is the contractor who funded the WIV's research on bat SARS-related coronaviruses, with subcontracts of $200 million in USAID funding and $7 million in NIH funding.

Ebright said that Daszak is a collaborator on the WIV research for bat SARS-related coronaviruses. He lamented that the WHO named Daszak as a member of its review team, and The Lancet named Daszak as the head of its review team. Ebright said this makes "it clear that WHO and Lancet reviews cannot be considered credible investigations."

In addition to the funding EcoHealth Alliance receives from USAID, NIH, and other agencies, which it funnels into the WIV, Ebright stated the firm received US$30 million from the US Department of Defense.

When asked whether Daszak had been involved in the controversial gain of function experiments on bat coronaviruses at the WIV, Ebright said: "Daszak has been a contractor, a collaborator, and a co-author on work at the WIV on construction and analysis of novel chimeric coronaviruses."

A report by Independent Science News and a search of U.S. government databases revealed that EcoHealth Alliance received US$39 million in funding from the Pentagon from 2013 to 2020. Adding another US$64.7 million from USAID, the report found that Daszak's "non-profit organization" has raked in over US$103 million from the U.S. government.

Since 2014, Daszak's organization has funneled some of this U.S. government funding into the WIV to carry out research on bat coronaviruses. In the first phase of research, which took place from 2014 to 2019, Daszak coordinated with Shi Zhengli (石正麗) — also known as "Bat Woman" — at the WIV to investigate and catalog bat coronaviruses across China. EcoHealth Alliance received US$3.7 million in funding from the NIH for this research, and 10 percent was channeled to the WIV, reported NPR.

Shi Zhengli (center) and Peter Daszak (far right). (Emerging Viruses Group photo)

The second phase, which started in 2019, involved gain-of-function (GoF) research on coronaviruses and chimeras in humanized mice from the lab of Ralph S. Baric of the University of North Carolina. In a video interview originally recorded on Dec. 9, 2019, Daszak mentioned the testing of modified coronaviruses on human cells and humanized mice in the WIV, just weeks before the first cases of COVID-19 were announced in the city of Wuhan, China.

Daszak has dismissed the possibility of a lab leak, insisting since the start of the pandemic it's a "conspiracy theory" — without providing evidence for his claim. A report by U.S. Right to Knowalleges that emails released through freedom of information requests reveal that Daszak persuaded 26 prominent scientists to sign a statement published in The Lancet on Feb. 19 2020, claiming that any suggestions that COVID-19 was not of natural origin are "conspiracy theories."

Four signatories of The Lancet statement are employed by EcoHealth Alliance. Six scientists who signed the statement, including Daszak, now comprise half of The Lancet's panel investigating the origins of the virus.

Furthermore, Daszak in 2015 co-authored an article in the journal Nature titled, "Spillover and pandemic properties of zoonotic viruses with high host plasticity," in which he stated that zoonotic virus spillover from wildlife was "most frequent" in a number of settings and occupations, including "laboratory workers." He also warned that laboratories are one of the most dangerous settings for major spillover events.

"Among all high risk interfaces and hosts, only viruses transmitted to humans by contact with wild animals in the wildlife trade and in laboratories ... were more likely to have broader geographic reach," Daszak said.

Daszak's colleague, Shi Zhengli, in 2010 published a paper describing a scenario in which infected rodents led to a deadly virus being leakedfrom a Chinese lab. The paper, titled, "Hantavirus outbreak associated with laboratory rats in Yunnan, China," detailed an outbreak of hantavirus hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome (HFRS) at a college in Kunming as the result of a lab leak in 2003.

Since the start of the pandemic, both Daszak and Shi have denied that a lab leak occurred at the WIV. However, over a year since the outbreak, Shi has yet to provide independent investigators with access to the WIV's database and laboratory records.

Daszak has yet to respond to a request to comment on allegations that he has a conflict of interest in the WHO and The Lancet investigations. The WIV has also yet to reply to questions about their experiments in 2019.

Natural News) Some of the most domineering public health figures during the covid-19 scandal are NAMED in a historic indictment sent to the International Criminal Court (ICC). These government, pharmaceutical and public health officials have ruled un-democratically over the people and imposed harmful policies of subjugation under the guise of “mitigating covid-19.”

Their unaccountable policies of subjugation have deprived people of basic human rights and equal opportunity. The defendants have used medical fraud, perpetrated by fraudulently calibrated PCR tests, to propagate a narrative that only emboldens their own power and control over people’s lives. Their disregard for efficacious treatments, immune system solutions and their censorship of natural immunity has ravaged the principle of informed consent, contributed to iatrogenic error and caused undo separation, isolation, medical malpractice and wrongful death. Their policies have forced provably dangerous genetic experiments onto people using discrimination, segregation and threats to one’s livelihood. These defendants have subverted the rule of law for nearly two years, ruining countless lives.

Fauci, Daszak, Gates, Hancock, Schwab all named in historic indictment

These beleaguered officials include Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the director-general of the World Health Organization (WHO); June Raine, executive director of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA); Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID); Dr. Radiv Shah, president of the Rockefeller Foundation; Dr. Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance and Bill and Melinda Gates, who have openly funded and promoted much of these well-documented crimes against humanity.

100% organic essential oil sets now available for your home and personal care, including Rosemary, Oregano, Eucalyptus, Tea Tree, Clary Sage and more, all 100% organic and laboratory tested for safety. A multitude of uses, from stress reduction to topical first aid. See the complete listing here, and help support this news site. 

The defendants also include notable UK officials, including Boris Johnson, UK Prime Minister; Christopher Whitty, UK Chief Medical Adviser; Matthew Hancock, former UK Secretary of State for Health and Social Care; and Klaus Schwab, President of the World Economic Forum. The criminal complaint also lists the CEOs of four major pharmaceutical companies, who continue to commit acts of genocide through experimental gene interference “vaccines” that damage the cardiovascular system, innate immune responses and the reproductive health of women, among thousands of medical concerns documented by pharmacovigilance systems around the world. These defendants include Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer; Stephane Bancel, CEO of AstraZeneca; Pascal Soriot, CEO of Moderna and Alex Gorsky, CEO of Johnson and Johnson.

The criminal complaint is brought forth by former Pfizer vice president Dr. Michael Yeadon and human rights lawyer Hannah Rose. They are joined by Astrophysicist Piers Corbyn, nurse Louise Shotbolt, retired law enforcement officer John O’Loony and human rights activist Johnny McStay. The indictment accuses the defendants “of numerous violations of the Nuremberg Code,” “crimes of aggression” and “war crimes.” Because the English court system refuses to take up this historic matter, the plaintiffs are asking the ICC with “utmost urgency” to “stop the deployment of COVID vaccines” and “illegal vaccination passports” and “all other types of illegal warfare” that is being “waged against the people of the United Kingdom” and against people around the world.

Historic indictment documents various crimes against humanity, violations of Nuremberg Code

Public health officials have forced people to use PCR tests that are “completely unreliable” as a diagnostic standard, misleading people and obfuscating data. These tests have been fraudulently calibrated and used to artificially inflate covid-19 case counts and deaths to perpetuate further medical tyranny and deprivation of individual rights.

Effective treatments such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin have been suppressed, leading to immune failure and severe disease. This, in turn, led to reliance on drugs that cause renal failure and subsequent reliance on ventilators, which cause oxidative damage and cytokine storm, damaging lungs and putting patients at a greater risk of life-threatening pneumonia and death.

Moreover, the UK government has failed to investigate the massive wave of vaccine injury and death following covid-19 vaccination. There are at least 395,049 reported adverse reactions to COVID “vaccines” in the U.K. alone. This experimental gene interference technology was designed from criminal gain-of-function research that weaponized coronavirus spike proteins so that genetic experiments could be deployed through “vaccination” using the engineered spike protein. This experiment has led to a proven increase in eye disorders, heart inflammation, cardiac arrest and spontaneous abortion. A recent study published in the New England Medical Journal showed 8 in 10 women had a miscarriage after taking a Covid ‘vaccine’ before the third trimester.

Furthermore, the defendants’ lock down policies have not provably altered the course of infection in the public and have caused “wealth and business destruction, along with a sharp increase in ChildLine calls from children who were made more vulnerable due to destructive public health policies. The defendant’s acceptance of vaccine passports has introduced a medical apartheid that violates the medical privacy and body autonomy of individuals through discrimination, segregation and other acts of malice. Their policies have imposed psychological harm to children and severely deprived the physical liberty of the people, in “violation of fundamental rules of international law.” These violations include travel and assembly bans and forced quarantine and self-isolation without due process of law.

The first principle of the Nuremberg Code is a willingness and informed consent by the person to receive treatment and participate in an experiment. The person is supposed to activate freedom of choice without the intervention, either through force, deceit, fraud, threat, solicitation or any other type of binding or coercion. This guiding principle of medical ethics and the remaining tenants of the Nuremberg Code have all been violated during the covid-19 scandal. After violating these principles for nearly two years with no remorse, the perpetrators must now be brought to their knees.

Read the full indictment online.

Sources include:

RioTimesOnline.com

NaturalNews.com

PubMed.gov

NEJM.org

Docdroid.com [PDF]

🆘🆘🆘‼️

Merry Christmas, Fauci! Amazon's #1 Nonfiction Book Is Brutal Exposé of Most Dangerous Doctor in America

Commentary

Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, listens during a Senate Appropriations Labor, Health and Human Services Subcommittee hearing on Capitol Hill on May 26 in Washington, D.C. (Sarah Silbiger - Pool / Getty Images)

Merry Christmas, Fauci! Amazon's #1 Nonfiction Book Is Brutal Exposé of Most Dangerous Doctor in America

 By Isa Cox  December 26, 2021 at 10:26a lot of copies of the anti-Dr. Anthony Fauci opus “The Real Dr. Anthony Fauci” by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. under Christmas trees across America this holiday season, no doubt much to the chagrin of the darling of the pandemic narrative himself as well as Amazon’s notably progressive founder Jeff Bezos.

The book was not only on Amazon’s nonfiction bestseller list for the week of Christmas, which began on Dec. 19, but was the number one book on Amazon’s top sellers.

Fauci, of course, is the senior White House health adviser who has been directing the federal government’s pandemic response since spring of 2020.

But as he has been elevated to near-sainthood by the supporters of masking mandates, vaccine mandates and ongoing lockdowns, skepticism has been growing among those who are less enthused by his flip-flopping and rather questionable history with gain-of-function research and connections to the Wuhan lab that was researching coronaviruses when the virus first broke out in the Chinese city.

Among these has most certainly been Kennedy, Jr., a longtime anti-vaccine activist who has found himself on the wrong end of cancel culture despite his Democratic bona fides and membership to one of America’s most noteworthy political dynasties as he takes on the worldwide efforts to mass-vaccinate the population.

The book, “The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health,” confronts the depiction of Fauci as a “hero” by the “pharma-funded mainstream media,” which Kennedy argues he is “anything but,” according to the publisher’s description.

“As director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Dr. Anthony Fauci dispenses $6.1 billion in annual taxpayer-provided funding for scientific research, allowing him to dictate the subject, content, and outcome of scientific health research across the globe,” it reads.

“Fauci uses the financial clout at his disposal to wield extraordinary influence over hospitals, universities, journals, and thousands of influential doctors and scientists — whose careers and institutions he has the power to ruin, advance, or reward.”

The author’s findings will “alarm every American — Democrat or Republican — who cares about democracy, our Constitution, and the future of our children’s health.”

Kennedy Jr. examines Fauci’s history during the AIDS crisis, during which he says the up-and-coming public health doctor partnered with the pharmaceutical industry “to sabotage safe and effective off-patent therapeutic treatments” for the then-novel virus.

“Fauci orchestrated fraudulent studies, and then pressured US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulators into approving a deadly chemotherapy treatment he had good reason to know was worthless against AIDS,” the book description explains.

“Fauci repeatedly violated federal laws to allow his Pharma partners to use impoverished and dark-skinned children as lab rats in deadly experiments with toxic AIDS and cancer chemotherapies.”

The book also looks at Fauci’s history of partnering with billionaire Bill Gates to “control an increasingly profitable” global vaccine initiative in crooked collusion with elected officials, news media and social media to establish the “Pharma-Fauci-Gates alliance” which “exercises dominion over global health policy.”

“The Real Anthony Fauci details how Fauci, Gates, and their cohorts use their control of media outlets, scientific journals, key government and quasi-governmental agencies, global intelligence agencies, and influential scientists and physicians to flood the public with fearful propaganda about COVID-19 virulence and pathogenesis, and to muzzle debate and ruthlessly censor dissent,” the book description concludes.

Now, to the O.G. vaccine skeptics out there who have been following Kennedy Jr. since long before the pandemic, none of these allegations are surprising.

What is surprising, however, is that this is the description of a book that is ranked number one on Amazon and not a fringe blog that has established itself with sensationalistic headlines enjoyed by small factions of crunchy social media users.

https://www.westernjournal.com/merry-christmas-fauci-amazons-1-nonfiction-book-brutal-expose-dangerous-doctor-america/ out Kennedy Jr. and the claims he has been making about crooked global health cabals or the dangers of widespread vaccination, you’ve got to marvel that skepticism of Fauci’s earnestness as a public health leader has gotten so pronounced that his book is this popular.

Narrative broken much?

The truth is, Kennedy Jr. is hardly the first high-profile critic of Dr. Fauci.

While the media continues to prop him up as the prophet of COVID, he’s been confronted on his dubious career ties and alleged lies to Congress about his past by Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky on more than one occasion, and his emails from the early days of the pandemic released earlier this year certainly didn’t assuage concerns that he might be shadier than he is saintly.

The truth is, this book isn’t exactly coming out of left field.

It digs into claims that have been made about Dr. Fauci for some time and, whether true or not, enough of a picture of his untrustworthiness has been painted over the last nearly two years that conspiratorial allegations have managed to cut through all the glowing media coverage of his career and activities during the pandemic to propel this book to success.

And truth be told, this is a good thing.

What makes Dr. Anthony Fauci the most dangerous doctor in America is not necessarily his nefarious past (although this most certainly should be examined thoroughly and honestly), but that he is treated like such an infallible authority by the media — and apparently seems to believe he is infallible himself.

It wasn’t that long ago that he indignantly declared that if the skeptical plebs question him, they’re really just attacking science, because, apparently, he is the science.

This is scary stuff.

What Fauci spouts is not science — it’s indoctrination, since science can always be questioned and tested.

The role he has played in this pandemic has been that of a modern-day oracle, not a scientist who is subject to scrutiny.

For this reason, he absolutely must be questioned and criticized. And the fact that a book that casts a very harsh light on the authority we’re not supposed to question strongly signals that the American people are no longer buying his lies.

I don’t know about you, but I think that bodes pretty well for the future of independent scientific thought in America. Or, at the very least, it doesn’t bode very well for Dr. Anthony Fauci.

🆘🆘🆘This Is What Our Taxpayer Money Buys—Nothing But Evil Genocidal Manmade Toxic Body Altering And Body Dysfunction Unto Death-

COVID-19 and Manmade Covid-19 Vaccines 

Propaganda—The Thick Lies Won’t Stop, The Brainwashing Is Non-Stop Pollution ‼️

—-Dr. Death Anthony Fauci and White House COVID Updates Lies, More Lies, and All Lies—The New Build It Better Movement Is All Lies‼️

Except—

🆘🆘🆘🆘🆘🆘🆘

MR. ZIENTS:  Good morning.  And thanks for joining us.

Today, Dr. Walensky will give an overview of the state of the pandemic and on new practices that will help keep schools open, and Dr. Fauci will provide an update on the latest science and the importance of boosters.

But before we start, I want to talk about how we should think about this moment.

As we’ve explained in prior briefings, the Omicron variant is more transmissible and our medical experts anticipate it will lead to a rise in cases.

But unlike last winter, we now have the power to protect ourselves.

Our vaccines work against Omicron, especially for people who get booster shots when they are eligible.  If you are vaccinated, you could test positive.  But if you do get COVID, your case will likely be asymptomatic or mild.

We are intent on not letting Omicron disrupt work and school for the vaccinated.  You’ve done the right thing, and we will get through this.

For the unvaccinated, you’re looking at a winter of severe illness and death for yourselves, your families, and the hospitals you may soon overwhelm.

So, our message to every American is clear: There is action you can take to protect yourself and your family.  Wear a mask in public indoor settings.  Get vaccinated, get your kids vaccinated, and get a booster shot when you’re eligible.

We are prepared to confront this new challenge.   We have plenty of vaccines and booster shots available at convenient locations and for no cost.  There is clear guidance on masking to help slow the spread.  And we have emergency medical teams to respond to surges as necessary.

So, this is not a moment to panic because we know how to protect people and we have the tools to do it.  But we need the American people to do their part to protect themselves, their children, and their communities.

The more people get vaccinated, the less severe this Omicron outbreak will be.  One hundred sixty thousand unvaccinated people have already needlessly lost their lives just since June, and this number will continue to go up until the unvaccinated take action.

So, I’ll say it once more: Get vaccinated.

With that, I’ll turn it over to Dr. Walensky.

DR. WALENSKY:  Thank you, Jeff.  And good morning, everyone.  I’d like to start by walking you through today’s data.

The current seven-day daily average of cases is at about 119,500 per day.

The seven-day average of hospital admissions is at about 7,800 per day, an increase of about 4 percent over the previous week.

     And the seven-day average of daily deaths is at about 1,200 per day, which is an increase of over 8 percent from the prior week.

Now let me bring you up to date on what we know about Omicron.  At least 39 states and over 75 countries have reported confirmed cases of the Omicron variant.

And although Delta continues to circulate widely in the United States, Omicron is increasing rapidly and we expect it to become the dominant strain in the United States, as it has in other countries, in the coming weeks.

We’ve seen cases of Omicron among those who are both vaccinated and boosted, and we believe these cases are milder or asymptomatic because of vaccine protection.

What we do know is we have the tools to protect ourselves against COVID-19.

We have vaccines, we have boosters, and we know multi-layer prevention strategies — masks in public indoor settings, practicing physical distancing, frequent handwashing, improving ventilation, and testing to slow transmission — are vitally important, especially as we prepare for more Omicron and even if you are vaccinated and boosted.

This morning, I want to talk with you now about how we can use these tools to help keep our children in school.

Over the past few months, CDC has collaborated with school districts across the country to evaluate a new strategy known as “test to stay.”

     Today, we’re releasing CDC science on “test to stay” that allows unvaccinated children to stay in school even if they have been exposed to the virus so that they don’t have to miss school while they’re quarantining at home.

In the test-to-stay protocol, there is increased testing of close contacts after a COVID-19 exposure, and that testing needs to be at least twice during the seven-day period after exposure. If exposed children meet a certain criteria and continue to test negative, they can stay in school instead of quarantining at home.

CDC is also releasing two MMWR reports with evidence supporting the use of “test to stay” and how well it worked in two communities: Lake County, Illinois, and Los Angeles County.

These studies demonstrate that “test to stay” works to keep unvaccinated children in school safely.

In order for “test to stay” to be implemented safely and correctly, some key prevention measures need to be included. 

In both of these studies, masks were worn consistently and correctly, close contacts of a positive case were monitored for symptoms and stayed home if they became ill, and those who did not develop symptoms had regular testing.  

“Test to stay” is an encouraging public health practice to help keep our children in school.  And CDC is updating our materials to help schools and parents know how to best implement this promising and now proven practice, along with our multi-layer prevention strategies that will help keep our children in the classroom safely.

Importantly, vaccination is another critical piece in our multi-layer prevention strategies to protect our children from COVID-19.

I’d like to take another moment to encourage parents to get their children vaccinated.

Just yesterday, CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices met to discuss new safety data following six weeks of COVID-19 vaccinations in children between the ages of 5 to 11.

We now have experience vaccinating over 20 million children under the age of 17, and over 5 million of whom are under the age of 11.

Looking specifically at vaccine safety data from over 50,000 children 5- to 11-year-olds, we found no evidence of serious safety concerns.

The most common reported side effect including pa- — included pain at the injection site, fever, tiredness, and headaches/muscle aches, which we know are normal and are all signs of the body — that the body is building immunity to the virus.

This further adds to the strong evidence of the safety of these vaccines for children and should be an encouraging reason for those who are waiting for more data to now feel confident in making the decision to get your child vaccinated. 

In addition to reviewing safety data yesterday, CDC’s advisory committee on vaccine experts met to evaluate recommendations surrounding the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine, evaluating the benefits of vaccination, the safety data and rare adverse events, and the COVID-19 vaccine supply.

Following their discussion, ACIP made a recommendation to preferentially use mRNA vaccines over the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

And I endorsed their recommendation and agreed with the Advisory Committee’s emphasis, importantly, that given the current state of the pandemic both here and around the world, any vaccination is better than no vaccination.  Individuals who are unable or unwilling to receive an mRNA vaccine will continue to have access to Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccines.

And, finally, as we head into the holiday season, when many will be gathering with their loved ones, I want to again encourage everyone to utilize the proven prevention strategies that keep everyone safe: get vaccinated and get boosted, mask in public indoor settings, physical distancing, handwashing, improve ventilation, and testing to slow transmission.

We know that these strategies work and will help to keep you and your loved ones safe and healthy this holiday season. 

Thank you.  I’ll now turn things over to Dr. Fauci. 

DR. FAUCI:  Thank you very much, Dr. Walensky.  I’d like to spend the next couple of minutes talking about the importance of COVID-19 booster shots, both in the current Delta surge and in the evitable upcoming Omicron surge.

So, if I could have the next slide.

Let’s take a look at some of the data that fortifies what I just said.  This is a recently published study in the New England Journal looking at individuals 50 years of age or older who received the booster about five months after a second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech.  There was a 90 percent lower mortality due to COVID-19 than participants who did not receive a boost. 

Now, albeit, the mortality is low in people who are vaccinated anyway.  However, it goes down to practically negligible values — if you look at the blue line, compared to the pink line.

Next slide.

Now let’s take a look at Omicron-specific situations.  In this study, one looked at three separate vaccines: the mRNA of Moderna, the Pfizer, and then the Ad26 J&J followed by an mRNA boost.  Again, if you look at the “times two,” which means a standard vaccination, and then take a look at the pseudovirus neutralization following the boost, the increment of that is really rather profound: 19 times for the one on the left, 27 times for the one in the middle, and 4 times for the one on the right.

Next slide.

Now, also, if you look at the neutralization of multiple different variants by pseudovirus analysis and take a look again at two separate studies — one from the Vaccine Research Center at NIH and one from Duke University.  Note, on the left panels, four weeks following the second dose.  Look specifically at the pink bar.  There you see a rather low level of neutralization with Omicron. 

However, if you look at two weeks post the third, or booster dose, note how much it goes up.  For example, if you look at the Omicron comparing in the Duke line: You see it is about 2002, whereas after a second dose it’s only 62 — a dramatic increase. 

Next slide.

Another example: if you look at the sensitivity of variants to neutralization by people who are vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine.  If you look again, five months after the second dose, and look under the Omicron — the red circles — nominal.  In other words, virtually no degree of neutralization protection.  Again, one month after the third dose, it goes well within the protective range.

Next slide.

If you look at now convalescent serum, and take a look at each of the panels.  On the left, you have a convalescent serum six months after infection.  Again, the level of protection that would be projected from the antibody levels is very low — as you see with Omicron, pretty low level with these circles that are red.  Twelve months later, it even gets worse. 

But take a look at what happens if you take a person who’s convalescent but you boost that person now with a dose of Pfizer and wait one month.  The red circles go way up into the protective range.

Next slide.

And then if you look at actual clinical issues — take a look in a UK study about individuals who had a — who had symptomatic infection.  Look at Delta in the blue boxes.  As you go — the time since the vaccine and look at the weeks, which are showed on the bottom line, you get a diminution against Delta but a very profound diminution — below 40 percent effectiveness with Delta.  When you boost, not only do you bring it up to Delta — in the blue — but also to Omicron.

What does all of this tell us? 

Last slide.

We are in the — in a situation where we are now facing a very important Delta surge and we are looking over our shoulder at an oncoming Omicron surge.  Clearly, unvaccinated individuals, as Jeff said in the beginning, are really at a high risk of serious involvement, including hospitalization.  The fully vaccinated are doing much better off.  But as I’ve shown you in the previous five or six slides, the optimum protection is fully vaccinated plus a boost. 

So the bottom line of what we’ve been telling you all along: It is critical to get vaccinated.  If you are vaccinated, it is critical for optimal protection to get boosted.

Back to you, Jeff.

MR. ZIENTS:  Well, thank you, Doctors.

With that, let’s open it up for some questions.  Over to you, Kevin. 

MODERATOR:  Thanks, Jeff.  Let’s go back to Serena Marshall from NowThis.

Q    Thank you. I appreciate you doing this and coming back to me right away.  So, I just wanted to — for some clarity:  Are we seeing Delta at — would seem to be more infectious, but is there evidence with the breakthrough infections that they’re more severe in any way? 

Is there any evidence to — that you could talk about with long COVID?  We’ve seen some new data that roughly 30 to 40 percent of anyone who tests positive have resulted in long COVID as well.  And there’s a lot of unknowns when it comes to how that’s going to play out.

MR. ZIENTS:  Why don’t we start with you, Dr. Fauci.

DR. FAUCI:  Well, I think you meant to say “Omicron.”  Yes, Omicron is more transmissible.  Everything we know about it, from what we’re seeing not only in South Africa, but its distribution throughout the world and as well as in our own country — we see what’s going on in New York City, when we’re getting beyond double digits of Omicron being the primary variant there in that percentage.

With regard to the seriousness of infection: Really, it’s still up in the air right now because there are a lot of confounding issues as to whether or not it is less severe.  Certainly, looking at what we see, it does not look like it is more severe, but we have to hold with — withhold judgment about the severity being less.

With regard to long COVID: We don’t have enough information on Omicron with regard to long COVID.  I would not expect it’s going to be any different than we have with Delta, but we’ll have to wait to see until we get more experience.

MR. ZIENTS:  Next question, please.

Moderator:  Let’s go to Cheyenne Haslett at ABC News.

Q    Thanks, guys.  My first question, for Dr. Fauci, you showed data showing how little protection people have after two doses a few months after getting it.  So, should Americans who are not eligible for their booster yet — not six months past their last shot — be concerned that they’re not well protected against Omicron and get boosted sooner than six months?

And then, my second question on our booster rate still being very low — only 30 percent of the fully vaccinated — how concerning is that as we head into this larger surge?

DR. FAUCI:  Well, let me answer the second one first, and that is the concern.  I mean, obviously that’s the reason why I have spent essentially my entire brief presentation on urging people to get boosted: for the simple reason that we do get optimal protection from a boost.

You mentioned the lowering of protection.  And if you look at some of the slides I showed — a, quote, “fully vaccinated” person, after a period of time, clearly has a diminution.

You still get protection that’s reasonably good against hospitalization.  We want to make that better with the booster. Whether or not we’re going to change what the time interval between your last vaccination and your boost, we always have these on the table for discussion, but, right now, there has not been a decision on that.

MR. ZIENTS:  The right way to think about the percent boosted is those eligible, and we’ve now boosted about 60 million Americans.  That’s about 40 percent — 4-0 percent — of the eligible Americans.

Importantly, of those over 65, we’re now more than 60 percent, and that’s important because they are the most vulnerable.

We are boosting about a million people a day.  So, booster shots are running at a million per day.  And that is accelerated from where we were, as Dr. Fauci said, stressing the importance of getting the boost when people are eligible.

And the President’s Winter Plan really builds momentum here.  Pharmacies are expanding appointments and hours and walk-in availability.  We’re launching, as you know, family vaccination sites where parents can get boosted at the same time that their 5- to 11-year-old might get their first or second shot. 

Medicare is reaching out to tens of millions of seniors, encouraging them to get boosters. 

So, our message is very clear.  Clinically, the docs have said: As soon as you’re eligible for a booster, get a booster.  We have plenty of supply.  We now have 90,000 sites — up another 10,000 from a few weeks ago — 90,000 sites that are convenient.  And, as you know, getting a booster shot is free and everyone should get their booster shot as soon as possible.

Next question.

MODERATOR:  Let’s go to Elizabeth Weise at USA Today.

Q    Okay.  This would be a question for Dr. Walensky.  In light of Omicron’s higher transmissibility rate, potentially including people who are vaccinated, is the CDC reconsidering its recommendations that vaccinated people don’t need to self-isolate after an exposure to someone who has COVID?

DR. WALENSKY:  Thank you for that question.  We are actively following the science in that area with regard to how the viral burden is, both among vaccinated people and unvaccinated people, and the natural history of that viral burden with regard to isolation.  And as that science emerges, we will update our evidence if need be.

MR. ZIENTS:  Next question.

MODERATOR:  Let’s go to Weijia Jiang at CBS News.

Q    Thank you, Kevin.  First, I have a question for Dr. Fauci.  I wonder if Omicron is more transmissible just because the nature of the variant or because the booster and vaccine offer less protection against contracting Omicron compared to other variants — or a mix of both?

And for Dr. Walensky, given your new recommendation for students to test to stay, does that extend to adults who are exposed too — that a 14-day quarantine is no longer necessary as long as you test negative? 

And when you say “continue to test negative,” how often should kids be getting tested to stay in school after exposure? 

Thanks.

MR. ZIENTS:  Dr. Fauci?

DR. FAUCI:  Well, with regard to the first question, if you look at the configuration and the constellation of amino acid substitutions which result from mutations on the spike proteins, you would have predicted that this would be a more transmissible virus because of its ability to bind to the receptors on the cell.

So, you need only look at the virus itself to determine why it is more transmissible — what it actually is.

MR. ZIENTS:  Dr. Walensky?

DR. WALENSKY:  Yeah, with regard to test to stay, so this was a strategy that looked at unvaccinated children because vaccines were not available.  Of course, in our school setting, we would encourage that all of our teachers who would be eligible would both be vaccinated as well as boosted. 

With regard to the protocols, there are numerous jurisdictions that are looking at test-to-stay strategies.  Some of them are — were testing every day; some of them, every other day; and some of them, twice a week. 

So, we would say no less frequent than twice a week, in order to employ the test-to-stay protocols. 

And these were limited to schools, to be clear, so we don’t yet have evidence about test-to-stay protocols in other settings.

MR. ZIENTS:  Kevin, next question.

MODERATOR:  Let’s go to a last question.  Sabrina Siddiqui at The Wall Street Journal.

Q    Thank you so much.  Just two quick questions.  France has imposed travel restrictions on the UK, and several other EU countries are also strengthening their border controls.  Are you reconsidering travel from either the UK or the EU, given the COVID outbreaks there?

And then, secondly, I know we’re in a very different place with vaccines and boosters than we were last year, but how would you characterize your message to the American people going into the holidays?  Is it safe for families and friends to get together before Christmas?  And what is your message to people as we approach the holiday season?

MR. ZIENTS:  So, why I don’t take the first question, and then I’ll hand it over to Dr. Walensky about the holiday season. 

Let me start with the fact that the U.S. has strict protocols in place to help protect the American people and stop the spread of the disease, as it relates to international travel.

Foreign nationals — all foreign nationals coming into the U.S. from a part of the world where the travel is not restricted due to Omicron must be fully vaccinated and show proof of a negative test.  And we’ve tightened that deadline for the timeframe for the negative test to be within one day of boarding a flight.

The CDC also strongly recommends that everyone get tested three to five days after they arrive in the U.S. 

But as we’ve done throughout the pandemic, we will continue to follow the science and evaluate the best protocols for international travel, and we’ll keep people up to date and, most importantly, the American people safe.

Dr. Walensky?

DR. WALENSKY:  Yeah.  As you know, Sabrina, I think we’re in a very different place this year than we were last year, and we really do want people to be able to gather and gather safely.  We have the tools now to do it.  And what we’re really saying is: Please, rely on those tools. 

Get vaccinated.  If you’re eligible for a boost, get boosted. 

And importantly, a week before the holidays, indoor mask in these areas that have — 90 percent of our counties have substantial or high transmission.  Use the next week to make sure you’re practicing those safe prevention/mitigation strategies so that when you come together for the holidays that people have been not exposed to the virus because, in fact, they’ve been vaccinated, boosted, and masked.

And for that extra reassurance as we have more disease in this country right now, do a test and make sure that you’re negative before you mix and gather in different households.

MR. ZIENTS:  Okay.  Well, thank you.  We look forward to speaking next week.  But I hope everybody has a safe and relaxing weekend. 

Thank you.

⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

🔳☑️🔳☑️🔳☑️🔳☑️🔘🔳☑️🔳☑️🔳☑️🔳☑️

https://kidsworldplus.blogspot.com/2022/01/numerous-nurses-and-doctors-told-to.html?m=1

🆘🚑⛑Numerous Nurses and Doctors Told To Work When Infected By COVID-19 Vaccines 

https://kidsworldplus.blogspot.com/2022/01/numerous-nurses-and-doctors-told-to.html?m=1

Because of Employee Shortages From Terminated Nurses and Doctors Who Refused Deadly Toxic Manmade Covid-19 Plague And COVID-19 Vaccines!

Imagine The Suffering and Debilitating Of Everyone Involved Because Of Tyrannical Diabolical Dictates By The Ones Who Caused COVID-19 In The First Place—Obama Biden Admin., Fauci, and Pentagon (Pentagon gave $30 Million minimum To Manufacture COVID-19).  Would You Feel Safe Working With Doctors and Nurses, Social Workers Direly Sick From Manmade Apocalyptic Plagues Covid-19? These People Need To Be Recuperating!

The Risk To All Is Enormous!

More Hospitals Admitting Patients, Half Of These Patients Soon After Are Diagnosed With 

Covid-19 ‼️

Judge Blocks Vaccine Mandate For US Navy SEALS, Issues Injunction Agains...

 

🔷🔶🔹🔸🔹🔶🔷🔶🔹🔸🔹🔶🔷🔶🔹🔸🔷

🆘Old Is New After Manmade COVID-19 Origins In Plandemic Plague Stage Setup Early 2002‼️ Bush announces US plan for flu pandemic‼️

https://kidsworldplus.blogspot.com/2022/01/old-is-new-after-manmade-covid-19.html?m=1

Fred Charatan

Additional article information

President Bush laid out the federal plan to tackle the risk of an influenza pandemic in a 30 minute speech on 1 November before six cabinet secretaries, top US health officials, and World Health Organization and United Nations' directors.

After outlining the history of previous pandemics, including the 1918 flu that killed more than half a million Americans, he set three goals—detecting outbreaks, stockpiling vaccines, and having emergency plans in place.

As part of the initiative to detect outbreaks before they spread across the world, Mr Bush had previously announced a new International Partnership on Avian and Pandemic Influenza at a UN meeting in September. Eighty eight countries and nine international organisations have already joined this initiative.

The United States will stockpile vaccines and antiviral drugs such as Tamiflu (oseltamivir) and Relenza (zanamivir), and accelerate the development of new vaccine technologies. Mr Bush said that the National Institutes of Health was working with leaders of the vaccine industry to replace the use of chicken eggs with a cell culture technology. He also called for liability protection for vaccine makers.

The US will also have emergency plans in place in all 50 states and every local community. Michael Leavitt, secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, will bring together state and local public health officials nationwide to discuss pandemic preparedness.

These plans would require emergency funding of $7.1bn (£4.1bn; €6bn) from Congress, he said. Last week the US Senate passed 94 to three a measure to spend $8bn on pandemic influenza preparations.

Of the $7.1bn requested, $2.8bn would be used to develop methods to decrease the time needed to make a vaccine; $1.52bn would purchase influenza vaccines; $1.03bn would stockpile antiviral medications; $800m would develop new treatments and vaccines; $644m would go towards pandemic preparedness; and $251m would be allocated to help other countries detect and contain outbreaks.

Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, a Democrat, said that Mr Bush's proposal “needs to be stronger” and called for more spending to ensure that hospitals and other healthcare facilities have the capacity to handle a flood of patients. But the Senate's Republican leader, Bill Frist of Tennessee, praised Mr Bush, and said, “The president's bold and decisive leadership today reflects his understanding of the urgency of confronting this issue.”

“This is a historic day in public health,” said Julie Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “We have worked for more than a decade to put influenza on the table, and now the president and leaders of Congress are completely engaged.”

The Department of Health and Human Services released a 396 page pandemic flu document after the president's speech, focused on federal and state planning. It assumed a hypothetical 90 million Americans would be taken sick, and nearly two million would die, in such an event. See www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/healthcare

Article information

BMJ. 2005 Nov 12; 331(7525): 1103. 

doi: 10.1136/bmj.331.7525.1103-b

PMCID: PMC1283304

PMID: 16282397

Fred Charatan

🔴🟣🔵🔘🔴🟣🔵🔘🔴🟣🔵🔘

⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️Enjoy thousands of books and journals and videos to improve, educate and thrive in times of yet more change! Organic non toxic lifestyle every day! Independently published by Laurel Sobol—i

🆘🆘🆘 Guess How Many House and Senate Members Complicit and Complacent In Pentagon Fauci Chinese Wuhan Institute of Virology COVID-19 Manmade Plagues and Corresponding Manmade COVID-19 Vaccines and Illegal Vaccine Mandates—The Very Same Buying Up COVID-19 Stocks and Dividends‼️ COVID-19 Mandates and COVID-19 Plagues Are 2 in 1 Genocide, Disease for Life and Dependencies on Big Pharma and High Medical Bills, and TAXES  That Never End!

https://kidsworldplus.blogspot.com/2022/01/guess-how-many-house-and-senate-members.html?m=1

All Members Including Past House and Senate Leaders and Committee Members, Not Excluding Feinstein (Remember Her Illegal Chinese Chauffeur That Drove Her Around For Years, Even When She Was Caught Red Handed‼️) and Her Illegal Stockcapades With Husband Wife  Inside Financial Gains From Manmade Apocalyptic Star Geo Weather and Disease Dispersal Warfare Deals and Genocide Both Friend and Foe‼️

🆘🆘🆘There Are 100 Million Reasons Why No One Trusts Nancy Pelosi‼️

Democrats have the opportunity to do something that is good for the country, that would be commonsensical and populist. So why won’t Nancy Pelosi let them?

I’m talking about the “Ban Congressional Stock Trading Act,” introduced by the Democratic senators Mark Kelly and Jon Ossoff. This legislation (like a similar bill offered by Republican Josh Hawley) would prohibit members of Congress and their families (such as Pelosi’s husband, Paul Pelosi) from buying and selling stocks while they serve. It would help combat the growing consensus that the game is rigged for the powerful and connected—a sentiment shared by top Biden economic adviser Brian Deese.

Indeed, among some observers, the idea that top political leaders aren’t engaged in insider trading has become a joke. As NPR’s Tim Mak recently reported, “Among a certain community of individual investors on TikTok, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s stock trading disclosures are a treasure trove.” In fact, Mak writes, “you can get a push notification every time Pelosi’s stock trading disclosures are released.”

• Congress Warms to Stock-Trading Ban, Leaving Pelosi in Cold

  TRADING PLACES?

  Ursula Perano

  

First, though, a brief (recent) history of this toxic problem is in order.

In the midst of the financial meltdown, on Sept. 16, 2008, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Federal Reserve ChairmanBen Bernanke held a secret meeting with members of Congress. The result, as Business Insider noted, was that “Congressmen privy to this information reacted—not by dropping everything and drawing up a plan to save the economy, but by dumping stock and avoiding the losses everyone else would take in the coming month. Others bought stocks in financial firms that would later be saved by the federal government.”

This event is detailed in a 2011 book—Peter Schweizer’s “Throw Them All Out”—which, in turn, inspired a segment on CBS’s 60 Minutes. But the story wasn’t just about the financial meltdown.

One of the politicians featured in the segment was Nancy Pelosi, who participated in a 2008 Initial Public Offering from Visa, as 60 Minutes noted, “just as a troublesome piece of legislation that would have hurt credit card companies, began making its way through the House. Undisturbed by a potential conflict of interest, the Pelosis—whose net worth is well over $100 million—purchased 5,000 shares of Visa at the initial price of $44 dollars. Two days later it was trading at $64. The credit card legislation never made it to the floor of the House.”

This is a bipartisan problem, and Pelosi was far from the only lawmaker featured in that memorable 60 Minutes episode that helped spark passage of the The Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act—a flawed piece of legislation codifying that it it is illegal for members of Congress to use “any nonpublic information derived from the individual’s position… or gained from performance of the individual’s duties, for personal benefit.”

At least, that’s what the law is supposed to do. The real test would come during the next crisis, which turned out to be the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite the law, members of Congress who received coronavirus briefings in early 2020 again made suspicious stock trades just after they found out, just ahead of the public and the markets , how bad the pandemic could be.

Despite the STOCK Act, none of the members received any serious punishment.

That’s because it’s nearly impossible to prove that someone acted solely on insider information. Perhaps this is why Pelosi, under pressure from her own party to actually ban stock trading for members and their families, is suggesting stiffer penalties for anyone who breaks the STOCK Act (in fairness, the fines are ridiculously small), rather than enact a more sweeping ban on lawmakers playing the markets.

It’s fair to say that the STOCK Act hasn’t accomplished its stated goal—and that in the decade since it became law, Pelosi hasn’t done anything to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

On Dec. 22, 2020, for example, Paul Pelosi invested between $500,000 and $1 million in 25 call options of Tesla stocks. Why is that a problem? As the AP reported, Joe Biden “signed his executive order directing federal officials to transition federal, state, local and tribal government fleets to ‘clean and zero-emission vehicles’ on Jan. 27”—less than five weeks after Pelosi’s investment.

The perception that the Pelosis may be profiting off of information she receives as Speaker of the House is problematic; as is the fact she is profiting from things she says are bad. According to Business Insider, the same day Pelosi called Facebook “shameful” and “irresponsible,” her husband was purchasing shares of Facebook, at a below market rate, that he would later sell for a hefty profit. Pelosi and her team claim that “The Speaker does not own any stocks. But, of course, her husband does, making this a distinction without much of a difference (which is why this new proposed legislation bans spouses from buying and selling stocks.)

Last month, in response to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s tweet saying that, “It is absolutely ludicrous that members of Congress can hold and trade individual stock while in office,” Pelosi was forced to confront her opposition to this reform. In an instant, this San Francisco liberal transformed into a Club for Growth conservative, insisting that “We are a free-market economy.”

I’m sure capitalism could survive Nancy Pelosi (and her husband) not being allowed to bet on the market while she is a member of Congress.

It’s rare that I side with AOC, but she’s right on this one. Banning lawmakers and their families from trading stocks would show that Democrats are holding themselves accountable, and using the majority they have been given to actually make politics less swampy. This appearance of impropriety, alone, is contributing to the erosion of trust in our institutions—a plague that, among other externalities, helped lead to the election of Donald Trump. And, of course, it would be a wildly popular thing for Democrats to do,heading into the 2022 midterm elections.

So why won’t Nancy Pelosi, who once promised that Democrats would deliver “the most honest, most open, most ethical Congress in history,” support it?

I can think of more than 100 million reasons, but none of them are any good.

🟢🟡🟠🟢🟡🟠🟢🟡🟠🟢🟡🟠🟢🟡