Spread the word far and wide.

The first WHO Global Pandemic Preparedness report submitted in Sept 2019 was the result of a joint venture by WHO the former Director General of the WHO, Gro Harlem Brundtland, former PM of Norway.

The report was sponsored by WHO and the World bank who had co-convened the GPP board to follow on from  a UN based project after Ebola.

Its monitoring board members includes Fauci, Gates Foundation, Chinese CDC and Wellcome Trust. The goals of the Board are to:
• assess the world’s ability to protect itself from health emergencies
• identify critical gaps to preparedness across multiple perspectives;
• advocate for preparedness activities with national and international leaders and decision-makers.

The WHO and World bank plan encouraged countries to have a cost effective plan for a pandemic at the ready by July 2019.  That was acted upon by  59 countries who submitted a National Action Plan for Health Security (NAPHS).

This preparedness plan was to begin from Sept 2019 and to end  Sept 2020 which also included instructions to hold two simulation exercises, one would involve a lethal pathogen that causes a global pandemic.

The progress report requires that a UN and WHO two system  wide training and simulation exercises should  take place, one of which is the release of a respiratory pathogen that causes a pandemic!


Which countries took part? Which departments were costed? How much  did each country cost a pandemic at and for what period of time did the ‘costed’ pandemic cover?  If this global pandemic plan  began in Sept 2019, when did it stop? What happened between the start of the exercise  and the WHO declaration on the 31st December? Which actions were already taken?

There is evidence that the NHS organisations  were aware of the requirement for plans to respond to a disease outbreak in February 2019

The WHO Simulation Exercise manual from 2017 states that during these sort of global exercises, they involve table top exercises such as the ones performed by the Event 201 team in New York, again, the same members of the Global Pandemic Monitoring Board attended this event, including the Chinese CDC Director-General.

Did the pandemic exercise also include a pathogen from China that causes a pandemic?
Where were the origins of the global exercise?
If the pandemic exercise began in September 2019, does this mean that the table top exercise (written about in the WHO manual, which occurs before a live event) was Event 201?

According to the WHO Simulation Exercise Manual, the table top exercises are to inform members of the preparedness community ( Event 201 states this as the purpose of the table top exercise) who can then follow with real live full scale exercises that include the use of hospitals, media broadcasts, actors, organisations, govts and others.

Event 201:

Does this mean that our govts  were involved in a global exercise for preparedness, who were the preparedness community that the Event 201 claims to be informing?  

What transpires is that the Chinese CDC and others  were chosen to be on the monitoring board of a group calling for a global pandemic exercise. Co-convened  by WHO and the World Bank, who planned to create a UN and WHO global exercise to test how each country would cope in a pandemic. WHO wrote the manual for a simulation exercise in 2017. Another was written in 2018.

That pandemic exercise plan covered in the WHO manual included the requirement to hold a table top event prior to the simulation.

And here we have the Event 201, with all the SAME people on the monitoring board involved, advertising itself as tool to inform the policy and monitoring community.

But they ARE the members of the monitoring board …So the table top exercises were part of the global preparedness simulation.

How many people are aware that  many countries had a cost effective plan already in place in case of a pandemic just 6 months prior?
How does the plan compare to the pandemic?
Are the hospitals involved in the ‘cost’ effective plans for a pandemic the same hospitals as those involved now?

Why are we not calling for  an investigation into why those making claims of a pandemic, whilst running live exercises of a pandemic will profit financially from a pandemic?

Is there any evidence of extra funding for a pandemic PRIOR to the announcement of one?

In the US, the office of Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response under the Dept of Health and Human Services was given an extra budget of $722 million, giving them a budget of $2.2 Billion for FY 2019.

The job of this dept is to maintain and respond to pandemic preparedness. This included $145 million more than the 2018 budget to provide medical counter measures that address pandemic and emerging diseases.
And $138 million above the 2018 budget, to maintain and respond to pandemic preparedness.

Budgeting extra for a pandemic before it happens,  was that for the pandemic exercise?

The Monitoring board pushes the vaccine agenda.

The WHO Simulation Manual. https://apps.who.int/…/WHO-WHE-CPI-2017.10-eng.pdf;sequence…

The framework for the global monitoring board was created by Harvard Global health Institute and the chosen reviewers include CDC, In-Q-tel (A CIA created company) HHS, World Economic Forum, John Hopkins centre,WHO and various universities.

This report claims that China has a response system for pandemic preparedness in place that has been approved by WHO.  

Public health systems. As a first step, China’s government established the necessary legal and regulatory infrastructures for preparedness activities. The resulting national system comprises of (1) a public health emergency command center to coordinate activities at the national, provincial, prefecture, and city levels with external organizations and other countries in the region (2) a nationwide reporting network for reporting infectious
diseases and public health events (3) a nationwide pathogen laboratory network and (4) an emergency medical rescue team. This national system responds to both infectious disease outbreaks and other public health
emergencies through 37 emergency medical teams distributed throughout China’s 23 provinces. In December 2016, the Shanghai team was certified using the WHO Global Emergency Medical Team processes and checklists for deployment ready teams.

Lucky it started in China then?

Monitoring will be essential because it will provide regular reports on the status of the world’s ability to reduce and respond to pandemic risk.
Because the monitoring will generate objective information, the results should provide a substantial incentive to governments, the private sector, and international organizations to sustain momentum on improving health security.
The monitoring project will be needed until such a time when:
• All countries have robust public health capacities that comply with IHR and meet OIE standards;
• Competent official agencies regularly analyse risks that weak public health capacities pose to economies and actively engage in reducing these risks;
• International organisations are positioned to rapidly and effectively support countries during major disease outbreaks and to foster development of countries’ public health capacities; and
• Diagnostics, drugs, and vaccines for new diseases are available to mitigate the spread of contagion and its impacts on economies, communities, and public health.

And from this framework on global risk assessment and the call for a monitoring committee, came the  Global Prepardness Pandemic Monitoring Committee.



The Chinese are members of the monitoring board for pandemic preparedness, have taken part in what appears to be a table top exercise for a global pandemic preparedness exercise which occurs prior to the live event, have been approved with certification from WHO to be at the forefront of a global preparedness plan. They work with the  Gates Foundation and with US pharmaceutical companies as well as working with UN on its sustainable goals.

The EU,s biggest funding body for research to implement the Smart agenda, Horizon 2020, have been involved in joint projects with China and the EU countries since 2018 with a funding budget of 100 Million Euro.

China works closely with the UN and showcased the UN during the Wuhan military games just prior to the ‘proclaimed’ pandemic.

During the military games in Wuhan that clearly paid homage to the UN, there was also another high level meeting that took place.


The EIOS system builds on a long-standing collaboration between WHO and the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission (EC) to develop a system for public health intelligence and responds to the need for a global initiative to bring together PHI efforts.

In September 2017, WHO accepted leadership of EIOS under the Health Emergencies Programme (WHE) with a governance structure involving multiple stakeholders. The Coordination Group is made up of twelve organizations, networks, and government bodies who serve two-year terms.

EIOS picked up the first article reporting on a cluster of pneumonia in Wuhan at 03:18am (UTC) on December 31st 2019. By the end of March, the EIOS system was collating up to 228,000 articles per day related to the outbreak, helping to sort through this information and making it available it to experts across the globe. Since the start of the outbreak, members of the EIOS community have been working on additions to the system to help manage the unprecedented volume of articles by looking at improved ways to filter, contextualize and visualize all of the content coming in.

This shows that the WHO is directly linked to the information being shared globally.

The EIOS system builds on a long-standing collaboration between WHO and the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission (EC) to develop a system for public health intelligence and responds to the need for a global initiative to bring together PHI efforts.

JRC is the European Commission’s science and knowledge service.

At a more international level, the JRC and the US reinforced their cooperation through several cooperation agreements to facilitate the way towards compatible standards across both sides of the Atlantic  and explored which role the EU and the US could play in the development of Smart Grids, intelligent electricity systems, and Smart Cities, efficiently organised cities based on integrated management, active citizen participation and integration of ICT systems.


JRC researchers analysed the geographic spread of the virus as well as the age and gender of the patients in view of informing the measures for gradually reopening the EU.

To help reach the objectives of the Coronavirus Global Response, approximately EUR 1 billion will be mobilised under Horizon 2020 to accelerate access to COVID-19 vaccines, medicines and tests.

The European Commission is heavily involved in research and the pushing of vaccines.They have daily updates that are followed by the international community. The update below is from June 2020.


ECDC warned against the lifting of community physical distancing and other IPC measures, as together with testing and contact tracing, they are the most important approach for controlling the spread of COVID-19 in all settings, including during travel.


Overall, following the self assessment and the external assessment process the UK has demonstrated a strong baseline position across all Action Packages. One of the key areas of strength identified in the UK is the cross Government and organizational coordination
and response. The UK will be a good resource for ideas on how to navigate some of the challenges to true implementation of the “One Health” concept in other countries. This was particularly well demonstrated within the AMR and Zoonotic disease Action Packages.
The UK has a well-practiced system of response to real outbreaks and testing the systems through simulation exercises. Few countries have this degree of experience and number of targeted exercises which serve to fine tune the system.

Which targeted exercises and simulations involving health care?

The UK has been a leading player in the preparatory work on the
WHO Global Action Plan on AMR. The Global Action Plan is a “one health” approach,

The Global Action Plan was developed in response to a request made by the Heads of Government of Germany, Ghana and Norway – and later the United Nations Secretary-General – requesting that the Director-General of WHO and heads of other multilateral agencies streamline their collaboration and develop a Global Action Plan.

The Global Action Plan broadly complements the United Nations System-wide Strategic Document, which describes the work of the United Nations Development System as a whole to support implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

The Global Action Plan was  launched on September 24, 2019 on the side-lines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

The Global Action Plan was launched to coincide with the High-Level Meeting on Universal Health Coverage and the United Nations General Assembly in September 2019.

Who are the signatory agencies to the Global Action Plan?

  • The 12 signatory agencies to the Global Action Plan are Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, Global Financing Facility, Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria, UNAIDS, UNDP, UNFPA, UNICEF, Unitaid, UN Women, World Bank Group, World Food Program and World Health Organization. Together, these agencies work to address all targets in Sustainable Development Goal (SDG)  and many other health-related SDG targets.

Global Health Security Index 

The GHS Index is a project of the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) and the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security (JHU) and was developed with The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU).The Index was published in October, 2019, and analyses the readiness of the world’s countries to combat pandemics

The Global Health Security (GHS) Index is the first comprehensive assessment and benchmarking of health security and related capabilities across the 195 countries that make up the States Parties to the International Health Regulations (IHR [2005]).  These organisations believe that, over time, the GHS Index will spur measurable changes in national health security and improve international capability to address one of the world’s most omnipresent risks: infectious disease outbreaks that can lead to international epidemics and pandemics.

GHS created 140 questions for countries’ capacities, whether a capacity exists and where it is  and also whether that capacity is regularly—for example, annually—tested and shown to be functional in exercises or real-world events.

The GHS Index, NTI, JHU, and the EIU project team— was made possible with  grants from the Open Philanthropy Project, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Robertson Foundation.


We also have the Global Health Security Agenda whose  permanent adviser is WHO.

The GHSA is governed by a Steering Group comprised of approximately 15 countries, international organisations, and/or non-governmental stakeholders. The primary role of the Steering Group is to provide strategic guidance and direction, including identifying overall GHSA priorities, tracking of progress and commitments, and facilitation of target-driven multi-sectoral coordination and communication among GHSA members.

Permanent Steering Group Members (2019 – 2023)

Indonesia, Italy, Kenya, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Republic of Korea, Senegal, Thailand, United States, GHSA Consortium (GHSAC), Private Sector Round Table (PSRT)

Rotating Steering Group Members (2019 – 2020)

Argentina, Australia, Canada, Finland, Netherlands, World Bank.

The GHSA mandate on Immunisation.


This Action Package seeks to attain effective protection through achievement and maintenance of immunisation against measles and other epidemic-prone VPDs.


  • Maintain high vaccination coverage rates and improve optimal vaccination rates where needed
  • Strengthen systems for the safety management of adverse effects from vaccinations
  • Identify and target immunization to populations at risk of epidemic-prone VPDs of national importance and create a priority list of high-risk regions and populations in order to provide vaccinations to VPD endemic areas
  • Strengthen systems for VPD prevention and control, such as outbreak response immunization, case-based surveillance system, and access to a laboratory in a VPD laboratory network for diagnostic confirmation
  • Conduct routine or supplementary immunization activities for addressing immunity gaps for measles


Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Republic of Korea, United States

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), World Health Organization (WHO), World Organization for Animal Health (OIE)


According to Australia,s Action Plan For Health Security 2019 to 2023,  they and 195 other countries are part of a legally binding agreement called  International Health Regulations (2005)  including all WHO Member States.

The IHR was adopted at the 58th World Health Assembly in May 2005,
and subsequently entered into force on 15 June 2007.
The purpose and scope of the IHR are:

“to prevent, protect against, control and provide a public health response to the international spread of disease in ways that are commensurate with and restricted to public health risks, and which avoid unnecessary interference with international traffic and trade”.

International Health Regulations Monitoring and Evaluation

The Framework was developed in 2016, in collaboration with related initiatives such as the Global Health Security Agenda.

  • The remaining three components of the Framework consist of:
     Annual Reporting to the World Health Assembly (mandatory):
  • Simulation Exercises:
  • After-action Review:           

A major component of the NAPHS is establishing an interoperable, interconnected electronic disease surveillance system for both human and animal sectors, coordinated at the national level and incorporating an outbreak management system.develop a Costed National Action Plan for Health Security (NAPHS).


The NAPHS was created with multi-sectoral engagement with involvement of International Partners including the World Health Organization (WHO), United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention (USCDC), USAID.

High-level attention, risk assessment, resources, and strategic planning by  The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/hs.2017.0038

All the countries signed up to the WHO National Action Plan for Health Security (NAPHS) are also obliged to take part in simulations.

In US, The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR), which maintains the U.S. International Health regulations (IHR) NFP and performs the required monitoring and evaluation of U.S compliance with the IHR, led the development of the National Action Plan.

( This is the department mentioned in this article above which was given an  extra budget of $722 million for 2019, giving them a budget of $2.2 Billion for FY 2019.)

The job of this dept is to maintain and respond to pandemic preparedness.

The following is the initial follow-up process and timeline for the implementation of the National Action Plan:
• Beginning of the federal monitoring and evaluation process for the United States Health Security National Action Plan – November 2018.
• First interagency comprehensive National Action Plan Review and Progress Report Meeting – January 2019
• Online publication of the 2018 National Action Plan Progress Report and publication of a revised National Action Plan (if needed) – February 2019.
• Second biannual IHR Working Group Action Item Review Meeting – July 2019.
This annual schedule of activities iterates until the second JEE of the United States, tentatively planned for mid-2021.


This is from the WHO 2018 Influenza Pandemic simulation exercise manual.

And here is the simulation plan. Created in advance.

Sounds rather familiar!


Describing the development, spread and impact of the fictitious influenza pandemic will add depth and realism to the exercise, as well as events for participants to respond to.

Global pandemic phases: Changes in the severity of the global pandemic phases can be used in a scenario to stimulate discussion, trigger potential preparedness actions and add international context.

The WHO global pandemic phases describe the spread of the pandemic influenza virus around the world, and will be used by WHO to communicate the global pandemic situation.
The global pandemic phase will be based on WHO risk assessments performed on virological, epidemiological and clinical data collected internationally. Currently, there are four WHO global
pandemic phases (1):
ƒ interpandemic – the period between influenza pandemics;
ƒ alert – influenza caused by a new subtype has been identified in humans; therefore, increased vigilance and careful risk assessment will be initiated at local, national and global levels;
ƒ pandemic – global spread of human influenza caused by a new subtype, determined through global surveillance; and
ƒ transition – reduction of assessed global risk, de-escalation of global actions and reduction in response activities or movement towards recovery.

The ‘ demands’ of the NHS health care system during this pandemic in the UK  were put into the hands of Palantir.

Palantir is a US data mining company that cut its teeth working for the Pentagon and the CIA in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Palantir had 10% of their workforce work within the NHS government data project to predict surges in the NHS demands during the CV19 pandemic from  which the company  earned one pound, despite the costs of wages for the workforce

Now we can see why?

WHO 2018 Simulation Preparedness Report:https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/274298/9789241514507-eng.pdf


Post your comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>