A strange comic book that was commissioned for publication by the European Union in 2012 eerily predicted almost exactly what has unfolded with the Covid-19 global pandemic. However, in this propaganda laced presentation of the outbreak, unelected globalist bureaucrats save the planet.
The comic book, titled ‘Infected’, was a production of the European Commission’s international cooperation and development arm. It was not intended for widespread public consumption, but instead to be distributed inside EU institutions. Only a few hundred of the comic books were made.
The EU’s description of the strange publication states that “While the story may be fictional, it is nevertheless intertwined with some factual information.”
The graphic novel depicts scientists inside a lab in China experimenting with deadly pathogens:
A wannabe hero time travels from the future, alerting authorities to the coming pandemic, and presents an antidote, before quickly becoming the target of opportunists who want to steal the cure and sell it to drug companies:
The story features the transmission of a novel virus from animals to humans in a crowded wet market:
“Indeed, imagine if you were infected in this market by a new contagious agent.” says the UN’s chief advisor on contagious diseases, adding “You probably wouldn’t even realise it until the end of the incubation period.”
The publication suggests that air travel would exacerbate the spread of the disease, with the character adding that “You’d have headed back to Europe, the US, Latin America, or Australia as planned via an international airport.”
The cartoon depicts the failure of a global health organisation to act quickly enough to stop a pandemic:
It also predicts draconian safety measures, including social distancing, which make everyday life “totally unbearable”:
The piece concludes with an EU Parliament hearing, in which Brussels pushes for more integrated European cooperation on global health matters, mirroring a real life initiative known as ‘One health’.
The globalists are lauded for helping develop and distribute a vaccine to the world:
Was this predictive programming or just a bizarre coincidence?
President Trump is reportedly mobilizing the U.S. military to distribute a novel coronavirus vaccine when one becomes available and will focus first on older Americans.
"You know it’s a massive job to give this vaccine,” Trump said in an interview broadcast Thursday on Fox Business Network.
“Our military is now being mobilized so at the end of the year, we’re going to be able to give it to a lot of people very, very rapidly.”
Trump said he believes there will be a vaccine by the end of the year and the United States is mobilizing “our military and other forces” on that assumption.
The U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services have just put out a press release that is absolutely jaw dropping, but so far hardly anyone is talking about it.
According to the press release, a 138 million dollar contract has been awarded to ApiJect Systems America for two projects known as “Project Jumpstart” and “RAPID USA”. Apparently the goal of these projects is to have vast numbers of “injection devices” ready to go once a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available. The following comes directly from the official website of the Department of Defense…
“Today the Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, announce a $138 million contract with ApiJect Systems America for “Project Jumpstart” and “RAPID USA,” which together will dramatically expand U.S. production capability for domestically manufactured, medical-grade injection devices starting by October 2020.
Spearheaded by the DOD’s Joint Acquisition Task Force (JATF), in coordination with the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, the contract will support “Jumpstart” to create a U.S.-based, high-speed supply chain for prefilled syringes beginning later this year by using well-established Blow-Fill-Seal (BFS) aseptic plastics manufacturing technology, suitable for combatting COVID-19 when a safe and proven vaccine becomes available.
Today, there are about 328 million people living in the United States. But the press release states that the plan is to produce “over 500 million prefilled syringes” in 2021…
The contract also enables ApiJect Systems America to accelerate the launch of RAPID USA manufactured in new and permanent U.S.-based BFS facilities with the ultimate production goal of over 500 million prefilled syringes (doses) in 2021. This effort will be executed initially in Connecticut, South Carolina and Illinois, with potential expansion to other U.S.-based locations. RAPID will provide increased lifesaving capability against future national health emergencies that require population-scale vaccine administration on an urgent basis.
So that would be enough “injection devices” to vaccinate every man, woman and child in the entire country one and a half times.
Wow.
Right now, researchers all over the globe are racing toward the development of a vaccine, but as I have discussed previously, that is not going to be an easy task.
And on Tuesday Dr. Anthony Fauci openly admitted to a U.S. Senate committee that there is no guarantee that a vaccine “is actually going to be effective”…
As drugmakers across the world race to develop a coronavirus vaccine, White House health advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci said, “There’s no guarantee that the vaccine is actually going to be effective.”
Fauci delivered the somber warning Tuesday to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions during a hearing about the road to reopening businesses across the nation.
In addition, because there are multiple strains of COVID-19 already running around out there, one vaccine may not be able to cover them all. So this could create a need for “multiple vaccines”, and this is something that NIH Director Francis Collins has openly acknowledged…
Several vaccines will likely be needed to combat the coronavirus and immunize groups of people in America and abroad, U.S. National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins said in an interview.
So when the time finally comes, there may be more than one vaccine that authorities are pushing everyone to take.
But for now, there is no vaccine, and some health officials are pushing for social distancing restrictions to remain in place for months to come.
For example, Fox News is reporting that the top health official of Los Angeles County is warning that the local “stay-at-home order” may have to be extended until August…
Los Angeles County will likely continue its stay-at-home order through the summer, officials said Tuesday, as the coronavirus wreaks havoc on the economy and patience continues to wear thin for some calling for the state to reopen and for normal life to resume.
County Public Health Director Barabara Ferrer said the order will be extended “with all certainty” at the Board of Supervisors meeting, possibly until July or August, the Los Angeles Times reported.
And apparently L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti is on the same page. In fact, he has once again stated that there will be no return to normal until a cure or a vaccine comes along…
“I think quite simply she’s saying we’re not going to fully reopen Los Angeles — or anywhere in America — without any protections or health orders in the next three months,” he told CNN’s Jake Tapper.
“I think we know it’s going to be even longer than three months. … We’re not moving past Covid-19, we’re learning to live with it. We’re not going to go back to pre-Covid life any time soon” or move forward without a medicine or vaccine.
I feel so badly for those living in the Los Angeles area, because it certainly looks like the next three months are going to be really rough.
Of course there are other large cities that are facing similar timelines. Just check out what is being reported regarding the outlook for New York City…
New York City may not fully reopen until August after Gov. Cuomo advised that each phase of the four phase restart plan could take up to two weeks to implement.
Parts of the state of New York will be ready to reopen on May 15, this Friday, after meeting Governor Cuomo’s strict set of seven requirements.
We are only in mid-May right now.
Could you imagine being forced to stay home for the next three months?
Sadly, that is what millions of Americans will be facing.
And on Tuesday Dr. Fauci actually suggested that many schools will need to remain closed as the next school year begins…
Anthony Fauci, MD, revealed Tuesday morning that a return to school in the fall “would be a bit of a bridge too far,” during a Senate Committee hearing. News of likely continued homeschooling for the next school year will probably be met with groans and frustration by harried parents struggling to balance working from home and also managing remote learning and having their children home 100 percent of the time.
CrowdStrike, the private cyber-security firm that first accused Russia of hacking Democratic Party emails and served as a critical source for U.S. intelligence officials in the years-long Trump-Russia probe, acknowledged to Congress more than two years ago that it had no concrete evidence that Russian hackers stole emails from the Democratic National Committee’s server.
Crowdstrike President Shawn Henry: "We just don’t have the evidence..."
CrowdStrike President Shawn Henry's admission under oath, in a recently declassified December 2017 interview before the House Intelligence Committee, raises new questions about whether Special Counsel Robert Mueller, intelligence officials and Democrats misled the public. The allegation that Russia stole Democratic Party emails from Hillary Clinton, John Podesta and others and then passed them to WikiLeaks helped trigger the FBI's probe into now debunked claims of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia to steal the 2016 election. The CrowdStrike admissions were released just two months after the Justice Department retreated from its its other central claim that Russia meddled in the 2016 election when it dropped charges against Russian troll farms it said had been trying to get Trump elected.
Henry personally led the remediation and forensics analysis of the DNC server after being warned of a breach in late April 2016; his work was paid for by the DNC, which refused to turn over its server to the FBI. Asked for the date when alleged Russian hackers stole data from the DNC server, Henry testified that CrowdStrike did not in fact know if such a theft occurred at all: "We did not have concrete evidence that the data was exfiltrated [moved electronically] from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated," Henry said.
Henry reiterated his claim on multiple occasions:
"There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left."
"There’s not evidence that they were actually exfiltrated. There's circumstantial evidence but no evidence that they were actually exfiltrated."
"There is circumstantial evidence that that data was exfiltrated off the network... We didn't have a sensor in place that saw data leave. We said that the data left based on the circumstantial evidence. That was the conclusion that we made."
"Sir, I was just trying to be factually accurate, that we didn't see the data leave, but we believe it left, based on what we saw."
Asked directly if he could "unequivocally say" whether "it was or was not exfiltrated out of DNC," Henry told the committee: "I can't say based on that."
Rep. Adam Schiff: Democrat held up interview transcripts, but finally relented after acting intel director Richard Grenell suggested he would release them himself. (Senate Television via AP)
In a later exchange with Republican Rep. Chris Stewart of Utah, Henry offered an explanation of how Russian agents could have obtained the emails without any digital trace of them leaving the server. The CrowdStrike president speculated that Russian agents might have taken "screenshots" in real time. "[If] somebody was monitoring an email server, they could read all the email," Henry said. "And there might not be evidence of it being exfiltrated, but they would have knowledge of what was in the email. … There would be ways to copy it. You could take screenshots."
Henry’s 2017 testimony that there was no “concrete evidence” that the emails were stolen electronically suggests that Mueller was at best misleading in his 2019 final report, in which he stated that Russian intelligence “appears to have compressed and exfiltrated over 70 gigabytes of data from the file server.”
It is unlikely that Mueller had another source to make his more confident claim about Russian hacking.
The stolen emails, which were published by Wikileaks – whose founder, Julian Assange has long denied they came from Russia – were embarrassing to the party because, among other things, they showed the DNC had favored Clinton during her 2016 primary battles against Sen. Bernie Sanders for the presidential nomination. The DNC eventually issued an apology to Sanders and his supporters "for the inexcusable remarks made over email." The DNC hack was separate from the FBI’s investigation of Clinton’s use of a private server while serving as President Obama’s Secretary of State.
The disclosure that CrowdStrike found no evidence that alleged Russian hackers exfiltrated any data from the DNC server raises a critical question: On what basis, then, did it accuse them of stealing the emails? Further, on what basis did Obama administration officials make far more forceful claims about Russian hacking?
Michael Sussmann: This lawyer at Perkins Coie hired CrowdStrike to investigate the DNC breach. He was also involved with Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele in producing the discredited Steele dossier.
The January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), which formally accused Russia of a sweeping influence campaign involving the theft of Democratic emails, claimed the Russian intelligence service GRU "exfiltrated large volumes of data from the DNC." A July 2018 indictment claimed that GRU officers "stole thousands of emails from the work accounts of DNC employees."
According to everyone concerned, the cyber-firm played a critical role in the FBI's investigation of the DNC data theft. Henry told the panel that CrowdStrike "shared intelligence with the FBI" on a regular basis, making "contact with them over a hundred times in the course of many months." In congressional testimony that same year, former FBI Director James Comey acknowledged that the FBI "never got direct access to the machines themselves," and instead relied on CrowdStrike, which "shared with us their forensics from their review of the system." According to Comey, the FBI would have preferred direct access to the server, and made "multiple requests at different levels," to obtain it. But after being rebuffed, "ultimately it was agreed to… [CrowdStrike] would share with us what they saw."
Henry’s testimony seems at variance with Comey’s suggestion of complete information sharing. He told Congress that CrowdStrike provided "a couple of actual digital images" of DNC hard drives, out of a total number of "in excess of 10, I think." In other cases, Henry said, CrowdStrike provided its own assessment of them. The firm, he said, provided "the results of our analysis based on what our technology went out and collected." This disclosure follows revelations from the case of Trump operative Roger Stone that CrowdStrike provided three reports to the FBI in redacted and draft form. According to federal prosecutors, the government never obtained CrowdStrike's unredacted reports.
CrowdStrike's newly disclosed admissions raise new questions about whether Special Counsel Robert Mueller (above), intelligence officials and Democrats misled the public.
There are no indications that the Mueller team accessed any additional information beyond what CrowdStrike provided. According to the Mueller report, "the FBI later received images of DNC servers and copies of relevant traffic logs." But if the FBI obtained only "copies" of data traffic – and not any new evidence -- those copies would have shown the same absence of "concrete evidence" that Henry admitted to.
Adding to the tenuous evidence is CrowdStrike's own lack of certainty that the hackers it identified inside the DNC server were indeed Russian government actors. Henry's explanation for his firm's attribution of the DNC hack to Russia is replete with inferences and assumptions that lead to "beliefs," not unequivocal conclusions. "There are other nation-states that collect this type of intelligence for sure," Henry said, "but what we would call the tactics and techniques were consistent with what we'd seen associated with the Russian state." In its investigation, Henry said, CrowdStrike "saw activity that we believed was consistent with activity we'd seen previously and had associated with the Russian Government. … We said that we had a high degree of confidence it was the Russian Government."
But CrowdStrike was forced to retract a similar accusation months after it accused Russia in December 2016 of hacking the Ukrainian military, with the same software that the firm had claimed to identify inside the DNC server.
The firm's work with the DNC and FBI is also colored by partisan affiliations. Before joining CrowdStrike, Henry served as executive assistant director at the FBI under Mueller. Co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch is a vocal critic of Vladimir Putin and a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, the pro-NATO think tank that has consistently promoted an aggressive policy toward Russia. And the newly released testimony confirms that CrowdStrike was hired to investigate the DNC breach by Michael Sussmann of Perkins Coie – the same Democratic-tied law firm that hired Fusion GPS to produce the discredited Steele dossier, which was also treated as central evidence in the investigation. Sussmann played a critical role in generating the Trump-Russia collusion allegation. Ex-British spy and dossier compiler Christopher Steele has testified in British court that Sussmann shared with him the now-debunked Alfa Bank server theory, alleging a clandestine communication channel between the bank and the Trump Organization.
Henry’s recently released testimony does not mean that Russia did not hack the DNC. What it does make clear is that Obama administration officials, the DNC and others have misled the public by presenting as fact information that they knew was uncertain. The fact that the Democratic Party employed the two private firms that generated the core allegations at the heart of Russiagate -- Russian email hacking and Trump-Russia collusion – suggests that the federal investigation was compromised from the start.
The 2017 Henry transcript was one of dozens just released after a lengthy dispute. In September 2018, the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee unanimously voted to release witness interview transcripts and sent them to the U.S. intelligence community for declassification review. In March 2019, months after Democrats won House control, Rep. Adam Schiff ordered the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) to withhold the transcripts from White House lawyers seeking to review them for executive privilege. Schiff also refused to release vetted transcripts, but finally relented after acting ODNI Director Richard Grenell suggested this month that he would release them himself.
Several transcripts, including the interviews of former CIA Director John Brennan and Comey, remain unreleased. And in light of the newly disclosed Crowdstrike testimony, another secret document from the House proceedings takes on urgency for public viewing. According to Henry, Crowdstrike also provided the House Intelligence Committee with a copy of its report on the DNC email theft.
