It is Davos (World Economic Forum) week and the MSM hysterical propaganda push from the globalists regarding “Disease X” is in full swing. Just take a gander at a few of the Corporate Mockingbird Media headlines today.
Almost every major news outlet in the world has run black propaganda pieces about disease X. Why do I write black propaganda? Because the “experts” aren’t actually named, the peer-reviewed papers supporting the thesis of “a deadly pathogen causing 20 times more deaths than COVID-19” or “killing 20 times more people than COVID-19” or “killing 50 million people” are non-existent. Yet these narratives are all headline news in mainstream media.
This is just another exercise in globalized messaging to support the WHO (World Economic Forum) and WEF pushed narrative that governments must pour billions of dollars into the largest transnational corporations in the world to “cure” a non-existent disease.
What isn’t black propaganda, but rather grey propaganda, is this fear porn that is being pushed by the WEF and the WHO. WHO officials are most of the featured speakers and panelists on “Disease X” at the Davos meeting this week. From the WEF website:
World leaders are set to discuss preparation for the next pandemic at the World Economic Forum in Davos….
Officials from across the globe will be heading to the annual meeting in Switzerland, with the risk posed by what’s known as Disease X one of the key items on the agenda.
The meeting will address new warnings from the World Health Organisation (WHO) that the unidentified disease could kill 20 times more people than the coronavirus pandemic.
The big push from the WHO and the WEF is that “Disease X” will be zoonotic, and that money to surveil every speck of land in the world is the path forward to stopping “Disease X”. What a coincidence that the brand new CIA/intelligence agency designated to run the National Counterproliferation and Biosecurity Center to surveil pathogens intends to do just that. And that this happens to be intended to run in parallel with the CIA mission to surveil the world for other (nefarious?) purposes.
According to the WHO, Disease X is all about One Health solutions. The World Health organization describes One Health as the following:
Government officials, researchers and workers across sectors at the local, national, regional and global levels should implement joint responses to health threats. This includes developing shared databases and surveillance across different sectors, and identifying new solutions that address the root causes and links between risks and impacts.
Basically, One Health gives public health officials total control and surveillance across AI, the internet, agriculture, climate change, public health, medical systems, ecological sites, and urban and rural areas. It can encompass just about anything. It also values animal and plant life as equal to human life. The WHO goes on:
… investigating the impact of human activity on the environment and wildlife habitats, and how this drives disease threats. Critical areas include food production and distribution, urbanization and infrastructure development, international travel and trade, activities that lead to biodiversity loss and climate change, and those that put increased pressure on the natural resource base — all of which can lead to the emergence of zoonotic diseases.
We Have Seen This Before
The International Journal of Arts of Social Science published a paper by Brian Bantugan titled, “The World Economic Form, “The Lancet”, and COVID-19 Knowledge Gatekeeping”. That paper is seminal in understanding just how corrupting the WEF as well as the WHO have become to scientific journals, scientists, universities, and media (fact-checkers).
From the abstract:
The study investigated the links that the World Economic Forum has established with organizations and persons linked to The Lancet article titled Statement in support of the scientists, public health professionals, and medical professionals of China combatting COVID-19. Guided by the Gatekeeping Theory, appended by the Political Economy of Knowledge Theory, the study implemented an integrative literature review (textual synthesis).
Relevant online pieces of literature were sampled through snowballing technique using the Google search engine platform to elucidate on the funding and ownership of the Lancet, and the 27 authors of the said article and their affiliations with higher learning institutions vis-à-vis their connections with the World Economic Forum to highlight their implications to gatekeeping and COVID-19 knowledge production in journal publications, particularly that of The Lancet.
Results revealed that the WEF has penetrated all knowledge institutions that benefit from the natural COVID-19 virus origins hypothesis and the silencing of contrarian hypotheses, including the lab leak narrative. A model of the WEF knowledge production complex against the lab leak hypothesis was presented to visually represent the influence of the WEF on scientific journal gatekeeping in the context of The Lancet.
This is the paper being discussed:
The latter was the scientific paper that stopped the “spread” of “misinformation” that Covid-19 could have originated from a lab. This paper was crucial in shutting down “lab leak” investigations at the WHO and in the United States. In fact, the WHO report published on February 2021 on the origins of the virus concluded that the lab leak hypothesis was “extremely unlikely.” They later scuttled a second investigation, because WHO officials claimed China was uncooperative — while never even admitting that the USA may have had a significant role in both funding and directing the Wuhan laboratory research program.
Back to that original 2020 Lancet paper, the 27 WEF affiliated authors included both Peter Daszak and Jeremy Farrar (chief scientist at the World Health Organization since 2023. He was previously the director of The Wellcome Trust from 2013 to 2023).
From the 2020 Lancet paper: “The rapid, open, and transparent sharing of data on this outbreak is now being threatened by rumours and misinformation around its origins. We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.”
What Bantugan discovered is shocking. The publishers, the authors, the affiliated universities, the NGOs, and the funding sources are almost all directly linked to the WEF. They all continued to suppress information about the lab leak through out the pandemic. He writes:
Through content analysis, by way of a matrix of analysis, the study established the connections that exist between The Lancet and the WEF. The study argued through the Gatekeeping and Political Economy of Knowledge Production that the connections found between The Lancet and the WEF suggest likely collusion that led to the marginalization of the lab leak origin narrative as early as February 2020 and a network of disinformation within established but invisible networks of knowledge production.
Furthermore, scientific journals used what is called “gatekeeping” to withhold information.
According to Bantugan:
The term “gatekeeping” was coined by Kurt Lewin to refer to a process of blocking “unwanted or useless things by using a gate” (communicationtheory.org, n.d., para. 2). The theory asserts that “(t)he Gatekeeper decides what information should move to group or individual and what information should not” (para. 3). According to Shoemaker and Vos (2009), gatekeeping is the “… process (that) determines not only which information is selected, but also what the content and nature of messages … will be” (para. 1). Initially, it was used to describe the process of news production in mass media involving “selecting, writing, editing, positioning, scheduling, repeating, and otherwise massaging information to become news” (Vos & Reese, 2009, in Omlette à la Chantal, 2021).
First off, Lancet is owned by Elsevier which is owned by the WEF partner RELX Group. This fact, by the way, is not transparent on the Lancet website.
But it gets worse.
Some examples of this effort were Elsevier Novel Coronavirus Information Center, Center, the Wiley COVID-19 Resources and News portal, the Springer Nature COVID-19 resources centre, and the Frontiers Coronoravirus Knowledge Hub (Matias-Guiu, 2020). Elsevier is owned by WEF partner RELX Group. John Wiley & Sons published Schwab‟s Stakeholder Capitalism (WEF, 2022). Springer Nature is owned by WEF partner Holtzbrinck Publishing Group. Frontiers was founded by WEF-affiliated Henry Markram (WEF, 2022).
So, all of these publishers have direct ties to the WEF, yet they have been the gatekeepers of what got published during Covid-19, including publishing the original animal origins paper.
Of note, Frontiers in Pharmacology (founded by WEF-affiliated Henry Markram) was the publication that back-tracked on publishing any early treatment for Covid-19 studies. I was editor of the special edition for early treatment. When this happened, I and the other four senior editors resigned.
But the paper goes on to document that almost all of the 27 Lancet authors and their universities have strong affiliations to the WEF. The details of those relations are laid in a series of tables, which can be found here. But the paper goes on:
The fact that the authors of the controversial article in The Lancet are all quite involved with high- profile organizations like the UN-FAO, WHO, and the USAID reveals much about why they decided to support the actions that led to the immediate “conspiratorialization” of other hypotheses on the virus origins, and mass immunizations they heavily promoted not long after the lockdowns were in place all over the world.
Assuming that the UN-FAO, WHO, and the USAID operate within a seamless system, embodied by the One Health approach they championed years before the pandemic happened, it would not be difficult to think that the editorial processes linked to and supported by their system will work towards their and the WEF’s benefit and advantage.
The data show that the WEF is part of the micro and macro environments that shape editorial gatekeeping. There is a playing field biased towards their system and only ideas that promote their system will have a chance to be heard. That the lab leak hypothesis is silenced is what the article of the 27 authors may have likely aimed to ensure. Figure 1 below shows the network supporting the natural origins hypothesis of COVID-19.
Figure 1 below, based on the data above [tables found in the article], shows the complex relationships on which the WEF has firmly established itself. Through the influence of the WHO and UN-FAO, WEF is not only shaping WEF- affiliated higher education institutions but also those that look up them as models.
However, recent developments have shown that it is not only The Lancet that was rendered questionable by its decision to privilege the work of the 27 authors affiliated with WEF-linked universities, resulting in the marginalization of competing but equally valid theories on the origin of the COVID-19 virus, but also NatureMedicine (Campbell, 2022) which is also under an organization affiliated with the WEF.
Clearly, gatekeeping in scientific journals is seen here as equally vulnerable to the influence of the political and economic elite, like the rest of mainstream and social media. Given that leaked and redacted documents linking Fauci to some of the authors in the controversial The Lancet article have emerged (showing that some of the authors were communicating directly with him before the article was published) (Peak Prosperity, 2022), and the web of relationships in Figure 1, it is not surprising that the controversial article was released in no time. “Scientific” gatekeeping and “truth”-making seems to be favoring the interest of the WEF, above all.
Put together with the data in Tables 2 and 3, one can infer that the WEF has penetrated all the institutions that shape the minds of people, through their policies and programs.
The top executive editors of The Lancet, its owners, and funding agencies aside, the WEF has undeniably positioned itself to influence future leaders, policymakers, and knowledge gatekeepers like The Lancet, especially those in prestigious schools that can only be accessed by the privileged and the wealthy. It is not difficult to think that the interest of the WEF would be top-of-mind among the students and graduates of such universities compared to the multitude who have no interest in the workings of the WEF at all.
Right now, Disease X and One Health are being portrayed in the mainstream media as being the solution to save the world from a massive die off. This propaganda is being driven by the WEF in collaboration with the WHO. The EcoHealth Alliance is also at the forefront of the One Health initiative, and has collected millions of dollars for their research projects into One Health. The Davos meeting is being used to prop up support for the WHO Pandemic Treaty that removes national sovereignty over public health.
The WEF and the WHO envision solutions to the imaginary “Disease X” that involve more loss of freedoms. They want more control over food systems, more money, more censorship, more surveillance, more control over the climate change agenda — all in the name of public health. But even worse, they want all this codified in a document that turns over national sovereignty to the WHO.
The WEF and the WHO know that One Health and the pandemic agreement are their best pathways to more world control.
Without ever consulting sovereign nations, the WHO has place the global “rights in nature” movement on par or above humans. This is why the One Health model must be rejected.
At the World Economic Forum’s 2024 discussion “Preparing for Disease X,” WHO Director General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus spoke about the Pandemic Agreement:
To have better preparedness and to address disease X we have Pandemic Agreement. The Pandemic Agreement can bring all the experience and all the challenges we have faced all in one…. This is a common global interest and very narrow national interest should not come in the way. Of course, national interest is natural but it is narrow national interest that can be difficult and affecting the negotiations as we speak.
This is the face of the enemy.
This particular embodiment of the enemy comes in the form of the WEF and the WHO. They now control the buttons for the mainstream media, the fact-checkers, academic institutions, the publishers of scientific journals, and heads of state. The list of who they own or have bought off is almost endless.
The fight in front of us is vast. Now is not the time to give up.
