Jump to content
Bit Of A Yarn

It was all about money and political power!

Recommended Posts

Disease-X Is A High-Return Business Strategy ⋆ Brownstone Institute

Fearistan, having done very well economically and provided its citizens a long lifespan, noticed that people were still occasionally dying in road accidents. Fearistanis were wealthy and really liked the freedom to travel. While road deaths were uncommon, any unnecessary death surely seemed worth avoiding.

The road-building industry, working closely with government, came up with the idea of building 6-lane highways between cities. Soon the big cities were all connected, and experts from the University of Transport proved that the new highways had a 7 percent lower accident rate than normal roads. University modelers predicted that if 6-lane highways were built between every town in Fearistan, they would save thousands of lives. Experts predicted that they would even save more lives than were actually dying on the existing roads.

The country followed the experts (they were, after all, renowned for building roads) and invested in 6-lane highways everywhere. While the country exhausted itself and most people could not afford to drive their cars anymore, they were rightly grateful that the road-builders were saving them. The near empty roads were now almost completely accident-free, proving the experts right.

Eventually, the road-building industry faced a dilemma; they were running out of towns to which roads could be built. This was not what their investors needed. Then the road regulator and the road-builders met and identified an urgent need to build roads to towns that did not yet exist. Fearistan had vast areas of empty desert that were completely open to town-building. When such towns were eventually built, experts predicted an inevitable and devastating tsunami of road accidents. This would return Fearistan to the total carnage from which they had so narrowly escaped years before. The new Town-X roads (as they termed them) were brilliant examples of high-tech road construction. And everyone could see how important this work was, to keep the public safe. 

In public health, we follow a similarly important business model. We call it ‘Disease-X.’

Understanding pandemic risk from infectious disease

Humans suffered for millennia from pandemics or ‘plagues.’ These killed up to a third of some populations. While causes in some cases remain unclear, such as the Athenian plague of 430 BC, the major plagues since Medieval times were mostly bacterial; particularly bubonic plague, cholera, and typhus. 

Bacterial pandemics ceased in late 19th century Europe with improved sanitation, and elsewhere after the addition of antibiotics. Most deaths from the pre-antibiotic Spanish flu outbreak in the early 20th century are also thought to be untreated secondary bacterial pneumonia. Cholera remains an intermittent marker of extreme poverty and social disruption, whilst most deaths from malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDS are associated with poverty, which restricts access to effective treatment.

When indigenous populations long separated from the bulk of humanity encountered carriers of smallpox and measles, the effects were also devastating. Having no inherited immunity, whole populations were decimated, particularly in the Americas, Pacific Islands, and Australia. 

Now the world is connected, and such mass death events don’t occur. Connectedness can be a strong defense against pandemics, contrary to what Disease X proponents claim, through its role in supporting early-age immunity and frequent boosting.

These realities reflect orthodox public health but are poorly compatible with current business models. They are, therefore, increasingly ignored.

A century of safety

The past hundred years have seen two significant natural influenza pandemic events (in 1957-8 and 1968-9) and one major coronavirus outbreak (Covid-19) that appears to have arisen from gain-of-function research in a lab. The influenza outbreaks each killed less than currently die annually from tuberculosis, while the coronavirus outbreak was associated with mortality at average age above 75 years, with roughly 1.5 people per thousand dying globally.

While the media fusses about other outbreaks, they have actually been relatively small events. SARS-1 in 2003 killed about 800 people worldwide, or less than half the number of children that die every single day from malaria. MERS killed about 850 people, and the West African Ebola outbreak killed about 11,300. Context here is important; tuberculosis kills over 1.5 million people every year while malaria kills over half a million children, and over 600,000 people die of cancer each year in the United States alone. SARS-1, MERS and Ebola may gain more media coverage than tuberculosis, but this is unrelated to actual risk.

Why are we living longer?

The reason behind increasing human lifespans is frequently forgotten, or ignored. As medical students were once taught, advancements came primarily through improved sanitation, better living conditions, better nutrition, and antibiotics; the same changes responsible for the reduction in pandemics. Vaccines came after most improvement had already occurred (with a few exceptions such as smallpox).

While vaccines do remain an important addition, they are also of particular importance to pharmaceutical companies. They can be mandated, and together with the constant birth of children this provides a continuing, predictable, and profitable market. This is not an anti-vaccine statement. It is just a statement of fact. Facts are what health policy should be based on.

So, we can be confident that, barring an intentional or accidental release of a pathogen engineered by humans, it is highly unlikely that a Medieval-style outbreak will affect anyone currently living. While poverty will reduce life expectancy, it will remain relatively high in wealthier countries. However, we can also be very confident that those half-million young children will die of malaria next year and that 1.5 million people, many of them children and young adults, will die of tuberculosis. 

Over 300,000 women in low-income countries will also die agonizing deaths from cervical cancer because they cannot access cheap screening. We know this, because it happens every year – it is what international public health, particularly the World Health Organization (WHO), was supposed to prioritize.

The ability to monetize an illusion

The Covid-19 response demonstrated how the sponsors of international public health institutions have found a way to monetize public health. This business model involves promoting abnormal responses to relatively normal viruses. It employs behavioral psychology and media campaigns to instill inappropriate fear into the public, then ‘locking them down’ – prison terminology before 2020. The public may then regain a degree of freedom (e.g., fly to visit a dying relative, or work) if they agree to take a vaccine, which in turn directly benefits the original sponsors of the scheme. The heavy public investment in Covid-19 mRNA vaccine development enabled pharmaceutical companies and their investors to reap unprecedented returns.

The major public-private partnership for vaccine development for pandemics, CEPI (inaugurated at the World Economic Forum in 2017), states that “The threat of Disease-X infecting the human population, and spreading quickly around the world, is greater than ever before.” 

Health practitioners are quite susceptible to this propaganda (they are only human). Many also seek income from investments and patents from technologies that may help lock others down or make vaccine production quicker and cheaper. Basing their salaries and careers on loyalty to this pandemic industry, they join in vilifying and scapegoating those who speak against it. Shielded by their sponsors’ ‘greater threat than ever before’ claims, they can blind themselves to the major causes of ill health and act as if only pandemic risk matters.

Why not rely on existing threats?

Despite current efforts with yet another variant, Covid-19 is losing its ability to scare. Sustained fear is necessary for politicians in penetrated governments (as Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum notes) to provide this support. This business paradigm requires a continuing target. 

The overall aim is for the public to think that only a corporate authoritarian (fascist) nanny-state can save them from a continuing threat. Major natural outbreaks being rare, and lab escapes also infrequent, Disease-X fills this need. It provides the material for the media and politicians to work with between variant or monkeypox events.

Where to from here?

For the public, diversion of resources to fairyland diseases will increase mortality by diverting funding for real threats and productive areas of investment. Of course, if increasing lab leaks of engineered pathogens are expected from ongoing and future research, that would be different. But then this would have to be explained plainly and transparently, and prevention may be more effective than a very expensive cure.

Disease-X is a business strategy, dependent on a series of fallacies, dressed up as an altruistic concern for human welfare. Embraced by powerful people, the world they move in accepts amoral practice in public health as a legitimate path to their version of success. 

If our primary aim is to channel taxpayer funding to development of biotechnologies that the public can then be mandated to buy, to their own detriment but at great benefit to the developers, then Disease-X is the road forward. This market model ensures that a relative few can concentrate wealth gained from the many, at virtually no risk to themselves. The public must decide whether they want to keep their part of this highly abusive bargain.

Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author.


  • David Bell

    David Bell, Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is a public health physician and biotech consultant in global health. He is a former medical officer and scientist at the World Health Organization (WHO), Programme Head for malaria and febrile diseases at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) in Geneva, Switzerland, and Director of Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund in Bellevue, WA, USA.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, holy ravioli said:

Bit late to the party there old chap.

National have confirmed time and again they would basically followed the same response to Covid19 as the Govt did,and most of the West adopted.

Who said anything about National or Labour?

You really do have it bad don't you.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Certainly the lowest in Europe.

Some West African countries had no problem with Covid because their populations didn't have access to the poison jabs. What they did have was the majority of peoples taking Quinine tablets weekly for Malaria, which in turn protected as a side effect against Covid. Thats why Trump suggested Hydroxychloroquine in early 2020 was an effective cure for Covid for which he was roundly ridiculed. The Africans were also using Ivermectin for river blindness which also is a protection and cure against Covid. So the end result was that Covid was not an issue for those African country's that either chose or were too poor to buy big pharma's poison.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

You heard it correctly.  To think this BS cost the country at least $100b.  

You better believe it because word on the street is, nappies, jabs, and mandates are set to return. Sept 16th our time for the rollout to start USA. We being under the control of Blackrock will fall into line regardless of Nat Act or Labour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, aquaman said:

You better believe it because word on the street is, nappies, jabs, and mandates are set to return. Sept 16th our time for the rollout to start USA. We being under the control of Blackrock will fall into line regardless of Nat Act or Labour.

Do you really think the population will conform this time?

This article is a good summary of the growing concerns with the mRNA vaccines.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do believe most will obey. Fear, bottomless pits of money, the law, they will obey. Last time they jabbed about 75%. This time more will wake up, so possibly get 60%, Thats my guess anyway, if it happens.  Dr John Campbell's latest blurb on this new variant is most informing, came out about the 3rd Sept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, aquaman said:

I do believe most will obey. Fear, bottomless pits of money, the law, they will obey. Last time they jabbed about 75%. This time more will wake up, so possibly get 60%, Thats my guess anyway, if it happens.  Dr John Campbell's latest blurb on this new variant is most informing, came out about the 3rd Sept.

Have you seen a copy of the unredacted document that Pzifer submitted to the EU, Australia TGA and presumably the NZ MOH?  In it you will see how many of the normal tests and safeguards for approving a vaccine were bypassed.

Remember we were told that the contents of the vaccine do not travel throughout the body but remained localised at the injection site?  Well in  that report there is a table showing the results of a pharmacokinetc lab test on 3 rats (or mice) where the results show distribution to every organ in the body.

Or the assumptions made by WHO that the contents of the vaccines were no different to the one other previously approved RNA vaccine therefore Pzifer could ride in on that.  The serious flaw is that the RNA type used was different as were the nano-lipids.  The latter were substantially different and a recent study with mice has shown that they are extremely inflammatory (whatever you do don't inhale them as all the mice that were treated intranasally died from extreme cytokinine responses).

But worse the whole document was based on trials (lab, animal and human) done using a different manufacturing process than the one used to mass produce the vaccine.  The trial vaccine was produced under very controlled lab processes that couldn't be scaled up.

The same with the nanolipid manufacturing - the process used was very difficult to get consistency in quality.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...