in-this-master-class-presentation-journalist-paul-schreyer-shows-how-the-covid-pandemic-had-been-planned-in-essence-since-at-least-the-year-2000

In this Master-Class Presentation Journalist Paul Schreyer Shows How the COVID ‘Pandemic’ Had Been Planned (in Essence), Since at Least the Year 2000


In this hour-long chronological presentation from 2020 German journalist Paul Schreyer shows how the COVID-19 “pandemic” and response had been planned for more than 20 years. Beginning around the year 2000, Schreyer shows how a cabal of elites from the G20 nations regularly went through “pandemic planning exercises,” where they discussed how to keep people in their homes, censor “misinformation,” and assemble mass vaccination campaigns. Amongst the discussed exercises, Schreyer goes over Event 201, Dark Winter, Atlantic Storm, Clade X, et al.


Writer’s note: If the video of Schreyer’s talk is pulled from YouTube (for whatever reason…), there is a backup of it on Rumble at the bottom of this post.

The idea that there was significant foreknowledge of the 2020 COVID-19 “pandemic”—particularly amongst the “ruling elites”—has been forever pigeonholed as “conspiracy theory” by the mainstream media, as well as those who glom onto it as a substitute for critical thought. If one had a single shot at convincing an incredulous “conspiracy theory” doubter that COVID was indeed a “plandemic,” however, the below hour-long presentation from German journalist Paul Schreyer would have to be the go-to piece of evidence. Because in this eye-opening presentation, Schreyer shows how the architecture for the response to COVID by authorities (both public and private) had been orchestrated at the highest levels of global governance for at least 20 years. And he has the proverbial receipts from numerous “planning exercises” that took place over the years to support his claims.

Schreyer’s presentation, which was posted on YouTube on March 10, 2021, begins at the end of the Cold War, and takes listeners on a tour of how the U.S. government has continuously found ways since then to splurge on the country’s military and intelligence apparatuses and beef up its surveillance capabilities by—in essence—frightening the American public into agreeing to the expenditures and privacy overreaches. Despite their original inclination not to do so.

“The situation we are experiencing right now, the fear of a virus and ensuing measures that extremely restrict liberties is exactly the situation that has been repeatedly and intensely trained and rehearsed in the past years with all kinds of infectious disease simulations,” Schreyer says. “What I am going to present to you now are not speculations, but well-recorded and documented facts.”

Schreyer goes on to note that in 1991, Colin Powell, who was at the time the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—the highest military position in the Department of Defense (DoD)—said in response to the end of the Persian Gulf War: “I’m running out of demons, I’m running out of villains, I’m down to Castro and Kim Ill-Sung.” Just two years later, Schreyer points out, there was a terrorist attack—by “Islamic fundamentalists” according to the FBI—on the World Trade Center in the form of a bomb detonated in the underground parking lot of the North Tower.

A year later, in 1994, then-President Bill Clinton said that “The Cold War may be over, but… the need for American leadership abroad remains as strong as ever.” Clinton added “I am committed to forging a new public consensus to sustain our active engagement abroad.” Schreyer says the key word in Clinton’s ’94 remark is “consensus,” as “it did not exist at the time.” On the contrary, Schreyer says, the American public at the time wanted peace. Even a literal peace dividend.

The destroyed Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building after the bombing. Image: Leonard Brakebill, Oklahoma Air National Guard

In March of 1995, then-head of the senate judiciary committee Joe Biden proposed legislation that aimed to give more power to the President and the executive branch in general in case of a major terror attack. Schreyer notes, however, that the law was met with “great resistance.” Then, just a few weeks later, there was another terrorist attack on U.S. soil: this time, the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma with a truck bomb that killed approximately 170 people and injured 1,000 more. “Anti-government extremist” and former U.S. soldier (and veteran of the Gulf War) Timothy McVeigh was found guilty of the crime and executed in June of 2001.

Schreyer notes the Oklahoma City Bombing was so significant that “it attained new meaning” for the word “terrorism.” High-ranking government officials—particularly in the intelligence community—used the indelible mark made by the bombing on Americans’ minds to push more fear. Schreyer references one particular article published in the Los Angeles Times in 1997, which was co-written by then-Director of the CIA James Woolsey, as well as a very high-level Pentagon official. The article stoked fears of terrorism to the nth degree, claiming that the World Trade Center bombing and the Oklahoma City Bombing “would have been far worse if nuclear, biological or chemical materials had been involved.” The article’s authors added that “After cochairing a yearlong study for the government, we believe it is increasingly likely [there] will be.”

One of the “anthrax letters” addressed to Senator Tom Daschle. Image: FBI

In the same year (’97) as the Los Angeles Times article—as well as many others on the topic of terrorism—were published, William Cohen, then-Secretary of Defense, announced at a press conference an agenda that pushed for another $1 billion to be poured into the defense budget. Cohen would go on to hold up a five-pound bag of sugar on daytime television and say that if Saddam Hussein sprayed the equivalent amount of Anthrax—a spore-forming bacterium, Bacillus anthracis, which causes severe illness and death—over Washington D.C., it could kill half the city’s inhabitants in five days.

As Cohen and other fear mongers in the U.S. government and the media hyped the possibility of biological terrorist attacks, Schreyer notes the weaponry to pull off such an attack was being fabricated at US facilities. Schreyer highlights two projects that were undertaken at the time, including “Clear Vision,” a covert examination of Soviet-made biological bomblets conducted by the Battelle Memorial Institute under contract with the CIA, and “Project Jefferson,” a covert U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency program supposedly designed to determine if America’s anthrax vaccine of choice was effective against genetically modified bacteria.

It was around this time, Schreyer notes, that Colonel Robert Kadlec “took center stage.” Kadlec, who served as the UN bioweapons inspector in the Iraq War in 1991, wrote in a 1998 internal strategy paper for the Pentagon that “Using biological weapons under the cover an endemic or natural disease occurrence provides an attacker [the] potential for plausible denial.” Kadlec added “Biological warfare’s potential to create significant economic loss and subsequent political instability coupled with plausible denial exceeds the possibilities of any other known weapon.”

Image: WIR – Wissen ist relevant

Around the time Kadlec put out his paper, the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security was founded. The organization, Schreyer notes, “played a major role for [providing] vital [healthcare] data.” Indeed, he notes that the Center for Health Security—which was originally called the Center for Civilian Biodefense Strategies—established the widely used “dashboard” for COVID-19 cases in 2020 and beyond.

Schreyer notes the Center for Health Security was established thanks to the help of the Sloan Foundation (former President of General Motors Alfred Sloan’s foundation), and began to hold “very important and essential simulation exercises in the field of disaster response strategies” beginning in 1999. The Center for Health Security held its first exercise in February of 1999, which was titled: The National Symposium on Medical and Public Health Response to Bioterrorism.

Link to The National Symposium on Medical and Public Health Response to Bioterrorism
Link to The National Symposium on Medical and Public Health Response to Bioterrorism

The 1999 Johns Hopkins exercise included hundreds of participants from 10 countries, and convened in Arlington, Virginia, the home to the Pentagon. During the exercise—which was put on by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) along with several other scientific organizations—participants acted out what they’d do in the event of a smallpox terrorist attack with a massive number of victims; conducting a mock conference call to coordinate a strategic response. In the summary report of the exercise, questions like “How far can police go to detain quarantine patients?” and “Should martial law have been implemented?” were discussed.

Schreyer notes that Richard A. Clarke, a high-level counter-terrorism advisor to the U.S. government involved with the exercise, emphasized the fact that, “For the first time, the Department of Health is part of the national security apparatus of the United States.”

In the same year the Pentagon continued its bioweapons research with endeavors like Project Bacchus, which was a covert investigation by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and DoD to determine whether it is possible to construct a bioweapons—specifically anthrax—production facility with off-the-shelf equipment. The military carried out the tests on a base in Nevada that was, at one time, used as a testing site for nuclear weapons.

In 2000, the next symposium on bioterrorism was held. The exercise, Epidemic Response Scenario: Decision Making in a Time of Plague, discussed things like: What would happen if the presence of an armed military in U.S. cities provoked protest regarding curtailment of civil liberties? And how much force should be used to keep people in their homes?

In 2001, the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security—still known at that time as the Center for Civilian Biodefense Studies—held another smallpox exercise dubbed Dark Winter. Sponsors for the exercise included the Sloan Foundation as well as the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. (Robert Wood Johnson is one of the founders of Johnson & Johnson.)

Image: WIR – Wissen ist relevant

Dark Winter was held at Andrews Air Force Base, a large military base just a few miles from Washington D.C. The exercise, Schreyer notes, was given a name like that of a Hollywood film, and was highly publicized. Amongst the key players in the exercise were former CIA Director James Woolsey (who co-authored the aforementioned Los Angeles Times article), then-Governor of Oklahoma Frank Keating, and other high-ranking U.S. government officials. Journalists from the likes of The New York Times also participated in the exercise. Schreyer notes several of Dark Winter’s supposed key findings were that “America lacks the resource stockpiles required for appropriate response” and “Forcible constraints on citizens may likely be the only tools available when vaccine stocks are depleted.”

Robert Kadlec also participated in Dark Winter, and even noted (while playing his role in the exercise) that “The problem is, we do not have enough vaccine… [which] means this could be a very dark winter in America.” (If the “Dark Winter” phrase sounds familiar, that may be because Joe Biden warned Americans of a “dark winter” in November of 2020, during an uptick in seasonal coronaviruses.)

Image: WIR – Wissen ist relevant

In the final script of the Dark Winter exercise, its coordinators wrote that “Americans can no longer take basic civil liberties such as freedom of assembly or travel for granted.” Just months after the Dark Winter exercise was held, the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center was executed. A little later in the year, the so-called “anthrax attacks” happened, wherein letters containing a fine white powder laced with bacterium bacillus anthracis were sent to Senators Patrick Leahy and Tom Daschle; both of whom, Schreyer points out, were critical of the legal changes pushed after the 2001 attack. E.g. The Patriot Act, which aim to greatly ramp up the government’s surveillance of its own citizens.

Schreyer notes that—to this day—it’s still not clear who was responsible for the anthrax attacks on Leahy and Daschle, although he points out that, because everybody knows senators have employees opening their mail for them, the attacks did not aim to harm the senators, but rather “only intimidate” them. Indeed, both Leahy and Daschle stopped putting up a fight against the new legal changes introduced after 9/11 and the laws were passed.

Image: WIR – Wissen ist relevant

Along with the passage of new laws to give more surveillance powers to the U.S. federal government, Schreyer also notes that the Global Health Security Initiative (GHSI) was established in November of 2001 due to the anthrax scare. Senior officials and health ministers from the GHSI member states, including the G8 countries, and the World Health Organization (WHO) as “technical advisor,” regularly met to discuss bioterrorism “in order to coordinate with each other.” In 2002, Schreyer notes, GHSI declared that emergency planning for bioterrorism is quite similar to that of preparing for an influenza pandemic; so from 2002 on, both were prepared for simultaneously. Indeed, a “strategic planning group” for possible pandemics was led by Great Britain and the U.S.

The first “planning exercise” held by GHSI was called Global Mercury, and was coordinated internationally in 2003. The elaborate exercise, which stretched over several days, involved hundreds of people, including members of Germany’s Robert Koch Institute (Germany’s equivalent of the CDC).

Image: WIR – Wissen ist relevant

In 2005, GHSI put on another exercise, this time dubbed “Atlantic Storm.” For the exercise, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright played the U.S. President, and led players through a scenario that tackled questions such as: “How should national leaders determine measures such as border closures or quarantine?” and “If actions are taken to restrict the movement of people, for how long would restrictions have to be maintained… and how would the decision be made to lift them?”

“[T]he basic premise of every one of these scenarios was a public health emergency with ensuing questions about the decision-making process and competences,” Schreyer notes. The journalist adds that “[T]hey also involved declaring a state of emergency, implementing authoritarian leadership, bypassing parliament, and investing certain federal officials with augmented decision making power.”

Image: WIR – Wissen ist relevant

“Particularly noteworthy is the ready suspension of basic human rights when responding to a pandemic or bio-terror attack, because that is not necessarily a logical consequence,” Schreyer says. He notes that, in his opinion, the exercises “might have served as a cover and testing ground for a state of emergency and checking out how such a political situation could be handled.”

Following the financial collapse of 2007-2008, Schreyer notes that “another pandemic came around the corner to put it casually.” It was the H1N1 flu (or “Swine flu”). At that time (2009), the journalist says that French economic and social theorist, writer, and political adviser Jacques Attali—who has “moved in the circles of French power elites” over the course of his career and helped to “discover” French President Emmanuel Macron—wrote something interesting when the 2009 H1N1 flu hit:

“History teaches us that humanity advances in great strides if it is frightened. The pandemic now setting in might trigger one of these fears that cause structural changes. Then we will be able to lay the foundation for a world government. Something to accomplish much faster than it would’ve been possible by economic reasons alone.”

Schreyer notes that what he finds striking about Attali’s remark is that that kind of sentiment is usually associated with “conspiracy theories.”

In 2010, Schreyer notes the so-called Lock Step scenario was written and disseminated. Lock Step, a part of the Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development series of plans, was financed by the Rockefeller Foundation, and took pandemic planning to “an entirely new level” according to Schreyer. The exercise was based on the premise that a deadly flu pandemic had broken out across the globe, but China, with its restrictive approach to the outbreak performed especially well in regards to infection spread and loss of human life. Using China’s lockdown model, the rest of the world implements authoritarian measures like lockdowns and mandatory masking. The exercise goes on to “predict” that people start rebelling against the authoritarian measures—after about 10 years of enduring them.

Link to planning exercise

“It is very odd to read [Lock Step] now in 2020, recognizing in that depiction our present reality,” Schreyer notes. “You come to realize that the study’s underlying objective is to seed a new strategic conversation among the key public private and philanthropic stakeholders so as to achieve impact more effectively for a preferred future.”

In 2017, with the ushering in of the Trump administration in the U.S., Schreyer notes “the topic of emergency response and pandemic simulation exercises gained traction… .” With the new government, the journalist says, there was a reinvigoration of pandemic simulation exercises.

At the Munich Security Conference in 2017, Schreyer notes world leaders spoke in troubled tones about Donald Trump, with Senator John McCain specifically saying “I refuse to accept the demise of our world order.” Bill Gates, who was also in attendance, warned attendees that “We ignore the link between health security and international security at our own peril.” The former Microsoft CEO added that “It’s only a matter of time [before] a dangerous pathogen will spread, whether by a quirk of nature or at the hands of a terrorist.” Gates added that “We need to be prepared with a new arsenal of weapons. The world needs to prepare for epidemics the way the military prepares for war.”

In May 2017 the health ministers of the G20 met in Berlin—sent by the 20 most powerful and wealthy nations in the world, as well as China, India, and Brazil. At this meeting, Schreyer notes the health ministers “came together as a team in order to organize their response to the threat of a future pandemic.” The name of the faux disease tackled at the G20 meeting in Berlin was MARS, or “Mountain Associated Respiratory Syndrome.”

Schreyer notes the health minister attendees “were given the same general recipes and procedural instructions that are now being realized in a synchronized way [with COVID-19].”

In August of 2017, the German health minister assembled an international advisory board for German health policy, as well as global health policy. On the advisory board were, amongst others, Jeremy Farrar of the Wellcome Trust, Christian Drosten—who developed the faulty PCR test that was deployed to identify cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection—and Christopher Elias of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Image: WIR – Wissen ist relevant

Shreyer notes that Elias and Farrar—in control of approximately $75 billion in funding between their respective “foundations”—sat at a table with Drosten, et al. and molded “global health governance” policy.

In 2018, there was yet another pandemic planning exercise, dubbed “Clade X.” As with many of the earlier planning exercises, Clade X was also organized by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, and included amongst its roleplaying members Tom Daschle (the recipient of one of the anthrax letters in 2001), as well as “biosecurity expert” Tara O’ Toole, who authored the Dark Winter scenario. Schreyer notes the plot of the exercise was as follows: “a fictional elitist cult had financed the creation of a nasty virus in a biolab in Zurich. It was eventually let loose so that a global pandemic has arisen. The aim of that cult had been to reduce the global population.”

Before going on to Event 201, which took place in 2019, Schreyer notes that in mid-September of the same year “stock markets were in panic” due to a “repo crisis.” This repo crisis Schreyer refers to—which former BlackRock fund manager Edward Dowd has also spoken about as being a key event in recent history—was a late-2019 crisis wherein the sellers and buyers of government securities—specifically the largest four banks in the U.S., including Bank of America, J.P. Morgan, et al.—were unable to keep doing so because of a “liquidity crisis.” That is, the major banks were no longer buying and selling securities to each other, and the Federal Reserve Bank had to start pumping money into the repo—or “repurchase agreement”—market (which has a turnover rate of $1-2 trillion per day) in order to prop it up.

Schreyer reads from a German article discussing the repo crisis, noting that the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank tried to prevent a breakdown in the repo market by injecting it with billions of dollars. The article notes the repo crisis was exactly like the financial crisis 11 years prior; this time, beginning with the borrowing rate for short-term credits for banks spiking from 2% to 10%.

Image: WIR – Wissen ist relevant

“In short,” Schreyer notes, “the Fed actively [participated] in the economy by creating money and injecting it into the domestic banking system in order to compensate for the fact that the interbank lending market [had] dried up because banks [had] lost confidence and [held] onto their reserves.”

Immediately above Schreyer shows the Federal Reserve Bank’s balance sheet—the amount of assets it owns due to pumping money into the monetary system—which the journalist refers to as the “fever chart” for America. Schreyer points out the Fed owned $1 trillion in assets prior to the 2008 financial collapse, but doubled its balance sheet afterward “because the confidence [in the market] was gone… so the Federal Reserve had to fill in.” Purchases then continued through 2017, plateauing at $4 trillion.

Image: WIR – Wissen ist relevant

After plateauing, the Fed began to draw down its balance sheet by selling its assets. However, Schreyer notes, in mid-September 2019 something mysterious happened for which the journalist cannot offer an explanation: the confidence in the repo market was reduced down to “nothing,” and the Fed again had to step in and start buying assets (e.g. the repurchase agreements exchanged between banks).

From September on, the Fed administered “ever-increasing cash injections that [had] nothing to do with [the COVID-19] crisis.” After COVID was announced as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (or PHEIC), the Fed continued its policy, even ramping up its spending.

Schreyer cites one German economics journalist, Norbert Häring, who wrote in 2020 that “The Fed explained its interventions with the less than convincing reason of temporary miscalculations. Saying it was out of the question that the banks didn’t trust each other.” Häring added that “The alleged miscalculations apparently seem to be rather persistent. Four months later the Fed’s emergency lending is still perpetrated in unrestrained amounts [and] an end is not in sight.”

“It might be that the financial market boom fueled by central banks is in its final phase before collapsing,” Häring added in his article.

Moving backward in time slightly, Schreyer finally touches on Event 201, which took place in October of 2019 in an “exceptionally luxurious” hotel in New York City. “Sure enough, it was a coronavirus pandemic that was being responded to,” Schreyer says. Members who took part in the exercise included, amongst others, the host from the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Christopher Elias from the Gates Foundation, the then-Director of the CDC Robert Redfield, the center for China’s equivalent of the CDC, the Vice President of Global Public Health at Johnson & Johnson, the former deputy director of the CIA, and the global chief operating officer at Edelman, the world’s largest public relations and communications firm.

At the Event 201 conference participants discussed how “governments will need partner with traditional and social media companies to research and develop nimble approaches to countering misinformation. This will require developing the ability to flood the media with fast, accurate, and consistent information.” The participants also concluded that “media companies should commit to ensuring that authoritative messages are prioritized and that false messages are suppressed including through the use of technology.” Schreyer notes that “This is basically just what is happening at this very moment [during the COVID crisis].”

“[T]he present censorship by social media giants like Youtube and Google has been expressly advised on that Event 201 just a few months before today’s Corona Crisis.” Schreyer adds that “What had been planned then is now reality.” In summary, Schreyer notes “all [this] information taken together provides a crucial backdrop for you to form your own opinion for what is happening at the moment.”


Feature image: WIR – Wissen ist relevant

(Visited 126 times, 41 visits today)

Accessibility Toolbar