By Mark Anderson
A seldom-discussed futuristic report, released under the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the National Intelligence Council—whose contributors included the infamous Council on Foreign Relations, the Brookings Institution and the Atlantic Council, among other well-connected think tanks and individuals—is entitled “Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World″ but was released back in 2008. Curiously, Page 75 envisions a deadly world “pandemic” likely to involve a “Zoonotic Coronavirus” probably originating in China by 2025 at the very latest. The actual initial viral outbreak was said to have occured in Wuhan, China in early 2020.
The 100-page report, hidden in plain sight, was released 11 years before Event 201, a much-talked-about drill described by its participants as a “pandemic tabletop exercise” of how society should respond to a “novel, Zoonotic Coronavirus” originating in China. Interestingly Event 201 was held Oct. 18, 2019 in New York City’s Pierre Hotel—just over two months before the official emergence of the Zoonotic (transmissible from animals to humans) “novel” SARS Cov-2 coronavirus reportedly emerged in China. Event 201’s uncanny timing—and due to the fact that its sponsors were the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Economic Forum and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health’s Center for Health Security—has sparked strong suspicions that the pandemic is a “plandemic” since the Gates outfit and the WEF are tainted with evidence of leveraging “covid” for illicit vaccine profiteering and power-grabbing propaganda.
The 2025 report’s chief author is longtime CIA apparatchik and Cambridge-educated academic Mat Burrows, who also played a key role in three earlier future-scenario reports that looked ahead to 2010, 2015 and 2020. There is also a 2030 report. Notably, Burrows, who landed a position at the Atlantic Council, has criticized the U.S. government for not taking adequate precautions against pandemics. Very recently, another future trends report finished in March of 2021 looks ahead some 19 years, to 2040. Look for more on all these reports in future WIN articles.
BURROWS RESPONDS TO THIS WRITER
In answer to your question about the government apparatus taking effective action in regard to the pandemic warning we provided in 2008 when GT 2025 was published, it wasn’t taken seriously in terms of stockpiling needed PPE [Personal Protective Equipment] and other medical supplies and even more importantly in developing an information strategy for the public. Lives could have been spared in the early phase with better supplied and staffed medical facilities and a better information strategy. Like many threats that are predictable, the Trump government felt more comfortable with blaming China and political posturing. I disagree with your suggestion that existing therapeutics were short-changed. I think the experimental vaccines—Pfizer and Moderna—turned about to highly effective even if the strategy to convince the public to take them wasn’t. There was good reason to invest heavily in the experimental vaccines. Where I strongly agree with you is on the pandemic’s predictability. Politicians will excuse themselves by saying that the . . . health community could not provide the exact date when the pandemic would strike. But we and others like NIH did provide a very accurate warning. Even lacking the precise date, the government should have be more better prepared as they have become [regarding] natural disasters such as earthquakes, hurricanes etc.
So, while the Global Trends 2025 report may represent evidence of pandemics being planned, it could also be interpreted as a means of assessing likely or plausible scenarios so that policy-makers can plan ahead and intervene. If viewed through that lens, some might argue that the world’s governing authorities could have and should have, as Burrows indicated, taken anti-pandemic precautions a long time ago—although there is plenty of evidence, such as that frequently voiced by Dr. Peter McCullough, that proactively distributing long-existing, essential therapeutics in lieu of experimental vaccines that utilize novel mRNA technology would have been a wise move. A vaccine-only approach funnels massive profits to Big Pharma, incentivizing monetary gain over the public good—about which Burrows seems oblivious.
Regardless of the perspective one may adopt—be it a “plandemic” or plausible future trends—then you either have something conspiratorial or something approaching a self-fulfilling prophecy where government and medical authorities, via inaction, greed, corruption and misplaced priorities, create the very problems they are entrusted to prevent.
At any rate, Page 75 of Global Trends 2025, in part, states:
The emergence of a novel, highly transmissible and virulent human respiratory illness for which there are no adequate countermeasures could initiate a global pandemic. If a pandemic disease emerges by 2025, internal and cross-border tension and conflict will become more likely as nations struggle—with degraded capabilities—to control the movement of populations seeking to avoid infection or maintain access to resources. . . . Experts consider highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) strains such as H5N1, to be likely candidates for such a transformation, but other pathogens—such as the SARS coronavirus or other influenza strains—also have this potential. If a pandemic disease emerges, it will probably first occur in an area marked by high population density and close association between humans and animals, such as many areas of China and southeast Asia.
The “2025” report adds, rather darkly: “The absence of an effective vaccine [assuming a vaccine is the only viable answer] and near universal lack of immunity [arguably an unlikely scenario] would render populations vulnerable to infection [though nothing is mentioned about younger people getting moderately ill and developing natural immunity]. In this worst case, tens to hundreds of millions of Americans within the U.S. Homeland would become ill and deaths would mount into the tens of millions.”
A fifth such report, “Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds,” written in 2012, was again largely Burrows’ brainchild and also contemplated a serious pandemic, primarily on Page 13, where, compared to “2025,” it gives a broader but toned-down outlook on probable outbreaks—while mentioning “a bat coronavirus that jumped to humans in 2002 to cause SARs.”
Perhaps these futuristic reports that never seem to make the nightly news are an exercise in semantics, in which “spooks” hide their prescriptions for a tyrannical planned society under a pretense of academic “impartiality.’ Notably, the myriad other subjects covered in these reports largely repeat the same globalist party line on everything from Western policy toward Iran, “climate change,” confronting nationalism, the persistence or rise of religious and cultural identity, isolationist tendencies, etc. Therefore one might conclude that the professed concern over pandemics is put forth to look like detached humanitarianism but ultimately benefit the plutocratic power structure that produces these reports. On the other hand, it’s clear that the U.S. government and other governments of the world have contemplated pandemics for a long time, so it’s an open question as to whether they attempted to heed their own warnings or not. Either way, the governance structure that runs the world—its lofty, verbose, often hyperbolic pretenses aside—is, as is typically the case, secretive, too assured of its own omnipotence and weak on real solutions.