An Introduction
In early 2021, The Rockefeller Foundation granted $417,000 over a period of four months to the University of Virginia “towards the costs of the Covid Commission Planning Group.”1 The aim of this group is purported to be to “preserve the lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic” and to “prepare the way for a National Covid Commission that can seize this once-in-a-century opportunity to help America—and the world—begin to heal and safeguard our common future from new existential threats.”2 After facing such a monumental, catastrophic event like COVID-19 the United States ought to have a bipartisan group of experts to analyze our response, find out where we went wrong, and determine how to prevent similar events in the future.
Is this starting to sound familiar?
Following the catastrophic events of 9/11 a commission was formed to do just that, but the 9/11 Commission was focused on the foreign threats of terrorism. It is described as
“an independent, bipartisan commission […] chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The Commission is also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks.”3
https://www.9-11commission.gov
Both former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and former U.S. Senator George Mitchell quickly stepped down from their appointments as chairs of the 9/11 Commission due to conflicts of interest.4 A new chair was appointed, former New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean, and a vice-chair agreed to the position, Former Congressman Lee Hamilton. These men, under the direction of the University of Virginia’s Professor Philip Zelikow, drafted and issued the final federal narrative known as the 9/11 Commission Report in 2004.
9/11 Commission Aftermath
The recommendations in this report led to the creation of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), The National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), new roles and responsibilities for Intelligence Community members, and bolstered the concept of “domestic spying” to thwart terrorist plans on the ground. The Patriot Act, The Department of Homeland Security, a beefed-up National Security Agency, information and data sharing, biometric screening, and a general, ambiguous fear of “radicalization” were proliferated through and tolerated by a traumatized nation. Global intervention in the Middle East’s “axis of evil”5 and pre-emptive war became national responsibilities with the goal of protecting the nation by forcefully promoting democracy in alleged terrorist-harboring countries.
Twenty years later the world watched, perplexed, as Americans and their allies fled from Afghanistan through the Kabul airport while the powers of the Taliban and “ISIS-k” swiftly regained traction in the area. After two decades of resisting the world’s greatest military, intelligence and surveillance infrastructures, and diplomatic assays, Afghanistan and the political entities therein persist mostly unchanged. The Western vision of democracy remains unrealized and the Taliban now enjoy a seat at the table with the United Nations.6 That being said, the federal response to the 9/11 attacks shows little evidence of building democratic institutions in the Middle East or flushing out American-hating terrorists. There is ample evidence, however, that the response led to the strengthening of federal powers and a severe reduction of privacy and civil liberties for the American citizens the federal government claimed it was protecting.7
Parallel Crises
The intent to cause terror and pathogenic viruses share the characteristic of being unobservable to the common human faculties of perception. To “see” the intent to cause terror, you need a massive amount of data and the tools to sort and decipher it. With those, you may observe patterns and make inferences as to who may have the intent to cause terror. This, still, is insufficient to reasonably declare someone a “terrorist” if you define a terrorist as someone who has the intent to cause terror.8 While you may be doing your best to see something unobservable (i.e. a mental state, an unspoken purpose, etc.), inferences like this can lead to many mistakes. And we have proof that many of these mistakes have been made.9
To counteract such a flawed terrorist detection regime, we are all equitably subjected to having our communications monitored, taking off our shoes and belts in airport security lines, having our luggage X-rayed and/or manually searched and tested, and getting a generous pat-down by gloved TSA officials if we would like to board an airplane. Just in case!
Viruses, like intentions, cannot be observed with the natural faculties of human perception. To “see” a virus, one must be looking through an electron microscope.10 Even when doing so, it takes considerable expertise to identify a virus and distinguish it from the other matter in a given sample. In the event that a body fluid sample and electron microscope are unavailable, there are other tests that can determine the presence of a virus.
Many of us have become familiar with the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test and its widespread use to identify cases of COVID-19. In practice, these tests amplify, or create copies of, small segments of DNA and RNA so that they can be identified and distinguished from other sequences.11 For COVID-19, we are told that a positive test means “it’s likely that you have an infection with SARS-CoV-2”, so the conclusion of the test admittedly remains uncertain.12 The test may detect portions of the SARS-CoV-2 RNA sequence while no active infection exists. The PCR test, then, is used to infer the presence of a SARS-CoV-2 infection and such inferences can lead to mistakes.13
To counteract such an uncertain COVID-19 testing regime, we are all equally subjected to public health experts’ calls to cancel holidays, self-quarantine when feeling ill, and “socially distance.” We are asked to tolerate local governments, schools, and businesses mandating mask-wearing on premises and to bear the unintended consequences of doing so.14 More recently, we have been told or mandated to receive investigational COVID-19 injections (at least three doses at the time of this writing) that are claimed to prevent serious illness and reduce the likelihood of infection and transmission.15 Again, just in case!
Problem, Reaction, Solution
With both of these so-called “invisible enemies,”16 suspicion and fear has been propagated by institutional leaders and media giants to create a public reaction inundated with a sense of urgency to relieve those feelings through narrative, action, and change — or a solution of sorts. In response to 9/11 and the threat of terrorism, the solution took the form of military commanders and operations, pre-emptive war, intelligence obsession, domestic surveillance, and national pride. The response to COVID-19 looks very different, taking the form of social isolation, mask-wearing, digital IDs, pre-emptive lockdowns, experimental medical treatments, and unsolicited health lectures. However, a curious number of the same public figures and officials that were central to the federal and military response to 9/11 are suddenly reappearing alongside public health experts and medical institution leaders in the age of COVID-19. So, what do these two seemingly unrelated events have in common that would call these people to the fore once again?
As of the time of writing, the Johns Hopkins University of Medicine’s Coronavirus Resource Center measures the total global deaths from COVID-19 at 6,610,046.17 Given this massive loss of life18, the global trauma caused by COVID-19 easily outweighs that inflicted upon the American people by the events of 9/11. Such disastrous events are ripe material for myth-making with the purpose of, ostensibly, preventing repetitive mistakes and preserving lessons learned during such crises. For this reason, figures like Philip Zelikow, former first Secretary of the US Department of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, and General Stanley McChrystal are getting back together in organizations like the Covid Commission Planning Group (CCPG) and the Covid Collaborative. Their mission, much like it was twenty years ago, is to craft the final federal narrative on COVID-19 and to steer the national—and global—response.
In this series, I will be diving into the histories and perspectives of the people who make up the “National Advisory Board” of the Covid Collaborative, the organization resulting from the CCPG. The unelected members of the Covid Collaborative have already influenced the lives of American citizens and the laws by which our country operates, and this warrants scrutiny. It is imperative that we understand who is influencing the trajectory of our national response to the COVID-19 pandemic and what their motivations actually are. After all, it is very likely to lead to permanent and sweeping policy changes, needless loss of life, and further restrictions on civil liberties not unlike what we saw in the response to the events of 9/11.
In the first installment, we will take a look at the leader of the Covid Collaborative, Dr. Rajiv Shah, the current President of the Rockefeller Foundation.
Any comments, inquiries, suggestions, or research leads may be sent to mmbannon@protonmail.com.
Footnotes
1 “University of Virginia 2021.” The Rockefeller Foundation, Our Grants. Accessed 2021. https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/grant/university-of-virginia-2021-2/
2 This citation has been deleted. Its existence can be proved at Archive.Today: https://archive.is/nXC1r
“Background” Miller Center, The University of Virginia. Accessed 2021. https://millercenter.org/covidcpg/background
3 “National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.” Archive, 9/11 Commission. Accessed 2021. https://www.9-11commission.gov
4 “Kissinger Resigns as head of 9/11 commission.” CNN.com. 13 December 2002. https://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/13/kissinger.resigns/
5 Glass, Andrew. “President Bush cites ‘axis of evil’ Jan. 29, 2002.” POLITICO. 29 January 2002. https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/29/bush-axis-of-evil-2002-1127725
Quote:
“‘States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.’
Bush added: ‘[W]e will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction.’”
6 “To spare Afghanistan, world must engage with Taliban, Lyons tells Security Council.” UN News, United Nations. 2 March 2022. https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/03/1113172
7 Carlisle, Madeleine. “How 9/11 Radically Expanded the Power of the U.S. Government.” TIME. 11 September 2021. https://time.com/6096903/september-11-legal-history/
Patterson, Orlando. “Freedom and 9/11.” Democracy A Journal of Ideas, issue #21. Summer 2011. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/patterson/files/freedom__911.pdf
And for presumably non-terrorist citizens of other nations:
Liptak, Adam. “Civil Liberties Today.” The New York Times, The 9/11 Decade: Civil Liberties, Before and After. 7 September 2011. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/07/us/sept-11-reckoning/civil.html
“Two Decades Later, the Enduring Legacy of 9/11.” Pew Research Center. 2 September 2021. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/09/02/two-decades-later-the-enduring-legacy-of-9-11/
Quote:
“It was clear that from the public’s perspective, the balance between protecting civil liberties and protecting the country from terrorism had shifted. In September 2001 and January 2002, 55% majorities said that, in order to curb terrorism in the U.S., it was necessary for the average citizen to give up some civil liberties. In 1997, just 29% said this would be necessary while 62% said it would not.”
“Human Rights and Civil Liberties.” Watson Institute International & Public Affairs, Brown University. Updated June 2021. Accessed 2021. https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/social/rights
Quote:
“Additionally, the events of 9/11 have been used as pretext to dramatically expand the US government’s electronic surveillance and data collection powers, including the authority to gather information on Americans who have done nothing wrong.”
On potential US Citizens migrating from other nations:
“The 9/11 Effect and Its Legacy on U.S. Immigration Laws. Essays, Remarks, and Photographs.” Penn State Law. The Pennsylvania State University, School of International Affairs. Accessed 2021. https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/_file/Immigrants/9_11_Effect_Online_Publication.pdf
Jones, Jesse. “The Birth of Big Brother: Privacy Rights in a Post-9/11 World.” PB&J, Vol. 1 No. 1. West Texas A&M University. Accessed 2021. https://www.wtamu.edu/webres/File/Academics/College%20of%20Education%20and%20Social%20Sciences/Department%20of%20Political%20Science%20and%20Criminal%20Justice/PBJ/2009/1n1/1n1_03Jones.pdf
Goitein, Elizabeth. “Rolling Back the Post-9/11 Surveillance State.” Brennan Center for Justice. 25 August 2021. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/rolling-back-post-911-surveillance-state
Roos, Dave. “5 Ways September 11 Changed America.” HISTORY. 1 September 2020, Revised 3 March 2021. https://www.history.com/news/september-11-changes-america
8 Note:
In the aim of circumventing a discussion about definitions, I have decided to pursue working definitions of “terrorism” and “terrorist” as the act of causing terror, and someone who intends to cause terror, respectively. My choice of definition is based on the structure of the words “terrorism” and “terrorist”.
Merriam-Webster defines “terrorism” as “the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion” and “terrorist” as “an advocate or practitioner of terrorism as a means of coercion.”
“Terrorist Definition & Meaning.” Merriam-Webster. Last updated 23 March 2023. Accessed 2021. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorist
“Terrorism Definition & Meaning.” Merriam-Webster. Last updated 3 April 2023. Accessed 2021. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism
I do not think our definitions are opposed, but I find mine to be less abstract and easier to understand.
9 “Trial and Terror.” The Intercept. Last updated 14 November 2022. Accessed 2021. https://trial-and-terror.theintercept.com
10 Laue, Michael. Election microscopy of viruses. Methods Cell Biol. 2010;96:1-20. doi: 10.1016/S0091-679X(10)96001-9. PMID: 20869516. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20869516/
Goldsmith CS, Miller SE. Modern uses of electron microscopy for detection of viruses. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2009 Oct;22(4):552-63. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00027-09. PMID: 19822888; PMCID: PMC2772359.
11 Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) Fact Sheet.” National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health. Last updated 17 August 2020. Accessed 2021. https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Polymerase-Chain-Reaction-Fact-Sheet
Quote:
“Once amplified, the DNA produced by PCR can be used in many different laboratory procedures. For example, most mapping techniques in the Human Genome Project (HGP) relied on PCR.
PCR is also valuable in a number of laboratory and clinical techniques, including DNA fingerprinting, detection of bacteria or viruses (particularly AIDS), and diagnosis of genetic disorders.”
12 “PCR Test for COVID-19: What it is, How its Done, What The Results Mean.” Cleveland Clinic. Last reviewed 24 August 2021. Accessed 2021. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diagnostics/21462-covid-19-and-pcr-testing
13 Hunt, Tam. “The ‘false positive paradox’ and risks of testing asymptomatics.” Letter to the editor. The BMJ. 25 June 2021. https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1411/rr
Braunstein GD, Schwartz L, Hymel P, Fielding J. False Positive Results With SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR Tests and How to Evaluate a RT-PCR-Positive Test for the Possibility of a False Positive Result. J Occup Environ Med. 2021 Mar 1;63(3):e159-e162. doi: 10.1097/JOM.0000000000002138. PMID: 33405498; PMCID: PMC7934325. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7934325/
Note:
The reliability of PCR testing and the frequency of which these tests are being used during the COVID-19 era has been widely debated:
https://bpa-pathology.com/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless/
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4916
https://www.rcreader.com/commentary/questioning-unreliable-pcr-testing-is-hardly-trivial
14 Rosner E (2020) Adverse Effects of Prolonged Mask Use among Healthcare Professionals during COVID-19. J Infect Dis Epidemiol 6:130. doi.org/10.23937/2474-3658/1510130 https://clinmedjournals.org/articles/jide/journal-of-infectious-diseases-and-epidemiology-jide-6-130.php?jid=jide
Matan Shapiro & Frederic Bouder (2021) The Risks of the Mask, Journal of Risk Research, 24:3-4, 492-505,DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2021.1907611https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13669877.2021.1907611
15 Note:
Federal authorities like the CDC and NIH have repeatedly claimed the mRNA vaccines produced by both Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna to be effective at preventing serious illness (meaning requiring hospitalization) and death. They also claim that those who have been “fully vaccinated” are less likely to become infected and/or transmit the virus to others. I will not comment on this further at this time.
“Understanding How COVID-19 Vaccine Work.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Last updated 3 February 2023. Accessed 2021.https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/mRNA.html?s_cid=11344:mrna%20vaccine%20technology:sem.ga:p:RG:GM:gen:PTN:FY21
Anonymous author. “mRNA Vaccines May Pack More Persistent Punch Against COVID-19 Than Thought” National Institutes of Health. 13 July 2021. https://www.nih.gov/mrna-vaccines-may-pack-more-persistent-punch-against-covid-19-thought
16 Invisible enemy: terrorism
The Department of Homeland Security, President George W. Bush. The Department of Homeland Security. June 2002. https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/book.pdf
Quote:
“The changing nature of the threats facing America requires a new government structure to protect against invisible enemies that can strike with a wide variety of weapons.”
Invisible enemy: coronavirus
Shafer, Jack. “Opinion | Behind Trump’s Strange ‘Invisible Enemy’ Rhetoric.” POLITICO. 9 April 2020. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/04/09/trump-coronavirus-invisible-enemy-177894
Quote:
“‘We are learning much about the Invisible Enemy,’ Trump tweeted on the April 5. ‘It is tough and smart, but we are tougher and smarter.’”
17 Note:
Deaths from COVID-19 in a common sense understanding means “deaths caused by the disease caused by an infection of SARS-CoV-2”. This is an estimated number since, for example, it cannot be determined whether a patient with a chronic illness died solely from COVID-19, as a connection of the two illnesses, or solely from the chronic condition.
It is a common understanding that those who are most elderly and sickly are more likely to die if they become infected with SARS-CoV-2 or any other virus or bacterial illness.
The below Lancet article lists the probability of cause-specific death from COVID-19 being, at the lowest, 0.0012% (ages 18-39) to, at the highest, 0.93% (aged equal to or greater than 80).
Krishnan Bhaskaran, Sebastian Bacon, Stephen JW Evans, Chris J Bates, Christopher T Rentsch, Brian MacKenna, Laurie Tomlinson, Alex J Walker, Anna Schultze, Caroline E Morton, Daniel Grint, Amir Mehrkar, Rosalind M Eggo, Peter Inglesby, Ian J Douglas, Helen I McDonald, Jonathan Cockburn, Elizabeth J Williamson, David Evans, Helen J Curtis, William J Hulme, John Parry, Frank Hester, Sam Harper, David Spiegelhalter, Liam Smeeth, Ben Goldacre, Factors associated with deaths due to COVID-19 versus other causes: population-based cohort analysis of UK primary care data and linked national death registrations within the OpenSAFELY platform, The Lancet Regional Health – Europe, Volume 6, 2021, 100109, ISSN 2666-7762, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanepe.2021.100109. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666776221000867) https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(21)00086-7/fulltext
18 Note:
Again, please note my hesitancy to believe that the reported deaths from COVID-19 reflect the actual number of people who have died a cause-specific death (from COVID-19).
