Plandemic II - Indoctornation

About This Page
This page is an attempt at collectively making sense of the film Plandemic II - Indoctornation produced by Mikki Willis. The purpose is not to draw a specific conclusion on this polarising topic or win an argument for a specific side, but rather to try and document some of the specific claims made and check their validity. Other observations about the film and its wider context can be documented here as well.

How to Contribute
It is both expected and perfectly acceptable that this page will get messy. Contributions are highly welcome, even if it is just a short note, observation, or impression. This page can always be tidied up or restructured as time goes on. So please feel free to jump in and share what's on your mind.

Specific claims made in the film can be added below. Please provide a timestamp if possible as easy reference for other users. If you are interested in engaging in further discussion about the claim, you can leave your user name or real name. You are welcome to deviate from the proposed format if you find that something else is more suited to what you want to say.

You can also note Other Observations below. These could, for example, be about techniques employed in the film, a feeling that you get when watching a particular section, or supplementary information from a wider context.

The discussion page provides for the possibility to have some dialogue about the specific contents of this page. While this may be perfectly suitable for some specific feedback or suggestions, please keep in mind that for more complex topics, better places exist to have these conversations. E.g. it may be more appropriate to have these discussions on Circle, via Email, or better yet - schedule a zoom call.

New sections can be added to this page as needed.

Sensemaking Call on August 30, 2020
A zoom call was hosted by David Fuller and Brooks on August 30, 2020 to check in with the community and have an open discussion about people's feelings about the film and reasons for joining the call. About 40 members participated in this call which consisted of firstly two breakout rooms followed by a joint discussion. The feedback after the call was generally positive. Participants appreciated the possibility to hear other members' thoughts and opinions without judgement. However, due to the very non-specific nature of the call, there were also requests to have some sort of follow-up and dig deeper into the film.

Unlike most Rebel Wisdom calls, this one was not recorded "due to the potentially edgy nature of the discussion".

Event 201 (and others) Predict Pandemic
Added by: Msilaerrus

Date: 12th September, 2020

Claim made by: Miki Willis

Timestamp / Reference: 0:08 to 2:48 and 33:20 to 37:06

Claim Description: The Event 201 exercise is too close to reality of the coronavirus pandemic that started just a month or so after. Based on similarities this looks more like a planning event than a coincidence.

Evidence provided in film:


 * Videos from the event are shown at start of video from 0:08 to 2:38. Highlight video or full videos can be watched at https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/videos.html
 * Travel bans are in the tabletop event and happened in reality.
 * A focus on disinformation being spread online is focused on in the event and occurred in real life.
 * Demand for N95 masks explodes in the event and occurred in real life.
 * A focus on a speedy rollout of a vaccine occurs in the event and is playing out in real life.
 * Polling regarding people eager to take the experimental vaccine in the event and occurred in real life.
 * Considering Bill Gates gives money for health, questions are raised why didn't he prepare hospitals and frontline workers? (Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is one of the sponsors of Event 201)
 * "Now here we are. We didn't simulate this. We didn't practice. So both the health policies, the economic policies, we find ourselves in uncharted territory." BBC interview with Bill Gates in April 2020 (36:40) [This appears a key piece of this argument as you have Bill Gates caught in a lie. Event 201, even if it wasn't a "prediction", was clearly a simulation and practice in which the health and economic policies are fairly identical.]
 * CladeX is similar exercise from year before. (37:00) (Details can be found at https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/events/2018_clade_x_exercise/index.html)
 * Lockstep is part of a document titled Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development produced by the Rockefeller Foundation. (37:46) The documentary quotes this, "China’s government was not the only one that took extreme measures to protect its citizens from risk and exposure. During the pandemic, national leaders around the world flexed their authority and imposed airtight rules and Restrictions, from the mandatory wearing of face masks to body-temperature checks at the entries to communal spaces like train stations and supermarkets. Even after the pandemic faded, this more authoritarian control and oversight of citizens and their activities stuck and even intensified." Document can be found here: https://www.nommeraadio.ee/meedia/pdf/RRS/Rockefeller%20Foundation.pdf

Other evidence for:


 * The CDC has been criticized for much of the USA response. The CDC was at Event 201. Specifically, Stephen Redd, MD, director of the CDC’s Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response. An argument could certainly be made that this happened so close to current events that we weren’t prepared for it. But this isn’t the first time exercises or “war games” such as this have been done. Dr. Redd was the “incident commander for the 2009 H1N1 pandemic response.” He’s been in this role for a while. Where is the head of our preparedness and response now? Why has our response in the USA so horrible, when we foresaw almost this exact event occurring?
 * This article about Lock Step is listed in the Rabbit Hole downloaded on the Plandemic website. https://thewatchtowers.org/lockstep-written-10-years-ago-chronicles-how-to-bring-the-world-down-with-a-pandemic-this-report-was-produced-by-the-rockefeller-foundation/

Other evidence against:


 * The Center for Health Security says they explicitly did not make a prediction. https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/news/center-news/2020-01-24-Statement-of-Clarification-Event201.html
 * https://www.factcheck.org/2020/01/new-coronavirus-wasnt-predicted-in-simulation/ (This fact check is pointed out in the film. It dismisses the claim, talks about other fact checks, without addressing any commonalities)

Ad Hominem Attacks instead of Genuine Criticism
Added by: Voller

Date: 12th September, 2020

Claim made by: Miki Willis

Timestamp / Reference: 3:35

Claim Description: Following the initial Plandemic film “all of the debunkers” focused primarily at discrediting Judy Mikovits as a person instead of addressing the “very real revelations pertaining to patents, conflicts of interest, and a deadly corruption pervading our global health organisations”.

Evidence provided in film:
 * Some headlines are shown in the background containing words like “conspiracy theories”, “grifter” or “disgraced scientist”.

Other evidence for:



Other evidence against:
 * Other headlines shown (e.g. titles of videos on YouTube) actually imply that people have taken the time to fact-check the claims made instead of attacking her character.
 * A google search for “criticism of plandemic” quickly turns up fact-checking articles in the top search results such as or . These directly address some of the claims made in the original Plandemic film.

Patent as Proof of Man-made Virus or Illegal Activity
Added by: Voller

Date: 12th September, 2020

Claim made by: David E. Martin

Timestamp / Reference: 9:19

Claim Description: Martin makes reference to patent US7776521B1 filed for by the US Center for Disease Control (CDC) which pertains to the then "newly isolated human coronavirus (SARS-CoV), the causative agent of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)". Martin makes further reference to 35 U.S. Code § 101 under which, he claims, nature cannot be patented. His conclusion is that either SARS-CoV was manufactured, in which case the patent on it would be legal as such, but its existence would violate laws and treaties on biological and chemical weapons, or it is natural, in which case the patent on it would be illegal.

Evidence provided in film:
 * The text highlighted on screen reads that "A naturally occurring DNA segment is [...] not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated,"

Other evidence for:

Other evidence against:
 * The text shown on screen supposedly from 35 U.S. Code § 101 is actually an excerpt from the supreme court ruling No. 12–398 "Association for Molecular Pathology et al. v. Myriad Genetics, inc., et al." which was decided on June 13, 2013. The patent itself was granted August 8, 2010 with the application made well before then (April 25, 2003 according to the film).

The CDC Patented SARS-CoV to Make Profit
Added by: Voller

Date: 12th September, 2020

Claim made by: David E. Martin

Timestamp / Reference: 10:40

Claim Description: Martin claims that the CDC had "the means, the motive, and most of all they had the monetary gain from turning coronavirus from a pathogen to profit."

Evidence provided in film:
 * Various additional claims that the CDC has full control over the virus as well as any means of its detection and testing.

Other evidence for:

Other evidence against:
 * According to the CDC, the reason for taking out this patent was to prevent a situation where it would be "patented by someone else" and "to get information about SARS and the SARS genome and the SARS coronavirus into the public domain as quickly as we possibly can." This quote is from a CDC Telebriefing Transcript - CDC Update on Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) May 6, 2003. Further context:

Google Controls the Narrative
Added by: Msilaerrus

Date: 12th September, 2020

Claim made by: Miki Willis

Timestamp / Reference: 15:50

Claim Description: We seek answers first and foremost from Google who is a controller of information. "What was once an efficient tool for navigating the world of information, is now a tool for global survelliance, data collection and social engineering."

Evidence provided in film:


 * Google search for "plandemic" shows fact-checking from sciencemag.org, medpagetoday.com, Wikipedia (including call-out box on Google using text from here), Poynter, Media Matters, Bandor Daily News, Slate Magazine, Vice, Atlanta Journal Constitution, all of them calling showing Plandemic in negative light.
 * A collection of similar headlines from various sources are shown.
 * https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/apr/19/google-dominates-search-real-problem-monopoly-data
 * https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/17/google-china-what-businesses-the-search-giant-has-in-the-country.html
 * https://www.visualcapitalist.com/this-chart-reveals-googles-true-dominance-over-the-web/
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-google-is-transforming-power-and-politicsgoogle-once-disdainful-of-lobbying-now-a-master-of-washington-influence/2014/04/12/51648b92-b4d3-11e3-8cb6-284052554d74_story.html
 * Interview with Google Senior Software Engineer, Zach Vorhies https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cC_mBru78F4&t=41s (Sindar Pinchai lying under oath that Google does not have a blacklist, but Zach Voorhies, a Google employee, leaked that they did)

Other evidence for:


 * Google’s Power to Shift Elections—Zachary Vorhies, Greg Coppola and Dr. Robert Epstein https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buYS1biprSs&t=195s

Other evidence against:


 * None of this really proves that Google does control the narrative regarding Plandemic, just that they have a lot of power to do so.

To be added:

Snopes 18:03

Politifact/Poynter 19:30

Wikipedia: 20:24

Innocent until Proven Guilty
Added by: Voller

Date: 12th September, 2020

Timestamp / Reference: Opening Title

Observation: The opening title notes that “Every person named within this production is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law”. I'm not sure why this would be mentioned and it makes me feel uneasy for some reason. My impression is that on one hand, the producer is absolving himself of the responsibility to make only founded accusations against the people and organisations criticised in the film. After all, they are innocent until proven guilty. On the other hand, it seems he is also putting the onus on the viewer / potential critic to prove any of the claims that he makes in the film as wrong, thus reserving the innocence for himself and his interviewees.

Strawmanning Critics of Mikovits' Credibility
Added by: Voller

Date: 12th September, 2020

Timestamp / Reference: 4:35

Observation: Willis asks what Mikovits would say to people who claim that her being the 13th (last) author of her controversial XMRV paper means that she was not important. Mikovits clarifies that the 13th author is actually the senior author [ and is responsible (note from full interview) ]. My feeling is that an actual scientist would surely know this and be unlikely to try and discredit her through such a statement. It seems like a strawman to me.

Forced Retraction of Mikovits Controversial Paper in 2011
Added by: Voller

Date: 12th September, 2020

Timestamp / Reference: 4:57

Observation: Willis asks Mikovits "Why did you agree to retract your own XMRV paper?" to which Mikovits replies "The paper was actually force retracted; I was actually held in jail." To me this somehow implies that Mikovits was forced to agree as a condition to be released from jail, or that her being in jail was otherwise creating some pressure for her to agree to the retraction. However, there is a noticeable cut in the footage between those two parts of seemingly same sentence. A longer version of the interview is available on the Plandemic Website. There is a similar cut, but Mikovits' response is slightly longer: "I was actually held in jail when the paper was retracted." This longer version makes clear that the paper was retracted irrespective of her agreement. There is only a temporal link to her being in jail, but no causal link. In 2011, Science Magazine has made a statement announcing the unusual step to retract the paper without all of the authors' consents.

Willis Admitting to (non-misleading) Propaganda
Added by: Voller

Date: 12th September, 2020

Timestamp / Reference: ProPublica Article

Observation: According to ProPublica reporter Marshall Allen, Willis has admitted that the original Plandemic film is Propaganda, "which the Oxford dictionary defines as 'information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.', although "he doesn’t feel there’s anything misleading in his film." The article also states "And based on that definition he feels 100% of news reporting is propaganda. 'What isn’t propaganda these days?' he asked. 'In that sense, what we’re doing is fighting fire with fire.'"

Double Standards Regarding Ad Hominem Criticism
Added by: Voller

Date: 12th September, 2020

Timestamp / Reference: 4:35 / 18:00

Willis laments the supposed fact that critics of the first Plandemic film focused on Judy Mikovits' character rather than the content of her claims. However, his own criticisms of the fact-checking platform |Snopes.com revolve around the character of one its founders, David Mikkelson, whose other founder and ex-wife, Barbara Mikkelson, launched claims of embezzlement against him. Willis also points out that David Mikkelson "allegedly spent [the money] on prostitutes, as well as a lavish honeymoon with his new wife who worked as an escort in Las Vegas". While it is not irrelevant whether David Mikkelson has been conducting illegal business practices (neither is Mikovits' credibility), it appears the relevant legal struggles are complicated and still ongoing. David Mikkelson's personal lifestyle and partner choices should not factor into the reliability of his fact-checking operation.