89 pages: SPARS-CoV from Asia, vaccine debates, censorship, side effects acknowledged. Striking COVID parallels.
“They wrote a coronavirus pandemic scenario for 2025. It predicted everything.”
What they said vs. what the evidence shows
“Training exercise, fictional scenario.”
— Johns Hopkins · Jul 2020
SourceFrom “crazy” to confirmed
The Claim Is Made
This is the moment they called it crazy.
In 2017, researchers at Johns Hopkins University's Center for Health Security published a 89-page pandemic simulation exercise called "SPARS 2025-2028." The document described a hypothetical outbreak of a novel coronavirus originating in Asia, followed by heated public debates over vaccine safety, widespread content moderation, and acknowledgment of vaccine side effects. When COVID-19 emerged roughly three years later, exhibiting many of the same characteristics outlined in the simulation, the document circulated widely online as apparent proof that elite institutions had advance knowledge of the pandemic.
The claim gained traction across social media and alternative news outlets, with many arguing that Johns Hopkins had essentially provided a blueprint for what would unfold in 2020-2021. Proponents pointed to specific parallels: an unfamiliar respiratory virus, public health responses involving vaccines, social media censorship of dissenting voices, and acknowledged adverse reactions. To many believers, the timing and specificity seemed too coincidental to dismiss as mere chance.
Mainstream fact-checkers and Johns Hopkins themselves moved quickly to dismiss the narrative. The university emphasized that SPARS was a fictional scenario designed to stress-test pandemic preparedness—nothing more than a planning exercise, similar to other public health simulations that governments and institutions routinely conduct. They argued that general pandemic preparedness scenarios naturally include similar elements because pandemics themselves follow predictable patterns of spread and social response.
Get the 5 biggest receipts every week, straight to your inbox — plus an exclusive PDF: The Top 10 Conspiracy Theories Proven True in 2025-2026. No spam. No agenda. Just the papers they couldn't hide.
You just read "Johns Hopkins 2017 'SPARS 2025-2028': novel coronavirus, vac…". We send ones like this every week.
No one's said anything yet. Be the first to drop your take.
Source: Johns Hopkins 2017 'SPARS 2025-2028': novel coronavirus, vaccine debates, censor
The official response raised a critical question, however: was Johns Hopkins being forthright about the document's scope and purpose, or were dismissals themselves part of a larger narrative control effort? The document's actual contents became central to the dispute. The 2017 SPARS scenario did indeed describe a coronavirus, vaccine hesitancy, institutional censorship, and adverse event management—the exact elements that would define the 2020-2021 response. Whether one interprets this as prescient simulation or routine preparation depends largely on one's baseline assumptions about institutional competence and transparency.
What remains undisputed is that Johns Hopkins published detailed pandemic contingency planning that aligned remarkably with COVID-19's actual trajectory. Whether this alignment proves advance knowledge, represents standard epidemiological prediction, or reflects how any novel pandemic would necessarily unfold remains genuinely contested. The document itself is real and publicly available, making it impossible to dismiss entirely, while its interpretation remains genuinely ambiguous.
The SPARS case illustrates a deeper problem in how institutional claims are evaluated. Institutions that prepare for predicted scenarios are acting responsibly. Yet when those scenarios manifest, the same institutions face reasonable questions about whether preparedness crossed into foreknowledge. The answer likely involves both truths: pandemic planning naturally anticipates pandemic patterns, and institutions understand these patterns better than the general public.
What matters most is that the document exists, that its content bears real resemblance to what occurred, and that the public can evaluate the facts themselves rather than accepting dismissals at face value. This case demonstrates why transparency from major institutions during crises becomes crucial to maintaining public trust. When officials insist citizens simply accept their assurances while declining to engage seriously with legitimate questions about their own documentation, skepticism becomes rational rather than conspiratorial. The SPARS simulation proved neither perfect prediction nor meaningless exercise—it was institutional knowledge made visible, and its implications deserve honest assessment rather than reflexive dismissal.
Beat the odds
This had a 0.7% chance of leaking — someone talked anyway.
Conspirators
~300Network
Secret kept
5.8 years
Time to 95% exposure
500+ years
