The Great Reset

A World Economic Forum Initiative

The world is abuzz with talk of The Great Reset as is being advanced by Professor Klaus Schwab, founder and Executive Director of the World Economic Forum (WEF) and all those of like mind and persuasion. At the launch of The Great Reset in 2020, speaker after speaker waxed lyrical about the “unique window of opportunity” that the global ‘pandemic’ has created and about how we cannot afford to miss it. Voices such as those of UK’s Prince Charles, António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kristalina Georgieva Managing Director of the IMF, Dr Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala Chair of the Board of the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization, as well as the heads of bp, Mastercard and Microsoft chimed in at the launch of The Great Reset Initiative, to lend urgency and significance to the prospect of “building back something better” after Covid. In fact, in Schwab’s own words, this is seen as a “Turning point of humankind” emphasizing that we will not return to the “good old world” that we had. The Great Reset is the planned theme for the next WEF conference in Davos in January 2021.

According to the WEF Great Reset website page: “There is an urgent need for global stakeholders to cooperate in simultaneously managing the direct consequences of the COVID-19 crisis. To improve the state of the world, the World Economic Forum is starting The Great Reset initiative.

THE CONTEXT

The Covid-19 crisis, and the political, economic and social disruptions it has caused, is fundamentally changing the traditional context for decision-making. The inconsistencies, inadequacies and contradictions of multiple systems –from health and financial to energy and education – are more exposed than ever amidst a global context of concern for lives, livelihoods and the planet. Leaders find themselves at a historic crossroads, managing short-term pressures against medium- and long-term uncertainties.

THE OPPORTUNITY

As we enter a unique window of opportunity to shape the recovery, this initiative will offer insights to help inform all those determining the future state of global relations, the direction of national economies, the priorities of societies, the nature of business models and the management of a global commons. Drawing from the vision and vast expertise of the leaders engaged across the Forum’s communities, the Great Reset initiative has a set of dimensions to build a new social contract that honours the dignity of every human being.

OUR CONTRIBUTION

The World Economic Forum has developed a reputation as a trusted platform for informed collaboration and cooperation between all stakeholders – reinforced by a track record of success over five decades. The Forum now offers its experience in building purpose-driven communities in service of the extraordinary challenge and opportunity the world faces for a “Great Reset”. The Forum provides an unparalleled platform for creating, shaping and delivering collaborative solutions for the future through its: Status as the International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation; Hub for cutting-edge ideas, expertise and knowledge resources tools; Leadership in enabling stakeholder capitalism and delivering solutions to global challenges; Authority in shaping and leveraging the Fourth Industrial Revolution. ”

The World Economic Forum was founded in 1971 and, in the last 50 years, has grown strategically, very deliberately morphing from being purely European to being truly global in nature, focus and membership. In fact, in their book commemorating their 50-year journey, they speak of the WEF as “a partner in shaping history”. This would explain why The Great Reset is being launched under their aegis and with all the strength, might and support of their huge global network.

WEF defines itself as: “… the International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation.” Saying that “The Forum engages the foremost political, business, cultural and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas. It is independent, impartial and not tied to any special interests.” Elsewhere on their website, they say: “Each of these factors and many others require a new kind of institution – one with the adaptability, the entrepreneurialism and the trust of all stakeholders – that can bring together people who have the power to make change, to achieve mutual understanding and empathy, to come to common agreement and, where appropriate, push action forward.”

They have been incredibly convincing and successful at setting forth and building upon their agenda. The World Economic Forum partners with: “1,000 leading global companies… special communities of emerging global enterprises, technology pioneers and start-ups. Governments and International Organizations through joint projects and cooperation agreements. The leaders of globally active NGOs, trade unions, cultural leaders and other civil society… reinforced by our community of social entrepreneurs, working on models of social innovation. Over 1,000 of the world’s most recognized leaders in their thirties are engaged as Young Global Leaders, and close to 10,000 outstanding young people in their twenties contribute as Global Shapers, active in more than 400 cities around the world. The world’s leading experts… Top-ranking global research universities… Journalists and editors from the world’s leading news organizations …” This means that it is highly likely that you work for, interact with, buy from, supply to, or are in some way, shape or form, influenced by more than one of the World Economic Forum partners.

In short, almost the entire world has converged at a singular point known as the World Economic Forum that serves as the epicenter for global agenda-setting, policy influencing and crafting, project or programmatic funding and implementation. This is a powerful meeting point indeed and highly influential. This body, that is celebrating 5 decades of partnership in shaping history, now wants to shape the future using The Global Reset and the Covid ‘pandemic’ as a trigger point and rallying mechanism.

So here we are. 2020 is behind us. 2021 is before us and the World Economic Forum is pushing the following agenda through its partners to the world. Speaking at the launch of the book COVID-19: The Great Reset, in July 2020, co-authored with Thierry Malleret, Karl Schwab said, “We are at a turning point of humankind. I think we should not underestimate the historical significance of the situation we are in. We know the world will look differently (sic) when we move out from the acute phase of the virus into a new situation… people assume that we are just going back to the good old world that we had and everything will be normal again; to how we are used to normal in the old fashion. This is fiction. It will not happen…”

He goes on to outline 5 ways in which the world can create “a more resilient, a more inclusive and a more sustainable world”:

“The first one is we have to redefine our social contract to integrate more inclusion… Covid will create again a gap between the so-called industrialized and emerging countries. The emerging countries at least some of them suffering much more compared to some of the countries which have a well established social safety net.

Second, it’s a decarbonization of the economy to protect us against, say an environmental virus …

Number three and that’s a major part also of the book, (… I published four years ago the book The Fourth Industrial Revolution), all those technologies are very much advanced now by Covid. Everything will be digitalized which can be digitalized. So how can we use technologies to address the challenges, but at the same time make sure that we create the necessary ethical human-oriented principles around those technologies?

Then, finally what is the role of companies in this new post-Covid era? I think we are moving from short-term to long-term, from shareholder capitalism to stakeholder capitalism. The Covid crisis has shown that companies who invest into their vitality, instead of prioritizing short-term profits, have performed much better and that’s what the stakeholders will expect in the future.

And I should add, at last, the need for much stronger global cooperation. Covid has shown us that we are globally interdependent and I think it’s a wake-up call to walk in the future together to address all the consequences and to create a reset in our economic, social, ecological thinking.”

On the role of government in The Great Reset, Schwab had this to say:

“It’s necessary to have a very open approach. This cannot be a response of elites to concerns of the great public. I think we are at a rapture point (where) we have to make sure that we have a comprehensive all-inclusive approach otherwise we will just be confronted with a climate of social unrest and possibly revolts on the streets or revolts from the next generation.”

What you have here is a very well-oiled machine that financially and in terms of people resources not just at the WEF but also through their networks and partnerships has every tool at its disposal to carefully maneuver the entire world in a very specific direction. If they truly have been involved in shaping history thus far, then you can easily attribute much of what you see in the world around you to their efforts and influence. Now, they are orchestrating a reset to ‘build back better’, with the backing of the likes of HRH Prince Charles, Big Business (tech, pharma, aviation… you name it), Academia, Media and governments around the world… to create a new normal for the entire world. This proposed reset includes increased global cooperation, greater deployment of AI, and urges shifts away from fossil fuel use (so for every Afrikan country that depends or plans to depend on oil for future wealth, be advised). The effects of their decisions are and will greatly continue to impact you, your spouse, your children, your siblings, your friends now and in the future. No more ‘good old world’… but to what end?

Don’t tell me you cannot, from this, see the catalyzing of a one-world government, economy and society (including social norms) that is policed by an intrusive AI infrastructure.

The Great Covid Ruse

The entire Great Reset pivots on a single idea: a global Covid-19 pandemic.

The Perfect Storm Obfuscation

I invite you to cast your mind back to the early days of the Covid-19 ‘outbreak’ and think through the way that it unrolled. Event 201 in 2019, rumors of something happening in Wuhan, China in 2019, the announcement of a novel corona virus as the causative agent – then called 2019-nCov – by the Chinese at the start of 2020, WHO announcing a pandemic in March 2020, countries closing borders, social distancing, sanitizing and mask-wearing, quarantines, PCR testing, daily announcements on media, numbers of deaths being announced, finger-pointing, celebrities and politicians contracting Covid, nationwide lockdowns, the push for a vaccine at ‘warp speed’ around the world, vaccine trials, indemnity for vaccine manufacturers, vaccine roll-out, reactions to vaccines etc. In the background were the resultant effects: draconian laws and policies created and enforced with needless brutality, small and large businesses shutting down, economic stimulus packages, theft of Covid donations, corruption in the procurement of protective equipment, increased pressure in family situations, work from home, increased online and digital use, people in need of medical attention other than for Covid suddenly not receiving or going for care or care in the way it was needed. Panic, fear, the push for reopening, claims that reopening was only contingent upon vaccination… and the new catchphrase we heard everywhere we turned: “the new normal”.

Meanwhile, anyone who had a solution or a suggestion that did not fit into the narrative of panic, fear, death and an inevitable vaccine was squashed, censored, vilified, mocked, treated as the most dangerous thing since a nuclear fallout and silenced, sidelined or sabotaged. Many doctors came forward speaking about alternative remedies such as Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), which they said can also be used as a treatment and a prophylaxis, Vitamin C, Vitamin D, diet and nutrition, Madagascar coming out with a cost-effective remedy which used Artemisia Annua, Dr. Magufuli of Tanzania proved that there was a problem with the testing process as have others since, medical professionals spoke of using the age-old tried and proven process of steaming with either eucalyptus oil or a mix of ginger, garlic, lemon/lime, onion as a way to boost immunity, Tanzania even built steam booths for their people to use, others wrote books and advised government officers about the benefits of using natural, organic food as a means to boost immunity, a doctor in the US went before senate committees speaking about a drug that could be repurposed for use in the treatment of Covid-19 with great effectiveness saying he had proof… scores of doctors spoke out against rushing a vaccine, about alternative remedies, warning about the vaccine ingredients and on and on. All these people were ignored, publicly ridiculed, content about the information they shared deleted by Big Tech, and their claims rubbished by people with questionable ties to various interests in the Covid-19 debate. Why? Why has it become increasingly impossible to simply debate the issues surrounding the rush and the panic in the Covid-19 global ‘crisis’?

PCR Testing

In the same way that the entire Global Reset Initiative rests entirely on there being a Covid-19 pandemic, the entirety of the claims that Covid-19 is a pandemic hangs on the Real Time Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR or PCR) test. The Corman-Drosten (CD) paper published in January 2020 proposed the use of the PCR test as a validated means to detect Covid-19, which then became the protocol that is used in around 70% of tests globally, by over 100 governments. These tests in turn became the motivating factor behind the lockdown epidemic. Just like that billions of lives were hit hard, no questions asked, no discussion, no argument. For your safety and protection, abi?

The International Consortium of Scientists in Life Sciences (ICSLS), comprised of a group of 22 independent scientists studied and reviewed the CD paper and are quoted as having found, “numerous technical and scientific errors,” and noting that neither the “test nor the manuscript itself fulfils the requirements for an acceptable scientific publication.” They dubbed the CD paper as “flawed science” and called its authors “intellectually dishonest.” Their findings were released towards the end of November 2020, so why is it that their findings have not been publicly highlighted, for us to review and consider, at the very least?

According to an article by Michael Haynes (lifesitenews.com) about the ICSLS findings, “the group presents “ten fatal problems” with the Corman-Drosten paper, and concludes that there is no other choice “but to retract the publication.” Each of the problems is described as being sufficient on its own to render the PCR test “useless as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.” The ICSLS report highlights the “worldwide misdiagnosis of infections” stemming from the CD protocols, resulting in “stringent lockdowns which have destroyed many people’s lives and livelihoods.” ” The lead author of the ICSLS report is Dr Pieter Borger, an expert on the molecular biology of gene expression, and among the co-authors is Dr Michael Yeadon, former Vice President of vaccine company Pfizer.

According to a Dr Paul Sacré the nasal or throat swab that is taken during the PCR test is “processed to isolate genetic material,” then primers — “engineered genetic material” — are added and bound to the viral genetic material, which begins “amplification.” During amplification, fluorescent markers “bound to the copies during PCR” are released, and if enough of these are detected, then the test is termed positive.” (Permit me to translate this into English: the PCR test makes multiple copies of the genetic material in a sample to allow one to ‘see’ the virus. And if I may add, sometimes the copies they make include virus material that is dead and inactive and therefore not infectious. Those also get multiplied and can contribute to a positive reading in a person who is not actually sick.)

Based on the article, “the first “major” issue identified in the ICSLS review is that the Corman-Drosten paper and the trial PCR tests were written and conducted “without having virus material available,” in the words of the CD paper itself. Instead, the PCR test method was based on “silico sequences, supplied by a laboratory in China.” The CD paper’s aims of development and deployment of a test “are not achievable without having any actual virus material available,” according to the ICSLS.”

Again, according to the Haynes article, “On the day the CD paper was submitted to medical journal Eurosurveillance, Google data records only 6 deaths from the virus. This leads the ICSLS to question why the CD report predicted “a challenge for public health laboratories while there was no substantial evidence at that time to indicate that the outbreak was more widespread than initially thought?”

In order for a PCR test to be reliable, “amplification from 3 different genes (primers) of the virus under investigation is required.” Yet the ICSLS found in the CD paper that “in nearly all test procedures worldwide, merely 2 primer matches were used instead of all three. This oversight renders the entire test-protocol useless with regards to delivering accurate test-results of real significance in an ongoing pandemic.” Continuing, the ICSLS notes that the proposed PCR test contains “severe design errors,” and since the test is unable to distinguish between “the whole virus and viral fragments” it “cannot be used as a diagnostic for SARS-viruses.” A positive test, as mentioned in the CD paper, cannot determine if one is infected with the virus, but “merely indicates the presence of viral RNA molecules.”

The CD paper does not even define what a positive or negative test result is, but does suggest that “45 PCR cycles” are to be performed. While a PCR test can have up to 60 cycles of amplification, both Dr. Sacré and the ICSLS point out that PCR test data from a cycle value of 35 or more is “completely unreliable.” “Only non-infectious (dead) viruses are detected with [cycle] values of 35,” the group adds, as even above 30 cycles there is “a grey area”, where a positive result cannot be trusted.

After the amplification process is complete, “biomolecular validation” is “essential” to determine the presence of COVID-19, since “amplified PCR products can be anything.” But the CD paper’s protocol does not do so, and the ICSLS consequently calls any PCR test developed on such a basis “useless as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.”

Based on all these errors, and even drawn from text in the CD paper itself, the ICSLS warns that it is “inevitable” that “the PCR test described in the Corman-Drosten paper generates false positives.” This is echoed by DrSacré, who wrote that the chief limitation of PCR tests is the “extreme sensitivity (false positive) if a suitable threshold of positivity (Ct) is not chosen.””

Swiss Policy Research has found that a positive PCR test run at 35 cycles or more, as is common in Europe and the U.S., has a 97% chance of being a false positive.” This is something that even DrFauci acknowledges, i.e. the high possibility of false positives being generated and the ‘oversensitivity’ of the PCR test. And one has to wonder whether all those false positives are added to or subtracted from the overall counts which are being carried out by governments around the world.

It further turns out that the CD paper was not peer-reviewed and that two of its authors, Christian Drosten and Chantal Reusken were part of the Eurosurveillance editorial board. Two other authors were the CEO and scientific advisor at TIB-Molbiol, a PCR test producing company. Further, Public Health England and all EU public health authorities have co-authored the CD paper. Can anyone say, “Conflict of interest?”

The ICSLS paper concludes, “In light of our re-examination of the test protocol to identify SARS-CoV-2 described in the Corman-Drosten paper we have identified concerning errors and inherent fallacies which render the SARS-CoV-2 PCR test useless.”

When you smell a dead rat

All these dominos: the global threat of a deadly pandemic, PCR tests, quarantines, social distancing, work from home, contact tracing, digitization, vaccinations and so on are being arranged to spell out The Great Reset. These dominos balance, precariously, on claims that have not been fully validated and are likely to come tumbling down when the right domino is knocked over by the truth revealed.

The truth is that Covid-19 is an unfolding situation that is not set in stone. Scientists can’t claim to have a perfect handle on things. Recent announcements of mutations of the virus in the UK prove just as much. The world is trying to hit a moving target and trying to build on a foundation of a whisper of smoke. The truth is that the vaccines themselves are experimental, have been created in a big rush and in the case of Moderna, by companies with no experience in this field when even the Merck CEO says that the fastest that any vaccine has been produced was 4 years because of safety issues. The truth is that the efficacy results from the vaccine trials will radically shift in light of real-world numbers from the glorious 95% effectiveness they announced, to something much lower. The truth is that no one knows what the long-term side effects of these vaccines will be. The truth is that the vaccine manufacturers have been indemnified against any claims of adverse reactions. The truth is that the vaccines admittedly do not prevent infections and may even cause the vaccinated to become spreaders. The truth is that serious side effects are being reported or experienced. The truth is that Australians abandoned their own trials when reports of ‘false positive’ HIV results were found during their trials. The truth is that Afrika has been earmarked for an entirely different vaccine from that which is being pushed on ‘developed’ nations. The truth is that positive PCR test results are not proof positive of a person even having Covid-19. The truth is that the test itself is problematic, but the world – in typical fashion- is so busy rushing towards the most complicated solution that it can find, that it is not stopping to robustly question and investigate the issues around the so-called pandemic. The truth is that Covid-19 is survivable.

The truth is that The Great Reset is based on a false precept but most people are so convinced they are going to die that they will not do the work to find out for themselves what is really going on – even when they smell a rat. Therefore, they will calmly sign over their freedom and their rights to a centralized control system that has a definite and fixed agenda in mind to shape the world into.

(Sources: wef.org, eurosurveillance.org, lifesitenews.org, cormandrostenreview.com/report/)