You may have heard of the “Great Reset” by now. Maybe you’ve learned about it from one of these articles in Time Magazine. Maybe you’ve learned about it from this silly BBC hit piece. Maybe you’ve learned about it from this op ed in Forbes. Or maybe your “crazy conspiracy theorist” uncle forwarded you one of the many videos on Youtube that mentions this topic. But what exactly is the “Great Reset”? Who is behind it? Why is there such a buzz surrounding it? And how does this relate to Covid-19? The purpose of this article is to help you answer these questions.
The launch of the “Great Reset” campaign
As I’m writing this article, it’s exactly 6 months since the “Great Reset” campaign was launched. Since 3 June 2020, the website of Charles, Prince of Wales, would contain a section titled “The Great Reset”, which contains the following statements :
Today, through HRH’s Sustainable Markets Initiative and the World Economic Forum, The Prince of Wales launched a new global initiative, The Great Reset.
For over fifty years, His Royal Highness has promoted action for a sustainable future to ensure that the natural assets can endure for future generations.
In January 2020, The Prince launched his Sustainable Markets Initiative at Davos, which calls on communities, businesses, investors and consumers to take the urgent and practical steps required to transition to more sustainable practices.
The Great Reset, which was launched during a virtual roundtable today, aims to rebuild, redesign, reinvigorate and rebalance our world. It has been designed to ensure businesses and communities ‘build back better’ by putting sustainable business practices at the heart of their operations as they begin to recover from the coronavirus pandemic.
There are many reasons to pursue a Great Reset, but the most urgent is COVID-19. Having already led to hundreds of thousands of deaths, the pandemic represents one of the worst public-health crises in recent history. And, with casualties still mounting in many parts of the world, it is far from over.
This will have serious long-term consequences for economic growth, public debt, employment, and human wellbeing. According to the Financial Times, global government debt has already reached its highest level in peacetime. Moreover, unemployment is skyrocketing in many countries: in the US, for example, one in four workers have filed for unemployment since mid-March, with new weekly claims far above historic highs. The International Monetary Fund expects the world economy to shrink by 3% this year — a downgrade of 6.3 percentage points in just four months.
All of this will exacerbate the climate and social crises that were already underway. Some countries have already used the COVID-19 crisis as an excuse to weaken environmental protections and enforcement. And frustrations over social ills like rising inequality — US billionaires’ combined wealth has increased during the crisis — are intensifying.
The Great Reset agenda would have three main components. The first would steer the market toward fairer outcomes. To this end, governments should improve coordination (for example, in tax, regulatory, and fiscal policy), upgrade trade arrangements, and create the conditions for a “stakeholder economy.” At a time of diminishing tax bases and soaring public debt, governments have a powerful incentive to pursue such action.
Moreover, governments should implement long-overdue reforms that promote more equitable outcomes. Depending on the country, these may include changes to wealth taxes, the withdrawal of fossil-fuel subsidies, and new rules governing intellectual property, trade, and competition.
The second component of a Great Reset agenda would ensure that investments advance shared goals, such as equality and sustainability. Here, the large-scale spending programs that many governments are implementing represent a major opportunity for progress. The European Commission, for one, has unveiled plans for a €750 billion ($826 billion) recovery fund. The US, China, and Japan also have ambitious economic-stimulus plans.
Rather than using these funds, as well as investments from private entities and pension funds, to fill cracks in the old system, we should use them to create a new one that is more resilient, equitable, and sustainable in the long run. This means, for example, building “green” urban infrastructure and creating incentives for industries to improve their track record on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) metrics.
The third and final priority of a Great Reset agenda is to harness the innovations of the Fourth Industrial Revolution to support the public good, especially by addressing health and social challenges. During the COVID-19 crisis, companies, universities, and others have joined forces to develop diagnostics, therapeutics, and possible vaccines; establish testing centers; create mechanisms for tracing infections; and deliver telemedicine. Imagine what could be possible if similar concerted efforts were made in every sector.
The COVID-19 crisis is affecting every facet of people’s lives in every corner of the world. But tragedy need not be its only legacy. On the contrary, the pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world to create a healthier, more equitable, and more prosperous future.
My thanks to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and to Professor Schwab for bringing us together.
Now is the time to think of what history would say about this crisis. And now is the time for all of us to define our own role.
Will historians look back and say this was the moment of a Great Reversal? Today, we see very worrying signs.
One hundred and seventy countries are going to finish this year with a smaller economy than at the start of the year, and we already project that there will be more debt, bigger deficits, and more unemployment. And there is a very high risk of more inequality and more poverty.
Unless we act.
So, what would it take for historians to look back at this crisis as the moment of a Great Reset?
From the perspective of the IMF, we have seen a massive injection of fiscal stimulus to help countries deal with this crisis, and to shift gears for growth to return. It is of paramount importance that this growth should lead to a greener, smarter, fairer world in the future.
It is possible to do this. Provided that we concentrate on the key elements of a recovery — and act now. We don’t need to wait.
At the IMF, we see some tremendous opportunities.
So, now is the moment to step up — and use all the strength we have — to turn the page. In the case of the IMF we have a one trillion-dollar financial capacity and tremendous engagement on the policy side.
This is the moment to decide that history will look back on this as the Great Reset, not the Great Reversal.
So, while most people were worrying about losing their health, their job or their business during what has been portayed by the media as once-in-a-century pandemic, some of the most powerful people on the planet decided to hold a virtual meeting, after which they agreed upon launching a global campaign to “reset capitalism”.
Mind that no one voted for these people. The general public was never consulted whether they agreed such a reset was needed. Nor did the mainstream media deem it important enough to inform the public of the launch of this campaign. While Prince Charles, the WEF an the IMF made no intention to hide this campaign from the public, the media kept focusing on Covid-19 and remained suspiciously silent on this new campaign.
What is the World Economic Forum?
The World Economic Forum is an international NGO, founded in 1971 by Klaus Schwab, a business professor at the University of Geneva. First named the European Management Forum, it changed its name to the World Economic Forum in 1987 and sought to broaden its vision to include providing a platform for resolving international conflicts. Headquartered in Cologny, Switzerland, the WEF also has offices in New York, Beijing and Tokyo.
The WEF is chaired by Founder and Executive Chairman Professor Klaus Schwab and is guided by a Board of Trustees that is made up of leaders from business, politics, academia and civil society. Members of the Board of Trustees include: Mukesh Ambani, Marc Benioff, Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, Mark Carney, Laurence D. Fink, Chrystia Freeland, Orit Gadiesh, Fabiola Gianotti, Al Gore, Herman Gref, José Ángel Gurría, André Hoffmann, Christine Lagarde, Jack Ma, Yo-Yo Ma, Peter Maurer, Luis Alberto Moreno, Muriel Pénicaud, H.M. Queen Rania Al Abdullah of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, L. Rafael Reif, David M. Rubenstein, Mark Schneider, Klaus Schwab, Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Jim Hagemann Snabe, Feike Sijbesma, Heizo Takenaka, Zhu Min.
The foundation is funded by its 1,000 member companies, typically global enterprises with more than US$5,000,000,000 in turnover (varying by industry and region). These enterprises rank among the top companies within their industry and/or country and play a leading role in shaping the future of their industry and/or region. Membership is stratified by level of engagement with forum activities, with the level of membership fees increasing as participation in meetings, projects, and initiatives rises. Annual membership costs are US$52,000 for an individual member, US$263,000 for an “Industry Partner” and US$527,000 for a “Strategic Partner”.
The flagship event of the WEF is the invitation-only annual meeting held at the end of January in Davos, Switzerland, bringing together chief executive officers from its 1,000 member companies, as well as selected politicians, representatives from academia & NGOs. The winter discussions ostensibly focus around globalization, capital markets, wealth management, international conflicts & environmental problems.
What is the International Monetary Fund?
The International Monetary Fund is an international organization, headquartered in Washington, D.C., consisting of 190 countries. Its official purpose is to foster global monetary cooperation, secure financial stability, facilitate international trade, promote high employment and sustainable economic growth, and reduce poverty around the world while periodically depending on the World Bank for its resources.
Formed in 1944 at the Bretton Woods Conference primarily by the ideas of Harry Dexter White and John Maynard Keynes, it came into formal existence in 1945 with 29 member countries and the goal of reconstructing the international payment system. It now plays a central role in the management of balance of payments difficulties and international financial crises.
Upon the founding of the IMF, its three primary functions were: to oversee the fixed exchange rate arrangements between countries, thus helping national governments manage their exchange rates and allowing these governments to prioritize economic growth, and to provide short-term capital to aid the balance of payments. This assistance was meant to prevent the spread of international economic crises. The IMF was also intended to help mend the pieces of the international economy after the Great Depression and World War II as well as to provide capital investments for economic growth and projects such as infrastructure.
The IMF has been criticised for being “out of touch” with local economic conditions, cultures, and environments in the countries they are requiring policy reform. The economic advice the IMF gives might not always take into consideration the difference between what spending means on paper and how it is felt by citizens. Countries charge that with excessive conditionality, they do not “own” the programs and the links are broken between a recipient country’s people, its government, and the goals being pursued by the IMF.
In December 2019, the world learned about a coronavirus called SARS-CoV-2, also known as Covid-19. Coronaviruses are a group of related RNA viruses that cause diseases in mammals and birds. In humans and birds, they cause respiratory tract infections that can range from mild to lethal.
This particular virus was first discovered in Wuhan, China. The media reported that China was being overwhelmed with this dangerous virus and was using various draconian measures to combat it. On 30 January, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. The virus was confirmed to have spread to Italy & Spain on 31 January 2020.
The world was shocked by terrifying images from both countries struggling to deal with this dangerous virus. And as the virus kept on spreading, the WHO declared a pandemic on 11 March 2020. We were told the world was ill-prepared for such a pandemic. No one could have seen this coming, everyone was told. That, however, is not entirely true.
On 15 May 2018, Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Health Security organised a “pandemic modelling exercise”, called Clade X, to determine the appropriate actions to take in the case of a global pandemic. On 18 October, 2019, the center would organize another such exercise called Event 201. This time, the event was co-organized by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and… the World Economic Forum. This was on the same day the Military World Games had started in Wuhan.
One voice, one message
One of the main topics discussed during Event 201 was how to control the flow of information. An entire segment was dedicated to various strategies for “keeping the bad information out” while ensuring “reliable info reaches the public”. This included “flooding” the media with one particular narrative and centralizating of the flow of information by relying heavily on “trusted” sources, while censoring voices that contradict these “trusted” sources.
Since the start of the Covid-19 crisis, the world has witnessed precisely that. The US had it’s Antony Fauci. Britain had its Neil Ferguson. Germany had its Christian Drosten. The Netherlands had its Ab Osterhaus. Belgium had its Marc Van Ranst. etc. Every country had its own “trusted” source that the media all flocked to for their expert opinions.
In this lecture from 22 January 2019, Van Ranst decribed in great detail how he put this strategy of “One voice, one message” into practice during the so-called “Swine Flu pandemic” back in 2009. He described not only how he managed to make himself thé expert on the “Swine Flu” that everyone in the Belgian media used as a reliable source, but also how he deliberately deceived the Belgian public to generate an atmosphere of fear around the “Swine Flu”.
Now, it’s important to note that these expert opinions haven’t always been consistent. When asked on 29 January about face marks, Marc Van Ranst responded with “Face masks are totally useless”. On 31 March, Van Ranst added to this that “if you’re worried, at least it’s good for your brains”… arguing that it may make people feel better, but definitely nothing more. On 1 April, he even added that face masks could be harmful :
However, we know that [a face mask] does not protect you. On the contrary: it sometimes gives a false sense of security. You will move closer to others, some people wash their hands less and are less attentive.
One month later, Van Ranst claimed that it had always been clear that we’d be needing face masks. Shortly after that, he would come to play a major role in a campaign promoting the use of face masks.
What’s especially interesting about all this, is that other experts did a similar 180. When 60 Minutes asked Dr Fauci on 8 March what’s his opinions on face masks, he gave the following response :
There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences — people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.
Now, of course, we all know that Fauci also changed his mind. So, first, several of the “trusted” experts insisted face masks had a psychological effect at best… and might even be harmful. But now everyone is encouraged or even forced to wear face marks. Why should we trust these experts, when they’re certain of one thing at one time and then certain of the opposite the next?
Also, note that this isn’t the first time these experts have failed to demonstrate their credibility. Back in 2009, it were these same experts that used faulty mathematical models to convince the world that the “Swine Flu” was this very dangerous pandemic… which it wasn’t. It were these same experts that convinced several countries to waste millions of tax payer money on vaccines that would never be used… only for more tax money to be used to destroy those vaccines. And, as Van Ranst bitterly acknowledged in the aforementioned lecture, it was largely due to the efforts of one man that the damage of this pandemic that wasn’t was minimal.
The “Swine Flu” debacle
Wolfgang Wodarg is a physician and an expert in lung disease, who left medical practice in 1994 to focus on his career in politics. That year, he became federal deputy chairman of the national Association of Social Democrats in the Health Sector. In 2002, Wodarg elected chairman of the federal Committee. From 1994 to 2009, Wodard has also been a member of the Bundestag. And since 1999, he belonged to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
On December 18 2009, a Socialist representative in the German Bundestag, Wolfgang Wodarg, and 13 other European national parliamentarians signed a motion claiming that “pharmaceutical companies have influenced scientists and official [public health] agencies” leading them to “squander tight health care resources [on] inefficient vaccine strategies and needlessly exposed millions of healthy people to the risk of unknown side-effects of insufficiently tested vaccines.” This motion resulted in a hearing at the end of January convened by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to discuss the issue of “fake pandemics”.
On 6 February 2010, Forbes published an article titled “Why The WHO Faked A Pandemic”. In this article, we find the following remarkable statements :
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), a human rights watchdog, is publicly investigating the WHO’s motives in declaring a pandemic. Indeed, the chairman of its influential health committee, epidemiologist Wolfgang Wodarg, has declared that the “false pandemic” is “one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century.”
Even within the agency, the director of the WHO Collaborating Center for Epidemiology in Munster, Germany, Dr. Ulrich Kiel, has essentially labeled the pandemic a hoax. “We are witnessing a gigantic misallocation of resources [$18 billion so far] in terms of public health,” he said.
They’re right. This wasn’t merely overcautiousness or simple misjudgment. The pandemic declaration and all the Klaxon-ringing since reflect sheer dishonesty motivated not by medical concerns but political ones.
Note that this article in Forbes was mysteriously deleted in 2020, as the article was re-discovered by people asking questions about the Covid-19 pandemic. Hence, the link provided is a link to an archived version.
Forbes is not the only mainstream source to describe the “Swine Flu” as a fake pandemic and point out corruption by both the WHO and Big Pharma. For example, Nieuwsuur (News Hour) is a Dutch current affairs television program produced for the NPO. They produced this report on the “Swine Flu” “pandemic”, which they described as the “mildest flu ever”.
Der Spiegel would write the following in an article from 12 March 2010 :
Swine flu kept the world in suspense for almost a year. A massive vaccination campaign was mounted to put a stop to the anticipated pandemic. But, as it turned out, it was a relatively harmless strain of the flu virus.
Most of all, however, it was probably the horrific images of the avian flu that distorted the experts’ view of the idiosyncrasies of the new pathogen. The vision of a highly aggressive virus had become lodged in their minds, a virus that, once it began to spread, would lead to catastrophe.
The media also did its part in stoking fears. SPIEGEL, for example, had reported at length on the avian flu. Now it devoted a cover story to the new “global virus,” a story filled with concerns that the swine flu pathogen could mutate into a horrific virus.
The pharmaceutical industry was particularly adept at keeping this vision alive. Manufacturers of flu remedies and vaccines even funded a group of scientists devoted solely to this issue: the European Scientific Working Group on Influenza, which regularly held conferences and meetings of experts. The lobbying group was headed by Albert Osterhaus of the Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, who also happened to be one of the WHO’s most influential advisors on influenza vaccines.
Together with Osterhaus, Johannes Löwer was asked to provide Director-General Chan with recommendations on the subject of swine flu vaccination. The then president of the Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI), which specializes in vaccines, is now convinced that he and his fellow experts were probably too strongly influenced by the horror scenarios swirling around the avian flu. “We expected a real pandemic, and we thought that it had to happen. There was no one who suggested re-thinking our approach.”
Silencing the “other experts”
Back in March 2020, a 10 minute video statement by Wolfgang Wodarg started going viral on Youtube, where he expressed his concerns that Covid-19 was another “fake pandemic”. In spite of obvious similarities between the “Swine Flu” scare of 2009 and the Covid-19 scare of 2020, this time Wodarg’s critique was not just ignored by the establishment, but Wodarg was even explicitly outcasted. Transparency International Germany, on whose board of directors Wodarg serves, distanced itself from his statements on 17 March 2020 :
Transparency International Germany rejects the sweeping criticism of board member Dr Wolfgang Wodarg of the government measures to protect the population from the coronavirus. (…) Wolfgang Wodarg is speaking on this matter as a private individual and not in his capacity as a member of the Management Board.
On 25 March 2020, the board decided to suspend his membership in the association “until further notice”, which means that Wodarg can no longer exercise any functions on the board or as head of the health working group for the time being. To make things worse, because he had been given a platform to express his views on “radical media”, Wodarg himself became falsely associated with “anti-democratic and sometimes anti-Semitic prejudices”, further ruining his reputation. Wodarg was never interviewed by the media. He was never consulted by politicians. He was never allowed to publicly challenge the narrative of Drosten et al.
Wodarg would not be the only one to receive a similar treatment. Sucharit Bhakdi is a retired Thai-German microbiologist who was professor of Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz and from 1991 to 2012 was head of the Institute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene there. Dr. Bhakdi has published over three hundred articles in the fields of immunology, bacteriology, virology, and parasitology, for which he has received numerous awards and the Order of Merit of Rhineland-Palatinate. Bhakdi’s wife, Karina Reiss, a is biologist and biochemist at the Quincke Research Center. In 2008, she became associate professor in at the University of Kiel. Reiss has published over sixty articles in the fields of cell biology, biochemistry, inflammation, and infection.
On 2 October 2020, Bhakdi & Reiss published a book titled Corona, False Alarm? expressing the same concerns as Wodarg. Like Wodarg Bhakdi & Reiss argued that Covid-19 posed no more threat than influenza. The couple argued that there was no reason for any lockdowns or other draconian measures, and the entire hysteria built around Covid-19 was as unjustified as that build around the “Swine Flu”. Like Wodarg, Bhakdi & Reiss largely blamed the fake mathematical model pushed by Neil Ferguson and the completely unrelable PCR tests pushed by Drosten as the main reason a mostly harmless virus is blown up and portrayed as a pandemic.
Like Wodarg, Bhakdi’s reputation was slandered. The Germany media produced article after article, associating him with “Querdenkers” (something in between “conspiracy theorists” and “nazis”) and “Corona-Luegner” (“Corona deniers”). Of course, they never addressed his real arguments. Of course, they never gave him a platform to express his expert opinion. “One voice, one message”, remember? So Bhakdi’s opinion doesn’t matter.
This censorship and defamation wasn’t exclusive to Germany. For example, consider Professor Dr Dolores Cahill. Cahill is Professor of Translational Science at the Conway Institute, School of Medicine and Medical Sciences at the University College Dublin. Her team has achieved key breakthroughs in developing high-density protein and antibody array technologies and demonstrated their applications in biological and medical research. She has received the prestigious BMBF Bio Future Award from the German Minister of Science, the Federation of European Biochemical Societies 2009 Award and co-founded Protagen AG to commercialize her discoveries.
In a video, first published on 11 May 2020, professor Cahill was interviewed by a YouTuber named Dave Cullen, also known as Computing Forever. In this video, Cahill shared her expert opinion on why she believed Covid-19 is a mostly harmless virus. After reaching almost 1,000,000 views, Youtube decided to take down the original video. Article after article were published to defame professor Cahill and portray her as a quack. And instead of condemning Youtube for its blatant censorship, the media complained it took too long for Youtube to remove this video. Like Wodarg & Bhakdi, she was never asked by the media or politicians to share her expert opinion. Her expertise was just discarded outright. Cahill was even asked to resign from a leading European Union scientific committee over claims she made in that particular interview.
These are just the tip of the iceberg/ There are countless other experts who have expressed concerns similar to the aforementioned experts. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Dr. Sunetra Gupta and Dr. Martin Kulldorff, for example, wrote a document known as The Great Barrington Declaration, which has more than 40 highly reputable co-signers, where they expressed the following concerns :
Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent PCR testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals.
Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.
Note that The Great Barrington Declaration still recommends frequent PCR testing to determine whether people in nursing homes are infected or not. The reliability of said tests is very much contested, however, and since The Great Barrington Declaration was written, ever more evidence has emerged that they fail to accurately determine infection, putting this diagnostic method heavily into question!
To test ot not to test
Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is a method widely used to rapidly make millions to billions of copies of a specific DNA sample, allowing scientists to take a very small sample of DNA and amplify it to a large enough amount to study in detail. PCR was invented in 1984 by the American biochemist Kary Mullis at Cetus Corporation.
On 23 January 2020, Drosten, along with other virologists in Europe and Hong Kong, published a workflow of a real-time PCR diagnostic test, which was quickly accepted by the WHO, that sent test kits to regions affected by Covid-19. This test soon became the primary diagnostic method for determining whether someone is infected with Covid-19.
The problem with the PCR test… is that it’s ill-suited for diagnosis. An external peer review of the PCR test used to detect Covid-19 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level. Reviewers address “blemishes” that has them confident “that the editorial board of Eurosurveillance has no other choice but to retract the publication.”
The PCR test “is unable to determine, beyond reasonable doubt, that a positive result corresponds, in fact, to the infection of a person by the SARS-CoV-2 virus”, the Lisbon Court of Appeal would claim on 11 November, after some German tourists had filed a law suite for having been forced by the health authority to comply with isolation for 14 days in the hotel room.
Other lawsuits are being filed as we speak against the German government and other governments on the grounds that the PCR tests are used are a fraudulent method used to commit “crimes against humanity”. In this 49 minute statement, lawyer Reiner Fuellmich explains why the action taken against Covid-19 serve only to stir people panic for corporate and political gains, and why this amounts to “crimes against humanity”. In this 28 minute speech, professor Cahill mentions she is collaborating with a team of lawyers to achieve the same goal.
Putting all the pieces of the puzzle together
With this article, I believe to have sufficiently demonstrated the following :
- In 2009, Big Pharma collaborated with several virology experts to portray a very mild flu as a dangerous (“Swine Flu”) pandemic, which costed the tax payer a fortune but caused relatively little damage besides that. The main reason the damage was not significantly greater, was Wolfgang Wodarg exposing this scam in time.
- On May 2018, John Hopkins organized a tabletop exercise, named Clade X, to practice how to respond to a global pandemic
- On October 2019, John Hopkins collaborated with the Gates Foundation & World Economic Forum to organize another tabletop exercise, named Event 201, to practice how to respond to a global pandemic
- On March 2020, around the same time the WHO declared a pandemic, Wolfgang Wodarg and several other prominent experts started warning the world that we were witnessing a repetition of the “Swine Flu” debacle
- In line with strategies described by Marc Van Ranst in a 2019 lecture and strategies described in Event 201, such as “flooding” the media with “one voice, one message”, a single narrative was presented to the public, based on models and techniques developed by the same experts responsible for the 2009 “Swine Flu” debacle
- Any alternate positions on Covid-19 have been heavily censored. Countless experts warning that Covid-19 is not the dangerous virus it is portrayed as by the media have been portrayed as “false news”. Such experts were completely ignored by media and politicians alike
- The World Economic Forum, in collaboration with the International Monetary Fund and Charles, Prince of Wales, have launched a campaign on 3 June 2020, that intends to use Covid-19 hysteria as a launchpad for a “global reset of capitalism”
In “conspiracy theorist” circles, it has been suggested that the World Economic Forum collaborated with Big Pharma to repeat the “Swine Flu” scam of 2009, albeit more efficiently. It has been suggested that the same strategy was applied, to achieve huge corporate profits for vaccine-producing companies and others who benefit financially from the current crisis, as well as to provide a pretext for the political goals of professor Schwab and those around him.
It has been suggested that the main goals of the lockdowns and other measures many of us are currently facing on a daily basis is not to protect the world from a dangerous virus, but to bring the economy down on its knees. It has been suggested that the totalitarian “new normal” we’re all slowly getting used to is basically just a method to trigger a socio-economic revolution, as outlined in “The Great Reset”.
This article makes no attempt to prove or disprove such claims. I leave it up to you, the reader, to look at the evidence provided by this article and come to your own conclusion on whether this evidence justifies coming to this conclusion, whether it’s just a ridiculous “conspiracy theory” or whether we need more evidence to draw a conclusion.
I wrote this article not because I want to impose a particular conclusion on this matter, but because I wanted to provide an overview of a wide range of information that is virally spreading on the Internet but which is mostly ignored by the mainstream media. It is my opinion that it is essential to see the bigger picture before you come to a conclusion on any specific issue. And, considering the media has failed to fulfill its duty of providing the public this bigger picture, this article is my humble attempt to succeed where they have failed.
If you would like to dig deeper into the matters discussed in this article, I implore you to start with the videos below. From propaganda videos by the WEF & IMF to interviews with medical experts & satire, each of these videos sheds a different light on the matters addressed by this article.