Great Reset or Great Disaster?

posted in: Updates | 0

What follows is a overview of the Covid Crisis as at September 2021 including the agenda of a substantial
part of the global elite. I do not mean for this essay to be read as if I am claiming that this group micro-managed
and pre-planned an elaborate conspiracy. They did not need to – what needed to happen is for key institutions to put
into practice already prepared contingency plans for a time of emergency after several years of shaping these
contingency plans in elite discussions, for example in places like Davos.

I have been involved in discussions for two decades about climate change, biodiversity collapse, peak oil, resource
depletion, health crises and what economists call “secular stagnation”. In 2008/9 there was a massive banking and
financial crisis but afterwards global debt continued to get larger while economies stagnated. There were
several other kinds of crises on the cards. It was just a matter of when one or more global crises would be

Inevitably different parts of an elite that is fragmented according to nationalities and different focuses have
discussed what their moves would be for things that might happen. That is why they meet at places like the World Economic Forum (Davos) and at other international conferences and events. As is obvious, the largest financial
players are particularly important and have made their own plans to cope with the threat of a financial meltdown – a
meltdown which was a looming threat anyway, even had there been no health crisis.

Discussions and preparations for what would happen if there was a financial crisis and for what would happen if
there were a health crisis occurred shortly before the pandemic – both in the autumn of 2019. What has happened
subsequently was clearly influenced by these preparations and by the interventions of the World Economic Forum.
These actions together became what the WEF calls “The Great Reset”.

2019 – Central Bankers meet to debate proposals for the next economic downturn

The main features of the financial policy response were agreed at a meeting of central bankers on 22nd August
2019 at Jackson Hole in Wyoming. Their plan was devised by the Blackrock investment group and presented in a
document called ‘Proposal for dealing with the next downturn’. It can be found at this weblink:

On page two of this document it is explained that current policy is at the end of the road and something new would
be necessary. “An unprecedented response is needed when monetary policy is exhausted and fiscal policy alone is
not enough. That response will likely involve “going direct”: Going direct means the central bank finding ways to
get central bank money directly in the hands of public and private sector spenders.”

The ultimate goal down this road for very big players is the creation of a global system of central bank digital
currencies (CBDC) with everyone having accounts. For central bankers this would lead to unprecedented power
since with digital currencies, unlike with cash, the bankers would know about and be able to control all
transactions. That would give them power that could be wielded in all aspects of life together with partner agencies.
For example, if you broke covid quarantine your location and transactions could all be tracked and managed (ie

One month after the Jackson Hole meeting a crisis in the New York financial markets led to the Fed adopting the
Blackrock approach – indeed they did it using the services of Blackrock – which used some of the cash made
available by the Federal Reserve to bail out some of Blackrock’s own investments.

This was before the pandemic. A few months later a huge amount of money was created at the time of the pandemic
and of the lock downs. The bulk of this central bank money has benefited the super rich while many small
businesses and ordinary people have been driven to the wall. There has been a massive transfer of wealth upwards.
Let us not forget the bigger economic context – “Going Direct” was an elite response not only to Covid but to the
stagnation and over-indebtness that has been developing over the last few decades.

While the biggest financial players are developing their financial strategy other parts of the elite have been
preparing for a health crisis. Thus, in the autumn of 2019 there was also a simulation in New York that anticipated
a pandemic. The simulation exercise was titled “Event 201” . The Event 201 scenario — the brainchild of
researchers at the Johns Hopkins Centre for Health Security — was designed to test global preparedness in the face
of a severe pandemic. The main conclusion of the simulation, they claimed, was the need to act fast to contain it
when it arrived.

The scramble to act quickly subsequently happened. Responses to covid 19 were imposed so rapidly that there was
no time to consider them properly, so that democratic and human rights have been suspended. Whether measures
taken were appropriate and would make the situation even worse was barely discussed at the beginning or
afterwards. Some academics and critics tried to raise questions but have been comprehensively censored. The
politicians, and above all, the “experts” were not quick to admit mistakes.

The resistance to criticism was prepared at Event 201. The following is based on a video on the internet about the
communications strategy at 201:

“At Event 201 participants discussed mechanisms for controlling “disinformation” and “misinformation,” by
“flooding” the media with propaganda (“good information”), imposing penalties for spreading falsehoods and
discrediting the anti-vaccination movement. Jane Halton, of Australia’s ANZ Bank, one of the authors of Australia’s
oppressive “no jab, no pay” policy, assured the participants that the Gates Foundation was creating algorithms “to sift
through information on these social media platforms” to protect the public from dangerous thoughts and
information. George Gao, the prescient director of the Chinese Center for Disease Control, worried about how to
suppress “rumors” that the simulated virus was laboratory generated: “People believe, ‘This is a manmade’…
[and that] some pharmaceutical company made the virus.” Chen Huang, an Apple research scientist, Google scholar
and the world’s leading expert on tracking and tracing and facial recognition technology, role-played the newscaster
reporting on government countermeasures. He blamed riots on anti-vaccine activists and predicted that Twitter and
Facebook would cooperate in “identify[ing] and delete[ing] a disturbing number of accounts dedicated to spreading
misinformation about the outbreak” and to implement “internet shutdowns … to quell panic”.

Because of events and arrangements like these many have called the pandemic a plandemic. Indeed there is a
very informative documentary called Plandemic II: Indoctornation Of course the anticipation of events does not
necessarily imply a conspiracy because good management involves anticipating potential contigencies and
preparing plans for if the contingencies come to pass. Added together the result has been greater than the sum
of the parts. Although this was not a conspiracy the net result has looked pretty close to one – a global policy
coup by the leaders of the large corporations and a group of chosen “experts” generously sponsored and
supported with their money – particularly money from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

The agendas of different parts of the elite have fitted together in a mutually reinforcing way – and the
result has been as if there was a stitching together of the pieces. Those involved have included actors from banking
and finance, the Silicon Valley corporations, Big Pharma, the Public Health bureaucracy and the senior managers in
the health bureaucracies, Agri-Business, The Bright Green Technology Corporations developing so called “Green
Energy” as well as the defence and security establishments including bioweapon developers.

Over and above these the World Economic Forum helped to create the impression of a unifying philosophy. Their
gurus Thierry Malleret and Klaus Schwab published their book, modestly titled “The Great Reset” in July 2020 –
which was a cracking pace to write and publish a work about a crisis that only started 3 or 4 months previously.
However, as already explained, the elite talks with each other. It anticipates trends and problems and it was, in its
own way, prepared.

The idea of a Reset helped business, governments and policy wonks to create the appearance of a common
orientation. When you read the book by Malleret and Schwab it all seems very benign on paper. It is full of concern
for “stakeholders” but the reality has been a hard nosed and ruthless policy coup.

The motives have been disaster capitalist which is the very antithesis of looking out for the interests of all
stakeholders. Yes, they look after the stakeholders – the big ones but not the little ones. Disaster capitalism is about
cashing in on the vulnerability of ordinary people demobilising them by the creation of fear and a prepared media
onslaught to shut up criticism.

How and why has this all suddenly come about?

Let us, however, step back a little. If many business groups were anticipating difficulties then where did these
difficulties originate? For example, at Jackson Hole, mega wealth managers and advisers to the central bankers,
Blackrock, introduced a paper saying that financial policy in its existing form would not be able to cope with the
next economic downturn. How had it got so bad? Also, where had the health crises come from?

For each of the specialist groups, and indeed for all of us, the crisis has emerged at a deeper level in the Limits to
Economic Growth predicted as far back as 1972.

Let us look first at the crisis in the economy and the mushrooming unmanageability of debts. Afterwards let us turn
to the health crisis. Both have their roots in the limits to growth, though in very different ways.

A modern economy is a network of machines, vehicles, infrastructures, devices and equipment – all of which
require an energy throughput, a power source, to function. The economy grows when energy is cheap and abundant
and can be used to power the machinery, vehicles, devices and infrastructures. In prosperous times more of these
devices and machines are created.

In these circumstances there is more material wealth and services to be shared between groups. Rapid growth also
provides the wherewithall to fund rising state expenditure. A growing economy with high profit rates can much
more easily service debts and so it is likely to have a stable financial and banking sector. However as the economy
slows, then stagnates and then goes into involuntary degrowth there are problems servicing debts. At the same time
financial institutions are reluctant to lend for new productive investment. In a period like this the finance sector prefers to invest in rising asset prices – like commercial property, houses and land whose prices are expected to rise. This leaves more risky productive investment unfunded. The “too big to fail” institutions prefer to gamble. There is more money to be made in speculation on the rising asset values. The speculators know that central banks will bail them out if things go wrong. They are “too big to fail”.

But why has growth slowed down? Where did “secular stagnation” come from? Why did the authors of the book
“The Limits to Growth” published in 1972 predict that growth would falter in the first two decades of the 21st

In common with many thinkers the Great Resetters see technology itself as the source of growth. High technology
and an educated labour force to use this technology is understood as a overarching solution for all problems –
including health, energy and ecology – the so called Fourth Industrial Revolution is the core of their ideological
project. The gurus of this idea are hostile to alternative ideas that do not fit the triumphant ascendancy of the high
tech project that makes up their grand narrative. As a result they are in a rush to implement high tech restructuring
of production, retail and agriculture through digitalisation, 5G, surveillance capitalism and bio-engineered
agriculture. However….what they are in denial about is that the machinery and powered devices need cheap and
reliable energy sources as well as cheap and easily available material inputs. The problem is that decades of mining,
drilling and monocrop chemical agriculture has led to serious depletion which means that the cheaper sources of
materials and energy are now largely exhausted.

Depletion of energy sources and materials make extraction of resources from the planet more expensive and has
brought about a crisis of affordability for essential inputs. These rising costs cannot be escaped. There is a crisis of
affordability for input and energy sources.

In the 1960s the global energy cost of energy was less than 2%. By the end of the century it was 3.5% and now it is
about 8%. This has real world effects. Then there are escalating costs of maintaining a large legacy energy infrastructure near the end of its life – like ageing coal and nuclear power stations.

Nothing works without energy inputs. Even barbers needs electric light and power for clippers. Energy costs are
non-discretionary expenditure. They must be paid and after they are paid that leaves less discretionary purchasing
power available to to use to pay for everything else. For a very short explanation of and evidence for these trends
see my 2 sided article at

As it becomes more expensive to extract fossil fuels, generate power in old infrastructures and intermittent wind
power generation people and companies are left with less cash to buy other things. The affordability crisis means
that the energy sector develops a profitability crisis. The problems of the energy sector are compounded by the
climate and other environmental impacts of energy use. Climate destroying pollution from greenhouse gases makes
the crisis worse. But who is to pay for the technological transformation? Ordinary people are squeezed and struggle
to stay warm in winter and pay to keep the lights on.

A major sign of the limits to growth is that industrial and economic growth leads to land use change. Forests
disappear to cattle ranchers, to mines and to suburbs. Economic claims on land and marine resources are crowding
out the living planet and generating new health crises.

The kinds of crisis that would end growth were forseen in 1970s – depletion and thus rising cost of energy and
inputs as well as pollution and its impact on production. And they have come along just as predicted.

The Limits to Growth, Agriculture and the Health Crisis

For example economic growth has meant land use change that has disrupted the habitat of wildlife and helped spill
zoonotic diseases from animals into human communities. The response has been attempted technofixes. Restraining
land use change and ensuring local communities cultivating in a way that is bio diverse and based on local
knowledge should have been the appropriate response. However it is the big players who set the global agenda not
small farmers. This would frustrate the gentech agriculture agenda being developed by Bill Gates together with
Monsanto and the other giant petro-chemical based agri corporations.

Rather than put brakes on gentech agriculture the response to the danger from zoonotic diseases has been to
investigate them more closely – including by developing their lethal and transmissable features further in
laboratories. In theory this “gain of function” research anticipates dangerous trends to head off these trends.

So what went wrong? In practice the research was picked up by bioweapon and vaccines developers in a deadly
race that included patenting the newly lab engineered features – including the ones that have just killed millions of
(mainly elderly or vulnerable people) in social care facilities. See “Plandemic II” and “Follow the Patents” at

Disaster Capitalism – Market for Surveillance

Disaster capitalism means that new markets are created out of the problems that the dynamic of capitalism creates.
A health crisis creates a demand for protective clothing and equipment. Quarantine at borders fills hotels short of guests– and then is used as a demand for construction companies to build quarantine camps – which look
remarkably like concentration camps. Test and trace and vaccine passports appears to be an ideal market to help get
surveillance and security corporations a lot of work and expand the use of digital surveillance devices. The
pandemic has proved remarkably profitable for the Digital Corporations as lockdowns and social distancing
compels communication through computer and smart phone screens.

By following these plans in order to “not let a crisis go to waste” the corporate elite and their “public health
experts” are attempting to produce a radical “new normal” in which ordinary people lose rights, income and wealth
but their resistance is neutralised by being enmeshed in a variety of new digital surveillance systems by “experts”
who supposedly know what is best for us.

Such systems blur the distinction between medical surveillance and political and state surveillance – using digitally
enforced “quarantine” measures as forms of house arrest and curfew. They are to be used to coerce vaccination by
denying rights to use community facilities like entertainment venues, shops and travel to those who refuse to take the
so called vaccines – which have been pushed on the public long before clinical trials have been completed.

A crucial feature of the con is the use of an inaccurate testing regime which purports to identify “cases” even
though it is known that a high percentage of these cases are false positives – and crucially have no other symptoms.
This can be ensured by the calibration of the tests (at too high a cycle threshold for PCR tests) and by fiddling
statistical categories – counting people who die with covid when the main cause of death are co-morbidities – rather
than counting those who die from covid as the main cause of death.

A testing regime that works like this is gold dust for disciplining the populace and for making money. The global
polymerase chain reaction market size was valued at USD 23.6 billion in 2020 and is expected to expand at a
compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 0.9% from 2021 to 2028. The global lateral flow assays market size was
valued at USD 5.40 billion in 2020 and is expected to expand at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 5.9%
from 2021 to 2028. There’s a lot of money to be made if we are ill or if infection is feared. Illness and fear are
good for business in disaster capitalism.

An emergency is also ideal for justifying short cuts, doing things in a hurry and thus evading normal bidding
proccedures. It’s great for cronyism. Lockdowns help drive small businesses to the wall. It closes shops so that
alternative delivery-based operations flourish. Those who gain constitute a constituency for maintaining the new
regime – those who lose disappear. As a result cost benefit analysis does not happen – those who benefit have a
vested interest and for those who bore the costs it is now too late and they need to look for a new way of making a

The Mental Health Crisis

This is a dynamic which has no reverse gear. It was Stalin that said that the death of one person is a tragedy
whereas the death of thousands is merely a statistic. In the aloof pinnacles of global power there is a great distance
from ground level where real people live. In their observation of global trends and statistics those at the pinnacles
of power observe a crisis from a place where personal tragedies are not part of the mathematical models and are a
matter of indifference to the modellers. Abstract trends measured in statistics may even appear reversible. At
household level events are never fully reversible – knock on consequences are lasting – deaths have knock on
consequences for those who remain. The trends on the graphs of mortality go up and then down and then up again
– but the dead do not come back to life and widows and widowers now live alone.

At this household level when the authorities decide that the public is not fearful enough and need to social distance
there is a rise in what are called mental health problems. Why should this be? It is because strong fear means a
need for personal and social support but what people have got instead is a demand that they isolate. But in isolation
it is not possible to reality check – indeed the fears of the public are fed and amplified by the authorities.

Social isolation combined with fear has led to millions of people losing their sense of proportion. Rationality is
ratio – nality. It is a proper sense of proportion that requires engagement with the world, an ability to reality check.

People have been made to fear the virus believing that the risk of death to themselves is many times higher than is
usually the case. Unable to make realistic risk assessments for themselves as individuals they decide for covid
safety, staying away from the support and the medical consultations that they need for non-covid problems and to
manage their lives. A backlog of non-covid problems builds up. Meanwhile young people and children grow up
with muzzles, living in a world where facial expressions are hidden from them and it is difficult for them to breath.
The experts, focused on a narrow policy goal alone and to the exclusion of the other issues in people’s lives, screw up
these practicalities in the lives of ordinary people while gracing the TV screens and earning fat salaries.

At national and global level the result is catastrophic. If you want to organise a global policy coup then using a
public health crisis is ideal. Herman Goering explained how it is done when he spoke with a psychologist at
the Nuremberg trials:

“….the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell
them they are being attacked, and denounce the peace makers for lack of patriotism and exposing the
country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

In a world stuffed with weapons of mass destruction that would be highly dangerous but if everyone is “under
attack” by a virus then the danger of hot war is not as great. At the same time you can lockdown the entire
population in their own homes by using the media for fear inflation, shaming and by scapegoating. In this
case you do not denounce the “peace makers” for lack of patriotism you denounce the people who try to
accurately portray the extent of the danger and the “collateral damage” . You villify and demonise them as
covidiots and anti vaxxers who are allegedly exposing the country to danger.

With all the main media channels acting in lockstep to parrot exactly the same story, the same narrative, most
people are unaware what has hit them. If you have never previously questioned and studied the construction of
news narratives then you will probably not notice. This is even more the case because the messages have been
guided by advice on how to “nudge” people with covert psychological manipulation.

For example, many shops now have signs on the door saying ‘please wear a face covering out of respect for
others’. Roughly translated this carries this implication: ‘even though you don’t have to, if you don’t wear a
mask, you don’t respect other people.’ To be independent of the government we all now need black belt level
training in countering psychological manipulation.

This is what “The Great Reset” really means – millions of people driven crazy for an illness that is
not particularly dangerous for almost all but those who are at the end of life anyway – and even for them it is eminently
treatable with re-purposed drugs. (see below).

For elites trained in private schools and psychologically damaged in childhood this appears to be a matter of
indifference. Indeed the disruption of mass mental health has paralysed the organisation of resistance and
alternatives as people are separated from each other and their internet mediated communications can all be
subjected to surveillance. While Schwab and Malleret sermonise about stakeholder capitalism millions of
disempowered and impoverished stakeholders experience misery, insecurity, terror and loss of proportion.

While we are presented with “the Fourth Industrial Revolution” as digital progress what we actually see happening
is Silicon Valley corporations moving to usher in an epoch where one can no longer assume privacy even in one’s
own home. Computers and digital equipment may now be eavesdropping on conversations and monitoring what
one does – all in the interests of corporations. For example as a condition for low insurance premiums devices will
ensure that one eats healthily, drives carefully and is where one says one is during a quarantine order. If one
misbehaves the fridge door will lock, the car be immobilised, the digital currency account suspended.

Keeping control of the narrative – imposing a “single version of the truth”

In order to smooth the way for this comprehensive loss of personal freedom the mass media has been used to
impose a “single version of the truth” – one that confirms the so called “New Normal”. The Reset requires that life
follows the pre-set narrative and that involves control of internet and media. To control global journalism, Bill
Gates has steered over $250 million to the BBC, NPR, NBC, Al Jazeera, ProPublica, National Journal, The
Guardian, the New York Times, Univision, Medium, the Financial Times, The Atlantic, the Texas Tribune, Gannett,
Washington Monthly, Le Monde, Center for Investigative Reporting, Pulitzer Center, National Press Foundation,
International Center for Journalists, and a host of other groups. To conceal his influence, Gates also funneled
unknown sums via subgrants for contracts to other press outlets.”

The control of the medical narrative has been particularly ruthless and the role of journalists and media
personalities particularly disgraceful in serving Big Pharma. The goal is a marketing agenda to push new drugs,
particularly the so called vaccines (which are really experimental gene therapies). In parallel nothing tells us more
clearly which stakeholders matter and which stakeholders are expendable than what the Reset reveals about the
relationship between Big Pharma and the Medical Bureaucracies.

For example drug companies and their hired researchers have made it their business to discredit
hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin as treatments because they have been around for ages and are out of patent.
They represent low cost effective and safer competitors to the gene therapies. What is more they are old remedies
that have been in use for decades. Using existing medicines, providing early treatments and adequately responding
to the health crisis was not how it is supposed to be. For the pre-determined narrative to prevail it must be new
technological innovation – the gene based injections – that come to our rescue. That is also because great hope is
being put on further use of (markets for) gene based medicine in the future. The widespread effective adoption of
old medicines, already in use, would be a disaster for the new narrative.

It would also be a disaster for the pre-determined narrative if the “regulatory” agencies actually monitored and
investigated the deaths from the vaccines, if they actually did what they are supposed to do. As this has barely
happened the role of the media ought to be investigation of the regulators and raising hell about why this has not
happened. The story, and it is huge one, ought to be about the malfeasance of government and the regulators. The
reverse has happened – the media have enthusiastically allowed themselves to attack medical critics – as envisaged
and pre-planned in Event 201. Here is the reason that Gates has spent $250 million buying the media.

Nevertheless the Great Reset will be a process ending in disaster

The injections have already given rise to large numbers of deaths. In previous new vaccines 25 to 50 deaths from a
new vaccine would have led to their withdrawal. Now there are over 18 thousand deaths in the European Union

A grim possibility that might conceivably undermine the Reset would be an even higher number of deaths due to
Antibody Dependent Enhancement as the efficacy of the injections wane and new variants appear on the scene. If
large numbers of people die or are rendered chronically ill, disabled and in need of care this could in any case lead
to economic and political collapse.

I do not say that this will happen. I have no formal medical training to be able to make that judgement. However
people who do have the qualifications that I lack are of the view that it might do so. I can read and I read their
warnings which seem plausible and credible to me.

Things that might happen, and might not, are issues that only emerge with time and should have been checked out
before vaccines were released to billions of people. They should have been checked by people who could be trusted
– because the “vaccines” have been manufactured by companies with criminal records. In one review of a paper
about the Pfizer vaccine, submitted by the company about vaccinating children, two professors and one associate
professor of medicine find a contradiction in the evidence. They express the view that it is most likely that it has been fabricated (page 11 in ). If so it is not the first time that Pfizer have committed serious crimes.

Lies, damn lies and clinical data

There is now a growing literature about fraud in clinical trials and research. Fraud is not at all uncommon and it is
intended to make medical interventions seem more beneficial, efficacious and safe than they really are…..

Or, on the other hand fraud is intended to make a competitor treatment appear more dangerous than or less
efficacious than it could be. In this case a trial might be set up so that a drug that should be used early in a disease is
used when someone is at death’s door. The Recovery trials were used to test the effectiveness of
hydroxychloroquine; regarded by its advocates as a drug promoted for early use in Covid 19 yet it was
prescibed in the trials at a late stage of the illness. It was also prescribed at potentially lethal doses. Quite how this is compatible with the Hippocratic Oath, to do no harm, is beyond me. It is also beyond
me why the doctors who do things like this are not charged with murder or attempted murder.

The aim is to sell more drugs not to safely treat patients – or to prevent the use of the drugs of a competitor, even if
it is effective. According to the editor of the Lancet, Richard Horton,

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.
Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of
interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a
turn towards darkness.”

This was written by Horton in 2015. An increasing number of honest doctors are telling the same story.
Medicine and academic medicine has been corrupted by Big Pharma. According to Ben Goldacre, in his book,
(“Bad Pharma”)

“Drugs are tested by the people who manufacture them, in poorly designed trials, on hopelessly small
numbers of weird, unrepresentative patients, and analysed using techniques which are flawed by design, in
such a way that they exaggerate the benefits of treatments. Unsurprisingly, these trials tend to produce results
that favour the manufacturer. When trials throw up results that companies don’t like, they are perfectly
entitled to hide them from doctors and patients, so we only ever see a distorted picture of any drug’s true
effects.” (Ben Goldacre in “Bad Pharma”)

In the foreword to the 2013 book by Peter Gøtzsche “Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime, How Big
Pharma has Corrupted Healthcare” a former editor in chief of the British Medical Journal, summarises the
state of medical ethics as follows:

(Gøtzsche) shows too how the industry has bought doctors, academics, journals, professional and patient
organisations, university departments, journalists, regulators, and politicians. These are the methods of the
mob. (Foreword by Richard Smith )

We are now harvesting the consequences of letting this situation develop. Universities and Medicine are in a
serious ethical crisis and it is being managed by spin, outright suppression of critics and looking the other
way when it comes to harms caused by drugs and “gene therapies”.

It is only a matter of time before a breakdown in trust spreads into the general public.

A recent book by Leemon McHenry and Jon Jureidini titled “The Illusion of Evidenced Based Medicine”
(Wakefield Press) 2020 draws on their experience and evidence from courts of law to explain some of the
techniques used in fraudulent clinical research by academic doctors. We can see some of the same techniques used
in the claims that the vaccines are safe and afficacious. The same issues are covered in this internet video.

Here is a recent example. One way to make vaccines appear safer is to start counting people as being
vaccinated weeks after the injection. This has implications for the statistics because in the words of Dr Herve
Seligmann commenting on the experience in Israel.”Vaccination processes usually imply temporary immune
system weakening, before vaccine-induced immunity is acquired. Hence, the vaccinated are fragilized during
the vaccination process, and more likely to develop any diseases against which the immune system usually
defends the body. This includes any viral and bacterial infections, and individual cancer cells that would
escape extermination by the immune system during this vaccination-induced weakened period. This could
cause cancer in the medium- or long-term.”

What a wonderful way of hiding a serious safety problem if you start counting after the initial period following the
injection – a period when deaths and adverse effects temporarily shoot up!. Data scientist Joel Smalley exposes that
medical fraud in this animated series of graphs. What it shows in many (though not all) countries, is that there is a
change in trends of deaths for the first people injected – the elderly. After a time there is a fall in deaths and that is
when snakes in white coats start counting how safe the vaccines appear to be. See

As Seligmann puts it, again for Israel “ It is essential to account for adverse vaccine effects during the period of
vaccination. Most publications on COVID19-vaccination in Israel only refer to the period after full
vaccination. This is misleading and tantamount to only tell cancer patients their survival rates after they
survived a successful treatment. Standard estimations of treatment success include risks during the treatment,
which is often a period of increased risks…”

Another author, Bart Classen argues that “Decades ago, a pharmaceutical manufacturer would only need to
show that a chemotherapeutic agent shrank a tumor or reduced cancer deaths to obtain FDA approval.
Manufacturers would market their products under the fraudulent philosophical argument that shrinking tumors
or reducing cancer deaths equates to improved survival. However, many of the toxic chemotherapeutic agents
would destroy vital organs and actually reduce survival while decreasing cancer deaths at the same time. The
FDA and comparable agencies around the world switched to “all cause mortality” as the primary endpoint
for pivotal cancer drug trails. The gold standard for marketing approval is to show that those receiving a
cancer drug actually live longer than those who do not. Typically, new “miracle” anticancer drugs only
prolong survival about two months but this added time may be spent severely ill suffering from adverse events
caused by the chemotherapy. Application of true scientific principles often severely deflates the hype
promoting pharmaceutical products.” It does not, however, apply to vaccines – or gene therapies against
covid 19.

Classen B. US COVID-19 Vaccines Proven to Cause More Harm than Good Based on Pivotal Clinical
Trial Data Analyzed Using the Proper Scientific Endpoint, “All Cause Severe Morbidity”. Trends Int
Med. 2021; 1(1): 1-6

These are some of the confounding issues that complicate the usefulness of short term data to assess the efficacy
and safety of vaccines up to this point in time. A study by Fenton, Neil and Mclachlan of Queens Mary College in
London University explains these issues:

That is why one needs a trustworthy, independent and competent regulatory authority to oversee the adverse effects
and look into them. That is not however what we have in the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory
Authority in the UK, the FDA in the USA, the European Medicines Agency and so on.

Nor can the medical authorities be regarded as trustworthy now that it has emerged from a Freedom of Information
Act response that the UK Drug Regulator never inspected the Pfizer Vaccine study data. In this the UK regulator
follows the woeful example of its Australian peers. The regulators in Australia did not check over the study data

On a personal note I have asked the medical authorities where I live many questions to enable me make a decision
about informed consent using what peer reviewed and credible sources I could find to formulate pertinent
questions. I did not get proper replies. What I got were empty reassurances which effectively asked me to trust
unnamed people who the local medical authority claimed to be experts. Of course, the local medical managers
where I live cannot answer my questions because not enough time has elapsed for medium and longer term health
problems to emerge. They also cannot answer the questions because they, like the MHRA are looking the other
way. None of the issues mentioned here are properly monitored.

Resource exhaustion

Apart from the looming disaster that ultimately derives from the late stage corruption of the medical system,
particularly from academic medicine, there are other reasons for having no faith in the Great Reset. Other disasters
are easily predictable and will arrive soon. At the time of writing there are reports in the newspapers of gas
shortages which are likely to hit electricity supplies and frozen food and meat supplies too. People awake to energy
have been expecting this kind of situation for years. It will not be helpful to a “Reset” of the kind that Thierry and
Schwab have predicted and advocated.

The technological “Reset” means trying to develop a highly electrified economy. However it will supposedly be
dependent on intermittent sources to generate electric power – mainly wind. Overcoming intermittency is vital for
the Reset because one cannot rely on digital currencies and surveillance systems that fail when the wind is not
blowing and grid scale energy storage is inadequate to cover energy needs. It appears that the elite actors pushing
the electrified wonderland are anticipating that new technologies will be developed to provide the required sources
for a post carbon energy system. So far these are merely hopes and unproven proposals. See “Life After Fossil
Fuels. A Reality Check” by Alice Friedmann

To electrify and digitise the economy large quantities of minerals will be needed to assemble the technologies of
the “Reset” – lithium, cobalt, nickel, copper, silver etc. However comparing what will be needed with what is
known to be available for economically viable extraction costs suggests some big problems ahead. The exhaustion
of affordable mineral supplies is likely to occur long before a comprehensive reset can occur. See “The Raw
Materials Challenge facing the energy transition from oil to minerals” by Simon Michaux, economic geologist.

If it were possible to find the minerals and materials for a Fourth Industrial Revolution the mining related
devastation would complete the destruction on life on the planet. Will someone please tell Klaus Schwab….

One can and should add here that the idea that the modern high tech health system represents a model for the future
is itself laughable. “If the whole world were to copy the US health care system, the global carbon footprint of the
health care sector would amount to around 16 Gt – almost half of total emissions worldwide in 2014.” The idea of
running an energy guzzling health care sector on intermittent energy is laughable too. The healthcare system is the
very embodiment of unsustainability and its managers and Big Pharma corporations that it feeds are the last
persons to trust with a health system in a period of involuntary energy descent.

In 2020 millions of us were locked down supposedly to give the healthcare system three weeks to flatten the curve.
Will we also need to have the electricity in our houses switched off to prioritise scarce power supplies to the NHS
when the power crisis hits with a vengeance because the wind stopped blowing and gas supplies are inadequate to
power up the full grid?

The crisis is almost upon us…


In conclusion, a not so “Great Reset” is the hubristic attempt of the corporate elite to respond to the limits to growth
with a high tech future. It is being pushed in parallel with a resource grab and policies that are ruining large parts of
the population organised through the central banks and by lockdowns that destroy small businesses. The strategy is
heavily focused on digital surveillance capitalism to manage discontent from those people who can see through
what is happening. The Reset is nothing like the cuddly high minded principles of Schwab and Malleret in their
book. Building back better is better for the plutocrats. The groups that matter in stakeholder capitalism are the super
rich, the senior politicians and their cronies, the senior officials, the experts (professors) and the liars who work for
the mass media.

This strategy is going in the wrong direction. The strategy of the global elite is turning into a complete disaster
with destructive effects arising from the irresponsible and reckless approach to individual and planetary health
hidden behind a media narrative that is completely out of touch with reality. They have turned a relatively minor
health problem into a thorough going crisis of democracy and a crisis in the rule of law.

To address this other covid crisis we need the early re-purposing of existing medications that are cheap and safe –
and do not require coercion for people to take them. It is not high tech experimental gene therapies that are needed
and it is not high tech forms of surveillance and coercion.

Instead of channelling resources into even greater extremes of inequality, political and economic power needs to be
channelled downwards to make for greater equality. Meanwhile there is a need for intermediate, low energy forms
of technology as energy becomes more expensive and intermittent. As buildings and land go into disuse there is a
need for people to recast local economies for local needs. There is an URGENT need for people to work towards
community controlled organic and regenerative agriculture in conjunction with local farmers. We need to get the
tyrannical “experts” off our backs.

Brian Davey (ecological economist)
September 2021