(0) David Icke is saying that Covid-19 is not a virus, there is no virus(1) Scientists Statement in The Lancet that COVID-19 has a natural origin was organized by EcoHealth Alliance(2) PCR test is misleading: healthy people are testing "positive" Elite-led 'Great Reset'(3) Elite-led 'Great Reset' post-Covid? No, get rid of the globalism that got us into this mess(4) Reset - Transhumanism and globalist progressivism(5) World Economic Forum's 'Great Reset' = Food Imperialism(0) David Icke is saying that Covid-19 is not a virus, there is no virusFrom:anonDo you know if David Icke is the only one saying that Covid-19 is not a virus, there is no virus?  I am kind of leaning towards believing him, but would love to have evidence from others on that.  David Icke says that the respiratory stuff we are seeing and which has been called Covid-19 has been caused by other things, eg 5G.Reply (Peter M.):No, I do not agree with David Icke that Covid-19 is not a virus.Dr David Brownstein is an MD but runs an alternative health clinic in Michigan. He initially thought the virus was not real, but later found that it is.He used natural remedies: vitamins A, C, D, iodine, hydrogen peroxide, & in urgent cases ozone injections to the buttocks.However, the Agenda-Setters at WEF, John Hopkins and Gates have been using a REAL virus to instill fear, at the same time as they have suppressed alternative remedies, eg. HCQ and Ivermectin.The FDA ordered Dr Brownstein to remove youtube videos about his successful remedies. In Australia, the TGA (Therapeutic Goods Administration) has made HCQ and Ivermectin unavailable.The World Doctors Alliance (40,000+) say that the pandemic is over. It's being deliberately prolonged in order to justify a mandatory vaccine: https://worlddoctorsalliance.com/.(1) Scientists Statement in The Lancet that COVID-19 has a natural origin was organized by EcoHealth Alliancehttps://usrtk.org/biohazards-blog/ecohealth-alliance-orchestrated-key-scientists-statement-on-natural-origin-of-sars-cov-2/EcoHealth Alliance orchestrated key scientists' statement on "natural origin" of SARS-CoV-2Posted on November 18, 2020 by Sainath SuryanarayananEmails obtained by U.S. Right to Know show that a <https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30418-9/fulltext  > statement in The Lancet authored by 27 prominent public health scientists condemning "conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin" was organized by employees of EcoHealth Alliance, a non-profit group that has <https://www.usaspending.gov/keyword_search/%22ecohealth%20alliance%22 > received millions of dollars of <https://grantome.com/grant/NIH/R01-AI110964-04 > U.S. taxpayer funding to <https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1006698  > genetically manipulate<https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12711 >   coronaviruses with scientists at the <https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-bats-expert-says-her-wuhan-lab-wasnt-source-of-new-coronavirus-11587463204  > Wuhan Institute of Virology.The emails obtained via public records requests show that EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak drafted the Lancet statement, and that he intended it to <https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/The_Lancet_Emails_Daszak-2.6.20.pdf  > "not be identifiable as coming from any one organization or person" but rather to be seen as <https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/The_Lancet_Emails_Daszak-2.8.20.pdf  > "simply a letter from leading scientists". Daszak wrote that he wanted "<https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/The_Lancet_Emails_Daszak-2.8.20.pdf  > to avoid the appearance of a political statement".The scientists' letter appeared in The Lancet on February 18, just one week after the World Health Organization announced that the disease caused by the novel coronavirus would be named COVID-19.The 27 authors "strongly condemn[ed] conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin," and reported that scientists from multiple countries "overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife." The letter included no scientific references to refute a lab-origin theory of the virus. One scientist, Linda Saif, asked via email whether it would be useful <https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/The_Lancet_Emails_Saif-2.6.20.pdf  > "to add just one or 2 statements in support of why nCOV is not a lab generated virus and is naturally occuring? Seems critical to scientifically refute such claims!" Daszak responded, "<https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/The_Lancet_Emails_Daszak-2.6.20.pdf  > I think we should probably stick to a broad statement."<https://www.wsj.com/articles/so-where-did-the-virus-come-from-11590756909  > Growing calls to investigate the Wuhan Institute of Virology as a potential source of SARS-CoV-2 have led to <https://www.wsj.com/articles/nih-presses-u-s-nonprofit-for-information-on-wuhan-virology-lab-11597829400  > increased scrutiny of EcoHealth Alliance. The emails show how members of EcoHealth Alliance played an early role in framing questions about possible lab origin of SARS-CoV-2 as "crackpot theories that need to be addressed," as <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/20/coronavirus-chinese-scientists-false-rumours-experts  > Daszak told The Guardian.Although the phrase "EcoHealth Alliance" appeared only once in The Lancet statement, in association with co-author Daszak, several other co-authors also have direct ties to the group that were not disclosed as conflicts of interest. Rita Colwell and James Hughes are <https://www.ecohealthalliance.org/board-of-directors > members of the Board of Directors of EcoHealth Alliance, <https://www.ecohealthalliance.org/personnel/dr-william-karesh > William Karesh is the group's Executive Vice President for Health and Policy, and <https://www.ecohealthalliance.org/personnel/dr-hume-field > Hume Field is Science and Policy Advisor.The statement's authors also claimed that the "rapid, open, and transparent sharing of data on this outbreak is now being threatened by rumours and misinformation around its origins." Today, however, <https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/the-coronaviruss-origins-are-still-a-mystery-we-need-a-full-investigation/2020/11/13/cbf4390e-2450-11eb-8672-c281c7a2c96e_story.html  > little is known <https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2020/11/03/2021133117.full.pdf  > about the origins of SARS-CoV-2, and investigations into its origins by <https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/20200802-tors-chn-and-who-agreed-final-version.pdf?sfvrsn=5323728d_2&download=true  > the World Health Organization and <"https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31494-X/fulltext?dgcid=etoc-edschoice_email_tlcovid-1920&utm_source=SDSN&utm_campaign=c2a1003e78-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_03_02_COPY_02&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_2302100059-c2a1003e78-178982  > The Lancet COVID-19 commission have been <https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/02/world/who-china-coronavirus.html?smid=tw-share  > shrouded in secrecy and mired by <https://covid19commission.org/peter-daszak > conflicts of interests.Peter Daszak, Rita Colwell, and The Lancet Editor Richard Horton did not provide comments in response to our requests for this story.(2) PCR test is misleading: healthy people are testing "positive"https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/11/19/covid-testing-fraud-fuels-casedemic.aspxAsymptomatic 'Casedemic' Is a Perpetuation of Needless Fearby Dr. Joseph MercolaNovember 19, 2020STORY AT-A-GLANCE- The PCR test is not designed to be used as a diagnostic tool as it cannot distinguish between inactive viruses and "live" or reproductive ones- Many if not most laboratories amplify the RNA collected via PCR swab far too many times, which results in healthy people testing "positive" even if their viral load is very low or the virus is inactive and poses no threat- Amplification over 35 cycles is considered unreliable and scientifically unjustified. Dr. Anthony Fauci has admitted the chances of a positive result being accurate at 35 cycles or more "are minuscule." Yet the CDC, FDA and WHO all recommend using 40 to 45 cycles- Recent research shows that to maximize accuracy, PCR tests for COVID-19 should use far fewer cycles. At 17 cycles, 100% of the positive results were confirmed to be real positives. Above 17 cycles, accuracy drops dramatically. By the time you get to 33 cycles, the accuracy rate is a mere 20%, meaning 80% are false positives- When symptomatic, your chances of getting a true positive on the first day of symptom onset is only about 40%. Not until Day 3 from symptom onset do you have an 80% chance of getting an accurate PCR result As coronavirus testing takes place en masse across the U.S., many are questioning whether the tests are accurate enough to trust, especially in people who are asymptomatic. Positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests have several drawbacks that make mass testing problematic and rife for misleading fearmongering.For starters, the PCR test is not designed to be used as a diagnostic tool as it cannot distinguish between inactive viruses and "live" or reproductive ones.1 This is a crucial point, since inactive and reproductive viruses are not interchangeable in terms of infectivity. If you have a nonreproductive virus in your body, you will not get sick and you cannot spread it to others.The PCR Cycle Threshold MattersSecondly, many if not most laboratories amplify the RNA collected far too many times, which results in healthy people testing "positive." To understand why the false positive rate for PCR tests is so high, you need to understand how the test works.2The video above explains how the PCR test works and how we are interpreting results incorrectly. In summary, the PCR swab collects RNA from your nasal cavity. This RNA is then reverse transcribed into DNA. However, because the genetic snippets are so tiny, they must be amplified to become discernible.Each round of amplification is called a cycle, and the number of amplification cycles used by any given test or lab is called a cycle threshold. Amplification over 35 cycles is considered unreliable and scientifically unjustified. Some experts say nothing above 30 cycles should be used,3 yet Drosten tests and tests recommended by the World Health Organization are set to 45 cycles.4,5,6When you go above 30 cycles, even insignificant sequences of viral DNA end up being magnified to the point that the test reads positive even if your viral load is extremely low or the virus is inactive and poses no threat to you or anyone else.'Casedemic' Fuels Needless FearWhen labs use these excessive cycle thresholds, you end up with a far higher number of positive tests than you would otherwise. At present, and going back a number of months now, what we're really dealing with is a "casedemic,"7,8 meaning an epidemic of false positives.Remember, in medical terminology, when used accurately, a "case" refers to someone who has symptoms of a disease. By erroneously reporting positive tests as "cases," the pandemic appears magnitudes worse than it actually is."The goal is to keep you scared, isolated and demoralized for a purpose," says PJ Media.9 "Only a beaten nation would stand for what comes next." And that next step is a reset of America as you know it, with the UN's one-world Agenda 2030 at the helm. To learn more, be sure to read "What You Need to Know About the Great Reset."As reported by Global Research in "The COVID-19 RT-PCR Test: How to Mislead All Humanity. Using a 'Test' to Lock Down Society":10"Official postulate … positive RT-PCR cases = COVID-19 patients. This is the starting postulate, the premise of all official propaganda, which justifies all restrictive government measures: isolation, confinement, quarantine, mandatory masks, color codes by country and travel bans, tracking, social distances in companies, stores and even, even more importantly, in schools.This misuse of RT-PCR technique is used as a relentless and intentional strategy by some governments, supported by scientific safety councils and by the dominant media, to justify excessive measures such as the violation of a large number of constitutional rights, the destruction of the economy with the bankruptcy of entire active sectors of society, the degradation of living conditions for a large number of ordinary citizens, under the pretext of a pandemic based on a number of positive RT-PCR tests, and not on a real number of patients."COVID Testing Fraud Fuels 'Casedemic'In the video at the top of this article, Del Bigtree breaks down how excessively high test sensitivity leads to falsely elevated "case" numbers that in reality mean nothing. He rightly points out that missing from the COVID-19 conversation is the death rate."If COVID is a deadly virus, what should we see when cases increase?" he asks. The answer, of course, is an increase in deaths. However, that's not what's happening. The two have virtually nothing to do with each other.In the video, Bigtree features a November 4, 2020, tweet11 by White House coronavirus adviser Dr. Scott Atlas showing the number of positive tests (aka "cases") in blue and COVID-19 related deaths in red, since the start of the pandemic up until the end of October 2020. As you can see, there's no correlation between so-called cases and deaths.U.S. COVID-19 Cases and DeathsA second graph tweeted12 by Atlas shows the number of U.S. counties reporting more than 10 COVID-19 related deaths per day, based on New York Times data. It too indicates that the death rate is steadily dwindling.U.S. counties reporting more than 10 COVID-19 related deaths per day Worldwide, we see the same phenomenon. The first graph below, from Bigtree's video report, shows the worldwide daily new cases since the beginning of the pandemic. The second graph shows daily COVID-19 related deaths, worldwide. While the number of positive tests have risen, fallen and risen again, the number of deaths have fallen off and do not appear to be rising in tandem with positive test rates any longer.Circling back to the PCR cycle threshold and its influence on positivity rates, Bigtree reviews research13 showing that to really maximize accuracy, PCR tests should use far fewer cycles.At just 17 cycles, 100% of the positive results were confirmed to be real positives. In other words, 17 cycles would likely be the ideal CT. Above 17 cycles, accuracy drops dramatically. By the time you get to 33 cycles, the accuracy rate is a mere 20%, meaning 80% are false positives. Beyond 34 cycles, your chance of a positive PCR test being a true positive shrinks to zero. This is the graph from that study.14Other data presented by Bigtree shows that your chances of getting a true positive on the first day of COVID-19 symptom onset is only about 40%. Not until Day 3 from symptom onset do you have an 80% chance of getting an accurate PCR result.If you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more … the chances of it being replication-confident are minuscule … You almost never can culture a virus from a 37 threshold cycle … [or] even 36 … ~ Dr. Anthony Fauci By Day 5 the accuracy shrinks considerably and by Day 8 the accuracy is nil. Now, these are symptomatic people. When you're asymptomatic, your odds of a positive PCR test being accurate is therefore virtually nonexistent.Rapid Test Is Less Sensitive and May Be Better for Most To address some of the shortcomings in PCR testing, most notably the time it takes to get the result, rapid tests have been developed that can provide an answer in minutes. These tests also appear to be less sensitive, which is actually a good thing. One such rapid test, called the Sofia by Quidel, looks for the presence of antigens (coronavirus proteins) rather than RNA.In a recent comparison of PCR and the Quidel rapid test, University of Arizona researchers discovered that while the rapid test can detect more than 80% of the infections found by slower PCR tests, when used on asymptomatic individuals, that rate dropped to just 32%. (The study has not been published yet but was reviewed by experts solicited by The New York Times.15,16)While a 32% detection rate may sound terrible, appearances can be deceiving. Remember, if labs are using a cycle threshold (CT) of, say, 40 cycles, the number of positive PCR results will be vastly exaggerated.According to The New York Times,17 researchers have been "unable to grow the coronavirus out of samples from volunteers whose PCR tests had CT values above 27." If the virus cannot replicate, you will not get ill and are not infectious, so you cannot spread it to others.When all PCR tests with a CT value over 30 were excluded from the comparison, the rapid test was found to detect more than 85% of the SARS-CoV-2 infections detected by the PCR tests, and this held true whether the individual had symptoms or not.Mass Testing Shown To Be Ineffective at BestWhy are we still testing asymptomatic people? According to a study18,19 in the October 21, 2020, issue of PLOS ONE, mass testing is at best ineffective and at worst, harmful."Even for highly accurate tests, false positives and false negatives will accumulate as mass testing strategies are employed under pressure, and these misdiagnoses could have major implications on the ability of governments to suppress the virus," the authors state.20"The present analysis uses a modified SIR model to understand the implication and magnitude of misdiagnosis in the context of ending lockdown measures. The results indicate that increased testing capacity alone will not provide a solution to lockdown measures. The progression of the epidemic and peak infections is shown to depend heavily on test characteristics, test targeting, and prevalence of the infection.Antibody based immunity passports are rejected as a solution to ending lockdown, as they can put the population at risk if poorly targeted. Similarly, mass screening for active viral infection may only be beneficial if it can be sufficiently well targeted, otherwise reliance on this approach for protection of the population can again put them at risk."In an August 28, 2020, interview with The Post,21 Michael Levitt, Nobel Prize winner and professor of structural biology at Stanford, stated mass testing is "a huge waste of money which could much better go to helping people who have lost their jobs … It's great for the pharmaceutical companies selling test kits, but it's not doing anything good."Fauci Admits CT Over 35 Renders PCR Test UselessEven Dr. Anthony Fauci has admitted that the PCR test is useless and misleading when run at "35 cycles or higher."22 He made this comment in a July 16, 2020, "This Week in Virology" podcast:23"If you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more … the chances of it being replication-confident are minuscule … You almost never can culture a virus from a 37 threshold cycle … [or] even 36 …"That then begs the question, why is the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommending the test be run at a CT of 40?24 Why are Drosten tests and tests recommended by the World Health Organization set to 45 cycles? As noted by author and investigative journalist Jon Rappaport:25"All labs in the U.S. that follow the FDA guideline are knowingly or unknowingly participating in fraud. Fraud on a monstrous level, because… Millions of Americans are being told they are infected with the virus on the basis of a false positive result, and …The total number of COVID cases in America — which is based on the test — is a gross falsity. The lockdowns and other restraining measures are based on these fraudulent case numbers.Let me back up and run that by you again. Fauci says the test is useless when it's run at 35 cycles or higher. The FDA says run the test up to 40 cycles in order to determine whether the virus is there. This is the crime in a nutshell … On the basis of fake science, the country was locked down."- Sources and References1 CDC 2019 Novel Coronavirus RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel July 13, 2020 (PDF)2, 10 Global Research November 5, 20203 The Vaccine Reaction September 29, 20204 WHO.int Diagnostic detection of Wuhan Coronavirus 2019 by real-time RT-PCR, January 13, 2020 (PDF)5 WHO.int Diagnostic detection of 2019-nCOV by real-time RT-PCR, January 17, 2020 (PDF)6 Eurosurveillance 2020 Jan 23; 25(3): 20000457, 9 PJ Media October 27, 20208 AAPS October 7, 202011, 12 Twitter Scott Atlas13, 14 European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases April 27, 2020; 39: 1059-106115 The New York Times November 2, 202016, 17 The New York Times November 2, 2020 (Archived)18 PLOS ONE October 21, 2020 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.024077519 Twitter Nick Gray November 6, 202020 PLOS ONE October 21, 2020 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240775, Abstract21 The Post August 28, 202022, 25 Jon Rappaport's Blog November 6, 202023 YouTube TWiV 641 July 16, 202024 FDA.gov CDC 2019-nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel Instructions, July 13, 2020 (PDF) Page 35(3) Elite-led 'Great Reset' post-Covid? No, get rid of the globalism that got us into this messhttps://www.rt.com/op-ed/507108-great-reset-wef-globalist/An elite-led 'Great Reset' post-Covid? No, what we need first is to get rid of the globalist approach that got us into this messNorman Lewisis a writer, speaker and consultant on innovation and technology, was most recently a Director at PriceWaterhouseCoopers, where he set up and led their crowdsourced innovation service. Follow him on Twitter @Norm_Lewis18 Nov, 2020 16:24The WEF's vision for the future isn't a conspiracy, but a disingenuous, dishonest manifesto from an unelected ruling class. The virus has vindicated the national state and the need for ordinary people to be part of the solutions.This week, the "Great Reset" has been trending on social media. For those not obsessed with such forums, the "Great Reset' is the title of a manifesto for worldwide social change in the post-Covid world, written by Klaus Schwab, the founder and director of the World Economic Forum (WEF).The "Great Reset" is an important manifesto. It articulates a vision of how the global elite see the future, and in particular, how they are seizing the opportunity presented by the Covid-19 pandemic – a world that will, apparently, "never" return to normal – to remake society in their image. It's an idea that's been seized on by 'progressive' politicians and leaders everywhere, from Canada's Justin Trudeau to Britain's Prince Charles.On the surface, this might appear reasonable. After all, the challenges of the post-Covid world are certainly going to be huge. The economic fallout of the global lockdown, never mind the social consequences of mass unemployment and global poverty, will be unprecedented in world history.However, the "Great Reset" is sophistry and dishonesty on an unprecedented level. Who is responsible, it may be asked, for creating yesterday's problematic 'normal' to which we will supposedly never return?Of course, these difficulties have nothing to do with the billionaires, political leaders, captains of industry and top regulators who swan around Davos each year, pontificating over oysters and champagne about the world's problems, from which they benefit most.And the idea of a 'reset' is at best disingenuous. This implies that the global economy and society was basically functioning OK before Covid-19. That it simply requires a reboot, like switching a computer off and on again.This glosses over the reality, which is this: that the world economy and global society were in a sickly state before Covid-19, and now, being even more dependent on unprecedented state bailouts, which will take generations to repay, are in a still more parlous state. 'Reset' seriously underestimates the scale of the economic wreckage we face, the overhaul required, and the real barriers to the future.The "Great Reset" vision from the WEF, presented as eight projections for 2030, reveals how disconnected these people are from reality.Its tone is that of the hectoring schoolmaster who knows what's best for the children, and tolerates no dissent. This is not a dialogue but a lecture we need to accept without question. Here they are:1. 'You'll own nothing and be happy'We'll rent everything we'll need, and it will be delivered by drone. Does this mean we won't even own our ability to sell our labour? If we're renting this and everything else, who are we renting it from? Presumably from those who own everything, who doubtless will be much happier than we will be. And drone deliveries by 2030? It will take longer than that to get regulatory permission agreed, given how risk averse both industry and governments have become.2. The US won't be the only world's leading powerA handful of countries will dominate. This is a nice way of avoiding the obvious point that in a bipolar or multipolar world – the USA vs China vs the EU vs Russia – global decision-making is going to be even more elusive and tricky, not less. In the post-Covid world, autarkical tendencies, not cooperation, pose a threat to any notions of harmonious global governance, let alone coordination. That's a point I'll return to below.3. We won't die waiting for an organ donorTransplants will be a thing of the past. New organs will be printed instead. This is a lovely notion and would be very welcome. But there's the pesky problem of a health system that can hardly cope with seasonal flu and has had to be protected from treating ill people by shutting down the entire economy. Solving this in 10 years will require the printing of more money (which we haven't got), never mind organs.4. We'll eat less meatMeat will become an occasional treat, not a staple, and we'll eat less of it because it's good for the environment and our health. This is like the 'choice' offered by state telecommunications monopolies: you can have any phone you like as long as it's black. Goodbye, freedom of choice.5. A billion people will be displaced by climate changeIn 10 years, we're going to have to do a better job at welcoming and integrating refugees. Do they mean we should be as welcoming as the EU, with its "Fortress Europe" approach? Or successive American governments' benevolent border wall with Mexico? Perhaps they're referring to the Prince of Wales opening up Buckingham Palace to refugees?6. Polluters will have to pay to emit CO2The introduction of a global price on carbon with the aim of making fossil fuels history is the holy grail being held out here. Given the parlous state of all state coffers as a result of Covid-19, and the crisis of innovation, this idea is perhaps the most fanciful of all.7. You could be preparing to go to MarsScientists will have worked out how to keep us healthy in space, which will herald the start of a journey to find alien life. It might be a good idea to start by trying to keep us healthy on earth, especially dealing with all the post-Covid deaths, not from the virus, but from postponed treatments and operations. This is sheer fantasy.8. Western values will have been tested to breaking pointThe checks and balances that underpin our democracies must not be forgotten. By this, they are surely not referring to the attempt to overthrow the Brexit vote or Trump's election in 2016 by an elite who didn't like these outcomes? They're not suggesting that global unelected bodies such as the United Nations or the World Health Organization should take precedence over national democracies, even over decisions as important as climate change? Do they want checks and balances on national governments, which should accede to the 'truths' of unelected experts and technocrats, rather than relying on their own citizens to make decisions? Perish the thought.This "Great Reset" is not that great after all. Nor is it offering anything new or, indeed, realisable. Instead, it's a rehashing of a globalist project that seeks to use the Covid crisis to prioritise the concerns and fantasies of the elite, aiming to cement their positions of wealth and power and usher in a new era of top-down diktat.The key point of unreality in all this is that the pandemic has repudiated the globalist assumptions underpinning this new utopia (or, rather, dystopia). Covid has vindicated the validity of the national state. Only nation states have had the authority to impose lockdowns and then provide – or, in some countries, try to provide – emergency financial aid to compensate businesses and families for the impact of the lockdown.Contrary to the views of the WEF, everything has not changed as a result of Covid. The changes that have happened have merely accelerated and crystallised earlier tendencies. The true state of affairs is clearer – namely, that the world is still in a state (both literally and figuratively), and that precaution and risk aversion and a sense of vulnerability still dominate the elite's cultural zeitgeist.Albert Einstein once quipped that "No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it". The 'build back better' notion at the heart of the "Great Reset" – indeed, all government visions today – is a doomed project for this reason.It is attempting to sidestep the most important lesson of the pandemic: that the future is much more dependent on the public's willingness to embrace disruptive change than on any concrete transformation programme.We are part of the solution, not the object of elite largesse. We want to own the agenda, both now and in the future. Anything less will not make us happy, even as we order our groceries online, let alone print out a new heart or two.(4) Reset - Transhumanism and globalist progressivismFrom: JUDY schuchmann <judyschuchmann1@gmail.com>https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/transhumanism-expert-exposes-liberal-billionaire-elitists-great-reset-agendaTranshumanism: Expert exposes liberal billionaire elitists' 'Great Reset' agendaThis dystopian nightmare scenario is no longer the stuff of science fiction, Dr. Miklos Lukacs de Pereny said at a recent summit on COVID-19.Tue Nov 10, 2020 - 7:07 pm ESTNovember 10, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — The COVID-19 pandemic was manufactured by the world's elites as part of a plan to globally advance "transhumanism" — literally, the fusion of human beings with technology in an attempt to alter human nature itself and create a superhuman being and an "earthly paradise," according to a Peruvian academic and expert in technology.This dystopian nightmare scenario is no longer the stuff of science fiction, but an integral part of the proposed post-pandemic "Great Reset," Dr. Miklos Lukacs de Pereny said at the recent summit on COVID-19.Indeed, to the extent that implementing the transhumanist agenda is possible, it requires the concentration of political and economic power in the hands of a global elite and the dependence of people on the state, said Lukacs.That's precisely the aim of the Great Reset, promoted by German economist Klaus Schwab, CEO and founder of World Economic Forum, along with billionaire "philanthropists" George Soros and Bill Gates and other owners, managers, and shareholders of Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Finance who meet at the WEF retreats at Davos, Switzerland, contended Lukacs.Transhumanism is far from a benign doctrine. Rather, it is at complete enmity with Christianity, Lukacs pointed out during the virtual in Truth Over Fear Summit organized by California-based Catholic writer and broadcaster Patrick Coffin.Transhumanists take science as their religion and believe in a philosophy of "absolute relativism" that claims that individuals can change reality at will, and they seek to "relativize the human being" and "turn it into a putty that can be modified or molded to our taste and our desire and by rejecting those limits nature or God have placed on us."Transhumanism therefore requires "the destruction of "the Judeo-Christian morality, which is based on absolute principles and values."Those raising alarm about the Great Reset often overlook the crucial role of technology in the plans of the meta-capitalists, contended Lukacs, who has Ph.D. in management from the Manchester Institute of Innovation Research (MIoIR) from the University of Manchester.The COVID-19 pandemic was "just another social engineering project deliberately planned and implemented by predatory meta capitalism to achieve the ultimate end: redefining and reconfiguring the human nature and condition," he argued in a presentation in Spanish."I have the firm conviction that this pandemic has been manufactured and its purpose is none other than to initiate, as they say, or implement the Great Reset," which will open the door to the advancement of the transhumanist agenda, he said.Indeed, WEF's Schwab has been promoting the Great Reset as a way to "harness the Fourth Industrial Revolution," a term he coined, which, he declared in January 2016, "will affect the very essence of our human experience."Schwab described the Fourth Industrial Revolution then as "a fusion of technologies that is blurring the lines among the physical, digital and biological spheres," Lukacs said.Those technologies include genetic engineering such as CRISPR genetic editing, artificial intelligence (A.I.), robotics, the Internet of Things (IoT), 3D printing, and quantum computing."The Fourth Industrial Revolution is nothing other than the implementation of transhumanism on a global level," emphasized Lukacs.What is transhumanism?Transhumanism as a political ideology and cultural movement was defined in 1998 by Swedish economist Nick Bostrom, then a professor at Oxford, and David Pearce, a British philosopher, who that year founded the World Transhumanist Association.More recently, Yuval Noah Harari, the Israeli historian and author of Homo Deus, who is regarded as a "great visionary," has been promoting transhumanism.Transhumanists propose to use technology to alter human nature to produce human beings with "super longevity, super intelligence, super well-being," Lukacs said.They reject the Christian belief in absolute truth, and that God created human person in His image and likeness, and see absolute values as "a brake for their pretensions of transhumanist and globalist progressivism."That's why the "approval of abortion" is key to understanding "why we are entering fully into this transhumanist agenda" of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, Lukacs said.When abortion was approved, the "political, economic order and moral values" on which Western civilization is based collapsed."Abortion means nothing other than the transition of the human being from a subject of rights to an object of commercialization, to an object of experimentation," he said."Life ceases to have an inherent value, an inherent dignity. It becomes an object of consumption, an object of production," and this aligns perfectly with the goal of transhumanists "to experiment with the human being."Transhumanism is "a struggle against those propositions of absolute values," said Lukacs, "and what it embodies in progressivism is absolute relativism."Evidence that "absolute relativism" has caught hold in the Western world is the rapid and widespread rise in trangenderism.Lukacs also noted cases of transspecisim, transageism, transableism, and transracism.Examples of these attempts to reshape one's reality at will include the American known as Lizard Man, the Canadian man living as a six-year-old, the British woman who blinded herself because she wanted to be disabled, and the German woman who injected herself with melatonin to darken her skin to identify as black.These are "previous states of transhumanism, a kind of accustoming, especially of the new generations, to accept this diversity," Lukacs said.No longer science fiction but realityWhile many transhumanist proposals are rooted in science fiction, Lukacs pointed out they now have the technology to attempt to realize their mad aspirations.Transhumanists propose to increase longevity by using CRISPR genetic editing, which has been used to triple the lifespan of mice. Thus, using this technique on human beings, it is conceivable that people could live to the age of 200 or 300 years old, he said.They propose to increase human intelligence by planting chips in people "that have greater processing capacity" than the human brain.An example is Elon Musk's NeuraLink, which is an "interface that is applied to the cerebral cortex" and which Musk says will help people with Alzheimer's or epilepsy, but which Lukacs speculates could "open the door" to "neuro-hackers."There is also the "post-humanist" school of transhumanism, of which economist Bostrom is a proponent.Bostrom proposes that "at some point it will not even be necessary to have a physical body, but we will be a set of information, that we will be able to upload our thoughts to the Cloud, that we will be able to form a great collective intelligence with other human beings," Lukac said.As for the "promise of super wellbeing," philosopher Pearce said it was "the hedonist imperative" to "genetically modify us to aspire to super well-being.""What Pearce is saying is that through genetic modification, we're going to be virtuous human beings," and that "we have to forget about pain and suffering, we have to get rid of those genes that make us aggressive, violent, jealous, that force us to fight and kill each other," said Lukacs."When you put all these things into the balance, what you are realizing is what you are looking at is literally the destruction of human beings, of Homo sapiens, and their conversion to Homo deus."But as with the Great Reset, the elites "twist" the language and disguise their transhumanist agenda behind vaguely benign phrases, so Schwab's Fourth Industrial Revolution is "sold to us as an idea that's not necessarily going to affect us," or that it is progress that will benefit humanity, he said.However, just as ordinary people will suffer in the Great Reset under "the architecture of oppression," as Edward Snowden phrased it, so they will bear the brunt of the experimentation by transhumanists."It's very worrying because for achieving that kind of dream, many, many mistakes will happen for sure. ... The burden will be carried by the people that get affected by this in their health, in their lives, in their economic situation and in their psychological or mental state," said Lukacs."It's a very, very costly experiment. And [the elites] are not going to bear any responsibility for this. Trust me," he told Coffin."For them, it's wonderful. For the rest, this is just dystopian."Trump a roadblock for global elite's plansLukacs also contended that the global elites encountered an unexpected roadblock to their plans in U.S. president Donald Trump."Actually, the structure of power is not that complicated," he told Coffin in an online Q&A session.At the top are the "meta-capitalists" or "capitalists that have so much financial muscle that they can play beyond the rules of capitalism; actually, they make the rules of capitalism or remake them," he said."And you have those guys on Big Tech, Big Pharma, Big Finance, Big Construction, everything big, the big corporate transnational world. Those are the billionaires who through their philanthropies, their billion-dollar pledges and all this kind of stuff, they ... funnel money downwards to all the politicians, who are basically rented politicians, they rent them, they run the world for them," he said."It's really the privatization of power through philanthropy," added Lukacs."And then, of course, you will have a layer of middle ground or middle level institutions, NGOs, universities, foundations, and then you'll go down to grassroots local government. It's a ... pyramidal structure."But Trump is one key public figure who could evidently not be rented."It is so obvious that in the States right now for the past, what, four, five months, a state coup has been in the making. As simple as that. I have no problem in saying it openly," Lukacs told Coffin."That's the situation. They have tried to oust a president that was democratically elected because they are desperate. China is still progressing. And ... their partners in the West, they're just not catching up. So, they are a little bit desperate. China is not going to wait."(5) World Economic Forum's 'Great Reset' = Food Imperialismhttps://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/world-economic-forums-great-reset-plan-for-big-food-benefits-industry-not-people/11/09/20World Economic Forum's 'Great Reset' Plan for Big Food Benefits Industry, Not People"The Great Reset is about maintaining and empowering a corporate extraction machine and the private ownership of life." — Vandana ShivaBy Jeremy LoffredoThe World Economic Forum's (WEF) The Great Reset includes a plan to transform the global food and agricultural industries and the human diet. The architects of the plan  claim it will reduce food scarcity, hunger and disease, and even mitigate climate change.But a closer look at the corporations and think tanks the WEF is partnering with to usher in this global transformation suggests that the real motive is tighter corporate control over the food system by means of technological solutions.Vandana Shiva, scholar, environmentalist, food sovereignty advocate and author, told The Defender, "The Great Reset is about multinational corporate stakeholders at the World Economic Forum controlling as many elements of planetary life as they possibly can. From the digital data humans produce to each morsel of food we eat."The WEF describes itself as "the global platform for public-private cooperation" that creates partnerships between corporations, politicians, intellectuals, scientists and other leaders of society to "define, discuss and advance key issues on the global agenda."According to WEF's founder and executive chairman, Klaus Schwab, the forum is guided by the goal of positioning "private corporations as the trustees of society" to "address social and environmental challenges."In July, Schwab published a 195-page book, "COVID-19: The Great Reset," in which he challenged industry leaders and decision makers to "make good use of the pandemic by not letting the crisis go to waste."TIME magazine (whose owner Marc Benioff is a WEF board member) recently partnered with the WEF to cover The Great Reset and to provide a "look at how the COVID-19 pandemic provides a unique opportunity to transform the way we live."The Great Reset is meant to be all-encompassing. Its partner organizations include the biggest players in data collection, telecommunications, weapons manufacturing, finance, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology and the food industry.The WEF's plans for the "reset" of food and agriculture include projects and strategic partnerships that favor genetically modified organisms, lab-made proteins and pharmaceuticals and industrial chemicals as sustainable solutions to food and health issues.For example, WEF has promoted and partnered with an organization called EAT Forum. EAT Forum describes itself as a "Davos for food" that plans to "add value to business and industry" and "set the political agenda."EAT was co-founded by Wellcome Trust, an organization established with funds from GlaxoSmithKline and which still has strategic partnerships with the drugmaker. EAT collaborates with nearly 40 city governments in Europe, Africa, Asia, North America, South America and Australia. The organization also assists the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) in the "creation of new dietary guidelines" and sustainable development initiatives.According to Federic Leroy, a food science and biotechnology professor at University of Brussels, EAT network interacts closely with some of the biggest imitation meat companies, including Impossible Foods and other biotech companies, which aim to replace wholesome nutritious foods with genetically modified lab creations."They frame it as healthy and sustainable, which of course it is neither," Leroy told The Defender.Impossible Foods was initially co-funded by Google, Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates. Recent lab results showed the company's imitation meat contained glyphosate levels 11 times higher than its closest competitor.EAT's biggest initiative is called FReSH, which the organization describes as an effort to drive the transformation of the food system. The project's partners include Bayer, Cargill, Syngenta, Unilever and even tech giant Google."Companies like Unilever and Bayer and other pharmaceutical companies are already chemical processors — so many of these companies are very well positioned to profit off of this new food business which revolves around processing chemicals and extracts needed to produce these lab-made foods on a global scale," Leroy said.In Schwab's book, he discusses how biotechnology and genetically modified food should become a central pillar to repairing global food scarcity issues, issues which COVID has revealed and exacerbated.He writes "global food security will only be achieved if regulations on genetically modified foods are adapted to reflect the reality that gene editing offers a precise, efficient and safe method of improving crops."Shiva disagrees. She told The Defender that the "WEF is parading fake science," and "for Mr. Schwab to promote these technologies as solutions proves that The Great Reset is about maintaining and empowering a corporate extraction machine and the private ownership of life."EAT developed what it refers to as "the planetary health diet," which the WEF champions as the "sustainable dietary solution of the future." But according to Leroy, it's a diet that's supposed to replace everything else. "The diet aims to cut the meat and dairy intake of the global population by as much as 90% in some cases and replaces it with lab-made foods, cereals and oil," he said.Shiva further explained, "EAT's proposed diet is not about nutrition at all, it's about big business and it's about a corporate takeover of the food system."According to EAT's own reports, the big adjustments the organization and its corporate partners want to make to the food system are "unlikely to be successful if left up to the individual," and the changes they wish to impose on societal eating habits and food "require reframing at the systemic level with hard policy interventions that include laws, fiscal measures, subsidies and penalties, trade reconfiguration and other economic and structural measures."But Shiva said this is the wrong approach, because "all of the science" shows that diets should be centered around regional and geographical biodiversity. She explained that "EAT's uniform global diet will be produced with western technology and agricultural chemicals. Forcing this onto sovereign nations by multinational lobbying is what I refer to as food imperialism."