Since early 2020, it has become clear that there has been a coordinated cult outreach that has spread around the globe. It's probable that this arose from a massive blunder, founded in a sudden lack of understanding of cell biology and a wealth of public health expertise. It's also likely that some people (Satan Soldiers) used a seasonal respiratory infection as a chance to grab power for some other reason.

It's difficult to deny the latter conclusion if you follow the money and influence trails.

Early on, there were hints. There were media blitzes talking about the "New Normal" and the "Great Reset" (which was renamed as "Build Back Better") even before the WHO announced a pandemic in March 2020 (at least many months after the real fact of a pandemic) and before any lockdowns.

Pharmaceutical corporations including Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Moderna, and Astra-Zeneca were aggressively pressuring governments to buy their vaccines as soon as February 2020, allegedly less than a month after China released the genetic code (or partial genome).

As someone who has spent his whole professional career working in pharmaceutical and vaccine research, the idea of getting from scratch to a ready-to-use vaccine in a matter of months seemed absurd to me.

Something wasn't quite right.

I was aware of the names that everyone had been acquainted with. For years, Bill Gates, Neil Ferguson, Jeremy Farrar, Anthony Fauci, and others had lobbied for or pursued lockdown techniques. However, the extent of the acts appeared to be too wide to be explained just by those names.

So, why and who have been the key questions that I've been asking myself? The "Why" always appears to return to problems other than public health. Of course, the WHO, China, the CDC, the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and numerous countries were among the "Who," but there appeared to be more to it than that. These players have been linked to the "public health" component, but it appears that this is simply the tip of the iceberg.

I'm not an investigative journalist, and I'd never claim to be one, but I can run some basic online searches and notice patterns emerge. Some really fascinating "coincidences" have come up as a result of my searches.

What do you believe the following persons have in common if I tell you their names: Biden, Trudeau, Ardern, Merkel, Macron, Draghi, Morrison, and Xi Jinping? Yes, they're all pampered and trip over one other, but that's not the link.

These titles immediately conjure up images of lockdown nations and persons who have disobeyed their own rules and/or attempted to subvert them in some fashion. But there's more to it, and I'll give you a hint by including a link next to each name.

President of the United States, Joseph Biden

Boris Johnson is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

New Zealand's Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern

Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel

President of France, Emmanuel Macron

Canada's Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau

China's CCP leader, Xi Jinping

Italy's Prime Minister, Mario Draghi

Australia's Prime Minister, Scott Morrison

They're all affiliated with the World Economic Forum (WEF), a "nonprofit" private organization led by Klaus "You shall own nothing and be happy" Schwab and his family since 1971. Despite the name's suggestion, this is a private group with no formal ties to any global government agency. The "Church of Schwabies" might have been a better name. The World Economic Forum was the source of the "Great Reset," and I'm guessing it was also the source of "Build Back Better" (since most of the above names have used that term recently).

If you assume the World Economic Forum's membership is limited to country leaders, consider the following:

California Governor Gavin Newsom

Governor of Washington State, Jay Inslee

Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Anthony Fauci

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi

Allow me to provide a list of people for the Board of Trustees so that you may learn more about the World Economic Forum.

Former US Vice President Al Gore

UN Special Envoy for Climate Action, Mark Caney

T. Shanmugaratnam, Singapore's Seminar Minister

President of the European Central Bank, Christine Lagarde

WTO Director General Ngozi Okonja-Iweala

IMF Managing Director Kristalian Georggieva

Deputy Minister of Canada Chrystia Freeland

BlackRock CEO Laurence Fink

On the board, you may find a diverse group of political and economic figures. Klaus Schwab remains the organization's head, as well as the Chairman of the Board. He has amassed a sizable number of fans.

If you really want to appreciate the scope of effect, go to the website and choose a company name; there are several to choose from: AstraZeneca, Biogen, Johnson & Johnson, Moderna, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Serum Institute of India, BASF, Mayo Clinic, Kaiser Permanente, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome Trust, Blackrock, CISCO, Dell, Google, Huawei, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Zoom, Yahoo, Amazon, Airbus, Boeing, Honda, Rakuten, Walmart, UPS, Coca-Cola, UBER, Bank of China Bank of America is a financial institution based in the United States. State Bank of India, Royal Bank of Canada, Lloyds Banking, JP Morgan Chase, Equifax, Goldman Sachs, Hong Kong Exchanges, Bloomberg, VISA, New York Times, Ontario Securities Commission (Canada) Pension Plan for Teachers

Even beyond the global leader network, the reach is enormous. We all know what Bill Gates has done with his fortune through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, for example (BMGF). The Wellcome Trust, on the other hand, is up to the challenge. Who is the Wellcome Trust's Director? WEF is intimately related with Jeremy Farrar of the United Kingdom SAGE and shutdown renown – probably the architect of the US-UK lockdowns in 2020.

Let me provide some instances from the BMGF alone in terms of the reach that may be achieved, and it comes from the time I spent in 2020 reviewing their enormous grant list.

The BMGF gave the Institute for Health Metric Evaluation (IHME) a ten-year, over $280 million grant a few years ago. During 2020, IHME (affiliated with the University of Washington in Seattle) was at the forefront of the computer modeling that drove the lockdowns and nonpharmaceutical interventions. Their name has frequently appeared in print or on MSNBC or CNN.

IHME gave Dr. Richard Horton, the Editor of the Lancet, a $100,000 prize in 2019 and hailed him as a "active editor." Since 2020, The Lancet, previously regarded as one of the top medical publications, has been at the forefront of suppressing opposing scientific ideas and publishing "articles" that were deemed unfit for publication. I'd never understood what it meant to be a "activist" editor at a prestigious scientific/medical magazine since, foolish me, I always assumed that the editor's primary role was to be objective. I think I found out how incorrect I was in 2020.

Of course, pharmaceutical giants such as Pfizer contribute significantly to the Lancet (also a member of the WEF).

However, the BMGF's influence extends well beyond IHME, and these ties have been well-established. Here are some examples of organizations and funds that will be received in 2020, split down by regions.

Bill Gates has also put a lot of money into Moderna, and his bets have paid off handsomely. In addition, the BMGF has contributed over $100 million to the Clinton Health Access Initiative.

The following questions must now be addressed:

Is this the start of a regulated totalitarian society linked to the World Economic Forum?

Is it possible that the Covid crisis was faked to set the tone?  since the virus is man made-genuine. Has a common seasonal respiratory infection, however, been exploited as an excuse to turn on the computer?

The following questions must be addressed by those of us who at least claim to live in "Democratic" societies:

Is this what you hoped for and/or desired from the persons you voted for?

How many individuals were aware of the "Associations" of the candidates for whom they voted? (I had no idea about the connections until I ran the searches...

Can we predict what they'll do next? There might be a few indications.
The Next Step

The Wellcome Trust's Jeremy Farrar collaborated with Mads Krogsgaard Thomsen, CEO of Novo Nordisk Foundation, on an essay for the World Economic Forum. It's a condensed version of a longer paper produced for the Boston Consulting Group and published there.

They argue in this article that a subscription service may be used to "address" the problem of antibiotic-resistant microorganisms. That is, you pay a charge, and when you need an antibiotic, you should be able to get one that is effective.

My hypothesis is that they share the same vaccination concept, and that appears to be the case with Coronavirus. Continue to pay for and use Kill Shot boosters.

Vaccine requirements make logical in light of this perspective. Get society "addicted" to a certain intervention, whether or not it is effective, and then keep feeding them. If you can keep the kill shot terror continuing, this becomes much more potent.

From a scientific standpoint, this approach is so myopic that it astounds me. However, I believe science has nothing to do with it, as it has with most of recent history. The purpose is not scientifically based, but rather based on control.

Following the discovery of penicillin over a century ago, experts warned that antibiotic use in practice should be carefully evaluated since evolutionary forces might lead to antibiotic-resistant microorganisms. They were thought to be renegade scientists at the time; after all, hadn't we just discovered a miracle treatment for a slew of severe diseases?

It took almost a decade from the time of discovery for fermentation systems to be developed that could generate substantial amounts of antibiotics to be useful. These approaches enabled the use of penicillin on the battlefield at the conclusion of WWII, saving many lives at the time and subsequently in following conflicts (Korea and Vietnam) by averting major infections caused by battle wounds.

However, it was only a matter of time until the medical establishment began dispensing antibiotics like candy. This happened to me when I was a kid in the 1960s. Every time we went to the doctor, no matter what the issue was, I was given a series (not just one) of penicillin shots. There were no attempts to ascertain whether I was infected with a virus, bacterium, or had an allergy. In with the needle, was the response. As a kid, I can't tell you how many times I was "jabbed."

It wasn't long before resistant species began to emerge. As a result, additional money was poured into antibiotic research and development. When I was in graduate school in the 1980s, tying your study to the "antibiotic" quest was a certain way to secure NIH money. Antibiotics have become a multibillion-dollar industry.

Antibiotics currently come in a variety of classes, each of which is utilized in different situations. Aminoglycosides (Streptomycin, Neomycin, and others), Beta-Lactams Cephalosporins (four generations including Cefadroxil-G1, Cefaclor-G2, Cefotaxime-G3, and Cefepime-G4), Beta-Lactams Penicillins (including Ampicillin, Amoxicillin, and Penicillin), Other Beta-Lactams (Meropenem), Fluoroquino (typically reserved for resistant bacteria). Antibiotics are available in approximately 50 distinct formulations, giving clinicians a wide range of options.

Antibiotic-resistant microorganisms are most commonly encountered in hospitals. Most people who have an illness in their daily lives, such as a sinus infection or a skin infection, are unlikely to come across an antibiotic-resistant species.

Except there was a different source of the problem, which was in the food supply. Large-scale meat production facilities of all varieties, including cattle, chicken, swine, and even fish, have become increasingly popular with antibiotics. These include both the farms where the animals are grown and the meat processing facilities. Antibiotic abuse in these industries has resulted in microorganisms that are resistant to antibiotics.

Antibiotics, for example, have been used to try to control the bacteria e. coli, which is prevalent among mammals, and this has produced in certain drug resistant e. coli strains. Proper cooking and handling of meats can prevent an infection with E. coli (antibiotic resistant or not). However, this does not always occur, and e. coli epidemics occur (also from improperly washed vegetables that may use contaminated irrigation water).

For most healthy people, e. coli (resistant or not) is just a minor annoyance that causes stomach cramps, diarrhea, and other gastrointestinal problems. A person may have symptoms for a day or two, or for several days, depending on the level of contamination.

However, for certain people, it can be life-threatening (such as in elderly people in poor health and young children). If this happens, the existence of an antibiotic-resistant strain can be dangerous. When a non-resistant type is present, it is easier to treat.

I experienced pneumonia a few years ago, but it was a minor case. It was a no-brainier for me to choose between in-patient and out-patient treatment. Staying at home and away from the hospital was critical if I wanted to ensure that my pneumonia could be treated with a standard course of antibiotics (I was given a quinolone). I was aware that hospital-acquired pneumonia may be far more dangerous. So I stayed at home and healed quickly. That didn't ensure I wouldn't develop a more serious resistant type in the hospital, but it did make me realize the chance was significantly higher.

Producing more antibiotics and offering them to consumers on a subscription basis is not the solution. This will only result in the emergence of increasingly resistant strains, as well as a never-ending cycle of antibiotic usage. However, if the real purpose is to create a society addiction to antibiotics based on fear, as opposed to a fear-based addiction to universal Covid vaccinations, that makes sense.

It's critical to find a few universal antibiotics that can cope with resistant strains, and to use them sparingly and only as a last resort. Furthermore, effective antibiotic usage management in our culture would go a long way toward alleviating the problem.

That statement isn't very contentious. Only two years ago, practically every respectable health professional accepted it. However, we currently live in other eras of extreme experimentation, such as the implementation of global lockdowns in response to a virus that had a highly targeted influence, with disastrous consequences for the entire globe.

On March 21, 2020, the World Economic Forum promised us that "lockdowns can limit the spread of Covid-19." Today, that piece, which has never been withdrawn, much less criticized, is widely regarded as the most absurd and damaging idea and forecast of the twenty-first century. Nonetheless, the World Economic Forum is still at it, claiming that, at the very least, lockdowns cut carbon emissions in the same year.

We can easily predict that the World Economic Forum's call for a universal and mandatory antibiotic subscription plan – pushed with the overt intention of bolstering financial capitalization of major drug manufacturers – will result in poor health outcomes, more power for entrenched elites, and ever less liberty for the people.