The Rockefeller Foundation and the World Economic Forum: Their Vision For Resetting the World

 According to Wikipedia, in 2015, the Foundation was ranked as the 39th largest U.S. foundation by total giving. By year end 2016, assets were tallied at $4.1 billion (unchanged from 2015), with annual grants of $173 million. Wikipedia states that its major areas of interest are

• Medical, health, and population sciences
• Agricultural and natural sciences
• Arts and humanities
• Social sciences
• International relations

It has been contributing to a number of strategic opinions regarding pandemic preparation and now COVID19. In 2010 it produced a now infamous report,  Scenarios for the future of Technology and Human Development, which explored possible future scenarios for social and political development for the planet. One of the scenarios was called “lockstep” which at the time would have seemed a fairly dystopian vision of how we would be functioning globally. In that scenario, a global flu pandemic leads to the death of millions, and subsequent global shutdown of borders and international travel and commerce. Societies worldwide would be put into forms of “lockstep” with quarantines, control of all movement, mask wearing, social isolation and widespread monitoring. Fears of any civilian reaction would only lead to a great crackdown of martial law strategies that would be of varying degrees of harshness, but which would become the new norm as most people acquiesced to the rigid social control imposed. China was cited as a model of how to impose such control, having had more experience in this area and now with its recent experiments in using Artificial Intelligence to monitor its citizens. Although this was only one of four scenarios, its rather prescient and uncanny similarity to what we are now experiencing has caused some concerns. Is this just a rather “psychic” scenario played out in the Rockefeller Foundation’s projections, or a well-developed plan waiting for the right moment?

In a more recent document, entitled National Covid-19 Testing Action Plan Pragmatic steps to reopen our workplaces and our communities, released on April 21^st 2020, the Rockefeller Foundation lays out its ideas of how to re-open our societies. Its basic premise, as it states is, “Testing is our way out of this crisis. Instead of ricocheting between an unsustainable shutdown and a dangerous, uncertain return to normalcy, the United States must mount a sustainable strategy with better tests and contact tracing, and stay the course for as long as it takes to develop a vaccine or cure. Any plan to do so must win the faith of private and public sector leaders across the country, and of individual Americans that they and their loved ones will be safer when we begin to return to daily life.”

“Pandemics sicken and kill people in three ways: first by overwhelming patients’ immune defences, then by swamping hospital networks, and eventually by cutting off a community’s economic lifeblood. Hence, “saving lives or saving the economy” is a false choice. As of April 19, Covid-19 had directly killed more than 163,000 people worldwide, including nearly 35,000 in the United States.”

If we now fast-forward two months (this article was originally written in June but is just as valid now in October), we have found that the pandemic has not swamped hospital networks or cut off community’s economic lifeblood, except from the lockdown. Whether the lockdown has worked is not the argument right now. What should be discussed now as of June 22^nd-30^th is if the numbers of deaths justify the Rockefeller Foundations’ plans to roll out a national testing programme for hundreds of millions of people. As the curve was flattened in March to April and the numbers of mortalities (as opposed to cases) have significantly declined since then, perhaps chasing the virus now is too late. The virus has done most of its damage for now, affecting the most susceptible people (aged and those with co-morbidities) and may or may not appear in a slightly different form next year. We don’t know, but the logistical plans being laid out in this report need to be seriously questioned. We continually see organizations like the WHO and government experts stating that cases are still increasing and the pandemic is by no means over, but that is a convenient narrative for those who want to roll out the largest health surveillance operation in the history of humanity. There is a lot of money at stake here and it is clear the Rockefeller Foundation has already concluded what needs to happen, irrespective of the numbers. The fact remains that for the vast majority of people, COVID19 is not a serious threat to life. Why then the need for such drastic action? (As of October 2020, we are seeing many more positive tests because of increased testing and false positive PCR tests and even as hospitalizations seem to be increasing, overall mortality rates are low. But governments are still inflating figures, confusing positive tests with increased cases and fanning the flames the fear once again. Why?)

The report continues:

“The bad news is that the U.S. is not yet administering enough coronavirus tests each week to adequately monitor the entire U.S. workforce or rapidly detect recurrent Covid-19 outbreaks. Such outbreaks can be expected for the foreseeable future given the low level of population immunity as well as the virus’s contagiousness and wide geographic dispersion. The location and size of recurrent outbreaks are difficult to predict. Close monitoring of the medically vulnerable, institutionalized, poor and imprisoned is vital.”

The question needs asking why outbreaks can be expected for the foreseeable future and why the entire U.S. workforce needs to be tested in an ongoing way? Also, are we sure that the low level of population immunity is true and will close monitoring of above populations really work? Is this just more of the narrative needed to support their own agenda? The goal of such a comprehensive testing programme, reaching up to 30 million tests a week, according to the report, is to be able to test the whole population. The resources required to do this are unprecedented and profound. The costs will be extraordinary. Already, a proposed bill, H.R.6666 proposes spending 100 billion dollars just in 2020 for their Contact Tracing in the USA. Yes, you read that correctly. 100 billion dollars. More than the GDP of half the countries in the world. This bill would be able to provide the numbers of community healthcare corps needed and develop the data commons and digital platform as well as the costs of the tests themselves.

Given the fact that mortalities (the so-called curve) have plateaued nearly two months ago now (in April) it is a question whether a massive increase in testing should be done. The only other reason to continually increase in testing is if healthy people are routinely tested until the whole country is covered and not just for the sick or those in front-line jobs. (The UK has recently unveiled a similar plan called Operation Moonshot, which also envisages spending up to £100 billion on ongoing testing. That amount is over 2/3 of the complete health budget of the country, an inconceivable amount of money on testing and monitoring for one disease).

The second part of the plan is the need for a massive amount of “manpower to do all the logistics of testing, distribution and management of the tests, receiving the suggested wage of around $40,000 per year. “The number of tests needed to successfully prevent recurrent outbreaks while allowing some relaxation of social distancing will depend on the vigilance of contact tracing.” As has been stated at other times, the assumption is that some form of lockdown will be preserved until contact tracing programme is implemented and/or a vaccine is introduced. Therefore, the threat of a permanent form of surveillance testing is seen as the only way out of a form of lockdown status. The report suggests the hiring of between 100,000-300,000 people to carry out these operations.

The creation of a data commons and digital platform is the 3^rd essential cog in the machine here in order to “Integrate and expand Federal, state, and private data platforms to cover the full range of data required to monitor the pandemic, deploy resources, and remove bottlenecks.”” Innovative digital technologies can improve workforce monitoring and early detection of recurrent outbreaks.”

“When integrated into national and state surveillance systems, such innovations may enable the same level of outbreak detection with fewer tests. Promising techniques include anonymous digital tracking of workforces or population-based resting heart-rate and smart thermometer trends; continually updated epidemiological data modelling; and artificial intelligence projections based on clinical and imaging data.”

Therefore, what is being suggested is a health surveillance system, connected to one’s health record, sharing in a national digital system, which would also have the DNA record of everyone tested. This information would be in a government and/or private database. Without even knowing it, the complete DNA records of a population would be collected and stored, in the name of controlling the pandemic and future outbreaks. Is this something we want to do? Can we trust either governments or private corporations, including the Rockefeller Foundation with the collection of our personal data? Will this data be marketed and sold?

The report does acknowledge the massive impact of the lockdown, with the loss of jobs, severe economic downturn, with GDP declining in the USA by as much as 7% this year and monthly economic loss up to $400 billion. But it sees the only way out of the pandemic to be massive testing, in the range of up to 20-30 million people weekly to get the country back to work, until a vaccine arrives! But as the report emphasizes, testing would be done hand in hand with rigorous contact tracing, which would involve forcing anyone in contact with a positive person to self-quarantine or be forcefully quarantined for 14 days.

Where is the money going to come from for this “wartime effort”? The financing and implementation of this operation could be outsourced to the private sector but backed by tax payers money in the end. The justification for the public-private initiative is to enhance the process, avoiding bureaucratic snafus of government. However, the financial benefits will no doubt be an important incentive for private involvement.

“Testing millions of people per week will require hiring a large number of community health workers. The disease is so infectious that reaching and quarantining potential contacts quickly is an urgent priority and maximizes the effectiveness of testing.” Given that a majority of people either do not get sick even if positive, whether it’s that infectious or not becomes irrelevant, but the fact is that it’s not that infectious. This is not similar to the “Spanish Flu” pandemic of 1918, as often suggested. The biggest lesson learnt so far, given that 50-77% of deaths have been in care homes in elderly people with co-morbidities, should be to protect those people, https://covidwatching.org/protecting-the-elderly-new-york-failed-florida-got-an-a/ with measures described. For the majority of other people, it isn’t necessary and widespread testing won’t make any difference and will only create more harm and the cost is simply not justified. It would be better to simply invest in a good health system for all in the USA.

The report recommends the development of a digital I.D. card for every person, that would be needed in order to work and move about. The Rockefeller Foundation is a partner, along with Microsoft and GAVI (Global Vaccine Alliance) of I.D.2020, https://id2020.org/alliance the 501c3 charity set up to give the whole of humanity its own digital I.D., described as a human right by the organization. The plans that the Rockefeller Foundation are recommending here tie in with the plans of ID2020. “Those screened must be given a unique Identification number that would link to information about a patient’s viral, antibody and eventually vaccine status under a system that could easily handshake with other systems to speed the return of normal societal functions. Schools could link this to attendance lists, large office buildings to employee ID cards, TSA to passenger lists and concert and sports venues to ticket purchasers. Such connections should be made in a way that protects personally identifying information whenever possible. For example, accessing the viral and antibody status of an individual can be done by using a cryptographic hash of an individual’s private information without actually sending any personally revealing details.”

Implied in the above is that without this I.D. or “immunity passport”, a person will not be able to do virtually anything, including work. It will become a prerequisite to normal life. This record will interoperate with doctors’ and health insurance records and any other form of data collection.

Further justification for this approach is that once in place and implemented, it could avoid the need for the blunt strategy of lockdown in future situations, using some countries like South Korea as an example. Interestingly, neighbouring Japan didn’t employ any serious testing and monitoring and successfully seems to have avoided the spread of the disease. What South Korea and Japan likely did, which the USA (in places), and Europe didn’t do was to successfully protect the aged and vulnerable in care homes. That is one factor omitted yet again in this analysis but is crucial in any understanding of the way in COVID19 affects people.

In conclusion, the Rockefeller Report is a massive overreaction to a pandemic whose narrative contradicts the data. People have not died in numbers greater than a bad flu season. The mortality rates are predominantly in aged people and those others with co-morbidities. Healthy and young people, including children are generally not vulnerable.

The level of imposition on basic civil liberties being recommended here are a profound threat to the remaining freedoms assumed to be sacrosanct in liberal democracies. The fact that the Rockefeller Foundation is willing to justify such actions and exaggerate the threat of COVID19 suggests that the goal of creating a state of permanent surveillance with unlimited financial resources is a desired goal in itself, and that the COVID19 pandemic is a convenient pretext to implement the plan.

The Rockefeller Foundation is just one organization that is justifying such a strategy but what is becoming ever more obvious is that these organizations are linked together and work hand in hand with governments. One other significant organization is called the World Economic Forum, famed for its yearly meetings in Davos, Switzerland. Global leaders from all over the world meet to discuss the vital political and economic issues of the day. Founder of the WEF is Klaus Schwab, author of the book The 4^th Industrial Revolution, which sees the development of modern technology, including Artificial Intelligence, that will transform the world. He is also co-author of the book, Covid-19, the Great Reset. This book coincided with the WEFs announcement of it summit on The Great Reset in June 2020 and which will be followed up by a Great Reset meeting in January 2021.

As the World Economic Forum describes itself: “The Great Reset” will be the theme of a unique twin summit to be convened by the World Economic Forum in January 2021. In-person and virtual dialogues will address the need for a more fair, sustainable and resilient future, and a new social contract centred on human dignity, social justice and where societal progress does not fall behind economic development. The World Economic Forum is the International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation. The Forum engages the foremost political, business, cultural and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas. We believe that progress happens by bringing together people from all walks of life who have the drive and the influence to make positive change.

When reading the narratives of the WEF, one can be taken in by the visionary, inclusive, democratic perspective, but is this really the case or is it that the WEF represents global power players who are now going to use the Covid19 crisis is a way of imposing an ever more centralized, controlled surveillance society, one dominated by the latest Artificial Intelligence and other technologies. It depends on your point of view or perhaps naïve assumptions of the intentions of global financial and political elites. It is very much worth questioning their motives if history is anything to go by. The World Economic Forum was ready to go with its Covid Action Platform as early as March 2020, making one wonder just how ready they were for this new pandemic.

So, what does the WEF say about the use of national I.D. linked to health, vaccine and other records, that may be imposed on the global population and necessary for free movement. Is this something that we should be encouraging in the name of public safety or is it simply that Covid19 is now being used as an excuse to roll out a programme of global surveillance linked to a health pass needed for any travel or social interaction? The very fact of the pass being seen as so important brings up very important questions, one which cannot be answered satisfactorily for many people. It is being suggested to be linked to health records, including Covid19 status. But the fact is that the vast majority of people who are exposed to Covid19 do not get any symptoms. They could test positive but be asymptomatic and are very unlikely to spread the disease. Locking away healthy people who happen to test positive makes no sense, unless you actually want to lock people away! The PCR tests being used are ineffective.  They simply don’t work and yet we are using this as gold standard testing. Even Dominic Raab, the UK Foreign Secretary admitted, maybe by accident, that the PCR tests are only effective 7% of the time, which is why they are not rolling them out at airports. It is being disputed whether he actually meant this, but it is exactly what he said, and in fact if the tests were effective, using them at aiports would make sense and better than asking nearly everybody coming to into the country to quarantine for two weeks which is simply foolishness.  Whatever, the percentage is, many, many scientists have said that the PCR tests don’t work well and simply can’t be trusted. Also, the antibody tests are meaningless, as it is admitted that no one knows how long immunity may last, that antibodies are only one measure of immunity, T-cells being a more effective long-term immunity and it says nothing about the overall health of the person. They are useless. So, the relevance of imposing a Common Pass or Health Pass as a mandatory requirement for travel or other things, only has meaning if a vaccine is produced and imposed upon the global population. This brings up huge political and ethical issues. How can a vaccine be mandated or at least required for travel and other activities when its safety or efficacy cannot yet be ensured and even if it can, it is not needed by the vast majority of healthy people on the planet who don’t get sick with Covid19? The only other conclusion to make it is that this idea of a pass is simply a tool to enforce conformity to a vaccine agenda and the vast profits and control this gives to Big Pharma and their governments. There is no other conclusion to draw.

The WEF state the following on their site: 

In collaboration with The Commons Project, a non-profit public trust building global digital services and platforms for the common good, the World Economic Forum is supporting the development and launch of CommonPass, an initiative which aims to develop a global, interoperable framework to safely restore cross-border travel to pre-pandemic levels.

 The challenge: As countries around the world work to overcome the COVID-19 pandemic and restart their economies and tourism, they all face the challenge of how to reopen their borders and allow international travel to resume while protecting their populations’ health. The current patchwork of policies and ever-changing border entry and health screening requirements has made international travel incredibly complex, leaving airlines and border agencies uncertain about the validity of test results and passengers unsure of what is being asked of them.

The solution: CommonPass aims to develop and launch a standard global model to enable people to securely document and present their COVID-19 status (either as test results or an eventual vaccination status) to facilitate international travel and border crossing while keeping their health information private. Recognizing that countries will make sovereign decisions on border entry and health screening requirements, including whether or not to require tests or what type of test to require, CommonPass serves as a neutral platform which creates the interoperability needed for the various 'travel bubbles' to connect and for countries to trust one another's data by leveraging global standards.

For governments, airlines, airports, and other key stakeholders throughout the end-to-end travel journey, CommonPass aims to address these key questions:

• How can a lab result or vaccination record from another country be trusted?
• Is the lab or vaccination facility accredited/certified?
• How do we confirm that the person who took the test is indeed the person who is travelling?
• Does the traveler meet border entry requirements?
• How it works: In line with protocols and guidelines from international organizations and standards bodies in the aviation and health sectors, CommonPass allows individuals to securely document their COVID-19 status electronically and present it when they board a plane or cross a border.

The framework will:

• Allow individuals to collect and store their health information securely and present their health status in conjunction with border crossing and travel requirements.
• Support a range of health data inputs, including PCR test results and vaccination records.
• Support a range of health screening entry requirements that vary from country to country and will evolve through the course of the pandemic and beyond.
• Protect the privacy of individual health data.
• Be interoperable across countries and regions.
• Be based on proven, international standards and open technologies.
• Be operated on an open, independent, sustainable, not-for-profit basis.

is a nonprofit public trust established to build platforms and services to make life better for people around the world.

We believe that everyone should enjoy the full benefit of technology and data while maintaining control over their digital lives. We believe that communities are stronger when data is open and can be shared for the benefit of all.

That all sounds very good, but as you look more at it, it has 3 component parts to it:

• Common Health: CommonHealth helps people collect, store, and share their personal health information safely and securely.  It was developed in collaboration with UCSF, Cornell Tech and Sage Bionetworks with broad participation from all corners of the healthcare ecosystem.
• Covid Check: COVIDcheck helps people around the world understand and reduce their COVID-19 risks.  Developed in collaboration with CDC and the World Medical Association, it also supports schools, universities, employers,and public health agencies in their efforts to overcome the pandemic and return to a new normal.
• Common Pass: For global travel and trade to return to pre-pandemic levels, travelers will need a secure and verifiable way to document their health status as they travel and cross borders. Introducing CommonPass, a framework to help the world reopen safely.

If you happen to believe the narrative we have been given by the WHO, Gates Foundation and many world governments that Covid19 is the biggest threat to humanity in 100 years and that a vaccine is the only solution (which is the repeated narrative we have heard now for 9 months) then the above planned passes would make sense. If, on the other hand, you believe that whatever threats Covid19 may have had at the beginning, it is now seen to be no worse than an average flu season then the only conclusion to draw is that the plans above are a profound threat to our liberty. It is now being used by governments and powerful corporations and organizations to prepare us for a great Economic Reset, one in which vaccines, health passes and biometric surveillance will be used to create a culture of surveillance and control as the global elites reset the global economic and political structures. They say you will own your own data. There is no evidence to believe this. Data is mined and sold all the time.

This may sound rather conspiracy minded, but you only have to read the openly declared intentions of organizations like the Rockefeller Foundation and the World Economic Forum to know that they have been thinking about this for a long time. The World Economic Forum, along with the Gates Foundation and Johns Hopkins University sponsored the famous Event201 https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/ in October 2019 where they discussed a futuristic scenario of a global pandemic, which coincidently occurred just months later. A perfect storm for those who want to reset the world. The language of the World Economic Forum is very democratic and even utopian. But the history of utopian visions and movements is fraught with destruction and suffering. It is best to seriously question the intention of these organizations and those who support it, which are many of the world’s elite economic, political and celebrity leaders. They are not our friends.