The Great Reset, page 12
As Kennedy pointed out, the goal of public health restrictions was to “get us to voluntarily give up, relinquish our human rights, our civil rights, and walk like sheep into the abattoir. Now they have a source of fear that is the most pervasive and all-encompassing power that they’ve ever had, which is the fear of pandemics.”
Kennedy explained, “My father told me when I was a child, ‘People in authority lie.’ And we all, if we are going to continue to live in a democracy, we need to understand that people in authority lie. People in authority will abuse every power that we relinquish to them, and right now we are giving them the power to micromanage every bit of our lives—twenty-four hours a day they’re going to know where we are, they’re going to know the money that we spend, they’re going to have access to our children. They’re going to have the right to compel unwanted medical interventions on us.”
Australia Returns to Its Prison Colony Roots
“Greater Sydney, Australia extends lockdown and announces stricter measures.
“Exercise now limited to one hour, masked, per day. Curfew after 9pm. And police now authorized to seal entire apartment buildings like the CCP claims to have done in Wuhan.” —attorney Michael P. Senger48
“Australia
Army deployed to enforce lockdown.
Mothers fined $1000 for talking outdoors.
Police patrolling kids[’] playgrounds.
Building a ‘quarantine camp.’
“Don’t like it?
“Citizens are banned from leaving country.
“If you protest, police shoot you with RUBBER BULLETS.” —Swedish journalist Peter Imanuelsen, editor in chief of the Times of Sweden49
According to Kennedy, “The Nazis did that in the camps in World War II. They tested vaccines on gypsies and Jews, and the world was so horrified after the war that we signed the Nuremberg Charter. And we all pledge when we do that, we would never again impose unwanted medical interventions on human beings without informed consent. And yet in two years, all of that conviction has suddenly disappeared, and people are walking around in masks, when the science has not been explained to them,” Kennedy said.
“These government agencies are orchestrating obedience. And it is not democratic. It’s not the product of democracy. It’s the product of a pharmaceutical driven biosecurity agenda that will enslave the entire human race and plunge us into a dystopian nightmare where the apocalyptical forces of ignorance and greed will be running our lives and ruining our children and destroying all the dreams and dignity that we hope to give to our children,” Kennedy declared.50
HBO’s Bill Maher blamed the George Floyd protests against the police on the “reckless experiment” of lockdowns.
“When you coop people up with no hope and no jobs, why not go out in the streets?” Maher said. “I wonder what America will look like. What do police departments look like if they have to fight this all the time? This reckless experiment of closing down an entire country for months at a time is not going to look good in the future.”
“We seem to have just focused on this one thing,” Maher observed. “It wasn’t inevitable that the economy be shut down…. We’ve had pandemics before.”51
Maher’s reaction against COVID fears and lockdowns extended into a certain lack of respect for the intelligence of young people. “You know the reason why advertisers in this country love the 18 to 34 demographic? Because it’s the most gullible,” Maher explained.
“Thirty-six percent of millennials think it might be a good idea to try communism, but much of the world did try it. I know, millennials think that doesn’t count because they weren’t alive when it happened. But it did happen. And there are people around who remember it. Pining for communism? It’s like pining for Betamax or Myspace,” Maher quipped.
“So when you say you’re old, you don’t get it. Get what? Abolish the police and the Border Patrol and capitalism and cancel Lincoln? No, I get it. The problem isn’t that I don’t get what you’re saying or that I’m old. The problem is that your ideas are stupid,” Maher insisted.
Maher was on a roll. “Twenty percent of Gen Z agree with the statement, ‘society would be better off if all property was owned by the public and managed by the government,’ and another 29% saying they don’t know if that’s a good idea. Here’s who does know: anyone who wasn’t born yesterday,” he ranted.52
CHAPTER 5 A Solution Worse than the Disease: Lockdowns Kill
George Soros, the billionaire progressive activist, saw COVID-19 as an opportunity to impose previously “inconceivable” alterations on a “scared” society. “I would describe it as a revolutionary moment when the range of possibilities is much greater than in normal times,” Soros said in 2020. “What is inconceivable in normal times becomes not only possible but actually happens. People are disoriented and scared.”1
Soros had previously claimed, in 2019, that “the arc of history doesn’t follow its own course. It needs to be bent. I am really engaged in trying to bend it in the right direction.”2
The forces behind the Great Reset were ready and able to “bend” history when COVID hit; “inconceivable” lockdowns and related restrictions became the new normal.
Deferred treatment for cancer, heart conditions, addiction, and suicidal depression is just one example of why lockdowns have been called “a crime against humanity.”3 COVID-19 lockdowns and mandates also cause poverty, and poverty kills. Locking people up in endless cycles of COVID restrictions, keeping them away from their loved ones, jobs, and routine medical checks—not to mention destroying the economy—had far-reaching impacts.
Economist Sanjeev Sabhlok calls the COVID-19 lockdown stampede “The Great Hysteria.”4
Sabhlok tweeted, “Comprehensive groupthink and incompetence has prevailed.”5 Scientists and politicians are “panting like a mad monster in the excitement of their total power over the people,” he explained.
“Net Harm”
Sabhlok exposed the madness behind the COVID lockdowns: “The science has also always been clear. Even if this virus had been as bad as Spanish flu, lockdowns would not be a remedy. Innumerable scientific studies both before and in 2020 confirm that lockdowns don’t work and, instead, cause net harm.”6
Statistician William M. Briggs, coauthor of the book The Price of Panic: How the Tyranny of Experts Turned a Pandemic into a Catastrophe, agreed. “Lockdowns force everybody in tight quarters, just like in fall when we go inside to escape the cold, there to more efficiently spread respiratory and other communicable diseases,” Briggs wrote. “All experts knew this before 2020. They pretended to forget it after that.”7
As Sabhlok explained, “Lockdowns had never been imposed in the past for a respiratory flu-like virus. Not a single scientist prior to 2020 ever recommended such measures. Lockdowns have only been imposed once before, for Ebola, and found to be ineffective.”8
“A True Killer”
“Covid is a true killer. So far it’s killed the flu, cancer, heart disease—it killed the ability to think, logic & common sense. It killed the economy, the working class, & millions of jobs. It killed millions of businesses, human connection, love and compassion.” —a Twitter wag posting under the handle Colin’s Tweet’s #LearnToLiveWithIt (@GovPolicyDoubt)9
Dr. Scott Atlas, who was an advisor to President Trump late in the COVID-19 crisis, did not mince words.
“The prolonged lockdowns are a complete disaster. They are a complete disaster for missed healthcare; they are a complete disaster for average working families,” Atlas explained, adding that “people have been killed by people who want to have prolonged lockdowns.”
Atlas detailed the crushing impacts of lockdowns:
Forty-six percent of the most common types of cancers were not diagnosed during the lockdown….
Half of people who had chemotherapy appointments didn’t show up; that’s 650,000 Americans.
Half of people who had immunizations for children didn’t come in out of the fear instilled by our so-called public health experts….
We had more than 200,000 cases of child abuse not reported….
One out of four young, college-age Americans have contemplated killing themselves during the month of June [2020]; that’s a CDC report.
Public health experts presided over a policy that is a “complete epic failure,” Atlas explained. “History will record the faces of the public health expertise as some of the most sinful, egregious, epic failures in the history of public policy. They have killed people with their lack of understanding and their lack of caring,” Atlas charged.
“They never cared to consider the impact of the policy itself. And the policy itself has been a complete, epic failure, and honestly some people say a crime against humanity. These people should be held accountable,” he added.10
Just imagine if former president Trump had brought in Dr. Atlas in March of 2020 instead of deferring to Anthony Fauci and others! America might not have been sucked into the futile lockdown madness.
“The Death Rate from Losing Your Democracy”
“As former Soviet citizens can attest, the death rate from COVID is much, much lower than the death rate from losing your democracy.” —attorney Michael P. Senger, author of the book Snake Oil: How Xi Jinping Shut Down the World11
As COVID-19 spread around the world in early 2020, the rallying cry went up for lockdowns. Despite having never been a part of public health strategy before, lockdowns became the go-to response for virtually every government in the world. Videos from China of people allegedly dropping dead in the street from a mysterious virus, followed by clips of Chinese government officials sealing people in their homes—and the subsequent WHO endorsement—were enough to make locking down standard policy in the West. At first the massive lockdowns were sold to Europeans and Americans as a mere “two weeks to flatten the curve,” but in reality they went on for months and years and threatened to become permanent.
Meanwhile, numerous studies have shown that lockdowns had little to no impact in stopping the spread of COVID-19—and that the lockdowns themselves have devastating effects of their own.
In 2021 a peer-reviewed study by prominent researchers and Stanford University professors of medicine Eran Bendavid, Christopher Oh, John P. A. Ioannidis, and Jayanta Bhattacharya was published in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation. The study found, “There is no evidence that more restrictive nonpharmaceutical interventions (‘lockdowns’) contributed substantially to bending the curve of new cases in England, France, Germany, Iran, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, or the United States in early 2020.”13
“Amazon Made Out Great!”
“Oh, it [COVID-19] was way worse than the flu. It killed tens of thousands of people with overdoses. It cost tens of millions of kids a year of school and left tens of millions of older people isolated and alone. But @amazon made out great!” —Alex Berenson, author of Pandemia: How Coronavirus Hysteria Took Over Our Government, Rights, and Lives12
And a study in The Lancet’s eClinicalMedicine determined that “government actions such as border closures, full lockdowns, and a high rate of COVID-19 testing were not associated with statistically significant reductions in the number of critical cases or overall mortality.”14
In 2022 a study by two Swedish researchers and professor at Johns Hopkins University concluded that lockdowns had almost no measurable impact on reducing COVID-19 deaths. The paper found “no evidence that lockdowns, school closures, border closures, and limiting gatherings have had a noticeable effect on COVID-19 mortality.”15
“An analysis of these qualified studies supports the conclusion that lockdowns have had little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality. Lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument,” explained study coauthor Steve Hanke, a professor of applied economics at Johns Hopkins University.16
“Our results are in line with the World Health Organization Writing Group (2006), who state, ‘Reports from the 1918 influenza pandemic indicate that social-distancing measures did not stop or appear to dramatically reduce transmission,’ ” the study reported.
“Overall, we conclude that lockdowns are not an effective way of reducing mortality rates during a pandemic, at least not during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic,” the researchers wrote in their study titled “A Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Lockdowns on COVID-19 Mortality.”17
Sweden: Doing Better without Locking Down
“Sweden, which has shunned the strict lockdowns that have choked much of the global economy, emerged from 2020 with a smaller increase in its overall mortality rate than most European countries, an analysis of official data sources showed,” Johan Ahlander reported in a 2021 Reuters article titled “Sweden Saw Lower 2020 Death Spike than Much of Europe—Data.”
Sweden rejected COVID lockdowns and relied on voluntary measures, keeping restaurants, stores, and schools open, and as a result the nation “spared the economy from much of the hit suffered elsewhere in Europe,” according to Reuters.
“Preliminary data from EU statistics agency Eurostat compiled by Reuters showed Sweden had 7.7% more deaths in 2020 than its average for the preceding four years. Countries that opted for several periods of strict lockdowns, such as Spain and Belgium, had so-called excess mortality of 18.1% and 16.2% respectively,” Ahlander observed.
“Twenty-one of the 30 countries with available statistics had higher excess mortality than Sweden…. Sweden’s excess mortality also came out at the low end of the spectrum in a separate tally of Eurostat and other data released by the UK’s Office for National Statistics,” Ahlander explained.
Anders Tegnell, Sweden’s chief epidemiologist, summed up the results of Sweden’s refusal to follow the lockdown herd. “I think people will probably think very carefully about these total shutdowns, how good they really were,” Tegnell said.18
Overwhelming Evidence
The European Journal of Clinical Investigation study concluded that in 75 percent of the comparisons, the lockdown interventions actually increased the spread of the virus. “In summary, we fail to find strong evidence supporting a role for more restrictive NPIs [nonpharmaceutical interventions] in the control of COVID in early 2020. We do not question the role of all public health interventions, or of coordinated communications about the epidemic, but we fail to find an additional benefit of stay-at-home orders and business closures,” the Stanford professors who authored the study explained.
“The data cannot fully exclude the possibility of some benefits. However, even if they exist, these benefits may not match the numerous harms of these aggressive measures. More targeted public health interventions that more effectively reduce transmissions may be important for future epidemic control without the harms of highly restrictive measures.”19
The academic literature has long reported that quarantines and lockdowns were not viable ways to fight viruses.
A key paper refuting lockdowns, “Disease Mitigation Measures in the Control of Pandemic Influenza,” published in 2006 in the journal Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science, slammed any potential societal lockdown–style efforts to contain viruses. Dr. D. A. Henderson, who had led the effort to eradicate smallpox, was a key author of this study, which also included as coauthors infectious disease expert Thomas V. Inglesby, epidemiologist Jennifer B. Nuzzo, and physician Tara O’Toole.
The prescient 2006 paper noted, “There are no historical observations or scientific studies that support the confinement by quarantine of groups of possibly infected people for extended periods in order to slow the spread of influenza…. This mitigation measure should be eliminated from serious consideration.”
The study also pointed out:
Home quarantine also raises ethical questions. Implementation of home quarantine could result in healthy, uninfected people being placed at risk of infection from sick household members…. Travel restrictions, such as closing airports and screening travelers at borders, have historically been ineffective. The World Health Organization Writing Group concluded that “screening and quarantining entering travelers at international borders did not substantially delay virus introduction in past pandemics… and will likely be even less effective in the modern era.”…
It is reasonable to assume that the economic costs of shutting down air or train travel would be very high, and the societal costs involved in interrupting all air or train travel would be extreme….
There are many social gatherings that involve close contacts among people, and this prohibition might include church services, athletic events, perhaps all meetings of more than 100 people. It might mean closing theaters, restaurants, malls, large stores, and bars. Implementing such measures would have seriously disruptive consequences….
Schools are often closed for 1–2 weeks early in the development of seasonal community outbreaks of influenza primarily because of high absentee rates, especially in elementary schools, and because of illness among teachers. This would seem reasonable on practical grounds. However, to close schools for longer periods is not only impracticable but carries the possibility of a serious adverse outcome….
Thus, cancelling or postponing large meetings would not be likely to have any significant effect on the development of the epidemic…. The problems in implementing such measures are formidable, and secondary effects of absenteeism and community disruption as well as possible adverse consequences, such as loss of public trust in government and stigmatization of quarantined people and groups, are likely to be considerable.
