Another bit of the jigsaw

I’ve remarked before on the common pattern I’ve seen among those scientists and medics who have become sceptical of the whole COVID narrative. Sometimes such people have told their own story, and sometimes one has seen it emerge in real time on their blogs and videos over the months, as their thinking develops. But it goes a bit like this.

At the start of the pandemic, the expert in question is usually as uncertain as everybody else, and is scientifically interested to discover what the real situation is, usually so that he might contribute something to the solutions from his expertise. Often (because they aren’t schooled in epidemiology or in sociology!) such people are initially in favour of a short lockdown. Maybe they’re shocked by pictures of people dropping dead in China, not realising the scenes were faked (and where is the public discussion on the significance of that fraud?).

But when actual data begins to be officially cited by policy-makers, the individual sees that something important is not quite right. What that is depends on their field: it might be misuse of statistics, or the overturning of long-established medical principles, or self-contradiction by government scientists or bodies like the WHO.

Often the next stage is that they find their own papers, countering the errors they have found, being rejected, or in the case of physicians their successful treatment regimes being dismissed. Then they are surprised to find they can’t get anything published any more, and that their competence and even their character are assassinated both in social media and in respected journals.

The end point of their journey varies. A fair number who either can’t find it in themselves to doubt human nature, or who want to retain at least some of their professional standing, will reply when asked what they think is behind the mess, “Now, there’s a question,” or “I only wish I knew.” That this is a psychological defence is plain from the fact that for scientists, wanting to know should be the trigger for research, and there are plenty of answers out there to weigh up.

The rest form a kind of spectrum. At one end of the scale there are those who simply bemoan the incompetence of governments and their advisers, especially where the advisers in question are in a different field from their own, thus retaining the illusion of normality in their own corner of the world, at least. Further along are those blaming groupthink, and/or opportunistic exploitation of the crisis by chancers of various kinds. At the other end are those who come to the conclusion that there really is some kind of conspiracy above and beyond the bounds of a highly-overblown pandemic. I suspect more and more people end up there – it’s usually a one way street. I’ve seen very few examples – OK, no examples – of people who say, “I was very suspicious at first, but reading the entire literature I’m now convinced governments have been doing broadly the right thing.”

Let’s focus on the “conspiracists.” Mostly, I think, their scientific scepticism and consequent ostracism by their peers has forced them into the more general community of doubters, who have already been informed on things like the Great Reset, Agenda 2030 and so on. This community shares information good and bad on everything from the corruption of bodies like the WHO, the evil practices of big pharma, bodies like the Club of Rome and the Bilderbergers, the Gates Foundation, vaccine damage, 5G and lizard people taking over the world. In other words, it is a mixed bag with inevitably varying degrees of realism and paranoia, yet we should remember the Catch-22 quote: Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t after you. When full information is withheld, how one fills in the gaps will necessarily depend on one’s background and personality.

The 5G and lizard supporters are a minority amongst the scientific COVID sceptics, but there is a reasonable consensus around the complicity of governments, supra-nationals, global corporations and other establishment groupings in seeking to bring about a new world order by weaponising COVID. But note the usual process: the scientist gets “awakened” through his or her own expertise, and adopts “conspiratorial” conclusions from the broader community of doubters.

But enter Professor Norman Fenton, Professor of Risk Information Management at Queen Mary University, who is in informative discussion here, unless YouTube takes it down. In many ways he’s a “bog-standard” example of the kind of sceptic I’ve been discussing: a respected academic who expected to be able to contribute usefully to improving the science on COVID, and instead found himself a pariah, unable now to get his university group’s work published even on the sites that don’t require peer review. I should add that he’s also typical of the “type” in being outspoken because he’s nearing retirement age: nearly all dissenters are either retired, of independent means or already have their Nobel Prize. I’m not sure it’s previously been fully appreciated that civilisations fall largely because moral convictions are trumped by regular pay-cheques: the PIN is mightier than the sword, it seems.

It’s an indicator of the large, but hidden, number of such brave swimmers against the official line that, although Fenton has much to say and is on the team at HART (Health Advisory and Recovery Team), one of the many bodies that such professions have felt compelled to form, I’d not heard of him though I follow this stuff full-time. But in his long YouTube discussion Fenton made one unique contribution which, to me, provides significant understanding of “what’s really going on.”

He explains that, before he stopped being a respected scientist, he was invited on to his first panel of expert academics set up to find ways forward, in 2020. To his surprise, he found that all his co-panellists saw the pandemic as the perfect opportunity to reorganise the world’s entire economy and socio-political system. In fact – and here is the key thing – it was from this academic panel helping to formulate the response to COVID that he first heard about the Great Reset, an idea he had never encountered before. Since then, he has found this ambition to be entrenched amongst his fellow academics, and that certainly explains the peculiar censorship of research that doesn’t fit the official agenda:

“People talk about conspiracy theory but actually the first time I ever heard about the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset agenda was, and it came from the other academics, at that meeting. In fact, all the other academics on that panel spoke about the Covid crisis being the perfect opportunity for a Great Reset which they felt was necessary to usher in a new improved world order and, especially, to combat what they saw as the greatest existential threats of the world which was, namely: climate change,” said Prof. Fenton, “and I think there are many academics who are openly suggesting that Covid lockdowns are a necessary precursor for climate lockdowns.”

Prof Fenton said it’s important to note that such academics not only dominate the government scientific advisory committee but are also on the editorial boards of journals etc.

Why is this important? Well, you read about the Great Reset on blogs of varying trustworthiness, or maybe even on the WEF website, which might be dismissed as the utopian delusions of a bunch of businessmen… though one should not underestimate the power to realise their wild visions of the people who own most of the world’s wealth.

But what difference does this statement make to your thinking: “The leading academics who are formulating government policy across the world are predominantly advocates of the Great Reset, and see COVID as the perfect opportunity to make it reality.”

If that is true – and in Prof Fenton we have eyewitness testimony that it probably is true – then all the lies and confusions in government policy become clear in an instant. Of course SAGE will overrule JCVI’s advice on childhood vaccination (which had all the hallmarks of actual science, except literature citations). Of course vaccination passports will be elbowed in past government lies that they will never happen, and be gradually extended to everything, even though it is clear that vaccinations do not prevent the spread of COVID. Of course vaccine boosters will be rolled out without evidence of their efficacy, knowing that it will make the population forever dependent on the state’s health provision. Of course untraceable cash will continue to be implied to carry viruses long after it was found that fomite transmission does not occur. Of course travel will be made not just difficult but hopelessly confusing so people stay in their homes. Of course disastrous foreign policies that weaken the powerful nation states will astonish everyone not in the know. Of course money will be printed until the whole world financial system collapses, because it is meant to.

To me, that couple of sentences from Prof Fenton’s conversation are a smoking gun on the whole dirty deception.

About Jon Garvey

Training in medicine (which was my career), social psychology and theology. Interests in most things, but especially the science-faith interface. The rest of my time, though, is spent writing, playing and recording music.
This entry was posted in Medicine, Politics and sociology, Science. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Another bit of the jigsaw

  1. Jon Garvey says:

    Footnote: Note that Prof Fenton’s panel, consisting presumably mainly of experts in medical sciences, advocated the Great Reset in order to deal with the “real threat” of climate change, about which they know much less.

    Now, you may consider that threat to be real, and I’ve no doubt that these scientists did. Me, I came round to being sceptical of the climate hype even before COVID. Once more, the same kind of people support it, and the same kind of scientists – the retired, the independent and the already professionally fulfilled – oppose it.

    But it’s worth asking if those at the centre of the Great Reset also believe that anthropogenic climate change really is going to destroy humanity, or whether that too is merely an opportunity, manufactured by themselves, for bringing in a world order they wanted anyway, for ideological reasons.

    This is not actually a difficult question, as these quotes lifted from my Seeing Through Smoke show:

    “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching
    for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea
    that pollution, the threat of global warming, water short-
    ages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dan-
    gers are caused by human intervention, and it is only
    through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be
    overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
    Alexander King, Co-founder of Club of Rome, ex-
    plaining their influential 1972 “Limits to Growth”


    “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it
    wasn’t originally a climate thing at all. Do you guys think
    of it as a climate thing? Because we really think of it as a
    how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”
    Saikat Chakrabarti, chief of staff to Rep. Alexandria
    Ocasio-Cortez, 2019.

  2. Ben says:

    You’re proud of “the PIN is mightier than the sword” (or you should be), so I’d just like to let you know someone noticed 🙂

Leave a Reply