Is Covid a synthetic virus deployed in a joint US:Chinese exercise to game a pandemic due to a deadly biological weapon of mass destruction?
Accepting that to be so, then the novel corona virus, SARS-CoV2, which is of the type responsible for the common cold, must have been deployed because it is virtually harmless except to elderly people who are liable to be carried off by even a mild respiratory infection.
However, this particular strain of corona virus has been souped up through joint US:Chinese "gain-of-function" research to be highly infectious, as would be required of a real WMD.
The PCR test was adopted as the standard means of identifying cases because the symptoms of Covid infection were too hard to detect, there being no swollen lymph nodes (buboes), pocks, vomiting of blood, etc., to distinguish the infection from, well, a just a common cold.
To induce the state of fear necessary to induce people to participate in the exercise, the virus was released in the vicinity of a Chinese bioweapons research establishment.
To make the virus especially scary, it was reported to have jumped from bats to humans -- yikes.
Then the Chinese put on a fine bit of theartre, with folks supposedly stricken by the virus dropping in the streets, going into paroxysms, etc.
Other videos showed people in China being nailed up in their homes or being doused in the streets by trucks spraying disinfectant.
In First World nations, infected hospital patients were forced into care homes for the elderly causing a die-off among the useless eaters. Thus in Canada, over 70% of all reported Covid deaths were "achieved" in this way.
Now almost everyone was scared and there was no trouble getting folks to mask up, while seeking always to maintain their distance from every other human on the face of the earth, even the flesh of their own flesh, their partner in marriage.
To maintain the fear, the PRC test was amped to give massive numbers of false positive "cases," while anyone dying within 28 days of a positive test was declared a Covid "death" even if the proximal cause of death happened to have been a motor vehicle accident or a bullet to the head.
Meantime, big pharma worked for a big pay-day by producing a novel type of "vaccine" that does not give you real immunity, just some antibodies to be going on with until a top-up shot, or booster, is required.
Most people were scared enough by now to get "vaccinated" as soon as possible, and those who were reluctant were being bullied into it by being labelled vaccine hesitant, anti-vaxx or just plain conspiracy nuts.
Moreover, the "hesitant" were threatened with the introduction of a vaccine passport, for the lack thereof, they would be barred from virtually every social space and function, a fate unavoidable without getting the shot, plus the booster and the top-up and whatever else the authorities decide it is necessary that the people be injected with.
Meantime the case count as determined by the dodgy PCR test showed the virus to be coming in waves, while genome analysis showed it to be fissioning into multiple variants, each potentially more deadly than the last.
Thus it was decided that salvation, for which the people were now desperately anxious, could be achieved only by locking all but essential workers at home.
Lockdowns, at first known only in totalitarian China, were now essential throughout the developed world, although poorer countries, where lockdown was impractical since it would mean general starvation, seemed to suffer no worse from Covid than the developed world.
But even in the developed world, lockdowns were not without catastrophic consequences for millions upon millions of small business, many of which have been driven to permanent closure.
Meantime, at vast public expense, governments established schemes to track and trace the virus, and great fortunes must have been made by those with good government connections in the face-mask and hand sanitizer, and PCR testing sectors of the economy.
At some point, in the next 12 months, the exercise will hopefully be wound up and the world will return to something like normal, but better prepared,perhaps, for all out war with biological weapons of mass destruction.
Related:
LA Times: Trump administration ended pandemic early-warning program to detect coronaviruses
Daily Mail: COVID-19 'has NO credible natural ancestor'
Martin Armstrong: Collapse in Confidence: Vaccine Refusal
Gateway Pundit: 1,000 Lawyers and 10,000 Doctors Join Together and File Lawsuit to Prosecute the “2nd Nuremburg Tribunal” Against Corona Fraud Scandal
Antibody dependent enhancement was a predictable risk with the rushed introduction of the "vaccine". You've really got to wonder how we could have evidence it is more than just a risk now, but epidemiologists are "silent". Or have they been silenced.
ReplyDeleteRecently I've been rereading relevant chapters of a book I have, Disciplined Minds: a critical look at salaried professionals and the soul-battering system that shapes their lives, by Jeff Schmidt.
I wanted to take another look at the chapter, Assignable Curiousity. In this chapter, Schmidt sets out to answer the question of Who determines the topics individual scientists work on?
The answer isn't at all surprising: he who pays the piper names the tune. Schmidt does a good job of fleshing out this conclusion.
In the U.S. around 90% of the funding for basic research comes from the federal government.
The federal government rejects 2/3 of the proposals it receives from scientists. Scientists have a keen interest in being among the 1/3 who receive funding. It can be make or break for their careers. Therefore they attune themselves to what the federal government needs to learn, and find ways to adapt their own research interests to it.
What's interesting to see in the LA Times article about Trump cutting funds is the extent to which the US federal government has been funding basic research outside the US. You gotta wonder. Trump would have likely cut funding to the Wuhan lab if he had known about it. From Trump's point of view, a political point of view, this was just fat, unnecessary, and going to, among other places, China. It wouldn't make any sense to him, or to the majority of Americans who elected Trump to office.
Scientists do not really have a forum for making their case to the general public, assuming the general public would wish to pay attention. Which is unlikely. They really don't have a way to make their case before elected officials. They aren't a voting block of substantial size. There are 138,000 medical researchers. There are about 20,000 researchers in the physical sciences. They aren't organized as a block, either. And the truth of the matter is most devoted scientists prefer to stay away from active politics, most of the time.
Is it not the case that Federal funding was channeled to Wuhan because China permitted the gain of function research that the US Government had prohibited?
DeleteIf so, funding for Wuhan depended on Fauci's NIAD or one of its contractors diverting Federal Funds for research that the US Government sought to prohibit.
It seems that should be a matter for inquiry, leading to the imposition of any applicable penalties.
The mechanisms of research funding seem designed to insure that anyone of truly original genius, a Galileo, a Newton or an Einstein will opt for something to do less demeaning than Government funded basic research.
In fact "Government-funded basic research" is an oxymoron, since "Government funding" requires evidence that the research will generate a return to the government/public, whereas "basic research" can be subject to no such constraint.
If I were a billionaire, I think I would found a university along the lines of the ancient European universities, where dons would receive free board and lodging plus a very small stipend, in return for the privilege of applying their minds to whatever appealed to them, at the same time that they mentored a limited number of very bright, self-funded students admitted on the basis of very challenging exams and interviews.
DeleteWithin the walls of that university, US Government-funded research would be absolutely prohibited, but limited funding for, say, dropping ball bearings and feathers from leaning towers would be provided by the college itself.
For now, I haven't quite made up my mind whether the dons would have to be celibate, but it seems like that would be a necessity, as a bunch of wives around the place would surely create havoc.
Complete agreement on your first comment.
DeleteOn the second:
It is questionable whether you'd still want such a university if you were a billionaire.
One of the things which intrigues me is the way your educational ideas differ from my own, which I attribute to our different national origins.
The university you describe (in my opinion) is one with origins in aristocracy and patronage. This is an origin where honor and virtue were prized-- in some form or other, maybe not perfect. There was also a public sphere, clearly delineated from the private. (Though the private was frequently encroached in a way the US system sought explicitly to prevent. How this led to the erosion of both public and private spheres, I'm trying to figure out.)
In the USA, though, we never had an aristocracy. We had a ruling class, but though it had aristocratic pretensions now and then, didn't quite come up to snuff.
The profound effect of our billionaires on our educational processes and ideas are there for all to see. These are prestigious institutions: University of Chicago and Rockefeller University NYC-- endowed by J.D. Rockefeller. There's also the Rockefeller Foundation which has profoundly influenced the direction of research in the US, including its political orientations. Carnegie-Mellon University-- two institutions endowed separately by Carnegie and Mellon and merged in 1967. There were also many public libraries supported by Carnegie, especially on the east Coast. There is Stanford University in California, generously endowed by Leland and Jane Stanford. This is some of what I know off the top of my head.
But probably what is more profound is the influence of men such as J.D. Rockefeller on the curriculum of elementary and secondary schools. What I know about this I learned from John Taylor Gatto, whose two books: (1)Dumbing Us Down: the Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling; and (2)The Underground History of American Education: A Schoolteacher’s Intimate Investigation Into the Problem of Modern Schooling, I respect. The title of the first book says it all.
I also think it signified something important when Gatto, considered multiple years as the best teacher in NYC, and then in New York State, resigned in disgust.
It also seemed significant a bunch of high tech billionaires picked up on what Gatto was saying and supported him financially after his resignation.
It is probably also significant that appears to be as far as they went. They never got it together enough to push for, and financially support MASA-- make America Smart again.
Long story short, as I see it: our billionaires never reach the level of disinterestedness and dignity we see in the aristocrats, no matter how low the aristocrats stooped or our billionaires reached upwards. It is absolutely false to believe Rockefeller's, or Gates's, foundations are disinterested. Gates will scurry after filthy lucre as long and as hard as he possibly can.
I'd like to add: Gates's mom was connected to the CEO of IBM through her "volunteering" work at United Way, an important "charitable" organization in the US. This was, however, remunerated with billions and billions of dollars. Above a certain level, all the "volunteering" and "charity" in the US is this way.
"The university you describe (in my opinion) is one with origins in aristocracy and patronage."
DeleteUntil modern times, it was certainly the case that education in England was available to few but members of to the upper, mainly aristocratic, class.
But education served not only the aristocracy but also the church. For example, until quite recently, all faculty at both Oxford and Cambridge were ordained ministers of the church. Thus, on becoming a Fellow of Trinity College Cambridge, Isaac Newton took Holy Orders.
But there was an avenue for commoners to gain an education, which was provided by schools founded by philanthropists. The grammar school I attended briefly in the City of Exeter was founded with money from a charitable trust established by a wealthy 17th Century lawyer, one Elize Hele, who served as Treasurer to James the First. My wife attended a grammar school founded by Sir Wolstan Dixie in 1601, the school at which, briefly, Sam Johnson was employed as a school master.
Attendance at such schools required the payment of fees. However, during the twentieth century, these schools were mostly (or all?) taken over by local authorities, which made them part of the national system of free education, with entry determined by a culture-biased IQ test that insured entry was largely restricted to the middle class, i.e., the same class that had previously paid for their children to attend such schools.
For the majority excluded from the grammar schools, there were state elementary and secondary schools, where the children of the proletariat learnt the three R's, more or less, before entering the workforce at the age of 14 or thereabouts.
One consequence of this system was that children of the working class went through adolescence largely in the company of adult work mates. This created a conservative-minded working class that was the backbone of what is now referred to as Old Labor.
However, the Labor Party was determined to overthrow the class-based system by destroying the selective-entry grammar schools, to be replaced by a system pretty much along American lines.
The result has been a dumbing down of the more academically able kids, while it has enhanced the advantage of the rich, who send their children to private schools, with annual fees in the range of 10 to 80 thousand pounds a year.
This development has also destroyed the Labor Party as a sensible, patriotic movement to better the conditions of the majority of the population. Now everyone considers themselves middle class and most have acquired the worst attributes of the middle class: crass consumerism, lack of social solidarity, and no ambition for self-improvement.