Thursday, June 10, 2021

There were several reasons why it was critical for the conspirators to maintain the coverup that Covid came from wildlife. Tidbits and more questions

There is plenty the conspirators still do not want you to know.  And their lackies in the media will continue to help them, as I demonstrated in my piece on Ian Birrell earlier.  Here are some things that we should not forget as the people who created this mess attempt to control the current narrative.  We can't let them get away with it, because too much is at stake.

1.  Why was there a coverup of Covid's origin in the first place?  The obvious reason that comes to mind is to protect Fauci and Daszak from exposure as the funders of Gain of Function (GOF) research in China, while there was a ban on such research here.  But there were waivers given out, presumably by Fauci's NIAID, because Ralph Baric put it in writing that he had one.  So this is not simply about outsourcing research that could not be done in the US at the time, because Baric or Menachery could have done it.  

Interestingly, according to a recovered email to Fauci from his deputy Hugh Auchincloss, no coronavirus research had been through the PPP (GOF) committee to receive a waiver.  Baric, however, thought he had one.  What made him think that?  Fauci?

2.  A huge question that no one asks in the media, is what precisely were the US and China doing, working collaboratively and closely on studies that made organisms more virulent and more infectious.  We used to call such experiments biological warfare research.  After the Biological Weapons Convention banned biowarfare research, we started calling it "biodefense" and then after awhile it got a new name, "gain of function."

3.  This research was also supported by multiple other countries.  Just look at the end of the relevant published coronavirus papers and see who funded each one.  Check on the collaborators.  If memory serves, they included the EU, Australia and Japan, among others.  A lot of tax dollars from many countries went to fund this. Were these countries all trying to look over each others' shoulders, to see what everyone else was doing vis a vis enhancing virulence?  Or, were tax dollars being used by international elites working together to develop a weapon or two that could be unleashed upon the world?  Those international elites certainly did a lot of practicing for a pandemic, with Event 201 and the rest.  Did you notice how George Gao, head of China's CDC, was at Event 201?  And someone from Mastercard? European elites?

4. If the research did not have offensive applications, we could say this was just an example of international scientific collegiality.  But this was biological warfare research.  I don't care who says it was vaccine research. That is always going to be the first excuse proffered.  Maybe a vaccine was the goal.  But come on.  Coronaviruses cause colds in humans, and they cause SARS.  That's it.  Supposedly SARS came from bats.  The US has never had a bat-borne epizootic.  We have extremely rare cases of rabies--that's it for the bat-borne disease problem.  SARS disappeared after 2003, except for labs.  So why would the NIAID fund research on a SARS vaccine?

5.  As soon as a furin cleavage site was added for inhanced infectivity, this became biological warfare research.  It is still unclear exactly what else was added to SARS-CoV-2, besides the ability to attach to the human ACE-2 receptor. But the ability to stimulate massive autoimmunity/cytokine storm and initiate thrombosis may have been added as well.


Anonymous said...

If it was a bioweapon, perhaps they thought it was going to be more dangerous than it turned out to be. The greatly enhanced affinity for the ACE2 receptor compared to SARS-1 together with the furin cleavage site might have suggested that.

Meryl Nass, M.D. said...

Many people think bioweapons have to be deadly. Wrong!

When the US had a bioweapons program, we produced different weapons for different puposes. Like staph enterotoxin, intended to cause a lot of casualties with severe diarrhea, slowing down an army or ? Infectious agents that spread, that don't spread person to person, like anthrax, or multiple toxins were produced. And this was before 1975.

Some were designed to cause blights in crops or kill livestock. Supposedly the Germans in WWI tried to kill Allied horses.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for your response.

Of course, you are certainly right that non-lethal casualties have long been a goal.

Having narrowly escaped being drafted for Vietnam, I still remember the 'innovative' fiberglass anti-personnel bombs that were less lethal than tried and true metal shards, but harder to find with x-rays - with a similar intent.

marty sereno

Anonymous said...

I still think we are playing with fire when developing "non-lethal" bioweapons. Unintended consequences of our scientists experimenting with bacteria or viruses is risky business.