The world has gone mad. Completely batshit crazy.
All over a flu virus called SARS-CoV-2 a.k.a. 2019-nCoV – but better known as COVID-19.
"The new coronavirus is real," acknowledges Washington Times’ Cheryl Chumley. But, she adds, "COVID-19 will go down as one of the political world’s biggest, most shamefully overblown, overhyped, overly and irrationally inflated and outright deceptively flawed responses to a health matter in American history, one that was carried largely on the lips of medical professionals who have no business running a national economy or government.
The facts are this: COVID-19 is a real disease that sickens some, proves fatal to others, mostly the elderly — and does nothing to the vast majority.
She's right, you know.
This is not the Black Plague, folks. The current "best estimate" from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for the fatality rate among Americans with COVID-19 symptoms is 0.4 percent.
Not even one-half of one percent.
Keep in mind the CDC itself has been helping to inflate the official death toll by issuing doctors with guidelines making it as easy as possible to prescribe COVID-19 as the cause of death, even when it probably wasn’t.
I’ll discuss the wildly exaggerated death toll of COVID-19 in my next article. Today, I’m going to explain why the official explanation of how COVID-19 came about is an untenable farce. I’m going to dismantle the absurd “wet market” myth, and present you with the scientific and circumstantial evidence showing:
- COVID-19 almost certainly came out of a laboratory;
- COVID-19 bears all the hallmarks of a bioengineered chimera (hybrid) virus.
I’m also going to unmask a number of key players in the COVID-19 story, and the so-called ‘fact-checkers’ they are funding to discourage and dismiss critical analysis of the official story. There is a sustained campaign to reinforce the official narrative, and to dismiss perfectly sensible and plausible alternate explanations as baseless “conspiracy theories.”
No, I’m not going to bang on about 5G and, yes, I’ll be mentioning Bill Gates – among many others.
Brew yourself a long black or a deep pot of tea, because this will be quite a ride.
Wuhan, Patient Zero, and the “Wet Market” Wank
COVID-19, also widely known as “the coronavirus” (even though there are actually seven coronaviruses that can infect humans, and many more that can infect animals), allegedly kicked off in Wuhan, China after the infamous “Patient Zero” feasted on a bat/pangolin/snake or some other as yet-to-be-confirmed species purchased from a Huanan “wet market.” That’s right - the so-called experts who perpetuate this unlikely tale can’t quite make up their mind just what he ate when contracting the virus, which begs the question – didn’t anyone bother to simply ask him?
This is where things get downright ridiculous, because … no-one knows who Patient Zero is!
On 27 Feb 2020, the South China Morning Post wrote:
“The first known Covid-19 patient, a male who showed symptoms on December 8, had been discharged but said he was not at the Huanan market, the Wuhan government said in a Weibo post on Wednesday.”
So now we were being told the first known COVID-19 patient had not been to the wet market, let alone feasted on such delicacies as garlic bat soup or sautéed snake’s guts.
“We don’t know who the very first patient zero was, presumably in Wuhan, and that leaves a lot of unanswered questions about how the outbreak started and how it initially spread,” the Post was told by Sarah Borwein, who works in the infectious diseases field at Hong Kong’s Central Health Medical Practice [bold emphasis added].
All this, of course, contradicted the official “wet market” explanation that had already been eagerly broadcast around the world, which may be why, on 13 March 2020, the South China Morning Post offered up an alternative scenario, courtesy of the Chinese Government:
"[G]overnment data seen by the Post" now suggested a 55-year-old man from the province of Hubei, China "could have been" the first person to have contracted Covid-19 on November 17.
Alright then – let’s contact him and find out what he really purchased for dinner that fateful day he allegedly went to the Huanan market. If he sadly passed away, then let’s at least pull up his records and see what he told his doctors.
Well, guess what? We can’t do that because, the Post reports, the elusive “‘patient zero’ has yet to be confirmed.”
What the … ?
"Scientists are now keen to identify the so-called patient zero, which could help them to trace the source of the coronavirus, which," the Post adds, "is generally thought to have jumped to humans from a wild animal, possibly a bat."[Bold emphasis added]
“Generally thought”!? On what grounds? And by whom, exactly? A bunch of propagandists who can’t even tell us who the ephemeral “Patient Zero” was?
“It is possible,” adds the Post article, “that there were reported cases dating back even earlier than those seen by the Post.”
What an incoherent load of malarkey.
The bottom line is that officials can’t even tell us who the mystery “Patient Zero” is, and there is nothing even resembling credible evidence to support the widely published and highly fanciful claim that COVID-19 opportunistically “jumped” onto humans via his consumption of an exotic species purchased at the Huanan market. The entire “wet market” explanation, quite frankly, reeks of bullshit - and in the continuing absence of evidence, that is exactly the status prudent observers should continue to award it.
The highly improbable and utterly unfounded “wet market” story bears all the hallmarks of a distraction – a diversionary tale concocted to draw the world’s attention away from the true origins of this novel virus.
A More Plausible Explanation: This Novel Coronavirus Emerged From a Lab Creating Novel Coronaviruses
Wuhan just happens to be the home of a Biosafety Level 4 laboratory that, for several years prior to the COVID-19 outbreak, was experimenting with bat coronaviruses. BSL-4 is the highest biological safety rating, and awarded to laboratories that engage in such hairy endeavours as biological weaponry. These labs often play with viruses that are extremely virulent and for which no known treatment is available should an outbreak occur. The Wuhan Institute of Virology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences lab received its BSL-4 accreditation in 2017, but has been experimenting with bat coronaviruses since at least 2014.
As we’ll discuss shortly, American taxpayers have unwittingly helped finance this research.
The Washington Post recently reported that in early 2018, US Embassy officials visited the Wuhan lab several times and “sent two official warnings back to Washington about inadequate safety at the lab, which was conducting risky studies on coronaviruses from bats.”
The first cable also warned the lab’s work on bat coronaviruses and their potential human transmission represented a risk of a new SARS-like pandemic.
Which is exactly what happened in late 2019.
A novel bat-like coronavirus escaping – by accident or design - from a Wuhan laboratory experimenting with bat coronaviruses is an infinitely more plausible explanation than some completely unverified cock’n’bull story about “zoonotic transfer” after an unknown person ate an unknown exotic species at a Wuhan wet market.
Ultimately, we don’t yet know exactly how or where the novel coronavirus strain known as COVID-19 originated – a problem not helped by the fact Chinese whistle-blowers who could help shed light on this issue have been dying, disappearing, getting arrested, strong-armed into silence or censored by Chinese authorities.
Chinese authorities have even threatened COVID-19 survivors and grieving relatives of those who died. Lawyers have been warned not to file suit against the government. Any lawsuit related to COVID-19 would naturally entail a motion for discovery, which might just turn up some inconvenient facts. The Chinese government and its armed goons have made it clear they’re not about to let that happen.
The Chinese government is by no means the only entity obfuscating the truth about COVID-19. All those racist idiots who’ve been hurling abuse at innocent Asian folks should know there are plenty of white people with lots of explaining to do when it comes to COVID-19.
Dr Anthony Fauci: Just Whose Side is He Really On?
Dr Anthony S. Fauci is one of the lead members of the White House Coronavirus Task Force. You’ve probably seen on him on the news, cautioning against easing lockdown restrictions and assuring us a vaccine will eventually arrive to save the world from the apocalyptic catastrophe this not-especially-dangerous strain of flu will cause.
Fauci’s main gig is director of the US National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), a post he has held since 1984. The NIAID is one of the numerous sub-agencies that comprise the National Institutes of Health (NIH), an agency of the US Department of Health and Human Services.
In addition to his NIAID and Task Force roles, Fauci has worked with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a name that keeps popping up again and again as one delves into this murky COVID-19 issue. In January 2010, the Gates Foundation called for the next ten years to be the "Decade of Vaccines." Later that year, on 2 December 2010, it announced a collaboration with Fauci's NIAID, the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNICEF to make this dream a reality by establishing The Global Vaccine Action Plan. Fauci was appointed to the Leadership Council of this vaccine group, along with WHO, UNICEF and Gates Foundation figures.
This new enterprise, declared the Gates Foundation press release, "will enable greater coordination across all stakeholder groups – national governments, multilateral organizations, civil society, the private sector and philanthropic organizations -- and will identify critical policy, resource, and other gaps that must be addressed to realize the life-saving potential of vaccines."
This was, in effect, a business plan for vaccines, one that would be facilitated by governments, supra-national organizations like the UN and WHO, the private sector (notably, the pharmaceutical industry) and all those wonderful ‘philanthropic organizations’ that, in reality, act as front groups for paternalistic billionaires with globalist agendas.
Recently, Fauci told an interviewer that, while face masks are not 100% effective, people should wear them anyway as a “symbol” of respect for one another. I’ve got a better idea: If Fauci really wants to show respect for his fellow Americans, he should stop channelling their tax dollars to Chinese laboratories that deliberately create viruses with pandemic potential.
While Americans Struggle to Afford Health Care, Fauci and the NIH Send Millions to China
With the NIAID's backing, the NIH has spent millions of taxpayer dollars funding research on bat coronaviruses. In 2014, the NIAID/NIH channelled $3.7 million into a 5-year project to this end. Online NIH information for the project shows the money was awarded to researchers from – wait for it - the Wuhan Institute of Virology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. The money was paid to the researchers via an intermediary outfit known as EcoHealth Alliance, Inc., but the NIH knew full well where the money was going. EcoHealth Alliance is a New York-based ‘non-profit’ run by Peter Daszak, a British zoologist and virologist.
Upon expiry of the project last year, the NIAID/NIH awarded another $3.7 million for a 6-year project researching bat coronaviruses.
Several project numbers have been assigned by the NIH to the research covered by these grants. At this page, you’ll find the details for Project 2R01AI110964-06 which was awarded a $292,161 grant on 24 July 2019.
Scroll down the page, and you'll see a subheading titled "NIH Spending Category." Among those categories is "Biodefense." In other words, Fauci's NIAID and NIH were giving money to a laboratory owned by America's primary military and economic adversary, so that it could develop viruses with possible bio-weaponry applications.
If you or I did that, we’d be promptly thrown in jail for treason. But Fauci instead gets to enjoy a lavish salary and a position on the White House’s Task Force that is supposed to be saving the US from COVID-19.
Not surprisingly, news of this breathtaking arrangement was greeted with much alarm by those critical of the official “wet market” COVID-19 tale. Despite its insistence the jaw-dropping Wuhan arrangement was as innocent as a newborn baby, the NIH cancelled the project on 24 April 2020.
The Oligarchy Goes Into Damage Control
In response to the embarrassing revelations, self-appointed ‘fact-checking’ organization PolitiFact took it upon itself to ‘investigate’ the situation. The organization declared the allegations to be “False”, proclaiming "Obama administration did not provide $3.8 million to Wuhan virology lab" and "Rudy Giuliani wrong about US policy, grant amount to Wuhan virus lab."
Regrettably, PolitiFact’s conclusion was uncritically repeated by other media outlets, such as USA Today.
To support its dubious claims, PolitiFact simply quoted EcoHealth’s spokesman, Robert Kessler, who claimed the Wuhan lab received just under $600,000.
To show what a load of nonsense Kessler’s claim is, one simply needs to pull up the pages for the NIH project numbers, and see where the money went. Project Number 1R01AI110964-01, awarded 27 May 2014, received a grant of $666,442. Of this, $516,857 was "Direct Costs" while $149,585 was for "Indirect Costs." I'm guessing the latter figure was largely or wholly absorbed by the 'non-profit' EcoHealth, which acted as intermediary.
When you click on the “Results” tab for this project, you can see the fruits of this grant - a list of studies published by the Wuhan Institute of Virology researchers.
The same thing happens when you examine the page for Project Number 5R01AI110964-04 which shows that, on 26 May 2017, EcoHealth received a $597,112 grant courtesy of the NIAID. Clicking on the results page again returns a list replete with studies by the Wuhan researchers.
This is not a complete list, but the grant tally just from the projects mentioned above is over $2.1 million. Irrespective of whatever clever paper-shuffling EcoHealth may have performed, the fact remains that the money was used to sponsor research conducted at the Wuhan lab.
So why is PolitiFact trying to obfuscate the financial relationship between NIAID, NIH, EcoHealth and the Wuhan Institute of Virology?
The Big Money Behind the So-Called ‘Fact-Checkers’
For insight into that question, it is helpful to look at where this so-called ‘fact-checking’ group gets its money from. PolitiFact is owned by the Poynter Institute, which bills itself as "a nonprofit school for journalists."
Heaven help us if this lot are training journalists, because Poynter’s funders include the more-vaccines-for-everyone fanatics at Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Open Society Foundations, created by billionaire George Soros, whose socialist ideology has never prevented him from seizing a dubious money-making opportunity, even if it means breaking a country's currency and plunging its economy into turmoil. Incredibly, when his Quantum Fund did this to Thailand in 1997, he argued he was doing Thai authorities a favour by sending “a market signal that the baht may be overvalued.”
How thoughtful of you, George.
Soros is the quintessential globalist hypocrite, who happily engages in destructive profiteering while maintaining the rest of us should compliantly succumb to a socialist “new world order.”
In 2016 Soros told an interviewer we “need a new world order that China has to be a part of the process of creating it, and they have to buy in, they have to own it, the same way, as I said to you, the United States owns, the Washington Consensus, the current order…and, and I think this would be a more stable one where you would have co-ordinated policies.”[Bold emphasis added]
Soros, longing for a new world order ‘owned’ by the CCP.
In other words, Soros longs for a new world order dominated by the Chinese regime, whose ability to intimidate and silence critics and make dissenters suddenly disappear would ensure a much smoother implementation of the elitist “global governance agenda.”
Thanks George, but no thanks. Transferring the reigns to Planet Earth from a pack of oligarch-controlled crony capitalist assholes to a pack of oligarch-controlled communist assholes is hardly what I call an improvement.
Poynter also receives money from Charles Koch, co-owner, chairman, and chief executive officer of Koch Industries.
In addition to the money given to Poynter, PolitiFact itself has received direct funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, to the tune of $196,650 in 2015 and 2016.
PolitiFact also has very wealthy benefactors in the the Omidyar Network, run by eBay founder Pierre Morad Omidyar and his wife Pam. Omidyar is a major donor to Democratic Party candidates and organizations. During the Democratic Party presidential primaries in 2008, he donated to the campaigns of both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
In 2016, he donated $100,000 to a fledgling anti-trump political action committee called NeverTrump PAC.
Omidyar and his wife also gave $1 million to the Clinton Foundation to "support its work on AIDS in Africa."
"The Clintons," said Pierre Omidyar in 2013, "set an inspiring example of finding smart, innovative and high-impact ways of continuing to serve even after leaving public service.”
Excuse me while I puke.
PolitiFact's Executive Director, Aaron Sharockman, insisted in 2016 that “We have never received funding from the Omidyar Network, and we have no connection or relationship to the Clinton Foundation other than covering it.”
Since 2013, PolitiFact has directly received $1,225,000 from Omidyar’s Democracy Fund. As the Fund’s website states, "The Democracy Fund is part of The Omidyar Group and is funded by Pierre and Pam Omidyar."
PolitiFact’s owner, the Poynter Institute, also counts the Democracy Fund among its major donors, along with another ‘philanthropic’ Omidyar subsidiary known as the Luminate Group.
PolitiFact, in other words, is a globalist-funded, leftist outfit dedicated to pimping all things Democrat and attacking all things conservative. Surveys performed by University of Minnesota and George Mason University have shown the supposedly impartial "fact checking" organization rates Republican claims as false three times as often as Democratic claims and twice as much, respectively.
PolitiFact claims to be engaged in a noble fight against “fake news,” all the while lying about its funding sources and creating a smokescreen around the relationship between US federal health agencies and the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Why? Why don’t PolitiFact and its wealthy backers want us to know the truth?
The Nefarious Research Being Conducted in Wuhan
The Wuhan research involved controversial "gain of function" experiments, which manipulate microbes and create novel and often super-virulent viral strains. The rationale for this dubious endeavour is that it supposedly helps create vaccines to protect humanity from coming pandemics.
The Wuhan research involved taking wild viruses and passing them through live animals until they mutated into a form that could pose a pandemic threat to humans.
American taxpayers, in other words, were unknowingly helping Chinese researchers turn harmless viruses into far more virulent strains.
What, Exactly, Are We Gaining From “Gain of Function” Research?
Not surprisingly, many scientists have criticized gain of function research because of its inherent risk. More than 200 scientists called for the Wuhan work to be halted, pointing out it increased the likelihood a pandemic would occur through a laboratory accident. One of these scientists, Richard Ebright, an infectious disease expert at Rutgers University, noted the NIH-funded project description involved experiments using genetic engineering to enhance the ability of bat coronaviruses to infect human cells.
Ebright wasn’t just engaging in idle speculation. In 2015, Nature Medicine published a study, funded by the NIH and EcoHealth, reporting that the Wuhan researchers had created a new chimera (hybrid) virus, featuring the surface spike protein of bat coronavirus SHC014 in a “mouse-adapted SARS-CoV backbone.” Surface (S) spike proteins are the spiky protrusions you’ve seen in all those media diagrams of individual coronaviruses, and are what viruses uses to “latch” onto human cells, claw their way inside, and wreak their havoc.
The researchers proudly reported in the paper that this new bioengineered hybrid virus, dubbed SHC014-MA15, was able to "replicate efficiently in primary human airway cells and achieve in vitro titers equivalent to epidemic strains of SARS-CoV."
If the significance of that sentence hasn’t yet sunk in, then read it again.
Scientists had created a virus with a special affinity for human bronchial cells and, if the petri dish results were anything to go by, had the potential to replicate at epidemic levels.
You can download the study, in full and for free, right here.
While the researchers involved were quite excited at what they had achieved, others were less than impressed. “The only impact of this work is the creation, in a lab, of a new, non-natural risk,” Ebright told Nature.
Simon Wain-Hobson, a virologist at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, disapproved of the study because it provided little benefit, and revealed little about the risk the naturally-occurring SHC014 bat virus posed to humans. Instead, as he pointed out, the researchers created a new unnatural virus that “grows remarkably well” in human cells. “If the virus escaped, nobody could predict the trajectory,” he said.
Enter the Distorter
So despite the best efforts of columnists like Forbes’ Bruce Y. Lee (no relation to the late martial arts legend) to portray those critical of the “wet market” ruse as a bunch of conspiracy theorist morons, it is a matter of record the Wuhan lab bioengineered a virulent SARS coronavirus with an affinity for human bronchial cells at least 5 years ago.
Lee, who describes himself as “a writer, journalist, professor, systems modeler, computational and digital health expert, avocado-eater, and entrepreneur, not always in that order,” ridicules the idea that the virus could have been leaked from the Wuhan Lab, offering the insightful observation that “it’s a lot easier to leak a pocket of air though your butt than a virus from a BSL-4 facility.”
I should bloody well hope so.
“BSL-4 facilities,” continues Lee, “maintain the highest level of security among bio-laboratories since they do work on dangerous potentially life-threatening agents such as the Ebola, Lassa fever, and Marburg viruses. So it’s not as if the people inside these labs are playing throw and catch with the viruses and stuffing them into their pockets. To be designated as a BSL-4, the lab has to have the appropriate ventilation systems, reinforced walls, security systems, and construction to keep the wrong things inside and the right things outside.”
That’s all great, but Lee blissfully ignores a little thing known as human error. Lee wants us to believe that when members of this bumbling, fumbling species known as Homo sapiens don a lab coat and start work at a virology lab, they suddenly become infallible.
Lee neglects to mention a couple of inconvenient facts, one being that safety breaches and accidents do happen in BSL-4 labs. For example, there’s the worrying safety history of the BSL-3 and BSL-4 facilities at the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) lab at Fort Detricks. In 2014, a microbiologist there working on Venezuelan equine encephalitis used the wrong tubes which exploded within a centrifuge. Because a centrifuge spins at such high speeds, a liquid sample can easily become an aerosol once it escapes from its container. That’s definitely not something you want with Venezuelan equine encephalitis, because when transformed into an aerosol it has the potential to become a biological weapon.
In August last year, the Fort Detricks facility was temporarily shut down by the CDC, who cited failure to “follow local procedures and lack of periodic recertification training for workers in the biocontainment laboratories,” as well as the failure of the wastewater decontamination system. The suspension affected research being conducted on:
- Agents known to cause tularemia (deer fly or rabbit fever)
- The plague (bacteria Yersinia pestis)
- Venezuelan equine encephalitis
- Ebola virus
Not real comforting, huh?
Another discomforting event Lee conveniently overlooks occurred in April 2004, when there were two separate incidences of SARS escaping the BSL-3 Institute of Virology lab in Beijing. A 26-year-old female postgraduate student and a 31-year-old male postdoc, were both infected and eventually hospitalized.
Lee and his like-minded cohorts might argue the Beijing lab was ‘only’ a Level 3 lab, but it doesn’t matter; if proper protocols were followed, the virus should never have left the lab. As Antoine Danchin, an epidemiologist with the Hong Kong University-Pasteur Research Center who studied the SARS epidemic, told The Scientist:
“Normally, it's not possible to contaminate people even under level two confinement, if the security rules are obeyed, with the appropriate hoods, and so on,” Danchin said. SARS work requires level three. “So it suggests there has been some mishandling of something.”
As Danchin further pointed out, “the lab might have all the right rules, but the people may not comply!”
This brings us to something else Lee blissfully ignores: Human malice.
Accidents are one thing, but if a viral leak is intentional, then all the BSL safeguards in the world become irrelevant. If an eminently malevolent and powerful entity – say, a totalitarian government whose past antics include running tanks over unarmed protestors, forcefully harvesting organs from persecuted groups, and making whistle-blowers disappear with frightening regularity - orders a virus to be deliberately released, then it will very likely happen. And it will probably happen with less effort and less obstruction than one of Lee’s hypothetical farts.
In this Machiavellian vein, Lee again dons the blinkers when it comes to the worrying case of Dr Xiangguo Qiu, who - just like Fauci - "is recognized globally as one of the leading researchers on infectious diseases."
Unfortunately, being good at what you do does not necessarily mean you are doing good.
On 5 July last year, Qiu, her husband, Keding Cheng, and an unknown number of her students from China were removed from Canada's only BSL-4 lab amidst an investigation into what the country’s Public Health Agency described as a possible “policy breach.”
That benign descriptor belies the seriousness of what is alleged to have transpired.
Qiu is a medical doctor from Tianjin, China, who came to Canada for graduate studies in 1996. She is still affiliated with universities and research centers in Canada and brought in many students over the years to assist her work there.
Since 2006, Xiu had been studying powerful viruses – including Ebola – at Canada’s National Microbiology Laboratory (NML) in Winnipeg. Four months prior to her eviction, a shipment containing two exceptionally virulent viruses — Ebola and Nipah — was sent from the NML to China. Xiu frequently travelled back to China, raising the question of what other shipments of viruses may have been made to China since 2006.
Canadian authorities have remained tight-lipped about the investigation into Xiu, but as one anonymous employee reportedly told CBC News, "It's not right that she's a Canadian government employee providing details of top-secret work and know-how to set up a high-containment lab for a foreign nation."
So contrary to Lee’s claims, poor safety procedures do occur in BSL-4 labs and viruses do escape from BSL-4 labs.
“You’re a Conspiracy Theorist!” No, I Just Like to Think For Myself
Like many of those who promote the official story, Lee snidely dismisses skeptical narratives as “conspiracy theories.” In mainstream use, that term has become a thinly-veiled slur, one meant to dismiss critics as just a bunch of over-imaginative, tin foil-adorned whack-jobs. So it would be instructive at this point to reflect on just what the word “conspiracy” really means.
Here's the full definition of conspiracy, taken from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition:
- An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
- A group of conspirators.
- Law An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
- A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas.
A conspiracy, in plain language, is when two or more people get together and agree to do something wrong. That’s it. You don’t need ‘shapeshifting’ reptilian creatures, Area 51 alien sightings, or Bohemian Grove sacrificial orgies to have a conspiracy. All you need is for two or more members of the Homo sapiens species to get together and plan to do some “illegal, wrongful or subversive” stuff. Needless to say, that kind of activity occurs every single day all around the world. Conspiracies happen, folks, and anyone who maintains otherwise is clearly of highly questionable intelligence – or highly dubious motive.
Ditto for anyone denying governments and their agencies often engage in conspiratorial behavior. The sad reality is the aforementioned entities routinely indulge in illegal, wrongful and subversive behaviors that would cause much uproar if they were bought to the attention of the wider public. Far from being confined to the over-imaginative minds of “conspiracy theorists”, such behavior and its accompanying cover-ups are a well-documented fact of life.
As for the promulgation of untenable theories, people like Lee really need to consider what it says about themselves when they are pushing an explanation infinitely more ridiculous than the so-called “conspiracy theory” they are trying to debunk.
Objective, non-corrupt detectives pursue all possible and plausible leads when investigating a crime. What they do not do is embrace the most ridiculous-sounding theory of all and doggedly hold that up as the only possible explanation.
Let’s imagine, for a moment, that we transposed the official Wuhan explanation onto a non-viral crime. Picture this scenario:
[DETECTIVE AT THE SCENE OF A FATAL STABBING]: “So can you tell me what you saw, sir?”
[WITNESS]: “Well this guy was walking along, when suddenly he was stabbed by a bat!”
[DETECTIVE]: “A bat?!”
[WITNESS]: “Well, it could have been a pangolin. Or a snake. I’m not really sure.”
[DETECTIVE]: “Did you actually see what happened?”
[DETECTIVE]: “So why are you telling me the victim was stabbed by a bat, or pangolin, or snake?”
[WITNESS]: “Well, before you guys arrived, I had a chat with the other witnesses. Turns out none of them actually saw what happened either, but we all generally thought it must have been either a bat, pangolin or snake that killed the poor guy.”
[DETECTIVE]: “Okay, sounds legit to me! Stay right here sir, I just need to put out an APB alert for all units to be on high alert for a knife-wielding bat/pangolin/snake!”
Obviously, the above scenario is ridiculous and would never happen in real life (unless, of course, you were dealing with a useless and hopelessly corrupt outfit like South Australia Police). But the exceedingly deficient levels of intelligence and logic on display in that hypothetical scenario are essentially the same as those inherent in the “wet market” theory.
If ever there was an example of a ridiculous explanation, it’s the claim that the current pandemic was caused by an unknown person who allegedly went to the Huanan wet market and ate an unknown species, which caused the novel new virus to “jump” from the unknown species onto the unknown human. No-one knows who “Patient Zero” is, whether he (or she) even went to the market, and whether he or she ate an infected animal. Yet we are all supposed to accept this unlikely tale as the official explanation for the COVID-19 outbreak.
Meanwhile, the province where this new virus emanated is home to a laboratory which, back in 2015, proudly announced it had bioengineered a novel and virulent strain of SARS-CoV that had a special affinity for cells on the bronchial passages that supply our lungs with oxygen. This is not conjecture – it is a published, peer-reviewed fact. Lo and behold, five years later we find ourselves in the midst of an unprecedented global house arrest campaign thanks to the outbreak of a novel SARS-CoV strain with a penchant for respiratory complications that first appeared in Wuhan. Yet those who suspect the Wuhan lab played a role are snidely dismissed as “conspiracy theorists.”
So again, the question begs asking, why is Lee so keen to publicly deride those who hold the latter scenario as far more plausible? Who knows, but it turns out Lee is yet another cheerleader for the official narrative who has received funding from the likes of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the NIH, CDC, UNICEF, and the Global Fund (of which Bill and Melinda Gates are also major donors).
So Was COVID-19 Man-Made?
This is where things get real interesting. A number of studies have appeared stating that the structure of the novel SARS-CoV-2 is so novel it could only be man-made. We’ll look at those studies in a moment, but first let’s hear out some researchers who insist the virus is natural.
Like most ad hominen hack jobs, Lee’s Forbes article is big on ridicule but short on science. He does, however, mention two ‘studies’ that supposedly prove SARS-CoV-2 is natural. The first one he cites is not actually a study, but a New England Journal of Medicine editorial first published online on 26 February 2020.
One of the three authors who wrote that editorial just happens to be Peter Daszak - the same Peter Daszak whose EcoHealth Alliance Inc. acted as intermediary for NIAID/NIH funding to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
No prizes for guessing what stance his article takes.
"Of course,” write Daszak et al, “scientists tell us that SARS-CoV-2 did not escape from a jar: RNA sequences closely resemble those of viruses that silently circulate in bats, and epidemiologic information implicates a bat-origin virus infecting unidentified animal species sold in China’s live-animal markets."
Neither of these claims are backed by references; we are just supposed to take their word for it.
But let’s humour them for a moment. The observation that SARS-CoV-2 RNA sequences closely resemble those of "viruses that silently circulate in bats" does little to debunk the Wuhan lab suspicions, when we know for a fact the Wuhan lab was manipulating viruses that circulate “silently” in bats.
The “epidemiologic information” they are referring to is that, of the early cases in Wuhan, “Many worked or lived near Huanan Wholesale Seafood Market.”
But many of those early cases had no discernible link to the market. A Lancet article published 24 January 2020 by Chinese researchers stated that, by 2 Jan 2020, 41 admitted hospital patients were identified as having laboratory-confirmed 2019-nCoV infection in Wuhan. Fourteen (34%) of those first 41 patients had no direct exposure to the Huanan market.
The symptom onset date of the first identified patient was 1 December 2019. Figure 1b of the Lancet paper shows this initial patient had no contact with the market. No epidemiological link was found between this first patient and later cases.
But even if 100% of the initial hospitalizations involved people who’d been to the Huanan market, it still wouldn’t even begin to support the untenable "ate an infected bat/pangolin/snake/[insert other exotic species here]” story. If the virus really did start spreading to workers and nearby residents via the market, a more plausible explanation was that the virus was introduced to the market by an already infected person (you know, just like regular flu is spread), or deliberately released there by less innocent parties. In regards to the former possibility, it is known that one of the researchers who walked out of the Beijing lab in 2004 while unknowingly infected with SARS took a lengthy train trip prior to her hospitalization. In that kind of situation, the virus could seemingly ‘start’ a long way from the laboratory.
The second study Lee cites is a research letter published in Nature Medicine on 26 April 2020. The authors responsible for this widely-cited letter were Kristian G. Andersen (Scripps Research Institute), Andrew Rambaut (University of Edinburgh, UK), W. Ian Lipkin (Mailman School of Public Health of Columbia University, NY), Edward C. Holmes (University of Sydney, Australia), and Robert F. Garry (Tulane University, New Orleans, and Zalgen Labs, Maryland).
The aforementioned claimed in their letter, “It is improbable that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation of a related SARS-CoV-like coronavirus.”
Their rationale for this assertion, as Lee explains, is that “portions of these spike proteins are so effective in targeting specific receptors on human cells that it is hard to imagine humans manufacturing them, not with known existing technology.”
What a truly ridiculous conclusion, given it is a matter of record the Wuhan researchers had already bioengineered a coronavirus with spike proteins that did a great job of targeting human bronchial cell receptors! They told the world about it in their 2015 Nature Medicine article (the same journal as the aforementioned research letter), but it seems a lot of folks are determined to keep pretending that article ever existed.
Incidentally, while denying the very real possibility SARS-CoV-2 was man-made, the authors did concede: "In theory, it is possible that SARS-CoV-2 acquired RBD mutations during adaptation to passage in cell culture, as has been observed in studies of SARS-CoV," and "there are documented instances of laboratory escapes of SARS-CoV."
For some strange reason, Lee didn’t quote that part of the letter.
Interestingly, the Anderson et al paper was also cited by Francis Sellers Collins, director of the NIH, in his "Director's Blog" in an attempt to rebuke the "outrageous claims that the new coronavirus causing the pandemic was engineered in a lab and deliberately released to make people sick." The Anderson et al paper, he said, "debunks such claims by providing scientific evidence that this novel coronavirus arose naturally." But as we have seen, the paper does no such thing. Collins’ blog piece also blissfully ignored the documented fact that the Wuhan lab had already successfully bioengineered a novel SARS virus with an affinity for human respiratory cells. This simply serves to cast further doubt over the credibility of the NIH.
As it turns out, the argument that COVID-19 is naturally-occurring is based almost entirely on this single, widely-cited but terribly weak Nature Medicine paper. Meanwhile, a growing volume of contradictory evidence is being carefully ignored – or hastily shouted down without due consideration of its scientific merits.
Straight Outta Wuhan
So now let’s take a look at both the circumstantial evidence and scientific research pointing to a laboratory as the source of COVID-19.
The “HIV Insertions” Study
On 31 January 2020, a research paper was uploaded to pre-print server bioRxiv.org, authored by nine researchers from the Kusuma School of Biological Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology, in New Delhi, India. A pre-print is a copy of a paper intended for publication and awaiting peer-review.
The researchers compared the genome sequences of SARS-CoV-2 with all other known coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV. As other researchers would later do, they found four amino acid insertions in the spike protein which were unique to SARS-CoV-2 and not present in other coronaviruses.
It is what they wrote next that caused an uproar. They found each of the four inserts aligned with short segments of HIV proteins: Three aligned with a protein known as HIV-1 gp120 and one with a protein called HIV-1 Gag. This similarity, said the researchers, “is unlikely to be fortuitous in nature.”
It was this aspect of their study that allowed it to be shot down in flames. The SARS-Cov-2 and HIV inserts bearing similarities contained only 6-12 amino acid residues, whereas the full HIV proteins contain hundreds of such residues (gp120, for example, contains around 850 residues). So the four unique SARS-Cov-2 inserts only matched with short segments of the aforementioned HIV proteins.
This point was eagerly seized upon by Ence Yang, from Peking University Health Science Center, Beijing, who wrote that if such inserts can be compared with a fragment of the HIV, similarities can also be found in the genetic sequences of a variety of organisms, such as fruit flies, mold or even lentils.
According to media reports, "Multiple scientists," including Eric Feigl-Ding and Shi Zhengli, "have criticized the paper as lacking scientific merit and have called it misleading."
Feigl-Ding is a nutrition researcher at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, a Paul and Daisy Soros Fellow (Paul Soros was the older brother of George Soros), and candidate in the 2018 Democratic primary for Pennsylvania's 10th congressional district. His Twitter following rocketed from about 2,000 in mid-January to over 190,000 (as of this writing) as he delivered a daily stream of alarmist coronavirus tweets. “HOLY MOTHER OF GOD,” he bombastically tweeted at the end of January, warning the new COVID-19 had a “thermonuclear pandemic level” of infectiousness (the yet-to-be-peer-reviewed paper he referenced later revised its infection estimate down, and Feigl-Ding has since deleted the tweet).
Shi Zhengli, meanwhile, directs the Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and therefore has a strongly vested interest in dismissing any study implicating her lab as the possible source of COVID-19. Shi has come to prominence in the popular press as "bat woman" during the COVID-19 pandemic for her work with bat coronaviruses. In February 2020, her team published a paper in Cell Research showing remdesivir and chloroquine inhibited the virus in vitro, and applied for a patent for the drug in China on behalf of the WIV. The granting of this patent by China raised concerns about intellectual property rights in an international context. Shi co-authored a paper labelling the virus as the first “Disease X” (the Disease X concept is something we’ll revisit a little later).
The vocal denunciation by the likes of Yang, Feigl-Ding and Zhengli not only led to the paper being withdrawn, but overshadowed another important – and perfectly valid - finding it contained. Noting the four unique insertions were not present in any other coronavirus (irrespective of whether or not they were similar to HIV proteins), the Indian researchers remarked: “This is startling as it is quite unlikely for a virus to have acquired such unique insertions naturally in a short duration of time.”
As you’ll see shortly, other researchers have also observed that SARS-Cov-2 seems to have mysteriously appeared out of nowhere. We are incessantly told the virus “jumped” from an unknown species onto humans, then mutated into a strain that was highly transmissible among Homo sapiens. The Texas-sized flaw in this theory is that it would necessarily mean the existence of intermediate strains that preceded human SARS-Cov-2 – yet no such intermediate strain has ever been found. This strongly suggests COVID-19 was born, not in nature, but in a lab.
The Xiao Study
On 6 February 2020, Chinese scientist Botao Xiao uploaded a preprint version of a research paper to the study-sharing website ResearchGate that would also cause quite the kerfuffle.
Xiao is a professor and scientist at the School of Biology and Biological Engineering, South China University of Technology, in Guangzhou, and the School of Physics, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, in Wuhan. Between 2011 and 2013, he was a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Harvard Medical School and Boston Children’s Hospital.
His co-author Lei Xiao is from Tian You Hospital, which is affiliated with the Wuhan University of Science and Technology.
The "Acknowledgements" section of the paper states: "This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China."
I mention all this to underscore the fact the duo were not a couple of overly-creative oddballs hailing from some fringe institution, but accomplished and respected scientists.
Their paper was titled “The possible origins of 2019-nCoV coronavirus” and drew a couple of key conclusions. The first was that the bats suspected of carrying the virus were extremely unlikely to be found naturally in Wuhan, were not sold at the market and were unlikely to be deliberately ingested. Noting that recently-published descriptions of the virus published in Nature indicated the genome sequences from 2019-nCoV patient samples were highly similar to the bat CoV ZC45 coronavirus, they wrote:
“The bats carrying CoV ZC45 were originally found in Yunnan or Zhejiang province, both of which were more than 900 kilometers away from the seafood market. Bats were normally found to live in caves and trees. But the seafood market is in a densely-populated district of Wuhan, a metropolitan of ~15 million people. The probability was very low for the bats to fly to the market. According to municipal reports and the testimonies of 31 residents and 28 visitors, the bat was never a food source in the city, and no bat was traded in the market. There was possible natural recombination or intermediate host of the coronavirus, yet little proof has been reported.”
The researchers then noted there were, not one, but two laboratories conducting research on bat coronaviruses near the market. Within ~280 meters from the market, there was the Wuhan Center for Disease Control & Prevention, which housed animals in laboratories, one of which specialized in collecting and identifying pathogens. The lab has handled a lot of bats; in one of their studies, 155 bats were captured in Hubei province, and 450 bats were captured in Zhejiang province.
The WHCDC researcher tasked with collecting bats is Jun-Hua Tian, who talked about his job in national newspapers and websites in 2017 and 2019. It’s not an enviable job; as one article noted, “the environment for collecting bat samples is extremely bad. There is a stench in the bat cave. Bats carry a large number of viruses in their bodies. If [Tian and his wife] are not careful, they are at risk of infection.”
In May 2017, a report by Xinhua News Agency described one incident in which Tian was trying to net bats overhead. In the excitement, he "forgot to take protective measures" and "Bat urine dripped on him like raindrops from the top."
It wasn't just liquid yellow that the panicked bats sprayed on Tian. "Several times bat blood was sprayed directly on Tians skin," leading him to self-isolate for 14 days when he returned home.
As the Xiao paper noted, tissue samples and contaminated trash at the lab would also have been a potential source of pathogens. In addition to its proximity to the market, the WHCDC was also adjacent to the Union Hospital where the first group of doctors were infected with COVID-19.
The second laboratory, of course, was the Wuhan Institute of Virology, located ~12 kilometers from the market and which we already know was manipulating bat coronaviruses.
“In summary,” wrote the Xiaos, “somebody was entangled with the evolution of 2019-nCoV coronavirus. In addition to origins of natural recombination and intermediate host, the killer coronavirus probably originated from a laboratory in Wuhan.”
Either the Xiao lads had balls of steel, or they naively assumed the Chinese government earnestly wanted to publicly identify the true origin of the virus. If the latter was the case, they soon learned otherwise. After British tabloids broadcast their theory, and Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton also seized upon it, the Wuhan institute, Chinese government and state media issued stern and detailed denials of any accident.
Not surprisingly, in late February, Botao Xiao withdrew the paper. “The speculation about the possible origins in the post was based on published papers and media, and was not supported by direct proofs,” he told the Wall Street Journal in a brief email on 26 February 2020.
The reality is that much, if not most, of what passes peer review and ends up in medical journals is not supported by direct proof (witness the abundance of epidemiological pap claiming that polyunsaturated n-6 oils reduce heart disease, or that whole grains prevent cancer or that meat causes it – assertions readily refuted by actual clinical trial evidence). But, hey, you’d have withdrawn the paper too, if your other likely option was to mysteriously disappear.
The Xiao paper was in no way a reckless exercise in perpetuating wild “conspiracy theories.” Instead, it raised pertinent questions that needed addressing.
Jamie Metzl, a technology and healthcare futurist and member of WHO's expert advisory committee on human genome editing, agrees such questions demand answers. On 16 April 2020, he wrote that “the most likely starting point of the coronavirus crisis is an accidental leak from one of the Chinese virology institutes in Wuhan.”
Metzl said he did not believe COVID-19 was a genetically altered virus, unfortunately citing the utterly unconvincing Anderson et al study as the basis for this belief. Nonetheless, he strongly suspected "that it had likely been isolated and cultured in one of the Wuhan labs (WIV or WCDC)."
The Broad Institute Study
Shing Hei Zhan (University of British Columbia), Benjamin E. Deverman (Genomics Corporation, Burnaby BC, Canada), Yujia Alina Chan (Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard) released a preprint on 2 May 2020 comparing the evolution of the 2003 SARS-CoV with that of SARS-CoV-2.
They found there was no detectable natural evolution of SARS-CoV 2. The authors wrote in their paper that, unlike SARS-CoV, “no precursors or branches of evolution stemming from a less human-adapted SARS-CoV-2-like virus have been detected.”
“In comparison to the SARS-CoV epidemic, the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic appears to be missing an early phase during which the virus would be expected to accumulate adaptive mutations for human transmission … SARS-CoV-2 appeared without peer in late 2019, suggesting that there was a single introduction of the human-adapted form of the virus into the human population.”
Perhaps aware of the fate of those who preceded them, the researchers avoided discussion of a bio-engineered virus, but did cite the more forgiving possibility “that a non-genetically-engineered precursor could have adapted to humans while being studied in a laboratory.” This possibility, they said, “should be considered, regardless of how likely or unlikely.”
The researchers also refuted the untenable assertion that pangolins – who in reality are under dire threat from humans – may have started COVID-19. The researchers note that, while there are important S protein and receptor binding domain similarities between COVID-19 and pangolin coronavirus, “the unique polybasic furin cleavage site in the SARS-CoV-2 S is not found in pangolin CoVs.” Furin is an enzyme that cleaves proteins in order to make them biologically active. Furin is relevant here because the protein envelope surrounding many viruses must first be cleaved by furin or furin-like enzymes in order for the viruses to become fully functional.
These cute little critters are the most heavily trafficked animals in the world, and are also under threat from deforestation. Now the same psychotic species that is driving them to extinction is trying to falsely implicate them in the COVID-19 outbreak.
As for the claim COVID-19 was born at the market, the researchers surmise the opposite: Rather than the market introducing SARS-CoV-2 to humans, humans introduced SARS-CoV-2 to the market. They note, “phylogenetic tracking suggests that SARS-CoV-2 had been imported into the market by humans.”
The researchers examined virus samples collected from the market. Unlike the prompt sampling executed in response to the 2002-2004 SARS outbreaks to identify intermediate hosts, no such program was carried out at the Wuhan market. Instead, after shutting down the market, the government hurriedly ordered it to be sanitized before scientists could conduct thorough testing. Despite the government’s actions, four market samples were obtained with adequate coverage of SARS-CoV-2 genomes for analysis.
They found the January market samples shared 99.9-100% genome and S (spike protein) cleavage site identity with a December human SARS-CoV-2 sample, making it unlikely that the virus originated from an intermediate animal host. As the researchers note, “The SARS-CoV-2 genomes in the market samples were most likely from humans infected with SARS-CoV-2 who were vendors or visitors at the market. If intermediate animal hosts were present at the market, no evidence remains in the genetic samples available.”
Again: It appears humans infected the market, rather than vice versa. Again, the researchers avoid explicitly citing the possibility of a man-made origin, but do write:
“It would be curious if no precursors or branches of SARS-CoV-2 evolution are discovered in humans or animals.”
That’s an understatement.
More on the Furin Cleavage Site
Here's another not-so-fun fact: The furin polybasic cleavage site in COVID-19 conveniently occurs in a location known to enhance pathogenicity and transmissibility in viruses. Researchers from Hunan University detected “four additional amino acid residues inserted between S1 and S2 subunits, potentially affecting the cleavage of S protein.” The S protein from COVID-19 exhibited a unique furin cleavage site "located between the residues 682 and 685, distinct from SARS-CoV and all other SARS-like coronaviruses which only contain a trypsin or TMPRSS2 cleavage site at R667."
That Chinese researchers know how to insert a furin cleavage site in to viral S proteins is an established fact: In a paper published last year, for example, scientists from the China Agricultural University in Beijing described the process for inserting a mutant furin-S2′ site into infectious bronchitis coronavirus (IBV). The modified IBV resulted in higher morbidity and mortality among chicks inoculated with the new mutant strain.
Dissent From Down Under
The next study hails from Australia, and is a welcome sign not everyone in this country has had their brains completely dulled by drugs, booze and sleazy reality shows. The authors were Sakshi Piplani, Puneet Kumar Singh, David A. Winkler and Nikolai Petrovsky. Their pre-print was submitted to arxiv.org on 13 May 2020.
Piplani and Petrovsky hail from Flinders University, Adelaide. Along with Singh, they also work with a company called Vaxine. Winkler is from LaTrobe University in Melbourne, and is also affiliated with Melbourne’s Monash University and the UK’s University of Nottingham.
A key aim of their study was to examine the interaction of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). ACE2 is an enzyme present in the cell membranes of our blood vessels and organs – including the lungs. Better known for its role in lowering blood pressure, ACE2 also acts as a receptor and serves as the entry point into cells for some coronaviruses - including SARS-CoV-2.
Using computer modelling and available genomic and structural biology data, the researchers found the binding energy between SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and ACE2 was highest for humans out of all species tested – including bats, pangolins and snakes.
As the researchers noted, this suggested “SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is uniquely evolved to bind and infect cells expressing human ACE2.”
“This finding is particularly surprising as,” they further noted, “typically, a virus would be expected to have highest affinity for the receptor in its original host species, e.g. bat, with a lower initial binding affinity for the receptor of any new host, e.g. humans. However, in this case, the affinity of SARS-CoV-2 is higher for humans than for the putative original host species, bats, or for any potential intermediary host species.”
This meant that even if SARS-CoV-2 did originally arise from bats it must later have adapted its spike protein to optimally bind to human ACE2. But, as we have already seen, SARS-CoV-2 has never been detected in bats or any other animal species.
The Australian researchers also avoided mentioning the possibility of deliberate release, but noted COVID-19 could have been man-made:
“Another possibility which still cannot be excluded is that SARS-CoV-2 was created by a recombination event that occurred inadvertently or consciously in a laboratory handling coronaviruses, with the new virus then accidentally released into the local human population.”[Bold emphasis added]
“Overall,” they wrote, “the data indicates that SARS-CoV-2 is uniquely adapted to infect humans, raising important questions as to whether it arose in nature by a rare chance event or whether its origins might lie elsewhere.”
Researchers Ask: “Why is Considering a Man-Made Origin for SARS-CoV-2 a Conspiracy Theory That Must Be Censored?”
On 3 June 2020, Rossana Segreto (Department of Microbiology, University of Innsbruck, Austria) uploaded a paper to ResearchGate that she had co-authored with Yuri Deigin (Youthereum Genetics Inc., Toronto, Canada).
Their pre-print's highly pertinent title was "Is considering a genetic-manipulation origin for SARS-CoV-2 a conspiracy theory that must be censored?"
Segreto and Deigin noted theories considering a possible artificial origin for SARS-CoV-2 were being censored because they seemingly support "conspiracy theories." But, they added, "Researchers have the responsibility to carry out a thorough analysis, beyond any personal research interests, of all possible causes for SARS-CoV-2 emergence for preventing this from happening in the future."
"The theory that the Wuhan’s Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market was the first source for animal–human virus transmission has lost credibility," they write.
They correctly note that during the early phase of the epidemic in Wuhan, there were hospitalized patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 who had no link with the market.
They also point out the market was quickly closed and sanitized before enough animal samples could have been collected; the few market samples that did get collected showed only human-adapted SARS-CoV-2 and no traces of "zoonotic" predecessor strains.
The duo note the genomic sequences of SARS-CoV-2 obtained from early cases share 96.2% sequence identity to RaTG13, a total genomic sequence of a coronavirus extracted from a bat sample collected in the Yunnan province by Wuhan Institute of Virology researchers in 2013.
SARS-CoV-2 differs from RaTG13 in a few key ways. The most striking is the acquisition in the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 of a furin-activated cleavage site (as Zhan et al also observed). Cell-cultured SARS-CoV-2 missing this cleavage site resulted in lessened symptoms in infected hamsters, and in vitro experiments confirmed this polybasic furin site is essential for SARS-CoV-2’s ability to infect human lung cells.
SARS-CoV-2 remains unique among its beta coronavirus relatives not only due to its polybasic furin site at the S1/S2 junction, but also due to the four-amino-acid-insert PRRA amino acid sequence which had created it.
The researchers further note that while the average genome similarity is higher for the bat-derived RaTG13, the S1 protein of Pangolin-CoV is much more closely related to SARS-CoV-2 than that of RaTG13.
The researchers posit that "SARS-CoV-2 is likely to be chimeric" and "could have been synthesized by combining a backbone similar to RaTG13 with the [receptor binding domain] of CoV similar to the one recently isolated from pangolins, because the latter is characterized by a higher affinity with the [human ACE2] receptor."
They further state:
"Due to the broad-spectrum of research conducted over almost 20 years on bat SARS-CoV justified by their potential to spill over from animal to human, a possible synthetic origin by laboratory engineering of SARS-CoV-2 is a reasonable hypothesis."
"Genetic manipulation of SARS-CoV-2 may have been carried out in any laboratory in the world with access to the backbone sequence and the necessary equipment."
The Null – and Hypocritical – “Pre-Print” Criticism
One of the criticisms of the above papers is that they are all pre-prints and therefore have not yet passed peer review. Under normal circumstances, this would be a valid point. However, as COVID-19 hysteria shifted into top gear, we were incessantly told these were not normal circumstances, but that the world was under dire threat from this “unprecedented,” “deadly,” “killer” virus. We were told to stay inside, even instructed on how far to stand from each other.
The reality is COVID-19 is not unprecedented in terms of its virulence or lethality – it is a matter of record far deadlier pandemics have already occurred. It is unprecedented, however, in terms of the staggering amount of shrill hysteria and propaganda the general public has been bombarded with.
Undeterred by such trivialities as the truth, authorities and the media insisted the COVID-19 threat was so extreme that it was no longer just a medical issue, but a martial one.
Yep, we are now at war folks - with a flu virus.
UN Secretary-General Antonio Gutiérrez embraced the war comparison during a G20 virtual summit on the COVID-19 pandemic, claiming:
“We are at war with a virus – and not winning it … This war needs a war-time plan to fight it.”
Even Donald Trump, who initially resisted the COVID-19 hysteria, eventually embraced the if-you-can’t-beat-‘em-join-‘em strategy and tweeted in late March, “we are at war with an invisible enemy.”
Always eager to fan the flames of sensationalism, media outlets also embraced the military hyperbole. A 5 April 2020 headline in the Globe and Mail read:
“We are at war with COVID-19. We need to fight it like a war.”
The article's author, Andrew Potter, an associate professor of Public Policy at McGill University, further claimed:
"By now it should be clear to everyone that we are at war ... this is wartime."
Shortly before Potter’s article went to print, the official COVID-19 death count in the US "leapt" above the 3,000 mark. This, he and others felt compelled to point out, surpassed the death toll of 9/11.
If that's the case, then the US has long been engaged in far, far more deadly ‘wars’ against the likes of heart disease (which, in 2017 alone, caused 647,457 deaths), cancer (599,108 deaths), road and other accidents (169,936) and stroke (146,383).
A staggering 47,173 Americans took their own lives in 2017. Unlike COVID-19, which overwhelmingly targets elderly folks with pre-existing health conditions, suicide disproportionately kills organically healthy young and middle-aged folks.
But, strangely enough, I don't see anyone declaring ‘war’ on suicide.
The problem with all this war talk should be obvious.
The first casualty of war is truth, and there is every indication the truth about COVID-19 has taken a distant back seat to authority-endorsed propaganda.
Furthermore, COVID-19 is not a military issue – it is a health issue, and should be treated as such. Instead, the pandemic has been used to place draconian restrictions on our civil liberties and to bring the global economy to its knees. Global market meltdowns have always been a great wealth-building opportunity for the world’s super-rich, who know to buy up stocks and other discounted assets when everyone else is acting like Reckoning Day has arrived. As none other than Baron Rothschild, from the infamous Rothschild banking dynasty, admonished: "Buy when there's blood in the streets, even if the blood is your own."
Sure enough, during the COVID-19 lockdown, the total net worth of the 600-plus U.S. billionaires jumped by $434 billion or 15%, while their net worth rose from $2.948 trillion to $3.382 trillion. During that same approximate period, more than 38 million working Americans lost their jobs.
We’re all in this together, huh?
But, for a moment, let’s accept all this hyperbolic “war” talk at face value. If our authorities really believe their own hyperbole, then they should welcome all valid research aimed at getting to the bottom of just how COVID-19 really started.
Extreme problems call for extreme measures, we are told. In that case, there is nothing at all unusual about publishing the aforementioned studies online prior to official publication. While they may not have yet been subject to peer review, the scientists involved have observed the severe disruption COVID-19 has caused and have made their findings available at the earliest instance to help the so-called ‘war’ effort. Rather than jealously guard their findings, they have made them freely available as pre-prints to provide observations and lines of research other scientists and authorities can pursue, hopefully speeding up the resolution of the COVID-19 problem.
As the Australian researchers commented, “Given the seriousness of the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, it is imperative that all efforts be made to identify the original source of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.”
It is not at all uncommon for scientists to share their findings prior to peer-review. Many, if not most, of the ‘new’ scientific ‘breakthroughs’ and studies you see in media stories fall into this category. Scientists routinely present their findings at conferences or via media press releases, long before they have been submitted for peer review. Despite their unreviewed, unpublished status, some of these studies make global headlines.
Despite the initial hoopla, some of these studies never make it to the peer review and publication stages. Others, when eventually published, reveal that the initial sensationalism was wholly unjustified.
A textbook classic case occurred in October 2015, when none other than the WHO issued a press release declaring red meat was "probably carcinogenic to humans" and that processed meat was "carcinogenic to humans."
The press release claimed its "IARC Working Group" considered more than 800 studies in arriving at these conclusions - but, of course, no meaningful discussion of these studies was included in the press release. That did not stop media outlets from loudly broadcasting the ridiculous anti-red meat claims around the world.
And they were ridiculous.
The myth that meat causes cancer is based upon confounder-prone epidemiologic prospective cohort studies. Closer inspection of the demographic data in these studies shows that those eating the most meat also exercise less, weigh more, drink more alcohol, smoke more cigarettes, and have poorer sleep habits. These studies do not ask participants about illicit drug use, but given the rest of their data we would expect that heavy meat eaters in these studies also use more drugs.
Why do heavy meat eaters show unhealthier lifestyle habits? Because we have been bombarded with so much anti-meat propaganda over the years, that many health-conscious people either limit their red meat consumption or avoid it entirely. When these people participate in epidemiological studies, their overall healthier lifestyles create a mirage association between red meat and cancer.
The researchers responsible for this shambolic research counter that they remove the effects of these numerous confounders via a process known as multivariate adjustment.
This is the fairy tale in which epidemiologists earnestly believe they can use mathematical equations to remove, after the fact, the effect of confounding factors such as inactivity, overweight, smoking, and alcohol.
What are their mathematical equations based on?
Data from other epidemiological studies.
And if that Ponzi-style stupidity isn’t enough, keep in mind there are numerous mathematical formulas and accompanying software programs researchers can choose from.
They can’t all be right. The reality is they are mostly rubbish.
Also keep in mind that, as epidemiologists wave their magical statistical wands, they cannot even begin to adjust for important variables they have no available data on, such as illicit drug use.
That the epidemiological link between meat and cancer is a load of confounder-tainted nonsense is confirmed by studies in non-Western populations that have not been subject to decades of anti-meat hysteria. In these countries, people with overall healthy lifestyle habits have similar red meat consumption to those with less healthy lifestyle habits. As a result, these populations have helpfully removed an important confounder from studies looking at red meat consumption and cancer.
So what happens to the association between red meat and cancer in studies involving these populations?
Take for example, a pooled analysis of studies from Bangladesh, China, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan which found no association between intake of total meat or red meat consumption and risks of all-cause, CVD, or cancer mortality among men and women. In fact, among women, red meat was associated with lower cancer mortality. In men, red meat - which contains nutrients important for cardiovascular function such as CoQ10, carnitine, taurine and creatine - was associated with lower CVD mortality.
So if the WHO and its minions are happy to use science-by-press-release to further spread fake news about red meat, they have no right whatsoever to complain when sincere researchers release their COVID-19 findings ahead of print.
The “F” and “G” Words, Again
There is absolutely no reason to dismiss the possibility COVID-19 emerged from a laboratory. It is, in fact, by far the most plausible of all current explanations.
Far more contentious is whether or not this happened by accident or by design.
I don’t have the answer to that question, but I do know there are some pretty suspicious signs this event was not at all unexpected by certain parties. One of whom happens to be Fauci.
"The best evidence shows the virus behind the pandemic was not made in a lab in China," Fauci told National Geographic. "Everything about the stepwise evolution over time strongly indicates that [COVID-19] evolved in nature and then jumped species."
Fauci, of course, was talking nonsense. As we have seen, scientists have detected no such “stepwise evolution” of COVID-19 – instead the virus appears to have just come out of nowhere.
Now let’s rewind back to January 2017 when, during a keynote speech at a Georgetown University Medical Center event on pandemic preparedness, Fauci said: "If there's one message that I want to leave with you today ... is that there is no question that there will be a challenge to the coming administration in the arena of infectious diseases."
"Both chronic infectious diseases in the sense of already ongoing disease, and we have certainly a large burden of that, but also there will be a surprise outbreak.”[Bold emphasis added]
How about that - Fauci was telling us with certainty there would be a “surprise” infectious disease outbreak during Trump’s term as president. I wonder how he knew that a pandemic virus would emerge – having completed its “stepwise evolution” and all - in time to wreak havoc during Trump’s first term?
Turns out Fauci is not the only one with a magic crystal ball. Bill Gates also seems to be in possession of remarkable clairvoyant powers. Admittedly, as numerous folks have quipped, Gates knows a lot about bugs and viruses – he’s been battling them ever since the introduction of Windows 95. But Gate’s commentary in recent years eerily reads like a script of what has recently unfolded.
In a 2015 TED Talk on the Ebola outbreak, Gates said the next epidemic “could be much worse … an especially virulent flu, for example — that infects large numbers of people very quickly.”
During the talk, Gates also remarked (see 4:21 of the video below): "You can have a virus where people feel well enough while they're infectious, that they get on a plane, or go to a market. The source of the virus could be a natural epidemic like Ebola, or it could be bioterrorism.”[Bold emphasis added]
In 2017 at Davos, Gates helped create an outfit called the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), whose purported goal was to start preparing for a global pandemic.
In the video below, Gates tells the press at Davos, "I think a pandemic, either naturally caused or intentionally caused, is the most likely thing to cause, say, 10 million excess deaths.” [Bold emphasis added]
Despite the serious nature of his topic, at 2:07 of the video Gates strangely breaks into a smile when he tells reporters, "I think it's too bad we had to have these epidemics to get us to move.”
Yeah, looks like it’s really cutting you up there, Bill.
On 18 October 2019 –not long before COVID-19 mysteriously appeared out of nowhere - CEPI hosted an invitation-only pandemic simulation exercise at The Pierre hotel in New York. The simulation was called “Event 201,” involving "an outbreak of a novel zoonotic coronavirus transmitted from bats to pigs to people that eventually becomes efficiently transmissible from person to person, leading to a severe pandemic. The pathogen and the disease it causes are modeled largely on SARS, but it is more transmissible in the community setting by people with mild symptoms."
While organized by CEPI, Event 201 was also supported by funding from the Open Philanthropy Project. According to ActivistFacts.org, The Open Philanthropy Project (OPP) is a limited-liability corporation that directs tens of millions of dollars to animal rights extremist groups to fund attack campaigns against restaurants and other food companies.
In total, OPP has guided a whopping $64 million to animal rights organizations since its launch in 2016. OPP steered $4 million to a Humane Society of the United States-sponsored ballot measure in California that would ban the sale of conventional pork and eggs in California. OPP has also directed $10 million to The Humane League, a vegan group that heckles food companies with harassing phone calls, emails, Tweets, and street protests.
OPP is largely financed by Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz and his wife Cari Tuna, a former reporter for the Wall Street Journal. FEC records reveal Moskovitz spent nearly $20 million supporting Democrats in the 2016 election, while his wife spent more than $7 million in support of the Democratic party that election cycle.
On 7 November 2019, Netflix aired an episode of Explained titled The Next Pandemic. Peter Daszak and Bill Gates featured heavily in the documentary, again warning us that an impending pandemic was looming. “The economy will shut down,” warned Gates, in yet another uncanny display of prescience.
Gates complained in the video that traditionally, a vaccine might take around four years to create in response to a new viral strain. The documentary says this is why CEPI was formed, to develop a vaccine for “Disease X” – the future disease that Fauci, Daszak and Gates were assuring us was on the way.
So how the heck do you create a vaccine for a disease that doesn’t exist yet?
“Traditional vaccines inject protein molecules from a virus,” explained the narrator. “But this new vaccine doesn’t use proteins. It injects genetic material that tells the body to produce those proteins itself. Your body becomes the manufacturer, creating the protein molecules and then the antibodies for them. Scientists can customize the genetic material to get the body to produce the protein molecules of almost any virus. Once they figure out how to deliver this into the body, it could reduce the time it takes to develop a new vaccine from several years … to just 16 weeks.”
“Meanwhile, scientists are trying to develop a universal influenza vaccine, one shot that could immunize us from every possible flu strain for life.”
So Gates and co. aren’t just looking to stick a needle in your arm – they are literally gunning for your genes. The thought of trusting one’s genetic material to a brains trust led by a guy who can’t even develop bug-free software is hardly an inspiring one.
Truth be told, the thought of trusting my genetic material to a guy who became good friends with Jeffrey Epstein – after the latter served jail time for soliciting prostitution from a minor – is downright creepy.
At Jeffrey Epstein’s Manhattan mansion in 2011, after the serial pedophile had been convicted and registered as a sex offender. From left: James E. Staley, at the time a senior JPMorgan executive; former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers; Epstein; Bill Gates; and Boris Nikolic, who was the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s science adviser.
Gates could not credibly claim to be unaware of Epstein’s puerile ways – I’m pretty confident that by 2011 the billionaire founder of Microsoft would have had access to a thing called the Internet. Furthermore, the New York Times reports that, in late 2011, at Gates’ instruction, his foundation sent a team to Epstein’s townhouse to talk about philanthropic fund-raising. Epstein told his guests if they searched his name on the internet they might conclude he was a bad person but that what he had done — soliciting prostitution from an underage girl — was no worse than “stealing a bagel,” two of the attendees said.
Some of the Gates Foundation employees said they'd been unaware of Epstein’s criminal record and had been shocked to learn the foundation was working with a sex offender. They worried it could seriously damage the foundation’s reputation. Gates, however, was not at all bothered and kept dealing with Epstein at least until October 2014. The relationship, finally cooled, not because Gates became disgusted with Epstein’s sexual predation, but because the "charitable fund that [Epstein had] discussed with the Gates Foundation never materialized."
Gates, it would seem, has no problem with sex predators so long as they can draw in buckets of money for his so-called ‘philanthropic’ endeavours. The great irony is that the Gates Foundation has championed the well-being of young girls, yet Gates saw fit to associate with a felon who exploited young girls.
Getting back to the Netflix video, at 9:16 we are introduced to footage of a wet market in Lianghua, China, where various animals are killed on site. This, the documentary claims, makes the wet market a “disease X factory.”
“All the while, their viruses are mixing and mutating,” claims the narrator, “increasing the odds that one finds its way to humans.”
So for the last five years, Gates has been telling us there will be another pandemic. This in itself is not particularly noteworthy, because during the last two decades I’ve read more predictions of a coming viral epidemic than I can remember. Predicting a pandemic is like predicting a stock market crash – wait long enough, and you’ll eventually be right.
But Gates goes beyond merely warning us one will happen – he pretty much tells us how it will happen. Of all the possible bacterial and viral strains, he seems confident it will be a flu virus. The Event 201 held by his CEPI – shortly before the recent pandemic kicked off for real – simulated a number of key aspects of COVID-19:
It was a novel coronavirus; the original source was bats; it was modelled on SARS but more transmissible by people with mild symptoms.
Even Forbes admitted in a 19 March 2020 article that COVID-19 "is a ‘Black Swan’ event. This unexpected and hard-to-predict event was not within the range of normal expectations."
Yet Gates and his cohorts had pretty much pre-written the script for COVID-19. The only deviation occurred in the Event 201 simulation, where the bat coronavirus kicked off in Brazil and spread through Latin America, before reaching China, the US and Europe. A few weeks later, however The Next Pandemic was specifically mentioning Chinese wet markets.
On 3 May 2020, Gates hosted a question-and-answer interactive “AMA” session about COVID-19 on Reddit.
I think it’s fair to say the session didn’t quite go as expected.
During the AMA, Gates appeared to lament the lack of a national COVID-19 monitoring system, saying that "in Seattle, the [University of Washington] is providing thousands of tests per day but no one is connected to a national tracking system."
A short while later in the thread, he remarked:
“Eventually we will have some digital certificates to show who has recovered or been tested recently or when we have a vaccine who has received it.”
As soon as Gates wrote this worrying line, it seemed the worst fears of every skeptical reader had been confirmed. At that point, the gushing admirers of Gates were joined by less-impressed commenters. Here are some of their responses (leave this page now if you don't like strong language):
It wasn't all nasty:
A number of readers raged about microchips and the Biblical “Mark of the Beast” prophecy. In response, Gates apologists – like PolitiFact - downplayed the idea that Gates and his ilk are manoeuvring towards a mass microchipping campaign.
Again, they’re not being straight with us.
The ‘digital certificates’ Gates was referring to are human-implantable quantum dot 'tattoos' delivered to the skin by microneedle patches. Make no mistake, this technology is being advanced as we speak.
Last year, a conglomeration of researchers from various institutions, primarily MIT, Rice University and the Chinese Academy of Sciences, revealed how they developed the needle technology using pig and human skin. These skin samples were also successfully subjected to simulated solar light exposure at “sevenfold the intensity of the sun for a period that simulated 5 years of day/night exposure.” The implant technology was then tested by ‘tattooing’ it onto rats. At nine months, the implants remained detectable by a smartphone-based imaging system also developed by the researchers. The results suggested that, when injected into human skin, the implants would remain detectable by a simple smart-phone app for at least 5 years.
Said the researchers, “we believe that this invisible, “on-body” technology opens up new avenues for decentralized data storage and biosensing applications that could influence the way medical care is provided, especially in the developing world.”
Among the projects funders were the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, National Natural Science Foundation of China, China Scholarship Council and the Koch Institute.
This is not the only digital ID technology Gates is pursuing. He is also sponsoring another undertaking called ID2020, a partnership between Microsoft, Gavi the Vaccine Alliance, global management consulting firm Accenture, international design firm IDEO.org and the Rockefeller Foundation (the Rockefellers, like Soros, are avowed globalists. The Rockefellers were also key instigators of the Anthropogenic Global Warming sham and mentored the late Maurice Strong - the most influential climate change bureaucrat you've never heard of. Like Soros, Strong had a fondness for China and moved there after investigations into the UN’s Oil-for-Food-Program found he had received what appeared to be a bribe of almost US $1,000,000).
The "bigger picture" goal of ID2020 is "to make a coordinated, concerted push to provide digital ID to everyone." So now we learn the end goal is to not only to tag those who’ve received vaccines with digital IDs, but give them to everyone on the planet.
Knowing full well many people won’t care to turn themselves into scannable ID devices, the ID2020 team employ the age-old tactic of telling you it’s for your own good.
The ability to "prove who you are" is now "a fundamental and universal human right." ID2020, they claim, is all about finding "a trusted and reliable way to do that."
They make the audacious statement that "doing digital ID right means protecting civil liberties and putting control over personal data back where it belongs ... in the hands of the individual."
The obvious question is why should we trust anything Gates and his minions promise us on privacy, given his track record?
ID2020 has not yet settled on any one digital ID technology – the website is still actively inviting proposals from would-be developers of this nefarious technology.
In response to the uproar over Gates’ digital ID endeavours, yet another shady fact-checking organization has come to his rescue. None other than Snopes spoke up in Gates’ defence, claiming he had nothing to do with microchipping and none of the technology he is sponsoring has a tracking capability.
Ah, Snopes. The self-proclaimed ‘debunking’ site founded by husband-and-wife team Barbara and David Mikkelson, who used a letterhead claiming they were a non-existent society to start their research. They are now divorced, with Barbara claiming in legal filings her ex-husband embezzled $98,000 of company money and spent it on "himself and prostitutes."
Meanwhile, David's new wife Elyssa Young is employed by the website as an administrator. She has previously worked as an escort and porn actress.
Snopes.com main 'fact checker' is Kimberly LaCapria, whose blog 'ViceVixen' – according to the Daily Mail - says she is in touch with her 'domme side' and has posted on Snopes.com while smoking pot (I tried searching for LaCapria’s blog to verify these comments, but it seems it has since been removed. The first obvious port of call, ViceVixen.com, retrieved a Japanese-language site containing pictures you definitely don’t want your kids to see).
Despite claims Snopes is apolitical, LaCapria described herself as “openly left-leaning” and a liberal. She trashed the Tea Party as “teahadists.” She called Bill Clinton “one of our greatest” presidents.
What a joke. I wouldn’t trust this lot to debunk the Tooth Fairy.
Snopes, by the way, is one of the so-called fact-checking organizations Facebook uses to arbitrate on 'fake news.'
Anyway, let's pretend for a moment Snopes is something other than a farcical shit show, and listen to what it has to say about Gates:
"From a factual standpoint, Gates has never proposed or funded research into the development of a vaccine — for COVID-19 or for anything else — that includes the injection of a device that could actively track your location, monitor anything you are doing, or “control” you ... If and when a vaccine for COVID-19 comes, it will not be capable of tracking your movements or reporting any data to any entity whatsoever. None of the technology discussed by Gates here is even capable of such a task."
Technically, that’s correct. But it’s a summary that overlooks the fact Gates has openly pined for, in his own words, a “national tracking system.”
And while Snopes acknowledges the technology is in its early days, it conveniently overlooks the exponential development new technologies routinely undergo. Remember when mobile phones were the size of bricks? Remember when you had to dial up to get an Internet connection? The quantum-dot ‘tattoos’ may not have an active tracking function now, but the technology is still in its infancy. Who’s to say with any certainty it – or any of the other technologies Gates is funding – won’t possess such a function in future?
Perhaps most importantly, this may not even be the end goal. The real end goal, judging by Gates’ fetish-like obsession with vaccines, may simply be to have us all vaccinated with the fruits of his and his fellow investors’ ‘philanthropic’ medical investments. There’s no investment like one whose success is ensured by government mandate!
While those of us who forgo such ‘generosity’ might not be subjected to physical coercion, our refusal might result in other severe inconveniences that would make life burdensome, such as travel and education restrictions, ineligibility for certain jobs, and so on. The revelation that Gates and his elite friends have been actively working on “digital certificates” for those who receive their proposed vaccine/s does little to quell such suspicions.
I don't know about you, but it’s going to take something far more reputable than the reassurances of a former Epstein associate and a bunch of dubious ‘fact-checking’ sites to allay my concerns.
There is no credible evidence that COVID-19 was transmitted to humans via the Huanan wet market in Wuhan City. Instead, all the available circumstantial and scientific evidence points to a laboratory origin.
Additionally, several lines of evidence point to a bio-engineered origin. These include the sudden appearance of COVID-19, its lack of precursor strains, it’s chimaeric characteristics, and the fact that it originated in the same area as a BSL-4 laboratory that has already produced a chimeric SARS coronavirus, and in a country where researchers have already documented how to insert a furin cleavage site into viral spike proteins.
The fact authorities are still clinging to the fanciful wet market tale in the face of all this emerging evidence is a bright red flag that they have something to hide.
The depth of their efforts to suppress conflicting information and maintain the fiction that COVID-19 is entirely natural suggests they are hiding something big. Uncanny predictions by the likes of Fauci and Gates of what has recently played out have done little to quell suspicions COVID-19 was not an accidental pandemic.
Censorship of COVID-19 information is being practised at all levels, and the social environment is being manipulated to discourage critical analysis. Those who publicly discuss perfectly plausible alternative explanations are vigorously derided as “conspiracy theorists.” Establishment-friendly social media channels like YouTube, Facebook and Instagram are actively vetting COVID-19-related content that dares to stray from the official narrative.
We’re being played, folks.
In the next instalment I’ll explain how the lethality of COVID-19 has been wildly exaggerated, and how the lockdown measures have dramatically increased deaths from other causes.
In the meantime, you should treat COVID-19 like you would any other nasty strain of flu. I don't want it, and neither do you. So do what you sensibly can to avoid it, and don’t make yourself an easy target (i.e. maintain good nutrition, hygiene, sleep, avoid stress, ’burnout’ and overtraining, and make sure your winter supplementation regimen includes at least 5,000IU of vitamin D3 daily). If you do devlop flu-like symptoms, don’t go out and give it to others and stay away from your vulnerable elders. If you smoke cigarettes, now would be a great time to give that up.
Stay safe (from mainstream bullshit),
Article updated 04/07/2020 to note Figure 1b of the 24 January 2020 Lancet paper showed initial Wuhan patient of 1 December 2019 had no contact with the market.
If You Enjoyed this Article, Please Consider Sending a Tip
Donate with Crypto
The Mandatory “I Ain’t Your Mama, So Think For Yourself and Take Responsibility for Your Own Actions” Disclaimer: All content on this web site is provided for information and education purposes only. Individuals wishing to make changes to their dietary, lifestyle, exercise or medication regimens should do so in conjunction with a competent, knowledgeable and empathetic medical professional. Anyone who chooses to apply the information on this web site does so of their own volition and their own risk. The owner and contributors to this site accept no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any harm, real or imagined, from the use or dissemination of information contained on this site. If these conditions are not agreeable to the reader, he/she is advised to leave this site immediately.