“Think from first principles.” Elon Musk
Thinking the unthinkable
Bear with me for a second while I indulge in a flight of fancy. Just imagine, hypothetically, that me and my associates were in the business of gaslighting the world into believing that there was a lethal virus on the loose, in order that we might consolidate our hold on wealth and power. I know, it'll never happen; but, if it did, and if we owned Big Media and the only tech companies that matter, do you think we'd make it easy for you to find out what we're up to? No, didn't think so.
I know, I know. Tin foil hat; one, for the use of. Rabbit hole, about to be explored, head first. A sacrilegious doubting of the narrative. I make no apology. In most endeavors, it's as well to ensure that the premise, upon which everything subsequent is based, is actually valid. The sort of thing Elon was getting at and, given the myriad examples of disinformation (which I have detailed in previous articles) and gaps in our knowledge that nobody in officialdom seems anxious to fill, a reasonable precaution at this stage.
You may have started the Covid saga with a measure of trust in our elders and betters, those who rule over us by dint of their superior attributes. I did not, partly due to knowledge acquired whilst inside the machine (in a former life) and partly down to an interest in the history of successive scares and the official response to them. I was not burdened with an expectation of competence; instead, I was expecting obfuscation and overreach, as this has been par for the course for the past forty years or so.
AIDS, lead in petrol, asbestos, listeria, BSE, speeding, passive smoking, salmonella ... and that is, by no means, an exhaustive list. I would wager that you will surprised – and possibly affronted – by the inclusion of some of those 'crises' in any such parade but, without exception, none of the above turned out the way we were told they would, even if we were never informed of the revised outcome; and we definitely weren't. And I know that, in this modern day, it is difficult to tell fact from fiction, faithful scribe from bad actor, so you may want to check.
In the meantime, and in summary, all of the aforementioned scares followed the same trajectory. Firstly, the source of the supposed threat must be something that everyone can be exposed to. Next, it must be novel (interesting word in this context). Whilst the scientific basis for the threat must be believable, there must also be room for speculation, a degree of uncertainty, a gap into which scaremongering can be inserted. And then, the reaction to the threat must be disproportionate. It will surprise you not to learn that the final stage, whereby we establish that the science was wrong from the beginning and that we have overreacted as a result, will be the least publicized (read actively suppressed) part of the scare, or that the temporary measures inflicted on us by our pathologically caring authorities have a habit of sticking around permanently.
So, given all that, a back to basics approach doesn't seem to be an outrageous course of action. At worst, this endeavor may be characterized as a waste of time. There are other reasons, too.
There is some dispute as to whether SARS-COV-2, the disease that we are told causes Covid-19, has ever been isolated.
The Chinese have claimed that they have and they published a genomic sequence online in January 2020. Firstly, it's the Chinese. Secondly, the sequence is incomplete and contains seemingly random sequences from other viruses and from human beings themselves. Thirdly, it's the Chinese.
There has been a familiar hijacking of language, a subversion of the recognized meaning of certain important words; like 'isolated'.
There has been the discovery that the spike protein itself is toxic and causes at least some of the most severe symptoms and possibly all of them.
Tests designed to test for Covid-19 don't test for Covid 19; at least, not solely.
Those in the know, those in control of sampling for the virus (the state and its proxies), are the only ones with the hard data.
Drugs that have been proven to work against Covid-19 include vitamins and anti-parasitics which, to my uneducated eye, seems curious.
A large number of samples gathered from alleged Covid patients were found, without exception, to be positive for Influenza A and B instead.
There was no flu season; the explanations as to why, which revolve around the effectiveness of lock-downs, social distancing and mask mandates, should apply equally to a suppression of Covid, but apparently don't.
What constitutes proof? Peer reviewed papers? The word of the state? If not either of these (or similar), then what? Can we arrive at a definitive answer, either way?
A secondary question, to be answered if we are sure that there is an actual virus; has a causal link been established between the presence of said virus and the symptoms ascribed to it?
If the potential for slaughtering a sacred cow or two causes you sleepless nights and you'd rather stick with the certainty of sand in your hair and up your nose, it may be a good time to abandon reading and go do something less stressful. If you're staying, well, there are enough discrepancies to warrant a proper examination of what we do and don't know and the fact that Big Media is ignoring any and all tears in the narrative fabric provides yet another incentive. A pattern has emerged with regard to the information industry; increasingly, stories that are ignored and/or censored are the ones worth exploring.
The claim is a familiar one; bat to human transition, through an intermediate host. So, how would that happen biologically and how likely is it?
Zoonosis
There are perhaps as many as 1.6 million animal viruses – only 219 of them are known to infect humans, a rate of around 0.01%. So, before we start, we are breathing rarified air.(1)
More precisely;
“...zoonosis requires that human-compatible viral variants pre-exist in the animal reservoir, arising before these viruses have ever even experienced the selective constraints of the human body. For the vast majority of animal viruses in nature, there are just too many protein–protein interactions to master by chance in a random encounter with humans.”(2)
It's complicated, but the gist of it is that it's a two stage process. The virus has to be 'off the shelf', already able to infect human cells and then, once it has gained a foothold, to mutate sufficiently so as to become as transmissable as possible. The virus has to penetrate non specific barriers (such as the skin, stomach acid), then specific barriers (the make-up of the exterior of the human cell, in order to successfully 'dock'), then recruit hundreds of human proteins to replicate, without encountering a single non matching protein that could scupper the whole deal, even before adaptive immunity kicks in after a few days.
Adaptive immunity helps the host recover, but won't prevent potential spread if viral titers are high enough. If the virus is not well adapted to transmission, inasmuch as it may cause low levels of inflammation for example, it may not spread well or, indeed, at all. If the virus pops up in areas with low population density, it may not spread well either, regardless of it's virility. As I hope is clear, an awful lot of ducks have to be in a row for a virus to transfer from animals to humans and then between humans. With regards to specifics
“...it is known that bat coronaviruses require mutations in their surface glycoprotein (spike) in order to use the human ortholog of their receptor, ACE2. But when coronaviruses are sampled from wild bats, a small number of them already encode spike variants compatible with human ACE2. The critical question is, how many additional obstacles (if any) do these viruses need to overcome to replicate themselves in human cells?” (3) (4)
This seems somewhat alarming at first flush, but Menachery at al achieved these results by merging a bat coronavirus spike protein onto a mouse adapted SARS-COV backbone (meaning the mice had human cells in their airways and lungs and they didn't use the backbone of the virus to which the spike protein was originally attached, perhaps because of a lack of knowledge of measurable symptoms) to demonstrate that the spike protein allowed access of the virus to human cells. So, the researchers managed to show two contrasting things; firstly, bat viral spike proteins that bound to human cells, without the need to pass through an intervening host animal, did indeed exist in the wild. And secondly, they managed to create a chimeric virus that was dangerous to humans via gain of function research. It is noteworthy that the names Shi and Baric are listed among the authors.
It is known that the surface proteins of human cells, the ones that viruses use to bind them to cells, are among the most likely proteins to change sequence under selection pressure, in order to inhibit the ability of a viral cell to bind. This is probably because of the huge importance of that process; if the viral cell can't bind, it can't infect. This would, in turn, mean that the virus would need to have the exact same pattern of proteins as the cell surface. (5)
The process they describe goes to the heart of the debate as to natural origins for SARS-COV-2. It is clearly entirely possible to take a natural virus that is not off the shelf adapted to humans (because the spike protein is incompatible), change the spike protein for one that is adapted, either because it's been found in the wild or by virtue of lab manipulation, and you have a viable virus. What you don't know, of course, is what the precise effects will be (unless you've run human cell line experiments in the lab) or what mutations will naturally occur once the virus is in the host population and how that will effect the spread and potency of said virus.
Laboratory manipulation
The counterpoint to zoonosis; if it's not natural, how could you engineer it? There are two primary methods, which may be enlisted sequentially. A direct insertion into a genome, mixing together two or more different genomes in order to create something more potent than the version found in nature. This will often be done by using one virus as the 'backbone' and, in the instances which interest us, enhancing the ability of the virus to latch onto and infect human cells via the spike protein (SP) and the receptor binding domain (RBD). This technology is known colloquially as No See'm technology.
The process may end there or, remembering the lessons of zoonosis, the engineered virus may be serially passed through a cell line in order to speed up the adaptive process that would otherwise occur when the virus first entered the human population. Or the process may only involve serial passage. If the latter, these mutations would not be controlled, but they would mimic a natural process, thus also disguising human involvement, although still leaving clues in its wake. It's also possible for beneficial (as well as potentially harmful) adaptions to occur via a process of recombination, as the adaptions in a serial passage manipulation cannot be controlled or specified as they can be with insertions. However,
“The process of sequential passage through animal hosts or cell cultures leaves a genome that appears natural and not purposefully manipulated since it effectively mimics the natural process of zoonosis, and leaves a genome that appears to be the result of natural selection so long as its relationship to related strains of virus is ignored. However, the artificial generations added by forced serial passage creates the artificial appearance of evolutionary distance, which was the characteristic of the H1N1 Swine Flu Soviet leak in the 1970s that lead researchers to conclude it had been constructed in a lab, and is exactly what is found with SARS-CoV-2, which is distant enough from any other virus that it has been placed in its own clade.” (6)
There are additional potential problems. For example, if a bat coronavirus was serially passaged through a monkey cell line, there is the possibility that elements of the monkey genome finds it way into the artificially created virus. Additionally, some human proteins are inactive until furin (an enzyme) removes sequences and activates them. The furin cleavage site on the SARS COV 2 spike protein is a major red flag, as they have not be shown to survive in nature in either B type coronaviruses or in influenza; only in the laboratory or via genetic engineering.
“In addition to the possibility of obtaining a furin cleavage site through natural recombination in a secondary host or through serial passage... one could have been spliced directly into the novel coronavirus's backbone in a laboratory using classic recombinant DNA technology that has been available for nearly 20 years. This allows for the removal of the restriction site junctions that are the telltale sign of direct genetic manipulation...so although the entire spike-protein RBD was not assembled from scratch, it is certainly plausible that the 12-nucleotide-long furin cleavage site could have been spliced directly into SARS-CoV-2.”(7)
So, even without taking any other evidence into account, an engineered origin for SARS COV 2 is more likely than not due to the rarity of zoonosis and characteristics of the genome, as reported. And, in common with the original SARS outbreak in 2002, the virus has not yet been found in an intermediate animal host; not for a lack of trying, as over 200 animal species have been tested. It is plainly foolish for the pro nature crowd to insist it came from a natural source without the evidence; it's a hypothesis, at best. The longer the search goes on, the more esoteric it will be and the less likely to find anything.
So far, we have been working from an assumption that SARS COV 2 exists in actuality and not just as a sequence of genetic code. But can we be sure of that?
Has SARS-COV-2 been isolated?
Way back in the mists of time, on January 10th 2020, the Chinese academy helpfully posted a report online, purporting to give the genomic sequence of this new disease, one that wasn't transmissable, as they told the WHO; one that came from the wet market in Wuhan. Not to be too skeptical, too early but, given that it was transmissable (a fact that was difficult to miss, you'd think) and given that it didn't come from the wet market in Wuhan, I think it's reasonable to treat any information provided by the Chinese with a healthy dose of suspicion.
After all, it would be strange to slavishly defend the accuracy of one part of the story when most of the rest of it has fallen apart, would it not? It might also be foolhardy to unquestioningly believe that the country that allowed its potentially infected citizens to fly around the world for the first month of the ‘pandemic’ was, concurrently, posting on the internet (gratis) the key to fighting the disease. If, of course, there was a disease to spread...
I digress. The official narrative was (possibly still is; it's difficult to be sure, which is probably the point) that some indefatigable scientist sat up several nights running decoding the genome, before bursting through the Chinese firewall and posting it on a database utilized by the international scientific community (GenBank), to a deafening chorus of Hallelujahs from the media.(8) The Chinese subsequently posted at least twenty other versions of same, said to have come from different patients.
The sequence boasted nearly 30,000 base pairs, but it appears that not all genomic sequences are created equal. It also appears that, as well as their primary fields of expertise, scientists have added an ability to perform linguistic gymnastics to their skill-sets, as we shall see. In the meantime, how do you isolate a virus? And what do genomic sequences truly represent?
“Many patient DNA or RNA samples taken from swabs are metagenomic, meaning that they capture genetic material not only from the virus but also other viruses, bacteria, and even human cells. This means that researchers either have to apply an algorithm that is able to assemble genomes from information derived from multiple species, or they need to perform additional laboratory work to isolate the viral information. The researchers who assembled the first SARS-CoV-2 genome did the former, wrangling a 30,000 base pair genome out of a file consisting of 8 billion base pairs, most of which do not derive from SARS-CoV-2. If genome assembly is like assembling a puzzle, metagenome assembly is like assembling multiple similar puzzles from a jumbled set of pieces.”(9)
What this means is that the vast majority of the published genome is filler. Only some important parts are said to be from the virus; the spike protein, specifically. But that can't be right, surely? After all, we are over 18 months in to what is alleged to be the worst pandemic in over 100 years. Somebody, somewhere, must have done more.
Well, no. There's a Center for Disease Control (CDC) paper by a group of 20 virologists, selected by the CDC, but they haven't isolated the virus. They have 37 base pairs of genomes, selected from the original Chinese submission of a sequence to GenBank (accession no. NC045512), and by a process of consensus (and a lengthy computer programme), they've decided that these particular genomic fingerprints are ones that adequately identify SARS COV 2 to the exclusion of all other viruses or genomic sequences of any type. If you're thinking that this process lacks a certain scientific rigor, you would not be alone. Nonetheless, they moved right along to testing.(10)
There are three possible models for virologists to use: humans (not usually ethically viable), animals and cell cultures. So, we're left with animals and cell cultures. One experiment has been conducted with animals (mice). None of the wild mice got sick and a small number of genetically modified mice lost some fur. That's it.(11) Then, they tested them in cell cultures. The whole quote is included, for the avoidance of any doubt:
“Therefore, we examined the capacity of SARS-CoV-2 to infect and replicate in several common primate and human cell lines, including human adenocarcinoma cells (A549), human liver cells (HUH 7.0), and human embryonic kidney cells (HEK-293T). In addition to Vero E6 and Vero CCL81 cells. … each cell line was inoculated at high multiplicity of infection and examined 24h post-infection. No CPE was observed in any of the cell lines except in Vero cells, which grew to greater than 10 to the 7th power at 24 h post-infection. In contrast, HUH 7.0 and 293T showed only modest viral replication, and A549 cells were incompatible with SARS CoV-2 infection.”(12)
What does this mean? Firstly, the Vero cell lines are monkey cell lines. Secondly, CPE refers to cytopathic effect; visible changes to the cell culture due to the introduction of a virus. And thirdly, the use of the term 'modest replication' means that there wasn't sufficient replication to enable the use of the term 'infective in humans.' So, it doesn't work in mice and it doesn't work in humans. It is a distinct possibility that it doesn't work in monkeys either, but that the replication was the result of something that was already present in the monkey cell line used in the lab. The Vero E6 green monkey cell line is known to be contaminated.
So, to be clear. I have scoured the literature, both fake and real (a subject for another day). Nobody else is claiming that they have either replicated this experiment or conducted any comparable study which sought to arrive at the same endpoint. This is the only study. And it's not done by some cowboy outfit or a scientific establishment seeking to undermine the narrative, if such a place even exists. This experiment was conducted by the CDC itself. The reason you don't know about it is because it hasn't been reported. Strange, that.
Close cousins
In the days after the Chinese posted the genomic sequence, still in January 2020, the 'batwoman of Wuhan', Dr Shi, posted another sequence online. This was labelled RaTG13 and, to the willfully gullible at least, it provided some succor. This is purportedly a bat coronavirus recovered from a cave in Yunnan, around 800 miles south west of Wuhan, in 2013. Amazingly, it shared 96% of its genome with SARS COV 2, although how anyone was able to ascertain that when most of the sequences were fillers, is anyone's guess. In any event, whilst the doubters initially thought it had been recently fabricated in order to provide evidence of a closely connected 'wild virus' and bolster the 'found in nature' case, it had been cited in papers previously, albeit under a different designation. So, if it is a fake virus, it was either engineered in previous years or its sequence conceived then.
However, the official narrative was under attack from very early on and some researchers did some outstanding detective work, digging up degree dissertations from Chinese students and obscure articles and conference presentations, all of which served to undermine the authenticity of the natural origin story propagated by China and the academy, which frequently seem to be one and the same.(13) In particular, RaTG13 has been minutely scrutinized and variously suspected of being a fake or the backbone of SARS COV 2.
There are some distinct problems with it, notably an unnatural sequence in the second half of its spike protein.(14) However, the fact of its existence laid a trail of breadcrumbs which were gratefully hoovered up by those with an appetite, who also happened to be the same people whose views found an outlet in Big Media.
Aside from the fact that the same doctor is central to all the Wuhan uncertainty (perhaps explicable by the very specific nature of her job), we are being asked to believe that an extraordinarily dangerous coronavirus, the first one that bats could transfer directly to humans without the need for an intermediate host, was discovered in 2013 and excited no significant research and reporting.
This seems hugely unlikely given that Dr Shi was experimenting with gain of function techniques to make bat coronaviruses transmissable to man and here was one that actually existed in nature. It would have provided an unprecedented justification for her research and yet she made nothing of it. After all, the raison d'etre for gain of function (GOF) research, the argument that gives it a fig leaf of respectability, is that it exists to create artificial viruses which might exist in nature, so that vaccines might be created that counter the artificial viruses that have been created in a lab and which, in actual fact, we have no reason to believe exist in nature at all. Nonetheless, that's the official line, unlikely as it seems. The fact that there is obvious potential for bio-weapons research is resolutely ignored by the scientific community, if not the politicians.
To muddy the waters still further; the Obama administration imposed a moratorium on GOF research in the US. There were ethical and safety concerns, unsurprisingly. This didn't present an insurmountable obstacle to the National Institute for Health (run by Anthony Fauci). Funding was provided to the Wuhan Laboratory through an outfit called EcoHealth Alliance and Mr Baric sent virus samples to Dr Shi. This transaction evaded scrutiny by the relevant watchdog, due to the fact it was never referred to them by the offending agency (NIH), not altogether surprisingly.
A jaundiced eye might speculate that talking up the chances of a zoonotic transfer of disease to humans serves several purposes; firstly, if cover were needed in the event of an 'accidental' release of a virus. Secondly, to keep the subject at the research at the head of the funding queue and, thirdly, to condition the wider public to the alleged dangers of a pandemic caused by said natural process.
So far, we seem to be running into a series of negatives. SARS COV 2 is highly unlikely to have infected humans through zoonosis, it cannot be shown to be infective and transmissable in humans, RaTG13 looks fake, the Chinese seem to be yanking our chain. All is uncertainty. Fortunately, help is on the way and from an unforeseen direction.
Patently false
On January 28th 2000, a patent application (6372224) was filed at the US Patent Office on behalf of Pfizer Inc. New York. It was an application detailing the genomic sequence of a spike protein targeting canine coronavirus, together with a binding protein, a vaccine and a method of administering the vaccine.
On April 19th 2002, a further patent application was filed (7279327) on behalf of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. One of the applicant names was the infamous Ralph Baric (more on him later). This was for a replication defective coronavirus, targeting the epithelial cells in the lungs. It includes gene sequencing for the ACE receptor, the ACE2 binding domain, the S1 Spike protein and other elements, engineered and synthetically modified in a laboratory.
On April 25th 2003, a further patent application was lodged (7220852) along with associated others, including 7776521. The application was on behalf of the NIH and the CDC and reads:
“This invention relates to a newly isolated human coronavirus. More particularly, it relates to an isolated coronavirus genome, isolated coronavirus proteins, and isolated nucleic acid molecules encoding the same. The disclosure further relates to methods of detecting a severe acute respiratory syndrome-associated coronavirus and compositions comprising immunogenic coronavirus compounds.”(15)
In layman's terms, this was an attempt to patent a naturally occurring coronavirus and the means of it's detection. Should there be any future problem with said virus, it would allow the applicants to have patents and control over all elements in the scenario. It shouldn't be possible to patent a naturally occurring substance and there was significant push-back from the patent office until the CDC overrode their decision to reject the patent and pushed it through.
Patent 7776521 couldn't be more explicit:
“Disclosed herein is a newly isolated human coronavirus (SARS-CoV), the causative agent of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). Also provided are the nucleic acid sequence of the SARS-CoV genome and the amino acid sequences of the SARS-CoV open reading frames, as well as methods of using these molecules to detect a SARS-CoV and detect infections therewith. Immune stimulatory compositions are also provided, along with methods of their use.”(16)
Yes, you read that correctly. That is a patent for the SARS coronavirus, the one responsible for the outbreak the previous year. Additionally, further bacterial and viral pathogens were being patented by the NIH, the US Armed Services and others in the autumn of 2001. Around this time, there was an effort to harness coronavirus as a vector with which to distribute the HIV virus – rather as an adenovirus is being used with the J&J and AZ Covid 'vaccines'. And, given the wide scope and variety of substances patented, consideration was seemingly being given to utilizing coronavirus as a bio-weapon, also.
So, all very interesting, but what is the connection to SARS COV 2. Well, the very first patent, in 1999, appears to be the progenitor to the SARS virus. The CDC is also shown to hold patents that are 89-99% identical to the sequence identified as SARS COV 2, as well as the PCR test to detect it. US patent 7279327 shows that not only did the ACE Receptor, the ACE2 binding domain, the S1 spike protein and other elements of SARS COV 2 exist years before 2019, but also that they were engineered and could be synthetically altered by gene sequencing technologies.
And, finally, there are 120 odd patents detailing all the fine grain, specific, scientific detail of the above elements and substances. What sequences are we comparing these patents to? The genomic sequences posted by the Chinese in January 2020. It's worth letting that sink in. It means that the likes of the NIH, CDC, Chapel Hill at the University of North Carolina and Pfizer hold the patents for SARS COV 2. They've had them for years.
There's more; patent applications by a company subsumed by Pfizer (again) called Sequoia for an anti-viral treatment for coronavirus, patents transferred between parties already named in November 2018 and the patent vital for current vaccine development shared with Moderna by Chapel Hill in November 2019, before the SARS COV 2 outbreak officially existed.
In March 2019, Moderna started tidying up four patent applications, changing wording (prior to re-application) to specifically refer to a deliberate release of coronavirus. Moderna also started negotiations with the two Canadian companies that owned patents for the lipid nano-particles technologies that their mRNA vaccine would need. It may be a complete coincidence, but minutes of meetings featuring Dr Anthony Fauci (between 2016 and 2019) record his displeasure at the lack of take up of his universal flu vaccines. Take up of vaccines doesn't seem to be a problem currently, does it?
All in all then, what does this mean? Why were these entities engaged in a flurry of patent activity and the research that lies behind them for a disease, coronavirus, that the WHO states is no longer a concern in 2007/8? Some of this is factual, some conjecture.
Factually, SARS COV 2, the RT PCR test to detect it and all the specific elements of the spike protein are patented. Patents are not awarded for naturally occurring substances. The patents are owned by a number of organisations, governmental and private and include the NIH, CDC, Pfizer and Moderna. The vaccine is a computer simulation of a spike protein sequence that has been known for years. There is nothing novel about SARS COV 2. There is nothing natural about it, either.
Moderna were manoeuvring in 2019. There was some urgency to their actions, which accelerated their progress towards an mRNA vaccine for SARS COV 2. Supposedly, they based it on the sequences published by the Chinese; because of the urgency of the situation, of course. We now know that the Chinese sequences are just copies of the already patented genomic sequences.
Taking stock
It's complicated and simple, at the same time. Complicated because of the background noise, Big Media, fact checkers and general obfuscation, confirmation bias and the overweening influence of certain types of pathologically altruistic personalities and the presence of bad actors who exploit them. Misrepresenting facts through unfair emphasis, omission and bias isn't enough any more. There is a constant cacophony of outright lies as well. But if we stick to things that we can show to be true and nothing else, an outline of events starts to emerge; a framework on which to start hanging a hypothesis.
So far, we can state the following. There is a genetic sequence that has been called a virus and given the name SARS COV 2. This sequence contains much in the way of genetic code filler. This sequence has not been physically isolated; nor has it been shown to be infective and transmissable in humans. Crucial parts of the sequence have been previously patented by entities in the US, in both public and private ownership. These sequences include those used in the creation of mRNA vaccines and in the RT PCR test used to determine infectivity.
What we can't state, so far, is that SARS COV 2 causes the symptoms known as Covid 19. On the facts that I have presented, we cannot determine the precise nature of the connection between the US and China and the virus (other than the fact that the Chinese had a copy of it, whether physically or in code), patented in the US and allegedly causing an outbreak in China. Thusfar, even if we have not shown a causal link between SARS COV 2 and Covid 19, we cannot say what other pathogens may have a role to play, or what other factors may have caused or exacerbated the 'pandemic', but we'll come to that soon. Neither can we ascribe motive to various players, as we cannot say what is in their hearts. We can describe their actions and the consequences with some certainty, but the reasons why they have acted as they have will necessarily remain speculative; well informed, difficult to understand in any other way, but still not verifiable as fact.
Obviously, there are some big questions to ask. Leaving aside individual, corporate or state culpability (or global organisations that states are answerable to) for the 'pandemic', people have died, tests have come back positive, symptoms have been recorded. It would be sensible, in my opinion, to address these questions by examining the year prior to the introduction of the mass vaccination programme, rather than any period since. As will be examined elsewhere, there is far too much evidence of vaccine harm (and far too little information as to the symptoms of 'breakthrough cases' among the vaccinated) to be able to separate any underlying disease from vaccine injury.
RT-PCR tests
The problem with PCR tests for SARS-COV-2 is simple. To summarize, the test was not manufactured using a sample of the disease, as no viral isolates were available at the time (or since).
“The analytical sensitivity of the RT-PCR assays contained in the CDC 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019- nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel were determined in Limit of Detection studies. Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA (N gene; GenBank accession: MN908947.2)…”(17) dated 12/01/2020
On its face, this is somewhat surprising. Wouldn't everyone with an eye on a research grant be isolating like mad? Wouldn't a responsible authority think it essential to use the actual virus isolate when designing a test that was intended to be the crucial detection technique and which has proved to be the single biggest factor in determining the limits of what the WHO is describing as a pandemic? No? Well, yes; but possibly not when you know what the genetic sequence of the 'virus' is, as either you or your partnering company own the patent to it. This could be why certain other surprising facts are known.
For instance, there is no gold standard for the PCR test; no one viral fragment recognized as the best fragment to use to ensure accuracy of result. Instead, there are several. There is no reason to assume that these sequences are unique to SARS COV 2. Then there is the issue with cycle thresholds. PCR tests amplify viral fragments. These fragments don't need to be alive and the size of them depends on how many amplification cycles are specified. The more cycles, the more white noise. Anything over 30 cycles (at most), is statistically useless and will produce a huge number of false positives. For the duration of this 'pandemic', the cycle rate used by the authorities has been 37 to 40, minimum.
So, we don’t know exactly what the test is detecting, but we do know it's producing positives where none exist, on a massive scale. And, of course, the more you test, the more hits you'll get. To say that the PCR test has been an abject failure would be reasonable; unless, of course, it has performed the exact role intended for it. It's made money for the patent holder (not directly, but through preferential commercial treatment) and it has been the agent of fear and panic.
The need to believe absolutely in the efficacy of the PCR test has had other consequences, too, despite prior knowledge of its limited usefulness and the known tendency of health professionals to place too much faith in its accuracy. The doctrine of asymptomatic spread had never been a thing, prior to this panic, because it is a very rare occurrence with a virus. So, why is it a thing with Covid? Beyond the probability of advantage accrued by bad actors, a circular logic has been apparent. After all, if the PCR test is valid and yet symptoms are not present, then people must be must be spreading the disease asymptomatically. It's the only viable explanation. Of course, logically, this makes no sense, but it has nonetheless been the official line and the public fear and lock-downs, social distancing, curfews and other measure have been justified in its wake.
Infections and deaths
It is not within the scope of this article to delve into the myriad statistics that demonstrate the law of unintended consequences if, indeed, one can be certain that they are unintended, but it is widely accepted that social isolation brings its own problems, that cancelled procedures and truncated or abandoned courses of treatment will have added to the toll of serious injury and death and that the perceived danger associated with visiting a medical facility will have resulted in people with even serious conditions such as heart attacks and strokes (this is documented in the US) suffering in silence.
Moving from the general to the specific, we can expect to see more death in a pandemic, can't we? It may vary, country to country, region to region, but overall there must be an effect. The Spanish Flu, to which this 'pandemic' has been compared in some quarters, killed approximately 3% of world population. Surely, we will be able to see the malign fruit of Covid 19.
Well, not so much. There are undoubtedly statistical tricks that can be utilized, clever arguments to be made. So, just in round numbers, in the US and the world, we find the following:
United States Total Deaths
2010 2,468,435
2012 2,543,479
2014 2,626,418
2016 2,744,248
2018 2,839,205
2020 2,851,432 (to 23/12/20)
World Total Deaths (rounded)
2016 58,000,000
2017 58,700,000
2018 58,500,000
2019 58,800,000
2020 58,800,000
“What can be said is that COVID produced a bump of up to about 15% “excess deaths” in a small number of relatively rich, NATO countries, but in world-wide terms produced no extra deaths beyond what would have been expected for 2020. Most of the hard-hit countries were under, and may still be under, the severest forms of “lockdowns” and “social distancing” such as Italy, UK, France, Spain, Portugal, and parts of the US.”(18)
Excess deaths seem to be confined to a smallish group of Western European nations who share certain characteristics; among them, draconian measures involving lock-downs, social isolation and a refusal to contemplate or allow safe, effective treatments with repurposed drugs.
Alternative reality
Offering an overarching, hermetically sealed theory of the actual history of the 'pandemic' is probably not possible, at present. However, there are many respiratory diseases that mimic the same symptoms as those ascribed to Covid 19, which has the built in advantage of being 'novel' (allegedly), meaning that symptoms are unknown until someone decides to define them. But if they are indistinct from other similar diseases, that exercise is of limited utility.
For instance, flu (as defined by the CDC) isn't just influenza. Cases of flu also include cases of bacterial pneumonia, bacterial and viral influenza, coronaviruses – all lumped together as flu. The CDC has gone so far as to officially count them all as one category at present, possibly to obscure the fact that they were previously claiming that flu had become all but extinct.
Vaccinations for other diseases almost certainly played a part. Italy, the first European country said to suffer the effects of the 'pandemic', had introduced a new 'super vaccine' for influenza in September 2019. VIQCC, as the vaccine was named, was created by using cultured animal cells rather than embryonated chicken eggs as previously and included four different influenza strains. As such, it stimulated a much greater immune response in vaccinees, which is another way of saying that, in the aftermath of the jab, their immune system would have been more severely compromised.
And where did the 'Covid outbreak' take place? In nursing homes among the old and vulnerable, either due to immune suppression and/or virus interference, as it's known in polite society. Who'd have thought it? Vaccinate vulnerable elderly people in an inherently closed environment against influenza with a new, more powerful vaccine, wait until one or other of them contracts a coronavirus (if indeed, there ever was a coronavirus) due to a compromised immune system, wait until it's become an epidemic and then quarantine them all together. What could possibly go wrong?
And it wasn't just Italy. Health authorities in Europe had been pushing influenza vaccines particularly hard in the winter of 2019, especially in Eastern Europe. Once the lock-downs arrived in March, together with mask wearing and social distancing, conditions for disease were enhanced further. Contrary to the received wisdom, locking yourself away with other people whilst still venturing out to work or similar, creates the perfect incubator, especially in cooler weather and encourages immune escape, the process whereby ANY disease mutates more swiftly in order to find more transmissable variants, as potential hosts are locked away and largely inaccessible.
But what about all those other studies and variants?
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgement of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.”(19)
“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.”(20)
The New England Medical Journal and The Lancet are two of the most prestigious medical journals in the world; at least, they used to be until recently. And I realize that it would be lazy just to leave it there. To give myself a 'Get Out Of Jail Free Card', whereby I could attempt to refute any medical explanation by quoting the above. And, of course, it's a double edged sword, because science will still need to be referenced. But which science? And how do we get around all the subsequent reports of isolation and then the altered genomic sequences of variants? How can they all be in on it?
Some possible answers. The original RNA fragments posted by the Chinese do exist, apparently. The genetic code is listed on US patents, albeit as an engineered entity. These small sequences contain some of the most important parts of the spike protein. But much of the rest of the sequence is computer generated nonsense, drawn from online databases of viruses thought to be similar. What if those sequences are part of the code for bacteria and perhaps part of our human DNA coding as well? You'd certainly continue to find them, wouldn't you? And you'd certainly find mutations, over time.(21)
Even if you managed to isolate a sequence of a virus that was genuinely SARS COV 2, the number of variants would be staggering and it would very much depend where on the genome you were looking and where you began to count your sequence and where you choose to end. At the risk of sounding repetitive, there is no evidence that SARS COV 2 is infective and transmissable in humans. That being the case, why are we stressing about variants?
Taking stock II
The Wuhan lab was experimenting with gain of function research on bat coronaviruses.
The old and vulnerable are the only ones at risk; the same dynamic as with pretty much every disease.
The are no excess deaths worldwide, or in the US.
The genetic sequence of SARS COV 2 is not a full viral genome.
The important part of it – the spike protein – was patented years ago.
The spike is a genetic mix and, therefore, engineered. A naturally occurring compound cannot be patented.
No-one has yet shown that SARS COV 2 is infective and transmissable in humans; if it was, you'd think they would have done it by now.
The PCR test is wholly ineffective and cannot be relied upon to detect a live infection.
The 'vaccinated' are testing positive.
The spike protein on its own is pathogenic.
We can state that something that has been named SARS COV 2 exists. We cannot say it is a virus, or anything more than a spike protein.
We know that social isolation detrains the immune system.
We know that mask wearing is unhealthy.
We know that lock-downs incubate disease and that over 50% of deaths allegedly due to Covid 19 were in care facilities.
We know that flu vaccines, at minimum, compromise the immune system temporarily.
We know that the US and China were collaborating in gain of function research.
We know that many people seem to be naturally immune.
We know that others are apparently asymptomatic.
We know that these last two assertions rely on the evidence of the PCR test. Another explanation would be that those who are allegedly asymptomatic are largely false positive tests.
Conclusions
Disentangling motivation is tricky; in the absence of an open declaration (to the extent that any such pronouncement could be trusted) we can only reveal actions and ascribe the most likely intent. Sometimes the inference will stand on relatively solid ground, especially if the evidence can only reasonably be viewed in one way. Other times, not so much.
It is also unquestionably difficult to sift the genuine truths from the background noise and that is almost certainly by design. Finding a starting point has always been problematic, an indisputable truth to hang a theory on. Scientific studies, including those that are peer reviewed, are now a lottery. The cited methodology must be broken down and examined; one has to learn to read between the lines and to remain cautious of the new meanings ascribed to previously well understood terms. Soon I suspect that even these clues will be compromised and outright lies will further sour the academy. The purpose of so many studies is to obfuscate, rather than illuminate. The purpose of fact checkers is to cast further shadow when someone shines a light.
It's difficult to argue with patents, though. They either exist or they don't. They contain those sequences, or they don't. And they do. So, we have to figure out what it could possibly mean. To understand why the sequences published by the Chinese are those contained in US patents. To see if there is any viable explanation other than the one suggested by Occam's Razor.
Everything flows from this. If the patents are genuine (and they are), then it follows that the Chinese sequences are engineered, as a patent has not (with that one exception) been issued for a naturally occurring sequence. So, the Chinese have either the engineered virus or the code for it. If one were still minded to believe that there ever was an outbreak in China, it cannot have come from nature. And presumably, given the expertise at Wuhan IV, the artificial nature of the sequence would have been known to them.
So, where does that leave us? The Chinese supplying an engineered sequence of a US artificial virus to the world, knowing that it's not from nature and yet claiming that it is? Why? In this instance, the initial motivation of Fauci et al may have been partly altruistic, but it is definitely money driven, also. But Fauci is a tool of the elites, one of the class of useful scientific idiots, the experts so relied upon by the bureaucracy. It would be a stretch to paint him as the kingpin of any overarching attempt to transfer wealth and power to the elites on a societal scale. It seems far more likely that any scam has either been co-opted latterly or was always seen to have potential by people further up the food chain.
A parallel line of inquiry is focused on whether SARS COV 2 has ever been isolated, in the original sense of the word. This is more of a minefield, but only because of obstruction by the scientific community. There are no published studies that have ever shown that the virus is infective and sufficiently transmissable in human cells. It has been attempted (the CDC themselves are the reporting agency), but unsuccessfully. The fact that it has not been further attempted is mystifying, on its face; it only really makes sense if one takes the view that to have done so would have further reinforced failure, so best left alone.
So, not only have we got an engineered virus and US Sino collusion, we have an engineered virus that isn't transmissable between humans. If it's not transmissable, it can't be causing disease.
Incidentally, the official narrative for SARS COV 2 is amazingly similar to the original SARS story from 2003 – bats, masked palm civets (intermediate host) and a food market. Whilst this sequence of events remains theoretically possible, it has never been proven to be the case even now, 18 years later. Various viruses have been found in civets, but not SARS and the spike proteins of these viruses were not adapted to human cells so, even after recombination in the civets, they could not have infected human cells.
So, it's still just an unproven theory with no physical evidence to recommend it, much less indicate that it could be true. There may be many other animals with similar, non adapted coronaviruses. Perhaps these animals were not sold at the food market and so remained uninvestigated.(22) It's reasonable to assume that the hunt for the intermediate host of SARS COV 2 will provide similarly anemic results.
It is clearly tempting to draw too many conclusions from too little evidence, to detect motive where none can be divined. It is also possible to be too scrupulous, to require an unfeasible level of proof before one can be definitive and there are all points in between. As long as the writer themselves is aware of where they are and they are able to accurately describe their conclusions, all is well.
It is also useful to examine possibilities and probabilities, as they can clearly light the way; a series of probabilities, by virtue of its volume or the unlikelihood of other feasible explanations, may lead to nearly inescapable conclusions – perhaps, to use legal terminology, beyond reasonable doubt. I'm not sure if we're quite there (and without access to information that will, in all likelihood, remain off limits, I don't think it's possible to be definitive), but it feels close. Normally, even one anomaly can invalidate a narrative. There are a lot more than one.
So, just for the hell of it, let's have one last stab at it; and this time, let's remove the PCR test from the equation, entirely. So, is it possible that there was a release of a transmissable SARS COV 2 virus from Wuhan as per the official narrative? Just barely. Given the failed experiment at the CDC, it would seem to be a slim possibility, unless the test was somehow botched and the disease is, in fact, as infectious as stated. Incidentally, if this scenario is to be believed, then the disease can only have come from the lab, as it is proven to be engineered. Is it possible that it is the spike protein alone that causes all the damage? Seemingly so, at least in the synthetic engineered version (a topic to be covered soon).
Is it also possible that the 'pandemic' – specifically the spread of SARS COV 2 causing the disease Covid 19 – is a chimera? It never happened and the non specific symptoms attributed to Covid 19 are actually the symptoms of normally occurring seasonal diseases, exacerbated by mitigation efforts such as isolation? I think so, yes.
Can I say for certain? No. Is it trending that way? Yes. As it stands right now, worldwide death rates do not support the contention that we have been in the grip of a pandemic. Nor, specifically, do America's, despite all the sound and fury. And that number includes all the preventable deaths caused by faulty policy decisions and deaths that could have been prevented by safe and effective treatments that already exist. It feels like one of those times when, in retrospect, it was obvious and it becomes clear that we were being too scrupulous in our conclusions.
After all, given sufficient time, random outcomes and events fall on both sides of an equation. When there is an uneven distribution or it's all one way, a closer inspection is warranted. It could be genuine randomness or one of two versions of essentially the same thing; the effect of an unseen hand, either from the outset or opportunistically as events unfolded. The series of unlikelihoods in this saga point towards manipulation from the outset.
One of the notable features of this 'pandemic' has been the slow reveal. Things that become apparent over time, if you know where to look. When the people responsible for public health are the same people who own patents on a disease and its treatment, it would be foolish in the extreme to expect evidence of any kind of malfeasance to fall into our collective lap.
But, even Big Media has had to adjust its position on the 'lab leak' story and the more time that elapses, the more information will become available. Despite my tendency towards skepticism, as set out earlier in this piece, I had paid no heed to any theory that suggested the disease itself, Covid 19, was a hoax. As things stand currently, it's more difficult to make the case that it's genuine.
Citations
Anthony SJ, Epstein JH, Murray KA, Navarrete-Macias I, Zambrana-Torrelio CM, Solovyov A, et al. A strategy to estimate unknown viral diversity in mammals. MBio. 2013;4: e00598–13. pmid:24003179
Warren CJ, Sawyer SL (2019) How host genetics dictates successful viralzoonosis. PLoS Biol 17(4): e3000217. https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pbio.3000217
Menachery VD, Yount BL, Debbink K, Agnihothram S, Gralinski LE, Plante JA, et al. A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence. Nat Med. 2015;21: 1508–1513. pmid:26552008.
Menachery VD, Yount BL, Sims AC, Debbink K, Agnihothram SS, Gralinski LE, et al. SARS-like WIV1-CoV poised for human emergence. PNAS. 2016;113: 3048–3053. pmid:26976607.
Letko M, Miazgowicz K, McMinn R, Seifert SN, Sola I, Enjuanes L, et al. Adaptive Evolution of MERS-CoV to Species Variation in DPP4. Cell Rep. 2018;24: 1730–1737. pmid:30110630
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/bies.202000091
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/bies.202000091
https://time.com/5882918/zhang-yongzhen-interview-china-coronavirus-genome/
https://drtomcowan.com/only-poisoned-monkey-kidney-cells-grew-the-virus/
Harcourt J, Tamin A, Lu X, et al. Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2020;26(6):1266-1273. doi:10.3201/eid2606.200516.
https://coronanews123.wordpress.com/2021/06/09/global-data-shows-no-excess-deaths-worldwide-in-2020
Marcia Angell
Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet.
https://dailyexpose.co.uk/2020/12/04/the-scamdemic-has-been-scientifically-confirmed/
nature.com/articles/d41586-017-07766-9