Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Harvey » Sun Jan 22, 2023 9:51 am

Worth reminding ourselves:

Cordelia » Sat Aug 24, 2019 7:08 pm wrote:Anyone here seen/going to see this? Really want to but will have to wait until it’s released on dvd (and it may be the impetus for me to replace my 2009 dvd player w/a new one that will recognize files on 2019 foreign film releases).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrUkRs8wDo0


The entire film is available here for now: https://www.bitchute.com/video/1aok0MGGapjl/

To refresh memories, interviewee Alexendar Jones was a recruit of SAIMR, South African Institute of Maritime Research, a five thousand strong mercenary military contractor with ties to CIA, which he says took orders directly from British Intelligence and was involved in the murder of UN Secretary General Dag Hammarskjöld among many other things. I want to bring your attention to this bombshell aspect of the film introduced from: 1:37:20

In relation to her work for SAIMR, which she thought was to find a cure for AIDS, a young marine biologist Dagmar Feil was murdered outside her house by the group after she discovered that the 'vaccination' program she was taking part in was in fact deliberately injecting poor blacks with HIV. An interesting precedent, I'm sure you'll agree.

https://newafricanmagazine.com/18285/

“We deliberately spread AIDS in South Africa”

In a shocking confession, made on camera in a new documentary – Cold Case Hammarskjöld – a former member of South Africa’s Apartheid-era intelligence service says that the Aids virus, and other diseases, were deliberately spread among the population in an effort to kill off as many blacks as possible. His confession, considered just the tip of the iceberg, has reignited the simmering debate about the whole phenomenon of Aids in Africa.

Until February 2019, most Africans did not know about the Sundance Film Festival, a programme of the Sundance Institute, which takes place annually in Park City, Utah in America. Now they know because something controversial happened at the Festival this year that will live with Africans for a long time to come. Having had 224,900 attendees in 2018, Sundance is the largest independent film festival in the US. This year it took place between 24 January and 3 February – the attendance figure is not yet out.

What is out is controversy – a damning confession by a former Apartheid-era operative who admitted on camera, in one of the films shown, that he and his colleagues at the South African Institute for Maritime Research (SAIMR), which masterminded coups and other forms of violence across Africa in the 1970s and 80s, deliberately spread the HIV virus in the Southern African region to wipe out black people.

Alexander Jones, who says he “spent years as an intelligence officer” with SAIMR 30 years ago, became the centre of attraction on the third day of the Sundance Festival when the Danish/Swedish-made documentary, Cold Case Hammarskjöld, was screened.

Sources in South Africa say SAIMR was linked to the country’s notorious chemical and biological warfare (CBW) programme headed by Dr Wouter Basson, a programme which Apartheid racists used as a cover to kill black people in South Africa and beyond or do them serious harm. The racists’ ‘operational area’ was what used to be called the ‘Frontline States’ (now known simply as the SADC region). We covered Dr Basson’s operations in detail in our 2001 November Edition.

South Africa’s CBW programme also had links with Rhodesia’s, and the pair did a lot of harm to black Africans, including spreading cholera and other dangerous diseases in the region, and topping it up with HIV/Aids experimentation.

Worse, when independence was approaching in Zimbabwe, there are suggestions that Ian Smith’s Rhodesian government, with tacit support from South Africa, rushed to remove the evidence by killing a lot of black people who were subjects of the CBW experiments.

Digging out the truth

Cold Case Hammarskjöld was made by Mads Brügger (Danish) and Göran Björkdahl (Swedish). The documentary investigates the case of the former UN secretary-general, Dag Hammarskjöld, who died in a mysterious plane crash near Ndola, Zambia, in 1961.

We were at war. Black people in South Africa were the enemy…
Alexander Jones


During the hearings of South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission in 1998, letters with SAIMR’s official letterhead were found suggesting that the CIA and British intelligence had agreed that “Hammarskjöld should be removed”. But London and Washington denied involvement in Hammarskjöld’s assassination.

In the course of making the new film, Brügger and Björkdahl’s investigations led them to Alexander Jones, who told them on camera that SAIMR (which had operated with the support of the CIA and British intelligence), used bogus vaccinations to spread the HIV virus in the SADC region. “We were at war. Black people in South Africa were the enemy,” Jones told the filmmakers.

He confessed that he and his SAIMR colleagues “spread the virus” in the 1980s and 90s under the command of their leader Keith Maxwell, who wanted a white majority country, saying “the excesses of the 1960s, 70s and 80s have no place in the post-Aids world ”.

“What easier way to get a guinea pig than you live in an Apartheid system?” Jones says in the film. “Black people have got no rights, they need medical treatment. There is a white ‘philanthropist’ coming in and saying, ‘You know, I will open up these clinics and I will treat you.’ And meantime [he is] actually the wolf in sheep’s clothing.”
Alexander Jones


Maxwell died in 2006. People who knew him say he had no medical qualifications but operated clinics in the poor black neighbourhoods of Johannesburg. His headquarters was at Putfontein where his signpost, with his name ‘Dokotela Maxwell’, still hangs in front of the building where he operated.

One local shopkeeper said Maxwell had given “false injections”. But Claude Newbury, an anti-abortion doctor, told the film makers: “He was against genocide and he was trying to discover a cure for HIV.”

Jones, however, insists that Maxwell used the cover of a doctor to do “sinister experimentation”. His claim was backed up by Ibrahim Karolia, whose shop was across the road from where Maxwell operated.

He told the film makers that Maxwell had provided “false injections” and “strange treatments”, and also put patients through “tubes” which he said allowed him to see inside their bodies.

Jones also disclosed that SAIMR operated outside South Africa. “We were involved in Mozambique, spreading the Aids virus through medical conditions,” he says in the film, revealing that he did visit a research facility in the 1990s that was used “for sinister experimentation” and that the intent was “to eradicate black people”.

“What easier way to get a guinea pig than you live in an Apartheid system?” Jones says in the film. “Black people have got no rights, they need medical treatment. There is a white ‘philanthropist’ coming in and saying, ‘You know, I will open up these clinics and I will treat you.’ And meantime [he is] actually the wolf in sheep’s clothing.”

South Africa’s Josef Mengele

Documents discovered by Brügger and Björkdahl show Maxwell held extremely disturbing views. “[South Africa] may well have one man, one vote with a white majority by the year 2000,” Maxwell wrote. “Religion in its conservative, traditional form will return. Abortion on demand, abuse of drugs, and the other excesses of the 1960s, 70s and 80s will have no place in the post-Aids world,” he added.

According to the Observer South Africa, which broke the story, “The [Maxwell] documents read like the fever dream of a man who aspired to be South Africa’s Josef Mengele. [Joseph ‘Angel of Death’ Mengele was the senior SS officer who carried out inhuman experiments on Jewish prisoners at Auschwitz during World War II – Ed.] There are detailed, if sometimes garbled, accounts of how he thought the HIV virus could be isolated, propagated and used to target black Africans.”

One SAIMR recruit, Dagmar Feil, a marine biologist, was murdered outside her home in Johannesburg in 1990 for fear she would expose SAIMR’s dark deeds.

We all know how Aids is transmitted from person to person; there is no confusion there. The question is whether or not another agency played an active part in starting or accelerating the chain-reaction in some places. Jones says it did and that the agency was the dreaded SAIMR.

Her brother, Karl Feil, told Brügger and Björkdahl: “My sister came to me and said she needed to confide in me. She sat with me and said she thought they were going to kill her. She said that three or four others in her team had already been murdered, but when I asked what team, she said she couldn’t tell me.

“The topic of Aids research came up several times, quite loosely in conversations, I never put two and two together. Instead, she asked me to go with her to church, so she could make right with God. Weeks later she was dead.”

But while the revelations in the documentary have stunned the world, the blowback has already started. The New York Times has dismissed Alexander Jones’ revelations as a “conspiracy theory”. Reporting his story on 27 January, the paper asked the question: “But is this true?”

“The notion that HIV is a man-made virus introduced as population control has been floating around for decades,” The New York Times says. “Before the conspiracy theory took hold in Africa, it appeared as part of disinformation campaigns from the Soviet Union during the Cold War.”

So now it is the fault of the Soviet Union! But it is the usual trick the Western establishment media employs to defend Western interests.

“Scientists immediately cast doubt on [ Jones’] claim, which they called medically dubious. ‘The probability that they were able to do this is close to zero,’” The New York Times goes on to say, quoting Dr Salim Abdool Karim, the director of Caprisa, an AIDS research centre in South Africa.

The paper says Dr Karim cited “the immense resources that would be required to conduct such a far-fetched attempt at genocide. Notwithstanding the technological limitations of the 1990s, including [the need for] facilities to rival that of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the US, in addition to millions of dollars in funding, HIV is extraordinarily difficult to isolate, transport and grow in a laboratory environment, let alone distribute en masse in a clandestine operation,” Dr Karim was said to have explained.

Yet, apart from wheeling out just one African (Dr Karim) to dismiss Jones’ account, The New York Times named no more scientists in its story to justify the assertion that “scientists immediately cast doubt on the claim”, apart from quoting Rebecca Hodes, director of the AIDS and Society Research Unit at the University of Cape Town, as having said: “Such mistruths can cause very real problems. One dangerous consequence of these allegations is that they have the potential to sow mistrust and suspicion of doctors and the medical establishment, and that they may confuse people about how HIV is transmitted.”

The truth will out

Not so. We all know how Aids is transmitted from person to person; there is no confusion there. The question is whether or not another agency played an active part in starting or accelerating the chain-reaction in some places. Jones says it did and that the agency was the dreaded SAIMR. He also spells out the motivation behind it – “to eradicate black people” – so that the whites could continue their dominance in South Africa. “We were at war”, he adds, implying that all is fair in love and war.

This has nothing to do with the often excellent work that doctors and the medical establishment, faced with HIV/ Aids, did to stem the tide of the disease. They were, and are still in some cases, firefighting and deserve all the credit they get. The question remains, who started the fire in the first place?

Jones’ confession is a bombshell. It confirms what many suspected at the time but were unable or indisposed to pursue further. It also helps explain many inconsistencies in the story of the development of Aids in Southern Africa.

But this is clearly just the tip of the iceberg – underneath lurks perhaps one of the most terrifying stories of modern times, how the Apartheid regime deliberately set out to commit genocide and how close it came to achieving its ends.

The confession might bring a sense of closure for some of the millions of Aids victims and their families or it may spark fresh anger. Of equal significance, it will finally lay to rest the oft-cited trope that Africans brought the curse of Aids on themselves due to their ‘unbridled sexuality’.

Why did Jones confess after such a long time? We cannot know for sure but there is such a thing as living with a guilty conscience and it will not be the first time that someone approaching the end of their lives feels compelled to confess to sins in order to lift the heavy burden they have carried on their souls for so long. The truth, as they say, will out – no matter how long it takes to do so.



https://newspunch.com/who-admits-that-smallpox-vaccine-created-aidshiv/

Smallpox vaccine ‘triggered Aids virus’

The Aids epidemic may have been triggered by the mass vaccination campaign which eradicated smallpox. The World Health Organization, which masterminded the 13-year campaign, is studying new scientific evidence suggesting that immunization with the smallpox vaccine Vaccinia awakened the unsuspected, dormant human immuno defence virus infection (HIV).

Some experts fear that in obliterating one disease, another disease was transformed from a minor endemic illness of the Third World into the current pandemic. While doctors now accept that Vaccinia can activate other viruses, they are divided about whether it was the main catalyst to the Aids epidemic.

But an adviser to WHO who disclosed the problem, told The Times: ‘I thought it was just a coincidence until we studied the latest findings about the reactions which can be caused by Vaccinia. Now I believe the smallpox vaccine theory is the explanation to the explosion of Aids.’ ‘In obliterating one disease, another was transformed.’

Further evidence comes from the Walter Reed Army Medical Centre in Washington. While smallpox vaccine is no longer kept for public health purposes, new recruits to the American armed services are immunized as a precaution against possible biological warfare. Routine vaccination of a 19-year-old recruit was the trigger for stimulation of dormant HIV virus into Aids.

This discovery of how people with subclinical HIV infection are at risk of rapid development of Aids as a vaccine-induced disease was made by a medical team working with Dr Robert Redfield at Walter Reed. The recruit who developed Aids after vaccination had been healthy throughout high school. He was given multiple immunizations, followed by his first smallpox vaccination.

Two and a half weeks later he developed fever, headaches, neck stiffness and night sweats. Three weeks later he was admitted to Walter Reed suffering from meningitis and rapidly developed further symptoms of Aids and died after responding for a short time to treatment. There was no evidence that the recruit had been involved in any homosexual activity...
Last edited by Harvey on Sun Jan 22, 2023 12:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"


Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Harvey
 
Posts: 4165
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Gnomad » Sun Jan 22, 2023 11:42 am

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8461218/
Eur J Intern Med. 2021 Nov; 93: 107–109.
Published online 2021 Sep 24. doi: 10.1016/j.ejim.2021.09.012

Dear Editor,

Intrinsic features of the humoral immune response including antigen specificity, antibody glycosylation, and subclass of immunoglobulin (Ig) G have been shown to influence the progression of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and Coronavirus-19 disease (COVID-19) outcomes [1], [2], [3], [4]. Specifically, a poor COVID-19 outcome reportedly depends on an imbalanced humoral response whereby impaired viral neutralization translates into excessive systemic inflammation [2]. Severe COVID-19, for instance, has been associated with higher serum concentration of pro-inflammatory spike-specific IgG3 and afucosylated IgG1 antibodies capable of triggering exaggerated macrophage activation [2], [3], [4]. Similarly, anti type I interferon (IFN) autoantibodies have been demonstrated in critical COVID-19 patients, phenocopying inborn errors of type I IFN immunity and leading to impaired innate and intrinsic antiviral immune responses [1]. On the other hand, anti-spike monoclonal neutralizing antibodies of IgG1 subclass from the plasma of convalescent COVID-19 patients have been shown to prevent life-threatening disease and are currently under evaluation in clinical trials [5].
.........
In this prospective study we found that serum IgG4 level predicts a poor COVID-19 outcome. Based on the available literature, IgG4 antibodies may contribute to COVID-19 progression via at least two possible mechanisms, yet to be verified. Because anti-spike IgG4 have shown poor in vitro neutralizing capacity compared to IgG1, IgG2, and IgG3 antibodies, a first possibility is that hosts with prominent IgG4 immune responses might be more permissive to SARS-CoV-2 infection [6]. On the other hand, as neutralizing anti-IFNγ autoantibodies observed in adult patients with multiple opportunistic infections are predominantly of IgG4 subclass, it is tempting to speculate that anti-IFN antibodies associated with impaired anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunity and life-threatening COVID-19 pneumonia might also be IgG4 [7]. Despite intrinsic limitations mainly related to the limited number of patients enrolled, our study identifies IgG4 antibodies as a possible additional overlooked variable of the humoral immune response against SARS-CoV-2 associated with COVID-19 progression.


And this was published a year ago, completely supports the present findings.
la nuit de tous approche
Gnomad
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 1:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Harvey » Sun Jan 22, 2023 5:55 pm

And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"


Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Harvey
 
Posts: 4165
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby stickdog99 » Wed Jan 25, 2023 1:53 pm

Image
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6304
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Belligerent Savant » Thu Jan 26, 2023 11:27 am

.

TRUST THE SCIENCE.

[I prefer less editorializing by this author, as reporting it straight is just as -- if not more -- damning, but Gates said what he said, regardless]
Bill Gates concludes that mRNA shots aren't actually useful, warns of ‘next pandemic’

Microsoft founder admits Covid mRNA "vaccines" don't serve any benefit to society.

Microsoft founder Bill Gates, who served as one of the architects of Covid hysteria and had more of an impact than any other individual on the disastrous global pandemic policies, has finally acknowledged that the mRNA shots he’s been promoting for two years are nothing more than expired pharma junk.

In flying his private jet to attend an in person conversation with the Lowry Institute in Australia this week, the supposedly carbon conscious Gates admitted that the shots serve virtually no benefit to anyone, especially the most vulnerable population.

“We also need to fix the three problems of [mRNA] vaccines,” Gates started. “The current vaccines are not infection blocking. They’re not broad, so when new variants come up you lose protection, and they have very short duration, particularly in the people who matter, which are old people.”

You can find the relevant segment at 54:30 --



...

It’s an incredible reversal from the man who once advertised the shots as the cure to the coronavirus, once remarking that “everyone who takes the vaccine is not just protecting themselves but reducing their transmission to other people and allowing society to get back to normal.”

kanekoa.substack.com
@KanekoaTheGreat

39/ Gates said the mRNA vaccines were supposed to reduce transmission and spread.

Fauci said with "50% of adults fully vaccinated," he felt "fairly certain" there wouldn't be any more surges.

7-months later, cases rose 7,500% and hit a new all-time high of 1.35 million per day.

[video montage of Gates speaking - at link]

https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/sta ... khN_A91n-w

...

In the Lowry interview, the technocratic tyrant also applauded Australia for locking down their population indefinitely in the early days of Covid hysteria, arguing that in the future this should be a model for the “pandemic response.” Gates demanded the establishment of a permanent security state infrastructure that mandates compliance.

Image

In separate interviews, Gates warned about the “next pandemic” after Covid hysteria. The Event 201 sponsor even warned that this one could be man-made by a “bio-terrorist” or something similar.




https://dossier.substack.com/p/bill-gat ... paign=post


And here, a number of Twitter handles are challenged by deciphering if the below piece is satire, trolling, or earnest assholery. Perhaps all 3.

HEALTH & WELLNESS

They knew: why didn't the unvaccinated do more to warn us?
The unvaccinated knew what we didn't. Some of them said too little. Most said nothing at all. A lot of blood is now on their hands.

As the world struggles to come to terms with the devastating effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, one question that continues to surface is why the unvaccinated didn't do more to warn us about the potential dangers of being injected.

While well intending citizens lined up, did the right thing, and received their COVID19 vaccinations -- now seeming to do more harm than good -- their unvaccinated friends stood by and let them do it. Some of them said too little. Some said nothing at all.

Even though they knew what we didn't.

Our blood is now on their hands.

Those are strong words. But the unvaccinated had access to important information about the potential side effects of vaccines. They knew about the risks of severe allergic reactions, blood clots, and other serious health complications. They knew that vaccines did not immunize us. They knew it wasn't effective, and that they can cause more harm than good.

They knew all of that, but instead of warning us, the unvaccinated chose to remain silent. They chose to look the other way and not speak out about the potential dangers of vaccines. They let millions of good folks who did the right thing (at the time) fall to death and disease, and many antivaxxers even gloated online about how their coin flip had been the right bet. The more diabolical even urged folks they disagree with to "get boosted."

It has become all too clear. The silence of the unvaccinated was a dangerous, sociopathic, and irresponsible decision that has had serious consequences for those of us who received the vaccinations.

And silence is, after all, consent.

Related: How do we prevent discrimination against the vaccinated?

It is time for the unvaccinated to take responsibility for their actions and to work with the rest of us to find a solution to this crisis. We cannot afford to let their selfishness and lack of action continue to harm our communities. It is time for the unvaccinated to step up and do the right thing.

The unvaccinated should by any moral measuring stick have done more to warn about the potential risks -- to help us make informed decisions about our health. And they must now ask us for our forgiveness.

And, hand to heart, we may just give it to them.

Because we are good people. We took those injections because it was the right thing to do -- until it wasn't.

https://iqfy.com/unvaccinated-silence/
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5216
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby stickdog99 » Thu Jan 26, 2023 2:58 pm

Image
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6304
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby stickdog99 » Thu Jan 26, 2023 3:00 pm

Image
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6304
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby stickdog99 » Thu Jan 26, 2023 3:34 pm

They knew: why didn't the unvaccinated do more to warn us?

The unvaccinated knew what we didn't. Some of them said too little. Most said nothing at all. A lot of blood is now on their hands.

As the world struggles to come to terms with the devastating effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, one question that continues to surface is why the unvaccinated didn't do more to warn us about the potential dangers of being injected.

While well intending citizens lined up, did the right thing, and received their COVID19 vaccinations -- now seeming to do more harm than good -- their unvaccinated friends stood by and let them do it. Some of them said too little. Some said nothing at all.

Even though they knew what we didn't.

Our blood is now on their hands.

Those are strong words. But the unvaccinated had access to important information about the potential side effects of vaccines. They knew about the risks of severe allergic reactions, blood clots, and other serious health complications. They knew that vaccines did not immunize us. They knew it wasn't effective, and that they can cause more harm than good.

They knew all of that, but instead of warning us, the unvaccinated chose to remain silent. They chose to look the other way and not speak out about the potential dangers of vaccines. They let millions of good folks who did the right thing (at the time) fall to death and disease, and many antivaxxers even gloated online about how their coin flip had been the right bet. The more diabolical even urged folks they disagree with to "get boosted."

It has become all too clear. The silence of the unvaccinated was a dangerous, sociopathic, and irresponsible decision that has had serious consequences for those of us who received the vaccinations.

And silence is, after all, consent.

...
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6304
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby drstrangelove » Thu Jan 26, 2023 10:27 pm



haven't seen journalism like this since al jazeera infiltrated the zionist lobby in the UK. love it.
User avatar
drstrangelove
 
Posts: 981
Joined: Sat May 22, 2021 10:43 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Harvey » Fri Jan 27, 2023 3:37 pm

https://dailysceptic.org/2023/01/10/u-s ... -going-on/

https://dailysceptic.org/2023/01/10/u-s-government-identified-as-original-source-of-lab-leak-theory-whats-really-going-on/

U.S. Government Identified as Original Source of Lab Leak Theory. What’s Really Going On?
by Will Jones, 10 January 2023 7:00 AM

Where did the lab leak theory come from? Who first promoted the idea and why? The answer to this question is surprising – and may be the key to unlocking the mystery of the origin of COVID-19.

The first known mention of the idea that the coronavirus may have originated in a Chinese lab appeared on January 9th 2020 in a report by Radio Free Asia (RFA). This was just days after the virus had first entered public consciousness, and at the time, no deaths had yet been reported and few people were worrying about the virus – including, it seems, the Chinese, who were claiming it wasn’t even clear whether it was spreading between humans.

Seemingly unhappy about the lack of alarm, RFA ran a comment from Ren Ruihong, former head of the medical assistance department at the Chinese Red Cross, who said she was confident it was spreading between humans. She also asserted it was a “new type of mutant coronavirus”, and immediately, without pausing for breath, raised the possibility it was a result of a Chinese biological attack on Hong Kong using a virus developed in the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). Bear in mind this was before a single person had been reported as dying from the virus, and no solid evidence was presented for the claim. It is the first time the WIV and the idea of a lab origin of the virus are mentioned in the media. The report then implies the WIV is hiding its involvement – though the basis for this insinuation is tenuous, to say the least.
Ren said. “They haven’t made public the genetic sequence, because it is highly contagious. From what I can tell, the patients caught it from other people. I have thought that all along.”

She said the lack of fatalities didn’t indicate that the virus was less deadly than SARS, just that antiviral medications have improved in the past 10 years or so.

Ren said she also regarded the relatively high number of infections in Hong Kong with suspicion, given that there had been no reports of cases anywhere in between the two cities, in the southern province of Guangdong, for example.

“Genetic engineering technology has gotten to such a point now, and Wuhan is home to a viral research center that is under the aegis of the China Academy of Sciences, which is the highest level of research facility in China,” she said.

Repeated calls to various numbers listed for the Wuhan Institute of Virology under the Chinese Academy of Sciences rang unanswered.

However, an employee who identified herself as a senior engineer said she knew nothing about the virus.

“Sorry, I… I don’t know about this,” the employee said.


Over the following two weeks RFA pushed hard on the idea of a Chinese biowarfare lab origin, and its reporting was picked up by the Washington Times on January 24th, which quoted Dany Shoham, an “Israeli biological warfare expert”.


The deadly animal virus epidemic spreading globally may have originated in a Wuhan laboratory linked to China’s covert biological weapons programme, according to an Israeli biological warfare expert.

Radio Free Asia this week rebroadcast a local Wuhan television report from 2015 showing China’s most advanced virus research laboratory known [as] the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Radio Free Asia reported.

The laboratory is the only declared site in China capable of working with deadly viruses.

Dany Shoham, a former Israeli military intelligence officer who has studied Chinese biowarfare, said the institute is linked to Beijing’s covert biological weapons programme.

“Certain laboratories in the institute have probably been engaged, in terms of research and development, in Chinese [biological weapons], at least collaterally, yet not as a principal facility of the Chinese [biological weapons] alignment,” Mr. Shoham told the Washington Times.


Why did Radio Free Asia and the Washington Times introduce and promote the idea of Covid as a Chinese bioweapon? RFA appears to have done so in order to counter the Chinese lack of concern about the virus, hence the heading: “Experts Cast Doubts on Chinese Official Claims Around ‘New’ Wuhan Coronavirus.” The Washington Times report indicates at one point it is in response to rumours “circulating on the Chinese Internet claiming the virus is part of a U.S. conspiracy to spread germ weapons”, citing an unnamed “U.S. official”.

One ominous sign, said a U.S. official, is that false rumours since the outbreak began several weeks ago have begun circulating on the Chinese Internet claiming the virus is part of a U.S. conspiracy to spread germ weapons.

That could indicate China is preparing propaganda outlets to counter future charges the new virus escaped from one of Wuhan’s civilian or defence research laboratories.


Why is the report anticipating “future charges” of a lab leak – particularly when it is in the process of making such charges?

The words of the anonymous U.S. official appear to state the Chinese rumours began “several weeks ago”, right back at the beginning of January or end of December; however, oddly, the article was soon updated to delete the words “since the outbreak began several weeks ago”, for reasons that are unclear.

In any case, the really strange thing about these “rumours circulating on the Chinese Internet” is that no evidence of them has ever been produced or found. Indeed, all the places you might expect to mention them do not. For instance, in February 2021 the DFRLab of the Atlantic Council published a lengthy document in conjunction with the Associated Press summarising all the “false rumours” and “hoaxes” regarding the origins of Covid. Its large research team scoured the internet for all rumours connected with Covid origins – yet the section on China doesn’t mention anything about these alleged January rumours of U.S bioweapons.

Another example is Larry Romanoff, an activist who writes on various ‘conspiracy theories’ and who has lived in China for many years. His columns in early 2020 on the Global Research website attacking the American position were tweeted out by senior Chinese figures, but he never mentions anything about these alleged early rumours on the “Chinese Internet”, which he surely would have done.

In addition, the rumours claim has never been repeated by any intelligence sources; this was the only time it was made.

Why then did RFA introduce the lab-engineered virus narrative, even before the first death? Why was it trying to ratchet up alarm? And why did the unnamed U.S. official claim to be responding to Chinese rumours that turned out not to exist?

The plot thickens when you realise that Radio Free Asia is a U.S.-Government-funded media outlet that is essentially a CIA front, once named by the New York Times as a key part in the agency’s “worldwide propaganda network”. As Whitney Webb pointed out right back in January 2020, though RFA is no longer run directly by the CIA, it is managed by the Government-funded Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), which answers directly to the Secretary of State – who, at the outset of the pandemic was Mike Pompeo, whose previous job was as CIA Director.

This means we can see that the Covid lab origin narrative originated with the U.S. Government’s security services, and did so very early, prior to the first death, as part of a deliberate effort to increase alarm in China and elsewhere. It was also designed to counter the anticipated claims, which had not yet been made (though the anonymous U.S. official falsely claimed they had been), that the virus was a U.S. biological attack.

That the U.S. Government would be the source of the lab origin theory is no doubt surprising to many people, given that within weeks the same theory would be dismissed by Government officials as a ‘conspiracy theory’ and forcibly suppressed. In its place, official U.S. channels would endorse the wet market natural origin theory and seek to close down further debate and investigation. So what’s going on?

Here’s one possible explanation, which makes sense of all the known facts – though is admittedly highly disturbing. It may not be correct, but I confess I cannot currently think of a better one. Perhaps someone else can.

The explanation is that the Chinese lab origin narrative was put out by U.S. intelligence in early January as a cover story. A cover story for what? For a U.S. biological attack on China. As a cover story for an attack, it serves four key purposes. First, it preempts allegations of a U.S. attack (and indeed the anonymous U.S. official falsely claimed these had already been made). Second, it anticipates the need to explain the non-natural origin of the virus, which would be expected to be discovered, as a natural origin manifests differently to a non-natural origin – a natural origin should have animal reservoirs, early genetic diversity and evidence of adaptation to humans, which are lacking for SARS-CoV-2. Third, it spreads alarm in China – one of the purposes of the attack. And fourth, it justifies the U.S. and other countries activating biodefence protocols to defend themselves from any blowback – which we know is exactly what they did, treating it as a matter of national security, not public health.

The idea that the U.S. might deliberately release a virus in China might seem far-fetched to some. However, it’s well known that the Pentagon intensified its research into bat-borne viruses in the years approaching the pandemic. Though it said this was solely for defensive purposes given the supposed risk of bats being used as “bioweapons”, scientists have previously warned, in the journal Science, that another supposedly defensive Pentagon programme, DARPA’s “Insect Allies” programme, appeared really to be aimed at creating and delivering a “new class of biological weapon” and that it revealed “an intention to develop a means of delivery of HEGAAs for offensive purposes”. In addition, the Iranian Government was so convinced that its early COVID-19 outbreak in February 2020, which killed a significant number of its senior leaders, was due to a U.S. biological attack that it lodged a formal complaint with the UN. Such allegations don’t prove anything of course. But together these concerns do suggest that such an attack is not outside the realm of possibility and should at least be considered as an explanation for the origin of the virus.

But if the lab leak was the intended cover story, why was it shortly afterwards suppressed as a ‘conspiracy theory’? It is a matter of public record that this occurred largely due to the efforts of Anthony Fauci, Jeremy Farrar and other Western scientists, who organised a scientific cover-up of evidence that might implicate their complicity in the gain-of-function research that they suspected may have created the virus. Did they know about the attack? There’s no evidence they did. Which means they would also have been in the dark about the intended cover story. Indeed, one of the conspirators, Christian Drosten, in one of the disclosed emails directly asks the group where the “conspiracy theory” of a lab origin has come from. Farrar and Fauci, for their part, appear to be genuinely exploring the origin questions in their emails (while clearly aiming for a particular answer).

The fears of this group of scientists about being implicated in the creation of the virus led them to organise a highly effective effort to dismiss and suppress the lab origin theory. This intervention greatly complexified the cover story, with the result that the output from the U.S. intelligence community (IC) became confused and inconsistent. In what follows I enumerate the six main interventions of the U.S. intelligence community during the pandemic and suggest what likely lay behind them. They are:

1. The November 2019 secret intelligence report claiming to show a large respiratory outbreak in Wuhan that was used to brief the U.S. Government, NATO and Israel. Importantly, the alleged evidence for this outbreak has never been produced, and what evidence there is suggests that in reality there was no detectable outbreak in Wuhan in November 2019, meaning the report appears to have been largely a work of fiction.

2. The January 2020 introduction and promotion of the Chinese lab origin story, as set out above.

3. The early April 2020 media briefings from unnamed intelligence sources about the November intelligence reports noted in (1) above. These briefings were particularly odd because by that point the main origin story being pushed by official U.S. channels was the wet market theory, which this information contradicted because it implied a large outbreak (an “out of control” epidemic and “cataclysmic event”) well before the wet market outbreak in December.

4. The late April and early May 2020 public endorsement by the U.S. intelligence community of the wet market natural origin theory. This contradicted both the early April anonymous media briefings in (3) and the lab origin story in (2), while at the same time embarrassing Mike Pompeo and President Trump who were at the time strongly pushing the lab leak theory.

5. The August 2021 declassified intelligence report on Covid origins, which gave a somewhat mixed picture of how the intelligence community assessed the lab leak theory. What the report was sure to make clear on the first page, however, is that the virus was “not developed as a biological weapon” and it was “not genetically engineered”. The report says that a small number of IC elements thought the virus might have escaped from a lab (though as a natural, not engineered, virus); in particular the National Center for Medical Intelligence (NCMI), which was responsible for the November 2019 secret intelligence report and (presumably) the April 2020 anonymous media briefings, endorsed this theory with “moderate confidence”. Note that by this point the lab leak theory was back in play following the WHO origins investigation in February 2021.

6. The October 2022 Senate minority report, which for the first time set out the evidence in favour an engineered virus and a lab leak. U.S. biodefence bigwig Robert Kadlec was behind this report and it notably did not mention the November 2019 secret U.S. intelligence report, which appears to have been entirely ‘forgotten’ (indeed, it has never been officially acknowledged). It also made no reference to the United States’ considerable involvement in bat coronavirus research in the years prior to the pandemic. We should also note that the evidence presented in the report of an alleged safety breach at the WIV in November 2019 was all assembled retrospectively – there is no suggestion that such evidence was known at the time, and the report makes clear that all its information comes from publicly available sources, stating: “This report has reviewed open source, publicly available information relevant to the origins of the virus.”

So here’s what I suggest was really going on with these often curious and clashing IC interventions.

The November 2019 secret intelligence report (1) was intended to forewarn the U.S. Government and its allies of the potential need for epidemic countermeasures given the risk of blowback from the attack. While blowback was probably not expected (after all, SARS and MERS never troubled Europe and America), it was obviously a risk. Note that those responsible for the November 2019 report had to know there wasn’t really any evidence of an outbreak in Wuhan at that time, and thus that their report was based on fabrication. This appears to implicate the NCMI, which produced the report, in the attack.

The early April 2020 anonymous media briefings (3) about the November 2019 intelligence report were most likely an attempt by the intelligence community (or, rather, the NCMI) to point out that they did try to warn everyone about the virus and the need to prepare. This would explain why they went ahead with the anonymous briefings despite, by that point, those briefings contradicting the new ‘official narrative’ that the virus came from the wet market.

The official endorsement by the intelligence community in late April and early May 2020 of the wet market theory (4) would then have occurred because of a switch amongst most of the intelligence community to the narrative created and endorsed by Anthony Fauci, Jeremy Farrar etc. Those in the IC not involved in the attack (likely the vast majority) had probably figured out what was going on, i.e., the lab leak theory was a cover story put out by reckless colleagues, and would be very aware of the terrible fallout should the truth become known. Hence also the suppression around this time within the U.S. Government of all Covid origins investigations, which a senior Government official said would only “open a can of worms“.

This tension between IC elements then continued with the 2021 declassified intelligence report (5), with most of the IC claiming not to know anything, but the NCMI still believing the lab leak was the best cover story and wanting it back in play.

By the time of the October 2022 Senate report (6) the natural origin theory was clearly collapsing. This report then represents an effort by some within the intelligence community to bring back the lab leak as the cover story, while directing all attention to China and the WIV and away from the U.S.

How plausible is all this? It certainly fits the evidence, though perhaps there is another, more innocent way of explaining it all.

However, those who would like to exclude the possibility of a U.S. biological attack – and indeed, I would like to exclude this – need to answer at least two key questions:

1. Why was the U.S. concerned about and following an outbreak in Wuhan in November 2019 which all the available evidence shows was not detectable at the time? Why did the U.S. falsely claim there was a signal of a large, worrying outbreak and brief allies about it?

2. Why did U.S. security services begin spreading rumours about the virus being engineered in China at the beginning of January, even before the first death had been reported, when they had no evidence of this (at least, they have never explained how they knew it) and no one else was worried about it, and based on the false claim that rumours were already being spread in China about a U.S. bioweapon?

Let’s be honest: it’s not looking good.
And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"


Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Harvey
 
Posts: 4165
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby stickdog99 » Sat Jan 28, 2023 5:54 am

drstrangelove » 27 Jan 2023 02:27 wrote:

haven't seen journalism like this since al jazeera infiltrated the zionist lobby in the UK. love it.



Image
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6304
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Grizzly » Sat Jan 28, 2023 1:57 pm

Pfizer: We don’t do any gain of function research on Covid

Also Pfizer: Ok we do gain of function but everyone else does it too

Now here's the real news....
“The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it.”

― Joseph mengele
User avatar
Grizzly
 
Posts: 4722
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby stickdog99 » Mon Jan 30, 2023 4:55 pm

The COVID Consensus - The Global Assault on Democracy and the Poor - A Critique from the Left

Laura Dodsworth interviews the authors - Toby Green and Thomas Fazi

* The root cause of the catastrophes connected to Covid-19 lies in the transformation of the political economy in the last 4 decades. The erosion of the boundaries between public and private in business/government, and in our personal lives, shaped the Covid response.

* The scope and nature of previous [vaccine] mandates was incomparable to the Covid-19 mandates: never before had vaccination been a requirement for participating in public life, working (except, in some cases, for healthcare workers) or enjoying basic constitutional rights.

* Even if one trusted the manufacturers’ data on short-term side effects, and that’s a big “if”, given the history of these companies, stained by an endless list of corporate corruption and malfeasance cases — the longer-term effects were necessarily unknown.[…] Alas, the torrent of data that is stacking up in terms of adverse effects and vaccine injuries (especially of a cardiovascular nature) is proving those concerns to be justified.

* The [Covid] vaccines don’t produce immunity, meaning that they don’t prevent infection and transmission — despite a massive propaganda campaign (which we are now being gaslit into believing never happened) to convince people of the contrary (“get vaccinated to avoid infecting others”), and the fact that this became the main rationale for vaccine passports… Of course, authorities knew this from day one; indeed, the CDC even went as far as changing the definition of vaccination in 2021.
'
* The decision to enforce the mass inoculation of these fast-tracked, experimental, non-immunity-generating and, ultimately, little-known next-generation “vaccines”, including in children as young as five (and more recently as young as 6 months old) — through psychological coercion or through de facto or de jure vaccine mandates — should be considered particularly deplorable from an ethical standpoint, in our opinion, alongside the role of the media and political establishment in directing what may justifiably be considered hate speech in the direction of those who had chosen not to get vaccinated against Covid.

^^^^^

First, they came for the unvaccinated ...
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6304
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby stickdog99 » Mon Jan 30, 2023 7:45 pm

Full Interview

What did you most want to achieve with this book?

First and foremost, as complete a record as possible of what has happened in the world since March 2020. The devastating impacts of the pandemic response requires us to be clear as what the nature of that response was: what actually happened, and what the consequences were.

So in the first part of the book we focus on what we call a “chronicle of the pandemic”. This outline takes us from the question of origins of the virus, through the imposition of lockdowns and what we call the “single scientific narrative”, to the development of the vaccines and the vaccine rollout and mandates. We try to focus on what happened, and then in the second part of the book what the impacts of this were. Here the impacts are so clearly catastrophic on so many levels, in all parts of the world. And it’s only by confronting this clearly that we can work out how to prevent this from ever happening again.

On the other hand, we both wanted also to show how in our view the root cause of the catastrophes connected to Covid-19 lies in the transformation of the political economy in the last 4 decades. The erosion of the boundaries between public and private in business/government, and in our personal lives, shaped the Covid response. Neoliberal economic policies created the framework for the enormity of the corruption and vested interests which we discuss in the book. So although many critics of the Covid policies have come from a right-wing perspective, we wanted also to develop a critique from a left-wing, internationalist and anti-neoliberal perspective. In a sense what this shows is that, while the question of Covid-19 has been politicised like almost nothing in history, the questions it raises go far beyond traditional party political frameworks.

I wanted to focus on the chapters on vaccination, because I have also been interested in similar fields, the coercions and incentives and ultimately mandates, as well as the mystery around contracts and data. You said ‘the principle of informed consent had been detonated’. Effectively, one’s Covid status became a precondition for leading anything resembling a ‘normal’ life—for eating out, going to school, playing sports, travelling, even working—amounted to ‘a de facto mandatory vaccination’. I can’t think of anything like it in our lifetimes. Did we cross a public health rubicon? Which countries had the most severe mandates? And has anything like this happened before – please can you flesh out some historical examples to contextualise the situation we found ourselves in?

This is not the first time vaccines are mandates, of course. However, the comparison between the Covid-19 mass vaccination campaign and previous vaccination programmes during the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s for diseases such as smallpox, measles and polio are completely off the mark. First of all, the typical vaccine development timeline, pre-Covid, was between 5 and 10 years, and sometimes longer, allowing for extensive tests and clinical trial to assess whether the vaccine was safe and efficacious, and then for a thorough regulatory approval process.

This meant that vaccines overall met high safety standards and were generally considered to be safe. This also explains why historically, in the West, vaccine hesitance and resistance has been quite rare, even when it came to vaccinating children — at whom most previous mandates were targeted, given that many of these diseases overwhelming affected children. This also means that the scope and nature of previous mandates was incomparable to the Covid-19 mandates: never before had vaccination been a requirement for participating in public life, working (except, in some cases, for healthcare workers) or enjoying basic constitutional rights; at worst you would receive a fine or, since most mandates targeted children, the unvaccinated child would be prohibited from attending school.

Finally, pre-Covid vaccines were required to “produce immunity to a specific disease” — as per the CDC’s definition of vaccination up until 2021.

The Covid-19 vaccines — and relative mandates — don’t meet any of these conditions. First of all, as we know, they were developed and approved at breakneck speed (in what we now know to have been highly questionable “clinical trials”). This could only mean one thing: that — even if one trusted the manufacturers’ data on short-term side effects, and that’s a big “if”, given the history of these companies, stained by an endless list of corporate corruption and malfeasance cases — the longer-term effects were necessarily unknown. This was the main reason for people’s concerns, and it is perfectly understandable — and, alas, the torrent of data that is stacking up in terms of adverse effects and vaccine injuries (especially of a cardiovascular nature) is proving those concerns to be justified.

Then there’s the question of the experimental nature of these vaccines: these were the first vaccines based on mRNA technology (and indeed the first time this technology had been authorised for widespread use in general), which works by injecting into the body the coronavirus spike protein to induce an immune response. This only heightened people’s concerns — and again it’s hard to see these concerns as anything but rational. Early research had already raised the possibility that the spike protein might circulate in the blood and throughout the body for days, leading to potentially toxic accumulation in tissues and organs. This has now been confirmed by several studies (see, for example, here, here and here). As it turns out, many of those that were hesitant about these vaccines weren’t victims of disinformation, but were simply paying attention to what the early research already indicated.

Finally, there’s the question of whether these products can even be considered vaccines at all. As we now know, the vaccines don’t produce immunity, meaning that they don’t prevent infection and transmission — despite a massive propaganda campaign (which we are now being gaslit into believing never happened) to convince people of the contrary (“get vaccinated to avoid infecting others”), and the fact that this became the main rationale for vaccine passports — that of creating “Covid-free spaces” and reducing the spread of the virus. Of course, authorities knew this from day one; indeed, the CDC even went as far as changing the definition of vaccination in 2021: “The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease” became “The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease”. That’s a definition more akin to a medicine than to a vaccine.

In light of the above, the decision to enforce the mass inoculation of these fast-tracked, experimental, non-immunity-generating and, ultimately, little-known next-generation “vaccines”, including in children as young as five (and more recently as young as 6 months old) — through psychological coercion or through de facto or de jure vaccine mandates — should be considered particularly deplorable from an ethical standpoint, in our opinion, alongside the role of the media and political establishment in directing what may justifiably be considered hate speech in the direction of those who had chosen not to get vaccinated against Covid. Especially in light of the fact that Covid-19 is not a threat to the overwhelming majority of the population, and especially not for children, which makes the choice of mass population-wise vaccination even more absurd. Indeed, for young people in particular, it is becoming increasingly clear “Covid-19 vaccine mandates are likely to cause net expected harms”, as one recent study concluded.

As noted already, it is important to stress that the scope of nature of these mandates is totally incomparable to previous mandates. Of course, not all countries adopted such extreme measures. The UK, for example, never adopted vaccine passes/passports. The most severe mandates were implemented in the US, Israel, Canada, New Zealand and several European countries. These included green passes or vaccine passports that limited access to social activities and travel; workplace “no jab, no job” mandates, covering key workers or some or all public- and/or private-sector workers; healthcare worker mandates; school-based mandates; full-population mandates for the elderly; and even segregated lockdowns of the unvaccinated. So yes, you’re right to point out that we have indeed crossed a public health rubicon, which opens the door to other interventions of this kind in the future.

Likewise, you said that in the space of eighteen months, the response to Covid-19 had upended seventy-five years of democratic norms. Can you explain what you mean and again provide historical comparisons?

What we saw was the institutionalisation of what Giorgio Agamben and others have called the “state of exception”. The state of exception is when the norms of daily life are upended because of the arising of a crisis which is said to be so severe that political norms have to be suspended. The state of exception has in fact been a core element of political life in Western geopolitics. We saw it during the aftermath of 9/11, when certain aspects of daily life were restricted; and it has been seen far more often in places where Western political power has been exerted, in colonial Africa, and in Iraq and Afghanistan. But what has happened is that the state of exception took over Western political life completely: freedom of debate has been restricted, freedom of movement upended, norms supposedly safeguarded by Conventions on Human Rights (such as the right to a family life) trampled over — and all with no legal comeback, as the powers of the judiciary to intervene were also severely curtailed.

After such a shock to democracy, what happens next? In this case, as we put it in the book, it is on life-support. We have been able to write, research and publish this book, even if it is very difficult to get mainstream media to cover it. This shows that the tenets of democratic debate and discussion still exist. We are not under house arrest or worse.

Nevertheless, we must recognise that the pandemic response has thrown up some severe questions about democracy in the (mis)information age: as we show in the book, misinformation has been the rule and not the exception, virtually on all sides. Since democracies rely on the theory of rational choice, which requires accurate information — if this no longer exists, then democracies are in trouble.

...
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6304
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Coronavirus

Postby Harvey » Tue Jan 31, 2023 12:48 am

And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"


Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Harvey
 
Posts: 4165
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests