Tag: science

The COVID coverup

It’s now becoming clear that COVID-19 is a man-made bioweapon that was constructed in China and funded by what appear to be rogue globalist elements inside the US government connected with the NGO billionaires like Gates and Soros:

The new report examining the behind-the-scenes battle over COVID’s origins follows new evidence to support the theory that the coronavirus pandemic may have leaked from WIV — raising questions about why the possibility wasn’t investigated more thoroughly from the outset. 
‘The story of why parts of the U.S. government were not as curious as many of us think they should have been is a hugely important one,’ David Feith, former deputy assistant secretary of state in the East Asia bureau, told Vanity Fair.
In an interview with the outlet, DiNanno describes how his probe into the lab leak theory was thwarted at every turn, with hostile and antagonistic technical staff warning him not to open ‘Pandora’s box.’
Things came to a head at a meeting on December 9, when State Department staff met to discuss what the department could or should say publicly about the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).
According to people at the meeting, Christopher Park, the director of the State Department’s Biological Policy Staff in the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, not to say anything that would point to the U.S. government’s own role in gain-of-function research. Park, a Trump appointee like DiNanno, had been involved in lifting a U.S. government moratorium on funding for gain-of-function research in 2017. Park was reportedly not the only one who raised concerns about the investigation ultimately raising questions about U.S. funding. 
As the group probed the lab-leak scenario and other possibilities, its members were repeatedly advised not to open a ‘Pandora’s box,’ four former State Department officials told the magazine.
The admonitions ‘smelled like a cover-up,’ said DiNanno, ‘and I wasn’t going to be part of it.’
It’s unclear exactly much U.S. government funding was going to the WIV, but at least some of it was being routed through a nonprofit called EcoHealth Alliance.
By 2018, EcoHealth Alliance was pulling in up to $15 million a year in grant money from an array of federal agencies, including the Defense Department, Homeland Security, and the U.S. Agency for International Development, according to tax filings.
EcoHealth Alliance and its founder Peter Daszak have been working with Shi Zhengli, the WIV virologist known as the ‘bat lady’, for more than 15 years. 
British-born Daszak, 55, is the president of EcoHealth Alliance — and in the early days of the pandemic, he was key in establishing the veneer of a ‘scientific consensus’ that the lab-leak origin was impossible.
Daszak not only signed but spearheaded a letter signed by 27 scientists rejecting the lab leak hypothesis, which was published on February 19, 2020 in the medical journal The Lancet.
Leaked emails later revealed that he encouraged colleagues who do gain-of-function research on coronaviruses not to sign the letter, in order to obscure the connection.
The letter declared that the scientists had ‘no competing interests’ — but it seems clear that Daszak did, as a lab leak origin would likely derail his entire field, but an animal origin would justify his life’s work.  

The next question that needs to be determined is if the plans for the creation of the not-vaccines were completed prior to the release of COVID-19. Regardless, this is already one of the worst US government crimes in history. While China is obviously involved, one should keep in mind that it is possible that the Chinese government was not the primary party responsible, given the amount of US government money that was secretly funneled to Wuhan through the US nonprofit.

It is a product of the bioweapons program of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) government, the network of which includes not only the CCP scientists but also certain overseas scientists and organizations.

– Dr. Li-Meng Ya

And apparently, this wouldn’t be the first time a leak from a Chinese bioweapons lab killed people around the world:

In 1977 a flu broke out in northeast China which eventually spread to Russia and then around the world. It eventually took the lives of approximately 700,000 people around the world most of whom were young. It came to be known as the “Russian flu” because Russia was the first country to report it to the WHO. Scientists who examined its DNA concluded it was nearly identical to a previous strain of the flu virus which had caused an outbreak between 1949 and 1950.

In nature, the flu doesn’t remain unchanged for 27 years as it circulates. So the fact that the “Russian flu” was nearly identical to the earlier strain eventually led to the conclusion that the Russian flu was likely the result of a lab leak….

You may wish to note that more than a year ago, in April 2020, I concluded that everyone was lying and the evidence “tends to indicate the coronavirus as a coordinated Deep State attack on China, Iran, the Trump administration, and the American people.”

The poisonous spike protein

 As uninterested scientists take a closer look at the not-vaccines, the news keeps getting worse.

We now know the spike protein gets into circulation. We thought the spike protein was a great target antigen, we never knew it was a toxin. So by vaccinating people we are inadvertently inoculating them with a toxin.

– Dr. Byram Bridle, University of Guelph

I think that “inadvertently” is probably a little too generous. You know the viral immunologist is a concern to Big Pharma, as someone has already set up a false flag website using his name as the URL for the purpose of deboonking his statements.

Meanwhile, an Oracle VP learns the hard way that the Devil mocks his servants.

  • I got my first vaccination today. I am incredibly proud of @Oracle and the team that worked tirelessly to create and run v-safe for the USA.
    • Joel R. Kallman@joelkallman, Mar 26
  • We’re heartbroken to share that Joel Kallman has passed away from Covid-19 on May 25th. He was 54. Joel’s warmth and enthusiasm touched countless across the globe. We miss him dearly.
    • Oracle APEX@OracleAPEX, May 27
Karl Denninger’s conclusion:

It is, on the weight of the scientific evidence at this time, profoundly unsafe to produce, distribute or administer any vaccine that causes production of the spike protein in the human body where it can and does enter the circulation, whether directly or indirectly, because the protein itself and its S1 sub-unit are believed pathogenic standing alone.  This has now been known for months, indeed the first papers demonstrating this were out before any material number of jabs went into arms and have been deliberately ignored.

Covid-19 was manufactured

 And the US government helped fund its development:

While analyzing COVID-19 samples last year in an attempt to create a vaccine, Dalgleish and Sørensen discovered ‘unique fingerprints’ in the virus that they say could only have arisen from manipulation in a laboratory. They said they tried to publish their findings but were rejected by major scientific journals which were at the time resolute that the virus jumped naturally from bats or other animals to humans.

Even when former MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove spoke out publicly saying the scientists’ theory should be investigated, the idea was dismissed as ‘fake news.’

Over a year later, leading academics, politicians and the media finally flipped, and have begun to contemplate the possibility that COVID-19 escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China – a lab where experiments included manipulating viruses to increase their infectiousness in order to study their potential effects on humans. 

This week, President Joe Biden ordered the intelligence community to re-examine how the virus originated, including the lab accident theory. The announcement followed the revelation that a previously undisclosed intelligence report had been made to the White House, claiming that several researchers at the Wuhan institute were hospitalized with illness in November 2019. The document was uncovered this week by the Wall Street Journal.  

US health officials have also come under fire for allegedly funding researchers’ controversial and risky experiments at the Wuhan lab.

Now, Dalgleish and Sørensen have authored a new study, which concludes that ‘SARS-Coronavirus-2 has no credible natural ancestor’ and that it is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that the virus was created through ‘laboratory manipulation’. 

In the 22-page paper which is set to be published in the scientific journal Quarterly Review of Biophysics Discovery, the scientists describe their months-long ‘forensic analysis’, looking back at experiments done at the Wuhan lab between 2002 and 2019. 

Digging through archives of journals and databases, Dalgleish and Sørensen pieced together how Chinese scientists, some working in concert with American universities, allegedly built the tools to create the coronavirus. Much of the work was centered around controversial ‘Gain of Function’ research – temporarily outlawed in the US under the Obama administration.

Gain of Function involves tweaking naturally occurring viruses to make them more infectious, so that they can replicate in human cells in a lab, allowing the virus’s potential effect on humans to be studied and better understood. 

Dalgleish and Sørensen claim that scientists working on Gain of Function projects took a natural coronavirus ‘backbone’ found in Chinese cave bats and spliced onto it a new ‘spike’, turning it into the deadly and highly transmissible SARS-Cov-2.

One tell-tale sign of alleged manipulation the two men highlighted was a row of four amino acids they found on the SARS-Cov-2 spike.

In an exclusive interview with DailyMail.com, Sørensen said the amino acids all have a positive charge, which cause the virus to tightly cling to the negatively charged parts of human cells like a magnet, and so become more infectious.  But because, like magnets, the positively charged amino acids repel each other, it is rare to find even three in a row in naturally occurring organisms, while four in a row  is ‘extremely unlikely,’ the scientist said.

‘The laws of physics mean that you cannot have four positively charged amino acids in a row. The only way you can get this is if you artificially manufacture it,’ Dalgleish told DailyMail.com.

Their new paper says these features of SARS-Cov-2 are ‘unique fingerprints’ which are ‘indicative of purposive manipulation’, and that ‘the likelihood of it being the result of natural processes is very small.’ 

Thereby demonstrating, once more, that the so-called “conspiracy theorists” are more reliable than the mainstream media narrative. It will be interesting to learn why this paper is now being permitted to see the light of day, in that we’d heard about these unnatural “fingerprints” last year. Perhaps there is simply too much evidence for it to be credibly denied, or perhaps the failure of the mass mRNA-modification program needs a new narrative. 

UPDATE: Karl Denninger has more than a few questions about this belated mainstream acknowledgement of what has long been obvious too:

Don’t get me wrong — China’s involvement should certainly be investigated as proposed.  But we cannot exclude US actors; Anthony Fauci, for example, who early on slammed Trump for suggesting that the virus had originated in the Wuhan lab, stating in public that was impossible when he, personally, knew damn well that the NIH had provided grant money to Peter Dazak’s EcoHealth and they published results of laboratory work at Wuhan that, by any reasonable definition, was in fact gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses including enhancing their infectivity in humanized mice.

Peter gave a video interview where he described grafting spike protein enhancements onto bat coronaviruses for research purposes, and the work was being done at the Wuhan lab.

Not just Fauci either — there are many people who were almost-certainly involved in this at the NIH including Fauci’s wife who presumably had to sign off on the Bioethics aspects as she runs that department.

I look forward to Twitter and Facebook restoring all of those accounts they banned for prematurely mentioning the truth about Corona-chan… that seems likely, right? And they’re totally going to ban all those mainstream accounts that perpetrated the Fake News, right?

The science is unsettled

Interview with Dr. Anthony Fauci, May 2020

“Do you believe or is there evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was made in the lab in China or accidentally released from a lab in China?”

If you look at the evolution of the virus in bats, and what’s out there now is very, very strongly leaning toward this could not have been artificially or deliberately manipulated — the way the mutations have naturally evolved… a number of very qualified evolutionary biologists have said that everything about the stepwise evolution over time strongly indicates that it evolved in nature and then jumped species.

If you accept the premise, which is very strongly supported by scientific evidence, that it was not deliberately mutated and deliberately changed, and you say, if it was in the wild and evolving, the likelihood it jumped species naturally, someone will say, ‘Well, maybe somebody took it from the wild, put it in the lab, and then it escaped from the lab.’ But that means it was in the wild to begin with!

Interview with Dr. Anthony Fauci, May 2021

“There’s a lot of cloudiness around the origins of COVID-19 still, so I wanted to ask, are you still confident that it developed naturally?”

“No, actually. … No, I’m not convinced about that. I think that we should continue to investigate what went on in China until we find out to the best of our ability exactly what happened. Certainly, the people who’ve investigated it say it likely was the emergence from an animal reservoir that then infected individuals, but it could’ve been something else, and we need to find that out. So, you know, that’s the reason why I said I’m perfectly in favor of any investigation that looks into the origin of the virus.”

Keep this in mind the next time someone tells you to “trust the science” or that “the science is settled”. Also, the virus is man-made. This has been obvious since Bill Gates and company were wargaming its release prior to the start of the pandemic.

Discrimination in STEM

 Ironically, the discrimination is against men, not women:

The underrepresentation of women in academic science is typically attributed, both in scientific literature and in the media, to sexist hiring. Here we report five hiring experiments in which faculty evaluated hypothetical female and male applicants, using systematically varied profiles disguising identical scholarship, for assistant professorships in biology, engineering, economics, and psychology. Contrary to prevailing assumptions, men and women faculty members from all four fields preferred female applicants 2:1 over identically qualified males with matching lifestyles (single, married, divorced), with the exception of male economists, who showed no gender preference. Comparing different lifestyles revealed that women preferred divorced mothers to married fathers and that men preferred mothers who took parental leaves to mothers who did not. 

Science is already as unreliable as a coin toss. In another ten years, science will be as reliably false as government press releases. 

The younger, the more lethal

It was always obvious that the dangers of the not-vaccine were considerably greater to the Under-70 population than Coronachan itself. Indeed, it would be hard for anything to be less dangerous, as in the last 18 months, more children under 18 were killed by bicycles, swimming pools, and curtains than by the dread Covid-19 virus. But now an Israeli expert has analyzed the Israeli vaccination data and demonstrated that the risk/reward ratio of getting the Pfizer therapy is even greater for the Under-70 population than many vaccine skeptics anticipated:

Both data bodies (Tables 1 and 2 from the Ministry of Health and the data from Dagan et al in Figure 2) were initially presented as evidence favouring vaccination. However, straightforward analyses of these data highlight adverse effects. They confirm suspicions that vaccination fragilizes the immune system of the vaccinated, not only during the vaccination process, but even after full vaccination (in Table 1, the fully vaccinated die 15 times more than the unvaccinated). The raw data on which the Dagan et al publication from Clalit is based are unavailable. These data are required for transparent independent assessment of conclusions of a publication with such consequences. Current circumstances do not live up, even from far, to this basic standard requirement. Before continuing the massive vaccination project, these adverse effects must be examined and carefully evaluated vs positive effects. 

The results on increased vaccination-induced infection rates (3-fold) and death rates (around 20 times the COVID-death rate of the unvaccinated) presented above are serious reasons to suspect that a balanced cost-benefit would not be in favour of vaccination for any risk group.  Considering only COVID19-associated increased risks during the 5-week vaccination period, vaccine-induced protection would need to be absolute, which it is not, and last much longer than the 12 months projected until the next vaccine injection is required. Including in calculations unavailable precise data on vaccine-induced increased risks unrelated to COVID19 will necessarily increase the vaccine protection period required to compensate for all vaccine-associated deaths, probably beyond 2.5 years. 

Our calculations for younger age groups predict an even more extreme and dire situation. It is long known that vaccination is not cost-effective against organisms or viruses with highly mutable genomes. RNA viruses, coronaviruses and HIV included, have the most mutable known genomes. Note that vaccine-associated risks increase proportionally to the strength of the immune system, predicting that vaccination will greatly increase the very low COVID19 risks experienced by the younger population. Extrapolations two independent available datasets confirm this prediction. The precautionary principle is the first priority of those responsible for public health and its urgent application is required at this point, especially when the whole population of a country, including its youth,  is  at  stake….

Vaccination-associated mortality risks are expected at least 20 times greater below age 20 compared to the very low COVID19-associated risks for this age group enjoying the healthiest immune system.

To summarize, vaccinated people over the age of 60 have been observed to die 14.6x more often than their unvaccinated age-peers in the first two weeks after vaccination. This is a corollary, not a causal, relationship, but it is such a strong correlation that it heavily implies at least some degree of causality.

Morever, this adverse effect is likely to be magnified as the age of the population declines, because adverse effects tend to be strongest in those with healthy immune systems due to the nature of the therapy. Since young people die less often than old people, and since the vaccinations are significantly increasing the likelihood of death in the two weeks post-initial vaccination, the analysis concludes that an inordinate number of young people are going to die after being unnecessarily vaccinated.

At this point, there is absolutely no way anyone under 40 should even consider getting the vaccination, and considering the potential adverse effects on fertility, anyone attempting to push it on women under 40 should be arrested and prosecuted.

In not-at-all-unrelated news, 57 scientists and doctors have demanded an immediate end to the mass-vaccination campaigns:

In conclusion, in the context of the rushed emergency-use-authorization of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, and the current gaps in our understanding of their safety, the following questions must be raised:

  • Is it known whether cross-reactive antibodies from previous coronavirus infections or vaccine�206 induced antibodies may influence the risk of unintended pathogenesis following vaccination with COVID-19?
  • Has the specific risk of ADE, immunopathology, autoimmunity, and serious adverse reactions been clearly disclosed to vaccine recipients to meet the medical ethics standard of patient understanding for informed consent? If not, what are the reasons, and how could it be implemented?
  • What is the rationale for administering the vaccine to every individual when the risk of dying from COVID-19 is not equal across age groups and clinical conditions and when the phase 3 trials excluded the elderly, children and frequent specific conditions?
  • What are the legal rights of patients if they are harmed by a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine? Who will cover the costs of medical treatment? If claims were to be settled with public money, has the public been made aware that the vaccine manufacturers have been granted immunity, and their responsibility to compensate those harmed by the vaccine has been transferred to the tax-payers?

In the context of these concerns, we propose halting mass-vaccination and opening an urgent pluralistic, critical, and scientifically-based dialogue on SARS-CoV-2 vaccination among scientists, medical doctors, international health agencies, regulatory authorities, governments, and vaccine developers. This is the only way to bridge the current gap between scientific evidence and public health policy regarding the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. We are convinced that humanity deserves a deeper understanding of the risks than what is currently touted as the official position. An open scientific dialogue is urgent and indispensable to avoid erosion of public confidence in science and public health and to ensure that the WHO and national health authorities protect the interests of humanity during the current pandemic. Returning public health policy to evidence-based medicine, relying on a careful evaluation of the relevant scientific research, is urgent. It is imperative to follow the science.

Political breakup or global depopulation

A global forecast site is predicting a 70 percent decline in the US population… by 2025:

As we had reported on ANP back on December 31st of 2017, Deagel was previously forecasting the US population to drop to 54 million people by 2025, down from what was then 324 million people in 2016. Well as we see now in the screenshot above taken from their website page for the United States this morning, Deagel is now forecasting that the 2025 population of the USA will be a nice, round 100 million people – nearly doubling their previous 2025 forecast for America of 54 million.
Yet as it’s easy to see, even a 2025 forecast of 100 million people living here in less than 8 years is STILL DOWN 227 million from the 2017 population of America. How will America LOSE 227 million people by 2025?
We’d love to know why Deagel is forecasting the population of the US to drop from 327 million in 2017 to only 100 million in 2025, with them also forecasting a 2025 US military budget of 32 billion dollars, down from our 2017 military budget of $637 billion, while forecasting our population density to drop from 34 inhabitants per square mile to only 10 inhabitants per square mile in 2025. While our emails to Deagel have gone unreturned, what does Deagel know that we don’t know?

I suppose it is theoretically possible that Deagel is simply anticipating the same political breakup of the United States that I am, especially given that it is forecasting a 78 percent decline in the population of the increasingly not-United Kingdom, versus a 30 percent decline in the aging population of Italy.

But then, given the forecast of a 54 percent decline in the population of Israel and a 1 percent increase in the population of India, it’s considerably more likely that they know something about the not-vaccines that Bill Gates is pushing on the world in order to reduce the global population.

UPDATE: Actually, their core logic isn’t unreasonable. They are looking at pretty much the same thing I’ve been anticipating, which is the catastrophic failure of the neoliberal order beginning with the financial sector. The real question isn’t whether the collapse will happen or not, but if Soviet society was actually much 5x-8x more resilient than the Western societies.

The Soviet system was less able to deliver goodies to the people than the Western one. Nevertheless Soviet society was more compact and resilient under an authoritarian regime. That in mind, the collapse of the Soviet system wiped out 10 percent of the population. The stark reality of diverse and multicultural Western societies is that a collapse will have a toll of 50 to 80 percent depending on several factors but in general terms the most diverse, multicultural, indebted and wealthy (highest standard of living) will suffer the highest toll. The only glue that keeps united such aberrant collage from falling apart is overconsumption with heavy doses of bottomless degeneracy disguised as virtue.

Portrait of a ticket-taker

Not that you were ever in any doubt about Tony Fauci. It probably would have looked a little too suspicious if he had simply won the lottery after buying a ticket “as a joke”.

As they say, work hard and you may win an award.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, America’s top celebrity disease official, was just awarded a $1 million prize called the Dan David Prize. Fauci won this award — one no one ever heard of but is now deemed prestigious — for not only “defending science” but also for “speaking truth to power.”

“Fauci is the consummate model of leadership and impact in public health,” the awards committee said while giving Fauci $1 million. Well, there you have it, you too can be a Dan David winner if you master, to use Fauci’s word, guesstimating.

“As the COVID-19 pandemic unraveled, Fauci leveraged his considerable communication skills to address people gripped by fear and anxiety and worked relentlessly to inform individuals in the United States and elsewhere about the public health measures essential for containing the pandemic’s spread,” the committee goes on. “In addition, he has been widely praised for his courage in speaking truth to power in a highly charged political environment.”

Translation: Good doggy. Here’s a bone. Don’t worry, we only mentioned the videos to make sure you stayed on script.

Trust your dog

Especially when he doesn’t trust someone.

How can dogs recognize bad people?

Dogs use their previous experience to understand if someone is unreliable.

The experiment was conducted with 34 Dogs and was divided into three parts. In the first part, dog owners pointed them towards food with containers and dogs ran towards it. In the second part, the owners pointed towards containers without food and tricked Dogs into running towards it. In the third part, it was discovered that Dogs would not follow the pointing hands. They used their judgment from previous experience to judge if the person was unreliable.

Science behind Dogs sensing bad people.

Dogs have highly evolved sixth sense and are also very receptive to intricacies of human behavior. When a person has bad intentions or is about to do something bad, his heart rate increases and there is a rush of certain chemicals like adrenaline that makes the person sweat more than usual. Since Dogs have a very keen sense of smell and they are hyper-alert every moment, they can pick up on these scents and changes in behavior within seconds and react to them. The Dog’s instincts are very sharp and they are more vigilant as they live totally in the present moment, they can sense danger and bad vibes, they react either by becoming fearful or become hyper-aggressive in their demeanor.

I always trust a dog person more than someone who isn’t. I mean, if you don’t like optimistic creatures who are happy, glad to see you, and won’t even hesitate to throw themselves in between you and potential danger, I have to seriously question what is wrong with you.

Spacebunny is clearly the exact opposite of a bad person. She had THREE dogs on the couch with her this morning, which is one more than will actually fit. But somehow, they made it work. Of course, if a Rhodesian Ridgeback decides that there is totally space for her in the seven square inches of available space, it’s virtually impossible to convince her otherwise.

Free votes for AZ Democrats

 And, presumably, Creepy Joe Biden. Sidney Powell announces more genuine TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE of vote fraud in Arizona:

It’s in your face everywhere. The statistical evidence is insurmountable. The mathematical evidence is to a mathematical impossibility. This is no way there was anything but widespread election fraud here. We’ve got one witness that says in Arizona at least there were 35,000 votes added to every Democratic candidate just to start their voting off. It’s like getting your $500 of Monopoly money to begin with when you haven’t done anything. And it was only for Democrats.

It pains me to have to point out to skeptical morons that mathematically-based statistical evidence is court-admissible DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. Eyewitness testimony is court-admissible TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE.

If you’re waiting for published peer-reviewed scientific “evidence”, then you are irredeemably stupid and don’t even understand what evidence is. Because scientific “evidence” is not only not legally considered evidence, it is not even directly admissible in court as such. It is only admissible as testimonial evidence through the expert testifying.

In other news, Team Trump continues to exude confidence.

We spoke with a top Trump associate tonight.  This is what we were told… repeatedly…  

“Trump is going to win.”

It’s going to be a good couple of weeks ahead.

Enjoy the ride. Because the ride never ends.