In a Slog double header for today and tomorrow, we turn the spotlight on the global ramifications of a flawed approach to the new Corona virus being driven by surveillance interests, Big Pharma and those who seek a Totalitechnarian State
A very strange incident occurred in the British MSM Press sector over the weekend. Two almost identical headlines followed by the same copy content appeared in two completely unconnected titles – The Times and the Daily Mail.
Two of my least-known hobbies are the study of language and syntax, and the likelihood of something being pure coincidence. A person I have never met has (it turned out a decade ago) similarly sad ways of passing his leisure time. This person is a Don. You have been warned.
I gave this fellow eccentric the two articles to read on Sunday afternoon. This is an extract from the email that came back:
‘The two url links heading those posts are the main giveaway before one starts reading the content below. On that basis, I would suggest that the chances of their ‘briefing’ coming from different sources are around 780-1 against.
‘The obvious tenet of both posts is that all disagreement with ‘the Party Line’ on news stories of a ‘global’ or ‘geopolitical’ nature can be rejected on the basis of being fakery. Both the examples chosen – and the literary tone – suggest that (if the two journalists are indeed different people) they were both ‘acting on orders’ to produce one takeaway for readers, viz: all things sensational are untrue. As for the acting on orders dimension, the odds I estimate are in the order of 3,350-1 for that being the case.’
The traditional mathematical foundation of syntax assumes that such is a theory about how sequences of grammatical words might give away the reality of authorship. In short, it is a form of detection of writing style commonalities.
I’m not trying to be an irritating pointyhead here: I am merely being pedantic in mounting my defence against those who yell “Conspiracy nonsense!” the minute anyone says, “But hang on a minute – that doesn’t make sense” in relation to a media narrative.
In short, the two articles were briefed from the same source, and both hacks were churning out what the proprietor/editor said they must do. That is close to being a mathematical certainty.
Somebody – in fact various Somebodies – are trying to influence (and maintain) a belief system about what the Covid19 virus is about. The very fact that they feel the need to do that is suspicious.
The rest of this post is dedicated to piecing togther strict evidence for suggesting, at the very least, this virus is a kind of Enabling Act picked up by opportunists; and may indeed be a planned PsyOp. It is up to the reader to decide which.
Bioengineered or natural?
Following yesterday’s post here, I’ve received some forty or so supportive emails about some of the higher forces behind C19. As always, the quality of threaders at The Slog is at least half the reason why this site has an enviable reputation for plotting a course called ‘What Happens Next?’
Indeed, thread disagreement with some Slog content is often even more helpful than further supporting evidence for the general drift of the argument.
So I start at what remains the Great Unknown #1 here: is COVID19 a naturally occurring mutation from a virus last seen roughly sixty years ago….or are there clear signs that it has been created in a lab?
Getting to a pov on this question is worse than a nightmare; at least, one wakes up from a nightmare. The Truth about the derivation of this virus at one moment looks clear, at the next both blurred and surreal. But there are one or two hints I find more and more compelling while in a wakeful state.
I start with WuXi AppTec Co, the lab where it is alleged by some that (a) George Soros has a massive holding and (b the Covid virus was developed.
Soros had around 6% of the equity in 2011, but none today. So this ‘story’ is classed IABATO* under Slog rules.
However, the senior management at the lab is unusual in that Co-CEO Ge Li is an American citizen; and his Co-CEO is one Edward Hu – his first name, obviously Western – who was educated at the US Carnegie Mellon University.
Readers will recall from earlier Slogposts that several opinion leaders have refuted the idea of COVID19 originating in the WuXi lab. About half of the ‘experts’ with whom I’ve spoken or corresponded said they felt sure that C19 was a natural development, while half felt it might well be natural – but showed signs of American derived bioengineering.
Let’s look at some of these opinions with a critical eye. A US NIH Government-sponsored site that starts with these words has to be suspect:
‘Some folks are even making outrageous claims that the new coronavirus causing the pandemic was engineered in a lab and deliberately released to make people sick.’
I say suspect because it uses the words ‘even’, ‘outrageous’ and ‘deliberately’ before any evidence is presented. That hardly suggests that the author has an open mind on the subject.
Drilling into the article, we are told ‘The genomic data of the new coronavirus responsible for COVID-19 show that its spike protein contains some unique adaptations. One of these adaptations provides the special ability of this coronavirus to bind to a specific protein on human cells called angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE2).’
But the next assertion is both telling and contradictory:
‘Existing computer models predicted that the new coronavirus would not bind to ACE2 as well as the SARS virus.’
But in fact, it is much better than SARS at doing that. All of which evokes this quite extraordinary conclusion:
‘To their surprise, the researchers found that the spike protein of the new coronavirus actually bound far better than computer predictions, likely because of natural selection on ACE2 that enabled the virus to take advantage of a previously unidentified alternate binding site. Researchers said this provides strong evidence that that new virus was not the product of purposeful manipulation in a lab. In fact, any bioengineer trying to design a coronavirus that threatened human health probably would never have chosen this particular conformation for a spike protein.’
Now the two problems with the reasoning here are (i) because the models and computer predictions were wrong, natural selection is the only possible reason for that; and (ii) no bio-engineer out to threaten human health would choose such a spike.
It is part of the human experience of bollocks that one must read such stuff and wonder. In particular, one wonders why models are so favoured by UK government advisor Neil Ferguson of Imperial College if natural selection disobeys every prediction the models make; and equally, one gapes in amazement at the idea of a germ warfare development scientist choosing not to create a rapidly spreading virus that catches “the enemy” on the wrong foot.
*IABATO – It’s All bollocks And That’s Official
All of this explains why the researcher has to broaden his field of vision to include those who have an open mind rather than an open mouth. I much prefer the outlook of Science Tablet mag which opines as follows:
‘Recently, the authors of a much-reported-on Nature Medicine correspondence expressed their personal beliefs and speculations at the end of the correspondence. This is rather unusual in research, where only supported facts are typically presented. The authors stated: “Since we observed all notable SARS-CoV-2 features, including the optimized RBD and polybasic cleavage site, in related coronaviruses in nature, we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.”’
I have to say, that does it for me. Tablet mag’s wonderful politeness there is echoed further on in the piece (my emphases):
‘One compelling argument against the bioterrorist hypothesis for the COVID-19 outbreak that began in Wuhan is that malicious actors would have other options with much more predictable damage levels to suit their desired damage targets and political goals. Further, they would likely have introduced it far from Wuhan, which is the site of a lab known to study coronaviruses, to avoid attention. Nevertheless, these arguments assume we are dealing with somewhat rational thinkers, which might also not be the case….I also disagree with media assertions that it has been “proven” that the virus is not a bioweapon. To prove this, one would need to know exactly how patient zero was infected—not whether the virus is natural or bioengineered in origin. Given the overall significance of the problem, even unlikely scenarios should not be dismissed offhand, and should be investigated.’
In no way do I wish to misrepresent Khaled Talaat – the author of the post I’m reviewing. His own view at the end of the day is, I must stress in the interests of journalistic balance, that COVID19 is NOT a bioengineered virus. I think he could be right….but there is a whole bunch of damning circumstantial evidence (of which he may not be aware) suggesting that a much bigger game is in play here.
These are some of the things that Khaled might not know: it could well be that President Trump closed the US Centre for Disease Control (CDC) because he knew it was in corrupt partnership with Big Pharma….as indeed, there is evidence that the US Food & Drugs Administration (FDA) is equally bought by commercial interests; Robert Kennedy Jr distrusts both organisations and has pointed out several glaring conflicts of interest; evidence in CDC/FDA documents suggests that RFK Jr is right in this respect, especially in relation to the idea that these orgaisations cannot exist without funding from the very people they are supposed to regulate; widespread cases of falsified death certificates in favour of COVID19 as causal to death in Ireland, France, Italy, the UK and the US are coming to light from reputable sources.
All this and more will be presented in tomorrow’s edition of The Slog.
Stay tuned – and aware of what is really at stake for our species.