Mar 27, 2023·edited Mar 27, 2023Liked by Brian Mowrey
Looking forward to your next article!
I'm hoping you can also address the fact that neither BANAL or RATG13 could end up being the mother of COVID-19. In strict sense we of course already know this, as neither of them are a perfect fit, but thinking after our previous conversation, the more I'm convicted the hard line between BANAL and RATG13 is a silly concept.
It is very likely if we would do more expeditions now in Laos and South China or surrounding countries we would find more of this family. That is important because if I entertain the idea of a different lab than WIV, then why Laos? Whatever the mother, its samples were collected at least pre-summer 2019, as September 2019 was when the earliest COVID-19 infections were recorded. Likely much earlier as you don't develop and leak (intentionally or as an oops) something in just a few weeks. Perhaps the samples were collected years earlier.
So my point is, it could have been Vietnam, Myanmar, South China just as well. After all, that is the region we now know these viruses live. If we entertain it was not WIV, then why Laos / the BANAL caves? So I think the BANAL samples itself are not that much evidence for or against anything. All we now know - which I admit is somewhat significant - is that whatever the mother of COVID-19 is, is a member of a very large family of variants.
In your own trial analogy: It is a minor setback for the DA in its case against WIV, as RATG13 itself tuns out not the murder weapon, but it still indicates WIV was collecting weapons just like the murder weapon. And still so far the only one who we know was collecting that type (and recklessly playing with them), and we also know WIV had other RATG-like weapons collected.
So unless you can prove someone else pre-summer 2019 was collecting these RATG13 (or BANAL) like viruses, I as a WIV defendant would not be convinced a jury would buy the argument of the defense. Of course, the defense always goes last, so I'm looking forward to your argument!
Yeah - after finishing Orf1 in my cut and paste alignment there's clearly a need for a different donor for those genes than BANAL52 (and it isn't RatG13 either, though there are some spots the former lacks that the latter doesn't). This could be because the SC2 Orf1 is critically humanized in some way relating to innate immune antagonists. As always it is a partially overlooked key to the puzzle.
OTOH, this isn't such a problem in the natural origin theory. You just take the recombination map that the computer spits out in Temman et al. at face value and assume it's "life finds a way" at work.
1) HIV inserts were bread and butter of virology and vaccine research for years
2) These seemingly random HIV inserts fold together to form gp120 and gag analogs (Pradhan)
3) The HIV inserts on the spike are able to engage DC-SIGN and immune cells so that HIV stuff has a function
4) This ability of SC2 to target immune cells is separate from its more commonly known ACE2 receptor engagement
5) So they are not just random, useless genetic junk - they are there for a reason
6) One of the articles that I refer to in my post "SC2 is killing immune cells like HIV" to is written by Shi Zhengli who first described SC2's ability to do so (Nature, Feb 11 2022 IIRC)
7) This targeting was described in the DEFUSE proposal
So the HIV inserts are far from random genetic junk
7 & 1 - Everyone says HIV is in the DEFUSE proposal - which page? I don't see it anywhere, though text search has never worked for me on the pdf from Veritas. The chimera stuff mostly just mentions poxviruses. 1 would point away from these specific peptides because they aren't found in any older / canonical sequences. They might not even be from HIV, but just noise, see third comment.
3 - 5 - I'm not aware of any work that can validate function of the "inserts" aka the NTD bits that aren't on SARS-1. This would be a simple matter of removing them to see if function is lost. In general, it wouldn't be remarkable if the NTD can "bind" to things other than ACE-2 - lots of cov's use the NTD to bind rather than their analog for the RBD. Lots of viruses probably can infect T Cells, the problem with HIV is super high loads from injection + the fact that it's a retrovirus. Retroviruses and HIV are probably harmless if you aren't needle sharing or five degrees of Kevin Bacon from someone who did. So if SARS-CoV-2 infects some T Cells this isn't alarming, antibodies will still kick in. And, again, it isn't necessarily a feature of the NTD.
The matches found by Pradhan, et al. are outliers compared to older GP120 sequences, which do not contain any of the inserts. For example, hits for insert 1 are all from Thailand, which is close to where the BANAL family circulates. These actually might be sequences of BANAL genes that got uploaded in batch during HIV trials. Someone's just cramming genes into a sequencer and uploading the result. It's not even actually HIV - just cov. And as my post and sequence alignment text show, BANAL52 lays down almost the exact peptide sequence for what was in Wuhan-Hu-1 (RaTG13 as well, since it's a better match in the NTD). Only the furin cleavage site still lacks a "receipt" from the wild.
Just to confirm, you are suggesting that people participating in older Thailand's HIV trails might be co-infected with unknown corona viruses related to BANAL, and hence the sequences are not actually HIV sequences?
Not disputing (yet) perse, but just making sure I understand correctly.
Alright, they aren't cov genes and my first find for "reference" HIV sequences were truncated (HIV is not just one virus and is probably ancient so the taxonomy is a huge mess). The question of what peptides someone trying to make an HIV chimera or particle would even use as "HIV" is actually murky.
But all the sequences for "insert 1" are just parallel isolates of a single patient in the RV144 trial from a sample collected in 2006. Looks similar for "insert 3." So you just have four instances of HIV out of the whole world that have these peptides, and they are way back in the past.
Thanks. And yes, I'm aware that is a family. Some HIV variants are even quite distinct.
I wouldn't say 2006 is way back in the past though. And since we don't sequence a lot of HIV patients, the fact that we only have one sample doesn't mean it is a rare variant of the sequence. What I would think is the better angle, is if you were to make a HIV-CoV hybrid, what inserts would you pick?
That answer is likely based on what HIV specimens are ready available. Kind of like that a home builder in the US northwest would use a different lumber type than one down south, not based on which one is more suited - as all fall within specifications - but some are just laying around and others not.
I'm not an expert, but in my reading over the last year my impression was many if not most HIV mutational research is done using pseudo HIV viruses (e.g. pNL4.3.Luc.R-E). Note the WIV was big in this area too, which is another "DA circumstantial evidence", I wouldn't dismiss. So I think an approach would be, whether some common used sequences and mutations in these pseudo HIV viruses are part of COVID-19.
At least that is what I'll be spending some time on reading ...
Mar 27, 2023·edited Mar 27, 2023Liked by Brian Mowrey
Hey Brian, I've re-read some of your stuff and have a couple of thoughts/questions. You mentioned at one point that they (the intentional releasers) could not know how infectious SARS-Cov2 would be prior to intentionally releasing it. I find this improbable for two reasons. One, years of serial Cov passage experimentation was admitted to by Andersen (only if they hadn't tested this Cov version would they not know if Covid was pretty darn contagious). Two, HIV and ACE aspects makes for more transmissibility (as Igor mentioned the HIV above...more than one possible means of infectivity) on paper anyway...Also, the Skeptic articles you referenced hinge, at least in part, on there being no infections in November. Post blood analysis has showed infections early as September in Italy and not much after in other countries...Finally, the logic of releasing a SARS1/MERS type virus as an attack makes little sense either unless you are targeting certain people (as in Iran perhaps)...but we see no evidence of targeting in China. Maybe the cigar didn't blow up :)
I think my claim that infectiousness can't be foreknown is defendable simply by pointing out that we still don't have a detailed understanding of how transmission works. Where do the viruses in the infected person(s) need to come from and go to, in what number, how quickly, in what environments? And does virulence impede this? You can't fix these unknowns by lab measures of cell or animal minimum infectious doses being 10^X. So you can "direct evolution" to get 10^X as low in the lab as you can but still not know what will play out in real life. Sure, you can have a guess. But it's just that.
What HIV "has to do" with infectivity isn't really about HIV, it's a pan-viral interaction with a receptor that looks for specific carbohydrates that are common on pathogens (DC-SIGN), several viruses have been found to use this receptor on dendritic cells to infect other nearby cells, mostly these are modern monster-of-the-week viruses but that's because we don't research other viruses as much. SARS-CoV-2 gains enhanced ACE-2 binding / infection from this as well in vitro https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1009576
Importantly, it's not the virus that actually attaches the carbohydrates. Our cells do this. All the virus needs for a "site" in question is an N residue with whatever nearby residues promote attachment of a carbohydrate (glycol) and our cells will attach a carbohydrate, if it's an oligomannose then it will be recognized by DC-SIGN, and 1 third of the N glycol sites on the spike protein are at least partially processed as oligomannose. As it happens the N in "insert 1" (N74) and next to "2" (N149) get a different kind of glycan, and the N in "4" (N679) doesn't get one at all https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abb9983. Doesn't seem like the inserts affect DC-SIGN binding of spike.
I don't really buy ES's timeline, though my understanding is that he posts infections as starting before 2019, so I am not sure what you mean by no infections in November. I have endorsed the conclusion that the virus was spreading in October, 2019. Maybe earlier (there's only one positive in the Italy Measles paper for September, even though there are lots of negative Measles cases in that period being looked at, so it could be a false+; the signal for October is much stronger).
I agree that contained attack makes no sense. I'm coming around to the idea that US gov could have been stupid enough to think otherwise, though, and that Unz's theory of the motive was right.
Mar 27, 2023·edited Mar 27, 2023Liked by Brian Mowrey
Thanks for the thorough reply. Makes sense. Now dumb I can buy any day; especially when you add in egos, idiotic IC ideas, and attempted climbers of the proverbial ladder. Perfectly orchestrated plan, where a bunch of people need to remain silent, not so much.
"In short, the genetic evidence and additional evidence strongly indicate that SARS-CoV-2 is a lab-engineered virus, not a natural virus, and that it was engineered in the United States, not in China. Furthermore, SARS-CoV-2 is a highly infectious but rather mild virus, not a “bioweapon”.
This gives rise to three plausible scenarios regarding the origin of the pandemic. First, a lab leak in the US followed by transmission to Wuhan, e.g. via the Wuhan Military World Games in October 2019. Second, a lab leak in Wuhan, caused either by WIV scientists or by Western scientists working at the WIV until November 2019. And third, a deliberate release of the virus by the US to launch an artificial pandemic as a global “biosecurity exercise” and put the blame on China.
Since 2001, there has been a series of such murky biosecurity events, starting with the anthrax letters in 2001 (originally blamed on Iraq and Al Qaeda, but turned out to be linked to the US military), the 2002/2003 SARS epidemic (apparently a natural outbreak, but followed by several lab leaks), the 2009 swine flu “pandemic” (a mild synthetic virus that leaked or was released on purpose), the 2014-2016 West African Ebola outbreak (a lab leak or biosecurity exercise), and a few more."
There can be suspicious government (and super-governmental actor) “preparation,” and a rogue actor. Think Gen. Jack D. Ripper in Dr. Strangelove, he didn't draft/approve/install Plan R, but once it was approved, he did take advantage of it. From Purity of Essence to JJ Couey's gain of purity, perhaps.
Wherever it came from, it was the panicked response to it that did the damage. Whether it came from point A or point B, those who forced us into lockdowns, into masks, closed the schools, denied medical care, mandated the shots remain responsible for their actions.
Maybe it wasn't X or Y but X and Y. Why is it so hard to believe China and US were partners in what was clearly an Globally Coordinated Event where everyone except some African nations used the same playbook. Even if you want to resist the argument that both governments could cooperate on this, you may consider it was rogue elements within and outside of their respective governments.
Much of out politics and indeed geopolitics is looking like Fake Wrestling. While there may be real differences among the different wrestlers, they both agree on the larger goal which is to get paid by putting on a good show so the producers will be satisfied. The Producers are the ELITES who control every government (in China the Elite are within government, or at least the CCP). The ELITES objective is total control of the population and conserving resources for future human upgrades. Chinese and Western Elites are in full agreement on this, even if they differ on other matters. The PANDEMIC helped them make progress in reaching that objective.
I basically agree. "US gov" is just a proxy for a globalist deep state. Potentially their are weird guild-like factions vying for the helm but it doesn't interest me. Nor does it seem to matter whether China (but not WIV, which as I keep saying is basically a "theatre of distraction") is cooperating - that would make them just a node in the global super-government. Usually it's only when someone starts describing the situation in spiritual terms - demonic forces directing humanity at large, etc. - that I think, "this person gets it."
There's a lot of kayfabe in politics. Always has been. Geopolitics especially. But the grand conflict between imperial powers is still real, underneath it all.
We know that WIV and BARDA and UNC Chapel Hill (among other US "biosecurity" players) were collaborating -- we have the receipts. We know about the 2019 World Military Games and all that. But also consider how China makes a convenient cut-out and patsy for the US apparatus, and vice versa. Spooks and diplomats are always cutting dirty deals and backstabbing, inside and out, over and over. It's such an ancient game, and that's just how it's played.
Bottom line for me, I don't trust the "lab leak" narrative at all, because it so neatly fills out the textbook template for a Modified Limited Hangout.
IMO the battle for imperial power pretty much ended when the Elites of the major nations united under Globalism at Rio and Agenda 21 was agreed to. These conflicts are mostly Fake Wrestling with some real competition for resources, technological edge and territory.
Not that there isn't jockying for a better and bigger seat at the table, and the Elites still need to consider certain national interests to further their Globalist Agenda, so they occasionally allow a step backward to further a certain faction of nationalists and domestic interests.
As for Lab Release (China) vs Natural Origin Debate, this is a false dichotomy to prevent exploring the intentional release by the Globalists to further their agenda. The Globalists have infiltrated every Institution , government agency and political party, including the Military. Not to say there aren't Nationalists among them at the upper levels, but many of those presenting as Nationalists are actually Trojan Horses
I could be wrong, and even if I am not it doesn't mean a World War isn't something they plan on. No better way to depopulate. Pretty sure the Elites will keep it mostly no-nuclear as they don't want to fry.
Sometimes Fake Wrestling can get pretty real, or at least look real.
Thoughts? https://merylnass.substack.com/p/the-unredacted-fauci-farrar-emails?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=746368&post_id=113396897&isFreemail=false&utm_medium=email
After much consideration I've concluded that both Banal and RatG13 are real viruses.
I agree with you that banals are the back bone.
I however am not entirely sure that the HIV sequences weren't designed and intentional.
Looking forward to your next article!
I'm hoping you can also address the fact that neither BANAL or RATG13 could end up being the mother of COVID-19. In strict sense we of course already know this, as neither of them are a perfect fit, but thinking after our previous conversation, the more I'm convicted the hard line between BANAL and RATG13 is a silly concept.
It is very likely if we would do more expeditions now in Laos and South China or surrounding countries we would find more of this family. That is important because if I entertain the idea of a different lab than WIV, then why Laos? Whatever the mother, its samples were collected at least pre-summer 2019, as September 2019 was when the earliest COVID-19 infections were recorded. Likely much earlier as you don't develop and leak (intentionally or as an oops) something in just a few weeks. Perhaps the samples were collected years earlier.
So my point is, it could have been Vietnam, Myanmar, South China just as well. After all, that is the region we now know these viruses live. If we entertain it was not WIV, then why Laos / the BANAL caves? So I think the BANAL samples itself are not that much evidence for or against anything. All we now know - which I admit is somewhat significant - is that whatever the mother of COVID-19 is, is a member of a very large family of variants.
In your own trial analogy: It is a minor setback for the DA in its case against WIV, as RATG13 itself tuns out not the murder weapon, but it still indicates WIV was collecting weapons just like the murder weapon. And still so far the only one who we know was collecting that type (and recklessly playing with them), and we also know WIV had other RATG-like weapons collected.
So unless you can prove someone else pre-summer 2019 was collecting these RATG13 (or BANAL) like viruses, I as a WIV defendant would not be convinced a jury would buy the argument of the defense. Of course, the defense always goes last, so I'm looking forward to your argument!
Yeah - after finishing Orf1 in my cut and paste alignment there's clearly a need for a different donor for those genes than BANAL52 (and it isn't RatG13 either, though there are some spots the former lacks that the latter doesn't). This could be because the SC2 Orf1 is critically humanized in some way relating to innate immune antagonists. As always it is a partially overlooked key to the puzzle.
OTOH, this isn't such a problem in the natural origin theory. You just take the recombination map that the computer spits out in Temman et al. at face value and assume it's "life finds a way" at work.
Hi Brian. Sorry for a brief comment, I am flying with bad internet
.
Regarding HIV inserts: take a look at my latest post.
https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/ralph-barics-description-of-the-perfect
1) HIV inserts were bread and butter of virology and vaccine research for years
2) These seemingly random HIV inserts fold together to form gp120 and gag analogs (Pradhan)
3) The HIV inserts on the spike are able to engage DC-SIGN and immune cells so that HIV stuff has a function
4) This ability of SC2 to target immune cells is separate from its more commonly known ACE2 receptor engagement
5) So they are not just random, useless genetic junk - they are there for a reason
6) One of the articles that I refer to in my post "SC2 is killing immune cells like HIV" to is written by Shi Zhengli who first described SC2's ability to do so (Nature, Feb 11 2022 IIRC)
7) This targeting was described in the DEFUSE proposal
So the HIV inserts are far from random genetic junk
7 & 1 - Everyone says HIV is in the DEFUSE proposal - which page? I don't see it anywhere, though text search has never worked for me on the pdf from Veritas. The chimera stuff mostly just mentions poxviruses. 1 would point away from these specific peptides because they aren't found in any older / canonical sequences. They might not even be from HIV, but just noise, see third comment.
3 - 5 - I'm not aware of any work that can validate function of the "inserts" aka the NTD bits that aren't on SARS-1. This would be a simple matter of removing them to see if function is lost. In general, it wouldn't be remarkable if the NTD can "bind" to things other than ACE-2 - lots of cov's use the NTD to bind rather than their analog for the RBD. Lots of viruses probably can infect T Cells, the problem with HIV is super high loads from injection + the fact that it's a retrovirus. Retroviruses and HIV are probably harmless if you aren't needle sharing or five degrees of Kevin Bacon from someone who did. So if SARS-CoV-2 infects some T Cells this isn't alarming, antibodies will still kick in. And, again, it isn't necessarily a feature of the NTD.
The matches found by Pradhan, et al. are outliers compared to older GP120 sequences, which do not contain any of the inserts. For example, hits for insert 1 are all from Thailand, which is close to where the BANAL family circulates. These actually might be sequences of BANAL genes that got uploaded in batch during HIV trials. Someone's just cramming genes into a sequencer and uploading the result. It's not even actually HIV - just cov. And as my post and sequence alignment text show, BANAL52 lays down almost the exact peptide sequence for what was in Wuhan-Hu-1 (RaTG13 as well, since it's a better match in the NTD). Only the furin cleavage site still lacks a "receipt" from the wild.
Just to confirm, you are suggesting that people participating in older Thailand's HIV trails might be co-infected with unknown corona viruses related to BANAL, and hence the sequences are not actually HIV sequences?
Not disputing (yet) perse, but just making sure I understand correctly.
Alright, they aren't cov genes and my first find for "reference" HIV sequences were truncated (HIV is not just one virus and is probably ancient so the taxonomy is a huge mess). The question of what peptides someone trying to make an HIV chimera or particle would even use as "HIV" is actually murky.
But all the sequences for "insert 1" are just parallel isolates of a single patient in the RV144 trial from a sample collected in 2006. Looks similar for "insert 3." So you just have four instances of HIV out of the whole world that have these peptides, and they are way back in the past.
Thanks. And yes, I'm aware that is a family. Some HIV variants are even quite distinct.
I wouldn't say 2006 is way back in the past though. And since we don't sequence a lot of HIV patients, the fact that we only have one sample doesn't mean it is a rare variant of the sequence. What I would think is the better angle, is if you were to make a HIV-CoV hybrid, what inserts would you pick?
That answer is likely based on what HIV specimens are ready available. Kind of like that a home builder in the US northwest would use a different lumber type than one down south, not based on which one is more suited - as all fall within specifications - but some are just laying around and others not.
I'm not an expert, but in my reading over the last year my impression was many if not most HIV mutational research is done using pseudo HIV viruses (e.g. pNL4.3.Luc.R-E). Note the WIV was big in this area too, which is another "DA circumstantial evidence", I wouldn't dismiss. So I think an approach would be, whether some common used sequences and mutations in these pseudo HIV viruses are part of COVID-19.
At least that is what I'll be spending some time on reading ...
Hey Brian, I've re-read some of your stuff and have a couple of thoughts/questions. You mentioned at one point that they (the intentional releasers) could not know how infectious SARS-Cov2 would be prior to intentionally releasing it. I find this improbable for two reasons. One, years of serial Cov passage experimentation was admitted to by Andersen (only if they hadn't tested this Cov version would they not know if Covid was pretty darn contagious). Two, HIV and ACE aspects makes for more transmissibility (as Igor mentioned the HIV above...more than one possible means of infectivity) on paper anyway...Also, the Skeptic articles you referenced hinge, at least in part, on there being no infections in November. Post blood analysis has showed infections early as September in Italy and not much after in other countries...Finally, the logic of releasing a SARS1/MERS type virus as an attack makes little sense either unless you are targeting certain people (as in Iran perhaps)...but we see no evidence of targeting in China. Maybe the cigar didn't blow up :)
I think my claim that infectiousness can't be foreknown is defendable simply by pointing out that we still don't have a detailed understanding of how transmission works. Where do the viruses in the infected person(s) need to come from and go to, in what number, how quickly, in what environments? And does virulence impede this? You can't fix these unknowns by lab measures of cell or animal minimum infectious doses being 10^X. So you can "direct evolution" to get 10^X as low in the lab as you can but still not know what will play out in real life. Sure, you can have a guess. But it's just that.
What HIV "has to do" with infectivity isn't really about HIV, it's a pan-viral interaction with a receptor that looks for specific carbohydrates that are common on pathogens (DC-SIGN), several viruses have been found to use this receptor on dendritic cells to infect other nearby cells, mostly these are modern monster-of-the-week viruses but that's because we don't research other viruses as much. SARS-CoV-2 gains enhanced ACE-2 binding / infection from this as well in vitro https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1009576
Importantly, it's not the virus that actually attaches the carbohydrates. Our cells do this. All the virus needs for a "site" in question is an N residue with whatever nearby residues promote attachment of a carbohydrate (glycol) and our cells will attach a carbohydrate, if it's an oligomannose then it will be recognized by DC-SIGN, and 1 third of the N glycol sites on the spike protein are at least partially processed as oligomannose. As it happens the N in "insert 1" (N74) and next to "2" (N149) get a different kind of glycan, and the N in "4" (N679) doesn't get one at all https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abb9983. Doesn't seem like the inserts affect DC-SIGN binding of spike.
I don't really buy ES's timeline, though my understanding is that he posts infections as starting before 2019, so I am not sure what you mean by no infections in November. I have endorsed the conclusion that the virus was spreading in October, 2019. Maybe earlier (there's only one positive in the Italy Measles paper for September, even though there are lots of negative Measles cases in that period being looked at, so it could be a false+; the signal for October is much stronger).
I agree that contained attack makes no sense. I'm coming around to the idea that US gov could have been stupid enough to think otherwise, though, and that Unz's theory of the motive was right.
Thanks for the thorough reply. Makes sense. Now dumb I can buy any day; especially when you add in egos, idiotic IC ideas, and attempted climbers of the proverbial ladder. Perfectly orchestrated plan, where a bunch of people need to remain silent, not so much.
John Campbell continues his journey to the dark side:
"Australian Government Biodistribution Data"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVNFFtmb9gA
Shows that the LNPs get into the plasma quickly and go everywhere including the ovaries in females etc.
Great analysis. A Swiss group has arrived at some similar conclusions, near the end of this article: https://swprs.org/the-lockdown-lunacy-in-retrospect/
"In short, the genetic evidence and additional evidence strongly indicate that SARS-CoV-2 is a lab-engineered virus, not a natural virus, and that it was engineered in the United States, not in China. Furthermore, SARS-CoV-2 is a highly infectious but rather mild virus, not a “bioweapon”.
This gives rise to three plausible scenarios regarding the origin of the pandemic. First, a lab leak in the US followed by transmission to Wuhan, e.g. via the Wuhan Military World Games in October 2019. Second, a lab leak in Wuhan, caused either by WIV scientists or by Western scientists working at the WIV until November 2019. And third, a deliberate release of the virus by the US to launch an artificial pandemic as a global “biosecurity exercise” and put the blame on China.
Since 2001, there has been a series of such murky biosecurity events, starting with the anthrax letters in 2001 (originally blamed on Iraq and Al Qaeda, but turned out to be linked to the US military), the 2002/2003 SARS epidemic (apparently a natural outbreak, but followed by several lab leaks), the 2009 swine flu “pandemic” (a mild synthetic virus that leaked or was released on purpose), the 2014-2016 West African Ebola outbreak (a lab leak or biosecurity exercise), and a few more."
There can be suspicious government (and super-governmental actor) “preparation,” and a rogue actor. Think Gen. Jack D. Ripper in Dr. Strangelove, he didn't draft/approve/install Plan R, but once it was approved, he did take advantage of it. From Purity of Essence to JJ Couey's gain of purity, perhaps.
This is getting scary. I'm starting to understand Brian's posts without having to read them several times.
Furin is the keyword in your article. US Weaponization, clear and simple.
https://geoffpain.substack.com/p/pfizer-used-synthetic-life-derived
Wherever it came from, it was the panicked response to it that did the damage. Whether it came from point A or point B, those who forced us into lockdowns, into masks, closed the schools, denied medical care, mandated the shots remain responsible for their actions.
Maybe it wasn't X or Y but X and Y. Why is it so hard to believe China and US were partners in what was clearly an Globally Coordinated Event where everyone except some African nations used the same playbook. Even if you want to resist the argument that both governments could cooperate on this, you may consider it was rogue elements within and outside of their respective governments.
Much of out politics and indeed geopolitics is looking like Fake Wrestling. While there may be real differences among the different wrestlers, they both agree on the larger goal which is to get paid by putting on a good show so the producers will be satisfied. The Producers are the ELITES who control every government (in China the Elite are within government, or at least the CCP). The ELITES objective is total control of the population and conserving resources for future human upgrades. Chinese and Western Elites are in full agreement on this, even if they differ on other matters. The PANDEMIC helped them make progress in reaching that objective.
I basically agree. "US gov" is just a proxy for a globalist deep state. Potentially their are weird guild-like factions vying for the helm but it doesn't interest me. Nor does it seem to matter whether China (but not WIV, which as I keep saying is basically a "theatre of distraction") is cooperating - that would make them just a node in the global super-government. Usually it's only when someone starts describing the situation in spiritual terms - demonic forces directing humanity at large, etc. - that I think, "this person gets it."
There's a lot of kayfabe in politics. Always has been. Geopolitics especially. But the grand conflict between imperial powers is still real, underneath it all.
We know that WIV and BARDA and UNC Chapel Hill (among other US "biosecurity" players) were collaborating -- we have the receipts. We know about the 2019 World Military Games and all that. But also consider how China makes a convenient cut-out and patsy for the US apparatus, and vice versa. Spooks and diplomats are always cutting dirty deals and backstabbing, inside and out, over and over. It's such an ancient game, and that's just how it's played.
Bottom line for me, I don't trust the "lab leak" narrative at all, because it so neatly fills out the textbook template for a Modified Limited Hangout.
IMO the battle for imperial power pretty much ended when the Elites of the major nations united under Globalism at Rio and Agenda 21 was agreed to. These conflicts are mostly Fake Wrestling with some real competition for resources, technological edge and territory.
Not that there isn't jockying for a better and bigger seat at the table, and the Elites still need to consider certain national interests to further their Globalist Agenda, so they occasionally allow a step backward to further a certain faction of nationalists and domestic interests.
As for Lab Release (China) vs Natural Origin Debate, this is a false dichotomy to prevent exploring the intentional release by the Globalists to further their agenda. The Globalists have infiltrated every Institution , government agency and political party, including the Military. Not to say there aren't Nationalists among them at the upper levels, but many of those presenting as Nationalists are actually Trojan Horses
I could be wrong, and even if I am not it doesn't mean a World War isn't something they plan on. No better way to depopulate. Pretty sure the Elites will keep it mostly no-nuclear as they don't want to fry.
Sometimes Fake Wrestling can get pretty real, or at least look real.