It is well known that in the news business, bad news makes good business.
Usually. But part of the reason for that may lie in the fact that one’s own personal life is usually never as bad as the bad news they see portrayed from around the world on their television or device screens.
But COVID-19 has brought something that is potentially the kind of bad news nobody wants to hear. Ever.
Imagine a decade of never ending on-off mask restrictions, repeated jabs with experimental and dangerous unproven drugs as “vaccines” and a virus that outsmarts each vaccination with a new mutation that easily penetrates the protection that vaccines are supposed to give.
This is not the kind of thing anybody wants. I sure as hell do not want it. It is very difficult to bear the latest news that masks for the VACCINATED are to be mandated in various places around the United States. It is aggravating because the entire history of SARS-CoV-2 has been obscured by lies and bad politics, even from some of the truly best people, who made the mistake of assuming that some of the world’s very most dishonest and manipulative people were worthy of being trusted.
The news media and of course the “experts” from the CDC and WHO seem to be trying to thread their way around what may be a basic truth about the novel coronavirus: That it is bioengineered and specifically bioengineered to be very difficult, if not impossible, to actually eradicate.
We have a lot of circumstantial evidence that appears to easily follow up this claim, first reported widely on the Next News Network video featuring Dr. Rashid Buttar, who described the research in the United States before 2014 on a virus that was “chimeric”, that incorporated features from HIV and other really bad-news viruses to create a new virus that would be impossible to vaccinate for.
This research was taking place in US laboratories until 2014, when some officials from the Obama Adminstration discovered the nature of this research, and horrified, ordered it stopped immediately. It was stopped in the US, only to be relocated to Wuhan, and supported anew in 2017 through the efforts of one Doctor Anthony S. Fauci, who in 2012 wrote that the benefits of gain-of-function research are worth the risk of an accidental pandemic.
Do you not believe me? That is fine. But follow the link above, or read below to see for yourself (I have added emphasis):
Research on Highly Pathogenic H5N1 Influenza Virus: The Way Forward
The voluntary moratorium on gain-of-function research related to the transmissibility of highly pathogenic H5N1 influenza virus should continue, pending the resolution of critical policy questions concerning the rationale for performing such experiments and how best to report their results. The potential benefits and risks of these experiments must be discussed and understood by multiple stakeholders, including the general public, and all decisions regarding such research must be made in a transparent manner.
We see this abstract made in broad disagreement with the subsequent commentary. Dr. Fauci goes on to write about the moratorium put in place at the time of his writing.
The influenza virus research community is to be commended for implementing a voluntary moratorium on “gain-of-function” experiments related to the transmissibility of highly pathogenic H5N1 influenza virus (1). As a key funder of influenza virus research, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, a component of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, strongly supports the continuation of this moratorium pending the resolution of critical policy issues related to the rationale for performing and reporting such experiments. We need to be certain that the fundamental purposes of this work, together with its risks and benefits, are understood by multiple stakeholders, including the general public, and that decisions are made in a transparent manner.
It is clear that the scientists who conducted the experiments that triggered this debate (2, 3), and who are among those who voluntarily signed onto the moratorium, have conducted their research properly and under the safest and most secure conditions. However, the issue that has been intensely debated is whether knowledge obtained from these experiments could inadvertently affect public health in an adverse way, even in nations multiple time zones away. Putting aside the specter of bioterrorism for the moment, consider this hypothetical scenario: an important gain-of-function experiment involving a virus with serious pandemic potential is performed in a well-regulated, world-class laboratory by experienced investigators, but the information from the experiment is then used by another scientist who does not have the same training and facilities and is not subject to the same regulations. In an unlikely but conceivable turn of events, what if that scientist becomes infected with the virus, which leads to an outbreak and ultimately triggers a pandemic? Many ask reasonable questions: given the possibility of such a scenario—however remote—should the initial experiments have been performed and/or published in the first place, and what were the processes involved in this decision?
Scientists working in this field might say—as indeed I have said—that the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks. It is more likely that a pandemic would occur in nature, and the need to stay ahead of such a threat is a primary reason for performing an experiment that might appear to be risky. However, we must respect that there are genuine and legitimate concerns about this type of research, both domestically and globally.
The next part of this paragraph is interesting. Read it and you will know why:
We cannot expect those who have these concerns to simply take us, the scientific community, at our word that the benefits of this work outweigh the risks, nor can we ignore their calls for greater transparency, their concerns about conflicts of interest, and their efforts to engage in a dialog about whether these experiments should have been performed in the first place. Those of us in the scientific community who believe in the merits of this work have the responsibility to address these concerns thoughtfully and respectfully.
That, or! Send all the materials on the quiet to China and fund it from the NIH, and continue the research anyway. Right, Doctor?
One wonders what Dr. Fauci thinks about his “hypothetical” situation now. Now, it is no longer hypothetical. Putting myself in the doctor’s shoes, he must have been [passing] ice-cold bricks when the bioengineered signature of SARS-CoV-2 was discovered. So began a desperate cover-up attempt, that thankfully is coming unraveled.
But, now, what exactly does all this mean? From this point on we move from circumstantial evidence assembly to outright and shameless speculation.
Some people speculate that the vaccines have basically beaten the virus, the virus just doesn’t really know it yet. I myself tend toward such views, because I still believe in the outcome where everything turns out for the good. Some others portray a diametric opposite situation, voiced in words like these from Mike Adams, who was thrown off the social networks for expressing what he thinks:
IMPORTANT REMINDER: Most people who take the mRNA vaccine will be dead within 5 years. So far, 4.2 million doses have been administered in the United States, and that number is growing by the day. The population by 2025 may be HALF of what it is now, depending on how many take the mRNA vax.
If this claim is true, there is no way I would get vaccinated. I would wait it out and then score some amazing real-estate deals. Does that sound callous? Probably, but Douglas Adams would have said the same. But put it another way: I do not wish to be dead of vaccine, either.
What is the truth of all this?
We do not know. But this video interview with Douglas Murray of the UK publication The Spectator seems to be marking a solid “middle ground” prediction that is based on our present experience of COVID mutations that easily penetrate the vaccines’ “protection”. This prediction assumes no breakthrough that gets us to a true vaccine that would both block and “starve” the virus into non-existence. He suggests constant interference in our lives by government “mandates” for this or that “booster” shot (if not the original vaccine itself) will be a part of our lives through the rest of the decade.
We will have to just live these next several years to find out what really happened.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Duran.