closing ranks against the truth

the problem with conspiracies is that even when they work, it's hard to make them last

one of the great questions in the covidian chronicles is perhaps the simplest and thus the least asked.

“how did we go from “that which everybody knew” which was sound and reasoned and in accordance with accepted perception and practice to “that which made no sense” and had never before seemed plausible?”

it occurred so quickly one might mistake it for a phase change.

one day, there was no problem and you should go on a cruise. the next we need to close the world.

one day, it was pretty obvious that the “coincidence” of this new virus with its implausible history and genetic structure was likely a lab leak from the wuhan institute of virology that was doing research on gain of function in these exact viruses and the next, that was crazy talk spread by dangerous loons and conspiracists.

watching the whole of the ranks of public health and politics close around this unsupported belief beggaring claim as iron bar certainty and launch offensives to discredit disagreement was really quite astonishing, especially as some clearly knew better and some likely knew for certain.

now the latter, we can understand, that was covering up culpability in what was not only a crime, but perhaps the most harm done to the world by the fewest people in the entire history of the human race manhattan projected included. i mean, if they created this, daszak, baric, and shi zhengli make oppenheimer look like a piker.

but what of the former? what of the folks who knew better but were not implicated? how were they sidelined and silenced? what pressure was brought to bear or incentive was dangled to induct them into omerta?

the interesting case of former CDC head robert redfield emerges.

because robert knew better. and he spoke out. and then he went silent and was heard from no more as the axis of fauci and collins and daszak and baric took over informational control.

but now he is speaking again.

and what he’s saying is alarming on a number of vectors.

paul thacker had a recent interview here

“Tony and I are friends, but we don't agree on this at all,” Redfield told me. “The potential for conspiracy is really on the other side. The conspiracy is Collins, Fauci, and the established scientific community that has acted in an antithetical way to science.”

Speaking with me from his home in Baltimore, Redfield said that evidence in favor of a lab accident in China continues to accumulate and he expects more classified information to become public

he said A LOT of things that pretty much everyone knew in feb of 2020 but that by the end of march would get you kicked off social media and howled down by the talking point industrial complex of agency swamp creatures and the politicos who both control and rely upon them.

Paul D. Thacker @thackerpd

REDFIELD: When I reviewed the classified documents we had early on about the furin cleavage site, I said, “This isn’t natural.” The DNA that codes for the amino acid isn’t from bats, they’re human. /4

i remember this. redfield was outspoken then suddenly silent on this issue. it was rapidly dominated by the “dirty hands” gang at the NIH that was funding THIS:

completely shutting down discussion. it was “a conspiracy theory” and you were not allowed to talk about it.

it was a full blown fox commission investigating the henhouse murders.

this has been an epic cover up.

and the names of the architects are clear.

and those who are now clear of the wall of silence around “public service” are speaking up.

and these faucian freeze outs are not the sort of actions that the innocent undertake.

the evidence was always there.

more evidence fauci, daszak, and the NIH are STILL lying about wuhan

most was not ever in any sort of factual dispute, it was just a small, well connected group using the “shaggy defense” of “wasn’t me.”

but that’s been disproven for some time.

this has all held together for quite a while, but the thing about conspiracies is that when they start to unravel, they can really come apart quickly.

once you find the line of the lie and start to pull, the time from “sweater” to “pile of yarn” is but a brief flicker.

you can threaten underlings into drinking big glasses of shut the hell up if they ever wanna work in this (incredibly small and clubby) town again, but once the dam starts leaking, everyone runs for cover.

and even last year you could see this gang getting ready to run.

and now it’s becoming clear why.

and the truth they sought to suppress is going mainstream.

people will tell themselves all kinds of stories here about what could or could not have been known and by whom and when, but the basic shape of this was always obvious if you took the time to look and this was hardly even arguable at least a year ago and was a clear prime suspect right from the beginning.

peter daszak: supervillain origin story

and that’s coming to the fore. the more rational rats have been jumping ship and joining the other team for some time, but seeing “the lancet” who so aggressively pushed so much baseless conspiracy theory on the impossibility of this being a lab leak flipping is a sign that the levee is breaking. bigly.

"No independent, transparent, and science-based investigation has been carried out regarding the bioengineering of SARS-like viruses that was underway before the outbreak of COVID-19," writes The Lancet's Covid-19 commission, following two years of work.

"Independent researchers have not yet investigated the US laboratories engaged in the laboratory manipulation of SARS-CoV-like viruses, nor have they investigated the details of the laboratory research that had been underway in Wuhan. Moreover, the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) has resisted disclosing details of the research on SARS-CoV-related viruses that it had been supporting, providing extensively redacted information only as required by Freedom of Information Act lawsuits."

goodness. one certainly might pause to ponder from whence the iron bar certainty expressed in their letter of 2020 came:

(note daszak’s name among the authors. coincidence, i’m sure…)

because that’s quite a strident set of claims from the folks now attesting that to this day that no meaningful investigation has been carried out.

conveniently self-serving too.

huh.

also note that this is the same committee that peter hotez was trying to get anyone who dared claim “gain of function leak” kicked off of to the point of wanting to use a hate crimes act against people spreading such ideas.

one can certainly see why he directed so many attacks at jeffrey sachs.

it’s all pretty clear how the wagons got circled here and why.

this one is too far out in the open now. it reeks like a fish head i once lost back behind the fridge. and someone is going to find it.

because this was always an obvious frontrunner as an explanation. it is clearly got shelved because the dastards that did the deed covered it up in what turns out to be a hyperconnected and clannish little realm and they got reams of scientific, industry, and political air cover as they did.

and you can see much of the why. who would want THIS blamed on them? these are some seriously arrogant, legacy loving people. of course they’d lie to you to protect themselves from accusations of being typhoid tony, covid creator.

but as we winkle the facts from this shell, let us not forget how many others remain unopened.

and let’s make sure we get to those too, because while this was one simple, obvious volte face, there were clearly many others and a great many questions remain unanswered.

1. what was the origin of the mRNA payloads for the vaccines. moderna licensed theirs straight from NIH. pfizer from bioNtech, a company bill gates just happened to buy a big chunk of in november 2019. where did BNT and NIH get it? (i’ll bet you the path leads to wuhan)

2. who in the government has been getting royalties on these? there is a stunning lack of requirement for NIH and CDC employees to disclose payments from pharma that makes the congressionally allowed insider trading rules look like kid stuff. the size of that conflict of interest beggars belief.

3. how did we go from “lockdowns are crazy and do not work” to “lock down to save to world” in a matter of 2 weeks? who actually drove that and who made the decisions and why? it was certainly not based in science. so what was it? politics? money? foreign influence? panic? how was everyone whipped into perfect synchrony on this issue like well drilled rockettes?

4. how did we lose the idea that “testing asymptomatic people using high Ct PCR is a terrible idea that will generate reams of faulty data” and instead kick off a testing complex worth a $1 billion a week in the US alone at some points? whose idea was that?

5. how did masks go from “these don’t work, don’t protect you, don’t stop spread and here’s a ream of WHO and other data that says so” to “if you don’t mask up, you’ll kill every grandma and teacher alive!" overnight?

6. why were safe, possible effective treatments eliminated and excoriated in unprecedented fashion to the point of outright bans while junk drugs that failed their trials were whisked through on shoddy studies and after the fact endpoint alteration?

7. how did we seamlessly pivot from “vaccines will stop spread” to “vaccines were only supposed to reduce severity” without even taking a pause to reflect when the dangers of leaky vaccines are so clear?

8. and exactly how did all these agencies interact with media, social or otherwise, to shape messages, villify and suppress dissent, censor and cancel alternate views and whistleblowers, and elevate such a cavalcade of complete incompetents using credentials to push the worst woo-woo in public health history while erasing and effacing all signs of sense?

there were SO many manipulations and misstatements here and so many complete 180 degree changes of position. the same people who told you one thing immediately and all in unison would suddenly pivot to the exact opposite.

it seems too unified and blatant and oddly specific to be just a simple emergent phenomenon.

i’m sure nascent fear topologies and the perfect A/B testing of the atavistic terror amplifiers of social media played a role in spread, but so many top down diktats came from agencies in direct contravention of not only what they knew but of what they had just said, that it feels like agenda.

and the search for “who are we going to throw under the bus” appears well underway.

THIS is quite an interesting (and lengthy) article and it’s certainly thought provoking. it’s always temping to blame the james bond villain in a cardigan (and i’m certainly no fan) but i struggle to see this as a full explanation and i suspect there is quite a lot more.

this is not set of questions we can afford to get half-assed answers on.

without a thorough understanding of the root causes and culprits here, this WILL happen again over any one of 100 pretexts.

let’s not do that, shall we?