Today, 1 October, NRC curiously reports on a "surfaced research proposal" that would shed new light on the lab origins of SARS-CoV2. I find it remarkable, not only because this news was already in The Telegraph News 10 days ago, but especially because we heard very little about it in the Dutch media, while an increasing number of signals have been pointing in this direction for much longer. For example, I didn't hear anything about Fauci's emails and his correspondence with Wuhan and leading virologists a few months ago, it was dismissed as a conspiracy theory. Has NRC now also become a conspiracy magazine?
The probability of a natural origin of the virus (the market in Wuhan, which would then be 'natural') has shrunk by the day. Especially since April, it is almost nonsensical to claim that we are dealing with a natural virus.
Of course, there can always be incontrovertible evidence that topples the incriminating pile of observations that is now on the table. Given the investigative power that has been on top of it for almost two years, this is almost unthinkable. As counter-evidence, they were eagerly looking for bats with the same virus, the same 'anomaly'. As you will read, they can stop doing that now because it now also appears that the research plan also described that wild bats would be infected. "What could possibly go wrong..."
For more background information, see my blog of June 26 (link below) with links to, among other things, a plausible and documented reconstruction of Nicholas Wade and why it keeps me so busy. It has more impact than you think. And a video with Marion Koopmans, who talks in the Jeugdjournaal about the research in Wuhan, that the virus spreads through touches and surfaces, etc. (as of February 2020).
The take-aways of the surfaced document
More instructive than the NRC article is the 10-minute video by Del Bigtree (thehighwire.com) of 27 September, link at the bottom of this article. Del Bigtree does blow up the business report of investigative journalist Jefferey Jaxen to an unbelievably spectacular proportion, namely that it would immediately mean that vaccinated people are contagious. That is not the case for the time being. Which is not to say that the documents presented by the journalist would not be reliable.
In any case, which is in line with previous findings: vehemently denied research activities, including under oath by Fauci, do appear to have taken place with the knowledge, support and even directing supervision of Western virologists – including Fauci.
A number of these virologists involved were part of the research team that visited the laboratory in Wuhan to assess whether something improper was happening there. Marion Koopmans was also there, and again a central role was played by Peter Daszak, who made at least one attempt to fend off suspicions through a fabricated 'study'.
Translation of a few highlights from the "unearthed investigation":
"A year and a half before Covid-19 emerged, researchers submitted plans to release skin-penetrating nanoparticles and aerosols containing 'novel chimeric spike proteins' into bat caves in Yunan, China."
Of course, this would be done (according to NRC) with immunizing intentions. Previously, even the research group denied that viruses were enhanced with modified proteins. Afterwards, attempts were also made to trace its origin to a bat cave. According to the researchers, alleged traces of artificially created fragments simply come from nature, which were diligently searched for in bat caves. Studies have been fabricated to debunk the lab origins (all found in links in earlier post) Also, I can remember a cleanup crew that got sick after visiting a cave 'to clean up bat poop'. (According to ancient Chinese custom?)
"The researchers also intended to edit viruses, genetically modified to better infect people. For this, they asked for a budget of $14 million dollars."
The money had to come from DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. All to better protect people in case such a virus were to emerge. Well, that's how you can justify all kinds of activities. DARPA rejected it, paraphrased:
"The research team does not discuss the potential risks of Gain of Function research or its risk management. However, the research approach does point in the direction of Gain of Function or at least Dual Use research. After all, they aim to synthesize spike proteins that can bind to human cell receptors and link them to SARSr-CoV to induce a SARS-like disease."
A grant application never comes out of the blue. There is always a trigger. If researchers come across something that contains music in their work, they carefully consider whether it is worthwhile to apply for a research grant. Most of the time, work has already been done in the promising direction. It is precisely then that good money can be asked, the prospects are positive. A new find is often bycatch, an offshoot of ongoing research in a lab. In this case, the continuation of that (sub)investigation would require a higher level of security. To go from LAB-2 to LAB-4 costs a lot of money. So that money didn't come. It is difficult to say whether they resolutely stopped that research at that time, because all data about it was taken offline the day after the outbreak.
De aflevering van The Highwire (10 minuten): THE INVESTIGATION INTO COVID-19’S ORIGIN TAKES NEW TWIST | The HighWire
Het virusvaria-artikel van 26 juni: https://virusvaria.nl/gain-of-function-pandemic-the-movie/
Over een boek dat de affaire uitdiept: Covid ‘leaked from Wuhan lab in cover up worse than Watergate’, new book claims – World News – Mirror Online
Als je de toonzetting in de NL media wil proeven -“alle scenario’s liggen nog openâ€- kun je ook nog the NRC article lezen.
