NRC bericht vandaag, 1 oktober, merkwaardigerwijs over een "opgedoken onderzoeksvoorstel" dat nieuw licht zou werpen op de lab-origine van SARS-CoV2. Ik vind het opmerkelijk, niet alleen omdat dit nieuws 10 dagen geleden al in The Telegraph News stond maar vooral omdat we hierover toch heel weinig hoorden in de NL media, terwijl een toenemend aantal signalen al veel langer in deze richting wijst. Over de e-mails van Fauci en zijn correspondentie met Wuhan en vooraanstaande virologen heb ik een aantal maanden geleden bijvoorbeeld niets gehoord, het werd afgedaan als complottheorie. Is NRC nu ook een complotblaadje geworden?
The likelihood of a natural origin of the virus (the market in Wuhan, that would be 'natural') has shrunk day by day. Especially since April, it is almost nonsensical to claim that we are dealing with a natural virus.
Er kan natuurlijk altijd een onomstotelijk bewijs komen dat de belastende stapel observaties die er nu ligt omver gooit. Gezien de onderzoekskracht die er al bijna twee jaar bovenop zit is dat zo goed als ondenkbaar. Men was als tegenbewijs naarstig op zoek naar vleermuizen met hetzelfde virus, dezelfde 'anomalie'. Zoals je zult lezen kunnen ze daar nu ook wel mee stoppen want het blijkt nu ook dat het onderzoeksplan ook beschreef dat wilde vleermuizen besmet zouden worden. "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.
Which in any case is in line with previous findings: vehemently denied research activities, including under oath by Fauci, appear to have indeed 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 here again a central role was played by Peter Daszak, who made at least one attempt to fend off suspicions through a fabricated 'study'.
Vertaling van een paar hoogtepunten uit het "opgedoken onderzoek":
"Anderhalf jaar voordat Covid-19 opdook, hebben onderzoekers plannen ingediend om huiddoordringende nanopartikels en aerosolen met 'novel chimeric spike proteins' los te laten in vleermuisgrotten in Yunan, China."
Obviously this would happen (according to NRC) with immunization intentions. Previously, the research group even denied that viruses were amplified with modified proteins. Later, an attempt was also made to trace the origin to a bat cave. According to the researchers, alleged traces of artificially placed fragments simply come from nature, and they were diligently searched for in bat caves. Studies have been fabricated to debunk the lab origins (all found in links in previous post) Also, I remember a cleanup crew getting sick after visiting a cave 'to clean up bat poop'. (According to ancient Chinese custom?)
"De onderzoekers hadden ook het voornemen om virussen te bewerken, genetisch gemodificeerd om mensen beter te kunnen besmetten. Hiervoor vroegen zij een budget van $14 miljoen dollar".
The money had to come from DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. All to better protect people if such a virus were to actually emerge. Well, you can justify all kinds of activities that way. DARPA rejected it, paraphrased:
"Het onderzoeksteam bespreekt niet de mogelijke risico's van Gain of Function-onderzoek of de risicobeheersing daarvan. De onderzoeksbenadering wijst echter wel degelijk in de richting van Gain of Function of op zijn minst Dual Use onderzoek. Zij beogen immers om spike proteïnes te synthetiseren die zich kunnen binden aan menselijke celreceptoren en die te koppelen met SARSr-CoV om een SARS-achtige ziekte op te wekken."
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 open"- kun je ook nog the NRC article lezen.
