Have you seen the ideas put forward by JJ Couey on this topic?
One key foundational premise is that RNA viruses are in a sense fail-safe for bioweapons research because very little of the genome is conserved owing to low fidelity replication. So if you manage to optimize them by tinkering, they rapidly regress to, in the case of coronaviruses, a harmless cold for which humans have a deep defensive architecture.
He goes on to say that the RNA signal alleged to exist in the "spread" of COVID around the world, can only be explained by a program of deliberate deployment of infectious clones in an attempt to simulate the spread of a dangerous pathogen. These clones would be lab-made high fidelity copies of the engineered pathogen, which could be deployed in high concentrations and would be replication-competent, but by the nature of RNA viruses, the "spread" of the pathogen would be limited by the poor replication fidelity - what little of the next generation that was replication competent would rapidly regress away from the optimized pathogen.
The clones are produced by a DNA template method similar to how the mRNA shots are produced, resulting in high quality copies, and might be just raw RNA encapsulated (e.g. in an LNP or other virus-like-particle), it would not necessarily need to be an actual virion.
The high level thesis:
1. the bioweapon / lab leak danger narrative has been pushed for many years
2. lots of legal preparation (e.g. PREP act) and war games pushing the idea of pandemic viruses
3. the pandemic was faked by seeded infections, that do not show patterns matching epidemic spread (e.g. the work of Jessica Hockett and Denis Rancourt)
4. the pandemic narrative was supported by inaccurate tests that pick up an existing coronavirus background
5. the bioweapon / lab leak / natural origin debate was supported as a method to accept the premise that the pandemic was real and "might" (probably was) engineered and therefore we need to accept a new world of countermeasures
6. iatrogenic deaths (DNR for cardiac and opioid, hospitals in chaos, ventilators and remdesivir) to produce a real signal of deaths, but not really from COVID
7. all with the intent of getting the vax rollout to happen, which also killed millions and did untold harms
at least that is my take - it is an interesting idea and to me it has merit.
i dont know if there's a good source for his ideas (they are in the new RFK book, but not strongly featured)
Wittingly or not, this book will delight the perpetrators of the covid scam.
They’ve successfully got everyone obsessed by the false dichotomy of lab-leak vs zoonotic origin while ignoring the central question: to what extent did we have a pandemic at all?
I was going to be informative, but you mention the retirement center deaths near Ft. Detrick MD in summer of 2019, just before the Virology lab was shut down for "breach", "but no harm was done".
This is the very best article I have read on Covid origins. (I have nearly 400 in my database.) Josh has assembled the most thoughtful analyses I've seen (I'm thinking especially of Ron Unz) into a coherent picture. Thank you for doing so, and directing your readers to stop the madness.
I learned so much from the linked paper on the origins of Ebola. It sure looks like the same virologists that conspired with Fauci to hide the lab origin of Covid did the dirty work to hide the lab origin of Ebola.
A quick summary: everything you report on feels like you know certain policies cause harms. On one hand, it sounds like you're trying to rally the public in order to get the harmful policies stopped. On the other, it feels you have no real plan to do so unless the people enforcing the policies allow or give you permission to stop them.
The laws currently in place already make forcing anyone to get anything injected for any reason illegal. Also in all Western nations, politicians are neither above nor exempt from any of these laws.
If we're too afraid to stand up for these laws now, what good does 'reinstating' those laws or adding others we are also too fearful to uphold going to do? You're skipping a step. You're skipping a necessary step that you can not skip in this situation.
If I asked you to, could you right now set aside your fears &/or anxieties about the prospect of standing up to politicians? I ask this because you know who can't? Everyone I've ever met. The fear is so ingrained no one will admit TO themselves they have it.
But they always react to avoid it. So the fear prevents people from treating the decision-makers in charge as mere mortals we need to hold accountable, & we cannot end the harmful policies without mass public support & without holding them accountable.
That's a closed circle. We have to break out of that BEFORE we CAN lead something that can end the policies.
We have to remove their fear. & that also requires another step BEFORE we can do that.
People can't shut their fear of authority figures unless they feel something else can protect them from their Divine Wrath. Something that feels Big Enough to do that.
It has to be a movement, & that movement has to make them feel secure. It can't be built overnight. But it CAN be built to become too large to block or dismiss, possibly within the year.
The problem with all of this debate is that there was never any pandemic. The only reason, and I mean the only reason we think there was one is because that is what we were told.
Josh, do you care to speculate what the impact of computerized vote fraud might be on RFK Jr.'s electoral chances?
I'm hoping that the support he has on the right includes those who program the voting machines. Perhaps they might help him out in the primaries. Even if so, I can't help but recall you once making the point that their power only goes so far. They can't reverse a landslide. And I suspect Biden will beat RFK in a landslide. I know Charles Eisenstein is far more optimistic than I am. I hope he's right, but I see no reason to think so.
Sure, I'd like to see an end to bioweapons research and bioweapons development. But I don't lose any sleep over it. I’m just not very afraid of bio-weapons. That's because germ theory of disease is weak at best. It makes a poor foundation for weaponry.
The case of Kary Mullis trying to find a paper to cite which showed HIV caused AIDS is famous. He made much of the fact that there isn't one. But is there such a paper for any disease and its implicated microbe? Research fraud in medical science seems to have exploded lately. But Barbara Ehrenreich and Deirdre English show in For Her Own Good that it dates back to the origins of the medical profession in the 19th century. Physician scientists of the time were unable to demonstrate microbial origins of diseases back then, but it didn't stop them from laying the blame. Ehrenreich and English argue doctors wanted to blame disease on something only they had province over. Ordinary people didn't have microscopes.
Could microbes be made more lethal? Sure. And sticking tennis balls into pillows would make pillow fights more lethal. It just strikes me as a dingbat way to go about trying to kill people. Of course I know no good comes of it, and it probably has hurt/killed some people, but I do get a kick out of the notion that they are failing in their evil deeds because they believe their own nonsense.
Why do I think Some harm has occurred? Well, I would walk back a little from my claim that viruses aren't pathogenic. I do believe they have some pathogenicity, though not in the way that is commonly believed. I don't see them as having an independent existence. Josh, you suggested in your anti-aging blog last August 6th that we think of extracellular vesicles as endogenous viruses, and that they can be used to communicate with other individuals. So why not think of viruses as exogenous extracellular vesicles? And a message they might be communicating is that the population has gotten dense, that it's time to thin our numbers. Perhaps they are a mechanism of aging. I know of course that there are other explanations for why they disproportionately effect the elderly, but this notion that they're agents of aging has really stuck with me.
Have you seen the ideas put forward by JJ Couey on this topic?
One key foundational premise is that RNA viruses are in a sense fail-safe for bioweapons research because very little of the genome is conserved owing to low fidelity replication. So if you manage to optimize them by tinkering, they rapidly regress to, in the case of coronaviruses, a harmless cold for which humans have a deep defensive architecture.
He goes on to say that the RNA signal alleged to exist in the "spread" of COVID around the world, can only be explained by a program of deliberate deployment of infectious clones in an attempt to simulate the spread of a dangerous pathogen. These clones would be lab-made high fidelity copies of the engineered pathogen, which could be deployed in high concentrations and would be replication-competent, but by the nature of RNA viruses, the "spread" of the pathogen would be limited by the poor replication fidelity - what little of the next generation that was replication competent would rapidly regress away from the optimized pathogen.
The clones are produced by a DNA template method similar to how the mRNA shots are produced, resulting in high quality copies, and might be just raw RNA encapsulated (e.g. in an LNP or other virus-like-particle), it would not necessarily need to be an actual virion.
The high level thesis:
1. the bioweapon / lab leak danger narrative has been pushed for many years
2. lots of legal preparation (e.g. PREP act) and war games pushing the idea of pandemic viruses
3. the pandemic was faked by seeded infections, that do not show patterns matching epidemic spread (e.g. the work of Jessica Hockett and Denis Rancourt)
4. the pandemic narrative was supported by inaccurate tests that pick up an existing coronavirus background
5. the bioweapon / lab leak / natural origin debate was supported as a method to accept the premise that the pandemic was real and "might" (probably was) engineered and therefore we need to accept a new world of countermeasures
6. iatrogenic deaths (DNR for cardiac and opioid, hospitals in chaos, ventilators and remdesivir) to produce a real signal of deaths, but not really from COVID
7. all with the intent of getting the vax rollout to happen, which also killed millions and did untold harms
at least that is my take - it is an interesting idea and to me it has merit.
i dont know if there's a good source for his ideas (they are in the new RFK book, but not strongly featured)
this is a pretty good summary.
https://odysee.com/@Oisin.page:f/(2023-11-19)-Medical-Doctors-for-COVID-Ethics-International---JJ-Couey,-Gigaohm-Biological-High-Resistance-Low-Noise-Information-Brief:8
Wittingly or not, this book will delight the perpetrators of the covid scam.
They’ve successfully got everyone obsessed by the false dichotomy of lab-leak vs zoonotic origin while ignoring the central question: to what extent did we have a pandemic at all?
https://open.substack.com/pub/pandauncut/p/the-lombardy-analysis
Thanks Josh. Good work. Lots of work...
I was going to be informative, but you mention the retirement center deaths near Ft. Detrick MD in summer of 2019, just before the Virology lab was shut down for "breach", "but no harm was done".
https://www.johndayblog.com/2021/06/fort-detrick.html
This is very good virology work, too:
China’s CCP Concealed SARS-CoV-2 Presence in China as Far Back as March 2018
https://theethicalskeptic.com/2021/11/15/chinas-ccp-concealed-sars-cov-2-presence-in-china-as-far-back-as-march-2018/
This reads like Hydra vs Shield, but Captain America will not save us. We have to save ourselves.
This is the very best article I have read on Covid origins. (I have nearly 400 in my database.) Josh has assembled the most thoughtful analyses I've seen (I'm thinking especially of Ron Unz) into a coherent picture. Thank you for doing so, and directing your readers to stop the madness.
I learned so much from the linked paper on the origins of Ebola. It sure looks like the same virologists that conspired with Fauci to hide the lab origin of Covid did the dirty work to hide the lab origin of Ebola.
Your were more objective and truthful than RFK Jr, so deeper reading if interested:
https://pete843.substack.com/p/the-blobs-manhattan-project-and-defuse
https://jimhaslam.substack.com/p/6-if-you-believe-the-wiv-engineered
A quick summary: everything you report on feels like you know certain policies cause harms. On one hand, it sounds like you're trying to rally the public in order to get the harmful policies stopped. On the other, it feels you have no real plan to do so unless the people enforcing the policies allow or give you permission to stop them.
The laws currently in place already make forcing anyone to get anything injected for any reason illegal. Also in all Western nations, politicians are neither above nor exempt from any of these laws.
If we're too afraid to stand up for these laws now, what good does 'reinstating' those laws or adding others we are also too fearful to uphold going to do? You're skipping a step. You're skipping a necessary step that you can not skip in this situation.
If I asked you to, could you right now set aside your fears &/or anxieties about the prospect of standing up to politicians? I ask this because you know who can't? Everyone I've ever met. The fear is so ingrained no one will admit TO themselves they have it.
But they always react to avoid it. So the fear prevents people from treating the decision-makers in charge as mere mortals we need to hold accountable, & we cannot end the harmful policies without mass public support & without holding them accountable.
That's a closed circle. We have to break out of that BEFORE we CAN lead something that can end the policies.
We have to remove their fear. & that also requires another step BEFORE we can do that.
People can't shut their fear of authority figures unless they feel something else can protect them from their Divine Wrath. Something that feels Big Enough to do that.
It has to be a movement, & that movement has to make them feel secure. It can't be built overnight. But it CAN be built to become too large to block or dismiss, possibly within the year.
Care to chat?
The problem with all of this debate is that there was never any pandemic. The only reason, and I mean the only reason we think there was one is because that is what we were told.
I wrote about this, an excerpt:
𝘈𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘰 𝘪𝘴 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 2020 𝘰𝘯𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘥. 𝘋𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘢’𝘴 𝘥𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘦-𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳-𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘯, 𝘯𝘰 𝘩𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘢 𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘩 𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘢 𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘤, 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘯𝘰 𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘤. 𝘐𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘢 𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘤, 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘤𝘩 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘯𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘭 𝘷𝘪𝘳𝘶𝘴.
Have a read if the urge overtakes you.
https://reportsfromtherabbithole.substack.com/p/the-virus-telenovella
Josh, do you care to speculate what the impact of computerized vote fraud might be on RFK Jr.'s electoral chances?
I'm hoping that the support he has on the right includes those who program the voting machines. Perhaps they might help him out in the primaries. Even if so, I can't help but recall you once making the point that their power only goes so far. They can't reverse a landslide. And I suspect Biden will beat RFK in a landslide. I know Charles Eisenstein is far more optimistic than I am. I hope he's right, but I see no reason to think so.
Sure, I'd like to see an end to bioweapons research and bioweapons development. But I don't lose any sleep over it. I’m just not very afraid of bio-weapons. That's because germ theory of disease is weak at best. It makes a poor foundation for weaponry.
The case of Kary Mullis trying to find a paper to cite which showed HIV caused AIDS is famous. He made much of the fact that there isn't one. But is there such a paper for any disease and its implicated microbe? Research fraud in medical science seems to have exploded lately. But Barbara Ehrenreich and Deirdre English show in For Her Own Good that it dates back to the origins of the medical profession in the 19th century. Physician scientists of the time were unable to demonstrate microbial origins of diseases back then, but it didn't stop them from laying the blame. Ehrenreich and English argue doctors wanted to blame disease on something only they had province over. Ordinary people didn't have microscopes.
Could microbes be made more lethal? Sure. And sticking tennis balls into pillows would make pillow fights more lethal. It just strikes me as a dingbat way to go about trying to kill people. Of course I know no good comes of it, and it probably has hurt/killed some people, but I do get a kick out of the notion that they are failing in their evil deeds because they believe their own nonsense.
Why do I think Some harm has occurred? Well, I would walk back a little from my claim that viruses aren't pathogenic. I do believe they have some pathogenicity, though not in the way that is commonly believed. I don't see them as having an independent existence. Josh, you suggested in your anti-aging blog last August 6th that we think of extracellular vesicles as endogenous viruses, and that they can be used to communicate with other individuals. So why not think of viruses as exogenous extracellular vesicles? And a message they might be communicating is that the population has gotten dense, that it's time to thin our numbers. Perhaps they are a mechanism of aging. I know of course that there are other explanations for why they disproportionately effect the elderly, but this notion that they're agents of aging has really stuck with me.