I now understand the Covid Pandemic
Replying to SAM HUSSEINI: SUBSTACK
Did you edit your initial reply? I could swear that when I read this last night you mentioned Robert F. Garry and Kristian Anderson as part of the Kenema lab, and also mentioned that the Kenema lab had lost its US funding at the time of the Sierra Leone/Guinea Ebola outbreak. I am going to go ahead on the premise that I did read your initial reply correctly, because both points are important. As to how the virus spreads, do not be so sure that we know what is “the usual way” for a lab-created virus to cause a pandemic.
You are aware that both Robert F. Garry and Kristian Andersen, who were involved in the Kenema lab, signed the infamous “Proximal Origins” paper that appeared in NATURE magazine, in March of 2020.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9
CHD’s The Defender covered the shady discussions which preceded this signing. Note that both Garry and Andersen appear to have had problems with the natural origins idea early on.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/covid-lab-origin-story-scientific-article-rtk/
More on Robert F. Garry later.
So, the VHFC lab lost its US funding in August, 2014. Just as the Makona strain of Ebola was raging in the countryside. How convenient to obscure the money trail for a bioweapon.
Sounds like your evidence is pretty conclusive that this lab studied Ebola, despite Garry and Andersen’s denials. I’m going to go along with that. You mention that US scientists were scouring the jungles for Ebola-carrying bats. Does this sound familiar-- a lot like scouring for SARS bats in China? And why were they doing this? To help the poor people in Africa? Like they have helped Africans with so many other diseases and vaccines (like polio, HPV, etc.)?
In the article you mention a bat study by study by Olson published in 2012. But the Makona strain of Ebola emerged only in 2013.
” During late 2013, EBOV unexpectedly emerged for the first time in Western Africa. Caused by a novel variant (EBOV-Makona), the virus spread rapidly throughout Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia, infecting over 28000 people and killing over 11000 [2]. “
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6249576/
A “novel variant,” eh? That sounds familiar, too.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Much has been made of the scary symptoms and high mortality of Ebola. Dr. Jackie Stone, a GP practicing in Kenya who actually successfully treats both Marburg virus and Ebola, disputes this in a video which I have already sent you and others.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1k12q-HdHDPkzL8nmhFLvAb_zmql718j3/view
Hopefully you can open this. I had some trouble but eventually got it to open.
In the video she says—
1. Both diseases respond well to early treatment with hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, zinc, Vitamin D, Vitamin C, and zinc. Familiar?
2. The awful photos one sees of patients bleeding from their eyes and all over are the result of NO TREATMENT for at least two weeks in susceptible individuals. As with Covid, susceptible individuals develop cytokine storm, which can be lethal in itself. Like Covid, she states, Ebola and Marburg are clotting diseases. When the body’s clotting factors are all used up, one bleeds uncontrollably: that is what hemorrhagic fever is.
So, they may have let these people suffer for two weeks and die for lack of early treatment with cheap, ubiquitously available-in-Africa treatments. Sound familiar? And why might they do this? To get funding for development of fancy expensive treatments and for vaccines? Do I need to repeat myself?
I also note that. As you write, poor diagnostic techniques were used, which you mention in the article, and the highly variable symptoms of the various strains of Ebola may have caused overdiagnosis in some or many cases. Also familiar. (Here I would cue to the Giordano West Point neuroscience lecture on neuroscience as bioweapons.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But what initially caught my eye about Ebola, particularly after reading your article, was the very circumscribed areas that were affected by the outbreaks in Africa. I started thinking; the same was true for outbreaks of SARS-Cov-1, MERS, Zika, and more recently, of Monkeypox. That is exactly what opened me to researcher Jonathan Couey, Ph.D.’s recent declaration that what everybody seems to think is “the usual way” in which viruses spread, is in fact, not possible. At that time, I sent you and others the following:
If I correctly understand Jonathan Couey, Ph.D., while current technology can produce vast quantities of engineered clones, it is simply not possible to create a pandemic using such clones, from a lab leak or even from a planned release. Couey, with 20 years lab experience, most recently at the U. of Pittsburg School of Medicine, notes that the intrinsic poor fidelity of mRNA viruses’ reproduction capability means that, once released, people within a relatively circumscribed radius could be infected and get very sick, but the mRNA virions produce so many defective offspring and so few intact complete viruses in successive generations, that very soon its “epidemic” will diminish. mRNA viruses do not possess the cellular machinery to prevent overwhelming, cumulative errors in successive generations. Certainly, the offspring of virions from one person infected by a lab leak or even a planned release could not cause, by itself, a pandemic. Defective fragments of the original mRNA clones might be capable of producing a variety of milder symptoms, however, over a larger radius.
I hope scientists will challenge Couey’s observations and perhaps disprove or modify his conclusions. If he is correct, that explains the large array of symptoms associated with SARS-Cov-2 infections, ranging from death and hypoxia to brain fog to gastric distress to simple anxiety—not usual for a single illness. Might the circumscribed geographical spread and abeyance of Ebola outbreaks, SARS-Cov-1, MERS, and 2022 Monkeypox suggest a similarly limited lab release?
The difference between the older epidemics and SARS-Cov-2, could be the vast prowess of current propaganda manipulation. Yes, an almost unimaginably elaborate scheme would have been needed to release identical clones at multiple sensitive points all over the planet and then supercharge fear.
Yet consider the scale of planning that might have been needed for such events as, say, a public assassination of a president, a demolition of several skyscrapers or of giant undersea pipelines. Consider also the magnitude of the post pandemic societal changes. Perhaps all that effort might have been worth it.
If the above is true we may, perhaps, need to worry less about a near-future more lethal pandemic, other than a future pandemic of fear. Rather, we might focus even more intensely on how to heal the mass formation, as described by Mattias Desmet, set into motion by current and possible future events which might have been engineered in various ways.
The idea that viruses exist, not as mono-genomic entities, but rather as “swarms” consisting of a vast, ever-changing array of functional and (mostly) non-functional genetic variables, is a new one in science, and is far from being universally accepted. Unfortunately, Dr. Couey has recently alienated so many fellow scientists with his attacks on former allies, that his arguments have, as far as I can tell, not been as widely discussed as they should have been. But they make a great deal of sense.
Couey did present his ideas in a CHD panel featuring Drs. Meryl Nass, Robert Malone, and Jessica Rose:
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/rfk-jr-podcast-flu-data/
In that roundtable, Dr. Nass quibbles with Couey’s idea that there WAS no GOF virus. I quibble with that idea, too! In fact, his vociferous assertion about GOF now, after 3 years of his meticulous pursuit reading GOF research papers, seems to be the main bone of contention which is alienating from other researchers in the field. So unfortunate.
I believe you have worked with Dr. Nass. Perhaps you could discuss Couey’s viral swarm/ poor replication idea with her.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is the viral swarm idea. Linked below, that inspired Couey. Sirotkin seems to be an interesting guy, with a blot on his record, sex with a minor, similar to that on Scott Ritter’s. Who knows. Anyway, this piece is poorly edited but interesting.
Here is another article about viral swarms in a more respectable journal. It posits a much slower mutation rate than do Sirotkin and Couey.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-mutant-viral-swarms-spread-disease/
If I recall correctly, Dr. Kevin McKernan, who initiated the current concern about possible/likely DNA contamination of Covid vaccines, and who is one of a very few scientists to comment publicly on Couey’s new idea, has tweeted that he thinks RNA viruses do not mutate as fast as Couey thinks they do. Couey lays out his thesis in a very convincing way. (Again, I thought the infectious viral clone idea was convincing but not the idea that GOF does not exist. His defense of that second argument, about GOF, is worth listening to, however.)
I wish there were more discussion of this. I surely do not know the answer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Essentially, one could imagine: create an engineered virus to one’s desires and specifications, in a lab. But due to the difficulty of getting RNA viruses to replicate efficiently throughout a population, earlier efforts to propagate the various lab-created illnesses/variants failed to sicken people beyond certain circumscribed geographical limits. Per Dr. Giordano, however, one could:
1. Deliver the virus in nano aliquots unobtrusively in multiple busy areas, i.e., airports, Black Friday mobs at shopping mega-malls, Indian Health hospitals (ergo high death rates on Navaho reservations here in the Four Corners area of NM—big attention-getter around here) etc.—fairly easy drop-offs of micro amounts of clones all over the planet.
2. Test for this novel virus with tests that might falsely diagnose flu patients and others with this new disease;
3. Arrange for the virus to exhibit a wide variety of symptoms so as to alarm the legions of worried well so they rush to their doctors for diagnosis and thus fan waves of larger public panic;
4. Withhold early proper treatment so that the vulnerable would go on to succumb to cytokine storm, bacterial pneumonia, etc., and die in ICUs.
5. Put a whole bunch of people on respirators where they would almost always die.
6. Mandate masks and lockdowns to further stoke the public panic. Do this uniformly all over the planet;
7. Finally, whip out these lethal vaccines everywhere and require everyone to take them. Reduce the population while conditioning survivors to accede to the next nonsensical government pronouncements, such as why we need to fight the Ukraine war. And so on.
I think I get it now.
It is item #1 plus engaging the full force of the ever more sophisticated world propaganda machine, which were the critical differences between this and other practice pandemic events.
All of the above, and more, leads me to think that the US has been practicing with various viruses to create a pandemic, for a very long time. Ebola/Marburg had too high mortality if untreated. What they needed was a virus which, as Dr. Giordano says, could disrupt the social fabric rather than destroy it. At least, this time. And so we arrive at Coronavirus, a benign little creature, put a twist on it, release it as per Dr. Giordano’s explication or a more modern variant of that, and voila! we have the pandemic.
Just imagining, of course.
One final note. I promised to return to the subject of Dr. Robert F. Garry. Dr. Garry, as I understand it, was mentored by Dr. William Gallagher, at Tulane University, I believe. Gallagher did a whole lot of work on the furin cleavage site, found in both HIV and SARS-Cov-2 spike proteins, and critical for Covid’s ability, enhanced over that of other coronaviruses, to invade and infect the receptor of cells. Charles Rixey, researcher and member of the DRASTIC group, would be a very good person to follow up with on this:
As always, best wishes to you.
Haruhuani Spruce, MD
"We can utilize nano-science to create much better drugs to get them where they got to go in the brain.
I can create nano-science and nanotechnology to be able to escort certain drugs across the proliferant barrier which is the blood brain barrier and blood cerebral spine fluid barrier, so I get these things where they got to go.
But I can also utilize nano particulate matter in a very indiscriminate way. The idea here is that I can get that is something called high CNS (central nervous system) aggregation material that is essential invisible to the naked eye and even to most scanners because it is so small that it selectively goes through most levels of filter porosity. These are then inhaled either through the nasal mucosa or absorbed through the oral mucosa, they have high CNS affinity, they clump in the brain or in the vasculature, and they create essentially what looks like a hemorrhagic diathesis, in other words a haemorrhage predisposition or a clog predisposition in the brain.
What I have done is I created a stroking agent.
And it is very, very difficult to gain attribution to do that.
I can use that on a variety of levels, from the individual to the group, highly disruptive. And in fact this is one of the things that is been entertained and examined to some extent by my colleagues in NATO and to those who are working on the wors..use of neurobiological sciences to create populational disruption, very, very worried about the potential for these nano particulate agents to be CNS aggregating agents to cause neural disruption, either as hemorrhagic and vascular disrupters or as actual neural network disrupters because they interfere with the network properties of various neural nodes and systems within the brain."
-Dr. J. Giordano
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's Center for Global Security Research (CGSR) sponsored this talk entitled "Brain Science from Bench to Battlefield: The Realities – and Risks – of Neuroweapons” by Dr. James Giordano on June 12, 2017
Abstract:
The use of sarin gas in Syria and the nerve agent VX to assassinate Kim Jong-nam, and ongoing efforts in brain science by both nations and non-state actors (inclusive of a growing community of do-it-yourself/biohacker scientists) prompt renewed interest in the current and near-term possibilities of developing and employing neuroweapons. Discourse at the most recent meeting of Biological, Toxin, and Weapons Convention (BTWC), and ongoing efforts of a Working Group of the European Union Human Brain Project reinforced the need to more rigorously address research and use of weaponizable brain science.
In this briefing, neuroscientist and neuroethicist Dr. James Giordano of Georgetown University Medical Center discusses how new developments in brain science afford potential utility in military, intelligence and warfare operations, addresses implications of neuroweapons, and details the need for improved identification, surveillance, guidance and governance of brain science that can be used in military and warfare applications, and thus pose defined risk and threat to security interests.
Dr. James Giordano is Professor in the Departments of Neurology and Biochemistry, Chief of the Neuroethics Studies Program, and Co-director of the O'Neill-Pellegrino Program in Brain Science and Global Health Law and Policy at the Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC. He is a Senior Researcher and Task Leader of the Working Group on Dual-Use of the EU Human Brain Project, and has served as a Senior Science Advisory Fellow of the Strategic Multilayer Assessment group of the Joint Staff of the Pentagon.