“Worst-case thinking motivated by the belief that the danger we face is so overwhelmingly catastrophic that we must act immediately.

The pandemic policy was never informed by evidence, but by fear of worst-case scenarios.”

WHO 2011 bulletin “Health is more than influenza

COVID-19 uncensored; articles and interviews since April 2020

In science the solution to bad information is more information not less information 

– Dr Michael Greger

Table of Contents
    When I don’t know things, I don’t think that I do either! 

    This site is not about anti-vaccination neither denying the existence of a virus!
    Its primary purpose is to inform by collecting solid scientific information and or news articles that provide information mainly neglected by the “main stream media”.

    This site is not build to provoke, abuse or deny. Critical definitely, but also open to receive criticism.

    “The better the critic, the more holistic the sense of how own perspectives and tastes fit into the diverse pool of informed opinion of others.”

    The contact form is available to anyone. If you think information is incorrect please provide documented conclusive material to proof this and we will remove the content.

    Restriction Site Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Demonstrates the signature of a synthetic virus

    October 19, 2022
    Two hypotheses of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 exist:
    • A spillover from an animal host somewhere outside a laboratory
    • A laboratory-related accident

    • Finding features within the genome to address these hypotheses would advance the investigation without requiring the cooperation of third-parties

    • Previous analyses of the unprecedented, first ever furin cleavage site in a sarbecovirus and the exceptional pre-adaption of the receptor binding domain to human ACE2 have been challenged because they provide an evolutionary advantage to the virus and, no matter how seemingly unnatural, as supporting a natural process
    • Here I perform an analysis of the number, location, genome pattern, and sequences of two restriction sites, BsaI and BsmBI, that helps distinguish natural viruses from synthetic viruses
    • These two Type IIS restriction enzymes are the workhorses of synthetic coronavirus research and part of Baric’s “No See ‘Em” technology
    • An advantage of this analytical approach is that, in synthetic biology, the manipulation of these small, six nt sequences is the foundation of reverse genetics but their small size and random location within a genome, unrelated to genes, makes it extremely unlikely that they could provide an evolutionary advantage
    • Finding multiple patterns within SARS-CoV-2’s genome to be both a) consistent with man-made chimeric virus genomes and b) demonstrably extremely inconsistent with all observed natural sarbecovirus genomes, greatly advances the investigation of COVID-19’s origins.

    This  version 2 corrects some minor typographical errors without changing the conclusions of the analysis.

    The conclusion of this analysis is that SARS-CoV-2 has the hallmarks of a laboratory-constructed synthetic virus.

    There has been a suppression of the truth, secrecy and cover-ups on an Orwellian scale over the origin of Covid-19 in China

    PUBLISHED: 22:02 GMT, 28 January 2023 | UPDATED: 08:00 GMT, 29 January 2023

    The Chinese government has reversed its rigid stance on Covid-19 lockdowns, implicitly conceding its earlier policy was causing more harm than good after an outbreak of protests. Now, public health officials in Beijing have tentatively increased their official death toll from this ghastly pandemic after the gap between their claimed figures and reality risked public ridicule.

    These ‘adjustments’ are also a reminder of how China’s position on the origin of this virus that emerged within its borders should not be accepted at face value. Many Chinese scientists, doctors and health officials feel unable to freely disclose data or share stories.

    And in any nation with restricted free speech, those who seek to analyse or probe events are handicapped if so many facts are disputed or even dismissed as imaginary by the authorities.

    Sadly, the crucial debate over Covid’s origins has been shackled – but not only in China. And this refusal to discuss openly what everyone suspects to be true – or at the very least strongly possible – has the disastrous consequence of eroding public trust in science.

    Evidence that this Is No Naturally Evolved Virus

    Prof. Dr. Roland Wiesendanger Coronavirus Origin Study Released

    His findings conclude there are a number of quality sources indicating a laboratory accident at the Wuhan Institute of Virology as the cause of the current pandemic.

    The study was conducted from January to December 2020, and is based on an interdisciplinary research approach and extensive research using a wide range of information sources.

    In contrast to early coronavirus-based epidemics such as SARS and MERS, the scientific community has yet to identify the interim host that made the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from bats to humans possible. Thus, there is no sound basis for a zoonotic theory as a possible explanation for the pandemic.

    The SARS-CoV-2 viruses are astonishingly effective at binding to human cell receptors and infecting human cells, thanks to its special cell receptor binding domains combined with a special (furin) cleavage site of the coronavirus spike protein. This is the first time a coronavirus has had both of these characteristics and indicates a nonnatural origin of the SARS-CoV-2 pathogen.

    There were no bats for sale at the wet market in the center of Wuhan, which is the suspected hub of the outbreak. The Wuhan Institute of Virology, however, houses one of the largest collections of bat pathogens in the world, taken from distant caves in southern Chinese provinces. It is extremely unlikely that bats naturally made their way to Wuhan, from almost 2,000 km away, to then start a worldwide pandemic in the immediate vicinity of the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

    One research group at the Wuhan Institute of Virology had been researching the genetic manipulation of coronaviruses for many years with the goal of making these more infectious, more dangerous, and more fatal. This has been demonstrated by numerous publications.

    Safety measures were documented as being insufficient at the Wuhan Institute of Virology prior to the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic.

    There are numerous direct indications that the SARS-CoV-2 pathogen is of laboratory origin and point to a young researcher at the Wuhan Institute of Virology as being the first person to be infected. In addition, there are indications that the SARS-CoV-2 pathogen emerged from the Wuhan Institute of Virology into the city of Wuhan and beyond. There are also indications that the Chinese authorities conducted an examination of the institute in the first half of October 2019. Article

    The study has been published at

    Prof. Luc Montagnier – Virus is Manipulated. A very Meticulous job.

    The virus is manipulated by a molecular biologist who did a very meticulous job.

    French virologist and joint recipient, with Françoise Barré-Sinoussi and Harald zur Hausen, of the 2008 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his discovery of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). He has worked as a researcher at the Pasteur Institute in Paris and as a full-time professor at Shanghai Jiao Tong University in China.

    Awards: 1986 Louis-Jeantet Prize for Medicine 1988 Japan Prize 2008 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine

    Interview December 2020
    Luc Montagnier chose FranceSoir to speak and take up “the challenge of truth”. Answering Richard Boutry’s questions, the Nobel Prize awarded French Professor looks back on the storm that has blew the scientific world last year (2nd video).

    Interview December 2020
    Prof. Luc Montagnier – Virus is Manipulated -May 2020
    Dr Steven Quay concludes Sars-CoV-2 comes from a lab

    Above francesoir webpage google translate version:

    On January 29, 2021, in an article published by Dr Steven Quay, MD, PhD., CEO of Atossa
    Therapeutics, concludes “ a Bayesian analysis concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that Sars-CoV-2 is not a natural zoonosis, but rather a laboratory derivative. “.

    Reported by PrNewswire the article is 193 pages long (below as pdf or via links in the francesoir webpage above) and can be downloaded from Zenodo, a general open access repository managed by CERN and a short explanatory video is uploaded. The aim of the analysis was to determine the origin of SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19.

    Starting with a 98.2% probability that it was a zoonotic leap from nature with only a 1.2% probability that it was a laboratory escape, twenty-six facts and evidence different and independent were examined systematically.

    The final conclusion is that there is a 99.8% chance that Sars-CoV-2 comes from a lab and only a 0.2% chance that it comes from nature.

    “Like many others, I am concerned about what appear to be significant conflicts of interest between members of the WHO team and scientists and doctors in China and how this will preclude an impartial review of it. ‘origin of SARS-CoV-2 ,’ said Dr Quay.

    “Taking only publicly available scientific evidence on SARS-CoV-2 and using very conservative estimates in my analysis, I nevertheless conclude that there is no reasonable doubt that SARSCoV-2 escaped from a laboratory.
    Additional evidence for what appears to be adenovirus vaccine genetic sequences in samples from five patients from December 2019 and sequenced by the Wuhan Institute of Virology needs explanation. You would see that kind of data in a vaccine challenge trial, for example. I hope the WHO team can get these questions answered. “

    Dr Steven Quay has published over 360 contributions to medicine and has been cited over 10,000 times, placing him in the top 1% of scientists worldwide. He holds 87 U.S. patents and invented seven FDA-approved pharmaceuticals that have helped over 80 million people. He is the author of the bestselling pandemic survival book, Stay Healthy: A Doctor’s Guide to Surviving the Coronavirus.

    To help find the truth and get feedback on the methodologies used and the conclusions drawn in this article, a prepublication copy of this document has been sent to twenty-six scientists around the world, including currently WHO researchers. in Wuhan, Wuhan Institute of Virology scientists, as well as other leading virologists.

    Recall that in May 2020 Professor Luc Montagnier , Nobel Prize in Medicine, made an identical statement (video above) before being lynched by the media.
    Professor Tritto published a book “The chimera that changed the world” at the beginning of August 2020 confirming this thesis. In July, Prof. Montagnier and mathematician Jean-Claude Perez had a publication on this subject accepted in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. In addition, Luc Montagnier had confided in the microphone of Richard Boutry in the program “the challenge of the truth” (video above), confirming his statements of May 2020.

    Birger Sørensen -The Evidence which Suggests that This Is No Naturally Evolved Virus


    PDF Local backup:

    “I firmly believe that it was spread by accident. When US authorities conducted an inspection in Wuhan in 2018, it was described as a risk lab,” Sørensen told Fria Tider.

    Birger Sørensen

    Dr. Li-Meng Yan – Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification

    Yan, Li-Meng; Kang, Shu; Guan, Jie; Hu, Shanchang

    The COVID-19 pandemic caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 has led to over 910,000 deaths worldwide and unprecedented decimation of the global economy.

    Despite its tremendous impact, the origin of SARS-CoV-2 has remained mysterious and controversial. The natural origin theory, although widely accepted, lacks substantial support.

    The alternative theory that the virus may have come from a research laboratory is, however, strictly censored on peer-reviewed scientific journals

    The Report Online

    Dr. Li-Meng Yan: Twitter suspends virologist

    Twitter has suspended the account of the Chinese virologist and whistleblower Dr. Li-Meng Yan after she published a paper claiming that COVID-19 was created in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

    Full Story Online

    Dr David Martin – The Novel Sars-CoV2 patents disentangled

    73 patents have all the Novel Sars-CoV2 elements

    If you actually take what they report to be novel, you find 73 Patents Issued between 2008 and 2019, which have all the elements that were allegedly novel in the SARS_CoV_2

    There is No Delta Variant!
    Peter Daszak 2015 – A pan Coronavirus Vaccine

    A key driver is the media and the economics will follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of the process.

    Dr David Martin at the Investigative Corona Committee Germany (hearing #60)
    Investigative Corona Committee Germany (#60)

    Investigative Corona Committee Germany – Stiftung Corona Ausschuss


    Jan 28, 2000 – Pfizer Inc. coronavirus S gene patent

    Methods for producing recombinant coronavirus

    Apr 19, 2002 – The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

    Origin of Covid — Following the Clues

    The Covid-19 pandemic has disrupted lives the world over for more than a year. Its death toll will soon reach three million people. Yet the origin of pandemic remains uncertain: the political agendas of governments and scientists have generated thick clouds of obfuscation, which the mainstream press seems helpless to dispel.

    In what follows I will sort through the available scientific facts, which hold many clues as to what happened, and provide readers with the evidence to make their own judgments. I will then try to assess the complex issue of blame, which starts with, but extends far beyond, the government of China.

    By the end of this article, you may have learned a lot about the molecular biology of viruses. I will try to keep this process as painless as possible. But the science cannot be avoided because for now, and probably for a long time hence, it offers the only sure thread through the maze.

    Scientists Believe they Have ‘Smoking Gun’ for Wuhan Gain-of-Function Research Causing COVID-19

    June 7, 2021by Kyle Becker

    The Wuhan lab “conspiracy theory” is on the verge of becoming “conspiracy fact.” Scientific researchers who have peeled open the RNA structure of the novel coronavirus believe they have detected genetic sequences that are “almost certainly” unnatural.

    The Wall Street Journal appears to have cracked the case on Sunday by contacting researchers who believe the sequences could not have arisen from nature, all speculation that “bat soup” and “wet markets” were the originators aside.

    The essay in WSJ said that “much of the public discussion has focused on circumstantial evidence: mysterious illnesses in late 2019; the lab’s work intentionally supercharging viruses to increase lethality (known as ‘gain of function’ research).”

    “The Chinese Communist Party has been reluctant to release relevant information,” it adds. “Reports based on US intelligence have suggested the lab collaborated on projects with the Chinese military.”

    “But the most compelling reason to favor the lab leak hypothesis is firmly based in science. In particular, consider the genetic fingerprint of CoV-2, the novel coronavirus responsible for the disease Covid-19,” the report added.

    The Science Suggests a Wuhan Lab Leak

    June 6, 2021 By Steven Quay and Richard Muller
    The possibility that the pandemic began with an escape from the Wuhan Institute of Virology is attracting fresh attention. President Biden has asked the national intelligence community to redouble efforts to investigate.

    Much of the public discussion has focused on circumstantial evidence: mysterious illnesses in late 2019; the lab’s work intentionally supercharging viruses to increase lethality (known as “gain of function” research). The Chinese Communist Party has been reluctant to release relevant information. Reports based on U.S. intelligence have suggested the lab collaborated on projects with the Chinese military.

    But the most compelling reason to favor the lab leak hypothesis is firmly based in science. In particular, consider the genetic fingerprint of CoV-2, the novel coronavirus responsible for the disease Covid-19.

    The Lab-Leak Theory: Inside the Fight to Uncover COVID-19’s Origins

    June 3, 2021 By KATHERINE EBAN

    State Department investigators say they were repeatedly advised not to open a “Pandora’s box.”

    Gilles Demaneuf is a data scientist with the Bank of New Zealand in Auckland. He was diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome ten years ago, and believes it gives him a professional advantage. “I’m very good at finding patterns in data, when other people see nothing,” he says.

    “If the pandemic started as part of a lab leak, it had the potential to do to virology what Three Mile Island and Chernobyl did to nuclear science.”

    COVID-19 ‘has NO credible natural ancestor’

    … and WAS created by Chinese scientists who then tried to cover their tracks with ‘retro-engineering’ to make it seem like it naturally arose from bats, explosive new study claims

    By Josh Boswell For 28 May 2021, updated 03:00 29 May 2021

    An explosive new study claims that Chinese scientists created COVID-19 in a Wuhan lab, then tried to cover their tracks by reverse-engineering versions of the virus to make it look like it evolved naturally from bats.

    The paper’s authors, British Professor Angus Dalgleish and Norwegian scientist Dr. Birger Sørensen, wrote that they have had ‘prima facie evidence of retro-engineering in China‘ for a year – but were ignored by academics and major journals.   

    Another Group of Scientists Calls for Further Inquiry Into Origins of the Coronavirus

    Researchers urge an open mind, saying lack of evidence leaves theories of natural spillover and laboratory leak both viable.

    A group of 18 scientists stated Thursday in a letter published in the journal Science that there is not enough evidence to decide whether a natural origin or an accidental laboratory leak caused the Covid-19 pandemic.

    CHD -What’s the Origin of COVID? Did People or Nature Open Pandora’s Box at Wuhan?

    There are two plausible theories behind the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, but the political agendas of governments and scientists, and the failure of mainstream media, have kept the public in the dark.

    By the end of this article, you may have learned a lot about the molecular biology of viruses. I will try to keep this process as painless as possible. But the science cannot be avoided because for now, and probably for a long time hence, it offers the only sure thread through the maze.

    Nicholas Wade – The origin of COVID: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box at Wuhan?

    May 5, 2021
    By the end of this article, you may have learned a lot about the molecular biology of viruses. I will try to keep this process as painless as possible. But the science cannot be avoided because for now, and probably for a long time hence, it offers the only sure thread through the maze.

    The virus that caused the pandemic is known officially as SARS-CoV-2, but can be called SARS2 for short. As many people know, there are two main theories about its origin. One is that it jumped naturally from wildlife to people. The other is that the virus was under study in a lab, from which it escaped. It matters a great deal which is the case if we hope to prevent a second such occurrence.

    I’ll describe the two theories, explain why each is plausible, and then ask which provides the better explanation of the available facts. It’s important to note that so far there is no direct evidence for either theory. Each depends on a set of reasonable conjectures but so far lacks proof. So I have only clues, not conclusions, to offer. But those clues point in a specific direction. And having inferred that direction, I’m going to delineate some of the strands in this tangled skein of disaster.

    Lab-Made? SARS-CoV-2 Genealogy Through the Lens of Gain-of-Function Research

    If you hear anyone claim “we know the virus didn’t come from a lab”, don’t buy it — it may well have.

    Labs around the globe have been creating synthetic viruses like CoV2 for years.

    And no, its genome would not necessarily contain hallmarks of human manipulation: modern genetic engineering tools permit cutting and pasting genomic fragments without leaving a trace. It can be done quickly, too: it took a Swiss team less than a month to create a synthetic clone of CoV2.

    When the CoV2 genome was just sequenced and made publicly available on January 10, 2020, it was a riddle, as no closely related strains were known. But quite quickly, on January 23, Shi Zhengli released a paper indicating that CoV2 is 96% identical to RaTG13, a strain which her laboratory had previously isolated from Yunnan bats in 2013. However, outside of her lab, no one knew about that strain until January 2020.

    Origin of new emergent Coronavirus and Candida fungal diseases—Terrestrial or cosmic?

    2020 Jul 14. doi: 10.1016/bs.adgen.2020.04.002

    The origins and global spread of two recent, yet quite different, pandemic diseases is discussed and reviewed in depth: Candida auris, a eukaryotic fungal disease, and COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2), a positive strand RNA viral respiratory disease. Both these diseases display highly distinctive patterns of sudden emergence and global spread, which are not easy to understand by conventional epidemiological analysis based on simple infection-driven human- to-human spread of an infectious disease (assumed to jump suddenly and thus genetically, from an animal reservoir). Both these enigmatic diseases make sense however under a Panspermia in-fall model and the evidence consistent with such a model is critically reviewed.

    Overview of the COVID-19 epidemic
    The actual COVID-19 viral disease itself causes respiratory “common cold-like” illness in most people diagnosed with symptoms (but many potential carriers of the disease are asymptomatic). The infection can progress to severe pneumonia in elderly and already medically-compromised patients with other conditions (diabetes, coronary disease, etc.). About 2% of all COVD-19 cases have died due to the pneumonia (Fig. 4). Vaccine and antivirals will not help the latter group, but standard well trusted medical care will—to help patients through the respiratory crisis of the life-threatening pneumonia and dangerous inflammatory bronchitis symptoms. Such care will allow recovery of most patients. The fact that “Recoveries” far exceed “Deaths” (Fig. 4) indicates that timely medical care for this otherwise “common cold” respiratory illness must be the medical priority in the epicenter of the infection in Wuhan and nearby regions in China. We believe this medical care is being implemented throughout China.

    The initial traditional explanation of the new epidemic of COVID-19 is that it jumped from bats (possibly via snakes) to humans and then spread by human-to-human infection contact mutating at a high rate. This explanation is at odds with the data at present. Indeed Jon Cohen the respected Science magazine journalist reports that the head of the Huang et al. (2020) study when interviewed said:

    Bin Cao of Capital Medical University, the corresponding author of The Lancet article and a pulmonary specialist, wrote in an email to ScienceInsider that he and his co-authors “appreciate the criticism” from Lucey (Daniel Lucey, an infectious disease specialist at Georgetown University confirmed the epidemic could not possibly be caused by visits to the Wuham seafood and meat market).

    “Now It seems clear that [the] seafood market is not the only origin of the virus,” he wrote. “But to be honest, we still do not know where the virus came from now.” (our italics)

    Indeed Dr. Bin Cao speaks for all mainstream medical and epidemiological professionals around the world—no formal traditional explanation can be provided for the origins of COVID-19. Thus Andrew Rambaut, Professor of Molecular Evolution at the University of Edinburgh tweeted: “Don’t think any epidemiologist is still thinking that a non-human animal reservoir has had anything to do with the nCoV-2019 epidemic since December.

    Certainly the genome data doesn’t support that.” (Reported in Heidi Han and Kieran Gair, Associated Press, The Australian newspaper January 27, 2020.)

    Thus, when we combine all the available facts we cannot rule out a viral in-fall event targeting the Wuhan province and the wider region around it as an explanation as a first cause of the epidemic. This would fit with the admittedly heterodox view of viral pandemics first proposed by Hoyle and Wickramasinghe as far back as 1978 (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, 1979Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, 1990Wickramasinghe et al., 2019Wickramasinghe, Wainwright, & Narlikar, 2003).

    Feb 2020 The possible origins of 2019-nCoV coronavirus

    This document disappeared from ResearchGate but a copy exists on the internet archive

    The 2019-nCoV has caused an epidemic of 28,060 laboratory-confirmed infections in human including 564 deaths in China by February 6, 2020.

    Two descriptions of the virus published on Nature this week indicated that the genome sequences from patients were almost identical to the Bat CoV ZC45 coronavirus.
    It was critical to study where the pathogen came from and how it passed onto human.

    An article published on The Lancet reported that 27 of 41 infected patients were found to have contact with the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan.

    We noted two laboratories conducting research on bat coronavirus in Wuhan, one of which was only 280 meters from the seafood market.

    We briefly examined the histories of the laboratories and proposed that the coronavirus probably originated from a laboratory. Our proposal provided an alternative origin of the coronavirus in addition to natural recombination and intermediate host.

    More reason to think Beijing’s to blame for the pandemic

    How Amateur Sleuths Broke the Wuhan Lab Story and Embarrassed the Media

    The reason for the sudden shift in attitudes is clear: over the weeks and months of the pandemic, the pileup of circumstantial evidence pointing to the Wuhan lab kept growing—until it became too substantial to ignore.

    We now know that the Wuhan Institute of Virology had an extensive collection of coronaviruses gathered over many years of foraging in the bat caves, and that many of them—including the closest known relative to the pandemic virus, SARS-CoV-2—came from a mineshaft where three men died from a suspected SARS-like disease in 2012.

    We know that the WIV was actively working with these viruses, using inadequate safety protocols, in ways that could have triggered the pandemic, and that the lab and Chinese authorities have gone to great lengths to conceal these activities.

    We know that the first cases appeared weeks before the outbreak at the Huanan wet market that was once thought to be ground zero.

    None of this proves that the pandemic started in the Wuhan lab, of course: it’s entirely possible that it did not. But the evidence assembled by DRASTIC amounts to what prosecutors call probable cause—a strong, evidence-based case for a full investigation.

    Congressman Devin Nunes discusses House Intelligence Committee Republicans’ investigation into the origins of COVID-19

    May 16, 2021 – Congressman Devin Nunes discusses House Intelligence Committee Republicans’ investigation into the origins of COVID-19 in China on ‘Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo,’

    House Intel Republicans say ‘significant circumstantial evidence’ of COVID Wuhan lab leak

    A panel report notes investigations into the origins of the virus have been ‘stymied by a lack of cooperation’ from China Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes, R-Calif., and Republicans on the panel released a report Wednesday, first obtained by Fox News, saying it is “crucial for health experts and the U.S. government to understand how the COVID-19 virus originated” to prevent “or quickly mitigate future pandemics.”

    David Asher: result of military research gone bad at that infamous Wuhan Institute.

    By Post Editorial Board – March 16, 2021 

    Here’s an item that made a lot fewer headlines than it should have: David Asher, the former lead investigator on the State Department task force investigating the origin of the coronavirus, believes it was the result of military research gone bad at that infamous Wuhan Institute.

    “The Wuhan Institute of Virology is not the National Institute of Health,” Asher, now a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, told Fox News. “It was operating a secret, classified program. In my view, and I’m just one person, my view is it was a biological-weapons program.”

    It’s a far more believable narrative than those the Chinese Communist Party has tried to peddle, such as suggestions that it’s the result of US military research, with the bug somehow brought to China by US soldiers or . . . frozen-food imports.

    Asher spent his career working on some highly classified investigations for the State and Treasury departments. Speaking at a panel on the pandemic’s origins, he said he believes it resulted from a “weapons vector gone awry, not deliberately released, but in development and then somehow leaked.”

    Yet, he added, it “has turned out to be the greatest weapon in history,” having “taken out 15 to 20 percent of global GDP. You’ve killed millions of people.” Meanwhile, China’s “population has been barely affected. Their economies roared back to being No. 1 in the entire G20.”

    All of which fits with Beijing’s all-out efforts to prevent any independent investigations in Wuhan, including muscling the World Health Organization into repeatedly trying to “debunk” the world’s suspicions without doing any actual investigating. The truth may never come out, but the CCP’s behavior sure makes it look guilty.

    Searching for “COVID-19 virus” isolation records

    CDC NOW Admits NO ‘Gold Standard’ for the Isolation for ANY Virus!

    Straight Forward Answers From the CDC – There is “NO Record of Any Kind” For Any Virus

    The CDC Chief FOIA, Mr. Roger Andoh provided straightforward responses to each one of our requests, admitting in writing that they have NO RECORD of ANY KIND, for the following so-called phantom “viruses”, including CoV – 2 -19, HIV, HPV, XMRV, HTMV-1, HTMV-111/LV, Measles, Influenza, MERS, EBOLA, ZIKA or POLIO!

    Freedom of Information requests to various institutions around the world

    A colleague in New Zealand and I (CM) have been submitting Freedom of Information requests to various institutions around the world seeking records that describe the isolation of a SARS-COV-2 virus from any unadulterated sample taken from a diseased patient. Other 

    Our requests have not been limited to records of isolation performed by the respective institution, or limited to records authored by the respective institution, rather they were open to any records describing “COVID-19 virus” isolation performed by anyone, ever, anywhere on the planet.

    Responses from 30 Institutions – PDF Online

    Above tweet documents bundled in pdf

    EMAIL EXCHANGE WITH UK MHRA – Exposing the genomic sequence of SARSCov2

    The Pfizer BioNTech vaccine was approved by UK MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) & I initiated a polite exchange of emails with them.

    Without a purified sample virus UK MHRA confesses that the Pfizer Vaccine mRNA element is a computer generated genomic sequence amplified from a RNA fragment found in one experimental study from Wuhan (Feb 2020). No similar virus has been isolated anywhere in the world since.

    Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)

    November 30, 2017
    We have carried out a five-year longitudinal surveillance (April 2011 to October 2015) on SARSr-CoVs in bats …

    Funding: This work was jointly funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (81290341, 31621061) to ZLS, China Mega-Project for Infectious Disease (2014ZX10004001-003) to ZLS, Scientific and technological basis special project (2013FY113500) to YZZ and ZLS from the Ministry of Science and Technology of China, the Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (XDPB0301) to ZLS, the National Institutes of Health (NIAID R01AI110964), the USAID Emerging Pandemic Threats (EPT) PREDICT program to PD and ZLS, CAS Pioneer Hundred Talents Program to JC, NRF-CRP grant (NRF-CRP10-2012-05) to LFW and WIV “One-Three-Five” Strategic Program (WIV-135-TP1) to JC and ZLS. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

    New coronavirus emerges from bats in China, devastates young swine

    April 4, 2018
    The work was a collaboration among scientists from EcoHealth Alliance, Duke-NUS Medical School, Wuhan Institute of Virology and other organizations, and was funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, part of the National Institutes of Health.

    Project veritas

    The mission is to investigate and expose corruption, dishonesty, self-dealing, waste fraud and other misconduct in both public and private institutions in order to achieve a more ethical and transparant society….

    … and last but not least a little bit of history.

    1919 – Dr Milton Rosenau, attempts to prove the infectious nature of this disease

    But most revealing of all were the various heroic attempts to prove the infectious nature of this disease, using volunteers. All these attempts, made in November and December 1918 and in February and March 1919, failed. One medical team in Boston, working for the United States Public Health Service, tried to infect one hundred healthy volunteers between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five.

    Their efforts were impressive and make entertaining reading:

    “We collected the material and mucous secretions of the mouth and nose and throat and bronchi from cases of the disease and transferred this to our volunteers. We always obtained this material in the same way. The patient with fever, in bed, had a large, shallow, tray-like arrangement before him or her, and we washed out one nostril with some sterile salt solutions, using perhaps 5 c.c., which is allowed to run into the tray; and that nostril is blown vigorously into the tray. This is repeated with the other nostril. The patient then gargles with some of the solution. Next we obtain some bronchial mucus through coughing, and then we swab the mucous surface of each nares and also the mucous surface of the throat… Each one of the volunteers… received 6 c.c. of the mixed stuff that I have described. They received it into each nostril; received it in the throat, and on the eye; and when you think that 6 c.c. in all was used, you will understand that some of it was swallowed. None of them took sick.

    ”In a further experiment with new volunteers and donors, the salt solution was eliminated, and with cotton swabs, the material was transferred directly from nose to nose and from throat to throat, using donors in the first, second, or third day of the disease. “None of these volunteers who received the material thus directly transferred from cases took sick in any way… All of the volunteers received at least two, and some of them three ‘shots’ as they expressed it.”

    In a further experiment 20 c.c. of blood from each of five sick donors were mixed and injected into each volunteer. “None of them took sick in any way.”

    “Then we collected a lot of mucous material from the upper respiratory tract, and filtered it through Mandler filters. This filtrate was injected into ten volunteers, each one receiving 3.5 c.c. subcutaneously, and none of these took sick in any way.”

    Then a further attempt was made to transfer the disease “in the natural way,” using fresh volunteers and donors: “The volunteer was led up to the bedside of the patient; he was introduced. He sat down alongside the bed of the patients. They shook hands, and by instructions, he got as close as he conveniently could, and they talked for five minutes. At the end of the five minutes, the patient breathed out as hard as he could, while the volunteer, muzzle to muzzle (in accordance with his instructions, about 2 inches between the two), received this
    expired breath, and at the same time was breathing in as the patient breathed out… After they had done this for five times, the patient coughed directly into the face of the volunteer, face to face, five different times… [Then] he moved to the next patient whom we had selected, and repeated this, and so on, until this volunteer had had that sort of contact with ten different cases of influenza, in different stages of the disease, mostly fresh cases, none of them more than three days old… None of them took sick in any way.”

    “We entered the outbreak with a notion that we knew the cause of the disease, and were quite sure we knew how it was transmitted from person to person. Perhaps,” concluded Dr. Milton Rosenau, “if we have learned anything, it is that we are not quite sure what we know about the disease.”

    the above text is from the book The INVISIBLE RAINBOW by Arthur Firstenberg
    ISBN 978-1-64502-009-7 (paperback) | 978-1-64502-010-3 (ebook)

    Dishonest efforts will not bring real success. 
    Treason doth never prosper, what’s the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason. The saying is recorded from the early 19th century, but a related idea with an ironic twist is found in John Harington’s Epigrams of the early 17th century

    “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” – Joseph Goebbels Master propagandist of the Nazi regime and dictator.

    “Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.” Hermann Wilhelm Göring
    Nuremberg Diary Paperback – August 22, 1995