“GIVEN THE POSSIBILITY, HOWEVER REMOTE”
[Minor updates 8/22/2021, inflammatory graphics removed]
The 21st century began on a “Killing Joke”, a nightmarish paradox that may yet kill or disable somewhere between a few hundred thousand and a few million humans (maybe even more, maybe even less, depending on whose numbers you believe). (911 and the ensuing wars just appetizer.)
A campaign to predict and prevent the next pandemic led to the next pandemic.
(True, that’s an aggressive statement, not 100% proven. Yet multiple categories of evidence weigh in its favor, and no actual data supports the majority zoonotic leap hypothesis, only “expert opinion.”)
And the Good Doctor Fauci was there, every step of the way:
- publicly advocating for Gain of Function research (2011, 2012);
- bypassing the Obama admin’s moratorium on Gain-of-Function research, which manoeuvre allowed NIAID money via Eco-Health to find it’s way to Zhengli Shi’s lab at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where many experiments on making bat coronaviruses more infectious to humans had already been conducted;
- interfacing tightly, as head of NIAID, with biodefense programs in the US and China, and a network of dozens of DOD BSL3/4 labs around the world (Correction: In charge of Project Bioshield funding from day one, on the heels of the post-911 anthrax scare, with billions or tens of billions in funding over the years)
- funding hunting expeditions for new CoVs (via EcoHealth, run by the now infamous Mr. Peter Daszak);
- funding expensive treatments like Remdesevir that barely work;
- funding and pushing into Emergency Use novel mRNA vaccines with unknown long-term health consequences administered to a defacto trial of hundreds of millions without a working control group and for which monitoring committees were shut down (tested in some of the labs doing CoV GoF research, coincidentally — Baric Lab at UNC). NIAID is a co-developer of Moderna mRNA, and listed on spike protein patents;
- influencing/managing the policy response to the pandemic;
- and ignoring or outright suppressing the value of basic prophyllaxes and treatments such as vitamin D, Ivermectin (and perhaps HCQ).
Let’s not broach the question of intentionality, as that quickly gets into criminal charges.
Perhaps Fauci is simply a misguided technocrat, suffers from a dash of hubris, and made a few well-intentioned mistakes along the way – “noble cause corruption.” Perhaps our Bat-Lady at WIV (with mentoring from Ralph Baric) and funding via Fauci’s NIAID, really was working on a pan-corona virus vaccine (as alleged by Dan Sirotkin/HarvardtotheBigHouse, and spelled out in more detail by anonymous researcher Ducky), and the project just kinda, well, … went sideways… oops, sorry world!
The bigger problem is the technocratic mindset itself, as played out in the reality of cutting-edge bio research, which is tantamount to saying, “the BioDefense Industry,” DARPA, and their friendly neighbor, the Synthetic Biology scene. And Fauci himself is only one hub in a network of technocrats and interlocking technocratic institutions. Welcome to the BIO-SECURITY STATE.
Technocrats are scared shitless of dying. A fear they seek to overcome by controlling the external world thru endless fiddling driven by a narrow set of values of efficiency, quantification, and sanitary order. Just to give the oft-used term some definition 🙂 (They also seem to lack empathy, by and large. Maybe they are sociopaths.)
What facile boosters like Peter Diamandis call, “Exponential Tech.” (Everything you need to learn about Exponential Tech you can get by enrolling at Singularity University. For more on that, see the essay linked at bottom from Lentzos & co.).
Throughout 2020, the majority of the establishment virology and biotech community circled the wagons to vilify and deplatform the Lab-Leak Hypothesis. Luckily they weren’t successful in the end. But the effort highlighted a pervasive conflict of interest across the scientific establishment, government and mainstream media.
Virologists have the most to lose should a global inquiry into the dangers of Gain of Function proceed. But equally so do their lab managers, grant-raisers, the biotech companies that supply their gear, and the entire biotech-pharma-biodefense industry. Collectively they face loss of face, greater regulation, disruption of lucrative government contracts… and for a few noteworthy individuals, maybe some downtime in a whitecollar jail, or global 15 Minutes of Infamy as “Persons of Interest” in Crimes Against Humanity.
Scientists LOVE viruses – why? Because they are elaborate machines, based on a simple, (relatively) stable chemical instruction set, A-C-G-T, that renders well in computer analysis, and is almost a computer “code” of sorts itself. (Of course, they do mutate, but that’s just part of the fun & games.)
Viruses have none of the water-based messiness of metabolism, with its endless process of stuff turning into other stuff to make yet other stuff happen, of constantly contorting and wiggling mega-molecules each with multiple functions depending on their shape and electrical charge of the moment.
Viruses can be decoded, digitized, their parts broken down into a few apparent mechanistic functions. They can be fucked with easily, snip a few codons here, paste in a few more, extend this, modify some proteins on the shell, and voila! Brand new virus with new behavior.
Of course virological tinkerers know full well that the virus only replicates inside a host organism, a host cell. Yet as with much of 19th century science, the context so often fades from view with the obsessive focus on tinkering with the content.
Virological meddling is one face of the End-Game of Reductionist Science, human DNA tinkering and cooptation of the immune system, two others, and in COVID/Lockdown/mRNA Vaxxes – all three seem to dovetail, curiously.
The biosphere is filled with an uncountable number of viruses, as is an average human body, the vast majority of them benign. Maybe there are even more viruses than bacteria and fungi. Much of our human DNA is said to be the residue of ancient viruses.
And yet we don’t understand why viruses exist, what functions they perform for biology. (For that matter, we don’t understand why biology exists either, what functions biology serves for the cosmos at large.) Nor do we fully understand many aspects of DNA, new discoveries are constantly being announced.
So scientists have taken to viruses as their pet tinkertoys, to be fiddled with endlessly, in blithe disregard of a true lack of understanding of their “ecosystem” roles for biology and the biosphere.
To bring it down to earth, recall that
ALL viral genomes
can be decoded, uploaded, downloaded and SYNTHESIZED,
remotely,
by **anyone** with the right lab gear
for 20 years now.
It’s not just a few scattered “GoF” experiments on known pathogens that are extremely risky, it’s the ENTIRE research edifice.
(But conversely, it’s also true, that not being able to decode and share genomes, is risky as well.)
And now, let’s add AI into the mix! (Imagine GOF combined with AI and synthesis of completely novel viruses, and more “little lab accidents” … just what you need for a FOREVER–RACKET, where humanity in toto is held hostage to the virology labcoats, and must take the booster shots administered by the buddies of the AI programmers, bio-engineers and vaxx manufacturers. = CARTEL BIO-RACKET. Or is that just fevered paranoid speculation?)
“Accidents will happen.”
The “industry article” frames some of the mega-challenges, but where is the global livestreamed conference for 3 billion viewers? Filippa Lentzos has been out in front on the Lab-Leak debate, so it’s a start, at any rate.
And to close, here is a quote from a 2012 Fauci paper endorsing Gain of Function research:
“Putting aside the specter of bioterrorism for the moment, consider this hypothetical scenario: an important gain-of-function experiment involving a virus with serious pandemic potential is performed in a well-regulated, world-class laboratory by experienced investigators, but the information from the experiment is then used by another scientist who does not have the same training and facilities and is not subject to the same regulations. In an unlikely but conceivable turn of events, what if that scientist becomes infected with the virus, which leads to an outbreak and ultimately triggers a pandemic? Many ask reasonable questions: given the possibility of such a scenario—however remote—should the initial experiments have been performed and/or published in the first place, and what were the processes involved in this decision?” “Scientists working in this field might say—as indeed I have said—that the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks. It is more likely that a pandemic would occur in nature, and the need to stay ahead of such a threat is a primary reason for performing an experiment that might appear to be risky. However, we must respect that there are genuine and legitimate concerns about this type of research, both domestically and globally. We cannot expect those who have these concerns to simply take us, the scientific community, at our word that the benefits of this work outweigh the risks, nor can we ignore their calls for greater transparency, their concerns about conflicts of interest, and their efforts to engage in a dialog about whether these experiments should have been performed in the first place. Those of us in the scientific community who believe in the merits of this work have the responsibility to address these concerns thoughtfully and respectfully.”
“…given the possibility of such a scenario—however remote…”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3484390
================================
From “Driving Responsible Innovation of AI, Life Sciences and Next Generation Biotech”
“We are making God obsolete,” declared the rockstar-like professor of synthetic biology in the recent Netflix hit show Biohackers. What happens when humans become creators of new forms of DNA, including our own? Who gets to decide? Who owns our genomic data? Who is it shared with? Who is accountable? To what end? Just how far are humans willing to go in the name of science, progress, and competitive advantage in the biotechnology twilight zone?
Modifications of the human genome have long been a concern in scientific communities.
Five years ago, a group of 18 scientists and ethicists, including Jennifer Doudna, winner of the 2020 Nobel Prize in chemistry, warned that CRISPR, a revolutionary genomic scissor used to cut and splice DNA, should be used cautiously when attempting to correct human genetic diseases. The scientists strongly discouraged any attempts at making deliberate changes to human germline cells whose genetic material gets passed on to the next generation.
The same year, more than 1,000 experts, scientists, and researchers warned about the dangers of artificial intelligence (AI) becoming weaponized, resulting in autonomous kills chains and weapon systems. The uncomfortable reality of both these noble initiatives, however, is that potential harms from these technologies will likely not be purpose-built, but rather derived from repurposing existing, commercial, and industry-driven technologies.
The Human Genome Project, the international collaborative effort to map every gene in the human genome, launched in 1990, remains one of the biggest scientific collaborations ever undertaken. Today, thanks to AI, mapping a human genome or tracing your ancestral heritage may take less than a day and costs are rapidly dropping. …
