It's all in the timeline....

The official version of the events of January 2020 stretches credulity.

Anyone who has read my article on the evidence (or lack thereof) for “spread” in Northern Italy in spring 2020 will know that I ascribe great importance to the examination of the time series of events.

In that article (written for

PANDA

) I pointed out that if you were to come across a burnt-out forest long after all the fires had gone out, it is only by examining the way in which the fire spread over time that you could work out whether the cause was something which had spread from a point source (eg a carelesslessly abandoned barbecue), or something which had affected the entire forest at the same time (eg a huge fireball exploding in the sky).

This notion will be familiar to anyone who has ever investigated anything forensically. Timing is everything. Listen into anyone being cross-examined in a criminal court and the questions focus on the feasibility of the timelines being proposed. You might hear something like this, though this is more the style of a cheap afternoon soap opera (real-life cases aren’t anywhere near as interesting):

“So, your case is that Mr Jones crept away from his business meeting, pretending to go to the toilet, walked back to his house which we have heard was 10 minutes away at a brisk pace, murdered his wife, returned back to his meeting - another 10 minutes, all in the space of a few minutes?”

And so it is with the events of January 2020.

In this regard, it is worth studying and considering this thread. The author is unknown, and he or she is not very active anymore on X.

For those not on X the entire thread can be read at this link, or via the PDF below.)

Pace Timeline Thread 25 Feb 2021

6.99MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The whole thread is really quite something. Even if you disagree with parts of it, the early part of it - covering January 2020 is an accurate representation of what the “establishment” claims happened.

Here is the graphical representation of the claimed timeline - from the first tweet in the thread; Nick Hudson verbalised this in a podcast - the clip can be found here. I have actually inserted the Jan 16 item - which Pace added later as an addendum.

Some people might regard the idea that these things happened on the days claimed and / or without any pre-planning / theatre involved as an absurdity.

The people who believe that a novel virus emerged from somewhere (whether it be Wuhan or elsewhere) and spread round the world causing a novel illness, detected by tests, whether they be PCR, serology or RATs) seem to be roughly divided into 2 groups:

1. There are what I would term the “original pandemicists”¹. These people believe in the power of science to save us from the ever-increasing threat of pandemics, and believe that the timeline above really happened as they say it happened. I am not sure anyone can say anything to help them really.

2. But then there are the “covid dissident novel virus believers”² with whom I actually share many views, apart from in relation to whether there was a novel virus causing a novel disease.

To the people in the second category, I would like to ask:

In light of the evidence of spread of the pathogen you call SARS-CoV-2 for months before the Chinese claim to have found the first cluster of cases, do you believe the timeline above?

If they answered yes, I would think this person belongs in the original pandemicist category. But actually most people rationalise the paradox with something like:

“Yes I believe that is roughly what happened, though perhaps not on the dates claimed”.

When pressed further, the clarification received is usually something like:

“it was part of a cover up for the lab leak which they became aware of months before”.

To which I would ask:

So your theory is that they discovered there'd been a lab leak of a dangerous virus with pandemic potential at some point earlier in 2019, and at that time they formulated a plan to lay an evidentiary trail with a specific timeline which would support an emergence of the novel virus at the end of 2019?

Given that there is no contemporaneous³ evidence available anywhere of any unusual illness being reported anywhere prior to late Dec 2019 (and even that wasn't really that unusual), how did they know all those months before - and before they even had a “test⁴” - that they needed to lay that trail of evidence?

I know we are now meant to entertain all sorts of conspiracy theories, but at some point Occam’s razor has to have his day in the sun, so I ask:

What is more likely: that the entire pandemic construct (including the notion of a novel virus causing a novel disease) is fake as described here, or that the complex timeline above was put together months before anyone was known to have fallen ill, so it could be played out months later deliberately as a cover story for an earlier “lab leak”?

The more astute students of the covid era will at this point raise the “Red Dawn” emails, and much other evidence for a “lab-leak”, and I have to admit, some of that appears quite convincing for the proposition that those people DID believe that there had been a lab-leak⁵. But belief in a lab-leak isn’t conclusive proof that it actually happened, let alone that it caused a pandemic.

It is important to note that I am not denying that there may actually have been a lab-leak - after all, these happen quite frequently. What I do find hard to believe is that this one lab-leak caused the release of a novel virus which then spread round the world causing a novel illness.

Is there a theory which unifies these two positions? Yes, I think there is, and it is this, which I offer up as a potential hypothesis, without (as yet) having any certainty on how true it might be, or even if something like this is needed to explain events:

1. For decades scientists have overestimated their own skills and state of knowledge in many areas, especially in the field of virology. That discipline - as with climate science - has become a lucrative gravy train for those involved, the maintenance of which requires evidence of continuing need and progress towards “solutions”.

2. It is, therefore, perfectly possible that a group of people were involved in “gain of function” research, they thought they had created something dangerous, and it did “escape”, perhaps causing a few people in a localised area to become ill. Delusionally considering themselves geniuses who can create novel viruses with pandemic potential, that would have resulted in them trying to cover it up by claiming it had a zoonotic origin.

3. In actuality, whatever they created was a “nothing-burger” which petered out pretty quickly (if it spread at all), but once they had alerted governments and security services to the “bioweapon” threat, and the testing found more and more cases resulting in the ghastly feedback loop created and described elsewhere⁶, there was no turning back, especially when the harms caused by the response became evident. At that point it was double down or admit to a mistake causing more human death and misery than any before in history.

4. But - because of the many shortcomings in the relevant science described by many elsewhere, particularly in relation to the testing and sequencing - the link between that putative event and the global event called the “covid pandemic” seems to rest on foundations made of sand.

Finally, it is worth pointing out that nothing in the above is meant to absolve anyone from any crimes. There is no doubt in my mind that the covid era can - above all else - be characterised as a huge money-making and power-consolidating operation for many of the key players, who took advantage and were central in maintaining the state of emergency long past the time when it was clear to everyone - including themselves - that there was no such emergency.

1. These are those that think that: perhaps there were a few mistakes, but most covid deaths were really the unavoidable result of the spread of a novel pathogen causing a novel disease; “covid” really did wipe the flu out for a couple of years; the vaccines may have been oversold a little, but they had to be rushed because “we were in a pandemic” and they saved the lives of lots of (mainly) elderly people.

2. These people span a variety of beliefs in relation to the harmfulness of “the virus” and the utility of “early treatment”. They mostly accept that the mRNA platform has been a shitshow disaster. Some accept that maltreatment played a huge part, some even going as far as my position in agreeing that had we done nothing, we might have noticed nothing, though most settle on “an out of seasonal blip of flu”. BUT they ALL believe that there was a novel virus called SARS-CoV-2 which caused a novel disease called Covid, and that caused flu to disappear.

3. By that I mean things written at or around the time the event occurred, not some time later with the benefit (or disadvantage) of post-hoc rationalisation.

4. Given the indistinguishability of “covid” from the influenza-like illnesses caused by the myriad other pathogens, even in the fantasy world that these tests are meaningful, they still would have needed to have developed one to diagnose the novel illness. So for them to have worked out there was a novel disease spreading caused by a novel illness months prior to Dec 2019, they would have had to have developed that test in secret. If that the proposed resolution to this paradox, are we not now in the realm of having to confect one fantasy to explain away another?

5. The contrary view to this - which also has some merit - is that nobody as senior as the participants in that email trail would write anything down without the expectation that it will one day become avalable through an FOIA request. Actual or potentially self-incriminating conversations take place verbally, not in writing.

6. ie as described in the below, extracted from here.

PANDA believes that the rapid rollout of inappropriate, non-specific and oversensitive PCR testing created the illusion that something novel was spreading, whereas in fact all that was truly spreading was the testing itself. In many cases the testing was finding other known or unknown viruses, including those associated with normal seasonal coronavirus waves, whole or fragmented, infectious or not.

As these positive cases were found, a number of perverse incentives created a positive feedback loop, involving more and more testing (especially of “contacts”) being carried out, more “cases” being identified, more testing being demanded, more “cases” being found and so on.

PANDA believes that this conflation of spread of what can be regarded as a mere bystander signal with the spread of a dangerous disease lies at the heart of key conceptual differences between individuals and groups who otherwise share a passion for fundamental human rights and freedom from medical tyranny.