Our worst fears are coming true.

Failure to destroy the entire pandemic narrative leaves the perpetrators free to launch a sequel.

Quick post to point out this substack note, and the associated developing story:

On X Jonathan said:

Can’t everyone see that leaving this (“GoF”) part of the ridiculous narrative intact creates the ideal opportunity for The Powers That Be to rinse and repeat the nonsense.

As they say: “anyone can do it now”.

Reality: only a rumour + a test is needed.

Note the:

“This has NOT been challenged by any US Government Agency”.

See how easy this is?…just a rumour which they don’t deny….next there could be a test and away they go.

This should be read in conjunction with this article which we published yesterday.

False Binaries that 'Limit the Spectrum of Acceptable Opinion' in the COVID-19 Debate and Perpetuate Lies Told by The Powers That Be (Part 1)

Specifically, this is the relevant “false binary”:

We said this about it:

A Next Pandemic perspective is held by many prominent Covid Contrarians. In our view, endorsing pandemics as once and future phenomena enables the pandemic/bioterrorism preparedness complex and its attendant digital ID/bio-surveillance goals.

If pandemics aren't "a thing"—as we and others who stand "Out of Bounds" argue—there's no need to discuss future pandemics. The task of defanging those who seek to fabricate such events resolves itself.

Many Permitted Dissenters, however, are left having to explain why the "evil scientists" would be unwilling or unable to create something far more dangerous next time.

We hope some are starting to see what we’ve been saying for a while.

Jonathan first identified that both sides of this binary led to “pandemic preparedness” several years ago, as stated in this piece for

PANDA

.

The key quote from that was:

I don't think we are asking the right questions about Spring 2020 at all. Timing of "lockdown" is quite obviously a distraction from the core issue. But I also think natural vs lab origin is not the most pressing question to answer.

To me, the way "lab-leak" was initially verboten, yet now seems to be permissible to talk (and write) about has a smell of being “managed”.

If I imagine that the major part of the mortality had been caused by a variety of policy decisions I had made, the number one thing I'd want is for people to occupy themselves obsessing over the origin of the virus rather than the cause of the deaths.

Imagine that I was heavily involved in the "pandemic preparedness industry" - an industry siphoning billions out of the pockets of taxpayers into my chosen commercial interests. I wouldn’t be bothered about the origin story. Lab or natural - I can make a fortune either way.

What I would be bothered about though would be the idea that this was in fact nowhere near as harmful as the "authorities" told people it was. Because then people might question the need for my new highly profitable industry at all.

I could even tolerate people thinking it was a lab leak. If it was, people will be afraid that it could surely happen again. Because regardless of whatever controls are put in place, some rogue operators could always carelessly carry on doing GoF research.

So natural or lab-leak, as long as we keep the fear going, we surely need to be better "prepared". That's great for business. And great for justifying centralised control.

Related to the above, you may also want to read this (click on image for link to article).

That article was published by the Global Health Security team at the Daily Telegraph.

Few will be surprised to read here that:

“Our Global Health Security coverage is partly funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.”

Most will, we hope, have learned - based on the performance of other similarly “independent” news outlets and journals over the past few years - to take this with a pinch of salt:

“This support comes without strings and The Telegraph retains full editorial control over all the content published.”

Finally, it’s worth noting that Nicholas Hulscher - author of the note introducing this piece - describes himself as “Epidemiologist at the McCullough Foundation”.

We had this to say about Peter McCullough, and this episode illustrates it perfectly:

Peter McCullough Is a Pandemicist AND an Example of What the Dual-Sided Government Operation Wanted Americans to Hear in 2020