Tedros of the WHO renaming monkey pox as M-Pox, might have been trying to give the condition a 'higher profile', then he declared it to be a PHEIC.
We already know that Fauci in the autumn of 2019 is on record in a meeting saying that people weren't sufficiently scared of the term 'flu. A very revealing assertion. What arrived a few short months later but the blaze of propaganda for SARS-COV-2/ Covid-19.....New terms to describe a flu like illness, made 'scary'....'anyone could get it'! No one was safe unless they obeyed instructions to stay indoors, not go to school, submit to a 'vaccine'. How lives were ruined, society destabilised, economies degraded ....all down to new labels for illness which appears seasonally across the globe, and generally affecting the old, infirm, those with underlying morbidity. Beware then a newly named / rebranded illness. Swine Flu mark 2? No...something with more impact...'Arcane Avian flu'...the double A brand...not to be ignored but understood only by the select few!
It should be easy to correct these typos "In the paper, they report on the genome of the “new” virus, discuss its varation from know coronoviruses, and conclude thus:" (varation to variation; know to known and coronoviruses to coronaviruses)
Don't you think it's worth mentioning that the authors included Baric and Drosten - both people with an interest in bolstering the zoonosis hypothesis? What changed was presumably the reviewers insisting that they tone down their exaggeration that it was all natural.
@Clare Craig I am not sure that there is evidence of the reviewers making suggestions on that basis, but I agree that Baric in particular had an interest in the zoonotic origin, giving the nature of the reseach he had been doing.
I do find it hard to believe that the senior voices are unaware all viruses are fictions but given the benefit of the doubt that some actually believe these are real physical entities this expose blasts any notion of novelty out of the water even on their own terms.
And in early March 2020, just days before "pandemic" and "lockdown" announcements...
"At the end of the day this still remains a low risk infection… to the American public… even in the absence of a vaccine." - Dr Nelson Michael, 5 March 2020 - Pentagon press conference
"Illness due to COVID-19 infection is generally mild, especially for children and young adults." - World Health Organization, 9 March 2020 - Q&A
Your "pentagon presser Mar 5, 2020" post is very interesting — and the transcript is super helpful. I was previously unaware of this activity/event. That they didn't consider the coronavirus a high-level threat (such as requiring a high-level safety lab) caught my eye as I quickly scanned (I have not studied/examined).
P.S. I gather you don't take comments at your substack and/or maybe only subscribers can comment? IDK, but I want to tell you (in case you're not already aware) that the disappeared "Recommendations" section of the Biodefense Commission website is captured (for the final time) at the Internet Archive Wayback Machine on January 5, 2024. And the good news is that the drop-down/expand "+" buttons work. Here's the link:
Thanks - 5 March 2020 was seemingly dormant on DoD/ CSPAN website for four years. A press conference not actually reported by the press.
Biodefense Commission screenshots used in posts. But there's not much interest in this very influential lobby group, or the U.S. origin of biodefense/ health security more generally.
Comments off as too often off-topic (and not on substack much between posts). Subscribing is 100% free.
As with all so called viruses,Fake..Ooops misspelled…PHEIC.Thank you for this excellent evidence of another pseudo cog in the "trust the Science "wheel …..😁
You are barking at the wring tree. Not proving contagion doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It is very difficult to prove transmission when over 1500 viruses cause the same symptoms.
I've long wondered why the "Severe" in SARS(-CoV-2). (And I have zero idea why they called/call it "Acute.") Does not the moniker imply that the disease is a *severe* respiratory disease — as opposed to, I guess, a mild/moderate disease ("syndrome")? I haven't read the papers linked above (or the history of the first "SARS"), so I have no idea if severe/severity is considered/discussed/explained. If there really was/is a "covid," is it accurate to call it a "severe" respiratory ailment? IDK🤷♀️!
Further, as to "common" colds and "seasonal" influenzas and/or FLIs, isn't severity (how bad one gets sick) usually more of a personal/individual thing than a characteristic/quality of the given contagion? This line of questioning eventually brings us back to the idea of "novel" and the powers-that-be telling us that we humans have little to no preexisting/functional immunity to a/the given pathogen. The definition of pandemic (at least before the covid scamdemic) included that criterion (no common immunity). This topic overall (that I'm superficially addressing in this paragraph) has not received due scrutiny. That it was never properly addressed re covid by the CDC and the Coronavirus Task Force (et al) is not an accident. Birx and everyone else was obsessed with testing and cases, but otherwise they weren't very science-y or "evidence based," were they? (BTW, I am not endorsing the overused, misused, and abused "evidence based." To the contrary; I'm actually and affirmatively NOT a fan. But making that case exceeds the limits of my comment here.)
"Severity" overall re the alleged pandemic has always been something I've questioned — and I've looked into it to some extent. Too much to get into here, but from 2007 to about 2014/2016 (reports of dates vary), the USA (HHS/CDC/DHS/etc) used (officially/supposedly) what was called a "Pandemic Severity Index" to measure/evaluate/label a pandemic (real or imagined). That "tool" was superseded with the (2014/2016) "Pandemic Severity Assessment Framework" (supposedly official, though the Coronavirus Task Force never publicly referenced it, tbomk). I do know that the geniuses who came up with the PSI, and especially the PSAF (which is remarkably unsophisticated), consider(ed) contagiousness/transmissibility to be a quality of "severity." I think this is messed up…. It ("highly transmissible!") was one of the official mantras of Spring 2020 (Fauci really played it up).
Tedros of the WHO renaming monkey pox as M-Pox, might have been trying to give the condition a 'higher profile', then he declared it to be a PHEIC.
We already know that Fauci in the autumn of 2019 is on record in a meeting saying that people weren't sufficiently scared of the term 'flu. A very revealing assertion. What arrived a few short months later but the blaze of propaganda for SARS-COV-2/ Covid-19.....New terms to describe a flu like illness, made 'scary'....'anyone could get it'! No one was safe unless they obeyed instructions to stay indoors, not go to school, submit to a 'vaccine'. How lives were ruined, society destabilised, economies degraded ....all down to new labels for illness which appears seasonally across the globe, and generally affecting the old, infirm, those with underlying morbidity. Beware then a newly named / rebranded illness. Swine Flu mark 2? No...something with more impact...'Arcane Avian flu'...the double A brand...not to be ignored but understood only by the select few!
It should be easy to correct these typos "In the paper, they report on the genome of the “new” virus, discuss its varation from know coronoviruses, and conclude thus:" (varation to variation; know to known and coronoviruses to coronaviruses)
I did, thanks.
Don't you think it's worth mentioning that the authors included Baric and Drosten - both people with an interest in bolstering the zoonosis hypothesis? What changed was presumably the reviewers insisting that they tone down their exaggeration that it was all natural.
You should also see:
https://open.substack.com/pub/woodhouse/p/the-sars-cov-2-name-game-long-read
@Clare Craig I am not sure that there is evidence of the reviewers making suggestions on that basis, but I agree that Baric in particular had an interest in the zoonotic origin, giving the nature of the reseach he had been doing.
As far as I could tell from my analysis of the ICTV-CSG and other emails, the pressure between drafts was more around politics and novelty than it was being zoonotic per se https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/the-sars-cov-2-name-game-long-read
Interesting that Drosten signed the Lancet Letter, which dismissed lab origin, whereas Baric did not
A great article.
I do find it hard to believe that the senior voices are unaware all viruses are fictions but given the benefit of the doubt that some actually believe these are real physical entities this expose blasts any notion of novelty out of the water even on their own terms.
And in early March 2020, just days before "pandemic" and "lockdown" announcements...
"At the end of the day this still remains a low risk infection… to the American public… even in the absence of a vaccine." - Dr Nelson Michael, 5 March 2020 - Pentagon press conference
"Illness due to COVID-19 infection is generally mild, especially for children and young adults." - World Health Organization, 9 March 2020 - Q&A
1. U.S. DoD link : "Military Medical Leaders Discuss Vaccine Development Against Coronavirus" - 5 March 2020
https://www.dvidshub.net/video/742071/military-medical-leaders-discuss-vaccine-development-against-coronavirus
2. WHO link : "Q&A on coronaviruses (COVID-19)" - 9 March 2020
https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1260141/dl
See Substack posts:
1. https://democracymanifest.substack.com/p/pentagon-presser-5-march-2020
2. https://elizabethhart.substack.com/p/we-need-to-make-the-vaccine-available
Your "pentagon presser Mar 5, 2020" post is very interesting — and the transcript is super helpful. I was previously unaware of this activity/event. That they didn't consider the coronavirus a high-level threat (such as requiring a high-level safety lab) caught my eye as I quickly scanned (I have not studied/examined).
P.S. I gather you don't take comments at your substack and/or maybe only subscribers can comment? IDK, but I want to tell you (in case you're not already aware) that the disappeared "Recommendations" section of the Biodefense Commission website is captured (for the final time) at the Internet Archive Wayback Machine on January 5, 2024. And the good news is that the drop-down/expand "+" buttons work. Here's the link:
http://web.archive.org/web/20240105195433/https://biodefensecommission.org/recommendation-status/
Thanks - 5 March 2020 was seemingly dormant on DoD/ CSPAN website for four years. A press conference not actually reported by the press.
Biodefense Commission screenshots used in posts. But there's not much interest in this very influential lobby group, or the U.S. origin of biodefense/ health security more generally.
Comments off as too often off-topic (and not on substack much between posts). Subscribing is 100% free.
The original names of the Wuhan virus were as following:
Wuhan Human-1, WH Human-1, and WHCV - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2008-3
Wuhan-Hu-1 pneumonia virus - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MN908947.1
Hi Norman.
Thanks for these links. On this one https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MN908947.1, what does the note at the top which says "This sequence has been updated" mean?
Thank you.
As with all so called viruses,Fake..Ooops misspelled…PHEIC.Thank you for this excellent evidence of another pseudo cog in the "trust the Science "wheel …..😁
NO so-called "virus" has been proven to exist. EVER.
"virology" is pseudoscience and pure fraud.
It is shameful and actually criminal to continue to participate in Big Pharmafia's "Virus&Vaccine-Show"💰💰💰
This is not true. Nevertheless, there is big group of people believing in this hoax.
Please show your proof for viruses.
You are a funny man.
There was no virus to begin with.
Also, there's no such thing as contagious disease.
Look up Rosenau experiments, done to prove that the Spanish flu was contagious - they failed miserably.
You are barking at the wring tree. Not proving contagion doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It is very difficult to prove transmission when over 1500 viruses cause the same symptoms.
Alleged 'viruses'. None of them are proven to exist.
Disease is caused by toxicity and other factors, not by invisible flying particles.
Are you serous?
I've long wondered why the "Severe" in SARS(-CoV-2). (And I have zero idea why they called/call it "Acute.") Does not the moniker imply that the disease is a *severe* respiratory disease — as opposed to, I guess, a mild/moderate disease ("syndrome")? I haven't read the papers linked above (or the history of the first "SARS"), so I have no idea if severe/severity is considered/discussed/explained. If there really was/is a "covid," is it accurate to call it a "severe" respiratory ailment? IDK🤷♀️!
Further, as to "common" colds and "seasonal" influenzas and/or FLIs, isn't severity (how bad one gets sick) usually more of a personal/individual thing than a characteristic/quality of the given contagion? This line of questioning eventually brings us back to the idea of "novel" and the powers-that-be telling us that we humans have little to no preexisting/functional immunity to a/the given pathogen. The definition of pandemic (at least before the covid scamdemic) included that criterion (no common immunity). This topic overall (that I'm superficially addressing in this paragraph) has not received due scrutiny. That it was never properly addressed re covid by the CDC and the Coronavirus Task Force (et al) is not an accident. Birx and everyone else was obsessed with testing and cases, but otherwise they weren't very science-y or "evidence based," were they? (BTW, I am not endorsing the overused, misused, and abused "evidence based." To the contrary; I'm actually and affirmatively NOT a fan. But making that case exceeds the limits of my comment here.)
"Severity" overall re the alleged pandemic has always been something I've questioned — and I've looked into it to some extent. Too much to get into here, but from 2007 to about 2014/2016 (reports of dates vary), the USA (HHS/CDC/DHS/etc) used (officially/supposedly) what was called a "Pandemic Severity Index" to measure/evaluate/label a pandemic (real or imagined). That "tool" was superseded with the (2014/2016) "Pandemic Severity Assessment Framework" (supposedly official, though the Coronavirus Task Force never publicly referenced it, tbomk). I do know that the geniuses who came up with the PSI, and especially the PSAF (which is remarkably unsophisticated), consider(ed) contagiousness/transmissibility to be a quality of "severity." I think this is messed up…. It ("highly transmissible!") was one of the official mantras of Spring 2020 (Fauci really played it up).
There is no immunity for respiratory infections. No one understands the seasonality of viruses that only infect the respiratory tract.
Many false claims are couched in scientific jargon.
Unpalatable true claims are hid in a similar way.
Talk about burying the lede!