Story at-a-glance
- Evidence suggests the lab leak theory has been intentionally ignored because individuals who had a hand in the creation of SARS-CoV-2 needed to cover up the fact that it was manmade to protect reputations and money flows
- The lesson to be learned is that we cannot afford to allow this kind of research to continue
- In 2018, EcoHealth Alliance submitted a proposal to the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), requesting $14 million for gain-of-function (GOF) research on bat sarbecoviruses. The proposal spelled out the intent to insert “human-specific cleavage sites” into sarbecoviruses, a genus of coronavirus to which SARS-CoV belongs. This also happens to be one of the radically novel features that makes SARS-CoV-2 so infectious to humans
- At the end of December 2023, U.S. Right to Know (USRTK) received an early draft of the proposal with comments from Daszak and Baric in the margins. The comments reveal Daszak misled DARPA about where the research was to be conducted
- The Pentagon rejected the proposal, but questions remain whether the research was conducted under some other program
As noted by Spiked reporter Matt Ridley,1 “It is completely normal to start inquiries into mass deaths by asking how they happened — so that you can stop them happening again …”
Yet in the case of the COVID pandemic, all questioning and discussion about the origin of the virus have been dismissed as more or less irrelevant, and mainstream journalists have mysteriously steered clear of what could easily be one of the biggest stories of their lifetimes. As reported by Ridley:2
“The evidence that this virus probably came from the Wuhan Institute of Virology is now voluminous, detailed and strong.3 That an outbreak caused by a bat sarbecovirus should happen in the one city in the world that had been collecting hundreds of bat sarbecoviruses and experimenting on them is striking enough.
That it happened one year after that lab proposed inserting the one feature that distinguishes SARS‑CoV‑2 from all other viruses of the same kind makes it a heck of a coincidence.
That the virus was highly infectious from the start, highly attuned to human receptors and evolving comparatively slowly, implying it had been already trained on human cells, was a shock.
That the lab in question refuses to this day to release the database of the viruses it had been working on is as insulting as it is suspicious. The coincidences of time and place are truly spectacular …4
Millions are dead around the world and the most likely cause is an accident during a risky experiment in a laboratory. Should we not be learning lessons from that?”
An Intentional Coverup
Evidence suggests the lab leak theory has been intentionally ignored because the individuals who had a hand in the creation of SARS-CoV-2 needed to cover up the fact that it was manmade to protect reputations and money flows.
The lesson to be learned is that we cannot afford to allow this kind of research to continue, and that’s a public realization the scientific community is desperate to avoid. The reality, however, is that extremely risky research is being conducted, and the scientific community is playing fast and loose when it comes to safety.
In 2018, Peter Daszak, a British zoologist and president of EcoHealth Alliance, a U.S.-based research organization, submitted a grant proposal to the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), requesting $14 million for gain-of-function (GOF) research on bat sarbecoviruses.
His DEFUSE proposal5,6,7 specifically spelled out the intent to insert “human-specific cleavage sites” into sarbecoviruses, a genus of coronavirus to which SARS-CoV belongs. This also happens to be one of the radically novel features that makes SARS-CoV-2 so infectious to humans. Of the 1,500 coronaviruses known to exist, none but SARS-CoV-2 has this cleavage site.
According to the proposal, the work was to be carried out either at a biosafety level 3 (BSL- 3) lab in Wuhan, the Duke-NUS Medical School in Singapore, Ralph Baric’s lab at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, and/or the U.S. Geological Survey National Wildlife Health Center.
It didn’t specify which portions of the research would be done where, yet Daszak has insisted that the work was always intended to be carried out at the UNC, not the WIV.8
Leaked Document Shows Daszak Intended to Deceive DARPA
The DEFUSE proposal came to light after being leaked in the fall of 2021.9 In his defense, Daszak has argued that the Pentagon rejected the proposal, so the research was never carried out.10
However, at the end of December 2023, Emily Kopp with U.S. Right to Know (USRTK) received an early draft11 of the DEFUSE proposal with comments from Daszak and Baric in the margins, which reveal Daszak intentionally mislead DARPA about where the research was to be conducted.
In one comment, he even admits seeking to “downplay the non-U.S. focus of [the] proposal”12 by not including the biographies of Shi Zhengli, the so-called “bat lady” at the WIV, and Duke-NUS Medical School Professor Linfa Wang, both of whom were going to be involved in the experiments. Baric, for his part, also stressed the risks involved.
“Ralph, Zhengli. If we win this contract, I do not propose that all of this work will necessarily be conducted by Ralph [Baric], but I do want to stress the US side of this proposal so that DARPA are comfortable with our team,” Daszak wrote,13 adding, “Once we get the funds, we can then allocate who does what exact work, and I believe that a lot of these assays can be done in Wuhan as well.”
Baric replied to Daszak’s comment, stating:14
“In the US, these recombinant SARS-CoV are studied under BSL3 … In China, [we] might be growin[g] these virus[es] under BSL2. US [researchers] will likely freak out.”
Damning Commentary
As noted by Justin Kinney, a quantitative biologist at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory and cofounder of Biosafety Now, the comments by Daszak and Baric are “damning.”
“These revelations are important because these specific experiments could, quite plausibly, have led to the genetic engineering and accidental release of SARS-CoV-2,” Kinney told Kopp.15
“BSL-2 experiments are more convenient and less expensive than BSL-3 experiments … However, BSL-2 provides a far lower level of biosafety than BSL-3 does. This lower safety level is especially dangerous for experiments involving viruses that can be transmitted by air.
It is very concerning that Daszak and Baric appear to have considered it legitimate to move high-risk experiments from BSL-3 to BSL-2. It is also concerning that they appear to have considered doing so in secret, instead of disclosing this important change of experimental plans and biosafety precautions in their grant proposal.”
Was the Risky GOF Research Still Carried Out?
As for whether the research detailed in the DEFUSE proposal was ever carried out, it’s possible, but evidence is still lacking. According to Ridley,16 “there is every chance the work went ahead with funding from the Chinese Academy of Sciences.”
USRTK also notes that even though the Pentagon didn’t fund it, Daszak may have had the ability to do the research using an earlier grant from the National Institutes of Health:17
“A progress report18 for that NIH grant for the year ending in May 2018 shows that the Wuhan Institute of Virology and EcoHealth Alliance conducted gain-of-function research on coronaviruses and tested them in mice engineered to express human receptors.”
The NIH research grant in question, called “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence,” was originally awarded in 2014. In 2019, it was renewed until 2026, but was temporarily suspended between April and July 2020, due to EcoHealth’s ties to the WIV.
Four days after the grant was suspended, Daszak wrote an email stating his “plan is to continue this work, unfunded for now …”19 As noted by USRTK, “His email … seems to contrast with his public statements that work on the grant came to a halt without funding.” Could the same be true for the DEFUSE experiments?
“The contrast between Daszak’s email and public statements about unfunded work raises questions about his statements on a second controversial EcoHealth grant proposal that had the potential to lead to the existence of SARS-CoV-2,” Kopp writes.20
“This second proposal, called DEFUSE, was never funded. It was submitted to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and proposed adding something called a cleavage site to the spike proteins of SARS-related coronaviruses. SARS-CoV-2 has a furin cleavage site in its spike protein, but no other viruses closely related to it have this site.
The WIV was a partner on the proposal. Though DEFUSE was rejected, similarities between the proposed research and SARS-CoV-2 generated speculation on whether any of the planned work had been carried out.
When asked, Daszak responded, ‘… we would not be doing that research before we submit the proposal. That’s not how it works.’ According to Richard Ebright, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Rutgers University, investigators do often perform research before submitting their grant proposals.
‘In the molecular life sciences, it is the norm to begin, and often make substantial progress on, new lines of research before seeking and obtaining funding for the research,’ said Ebright.
‘It would be unusual for a research group with multiple current lines of funding not to have started a new line of research before obtaining funding for it, and it would be almost unheard of for a group with multiple current lines of support not to proceed with a new line of research simply because an application for an additional line of funding application was not approved.’”
Colossal Misdirection
In a December 2023 interview21 with investigative journalist Paul Thacker, Dr. Robert Kadlec — who has worked to counter the proliferation of biological weapons for more than 30 years, and helped write much of the U.S. biodefense legislation — confirmed what now seems obvious.
Namely that federally funded scientists have engaged in a “colossal misdirection” to hide evidence showing the pandemic began in a Wuhan lab funded by American tax dollars. As for their motive, he believes it’s to protect reputations and the access to federal grant money.
Aside from Daszak and Baric, other individuals who appear to have played central roles in this misdirection include22 Scripps researcher Kristian Andersen, who in a February 1, 2020, email to Dr. Anthony Fauci stated that “some of the features” of SARS-CoV-2 “look engineered,” and that he and three other researchers all found “the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.”
Shortly thereafter, he published an article in Nature Medicine refuting the idea that the virus might be manmade. Similarly, Fauci in a February 1, 2020, email to Dr. Francis Collins and several others noted there were mutations in the virus that were unlikely to have evolved naturally in bats, and that the experts he’d been in contact with suspected the mutation may have been “intentionally inserted.”
Publicly, however, Fauci dismissed the lab leak theory as unfounded conspiracy theory. Within weeks, several other virologists who echoed Andersen’s concerns also mysteriously ended up putting their names to papers refuting the lab leak theory.
That included virologist Eddie Holmes, who also happens to have been a guest professor at the Chinese Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Beijing — a fact he did not disclose and has since deleted from his publicly available CV.
All of these papers are highly suspect. One of them was cosigned by Jeremy Farrar, who put together the February 1 call with Fauci. Another was ghostwritten by Baric and Zhengli,23 and the third paper was pushed through to publication by Fauci and Farrar.
Was the Pandemic a Result of NIH-Funded Research?
“How do we get three papers bubble up into the academic literature, within six weeks, that all come to the complete opposite conclusion of what virologists privately speculated on February 1?” Thacker asks.
“I’d like to know, too,” Kadlec replies. “I wish I could explain that … Fauci got this other group, with Jeremy Farrar, and his buddies. And this group privately says they have concerns, and then publicly say there’s no way a lab accident could happen. That’s the chain of events …
[Fauci] is a real operator, man. I’m not saying that HE misled us, but somehow we went from one story to the other. The cabal seems to be Jeremy Farrar, Francis Collins and Fauci. They seem to be the center of what was going on.
Then you have these researchers, Kristian Anderson, Robert Garry and the others being included. Mike Worobey wasn’t part of these conversations, but he became a public mouthpiece for a lot of this. I’m very suspect of what happened. As much as you would like to think Fauci is behind this, I think Collins may be the guy …
I think what was driven here was reputational risk to NIH and to the two people that both advocated — Fauci and Collins — for unfettered, scientific research, meaning gain-of-function research. NIH funded gain-of-function research may have resulted in this accident …
[Y]ou can’t make a cogent, convincing argument that it came naturally from an animal. What they were trying to do is make the argument that it’s zoonotic, and there’s no evidence to support that …
It looks like an information operation to me. That’s … how I view this. Misdirection. It’s like denial and deception … The motivation seems to be obvious, right? It’s reputational risk and institutional risk to these funders.”
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
As a bio weapon it was a failure. Show us the virus. If it exists why has it not been isolated and purified? If it exists why was “it” not used to create a vaccine. More freaking B S about a fraud.
The mRNA shots were the weapon and still are.
a) “Involved” can mean both either everything or nothing – it’s just an ‘implying’ weasel word.
b) Where is the statement specifying how many US “researchers” were directly involved, maybe by working in the WIV? I mean it would be hard to believe, that the US pays millions of dollars and let the Chinese do everything.
c) How exactly can we allow for an accidental lab leak (of a supposedly unfinished virus), but at the same time rule out a purposeful release of a ‘finished’ virus??
—
I call screaming bullshit on the whole article.
Mercola is starting to smell extremely bad, and looking like a LH…
He is a shill obviously.
Wow, you still believe they make custom order viruses….and that viruses CAUSE disease instead of ARRIVE to clean up diseased tissues.
Any real virus is a microzyma.
That is, a pleomorph.
Can we get past all this wasted arguing over fake manmade pleomorphs?
Huh?
_______
EXTREME PLEOMORPHISM AND THE BACTERIAL LIFE CYCLE: A FORGOTTEN CONTROVERSEY
MILTON WAINWRIGHT
The first 40 years of this century witnessed bacteriologists involved in a debate which was fought with an intensity not seen since the arguments over spontaneous generation conducted during the last quarter of the 19th century. This now long-forgotten controversy concerned the question of whether or not bacteria exhibit extreme pleomorphism and go through complex life cycles. The term pleomorphism was used to refer to the supposed ability of bacteria to change shape dramatically, or to exist in a number of extreme morphological forms. Thus it was believed that bacteria could change from a single coccoid to complex filamentous forms and vice versa. In addition, rather than reproducing by single division, bacteria were thought to undergo complex life cycles involving single cells, spore, filaments, and ultra-filterable forms.
The debate split microbiologists into two opposing schools: the monomorphists and the pleomorphists. The monomorphists finally triumphed, but as we shall see, even today reports continue to appear apparently showing that bacteria exhibit extreme morphological variations and undergo complex life cycles.
Nearly all modern microbiologists belong to the monomorphic school; that is, they accept that, apart from minor variation, each bacterial cell is derived from a previously existing cell of practically the same size and shape. Cocci generally beget cocci, and rods give rise to rods. The monomorphist view, stressed by Virchow, Cohn and Koch, is that by binary fission most bacteria divide transversely to produce two new cells which eventually achieve the same size and morphology of the original. In the same way, a single spore germinates to give rise to a vegetative cell essentially the same as the cell from which the spore originated. Exceptions to this rule are accepted in certain so-called higher bacteria, including some actinomycetes. Simple bacteria, on the other hand, are generally regarded as showing only occasional, slight morphological variation. This view of bacterial morphology and growth is so enshrined in our view of these organisms that we rarely bother to think about it. Despite this, there are a small number of latter-day heretics who continue to provide evidence which, they claim, supports the pleomorphist heresy.
The Historical Literature on Extreme Pleomorphism and the Bacterial Growth Cycle.
The original pleomorphists were particularly active during the first three decades of this century. The basic tenet of their belief was that even common bacteria showed complex life cycles which often included a frequently pathogenic, filterable, or hidden phase [1]. Some even suggested that bacteria are merely rudimentary components of the fungal life cycle. The principal proponents of pleomorphism, such as Almquist, Bergstrand, Hort, Lohnis, Mellon, and Enderlein, have largely been forgotten. However, even renowned microbiologists like Ferdinand Cohn published evidence in support of extreme pleomorphism. Similarly, the eminent American bacteriologist, Theobald Smith, isolated a bacterium which apparently occurred in three forms: a bacillus, a coccus with an endospore or arthrospore, and a conglomeration of all three [2].
By 1928, in an article on morphology published in the monograph The Newer Knowledge of Bacteriology and Immunology, Clark could state that “bacteria, even amongst the Eubacteriales, do at times reproduce by means other than equal fission seems to me to be definitely proved” [4]. He quotes the work of Hort, who showed that under adverse conditions, colon-typhoid bacteria reproduce by budding, by producing Y-shaped and large aberrant forms and deeply staining granules which can be filterable [5, 6]. Hort went on to describe how these irregular bodies reproduced actively and so were not examples of so-called involution forms, a term used by the monomorphists to suggest that what the pleomorphists were seeing was merely a collection of freakish, unreproduceable forms produced by old cells. These were invariably sterile, incapable of taking up a stain, and were produced in old cultures by localised cell-wall lysis. However, such unusual forms could also be seen in young cultures [5, 6]. Alexander Fleming also described how one of his four-day-old cultures of an anaerobic streptococcus changed from its usual chains of cocci to a variety of strain shapes which he regarded as being involution forms [7].
Lohnis concluded that all bacteria live alternatively in first an organised and then an amorphous state [3]. The latter he called the “symplastic state,” because at this point the living matter enclosed in separate cells apparently undergoes a thorough mixing, followed by the complete disintegration of cell wall, to form a non-stainable symplasm. Lohnis also suggested that direct union between two or more cells may occur by the process which he termed “conjugation.”. He also stated that all bacteria multiply not only by fission, but by the formation of gonidia. These were sometimes seen to grow directly into full-sized cells, or to go through a symplasm stage. Such gonididia were either produced by partial or complete dissolution of the cell wall or developed while still united to the mother cell. Some of the gonidia were also filterable. Lohnis’ main conclusion was that the life cycle of each bacterial species comprises several sub-cycles showing wide morphological and phsiological variations, all being connected together by a symplastic stage.
The ultimate pleomorphist heresy was voiced by Wade and Manalang, when they stated that Bacillus influenzae (then thought to be the cause of influenza) could occasionally abandon it usual bacillary form, produce conidiophores, and grow as a “frank fungus” [8]. In the same year, the Swedish microbiologist Bergstrand journeyed all the way down this road by stating that bacteria are really Fungi imperfecti [9]. This view was also held by Melon, who stated that:
bacteria in their fundamental biology are in reality flingi that have been telescoped down as it were, to a somewhat lower order, but this order is not so low as to preclude the preservation by the bacteria of the fundamental organisation characterising the fungi and higher plants [10].
Descriptions of pleomorphin in bacteria were often associated with bacteria isolated from tumors. There is an extensive literature implicating bacteria and other nonviral microorganisms in the etiology of cancer, many of which were said to be highly pleomorphic [11]. The best examples are provided by the work of Young, Clover and Gruner [12-14]. So impressed was the latter by the pleomorphic nature of his isolate that he named it Cryptomyces pleomorpha. Both Young and Clover provided illustrations showing complex life cycles, representing the passage of their cancer germs through a variety of stages including spores, bacilli, amorphous forms, and filamentous stages.
Not surprisingly, members of the monorphic school had a field day criticising the apparently absurd claims made by the pleomorphists. The most common criticism was that the pleomorphists exhibited poor technique, their delusions obviously resulting from contamination. Secondly, the pleomorphists were said to have merely arranged whatever they saw, either contaminants or the products of ageing cells, into convenient life cycles. Winogradsky, perhaps not surprisingly, was severely critical of the pleomorphists, but nevertheless suggested that “The observations may be correct, but the interpretation given to the diverse forms observed cannot be taken seriously [15, my italics].
Perhaps the most impartial historical analyses of pleomorphism are given by Handly and Henrici, with the first chapter of the latter’s book providing a particularly useful introduction to the history of pleomorphism [16, 17]. Although he was essentially critical of the concept of extreme pleomorphism, Henrici did not dismiss it as readily as many of his contemporaries. He stated that “bacteria do change their morpholigic type and within very wide limits; and with this change may go at times important physiological modifications.” Henrici particularly objected to the criticism that extreme pleomorphism always resulted from contamination; instead his opinion was that:
anyone who will patiently study with the microscope his own cultures which he knows to be pure can quickly confirm the general observation that rod forms may appear in cultures of cocci, spherical forms in cultures of bacilli lateral buds and branches and internal globular bodies.
Henrici finally came to essential the same conclusion arrived at by Winogradsky, namely that “In undertaking a critical analysis of this work [of the pleomorphists] one cannot find fault so much with the actual data as to the logic followed in erecting the hypothesis [my italics].
The modern microbiologist, thoroughly schooled in monomorphism, can easily dismiss this historical literature as being absurd – merely the ramblings of some ancients who could not even avoid contaminating their cultures. While recognising that some of the early studies were undoubtedly flawed, Wuerthele-Caspe et al., summed up the pleomorphist counterargument as follows: “the faults of the enthusiastic early workers were certainly no greater than the errors both of commission and omission made later on by some of the monomorphists whose views today dominate our textbooks” [18].
Young similarly defences the pleomorphist’s case in a short yet comprehensive review which concludes the following quote:
Is all this [the evidence which he cities in support of pleomorphism] and a hundred and one similar observations by other careful workers merely a tissue of a self-deceptions originating in an exuberant imagination and on faulty technique? Is it not rather one of those great facts that user in a new era? [191.
While no such new era was ever ushered in, microbiologists will doubtless be surprised to discover that papers continue to appear in support of pleomorphism.
Recent Claims in Support of the Existence of Extreme Pleomorphism
Examples of pleomorphism continued to be reported with surprising regularity throughout the I920s and 1930s. By 1940, however, opposition to the hegemony of the monomorphists was dead, if not yet buried. Textbooks on bacteriology nevertheless still gave token support to extreme pleomorphism even as late as the 1960s [20, 21]. During this period, work on L-forms appeared to substantiate some of the claims made by pleomorphists. Hieneberger-Noble, for example, suggested that L-forms correlated with the symplasm observed by Lohnis [22].. Bacterial conjugation, an idea that had been scoffed at by many monomorphists, was now taken seriously. Previously, Lohnis had been mocked when he had claimed that he, and numerous other workers including Potthoft, had observed conjugation tubes connecting two bacterial cells (see [23]).
Reports of the existence of limited pleomorphism continue to appear somewhat infrequently in the modern literature. Wood and Kelly, for example, recently showed that the morphology of a species of Thiobacillus varied in response to environmental conditions, while limited pleomorphism in Bradyrhizobium was reported by Reding and Leop to be induced by dicarboxylate [24, 25]. While claims for such limited pleomorphism offend no one, modern reports of extreme bacterial pleomorphism are likely to suffer derision, or more usually just be ignored.
The association between cancer etiology and bacteria continues to be the source of many of the claims made by modern pleomorphists. For example, an amazing series of papers linking extremely pleomorphic bacteria and cancer was reported in 1970 in a symposium in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. The first of these papers, by Wuetherle Caspe-Livingston, reported the isolation of a specific type of highly pleomorphic microorganism found consistently in human and animal cancers [18]. Due to its remarkable pleomorphism, the organism was described as an “unclassified mystery,” but was apparently capable of resembling micrococci, diphtheroids, bacilli, fungi, viruses, and host cell inclusions. Of particular interest was the reported appearance of an L-form, symplasm stage. The following quote from this paper could just as easily have come from the historical literature:
The virus-like bodies present in tumour and culture filtrates can evolve after one or more months into larger mycoplasma-like L forms, and thence to frankly bacterial rods and filaments. Polar or peritrichous flagella can develop under favourable conditions, and motile rods exhibiting a tumbling appearance. Under certain conditions unfavourable to the organisms, large glovoid bodies and still larger cysts from as well as spore forms develop. When conditions again become favourable, small bodies bud off from the chromatin ring lining the cyst, and filaments also may sprout from the rim. The small bodies, often acid fast, lengthen out into rods and filaments.
Source:
http://whale.to/y/wainwright.html
How do semantics impact this discussion on research?
That say WHAT, exactly?
Oh FFS! Why are we still keeping this hoax alive?
Oh! Right. To protect the Majick Covid Elixir pushers.
See, if there really was no Covid and it was just a bad flu season exacerbated by all the fake-ass Covid Protocols… then there was really no need for the Majick Covid Elixir.
But then, the Genetically Modifying Majick Covid Elixir needed… a Covid, as fake as it is.
And folks, be very-very careful of the new-newer-newer fake strain of the fake Covid: The JN.1 Heart Attack Strain!
Despite everything we’ve learned about the association between COVID vaccines and serious heart problems, it appears they’re now trying to re-brand the heart problems as being caused by COVID itself.
Oh well, guess we better take another round of the “100 per cent safe and effective” then!
Once the new booster is rolled out, expect another spate of healthy, professional sports stars suddenly collapsing in the middle of the field as a result of…checks notes… the JN.1 COVID strain.
‘Experts’ Say New COVID Strain Will Cause Global “Heart Failure Pandemic”
I’ve lost count of all the new fake strains these past 4 years. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 14+ now.
81.4% of the population have, as of May 2023, have been injected with at least one dose of heart failure.
It reads like a script, because IT IS a script:
The whole shit-show was laid out, then played out, and spit in your faces within 20 days.
It is a Artificial Lab Created mRNA loaded with instructions to compel your natural God given DNA to perform a function that in the Natural World in would never perform in a Trillion-Trillion years.
And if you were stupid enough to inject yourselves, congrats!
You are now like GMO Corn! It looks like Corn on the outside, but on the inside it is altered corn, genetically modified Corn. It is no longer Mother natures Corn. It is not Corn as God created it. And you are now GMO’ed.
Here: I spliced together the 3 EUA segments from Dec. 2020 that SPITS in your face what the Majick Covid Elixirs are, and are not…
They TOLD YOU days before the release Dec. 14, 2020. But you all turned on your tele-tunnel-vision-boobus-tube and obeyed.
Wuhan blah, blah, blah. Covid, blah, blah, blah. Gain of function, blah, blah blah.
Nothing but distractions.
Please give us one good reason why this cabal should not be in jail?
Lack of a functioning judicial system?
because they should not pass go, they should go directly to hell —
Because the cabal staged a stealth coup and the institutions are firmly in their grasp.
More utter bullshit .
No such thing as covid.
Is EVERYONE on the take??