Origins: Self-Spreading versus ‘Lab Leak’ versus ‘Wet Market’
Another rabbit hole warning. I keep trying to put this into the ‘who cares’ bucket but it keeps bringing up more questions. And, whenever politics (government + media) specifically allows or shows a narrative like the lab-leak, especially when it’s a ‘big scandal’, it’s usually something they want you to see to keep the distraction running.
Recently read this comment:
“So now there are 3 options on the table: 1) A new virus came from a lab and caused a pandemic. 2) A new virus came from nature and caused a pandemic. 3) There was never a new virus in the first place.”
These options have had one main effect – to keep people divided and arguing over something meaningless. That was covered with (1) and (2) sufficiently even till now (2023), depending on which rabbit-hole/social media silo you are in. From what I see, the majority are still in the (2) narrative. Doesn’t really matter, since the end result is and was ‘I can’t wait to get my protective vx from the government’. The third option (no new virus or even no such thing as viruses) has caused even more division and cancelling – it’s common to see people say ‘I won’t even listen to you if you believe in viruses’. This has successfully divided the minority of groups discussing the many false aspects of this pseudopandemic.
Fourth scenario – they use spreadable infectious clones (CDNA clones) that have limited spread but can be controlled-targeted to seed outbreaks, combined with media fear of course. It’s either the narrative – virus came in 2020 (lab or nature), we got the miracle jabs end of 2020 just in time, billions jabbed in a year, safe and effective. Or, something else? Why not start at the root of the jabs and the companies/government agencies developing them? There is a clear history of problem-reaction-solution when it comes to tricking populations via fear to do something for someone else’s idea of a greater good. The debate around what that greater good is can be separate, but the fact that this tactic was used is clear. The US government had the guts of the Patriot Act written and ready well before 9/11 – with a different name of course. It added extra-ordinary surveillance powers (among others) that the general public would not accept in peace-time. Once an emergency was there (9/11), it was re-packaged and ready to implement – with the public readily accepting (‘you’re either with us or with the terrorists’ if you spoke out). This has happened throughout history, and so why would the problem-reaction-solution approach be any different this time?
Whitney Webb back in early 2020 did a very thorough analysis on the history of the process that led to the ‘miracle’ of Moderna and others suddenly having the C19 jabs ready to go, with an untested (on mass populations) platform. It goes back decades, which again leads to the question. Did they swoop in and save the day just in time for C19 in late 2020 after the deadly virus spread around the world like a Hollywood movie? Or, like many previous times in history, did they have a need to implement something the public would never agree to in normal times at the ready, waited (or orchestrated or allowed) for an emergency/disaster (regardless of its source – separate topic), then provide their solution to an irrationally-fearful public who were begging for the solution? Hollywood or the fear-trick that works every time? Somewhere in the links below there’s also the analogy of the mafia, who comes along and smashes shop windows and harasses business owners, then shortly after other mafia members come along and offer protection for money that the business owners can’t refuse.
As Webb points out, the decades-long program of getting people hooked on antibiotics was shifting to getting people hooked on ‘updates’ on a platform of RNA sequences. A 2011 Wired article summarizes this ‘needed shift’ here, according to DARPA: “The agency's ‘Rapidly Adaptable Nanotherapeutics’ is after a versatile ‘platform capable of rapidly synthesizing therapeutic nanoparticles’ to target unknown, evolving and even genetically engineered bioweapons”.
Both of these articles and others are summarized in this podcast, approximately the last 45 minutes:
https://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/myocarditis-weapon-darpa-nih-covid-experiment/
As the host says – there are so many overlapping coincidences in the decades of DARPA development and the recent delivery of jabs that they can’t all be unrelated. These are documents and papers from their own sources stating their technology going back decades, and now, with C19 as emergency justification, their partner companies (Moderna etc.) suddenly all have everything ready to go in months? And is it a fluke or mistake that medical exams have proven that the spike protein and other vx components settle in blood-brain barrier, while the earlier DARPA technologies aimed to alter brain functions and behavior directly?
Topics within the DARPA developments over the years include ‘self-spreading vx’ and gene-editing to improve age, health, or any other genetic issue. Of course, the technologies are always touted as beneficial (stop a virus, pathogen, cancer, etc.), but as Webb states, if they can build tech to enhance traits it means they can also attenuate those traits. Which is more likely – that ‘they’ want humans to be healthy, cancer-free, and live longer? Or do they want to tweak and tune to keep their population goals on-track?
This is the description back in 2011 (keep in mind all current mRNA use LNP – liquid nanoparticles, for delivery of C19 vx):
‘Instead, Darpa wants researchers to use nanoparticles -- tiny, autonomous drug delivery systems that can carry molecules of medication anywhere in the body, and get them right into a targeted cell. Darpa would like to see nanoparticles loaded with "small interfering RNA (siRNA)" -- a class of molecules that can target and shut down specific genes. If siRNA could be reprogrammed "on-the-fly" and applied to different pathogens, then the nanoparticles could be loaded up with the right siRNA molecules and sent directly to cells responsible for the infection.’
Further connections are made throughout Webb’s articles and videos. The links show DARPA has long been making and researching RNA-modifying mechanisms that can alter the brain activity directly. Of course, these would only be used for ‘good’ manipulation and for advancements of healthcare. And suddenly we have a mass-experiment where these same technologies are delivering C19 spike protein payloads to save us? They have been testing delivery systems with payloads that can ‘target and shut down specific genes’, but now are only using it to help fight a virus? And this delivery system is found to be crossing the blood-brain barrier – a feature they designed on the one-hand but now suddenly a fatal ‘mistake’ with the jabs? Even back in 2015, DARPA was highlighting the need for this new, faster delivery platform, which would only be for delivering instructions to create antibodies to a virus, not alter the DNA as they have been experimenting with for years.
A further tie-in to gene editing involves MBE – moral bio enhancement – gene therapy. Experts not only discuss if it’s needed, but whether it should be delivered covertly. If altering peoples’ biology based on better morals ‘for the greater good’ is a public health issue, then not only should be it done, but doing it without people’s knowledge or consent is also moral. This must be for individual ‘enhancement’, but is there no overlap to DARPA’s developments?
From author Parker Crutchfield:
“Some theorists argue that moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory. I take this argument one step further, arguing that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration ought to be covert rather than overt. This is to say that it is morally preferable for compulsory moral bioenhancement to be administered without the recipients knowing that they are receiving the enhancement. My argument for this is that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration is a matter of public health, and for this reason should be governed by public health ethics. I argue that the covert administration of a compulsory moral bioenhancement program better conforms to public health ethics than does an overt compulsory program.”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30157295/
That leads back to the fourth option – spreadable infectious clones. If they have been developing self-spreading ‘vaccines’ and ones that be inhaled as well as ‘therapies’ to directly-alter brain functions, that use the same delivery system as the mRNA jabs, then how far-fetched would it be that they have already been spreading what they want? And why would they use injections alone, which allows for holdouts to avoid them? Getting the injections forced people in to the digital vx passport system to ‘gain their freedoms back’, which is or was probably one of the main goals. (Only a small minority of people I know were questioning this – removal of fundamental freedoms replaced with opt-in privileges via smart phone passes). If they’ve been working on spreadable vaccines for years now, it’s pretty unlikely that someone could just ‘hold out’ and not be subjected to the same contents as whatever they are trying to deliver to our bodies. How else will they test and deliver their desired payloads to those cultures or groups who don’t trust their governments?
A good summary of infectious clones is provided here by JJ Couey. At around 2hrs, 55 minutes, he breaks down various peoples’ position on the pandemic so far, and leads in to a bit of the infectious clones. The whole video is on immunology but the final half hour is his summary – natural/accidental leak Hollywood-style virus spread, or target-spread clones? Infectious clones can be target-spread and appear to be like a viral outbreak. The Hollywood-style threat of a ground-zero virus spread taps in to humans’ natural fear of disease. It can’t be seen. Together with denying standard treatments and seeding elderly sick people into care homes (U.K., New York City, Italy etc.), and combined with constant media fear, targeted outbreaks could have been amplified in specific areas/times. Despite SARSCOV2 being confirmed in blood samples back in 2018-2019 in many parts of the world, people still bought the movie version of a virus spreading all around the world on a fixed date of March 2020. Similar to an outbreak that health experts fall in line to respond. Couey points out that a single-point release, such as the wet-market pangolin story or an ‘oops China lab-leak’ can never result in a Hollywood-style worldwide flood of infections as depicted in the narrative.
More questions, lots of overlap with history, and a simple ‘look over here’ media narrative. It shouldn’t matter anymore but sure raises lots of questions.
Rabbit hole links:
Whitney Webb: Covid 1984 and the DARPA rollout on Geopolitics and Empire.
Last American Vagabond: Myocarditis and the DARPA progam.
JJ Couey: Gigaohm Biological.