Skip to main content

Test Page

TEST PAGE

Of the two papers that fooled the world, the most important one was:

Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2.

Aka the Pangolin Paper.

image-1642146270992.pngIt supplied the science basis for engineering the world-view of Covid’s origin

The BBC described it as the definitive paper ruling out the possibility of a lab leak.

Pub: Mar 17, 2020 by Nature (draft completed Feb 1 - the date of the teleconference - where it was presented by Farrar/Andersen/Holmes - supplied the backbone for discussions)

Funded/supported by Wellcome & NIH (see acknowledgements)

The premise:

  • patient whatever-many million we’re up to now.
  • all our freedoms being vacuumed up.
  • the science in charge.

The Conclusion:

As such: Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus. .. (P)angolins...provide a much stronger and more parsimonious explanation of how the virus originated through natural selection.

Yeah, right.

Despite it being known at the time (!) that:

  • pangolin are shy solitary creatures - not good vectors for pulling off Holmes’s 50 years of seismic mutations to go from closest (publicly) known bat genome - with no human transmission - to - the most contagious/deadly coronavirus in humans ever known to man. 
  • Yes, pangolin were/are trafficked, but the window for evolution to work its magic is narrowed down to, evolutionarily speaking, the infinitesimal time frame of: captured/caged - shipped - killed - sold - with 100% mortality rate. How does 20-50 years of high-density living fit into that? Fits fine in a lab - but with your pangolin smuggling/natural evolution story?
  • no pangolin were sold at the Nan Hua Seafood Market. 
  • no market animal tested positive (80 000+ tests later, no pangolin or bat has tested positive, anywhere in the world - finally mink caught it from humans)
  • the first cases weren’t from the market

There’s your pangolin premise - collapsed in a heap - before it gets out of the starting gates.

Pile on all the fancy science you like after that - it’s a moot point when the premise is:

Remember, this is not benefit-of-hindsight. The authors, of course, knew it was a whopper as they wrote it - that's why they wrote it - but how did it go from there to:

  • peer reviewed
  • published by Nature
  • endorsed by the one-science community including all major journals, all top public health experts - who took over our lives
  • blanket-reported in the media as officially debunking the lab-leak possibility 
  • used as a basis for banning users from saying it looks engineered by Facebook.

All of the above chose to ignore glaring errors in the fundamental details of the paper. Why?

To perpetrate the greatest scientific fraud of all time.

That makes them hands-on complicit in the Covid Atrocity.