RSSRon Unz;
What I find to work better than analyzing words of others, the claims, assertions,opinions of the punditerazzi and propagandists in cases as of Covid, is to, first, research for evidences. To hell with what any mouth says, what any finger-talker writes. Second, analyze the evidences. Look for foundation, factuality and plausibility. Third, define chronologies. For everything. Including what you hear and what you read.
In the Covid case doing this gave me immediate answers to all but one question, which I had to await further information to have answered. My hanging question was if the Covid strain released, apparently through an aircraft ventilation system, in the Middle East, apparently to infect Iran’s political and diplomatic staff, the same as, or different from, the straain released in Wuhan? The answer that came was “The same”. This meant that the release to attack Iran was not Israeli opportunism, but was, instead, the second jaw of a pincer-attack that the evidences indicated would have been intended to squeeze the ‘Belt and Road’, ‘Silk Road’ Initiative. The attackers were, therefore, ones whose own economic plans would be negatively impacted by the Initiative.
SAHRS One and MEHRS, you might recall, effected Asians. Neither was an issue in Europe, or in the Americas. Someone was expecting the same of SAHRS Two. They used to do the same releasing gas in WWI: “The wind always blows Down the valley…”
In the beginning there were three preliminaries that formed groundwork for me:
1. I understood “Gain of Function Research”. Much bandied by idiots who love the feel of the phrase laving their tonsils, but have no idea what it might mean (“But it sounds so, like, nefarious, don’tit?’) Gain of function tracking is the virological equivalent to meteorology. Just as weather-men look upstream for ‘precursor’ atmospheric activity and predict probable developments in weather patterns, virologists look to early adaptations and mutations to spot early indications of virii potentially gaining functionality. From those they may predict probable patterns of viral developments. and assess the dangers of those reaching species under their watch and protection.
2. The virologists at Wuhan Institute fo Virology are predominantly Chinese, live in China, have families and sympathies there, and are competent virologists. This means there was virtually no chance that any of them would shrug and whistle if a potentially harmful virus appeared, or if a virus escaped, even only within the lab. Especially so in any case of anything with near to human vectoring potential. No virologist would pretend it nothing, or probably nothing and sweep ‘an incident’ under a carpet. They might not say anything out loud, or announce to any press, but they would for damn sure buzz within their institutional hive. This is why you look for buzz, not wait for announcements.
3. As covered above, SAHRs-1 and MEHRs were predominantly Asia-effecting. And Asian virologists know this.
I very much doubt any bombers would be able to get even 1 m inside Chinese air space without being chased away or shot down, let alone to over Wuhan, but otherwise you raise some interesting points.Replies: @skrik
But dropped from the sky in Wuhan. Bombers overhead with open bomb-bay doors and something falling from them.
If you are still looking for a ‘trigger’ for the Wuhan “buzz-up,” have you considered the PRRA insertion:
Then we look at the Covid buzz-up, at how it came, when it came, how it played: We do not see any stepping, or ramping. We see a Bang! Klaxons, sirens, an eruption. ... These kinds of instant buzz-up to full roar, reaction events exploding with the speed and intensity the records indicate, indicates a radical reaction to a radical report received and taken seriously. The reactions were bio-warfare attack defense reactions
https://nicholaswade.medium.com/origin-of-covid-following-the-clues-6f03564c038Posit [repeat]: When WIV/Dr Shi saw the PRRA in the genome-readout, they/she knew immediately that they and China were under bio-warfare attack, and the rest is history. rgds
“Now the functional reason why SARS2 has a furin cleavage site, and its cousin viruses don’t, can be seen by lining up (in a computer) the string of nearly 30,000 nucleotides in its genome with those of its cousin coronaviruses, of which the closest so far known is one called RaTG13. Compared with RaTG13, SARS2 has a 12-nucleotide insert right at the S1/S2 junction. The insert is the sequence T-CCT-CGG-CGG-GC. The CCT codes for proline, the two CGG’s for two arginines, and the GC is the beginning of a GCA codon that codes for alanine.
There are several curious features about this insert but the oddest is that of the two side-by-side CGG codons. Only 5% of SARS2’s arginine codons are CGG, and the double codon CGG-CGG has not been found in any other beta-coronavirus. So how did SARS2 acquire a pair of arginine codons that are favored by human cells but not by coronaviruses?”