In a disturbing trend foreshadowed by suddenly ubiquitous multi-screen video chatting applications like Zoom and now Google Meet, a soup-to-nuts restructuring of corporate policies and procedures designed around a “new normal” where people are conditioned to avoid social contact and remain in their homes or cars, is being pushed by global consulting giants like McKinsey & Company, which yesterday published a “90-day plan” to initiate “rapid migration to digital technologies driven by the pandemic.”
McKinsey, an American management consulting firm founded in 1926 with over 120 offices worldwide, has cultivated great influence in both the public and private sectors with alumni staffing the C-level offices of massive concerns like Boeing, Google, Facebook, and IBM. McKinsey has been described as the Jesuits of capitalism as a result of their penchant for secrecy but also widespread influence at the highest levels of power.
The 90-day plan
In the 90-day plan, McKinsey expounds on four basic initiatives that they say must underpin the new reality for corporations in a post-COVID-19 universe, assuring us that we are at the threshold of a “historic deployment of remote work and digital access to services across every domain.”
Overcapacity also implies lack of demand, i.e. widespread inability to purchase goods and services, i.e. another Great Ripoff and further concentration and consolidation of wealth and property.
She only deals with obama’s machinations against trump, but there are many other serious offenses such as his obstruction of bailouts of defrauded home(-less)owners in 2008, his promotion of the indefinite detention of americans in the 2012 NDAA bill, his murderous sponsorship of the ukrainian coup and his chemical devastation of the gulf of mexico during the deepwater horizon catastrophe. The man is a fabian fascist.
A top UN official says that coronavirus lockdowns should not be lifted “too hastily” in order to protect “vulnerable” people, despite the fact that some 36 million Americans have now been made vulnerable as a result of losing their jobs because of the lockdown.
“If an affected country comes out of lock-down too hastily, there is a danger that a second wave, costing many more lives, will be triggered sooner and more destructively than would otherwise be the case,” said the UN’s Human Rights High Commissioner Michelle Bachelet.
“If the re-opening of societies is mishandled, all the huge sacrifices made during the initial #lockdown will have been for nothing,” she added. “Letting politics or economics drive the #COVID19 response at the expense of health and #HumanRights will cost lives.” …
I’m pretty sure the UN has a patent on human rights, derived from all the human rights “researchers” (i.e. torture experts) on the various UN committees. They only want to help. That is, help the genocidal scam artists who lord over us at the central banks, which puppet the UN. The depopulation agenda could get messy without the professionals coordinating things at the planetary human rights factory. So far so good, but the covid operation is the ultimate test. If the infinitesimal minority (in dollar terms) 99% make trouble, a more serious virus might be in order.
The New York Times has published an article by popular author Kevin Roose in which he expresses his concern that half of Americans would refuse to take a coronavirus vaccine.
The vaccine, if it ever gets produced since there has never been one for any coronavirus including SARS, is likely to take 12-24 months according to experts.
In his article entitled What if we get a Covid-19 vaccine and half the country refuses to take it?, Roose laments the popularity of an anti-vaxxer video called Plandemic, which despite being censored numerous times by every major social media network has still been seen by millions of people.
Roose says that the urgency with which a vaccine will need to be produced will allow anti-vaxxers to claim it’s unsafe.
“Any promising Covid-19 vaccine is likely to be fast-tracked through the testing and approval process,” he writes. “It may not go through years of clinical trials and careful studies of possible long-term side effects, the way other drugs do. That could create an opening for anti-vaccine activists to claim that it is untested and dangerous, and to spin reasonable concerns about the vaccine into widespread, unfounded fears about its safety.”
The involvement of Bill Gates in the distribution of any vaccine will also fuel a backlash, according to Roose.
“If that’s the case, anti-vaccine activists, who have been crusading against these groups for years, will have plenty of material stockpiled to try to discredit them. They are already taking aim at Mr. Gates with baseless conspiracy theories claiming that he created and is trying to profit from the virus. These theories will be amplified, and the attempts to discredit leading virus research efforts will intensify as the vaccine nears.”
Finally, he asserts that it would be “a good idea” to make the vaccine mandatory if Americans want to fly or send their kids to certain schools, but that this “would play into some of the worst fears of the anti-vaccine movement” and create “a tangle of legal roadblocks and damaging publicity campaigns.”
For the first time, we’d have a genuine placebo controlled test of vaccine safety which couldn’t be shredded at the CDC. It would be the death knell of the whole scam. Doctors would be hiding their medical diplomas in the drawer and pretending to be traditional healers. They cannot allow this.
But even if vaccines weren’t contaminated with anything that will fit into a syringe, and even if they had a clue how to create immunity without causing autoimmunity, and even if they had the integrity and quality control and benevolence required of the trust they demand, why bother? Adequate organic nutrition + vitamin D, C, A, zinc (and inhaled colloidal silver mist when needed) is pretty much everything you need to ward off any known respiratory infection, including ebola (see below). Of course there’s no telling how nasty the next bioweapon will be, especially if it effectively targets the immune system itself, like HIV. Someone should ask gates how the insiders are preparing. http://thoughtcrimeradio.net/2020/05/bill-gates-says-new-pandemic-coming/
If they want a modicum of credibility all they have to do is stop lying. The ball is STILL in their court to try to prove that any vaccine is safe for everyone at the prescribed ages with any genetic makeup in conjunction with all the other vaccines and drugs (such as tylenol) and malnutrition (such as vitamin D deficiency) routinely imposed at the same time. They won’t try because it’s not true, the VAERS database and the $billions paid out by the vaccine injury court prove it, and they know it. But if they admit this patently obvious and legally established fact, the whole medical facade of respectability implodes, as it should have decades ago with infant circumcision.
American medicine is a walking talking conflict of interest. And so all they can do is gaslight. And the genocidal MSM carries their big lies as readily as all the others, even as the entire world population is being targeted.
- “Fear and sickness are identical.” – Science & Health by Mary Baker Eddy
- “All healing is essentially the release from fear.” – A Course In Miracles”
- “There is no fear in love but perfect Love casts out fear.” – 1John 4:18
- “God is love.” – 1John 4:8
Any questions? What’s going on? Incompetence or treachery?
- Are viruses contagious? Well… watch this…
…and also read Germ Theory : Debunking the Coronavirus/Covid-19 scam
What do we now know about a virus?
a virus lacks the ability to replicate on its own;
it requires the assistance of a host cells’ duplicating equipment, in order to borrow enzymes and other molecules to concoct more viruses;
a virus is “not a living organism, it is simply a well-organized molecular messenger.” (Fabio Romero, Institute of Human Virology);
the human body has trillions of viruses and micro-organisms present, that live in our skin, intestines, mucous membranes…
the presence of a virus does not mean it is the cause of an illness;
we are breathing viruses, eating them, touching them.
No Clinical Virological research since 1933 has been able to demonstrate or prove a link between a virus and contagion. NOT ONE!
Viruses cannot enter through the skin or eyes. Such vectors do not work because the mucus membranes and the immune system discard small amounts of foreign proteins such as viruses…
and much much more at https://johnscottconsciousness.com/germ-theory/
Glenn Greenwald, a journalist, constitutional lawyer, commentator, and author of three New York Times best-selling books on politics and law, has been working with NBC News in publishing a series of articles on how covert government agents infiltrate the Internet to “manipulate, deceive, and destroy reputations.”
The information is based on documents leaked by National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward Snowden. Greenwald’s article, How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations, is based on four classified documents produced by the British spy agency GCHQ, and presented to the NSA and three other English speaking agencies reportedly part of “The Five Eyes Alliance.”
In this shocking piece, Greenwald publishes a copy of a spy training manual used entitled: “The Art of Deception: Training for Online Covert Operations.” Greenwald writes that agencies like the NSA are “attempting to control, infiltrate, manipulate, and warp online discourse, and in doing so, are compromising the integrity of the internet itself.” Greenwald writes:
Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable. To see how extremist these programs are, just consider the tactics they boast of using to achieve those ends: “false flag operations” (posting material to the internet and falsely attributing it to someone else), fake victim blog posts (pretending to be a victim of the individual whose reputation they want to destroy), and posting “negative information” on various forums.
While this kind of counter-intelligence activity may not sound surprising given the objectives of spy agencies going after terrorists, what disturbs Greenwald (and many others) is that the discussion regarding these techniques have been greatly expanded to include the general public:
Critically, the “targets” for this deceit and reputation-destruction extend far beyond the customary roster of normal spycraft: hostile nations and their leaders, military agencies, and intelligence services. In fact, the discussion of many of these techniques occurs in the context of using them in lieu of “traditional law enforcement” against people suspected (but not charged or convicted) of ordinary crimes or, more broadly still, “hacktivism”, meaning those who use online protest activity for political ends.
The title page of one of these documents reflects the agency’s own awareness that it is “pushing the boundaries” by using “cyber offensive” techniques against people who have nothing to do with terrorism or national security threats, and indeed, centrally involves law enforcement agents who investigate ordinary crimes.
No matter your views on Anonymous, “hacktivists” or garden-variety criminals, it is not difficult to see how dangerous it is to have secret government agencies being able to target any individuals they want – who have never been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crimes – with these sorts of online, deception-based tactics of reputation destruction and disruption.
And while these leaked documents concern the British spy agency, Greenwald is quick to point out that the Obama administration has actually been open and forward about using such techniques in the U.S.:
Government plans to monitor and influence internet communications, and covertly infiltrate online communities in order to sow dissension and disseminate false information, have long been the source of speculation. Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein, a close Obama adviser and the White House’s former head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, wrote a controversial paper in 2008 proposing that the US government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-“independent” advocates to “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites, as well as other activist groups.
Sunstein also proposed sending covert agents into “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups” which spread what he views as false and damaging “conspiracy theories” about the government. Ironically, the very same Sunstein was recently named by Obama to serve as a member of the NSA review panel created by the White House, one that – while disputing key NSA claims – proceeded to propose many cosmetic reforms to the agency’s powers (most of which were ignored by the President who appointed them).
Trolls Used by Big Pharma to Attack Vaccine Objectors
Have you ever been on an Internet forum, blog, or Facebook Page where all of a sudden, out of nowhere, several people appear to contradict the main topic being discussed, especially if it is regarding a controversial topic like vaccines? Well it is entirely possible, and even likely, that it is not coincidence, and that it is a well-coordinated attack by “trolls”. As Greenwald reveals in his recently published article, there are definitely programs in place in government spy agencies to do just that.
This tactic of trained trolls can be used by those outside of government also, and Big Pharma seems to be one business sector that employs this tactic as well, especially targeting publishers who report on the dangers of vaccines.
Of course it should also be pointed out that the distinction between the government and the pharmaceutical industry is a very hazy one. As we have pointed out several times in the past, the vaccine industry cannot survive in a free market, but needs the government to prop them up. In the 1980s there were so many lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies for vaccine damages, that the vaccine industry blackmailed Congress by threatening to get out of the vaccine business unless they passed legislation protecting them from lawsuits. Congress obliged, and legislation was passed preventing the public from suing pharmaceutical companies for damages due to vaccines, and this law was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2011. The pharmaceutical industry now has a free pass to put as many vaccines into the market place as they want to, regardless of efficacy or dangerous side effects, since there is no accountability left in the judicial system.
Today, the pharmaceutical industry is practically a branch of the government. The government awards grants from your tax dollars to research new vaccines, the FDA approves them, and then government organizations like the CDC and UNICEF purchase the vaccines with your tax dollars. The CDC even holds patents and earns royalties on vaccines, and many of the top scientists work for both the government and the pharmaceutical companies. Julie Gerberding, for example, was the head of the CDC from 2002 to 2009, and then took over as head of the pharmaceutical company Merck’s vaccine division overseeing billions of dollars in sales. The government definitely has a vested interest in protecting the vaccine market.
So it should surprise no one that there are coordinated efforts to infiltrate and discredit those who publish the truth about vaccines, which may lead to fewer people wanting to purchase or receive them.
Consider the following comments appearing on a blog post from a pro-Pharma site discussing how to target sites and Facebook Pages who publish the alternative view of vaccines. Advice is given on how to infiltrate and flood discussions about vaccines by pretending to be victims of diseases because they failed to get vaccinated. I am not going to mention the name of the website and give them publicity, but it has already been established that this site is financed by those with clear ties to the pharmaceutical industry. Here are some comments that appeared in a blog post that was trying to convince readers that outbreaks of diseases were due to “anti-vaccinationists”:
Use emotional warfare on anti-vax blogs. Tell emotional stories full of tears and sobbing and unbearable grief and terror, about people in your own family or people you read about, who were sick with or died of terrible diseases. Don’t hold back details about bodily fluids and suchlike: the more gross the better. This stuff has a way of infiltrating the minds of readers and subtly influencing their decisions, in a manner similar to advertising.’
‘Go in there and “agree with them” and then say things that appear thoroughly delusional, overtly nuts, blatantly and obviously wrong even to nincompoops, etc. Occasional spelling and grammar errors are also useful but don’t over-do. The point of this exercise is to create an impression that drives away undecideds who may come in to check out these sites. It helps to do this as a group effort and begin gradually, so the sites appear to be “going downhill slowly.”‘
‘But it is useful to have an email address that can’t be traced back, for certain legitimate and ethical uses, just as it is useful to have a mail box at say the UPS store.’ …
Not only are the coronavirus models being used by WHO and the most national health agencies based on highly dubious methodologies, and not only are the tests being used of wildly different quality, that only indirectly confirm antibodies of a possible COVID-19 illness. Now the actual designations of deaths related to coronavirus are being revealed to be equally problematic for a variety of reasons. It gives alarming food for thought as to the wisdom of deliberately putting most of the world’s people–and with it the world economy–into Gulag-style lockdown on the argument it is necessary to contain deaths and prevent overloading of hospital emergency services.
When we take a closer look at the definitions used in various countries for “death related to COVID-19” we get a far different picture of what is claimed to be the deadliest plague to threaten mankind since the 1918 “Spanish Flu.”
The USA and CDC definitions
Right now the USA is said to be the nation with far the largest number of COVID-19 deaths, as of this writing, with media reporting some 68,000 “Covid-19” deaths. Here is where it gets very dodgy. The Government agency responsible for making the cause of death tally for the country, the CDC, is making huge changes in how they count so-called novel coronavirus deaths.
As of May 5, the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, the central agency recording cause of death nationwide, reported 39,910 COVID-19 deaths. A footnote defines this as “Deaths with confirmed or presumed COVID-19.” How a doctor makes the “presumed” judgment leaves huge latitude to the hospital and health professionals. Although the coronavirus tests are known to be subject to false results, CDC states that even where no tests have been made a doctor can “presume” COVID-19. Useful to note for perspective is the number of USA deaths recorded from all causes in the same period of February 1 through May 2, that was 751,953.
Now it gets more murky. The CDC posted this notice: “As of April 14, 2020, CDC case counts and death counts include both confirmed and probable cases and deaths.” From that time the number of so-called COVID-19 deaths in USA has exploded in an alarming manner it would appear. On that day, April 14, New York City’s coronavirus death toll was revised with a major 3,700 fatalities added, with the provision that the count now included “people who had never tested positive for the virus but were presumed to have it.” The CDC now defines confirmed as “confirmatory laboratory evidence for COVID-19,” which as we noted elsewhere included tests of dubious precision, but at least tests. Then they define “probable” as “with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID-19.” Just a guess of the doctor in charge.
Now leaving aside the major discrepancy between the CDC headline COVID-19 deaths as of May 5 of 68,279 and their detailed total of 39,910 deaths for the same period, we find another problem. Hospitals and doctors are being told to list COVID-19 as cause of death even if, say, a patient age 83 with pre-existing diabetes or cardiac issues or pneumonia dies with or without COVID-19 tests. The CDC advises, “In cases where a definite diagnosis of COVID cannot be made but is suspected or likely (e.g. the circumstances are compelling with a reasonable degree of certainty) it is acceptable to report COVID-19 on a death certificate as ‘probable’ or ‘presumed.’” This opens the door ridiculously wide for abuse of coronavirus death numbers in the United States.
A Big Money Incentive
A provision in the March 2020 Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, known as the CARES Act, gives a major incentive for hospitals in the US, most all of them private for-profit concerns, to deem newly-admitted patients as “presumed COVID-19.” By this simple method the hospital then qualifies for a substantially larger payment from the government Medicare insurance, the national insurance for those over 65. The word “presumed” is not scientific, not at all precise but very tempting for hospitals concerned about their income in this crisis.
Dr Summer McGhee, Dean of the School of Health Sciences at the University of New Haven, notes that, “The CARES Act authorized a temporary 20 percent increase in reimbursements from Medicare for COVID-19 patients…” He added that, as a result, “hospitals that get a lot of COVID-19 patients also get extra money from the government.”
Then, according to a Minnesota medical doctor, Scott Jensen, also a State Senator, if that COVID-19 designated patient is put on a ventilator, even if only presumed to have COVID-19, the hospital can get reimbursed three times the sum from the Medicare. Dr Jensen told a national TV interviewer, “Right now Medicare is determining that if you have a COVID-19 admission to the hospital you get $13,000. If that COVID-19 patient goes on a ventilator you get $39,000, three times as much.” Little wonder that states such as Massachusetts suddenly began backdating cause of death totals back to March 30, significantly inflating COVID death numbers, or that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo began demanding 30,000 ventilators and emergency equipment around the same early April time, equipment that was not needed.
A team of Australian scientists has produced new evidence that the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19 is optimized for penetration into human cells rather than animal cells, undermining the theory that the virus randomly evolved in an animal subject before passing into human beings, and suggesting instead that it was developed in a laboratory.
The study, which has not yet been peer reviewed, provides new but not yet conclusive evidence favoring the theory that the novel coronavirus originated not in a food market as has been claimed, but rather in a laboratory, presumably one operated by the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China, the city in which the first outbreak of COVID-19 occurred in December of 2019.
The lead researcher on the team says that the results represent either “a remarkable coincidence or a sign of human intervention” in the creation of the virus.
The authors of the study, led by vaccine researcher Nikolai Petrovsky of Flinders University in Australia, used a version of the novel coronavirus collected in the earliest days of the outbreak and applied computer models to test its capacity to bind to certain cell receptor enzymes, called “ACE2,” that allow the virus to infect human and animal cells to varying degrees of efficacy.
They tested the propensity of the COVID-19 virus’s spike protein, which it uses to enter cells, to bind to the human type of ACE2 as well as to many different animal versions of ACE2, and found that the novel coronavirus most powerfully binds with human ACE2, and with variously lesser degrees of effectiveness with animal versions of the receptor.
According to the study’s authors, this implies that the virus that causes COVID-19 did not come from an animal intermediary, but became specialized for human cell penetration by living previously in human cells, quite possibly in a laboratory.
The authors write that “this finding is particularly surprising as, typically, a virus would be expected to have highest affinity for the receptor in its original host species, e.g. bat, with a lower initial binding affinity for the receptor of any new host, e.g. humans. However, in this case, the affinity of SARS-CoV-2 is higher for humans than for the putative original host species, bats, or for any potential intermediary host species.”
As a consequence, they add, a “possibility which still cannot be excluded is that SARSCoV-2 was created by a recombination event that occurred inadvertently or consciously in a laboratory handling coronaviruses, with the new virus then accidentally released into the local human population.”
In a separate public statement about the research made by Prof. Petrovsky on April 17, the researcher notes that the results of his study are either “a remarkable coincidence or a sign of human intervention,” and adds that it is “entirely plausible that the virus was created in the biosecurity facility in Wuhan by selection on cells expressing human ACE2, a laboratory that was known to be cultivating exotic bat coronaviruses at the time.”
“If so the cultured virus could have escaped the facility either through accidental infection of a staff member who then visited the fish market several blocks away and there infected others, or by inappropriate disposal of waste from the facility that either infected humans outside the facility directly or via a susceptible vector such as a stray cat that then frequented the market and resulted in transmission there to humans,” he added.
The researchers recognize that other possibilities exist, but regard them as improbable. They found that the novel coronavirus has a strong, but lesser binding effect on the ACE2 receptor of Pangolins, which are mammals eaten in China as a delicacy which has often been proposed as the intermediary of the novel coronavirus between bats and humans. However, they note that the Pangolin doesn’t offer a reasonable candidate for an intermediate species for human transmission, because “given the higher affinity of [the novel coronavirus] SARS-CoV-2 for human ACE2 than for bat ACE2, SARS-CoV-2 would have to have circulated in pangolins for a long period of time for this evolution and selection to occur and to date there is no evidence of a SARS-CoV-2 like virus circulating in pangolins.”
A preliminary form of the study, which is currently entitled, “In silico comparison of spike protein-ACE2 binding affinities across species; significance for the possible origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus,” has been published on a repository site maintained by Cornell University, which warns that studies published prior to peer review should not be considered “established information” unless multiple experts in a given field are first consulted.
According to his university webpage, in addition to his work as a university professor, Professor Petrovsky is currently Director of Endocrinology at Flinders Medical Centre of Flinders University, and Vice President and Secretary-General of the International Immunomics Society. He is also the founder of Vaxine Pty Ltd., which is funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health and is currently working on a COVID-19 vaccine.
In addition to Professor Petrovsky, the research team that produced the study includes Prof. Sakshi Piplani, also of Flinders University, Puneet Kumar Singh, who works with Petrovsky and Piplani at Vaxine Pty Ltd., and Prof. David A. Winkler, who teaches at the University of Nottingham in the U.K and Monash University in Australia.
Study contradicts scientists who claim “zero evidence” for lab origin of virus
The results of the study tend to contradict virologists who have claimed that the novel coronavirus shows no signs of having been produced in a laboratory, some of whom have gone so far as to dismiss such theories as “conspiracy theories.” The “conspiracy theory” claim has been uncritically echoed in much, but not all, of the international media. The staff of the Wuhan Institute of Virology have repeatedly denied the virus came from their lab.
Their position has been supported by a widely-referenced letter from several scientists published in Nature Medicine on March 17, which argues against the likelihood of a laboratory generating the virus in a human cell lab culture.
The argument made by the researchers in the letter is mostly based on the claim that no genetically-close progenitor to the novel coronavirus that could be a candidate for such a process has been described in any scientific study. They also assert that “repeated passage” of coronaviruses in cell cultures have not been mentioned in scientific literature.
However, the letter’s authors do not address the possibility that the Wuhan Institute of Virology researchers simply did not report all of their research to the public, a possibility that seems to have been reinforced in recent months by secrecy and cover-ups regarding COVID-19 research in China, and the repeated refusal of the Chinese government to participate in an international probe of the origins of the novel coronavirus.
Unless an animal version of virus is found, evidence points to “human intervention”
Professor Petrovsky told LifeSite in an email interview that his study indicates that “there are some highly unusual features, including optimal human adaptation, that in the absence of identification of a close to identical virus in an animal population from which COVID19 could have arisen, would point in the direction of human intervention at some point in the evolution of COVID19.”
He noted that, so far, researchers in China and elsewhere have not produced evidence of the presence in animals of a virus closely similar to the one that causes COVID-19 in humans, which would give credence to their theory of natural development in an intermediary between bats, which presumably originated the virus, and humans.
“If an animal vector and virus could be found then of course this would resolve the matter completely,” Petrovksy told LifeSite. “One would have thought that the Chinese would be intensively sampling all conceivable animals trying to find such a virus to exonerate their labs. If no such intense search is going on (which I don’t know one way or the other) then the inference could be that they are not looking because they already know what they might find.”
Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University who has been critical of laboratory studies that might produce new pathogens dangerous to humans, told LifeSite that Petrovsky’s results “are plausible,” but cautioned that the results of the pre-print of the study “are from computational modelling, not from experiments, and therefore must be considered as provisional at best.”
Ebright noted that an earlier study on ACE2 receptor binding found that a bat coronavirus similar to the COVID-19 virus had strong binding power with the ACE2 of tree shrews and ferrets, making them possible animal intermediary candidates. However, the study did not compare the binding power of the virus’ animal species’ ACE2 receptors with the binding power with humans, as does Petrovsky’s study. Moreover, it did not use a gene sequence from an early version of the novel coronavirus itself, as does Petrovsky’s study, but rather used the gene sequence of a similar bat coronavirus reported by the Wuhan Institute of Virology, called RaTG13.
Ebright told LifeSite that he believes that multiple physical experiments that will ultimately determine if the novel coronavirus is optimized for binding with human cells are “probably underway in multiple locations,” although he did not cite any specific studies.
What is needed, according to Prof. Petrovsky, is a thorough international investigation into the true cause of the COVID-19 outbreak, something the Chinese government has repeatedly refused.
“Whilst the facts cannot be known at this time, the nature of this event and its proximity to a high-risk biosecurity facility at the epicentre of the outbreak demands a full and independent international enquiry to ascertain whether a virus of this kind of COVID-19 was being cultured in the facility and might have been accidentally released,” wrote Petrovsky on April 17.
As the world is on lockdown to control the coronavirus pandemic, the sun is going through its own lockdown and it enters a period of “solar minimum” and its activity decreases
As the sun enters a period of “solar minimum” its activity has decreased, scientists report there have already been 100 days where the sun has displayed zero sunspots.
Sunspots are “cool planet-sized areas on the sun where intense magnetic loops poke through the star’s visible surface,” explains Spaceweather.
This means were could be entering one of the deepest period of sunshine recession which could trigger long periods of cold, famine and other issues.
Astronomer Dr Tony Phillips said: “Solar Minimum is under way, and it’s a deep one.
“Sunspot counts suggest it is one of the deepest of the past century. The sun’s magnetic field has become weak, allowing extra cosmic rays into the solar system.
“Excess cosmic rays pose a health hazard to astronauts and polar air travellers, affect the electro-chemistry of Earth’s upper atmosphere, and may help trigger lightning.”
The world could suffer from famine as temperatures plummet by up to 2C over 20 years, reports The Sun.
Spaceweather reveals: “So far this year, the Sun has been blank 76% of the time, a rate surpassed only once before in the Space Age. Last year, 2019, the Sun was blank 77% of the time.
“Two consecutive years of record-setting spotlessness adds up to a very deep solar minimum, indeed.”
It has been reported by The Sun, NASA scientists fear a repeat of the 1790 and 1830 “Dalton Minimum” which led to a period of intense cold and powerful volcanic eruptions.
The sun recession led to a devastating volcanic eruption in 2,000 years in 1816 in Indonesia, which killed 71,000 people.
Although the last solar minimum occurred in 2013-2014, it was ranked among the weak.
Maybe CO2 will save us. Oh that’s right …