I love how you frame this - nice presentation of parallels. Where does the "previously unknown physics disappeared the plane" -guys fall? Are they the "viruses do not exist" -folks..? ;)
So, if Baric is the "pilot" - which makes you the SARS-CoV-2 Larry Vance, I suppose - and the nosee'um is his method of concealment, do you think the endgame was to shield him from being traced, or is it something else?
With Baric, I'll admit No See'um looks nefarious because in 2007, he wrote:
Synthetic viral genomes can be designed to be identical with exact virus strains circulating in any given location from any year. This powerful technique provides the bioterrorist with a “scapegoat” option; leaving a sequence signature that misdirects efforts at tracking the true originators of the crime. Even better, the approach could be used to build mistrust and/or precipitate open warfare between nations.
But in the same 2007 paper, Baric talks "virus vaccines." So I claim Baric was trying to hide the engineering scars from the targeted lab animals: Chinese horseshoe bats. Of course, Ebright attacks me for that:
I still find it strange that Baric used his nosee'um trick on SARS-CoV-2. It was a live vaccine for bats, not a bioweapon, so there's no accountability for him if it leaks - and it wasn't a very efficient trick either, as I remember Pr Luc Montagnier saying on live TV in late 2020, to the great dismay of the newscaster, "Someone was trying to make a vaccine". So, as my grandmother used to say, who was he trying to fool? Also, as far as I know, nosee'um or not, there is no benefit in terms of immunisation.
I have to admit that I have to keep up with your articles to avoid asking questions you've already answered, so I'll just do that.
You're asking the good questions without easy answers since Baric won't talk. But virologists think it's elegant to be able to copy nature. In Baric's 2007 No See'um paper, he brags, "Once an infectious clone is established for a virus, rapid production of candidate vaccine strains and vectors for therapeutic gene delivery in animals and humans is possible."
Thank you. I'm going to read through his paper, it looks like there's something in it even for a layman. At first glance, I'd say his methodology is so convoluted that it somehow takes away the "elegant" aspect and any justification for this kind of work. Nature, at least from my life experience, always has an inherently generous purpose, even if it feels a bit raw, whereas this guy is playing around with biology like a three year old who found a loaded gun in his dad's drawer.
Vance led the Canadian investigation of the Swissair 111 crash. But that investigation was a notorious cover-up (there is even a CBC documentary about it somewhere). So I for one wouldn't place a lot of trust in this guy.
In the Spiegel article, the journalist compares MH370 to Germanwings 9525, claiming it was also a pilot suicide-murder. But this was exposed as yet another cover-up. It was an aircraft technical defect that was covered up by placing an ipad with fake evidence in the flat of the pilot. In fact pilot suicides on airliners are almost entirely a myth. The few proven pilot suicides occurred in planes with no or only one passenger. So I don't think Vance has proven anything.
I love how you frame this - nice presentation of parallels. Where does the "previously unknown physics disappeared the plane" -guys fall? Are they the "viruses do not exist" -folks..? ;)
that perfect! I need to do a post on the No Virus cult. Here's Rocky Mountain Lab freezing Covid and taking a picture so we can see their handiwork:
https://directorsblog.nih.gov/tag/rocky-mountain-labs/
Oh wow! Eerie parallels indeed.
So, if Baric is the "pilot" - which makes you the SARS-CoV-2 Larry Vance, I suppose - and the nosee'um is his method of concealment, do you think the endgame was to shield him from being traced, or is it something else?
With Baric, I'll admit No See'um looks nefarious because in 2007, he wrote:
Synthetic viral genomes can be designed to be identical with exact virus strains circulating in any given location from any year. This powerful technique provides the bioterrorist with a “scapegoat” option; leaving a sequence signature that misdirects efforts at tracking the true originators of the crime. Even better, the approach could be used to build mistrust and/or precipitate open warfare between nations.
https://www.jcvi.org/sites/default/files/assets/projects/synthetic-genomics-options-for-governance/Baric-Synthetic-Viral-Genomics.pdf
But in the same 2007 paper, Baric talks "virus vaccines." So I claim Baric was trying to hide the engineering scars from the targeted lab animals: Chinese horseshoe bats. Of course, Ebright attacks me for that:
https://x.com/r_h_ebright/status/1880387686340653291?s=43&t=WnoDDbsfpcbaJvNjgoxNbA
This gentleman Ebright is a real piece of work.
I still find it strange that Baric used his nosee'um trick on SARS-CoV-2. It was a live vaccine for bats, not a bioweapon, so there's no accountability for him if it leaks - and it wasn't a very efficient trick either, as I remember Pr Luc Montagnier saying on live TV in late 2020, to the great dismay of the newscaster, "Someone was trying to make a vaccine". So, as my grandmother used to say, who was he trying to fool? Also, as far as I know, nosee'um or not, there is no benefit in terms of immunisation.
I have to admit that I have to keep up with your articles to avoid asking questions you've already answered, so I'll just do that.
Luc also said it was the work of a professional!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=durcHyxpFT4&t=90s
You're asking the good questions without easy answers since Baric won't talk. But virologists think it's elegant to be able to copy nature. In Baric's 2007 No See'um paper, he brags, "Once an infectious clone is established for a virus, rapid production of candidate vaccine strains and vectors for therapeutic gene delivery in animals and humans is possible."
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7120124/
Thank you. I'm going to read through his paper, it looks like there's something in it even for a layman. At first glance, I'd say his methodology is so convoluted that it somehow takes away the "elegant" aspect and any justification for this kind of work. Nature, at least from my life experience, always has an inherently generous purpose, even if it feels a bit raw, whereas this guy is playing around with biology like a three year old who found a loaded gun in his dad's drawer.
Anyway, just my two epistemiological cents.
Vance led the Canadian investigation of the Swissair 111 crash. But that investigation was a notorious cover-up (there is even a CBC documentary about it somewhere). So I for one wouldn't place a lot of trust in this guy.
In the Spiegel article, the journalist compares MH370 to Germanwings 9525, claiming it was also a pilot suicide-murder. But this was exposed as yet another cover-up. It was an aircraft technical defect that was covered up by placing an ipad with fake evidence in the flat of the pilot. In fact pilot suicides on airliners are almost entirely a myth. The few proven pilot suicides occurred in planes with no or only one passenger. So I don't think Vance has proven anything.