Why do intelligent writers trust serial liars?

Nicholas Wade nuked the Natural Origins theory single-handedly, but he missed the boat on the significance of Early Spread.

One Origins Theory might be thermo-nuclear. Because it is, it can’t really be investigated … but should be to ensure the people responsible don’t kill even more people than they have already. Even if the truth is disturbing, the public needs to learn it.

Author’s Note: At the end of this article, I share my opinion on what I think Really Happened. This is the theory that best connects many of the dots I’ve identified.

***

Four maxims I’ve formulated in our New Abnormal are:

• Never trust the experts.

• All important truth-seeking organizations are captured.

• Every Covid narrative was/is false.

• Public health officials and “watchdog” journalists will NOT investigate things they do not wish to “confirm.”

***

In my research as a citizen journalist, I’ve identified a curious oddity: many writers I’d label as skeptics, dissidents or contrarians … sometimes accept “truths” or “facts” promulgated by experts or authorities as gospel or infallible.

In contrast, I’ve reached the conclusion that if certain people and organizations lied about A, B and C, they’d probably also lie about D, E and F.

This conclusion can be re-stated with a series of questions using the Socratic Method. For example:

• In your experience, do known prevaricators lie about many other things?

• Can some people be labelled as serial or compulsive liars?

• Why do important people lie or try to cover-up or conceal certain facts?

• Do they often have a motive - a powerful reason - to lie (or engage in a cover-up)?

• Why would anyone believe an “authority” that’s been proven to be a serial liar, someone who’s made many statements of alleged facts that were later easily shown to have been lies?

***

In short, it doesn’t make sense to continue to believe the pronouncements of people and organizations who were proven wrong not with just a few statements, but when virtually every statement they made was proven to be either false or questionable.

Still, it’s not difficult to identify highly intelligent - and otherwise skeptical people - who do not apply the same skepticism to other statements or data provided by proven/known liars.

***

I recently re-read two pieces of real journalism and research that turned out to be seminal works, articles that achieved the rarest of results - they changed an accepted narrative.

That is, before these articles were published, the science was labelled or widely accepted as “settled.” After these articles were published, large swaths of the population said, “Well, maybe the science isn’t settled after all.”

These were articles written by Nicholas Wade and Nicholson Baker that questioned the authorized origins narrative that Covid can be traced to Chinese bats and then to a “wet market” in Wuhan, China (1,600 miles from the source bat caves).

While both authors stipulate the “natural origins” theory could be accurate, for both, the more-credible body of evidence strongly suggests the novel virus that started a “pandemic” almost-certainly was produced by scientists working in a government-funded lab(s).

A theory that no-one could or would publicly dispute for approximately one year was now not only fair game to consider, this theory (for 20 reasons identified by the authors) seemed to make the most sense.

Expressed differently, the Natural Origins theory was supported by no credible or convincing evidence.

Wade is credited for punching so many holes in the Natural Origins Theory it now has virtually no buoyancy left.

This credit is well-deserved. Wade is the extremely rare science journalist who does not automatically accept the statements of scientists as infallible.

(Most journalists covering this beat simply seek-out certain scientists, obtain a few quotes from these “experts,” and report these findings as the truth, a brand of journalism more akin to stenography).

I don’t know why Nicholas Wade accepts this as the truth …

However, while re-reading one of Wade’s origins articles, I found an important statement Wade does not dispute or question.

In an article he concluded in late April 2021, Wade - in two paragraphs, writes that “three million” people had already died “from Covid.”

In my opinion, this “fact” should not have been considered a fact. In fact, this claim was made by the same authorities Wade’s article argue we should not necessarily believe.

While Mr. Wade is skeptical of the experts’ pronouncements in one area; he believes the same people and organizations are telling the truth with another claim which is just as dubious.

Indeed, the “official” Covid death figure, which has grown from 3 million, might be the most brazen and significant untruth of the past five years.

(While Wade’s intellect seems formidable, it was painful to read this statement in his Origins’ story: “Dr. Fauci is a longtime public servant who served with integrity under President Trump and has resumed leadership in the Biden Administration in handling the Covid epidemic.”)

My main critique of the journalism of Wade (and other “Covid Contrarians”) is many of these authors and thinkers don’t seem to have thought much about how the entire Covid narrative would dramatically change if the start-date of virus spread was moved back several months.

With every story they investigate, journalists are supposed to ask six questions - Who, What, When, Where, Why and How.

With virtually every story seeking to identify the true origins of Covid, journalists have ignored the “When” Question.

To use the writings of Wade and Baker as an example, their origin stories deal with how a novel virus might have first infected a human being and then began to spread.

The articles also address where “Case Zero” might have happened.

With 99.9 percent of articles published to date, the answer to this question seems to be accepted as … Wuhan, China - either from a research lab in that city or from a “wet market.”

(Note: The origins story written by Nicholson Baker referenced above is not nearly as definitive on the Where question as Baker’s article points out that, by 2010, America’s government funded or operated 249 BSL-3 labs and and seven BSL-4 labs where a virus could have escaped.)

One question could ultimately answer all the other questions …

Per my analysis, or my effort to “connect dots,” the answer to the question of when this virus began to spread could easily or potentially provide the answer to where “Case Zero” actually happened …

… which might lead to the answers of Who is responsible … and perhaps answer the trillion-dollar question and, belatedly, tell the public Why everything that happened actually happened.

Regarding my own efforts to contribute to said “investigation,” I’ve simply posed a few When questions:

Shouldn’t the start date of virus spread qualify as important information?

Doesn’t every real investigation start with a timeline of key events or an effort to identify the time when key events happened?

Why do seemingly all official virus sleuths have zero interest in investigating likely early cases that pre-date the “Wuhan outbreak?”

Possible/plausible answers to these questions have led me to question a premise that Mr. Wade, and many others, seem to accept as iron-clad, incontrovertible truths.

Many writers accept/believe the premise that the novel coronavirus was extremely contagious and “deadly” and, thus, would have produced “three million deaths.”

However, if my early-spread hypothesis could ever be “confirmed,” the deadly-virus “truism” would seem to be impossible as my research posits that tens of millions of people around the world had already been infected before the Wuhan Outbreak - and no excess deaths were ever observed or noted.

Why Early Spread evidence would be thermo-nuclear ….

As I’ve continually argued, “early spread” might be the most “thermo-nuclear” aspect of this non-investigation because this hypothesis, if proven to be the truth, would detonate all key elements of the official narrative.

For example, lockdowns designed to slow or stop spread could never work if so many people had already been infected.

A “vaccine” to prevent spread was completely unnecessary because wide-spread had already occurred. (For example, tens of millions of people had, almost-certainly, already acquired natural immunity).

If nothing else, per the authorized narrative, the vaccines were supposed to prevent “serious” cases or “death from Covid.”

However, early spread would suggest this virus was NOT deadly to 99.9 percent (or perhaps more) of the people who contracted it. If tens of millions of people had already been infected by mid-March 2020, where were the Covid deaths?

Per the official narrative, Covid began to spread outside China beginning in January 2020, but didn’t really begin to infect - and then kill - large numbers of people until late March or April 2020.

Nicholas Wade - like virtually every other writer, including many famous “Covid contrarians - seems to accept this premise, which could be better-described as “late spread.”

That is, possible or credible evidence of early spread - perhaps in America - is never mentioned in any of their articles.

Alex Berenson is another Contrarian author who must not think early spread is significant …

One of my favorite “Covid Contrarian” authors is Alex Berenson, who, like Wade, has produced many important pieces of skeptical journalism.

However, in years of reading Alex’s articles, I’ve never once read an article he’s written where he talks about evidence of early spread, nor the common-sense take-aways that would be true if this theory is/was true.

(Berenson must be aware of at least some of this evidence. I know I’ve made numerous posts, with links to my articles, presenting this evidence in his Reader Comments Section).

In his “seminal, narrative-changing” articles, Nicholas Wade is careful to not state definitively that the “natural origins” theory is impossible. He simply argues that the evidence of a lab-origin is so copious, this theory should be given serious weight.

His main point is that such threads of inquiry should not be off-limits to a real investigation.

I make a similar argument in my articles about Early Spread. I admit my theory might be wrong. However, the evidence is so prevalent, convincing or compelling, it should at least be given great weight by investigators.

***

Which leads me to my most-important question, one I’ve been turning around in my mind for more than four years …

Why isn’t early spread considered important?

In reading countless stories written by authors who are trying to connect all the dots, some of these writers acknowledge they don’t have all the answers. However, these writers volunteer that the evidence they’ve compiled to date, evidence they believe is credible, points to certain conclusions.

Their own theory, they write, would/might connect all the dots or answer many questions.

Acknowledging that some or perhaps all elements of this hypothesis might be wrong, here’s my theory, one I think would connect many dots - and explains why Early Spread will almost-certainly remain a Taboo Area of Investigation.

*** (I recognize this article probably won’t be widely shared) ***

What I think probably happened …

A novel virus was created in a lab and this lab was very possibly in America.

While this lab-created virus was highly infective (contagious), it wouldn’t cause death in most people who contracted it or became sick from this exposure.

The virus escaped (or was, perhaps, intentionally released) many months before December 2019.

Some - probably not many - figures in the American health or military industrial/intelligence complex must have known this virus was spreading and making many people sick (and killing some number of people, but not a figure that would produce a conspicuous spike in all-cause death statistics).

These individuals/organizations covered up all possible early cases in America and the world and, later, refused to thoroughly investigate such possible early cases. (“Never investigate what you don’t want to confirm.”)

As Ron Unz has speculated in numerous lengthy articles, it’s possible the “Wuhan outbreak” was a military or intelligence operation designed to place “Case Zero” in a major Chinese city.

If true, this would qualify as a bio-weapons attack and, could be considered as an Act of War.

Anthony Fauci, Sir Jeremy Farrar, Francis Collins and other key leaders in the public health establishment promoted the Natural Origins Theory to make sure no investigators ever looked at possible “lab leaks” in America.

(Establishing the Where - Wuhan - was very important to these influential leaders, but just as important was establishing the When - a pandemic start-date that would preclude any early spread … in America. This produced an investigation that would never consider the same people and organizations as “suspects” of interest.)

It’s possible these figures had nothing to do with an intentional release, but they instantly recognized any “lab-origins” explanation could and would destroy the entire Public Health/Science Infrastructure and, if nothing else, destroy their careers and reputations.

Even if a very small number of individuals were ultimately responsible for “Covid,” every agency of the U.S. government would/might mobilize to cover-up any origins investigation that would strongly suggest America was responsible for the Pandemic of the Century.

One sinister and deeply-disturbing possibility - suggested by evidence too involved to cite in this article - is that certain conspirators had planned this entire operation and wanted lockdowns and then an mRNA vaccine and (maybe “digital surveillance”) to be the ultimate “solution.”

A companion theory, one that might explain the activities of many subsequent conspirators, is that this was a “crisis too good to waste” - an opportunity to roll-out many “reforms” sinister forces had long wanted to implement (our so-called New Normal or a Great Re-Set).

For me, the irony of any alleged pandemic is that the novel virus itself was not overly deadly.

If China had not reported a “strange pneumonia-like virus” to the World Health Organization on December 31, 2019, 99.9999 percent of people in the world would have never known anything unusual was happening.

At worst, some people might have observed this was a fairly bad - and early - “flu season.”

Except for the unsafe and ineffective non-vaccines, the Greatest Unexposed Scandal of all …

The vast majority of subsequent “Covid deaths” were not caused by a novel virus, but by changes in medical protocols. Almost all deaths were probably iatrogenic homicides committed inside hospitals and nursing homes, deaths easy to conceal because family members were not allowed to advocate for their panicked and confused loved ones.

The PCR test, belatedly, was used to determine “cases” and “Covid deaths” and stoke the requisite panic.

As to the question of why the government of China didn’t push-back hard on the narrative that virus spread almost certainly started in Wuhan - China did push-back hard on this narrative. However, these protestations were simply dismissed as China propaganda.

Also, labs in China - like labs in America - were performing research to modify coronaviruses that originated with bats. For reasons hard to fathom, both governments worked together on such a project.

It’s possible officials in China were/are open to the possibility the virus originated in one of their own labs and/or sincerely believe this was a bio-weapons attack perpetrated by elements in the American government (perhaps to cover-up their own culpability) and so the Chinese government locked down their society in a ruthless manner.

It’s also possible Chinese geo-political experts playing Machiavellian 3-D chess quickly concluded a “global pandemic” would benefit their nation more than any other nation or would harm their chief adversary, America, more than their nation.

One over-riding bottom-line that would flow from the above speculation is that it was essential the public could never find out the virus might have originated in America.

If this was confirmed - and the pubic attributed 5 to 30 million deaths - and trillions of dollars of printed, inflation-causing money to the U.S. government, the United States of America might … no longer exist.

The conclusion might be that it wasn’t bats that created unfathomable levels of death, injuries, mass homicides in hospital and nursing homes, rampant inflation, the eradication of civil liberties and the rapid construction of an Orwellian Censorship Industrial Complex … it was elements of the U.S. government and/or shadowy partners in a Global Deep State.

For reasons not hard to imagine … even if a tiny, crazed element of conspirators started this chain reaction, it does not seem implausible the entire U.S. government might mobilize and spend five years working to conceal this seismic knowledge from the world.

A real investigation into “early spread” could/might expose all of the above, which is why this investigation has never happened … and probably never will.

Writer gratuities via Ko-Fi.