The Lancet Coronavirus Science Fraud Reveals Bioterrorism
Coronavirus Science Fraud: The Lancet Conceals Evidence of Bioweapon Deployment for BioTerrorism
by
LEONARD G. HOROWITZ
(Published March 1, 2020)
The Lancet is advertised to be “the world’s leading independent general medical journal.” Yet its coronavirus coverage defies that ‘independence.’
The Lancet‘s editors and contributors have taken a stand against independent thinking by strongly condemning “conspiracy theories” regarding the laboratory creation of the “novel 2019 coronavirus disease.”
Unbecoming a purported independent and honorable medical journal, The Lancet‘s article reviewed here models coronavirus scientific fraud by concealing proof of the lab virus origin and the motives and means available to those responsible for this bioterrorizing espionage.
This article considers The Lancet‘s obvious omissions, misrepresentations, and contradictions that evidence a pattern and practice of scientific fraud. The Lancet is shown here complicit in administering propaganda for psychological warfare to conceal the origin and purpose of the coronavirus bioweapon used now for bioterrorism.
This article also considers The Lancet‘s conflicting interests in publishing this example of ‘pseudoscience’.
Clear and convincing evidence presented here and elsewhere proves officials in the Deep State ‘enterprise’ predicted, planned, and administered the 2019 novel coronavirus emergency, its economic impacts, and geopolitical outcomes, all expected and connected to this bioterrorism and alleged “conspiracy theory.”
Diagnosing Bioterrorism
Bioterrorism is well-defined by Jansen et. al. (1), as “the deliberate release of viruses, bacteria or other agents used to cause illness or death . . . aimed at creating casualties, terror, societal disruption, or economic loss, inspired by ideological, religious [spiritual] or political beliefs.
“The success of bioterroristic attempts is defined by the measure of societal disruption and panic, and not necessarily by the sheer number of casualties. Thus, making only a few individuals ill by the use of crude methods may be sufficient, as long as it creates the impact that is aimed for.” (Id.) In the case of the “novel” coronavirus 2019, 65 million predicted deaths heralded by complicit media is beyond such “few.”
In criminal law, bioterrorism may be prosecuted as a “biocrime” if and when it is used to kill or make ill a small [or large] group of individuals, motivated by monetary gain. (Id.)
“Measures aimed at enhancing diagnostic and therapeutic capabilities . . . training and education will improve the ability of society to combat ‘regular’ infectious diseases outbreaks, as well as mitigating the effects of bioterrorist attacks.” (1)
Diagnosis is defined as “the art or act of identifying a disease from its signs and symptoms” that involves “investigation or analysis of the cause or nature of a condition, situation, or problem” and/or “a statement or conclusion from such an analysis.” (Emphasis added.)
Diagnosis, in the context of bioterrorism, may employ epidemiological studies and genetic analyses to diagnose the cause or source of the deadly agent(s) and outbreak(s).
To date, no such diagnosis of the novel 2019 coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan, China, has been conducted pursuant to the ‘flags,’ ‘badges,’ or elements of bioterrorism and/or biocrime. No conclusive epidemiological determination, or complete genetic understanding, has emerged to explain the outbreak in China, or Iran for that matter. Only presumptive hearsay that the outbreak’s source comes from infected bats has been offered in such negligent ‘differential diagnosis’ required by ‘public duty doctrine’ to save lives.
Incredibly and unconscionably, with all foundational means of scientific inquiry available to officials, and common sense recognition that the “mysterious” outbreak occurred by intention for bioterrorism; practical methods of prevention and public protection (beyond ‘hand washing,’ ‘wearing facemasks’ and quarantines); and instruction of healthcare workers for safety and efficacy, have been recklessly neglected. Governments and the media internationally herald this bioterrorism in unison, immune to scrutiny and exempt from prosecution for their apparent complicity in the deadly biocrime.
These introductory facts and circumstances evidence, at minimum, a ‘conspiracy of silence,’ fraudulent concealment, and reckless negligence based on the facts at hand.
Considering, therefore, the related facts that best explain the pandemic’s lab origin and bioterrorizing purpose, and the ‘general consensus’ that “conspiracy theories” are invalid, two broad categories of motives and means can and must be recognized and considered in any reasonable analysis of these circumstances. These are the elements diagnosing the 2019 coronavirus bioterrorism and/or biocrime:
(1) The political and economic motives that are plainly evidenced.
(a) Competition between existing superpowers, the U.S. and China, with the greatest and gravest interests impacting multinational corporations and their investors, (i.e., “Deep State” enterprise agents and their properties, e.g., “Big Pharma” and “Big Biotech”);
(b) China’s contemporaneous passage of laws undermining Big Pharma’s monopolistic impositions and Deep State commercial interests;
(c) Trump administrators’ efforts opposing Big Pharma’s monopoly over healthcare and drug profits disproportionately damaging American consumers;
(d) Deep State opposition to Trump’s presidency, leveraging the administration’s coronavirus response for partisan politics (such as Democratic Party) gains;
(e) Overriding depopulation motives and related security objectives expressed by Deep State corporation leaders, personified by Bill Gates;
(f) Predictive programming of the population by drug and vaccine industry representatives administering public and private ‘preparedness’ and ‘pandemic response’; and
(g) The media’s omissions and misrepresentations favoring corporate-controllers (i.e., the co-conspirators) and the unfolding bioterrorism.
(2) The ‘means’ employed in the outbreak evidences laboratory biotechnology and not natural evolution of the virus.
As detailed below, scientific reports and public knowledge evidence genetic markers proving the 2019 novel coronavirus is a mutagen. That is, the virus genome is consistent with a mutated bioweapon created in a lab capable of evolving into a more deadly germ.
The 2019 novel strain includes splices of the AIDS virus (HIV-1, gag, gp120 spike protein) as well as SARS gene sequences. The incorporation of these ‘smoking guns’–genes from HIV and SARS that officials are generally dismissing–vets the unnatural virus and enables it to inject its damaging genetic code into host cells (i.e., human victims).
Furthermore, consider as a means to augment morbidity and mortality the severe psychosocial stress and personal distress individuals suffer from this plague. These factors increase susceptibility to viral infections and their damaging impacts on DNA, cancer development (i.e., carcinogenesis), and delayed recoveries. (2)
Introduction
On February 19, 2020, The Lancet published an unprecedented “correspondence” from twenty-seven (27) co-authors who condemned “conspiracy theories” related to the outbreak. (3)
These correspondents wrote:
“The rapid, open, and transparent sharing of data on this outbreak is now being threatened by rumours and misinformation around its origins. We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin. Scientists from multiple countries have published and analysed genomes of the causative agent, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).”
Furthermore, The Lancet correspondents cited “a letter from the presidents of the US National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine and by the scientific communities they represent,” to support their assertion that:
“Conspiracy theories do nothing but create fear, rumours, and prejudice that jeopardise our global collaboration in the fight against this virus. We support the call from the Director-General of WHO to promote scientific evidence and unity over misinformation and conjecture.”
In publishing this condemnation, The Lancet recklessly neglected crucial scientific evidence proving a conspiracy, because:
(a) the “novel” 2019 coronavirus (COVID-19) includes gene sequences from SARS (4) as well as from HIV-1, (5) and concealing these important facts evidences scientific fraud and conspiracy to censor urgent science; and
(b) the elements of conspiracy to commit bioterrorism are satisfied considering all the facts together.
The condemning facts in evidence include: (i) the geopolitical and economic values, motives and incentives for the outbreak; (ii) the overall media response plagued by unreasonable and reckless omissions, misrepresentations and contradictions; and (iii) the Deep State’s motives and predictive programming predating the pandemic. (6)
The Lancet‘s correspondents neglected all the above, evidence proving that COVID-19 is a ‘mutagenic’ ‘recombinant’ virus that is highly unstable according to its unnatural lab origin. (For these reasons, the subject virus might be more completely designated n-2019 CoV/SARS/HIV-1 bioweapon.) It is widely known in molecular biology and virology that “novel” lab viruses spliced together are substantially more unstable as compared with viruses evolved over the millennia. The novel germs more easily mutate into deadlier strains that can more readily jump species according to accepted zoonotic science.
Wimmer et. al. published a decade ago in “Synthetic viruses: a new opportunity to understand and prevent viral disease,” that RNA viruses that include human endogenous retrovirus, HIV cpz [the AIDS virus progenitor] and SARS-like coronavirus” were being “chemically synthesized” with increased risks dismissed for commercial interests in advancing biotechnology. Quoting these scientists who disregarded public health and safety for academic and financial rewards: “The infectivity of ancestral retrovirus in various cell types . . . was extremely low, which to some extent dispelled concerns that resuscitating an ancient human infectious virus is inherently risky.”
____________
“Twenty years ago, studies were underway to isolate the precise molecular biology administering cross-infectivity of SARS and AIDS-virus attachment mechanisms enabling human transmissions and susceptibility to mutagenic coronavirus bioweapon functions.”
____________
Coronavirus Lab Mutations: Concealed Evidence of a Genetically Engineered Bioweapon
The urgent findings of Pradhan et. al. initially published online to help scientists in the fight against n2019-CoV was subsequently suspiciously censored. Their study showed the “Uncanny similarity of unique inserts in the 2019-nCoV spike protein to HIV-1 gp120 and Gag.”
The censorship of this determination by Pradhan et. al. proving the precise AIDS virus envelope gene attached to the SARS coronavirus in circulation, exactly as Wimmer et. al. heralded was being “chemically synthesized” for “dual use” profit and science, is compelling evidence of commercial/industrial/Deep State bioterrorism. These facts impose a public duty upon the scientific community along with a ‘presumption of guilt’ that saboteurs started this unnatural pandemic.
“Conduct which forms a basis for inference is evidence. Silence is often evidence of the most persuasive character,” wrote Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in United States ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 US 149 – Supreme Court 1923.
The Lancet‘s aforementioned censorship and “silence”, plus silencing the Pradhan et. al. study, evidences a conspiracy to manufacture, distribute, and promote in the ‘fake news’ media and science periodicals a bioweapon for bioterrorism.
Neglecting this common sense conclusion is, by itself, evidence “of the most persuasive character.”
Pradhan et. al.’s group of nine scientists affiliated with IBM noted the attachment apparatus enabling the novel coronavirus to jump species to humans, especially through CD4 white blood cell membrane receptors, was irrefutable. The India-based scholars concluded:
“The finding of 4 unique inserts in the 2019-nCoV, all of which have identity/similarity to amino acid residues in key structural proteins of HIV-1 is unlikely to be fortuitous in nature.”
In other words, COVID-19 is undoubtedly a lab virus, and the mainstream media’s concealment of this fact is a ‘psychological operation’ (i.e., PSYOPS) abused to administer bioterrorism.
The aforementioned facts, published by reputable scientists, implore this presumption– that COVID-19 is a highly unstable mutagen of lab virus origin loosed for bioterrorism.
No other reasonable presumption can be made, nor conclusion reached, given the evidence at hand. The ‘differential diagnosis’ features Deep State globalist conspiracy.
In addition, considering the value and Deep State’s objectives favoring global depopulation, this pandemic features a brilliant albeit false alibi. The agents of deception are exonerated by fraudulently concealing the vital facts proving bioterrorism. They accomplish their biocrime by using a highly unstable mutated virus that may be blamed on nature and evolve into a worsening (more deadly) pandemic.
Pursuant to the depopulation objective, the virus is likely to take on other gene sequences from more deadly circulating viruses such as H5N1–the “Chinese bird flu”. This biocrime poses serious expanding risks to the human race, as corroborated by the findings of Prof Roujian Lu et. al., also published in The Lancet on January 30, 2020. These Chinese authorities found “2019-nCoV was closely related (with 88% identity) to two bat-derived severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-like coronaviruses, bat-SL-CoVZC45 and bat-SL-CoVZXC21, collected in 2018 in Zhoushan, eastern China.” In other words, COVID-19 is engineered as a mutagen to pick up and generate more severe respiratory pathology.
These findings, evidencing SARS homology within the n-2019 CoV/SARS/HIV-1, reflects earlier research by Hou et. al., published in the Archives of Virology in 2010. This research, and even the earlier research by Li et. al., reported in Nature in 2003, showed that the molecule called “angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2 molecules)” is “a functional receptor for SARS-CoV” transmissible to humans. This ACE2 was found in the blood of some bats, M. daubentoni and R. sinicus, and was “likely to be susceptible to SARS-CoV” transmissions to humans, and “may be candidates as the natural host of the SARS-CoV progenitor viruses.”
In other words, nearly twenty years ago, studies were underway to isolate the precise molecular biology administering cross-infectivity of SARS and AIDS-virus attachment mechanisms enabling human transmissions and susceptibility to mutagenic coronavirus bioweapon functions.
Most notably, controverting The Lancet correspondants‘ opposition to “conspiracy theories”, wherein the 27 co-authors erroneously presumed a “natural” versus laboratory origin of 2019-nCoV, these earlier studies, updated by Prof Roujian Lu et. al., in The Lancet, evidence “bats might be the original host of this virus,” but the bat virus was mutated in a lab to become more damaging.
Precedent for such bioweapon mutation research and development also exists for HIV/AIDS and Ebola viruses, as previously published by this author. (7)
Forensic Epidemiology: Corroborating Evidence of Biocrime
The 20 mile proximity of the Wuhan BSL4 bioweapons lab to the presumed outbreak point of the seafood market raised reasonable concerns and conjectures. Corroborating the conspiracy theory of intentional release, Lu et. al., (4) noted that even if the Wuhan seafood market might have been the ‘natural’ source of the outbreak, and not the Wuhan BSL4 bioweapons lab, “an animal sold at the seafood market . . . might represent an intermediate host” and not a natural reservoir species.
This too complicates diagnosis and compounds evidence of a laboratory mutant released at the market that may or may not have ‘sourced’ exclusively from bats.
A bat coronavirus could have been engineered in a lab other than Wuhan’s facility. Such a virus could have been delivered to the Wuhan BSL4 lab, or simply released at the market. The Chinese could then be blamed either way for political impact.
The food market featuring various species is also the ideal location to compound confusion and disinformation about the true source of the virus. This confusion increases the objectives of bioterrorism, and is consistent with making the bioweapon more mutagenic to infect various hosts such as humans and their pets.
The Lancet‘s Conflicting Interests
How can society and the scientific world best explain The Lancet‘s condemnation of the reasonable conspiracy theory of bioterrorism in the unfolding coronavirus pandemic?
By its owners’ and operators’ conflicting interests.
As mentioned, it is widely known that commercial and political motives underlie all acts of bioterrorism. And this fact is well-represented and solidly-evidenced with the mainstream media’s coverage of the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. Such coverage is plagued by omissions, misrepresentations, and diversions.
The Lancet likewise diverted from its own conflicting interests in “strongly condemn[ing] conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.” The Lancet falsely stated the correspondents’ primary objective to share data “transparently” for the benefit of the international scientific community.
To the contrary, The Lancet knowingly and recklessly concealed the journal’s own conflicting interests; and complicity in the conspiracy. In law, this willful concealment is called “scienter”–knowing action that establishes criminal intent.
The Lancet‘s political and economic affiliations taint the journal’s science and reputability.
The Lancet has advertised itself as being an “independent journal.” Yet, it is directed by parent companies, Elsevier Reed International PLC, owned by RELX plc (pronounced “Rel-ex”) This fact defies the claim that The Lancet is “independent.”
“Independent of what? Certainly not corporate influence or publishing bias.
The Lancet is overwhelmingly influenced by multi-national corporate stockholders and investors in the companies and industries positioned to capitalize on the geopolitical and economic consequences of the unfolding, planned, and predicted pandemic.
Therefore, The Lancet‘s fraudulent concealment of genetics, and its own conflicting interests, while condemning coronavirus conspiracy theorists, gives the appearance of “crisis capitalism,” and complicity in the COVID-19-SARS/HIV-1 Wuhan ‘Event 201‘ biocrime.
Are scientists, medical professionals, and scholars supposed to simply ignore the obvious influence of capitalist companies such as BlackRock Investment Management, Capital Research & Management, Goldman Sachs, and many others controlling The Lancet and financially benefiting from the pandemic?
Are we to disregard The Lancet‘s coalition of special interests obviously profiting from exploding healthcare costs, infection control industry benefits, and related military impositions associated with expanding quarantines?
Are we to presume that damage to air travel and tourism industries are not overshadowed by gains in the biotechnology, pharmaceutical, military defense, communications industries, and other benefting sectors?
It would be recklessly irresponsible for anyone to neglect these facts, above and beyond the substantial concealment of The Lancet’s conflicting interests.
Examining this bias in greater detail, The Lancet is financed, for instance, by RELX’s foremost investor, Capital Research and Management Company. This is a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Capital Group Companies, Inc., a Delaware corporation, according to Morgan Stanley sales literature. Capital Group, “ranks among the world’s oldest and largest investment management organizations, with over $2 trillion in assets under management.” According to Capital Group’s advertisements, “the company is owned by 450 partners,” including some of the world largest companies based in the U.S., Europe and Asia, each heavily invested in healthcare and disease response.
Therefore, The Lancet‘s conflicting interests, and commercial and political-influence in the COVID-19-SARS/HIV-1 pandemic, must be presumed.
It would be unreasonable and irresponsible to presume anything else.
Shall we simply accept that this pandemic occurred by serendipity, not perfectly timed to supplement World Economic Forum (WEF) interests in “shape[ing] global, regional, and industry agendas” amidst a failing global economy largely attributable to China’s impact on world markets?
Add to this evidence of The Lancet‘s conflicting interests the tenuous East-West political relations of the superpowers.
As mentioned, political and financial motives underly bioterrorizing people against the Chinese government. The Lancet‘s financial and political conflicting interests are tied to the beneficiaries of this economic espionage and biocrime. Sponsors of the “Event 201” coronavirus preparedness conference held October 18, 2019. are allied with The Lancet and its correspondents.
That unprecedented “Event 201” was co-sponsored by the World Economic Forum and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Johns Hopkins University. That Event preceded by several weeks the first COVID-19-SARS/HIV-1 cases that suspiciously emerged near the Wuhan BSL4 premier Chinese bioweapons lab.
Iranian officials who subsequently “caught” the coronavirus disease without having any known contacts with Chinese carriers also evidence political intent, bioterrorism, and biocrime. “The coronavirus hit Iran as the country of 80 million [was] suffering its most serious economic problems in many years, at least partly attributable to American sanctions that have choked Iran’s ability to sell oil and conduct international banking.”(8)
The aforementioned facts are consistent with the universally recognized objectives of bioterrorism administered largely by a co-conspiring media. (1)
The Lancet Persuasion: The ‘Science’ Cult that Omits and Misrepresents the Coronavirus Lab Reservoir
The Lancet also advertises that its “journal’s coverage is international in focus and extends to all aspects of human health.”
But psychological warfare’s impacts on society appears to be lacking in The Lancet’s reckless coverage.
“We are public health scientists who have closely followed the emergence of 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and are deeply concerned about its impact on global health and well-being,” wrote The Lancet correspondents.
“We have watched as the scientists, public health professionals, and medical professionals of China, in particular, have worked diligently and effectively to rapidly identify the pathogen behind this outbreak, put in place significant measures to reduce its impact, and share their results transparently with the global health community. This effort has been remarkable.”
To the contrary, The Lancet’s cult-like propaganda neglects the widespread censorship of non-cult members such as this author, who submitted unpublished commentaries to The Lancet over the years, or Dr. Li Wenliang in China who was persecuted and prosecuted for being transparent with the global health community.
The Lancet‘s 27 correspondents omitted the heroism of Dr. Li Wenliang, who died, presumably of coronavirus infection, after Chinese government officials wrongfully arrested him. Dr. Wenliang was the first physician to identify “7 SARS cases at the Huanan fruits and seafood market in the WeChat group Wuhan University clinical `04’ on December 30, 2019.”
Like this author, Dr. Wenliang was “willing to take on the government in a system designed to muffle or crush dissent,” remarked The Guardian.
How different are The Lancet cult correspondents who smeared fellow public health scientists who bravely and dutifully view the pandemic’s conspiratorial emergence in the most reasonable and well-evidenced context of political, economic, and genetic realities?
There are many other facts available to support this responsive condemnation of The Lancet‘s pseudoscience cult.
For example, in a city of 11 million people, with the seafood market 20 miles away from China’s BSL 4 lab, it is unreasonable to presume that doctors other than Li Wenliang working closer to the Wuhan lab were not seeing similar cases if the outbreak occurred from the lab.
Where are these “diligent” and “transparent” reports claimed by The Lancet cult correspondents? Neglected.
A Pattern and Practice of Negligence Enabling the Biocrime
Astute scientists do not neglect obvious evidence of a biocrime.
Here, for instance, if other doctors closer to the Wuhan lab were censored, or feared reporting the novel respiratory illness, this would not account for the cluster of 7 cases reported in or around the market. The 2 week incubation period of the infection spreading from one person to another defies a Wuhan lab outbreak. In other words, had the virus emerged from the Wuhan lab as suspected at the beginning of December 2019, other clusters would have been made known by “diligent” and “transparent” reporting by Chinese doctors and scientists.
The Lancet‘s 27 correspondents neglected the most likely release of the 2019 nCOV bioweapon occurred at the market, independent of the Wuhan lab.
The Lancet‘s correspondents also neglected the Western media’s politicizing the pandemic and condemning Chinese officials for their purported role in the plague.
The Lancet‘s correspondents neglected the common sense conclusion that the bioweapon was loosed at the market, but not by the Chinese government to its own disadvantage and economic damage.
The Lancet‘s correspondents neglected the widespread international media censorship incriminating what the ‘radical right’ refers to as the “fake news” media representing the Deep State’s multi-national corporate interests.
These facts supplement the suppression of coronavirus science and common sense. As with vaccination risks, censorship is part of the pattern and practice of disregarding the public’s health and safety for commercial and political advantage.
These motives, laboratory means, scientific evidence tampering, and media censorship characterize the 2019 coronavirus bioterrorism neglected by the 27 correspondents.
Myopically The Lancet correspondents disregarded the Event 201 coronavirus ‘predictive programming’ conference projecting the scientific, political, and economic realities unfolding now from the lab virus outbreak.
The Lancet correspondents neglected behavioral science too, especially the psycho-social impacts of the conspiracy.
Evidencing more hypocrisy, The Lancet in 2017 published an article by Alexander MacFarland in which the psychological effects of war (e.g., biowarfare) were considered. MacFarland wrote, “The extensive documentation of the psychological injuries arising as a consequence of conflict . . . highlights the crucial need to establish how this morbidity can be minimised and prevented.” Instead of minimizing and preventing 2019 CoV bioterrorism, The Lancet‘s contributors aid-and-abet by willful blindness, or reckless negligence, the growing morbidity and mortality resulting from the Deep State conspiracy.
“We sign this statement in solidarity with all scientists and health professionals in China who continue to save lives and protect global health during the challenge of the COVID-19 outbreak. We are all in this together, with our Chinese counterparts in the forefront, against this new viral threat.”
Pretentious hogwash. Such ‘pseudoscience’ discredits The Lancet, and shames all of science.
Was the Outbreak in China Retaliatory Bioterrorism?
Given the aforementioned data and concerns, the conspiracy theory of intentional release in Wuhan is most reasonable and responsible, because “[t]he epidemic, which started from 12 December 2019” commenced just twelve (12) days after Chinese officials imposed “the most notable . . . reforms to China’s drug evaluation and approval system following social concerns about the pharma sector.”
The Chinese governmental reforms, for which the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak appears to be retaliatory, included a new “Vaccine Administration Law as part of the new Drug Administration Law imposing stricter regulations that require “marketing authorisation holders” (MAHs) to “ensure the safety and effectiveness of the drug for its lifetime” and not “entrust others to produce vaccines.”
According to commercial advisors, “The New Law mark[ed] a profound change in the pharmaceutical industry. The new systems” challenged Big Pharma’s “drug marketing authorization holder system, the drug traceability system, the first accountability system, the innovation of evaluation and approval system, the unified quality management system for drug retail franchise operation and regulations of online drug sales [and vaccine industry procedures] etc.”
In addition, the new law imposed on MAHs a “national traceability platform . . . to ensure that the entire process for producing, transporting, storing and using vaccines is traceable;” that “clinical trials for vaccines must be expressly approved by the relevant authority (compared to the implied permission proposed for regular drug clinical trials) and infants and young children must not be subjects for clinical trials;” and “[e]ach batch of vaccines must be inspected and approved by the relevant authority before sale;” that “[v]accine MAHs must purchase mandatory liability insurance;” and that a strict compensation program to pay damaged citizens for vaccine injuries be insured by the MAHs, contrary to other damaging programs permitted by Western governments.
The Lancet Misrepresents Science, Publishes Pseudoscience, and Increases Morbidity and Mortality.
More examples of science misrepresented by The Lancet correspondents to smear “conspiracy theorists” include the following misrepresentations, omissions, and falicies:
1) The Lancet‘s 27 correspondents misrepresented Gorbalenya et. al.’s publication titled, “Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus: The species and its viruses – a statement of the Coronavirus Study Group.” The Lancet correspondents inferred this first citation discredits “conspiracy theories” when, in fact, it supplements conspiracy theories by stating “how coronaviruses are assigned to species in practice” is “yet to be developed and thoroughly tested” in “the extension of this concept to virology.” (3)
2) The Lancet‘s 27 correspondents misrepresented Zhou et al.’s publication in Nature titled, “A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin.” Therein, the authors make known the 2019 coronavirus is 4% “divergent” from the presumed SARS coronavirus origin (i.e., SARSr-CoVs) in a specific region strongly suggesting laboratory mutation and insertion of the AIDS virus attachment “spike protein” consistent with gene splicing. (10)
Zhou et al. correctly corroborated this author’s main concern. “It seems the virus is becoming more transmissible between human-to-human [and] . . . evolving to become more virulent.” (11)
3) The Lancet‘s 27 correspondents misrepresented Lu et. al. publication in The Lancet (published online January 30, 2020.) titled, Genomic characterisation and epidemiology of 2019 novel coronavirus: implications for virus origins and receptor binding. Here, the correspondents frivolously diverted and falsely dismissed political, economic, bioterrorism conspiracy theories based simply on “phylogenetic analysis” that “revealed that 2019-nCoV . . . was genetically distinct from SARS-CoV.”
Most noteworthy here is the fact that The Lancet editors imposed censoring the “key residues” in the attachment apparatus tying HIV-1 and Ebola virus spike proteins to the lab mutated bat-derived coronavirus.
“Notably, homology modelling revealed that 2019-nCoV had a similar receptor-binding domain structure to that of SARS-CoV, despite amino acid variation at some key residues.” (Emphasis added.)
4) The Lancet‘s 27 correspondents misrepresented Zhu et. al.’s New England Journal of Medicine publication titled, “A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019“. This publication failed to address the apparent lab virus conspiracy theory, but simply concluded, “nCoV is the seventh member of the family of coronaviruses that infect humans,” noted “the high prevalence and wide distribution of coronaviruses, the large genetic diversity and frequent recombination of their genomes, and increasing human–animal interface activities.” Therefore, “novel coronaviruses are likely to emerge periodically in humans owing to frequent cross-species infections and occasional spillover events.”
A “spillover event” may include a highly concentrated vial of bat-derived virus–the mutated 2019 nCoV/SARS/HIV-1 bioweapon–released at the Wuhan market to infect humans and generate the unfolding bioterrorism.
5) The Lancet‘s 27 correspondents misrepresented Ren et. al.’s article titled, “Identification of a novel coronavirus causing severe pneumonia in humans: a descriptive study.” published in the Chinese Medical Journal, published online on February 11, 2020. That report did nothing to dismiss any conspiracy theory regarding the presumed coronavirus bioterrorism. Ren et. al., simply corroborated the aforementioned Zhou et al.’s publication in Nature. Ren et. al., found “the amino acid sequence of the tentative receptor-binding domain resembles that of SARS-CoV, indicating that these viruses might use the same [generally concealed HIV-1 spike protein] receptor.”
6) The Lancet‘s 27 correspondents misrepresented Paraskevis D et. al.’s publication in Infect Genet Evol.2020; (published online Jan 29 by The Lancet‘s publisher, Elsevier) titled, “Full-genome evolutionary analysis of the novel corona virus (2019-nCoV) rejects the hypothesis of emergence as a result of a recent recombination event.” The Lancet correspondents neglected this group’s determination that the phylogenetic evidence “does not provide the exact variant that caused the outbreak in humans.”
That “variant” is most reasonably the result of a laboratory splicing procedure. Paraskevis et. al. simply determined that “the hypothesis that 2019-nCoV has originated from bats is very likely,” not withstanding the laboratory mutation/recombination of the original bat virus.
Further denuding Paraskevis et. al.’s reliability is the group’s own misrepresentation in the title of their article that implies their genetic analysis, and not their discriminatory bias, “rejects the hypothesis of emergence as a result of a recent recombination event.”
To the contrary, Paraskevis et. al. based this prejudicial conclusion that defies the aforementioned evidence of lab mutations on “[o]ne previous study based on codon usage analyses [that] suggested that the spike protein of 2019-nCoV might have originated from one yet-unknown unsampled coronavirus through recombination (Ji et al., 2020).
This group’s highly speculative determination, and neglect of the HIV-1 spike attachment protein gene inclusion, is noteworthy. This negligence is also symptomatic of this group’s biased and specious interpretation of their data. (12)
These facts and objections are corroborated by the group’s own conclusion about the determined divergence: “This genomic part comprises half of the spike region encoding a multifunctional protein responsible also for virus entry into host cells (Babcock et al., 2004; Li et al., 2005b).”
What about the other half of the “smoking gun” spike protien associated with HIV-1 and AIDS?
These researchers simply concluded, “The unique genetic features of 2019-nCoV and their potential association with virus characteristics and virulence in humans remain to be elucidated.”
In conclusion, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that controverts a lab virus origin of 2019 nCOV/SARS/HIV-1. Nor is there any scientific evidence that controverts the conspiracy theory that the Wuhan outbreak was caused by saboteurs having the means and motives to commit bioterrorism by deploying the novel bioweapon.
The Lancet correspondents’ additional citations are similarly defective in providing any evidence controverting this author’s “conspiracy theory.”
The Lancet‘s Cult Mentality
Cults can be seen as an organized group “whose purpose is to dominate cult members by using psychological manipulation and pressure strategies,” according to Rousselet et. al., from their 2017 report in Psychiatry Research titled “Cult membership: What factors contribute to joining or leaving?”
“The first step in cult commitment,” reviewed Rousselet et. al., “the narcissistic seduction, was described by Fournier and Monroy in 1999 (Fournier and Monroy, 1999). This process has many elements: the vulnerability of the subject, group effects, the use of emotions, detachment from outside influences, progress in doctrinal teaching, promotions and the assignment of responsibilities.”
These “many elements” are satisfied by The Lancet‘s leadership and the 27 members’ correspondence opposing coronavirus “conspiracy theories.”
This process of becoming indoctrinated into a medical-scientific, albeit reckless and damaging, cult according to Rousselet et. al., “takes a long time because a total and instant commitment has a poor chance of persisting if not followed by in-depth and multidimensional work with the goal of self-reinforcement (Miviludes, 2006). This element of reinforcement over time is provided by ‘academic tracking’ that effectively institutionalizes the misapprehensions and beliefs and attitudes of the ‘group think’ induced by the special interests imposing the circumstances and educational/indoctrinational messaging.
Reflecting cult members’ experiences and attitudes, “The feeling of emptiness outside of the sectarian practice creates the cycle, but is also its consequence (Duretete et al., 2008). Thus, the ability to balance one’s life becomes impossible and members lose their ability to choose.”
Diagnosing the instant case of cult mentality and membership, The Lancet‘s 27 correspondents, having invested their lives, money, and professional careers in their cult, appear to have lost their ability to think beyond blind group think. The correspondents exhibit compromised ‘rationality, public duty, and responsibility for self and society while neglecting, omitting, even misrepresenting the coronavirus’s “natural” origin, along with concrete facts, scientific proofs, and reality.
As documented here, “active involvement in the cultic group could lead to affective dependence on the cult leader or on the group,” Rousselet et. al. warned.
Conditioning best explains why people stay in this medical-scientific cult “despite threats to their physical and psychological integrity (Garand, 2013). The media, such as The Lancet here, administers propaganda for the financial elite or corporate-controlled ‘shadow governors’. These instigators influence academic tracking, grant financing, and black-op intelligence operations. These agents and agencies have a history of engaging in bioweaponry. They include the CIA, NSA and DARPA that provides the leadership followed.
Indeed, The Lancet‘s 27 commentators may be reasonably presumed to follow the ‘standard of care’ in medical psychopathology; poisoning themselves enmasse as endorsed by pharmaceutical experts, such as with immune-suppressive steroids for SARS, or even ‘fast tracked’ (poorly tested) vaccines produced by Johnson & Johnson that added carcinogenic asbestos to its baby powder, to comport with the cult’s commerce.
Despite these obvious mortal risks and moral insults, “given the magnitude of the hold and the constraints of the cult,” its members recklessly censor and disparage non-members to maintain their cognitive, dissociative, dissonant, even deadly delusions.
For this purpose, to reinforce the conditioning, The Lancet provides a link to its COVID-19 Resource Centre, providing access to “the latest 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) content from across The Lancet journals.”
Conclusion
“In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours,” wrote The Lancet‘s Editor, Richard Horton in The Lancet, in 2015.
Curiously, Dr. Horton has been highly critical of “[t]he apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour [that] is alarming.” Perhaps Dr. Horton did not read or approve of the subject coronavirus correspondence issued by 27 “science” scholars reviewed and criticized in this report. If he had, perhaps Dr. Horton should apologize or retire.
Having defined bioterrorism and biocrime, having presented rock solid evidence of all their elements being satisfied by the aforementioned facts; and having vetted The Lancet’s concealed conflicting interests and ties to the Deep State as a premier source of medical pseudoscience and counter-intelligence, it is reasonable to conclude that the 2019 novel coronavirus/SARS/HIV-1 bioweapon emerged from this racketeering enterprise for political, financial, and ideological motives.
Contrary to headline news, Wall Street’s blues, and consistent with Bill Gates’ investments in depopulation, the 2019 n-COV pandemic enriches and secures the Anglo-American status quo and global governors.
This article reviews substantial scientific fraud, omissions, misrepresentations, and diversions committed by The Lancet and 27 medical science correspondents who are critical of “conspiracy theories” and theorists. Together these critics have been caught contributing to a cult-like enterprise foisting damaging deceptions for psychosocial manipulations upon the susceptible ill-informed public.
These sources of coronavirus ‘counter-intelligence’ have been shown to mix facts with fiction, hearsay, and pseudoscience. By so doing, these villains have aided-and-abetted profitable global depopulation through coronavirus bioterrorism.
Actualizing their “Event 201” predictive programming, securing and sustaining the corporate ruling elite, The Lancet and its 27 medical science correspondents together are shown here serving the geopolitics and economics of coronavirus genocide, bioterrorism and biocrime.
This “conspiracy theory” features a cult that publishes to disparage, dismiss, and deprive competing thinkers. Their complicity in biocrime and terrorism is proven by the scientific records they have misrepresented.
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), terrorists may include propagandists and bio-terrorists. They “commit criminal acts . . . to draw attention to issues, causes, and ideologies.”
In this instant case, the Deep State’s medical cult leverages its property–The Lancet and its 27 medical cult correspondents–to dismiss reasonable and responsible opposition to coronavirus bioterrorism and biocrime. They do not actually address “conspiracy theories” per se, only misrepresent and smear those who advance the harsh realities as whistleblowers.
This campaign to neutralize legitimate coronavirus whistleblowers as “conspiracy theorists” functions much like a magician disappears people by illusions.
According to the CDC, bioterrorizing attackers seek and generate publicity for their causes. “They are likely to focus on targets with larger symbolic meaning and shock value, or are planned to create widespread disruption.”
Here, The Lancet has targeted for disparagement whistleblowers in science, virology, genetic engineering, and reality-checking to neutralize them to secure and conceal Deep State cohorts in biocrime. These co-conspirators in bioterrorism create widespread disruption as evidenced by the advancing pandemic and its social, political and financial impacts.
“Terrorists often target transportation, communication, food production, or economic institutions,” stated the CDC. “Terrorist acts are also designed to undermine faith and trust in institutions, including government.”
Each of these elements too are satisfied by the instant coronavirus bioterrorism campaign while the virus is misrepresented as “natural”.
According to The Lancet’s correspondents, readers are supposed to hold faith in Western medical scientific institutions that allege COVID-19-SARS/HIV-1 came from “nature”. We are supposed to have contempt for scientists who evidence otherwise the lab virus origin and suspicious ‘evolution’ of the ‘bat virus’ outbreak.
Based on the facts and medical science reviewed herein, The Lancet’s correspondents certainly undermine faith and trust in the integrity of medical science, and the government agencies such as the CDC complicit in this biocrime.
READERS’ RESPONSES
JT: So does the Coronavirus actually have the HIV virus in it and would you become infected with the HIV virus if you got the corona virus
LGH: VERY IMPORTANT question.
It actually has the attachment proteins of HIV spliced into it.
That means it may inject its genetic code into the human cells like the AIDS virus does.
What that will do is the essence of your important question. I don’t think we really know for sure at this point, but people are dying of a pneumonia-like condition. You might recall that pneumocystis pneumonia is one of the outcomes of HIV-1 infections.
Pneumonia may also be attributable to the SARS gene sequence spliced into the coronavirus as a “middle fragment.”
You might ask Mr. Gates what he expects to gain from this bioweapon and bioterrorism. Alternatively, you might ask The Lancet editor, Mr. Horton. I used to be a fan of his. Now I think he’s lost his mind as a Deep State submissive.
Another question this raises is the reliability of the lab testing used. The procedure uses a similar “polymerase chain reaction” (PCR) test as is used to diagnose HIV/AIDS. You can read how poorly this actually performs from the CDC’s own website. They issue a HUGE DISCLAIMER “NOT FOR DIAGNOSTIC USE.” Yet, this is being used along with a suspect/patient’s history to diagnose coronavirus infection and impose quarantines.
JTK: Did you know that the “2019 Military World Games” opened in the “central Chinese City of Wuhan” on the exact date of October 18, 2019 that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and World Economic Forum held that “Event 201” coronavirus predictive program? Your bioterrorism thesis evidence for “motive” is supplemented by this You-Tube video that shows China’s technology and ‘military gaming’ creativity surpassing our ‘Superbowl Sunday’ spectacle.
LGH: Very interesting. Thanks for this link.
JT: Have you seen this Alex Jones production?
LGH: Thanks for this Infowars link. The trouble with Alex Jones is that he is highly discreditable. His publications condemn serious issues. Alex Jones serves a counter-intelligence function like a ‘catch-n-kill’ tabloid discredits their stories. Mixing 80 percent truths with 20 percent lies (omissions and misrepresentations) enables the counter-intelligence corps (a.k.a., COINTELPRO) to be persuasive and effective in neutralizing opposition to the genocide.