The Deep State in Great Britain

June 25, 2020

One of my favorite shows used to be “Yes, Minister”. The show is about the perennial conflict between the entrenched bureaucracy and the elected politicians. The bureaucrats or civil servants stayed, while the elected officials came and went. Watch Sir Humphrey explain to Bernard what happens when there is too much local rule/autonomy.

Modern Monetary Theory

June 15, 2020

There is a saying, “The more things change, the more they stay the same.” Yes, I know, it is an oxymoron, but it makes a good point about the hubris (or perhaps stupidity) of human beings.

There is a “new” economic theory called MMT or Modern Monetary Theory. There is nothing new about it. In a nutshell MMT holds that whatever the government decides is needed, it can simply print money, “spend” it and get whatever is “needed.” Here is a little more:

“There is nothing new in Kelton’s introduction. MMT’ers have understood these concepts for more than a decade.

But we always must remind ourselves, as traders and investors, what’s important is to discount how the public perceives those ideas. Remember the whole Keynesian beauty contest concept (probably not the most politically correct analogy, but let’s remember that Keynes lived in a different era. In fact, I suspect if Keynes were alive today, he would be more politically correct than some of his most vocal opponents –Niall Ferguson apologizes for remarks).

Keynes rightfully understood that investors discount what the crowd will perceive as the most likely outcome as opposed to the best choice.

Which brings me to my main point. And I know some of you might think this is nuts. But I don’t care.

I have been watching for signs that the concept of “governments are not financially restrained” taking hold within the non-financial community.”

We don’t need to go any further with this. This idea is not new and it doesn’t work. It might “work” (will depend on your perspective) temporarily and that is the problem. People quickly forget and then lose sight of the cause of their misery. All this will do is change the group that prints the “money”. We already have this system with an intermediary called the Federal Reserve. The government already basically “prints” all the “money” that it needs. It is just done indirectly through the Fed. MMT would remove the Fed and have the government do this directly. As you can see, the only change is the bosses. The MMT folks will also tell you there will be no interest paid. Who will save in that environment? To keep such a system together, the government will have to forbid trading for other substances such as gold and silver, bitcoin, etc. Slavery anyone?

If you want real change, eliminate the monopoly the state holds on “money” production. Allow anyone that wants to issue “money” to issue it. The market place will sort the sound “money” from the unsound “money”. Currently, the government does not allow this sorting to take place.

“Lame Street” Media Prefers This Not Be Seen

An article was written in 2005 (15 years ago) on NCBI (a government website), which supports the notion that chloroquine is effective against SARS – a coronavirus:

Background

Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is caused by a newly discovered coronavirus (SARS-CoV). No effective prophylactic or post-exposure therapy is currently available.
Results

We report, however, that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection of primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage. In addition to the well-known functions of chloroquine such as elevations of endosomal pH, the drug appears to interfere with terminal glycosylation of the cellular receptor, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2. This may negatively influence the virus-receptor binding and abrogate the infection, with further ramifications by the elevation of vesicular pH, resulting in the inhibition of infection and spread of SARS CoV at clinically admissible concentrations.
Conclusion

Chloroquine is effective in preventing the spread of SARS CoV in cell culture. Favorable inhibition of virus spread was observed when the cells were either treated with chloroquine prior to or after SARS CoV infection. In addition, the indirect immunofluorescence assay described herein represents a simple and rapid method for screening SARS-CoV antiviral compounds.

Government Spending on Innovation

June 5, 2020

Some argue that we need government spending to fund “innovation”. Too bad most of that “innovation” is sought to further the ends of the “war state.” This argument attempts to focus on results: “See we spent all this money and we got computers”, or whatever. This is poor reasoning and obscures that fact that taxpayer money was forcibly extracted from the population to perform this “research”. What might the people of the population have done with that money had it not been taken from them and devoted to government “research” projects? An example of such a project is virus GoF studies, which may have led to the COVID-19 pandemic.

This is from an article posted in 2015:

“University of Sussex Professor Mariana Mazzucato is making headlines with her 2013 book The Entrepreneurial State, which argues that government, not the private sector, ultimately drives technological innovation.”

We also need to consider that the Federal government has a virtually limitless supply of “money” via Treasury bonds and its partner, the Federal Reserve. Many believe in something called “liquidity”, which means being able to buy and sell things without disturbing market prices. This obviously is a fantasy, especially when it comes to a “fat finger” like that of the government. When the government “jumps into the pool” it is like an elephant jumps in and it makes huge waves and splashes a lot of water out.

The New York Times offered this opinion:

“Fundamental innovations such as nuclear power, the computer and the modern aircraft were all pushed along by an American government eager to defeat the Axis powers or, later, to win the Cold War. The Internet was initially designed to help this country withstand a nuclear exchange, and Silicon Valley had its origins with military contracting, not today’s entrepreneurial social media start-ups. The Soviet launch of the Sputnik satellite spurred American interest in science and technology, to the benefit of later economic growth.”

It is ironic that post World War II, a war supposedly fought to defeat fascism, our country became increasingly fascist. See Wikipedia:

“Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete and regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties.[9] Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society.[9] Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature and views political violence, war and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation.[10][11] Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky (national economic self-sufficiency) through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.[12]”

Here is the support for the notion that our country has become the very thing it allegedly fought in World War II:

“The Second World War changed the nature of scientific research as well. After the war, large-scale federally-funded laboratories devoted to practical applications for new research replaced the small academic laboratories that had existed before the war. Naturally, these new laboratories were geared toward producing new technologies that the federal government wanted, and scientists flocked toward these jobs and new well-funded facilities.
It’s true that many (though not all) of these technologies were developed — typically not invented, but refined — by government scientists working on military projects. The question nevertheless remains as to whether or not this model of innovation benefits society at large. Is this a “good side” of war?”

I think this is actually pretty self-evident. How many billions were spent on the “space race” after Soviet Russia put up sputnik? What sorts of innovations might have come out of the private sector, if that money had been left to private citizens to spend or at the very least was not used to suck brilliant minds into government employ?

Here is more support for fascism:

“We can see these distortions in the effects of the work of Vannevar Bush, the initiator of the Manhattan Project. Bush was chairman of the National Defense Research Committee (NDRC), and later director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD), in the Second World War.

Bush wanted a peacetime successor to the OSRD and pushed for creation of the National Science Foundation, which was established in 1950. The NSF was controversial (one proposal was vetoed by Truman in 1947) because of the lack of accountability. A key figure was Senator Harley Kilgore of West Virginia, who initially opposed Bush’s plan to distribute the money through universities (he preferred the government to own the labs) but later agreed to Bush’s model. As Kealey describes it, Kilgore’s goal was not to generate new knowledge. Rather,

‘Kilgore wanted to create a reserve of scientifically trained personnel who could be mobilized for strategic purposes. … The National Science Foundation, therefore, was created in 1950, in the same year (and for the same reasons) as the National Security Council.1’”

Ibid.

Remember these “agencies” had budgets that probably dwarfed anything in the “private sector” and they were not subject to rigorous profit and loss weeding. You cannot argue against this, because that is Mazzucato’s thesis – private industry is not willing or able to fund “innovative” research.

Remember Betamax versus VHS?

“There is no doubt that military spending had a substantial effect on technological innovation. But was it a good one? Military spending distorts the efforts of scientists and engineers, and redirects them to particular projects, ones that do not necessarily generate benefits for consumers.

Military-funded R&D, like any government-funded projects, does not have to pass any kind of market test, so there is no way to know if it is actually beneficial to consumers. We cannot rely on the judgments of government scientists and scholars to say what are the “best” technologies. Remember Betamax? The experts told us that Betamax technology was superior to VHS tapes, from an engineering point of view. Yet, in the end, VHS proved to be economically superior in that consumers ultimately chose VHS over Beta. Betamax failed the market test in spite of its arguably superior technology.”
Ibid.

Putting “experts”, “scientists” in charge of government and its spending and market influence is anti-Democracy. Your greatest “democratic” expression is carried out daily in the market place when you “vote” with your money, your feet and your eyes. When your “disposable” income is diminished by government taxation your “voting” power is reduced!

When will we decide that we have had enough of the war machine and end it?

George Floyd

June 3, 2020

I feel that I need to weigh in on the George Floyd case. The reason is this case bears upon my theme of a limited government that protects individual’s property rights. I am reading about violent protests throughout our “country” and these “protests” are depriving many other people of their property rights. Government has one job and one job only and that is to protect an individual’s right to property. Since contracts are essentially about the transfer of title to properties, they are included. The solution to the government’s failure to do its job is surly not to engage in the same behavior as the government. The behavior of these “protesters” has led to the government failing in its duty to protect property rights again. It appears that law enforcement simply withdrew from the area of violent protests. Here is a brief and probably inadequate summary of the George Floyd case:

“On May 25, 2020, George Floyd, a 46-year-old black man, died in Minneapolis, Minnesota after Derek Chauvin, a white police officer, pressed his knee to Floyd’s neck for almost nine minutes while Floyd was handcuffed face down in the street;[2][3][4] two other officers further restrained Floyd and another stood by and prevented onlookers from intervening.[5]:6:24[6][7] During the last three minutes, Floyd was motionless and had no pulse,[2][4] but officers made no attempt to revive him.[8]:6:46 Floyd was pronounced dead at a nearby hospital.

Floyd was being arrested on suspicion of passing a counterfeit $20 bill at a market.[9] Police said Floyd physically resisted arrest.[10][11] Security camera footage from a nearby business did not show Floyd resisting.[12][13] The criminal complaint stated that, based on body camera footage, Floyd repeatedly said he could not breathe while standing outside the police car, resisted getting in the car and intentionally fell down; he went to the ground face down and, after Chauvin placed his knee, Floyd repeatedly said “I can’t breathe”, “Mama”, and “please”.[2] Several bystanders took videos, all of which were widely circulated and broadcast.[14] While knee-to-neck restraints are allowed in Minnesota under certain circumstances, Chauvin’s usage of the technique has been widely criticized by law enforcement experts as excessive.[15][16][17] At two points, the police officer that was holding Floyd’s legs asked to roll Floyd on his side.[2] All four officers were fired the following day.[18]”

From the little information that I have, it appears that these police officers egregiously deprived Mr. Floyd of his property – his body and they may have taken something that did not belong to them – Mr. Floyd’s life. Unfortunately, what happened to Mr. Floyd is not unique. An innocent man was beaten in the case of Brownback v. King.

Every man and woman on this earth should be a leader, even if they only lead themselves. A leader should do what he or she would like their followers to do. I think what everyone wants is respect for their property. If you WANT PEOPLE TO RESPECT your property, then you sure as hell had better respect other’s property. That means these riots need to stop NOW!

Riots will not solve this problem, but diligent participation by people near to this event in the judicial process hopefully will. I agree there are many things about our “justice system” that are bad, but acting unjustly and taking the property of others will not help the situation. I trust that you have heard, “Two wrongs do not make a right.”

Fed Buying Ever Riskier Assets

May 25, 2020
2 Sivan 5780

Our government is driving us into deep bankruptcy.

After the “crisis” of 2008 all sorts of debt increased. The increase is attributable to Fed “monetary policy”. Interest rates were low and it was easy to get “money” from the corporate paper market. I am very curious to know who owns all that corporate paper. I guess there is a lot in ETF’s, but that does not tell us who really owns this garbage. As a result of all that easy Fed credit we now have a “liquidity” problem (aka falling prices. Liquidity means you can buy and sell your “assets” and not disturb “market prices”). Here is the Fed’s response to this:

‘“This came two days after Powell defended the Fed’s program to buy junk bonds during his testimony before the Senate Banking Committee, which asked how purchases of junk bonds is “helping folks on Main Street.” Powell flagged that the Fed allowed for buying bonds from so-called “fallen angels” to ensure there is “no cliff” between the two lending markets (even though as we pointed out previously, a clear cliff has formed), saying “we don’t want to have a cliff there to where investment grade markets are working well, but the leveraged markets are not, non-investment grade markets are not.”
He then added that “we made a very limited, narrow set of actions to support market function in these markets, including buying ETFs, and that’s had an effect to improve market function there.”
Powell concluded by saying “we’re not buying junk bonds generally across the board at all,” which of course is correct: he is merely buying ETFs that have junk bond constituents.
And this is where the Fed’s first major test of directly manipulating and intervening in market functioning is about to take place.
While the Fed’s H.4.1 statement does not breakdown how much of the $1.8 billion in ETF holdings is allocated to investment grade and how much is junk, it is safe to say that at least $1 dollar of that amount has been allocated to purchases of Junk ETFs.
That will be a problem for Powell, because a quick scan of the holdings of both HYG and JNK reveals that these junk bonds ETFs own, among the hudnreds of other securities, several bonds from the just defaulted rental giant, Hertz.’
Here are HYG’s holdings of HTZ bonds: they amount to just over $50MM in face value across 4 bonds (out of a total of $23.3BN in holdings across just over 1,000 bonds).”

This problem is well illustrated by the Fed’s balance sheet. On 8/28/19 its “assets” were 3.8 trillion dollars and now its “assets” are 7 trillion dollars.

This the result of the Fed trying to maintain “liquidity”. It is another way of saying that Fed pets found themselves holding bags of excrement and they needed a place to unload it and the Fed is that place.

You might think the Fed is not all that smart, but that is not the case. Here is why this is YOUR problem and not the Fed’s problem:

“Is U.S. currency still backed by gold?

Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver, or any other commodity. Federal Reserve notes have not been redeemable in gold since January 30, 1934, when the Congress amended Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act to read: “The said [Federal Reserve] notes shall be obligations of the United States….They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.” Federal Reserve notes have not been redeemable in silver since the 1960s.

The Congress has specified that Federal Reserve Banks must hold collateral equal in value to the Federal Reserve notes that the Federal Reserve Bank puts in to circulation. This collateral is chiefly held in the form of U.S. Treasury, federal agency, and government-sponsored enterprise securities.”

If you read the above carefully, you noted that Federal Reserve notes are the obligation of the United States. As seen above, the Fed has nearly doubled its balance sheet and it is “buying” ever MOAR risky “assets” with those Federal Reserve “notes” that “we the people” back. In other words as the Fed adds to its balance sheet, the liabilities of “we the people” increase. Who do you think will pick up the tab when those “assets” tank completely? If you said, “We the people”, go to the head of the class! “We the people” are the bag holders and there is no gold in that bag!

Here is some information regarding the “bag” from the ZH article above:

“To be sure, we can only extrapolate but it is safe to say that the Fed’s holdings of both these ETFs are modest for the time being, and we assume that the bulk of ETF purchases have targeted the investment grade, LQD ETF; still the fact is that as of this moment, the Fed is a holder, via BlackRock and via HYG and JNK, of bonds which are in default, and which make the Fed a part of the Hertz post-petition equity once it emerges from bankruptcy!”

You can hear and view a brief history of the Fed here and see a hypothetical balance sheet that illustrates what is happening (2:58 – 12:50).

A very interesting thing about the Fed history is how it has gradually taken on assets of poorer and poorer quality. Up until 1932 the “currency” issued by the Fed was backed by 40% gold and 60% commercial paper. In 1932 the backing was 40% gold and 60% Treasuries. Then in 1935 the gold backing was removed and the only backing was by Treasuries. Then in 2008 the Fed added Mortgage Backed Securities into the backing mix. Now it is adding “commercial paper” back into the mix and some of that “commercial paper” is junk.

Remember, always privatize your profits and socialize your losses!

Alina Chan on SARS-CoV-2

May 21, 2020

J.C. on a Bike discussed a recent preprint of a paper by Alina Chan. Here is some of it:

“…Our observations suggest that by the time SARS-CoV-2 was first detected in late 2019, it was already pre-adapted to human transmission to an extent similar to late epidemic SARS-CoV. However, no precursors or branches of evolution stemming from a less human-adapted SARS-CoV-2-like virus have been detected. The sudden appearance of a highly infectious SARS-CoV-2 presents a major cause for concern that should motivate stronger international efforts to identify the source and prevent near future re-emergence.”

“SARS-CoV was observed to adapt under selective pressure that was highest as it crossed from Himalayan palm civets (intermediate host species) to humans and diminished towards the end of the epidemic (15–18); this series of adaptations between species and in humans culminated in a highly infectious SARS-CoV that dominated the late epidemic phase. In comparison, SARS-CoV-2 exhibits genetic diversity that is more similar to that of late epidemic SARS-CoV (Figure 1, Supplementary Table). In fact, the exceedingly high level of identity shared among SARS-CoV-2 isolates makes it impractical to model site-wise selection pressure. As more mutations occur and, ideally, when SARS-CoV-2-like viruses from an intermediate host species are identified, it will become possible to model selection pressure as was done for SARS-CoV.”

A virus’s host environment tends to select against most random mutations. In other words, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. If a virus finds itself in a new host environment, it needs to change as was observed with SARS-CoV, or it can’t replicate. Ms. Chan’s findings suggest SARS-CoV-2 was already well “adapted” to human hosts and right now no one has identified the host that preceded humans. This suggests/supports the idea that SARS-CoV-2 came from GoF studies.

Deep State Discredited? or Washington Shills

May 21, 2020

We have been watching the Washington D.C. circus since January or February of 2020. It appears probable that their GoF research into coronaviruses unleashed a global pandemic. After it got out they appear clueless regarding a response to it. Since they probably caused this, I think it might be best if they shut their traps and let individuals deal with it as best they can. There is good news, though. The Washington circus is revealing itself for what it really is – a flock of money grubbing profiteers, busily making unsubstantiated claims and riding the stock market waves. Here is something from Zero Hedge:

Haseltine’s interview is perfect lead into his opinion piece in todays’ Washington Post:

Faith in medicine and science is based on trust. But today, in the rush to share scientific progress in combating covid-19, that trust is being undermined.

Private companies, governments and research institutes are holding news conferences to report potential breakthroughs that cannot be verified. The results are always favorable, but the full data on which the announcements are based are not immediately available for critical review. This is “publication by press release,” and it’s damaging trust in the fundamental methods of science and medicine at a time when we need it most.

The most recent example is Moderna’s claim Monday of favorable results in its vaccine trial, which it announced without revealing any of the underlying data. The announcement added billions of dollars to the value of the company, with its shares jumping almost 20 percent. Many analysts believe it contributed to a 900-point gain in the Dow Jones industrial average. (emphasis supplied)

The Moderna announcement described a safety trial of its vaccine based on eight healthy participants. The claim was that in all eight people, the vaccine raised the levels of neutralizing antibodies equivalent to those found in convalescent serum of those who recovered from covid-19. What to make of that claim? Hard to say, because we have no sense of what those levels were. This is the equivalent of a chief executive of a public company announcing a favorable earnings report without supplying supporting financial data, which the Securities and Exchange Commission would never allow.

There is a legitimate question regarding what Moderna’s unsupported assertion means. The scientific and medical literature reports that some people who have recovered have little to no detectable neutralizing antibodies. There is even existing scientific literature that suggests it is possible neutralizing antibodies may not protect animals or humans from infection or reinfection by coronaviruses.

Such “publication by press release” seems to be a standard practice lately. “

If you are Washington Compost subscriber, I am sure you can read Dr. Haseltine’s interview there.

Here is some information on their “pet” drug remdesivir:

“The National Institutes of Health announced last month that the drug remdesivir offered a clear benefit to covid-19 patients with moderate disease, shortening the length of their hospital stay by several days. But did it really? Twenty days after the announcement, the supporting data has still not been published. Without the data, no doctor treating a patient can be sure they are doing the right thing.

Another paper, published the same day, found that remdesivir had no measurable effect on patient survival or the amount of virus detectable in nasopharynx and lung secretions. What then should a practicing physician do? Follow the unsupported advice of a news announcement or a medical report published in a leading scientific journal? This is not an idle question: The NIH announcement triggered a global stampede for limited supplies of the drug.”

What about a vaccine? WHO are they kidding?

“The case is more nuanced for the vaccine developed by the Jenner Institute at Oxford University, though the mileposts remain the same: It started with a public pronouncement of favorable results from an early study, this time in monkeys, well before any data was publicly released. An NIH scientist working on a trial of the Oxford vaccine gave an interview to the New York Times, claiming the drug was a success.

But the data, released as a prepublication version more than two weeks after the story ran, didn’t quite live up to the early claim. All of the vaccinated monkeys became infected when introduced to the virus. Though there was some reduction in the amount of viral RNA detected in the lungs, there was no reduction in the nasal secretions in the vaccinated monkeys. So the positive result reported by the Oxford group turned out not to be protection from infection at all, something most would agree is what a successful vaccine would do. Instead, it lowered only the amount of virus recoverable from the vaccinated monkey’s lung.
To the Jenner Institute’s credit, it does warn visitors to its website that there have been many false reports about the progress of its vaccine trial. Still, having a scientist working on the trial paint preliminary results in such a positive manner without having yet released the full data is cause for concern.”

Anyone not watching “the news” is smart. We don’t get “news”. We get people shilling their products.

Silver Lining of The Pandemic?

May 19, 2020

It looks like government may lose power due to its response to COVID-19. The shutdowns have resulted in a population with little to lose:

“Of course, Governor Wolf did not take such defiance lightly and unleashed a torrent of threats and abuse on the recalcitrant offenders, declaring that they had “decided to surrender to the enemy” and that they were “choosing to desert in the face of the enemy, in the middle of a war.” He then threatened to withhold any discretionary federal funds from any counties that rebelled, and then went even further, warning businesses that he would unleash the regulatory goons on them to make them bend the knee. Restaurants’ liquor licenses would be suspended, any business that reopened in defiance would no longer have business liability insurance, and they could risk losing certificates of occupancy and health certificates.

However, having already pushed thousands of businesses to the brink of extinction, it seems unlikely that Wolf’s threats have much persuasive power. The state simply doesn’t have the resources to hunt down every rebellious business owner, so at the worst, an owner is taking a gamble between going out of business for sure if the shutdown continues and facing regulatory headaches in the event that the state authorities actually manage to find out about it. Although the state department of health has set up a complaint form for people to inform on businesses, even state lawmakers have likened it to the East German secret police, and the form has reportedly been inundated with online trolls submitting bogus reports.”

What we are seeing is a repeat of Shay’s Rebellion, where the government called for the militia, but the militia either didn’t respond or joined and supported the “rebels”.

“The governor may issue all the orders he desires, but without the cooperation of the lower levels of government and the people themselves, they are toothless. In the unlikely event that he desired to escalate the situation to enforce his emergency decrees, he would lack the resources to realistically do so, having only forty-seven hundred state police under his control who could not hope to replace the local police across the nearly forty-five thousand square miles that make up the state. Even if he tried, local district attorneys have already indicated that they will not prosecute such cases.”

Deep State – Evil or Incompetent?

May 18, 2020

You have to love what some people call “reporting”. Are we supposed to believe that “reporters” have some kind of wisdom that no one else has? Today Mediaite reported about a 60 Minute interview of a former government employee, Mr. Bright. Mr. Bright was quoted as saying that President Trump chose politics over “science”. Mr. Bright hid behind the idea that government is hard working and is promoting “science”, when the reality is the Deep State (army of career government employees, like Mr. Fauci, who has been employed by government since 1968) either has a sick sadistic agenda, or it has failed spectacularly. Here is Mediaite quoting 60 Minutes:

“Dr. Rick Bright is the highest-ranking government scientist to charge the federal government’s response to the coronavirus pandemic has been slow and chaotic. He says it has prioritized politics over science, and has cost people their lives,” O’Donnell reported on 60 Minutes. “It has cost Dr. Bright his job.”

How should we interpret, “He says it has prioritized politics over science…”? Does Mr. Bright know of a cure that he is not sharing?

Here is another very funny quote or perhaps sad and sick quote:

“The best scientists that we have in our government who are working really hard to try to figure this out aren’t getting that clear, cohesive leadership, strategic plan message yet,” Bright told CBS. “Until they get that, it’s still gonna be chaotic.”

First, does Mr. Bright want politics to lead or science (I don’t mean to imply that “science” is always so objective that “it” should be in charge)? You can bet that when the President leads with “clear, cohesive, leadership”, that will be “politics” to Mr. Bright. Why is it funny or perhaps sad and sick?

These Deep State scientists have already been doing GOF (Gain Of Function – trying to get it to infect other hosts – like people) studies on coronaviruses for years and that very “work” is probably what caused this pandemic! We know this from a 12/19/17 NIH announcement:

“Today, the National Institutes of Health announced that it is lifting a funding pause dating back to October 2014 on gain-of-function (GOF) experiments involving influenza, SARS, and MERS viruses. GOF research is important in helping us identify, understand, and develop strategies and effective countermeasures against rapidly evolving pathogens that pose a threat to public health.”

The virus causing this pandemic is SARS-CoV-2. Before you conclude the NIH was correct and this virus “rapidly” evolved, check this out (RBD = Receptor Binding Domain – the key to entering human cells):

“As an expert as Shi is, she only needed to take one peek at the sequence of RaTG13’s RBD and immediately realize: this virus closely resembles SARS in its RBD and has a clear potential of infecting humans. If Shi’s public statement is true and she indeed intends to discover bat coronaviruses with a potential to cross-over to humans, how could she possibly overlook this extremely interesting finding of RaTG13? If this RaTG13 was discovered SEVEN years ago in 2013, why did Shi not publish this astonishing finding earlier and yet let the “less-attractive” viruses take the stage? Why did she decide to publish such a sequence only when the current outbreak took place and people started questioning the origin of the Wuhan coronavirus?

None of these makes sense. These facts only add to the suspicion – Zhengli Shi either was directly involved in the creation of this virus/bioweapon, or helped cover it up, or both.

Of course, these facts also add to the claim that RaTG13 is a fake virus – it exists on Nature (the journal) but not in nature.”

Check into the biases of Nature Magazine:

“Many of the early editions of Nature consisted of articles written by members of a group that called itself the X Club, a group of scientists known for having liberal, progressive, and somewhat controversial scientific beliefs relative to the time period.[12] Initiated by Thomas Henry Huxley, the group consisted of such important scientists as Joseph Dalton Hooker, Herbert Spencer, and John Tyndall, along with another five scientists and mathematicians; these scientists were all avid supporters of Darwin’s theory of evolution as common descent, a theory which, during the latter half of the 19th century, received a great deal of criticism among more conservative groups of scientists.[14]”

Nature Magazine was basically in the business of promoting Darwin’s theory of evolution. It would appear to me that this publication would favor that SARS-CoV-2 “evolved” from RaTG13 by random mutations rather than “intelligent” design in the laboratory.

What is your interpretation? Sick, sadistic agenda of control and depopulation by “intelligent design”, or spectacular failure to protect us from randomly mutating (random mutations can also make these things less infectious to humans) and “rapidly evolving” pathogens?