FORMER HEAD OF CENTER FOR DIESASE CONTROL (CDC) ON US INVOLVEMENT IN DEVELOPING DEADLY COVID VIRUS

 The following comes from RT.  The authoress quotes Dr. Redfield, former head of the US CDC, as he accuses US agencies in helping to create the deadly Covid virus.  -  HM

3 Nov, 2024 21:08

Did the US help create Covid-19? Ex-CDC chief carpet-bombs the official narrative

Dr. Robert Redfield suggests that the virus was engineered in a lab and the US was involved

By Rachel Marsden, a columnist, political strategist, and host of independently produced talk-shows in French and English.

rachelmarsden.com

FILE PHOTO: A lab technician analyses swab samples for possible Covid-19 infection. ©  Alexander Koerner / Getty Images

Despite various debunkings, the Western establishment is still policing Covid-19 narratives nearly five years later – even when the latest bombshell suggests a US national security coverup.

A former head of the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is being accused of spreading fake news for making statements that fall outside the acceptable Covid-related dogma that the Western establishment deems etched into history as indisputable fact.

Dr. Robert Redfield, the virologist who served as CDC director during President Donald Trump’s first term, said on a recent podcast that the Covid virus was “intentionally engineered as part of a biodefense program,” and that “the US role was substantial,” citing research funded by the “National Institutes of Health, the State Department, USAID, and the Defense Department.” 

He specifically attributed the probable creation of “some of the original viral lines” to a researcher at the University of North Carolina, although conceded that he couldn’t actually prove it. Yeah, well, that’s what hearings with the power to compel evidence and testimony under threat of imprisonment are for – not a podcast. How about getting that researcher on the stand?

“Scientists agree that there is no evidence to suggest that Covid-19 originated in a lab in any country,” Newsweek wrote in reporting on Redfield’s remarks. Actually, there is at least some smoke to suggest a potential fire. In 2021, Newsweek itself contacted Dr. Anthony Fauci, who served as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) during Trump’s first term. Fauci clarified that the research the US “supported in China, where coronaviruses are prevalent, sought to understand the behavior of coronaviruses circulating in bats that have the potential to cause widespread disease. The body of science produced by this research demonstrates that the bat coronavirus sequences published from that work NIH supported were not SARS-CoV-2.”

Read more

 US played ‘substantial’ role in causing Covid pandemic – ex-CDC chief

Fauci added that the US-backed gain of function research wasn’t applied to viruses that could infect humans. Guess it’s just an incredibly wild and unlucky coincidence then that the global epicenter for the outbreak just happened to take place near a lab funded by Washington in China, where they were doing gain of function work on some viruses – just not on the exact virus that happened to cause global mayhem.

And we’re supposed to just take Fauci’s word for it, I guess. We’re talking about the same guy who appeared on TV in a cloth mask covered in the logo of his favorite sports team and told everyone to do the same as though the only thing standing between life and death was a pair of grandma’s pantyhose wrapped around your face. Then he told Americans not to invite unvaccinated family members over for the holidays, despite the fact that it failed to actually prevent transmission or infection.

During the podcast interview, Redfield also reframed China’s responsibility in a way that would likely annoy the Western establishment. “When you look at the accountability for China, their accountability is not in the lab work and in the creation of the virus. Their accountability is not following the international health regulations after they realized they had a problem,” he said, seemingly implying that it was American interests that spearheaded the research project.

Again, why is mainstream America learning about this via some obscure show? This guy even testified at a Covid congressional hearing, but his position was far from audible. “It was told to me that they wanted a single narrative, and that I obviously had a different point of view,” Redfield previously said, according to the BBC. “Science has debate and they squashed any debate,” he added, in a nod to Fauci. The White House has admitted that there isn’t even consensus across the US government on the Covid virus’ origin, yet they seem entirely satisfied with the lack of answers.

Read more

 Musk mocks son of Soros’ pandemic claim

Despite the lingering uncertainties, the establishment press is quick to dismiss anyone who doesn’t support the theory that it came from some random bat or other animal that some dude ate in China. The scientific community and the Western establishment gate-keep their Covid-related narratives as consensus, and anyone who dares to deviate is written off as a kook – even if the dissenting view, in this case, is expressed by one of America’s leading health authorities during the Covid fiasco.

This is the same ‘scientific community’ that largely shrugged off the social applications of their ‘science’ when it led to things like surfers wandering along empty beaches alone being chased down and tackled by cops in the interest of public health. It’s the same community that’s equally intolerant of any dissent related to their manmade climate change theory.

Why is debate even remotely controversial when there are still so many unanswered questions? And it’s not like the issue is benign or entirely in the rear-view mirror. Some people are still so traumatized by the tsunami of official government propaganda related to the overwhelmingly survivable (and now largely forgotten) virus that they haven’t stopped regularly running out to top up on their Covid jabs, which have never actually met the time-tested definition of a vaccine.

Recently, some American jurisdictions have even taken action to stop people jonesing for their next injection to treat their state-sponsored psychological trauma a half-decade later. Officials in Texas and Florida have actively blocked jab promotion and marketing campaigns. A regional public health authority in Ohio has recently blocked it from even being available.

Read more

 RT is ‘only station where I can tell the truth’ – RFK (ARCHIVE VIDEO)

Last year, the House Oversight Committee identified a “highly credible” senior CIA officer who told them that the CIA had offered financial incentive to a group of analysts working on the Covid origin question to support the natural transmission theory over the lab leak theory. If CIA involvement can’t be dismissed, then why ignore the possibility of other related national security agencies’ involvement?

Achieving greater transparency on the discreet role of government agencies in the Covid debacle sounds like the perfect job for Trump’s new nominee for health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has long suspected the involvement of the CIA in the assassination of his uncle, President John F. Kennedy, citing the former president’s refusal to send troops to Vietnam.

Western governments from the US to France have classified Covid-related information and deliberations. Sounds like it would be a good time to reopen the conversation, starting with the public release of any secret ‘Covid files’ – all in the interest of science, of course.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

AMERICAN COUP; WILIMINGTONTON 1898 -- MY REVIEW

PBS presented a 2-hour history program on the violent overthrow of government in Wilmington, NC. My main complaint is that it takes the Wilmington insurrection out of context; it fails to show that the fall of Negro power in Wilmington was the final chapter of what had been a 33-year long Second Civil War. When Republican Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the US, in late 1860, not even receiving a full 40% of the popular vote, Southern states began to secede. When Louisiana withdrew, and called for volunteers, among them volunteering were the informal militia of the Free People of Color (FPC). The Confederacy did not think that wise, and they were rejected. True, there were black slave owners in the state, one woman an owner of many slaves; but these were the exceptions, and arming blacks might lead to problems in the war.

 Early in the war, the largest city of the Confederacy, New Orleans, fell to the Yanks headed by Farragut, a Southerner, fighting for the Northerners. When local women in the city showed what they thought of the Yankee soldiers by spitting on them and insulting them, Union Gen. Ben Butler ordered that such women were then to be treated as women of ? (whores), an order that caused international outrage in Europe, and Lincoln had to countermand Butler's order. Meanwhile, many of the FPCs now sought to join the Union army, and they did. So some people of Louisiana were now joining the "foreign" occupiers. 

 The American Civil War continued, and tho our population was then much smaller, the casualty rate was higher than those lost in WWI, or WWII, or any war since. By early 1864 many wanted the killing to end, have peace again. The Democrats' party program of 1864 essential promised a 2-state solution; the North would go it alone and free, the South would retain slavery and be independent as the CSA. The Democrats were so popular, that Lincoln dumped his vice-president Hamlin of Maine, and replaced him with a war Democrat from Tennessee, Andrew Johnson. They did not run as Republicans but as the Union ticket. With Yankee victories and the 2nd half of 1864, more voters turned to Lincoln's plan for victory over the rebels, and he won decisively.

 At his inauguration in 1865 Lincoln did not sound vindictive, with charity toward all," and after the band played the national anthem, Lincoln requested that it next play Dixie.  Earlier, Gen. Grant had allowed the defeated Lee's army to keep their side arms in defeat. Shortly after the inauguration, Booth made Johnson President. Lincoln had toyed with letting educated blacks (men) vote, but he had also toyed with sending the large black population to Africa or some islands. 

 By this time thousands of blacks in the North and black slaves in the south had joined the Union Army. (n 1866 in New Orleans a meeting of hundreds mainly blacks to demand the vote. The Mayor, and police, Democrats and pro Confederates, raid the gathering and murder a large number, including Dr. Dotsie, a white, and they shot a German-born newspaper man, Michael Hahn, who survived and would be one of the few Republican elected leaders at war's end.  Elected as governor, the General running New Orleans was transferred, and Hahn was given little power; then elected to the US Senate, with Lincoln's murder, the national Congress refused to seat any elected from the South.  Hahn had a bumpy political career, as would any Republican in the South.  Also in 1866 a massacre of blacks in Memphis. These were well publicized and helped the Radical Republicans win Congress. The Freedmen's Bureau was aiding the freed slaves to adjust.

 White planters had lost their work force and their Confed. money was worthless. 

Think of the trauma for some Southerners - not only had they lost their valuable property in the largest confiscation of private property in American history, but soon after their former property might be wearing the blue uniform of the enemy and aiming a gun at them! A large number of blacks had fought in the army of the Northern enemy. Blacks thought, the white South fought to keep them enslaved. WHAT HAPPENED NEXT? 

     We should understand, not only was the South defeated, not only was there much destruction of property, burnt buildings, stolen cattle, chickens, whatever, but THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY SIGNALED A SOCIAL REVOLUTION.  Millions of blacks, illiterates (there had been laws forbidding teaching them to read) and everything uncertain.  Thay had lived in slave quarters, but who would now own those dwellings?  Did freedom mean they had to work?  Everything was uncertain.  Of course many whites were illiterate too; and in the north, new immigrants might not even speak English.  But the South was entering unknown terrirory.

     WHAT WOULD HAPPEN NEXT?  A 2nd civil war. So long as Norther troops remained to occupy the South, there was some protection for blacks. But the Johny Reb's were forming new organizations to prevent black rule. Red shirts, knights of the white camellia, the white league, and the ku klux klan, all set to oppose black rule. When Grant was elected President, he pushed for civil rights for blacks, and enforced anti-KKK laws. Yes, there were national civil rights laws passed in the 1860s and 70s.

   But the crunch came in the Presidential election of 1876; Democrat Tilden clearly had a majority of votes, but not Electoral Votes, and the Dems had intimidated blacks in many southern states, including the disputes ones. A DEAL, The Republican would win the White House, but remove the Yankee troops from the south. Soon, Dems are winning big in elections in Louisiana, Mississippi, etc. and black cries of intimidation or lynching go un-noticed.  The cavalry is no longer there.

 By early 1890s, Louisiana had a new voting law that essentially prevented most blacks from registering. And this was happening in other Southern states too. In 1895 the great Atlanta Exposition, at which Booker Washington, leader of Tuskegee Institute in Alabama gave a major speech. In some things, the races can be like the finger, separate and doing separate functions, but on other issues the races can unite in strength as a fist. He basically said blacks should not prioritize politics. That was national news, what whites north and south wanted to hear. End the race problems.  Or rather, end of hearing about them.

 In the 1890s a case had been percolating up from New Orleans to the US Supreme Court, which finally ruled 8-1, that separate and equal facilities were legal in Plessy v. Ferguson; segregation was the law of the land. In 1892 Ida Wells went north and while away her newpaper was destroyed by segregationists, and she was threatened with lynching if she continued. My point, by early 1898 NEARLY ALL of the South had basically succumbed to white supremacy and the Democratic Party, often by intimidation and murder. Aside from 1 or 2 Appalachian areas that had supported the Yanks during the war, there were no Republicans left in the national Congress from the South, they had all been wiped out. All but the one in Wilmington.  But Wilmington should not be studied in isolation, for it was the last battle in the 2nd Civil War.

      Hugh Murray  I wrote this mainly from memory.  Alas, I have not taught history for 55 years.  I'll try to fill in the blanks later.

    This period in history is called the era of Reconstruction, and there was much to be rebuilt after the war's destruction.  But the social revolution promised by Northern victory depended on Yankee soldiers.  True, many locals still had weapons, former Confederate soldiers on one side, former slaves who had joined the Union army might have theirs on the other.  Local police and sheriffs were still Democrats (white supremacists).  Early large-scale massacres caused reaction in the North, determination to punish the South, and passage of anti-KKK laws and pro-black civil rights laws. So an alternative strategy was adopted.  Instead, of mass murders, the South planned to kill Radical Reconstruct with a thousand cuts, a guerilla war, throughout the South, targeting this militant here, another black voter there, a slow 2nd Civil War which engulfed the entire South.  The 2nd Civil War was a guerilla war fought mainly in the South,  The Southern whites generally sought to avoid major killings, for that might rouse the North to intervene.  In the South, it was also mainly a racial war, whites against blacks, while the Northerners residing there were generally intimated either to go North, or change their views.  When the Yanks withdrew the Union troops after the 1876 Compromise, the Southern offence hastened.  Wilmington was the last major battle of that war.  No more blacks in Congress from the South until the 1960s.  The "solid South" was solidly Democratic, and solidly white supremacist.

     For a modern analogy, after WWII there were 2 reconstructions in Germany, one conservative, one radical.  The radical one, in the east, the German Democratic Republic, sought to build a "socialist" society.  But how long would it last without Soviet troops?  1876 and 1990 provide somewhat similar answers.

     Back to the tv program: it is like a Shakespearean play in which the director cut Act I, cut Act II, cut Act III, etc. and only the final act was staged.  That is not good enough. 

AMSTERDAM, MAKKABIS, 2-STATE SOLUTION v 40-STATE SOLUTION

  I see that the Dutch immigrants are celebrating Kristallnacht in Amsterdam.  Seems the Makkabi footballers are not up to their namesakes - they lost the match 5-0 to Ajax, and their fans lost to the mob of Jew haters.  Sickening shades of the Nazi occupation, replaced with the migrant occupation..

Of course, the real Makkabis of today are fighting in the Middle East, and winning.  Netanyahu has not yielded to the 2-state solution non-sense of Biden, Blinken, and  Nada heads.  Remember, many Democrats called for a 2-state solution in the US in 1864, and the result would have been a North of free states, and an independent Confederacy of slave states.  Would that have been a good solution?  It would have ended the Civil War somewhat earlier, but would that have been a good solution?

Instead of a 2-state solution of the Democrats, I would go back to earlier proposals.  There is only one Jewish nation in the world, and perhaps at least 40 Muslim nations.  If those 40 really cared about the Gazans and other Palestinian, invite them to their nations, open their borders to fellow Muslims!  If split 40 ways, it would not be a major burden for any one Muslim nation to take in some of the Muslim Palestinian refugees. BUT THEY DON'T WANT THAT.  THEY DON'T WANT TO LIVE IN PEACE AMONG THEIR OWN.

  The solution of the Palestinian leaders is stay, fight, kill - DEATH TO ISRAEL, DEATH TO AMERICA.  Start war after war, if need be lose, after loss, but eventually Israel will make a mistake.  Eventually, the Muslims will win.  Then, wipe out every Jew in the Middle East. And then prepare for the big fight against the big Satan, America.  God is great!

Happily, Israel under the leadership of Netanyahu, has avoided yielding to Biden and his 2-state cease fire policy of appeasement to the Palestinians.  And now enter Trump!  What happens now?  We shall see.----Hugh Murray