What’s been even more obvious the past few years, no longer just to us few skeptics, is how consensus is manufactured for preferred scientific NARRATIVES. Such narratives too often are very different than the actual underlying more nuanced science.

These narratives are what those holding power & influence want people to believe rather than what can be reasonably deduced or NOT deduced from scientific data. These narratives too often further the financial and business interests of those holding power and influence so that they can continue to hold and increase that power and influence to further their financial interests.

The past few years have really demonstrated how anything that reinforces preferred narratives is quickly distributed with splashy headlines across all forms of media (e.g. “red meat causes diabetes”) with practically zero critical analysis (e.g. red meat doesn’t cause diabetes). Basically deregulated consolidation and corporate control of media (directly and indirectly through acquisitions and contributions by corporations and oligarch based foundations) makes this too easy nowadays.

The main scientific journals (e.g. JAMA, Lancet, etc) also give preferential placement to articles and studies that reinforce preferred narratives without giving equal access to other studies with contradictory data or scenarios. These journals are also conflicted due to reprint and advertising revenues that they receive especially from the pharmaceutical sector.

Then on top of all of this, at least in the US, everything gets politicized with hyper partisan rhetoric and vitriol so all the scientific data can’t be viewed dispassionately and objectively.

So especially the past few years, if you questioned any of these preferred narratives, in order to censor and limit debate, you were labeled a right wing illiterate racist xenophobic Trump supporting conspiracy nut. Even though these labels really didn’t and don’t apply to many people including many scientists like one of my heroes Alina Chan, a molecular biologist at the MIT & Harvard’s Broad Institute.

All of this has been the case the past few years with vaccines, mRNA injections, off patent treatment protocols, and especially COVID virus origins. The attached videos and these links here and here all deal with this last topic of COVID virus origins.

All the main stream media, including social media, and many of the main stream scientific journals all pushed the natural spill over (zoonotic) hypothesis even though there were always major problems with this hypothesis. For example, with zoonotic spillover, viruses don’t emerge immediately so-well adapted for human to human transmission even through an intermediate species (which for Sars 2 still hasn’t been found in the “wild”). The lab leak hypothesis was labeled a “conspiracy theory” by those proponents of gain of function [GOF] research trying to discredit the lab leak hypothesis including by the heads of the NIH and NIAID, Collins and Fauci.

Anyway, the attached videos and other recent articles discuss recent information discovered through recently fulfilled FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests. This content all revolves around a proposal to DARPA called DEFUSE made in 2018 that was essentially a blue print as to how to make the Sars-CoV-2 synthetic virus (chimera) using Sars viruses as its backbone. And that’s the thing with why they’ve never found Sars-Cov-2 in nature despite all the charades. It doesn’t exist in nature. The real debate now is how it was exactly put together. Washburne’s pre-print mentioned during some of these attached video provided one plausible scenario using restriction enzymes. Washburne’s scenario explained the unnatural even spacing of these restriction sites used to connect the 6 DNA segments of this chimera.

But have you read or heard about any of this recent origins information on NPR, NYT, CNN, MSNBC, Wash Post, BBC, etc? Nope, you haven’t since this destroys the zoonotic spill over narrative they pushed so hard for as well as all of asinine labels they tried to apply to dissident voices in order to limit discussion and censor debate.