Federal agencies are always intentional in their written communications, and this is no exceptions. We are not talking about some intern using AI.
Obviously, Ratcliffe is prepped for the interview, etc. So we have to ask ourselves who benefits - and how - from him saying what the formal statement does not.
Never mistake strategy for incompetence or errors.
Not when it comes to this and this level, at least
I am an Engineer by degree and working in the field now over 50 years. So I appreciate critical thinking, accuracy and precision as well as substantiation in decision-making and opinions.
Well done! "Research related origin." Man does that cover a nearly infinite number of bases. A "Research related origin of the Covid-19 pandemic." Let's speculate as to a few of the myriad possible meanings of that statement. 1: They researched past "pandemics" which gave them the idea to, and helped them create, the "Covid-19 pandemic." 2: They researched ways to create a facsimile of a spreading novel deadly virus pandemic (no doubt by watching any variety of Hollywood outbreak trash), and they came up with using overly sensitive PCR tests, lockdowns and iatrogenic harm. 3: They researched how to use propaganda to terrify and demoralize the public (see Goebbels)... The mind bogles but it sure doesn't see anything in that statement about WIV, lab leaks or GOF. Hell I'm still looking for the "F" that "it" supposedly "G'ed."
Precisely. Now you're tracking with me. "Research RELATED origin" - is that like "COVID-related death" ? :)
I'll add to your list:
4. Researched how to engineer/manipulate the presentation of mass casualty events in official data? 5. Research related to shots/vaccines which were used pre-2020 and had created serious problems? 6. Research related to fentanyl?
The CIA has given themselves a WIDE berth here--plenty of room for plausible deniability.
Linguistically strategic and what we should expect from a well-resourced agency staffed with people who score highly on intelligence tests and can be counted on to keep secrets.
There was no pandemic; therefore, the assessment was conducted under false pretenses. But people should at least not put words into the CIA's mouth.
Why is the new director saying the agency-under-Biden said things they clearly did not say? More importantly, why are so many COVID Dissidents misreporting/misapprehending what the assessment said?
EDIT to point out that "natural origin" does not neceesarily mean "zoonotic"/leapt from animals to humans.
I’ve been an unpaid subscriber here for a few months, and have come to really appreciate the clarity of your thinking. So just now I became a paid subscriber.
I’m not familiar with Mr. Haslam. From a quick skim, it appears he and I have diametrically opposed views re: SARS-CoV-2 (which is probably why you would like to see an exchange of ideas, yes?) :)
Great attention to detail Jessica. You are right, this statement was intentionally crafted, knowing full well how it would be interpreted, even by its new head. This is obviously all politics.
As for the responses by Will Jones and Jeffrey Tucker. The former doesn’t surprise me, as Will says, he’s been very consistent all along and has built his platform on the premise that Covid was due to the spreading of a novel virus. So although I don’t agree with him, I respect him for sticking to his beliefs. Jeffrey’s response is disappointing, not the ‘right venue’? To me that’s strange language, sounds like he’s referring to a cabaret club, maybe even a comedy club, but then again he has hosted a vast array of ‘entertainers’, so maybe his use of language is apt. However what is concerning is his statement “There is SO MUCH to learn and so much left to find out about precisely what happened. I don't want to get distracted from the larger picture of how precisely this coup against freedom came to be”, can he not see the huge contradictions in what he says there? If he really wanted to get to the bottom of this scam, he’d allow all discussions to occur and not shut them down.
"I've waited for four years to run an article that would explain why a lab leak is probably not something to fear given epidemiological dynamics: the tradeoff between severity and prevalence subject to latency. I'm not the one to write it but I do hope that some epidemiologist does at some point."
In that case, why not accept the proposal? Because we're not epidemiologists? Epidemiologists have largely failed in this mess - I'm not sure why they're the answer.
You're right that Will Jones has always operated from the "spreading virus" premise; the disappointment there is that the publication is literally called Daily Sceptic and uses the tagline Question Everything? Clearly, not everything can be questioned!
And now the founder, Toby Young, is Lord Young.
Lord of the Sceptical Realm? Not so much, it seems!
It pays to be precise! Thanks for your level of ’attention to detail’ and precision!!!
Thank you and you're welcome!
Federal agencies are always intentional in their written communications, and this is no exceptions. We are not talking about some intern using AI.
Obviously, Ratcliffe is prepped for the interview, etc. So we have to ask ourselves who benefits - and how - from him saying what the formal statement does not.
Never mistake strategy for incompetence or errors.
Not when it comes to this and this level, at least
I am an Engineer by degree and working in the field now over 50 years. So I appreciate critical thinking, accuracy and precision as well as substantiation in decision-making and opinions.
Well done! "Research related origin." Man does that cover a nearly infinite number of bases. A "Research related origin of the Covid-19 pandemic." Let's speculate as to a few of the myriad possible meanings of that statement. 1: They researched past "pandemics" which gave them the idea to, and helped them create, the "Covid-19 pandemic." 2: They researched ways to create a facsimile of a spreading novel deadly virus pandemic (no doubt by watching any variety of Hollywood outbreak trash), and they came up with using overly sensitive PCR tests, lockdowns and iatrogenic harm. 3: They researched how to use propaganda to terrify and demoralize the public (see Goebbels)... The mind bogles but it sure doesn't see anything in that statement about WIV, lab leaks or GOF. Hell I'm still looking for the "F" that "it" supposedly "G'ed."
Precisely. Now you're tracking with me. "Research RELATED origin" - is that like "COVID-related death" ? :)
I'll add to your list:
4. Researched how to engineer/manipulate the presentation of mass casualty events in official data? 5. Research related to shots/vaccines which were used pre-2020 and had created serious problems? 6. Research related to fentanyl?
The CIA has given themselves a WIDE berth here--plenty of room for plausible deniability.
Linguistically strategic and what we should expect from a well-resourced agency staffed with people who score highly on intelligence tests and can be counted on to keep secrets.
There was no pandemic; therefore, the assessment was conducted under false pretenses. But people should at least not put words into the CIA's mouth.
Why is the new director saying the agency-under-Biden said things they clearly did not say? More importantly, why are so many COVID Dissidents misreporting/misapprehending what the assessment said?
EDIT to point out that "natural origin" does not neceesarily mean "zoonotic"/leapt from animals to humans.
The table I created at the bottom of this post is useful for seeing some of the possibilities https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/do-the-origins-of-sars-cov-2-matter
Keen 👀 !
No doubt they soon be tripping over one another to thank you for revealing the neverending levels of artifice & trickery.
Reminds of the word games they play about the 🛸 over NJ, i.e. "not the work of a foreign power".
One big giant humongous TrumanShow.
Impressing the Feds is not the objective :)
Hopefully they really are just "The Feds"; the alternative is hard to contemplate.
Please tell me another bedtime story..
I’ve been an unpaid subscriber here for a few months, and have come to really appreciate the clarity of your thinking. So just now I became a paid subscriber.
I would like to see an exchange of views between you and Jim Haslam: https://jimhaslam.substack.com/.
Thanks, Andrew!
I’m not familiar with Mr. Haslam. From a quick skim, it appears he and I have diametrically opposed views re: SARS-CoV-2 (which is probably why you would like to see an exchange of ideas, yes?) :)
Great attention to detail Jessica. You are right, this statement was intentionally crafted, knowing full well how it would be interpreted, even by its new head. This is obviously all politics.
As for the responses by Will Jones and Jeffrey Tucker. The former doesn’t surprise me, as Will says, he’s been very consistent all along and has built his platform on the premise that Covid was due to the spreading of a novel virus. So although I don’t agree with him, I respect him for sticking to his beliefs. Jeffrey’s response is disappointing, not the ‘right venue’? To me that’s strange language, sounds like he’s referring to a cabaret club, maybe even a comedy club, but then again he has hosted a vast array of ‘entertainers’, so maybe his use of language is apt. However what is concerning is his statement “There is SO MUCH to learn and so much left to find out about precisely what happened. I don't want to get distracted from the larger picture of how precisely this coup against freedom came to be”, can he not see the huge contradictions in what he says there? If he really wanted to get to the bottom of this scam, he’d allow all discussions to occur and not shut them down.
Thanks, Domini.
I agree re: Jeffrey's stance. Further correspondence is instructive https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/correspondence-with-jeffrey-tucker
"I've waited for four years to run an article that would explain why a lab leak is probably not something to fear given epidemiological dynamics: the tradeoff between severity and prevalence subject to latency. I'm not the one to write it but I do hope that some epidemiologist does at some point."
In that case, why not accept the proposal? Because we're not epidemiologists? Epidemiologists have largely failed in this mess - I'm not sure why they're the answer.
You're right that Will Jones has always operated from the "spreading virus" premise; the disappointment there is that the publication is literally called Daily Sceptic and uses the tagline Question Everything? Clearly, not everything can be questioned!
And now the founder, Toby Young, is Lord Young.
Lord of the Sceptical Realm? Not so much, it seems!