Secret Warnings About Wuhan Research Predated the Pandemic (THIS IS BIG, FROM VANITY FAIR)
(www.vanityfair.com)
SUDDENLY Puzzle Pieces 🦠
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (33)
sorted by:
This is nothing but a Limited Hangout article. It says, "there are issues with virus research," but states several times that "these are not the droids you're looking for."
For example:
Nope, the gain of function research into the bat zoonotic coronavirus funded by Fauci at the WIV most certainly was NOT related to bat zoonotic coronavirus with the exact gains of function the research was looking into that started a pandemic a couple miles away from the WIV.
Whew. I was worried for a second. Thank god for honest reporting.
They make it perfectly clear:
Yup, bad stuff, irresponsible people, but really, there is nothing to see here.
It's almost like it was written by the C_A.
But of course we all know that never happens.
Of course, no no, you can't think we would do something like this.
I should note the article does give lots of interesting statements that are worth digging into further. Nothing much substantive on it's own however.
Thanks for the summary, however, I think this is a way to slowly break it to the normies. If they came out & said it without those false 'disclaimers' those journalist would have lost their jobs & the editor would never have it released. So even though it's absurdly lame, it might get some normies to scratch their head & opens the door to the real truth at some point.
Maybe, except my investigation has shown thousands of articles exactly like this. This is exactly what a limited hangout looks like. If this is "breaking in the normies," why didn't the thousands of articles exactly like this one going back through history "break in" all of those normies?
The only way to break the programming for certain is to show actual primary evidence (the stuff, straight from the source) which makes it unequivocal. If the brain can find a way out of the cognitive dissonance that allows for a person to "feel safer", then the brain will take that path. That is why things are presented in this fashion in a limited hangout, to exploit that tendency. The only way to break the programming is to present the information in a way that doesn't allow for that path, much less encourage it as this one does.
It is exactly the rhetoric that encourages that path of "safe space," which is replete in this article, that makes me think this is an intentional limited hangout.