Following a fluke scoop, Pissed-off Toff reveals the origin of the Coronavirus … and speculates as to why an uncomfortable truth has been hushed up.
Just occasionally the diligent and intrepid journalist will, after much work, unearth a scoop. And just occasionally the less diligent and less intrepid journalist will, by chance, stumble across a scoop. Rarely, however, does a scoop fall by pure fluke into the lap of a semi-alcoholic blogger as he stares at the screen of his computer, idly contemplating the downward spiral of his life.
But thus it was with me.
* * * * *
So bound up are we in the ‘lockdown’ which is, overwhelmingly, the reaction of the western world to the Cornonavirus … so bound up are we in the hysteria which is hourly stoked by the media … so bound up are we in all this, that we have forgotten about the question of how this virus came into existence in the first place.
That this virus originated in or near the Chinese city of Wuhan was never in doubt. That it had something to do with bats seemed pretty certain. But was it an act of God? Was it a result of nasty Chinese gastronomic habits? Or, in a more sinister vein, was it some new form of biological warfare … part of a Chinese plot to dominate the world?
For a while, we busied ourselves with these questions, and the conspiracy theorists had a field-day. And then the ‘lockdown’ came along, and the act of mass self-destruction in which we are now involved became the only thing we could think of.
* * * * *
As I say, the solution to the mystery of the origins of the Wuhan virus simply fell into my lap. It came in the form of a four-minute video-clip from a French news channel sent to me by an Armenian friend.
Why, you ask, do you not know of this already? Well, perhaps because the news channel in question is little-known. Or perhaps because it is French, and most people don’t speak French. Or perhaps, more intriguingly, because the message contained in this news-clip is not one that the main news channels want to broadcast. Because there can be no doubt that all the major news channels in the UK are now effectively propaganda arms of the Government, all singing the same tune, all relaying the same panglossian message, as though in unison.
“The lockdown is good,” they chant, “the lockdown is necessary, we’re all in it together, Sweden is a very naughty country, all is for the best in this the best of all possible lockdowns” … and so it goes on, till one is screaming with boredom.
So: How did this Coronavirus come into being?
Here is the answer.
* * * * *
As we know, the virus originated in or near Wuhan in China, and probably has something to do with bats. Less well-known is the existence of an institution called the Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory, thought to be the only laboratory in China involved in research into lethal pathogens such as Ebola and Sars.
Now along comes a certain Professor Luc Montagnier, a French scientist who discovered the HIV virus and who, in recognition of this achievement, won the Nobel Prize for Medicine back in 2008. He’s retired now, but where viruses are concerned he is second to none.
And here, a few days ago, on the morning news slot of this little-known French TV channel at the very end of April, he tells us that the Wuhan virus was deliberately manufactured. Yes, it is basically a bat virus, he says. But it contains various sequences of the HIV virus, and these sequences could not conceivably have appeared naturally. They could only have been spliced into the RNA code of the bat virus by highly trained molecular biologists working in a super-sophisticated laboratory.
Now if the Nobel-Prize-winning Professor Luc Montagnier, who knows everything about viruses that there is to know, and about HIV in particular … if this softly-spoken man of immense renown tells me that this virus could not have occurred naturally and can only be man-made, then I believe him.
As for the why’s and wherefore’s, he goes on, quite correctly, to say he doesn’t know, but can only speculate. And he speculates that “someone” was perhaps trying to develop a vaccine against AIDS (and remember: such a vaccine does not yet exist). What he doesn’t say in the interview, but what would seem clear from the other things we know, is that this new virus must have originated in the Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory, and that it somehow got out.
Why, then, asks the interviewer, have most other scientists said that Montagnier is wrong?
Well, they haven’t, replies Montagnier, pointing out that a group of distinguished Indian researchers said the same at the end of January of this year, but were forced to retract. What he does not say, but might have, is that in February, scientists at the South China University of Technology also came to the same conclusions, but were silenced. He does, however, point out that more and more scientists are now agreeing with him … but without daring to say so outright. They hint at the nature of their findings. Hint, but no more.
In other words, there is, as the professor says in his native language, une volonté d’étouffement … a desire to hush things up.
* * * * *
This takes us, I fear, into the land of conspiracy theory.
Listening to Professor Montagnier, I do not doubt for a moment that what he says is true; that this new virus could not have occurred naturally; that it is man-made; and that it somehow got out of a lab in Wuhan; where, probably, Chinese scientists were trying to come up with a vaccine against AIDS.
I do not doubt, either, that the leaders of the western world must know this. How could they not? They are well-informed.
And yet, as Montagnier says, there is this volonté d’étouffement … this “desire to hush things up” (the French verb étouffer means ‘to stifle’).
Which can lead us to one conclusion only … namely, that although the leaders of the western world know that the Chinese are responsible for the creation of this virus, and although they know that through lack of proper precautionary measures the Chinese allowed it to escape … although this is known, we must all pretend otherwise. We must all pretend that it is a virus which came into being quite naturally. No-one’s fault. Just frightfully bad luck …
Why must we pretend this?
Because if the West were to confront the Chinese with what they are evidently responsible for, then that might be a little uncomfortable and might lead to … um … trouble. And we don’t want that, do we? Lord, no!!
I can think of no other explanation. Can you?
* * * * *
Anyhow, that’s my scoop.
You will, naturally, want more about this in the form of confirmation and further details.
So below, you will find first of all a link to the video-clip (in French) in which Montagnier says what he says. Do watch it, and you will note, among other things, how modest he is, how entirely reasonable, and how he makes no wild claims, but sticks to what he knows about.
After that you will find my own translation of the video-clip, from French into English. (BTW, I did not copy out the English subtitles on the clip, which I fear contain various errors. Intriguingly, the translation was done by someone who goes by the name of Miss Piggy.)
Then, finally, you will find my transcript of the CNews interview, in French.
Link to video below:
WHAT NOW FOLLOWS IS MY TRANSLATION OF THE INTERVIEW, FROM THE FRENCH ORIGINAL, with my editorial annotations in square brackets.
Q: You’re working on this virus at the moment, aren’t you?
A: Not necessarily in a lab. But on a computer, with a colleague [etc etc].
Q: And have you come to any conclusions?
A: We concluded that this virus was deliberately created [Fr: une manipulation].
Q: What do you mean by that?
A: Well, a part of it, I don’t say all [was deliberately created] … but there’s such a thing as a ‘classic’ virus [i.e. the typical model], and this one came mainly from a bat. But they [took it and] added on various sequences, most particularly from the HIV, the virus which causes AIDS.
Q: You say ‘they’. Who are ‘they’?
A: That I do not know.
Q: And are you saying that this could not have occurred naturally?
A: That’s right: it couldn’t have occurred naturally. This is a professional job done by molecular biologists. It’s a very meticulous job which one might compare to the work of a watchmaker.
Q: And what was the aim [of all this work]?
A: The aim is not clear. I just point out the facts. That’s all. I accuse no-one. I don’t know who did it, or why. It might perhaps be the case that they – ‘someone’ – wanted to make a vaccine against AIDS. So they took some short sequences from the AIDS virus and spliced them into the longer sequence of the Coronavirus.
Q: I’m not sure that I follow you entirely. Are you saying that the Coronavirus contains elements of the AIDS virus?
A: Yes, that’s it. Genetically, a virus is a long string of RNA, which is like DNA, except that it’s RNA. And taking this string, they spliced in some short sequences of the AIDS virus. But even though [these sequences] are short, they are still significant. [He then explains at greater length. See my transcript of orig. French, below, for details. But this is unimportant for the main thrust of his argument.]
Q: Are you sure of this? Because [although] we heard – rumour had it – that the virus was man-made, [your assertion to this effect] has nevertheless been rejected by most scientific authorities.
A: There is nevertheless a certain desire to – shall we say – suppress [what I am saying]. [My colleague and I] are not the first [to reach the conclusions we reached]. A group of extremely distinguished Indian researchers published a paper saying the same thing, and it seems they were forced to recant.
Q: How were they forced to do that?
A: Cancellations. If you look at the work they were due to do, lots of it was cancelled.
Q: Nevertheless, most scientists say you are wrong [Fr. disent le contraire].
A: Increasingly less so, increasingly less so. [De moins en moins, de moins en moins, in the French. NB the English subtitles of the video clip badly mis-translate these words as as ‘more or less’ … which in French would be plus ou moins.] All this started at the beginning of this year, and we are now seeing more and more research which hints at what I’m saying [without saying it outright]. And you see, I’m retired; I’ve won a Nobel Prize; and professionally I am free to do what I want, and no-one can bring any real pressure to bear on me.
HERE, NOW, IS MY TRANSCRIPT OF THE INTERVIEW, IN THE ORIGINAL FRENCH:
Q. Vous travaillez en ce moment sur le virus?
R. […. ] Pas forcément au labo. On travaille sur l’ordinateur, avec un collègue [….].
Q. Et vous êtes arrivés à certaines conclusions?
R. […] Nous sommes arrivés à la conclusion qu’il y avait une manipulation au sujet de ce virus.
Q. C’est à dire?
R. Eh bien, qu’une partie – je ne dis pas le total – mais il y a un modèle qui est évidemment le virus classique, et là c’était un modèle venant surtout d’un chauve-souris, mais à ce model on a par-dessus ajouté des séquences, notamment du VIH, du virus du sida.
Q. Vous dites “on” a ajouté. Qui a ajouté?
R. Ah, moi, je ne sais pas.
Q. Et ce n’est pas naturel? C’est ça que vous voulez dire?
R. Non, ce n’est pas naturel. C’était un travail de professionels, un travail de biologistes moléculaires. C’est un travail très minutieux, on peut dire d’horloger.
Q. Dans quel but?
R. Dans quel but? Ça, ce n’est pas clair. Mon travail, c’est d’exposer les faits. C’est tout. Je n’accuse personne. Je ne sais pas qui a fait ça, et pourquoi. La possibilité, c’est peut-être que … ils ont voulu faire … ‘ils’ – enfin – on a voulu faire un vaccin contre le sida. Donc on a pris des petites séquences du virus et on les a installées dans la séquence plus grande du coronavirus.
Q. Je ne suis pas sûr de comprendre tout ce que vous dites. C’est à dire que dans ce virus [le corona] il y a une part du VIH?
R. Voila, c’est ça. Le matériel génétique du virus, c’est un long ruban d’ARN, c’est comme de l’ADN, n’est-ce-pas, mais c’est de l’ARN. Et dans ce long ruban, à une certaine place on a fixé des sequences – petites – de VIH. Mais ces séquences petites ne sont pas petites pour ne rien vouloir dire. Elles ont la possibilité de modifier, par exemple, ce qu’on appelle des sites anti-géniques, c’est à dire si on veut faire un vaccin on peut très bien modifier la protéine qui est exposée pour le vaccin par une petite séquence venant d’un autre virus.
Q. Et vous êtes certain? Parce qu’on a entendu – le bruit a couru – que c’était d’origine humaine, finalment, et cela a été réfuté par la plupart des autorités scientifiques, quand-même.
R. Il y a quand-même une volonté d’étouffement, si vous voulez. Les travaux, nous ne sommes pas les premiers. Un groupe ce chercheurs indiens très renommés avait publié de la même chose et on les aura forcés à rétracter.
Q. On les a forcés comment?
R. C’est à dire annuler. Si vous regardez leurs obligations, vous avez une grande bande annulée.
Q. Mais ce que vous dites là, la plupart des scientifiques disent le contraire, quand-même, eh?
R. De moins en moins. De moins en moins. Si vous voulez, ceci est arrivé au début de cette année, et on voit de plus en plus de travaux qui suggèrent. Mais moi, je suis, on peut dire, hors d’age. Je suis Prix Nobel, et je peux travailler librement. Ils n’ont aucune pression sur moi qui peut agir.