Sorry, Peter. I agree with Dr. Kerner. He called it what it is- a bioweapon. No secret that Bill Gates et. al. are eugenicists. Certainly some are in it for the money (10% for the Big Guy), but those at the top of the food chain have no need of money. They are psychotic megalomaniacs, plain and simple. And guess what, Colombo is not goin…
Sorry, Peter. I agree with Dr. Kerner. He called it what it is- a bioweapon. No secret that Bill Gates et. al. are eugenicists. Certainly some are in it for the money (10% for the Big Guy), but those at the top of the food chain have no need of money. They are psychotic megalomaniacs, plain and simple. And guess what, Colombo is not going to appear on the scene and get them to "confess". They won't go down easy!
Concur. It is difficult because I hang around kind, good, altruistic people that have forgotten history and can't quite get their minds around evil. What has changed that would make us think we are exempt?
I have to agree with that. I think somehow we got lazy and forgot that the full on psychopaths still live with us and that all of us a tiny psychopath inside us that needs to be restrained. We got too comfortable and believed that western civilization somehow tamed evil...
From someone (Dr. Fauci) who in 2012 reflected as follows on a hypothetical situation:
Imagine “an important gain-of-function experiment involving a virus with serious pandemic potential is performed…what if that scientist becomes infected with the virus, which leads to an outbreak and ultimately triggers a pandemic?…as indeed I have said – that the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks…the time it takes to engage in such a dialog <about whether these experiments should have been performed in the first place> could potentially delay or even immobilize the conduct of certain important experiments and the publication of valuable information that could move the field forward for the good of public health.”
At minimum he and the like value the data and research (and perhaps their resulting status) above all, even at the potential expense of innumerable lives and/or livelihoods. This allows them to align with those who perhaps go beyond those motives. Seems possible that involved parties each got what benefit they desired.
Sorry, Peter. I agree with Dr. Kerner. He called it what it is- a bioweapon. No secret that Bill Gates et. al. are eugenicists. Certainly some are in it for the money (10% for the Big Guy), but those at the top of the food chain have no need of money. They are psychotic megalomaniacs, plain and simple. And guess what, Colombo is not going to appear on the scene and get them to "confess". They won't go down easy!
Concur. It is difficult because I hang around kind, good, altruistic people that have forgotten history and can't quite get their minds around evil. What has changed that would make us think we are exempt?
I have to agree with that. I think somehow we got lazy and forgot that the full on psychopaths still live with us and that all of us a tiny psychopath inside us that needs to be restrained. We got too comfortable and believed that western civilization somehow tamed evil...
Maybe we just weren’t paying attention or appreciating how good our lives were and not considering what could go wrong.
Government is and always has been the biggest threat to life.
From someone (Dr. Fauci) who in 2012 reflected as follows on a hypothetical situation:
Imagine “an important gain-of-function experiment involving a virus with serious pandemic potential is performed…what if that scientist becomes infected with the virus, which leads to an outbreak and ultimately triggers a pandemic?…as indeed I have said – that the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks…the time it takes to engage in such a dialog <about whether these experiments should have been performed in the first place> could potentially delay or even immobilize the conduct of certain important experiments and the publication of valuable information that could move the field forward for the good of public health.”
At minimum he and the like value the data and research (and perhaps their resulting status) above all, even at the potential expense of innumerable lives and/or livelihoods. This allows them to align with those who perhaps go beyond those motives. Seems possible that involved parties each got what benefit they desired.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3484390/