Beijing’s useful idiots: Science journals have encouraged and enforced a false Covid narrative

Just over a year ago, I stumbled across an intriguing scientific paper. It suggested the pandemic that was ripping around the world was “uniquely adapted to infect humans”; it was “not typical of a normal zoonotic infection” since it first appeared with “exceptional” ability to enter human cells. The author of the paper, Nikolai Petrovsky, was frank about the disease when we spoke back then, saying its adaptability was either “a remarkable coincidence or a sign of human intervention”. He even broke the scientific omertà by daring to admit that “no one can say a laboratory leak is not a possibility”.

But even though Petrovsky has excellent credentials — professor of medicine at a prominent Australian university, author of more than 200 papers in scientific journals and founder of a company funded by the US government to develop new vaccine technologies — I was still anxious when my story went global. His original document had been posted on a pre-print site, so had not been peer reviewed, unlike if it had been published in a medical or scientific journal. These sorts of sites allow researchers to get findings out quickly. Petrovsky told me his first attempt to place these seismic findings was on BioRxiv, run by prominent New York laboratory. But it was rejected; eventually he succeeded on ArXiv, a rival server run by Cornell University. Last week, however, he told me this important origins modelling paper had finally been accepted by Nature Scientific Reports after “a harrowing 12 months of repeated reviews, rejections, appeals, re-reviews and finally now acceptance”.

This acceptance is one more sign of the changing political climate as suddenly it is deemed permissible to discuss the possibility that the virus causing havoc around the world might have emerged from a laboratory...

In the good old days of the “Bad Cold War” (my Sarc with a capital “S”), the Soviets tried to infiltrate and influence scientific publications pertaining to the “nuclear weapons” debate.

They focused mainly on “The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists” where some very far-left well known scientists had a lot of influence, got published attacking “nukes”, even for defense, and often put out “disinformation” about actual/real Soviet nuclear weapons research/development, hidden tests and bases, espionage, and Civil Defense.

This could include Harold Urey;, Robert Oppenheimer (the controversy over whether he was a Soviet agent has never been definitively settled - See “Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America”, John Earl Haynes, Harvey Klehr and Alexander Vassiliev, Yale Un. Press, 2009; Leo Szilard who has not been connected to Soviet spy operations to the “Spies” authors; and Linus Pauling, an identified Communist Party USA member, among others.

Prime propaganda targeted publication outlets could include “The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists”; Federation of American Scientists - newsletter “In the Public Interest”; Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR); Center for Defense Information’s “Defense Monitor” newsletter; Council for a Livable World; Arms Control Association publication “Arms Control Today”; Union of Concerned Scientists; etc. Also “Scientific American” magazine and perhaps “Science”, plus newspapers that unknowingly published Soviet “disinformation” materials.

Some information on these groups, leaders, goals, publications is found in “ The War Called Peace: The Soviet Peace Offensive”, Western Goals, 1982, foreword by Rep. John Ashbrook (R-Oh).

For the moment, I don’t have my files on many of these groups readily available so a lot of this is from memory and some of the publications listed above.

Until the 1980s, the US government did very little publication about Soviet “Disinformation” programs especially aimed at influential US and foreign publications, etc. until the House Select Committee on Intelligence and Senate counterparts held hearings and published several key volumes on “Soviet Active Measures” (1982 and their earlier, 1980, “Soviet Covert Action - Soviet Forgeries”.

Then the USIA’s “Disinformation” section led by Herbert Romerstein began the publication of a magazine “Disinformation/Disinformatzia” updating these previous hearings, and included Soviet programs to blame the US for AID, Swine flu outbreaks, and later, Ebola. (SOUND FAMILIAR re the Wuhan Flu?)

NOTE: The above needs to be carefully checked for accuracy before being used due to the fact that some of my materials, which would have been much more informative/documentation, are not in my office.

It is fascinating how established scientific journals like The Lancet, Nature, and JAMA have beclowned themselves over the past eighteen months with rushed publication of ridiculously phony HCQ studies, dubious studies that emphasize the zoonotic origin of SARS-CoV-2, expressly politicized proclamations in China’s interest, and appointments of a deeply-conflicted Peter Daszak to lead investigations into the origin of the Wuhan virus.

Maybe it’s just a coincidence that the modern industry of scientific journalism was shaped by Robert Maxwell, the father of Jeffrey Epstein’s girlfriend, consigliere, and procuress.

Back in 2017 Britain’s left-wing newspaper The Guardian published a long article about how Robert Maxwell “created” the modern scientific publishing industry titled, “Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?” The clear answer to that question is “YES”.

Good memory! The Marxist infiltration of the scientific community predates the Bolsheviks through the German Socialist and antiwar movements, which drew in some people around Einstein as well as Einstein himself; and the Fabian Society in Britain, among others. The Soviet effort to penetrate the scientific community centered around Willi Munzenberg’s front groups, scientists like Frédéric Joliot-Curie in France, American research institutes linked to the Manhattan Project and other projects (Szilard played a role in this as did Oppenheimer’s brother—Eisenhower eventually became convinced Oppenheimer was a security risk but handled it quietly because he didn’t want to give ammunition to McCarthy, relying on foolish advice from people like John McCloy who was viewed suspiciously by Army intelligence and Allen Dulles who had a vested interest in covering up the fact he had been duped by Alger Hiss & Co.), Qian Xuesen who went from a Communist cell at Caltech (linked to Frank Oppenheimer and Jack Parsons) on to the Manhattan Project, Bertrand Russell who piggybacked on Einstein’s estate, Robert Maynard Hutchins of the so-called Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, in addition to the individuals and groups you name, plus others I’d have to refresh my own memory on.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.