Posted on 01/11/2022 9:13:10 AM PST by MMaschin
Here is the report created by Major Murphy detailing how the COVID-19 virus was developed. This is what Project Veritas used for their report.
Project Veritas source report from Maj Murphy
over the target?
Jack Posobiec
@JackPosobiec
BREAKING: Project Veritas’
@EricSpracklen
suspended by Twitter on day after DARPA video
**
I’m pretty sure Real Raw News is a satire site run by liberals
They are hiding the benefit of natural immunity (COVID-recovery), too.
One jab to rule them all.
“Moreover, 85% of trial participants who got the medication and were intentionally exposed to Sars-Cov2 tested positive for Covid-19 within 4-14 days of having been exposed to the virus. In short, the vaccinations seemed to protect only 15% of recipients.”
I believe if you drill down into the Pfizer trial data, you’ll find that they included the percentage of unvaccinated who contracted the virus during the trial and it was essentially identical to the number of vaccinated who contracted it during the trial. So there wasn’t even some “15% effective” rate, it was actually 0% effective, since the trial was composed of equal numbers of vaccinated and unvaccinated.
I don't think the cancel culture will be able to suppress this.
p
Nice job. The idea that SARS CoV 2 is a vaccine candidate, at least Omicron is, is very appealing.
But nobody would bite on the ivermectin/HCQ bait except a COVID dissenter.
That that would be part of what these people were up to in 2017-2018 is ludicrous.
It is. It should be banned here.
“I don’t think the cancel culture will be able to suppress this.”
Just downloaded and now sharing... Everybody should do the same. If true, someone needs to go to jail for crimes against humanity.
“Nice job. The idea that SARS CoV 2 is a vaccine candidate, at least Omicron is, is very appealing.
But nobody would bite on the ivermectin/HCQ bait except a COVID dissenter.”
Section 2: I think he is saying SARS CoV 2 was used to modify the original SAR virus to make it aerosolized. This was done to infect the cave, since you cannot catch each bat for a shot.
Needs some experts to review what is stated.
Your point 2 is very valid: about ivermectin/HCQ bait if this is a forgery is where they mess up.
The last paragraph raises a red flag for me. “..So I presumed that unclassified files would be concealed on a higher network....”
In my day: A person in his position would never pull something off a classified network like SIPRNet and assume it is unclassified.
Another point: I have never heard of SIPRNet being referred to as a higher network. It has always been SIPRNet. Maybe, the Marines are different.
Which may explain why this unsolicited report was "hidden" - DARPA assumed this guy was a crank.
My point was, it was too early to be bringing IVM/HCQ into the story.
If people capable of this level of molecular virology were concerned about the possible need to treat exposed people with antiviral medications - in the circles they work and travel in - at the time this supposedly occurred - they would NEVER NEVER NEVER have considered HCQ/IVM, any more than they would consider them now.
It just doesn’t ring true. It’s dragging in an irrelevant detail that has salience only to COVID dissenters. To scientists who are capable of this work, it would be meaningless.
“DARPA specific network is the ‘higher network’ he was referring to”
I do not know what networks DARPA has. This needs to be verified.
“intended result of the project was a vaccine that would be used to inoculate bats”
That is what I was reading on this. Guess an enhanced virus in a test bat escaped to a human starting the spread. If true, this what the human vaccine made be based on.
This does need to be verified, this is something Chinese could produce to throw the blame. Instead of China being responsible the USA would be responsible for damages because of Fauci. I would not put it pass China to do something like this.
Real Raw News is actually “Fake Raw News”. I can’t access it right now w/ my junk computer; perhaps this article is good. But when scrolling down RRN one sees some kind of disclaimer, and the guy who writes all the articles who uses a pseudonym is has no footprint on the internet at all, at least under his aka. Last I looked anyway.
Liar, as usual.
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.