What you are seeing me do in the case of Ukraine is what I always try to: first principles thinking.
Allow me to summarize: 🧵
First of all, I don't have a position on the matter at all. It still appears too complex for me. I feel badly for the Ukrainian people suffering what they are, of course, as I feel for the Yemenis and Uighurs.
Second, the revelation on biolabs taught me to not ignore something, just because Putin said it.
Third, I still find all the belly aching about "literal neonazis" to be overplayed. War is terrible, and people will flock to whoever demonstrates power. But I don't expect the 4th Reich to have Kiev as its capital. Maybe I'm wrong on this.
Fourth, if I know anything at all, I know that we're looking at sophisticated propaganda campaigns from both sides. I find for instance, the Paris video produced by Ukrainians reprehensible psyops. Understandable, but also something we should not accept.
All that said, please understand that I'm still trying to figure out what can be known about the situation, thinking out loud as I go. If enough facts click together into a larger narrative that makes sense, I'll share that. Until then, remember:
While everyone has their eyes on Ukraine, there's a comprehensive control system being erected all around us.
Let's count the ways. 🧵
First, there is the treaty being worked on, on the level of the WHO. The details have not been worked out yet, but the Director General of the WHO is pushing for a binding treaty with the power to apply sanctions if 2/3rds of the members agree.
Denison’s lab and its collaborators at the University of North Carolina (Baric) conducted the preclinical work showing that remdesivir could stop coronaviruses from replicating.
In Feb 2020, he was pretty clear that it should be given early.
Later in the Q&A he said about potential trials: "if we design it to just treat those who are in the ICU, on a ventilator, then we might as well not design the trial".
So Denison, in the presence of Ralf Baric, said it clearly: remdesivir should be given early or not at all. And yet we designed trials to give it late. Exactly how they knew it couldn't work. Why?
More on the Remdesivir Riddle here:
Daszak interview with the intercept, un-paywalled link: archive.ph/4Kb55
Haven't read it yet, will probably turn this into a 🧵 as I go.
Ooh! He throws Baric under the bus, ever so gently.
Remember when Daszak emailed Baric and told him "I spoke with Linfa [Wang] last night"... "we'll then put it out in a way that doesn't link it back to our collaboration"
So, what are these Ukrainian biolabs? They appear to be run by a company called Metabiota.
The linked article has a *lot* of information I'd prefer to confirm more tightly first, but time is of the essence, so decide for yourselves: armswatch.com/the-pentagon-b…
So how did they do in Sierra Leone during the Ebola outbreak? CBS says.. not well. cbsnews.com/news/american-…
From lab leak to early treatment, and from transmission to lockdowns, the Lancet was always there to make some absolutely understandable errors, but always in the same direction.
1. Delayed letting the world know about human-to-human transmission.
Which is basically Kendi's agenda of an unelected body that can oversee every other institution and veto anything it determines will have unequal outcomes.