SARS was a nonsensical farce. Diagnosed patients had ordinary seasonal flu or a collection of familiar symptoms that could result from many different causes.
But the propaganda effort was a stunning success. Populations were frightened. The need for vaccines, in the public mind, was exacerbated.
Several years ago, I spoke with a biologist about the fake bioterror scenario I've sketched out above. His comment was: "Do you think any mainstream scientist would dare go into that cordoned-off town and actually check the area for a highly toxic chemical? He'd be blackballed, exiled, and discredited in a minute. The authorities would call him crazy. And that's if he were lucky."
Such is "science," these days. A researcher can discover anything he wants to, if it's approved. Otherwise, the door is closed to him.
Face it, there are plenty of "chemical incidents" in the world. Oil spills, an exploding oil platform at sea, fracking pollution, air pollution, Roundup drenching GMO crops, factories emitting chemicals into rivers as if they were sewers, tens of thousands of giant cargo ships belching toxic sulfur compounds into the air, and so on. THERE IS A NEED FOR DISTRACTIONS AND COVER STORIES.
Enter THE VIRUS, and "epidemics." They receive wall to wall coverage on the news. Why? Why not, instead, something like THIS receiving endless coverage: "HOW 16 SHIPS CREATE AS MUCH POLLUTION AS ALL THE CARS IN THE WORLD":
21 November, 2009, author Fred Pearce, consultant to the New Scientist, writing in the Daily Mail: "There are now an estimated 100,000 ships on the seas, and the fleet is growing fast as goods are ferried in vast quantities from Asian industrial powerhouses to consumers in Europe and North America."
"The recession has barely dented the trade. This Christmas, most of our presents will have come by super-ship from the Far East; ships such as the Emma Maersk and her seven sisters Evelyn, Eugen, Estelle, Ebba, Eleonora, Elly and Edith Maersk."
"Each is a quarter of a mile long and can carry up to 14,000 full-size containers on their regular routes from China to Europe."
"But [each ship] burns marine heavy fuel, or 'bunker fuel', which leaves behind a trail of potentially lethal chemicals: sulphur and smoke that have been linked to breathing problems, inflammation, cancer and heart disease."
""the largest ships can each emit as much as 5,000 tons of sulphur in a year the same as 50 million typical cars, each emitting an average of 100 grams of sulphur a year."
"With an estimated 800 million cars driving around the planet, that means 16 super-ships can emit as much sulphur as the world fleet of cars."
Where was the wall to wall 24/7 press coverage on THAT?
And do you recall what the world was hyper-focused on, in November of 2009, when Fred Pearce wrote this article for the Daily Mail?
It was the exhausting tail-end of press coverage of the so-called Swine Flu epidemic that was supposed to kill millions.
As I've written, not only was the epidemic a dud, CBS star investigative reporter, Sharyl Attkisson, discovered the US Centers for Disease Control was hiding a mind-boggling fact from the public:
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).