Earl(ier) COVID-19 Outbreaks on Military Vessels
The Biowarfare Chronicles, Part 7
Check here for more on the Biowarfare Chronicles. Join the RTE Locals community here where members of the community often find studies and reports such as the ones I focus on in this article.
According to the official narrative, the first COVID-19 case among an American was confirmed on January 20, 2020. But it has been known by the U.S. military (and others) for a long time that members of the Navy showed antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 infection earlier than that. And that these earliest cases involve vessels traveling between the U.S. and Asia should raise an eyebrow.
First, I point to Bill Rice's excellent article laying out the story, which breaks down a study (Payne et al, 2020) that should have received far more attention before now.
In fact, Rice details multiple other naval vessels with antibody and PCR testing showing substantial spread of infection from 2020, and even one French vessel. I might note at this point that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was built by the French INSERM, and the key government contractor Unissant has a French name. I don't know the level of importance of these connections, but they strike me as potentially interesting data consistent with collaboration.
Rice notes that out of the hundreds or thousands of sailors infected early during the plandemonium, none under the age of 40 died from COVID-19 (and just one older, who might have died due to complications from COVID). That's pretty good evidence that authorities had the data to recognize that COVID-19 was not broadly dangerous to young people in a way that justified the levels of panic and ahistorical measures applied to large populations in 2020 and beyond.
Note also that a substantial number of service men tested using PCR and antibody tests showed positivity to one, but not both tests, driving another nail into the notion that such tests have extremely high accuracy rates. Were SARS-CoV-2 a novel virus that just emerged, and sensitivity and specificity rates for these tests as high as 99% as if often claimed, we should see almost nobody testing positive for exactly one of the two tests. Either that, or the AB-positive-only population would suggest even earlier exposure to SARS-CoV-2!
Consistency with Bioweapons Hypotheses
It is noteworthy that the AB-positivity rate was significantly higher than the PCR-positivity rate. I lean toward this as an indication that some of the sailors had already been exposed to SARS-CoV-2. After all, it has historically been the Navy that has been documented exposing large scale populations to infectious agents. And given that the U.S. Navy includes perhaps more than 90% of the world's ocean firepower, it is the U.S. Navy that has the unique ability to go wherever there is water and deliver bioweapons.
And in this case, we could be talking about low-grade bioweapons, such as infectious clones that would not result in much prolonged spread or mortality on their own. Such engineered virions could be deposited anywhere, though it might be the case that people would only die if antibiotics and antivirals were withheld, or deadly hospital protocols applied. This would allow for a controlled "pandemic" that did not really threaten leadership or oligarchs and selected elites. And those of us who experienced COVID-19 illness at one point or another would have a hard time distinguishing controlled bioweapons releases from a more ordinary viral swarm.
"After all, it has historically been the Navy that has been documented exposing large scale populations to infectious agents. And given that the U.S. Navy includes perhaps more than 90% of the world's ocean firepower, it is the U.S. Navy that has the unique ability to go wherever there is water and deliver bioweapons."
Ah ha! In my time off-grid I've followed the trail of bread crumbs (RTE post links) to see that you wrote about Operation Sea Spray.
Yup yup! Serratia marcescens can be a nosocomial pathogen. And of course it can cause UTIs, sepsis, etc.
Interestingly, it’s also a key component of Coley's toxins, which Dr. Coley came to understand from German research in the late 1800s could be used to amplify the potential of killed Strep A strains to cure cancer.
One of the saddest things about the “no virus” crowd is that they are so reactively focused on reassuring people about the importance of lifestyle and diet to health that they refuse to understand that co-evolving with pathogens for millions of years has also provided certain benefits, such as the control of cancer. This crowd generally believes that only “good germs” or probiotics are important in this regard, whereas “bad germs” don’t exist — and indeed, that seems to be their main emotional motivation behind reassuring everyone that viruses don’t exist.
The “isolation” argument seems inconsequential to me since my PhD studies were focused on obligate parasites that are as yet impossible to grow in culture, just as viruses are asserted to be. Additionally, it’s also at times difficult to get bacteria to spread between organisms, too, but that doesn’t stop us from believing in bacteria just because we can’t get them to spread in every attempted instance.
What’s sadder is that they think that convincing everyone of “no virus” is crucial to exposing the plandemonium fraud and bringing those responsible to justice.
But what if a germ can be both “good” and “bad” depending on context?
In fact, the assumption that an organism is ONLY good or bad is merely the same arrogance that the US government displayed when it (supposedly) assumed S. marcescens was harmless before they sprayed it.
I don’t think the US government did actually think that, though, even though the article you cited makes it sound like it was totally innocent. No. The pathogenic potential of S. marcescens was well known long before 1950. I think as you did, that they believed the harm would be relatively low, which might allow for a situation that would herd people to certain solutions (or be useful in other ways if it was undetected).
Over the years I’ve struggled to understand at times where you’re going with certain concepts or assertions but I also haven’t had the attention span or time to follow everything you write in detail. Additionally I learned that you’ve been right more than once due to your childhood trauma of being used by cults associated with the regime, so I know that you know in your bones how completely wacko the regime people can be.
I’m interested to see where you go with your “human cloning" argument.
I was also severely gaslighted in my childhood about my identity, which led to me being highly skeptical of just about everything, including assertions of a highly personal nature, without sufficient proof.
However, my “knowing” about the depths of the evils of the regime didn’t grow until my 20s-40s when I had personal experiences that amply demonstrated that those in power either don’t really care about individual deaths from ordinary disease, or the prisoner’s dilemmas that result from governance and institutions are so massive that the distinction doesn’t really matter.
These experiences led to constant shifts and upgrades in my worldview, from generally conservative Christian in my early 20s to atheist-agnostic libertarian anarchist in my mid 40s.
I can’t stand mobs and cults and I see all religion and politics, including local politics, as mob/cult behavior.
I do see that people are easily hypnotized and controlled, but I also think the power mongers understand this instinctual mob behavior and are keen to use it to their desired ends… but I’ve been slow to see the grand scheme that you see, or what the specific desired outcomes are, or the sheer depth of the brainwashing operations going on.
This could be because of my training in evolution, as I see an even longer time-frame, and how the emergence of larger and larger societies enables the psychopaths to game the system and rise to the top in ways that are highly unnatural to our species… but I also see that these people in charge aren’t smart enough to keep governments and institutions from collapsing, time and time again, over time immemorial.
At this juncture a passage from one of my favorite books seems apropos (from Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States by anarchist James C. Scott, pp. 209, 211):
“”Why deplore “collapse,” when the situation it depicts is most often the disaggregation of a complex, fragile, and typically oppressive state into smaller, decentralized fragments? One simple and not entirely superficial reason why collapse is deplored is that it deprives all those scholars and professionals whose mission it has been to document ancient civilizations of the raw materials they require. There are fewer important digs for archaeologists, fewer records and texts for historians, and fewer trinkets—large and small—to fill museum exhibits. There are splendid and instructive documentaries on archaic Greece, Old Kingdom Egypt, and mid-third millennium Uruk, but one will search in vain for a portrayal of the obscure periods that followed them: the “Dark Age” of Greece, the “first Intermediate Period” of Egypt, and the decline of Uruk under the Akkadian Empire. Yet there is a strong case to be made that such “vacant” periods represented a bolt for freedom by many state subjects and an improvement in human welfare…
Above all, the well-being of a population must never be confounded with the power of a court or state center. It is not uncommon for the subjects of early states to leave both agriculture and urban centers to evade taxes, conscription, epidemics, and oppression. From one perspective they may be seen to have regressed to more rudimentary forms of subsistence, such as foraging or pastoralism. But from another, and I believe broader, perspective, they may well have avoided labor and grain taxes, escaped an epidemic, traded an oppressive serfdom for greater freedom and physical mobility, and perhaps avoided death in combat. The abandonment of the state may, in such cases, be experienced as an emancipation.”
From James C. Scott, Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States, pp. 209, 211
(I'm going to reproduce this not as a note but as a post on my page this time!)
Matthew, Thank you very much for raising the profile of my latest article on the largely-ignored Roosevelt antibody study. You make some great points I'm going to further develop in future articles.
One oddity I found in my research was that sailors kept testing positive on a PCR tests for weeks and months after crew had left the ship and been isolated or quarantined. Either the isolation and mitigation responses didn't work or those PCR tests were giving a lot of false positives.
I also agree with you that many sailors might have already had natural immunity by the time they boarded the ship in mid to early January 2020.
It's bizarre that no reporters picked up on the fact that at least two antibody-positive Roosevelt crew members reported Covid symptoms 98 and 99 days before getting their antibody tests. This is of course evidence of "early spread," but it's also evidence the mainstream press will not touch this story and do any real investigative journalism.
Also, I didn't go into it except with some text in a caption, but there was an "outbreak" of norovirus on the ship in early February 2020. This is the same time schools all across America were closing because of "flu outbreaks" - as I documented in another story. I think there were far more school closings in the flu season of 2019-2020 than the previous flu seasons, perhaps even 2017-2018, which is said to be the worst flu season in 40 years.
Schools are also "congregate" settings, where viruses would rapidly spread.
I think the evidence is everywhere that this virus was spreading months before the "experts" said it was ... and public health officials and CDC personnel had to know this, but have never acknowledged this.