Official Narrative Collapse Accelerates

The New York Times (NYT) has taken a new leap into The Theatre Of The Absurd, with tonight's article, “New Data Links Pandemic’s Origins To Raccoon Dogs At Wuhan Market”.

First it was bat dung, then it was an open slaughtering animal market (or maybe it was the other way around, it's like watching the clown car veer chaotically at the circus), then it wasn't China after all because that would be Xenophobic, it's never linked to the biological weapons laboratories in Ukraine because that's waaaaay too much truth, and now it's full circle back to WooHoo, er Wuhan.

“Genetic samples from the market were recently uploaded to an international database and then removed after scientists asked China about them.”

[So around 3 years after Event 201, er after the Scamdemic was announced, out of nowhere, samples that I gather were accumulating dust on a shelf were suddenly uploaded? How does one upload samples, rather than just “test results”?]

"...the worst pandemic in a century could have been ignited by an infected animal that was being dealt through the illegal wildlife trade."

[“could have been”? Well heck, it “could have been” ignited by the aliens that are patiently waiting for their turn in the Fake Alien Invasion spotlight. Is that what “truth” has been reduced to, “could have been”s?]

“The jumbling together of genetic material from the virus and the animal does not prove that a raccoon dog itself was infected. And even if a raccoon dog had been infected, it would not be clear that the animal had spread the virus to people. Another animal could have passed the virus to people, or someone infected with the virus could have spread the virus to a raccoon dog.”

[The whole NYT (s)hitpiece is jumbled together, like a box of 64 crayons melted into one big blob. “does not prove...even if...it would not be clear...another animal could have...”. I gather it's Anything Can Happen Day at the NYT, and the utter lack of coherency is not a problem.]

“But the analysis did establish that raccoon dogs — fluffy animals that are related to foxes and are known to be able to transmit the coronavirus — deposited genetic signatures in the same place where genetic material from the virus was left, three scientists involved in the analysis said. That evidence, they said, was consistent with a scenario in which the virus had spilled into humans from a wild animal.”

[So it's possible to transmit something never proven to exist, then combining DNA from something that exists + DNA from something that doesn't exist = “consistent with a scenario”--or in other words, consistent with a made-up story.]

“At some point, those same researchers, including some affiliated with the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, posted the raw data from swabs around the market to GISAID, an international repository of genetic sequences of viruses. (Attempts to reach the Chinese scientists by phone on Thursday were not successful.”

[Nice of the NYT to finally clarify its sub-headline, albeit buried deep in the article, that data and not biological samples, was supposedly uploaded].

Perhaps the NYT will do a rewrite, or several, but the yarn they spin isn't salvageable. So why put the story out? Perhaps to waste people's time arguing over the equivalent of Grimm's Fairy Tales. Except that Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm wrote much more plausible stories.