 |
| Yeti transmits SARS-CoV-2 |
I. Yeti Did It
One of the tenets of propaganda is to keep repeating something until is sinks into the minds of the targeted audience.
Likewise, that is also a way to counter propaganda (keep showing evidence that the asserted propaganda is invalid).
In that regard the "Jinah did it" mantra of the tRumpists is being repeated:
"Report authors say that the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 jumped from animals sold at the market into people twice in late 2019 — but some scientists want more definitive evidence.
Scientists have released three studies that reveal intriguing new clues about how the COVID-19 pandemic started. Two of the reports trace the outbreak back to a massive market that sold live animals, among other goods, in Wuhan, China and a third suggests that the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 spilled over from animals — possibly those sold at the market — into humans at least twice in November or December 2019. Posted on 25 and 26 February, all three are preprints, and so have not been published in a peer-reviewed journal."
(Wuhan market was epicentre, studies suggest). It has been pointed out on Dredd Blog in this series and others that the home (host) microbe that replicates the SARS-CoV-2 virus has yet to be named in all types of reporting (e.g. "fingering 'Jinah' reporting", the "scientific reporting by journalists", and scientific papers in scientific journals) ... (see e.g. Quantum Biology and On The Origin Of The Home Of COVID-19, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27).
Those reporting sources generally tend to "forget" the quantum physics events that are also suspects for mutations (Quantum Biology, 2, 3).
II. On The Origin Of The Home Of COVID-19
This series hypothesizes that the SARS-CoV-2 virus descends from ancestors in the Coronaviridae 'family' (e.g. On The Origin Of The Home Of COVID-19 - 10).
That 'family' has been found in the gut microbiota of the products of the USA's "mass-production-of-animals-for-food" industry for decades.
Those products are exported to China and scores of other countries by a "too big to fail" industry (On The Origin Of The Home Of COVID-19 - 10 @ Section "III. Big Slaughter Economy").
It has political clout to the point that one of them in that industry was appointed to a cabinet position by tRump:
"The current Secretary of Agriculture is a climate change denier who
seeks to remove or weaken various regulations on corporate agriculture (Sonny Perdue).
Perdue supported the presidential order for meat production plant workers to stay put (USDA To Implement President Trump’s Executive Order On Meat and Poultry Processors)."
(On The Origin Of The Home Of COVID-19 - 10). China (where the Yeti's home is in Wuhan) imports vast quantities of meats from the USA:
"Smithfield Foods was the first company to warn in April that the coronavirus pandemic was pushing the United States “perilously close to the edge in terms of our meat supply.” Tyson Foods also sounded the alarm, saying that “millions of pounds of meat will disappear” from the nation’s supply chain as plants were being forced to close because of outbreaks.
That same month, Smithfield sent China 9,170 tons of pork, one of its highest monthly export totals to that market in the past three years. Tyson exported 1,289 tons of pork to China, the most since January 2017.
In all, a record amount of the pork produced in the United States — 129,000 tons — was exported to China in April.
The data compiled by Panjiva, the supply chain research unit of S&P Global Market Intelligence, and the Department of Agriculture is potentially embarrassing for an industry that trumpeted its role in feeding the American public to argue to keep plants operating during the pandemic. Although some meat companies say much of their exported pork was produced before the outbreak, even previously processed meat could have stocked shelves in April and May.
After slaughterhouses in several states were closed when thousands of workers tested positive and dozens died, the industry publicly lobbied the Trump administration to intervene with state and local officials or risk major meat shortages across American grocery stores. Indeed, some retailers put limits on the amount of meat customers could buy, and the fast-food chain Wendy’s, at one point, ran low on hamburger.
But the meatpackers, including Smithfield, which China’s largest pork producer bought in 2013, did not emphasize, at least not publicly, that keeping the plants open would also protect their long-term investments in exporting to a country that is vital to their growth."
(NY Times). The regulations mutated quickly in a reactionary flux evidently related to the December 2019 Covid-19 outbreak:
"Exporters are advised that importers must have a valid import license to allow entry of meat and poultry, and meat and poultry products. Exporters should work closely with their importer to assure that the proper licenses have been obtained. FSIS personnel do not need a copy of the permit license, and do not need to verify if there is a valid import license in order to issue export certificates.
All export applications for meat and poultry exports must be entered and processed through PHIS beginning Monday January 27, 2020. PHIS will require the export applicant to enter the port of entry, slaughter establishment number, processing establishment number, and seal and container numbers before the application can be approved.
U.S. facilities approved by FSIS for export to China must be listed on the GACC website before slaughtering and processing beef, pork, or poultry products for export to China. U.S. facilities can only export to China beef, pork, or poultry that are slaughtered and further processed after the facility has been added to the GACC website. Any establishment (i.e., slaughter, processing, cold storage) not currently listed on GACC’s eligible establishment list that is interested in exporting eligible beef, pork and poultry products to China must submit FSIS Form 9080-3 through PHIS. FSIS will provide GACC an updated establishment list monthly."
...
"The following is a list of products that are not eligible for importation into China, including when incorporated into further-processed products:
- Mechanically separated beef and distal ileum of cattle of any age.
- Sheep/lamb meat.
- Sheep/lamb casings other than those described in A.
- Feathers, heads, intestines, and tails of poultry that contain the uropygial gland.
- Wild boar meat.
- Beef and pork thyroid glands, adrenal glands, tonsils, major lymph nodes exposed during slaughter and cutting, laryngeal muscle tissue, lungs, pancreas, spleen, gallbladder, uterus, hair, hoofs, and lactating mammary glands.
- Horns from cattle.
- Brain, skull, eyes, trigeminal ganglia, spinal cord, dorsal root ganglia, and vertebral column (excluding the vertebrae of the tail, the transverse processes of the thoracic and lumbar vertebrae, and the wings of the sacrum), from cattle 30 months of age and older.
- Poultry meat and poultry meat products exported from a facility in the areas listed below, or derived from birds processed or slaughtered in the areas listed below, unless heat processed according to the parameters in Poultry Processing Requirements. Poultry and poultry products may not transit zones currently under restrictions unless sealed. [*non-heat processed product from non-restricted States may not be exported from a Storage facility in a restricted State, regardless of the date of production]*
- The State of Delaware on or after February 22, 2022.*
- The State of Indiana on or after February 8, 2022.
- The State of Kentucky on or after February 12, 2022.
- The State of South Carolina before August 5, 2020.
Note to Exporters: Exporters are advised to work with the importers to ensure products intended for export are not restricted by China’s requirements."
(USDA, emphasis added). Those restrictions were soon lifted:
"The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) export requirements for The People’s Republic of China were revised. Effective March 17, 2020, the restrictions on beef and beef products have been removed. Therefore, participation in the USDA Export Verification (EV) Program for The People’s Republic of China is no longer required to export beef and beef products to China."
(USDA, emphasis added). SARS-CoV-2 and food were also associated in other places:
SAO PAULO (Reuters) - Brazil’s largest meatpackers JBS SA and BRF SA said on Wednesday that the coronavirus outbreak could help boost Chinese demand for their products, as it fans concerns about domestic food safety in China.
However, one executive told Reuters that sales could be held back by aggressive demands for discounts from Chinese buyers.
BRF Chief Executive Officer Lorival Luz said on the sidelines of a conference in Sao Paulo that the epidemic could boost sales of foreign frozen and processed meat products in China “for food security reasons.”
“Remember the virus supposedly started at a market in China where live animals were sold,” Luz said. “All BRF frozen and processed meat products go through food security checks in Brazil before being exported globally.”
(China's coronavirus could boost Brazil meat exports, CEOs say, emphasis added; cf. Animals Farmed: live exports risk of disease, China goes big on pork, and EU meat tax, Live export: animals at risk in giant global industry).
III. Closing Comments
It is inexcusable for big pharma, big oil, and big bull to intimidate scientists to the point that they do not present anything higher than fourth grade material to the public.
It is circumstantial evidence of the Mercer Effect:
"I suspect the existence of what I call the `John Mercer effect'. Mercer (1978) suggested that global warming from burning of fossil fuels could lead to disastrous disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet, with a sea level rise of several meters worldwide. This was during the era when global warming was beginning to get attention from the United States Department of Energy and other science agencies. I noticed that scientists who disputed Mercer, suggesting that his paper was alarmist, were treated as being more authoritative.
It was not obvious who was right on the science, but it seemed to me, and I believe to most scientists, that the scientists preaching caution and downplaying the dangers of climate change fared better in receipt of research funding. Drawing attention to the dangers of global warming may or may not have helped increase funding for relevant scientific areas, but it surely did not help individuals like Mercer who stuck their heads out. I could vouch for that from my own experience. After I published a paper (Hansen et al 1981) that described likely climate effects of fossil fuel use, the Department of Energy reversed a decision to fund our research, specifically highlighting and criticizing aspects of that paper at a workshop in Coolfont, West Virginia and in publication (MacCracken 1983).
I believe there is a pressure on scientists to be conservative. Papers are accepted for publication more readily if they do not push too far and are larded with caveats. Caveats are essential to science, being born in skepticism, which is essential to the process of investigation and verification. But there is a question of degree. A tendency for `gradualism' as new evidence comes to light may be ill-suited for communication, when an issue with a short time fuse is concerned."
(The Warming Science Commentariat - 12, quoting Dr. James Hansen). Those inhibited by the Mercer effect don't want us to know (Miriam-Webster).
The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series is here.
Check out this video @4:00-4:15:
"...and here is how it works ... a person buys meat and takes it home but does not prepare it properly ... they eat it and get the animal virus ..."
