Дело о Прекрасных Младенцах из 2017 г

   25.06.2025


   Вот изумительная история ,которую сохранила мордокнига  при прежнем президентстве Трампа .Что-то мне напоминает

   25 июнь 2017;г.  ·
Поделился/-ась с Ваши друзья
«На тот момент данные спецслужб свидетельствовали о том, что сирийские ВВС 4 апреля взяли на прицел место проведения встречи исламистов. Для операции россияне предоставили корректируемую авиабомбу, оснащенную конвенциональной боеголовкой», - пишет журналист.
По его словам, Вашингтон знал о готовящейся Сирией операции против боевиков, так как Россия предупредила о предстоящей атаке, чтобы ЦРУ смогло отозвать своих агентов, внедренных в ряды террористов, и могущих оказаться на этой встрече.
Целью сирийского удара было двухэтажное здание, в котором должна была пройти встреча лидеров террористов. Москва уведомила об этом ЦРУ напрямую, указав цель удара в Хан-Шейхуне. В подвале этого здания, как выяснилось позднее, был склад с ядовитым хлором и средствами дезинфекции, используемыми при погребении умерших. При атаке здания снаряды попали в здание, после этого в воздух попало большое количество хлора, обрадовавшее целое облако.

По заявлению Херша, один из советников Трампа по безопасности позднее заявил: «Это не было атакой с применением химоружия. Это сказка».

  Это вызвано моим личным опытом о том,что якобы до ПАПЫ дошло,что кровь НЕВИННЫХ младенцев и не только закупалась как препарат ,якобы предохраняющий от смерти .Ею умывались шейхи .

 Совершенно невероятно

 Вирджиния Домарк
Вот теперь дело с "прекрасными младенцами " больше похоже на правду.

 The Covid ‘lab leak’ theory isn’t just a rightwing conspiracy – pretending that’s the case is bad for science

  Story by Jane Qiu

  More than five years after the Covid-19 pandemic was declared, its origins remain a subject of intense – and often acrimonious – debate among scientists and the wider public. There are two broad, competing theories. The natural-origins hypotheses suggest the pandemic began when a close relative of Sars-CoV-2 jumped from a wild animal to a human through the wildlife trade. In contrast, proponents of lab-leak theories argue that the virus emerged when Chinese scientists became infected through research-associated activities.

  In many parts of the world, including the US, France and Germany, public opinion is increasingly shifting towards lab-leak theories, despite the lack of definitive evidence. In other words, a growing number of people believe that research-associated activities are just as likely, if not more so, to have caused the pandemic.

A new documentary by the Swiss film-maker Christian Frei, titled Blame: Bats, Politics and a Planet Out of Balance, places the blame for this divide squarely on the so-called “rightwing fever swamp”, including the likes of Steve Bannon and Fox News. According to Frei, it promotes misinformation and conspiracy theories about the origins of Covid-19 for political gain, thereby confusing and misleading the public.

 Few people would claim with absolute certainty to know how the pandemic began. Both sides are gathering evidence to support their case, yet neither can fully rule out the possibility put forward by the other. This lack of clarity is not unlike what we see with most emerging diseases. For instance, we still don’t know how the devastating Ebola outbreak in west Africa began in 2014.

The core issue behind the Covid-19 origins controversy is fundamentally a crisis of trust rather than a mere information problem. It reflects longstanding public anxieties over virus research. Strong emotions such as fear and distrust play a crucial role in human cognition. Simply presenting more facts doesn’t always lead to a converging of opinions – and can sometimes even widen the divide.

Indeed, the storm of public distrust in virus research had been gathering long before the pandemic. In 2011, two research teams sparked public outcry by announcing the creation of more transmissible variants of H5N1 (bird flu). This led to a pause in US federal funding for research that makes viruses more transmissible or virulent, known as gain-of-function studies, and the establishment of a new regulatory framework.

However, a profound sense of unease persisted, driven by the perception that virologists, funding agencies and research institutions had failed to sufficiently address public concerns and anxieties, coupled with a lack of transparency and inclusiveness in decision-making. The Covid-19 origins controversy sailed straight into the middle of this brewing storm.

Did the virus originate from the kind of gain-of-function research that critics had long warned about? How might even the slightest possibility of this have influenced the behaviours of virologists, funding agencies and research institutions – prompting them to protect their reputations and preserve political backing?

  заключение

  Such errors of judgment and inappropriate behaviour, not uncommon among scientists and not limited to the Covid-19 origins debate, can affect how the public perceives scientists and the trustworthiness of their claims, and how people interpret evidence.

As the social scientist Benjamin Hurlbut of Arizona State University puts it: the problem isn’t an anti-science public, but rather a scientific community that labels a sceptical public grappling with legitimate trust issues as anti-science or conspiracy theorists.

A recent Science editorial states that “scientists should better explain the scientific process and what makes it so trustworthy”. This reflects the persistent influence of the traditional “deficit model” of science communication, which assumes that trust can be built by providing mere information. But the public’s relationship with science goes beyond understanding facts or methods.

Trust cannot be manufactured on demand. It must be cultivated over time through transparency, accountability, humility and relationship-building. Scientists must do more to earn it.

Jane Qiu is an award-winning independent science writer in Beijing. The reporting was supported by a grant from the Pulitzer Center