Discover more from Courageous Discourse™ with Dr. Peter McCullough & John Leake
Like the Curious Bride in "Bluebeard"
Investigating the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex leads inexorably to a place of horror.
By JOHN LEAKE
Recently I’ve been thinking about the old French folktale, Bluebeard. For readers who are unfamiliar with the story, Bluebeard is a nobleman who has been married six previous times to young women who have all mysteriously vanished. Wikipedia provides a succinct account of what happens when he marries a seventh time.
[A neighbor’s youngest daughter who decides to marry him] goes to live with him in his rich and luxurious palace in the countryside, away from her family.
Bluebeard announces that he must leave for the country and gives the palace keys to his wife. She is able to open any room with them, each of which contain some of his riches, except for an underground chamber that he strictly forbids her to enter lest she suffer his wrath. He then goes away, leaves the palace, and the keys in her hands. She invites her sister, Anne, and her friends and cousins over for a party. However, she is eventually overcome with the desire to see what the secret room holds, and she sneaks away from the party and ventures into it.
She immediately discovers that the room is flooded with blood and the murdered corpses of Bluebeard's previous six wives hanging on hooks from the walls. Horrified, she drops the key in the blood and flees the room.
I’ve long been intrigued by Bluebeard as an archetypal expression of the horror we may experience when we become curious to know what is going on behind the closed doors of power. Bluebeard is a powerful nobleman who is apparently beyond the law. His young bride is an ordinary girl who becomes implacably curious to see all of the rooms of his castle, which seem to symbolize the rooms of his soul.
I spent this evening carefully reviewing declassified e-mails authored by the eminent Scripps Institute virologist, Kristian Andersen. The first one was dated January 31, 2020 and addressed to Anthony Fauci:
The most noteworthy sentences in the email are:
The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome [0.1%] so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially look engineered. … I should mention that after discussions earlier today, Eddie, Bob, Mike [Edward Holmes, Robert Garry, Michael Farzan] and myself all find the genome [of SARS-CoV-2] inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.
3.5 days later—shortly after a phone conference with Dr. Fauci and others—Dr. Andersen completely changed his tune. By then, the decision had been to submit a letter to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine regarding the origin of SARS-CoV-2.
Please note the final sentence:
If one of the main purposes of this document is to counter those fringe theories [about the virus being engineered] I think it’s very important that we do so strongly and in plain language (“consistent with” [natural evolution] is a favorite of mine when talking to scientists, but not when talking to the public—especially conspiracy theorists).
After these e-mails were released to the public in response to a FOIA request, Dr. Andersen claimed that he learned revelatory things about the novel virus in the 3.5 days following his initial e-mail to Fauci, and that these revelations caused his perfect volte-face. However, it seems to me that his explanation doesn’t really account for his strident, unequivocal assertions in his second e-mail.
Many of the recipients’ names in his February 4, 2020 have been redacted, but there many apart from the two men who received his January 31 e-mail (Dr. Fauci and Jeremy Farrar). His first e-mail was a matter of strictly confidential counsel. His second pertains to an open letter—about to be sent to a large institution with many members—declaring that anyone who even suspects the novel virus to have emerged from a lab is a crackpot conspiracy theorist.
What on earth could inspire a virologist to adopt a posture of such Machiavellian duplicity about an infectious agent that—as he well knew—was about to inflict a catastrophe on all of mankind? He had to have known that such pronouncements—coming from a virologist of his eminence—would likely retard a thorough and impartial investigation of the virus’s origin.
Contemplating this question this evening, I thought Bluebeard’s young bride when she discovers the chamber of horrors in her husband’s castle. I suspect that Tess Lawrie felt the same way in her encounter with Dr. Andrew Hill, which she recounted in the short documentary film Dear Andy.
Author’s Note: If you found this post interesting and informative, please consider becoming a paid subscriber to our Substack. For just $5.00 per month, you can really help to support Dr. McCullough and me in our ongoing efforts to discover and report the truth about our confusing world.