Was the "Ebola virus" made in a laboratory?

Help to finance On the Contrary

______

Was the "Ebola virus" made in a Lab?

Opportunistic Infections and Opportunistic Encryption

By Michael Hoffman

Copyright ©2014 •  All Rights Reserved

I have no hard evidence that the deadly Ebola virus was made in a laboratory. As a longtime student of Twilight Language however, I am concerned about two facts: 1. a rather convoluted tale of how the virus was named, and 2. what sub-rosa message (if any) the letters of the  word "Ebola" represent when re-arranged.  

The following is taken from an October 4 (2014) interview with the Flemish virologist Prof. Peter Piot, said to be the "discoverer," in 1976, of the "Ebola" virus. He is currently the director of the London School of Tropical Medicine.

In an interview with England’s Observer newspaper, Piot states that victims of the pathogen were first infected in "Yambuku and the area around it," in what had been the old Belgian Congo. (In 1976 it was called Zaire; today it is again named Congo).

He gives the following account of how the virus was named:

Observer newspaper: You were also the one who gave the virus its name. Why Ebola?

Peter Piot: "On that day our team sat together late into the night – we had also had a couple of drinks – discussing the question. We definitely didn't want to name the new pathogen 'Yambuku virus,' because that would have stigmatized the place forever. There was a map hanging on the wall and our American team leader suggested looking for the nearest river and giving the virus its name. It was the Ebola river. So by around three or four in the morning we had found a name. But the map was small and inexact. We only learned later that the nearest river was actually a different one. But Ebola is a nice name, isn't it?"

Piot and an anonymous "American team leader" supposedly named the virus after "the nearest river," Ebola, which, as it turns out, was not the nearest river. This river-naming explanation is repeated by the Establishment media without question. 

Do you believe Prof. Piot’s account of how the virus was named? While I am not accusing Piot of any wrong-doing, I don't necessarily take his statement at face value. 

In the “Revelation of the Method” era in which we find ourselves, clues to mysteries and even the mysteries themselves are often openly revealed.

"Ebola" is a strong brand name like Exxon and Kodak. Piot's enigmatic statement that "Ebola is a nice name" is bizarre; almost a hint pointing to a clue.

What makes "Ebola" a “nice name” for a killer virus?

Rearranging the letters of the word Ebola I come up with: oe lab (OE Lab).

OE is an abbreviation for different subjects and reference points, one of which is "Opportunistic Encryption (OE)," which "refers to any system that, when connecting to another system, attempts to encrypt the communications channel."

Piot goes on to state that the virus is: "One of the deadliest infectious diseases the world had ever seen...we hardly have any way to combat this virus...And it is clear that the virus is mutating...that really is the apocalyptic scenario." 

In the last few years American popular culture has been infected with "zombie" memes and themes. Some critics of this culture view the behavior of Americans as increasingly corpse-like. In the folklore of voodoo, a zombie is a corpse animated by black magic. One form of this magic involves the invocation of “words of power.” 

If there were someone or something that creates animated corpses (i.e. zombies), one problem for those zombie creators would be the question how to keep them animated. Patently, zombies are only useful if they are walking and otherwise moving their body parts for more than a brief period.

With the preceding in mind, read what Prof. Piot says concerning one possible outcome of an Ebola mutation:

"From the perspective of a virus, it isn't desirable for its host, within which the pathogen hopes to multiply, to die so quickly. It would be much better for the virus to allow us to stay alive longer...a mutation that would allow Ebola patients to live a couple of weeks longer is certainly possible and would be advantageous for the virus...that would allow Ebola patients to infect many, many more people than is currently the case."

I recognize that “Ebola” may indeed be what the media are saying it is: a naturally-occurring disease that came of out of nowhere. Or is it? It may be necessary to decrypt “the communications channel” to discover that it is a form of germ warfare both physical and mental, which lives up to its “apocalyptic” branding.

Michael Hoffman is the author of Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare. His columns are made possible by donations from truth-seekers and the purchase of his books, newsletters and recordings. 

http://revisionisthistorystore.blogspot.com/2010/03/michael-hoffmans-online-revisionist.html

***