Activity

Why is the official world avoiding the term “bioweapon”? It is not because they don’t want to scare the masses of people (they have been doing little else recently!) but because of insurance-related issues: mention or suggestion that there is a “weapon” involved might imply a “war”, and in most policies that eventuality, like an “act of God”, enables them not to pay you damages. Could it be (a question for I have asked Catherine on Solai) that “they” are making insurance-related arrangements to see that only the right parties will get payouts leaving everybody else in the lurch, when the “war against the invisible enemy” is formally stated to be a “war”? My high octane speculation.