tomo,
Maybe shadow bureaucracy was a misleading term, but there seem to be plenty of signs that various NGOs are unofficial branches of the bureaucracy. Their incomes are largely provided by government(s) who, in turn, give serious consideration to their pronouncements (that eating meat increases greenhouse gases, or that nuclear power is no solution to the climate crisis, etc.) I think the old saying that he who pays the piper calls the tune applies; it's all driven by the bureaucrats.

Same tale with USAID of course, but with an American accent.

Hinkley Point story was fun:
That guy's on the take.
How do you know?
He shared the same bribe I got.

I'd go for the quad-bike over the boxing tickets anyway.

Agree with you about the Americans being (sensibly) less precious about the sanctity of judges. Big item of faith that Australian reporters have drilled our politicians in is separation of powers. The stupid reporters only enforce it in one direction. Howls of outrage if a politician criticises a legal ruling, but never a peep if a judge turns activist and starts pushing policies.

Flu vaccine study: I've never been tempted to take one (on the basis that I rarely catch flu), but that study doesn't seem very compelling. Placebo controlled double-blind would make a difference, but it looks like self-selecting. Could be quite a few people with my outlook in the no-vaccine side.

tomo,
The "soothing" message that the corruption between the EU and NGOs is that it can't be pinned on one or two naughty people, so don't bother looking.

A suggestion: how about the status of NGO gets removed the moment one dollar/euro/pound/kroner/whatever of government money enters their coffers. What proportion of NGOs *aren't* part of a government shadow bureaucracy.

It doesn't add up...,
tomo and I must have been seeing too much of each other lately, because the same alternative came to mind as I read your list. The researchers might not really care about the destination, the main thing is to enjoy the journey. A good outlook for life in general, but a bit cavalier when dealing with bioweapons and the like.

I didn't think about anti-virus head-boppers, so there's still value in reading tomo's thoughts.

It has long seemed to me that governments who knew where covid came from were frightened by the potential reaction of their citizens if the truth were revealed. There is still a considerable lack of clarity as to motives of those involved in the research. Several possibilities need to be examined.

1. The research was a genuine attempt to get ahead of the game by creating new viruses and learning how to control them, and the leak was accidental if unfortunate. Call it the Fauci claim.

2. The research was actually aimed at creating bioweapons but the leak was accidental (much as say the leak of foot and mouth from the Pirbright laboratory in Surrey a few years ago).

2 The bioweapons research was being conducted by the Chinese for their own use.
i) They actually experimented with release into some isolated population but that got out of hand
ii) The release was accidental

Questions arise as to whether ultimately the targets were to be their own people, given the age selectively of mortality, or against other countries without the apparent risks of a hot war.

3. The bioweapons research was being conducted with the connivance of Fauci and maybe other high ranking US or other nationality individuals. The aim was to cull the elderly population selectively, perhaps on a genocidal global basis.

Just knowing that the virus came from the lab doesn't help decide why it was being researched or whether release was at least partly a deniable intentional act. If the release were blamed on China would populations demand retribution via war, especially if their intention was malucious? What would happen to world order if the plan was actually genocidal?

Governments were almost certainly terrified that such questions might enter public debate. I offer no fixed opinion as to where the truth lies because the evidence is well buried, probably because even if a scenario were correct the act of public examination would immediately beg questions about the other scenarios. But it really is a case for Sherlock Holnes - identifying the possibilities and trying to eliminate them. It requires a particularly level head of the kind needed for the very best intelligence assessments as well as some means of unlocking evidence.

Mailman,
I don't think that's worth much worry either. The British had the Palestine Mandate over the territory and I suspect the inhabitants were referred to as Palestinians in the '20s. Back then it would have included Jews and Muslims. While the activists make much of the evils of having a Jewish state, the great asymmetry is that there are now *no* Jews in Muslim territories, but plenty of Muslims in the Jewish territories.

tomo,
That is a good illusion. For the political propaganda applications we need look no further than than Yes Prime Minister.