You can subscribe to e‑mail alerts from Spitfirelist.com HERE.
You can subscribe to RSS feed from Spitfirelist.com HERE.
You can subscribe to the comments made on programs and posts–an excellent source of information in, and of, itself, HERE.
WFMU-FM is podcasting For The Record–You can subscribe to the podcast HERE.
Mr. Emory’s entire life’s work is available on a 32GB flash drive, available for a contribution of $65.00 or more (to KFJC). Click Here to obtain Dave’s 40+ years’ work, complete through Fall of 2020 (through FTR #1156).
Note: This website is licensed for Fair Use under Creative Commons.
FTR #1193 This program was recorded in one, 60-minute segment.
Introduction: Embodying the “Deep State” ideological continuity being perpetuated from the “extremist” Trump administration to the “respectable” Biden administration, national security advisor Jake Sullivan now sees the “Lab Leak Theory” of Covid’s origins as “credible” as natural origins.
Sullivan is a national security advisor and has no scientific credentials in relevant disciplines.
Sullivan has intoned: ” . . . . National security adviser Jake Sullivan warned Beijing of potential consequences last month, telling Fox News that China will face ‘isolation in the international community’ if it does not cooperate with probes moving forward. . . .”
Isolating China is the biggest strategic goal of this “op,” as we have noted repeatedly since February of 2020.
Note that journalists covering the issue are not permitting discussion of the possibility of the virus’s deliberate creation and dissemination as part of a U.S. covert operation, the 800-pound gorilla in the room we have discussed for many hours.
As famed journalist Edward R. Murrow observed decades ago: “A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
Buttressing Murrow’s observation, 52% of Americans in a recent poll believed the “Lab Leak Theory,” largely because of the Biden administration’s renewed focus on that possibility.
” . . . . U.S. adults were almost twice as likely to say the virus was the result of a lab leak in China than human contact with an infected animal, which many scientists believe is the most likely scenario. . . . [Harvard Professor Robert] Blendon said Democrats likely became more receptive to the idea after President Joe Biden’s recent order that intelligence agencies investigate the virus’ origin and comments from Anthony Fauci, the White House chief medical officer, that it’s worth digging into. . . .”
Anthony Fauci’s expression of doubt about the natural origin theory of the virus is said to have influenced the increase in public acceptability of the “Lab-Leak Theory.”
Fauci himself set forth the “lab leak” scenario in his 2012 endorsement of a moratorium on gain-of-function manipulations, setting the intellectual stage for the “gaming” of just such a scenario.
In FTR#1187, we noted that Fauci’s NIH NIAID was among the institutions that presided over EcoHealth Alliance’s funding of experimentation on bat-borne coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
A Chinese spokesperson has hinted at the origins of the virus being found in U.S. biological warfare laboratories.
Again, the American and world wide press has failed to address the 800-pound gorilla in the room.
By the same token and as part of that failure, the closure of USAMRIID at Ft. Detrick on the eve of the pandemic (early August of 2019.)
“. . . . ‘What secrets are hidden in the suspicion-shrouded Fort Detrick and the over 200 US bio-labs all over the world?’ Zhao asked reprovingly when commenting after Biden announced the intelligence review. In China, officials have pointed to the US failure to publicize information about or accept an investigation of its own biodefense program—something that the government spokesperson cited as an example of ‘having a guilty conscience.’ . . .”
Supplementing the previous item, we recap an item from previous programs:
- The U.S. would not be acceptable to such a proposition, if the Chinese demanded access to Ft. Detrick (part of which was shut down by the CDC in early August of 2019 on the eve of the pandemic). A commenter also noted the Rocky Mountain lab in his analysis, which we noted was one of the areas where Willy Burgdorfer appears to have worked on the development of Lyme Disease. ” . . . . If a disease had emerged from the U.S. and the Chinese blamed the Pentagon and demanded access to the data, ‘what would we say?’ [Dr. Gerald] Keusch asked. ‘Would we throw out the red carpet, ‘Come on over to Fort Detrick and the Rocky Mountain Lab?’ We’d have done exactly what the Chinese did, which is say, ‘Screw you!’’ . . . .”
Reprising a portion of an article used in FTR#1191, we note Danielle Anderson’s experience of having been violently excoriated for exposing false information posted about the pandemic online.
The “last–and only” foreign researcher at the WIV, Ms. Anderson has shared the vitriol that many virologists have experienced in the wake of the pandemic.
Are we seeing a manifestation of what might be called “anti-virologist” McCarthyism, not unlike the “Who Lost China” crusade in the 1950’s?
Are virologists being intimidated into supporting–or at least not refuting–the “Lab Leak Theory?”
Bear in mind that Donald Trump’s attorney and political mentor was the late Roy Cohn, who was Senator Joe McCarthy’s top hatchet man.
In addition, we note that intellectual curiosity has been dampened by the financial gain that derives from government funding.
“. . . . One of the many prescient observations in President Eisenhower’s 1961 farewell speech warning about the dangers of the ‘military-industrial complex’ was that ‘a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. . . The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.’ . . . .”
We wonder if this, paired with the intimidation of virologists by the right-wing, is a factor driving acceptance of “The Lab-Leak Theory?”
Next, we once again reprise a study released by US National Academy of Sciences at the request of the Department of Defense about the threats of synthetic biology concluded that the techniques to tweak and weaponize viruses from known catalogs of viral sequences is very feasible and relatively easy to do.
Note that the Pentagon has funded research into bat-borne coronaviruses in China and at the “Oswald Institute of Virology,” through various vehicles, including and especially (in combination with USAID) the EcoHealth Alliance .
That research has led to the publication of research papers including some featuring the genomes of bat-borne coronaviruses.
Once those papers are published, the viruses can be “printed out” at will, either as direct copies or as mutated viruses.
Key points of discussion:
- ” . . . . Advances in the area mean that scientists now have the capability to recreate dangerous viruses from scratch; make harmful bacteria more deadly; and modify common microbes so that they churn out lethal toxins once they enter the body. . . .”
- ” . . . . In the report, the scientists describe how synthetic biology, which gives researchers precision tools to manipulate living organisms, ‘enhances and expands’ opportunities to create bioweapons. . . .”
- ” . . . . Today, the genetic code of almost any mammalian virus can be found online and synthesized. ‘The technology to do this is available now,’ said Imperiale. ‘It requires some expertise, but it’s something that’s relatively easy to do, and that is why it tops the list.’ . . .”
- ” . . . . Other fairly simple procedures can be used to tweak the genes of dangerous bacteria and make them resistant to antibiotics, so that people infected with them would be untreatable. . . .”
Recapping discussion from programs in early February of 2020, we note Event 201, one of whose key participants was former Deputy Director of Central Intelligence Avril Haines.
Ms. Haines is now Biden’s Director of National Intelligence and is presiding over Delaware Joe’s investigation into the pandemic’s origins.
It is straining credibility to see this concatenation as “coincidence.”
” . . . . a novel coronavirus pandemic preparedness exercise October 18, 2019, in New York called ‘Event 201.‘46 The simulation predicted a global death toll of 65 million people within a span of 18 months.47 As reported by Forbes December 12, 2019:48 ‘The experts ran through a carefully designed, detailed simulation of a new (fictional) viral illness called CAPS or coronavirus acute pulmonary syndrome. This was modeled after previous epidemics like SARS and MERS.’ . . . .”
A chilling article may forecast the potential deployment of even deadlier pandemics, as operational disguise for biological warfare and genocide.
Note that the sub-heading in the conclusion referring to the lab-leak hypothesis is followed by no mention of the lab-leak hypothesis, per se.
Why not? We feel there may be a chilling subtext to this.
Is this a between-the-lines reference to impending biological warfare development and the deployment of another pandemic?
Note that the Army scientist quoted in the conclusion offers an observation that is very close to a Donald Rumsfeld quote reiterated by Peter Daszak in an article we reference in FTR#1170.
- From the Defense One article: ” . . . . ‘We don’t want to just treat what’s in front of us now,’ [Dr. Dimitra] Stratis-Cullum said. ‘I think we really need to be resilient. From an Army perspective. We need to be agile, we need to adapt to the threat that we don’t know that’s coming.’ . . .”
- From the article from Independent Science News: ” . . . . ‘There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns — there are things we don’t know we don’t know.’ (This Rumsfeld quote is in fact from a news conference) . . . . In the subsequent online discussion, Daszak emphasized the parallels between his own crusade and Rumsfeld’s, since, according to Daszak, the ‘potential for unknown attacks’ is ‘the same for viruses’. . . .”
Something to keep in mind–with Avril Haines in charge of the intelligence community under Biden–the latest salvo in the anti-China propaganda barrage should be evaluated against the disclosure that CIA disguises cyberweaponry as being Chinese in origin and nature.
” . . . . The Biden administration for the first time on Monday accused the Chinese government of breaching Microsoft email systems used by many of the world’s largest companies, governments and military contractors, as the United States rallied a broad group of allies to condemn Beijing for cyberattacks around the world. . . .”
Note in that context, that we have learned that the CIA’s hacking tools are specifically crafted to mask CIA authorship of the attacks. Most significantly, for our purposes, is the fact that the Agency’s hacking tools are engineered in such a way as to permit the authors of the event to represent themselves as Chinese, among other nationalities.
This is of paramount significance in evaluating the increasingly neo-McCarthyite New Cold War propaganda about “Russian interference” in the U.S. election and now China’s alleged hacks.
With the CIA’s disturbing track record of distortions and out right lies, such as the “Painting of Oswald Red” discussed in–among other programs–FTR #‘s 925 and 926, as well as our series of interviews with Jim DiEugenio, the ease with which the Agency can now disguise its cyberattacks as being of a different national origin, combined with the prevalence of online espionage might be said to leave us all in “Oswald World!”
” . . . . These tools could make it more difficult for anti-virus companies and forensic investigators to attribute hacks to the CIA. Could this call the source of previous hacks into question? It appears that yes, this might be used to disguise the CIA’s own hacks to appear as if they were Russian, Chinese, or from specific other countries. . . .”
1a. Embodying the “Deep State” ideological continuity being perpetuated from the “extremist” Trump administration to the “respectable” Biden administration, national security advisor Jake Sullivan now sees the “Lab Leak Theory” of Covid’s origins as “credible” as natural origins.
Sullivan is a national security advisor and has no scientific credentials in relevant disciplines.
Sullivan has intoned: ” . . . . National security adviser Jake Sullivan warned Beijing of potential consequences last month, telling Fox News that China will face ‘isolation in the international community’ if it does not cooperate with probes moving forward. . . .”
Isolating China is the biggest strategic goal of this “op,” as we have noted repeatedly since February of 2020.
Note that journalists covering the issue are not permitting discussion of the possibility of the virus’s deliberate creation and dissemination as part of a U.S. covert operation, the 800-pound gorilla in the room we have discussed for many hours.
Senior Biden administration officials overseeing an intelligence review into the origins of the coronavirus now believe the theory that the virus accidentally escaped from a lab in Wuhan is at least as credible as the possibility that it emerged naturally in the wild — a dramatic shift from a year ago, when Democrats publicly downplayed the so-called lab leak theory.
Still, more than halfway into President Joe Biden’s renewed 90-day push to find answers, the intelligence community remains firmly divided over whether the virus leaked from the Wuhan lab or jumped naturally from animals to humans in the wild, multiple sources familiar with the probe told CNN.
Little new evidence has emerged to move the needle in one direction or another, these people said. But the fact that the lab leak theory is being seriously considered by top Biden officials is noteworthy and comes amid a growing openness to the idea even though most scientists who study coronaviruses and who have investigated the origins of the pandemic say the evidence strongly supports a natural origin.
Current intelligence reinforces the belief that the virus most likely originated naturally, from animal-human contact and was not deliberately engineered, the sources said. But that does not preclude the possibility that the virus was the result of an accidental leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where coronavirus research was being conducted on bats — although many scientists familiar with the research say such a leak is unlikely. . . .
. . . . As more US officials have come to see the lab leak theory as credible, their tone toward Beijing has also become firmer. Days after Biden announced the renewed probe, White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters that the administration had been pressuring Chinese officials through diplomatic channels to allow international investigators full access to the data China collected in the early days of the outbreak. . . .
. . . . As the review has progressed, however, the White House has begun making public threats as well.
National security adviser Jake Sullivan warned Beijing of potential consequences last month, telling Fox News that China will face “isolation in the international community” if it does not cooperate with probes moving forward. He told CNN’s State of the Union that same day that “if it turns out that China refuses to live up to its international obligations, we will have to consider our responses at that point.”
A source familiar with the ongoing review said that several top administration officials, including Sullivan, view the accidental lab leak theory as equally plausible to the natural origins theory. Intelligence agencies that were skeptical of the lab leak theory a year ago, like the CIA, also now view it as a credible line of inquiry, this person said.
“There has been a shift in their point of view,” this person added. . . .
1b. As famed journalist Edward R. Murrow observed decades ago: “A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
Buttressing Murrow’s observation, 52% of Americans in a recent poll believed the “Lab Leak Theory,” largely because of the Biden administration’s renewed focus on that possibility.
” . . . . U.S. adults were almost twice as likely to say the virus was the result of a lab leak in China than human contact with an infected animal, which many scientists believe is the most likely scenario. . . . [Harvard Professor Robert] Blendon said Democrats likely became more receptive to the idea after President Joe Biden’s recent order that intelligence agencies investigate the virus’ origin and comments from Anthony Fauci, the White House chief medical officer, that it’s worth digging into. . . .”
Most Americans now believe that the coronavirus leaked from a laboratory in China, according to a new POLITICO-Harvard poll that found a dramatic shift in public perception of Covid-19’s origins over the last year.
U.S. adults were almost twice as likely to say the virus was the result of a lab leak in China than human contact with an infected animal, which many scientists believe is the most likely scenario. The poll’s findings show what was once a fringe belief held mainly among some on the political right has become accepted by most Republicans, as well as most Democrats, amid heightened scrutiny of the lab leak theory. . . .
. . . . [Harvard Professor Robert] Blendon said Democrats likely became more receptive to the idea after President Joe Biden’s recent order that intelligence agencies investigate the virus’ origin and comments from Anthony Fauci, the White House chief medical officer, that it’s worth digging into. Fauci and other scientists have cautioned the answer may never be known definitively.
“That the president thought there was enough evidence to ask intelligence agencies to put together a report sends a signal to Democrats that there might be something there,” Blendon said.
1c. A Chinese spokesperson has hinted at the origins of the virus being found in U.S. biological warfare laboratories.
Again, the American and world wide press has failed to address the 800-pound gorilla in the room.
By the same token and as part of that failure, the closure of USAMRIID at Ft. Detrick on the eve of the pandemic (early August of 2019.)
“. . . . ‘What secrets are hidden in the suspicion-shrouded Fort Detrick and the over 200 US bio-labs all over the world?’ Zhao asked reprovingly when commenting after Biden announced the intelligence review. In China, officials have pointed to the US failure to publicize information about or accept an investigation of its own biodefense program—something that the government spokesperson cited as an example of ‘having a guilty conscience.’ . . .”
. . . . The Wuhan Institute of Virology now sits at the forefront of the US-China row on the origins of a once-in-a-century pandemic. From Former President Donald Trump, to Chinese government spokesperson Zhao Lijian, and on to others, combative personalities with stark political agendas have helped draw both countries into a downward spiral of tit-for-tat accusations about who is to blame.
A call for a science-based investigation into the origins of the crises has largely been overshadowed by a geopolitical fight that threatens not only efforts to understand how the pandemic began, but also international efforts to cooperate on biosecurity, public health, and more. . . .
. . . . “What secrets are hidden in the suspicion-shrouded Fort Detrick and the over 200 US bio-labs all over the world?” Zhao asked reprovingly when commenting after Biden announced the intelligence review. In China, officials have pointed to the US failure to publicize information about or accept an investigation of its own biodefense program—something that the government spokesperson cited as an example of “having a guilty conscience.” . . .
1d. Supplementing the previous item, we recap an item from previous programs:
- The U.S. would not be acceptable to such a proposition, if the Chinese demanded access to Ft. Detrick (part of which was shut down by the CDC in early August of 2019 on the eve of the pandemic). A commenter also noted the Rocky Mountain lab in his analysis, which we noted was one of the areas where Willy Burgdorfer appears to have worked on the development of Lyme Disease. ” . . . . If a disease had emerged from the U.S. and the Chinese blamed the Pentagon and demanded access to the data, ‘what would we say?’ [Dr. Gerald] Keusch asked. ‘Would we throw out the red carpet, ‘Come on over to Fort Detrick and the Rocky Mountain Lab?’ We’d have done exactly what the Chinese did, which is say, ‘Screw you!’’ . . . .”
. . . . Scaling the Wall of Secrecy
U.S.-China tensions will make it very difficult to conclude any such study, scientists on both sides of the issue suggest. With their anti-China rhetoric, Trump and his aides “could not have made it more difficult to get cooperation,” said Dr. Gerald Keusch, associate director of the National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratory Institute at Boston University. If a disease had emerged from the U.S. and the Chinese blamed the Pentagon and demanded access to the data, “what would we say?” Keusch asked. “Would we throw out the red carpet, ‘Come on over to Fort Detrick and the Rocky Mountain Lab?’ We’d have done exactly what the Chinese did, which is say, ‘Screw you!’”
1e. Reprising a portion of an article used in FTR#1191, we note Danielle Anderson’s experience of having been violently excoriated for exposing false information posted about the pandemic online.
The “last–and only” foreign researcher at the WIV, Ms. Anderson has shared the vitriol that many virologists have experienced in the wake of the pandemic.
Are we seeing a manifestation of what might be called “anti-virologist” McCarthyism, not unlike the “Who Lost China” crusade in the 1950’s?
Are virologists being intimidated into supporting–or at least not refuting–the “Lab Leak Theory?”
Bear in mind that Donald Trump’s attorney and political mentor was the late Roy Cohn, who was Senator Joe McCarthy’s top hatchet man.
. . . . . Despite this, Anderson does think an investigation is needed to nail down the virus’s origin once and for all. She’s dumbfounded by the portrayal of the lab by some media outside China, and the toxic attacks on scientists that have ensued.
One of a dozen experts appointed to an international taskforce in November to study the origins of the virus, Anderson hasn’t sought public attention, especially since being targeted by U.S. extremists in early 2020 after she exposed false information about the pandemic posted online. The vitriol that ensued prompted her to file a police report. The threats of violence many coronavirus scientists have experienced over the past 18 months have made them hesitant to speak out because of the risk that their words will be misconstrued.
1f. In addition, we note that intellectual curiosity has been dampened by the financial gain that derives from government funding.
“. . . . One of the many prescient observations in President Eisenhower’s 1961 farewell speech warning about the dangers of the ‘military-industrial complex’ was that ‘a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. . . The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.’ . . . .”
We wonder if this, paired with the intimidation of virologists by the right-wing, is a factor driving acceptance of “The Lab-Leak Theory?”
. . . . One of the many prescient observations in President Eisenhower’s 1961 farewell speech warning about the dangers of the “military-industrial complex” was that “a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. . . The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.” . . . .
1g. Anthony Fauci’s expression of doubt about the natural origin theory of the virus is said to have influenced the increase in public acceptability of the “Lab-Leak Theory.”
Fauci himself set forth the “lab leak” scenario in his 2012 endorsement of a moratorium on gain-of-function manipulations, setting the intellectual stage for the “gaming” of just such a scenario.
. . . . In 2012, Dr. Anthony Fauci, who leads NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, came out in support of a moratorium on such research, posing a hypothetical scenario involving a poorly trained scientist in a poorly regulated lab: “In an unlikely but conceivable turn of events, what if that scientist becomes infected with the virus, which leads to an outbreak and ultimately triggers a pandemic?” Fauci wrote.
In 2017, the federal government lifted its pause on such experiments but has since required some be approved by a federal board. . . .
1h. In FTR#1187, we noted that Fauci’s NIH NIAID was among the institutions that presided over EcoHealth Alliance’s funding of experimentation on bat-borne coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
. . . . In 2014, NIH approved a grant to EcoHealth Alliance designated for research into ‘Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence.’ The project involved collaborating with researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology to study coronaviruses in bats and the risk of potential transfer to humans. . . .
1i. A study released by US National Academy of Sciences at the request of the Department of Defense about the threats of synthetic biology concluded that the techniques to tweak and weaponize viruses from known catalogs of viral sequences is very feasible and relatively easy to do.
Note that the Pentagon has funded research into bat-borne coronaviruses in China and at the “Oswald Institute of Virology,” through various vehicles, including and especially (in combination with USAID) the EcoHealth Alliance .
That research has led to the publication of research papers including some featuring the genomes of bat-borne coronaviruses.
Once those papers are published, the viruses can be “printed out” at will, either as direct copies or as mutated viruses.
Key points of discussion:
- ” . . . . Advances in the area mean that scientists now have the capability to recreate dangerous viruses from scratch; make harmful bacteria more deadly; and modify common microbes so that they churn out lethal toxins once they enter the body. . . .”
- ” . . . . In the report, the scientists describe how synthetic biology, which gives researchers precision tools to manipulate living organisms, ‘enhances and expands’ opportunities to create bioweapons. . . .”
- ” . . . . Today, the genetic code of almost any mammalian virus can be found online and synthesized. ‘The technology to do this is available now,’ said Imperiale. ‘It requires some expertise, but it’s something that’s relatively easy to do, and that is why it tops the list.’ . . .”
- ” . . . . Other fairly simple procedures can be used to tweak the genes of dangerous bacteria and make them resistant to antibiotics, so that people infected with them would be untreatable. . . .”
2a. NB: The information in this post, excerpted from Forbes magazine is accurate. This does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of any other of Mercola’s positions on the pandemic.
Recapping discussion from programs in early February of 2020, we note Event 201, one of whose key participants was former Deputy Director of Central Intelligence Avril Haines.
Ms. Haines is now Biden’s Director of National Intelligence and is presiding over Delaware Joe’s investigation into the pandemic’s origins.
” . . . . a novel coronavirus pandemic preparedness exercise October 18, 2019, in New York called ‘Event 201.‘46 The simulation predicted a global death toll of 65 million people within a span of 18 months.47 As reported by Forbes December 12, 2019:48 ‘The experts ran through a carefully designed, detailed simulation of a new (fictional) viral illness called CAPS or coronavirus acute pulmonary syndrome. This was modeled after previous epidemics like SARS and MERS.’ . . . .”
“Novel Coronavirus–The Latest Pandemic Scare” by Dr. Joseph Mercola; Mercola; 2/4/2020.
2b. One of the factors allowing the seeds of evil to grow has been the government financing of much of U.S. political life.
Intellectual curiosity has been dampened by financial gain.
Coupled with intimidation of virologists by the right-wing, we wonder if this “pas de deux” is helping to drive public perception toward the “Lab-Leak Theory”?
. . . . One of the many prescient observations in President Eisenhower’s 1961 farewell speech warning about the dangers of the “military-industrial complex” was that “a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. . . The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.” . . . .
3. Peter Daszak voiced the (self-fulfilling?) opinion/prophecy that Covid-19 is indeed “Disease X.”
The cognitive template for Covid-19 was partially set by Peter Daszak, who has widely disseminated the supposition that “Disease X” would overtake the world.
It is our view that the efforts of Daszak, the Event 201 players and others could be compared to the propagandizing that elements of the WACCFL and the intelligence community, as well as elements of the U.S. far right did in the run-up to the JFK assassination.
That propagandizing was a key element in the “Painting of Oswald Red.”
“We Knew Disease X Was Coming. It’s Here Now.” by Peter Daszak; The New York Times; 02/27/2020
In early 2018, during a meeting at the World Health Organization in Geneva, a group of experts I belong to (the R&D Blueprint) coined the term “Disease X”: We were referring to the next pandemic, which would be caused by an unknown, novel pathogen that hadn’t yet entered the human population. As the world stands today on the edge of the pandemic precipice, it’s worth taking a moment to consider whether Covid-19 is the disease our group was warning about.
Disease X, we said back then, would likely result from a virus originating in animals and would emerge somewhere on the planet where economic development drives people and wildlife together. Disease X would probably be confused with other diseases early in the outbreak and would spread quickly and silently; exploiting networks of human travel and trade, it would reach multiple countries and thwart containment. Disease X would have a mortality rate higher than a seasonal flu but would spread as easily as the flu. It would shake financial markets even before it achieved pandemic status.
In a nutshell, Covid-19 is Disease X. . . .
3a. Event 201–which began on the same day as the Military World Games in Wuhan–helped to set the PR template for Covid-19.
Avril Haines (see below) was a key participant in the event.
“Event 201 Players: Avril Haines;” centerforhealthsecurity.org
Avril Haines is a Senior Research Scholar at Columbia University; a Senior Fellow at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory; a member of the National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service; and a principal at WestExec Advisors.
During the last administration, Dr. Haines served as Assistant to the President and Principal Deputy National Security Advisor. She also served as the Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and Legal Adviser to the National Security Council.
Dr. Haines received her bachelor’s degree in physics from the University of Chicago and a law degree from Georgetown University Law Center. She serves on a number of boards and advisory groups, including the Nuclear Threat Initiative’s Bio Advisory Group, the Board of Trustees for the Vodafone Foundation, and the Refugees International Advisory Council.
3b. A key participant in Even 201, former Deputy CIA Director Avril Haines is Biden’s director of national intelligence.
The new director of national intelligence [Avril Haines] has been reshaping the office, installing a new official to lead President Biden’s daily briefings by tapping a veteran of the last Bush administration, according to current and former government officials. . . .
4. A chilling article may forecast the potential deployment of even deadlier pandemics, as operational disguise for biological warfare and genocide.
Note that the sub-heading in the conclusion referring to the lab-leak hypothesis is followed by no mention of the lab-leak hypothesis, per se.
Why not? We feel there may be a chilling subtext to this.
Is this a between-the-lines reference to impending biological warfare development and the deployment of another pandemic?
Note that the Army scientist quoted in the conclusion offers an observation that is very close to a Donald Rumsfeld quote reiterated by Peter Daszak in an article we reference in FTR#1170.
- From the Defense One article: ” . . . . ‘We don’t want to just treat what’s in front of us now,’ [Dr. Dimitra] Stratis-Cullum said. ‘I think we really need to be resilient. From an Army perspective. We need to be agile, we need to adapt to the threat that we don’t know that’s coming.’ . . .”
- From the article from Independent Science News: ” . . . . ‘There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns — there are things we don’t know we don’t know.’ (This Rumsfeld quote is in fact from a news conference) . . . . In the subsequent online discussion, Daszak emphasized the parallels between his own crusade and Rumsfeld’s, since, according to Daszak, the ‘potential for unknown attacks’ is ‘the same for viruses’. . . .”
The service is closing in on a “pan-coronavirus” vaccine and on synthetic antibodies that could protect a population before spread. But that may not be enough.
June 21, 2021The U.S. Army scientists who have spent the last year finding vaccines and therapeutics to stop COVID-19 cautioned that the nation remains vulnerable to a viral pandemic—one that could be even deadlier than the current one.
Since the earliest days of the COVID-19 pandemic, the emerging infectious diseases branch at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research has worked to develop a vaccine that would help patients fend off not only the original virus strain but also new variants.
In initial tests on monkeys, horses, hamsters, and sharks, Walter Reed’s spike ferritin nanoparticle, or SpFN, vaccine has shown effectiveness against not only the current SARS-CoV‑2 variants, but also against the completely different SARS-CoV‑1 outbreak that occurred in 2003, the head of Walter Reed’s infectious diseases branch said at the Defense One 2021 Tech Summit Monday.
“If we try to chase the viruses after they emerge, we’re always going to be behind,” said Dr. Kayvon Modjarrad, director of Walter Reed’s infectious diseases branch. “So the approach that we took with our vaccine, the nanoparticle approach, in which we can place parts of different coronaviruses on to the same vaccine to educate the immune system about different coronaviruses all at the same time.”
Walter Reed’s vaccine is now in the early stages of human trials.
“And we see the same thing over and over again: a very potent immune response and a very broad immune response,” Modjarrad said. “So if we show even a fraction of what we’re seeing in our animal studies in humans, then we’ll have a very good confidence that this is going to be a very good option as a next-generation vaccine.”
Dr. Dimitra Stratis-Cullum, director of the Army’s transformational synthetic-biology for military environments program at the U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command, Army Research Laboratory, was tasked early on to assist the Houston Methodist Research Institute develop blood plasma as a COVID-19 therapeutic. She’s now working on developing a large dataset, a library of COVID strains that would help the lab then create and distribute synthetic antibodies to preemptively prevent a spread.
Related articlesIf the Lab-Leak Theory Is Right, What’s Next?
Creating a pan-coronavirus vaccine—or synthesizing antibodies slightly ahead of a known outbreak still isn’t enough, the scientists cautioned.
“We don’t want to just treat what’s in front of us now,” Stratis-Cullum said. “I think we really need to be resilient. From an Army perspective. We need to be agile, we need to adapt to the threat that we don’t know that’s coming.”
The likelihood this generation will see another pandemic during its lifetime “is high,” Modjarrad said. “We have seen the acceleration of these pathogens and the epidemics that they precipitate. And it may not be a coronavirus, this may not be the big one. There may be something that’s more transmissible and more deadly ahead of us.”
“We have to think more broadly, not just about COVID-19, not just about coronavirus, but all emerging infectious threats coming into the future,” he said.
5. Something to keep in mind–with Avril Haines in charge of the intelligence community under Biden, the latest salvo in the anti-China propaganda barrage should be evaluated against the disclosure that CIA disguises cyberweaponry as being Chinese in origin and nature.
” . . . . The Biden administration for the first time on Monday accused the Chinese government of breaching Microsoft email systems used by many of the world’s largest companies, governments and military contractors, as the United States rallied a broad group of allies to condemn Beijing for cyberattacks around the world. . . .”
The Biden administration for the first time on Monday accused the Chinese government of breaching Microsoft email systems used by many of the world’s largest companies, governments and military contractors, as the United States rallied a broad group of allies to condemn Beijing for cyberattacks around the world. . . .
6. As we have noted in many previous broadcasts and posts, cyber attacks are easily disguised.
Perpetrating a “cyber false flag” operation is disturbingly easy to do. In a world where the verifiably false and physically impossible “controlled demolition”/Truther nonsense has gained traction, cyber false flag ops are all the more threatening and sinister.
Note that we have learned that the CIA’s hacking tools are specifically crafted to mask CIA authorship of the attacks. Most significantly, for our purposes, is the fact that the Agency’s hacking tools are engineered in such a way as to permit the authors of the event to represent themselves as Chinese, among other nationalities.
This is of paramount significance in evaluating the increasingly neo-McCarthyite New Cold War propaganda about alleged Chinese hacks or “Russian interference” in the U.S. election.
This morning, WikiLeaks released part 3 of its Vault 7 series, called Marble. Marble reveals CIA source code files along with decoy languages that might disguise viruses, trojans, and hacking attacks. These tools could make it more difficult for anti-virus companies and forensic investigators to attribute hacks to the CIA. Could this call the source of previous hacks into question? It appears that yes, this might be used to disguise the CIA’s own hacks to appear as if they were Russian, Chinese, or from specific other countries. These tools were in use in 2016, WikiLeaks reported.
It’s not known exactly how this Marble tool was actually used. However, according to WikiLeaks, the tool could make it more difficult for investigators and anti-virus companies to attribute viruses and other hacking tools to the CIA. Test examples weren’t just in English, but also Russian, Chinese, Korean, Arabic, and Farsi. This might allow a malware creator to not only look like they were speaking in Russian or Chinese, rather than in English, but to also look like they tried to hide that they were not speaking English, according to WikiLeaks. This might also hide fake error messages or be used for other purposes. . . .
The Political Implications of the UFO Phenomenon and the "ET" Myth
How close did we come to a new COVID lab leak nightmare scenario? That’s just one of the many questions raised by a story about rather disturbing study just carried out by virologist at the University of Boston.
The study involved taking the spike protein from the Omicron variant and splicing it into the backbone of the original SARS-CoV‑2 strain. This new chimeric strain was then tested on mice as well as human cell tissue cultures like lung tissue. 0 mice were killed by Omicron while 80% of the mice died from the chimeric strain. It’s the kind of finding that sure sounds like they conducted a “gain-of-function” experiment on the Omicron strain. But as we’re going to see, it’s not quite that clear cut and that ambiguity gets at one of the big stories here: the definition of “gain-of-function” is surprisingly nebulous. Experiments involving the creation of chimeric viruses with great pathogenicity can apparently avoid the “gain-of-function” (GoF) label as long as the researchers weren’t expecting the experiment to product enhanced pathogenicity.
We’re also learning that, while the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) funded this experiment, the NIAID is claiming that it wasn’t fully informed about the nature of these experiments in the grant proposal. Things would have gone different had the agency been properly informed, we are assured. It’s the kind of explanation that raises obvious questions about what other non-approved experiments of this nature might be taking place under the purview of NIAID funding.
But there’s another complication here in terms of defining this as a GoF experiment: While the chimeric virus had an 80% kill rate, that’s less than the 100% kill rate found by the original SARS-CoV‑2 strain that was also tested on these mice. Also, it turns out these mice are specifically selected for the experiment for their susceptibility to experiencing severe COVID. So while the 100% and 80% kill rates are certainly alarming to hear, what’s really more remarkable is the 0% Omicron kill rate. It’s an indication of how much less severe the Omicron strain really is compared to the original strain. At least when it comes to mice bred to die from COVID. It’s also another indication that COVID really might be heading down the path of becoming another common cold coronavirus.
And then there’s another very interesting aspect tangentially related to this story: As we’re going to see in the two article excerpts below — one from the Daily Mail and one from STAT News — both article refer to studies done over the past year examining the genetics of the viral strains found in the earliest patients in Wuhan and from viruses found at wet markets in Wuhan. And both article specifically refer a study published back in February 2022 — pre-published without peer review — that makes a remarkable claim: there were two separate zoonotic jumps from animals-to-human in Wuhan at two separate wet markets. The first jump happened on November 19, 2019, and the second jump at a different market in early December. So why are they arriving at this two-jump conclusion? Because that’s how they can best make sense of the genetic diversity of these early strains.
There’s another very interesting aspect to that study published in Feb making the ‘two jumps’ claim: that study includes a number of the same authors behind the paper published back in March of 2020 — “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV‑2” — that asserted that the virus jumped from humans to animals and couldn’t possible have come from a lab. Recall how the authors of that paper were Kristian G. Andersen, Andrew Rambaut, W. Ian Lipkin, Edward C. Holmes & Robert F. Garry. All but Lipkin are co-authors on this Feb 2022 paper asserting two separate zoonotic events. So it appears that the same team of virologist that was trying to put a lid on any discussion of a lab leak back in early months of the pandemic is now behind the ‘two jumps’ theory. A theory that has apparently just been kind of accepted as the ‘best guess’ for the origin of the virus at this point. Keep in mind that their findings of genetically diverse early strains should make the theories about infected military athletes at the Wuhan Military World Games in October of 2019 a much more intriguing theory.
That’s all part of the context of this troubling story coming out of Boston University: at the same time we’re learning that “gain-of-function” experiments on COVID were apparently being conducted with NIAID funding, but not NIAID approval, we’re also finding that the same team that was dismissing any possibility of a lab leak has now put out a ‘two zoonotic jumps’ theory that’s just kind of being accepted as the best guess for the origins of the virus, precluding any real investigations of either lab leaks or earlier strains circulated outside of China.
Ok, first, here’s a DailyMail piece on the Boston University study and all the alarm it raised. Not just layman alarm but expert alarm too. Because it sure looks like they carried out COVID GoF experiments while claiming they didn’t actually do that:
“Researchers attached Omicron’s spike to the original wildtype strain that first emerged in Wuhan at the start of the pandemic.”
Talk about a love-child from hell: the Omicron spike protein was spliced into the original SARS-CoV‑2. And compared to Omicron, it behaved like a virus from hell. Omicron killed non of the mice while this chimera had an 80% fatality rate. It was an experiment that had the stated aim of studying the Omicron variant, it appears to have resulted in a far more lethal Omicron variant. And yet somehow the creation of this chimera wasn’t deemed a ‘gain-of-function’ experiment or enhanced potential pandemic pathogen (ePPP) research by the Boston University team. That’s one part of what makes this research controversial. As we’re going to see, there’s enough wiggle room in how these kinds of experiments are defined that the difference between getting the ‘gain-of-function’ designation or not comes down to whether or not researchers could ‘reasonably expect’ the modified viruses they’re planning on making to have enhance pathogenicity. Something the researchers at Boston University are saying they didn’t expect...even though it looks like that’s what happened and was a very plausible outcome:
Dead mice weren’t the only metric of this new chimeric strain’s enhance pathogenicity. They found the chimera produced 5 fold more viral particles at 48 hours after infection than the Omicron strain. Now, what isn’t stated in this article, but the nis that the results, it’s worth noting that the original SARS-CoV‑2 and chimeric strains both appeared to dramatic reduce their viral loads after 96 hours, which the researchers attributed to the “cytopathic effect” (the effects of the virus on the cell). The Omicron strain didn’t induce this cytopathic effect (hence all the mice surviving), but also kept up a higher viral load after 96 hours. So the original and chimeric strains which are highly lethal to the mice produced a huge initial surge of the virus to the point of warping the cells where they couldn’t even product more virus. Non-lethal Omicron kept the viral load at a level low enough not to kill the cellular host. You can see why Omicron won the evolutionary race. And potentially a very good sign that COVID is heading the way of the common cold:
So are mice just super vulnerable to the original SARS-CoV‑2? No, just these specific strains of mice that are particularly susceptible for severe COVID. It’s a reflection of how relatively mild Omicron really is compared to the original. Even the mice bred to die from COVID all survived Omicron. And there’s something about the mutations on Omicron that aren’t found on the spike-protein that are playing a role in that different behavior. Omicron ‘escapes the immune system’ more effectively which presumably helps avoid the cytokine storms that characterize severe COVID, but as these experiments demonstrate, Omicron also just has a lower viral load in the human cells tested compared to the earlier version. We learned all sorts of interesting things about Omicron in this experiment. That’s not in doubt. What’s in doubt is whether or not it was worth the risk. A risk the high probability of lab-origins for SARS-CoV‑2 should underscore:
And then the Daily Mail article gets to this interesting observation about the state of the research into the origins of the virus: The article refers to the findings of studies into the orgins and notes a study that purportedly pinpointed the first animal-to-human infection taking place in Wuhan on November 19, 2019. Yes, the first animal-to-human infection according to this group. Because they concluded there was not one, but two separate zoonotic events, at two different Wuhan wet markets in November and December of 2019. That’s how this group of researchers made sense of the data they collected based on the genetic samples of teh virus collected from the earliest patients. And as we’re going to see, the following article below also cites this same study as an example of evidence against the lab-leak hypothesis. So this double-zoonotic event hypothesis appears to be the current leading hypothesis for a natural animal-to-human event:
Next, here’s a STAT News article on the Boston University study that gives us a better sense of what kind of oversight there was for this project. The university is insisting that they had an appropriate review. But the NIAID, which funded the project, is asserting that they were never informed about the nature of this work. In other words, it may not have been as easy for this team to insist this wasn’t “gain-of-function” work had the NIAID actually known what they were planning and conducted its own review of the work before it got started. But then again, maybe they would have gotten approval. We don’t really know. What we do know is that the researchers and the university are insisting that this wasn’t “gain-of-function” research because they didn’t have any reasonable expectation that they were increasing the pathogenicity of the virus. And that gets at one of the big aspects of this story: the line between “gain-of-function” and “not gain-of-function” appears to be whether or not the researchers can have a “reasonable expectation” that their work was going to enhance the pathogencity of virus. And as this story demonstrates, that’s a pretty big loophole:
“The email, from Rachel Lapal Cavallario, associate vice president for public relations and social media, said that the work was not, as claimed, gain of function research, a term that refers to manipulation of pathogens to make them more dangerous. “In fact, this research made the virus [replication] less dangerous,” the email stated, adding that other research groups have conducted similar work.”
Not only was the research not gain-of-function, but it actually made the viral less dangerous. That’s the spin from the Boston University public relations department. It not clear what exactly they’re referring to in claiming that the work made the virus less dangerous, but that’s the remarkable claim we’re hearing. Maybe they’re referring to making the original SARS-CoV‑2 strain less lethal? That ambiguity in whether or not something can be defined as gain-of-function or “ePPP” is a big part of the story here. In this case, they’re combining the more lethal ancestral strain with the less lethal Omicron strain. So is that new chimera a weaker version of the ancestral strain (not GoF) or a stronger version of the Omicron strain (GoF)? A lot of this seems to come down word games:
At the same time, the NIAID, which funded the work, is defending itself with the assertion that it had no idea these kinds of chimeric viruses were being created as part of this project. It’s the kind of story that raises obvious questions about how many other undeclared projects of this nature might be operating with NIAID financing:
Finally, we once again find a link to that study that concluded that not one but two zoonotic events took place at two separate Wuhan wet markets in November and December of 2019, and the suggestion that this study represents “a lot of evidence” that the virus emerged from those wet markets. As we’re going to see in the following article, two of those studies were put out by an international team that includes a number of the same authors behind the paper published back in March of 2020 — “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV‑2” — that asserted that the virus jumped from humans to animals and couldn’t possible have come from a lab. Recall how the authors of that paper were Kristian G. Andersen, Andrew Rambaut, W. Ian Lipkin, Edward C. Holmes & Robert F. Garry. All but Lipkin are co-authors on this Feb 2022 paper asserting two separate zoonotic events. So the “two zoonotic events” scenario is being pushed by the same “it couldn’t possibly have come from a lab” network of virologists:
Ok, so now let’s take a look at that Feb 2022 article in Science describing three studies that came out over the last year exploring the genetics of the earliest viral samples obtained at the Wuhan wet markets. Two of those studies were put out by the international team that includes Anderson, Rambout, Holmes, and Garry. The other study was put out by a largely Chinese team. And, surprise, they arrive at completely opposite conclusions. The international team examined the viral sequences found at multiple Wuhan wet markets and concluded that two separate zoonotic events took place in November and December of 2019. That’s how they explained the relatively different viral sequences found during this period when the virus had allegedly just jumped to humans. It jumped twice. It’s the kind of finding that makes all the claims about the virus already being present in military athletes during the Military World Games in Wuhan in October of 2019 all the more intriguing. Existing strains quietly circulating the world would be another obvious possible explanation for the multiple strains found at those wet markets.
The Chinese team arrived at a very different conclusion: the virus samples found at the wet markets didn’t originate with the animals. It originated with the humans. And possible originated from outside the country. These are the studies that are today being referred to in news reports as the research community’s best guess at the origins of the virus:
“The studies examine different aspects of the viral spread at the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan, China, the city where the first cases were detected. Two international efforts build the case that SARS-CoV‑2 jumped to people from infected animals—a zoonotic leap—at the market, likely twice, at the end of 2019. A third, largely Chinese effort details early signs of the coronavirus in environmental and animal samples from the market but suggests the virus was imported there, perhaps from outside the country—a conclusion the University of Arizona’s Michael Worobey, an evolutionary biologist who is a corresponding author of the two international studies, calls “a huge disconnect.””
As this Science article from back in February describes, there have been multiple studies over the past year with intriguing findings regarding the origins of the virus. Two of those studies were put out by an international team that includes a number of the same authors behind the paper published back in March of 2020 — “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV‑2” — that asserted that the virus jumped from humans to animals and couldn’t possible have come from a lab. Recall how the authors of that paper were Kristian G. Andersen, Andrew Rambaut, W. Ian Lipkin, Edward C. Holmes & Robert F. Garry. All but Lipkin are co-authors on this Feb 2022 paper asserting two separate zoonotic events. So the “two zoonotic events” scenario is being pushed by the same “it couldn’t possibly have come from a lab” network of virologists. And note how, as back in March 2020, the ‘definitive’ conclusions this group arrives at aren’t seen as so definitive by other experts:
Then there’s the other paper put out over the past year examining the genetics of the earliest viral samples found around the Wuhan wet market. That paper, conducted by a mostly Chinese team, arrived at the conclusion that there were no zoonotic events and the virus may have even been introduced from outside the country:
As we can see, these two research teams arrived at two very different conclusions. Normally, that would call for a redoubling of efforts to get to the bottom of the situation. This obviously isn’t a normal situation. So we’ll see if the efforts to investigate the origins of the virus are sustained. But at some point it seems likely that the world is just going to accept whatever the latest conclusions is put forward by the scientific community. And as of now, it appears that the ‘two zoonotic jump’ theory — a theory that sure looks like a highly motivated conclusions put forward by the original group of virologists who didn’t want the world to consider the possibility of a lab leak at all — has managed to capture that ‘best guess’ status in the eyes of the international community. Which, of course, is also the kind of conclusion that should reduce lab leak concerns and make it a lot easier for labs everyone to carry out ‘not actually GoF’ experiments in the future.