- Spitfire List - https://spitfirelist.com -

FTR#1193 The Oswald Institute of Virology, Part 12: Covid-19 and The American Deep State, Part 4

You can sub­scribe to e‑mail alerts from Spitfirelist.com HERE [1].

You can sub­scribe to RSS feed from Spitfirelist.com HERE [1].

You can sub­scribe to the com­ments made on pro­grams and posts–an excel­lent source of  infor­ma­tion in, and of, itself, HERE [2].

WFMU-FM is pod­cast­ing For The Record–You can sub­scribe to the pod­cast HERE [3].

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). [4]

Note: This web­site is licensed for Fair Use under Cre­ative Com­mons.

FTR #1193 This pro­gram was record­ed in one, 60-minute seg­ment [5].

Intro­duc­tion: Embody­ing the “Deep State” [6] ide­o­log­i­cal con­ti­nu­ity [7] being per­pet­u­at­ed [8] from the “extrem­ist” Trump admin­is­tra­tion to the “respectable” [9] Biden admin­is­tra­tion, nation­al secu­ri­ty advi­sor Jake Sul­li­van now sees [10] 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  [11]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 [12] 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 [13] 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 [14], we not­ed that Fau­ci’s NIH NIAID was among the insti­tu­tions [15] that presided over Eco­Health Alliance’s fund­ing of exper­i­men­ta­tion on bat-borne coro­n­avirus­es at the Wuhan Insti­tute of Virol­o­gy.

A Chi­nese spokesper­son has hint­ed [16] 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 [11]. 

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 [17] reprov­ing­ly when com­ment­ing after Biden announced the intel­li­gence review. In Chi­na, offi­cials have point­ed to the US fail­ure [18] 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 [19].’ . . .”

Sup­ple­ment­ing the pre­vi­ous item, we recap an item [13] from pre­vi­ous pro­grams:

  1. 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 [20] by the CDC in ear­ly August of 2019 [21] on the eve of the pan­dem­ic). A com­menter also not­ed the Rocky Moun­tain lab [22] 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 [23] a por­tion of an arti­cle used in FTR#1191 [9], 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 [24] 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 [25] 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 [21] into bat-borne coro­n­avirus­es in Chi­na and at the “Oswald Insti­tute of Virol­o­gy,” [26] through var­i­ous vehi­cles [27], includ­ing and espe­cial­ly (in com­bi­na­tion with USAID) the Eco­Health Alliance [28] .

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:

  1. ” . . . . 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. . . .”
  2. ” . . . . 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. . . .”
  3. ” . . . . 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.’ . . .”
  4. ” . . . . 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 [29] 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 [30].

Ms. Haines [31] 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 [32] 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 [32] to a Don­ald Rums­feld quote reit­er­at­ed by Peter Daszak in an arti­cle [33] we ref­er­ence in FTR#1170 [27].

  1. 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.’ . . .”
  2. 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 [34] 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 [35]and 926 [36], as well as our series [37] of inter­views [38] with Jim DiEu­ge­nio, the ease with which the Agency can now dis­guise [39] 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” [6] ide­o­log­i­cal con­ti­nu­ity [7] being per­pet­u­at­ed [8] from the “extrem­ist” Trump admin­is­tra­tion to the “respectable” [9] 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  [11]we have dis­cussed for many hours.

“Senior Biden Offi­cials Find­ing that Covid-19 Lab Leak The­o­ry as Cred­i­ble as Nat­ur­al Ori­gins Expla­na­tion” by Natasha Bertrand, Pamela Brown, Katie Bo Williams and Zachary Cohen; [CNN New­source]; KTVZ.com; 7/16/2021. [10]

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 [40] 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 [41] 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 [42] 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. . . .”

“POLITI­CO-Har­vard Poll: Most Amer­i­cans Believe Covid Leaked from Lab” by Alice Miran­da Oll­stein; politico.com; 7/09/2021. [12]

Most Amer­i­cans now believe that the coro­n­avirus leaked from a lab­o­ra­to­ry in Chi­na, accord­ing to a new POLITI­CO-Har­vard poll [43] 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 [11]. 

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 [17] reprov­ing­ly when com­ment­ing after Biden announced the intel­li­gence review. In Chi­na, offi­cials have point­ed to the US fail­ure [18] 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 [19].’ . . .”

“After the lab-leak the­o­ry, US-Chi­nese rela­tions head down­hill” by Yanzhong Huang; Bul­letin of Atom­ic Sci­en­tists; July 16, 2021. [16]

. . . . 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 [17] reprov­ing­ly when com­ment­ing after Biden announced the intel­li­gence review. In Chi­na, offi­cials have point­ed to the US fail­ure [18] 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 [19].” . . .

1d. Sup­ple­ment­ing the pre­vi­ous item, we recap an item from pre­vi­ous pro­grams:

  1. 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 [20] by the CDC in ear­ly August of 2019 [21] on the eve of the pan­dem­ic). A com­menter also not­ed the Rocky Moun­tain lab [22] 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!’’ . . . .”

“To the Bat Cave: In Search of Covid’s Ori­gins, Sci­en­tists Reignite Polar­iz­ing Debate on Wuhan ‘Lab Leak’” by Arthur Allen; KHN; 05/19/2021 [13]

. . . . 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 [9], 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.

“The Last–And Only–Foreign Sci­en­tist in the Wuhan Lab Speaks Out” by Michell Fay Cortez; Bloomberg; 06/27/2021 [23]

. . . . . 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 [44] 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?”

Into the Night­mare: My Search for the Killers of John F. Kennedy and Offi­cer J.D. Tip­pit by Joseph McBride; High­tow­er Press [SC]; Copy­right 2013 by Joseph McBride; ISBN 978–1939795250; p. 188. [24]

. . . . 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. 

“To the Bat Cave: In Search of Covid’s Ori­gins, Sci­en­tists Reignite Polar­iz­ing Debate on Wuhan ‘Lab Leak’” by Arthur Allen; KHN; 05/19/2021 [13]

. . . . In 2012, Dr. Antho­ny Fau­ci, who leads NIH’s Nation­al Insti­tute of Aller­gy and Infec­tious Dis­eases, came out in sup­port [45] 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 [14], we not­ed that Fau­ci’s NIH NIAID was among the insti­tu­tions [15] that presided over Eco­Health Alliance’s fund­ing of exper­i­men­ta­tion on bat-borne coro­n­avirus­es at the Wuhan Insti­tute of Virol­o­gy.

“REVEALED: Three Wuhan lab researchers were hos­pi­tal­ized in Novem­ber 2019 and Dr Fau­ci now says he’s ‘not con­vinced’ COVID devel­oped nat­u­ral­ly and calls for a full inves­ti­ga­tion into ‘what went on in Chi­na’” by Megan Sheets and Geoff Ear­le [Deputy U.S. Polit­i­cal Edi­tor aboard Air Force One (!); Dai­ly Mail [UK]; 5/23/2021. [15]

. . . . 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 [21] into bat-borne coro­n­avirus­es in Chi­na and at the “Oswald Insti­tute of Virol­o­gy,” [26] through var­i­ous vehi­cles [27], includ­ing and espe­cial­ly (in com­bi­na­tion with USAID) the Eco­Health Alliance [28] .

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:

  1. ” . . . . 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. . . .”
  2. ” . . . . 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. . . .”
  3. ” . . . . 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.’ . . .”
  4. ” . . . . 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. . . .”

“Syn­thet­ic biol­o­gy rais­es risk of new bioweapons, US report warns” by Ian Sam­ple; The Guardian; 06/19/2018 [25]

2a. NB: The infor­ma­tion in this post, excerpt­ed from Forbes mag­a­zine [46] 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 [46]: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 [29]; 2/4/2020. [29]

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”?

Into the Night­mare: My Search for the Killers of John F. Kennedy and Offi­cer J.D. Tip­pit by Joseph McBride; High­tow­er Press [SC]; Copy­right 2013 by Joseph McBride; ISBN 978–1939795250; p. 188. [24]

. . . . 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 [47] 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 [48]

In ear­ly 2018, dur­ing a meet­ing at the World Health Orga­ni­za­tion [49] in Gene­va, a group of experts I belong to (the R&D Blue­print [50]) coined the term “Dis­ease X [51]”: 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 [30]

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.

“Intel­li­gence Chief Picks a For­mer Bush Aide to Lead Brief­in­gs for Biden” by Julian E. Barnes and Adam Gold­man;” The New York Times; 1/30/2021; p. A17 [West­ern Print Edi­tion]. [31]

 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 [32] 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 [32] to a Don­ald Rums­feld quote reit­er­at­ed by Peter Daszak in an arti­cle [33] we ref­er­ence in FTR#1170 [27].

  1. 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.’ . . .”
  2. 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’. . . .”

“‘This May Not Be The Big One’: Army Sci­en­tists Warn of Dead­lier Pan­demics to Come” by Tara Copp; Defense One; 6/21/2021. [32]

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, 2021

The 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 arti­cles

If 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. . . .”

“U.S. and Key Allies Accuse Chi­na In String of Glob­al Cyber­at­tacks” by Zolan Kan­no-Youngs and David E. Sanger; The New York Times; 7/20/2021; pp. A1-A9 [West­ern Print Edi­tion.] [34]

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.

“Wik­iLeaks Vault 7 Part 3 Reveals CIA Tool Might Mask Hacks as Russ­ian, Chi­nese, Ara­bic” by Stephanie Dube Dwil­son; Heavy; 4/3/2017. [52]

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. . . .