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 Late Fall of 2021 (through FTR #1215).
“Political language…is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appewarance of solidity to pure wind.”
— George Orwell, 1946
EVERYTHING MR. EMORY HAS BEEN SAYING ABOUT THE UKRAINE WAR IS ENCAPSULATED IN THIS VIDEO FROM UKRAINE 24
ANOTHER REVEALING VIDEO FROM UKRAINE 24
Mr. Emory has launched a new Patreon site. Visit at: Patreon.com/DaveEmory
FTR#1254 This program was recorded in one, 60-minute segment.
FTR#1255 This program was recorded in one, 60-minute segment.
Introduction: By way of introduction, we present a link to a short Twitter video by Professor Jeffrey Sachs.
This program further develops the consortium of EcoHealth Alliance, Metabiota, In-Q-Tel and Munich Reinsurance.
Taken together, a number of points of information highlighted here go a long way to proving the legal concept of “consciousness of guilt,” the guilt being intent to create the pandemic and knowledge that such a thing was done.
(The information presented here should be taken in conjunction with information presented in–among other programs–FTR#‘s 1251, 1252 and 1253. In turn, those programs are developments of documentation presented in our many programs about Covid-19.)
Of paramount importance in evaluating the material here and in the other broadcasts about Covid-19 is the development of synthetic biology and the manner in which it enables biological warfare: “ . . . 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 synthesised. ‘The technology to do this is available now,’ said [Michael] Imperiale. “It requires some expertise, but it’s something that’s relatively easy to do, and that is why it tops the list. . . .”
Going a long way toward proving consciousness of guilt are:
- The behavior of Peter Daszak and colleagues in “gaming” the Lancet statement on the “natural” origin of the coronavirus (Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance–funded and advised by the national security establishment–is implicated in the creation of the SARS COV‑2.)
- The reaction of government officials to Trump administration figures into the origins of the virus, advising would be investigators that such inquiries would open a “can of worms,” or “a Pandora’s Box” because it would should light on U.S. funding of the projects.
- Metabiota–partnered with EcoHealth Alliance–was networked with In-Q-Tel (the intelligence community’s venture capital arm) and Munich Re to provide pandemic insurance. Their 2018 business model directly foreshadowed the pandemic. In 2018, as well, EcoHealth Alliance proposed a “novel coronavirus” for synthesis by DARPA. Although there is no evidence that DARPA synthesized the virus, the U.S. did synthesize closely related viruses. With the genome of that novel virus having been published, it may well have been synthesized either by DARPA or someone else, given the contemporary technology. Again, this, also was in 2018.
- Many aspects of the SARS COV‑2 virus, including its curious FCS site and institutionalized obfuscation of aspects of the pandemic it caused suggest deliberate cover-up. Why would the NIH redact 290 pages of a document requested by an FOIA suit!! Why were sequences of bat coronavirus genomes removed from public view?
We begin by noting the OUN/B affiliation of Ulana Suprun, who was the Ukrainian Minister of Health from 2016 until2019, placing her very much “in the mix” with Andrew C. Weber and the Metabiota, EcoHealth Alliance and Munich Re consortium.
” . . . . Suprun is the husband of the Ukrainian American Ulana Suprun, a prominent Bandera enthusiast with ties to the Ukrainian far-right who served as the Healthcare Minister of Ukraine from July 2016 through August 2019. . . .”
We can confidently conclude that Metabiota founder NathanWolfe was in Jeffrey Epstein’s orbit.
We include a link to an excellent Covert Action Magazine article about Epstein and his myriad intelligence connections for the convenience of the listener and requisite background information.
Recapping information from our “Oswald Institute of Virology” series, we note that Trump officials who were looking to tout the Chinese “lab-leak” hypothesis were told to avoid the topic, lest it create problems for the U.S.
Note, as well, that both Peter Daszak and Ralph Baric, associated with EcoHealth Alliance, were engaged in dubious maneuvering to eclipse attention on the possible U.S. sponsorship of the SARS COV‑2 gain-of-function manipulations.
- ” . . . . It soon emerged, based on emails obtained by a Freedom of Information group called U.S. Right to Know, that Daszak had not only signed but organized the influential Lancet statement, with the intention of concealing his role and creating the impression of scientific unanimity. . . .”
- ” . . . . In one State Department meeting, officials seeking to demand transparency from the Chinese government say they were explicitly told by colleagues not to explore the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s gain-of-function research, because it would bring unwelcome attention to U.S. government funding of it. . . . because it would ‘‘open a can of worms’ if it continued.’. . .”
- ” . . . . As the group probed the lab-leak scenario, among other possibilities, its members were repeatedly advised not to open a ‘Pandora’s box,’ said four former State Department officials interviewed by Vanity Fair. The admonitions ‘smelled like a cover-up,’ said Thomas DiNanno . . . .”
In our exhaustive series on the Covid-19 pandemic, we have presented overwhelming evidence that the SARS COV‑2 was synthesized in a U.S. lab.
Having chaired a Lancet commission to investigate the origins of SARS CoV‑2, Dr. Jeffrey Sachs is “pretty convinced” that the virus came from a U.S. laboratory.
He opines that it was a “blunder.”
Although we believe Covid-19 was a biological warfare attack, we are greatly encouraged that someone of Sachs’ stature has come forward in this regard.
In many past programs, we have highlighted institutions implicated in the apparent “bio-skullduggery” surrounding the U.S. biological warfare gambit involving what Mr. Emory has termed “The Oswald Institute of Virology.” This is discussed in: FTR#‘s 1157–1159, 1170, 1183 through 1193, and 1215.
The essence of the “Oswald Institute of Virology” gambit concerns the DTRA and Pentagon funding of bat-borne coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, much of it through Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance. Once the research was complete, it resulted in publication which included the genome of the bat viruses being researched. Using technology discussed above (in the Guardian article), the viruses were then synthesized from scratch and population groups were vectored with the same viral strains being researched by the WIV.
Dr. Sachs’ ruminations about a U.S. biological laboratory origin of SARS-CoV‑2 are fleshed out in an interview–featured on his website–with the Tehran Times.
Note that he continues to opine that the release was a “blunder” and that it did not result from biological warfare research. Again, this is modified limited hangout.
Next, the program reviews an excerpting of a Wired Magazine article about the Metabiota/Munich Reinsurance project.
Bear in mind that In-Q-Tel, the venture capital arm of the CIA and the intelligence community, is greasing the wheels of this project with financing.
We highlight two key points of information:
- The business success of the pandemic insurance would necessarily incorporate analysis of the “fear factor” of potential pandemic pathogens: ” . . . . As sophisticated as Metabiota’s system was, however, it would need to be even more refined to incorporate into an insurance policy. The model would need to capture something much more difficult to quantify than historical deaths and medical stockpiles: fear. The economic consequences of a scourge, the historical data showed, were as much a result of society’s response as they were to the virus itself. . . . The Sentiment Index was built to be, as Oppenheim put it, ‘a catalog of dread.’ For any given pathogen, it could spit out a score from 0 to 100 according to how frightening the public would find it. . . . Madhav and her team, along with Wolfe and Oppenheim, also researched the broader economic consequences of disease outbreaks, measured in the ‘cost per death prevented’ incurred by societal interventions. ‘Measures that decreased person-to-person contact, including social distancing, quarantine, and school closures, had the greatest cost per death prevented, most likely because of the amount of economic disruption caused by those measures,’ they wrote in a 2018 paper. . . .”
- More sinister, still, is the fact that Metabiota had analyzed the scenario of a novel coronavirus pandemic two years before it happened. This appears to be the 2018 paper referred to above. Do not fail to note that, at the time that Metabiota was running this scenario, they were partnered with EcoHealth Alliance, which was using Pentagon and USAID money to research and perform gain-of-function on these types of coronaviruses!! Do not fail to lose sight of the fact that EcoHealth Alliance has David Franz as a primary advisor. Franz was the former commander of the USAMRIID, which has a decades-long partnership with what Mr. Emory calls “The Oswald Institue of Virology.” ” . . . . As the human and economic devastation multiplied in tandem across the globe, Metabiota’s employees suddenly found themselves living inside their own model’s projections. Just two years earlier, the company had run a large set of scenarios forecasting the consequences of a novel coronavirus spreading around the globe. . . .”
Despite our deep reservations about Jeffrey Sachs—expressed in numerous programs and posts–it’s remarkable just how damning our concluding article is.
Sachs is someone in a position to bring real public attention to this topic, if he chooses to do so. The authors make a compelling case for an independent investigation, and who would be in a better position than Sachs to make this case publicly after he disbanded his Lancet Commission over these kinds of concerns? That’s all part of what is going to make this a story to watch.
“ . . . . Information now held by the research team headed by EHA (7), as well as the communications of that research team with US research funding agencies, including NIH, USAID, DARPA, DTRA, and the Department of Homeland Security, could shed considerable light on the experiments undertaken by the US-funded research team and on the possible relationship, if any, between those experiments and the emergence of SARS-CoV‑2. . . .”
If our suspicions about Sachs are well-founded, he might be in position to control the results that do emerge.
Nonetheless, this article has some remarkable points of information to be considered and it is altogether welcome and important that someone of Dr. Sachs’ high professional profile and prestige has come forward:
- “ . . . . Much of the work on SARS-like CoVs performed in Wuhan was part of an active and highly collaborative US–China scientific research program funded by the US Government (NIH, Defense Threat Reduction Agency [DTRA—Pentagon, D.E.], and US Agency for International Development [USAID]—State Department, frequent cover for CIA, D.E.), coordinated by researchers at EcoHealth Alliance (EHA—Chief funders are Pentagon, USAID, science and policy advisor is David Franz, former commanding officer of the U.S. Army Research Institute of Infectious Disease—D.E.), but involving researchers at several other US institutions. For this reason, it is important that US institutions be transparent about any knowledge of the detailed activities that were underway in Wuhan and in the United States. The evidence may also suggest that research institutions in other countries were involved, and those too should be asked to submit relevant information (e.g., with respect to unpublished sequences). . . .”
- “ . . . . as outlined below, much could be learned by investigating US-supported and US-based work that was underway in collaboration with Wuhan-based institutions, including the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), China. It is still not clear whether the IC investigated these US-supported and US-based activities. If it did, it has yet to make any of its findings available to the US scientific community for independent and transparent analysis and assessment. If, on the other hand, the IC [Intelligence Community] did not investigate these US-supported and US-based activities, then it has fallen far short of conducting a comprehensive investigation. . . .”
- “ . . . . Participating US institutions include the EHA, the University of North Carolina (UNC), the University of California at Davis (UCD), the NIH, and the USAID.Under a series of NIH grants and USAID contracts, EHA coordinated the collection of SARS-like bat CoVs from the field in southwest China and southeast Asia, the sequencing of these viruses, the archiving of these sequences (involving UCD), and the analysis and manipulation of these viruses (notably at UNC). A broad spectrum of coronavirus research work was done not only in Wuhan (including groups at Wuhan University and the Wuhan CDC, as well as WIV) but also in the United States. The exact details of the fieldwork and laboratory work of the EHA-WIV-UNC partnership, and the engagement of other institutions in the United States and China, has not been disclosed for independent analysis. The precise nature of the experiments that were conducted, including the full array of viruses collected from the field and the subsequent sequencing and manipulation of those viruses, remains unknown. . . .”
- “ . . . . The NIH could say more about the possible role of its grantees in the emergence of SARS-CoV‑2, yet the agency has failed to reveal to the public the possibility that SARS-CoV‑2 emerged from a research-associated event, even though several researchers raised that concern on February 1, 2020, in a phone conversation that was documented by email (5). Those emails were released to the public only through FOIA, and they suggest that the NIH leadership took an early and active role in promoting the ‘zoonotic hypothesis’ and the rejection of the laboratory-associated hypothesis. . . .”
- “ . . . . The NIH has resisted the release of important evidence, such as the grant proposals and project reports of EHA, and has continued to redact materials released under FOIA, including a remarkable 290-page redaction in a recent FOIA release. . . .”
- “ . . . . Acting NIH Director Lawrence Tabak testified before Congress that several such sequences in a US database were removed from public view. . . .”
- “ . . . . Special concerns surround the presence of an unusual furin cleavage site (FCS) in SARS-CoV‑2 (10) that augments the pathogenicity and transmissibility of the virus relative to related viruses like SARS-CoV‑1 (11, 12). SARS-CoV‑2 is, to date, the only identified member of the subgenus sarbecovirus that contains an FCS, although these are present in other coronaviruses (13, 14). A portion of the sequence of the spike protein of some of these viruses is illustrated in the alignment shown in Fig. 1, illustrating the unusual nature of the FCS and its apparent insertion in SARS-CoV‑2 (15).From the first weeks after the genome sequence of SARS-CoV‑2 became available, researchers have commented on the unexpected presence of the FCS within SARS-CoV‑2—the implication being that SARS-CoV‑2 might be a product of laboratory manipulation. In a review piece arguing against this possibility, it was asserted that the amino acid sequence of the FCS in SARS-CoV‑2 is an unusual, nonstandard sequence for an FCS and that nobody in a laboratory would design such a novel FCS (13). . . .”
- “ . . . . In fact, the assertion that the FCS in SARS-CoV‑2 has an unusual, nonstandard amino acid sequence is false. The amino acid sequence of the FCS in SARS-CoV‑2 also exists in the human ENaC a subunit (16), where it is known to be functional and has been extensively studied (17, 18). The FCS of human ENaC a has the amino acid sequence RRAR’SVAS ( 2), an eight–amino-acid sequence that is perfectly identical with the FCS of SARS-CoV‑2 (16).ENaC is an epithelial sodium channel, expressed on the apical surface of epithelial cells in the kidney, colon, and airways (19, 20), that plays a critical role in controlling fluid exchange. The ENaC a subunit has a functional FCS (17, 18) that is essential for ion channel function (19) and has been characterized in a variety of species. The FCS sequence of human ENaC a (20) is identical in chimpanzee, bonobo, orangutan, and gorilla (SI Appendix , Fig. 1), but diverges in all other species, even primates, except one. (The one non-human non-great ape species with the same sequence is Pipistrellus kuhlii, a bat species found in Europe and Western Asia; other bat species, including Rhinolophus ferrumequinem, have a different FCS sequence in ENaC a [RKAR’SAAS]). . . .”
- “ . . . . One consequence of this “molecular mimicry” between the FCS of SARS CoV‑2 spike and the FCS of human ENaC is competition for host furin in the lumen of the Golgi apparatus, where the SARS-CoV‑2 spike is processed. This results in a decrease in human ENaC expression (21). A decrease in human ENaC expression compromises airway function and has been implicated as a contributing factor in the pathogenesis of COVID-19 (22). Another consequence of this astonishing molecular mimicry is evidenced by apparent cross-reactivity with human ENaC of antibodies from COVID-19 patients, with the highest levels of cross-reacting antibodies directed against this epitope being associated with most severe disease (23). [Auto-immune reaction, possibly overlapping mRNA vaccines—D.E.]. . . .”
- “ . . . . We do know that the insertion of such FCS sequences into SARS-like viruses was a specific goal of work proposed by the EHA-WIV-UNC partnership within a 2018 grant proposal (“DEFUSE”) that was submitted to the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) (25).The 2018 proposal to DARPA was not funded, but we do not know whether some of the proposed work was subsequently carried out in 2018 or 2019, perhaps using another source of funding. . . .”
- “ . . . . We also know that that this research team would be familiar with several previous experiments involving the successful insertion of an FCS sequence into SARS-CoV‑1 (26) and other coronaviruses, and they had a lot of experience in construction of chimeric SARS-like viruses (27–29). In addition, the research team would also have some familiarity with the FCS sequence and the FCS-dependent activation mechanism of human ENaC (19), which was extensively characterized at UNC (17, 18).For a research team assessing the pandemic potential of SARS-related coronaviruses, the FCS of human ENaC—an FCS known to be efficiently cleaved by host furin present in the target location (epithelial cells) of an important target organ (lung), of the target organism (human)—might be a rational, if not obvious, choice of FCS to introduce into a virus to alter its infectivity, in line with other work performed previously. . . .”
- “ . . . . Of course, the molecular mimicry of ENaC within the SARS-CoV‑2 spike protein might be a mere coincidence, although one with a very low probability. The exact FCS sequence present in SARS-CoV‑2 has recently been introduced into the spike protein of SARS-CoV‑1 in the laboratory, in an elegant series of experiments (12, 30), with predictable consequences in terms of enhanced viral transmissibility and pathogenicity. Obviously, the creation of such SARS‑1/2 “chimeras” is an area of some concern for those responsible for present and future regulation of this area of biology. . . .”
- “ . . . . Information now held by the research team headed by EHA (7), as well as the communications of that research team with US research funding agencies, including NIH, USAID, DARPA, DTRA, and the Department of Homeland Security, could shed considerable light on the experiments undertaken by the US-funded research team and on the possible relationship, if any, between those experiments and the emergence of SARS-CoV‑2. . . .”
1. We begin by noting the OUN/B affiliation of Ulana Suprun, who was the Ukrainian Minister of Health from 2016 until2019, placing her very much “in the mix” with Andrew C. Weber and the Metabiota, EcoHealth Alliance and Munich Re consortium.
” . . . . Suprun is the husband of the Ukrainian American Ulana Suprun, a prominent Bandera enthusiast with ties to the Ukrainian far-right who served as the Healthcare Minister of Ukraine from July 2016 through August 2019. . . .”
It gives a glimpse into how America’s Cold War weaponization of fascist movements continues to poison and affect politics — not just in Ukraine, but in America.
Moss Robeson — an independent researcher — published a short investigation of a Canadian Ukrainian political activist who recently appeared on CNN to give American viewers his “expert” opinion about Russian disinformation.
Turns out Marko Suprun has a very dark and ugly background. He pals around with neo-Nazis and is a big supporter of Nazi collaborationist movements. And yet here he is, presented by CNN as a “reliable source” for spy-fed conspiracy theories about Russia’s support for leftwing Americans (aka Bernie Sanders).
Not long after Moss published his piece on Medium, it was flagged and removed for violating community guidelines. In a generic message, Medium said Moss of doxed and harassed Marko Suprun — which is ridiculous. There is no doxing. Just public information. And Suprun is a public figure worthy of investigation. Journalism is not harassment. It’s pretty clear that the Ukrainian right had a hand in somehow flagging the post for removal. Isn’t crowdsourced, decentralized censorship great?
Anyway, Moss is a great researcher who gets into the weeds of the various shady and constantly shifting fascist Ukrainian emigre organizations. His work is important. It gives a glimpse into how America’s Cold War weaponization of nationalist and fascist Ukrainian immigrants movements continues to poison and affect politics — not just in Ukraine, but in America.
So I’m republishing his censored post below. Follow Moss’ work on Twitter.
“CNN, Bernie Sanders, and the ‘Ukrainian perspective on Russian interference’” by Moss Robeson; 2/24/2020.
Yesterday, in the wake of recent, unsubstantiated reports that the Russian government is trying to support Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign, CNN’s John Avlon had “StopFake” anchor and producer Marko Suprun on to give voice to the “Ukrainian perspective on Russian interference.”
What is StopFake? The outfit was launched in Ukraine in 2014 with backing from the United States and from European Union governments ostensibly to combat Russian disinformation. In reality, it was a propaganda project in its own right — employing far-right activists to smear journalists and pump out far-right and fascist friendly content. As explained last year by Alexey Kovalev, investigative editor at Meduza, a Russian-language independent online newspaper, “StopFake today is not a fact-checking or journalistic organization. It’s a propaganda arm of Ukraine’s government, and it should be treated as such.”
Marko Suprun — who dialed in to CNN from Ukraine — was there as an expert to comment on the role that Hill columnist John Solomon played in the Trump-Ukraine-Biden scandal. But Suprun clearly had the new Sanders-Russia meddling story in mind when he delivered his key line: “Russian disinformation is not about positioning left versus right but about using the left and the right against the center.”
What’s interesting about Marko Suprun is how deeply enmeshed he is in Ukraine’s fascist and nationalist diaspora.
Here’s a quick rundown:
If not himself a member, Suprun is a very public apologist for and supporter of Stepan Bandera and his faction of the fascist Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN‑B).
Bandera was a Ukrainian fascist leader who hoped to become the Hitler of Ukraine. He and his outfit collaborated with the Nazis, fought to establish an “racially” pure Ukraine, ethnically cleansed Poles, and played a big role in the genocide of over a million Ukrainian Jews. During the Cold War, the OUN‑B continued to operate as a “revolutionary” fascist underground organization. Exiled from Soviet Ukraine, it effectively hijacked much of the organized Ukrainian diaspora in Europe, Canada, and the United States. The organization in various forms still exists today.
Suprun is the husband of the Ukrainian American Ulana Suprun, a prominent Bandera enthusiast with ties to the Ukrainian far-right who served as the Healthcare Minister of Ukraine from July 2016 through August 2019.
He’s also buddies with Steve Bandera, a proud Canadian descendant of Stepan Bandera. As reported by the JTA, Stevie “has steadfastly maintained for years that his grandfather, and the Ukrainian nationalist movement in general, are innocent of perpetrating war crimes against Jews.”
Suprun is also known to associate with all sorts of Ukrainian neo-Nazis and Holocaust revisionists. He has also served on the board of directors of organizations affiliated with the OUN‑B in the United States. One of them is known as the Organization for the Defense of Four Freedoms of Ukraine (ODFFU), an OUN‑B front group during the Cold War headquartered in New York City. The other is the Center for US-Ukrainian Relations (CUSUR), founded in 2000 by lifelong “Banderites.”
Suprun, unfortunately, is not the only StopFake anchor with OUN‑B ties.
Irena Chalupa, a Ukrainian American, has probably hosted the most episodes of StopFake besides Suprun. She was formerly employed by the OUN‑B’s now-defunct Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations (ABN), which journalists Scott and Jon Lee Anderson have described as “the largest and most important umbrella group for former Nazi collaborators in the world.” Bandera’s deputy, ideologist, and eventual successor Yaroslav Stetsko, likewise a Nazi collaborator and war criminal, led the ABN for life. Stetsko also led the OUN‑B when, in the mid-1980s, Chalupa worked at the ABN/OUN‑B’s international headquarters in Munich. The Kyiv Post’s Washington, D.C. correspondent Askold Krushelnycky, formerly a Stetsko family friend and ABN youth leader in Britain, has also hosted an episode of StopFake.
A few months before Bernie Sanders was born — a week after Nazi Germany declared war on the Soviet Union — Stetsko declared a short-lived de facto Nazi client state on Bandera’s behalf in the western Ukrainian city of Lviv.
“The newly formed Ukrainian state will work closely with the National-Socialist Greater Germany,” Stetsko said, and its forces “will continue to fight with the Allied German Army…”
Five days prior, Stetsko wrote a letter to Bandera in which he said, “We are making a militia which will help to remove the Jews and protect the [Ukrainian] population.” As noted by the Ukrainian Canadian scholar John Paul Himka, “about a week later that militia played a leading role in the Lviv pogrom,” and was subordinated to the SS. The year World War 2 began, a Ukrainian Canadian publication published an article by Stetsko in which he “placed Jews at the centre of an international conspiracy by suggesting that Jewish capitalists and Jewish Communists were collaborating to promote Jewish interests.”
Why is this old history important?
A day after Marko Suprun appeared on CNN, Bernie Sanders did a CNN event of his own: a televised town hall event in Charleston, South Carolina. There on stage Sanders received a question about his Jewish identity, and the significance of potentially being the first Jewish president of the United States.
He explained,
As it happens, my father’s family was wiped out by Hitler. My brother and I and our wives went to Poland, to the town that he [their father] was born in. And there they took us, the very nice people of the town, they took us to a place where the Nazis had had the [Jewish] people dig a grave and they shot them all, three hundred people in there.
It’s important to remember that OUN — the Ukrainian fascist organization that CNN expert Marko Suprun supports and lionizes — was very much involved in the Holocaust just east of where Sanders’ family lived. The OUN members who collaborated with the Nazis didn’t simply guard concentration camps; they weren’t just passively involved. They did the actual killing — which included joining auxiliary police units that served at the frontlines of the “Holocaust by Bullets.”
And CNN is promoting this guy. It’s gross and disturbing.
Marko Suprun’s appearance on CNN should also serve as a wake-up call and a reminder that the Bandera cult which perpetually clamors for a cataclysmic conflict with Russia is alive and well today. And if the media continues to promote conspiratorial thinking about a nonexistent Bernie-Russia relationship, it risks boosting the anti-Semitic and crypto-fascist crew that Suprun runs with.
2. We can confidently conclude Wolfe was in Jeffrey Epstein’s orbit.
We include a link to an excellent Covert Action Magazine article about Epstein and his myriad intelligence connections for the convenience of the listener and requisite background information:
Did you know that most of the world’s oceans belong to you? It’s true: 64 percent of the waters that exist outside of national jurisdictions are known as the high seas. According to the United National Law of the Sea Convention, these unregulated bodies of water — and the fish and minerals they contain — belong to all of mankind and should be used to serve the common good.
A nonprofit, The TerraMar Project, aims to celebrate and protect those high seas. Officially launched Sept. 26 at the Blue Ocean Film Festival & Conservation Conference in Monterey, California, the organization is the brainchild of lifelong marine enthusiast Ghislaine Maxwell..
“People traditionally see individual oceans and seas. The truth is that all the oceans are interconnected and related. It’s all one sea,” Maxwell says. “What TerraMar wants to do is give this part of the world an identity.” An experienced deep-sea diver and ocean advocate, Maxwell says the goal of the organization is to inspire people to think of the ocean in a new way. “You can be attached to it. You can participate in in a deep way. You can also have a say in how it is used.”
Maxwell has been planning the launch of the TerraMar Project for two years to fill what she perceives as a gap in how other organizations perceive the high seas. “There are a lot of people and organizations doing good work in specific areas” — she names the Sargasso Sea as one example — “but no one was looking at the high seas as one huge, homogenous place.”
The main way TerraMar hopes to engage people is with its interactive website, where visitors can claim a parcel of the ocean, “friend” a marine species like green turtles or sea otters, take a virtual dive, or find educational projects for parents and teachers. “Social engagement is really key,” says Samantha Harris, TerraMar’s director of development. “That’s what we’re trying to develop here: a way to engage a large number of people with the ocean by using our site.”
The spectacular virtual dive employs Google Ocean, which also premiered at the Blue Ocean festival and provides a similar experience to the search engine’s popular Street Views but on the ocean floor. “Google’s an amazing company that wants people to use their technology,” Maxwell says. “Google Ocean makes the high seas super-attractive and engaging, so we chose to showcase it on our site.”
The announcement about the nonprofit came from four celebrated marine experts: Dr. Sylvia Earle, Capt. Don Walsh, Dan Laffoley and virus hunter Nathan Wolfe. Earle, and oceanographer and explorer-in-residence with the National Geographic Society and founder of the Sylvia Earle Alliance, said at the time, “I am thrilled to be a founding citizen of TerraMar and to celebrate the vital significance of the high seas to all people, everywhere.”
Laffoley, the marine vice chair for the IUCN’s World Commission on Protected Areas, said he saw an important role for the TerraMar Project: “What this does is actually enable people to connect to the deep blue heart of the world beyond national jurisdictions, make it a country, to make it the responsibility of everyone in a sense.”
…
The TerraMar Project plans to roll out several new features on its website to keep engaging visitors in the importance of the high seas. The site will also feature fundraising tools to help raise money for ocean-related research or other projects. “Not only will we be able to set individual sponsorship goals for fundraising for certain projects, but our citizen users can then create their own projects for other people to fundraise for,” development director Harris says. . .
3a. 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:
The rapid rise of synthetic biology, a futuristic field of science that seeks to master the machinery of life, has raised the risk of a new generation of bioweapons, according a major US report into the state of the art. . . .
“ . . . 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 synthesised. ‘The technology to do this is available now,’ said [Michael] Imperiale. “It requires some expertise, but it’s something that’s relatively easy to do, and that is why it tops the list. . . .”
3b. Recapping information from our “Oswald Institute of Virology” series, we note that Trump officials who were looking to tout the Chinese “lab-leak” hypothesis were told to avoid the topic, lest it create problems for the U.S.
Note, as well, that both Peter Daszak and Ralph Baric, associated with EcoHealth Alliance, were engaged in dubious maneuvering to eclipse attention on the possible U.S. sponsorship of the SARS COV‑2 gain-of-function manipulations.
- ” . . . . It soon emerged, based on emails obtained by a Freedom of Information group called U.S. Right to Know, that Daszak had not only signed but organized the influential Lancet statement, with the intention of concealing his role and creating the impression of scientific unanimity. . . .”
- ” . . . . In one State Department meeting, officials seeking to demand transparency from the Chinese government say they were explicitly told by colleagues not to explore the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s gain-of-function research, because it would bring unwelcome attention to U.S. government funding of it. . . . because it would ‘‘open a can of worms’ if it continued.’. . .”
- ” . . . . As the group probed the lab-leak scenario, among other possibilities, its members were repeatedly advised not to open a ‘Pandora’s box,’ said four former State Department officials interviewed by Vanity Fair. The admonitions ‘smelled like a cover-up,’ said Thomas DiNanno . . . .”
. . . . On February 19, 2020, The Lancet, among the most respected and influential medical journals in the world, published a statement that roundly rejected the lab-leak hypothesis, effectively casting it as a xenophobic cousin to climate change denialism and anti-vaxxism. Signed by 27 scientists, the statement expressed “solidarity with all scientists and health professionals in China” and asserted: “We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.”
The Lancet statement effectively ended the debate over COVID-19’s origins before it began. To Gilles Demaneuf, following along from the sidelines, it was as if it had been “nailed to the church doors,” establishing the natural origin theory as orthodoxy. “Everyone had to follow it. Everyone was intimidated. That set the tone.” . . . .
. . . . It soon emerged, based on emails obtained by a Freedom of Information group called U.S. Right to Know, that Daszak had not only signed but organized the influential Lancet statement, with the intention of concealing his role and creating the impression of scientific unanimity.
Under the subject line, “No need for you to sign the “Statement” Ralph!!,” he wrote to two scientists, including UNC’s Dr. Ralph Baric, who had collaborated with Shi Zhengli on the gain-of-function study that created a coronavirus capable of infecting human cells: “you, me and him should not sign this statement, so it has some distance from us and therefore doesn’t work in a counterproductive way.” Daszak added, “We’ll then put it out in a way that doesn’t link it back to our collaboration so we maximize an independent voice.”
Baric agreed, writing back, “Otherwise it looks self-serving and we lose impact.” . . . .
. . . . A months long Vanity Fair investigation, interviews with more than 40 people, and a review of hundreds of pages of U.S. government documents, including internal memos, meeting minutes, and email correspondence, found that conflicts of interest, stemming in part from large government grants supporting controversial virology research, hampered the U.S. investigation into COVID-19’s origin at every step. In one State Department meeting, officials seeking to demand transparency from the Chinese government say they were explicitly told by colleagues not to explore the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s gain-of-function research, because it would bring unwelcome attention to U.S. government funding of it.
In an internal memo obtained by Vanity Fair, Thomas DiNanno, former acting assistant secretary of the State Department’s Bureau of Arms Control, Verification, and Compliance, wrote that staff from two bureaus, his own and the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, “warned” leaders within his bureau “not to pursue an investigation into the origin of COVID-19” because it would “‘open a can of worms’ if it continued.” . . . .
. . . . As officials at the meeting discussed what they could share with the public, they were advised by Christopher Park, the director of the State Department’s Biological Policy Staff in the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, not to say anything that would point to the U.S. government’s own role in gain-of-function research, according to documentation of the meeting obtained by Vanity Fair. . . .
. . . . Some of the attendees were “absolutely floored,” said an official familiar with the proceedings. That someone in the U.S. government could “make an argument that is so nakedly against transparency, in light of the unfolding catastrophe, was…shocking and disturbing.”
Park, who in 2017 had been involved in lifting a U.S. government moratorium on funding for gain-of-function research, was not the only official to warn the State Department investigators against digging in sensitive places. As the group probed the lab-leak scenario, among other possibilities, its members were repeatedly advised not to open a “Pandora’s box,” said four former State Department officials interviewed by Vanity Fair. The admonitions “smelled like a cover-up,” said Thomas DiNanno, “and I wasn’t going to be part of it.” . . . .
4. In our exhaustive series on the Covid-19 pandemic, we have presented overwhelming evidence that the SARS CoV‑2 was synthesized in a U.S. lab.
Having chaired a Lancet commission to investigate the origins of SARS CoV‑2, Dr. Jeffrey Sachs is “pretty convinced” that the virus came from a U.S. laboratory.
He opines that it was a “blunder.”
Although we believe Covid-19 was a biological warfare attack, we are greatly encouraged that someone of Sachs’ stature has come forward in this regard.
In many past programs, we have highlighted institutions implicated in the apparent “bio-skullduggery” surrounding the U.S. biological warfare gambit involving what Mr. Emory has termed “The Oswald Institute of Virology.” This is discussed in: FTR#‘s 1157–1159, 1170, 1183 through 1193, and 1215.
The essence of the “Oswald Institute of Virology” gambit concerns the DTRA and Pentagon funding of bat-borne coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, much of it through Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance. Once the research was complete, it resulted in publication which included the genome of the bat viruses being researched. Using technology discussed above (in the Guardian article), the viruses were then synthesized from scratch and population groups were vectored with the same viral strains being researched by the WIV.
Wow😯Prof. Jeffrey Sachs:
— Arnaud Bertrand (@RnaudBertrand) July 2, 2022
“I chaired the commission for the Lancet for 2 years on Covid. I’m pretty convinced it came out of a US lab of biotechnology [...] We don’t know for sure but there is enough evidence. [However] it’s not being investigated, not in the US, not anywhere.” pic.twitter.com/IYvSJnlv1q
5. Dr. Sachs’ ruminations about a U.S. biological laboratory origin of SARS-CoV‑2 are fleshed out in an interview–featured on his website–with the Tehran Times.
Note that he continues to opine that the release was a “blunder” and that it did not result from biological warfare research. Again, this is modified limited hangout.
“The U.S. government was sponsoring a lot of dangerous genetic manipulation of SARS-like viruses and has not yet honestly revealed the nature of that work,” Jeffrey Sachs tells the Tehran Times.
“There are worrying signs that this research may have created SARS-CoV‑2, the virus that causes Covid-19 disease,” Sachs adds.
There is enough evidence “that made him reach this conclusion, which should be looked into,” the professor from Columbia University notes.
Sachs who also chairs the Covid-19 commission at The Lancet, a renowned medical journal, says that he was in the loop: It’s a blunder, in my view, of biotech, not an accident of a natural spillover.
Following is the text of the interview:
Q: Is there scientifically proven evidence about the origin of Covid-19 or we should just rely on theories or hypotheses? Did it break out of natural reason like the MERS that emerged in Saudi Arabia?
A: There are two hypotheses: a natural spillover (as with MERS) or a laboratory creation. Both are possible. The U.S. government was sponsoring a lot of dangerous genetic manipulation of SARS-like viruses and has not yet honestly revealed the nature of that work. There are worrying signs that this research may have created SARS-CoV‑2, the virus that causes Covid-19 disease. We can suspect this because U.S. scientists declared the intention to manipulate viruses in a way that could have created the virus. We need the U.S. government to be more transparent about the research it was sponsoring.
“There are worrying signs that genetic manipulation of SARS-like viruses that may have created SARS-CoV‑2, the virus that causes Covid-19 disease.”
Q: How do you see the media-political war over the origin of the pandemic? American officials and media blamed China for its outbreak.
A: Yes, the U.S. has tried to blame China without admitting its own possible role. Governments should cooperate with the WHO to find the truth.
Q: Though the U.S. is a scientifically and technologically advanced country the Covid-19 death rate is still high. How do you evaluate the performance of the Trump and Biden administrations to curb the pandemic?
A: The U.S. did a poor job, with more than 1 million dead. The public behaves badly, rejecting face masks for example. Trump was completely irresponsible. Biden did a little better in terms of science, but overall U.S. performance was poor.
Q: Do you think the globe can eradicate Covid-19 in near future? And is it possible for the world to face new pandemics with unnatural origins?
A: It is likely that Covid will be with us for a long time to come, perhaps with new serious waves. The pandemic is still not close to being ended.
A lot of dangerous biological manipulation of pathogens is still going on. This kind of laboratory research needs to be made public and properly regulated. Bioweapons research needs to stop. We need global cooperation for this to happen.Q: Do you agree with conspiracy theories that claim that Covid resulted from search for a biological war?
A: I do not believe that Covid came from bio warfare research. More likely, it came from research to create drugs and vaccines. Either way, we need to know more. The U.S. NIH should make public the information about this kind of research.
6. Next, the program reviews an excerpting of a Wired Magazine article about the Metabiota/Munich Reinsurance project.
Bear in mind that In-Q-Tel, the venture capital arm of the CIA and the intelligence community, is greasing the wheels of this project with financing.
We highlight two key points of information:
- The business success of the pandemic insurance would necessarily incorporate analysis of the “fear factor” of potential pandemic pathogens: ” . . . . As sophisticated as Metabiota’s system was, however, it would need to be even more refined to incorporate into an insurance policy. The model would need to capture something much more difficult to quantify than historical deaths and medical stockpiles: fear. The economic consequences of a scourge, the historical data showed, were as much a result of society’s response as they were to the virus itself. . . . The Sentiment Index was built to be, as Oppenheim put it, ‘a catalog of dread.’ For any given pathogen, it could spit out a score from 0 to 100 according to how frightening the public would find it. . . . Madhav and her team, along with Wolfe and Oppenheim, also researched the broader economic consequences of disease outbreaks, measured in the ‘cost per death prevented’ incurred by societal interventions. ‘Measures that decreased person-to-person contact, including social distancing, quarantine, and school closures, had the greatest cost per death prevented, most likely because of the amount of economic disruption caused by those measures,’ they wrote in a 2018 paper. . . .”
- More sinister, still, is the fact that Metabiota had analyzed the scenario of a novel coronavirus pandemic two years before it happened. This appears to be the 2018 paper referred to above. Do not fail to note that, at the time that Metabiota was running this scenario, they were partnered with EcoHealth Alliance, which was using Pentagon and USAID money to research and perform gain-of-function on these types of coronaviruses!! ” . . . . As the human and economic devastation multiplied in tandem across the globe, Metabiota’s employees suddenly found themselves living inside their own model’s projections. Just two years earlier, the company had run a large set of scenarios forecasting the consequences of a novel coronavirus spreading around the globe. . . .”
“We Can Protect the Economy From Pandemics. Why Didn’t We?” by Evan Ratliff; Wired; 06/16/2020
7. Despite our deep reservations about Jeffrey Sachs—expressed in numerous programs and posts–it’s remarkable just how damning this next piece is. Sachs is someone in a position to bring real public attention to this topic, if he chooses to do so. The authors make a compelling case for an independent investigation, and who would be in a better position than Sachs to make this case publicly after he disbanded his Lancet Commission over these kinds of concerns? That’s all part of what is going to make this a story to watch.
“ . . . . Information now held by the research team headed by EHA (7), as well as the communications of that research team with US research funding agencies, including NIH, USAID, DARPA, DTRA, and the Department of Homeland Security, could shed considerable light on the experiments undertaken by the US-funded research team and on the possible relationship, if any, between those experiments and the emergence of SARS-CoV‑2. . . .”
If our suspicions about Sachs are well-founded, he might be in position to control the results that do emerge.
Nonetheless, this article has some remarkable points of information to be considered:
- “ . . . . Much of the work on SARS-like CoVs performed in Wuhan was part of an active and highly collaborative US–China scientific research program funded by the US Government (NIH, Defense Threat Reduction Agency [DTRA—Pentagon, D.E.], and US Agency for International Development [USAID]—State Department, frequent cover for CIA, D.E.), coordinated by researchers at EcoHealth Alliance (EHA—Chief funders are Pentagon, USAID, science and policy advisor is David Franz, former commanding officer of the U.S. Army Research Institute of Infectious Disease—D.E.), but involving researchers at several other US institutions. For this reason, it is important that US institutions be transparent about any knowledge of the detailed activities that were underway in Wuhan and in the United States. The evidence may also suggest that research institutions in other countries were involved, and those too should be asked to submit relevant information (e.g., with respect to unpublished sequences). . . .”
- “ . . . . as outlined below, much could be learned by investigating US-supported and US-based work that was underway in collaboration with Wuhan-based institutions, including the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), China. It is still not clear whether the IC investigated these US-supported and US-based activities. If it did, it has yet to make any of its findings available to the US scientific community for independent and transparent analysis and assessment. If, on the other hand, the IC [Intelligence Community] did not investigate these US-supported and US-based activities, then it has fallen far short of conducting a comprehensive investigation. . . .”
- “ . . . . Participating US institutions include the EHA, the University of North Carolina (UNC), the University of California at Davis (UCD), the NIH, and the USAID. Under a series of NIH grants and USAID contracts, EHA coordinated the collection of SARS-like bat CoVs from the field in southwest China and southeast Asia, the sequencing of these viruses, the archiving of these sequences (involving UCD), and the analysis and manipulation of these viruses (notably at UNC). A broad spectrum of coronavirus research work was done not only in Wuhan (including groups at Wuhan University and the Wuhan CDC, as well as WIV) but also in the United States. The exact details of the fieldwork and laboratory work of the EHA-WIV-UNC partnership, and the engagement of other institutions in the United States and China, has not been disclosed for independent analysis. The precise nature of the experiments that were conducted, including the full array of viruses collected from the field and the subsequent sequencing and manipulation of those viruses, remains unknown. . . .”
- “ . . . . The NIH could say more about the possible role of its grantees in the emergence of SARS-CoV‑2, yet the agency has failed to reveal to the public the possibility that SARS-CoV‑2 emerged from a research-associated event, even though several researchers raised that concern on February 1, 2020, in a phone conversation that was documented by email (5). Those emails were released to the public only through FOIA, and they suggest that the NIH leadership took an early and active role in promoting the ‘zoonotic hypothesis’ and the rejection of the laboratory-associated hypothesis. . . .”
- “ . . . . The NIH has resisted the release of important evidence, such as the grant proposals and project reports of EHA, and has continued to redact materials released under FOIA, including a remarkable 290-page redaction in a recent FOIA release. . . .”
- “ . . . . Acting NIH Director Lawrence Tabak testified before Congress that several such sequences in a US database were removed from public view. . . .”
- “ . . . . Special concerns surround the presence of an unusual furin cleavage site (FCS) in SARS-CoV‑2 (10) that augments the pathogenicity and transmissibility of the virus relative to related viruses like SARS-CoV‑1 (11, 12). SARS-CoV‑2 is, to date, the only identified member of the subgenus sarbecovirus that contains an FCS, although these are present in other coronaviruses (13, 14). A portion of the sequence of the spike protein of some of these viruses is illustrated in the alignment shown in Fig. 1, illustrating the unusual nature of the FCS and its apparent insertion in SARS-CoV‑2 (15). From the first weeks after the genome sequence of SARS-CoV‑2 became available, researchers have commented on the unexpected presence of the FCS within SARS-CoV‑2—the implication being that SARS-CoV‑2 might be a product of laboratory manipulation. In a review piece arguing against this possibility, it was asserted that the amino acid sequence of the FCS in SARS-CoV‑2 is an unusual, nonstandard sequence for an FCS and that nobody in a laboratory would design such a novel FCS (13). . . .”
- “ . . . . In fact, the assertion that the FCS in SARS-CoV‑2 has an unusual, nonstandard amino acid sequence is false. The amino acid sequence of the FCS in SARS-CoV‑2 also exists in the human ENaC a subunit (16), where it is known to be functional and has been extensively studied (17, 18). The FCS of human ENaC a has the amino acid sequence RRAR’SVAS ( 2), an eight–amino-acid sequence that is perfectly identical with the FCS of SARS-CoV‑2 (16).ENaC is an epithelial sodium channel, expressed on the apical surface of epithelial cells in the kidney, colon, and airways (19, 20), that plays a critical role in controlling fluid exchange. The ENaC a subunit has a functional FCS (17, 18) that is essential for ion channel function (19) and has been characterized in a variety of species. The FCS sequence of human ENaC a (20) is identical in chimpanzee, bonobo, orangutan, and gorilla (SI Appendix , Fig. 1), but diverges in all other species, even primates, except one. (The one non-human non-great ape species with the same sequence is Pipistrellus kuhlii, a bat species found in Europe and Western Asia; other bat species, including Rhinolophus ferrumequinem, have a different FCS sequence in ENaC a [RKAR’SAAS]). . . .”
- “ . . . . One consequence of this “molecular mimicry” between the FCS of SARS CoV‑2 spike and the FCS of human ENaC is competition for host furin in the lumen of the Golgi apparatus, where the SARS-CoV‑2 spike is processed. This results in a decrease in human ENaC expression (21). A decrease in human ENaC expression compromises airway function and has been implicated as a contributing factor in the pathogenesis of COVID-19 (22). Another consequence of this astonishing molecular mimicry is evidenced by apparent cross-reactivity with human ENaC of antibodies from COVID-19 patients, with the highest levels of cross-reacting antibodies directed against this epitope being associated with most severe disease (23). [Auto-immune reaction, possibly overlapping mRNA vaccines—D.E.]. . . .”
- “ . . . . We do know that the insertion of such FCS sequences into SARS-like viruses was a specific goal of work proposed by the EHA-WIV-UNC partnership within a 2018 grant proposal (“DEFUSE”) that was submitted to the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) (25).The 2018 proposal to DARPA was not funded, but we do not know whether some of the proposed work was subsequently carried out in 2018 or 2019, perhaps using another source of funding. . . .”
- “ . . . . We also know that that this research team would be familiar with several previous experiments involving the successful insertion of an FCS sequence into SARS-CoV‑1 (26) and other coronaviruses, and they had a lot of experience in construction of chimeric SARS-like viruses (27–29). In addition, the research team would also have some familiarity with the FCS sequence and the FCS-dependent activation mechanism of human ENaC (19), which was extensively characterized at UNC (17, 18).For a research team assessing the pandemic potential of SARS-related coronaviruses, the FCS of human ENaC—an FCS known to be efficiently cleaved by host furin present in the target location (epithelial cells) of an important target organ (lung), of the target organism (human)—might be a rational, if not obvious, choice of FCS to introduce into a virus to alter its infectivity, in line with other work performed previously. . . .”
- “ . . . . Of course, the molecular mimicry of ENaC within the SARS-CoV‑2 spike protein might be a mere coincidence, although one with a very low probability. The exact FCS sequence present in SARS-CoV‑2 has recently been introduced into the spike protein of SARS-CoV‑1 in the laboratory, in an elegant series of experiments (12, 30), with predictable consequences in terms of enhanced viral transmissibility and pathogenicity. Obviously, the creation of such SARS‑1/2 “chimeras” is an area of some concern for those responsible for present and future regulation of this area of biology. . . .”
- “ . . . . Information now held by the research team headed by EHA (7), as well as the communications of that research team with US research funding agencies, including NIH, USAID, DARPA, DTRA, and the Department of Homeland Security, could shed considerable light on the experiments undertaken by the US-funded research team and on the possible relationship, if any, between those experiments and the emergence of SARS-CoV‑2. . . .”
Since the identification of the SARS-CoV‑2 in Wuhan, China, in January 2020 (1), the origin of the virus has been a topic of intense scientific debate and public speculation. The two main hypotheses are that the virus emerged from human exposure to an infected animal [“zoonosis” (2)] or that it emerged in a research-related incident (3). The investigation into the origin of the virus has been made difficult by the lack of key evidence from the earliest days of the outbreak—there’s no doubt that greater transparency on the part of Chinese authorities would be enormously helpful. Nevertheless, we argue here that there is much important information that can be gleaned from US-based research institutions, information not yet made available for independent, transparent, and scientific scrutiny.
The data available within the United States would explicitly include, but are not limited to, viral sequences gathered and held as part of the PREDICT project and other funded programs, as well as sequencing data and laboratory notebooks from US laboratories. We call on US government scientific agencies, most notably the NIH, to support a full, independent, and transparent investigation of the origins of SARS-CoV‑2. This should take place, for example, within a tightly focused science-based bipartisan Congressional inquiry with full investigative powers, which would be able to ask important questions—but avoid misguided witch-hunts governed more by politics than by science.
Essential US Investigations
The US intelligence community (IC) was tasked, in 2021 by President Joe Biden (4), with investigating the origin of the virus. In their summary public statement, the IC writes that “all agencies assess that two hypotheses are plausible: natural exposure to an infected animal and a laboratory-associated incident” (4). The IC further writes that “China’s cooperation most likely would be needed to reach a conclusive assessment of the origins of COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019].” Of course, such cooperation is highly warranted and should be pursued by the US Government and the US scientific community. Yet, as outlined below, much could be learned by investigating US-supported and US-based work that was underway in collaboration with Wuhan-based institutions, including the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), China. It is still not clear whether the IC investigated these US-supported and US-based activities. If it did, it has yet to make any of its findings available to the US scientific community for independent and transparent analysis and assessment. If, on the other hand, the IC did not investigate these US-supported and US-based activities, then it has fallen far short of conducting a comprehensive investigation.
This lack of an independent and transparent US-based scientific investigation has had four highly adverse consequences. First, public trust in the ability of US scientific institutions to govern the activities of US science in a responsible manner has been shaken. Second, the investigation of the origin of SARS-CoV‑2 has become politicized within the US Congress (5); as a result, the inception of an independent and transparent investigation has been obstructed and delayed. Third, US researchers with deep knowledge of the possibilities of a laboratory-associated incident have not been enabled to share their expertise effectively. Fourth, the failure of NIH, one of the main funders of the US–China collaborative work, to facilitate the investigation into the origins of SARS-CoV‑2 (4) has fostered distrust regarding US biodefense research activities.
Much of the work on SARS-like CoVs performed in Wuhan was part of an active and highly collaborative US–China scientific research program funded by the US Government (NIH, Defense Threat Reduction Agency [DTRA], and US Agency for International Development [USAID]), coordinated by researchers at EcoHealth Alliance (EHA), but involving researchers at several other US institutions. For this reason, it is important that US institutions be transparent about any knowledge of the detailed activities that were underway in Wuhan and in the United States. The evidence may also suggest that research institutions in other countries were involved, and those too should be asked to submit relevant information (e.g., with respect to unpublished sequences).
Participating US institutions include the EHA, the University of North Carolina (UNC), the University of California at Davis (UCD), the NIH, and the USAID. Under a series of NIH grants and USAID contracts, EHA coordinated the collection of SARS-like bat CoVs from the field in southwest China and southeast Asia, the sequencing of these viruses, the archiving of these sequences (involving UCD), and the analysis and manipulation of these viruses (notably at UNC). A broad spectrum of coronavirus research work was done not only in Wuhan (including groups at Wuhan University and the Wuhan CDC, as well as WIV) but also in the United States. The exact details of the fieldwork and laboratory work of the EHA-WIV-UNC partnership, and the engagement of other institutions in the United States and China, has not been disclosed for independent analysis. The precise nature of the experiments that were conducted, including the full array of viruses collected from the field and the subsequent sequencing and manipulation of those viruses, remains unknown.
EHA, UNC, NIH, USAID, and other research partners have failed to disclose their activities to the US scientific community and the US public, instead declaring that they were not involved in any experiments that could have resulted in the emergence of SARS-CoV‑2. The NIH has specifically stated (6) that there is a significant evolutionary distance between the published viral sequences and that of SARS-CoV‑2 and that the pandemic virus could not have resulted from the work sponsored by NIH. Of course, this statement is only as good as the limited data on which it is based, and verification of this claim is dependent on gaining access to any other unpublished viral sequences that are deposited in relevant US and Chinese databases (7,8). On May 11, 2022, Acting NIH Director Lawrence Tabak testified before Congress that several such sequences in a US database were removed from public view, and that this was done at the request of both Chinese and US investigators.
Blanket denials from the NIH are no longer good enough. Although the NIH and USAID have strenuously resisted full disclosure of the details of the EHA-WIV-UNC work program, several documents leaked to the public or released through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) have raised concerns. These research proposals make clear that the EHA-WIV-UNC collaboration was involved in the collection of a large number of so-far undocumented SARS-like viruses and was engaged in their manipulation within biological safety level (BSL)-2 and BSL‑3 laboratory facilities, raising concerns that an airborne virus might have infected a laboratory worker (9). A variety of scenarios have been discussed by others, including an infection that involved a natural virus collected from the field or perhaps an engineered virus manipulated in one of the laboratories (3).
Overlooked Details
Special concerns surround the presence of an unusual furin cleavage site (FCS) in SARS-CoV‑2 (10) that augments the pathogenicity and transmissibility of the virus relative to related viruses like SARS-CoV‑1 (11, 12). SARS-CoV‑2 is, to date, the only identified member of the subgenus sarbecovirus that contains an FCS, although these are present in other coronaviruses (13, 14). A portion of the sequence of the spike protein of some of these viruses is illustrated in the alignment shown in Fig. 1, illustrating the unusual nature of the FCS and its apparent insertion in SARS-CoV‑2 (15). From the first weeks after the genome sequence of SARS-CoV‑2 became available, researchers have commented on the unexpected presence of the FCS within SARS-CoV‑2—the implication being that SARS-CoV‑2 might be a product of laboratory manipulation. In a review piece arguing against this possibility, it was asserted that the amino acid sequence of the FCS in SARS-CoV‑2 is an unusual, nonstandard sequence for an FCS and that nobody in a laboratory would design such a novel FCS (13).
[see figure]
Fig. 1.In fact, the assertion that the FCS in SARS-CoV‑2 has an unusual, nonstandard amino acid sequence is false. The amino acid sequence of the FCS in SARS-CoV‑2 also exists in the human ENaC a subunit (16), where it is known to be functional and has been extensively studied (17, 18). The FCS of human ENaC a has the amino acid sequence RRAR’SVAS (Fig. 2), an eight–amino-acid sequence that is perfectly identical with the FCS of SARS-CoV‑2 (16). ENaC is an epithelial sodium channel, expressed on the apical surface of epithelial cells in the kidney, colon, and airways (19, 20), that plays a critical role in controlling fluid exchange. The ENaC a subunit has a functional FCS (17, 18) that is essential for ion channel function (19) and has been characterized in a variety of species. The FCS sequence of human ENaC a (20) is identical in chimpanzee, bonobo, orangutan, and gorilla (SI Appendix , Fig. 1), but diverges in all other species, even primates, except one. (The one non-human non-great ape species with the same sequence is Pipistrellus kuhlii, a bat species found in Europe and Western Asia; other bat species, including Rhinolophus ferrumequinem, have a different FCS sequence in ENaC a [RKAR’SAAS]).
[see figure 2]
Fig. 2.One consequence of this “molecular mimicry” between the FCS of SARS CoV‑2 spike and the FCS of human ENaC is competition for host furin in the lumen of the Golgi apparatus, where the SARS-CoV‑2 spike is processed. This results in a decrease in human ENaC expression (21). A decrease in human ENaC expression compromises airway function and has been implicated as a contributing factor in the pathogenesis of COVID-19 (22). Another consequence of this astonishing molecular mimicry is evidenced by apparent cross-reactivity with human ENaC of antibodies from COVID-19 patients, with the highest levels of cross-reacting antibodies directed against this epitope being associated with most severe disease (23). [Auto-immune reaction, possibly overlapping mRNA vaccines].
We do not know whether the insertion of the FCS was the result of natural evolution (2, 13)—perhaps via a recombination event in an intermediate mammal or a human (13, 24)—or was the result of a deliberate introduction of the FCS into a SARS-like virus as part of a laboratory experiment. We do know that the insertion of such FCS sequences into SARS-like viruses was a specific goal of work proposed by the EHA-WIV-UNC partnership within a 2018 grant proposal (“DEFUSE”) that was submitted to the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) (25). The 2018 proposal to DARPA was not funded, but we do not know whether some of the proposed work was subsequently carried out in 2018 or 2019, perhaps using another source of funding.
We also know that that this research team would be familiar with several previous experiments involving the successful insertion of an FCS sequence into SARS-CoV‑1 (26) and other coronaviruses, and they had a lot of experience in construction of chimeric SARS-like viruses (27–29). In addition, the research team would also have some familiarity with the FCS sequence and the FCS-dependent activation mechanism of human ENaC (19), which was extensively characterized at UNC (17, 18). For a research team assessing the pandemic potential of SARS-related coronaviruses, the FCS of human ENaC—an FCS known to be efficiently cleaved by host furin present in the target location (epithelial cells) of an important target organ (lung), of the target organism (human)—might be a rational, if not obvious, choice of FCS to introduce into a virus to alter its infectivity, in line with other work performed previously.
Of course, the molecular mimicry of ENaC within the SARS-CoV‑2 spike protein might be a mere coincidence, although one with a very low probability. The exact FCS sequence present in SARS-CoV‑2 has recently been introduced into the spike protein of SARS-CoV‑1 in the laboratory, in an elegant series of experiments (12, 30), with predictable consequences in terms of enhanced viral transmissibility and pathogenicity. Obviously, the creation of such SARS‑1/2 “chimeras” is an area of some concern for those responsible for present and future regulation of this area of biology. [Note that these experiments in ref. 30 were done in the context of a safe “pseudotyped” virus and thus posed no danger of producing or releasing a novel pathogen.] These simple experiments show that the introduction of the 12 nucleotides that constitute the FCS insertion in SARS-CoV‑2 would not be difficult to achieve in a lab. It would therefore seem reasonable to ask that electronic communications and other relevant data from US groups should be made available for scrutiny.
Seeking Transparency
To date, the federal government, including the NIH, has not done enough to promote public trust and transparency in the science surrounding SARS-CoV‑2. A steady trickle of disquieting information has cast a darkening cloud over the agency. The NIH could say more about the possible role of its grantees in the emergence of SARS-CoV‑2, yet the agency has failed to reveal to the public the possibility that SARS-CoV‑2 emerged from a research-associated event, even though several researchers raised that concern on February 1, 2020, in a phone conversation that was documented by email (5). Those emails were released to the public only through FOIA, and they suggest that the NIH leadership took an early and active role in promoting the “zoonotic hypothesis” and the rejection of the laboratory-associated hypothesis (5). The NIH has resisted the release of important evidence, such as the grant proposals and project reports of EHA, and has continued to redact materials released under FOIA, including a remarkable 290-page redaction in a recent FOIA release.
Information now held by the research team headed by EHA (7), as well as the communications of that research team with US research funding agencies, including NIH, USAID, DARPA, DTRA, and the Department of Homeland Security, could shed considerable light on the experiments undertaken by the US-funded research team and on the possible relationship, if any, between those experiments and the emergence of SARS-CoV‑2. We do not assert that laboratory manipulation was involved in the emergence of SARS-CoV‑2, although it is apparent that it could have been. However, we do assert that there has been no independent and transparent scientific scrutiny to date of the full scope of the US-based evidence.
The relevant US-based evidence would include the following information: laboratory notebooks, virus databases, electronic media (emails, other communications), biological samples, viral sequences gathered and held as part of the PREDICT project (7) and other funded programs, and interviews of the EHA-led research team by independent researchers, together with a full record of US agency involvement in funding the research on SARS-like viruses, especially with regard to projects in collaboration with Wuhan-based institutions. We suggest that a bipartisan inquiry should also follow up on the tentative conclusion of the IC (4) that the initial outbreak in Wuhan may have occurred no later than November 2019 and that therefore the virus was circulating before the cluster of known clinical cases in December. The IC did not reveal the evidence for this statement, nor when parts of the US Government or US-based researchers first became aware of a potential new outbreak. Any available information and knowledge of the earliest days of the outbreak, including viral sequences (8), could shed considerable light on the origins question.
Following up on the insurance issue, wonder if this is related? Kevin Esvelt’s testimony before Senate Homeland Sec Committee, page 14 discusses proposals for insurance policies that would cover the “negative externalities” of “pandemic virus investigation”:
https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Esvelt%20Testimony.pdf
It’s not a secret that the OUN‑B is currently thriving. But it’s effectively secret for all practical purposes. In other words, it’s an open secret. And it’s that open secret that is at the heart of the following piece in the Grayzone by Moss Robeson about an extremely telling event:
While attending an April 16 “Russia’s Rupture and Western Policy” event at the Jamestown Foundation, Robeson was physically assaulted by Marko Suprun. As we’re going to see, Suprun and his wife Ulana have been key organizers in a network of US-based OUN‑B front groups going back to the 1980s. Earlier during the event, Robeson — who was credential and had permission to attend the event and participate in the discussion — questioned Suprun about some OUN documents but was stonewalled. About an hour later, Suprun shouted, “This is the guy! This is the guy!” and forced Robeson into a hallway, choking him with both hand, and breaking Robeson’s glasses.
In the end, Suprun was arrested. A fitting, and yet somewhat ironic end to the incident. Ironic because, as Robeson reports, Suprun and his wife have been successfully operating as both Western NGO darlings welcomed in the US mainstream media and open friends of Ukrainian fascist for decades now. It’s the kind of context that makes it surprising an arrest of Suprun happened at all.
The Supruns’ leadership roles in OUN‑B front groups go back to 1984, five years before their marriage, when Ulana was made the vice president of the Ukrainian Student Organization of Mikhnovsky (TUSM). This was a year after Ulana led a sit-in at the Dachau concentration camp museum to protest its alleged anti-Ukrainian bias. The pair went on to help lead groups like the Ukrainian Youth Association (CYM) and Organization for the Defense of Four Freedoms for Ukraine (ODFFU). Both the TUSM and the CYM are based in Ellenville, New York.
In 2012–2013, Ulana Suprun’s father, George Jurkiw, provided financial support for the creation of the Washington bureau for the Center for US-Ukrainian Relations. The new bureau was located in the American Foreign Policy Council (AFPC). In December 2013, the Supruns relocated to Kyiv and by February 2014, Marko was assisting Svoboda leader Oley Tyahnybok as a translator. Not long after, the Ukrainian World Congress hired Ulana as its Director of Humanitarian Initiatives.
In 2016, Ulana was appointed as the acting Healthcare Minister of Ukraine, where she earned the nickname “Dr. Death”
over her privatization pushes. A role she held until 2019. As we’ve seen, Ulana’s role as Ukraine’s Healthcare Minister overlapped with the period when Metabiota was setting up its operations in Ukraine. The couple moved into an apartment owned by the treasurer of the Ukrainian American Freedom Foundation (UAFF). UAFF leader Zaryckyj also reportedly attended the same Jamestown Foundation event where Robeson was assaulted. Notably, Zaryckyj apparently issued some sort of vague death threat of his own towards Robeson and the Grayzone during a previous visit to the OUN‑B’s Manhattan headquarters.
Interestingly, Walter Zaryckyj refers to AFPC president Herman Pirchner as “one of [his] best friends”. Pirchner also happens to be a member of the powerful and secretive Council for National Policy (CNP). 2018, it was the AFPC that hosted a meeting in the US Senate with none other than Andriy Parudiy. When question by the Grayzone about this decision, Pirchner put forward a non-sequitur defense of Stepan Bandera. Keep in mind that the CNP’s membership is by invitation only.
2016 was also the year, Marko joined StopFake, the Ukrainian ‘anti-Russian-disinformation’ outlet that’s been lionized in the Western media. Recall how other figures working for StopFake includes Kateryna Kruk, who was appointed Facebook’s Public Policy Manager for Ukraine in 2019. Also recall how, in June of 2014, the Atlantic Council gave Kruk its Freedom award for her communications work during the Euromaidan protests. An award that was given despite the fact that Kruk was openly celebrating on Twitter the Odessa massacre that had just taken place the prior month.
Ulana has a tie of her own to the 2014 Odessa massacre: She’s been described as the main patron of Serhii Sternenko, the Right Sector leader who actually led the 2014 Odessa massacre. Other Ukrainian nationalist extremist ties of Ulana’s include friendly relations with C14.
In 2017, Politico write an article about the rapid rise of StopFake. Not long after that report, Suprun decided to appear as a Ukrainian nationals summer camp alongside neo-Nazi leaders Andriy Sereda and Arseniy Bilodub. Recall how Bilodub has been a fixture of Ukraine’s neo-Nazi scene since the 1990s, after all. He’s not a secret neo-Nazi. It’s also part of the context of why Moss Robeson’s questions may have made Suprun so enraged. His extremism isn’t exactly hidden. The only thing keeping it hidden is all the silence.
When asked about his associations which known Nazi, Suprun gave the following response: “Have I had people with swastika tattoos in my office? I don’t examine people’s bodies as a rule, but yes. Does that make me a neo-Nazi? No.” In other words, don’t call him a Nazi just because he associates with Nazis.
Another figure of note invited to speak at this Jamestown event was Ilya Ponomarev, the former Russian lawmaker how now resides in Kyiv leading the Russian resistance group, the Freedom for Russia Legion. Recall how the Freedom for Russia Legion has a vision of breaking Russia up into dozens of ethnic statelets.
So that’s the disturbing incident that transpired a couple of weeks ago at a Jamestown Foundation event and has been virtually ignored by the media. An incident about a leading organizer of the OUN-B’s contemporary front groups in the US physically assaulting a journalist over questions about the OUN‑B. It’s a compelling story. A compelling story about a fascist network that really doesn’t want its story told and that is apparently too important to Western interests to disturb. Hence the silence:
“On April 16, Marko Suprun, who presents an English-language show for the group StopFake.org, and whose wife has served as Ukraine’s acting Minister of Health, was charged with simple assault after strangling, shoving, and stomping on Grayzone contributor Moss Robeson. The incident occurred during an anti-Russia event hosted by the neoconservative Jamestown Foundation, entitled “Russia’s Rupture and Western Policy.” Robeson was fully credentialed and authorized by organizers to participate in the discussion.”
Jamestown Foundation events aren’t typically known for the violent assaults that take place at them. Even less typical is the fact the person arrested for the assault is the leader of an organization that has been a recipient of so much government funding. But that’s what happened when Marko Suprun decided to assault Moss Robeson, who was fully credentialed and authorized to be at the event. It was an odd story by NGO standards. But not so odd when it comes to the contemporary OUN‑B network of front groups Suprun helps lead, along with his wife Ulana. A leadership role they’ve been playing for decades, with Ulana becoming the vice president of the Ukrainian Student Organization of Mikhnovsky (TUSM) back in 1984. The pair went on to help lead groups like the Ukrainian Youth Association (CYM) and Organization for the Defense of Four Freedoms for Ukraine (ODFFU). Both the TUSM and the CYM are based in Ellenville, New York. So it’s fitting to learn that Robeson actually tried to ask Suprun questions about some OUN documents at the Jamestown event about an hour before the assault. Suprun is someone who presumably knows quite a bit about the contemporary OUN‑B infrastructure. And he really didn’t like those questions, it seems:
So given Marko Suprun’s long history as a leader of various OUN‑B front groups inside the US, we shouldn’t be surprised to find he’s also involved with StopFake, the Ukrainian ‘anti-fake news’NGO that has become a kind of darling of the US national security state. Recall how other figures working for StopFake includes Kateryna Kruk, who was appointed Facebook’s Public Policy Manager for Ukraine in 2019. Also recall how, in June of 2014, the Atlantic Council gave Kruk its Freedom award for her communications work during the Euromaidan protests. An award that was given despite the fact that Kruk was openly celebrating on Twitter the Odessa massacre that had just taken place the prior month. So when we see figures like Suprun and Kruk leading one Ukrainian nationalist organization after another with extensive backing from Western governments, it’s a reminder that we can’t really understand the contemporary manifestation of OUN‑B without recognizing that Western government support:
And then there’s the role Marko Suprun played in the lead up to the 2014 Maidan coup. In December 2013, The Supruns relocated to Kyiv and by February 2014, he was assisting Svoboda leader Oley Tyahnybok as a translator. Not long after, the Ukrainian World Congress hired Ulana as its Director of Humanitarian Initiatives:
And as we can see with Suprun’s decision to appear at a Ukrainian nationalist summer camp alongside neo-Nazi leaders Andriy Sereda and Arseniy Bilodub not long after a 2017 Politico report touting the rising influence of StopFake, it’s not like Suprun has really had to hide his extremist ties. Bilodub has been a fixture of Ukraine’s neo-Nazi scene since the 1990s, after all. He’s not a secret neo-Nazi. It’s also part of the context of why Moss Robeson’s questions may have made Suprun so enraged. His extremism isn’t exactly hidden. Again, the only thing keeping it hidden is all the silence:
And note the half-assed explanation Suprun gave in response to questions about his association with known Nazis: “Have I had people with swastika tattoos in my office? I don’t examine people’s bodies as a rule, but yes. Does that make me a neo-Nazi? No.” Which, again, just underscores how potentially vulnerable he his to simply asking basic questions. But it’s not just Marko with the extremist ties. His wife Ulana has open Ukrainian Nazi ties of her own, including C14. Ties that clearly did nothing to prevent her from getting appointed to be Ukraine’s acting Minister of Health in 2016. She’s also been described as the main patron of Serhii Sternenko, the Right Sector leader who actually led the 2014 Odessa massacre. A lot of fans of that massacre in this network:
But Marko Suprun wasn’t the only ‘interesting’ figure at this Jamestown event where Suprun decided to assault Robeson for simply asking question. Ilya Ponomarev — the former Russian lawmaker how now resides in Kyiv leading the Russian resistance group, the Freedom for Russia Legion — also spoke at the event. Recall how the Freedom for Russia Legion has a vision of breaking Russia up into dozens of ethnic statelets. It’s not exactly surprising to see Ponomarev speak at a Jamestown event, but it’s telling. And then there was UAFF president Walter Zaryckyj, who reportedly issued some sort of vague death threat of his own towards Robeson and the Grayzone during a previous visit to the OUN‑B’s Manhattan headquarters:
Interestingly, in 2019, when the OUN‑B network gained full control of the building that houses its Manhattan headquarters, an anonymous whistleblower submitted a complaint to the New York State Attorney General’s office not only charging the UAFF with large scale fraud, but it specifically described Marko Suprun as “a very active [OUN‑B] member.” It would be interesting to know what, if any, investigation was done in response to that complaint:
Finally, we get to this very interesting tidbit involving the Council for National Policy: in 2012–2013, Ulana Suprun’s father, George Jurkiw, provided financial support for the creation of the Washington bureau for the Center for US-Ukrainian Relations. The new bureau was located in the headquarters of the American Foreign Policy Council (AFPC). UAFF leader Walter Zaryckyj refers to AFPC president Herman Pirchner as “one of [his] best friends. And Pirchner’s name just happens to show up on the leaked CNP members lists. And in 2018, it was the AFPC that hosted a meeting in the US Senate with none other than Andriy Parudiy. So while the US national security establishment’s cozy ties to modern day OUN‑B is well-established at this point, it would be interesting to know how many more CNP members we might find in the OUN-B’s orbit proximity:
It’s also worth keeping in mind that the January 6 Capitol insurrection that was heavily organized by the CNP in coordination with the Trump White House was an event that has a number of distrubing parallels to events of the Maidan in 2014 in terms of the role far right groups played in providing street ‘muscle’ for an intended political outcome. You have to wonder how many lessons the CNP drew from the remarkable success of the Ukrainian nationalist groups when formulating its own regime change plans. Or, rather, regime-not-change plans.
So that’s the remarkable story about the arrest of Mark Suprun for assaulting Moss Robeson for the temerity of asking questions about the OUN‑B. Remarkable in that it led to Suprun’s arrest at all. But not remarkable in how little coverage it’s received. The silence is sadly normal. And Marko Suprun clearly wants to keep it that way.