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 64GB flash dri­ve, avail­able for a con­tri­bu­tion of $65.00 or more (to KFJC). (This is a new feature–the old, 32GB flash­drive will not hold the new mate­r­i­al. Click Here to obtain Dav­e’s 46+ years’ work, com­plete through fall/early win­ter of 2024 .)

“Polit­i­cal language…is designed to make lies sound truth­ful and mur­der respectable, and to give an appear­ance of solid­i­ty to pure wind.”

Mr. Emory has launched a new Patre­on site. Vis­it at: Patreon.com/DaveEmory

FTR#1404 This pro­gram was record­ed in one, 60-minute seg­ment.

FTR#1405 This pro­gram was record­ed in one, 60-minute seg­ment.

FTR#1406 This pro­gram was record­ed in one, 60-minute seg­ment.

FTR#1407 This pro­gram was record­ed in one, 60-minute seg­ment.

NB: FTR#‘s 1405, 1406 and 1407 and will be on the web­site present­ly. FTR#1405 is intro­duced as “1406.”

The twin­ing of the For The Record mate­r­i­al and the Patre­on infor­ma­tion is due in part to a sched­ul­ing irreg­u­lar­i­ty.

Intro­duc­tion: Mr. Emory has tak­en the first, longest and most impor­tant of his Covid-19 arti­cles out from behind the pay wall on his Patre­on plat­form.

Spurred by alarms that AI’s could ful­fill the pre­dic­tion Mr. Emory made in Jan­u­ary of 1995 about AI’s exter­mi­nat­ing human­i­ty by cre­at­ing virus­es; a thought exper­i­ment by the bril­liant Michael Oster­holm in which he spec­u­lates about a new, glob­al pan­dem­ic and, once again, looks to bat caves in Chi­na (sigh).

1.World’s first AI-designed virus­es a step towards AI-gen­er­at­ed life

 

2.In the wake of COVID, Oster­holm takes on ‘The Big One’ in new book | CIDRAP

On July 17, the Wash­ing­ton Post report­ed on the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives’ recent request for an inves­ti­ga­tion into alle­ga­tions that Lyme dis­ease may have been weaponized. New Jer­sey Con­gress­man Chris Smith cit­ed the recent book, BITTEN, when he pro­posed the amend­ment to Defense Depart­ment fund­ing. In the Post’s arti­cle, reporter Mor­gan Krakow quotes a sci­en­tist as say­ing “there’s just no cred­i­ble evi­dence,” point­ing to weaponiz­ing ticks or Willy Burgdorfer’s involve­ment with such a project.

BITTEN’s author, Kris New­by sent the fol­low­ing response to the Post. It is repub­lished here with her per­mis­sion.

I’m the author of BITTEN, an engi­neer by train­ing, a Stan­ford sci­ence writer by pro­fes­sion, and a lover of get­ting the facts right.

My first real job was as a Wash­ing­ton Post paper­girl dur­ing the unfold­ing of the Water­gate scan­dal. Every morn­ing around 5 a.m., before I stuffed news­pa­pers into the wire bas­kets of my roy­al-blue-fat-tire Schwinn bike, I was thrilled to be the first in my neigh­bor­hood to read the lat­est rev­e­la­tions from the Water­gate reporters, Wood­ward and Bern­stein.

They were my heroes, role mod­els who in some small way led me to this point in life, when I was able to reveal a major find­ing, the weaponiza­tion of ticks dur­ing the Cold War.

In my book, I present ample evi­dence that acci­dents asso­ci­at­ed with this mas­sive bioweapons pro­gram may have con­tributed to the mys­te­ri­ous epi­dem­ic of tick-borne dis­eases that was first noticed around Long Island Sound in the late 1960s.

I felt an infi­nite sad­ness when I read Mor­gan Krakow’s cov­er­age of this sto­ry, which got many facts wrong and relied on an expert who hadn’t read the evi­dence in my book, or worse yet, ignored it for polit­i­cal rea­sons.

The cit­ed expert, Michael Oster­holm, may have per­son­al­ly known the dis­cov­er­er of the Lyme bac­teri­um, Willy Burgdor­fer, but this didn’t mean that he knew what was inside of his heart.

Over five years, I have an unearthed an exten­sive array of doc­u­ments that prove his role in the bioweapons pro­gram, and I have a video­taped inter­view of Willy where he told me about some of his bug-borne biowar­fare exper­i­ments.

Evi­dence leads us to con­clude that the epi­dem­ic of sick­ness dur­ing the late 1960s was not caused by the Lyme bac­teri­um, but anoth­er genet­i­cal­ly engi­neered organ­ism that no one is look­ing for.

Towards the end of his life, he felt remorse about this dark pur­suit, and it was obvi­ous that he want­ed to set the record straight before his death. His admis­sions aren’t some­thing that we want to believe, but now that the truth is out, we, as com­pas­sion­ate human beings, must put our Cold War past behind us and strive to stop the suf­fer­ing. . . .

4. The Covid-19 “Op”

Intro­duc­tion: Much dis­cus­sion has been devot­ed to the ori­gin of Covid-19. A great deal of this is pro­pa­gan­da fea­tur­ing the “Lab-Leak” hypoth­e­sis.

As we shall see, this the­o­ry is not only unten­able, but tech­no­log­i­cal­ly obso­lete.

To under­stand the ori­gins of the pan­dem­ic, it must be seen in the con­text of anti-Chi­na oper­a­tions and pro­pa­gan­da. Fun­da­men­tal­ly, the virus might be seen as the North­woods virus. This point will be cov­ered at greater length lat­er in this arti­cle.

It is also fun­da­men­tal­ly impor­tant to under­stand “gain-of-func­tion” research on micro-organ­isms. This is a dan­ger­ous and high­ly con­tro­ver­sial pro­ce­dure under which micro-organ­isms are genet­i­cal­ly engi­neered to make them more vir­u­lent and dead­ly.

These pro­ce­dures were the focal point of a mora­to­ri­um put into effect dur­ing the sec­ond Oba­ma admin­is­tra­tion.

Anti-Chi­na “Ops”

Begin­ning under Barack Obama’s “Piv­ot to Asia” and accel­er­at­ing dra­mat­i­cal­ly dur­ing the first Trump admin­is­tra­tion and that of Joe Biden, desta­bi­liza­tion efforts in Hong Kong and an intense pro­pa­gan­da blitzkrieg (cou­pled with provo­ca­tions) con­cern­ing alleged “geno­cide” against the Uyghurs served both to dis­cred­it Chi­na in the eyes of the West­ern pub­lic and to jus­ti­fy trade restric­tions intend­ed to make the Chi­nese econ­o­my “scream.”

The poten­tial sub­ject of an entire book (or two), those oper­a­tions are cov­ered at length in numer­ous pro­grams and accom­pa­ny­ing descrip­tions avail­able at spitfirelist.com. Read­ers are emphat­i­cal­ly encour­aged to flesh out their under­stand­ing by vis­it­ing that web­site and assim­i­lat­ing the infor­ma­tion con­tained there­in.

Some of the pro­grams are: https://spitfirelist.com/for-the-record/ftr-1090-fascism-2019-world-tour-part-5-destabilizing-china/; https://spitfirelist.com/for-the-record/ftr-1091-the-destabilization-of-china-part‑2/; https://spitfirelist.com/for-the-record/ftr-1092-the-destabilization-of-china-part‑3/; https://spitfirelist.com/for-the-record/ftr-1093-the-destabilization-of-china-part‑4/; https://spitfirelist.com/for-the-record/ftr-1094-the-destabilization-of-china-part-5-pan-turkism-islamism-and-the-earth-island-boogie/; https://spitfirelist.com/for-the-record/ftr-1095-the-destabilization-of-china-part-6-asian-deep-politics/; https://spitfirelist.com/for-the-record/ftr-1143-the-uyghurs-and-the-destabilization-of-china-part‑1/; https://spitfirelist.com/for-the-record/ftr-1144-the-uyghurs-and-the-destabilization-of-china-part‑2/; https://spitfirelist.com/for-the-record/ftr-1145-the-uyghurs-and-the-destabilization-of-china-part‑3/; https://spitfirelist.com/for-the-record/ftr1312-update-on-the-destabilization-of-china-part‑1/; https://spitfirelist.com/for-the-record/ftr1313-update-on-the-destabilization-of-china-part‑2/; https://spitfirelist.com/for-the-record/ftrs-1178–1179-1180-fascism-and-the-uyghur-genocide-myth-parts‑1–2‑3/.

 

The Absurd “Lab-Leak” Hypoth­e­sis

Point­ing to an alleged “Lab-Leak” at the Wuhan Insti­tute of Virol­o­gy is tech­no­log­i­cal­ly obso­lete. Con­tem­po­rary syn­thet­ic bio­log­i­cal tech­nique allows for the syn­the­sis (and mod­i­fied syn­the­sis) of micro-organ­isms from scratch. The tech­nol­o­gy is anal­o­gous to a 3‑D print­er.

“ . . . 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. . . .” (1)

As we shall see, what appears to have hap­pened is this: The U.S. nation­al secu­ri­ty estab­lish­ment financed the syn­the­sis and pro­duc­tion of nov­el coro­n­avirus­es, copied them and vec­tored much of the world’s pop­u­la­tion with the prod­uct. Chi­na was blamed as part of an enor­mous ‘Bio-False-Flag” oper­a­tion.

The fram­ing of Chi­na, Shi Zhengli and the Wuhan Insti­tute of Virol­o­gy (WIV) might be viewed as cre­at­ing “the Oswald Insti­tute of Virol­o­gy.” It appears that the WIV was set up to take the fall for the cre­ation of the virus, not unlike the man­ner in which Lee Har­vey Oswald was set up to look like a Com­mu­nist and then framed for the assas­si­na­tion of Pres­i­dent Kennedy.

Fore­shad­ow­ing the Pan­dem­ic

An impor­tant pas­sage in The Project for The New Amer­i­can Century’s paper on “Rebuild­ing America’s Defens­es” fore­shad­ows the bio­log­i­cal war­fare research that is impli­cat­ed in the devel­op­ment of Covid. “. . . . The report states, ‘advanced forms of bio­log­i­cal war­fare that can ‘tar­get’ spe­cif­ic geno­types may trans­form bio­log­i­cal war­fare from the realm of ter­ror to a polit­i­cal­ly use­ful tool’. . . .” (2)

The Eco­Health Alliance: Fund­ed by Pen­ta­gon, USAID, Advised by David Franz

The syn­the­sis of nov­el coro­n­avirus­es at the Wuhan Insti­tute of Virol­o­gy was done by the Eco­Health Alliance. That organization’s main fund­ing sources are the Pen­ta­gon and USAID, a State Depart­ment sub­sidiary that often serves as a CIA front orga­ni­za­tion.

“ . . . . Daszak’s Eco­Health Alliance obscures its Pen­ta­gon fund­ing. . . . Only buried under their ‘Pri­va­cy Pol­i­cy,’ under a sec­tion titled ‘Eco­Health Alliance Pol­i­cy Regard­ing Con­flict of Inter­est in Research,’ does the Eco­Health Alliance con­cede it is the ‘recip­i­ent of var­i­ous grant awards from fed­er­al agen­cies includ­ing . . . . the US Agency for Inter­na­tion­al Devel­op­ment and the Depart­ment of Defense.’ . . . Even this list­ing is decep­tive. It obscures that its two largest fun­ders are the Pen­ta­gon and the State Depart­ment (USAID) . . . . These two sources thus total over $103 mil­lion. . . .” (3)

The Eco­Health Alliance receives more from a key Pen­ta­gon sub­sidiary (DTRA) than any oth­er recip­i­ent:  “ . . . . Peter Daszak’s Eco­Health Alliance cur­rent­ly receives more mon­ey from the Depart­ment of Defense’s Defense Threat Reduc­tion Agency (DTRA) for Sci­en­tif­ic Research Com­bat­ting Weapons of Mass Destruc­tion than any oth­er mil­i­tary contractor—$15 mil­lion (25.575 per­cent) of the $60.2 mil­lion dis­persed in the last 6 months. . . .” (4)

Eco­Health Alliance is also heav­i­ly net­worked with the Depart­ment of Home­land Secu­ri­ty: ” . . . . the Depart­ment of Home­land Security’s Nation­al Bio­sur­veil­lance Inte­gra­tion Cen­ter (NBIC)  . . . . gave Daszak’s Eco­Health Alliance a $2.2‑million con­tract (2016–2019) to cre­ate a ‘Ground Truth Net­work’ of ‘sub­ject mat­ter experts’ who could pro­vide ‘con­tex­tu­al infor­ma­tion per­tain­ing to bio­log­i­cal events.’ . . . .” (5)

The advis­er to Eco­Health Alliance is David Franz: ” . . . . The mil­i­tary links of the Eco­Health Alliance are not lim­it­ed to mon­ey and mind­set. One note­wor­thy ‘pol­i­cy advi­sor’ to the Eco­Health Alliance is David Franz. Franz is for­mer com­man­der of Fort Det­rick, which is the prin­ci­pal U.S. gov­ern­ment biowarfare/biodefense facil­i­ty. . . .” (6)

The Army Med­ical Insti­tute of Infec­tious Dis­eases (for­mer­ly com­mand­ed by David Franz) was closed by the CDC for unnamed safe­ty vio­la­tions in ear­ly August of 2019 (on the cusp of the pan­dem­ic.)

” . . . . The U.S. Army Med­ical Research Insti­tute of Infec­tious Dis­eases (USAMRIID) facil­i­ty at Fort Det­rick, Mary­land — the U.S. military’s lead lab­o­ra­to­ry for ‘bio­log­i­cal defense’ research since the late 1960s — was forced to halt all research it was con­duct­ing with a series of dead­ly pathogens after the CDC found that it lacked ‘suf­fi­cient sys­tems in place to decon­t­a­m­i­nate waste­water’ from its high­est-secu­ri­ty labs and fail­ure of staff to fol­low safe­ty pro­ce­dures, among oth­er laps­es. The facil­i­ty con­tains both lev­el 3 and lev­el 4 biosafe­ty labs. While it is unknown if exper­i­ments involv­ing coro­n­avirus­es were ongo­ing at the time, USAMRIID has recent­ly been involved in research born out of the Pentagon’s recent con­cern about the use of bats as bioweapons. . . .” (7)

Eco­Health Alliance Peter Daszak was the only mem­ber of both bod­ies formed to inves­ti­gate the ori­gin of the pan­dem­ic: ” . . . . In Sep­tem­ber, Sachs’ com­mis­sion [The Lancet–D.E.] named Daszak to head up its com­mit­tee on the pandemic’s ori­gins. Daszak is also on the WHO’s com­mit­tee to inves­ti­gate the pandemic’s ori­gin. He is the only indi­vid­ual on both com­mit­tees. . . .” (8)

Research­ing Bat-Borne Coro­n­avirus­es

Lead­ing up to the pan­dem­ic, the Pen­ta­gon was exten­sive­ly research­ing bat-borne coro­n­avirus­es: ” . . . . the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA), began spend­ing mil­lions on such research in 2018 and some of those Pen­ta­gon-fund­ed stud­ies were con­duct­ed at known U.S. mil­i­tary bioweapons labs bor­der­ing Chi­na and result­ed in the dis­cov­ery of dozens of new coro­n­avirus strains as recent­ly as last April. Fur­ther­more, the ties of the Pentagon’s main biode­fense lab to a virol­o­gy insti­tute in Wuhan, Chi­na —have been unre­port­ed in Eng­lish lan­guage media thus far. . . . For instance, DARPA spent $10 mil­lion on one project in 2018 ‘to unrav­el the com­plex caus­es of bat-borne virus­es that have recent­ly made the jump to humans, caus­ing con­cern among glob­al health offi­cials.’. . .” (9)

Much of that Pen­ta­gon-financed research took place at the Wuhan Insti­tute of Virol­o­gy and involved Shi Zengli, who has been tar­get­ed by Chi­na Hawk “Lab-Leak Hypoth­e­sis” pro­pa­gan­dists: ” . . . . Shi’s paper, ‘Coex­is­tence of Mul­ti­ple Coro­n­avirus­es in Sev­er­al Bat Colonies in an Aban­doned Mine­shaft,’ was writ­ten by a team of sci­en­tists who were all Chi­nese nation­als work­ing at Chi­nese insti­tu­tions. . . . the authors acknowl­edged sup­port from the U.S. Nation­al Insti­tute of Aller­gies and Infec­tious Dis­ease (R01AI110964), a $3.7‑million grant to Eco­Health Alliance for ‘Under­stand­ing the Risk of Bat Coro­n­avirus Emer­gence,’ (2014–2025). . . .” (10)

The U.S. military’s col­lab­o­ra­tion with Shi extends to her co-authors: ” . . . . In addi­tion to mil­i­tary fund­ing through DTRA, Shi’s paper was co-authored by two U.S. mil­i­tary sci­en­tists, Christo­pher C. Broder and Eric D. Laing of the Uni­formed Ser­vices Uni­ver­si­ty of the Health Sci­ences, Depart­ment of Micro­bi­ol­o­gy and Immunol­o­gy. . . .” (11)

Bat-borne virus­es hold a par­tic­u­lar attrac­tion for those seek­ing to devel­op bio­log­i­cal war­fare weapons, due to the nature of bats’ immune sys­tems. “ . . . . As Boston Uni­ver­si­ty micro­bi­ol­o­gist Thomas Kepler explained to the Wash­ing­ton Post in 2018, the bat’s unique approach to viral infec­tion explains why virus­es that trans­fer from bats to humans are so severe. This was the sub­ject of a paper, ‘The Egypt­ian Rousette Genome Reveals Unex­pect­ed Fea­tures of Bat Antivi­ral Immu­ni­ty,’ that he pub­lished with mil­i­tary sci­en­tists and DTRA fund­ing. ‘A virus that has co-evolved with the bat’s antivi­ral sys­tem is com­plete­ly out of its ele­ment in the human,’ Kepler said. ‘That’s why it is so dead­ly — the human immune sys­tem is over­whelmed by the inflam­ma­to­ry response.’ The bat immune sys­tem responds very dif­fer­ent­ly from ours to viral infec­tion. Instead of attack­ing and killing an infect­ed cell, which leads to a cas­cade of inflam­ma­to­ry respons­es, the bat immune sys­tem can starve the virus by turn­ing down cel­lu­lar metab­o­lism. . . . Kepler says the mil­i­tary is using its exper­i­ments on bat immu­ni­ty to ‘devel­op drugs that damp­en down inflam­ma­tion and arrest the virus by depriv­ing it of what it needs to grow rather than try­ing to kill it out­right.’ But, it clear­ly has anoth­er objec­tive, as well: to make virus­es more dead­ly by ‘pas­sag­ing’ them through bats. . . .” (12)

Sus­pi­cious Behav­ior and Bio­log­i­cal War­fare Man­i­fes­ta­tions

Exam­i­na­tion of Eco­Health Alliance’s behav­ior rais­es sus­pi­cions and sug­gests that it may well have been engaged in bio­log­i­cal war­fare projects.

The cir­cum­stances sur­round­ing the pub­li­ca­tion of a key piece of Daszak’s research by Nature mag­a­zine are sus­pi­cious.

” . . . . As a con­di­tion of pub­li­ca­tion, Nature, like most sci­en­tif­ic jour­nals, requires authors to sub­mit new DNA and RNA sequences to Gen­Bank, the U.S. Nation­al Cen­ter for Biotech­nol­o­gy Infor­ma­tion Data­base. Yet the new SARS-like virus Shi and Bar­ic cre­at­ed wasn’t deposit­ed in Gen­Bank until May 2020. . . .” (13)

Why wasn’t the genome of the new virus deposit­ed until May of 2020?

The com­mit­tee set up by the Trump admin­is­tra­tion to selec­tive­ly man­age the lift­ing of the 2014–2017 mora­to­ri­um on gain-of-func­tion research designed to make infec­tious micro-organ­isms more dead­ly has oper­at­ed under extreme secre­cy.

” . . . . Daszak’s col­lab­o­ra­tors work­ing under con­tracts with the Depart­ment of Health and Human Ser­vices (HHS) aren’t allowed to con­duct gain-of-func­tion research unless specif­i­cal­ly approved to do so by the Poten­tial Pan­dem­ic Pathogen Care and Over­sight (P3CO) com­mit­tee. This com­mit­tee was set up as a con­di­tion for lift­ing the 2014–2017 mora­to­ri­um on gain-of-func­tion research. The P3CO com­mit­tee oper­ates in secret. Not even a mem­ber­ship list has been released. . . .” (14)

Eco­Health Alliance’s Pen­ta­gon con­tract to research Con­go-Hem­or­rhag­ic Fever may well have been a clan­des­tine bio­log­i­cal war­fare research under­tak­ing.

” . . . . Eco­Health Alliance has a $5‑million Pen­ta­gon con­tract, ‘Crimean-Con­go Hem­or­rhag­ic Fever: Reduc­ing an Emerg­ing Health Threat in Tan­za­nia.’  Crimean-Con­go Hem­or­rhag­ic Fever (CCHF) is a tick-borne dis­ease, orig­i­nal­ly only infect­ing ani­mals. . . . There was only ever one case of CCHF in Tan­za­nia, and that was in 1986. . . . Gain-of-func­tion research on CCHF is being con­duct­ed at the U.S. Depart­ment of Agriculture’s Nation­al Bio and Agro-Defense Facil­i­ty (NBAF) . . . . (The Nation­al Bio and Agro Defense Facil­i­ty will take over the mis­sion of the Plum Island Ani­mal Dis­ease Cen­ter and become the lead facil­i­ty for For­eign Ani­mal Dis­ease research.) . . .” (15)

Daszak has claimed that a lack of fund­ing has impaired fur­ther inves­ti­ga­tion of a viral strain 96 per­cent “genet­i­cal­ly sim­i­lar” to SARS-CoV­‑2: ” . . . . A recent Wired mag­a­zine arti­cle quot­ing Daszak described how a virus col­lect­ed in 2012 was found to be a 96-per­cent match to SARS-CoV­‑2 in 2020 . . . ‘a lack of fund­ing meant they couldn’t fur­ther inves­ti­gate the virus strain now known to be 96 per­cent genet­i­cal­ly sim­i­lar to the virus that caus­es Covid-19’ . . . .” (16)

Daszak and Eco­Health Alliance had plen­ty of fund­ing; ” . . . . $100.9 mil­lion that Eco­Health Alliance has received in gov­ern­ment grants and con­tracts since 2003. . . .” (17)

Fur­ther­more, Daszak and the Eco­Health Alliance were deeply involved with a USAID and NIH fund­ed joint WIV/University of North Car­oli­na project. ” . . . . The two insti­tu­tions also worked as col­lab­o­ra­tors under anoth­er $2.6‑million grant, ‘Risk of Viral Emer­gence from Bats,’ and under Eco­Health Alliance’s largest sin­gle source of fund­ing, a $44.2 mil­lion sub-grant from the Uni­ver­si­ty of Cal­i­for­nia at Davis for the PREDICT project (2015–2020). . . .” (18)

It was this PREDICT project that fund­ed the Shi/Baric work. (PREDICT is fund­ed by USAID.) ” . . . . It’s the $44.2‑million PREDICT grant that Eco­Health Alliance used to fund the gain-of-func­tion exper­i­ment by WIV sci­en­tist Zhengli Shi and the Uni­ver­si­ty of North Car­oli­na at Chapel Hill’s Ralph Bar­ic. Shi and Bar­ic used genet­ic engi­neer­ing and syn­thet­ic biol­o­gy to cre­ate a ‘new bat SARS-like virus . . . that can jump direct­ly from its bat hosts to humans.’ . . .” (19)

Con­scious­ness of Guilt

Per­haps the most sub­stan­tive, abid­ing indi­ca­tion that the U.S. delib­er­ate­ly syn­the­sized the Covid-19 virus is the legal prin­ci­ple of “Con­scious­ness of Guilt.”

As the bril­liant Berke­ley researcher Peter Dale Scott set forth: “The cov­er-up obvi­ates the con­spir­a­cy.” In the con­text of Covid-19, there is abun­dant evi­dence of a cov­er-up of the facts, deriv­ing from appar­ent guilt of those delib­er­ate­ly obfus­cat­ing the real­i­ty of the cre­ation of the virus.

As not­ed above, a viral genome in a Nature mag­a­zine arti­cle about the Eco­Health Alliance/WIV col­lab­o­ra­tion wasn’t entered into Gen­Bank until May of 2020. Why wasn’t the genome of the new virus deposit­ed until May of 2020?

The behav­ior of Peter Daszak and col­leagues in “gam­ing” the Lancet state­ment on the “nat­ur­al” ori­gin of the coro­n­avirus goes a long way toward prov­ing “con­scious­ness of guilt. (Dasza­k’s Eco­Health Alliance–funded and advised by the nation­al secu­ri­ty establishment–is impli­cat­ed in the cre­ation of the SARS CoV‑2, as high­light­ed above.)

“. . . . 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. . . . The Lancet state­ment effec­tive­ly end­ed the debate over COVID-19’s ori­gins before it began. . . . 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. . . .” (20)

Among the col­lab­o­ra­tors with Daszak was Ralph Bar­ic, anoth­er sci­en­tist cen­tral­ly involved with the projects that appear to have birthed SARS Cov‑2; “ . . . . Under the sub­ject line, ‘No need for you to sign the State­ment Ralph!!,’ he [Daszak] 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.’. . . .” (21)

Baric’s behav­ior in this con­text is par­tic­u­lar­ly reveal­ing. For years, he had been research­ing and manip­u­lat­ing bat-borne coro­n­avirus­es in a man­ner that would per­mit them to infect humans with­out being pas­saged through an ani­mal host. The excerpt is from an arti­cle pub­lished in 2015! : “ . . . . Ralph Bar­ic, an infec­tious-dis­ease researcher at the Uni­ver­si­ty of North Car­oli­na at Chapel Hill, last week (Novem­ber 9) pub­lished a study on his team’s efforts to engi­neer a virus with the sur­face pro­tein of the SHC014 coro­n­avirus, found in horse­shoe bats in Chi­na, and the back­bone of one that caus­es human-like severe acute res­pi­ra­to­ry syn­drome (SARS) in mice. The hybrid virus could infect human air­way cells and caused dis­ease in mice. . . . The results demon­strate the abil­i­ty of the SHC014 sur­face pro­tein to bind and infect human cells, val­i­dat­ing con­cerns that this virus—or oth­er coro­n­avirus­es found in bat species—may be capa­ble of mak­ing the leap to peo­ple with­out first evolv­ing in an inter­me­di­ate host, Nature report­ed. . . .” (21a)

Eco­Health Alliance’s Peter Daszak argued in favor of Baric’s research in a reveal­ing man­ner in 2015! “ . . . . ‘[The results] move this virus from a can­di­date emerg­ing pathogen to a clear and present dan­ger,’ Peter Daszak, pres­i­dent of the Eco­Health Alliance, which sam­ples virus­es from ani­mals and peo­ple in emerg­ing-dis­eases hotspots across the globe, told Nature. . . .” (21b)

Anoth­er indi­ca­tion of “con­scious­ness of guilt” is the reveal­ing behav­ior and state­ments of nation­al secu­ri­ty fig­ures when prompt­ed to dis­cuss the gain-of-func­tion activ­i­ty in Chi­na blamed for gen­er­at­ing the coro­n­avirus.

Nev­er lose sight of the tech­no­log­i­cal­ly obso­lete and thus absurd nature of “The Lab-Leak Hypoth­e­sis.” An anal­o­gy to con­sid­er entails a hypo­thet­i­cal Strate­gic Arms Lim­i­ta­tion Treaty between the Unit­ed States and Rus­sia, in which both par­ties agree to lim­it the num­ber of cross­bows they man­u­fac­ture.

” . . . . 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 . . . . ” (22)

Curi­ous behav­ior by the Nation­al Insti­tutes of Health also indi­cate the strong prob­a­bil­i­ty of “con­scious­ness of guilt.”

“ . . . . 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. . . .” (23)

A stun­ning detail con­cerns the 290-page redac­tion in doc­u­ments request­ed from NIH in a FOIA suit: “ . . . . 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. . . .” (24)

What is in those 290 pages?!

Why was the NIH delet­ing viral sequences from a nation­al data­base?! “ . . . . Act­ing NIH Direc­tor Lawrence Tabak tes­ti­fied before Con­gress that sev­er­al such sequences in a US data­base were removed from pub­lic view. . . .” (25)

We will ana­lyze per­haps the most con­vinc­ing exam­ple of “con­scious­ness of guilt” when we set forth the link between the CIA’s ven­ture cap­i­tal arm In-Q-Tel, Metabio­ta and Munich Rein­sur­ance.

Before we do, how­ev­er, we will detail some of the “inter­est­ing” genomes of some virus­es researched and manip­u­lat­ed by Eco­Health Alliance and the “Oswald Insti­tute of Virol­o­gy” (as we call the Wuhan Insti­tute of Virol­o­gy.) Is this why the NIH redact­ed the 290 pages and why the NIH removed some gene sequences from pub­lic view? Is this why a key viral genome was not entered into Gen­Bank until May of 2020, despite dis­cus­sion of it a Daszak arti­cle in Nature mag­a­zine?

Curi­ous Gene Sequences

The arti­cle excerpt­ed below will be fur­ther ana­lyzed and dis­sect­ed in the sum­ma­ry analy­sis at the end of this essay.

Recap­ping and sum­ma­riz­ing a key aspect of the inquiry: “ . . . . 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). . . .” (26)

Har­ri­son and Sachs note the absence of any infor­ma­tion about an inves­ti­ga­tion by the intel­li­gence com­mu­ni­ty of the oper­a­tions con­duct­ed not only in Chi­na, but the U.S. and, per­haps, else­where.

“ . . . . 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. . . .” (27)

Har­ri­son and Sachs fur­ther devel­op the appar­ent lack of dis­clo­sure and analy­sis of the work being done on the CoV’s: “ . . . . 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. . . .” (28)

Har­ri­son and Sachs note the “lack of ini­tia­tive” of the NIH in inves­ti­gat­ing the pos­si­bil­i­ty of a “research-asso­ci­at­ed event.” Even they don’t seem to be fac­tor­ing in the infor­ma­tion con­tained in the Guardian arti­cle from 6/19/2018. “ . . . . 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. . . .” (29)

Of par­tic­u­lar inter­est is the pres­ence of a furin cleav­age site (FCS) in SARS CoV‑2: “ . . . . 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). . . .” (30)

Har­ri­son and Sachs fur­ther dis­cuss the “curi­ous” pres­ence of the FCS. (The foot­notes from the orig­i­nal arti­cle itself are left in and, hope­ful­ly, will be fur­ther inves­ti­gat­ed: “ . . . . 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). . . .” (31)

Next, Har­ri­son and Sachs tack­le the objec­tion raised in the “review piece”: “ . . . . 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  . . .” (32)

Next, Har­ri­son and Sachs dis­cuss the fright­en­ing impli­ca­tions of what they call “mol­e­c­u­lar mim­ic­ry”: “ . . . . 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). . . .” (33)

Explor­ing the pos­si­ble sce­nario involved with the syn­the­sis of such a virus or virus­es, Har­ri­son and Sachs note that: “ . . . . 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. . . .” (34)

Pre­vi­ous knowl­edge held by “the research team” would have equipped them to engi­neer SARS CoV‑2: “ . . . . 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. . . .” (35)

Couched in diplo­mat­ic lan­guage, Har­ri­son and Sachs note the pos­si­bil­i­ty of “coin­ci­dence” in the “mol­e­c­u­lar mim­ic­ry”: “ . . . . 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. . . .” (36)

Har­ri­son and Sachs con­clude their pre­sen­ta­tion by not­ing that full dis­clo­sure should clar­i­fy the situation—a full dis­clo­sure that we believe is alto­geth­er unlike­ly: “ . . . . 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. . . .” (37)

Analy­sis pre­sent­ed in the lib­er­al New York Mag­a­zine by Nichol­son Bak­er takes stock of the impli­ca­tions of con­tem­po­rary biotech­nol­o­gy and what we have termed (in past broad­casts) “The Mag­ic Virus The­o­ry.” His dis­cus­sion also is quite iron­ic in its tone: “. . . . SARS‑2 seems almost per­fect­ly cal­i­brat­ed to grab and ran­sack our breath­ing cells and choke the life out of them. . . . Per­haps viral nature hit a bull’s‑eye of air­borne infec­tiv­i­ty, with almost no muta­tion­al drift, no peri­od of accom­mo­da­tion and adjust­ment, or per­haps some lab work­er some­where, inspired by Baric’s work with human air­way tis­sue, took a spike pro­tein that was spe­cial­ly groomed to col­o­nize and thrive deep in the cil­i­at­ed, mucos­al tun­nels of our inner core and cloned it onto some exist­ing viral bat back­bone. It could have hap­pened in Wuhan, but — because any­one can now ‘print out’ a ful­ly infec­tious clone of any sequenced dis­ease — it could also have hap­pened at Fort Det­rick, or in Texas, or in Italy, or in Rot­ter­dam, or in Wis­con­sin, or in some oth­er citadel of coro­n­avi­ral inquiry. . . .” (38)

Con­scious­ness of Guilt: The Metabiota/Munich Re/In-Q-Tel Con­nec­tion

A com­mon theme in mur­der mys­ter­ies (nov­els, tele­vi­sion shows and movies) con­cerns the pur­chase of lucra­tive life insur­ance impelling the per­pe­tra­tor to dis­patch the vic­tim in order to col­lect.

Upon the mys­te­ri­ous demise of a vic­tim and the sub­se­quent ini­ti­a­tion of an inves­ti­ga­tion by the detec­tive hero (Lieu­tenant Colom­bo, Her­cule Poirot, etc.), we fre­quent­ly see a friend or rel­a­tive express­ing their grief for the deceased, while being thank­ful that at least they will be well cared-for because of the large life insur­ance pol­i­cy of which they are the ben­e­fi­cia­ry.

Even­tu­al­ly, it turns out that the deceased was mur­dered by the ben­e­fi­cia­ry of the life insur­ance to col­lect.

Exam­i­na­tion of the CIA-financed col­lab­o­ra­tion between Metabio­ta and Munich Rein­sur­ance (Munich Re) to pro­vide cor­po­ra­tions, civic insti­tu­tions and pen­sion funds with pan­dem­ic insur­ance yields a dis­turbing­ly sim­i­lar par­a­digm.

This exam­i­na­tion also informs us why Joe Biden is deeply com­pro­mised in his pol­i­cy deci­sions with regard to the pan­dem­ic.

Metabio­ta

One of the cen­tral play­ers in this par­tic­u­lar “[mass] mur­der mys­tery” is the Metabio­ta firm, a biotech­nol­o­gy firm heav­i­ly involved with nation­al secu­ri­ty fund­ing and appar­ent bio­log­i­cal war­fare research.

Joe Biden’s recent­ly-par­doned son Hunter was active on behalf of Metabio­ta in the Ukraine. (39)

Sig­nif­i­cant for our pur­pos­es is Metabiota’s involve­ment with bio­log­i­cal war­fare research and its pro­found oper­a­tional con­nec­tions with Eco­Health Alliance and the research impli­cat­ed in the appar­ent cre­ation of the SARS CoV‑2.

” . . . . emails from Hunter’s aban­doned lap­top show he helped secure mil­lions of dol­lars of fund­ing for Metabio­ta, a Depart­ment of Defense con­trac­tor spe­cial­iz­ing in research on pan­dem­ic-caus­ing dis­eases that could be used as bioweapons. . . . The DoD posi­tion is that  . . . . this is pan­dem­ic ear­ly warn­ing research. We don’t know for sure that’s all that was going on. . . .” (40)

Again, Metabio­ta main­tained strong links with Eco­Health Alliance and was involved with what we call “The Oswald Insti­tute of Virol­o­gy.”

” . . . . Metabio­ta has been an offi­cial part­ner of Eco­Health Alliance since 2014, accord­ing to its web­site. . . . Metabio­ta also has close ties to the Wuhan Insti­tute of Virol­o­gy . . . WIV was a hotspot for con­tro­ver­sial ‘gain of func­tion’ research that can cre­ate super-strength virus­es. Chi­nese [and Amer­i­can] sci­en­tists per­formed gain of func­tion research on coro­n­avirus­es at the WIV, work­ing along­side a US-backed orga­ni­za­tion Eco­Health Alliance that has since drawn intense scruti­ny over its coro­n­avirus research since the COVID-19 pan­dem­ic. [As not­ed above, Eco­Health Alliance research was also con­duct­ed in the U.S.—D.E.] Researchers from the Wuhan insti­tute, Metabio­ta and Eco­Health Alliance pub­lished a study togeth­er in 2014 on infec­tious dis­eases from bats in Chi­na, which notes that tests were per­formed at the WIV. Shi Zhengli, the WIV Direc­tor of the Cen­ter for Emerg­ing Infec­tious Dis­eases who became dubbed the ‘bat lady’ for her cen­tral role in bat coro­n­avirus research at the lab, was a con­trib­u­tor to the paper. . . .” (41)

A key exec­u­tive at Metabio­ta is Andrew C. Weber: ” . . . . He joined Metabio­ta in Feb­ru­ary 2016 as Head of Glob­al Part­ner­ships in the Gov­ern­ment Busi­ness Unit. . . . He served until Octo­ber 2014 as Assis­tant Sec­re­tary of Defense for Nuclear, Chem­i­cal & Bio­log­i­cal Defense Pro­grams. . . .” (42)

Metabiota–partnered with Eco­Health Alliance–was net­worked with In-Q-Tel (the CIA’s ven­ture cap­i­tal arm) and Munich Re to pro­vide pan­dem­ic insur­ance.

“. . . . Today, Metabio­ta, the pio­neer in epi­dem­ic risk mod­el­ing, announced that two mar­ket inno­va­tors, Munich Rein­sur­ance Com­pa­ny, the largest glob­al rein­sur­er and lead­ing expert on glob­al risk solu­tions and In-Q-Tel, Inc. (IQT), the strate­gic investor that accel­er­ates the devel­op­ment of tech­nolo­gies to sup­port the U.S. intel­li­gence com­mu­ni­ty, have signed strate­gic agree­ments with Metabio­ta. . . . .” (43)

Fur­ther devel­op­ing the In-Q-Tel, Munich Re, Metabio­ta project: “ . . . . the com­pa­ny is work­ing with the US intel­li­gence com­mu­ni­ty and the Defense Depart­ment on issues relat­ed to the coro­n­avirus. This is part of Metabiota’s work with In-Q-Tel, the non­prof­it ven­ture firm asso­ci­at­ed with the Cen­tral Intel­li­gence Agency. . . .” (44)

In pitch­ing their insti­tu­tion­al clients on the need to pur­chase pan­dem­ic insur­ance, Metabiota/Munich Re pre­sent­ed a reveal­ing sce­nario to con­vince their poten­tial cus­tomers: “ . . . . 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. . . . ‘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. . . .” (45)

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. . . .” (46)

Munich Rein­sur­ance (Munich Re) is an “inter­est­ing” com­pa­ny for In-Q-Tel (CIA) and Metabio­ta to select as a part­ner.

The com­pa­ny has a lethal his­to­ry of col­lab­o­rat­ing with Ger­man intel­li­gence in World War II through rein­sur­ance agree­ments with Swiss firms. This gave the Ger­man Navy crit­i­cal details about Amer­i­can car­go ships before they even left port, in plen­ty of time for Ger­man sub­marines to be posi­tioned to sink them and kill their crews.

“ . . . . In case after case, every man on board had been marked before the cap­tain opened his orders. Though they may not have known it, the car­goes they car­ried were rein­sured with Munich. The rou­tine sys­tem of plac­ing insur­ance had put pre­cise infor­ma­tion on their sail­ing date and des­ti­na­tion in the hands of the Ger­mans before the ship left port. . . .  It had long been the cus­tom of the Amer­i­can com­pa­nies to place the rein­sur­ance on ships and car­goes with the Zurich group by cabling infor­ma­tion to them so that they could accept respon­si­bil­i­ty for a share of the Amer­i­can insur­er’s risk. . . . The infor­ma­tion cabled would include the name of the ship, the sail­ing date, the car­go car­ried, the des­ti­na­tion, and the val­ue of the insured prop­er­ty. . . . the Zurich group in turn had a rein­sur­ance treaty with the Munich rein­sur­ance pool in Ger­many. The result was that dur­ing 1940 and ear­ly 1941, by the time a ship had cleared New York or Bal­ti­more har­bor head­ed for a Euro­pean port, the Ger­man intel­li­gence ser­vice already had the sail­ing data in hand. . . .” (47)

The mar­ket for the pan­dem­ic insur­ance mar­ket­ed joint­ly by In-Q-Tel (CIA), Metabio­ta and Munich Re has thrived since the onset of the pan­dem­ic.

Event 201

Anoth­er event that might be seen as direct­ly fore­shad­ow­ing Covid 19 is Event 201.

Event 201 was a pre­pared­ness exer­cise in New York City on Octo­ber 18, 2019, on the eve of the pan­dem­ic. (Recall that the CDC closed down the USAMRIID at Ft. Det­rick in Octo­ber of 2019 for “safe­ty vio­la­tions” and the for­mer com­man­der of that facil­i­ty, David Franz was the advi­sor to Eco­Health Alliance).

Event 201 involved the glob­al response to a nov­el coro­n­avirus spread­ing around the world, pro­duc­ing mil­lions of deaths and the loss of great amounts of wealth.

“ . . . . In Octo­ber 2019, just a few months before a nov­el coro­n­avirus sparked a dead­ly pan­dem­ic, a group of gov­ern­ment offi­cials, busi­ness lead­ers, and aca­d­e­mics con­vened in New York City to role-play a sce­nario in which a nov­el coro­n­avirus sparked a dead­ly pan­dem­ic. Their imag­ined virus leaped from live­stock to farm­ers in Brazil, then spread to Por­tu­gal, the Unit­ed States, and Chi­na. Soon, it was every­where. Eigh­teen months lat­er, 65 mil­lion peo­ple were dead. . . .” (48)

This exer­cise began on the same day as the Mil­i­tary World Games began in Wuhan, Chi­na. The pos­si­bil­i­ty that those games may have been one of the vehi­cles for vec­tor­ing pop­u­la­tions in the pan­dem­ic will be cov­ered in a sup­ple­men­tal essay.

A key par­tic­i­pant in Event 201 was Biden’s Direc­tor of Nation­al Intel­li­gence Avril Haines. “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 [Obama—D.E.], 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. . . .” (49)

As men­tioned pre­vi­ous­ly, Haines became Biden’s direc­tor of nation­al intel­li­gence. “ . . . . The new direc­tor of nation­al intel­li­gence [Avril Haines] has been reshap­ing the office, installing a new offi­cial to lead Pres­i­dent Biden’s dai­ly brief­in­gs by tap­ping a vet­er­an of the last Bush admin­is­tra­tion, accord­ing to cur­rent and for­mer gov­ern­ment offi­cials. . . .” (50)

The unten­able, pro­pa­gan­dized “Lab-Leak Hypoth­e­sis” gained cre­dence under Biden. This is all the more curi­ous in that [the recent­ly par­doned] Hunter Biden is impli­cat­ed in the machi­na­tions of Metabio­ta, the part­ner of In-Q-Tel (CIA) and Munich Re in sell­ing pan­dem­ic insur­ance. Recall the warn­ings from the pro­jec­tions Metabio­ta made in 2018: ” . . . . 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 [2018—D.E.], the com­pa­ny had run a large set of sce­nar­ios fore­cast­ing the con­se­quences of a nov­el coro­n­avirus spread­ing around the globe. . . . ‘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. . . .”  (51)

As dis­cussed pre­vi­ous­ly, the “Lab-Leak Hypoth­e­sis” gained trac­tion and pop­u­lar­i­ty under Biden. ” . . . . 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. . . .” (52)

After work­ing for Oba­ma and before join­ing the Biden admin­is­tra­tion, dur­ing Trump’s tenure in office, Avril Haines worked for Palan­tir, the alpha preda­tor of the elec­tron­ic sur­veil­lance land­scape, one of whose prin­ci­pals is key Trump asso­ciate Peter Thiel.

“ . . . .  Ms. Haines left her posi­tion as deputy nation­al secu­ri­ty advis­er to Pres­i­dent Barack Oba­ma at the end of his term in 2017, and with­in about six months she was work­ing as a con­sul­tant for Palan­tir. . . .” (53)

Inter­est­ing­ly and per­haps sig­nif­i­cant­ly, Oper­a­tion Warp Speed (Trump’s accel­er­at­ed coro­n­avirus vac­cine pro­gram) was imple­ment­ed through Palan­tir, for whom Avil Haines worked as a con­sul­tant dur­ing the Trump admin­is­tra­tion.

“ . . . . Julie and Aaron work for Palan­tir, a com­pa­ny whose name cur­dles the blood of pro­gres­sives and some of the mil­i­tary estab­lish­ment. . . . [Gen­er­al Gus­tave] Per­na says Palan­tir did exact­ly what it promised. Using arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence, the com­pa­ny opti­mized thou­sands of data streams and piped them into an ele­gant inter­face. In a few short weeks, Per­na had his God view of the prob­lem. . . .” (54)

Dis­ease X

Anoth­er “curi­ous” fore­shad­ow­ing of the pan­dem­ic con­cerns “Dis­ease X” and the ubiq­ui­tous Peter Daszak’s pre­dic­tion of same. This is all the more sig­nif­i­cant in that Daszak was work­ing through Eco­Health Alliance to cre­ate the “nov­el coro­n­avirus’ that Metabio­ta, In-Q-Tel (CIA) and Munich Re were cit­ing as the imper­a­tive for insti­tu­tions to pur­chase their pan­dem­ic insur­ance. Recall that Daszak also active­ly con­spired with Eco­Health Alliance col­league Ralph Bar­ic to game the Lancet let­ter attribut­ing the pan­dem­ic to nat­ur­al caus­es.

Daszak had also par­tic­i­pat­ed in a forum that warned of a “Dis­ease X.”

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.

“ . . . . In ear­ly 2018, dur­ing a meet­ing at the World Health Orga­ni­za­tion in Gene­va, a group of experts I belong to (the R&D Blue­print) coined the term “Dis­ease X”: We were refer­ring to the next pan­dem­ic, which would be caused by an unknown, nov­el pathogen that hadn’t yet entered the human pop­u­la­tion. . . . 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. . . .” (55)

Philip Zelikow and Michael R. Gor­don: Déjà vu All Over Again

Reveal­ing and alto­geth­er dubi­ous is the ele­va­tion of Philip Zelikow to a posi­tion of influ­ence in “inves­ti­gat­ing” the ori­gin of Covid, as well as Michael R. Gor­don, who has “walked jour­nal­is­tic point” in the hyp­ing of the unten­able “Lab-Leak Hypoth­e­sis.”

With Michael R. Gor­don help­ing craft jour­nal­is­tic jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for the “Lab-Leak The­o­ry” and Philip Zelikow pro­posed to chair a com­mis­sion inves­ti­gat­ing Covid-19, we are see­ing play­ers in the PNAC/Iraqi WMD/9/11 nexus being recy­cled in con­nec­tion with that the­o­ry.

Gor­don wrote a wide­ly dis­sem­i­nat­ed piece in The Wall Street Jour­nal giv­ing cre­dence to the tech­no­log­i­cal­ly absurd “Lab-Leak Hypoth­e­sis.” “ . . . . Media reports by NBC, CNN, and the New York Times fol­lowed. All of them claimed that the Biden Administration’s actions were trig­gered by the ‘new evi­dence’ pre­sent­ed in the Wall Street Jour­nal arti­cle. With­in 24 hours of pub­li­ca­tion of the Journal’s report, all of these pub­li­ca­tions declared that the Wuhan Lab con­spir­a­cy the­o­ry was ‘cred­i­ble.’ But the arti­cle pub­lished by the Wall Street Jour­nal—beyond being total­ly unsub­stan­ti­at­ed and pre­sent­ing noth­ing fun­da­men­tal­ly new in terms of ‘intelligence’—is pre­sent­ed by a lead author who hap­pens to have helped fab­ri­cate the most lethal lie of the 21st cen­tu­ry. . . .” (56)

In addi­tion, Michael R. Godon: ” . . . . was the same man who, along with Judith Miller, wrote the Sep­tem­ber 8, 2002 arti­cle false­ly assert­ing that Iraqi Pres­i­dent Sad­dam Hus­sein was seek­ing to build a nuclear weapon. . . The claim was a lie, fun­neled to the Times by the office of US Vice Pres­i­dent Dick Cheney. . . On May 26, 2004, the Times pub­lished a let­ter from its edi­tors enti­tled ‘FROM THE EDITORS; The Times and Iraq,’ ‘acknowl­edg­ing that the Times repeat­ed­ly ‘fell for mis­in­for­ma­tion.’. . .” (57)

Gordon’s track record of dubi­ous claims con­tin­ued with regard to cov­er­age of Ukraine: ” . . . . On April 20, 2014 . . . co-authored an arti­cle enti­tled ‘Pho­tos Link Masked Men in East Ukraine to Rus­sia,’ which claimed to iden­ti­fy masked men oper­at­ing in east­ern Ukraine in oppo­si­tion to the US-backed coup regime as active-duty Russ­ian sol­diers. . . .Four days lat­er, the Times Pub­lic Edi­tor was again com­pelled to retract the claims in Gordon’s report­ing, call­ing them ‘dis­cred­it­ed.’ . . .” (58)

Before delv­ing into Philip Zelikow’s role in “inves­ti­gat­ing” the ori­gins of Covid, we review his alto­geth­er ques­tion­able role in the “inves­ti­ga­tion” of the 9/11 attacks. “ . . . . The lawyer who led the inquiry into the Sept. 11 attacks has qui­et­ly laid a foun­da­tion for a non­par­ti­san com­mis­sion to inves­ti­gate the coro­n­avirus pan­dem­ic . . . .” (59)

Pow­er­ful indi­vid­u­als and insti­tu­tions are sup­port­ing Zelikow and com­pa­ny: “ . . . . the Covid Com­mis­sion Plan­ning Group, direct­ed by Mr. Zelikow, is forg­ing ahead on a sep­a­rate track that might at some point, merge with a con­gres­sion­al­ly appoint­ed pan­el. It has finan­cial sup­port from Schmidt Futures, found­ed by Mr. Schmidt and his wife Wendy; Stand Togeth­er, which is backed by the lib­er­tar­i­an-lean­ing phil­an­thropist Charles Koch; the Skoll Foun­da­tion, found­ed by the eBay pio­neer Jeff Skoll; and the Rock­e­feller Foun­da­tion. . . .” (60)

It should be not­ed that Zelikow and com­pa­ny have includ­ed their inves­ti­ga­tion of the “Lab-Leak Hypoth­e­sis” in their inquiry. They do not appear to have enter­tained the evi­dence that the pan­dem­ic came from the U.S. “ . . . . the group has made detailed notes of these ses­sions and draft­ed a blue­print for a wide-rang­ing inquiry that would include, but hard­ly be lim­it­ed to, an exam­i­na­tion of the ori­gins of the virus—including the con­tentious ‘lab leak’ the­o­ry. . . .” (61)

Zelikow’s track record as an “impar­tial inves­ti­ga­tor” is not encour­ag­ing. “ . . . . There is now evi­dence, much of it sys­tem­at­i­cal­ly sup­pressed by the 9/11 Com­mis­sion, that before 9/11, CIA offi­cers Richard Blee and Tom Wilshire inside the CIA’s Bin Laden Unit along with FBI agents such as Dina Cor­si, were pro­tect­ing from inves­ti­ga­tion and arrest two of the even­tu­al alleged hijack­ers on 9/11, Khalid al-Mid­har and Nawaf al-Hazmi—much as the FBI had pro­tect­ed Ali Mohamed from arrest in 1993. . . . The 9/11 Com­mis­sion Report, over­rul­ing FBI reports, sim­ply denied that Sau­di embassy mon­ey had sup­port­ed the two hijack­ers. . . .” (62)

Before review­ing a key ele­ment of the Project for A New Amer­i­can Century’s “Rebuild­ing America’s Defens­es,” it is impor­tant to note that Zelikow was instru­men­tal in bring­ing to fruition the PNAC agen­da: “. . . . In 2002, the PNAC goals of unchal­lenged mil­i­tary dom­i­nance, plus the right to launch pre­emp­tive strikes any­where, were embod­ied in the new Nation­al Secu­ri­ty Strat­e­gy of Sep­tem­ber 2002 (known as ‘NSS 2002’. (A key fig­ure in draft­ing this doc­u­ment was Philip Zelikow, who lat­er became the prin­ci­pal author of the 9/11 Com­mis­sion Report.) . . . .” (63)

It is impor­tant to bear in mind what the PNAC paper rec­om­mend­ed with regard to bio­log­i­cal weapons (bear­ing in mind Zelikow’s role in bring­ing the rec­om­men­da­tions to fruition): ” . . . . In what is arguably the think tank’s most con­tro­ver­sial doc­u­ment, titled ‘Rebuild­ing America’s Defens­es,’ there are a few pas­sages that open­ly dis­cuss the util­i­ty of bioweapons, includ­ing the fol­low­ing sen­tences: ‘…com­bat like­ly will take place in new dimen­sions: in space, ‘cyber-space,’ and per­haps the world of microbes…advanced forms of bio­log­i­cal war­fare that can ‘tar­get’ spe­cif­ic geno­types may trans­form bio­log­i­cal war­fare from the realm of ter­ror to a polit­i­cal­ly use­ful tool.’ . . .” (64)

A thought-pro­vok­ing, although alto­geth­er spec­u­la­tive, hypoth­e­sis con­cerns the behav­ior of Steven Hat­fill who, like Michael R. Gor­don and Philip Zelikow fig­ured in the events sur­round­ing the 9/11 attacks and the inva­sion of Iraq. We will explore this more ful­ly in a sup­ple­men­tal arti­cle. set­ting forth pos­si­ble vec­tor­ing sce­nar­ios for the pan­dem­ic.

The 1918 Influen­za Pan­dem­ic

An aca­d­e­m­ic paper pro­duced by a Fed­er­al Reserve econ­o­mist posits the socio-polit­i­cal effects of the 1918 flu pan­dem­ic as a fac­tor con­tribut­ing to the rise of Nazism in Ger­many.

Cit­ed by numer­ous pub­li­ca­tions, includ­ing The New York Times, Bloomberg News and Politi­co, Kris­t­ian Blick­le’s analy­sis under­scores some of our asser­tions con­cern­ing the psy­cho­log­i­cal, soci­o­log­i­cal and socio-eco­nom­ic aspects of the Covid-19 out­break.

“A new aca­d­e­m­ic paper pro­duced by the Fed­er­al Reserve Bank of New York con­cludes that deaths caused by the 1918 influen­za pan­dem­ic ‘pro­found­ly shaped Ger­man soci­ety’ in sub­se­quent years and con­tributed to the strength­en­ing of the Nazi Par­ty. . . The paper’s find­ings are like­ly due to ‘changes in soci­etal pref­er­ences’ fol­low­ing the 1918 out­break . . .  [which] may have ‘spurred resent­ment of for­eign­ers among the sur­vivors’ and dri­ven vot­ers to par­ties ‘whose plat­form matched such sen­ti­ments.’ . . .‘influen­za deaths of 1918 are cor­re­lat­ed with an increase in the share of votes won by right-wing extrem­ists, such as the Nation­al Social­ist Work­ers Par­ty’ in Germany’s 1932 and 1933 elec­tions. Togeth­er, the low­er spend­ing and flu-relat­ed deaths ‘had a strong effect on the share of votes won by extrem­ists, specif­i­cal­ly the extrem­ist nation­al social­ist par­ty’ — the Nazis — the paper posits.’. . . .” (65a)

This study is inter­est­ing to con­tem­plate against the back­ground of Don­ald Trump’s elec­toral vic­to­ry of 2024.  Might his vic­to­ry have result­ed, in part, from the fas­cist and extreme right-wing ram­i­fi­ca­tions of the pan­dem­ic?

A reveal­ing arti­cle in The Atlantic and a study by the Lon­don School of Eco­nom­ics lend sup­port to the hypoth­e­sis that Covid may well have sig­nif­i­cant­ly influ­enced young peo­ple, and pushed then in a fas­cist direc­tion. Not­ing the Covid-19 pan­dem­ic may under­lie the elec­toral suc­cess of Trump and the grow­ing pop­u­lar­i­ty of the AfD in Ger­many, the mag­a­zine notes: “ . . . . In one recent CBS poll, Amer­i­cans under 30 weren’t just even­ly split between the par­ties. They were even more pro-Trump than Boomers over 65. . . . But young people’s appar­ent lurch right is not an Amer­i­can-only trend. . . . In France, Ger­many, Fin­land, and beyond, young vot­ers are swing­ing their sup­port toward anti-estab­lish­ment far-right par­ties ‘in num­bers equal to and even exceed­ing old­er vot­ers.’ In Ger­many, a 2024 sur­vey of 2,000 peo­ple showed that young peo­ple have adopt­ed a rel­a­tive­ly new ‘gloomy out­look’ on the future. No sur­prise, then, that the far-right Alter­na­tive für Deutsch­land has become the most pop­u­lar par­ty among Ger­mans under 30. . . .” (65b)

Pres­ti­gious aca­d­e­m­ic insti­tu­tions have not­ed the right­ward drift of young peo­ple, dri­ven by their increased skep­ti­cism of sci­en­tif­ic author­i­ties: “ . . . . Young peo­ple who cast their first bal­lot in 2024 were ‘more jad­ed than ever about the state of Amer­i­can lead­er­ship,’ accord­ing to the Har­vard Polit­i­cal Review. A 2024 analy­sis of Amer­i­cans under 30 found the ‘low­est lev­els of con­fi­dence in most pub­lic insti­tu­tions since the sur­vey began.’ . . .” (65c)

One dri­ver of the insti­tu­tion­al­ized pes­simism and right­ward drift of young peo­ple may well be the pandemic’s ero­sion of con­fi­dence in sci­en­tif­ic author­i­ties. “ . . . . One cross-coun­try analy­sis pub­lished by the Sys­temic Risk Cen­ter at the Lon­don School of Eco­nom­ics found that peo­ple who expe­ri­ence epi­demics between the ages of 18 and 25 have less con­fi­dence in their sci­en­tif­ic and polit­i­cal lead­er­ship. This loss of trust per­sists for years, even decades, in part because polit­i­cal ide­ol­o­gy tends to solid­i­fy in a person’s 20s. . . .” (65d)

Social media’s bifur­ca­tion into gen­der-spe­cif­ic forums is also an appar­ent con­trib­u­tor to the trend: “ . . . . The Nor­we­gian researcher Ruben B. Mathisen has writ­ten that ‘social media [cre­ates] sep­a­rate online spheres for men and women.’ By trad­ing gen­der-blend­ed hang­outs in base­ments and restau­rants for gen­der-seg­re­gat­ed online spaces, young men’s pol­i­tics became more dis­tinct­ly pro-male—and, more to the point, anti-fem­i­nist, accord­ing to Mathisen. . . . Although Mathisen focused on Nordic youth, he not­ed that his research built on a body of sur­vey lit­er­a­ture show­ing that ‘the ide­o­log­i­cal dis­tance between young men and women has accel­er­at­ed across sev­er­al coun­tries.’. . .” (65e)

The over­lap­ping effects of the pan­dem­ic and social media may well have mint­ed a fas­cist youth move­ment: “ . . . . But in a few years, what we’ve grown accus­tomed to call­ing Gen­er­a­tion Z may reveal itself to con­tain a sub­group: Gen­er­a­tion C, COVID-affect­ed and, for now, strik­ing­ly con­ser­v­a­tive. For this micro-gen­er­a­tion of young peo­ple in the Unit­ed States and through­out the West, social media has served as a cru­cible where sev­er­al trends have fused togeth­er: declin­ing trust in polit­i­cal and sci­en­tif­ic author­i­ties, anger about the excess­es of fem­i­nism and social jus­tice, and a pref­er­ence for right­ward pol­i­tics. . . .” (65f)

It is note­wor­thy that U.S. mil­i­tary researchers recov­ered part of the genome of the 1918 influen­za virus in 1997 in order to deter­mine what made the virus so dead­ly: “A group of Defense Depart­ment researchers has found genet­ic mate­r­i­al from the noto­ri­ous Span­ish flu virus that killed at least 20 mil­lion peo­ple world­wide in the influen­za pan­dem­ic of 1918. . . . And now, med­ical experts say, inves­ti­ga­tors at last hope to answer a ques­tion that has trou­bled them for decades: what made this virus so dead­ly? . . .” (66)

Using syn­thet­ic biol­o­gy tech­nol­o­gy, sci­en­tists syn­the­sized the 1918 influen­za virus in 2005. “ . . . . The tech­nol­o­gy imme­di­ate­ly cre­at­ed bio-weapon wor­ries. . . . Researchers at the US Cen­ters for Dis­ease Con­trol and Pre­ven­tion (CDC) drove that point home in 2005 when they res­ur­rect­ed the influen­za virus that killed tens of mil­lions in 1918–1919. . . .” (67a)

Worth not­ing in this con­text is the fact that there is no dif­fer­ence between pro­scribed “offen­sive” and report­ed­ly accept­able “defen­sive” bio­log­i­cal war­fare research. When study­ing how microor­gan­isms infect, sick­en and/or kill plants, ani­mals and humans, it is the same research whether one calls it “defen­sive” or “offen­sive.”

Might the dis­cov­ery and recre­ation of the 1918 influen­za virus have influ­enced the devel­op­ment of SARS CoV‑2?

Desta­bi­liz­ing Soci­ety and Increas­ing Sup­port for Author­i­ty

Fol­low­ing direct­ly on the obser­va­tions of the Kris­t­ian Blick­le paper, we take stock of the desta­bi­liz­ing effect of the pan­dem­ic and lock­down and, con­verse­ly, the gen­er­a­tion of sup­port for author­i­ty as a result of the inse­cu­ri­ty gen­er­at­ed in the pop­u­la­tion.

An insight­ful arti­cle in the Asia Times frames Covid in a broad-based psy­cho­log­i­cal war­fare con­text: ” . . . . The work­ing hypoth­e­sis of coro­n­avirus as a very pow­er­ful but not Armaged­don-pro­vok­ing bio-weapon unveils it as a per­fect vehi­cle for wide­spread social con­trol — on a glob­al scale. . . .” (67b)

Dur­ing the lock­down, peo­ple expe­ri­enced psy­cho­log­i­cal­ly and behav­ioral­ly wound­ing emo­tions.

These include: “Stress on mar­i­tal rela­tion­ships; duress on sex­u­al behav­ior, with New York and Los Ange­les (among oth­er cities) advis­ing peo­ple to mas­tur­bate, rather than engage in sex­u­al encoun­ters with oth­ers; psy­cho­log­i­cal dis­lo­ca­tion of chil­dren, who can’t play with oth­ers; psy­cho­log­i­cal dis­lo­ca­tion of ath­let­ic youths, who can’t com­pete in sports; work­ers who can’t inter­act at the office with their peers; stress on friend­ships; peo­ple los­ing their hair in clumps, because of stress; peo­ple grind­ing their teeth and crack­ing them; the effect of peo­ple wear­ing masks and lim­it­ing the abil­i­ty of oth­ers to respond to facial stimuli–an innate and impor­tant ele­ment of human psy­cho-social behav­ior; cities expe­ri­enc­ing soar­ing mur­der rates because of stress; the effect of lock­downs on street demon­stra­tions pur­suant to the deaths of George Floyd and Bre­an­na Tay­lor; ris­ing rates of domes­tic vio­lence; ris­ing con­sump­tion of alco­hol; ris­ing inci­dence of peo­ple feel­ing sui­ci­dal; ris­ing drug abuse; peo­ple fore­go­ing wear­ing masks and prac­tic­ing social dis­tanc­ing because of what psy­chol­o­gists call ‘Covid Fatigue;’ peo­ple flock­ing to con­trar­i­ans oppos­ing var­i­ous pub­lic safe­ty mea­sures . . . .” (68)

The pan­dem­ic also leant momen­tum to a ten­den­cy to adhere to author­i­ty and its dic­tates. “ . . . . Our find­ings revealed that sup­port for polit­i­cal and tech­no­crat­ic author­i­ty, as well as sat­is­fac­tion with polit­i­cal insti­tu­tions, rose sig­nif­i­cant­ly above long-term his­tor­i­cal base­lines dur­ing the pan­dem­ic. . . . the results sup­port the hypoth­e­sis that expo­sure to exis­ten­tial risk results in greater sup­port for author­i­ty and that indi­vid­ual feel­ings of inse­cu­ri­ty may be linked to less crit­i­cal cit­i­zen ori­en­ta­tions. . . .” (69)

Oper­a­tion North­woods

The Covid-19 pan­dem­ic gains a dimen­sion of com­pre­hen­sion when viewed against the back­ground of Oper­a­tion North­woods.

Oper­a­tion North­woods was cre­at­ed in the ear­ly 1960’s as a pro­pa­gan­da and psy­cho­log­i­cal war­fare gam­bit to get Amer­i­cans to sup­port nation­al poli­cies that they might oth­er­wise reject.

Oper­a­tion North­woods’ gen­e­sis grew out of the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s dis­sat­is­fac­tion with Pres­i­dent Kennedy’s ret­i­cence to invade Cuba. (The chair­man of the Joint Chiefs at the time was Gen­er­al Lyman Lem­nitzer, who was involved in the Oper­a­tion Sun­rise nego­ti­a­tions for the sur­ren­der of the SS forces in Italy. The “Sun­rise” milieu involved Bush fam­i­ly invest­ment advis­er Allen Dulles, SS Gen­er­al Karl Wolff, Himm­ler’s per­son­al adju­tant and Nazi oper­a­tive Fran­cois Genoud whose name has cropped up in con­nec­tion with 9/11 in sev­er­al con­texts.)

“ . . . . Lem­nitzer and the Joint Chiefs had qui­et­ly slipped over the edge. Accord­ing to secret and long-hid­den doc­u­ments obtained for Body of Secrets, the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most cor­rupt plan ever cre­at­ed by the U.S. gov­ern­ment. In the name of anti­com­mu­nism, they pro­posed launch­ing a secret and bloody war of ter­ror­ism against their own coun­try in order to trick the Amer­i­can pub­lic into sup­port­ing an ill-con­ceived war . . . .” (70)

The inven­to­ry of pro­pos­als gen­er­at­ed by Oper­a­tion North­woods is chill­ing: ” . . . . Code­named Oper­a­tion North­woods, the plan, which had the writ­ten approval of the Chair­man and every mem­ber of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for inno­cent peo­ple to be shot on Amer­i­can streets; for boats car­ry­ing refugees flee­ing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of vio­lent ter­ror­ism to be launched in Wash­ing­ton, D.C., Mia­mi, and else­where. Peo­ple would be framed for bomb­ings they did not com­mit; planes would be hijacked. . . .” (71)

Fur­ther devel­op­ing our analy­sis, the project epit­o­mizes what are today known as “False-Flag Attacks.” “ . . . . “Oper­a­tion North­woods called for a war in which many patri­ot­ic Amer­i­cans and inno­cent Cubans would die sense­less deaths-all to sat­is­fy the egos of twist­ed gen­er­als back in Wash­ing­ton, safe in their tax-pay­er-financed homes and lim­ou­sines. . . .” (72)

The North­woods sce­nar­ios should be weighed against the back­ground of recent Amer­i­can his­to­ry: “ . . . . “The sug­gest­ed oper­a­tions grew pro­gres­sive­ly more out­ra­geous. . . . ‘We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guan­tanamo Bay and blame Cuba,’ they pro­posed; ‘casu­al­ty lists in U.S. news­pa­pers would cause a help­ful wave of nation­al indig­na­tion.’. . . There seemed no lim­it to their fanati­cism.: ‘We could devel­op a Com­mu­nist Cuban ter­ror cam­paign in the Mia­mi area, in oth­er Flori­da cities and even in Wash­ing­ton,’ they wrote. . . . Bomb­ings were pro­posed, false arrests, hijack­ings: ‘Explod­ing a few plas­tic bombs in care­ful­ly cho­sen spots . . . . Among the most elab­o­rate schemes was to ‘cre­ate an inci­dent which will demon­strate con­vinc­ing­ly that a Cuban air­craft has attacked and shot down a char­tered civ­il air­lin­er en route from the Unit­ed States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Pana­ma or Venezuela. . . .” (73)

The doc­u­men­ta­tion for the plans was kept secret, per­mit­ting an ongo­ing cov­er-up: “ . . . . Because of the secre­cy and ille­gal­i­ty of Oper­a­tion North­woods, all details remained hid­den for forty years . . . . Yet detailed JCS inva­sion plans had been drawn up even before Kennedy was inau­gu­rat­ed. And addi­tion­al plans had been devel­oped since . . . Because so many doc­u­ments were destroyed, it is dif­fi­cult to deter­mine how many senior offi­cials were aware of Oper­a­tion North­woods. As has been described, the doc­u­ment was signed and ful­ly approved by Lem­nitzer and the rest of the Joint Chiefs and addressed to the Sec­re­tary of Defense for his sig­na­ture. . . .” (74)

Author Bam­ford con­cludes as fol­lows about North­woods: “ . . . . Oper­a­tion North­woods also had the sup­port of every sin­gle mem­ber of the Joint Chiefs of Staff . . . . The fact that the most senior mem­bers of all the ser­vices and the Pen­ta­gon could be so out of touch with real­i­ty and the mean­ing of democ­ra­cy would be hid­den for four decades. . . .” (75)

We note in pass­ing that false-flag oper­a­tions have become rel­a­tive­ly com­mon in the decades since the Joint Chiefs first craft­ed the North­woods sce­nario. Fol­low­ing the coup d’etat of 11/22/1963, the Gulf of Tonkin inci­dents were ginned up in order to pre­cip­i­tate the leg­isla­tive approval used to pre­cip­i­tate the Viet­nam War.

The North­woods Virus?

The effect of the coro­n­avirus on pub­lic opin­ion is pre­cise­ly what would be expect­ed from a North­woods-style oper­a­tion. The atten­dant pro­pa­gan­da blitzkrieg about the unten­able “Lab-Leak Hypoth­e­sis” is ampli­fy­ing that effect.

The avail­able evi­dence chron­i­cled in this arti­cle points to the Covid-19 pan­dem­ic as a bio­log­i­cal war­fare false flag oper­a­tion and provo­ca­tion.

“ . . . . in the Unit­ed States and oth­er wealthy democ­ra­cies, the pan­dem­ic has dri­ven neg­a­tive views of Chi­na to new heights, a sur­vey pub­lished on Tues­day showed. The ill­ness, deaths and dis­rup­tion caused by the coro­n­avirus in those coun­tries have inten­si­fied already strong pub­lic dis­trust of Chi­na, where the virus emerged late last year, the results from the Pew Research Center’s sur­vey indi­cat­ed. ‘Unfa­vor­able opin­ion has soared over the past year,’ said the sur­vey on views of Chi­na . . . .” (76)

The prob­a­ble sce­nario behind the gen­er­a­tion of “The North­woods Virus” will be dis­cussed below.

What Hap­pened: The “Oswald Insti­tute of Virol­o­gy”

Against the back­ground of the “Full-Court Press” desta­bi­liza­tion of Chi­na, the fun­da­men­tal nation­al secu­ri­ty foun­da­tion of the research that appears to have devel­oped SARS CoV‑2 and the tech­niques of con­tem­po­rary syn­thet­ic biol­o­gy, we are in a posi­tion to posit what prob­a­bly hap­pened.

We have dubbed this “The Oswald Insti­tute of Virol­o­gy,” named after Lee Har­vey Oswald.

The mas­sive sub­ject of the JFK assas­si­na­tion is beyond the present frame­work to present in the depth and detail required. Suf­fice it to say that the event itself was a coup d’etat, masked by pin­ning the crime on a left-cov­er U.S. intel­li­gence agent (Lee Har­vey Oswald) who was giv­en a “left cov­er,” infil­trat­ed into the for­mer Sovi­et Union, framed for the assas­si­na­tion, and then mur­dered before he could defend him­self.

Cen­tral play­ers in that coup were the senior mil­i­tary com­man­ders who com­posed the North­woods pro­pos­al.

For pur­pos­es of the present dis­cus­sion, a trun­cat­ed account of the frame­work of “Oswald’s” self-incrim­i­nat­ing appear­ances in Mex­i­co City informs us of the par­a­digm appar­ent­ly at work in the fram­ing of the Wuhan Insti­tute of Virol­o­gy for the devel­op­ment of the virus.

“ . . . . The CIA’s case scape­goat­ed Cuba and U.S.S.R. through Oswald for the president’s assas­si­na­tion and steered the Unit­ed States toward an inva­sion of Cuba and a nuclear attack on the U.S.S.R. . . . One must give the CIA (and the assas­si­na­tion spon­sors that were even fur­ther in the shad­ows) their due for hav­ing devised and exe­cut­ed a bril­liant set­up . . . . that pres­sured oth­er gov­ern­ment author­i­ties to choose among three major options: a war of vengeance against Cuba and the Sovi­et Union based on the CIA’s false Mex­i­co City doc­u­men­ta­tion of a Com­mu­nist assas­si­na­tion plot; a domes­tic polit­i­cal war based on the same doc­u­ments seen tru­ly, but a war the CIA would fight with every covert weapon at its com­mand; or a com­plete cov­er-up of any con­spir­a­cy evi­dence and a silent coup d’etat that would reverse Kennedy’s efforts to end the Cold War. . . .” (77)

Eco­Health Alliance (fund­ed by the Pen­ta­gon, USAID and advised by David Franz of the USAMRIID), financed the dis­cov­ery and gain-of-func­tion manip­u­la­tion of bat virus­es at the Wuhan Insti­tute of Virol­o­gy.

These research projects led to the pub­li­ca­tion of sci­en­tif­ic papers with the genom­ic sequences of the virus­es con­tained there­in. The data­bas­es of the Wuhan Insti­tute of Virol­o­gy would also have con­tained these viral genomes.

Hav­ing set up the WIV to take the blame for the cre­ation of the virus­es, the virus­es were then syn­the­sized using con­tem­po­rary syn­thet­ic biol­o­gy.

By way of review and elu­ci­da­tion, those syn­thet­ic biol­o­gy tech­niques were pre­sent­ed in an arti­cle in The Guardian: “ . . . . 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. . . .” (78)

After syn­the­siz­ing the virus­es, pop­u­la­tions in the U.S. and around the world were then vec­tored and the blame pinned on Chi­na and the Wuhan Insti­tute of Virol­o­gy or, as we have termed it, “the Oswald Insti­tute of Virol­o­gy.”

Alleg­ing that the Chi­nese allowed the lethal virus­es that they had cre­at­ed to “leak,” the vast pro­pa­gan­da appa­ra­tus of the U.S. nation­al secu­ri­ty and media estab­lish­ments trum­pet­ed and dis­sem­i­nat­ed the “Lab-Leak Hypoth­e­sis.”

The resul­tant “psy-op” mobi­lized U.S. and world opin­ion for an esca­lat­ing cas­cade of anti-Chi­na measures—in effect, a “North­woods Virus” gam­bit.

A com­pan­ion arti­cle to this one will out­line pos­si­ble sce­nar­ios for the vec­tor­ing of tar­get­ed pop­u­la­tions both in the U.S. and abroad. In addi­tion, we will present future arti­cles detail­ing the cre­ation of Lyme Dis­ease by U.S. bio­log­i­cal war­fare experts and the strong prob­a­bil­i­ty that AIDS came from a U.S. bio­log­i­cal war­fare pro­gram as well.

Project Paper­clip

The Amer­i­can impor­ta­tion of the cream of Nazi mil­i­tary sci­ence to work for the U.S. under Project Paper­clip is well doc­u­ment­ed. Many of those were war crim­i­nals of the first order. One of many exam­ples con­cerns the Nazi doc­tors involved in lethal human exper­i­men­ta­tion at the Dachau con­cen­tra­tion camp.

“ . . . . The U.S. war crimes office for the chief coun­sel wrote up a list of doc­tors involved in med­ical research that result­ed in ‘mer­cy killing,’ a euphemism used by the Third Reich for its med­ical mur­der pro­grams. . . . A copy of the list was giv­en to the com­man­der of the Army Air Forces Aero Med­ical Cen­ter, Robert J. Ben­ford. Five doc­tors work­ing at the cen­ter start­ing in the fall of 1945 were on the list: Theodor Ben­zinger, Siegried Ruff, Kon­rad Schafer, Her­mann Beck­er-Frey­seng, and Oskar Schroder. Instead of fir­ing these physi­cians sus­pect­ed of heinous war crimes, the cen­ter kept the doc­tors in its employ and the list was clas­si­fied. . . .” (79)

Far from being excep­tion­al, the U.S. employ­ment of these crim­i­nals was exem­plary and rou­tine.

Unit 731

Against the back­ground of the vir­u­lent anti-Chi­nese psy-op embod­ied in the “Lab-Leak Hypoth­e­sis,” we note that the noto­ri­ous Japan­ese Unit 731 bio­log­i­cal war­fare unit was fold­ed into the U.S. war effort, along with many of its most heinous per­son­nel and method­olo­gies.

“ . . . .Gen­er­al Mar­quat was also in charge of clos­ing down and pun­ish­ing Japan’s bio­log­i­cal and chem­i­cal war­fare ser­vice, Unit 731. Instead, the U.S. Gov­ern­ment secret­ly absorbed Unit 731, mov­ing most of its sci­en­tists, per­son­nel, and doc­u­ments to U.S. mil­i­tary research cen­ters like Fort Diet­rick in the Mary­land coun­try­side. All infor­ma­tion about its activ­i­ties, includ­ing bio­log­i­cal war­fare atroc­i­ties, and hor­rif­ic exper­i­ments on ful­ly con­scious vic­tims, was with­held by Wash­ing­ton from the Amer­i­can and Japan­ese pub­lic, and from the Tokyo War Crimes Tri­bunals. All Unit 731’s records held by the U.S. Gov­ern­ment are still top secret. . . .” (80)

The Ukrain­ian Fam­i­ly Daszak

The his­tor­i­cal record of U.S. employ­ment of Axis indi­vid­u­als and insti­tu­tions involved in bio­log­i­cal war­fare rais­es an inter­est­ing inter­roga­to­ry note about Peter Daszak and his her­itage.

Again, not only is Daszak at the epi­cen­ter of the work of Eco­Health Alliance and its coop­er­at­ing nation­al secu­ri­ty ele­ments, but he was the only per­son who served on both major bod­ies inves­ti­gat­ing the ori­gins of the pan­dem­ic.

Daszak’s father Bohdan was Ukrain­ian and the right age to have served in the Nazi-allied gov­ern­ment of Jaroslav Stet­zko and the OUN/B. (In a sup­ple­men­tal essay, we will ana­lyze the Ukrain­ian Nazi col­lab­o­ra­tors and the Daszaks in the con­text of Ukrain­ian fas­cist-allied ele­ments in the desta­bi­liza­tion of Chi­na.)

“ . . . . Par­ents — Father is Bohdan Daszak (born March 21, 1926) . . . .” (81)

Bohdan Daszak would have been 19 in March of 1945. An inter­est­ing excerpt from a book high­lights Bohdan Daszak’s work in a Nazi con­cen­tra­tion camp dur­ing World War II. Note that this excerpt con­tains some fun­da­men­tal inac­cu­ra­cies, although they are not nec­es­sar­i­ly inten­tion­al on the part of the author.

“ . . . .When he was about 16, in March 1944, the Ger­mans had occu­pied his coun­try. . . . Bog­dan, though, was an edu­cat­ed town boy, not a peas­ant like the oth­ers, so he was used for paper­work in a camp. . . .” (82)

This pas­sage con­tains sev­er­al inac­cu­ra­cies: Bohdan Daszak was eigh­teen in March of 1944, not six­teen. Ukraine was not a coun­try but a repub­lic of the for­mer Union of Sovi­et Social­ist Republics. It was invad­ed and occu­pied in June of 1941, not 1944 as alleged in the pas­sage above.

Inter­est­ing­ly and per­haps sig­nif­i­cant­ly, one of the most noto­ri­ous Nazi con­cen­tra­tion camps was Janows­ka, locat­ed out­side the city of Lvov in Ukraine.

“Janows­ka con­cen­tra­tion camp . . . . was a Ger­man Nazi con­cen­tra­tion camp com­bin­ing ele­ments of labor, tran­sit, and exter­mi­na­tion camps.^[1] It was estab­lished in Sep­tem­ber 1941 on the out­skirts of Lwów in what had become, after the Ger­man inva­sion, the Gen­er­al Gov­ern­ment (today: Lviv, Ukraine). . . . Jews from the Lwów ghet­to were forced to work as slave labor­ers in this com­plex. When the Ger­mans liq­ui­dat­ed the Lwów ghet­to, the ghet­to’s inhab­i­tants who were fit for work were sent to the Janows­ka camp; the rest were deport­ed to the Ger­man Nazi death camp Belzec for exter­mi­na­tion. . . . Janows­ka was a tran­sit camp dur­ing the mass depor­ta­tions of Pol­ish Jews to the killing cen­ters in 1942 from across Ger­man-occu­pied south­east­ern Poland (now west­ern Ukraine). Jews under­went a selec­tion process in Janows­ka camp sim­i­lar to that used at Auschwitz–Birkenau and Maj­danek Ger­man exter­mi­na­tion camps. Those clas­si­fied as fit to work remained at Janows­ka for forced labor. The major­i­ty, reject­ed as unfit for work, were deport­ed to Belzec and mur­dered, or else were shot at the Pias­ki ravine . . . .” (83)

Impor­tant in this con­text is the fact that the Daszak fam­i­ly is from Lvov. Respond­ing to an inquiry on Twit­ter (now “X”), Peter Daszak respond­ed as fol­lows on March 2 of 2022: “ . . . . Came from Lvov Ukraine where we still have rel­a­tives. . . .” (84)

It is extreme­ly unlike­ly that Bohdan Daszak would have been assigned to a camp oth­er than Janows­ka, which was locat­ed at Lvov, the ances­tral home of the Daszak fam­i­ly.

This rais­es the admit­ted­ly spec­u­la­tive ques­tion as to whether Bohdan Daszak’s pres­ence at a Nazi con­cen­tra­tion may have been because of sym­pa­thies with the Ukrain­ian col­lab­o­ra­tionist move­ment?

Was the elder Daszak, in essence, a par­tic­i­pant in Nazi crimes? Is it pos­si­ble that Peter Daszak is part of the “Paper­clip” milieu and dias­po­ra? Again, these are ques­tions to be answered and are pre­sent­ed in an inter­roga­to­ry mode here.

A sum­ma­ry look at the infor­ma­tion in this essay yields the con­clu­sion that the gen­er­a­tion and dis­sem­i­na­tion of Covid-19 is a crime against human­i­ty, although some par­tic­i­pants may not have been aware of the full extent of the oper­a­tion.

Con­clu­sion, Recap and Sum­ma­ry Analy­sis

Sum­ming up what has been pre­sent­ed in this arti­cle, we see that Covid-19 pan­dem­ic occurred in the con­text of an intense anti-Chi­na desta­bi­liza­tion blitzkrieg. The blam­ing of the pan­dem­ic on Chi­na great­ly accel­er­at­ed anti-Chi­na sen­ti­ment in this coun­try and abroad.

As we have seen, pro­grams of atroc­i­ty and ter­ror against the Amer­i­can peo­ple to pro­mote sup­port for vio­lent reac­tion were at the heart of “Oper­a­tion North­woods.”

We may well be able to see Covid-19 as “The North­woods Virus.”

The use of genet­i­cal­ly-engi­neered microor­gan­isms was fore­seen by PNAC in its “Rebuild­ing America’s Defens­es” paper as a “polit­i­cal­ly use­ful tool.” The inquiry into Covid’s ori­gins was over­seen in con­sid­er­able mea­sure by Philip Zelikow, whose “inves­ti­ga­tion” of the 9/11 attacks was char­ac­ter­ized by sig­nif­i­cant omis­sions. Zelikow also helped imple­ment por­tions of the PNAC defense pro­pos­als in 2002.

In addi­tion, Michael R. Gor­don pro­vid­ed pro­pa­gan­dized jour­nal­is­tic sup­port to the inva­sion of Iraq and the extend­ed PNAC agen­da with arti­cles that were lat­er dis­cred­it­ed. Gor­don also gave pro­pa­gan­dized jour­nal­is­tic sup­port to the tech­no­log­i­cal­ly obso­lete and absurd “Lab-Leak Hypoth­e­sis.”

The Biden admin­is­tra­tion helped pop­u­lar­ize the “Lab-Leak Hypoth­e­sis” with Avril Haines as Direc­tor of Nation­al Intel­li­gence. Haines had pre­vi­ous­ly worked for Palan­tir dur­ing the Trump admin­is­tra­tion at a time when Palan­tir was admin­is­ter­ing Oper­a­tion Warp Speed (the devel­op­ment of a Covid vac­cine). For more about Warp Speed, see the essay “The Mod­er­na File,” avail­able on this plat­form.

Haines had pre­vi­ous­ly par­tic­i­pat­ed in Event 201, fore­shad­ow­ing the pan­dem­ic and Hunter Biden had worked with Metabio­ta in some of its appar­ent­ly bio­log­i­cal war­fare-relat­ed projects, includ­ing oper­a­tional links with Eco­Health Alliance.

The Nation­al Secu­ri­ty Estab­lish­ment and the Devel­op­ment of Covid

At the core of analy­sis of the advent of Covid is the fun­da­men­tal role of the nation­al secu­ri­ty estab­lish­ment in the insti­tu­tions involved with the gain-of-func­tion oper­a­tions at the “Oswald Insti­tute of Virol­o­gy” and the Uni­ver­si­ty of North Car­oli­na: The Eco­Health Alliance is fund­ed large­ly by the Pen­ta­gon and USAID, as well as being advised by Peter Franz, the for­mer direc­tor of USAMRIID, locat­ed at Fort Det­rick and shut-down tem­porar­i­ly in August of 2019 by the CDC for vio­la­tions that have been obscured for rea­sons of “Nation­al Secu­ri­ty.”

Again, that was at the same time as the com­mence­ment of Event 201, which began on the same day as the Mil­i­tary World Games, a pos­si­ble vec­tor for the virus.

We note the co-author­ship of mil­i­tary-linked per­son­nel on some of the papers com­ing out of “The Oswald Insti­tute of Virol­o­gy.”

This was on the eve of the pan­dem­ic.

Eco­Health Alliance has held con­tracts for the appar­ent devel­op­ment of bio­log­i­cal war­fare agents and is also heav­i­ly net­worked with the Depart­ment of Home­land Secu­ri­ty.

Eco­Health Alliance is also net­worked with Metabio­ta, itself appar­ent­ly involved with BW research.

Sum­ma­ry of Con­scious­ness of Guilt and Covid-19

Of para­mount in this sig­nif­i­cance regard are numer­ous indi­ca­tions of the legal con­cept of “Con­scious­ness of Guilt.” Again, as the bril­liant Berke­ley pro­fes­sor Peter Dale Scott not­ed: “The cov­er-up obvi­ates the con­spir­a­cy.”

Sum­ming up key ele­ments of “Con­scious­ness of Guilt”: Daszak and Baric’s delib­er­ate gam­ing of the Lancet’s inquiry into the ori­gins of Covid; Why did Daszak dis­cuss “Dis­ease X” and con­clude Covid was “Dis­ease X”?; Daszak’s claim that he couldn’t inves­ti­gate a virus with 96 per­cent cor­re­spon­dence with SARS CoV‑2 for lack of fund­ing when he had a great deal of fund­ing; The curi­ous, dis­cour­ag­ing behav­ior of Nation­al Secu­ri­ty bureau­crats when Trump appa­ratchiks were try­ing to drum-up sup­port for “The Lab-Leak Hypoth­e­sis” (“A can of worms,” “A Pandora’s box”); Why was a Covid-like virus genome not deposit­ed into the Gen­Bank until May of 2020 (long after the Baric/EcoHealth Alliance team syn­the­sized it)?; Why the extreme secre­cy of the Poten­tial Pan­dem­ic Pathogen Care and Over­sight (P3CO) com­mit­tee?; Why were viral genomes being delet­ed by the NIH from its data­base in May of 2022?; Why were NIH doc­u­ments request­ed by a FOIA suit released with a 290-page redac­tion?; The prospec­tus pre­sent­ed by the In-Q-Tel (CIA) financed Metabiota/Munich Re pan­dem­ic insur­ance warn­ing in 2018 of the eco­nom­ic destruc­tion that might be wrought by a “nov­el Coro­n­avirus” neces­si­tat­ing quar­an­ti­ning, social dis­tanc­ing and school clo­sures at the same time that Metabio­ta was net­worked with Eco­health Alliance, which is syn­the­siz­ing nov­el coro­n­avirus­es.

Key Fea­tures of the Sachs/Harrison Paper for the Pro­ceed­ings of The Nation­al Acad­e­my of Sci­ences (85)

Head­ing the above-men­tioned Lancet com­mis­sion into the ori­gins of Covid, Pro­fes­sor Jef­frey Sachs co-authored a paper for the Pro­ceed­ings of the Nation­al Acad­e­my of Sci­ences with Neil Har­ri­son. That paper war­rants sep­a­rate scruti­ny and dis­cus­sion of some of its major fea­tures. Many of these points also indi­cate the cer­tain­ty and/or pos­si­bil­i­ty of “con­scious­ness of guilt.”

Due to the detailed sci­en­tif­ic lan­guage and nature of the find­ings, key sec­tions of the Sachs/Harrison paper quot­ed above are includ­ed ver­ba­tim as bul­let points:

• The fact that NIH lead­er­ship took an ear­ly lead in pro­mot­ing the “nat­ur­al emergence/zoonotic” hypoth­e­sis (sug­ges­tive of the pos­si­bil­i­ty of con­scious­ness of guilt): “ . . . . the NIH lead­er­ship took an ear­ly and active role in pro­mot­ing the ‘zoonot­ic hypoth­e­sis’ and the rejec­tion of the lab­o­ra­to­ry-asso­ci­at­ed hypoth­e­sis. . . .”
• The fact that the intel­li­gence com­mu­ni­ty has yet to make the results of its inquiries avail­able to the sci­en­tif­ic com­mu­ni­ty for fur­ther inves­ti­ga­tion (sug­ges­tive of the pos­si­bil­i­ty of con­scious­ness of guilt): “ . . . . If it [the Intel­li­gence Com­mu­ni­ty] did, it has yet to make any of its find­ings avail­able to the US sci­en­tif­ic com­mu­ni­ty for inde­pen­dent and trans­par­ent analy­sis and assess­ment. . . .”
• The pos­si­bil­i­ty that the intel­li­gence com­mu­ni­ty may not have ful­ly inves­ti­gat­ed the rel­e­vant indi­vid­u­als, insti­tu­tions (sug­ges­tive of the pos­si­bil­i­ty of con­scious­ness of guilt): “ . . . . 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. . . .”
• The fact that the field and lab­o­ra­to­ry work per­formed the WIV-ECA-UNC axis has not been dis­closed for inde­pen­dent analy­sis: “ . . . . 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 fact that the pre­cise nature of the exper­i­ments per­formed by the WIV-ECA-UNC and the fact that the full array of virus­es col­lect­ed remains unknown: “ . . . . 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. . . .”
• Of par­tic­u­lar inter­est is the pres­ence of a furin cleav­age site (FCS ) in SARS CoV‑2: “ . . . . 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).. . .”
• Such an FCS site is unique to this coro­n­avirus sub­genus of sar­be­covirus­es: “ . . . . 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). . . .”
• This elicit­ed inter­est and sus­pi­cion from the time that the genome of SARS-CoV­‑2 became known: “ . . . . 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. . . .”
• The FCS sequence of SARS-CoV­‑2 is iden­ti­cal with a key human amino acid array: “ . . . . 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). . . .”
• The impli­ca­tions of this mim­ic­ry are fright­en­ing and well suit­ed for a bio­log­i­cal war­fare weapon: “ . . . . “ . . . . One con­se­quence of this ‘mol­e­c­u­lar mim­ic­ry’ . . . . is com­pe­ti­tion for host furin in the lumen of the Gol­gi appa­ra­tus. . . . This results in a decrease in human EnaC expres­sion (21). . . . [which] com­pro­mis­es air­way func­tion and has been impli­cat­ed as a con­tribut­ing fac­tor in the patho­gen­e­sis of COVID-19 (22).”
• The ‘mol­e­c­u­lar mim­ic­ry’ also results in immune dis­func­tion: “ . . . . 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). . . .”
• The inser­tion of just such a FCS sequence was pro­posed to DARPA (which, as we have seen, was involved in bat-borne coro­n­avirus­es): “ . . . . “ . . . . 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). . . .”
• After not­ing that the EHA-WIV-UNC teams involved with the gain-of-func­tion exper­i­ments were famil­iar with the sig­nif­i­cance of the “mol­e­c­u­lar mim­ic­ry,” Sachs and Har­ri­son note: “ . . . . 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. . . .”
• Sachs and Har­ri­son note the very low prob­a­bil­i­ty of coin­ci­dence: “ . . . . the mol­e­c­u­lar mim­ic­ry of EnaC with­in the SARS-CoV­‑2 spike pro­tein might be a mere coin­ci­dence, although one with a very low prob­a­bil­i­ty. . . .”

A Bio-Psy-Op

In addi­tion to ramp­ing up anti-Chi­na sen­ti­ment (“The North­woods Virus”), Covid-19 and its vari­ants may be seen as the ulti­mate “psy-op,” a “bio-psy-op,” if you will.

The con­clu­sions of the paper by New York Fed­er­al Reserve mem­ber Kris­t­ian Bick­le loom large in this con­text. Bick­le con­cludes that the 1918 flu pan­dem­ic helped shape the col­lec­tive Ger­man polit­i­cal psy­che in such a way as to make them more recep­tive to Hitler and the Nazi Par­ty.

Did such a dynam­ic shape the psy­che of the Amer­i­can pub­lic in such a way as to make them more recep­tive to Trump?

Does the U.S. military’s suc­cess­ful recov­ery of the genome of the 1918 flu virus and the sub­se­quent recre­ation of the organ­ism using con­tem­po­rary syn­thet­ic biol­o­gy tech­nol­o­gy bear on the Covid-19 pan­dem­ic? (The viral genome was retrieved in 1997 and the virus re-cre­at­ed in 2005.)

We must also keep in mind the many indi­vid­ual and social symp­toms of stress result­ing from the pan­dem­ic. How did that soci­etal dis­rup­tion impact sub­se­quent polit­i­cal devel­op­ments?

We note that one effect of the desta­bi­liza­tion of the citizenry’s men­tal states left many dis­posed many to be more recep­tive to author­i­ty.

Was that also a goal of the “bio-psy-op?”

A com­pan­ion arti­cle will explore the eugenic aspects of the pan­dem­ic and pos­si­ble vec­tor­ing sce­nar­ios for the spread­ing of the virus both in the U.S. and abroad.

Notes

1.– “Syn­thet­ic biol­o­gy rais­es risk of new bioweapons, US report warns” by Ian Sam­ple; The Guardian; 06/19/2018.

2.—“Project for The New Amer­i­can Cen­tu­ry;” Wipedia.com.

3.– “Peter Daszak’s Eco­Health Alliance Has Hid­den Almost $40 Mil­lion In Pen­ta­gon Fund­ing And Mil­i­ta­rized Pan­dem­ic Sci­ence” by Sam Hus­sei­ni; Inde­pen­dent Sci­ence News; 12/16/2020.

4.– “Shi Zhengli: Weaponiz­ing Coro­n­avirus­es with Pen­ta­gon Fund­ing, at a Chi­nese Mil­i­tary Lab” by Alex­is Baden-May­er; Organ­ic Con­sumers Asso­ci­a­tion; 09/24/2020.

5.– “Peter ‘Show Me the Mon­ey’ Daszak Pulls in Big Bucks, through Eco­Health Alliance, for Risky Virus ‘Research’” by Alex­is Baden-May­er; About Mag­a­zine; 9/19/2020.

6.— “Peter Daszak’s Eco­Health Alliance Has Hid­den Almost $40 Mil­lion In Pen­ta­gon Fund­ing And Mil­i­ta­rized Pan­dem­ic Sci­ence” by Sam Hus­sei­ni; Inde­pen­dent Sci­ence News; 12/16/2020.

7.– “Bats, Gene Edit­ing and Bioweapons: Recent DARPA Exper­i­ments Raise Con­cerns Amid Coro­n­avirus Out­break” by Whit­ney Webb; The Last Amer­i­can Vagabond; 1/30/2020.

8.– “Peter Daszak’s Eco­Health Alliance Has Hid­den Almost $40 Mil­lion In Pen­ta­gon Fund­ing And Mil­i­ta­rized Pan­dem­ic Sci­ence” by Sam Hus­sei­ni; Inde­pen­dent Sci­ence News; 12/16/2020.

9.– “Bats, Gene Edit­ing and Bioweapons: Recent DARPA Exper­i­ments Raise Con­cerns Amid Coro­n­avirus Out­break” by Whit­ney Webb; The Last Amer­i­can Vagabond; 1/30/2020.

10.– “Shi Zhengli: Weaponiz­ing Coro­n­avirus­es with Pen­ta­gon Fund­ing, at a Chi­nese Mil­i­tary Lab” by Alex­is Baden-May­er; Organ­ic Con­sumers Asso­ci­a­tion; 09/24/2020.

11.–Idem.

12.—Idem.

13.– “Peter ‘Show Me the Mon­ey’ Daszak Pulls in Big Bucks, through Eco­Health Alliance, for Risky Virus ‘Research’” by Alex­is Baden-May­er; About Mag­a­zine; 9/19/2020.

14.—Idem.

15.—Idem.

16.—Idem.

17.—Idem

18.—Idem.

19.—Idem.

20.– “The Lab-Leak The­o­ry: Inside the Fight to Uncov­er Covid-19’s Ori­gins” by Kather­ine Eban; Van­i­ty Fair; 6/3/2021.

21.—Idem.

21a.– “Lab-Made Coro­n­avirus Trig­gers Debate” by Jef Akst; The Sci­en­tist; 11/16/2015.

21b.—Idem.

22.—Idem.

23.– “A call for an inde­pen­dent inquiry into the ori­gin of the SARS-CoV­‑2 virus” by Neil L. Har­ri­son and Jef­frey D. Sachs; PNAS [Pro­ceed­ings of the Nation­al Acad­e­my of Sci­ences]; 05/19/2022.

24—Idem.

25.—Idem.

26.—Idem.

27.—Idem.

28.—Idem.

29.—Idem.geno

30.—Idem.

31.—Idem.

32.—Idem.

33.—Idem.

34.—Idem.

35.—Idem.

36.—Idem.

37.—Idem.

38.—“The Lab-Leak Hypoth­e­sis” by Nichol­son Bak­er; New York Mag­a­zine; 1/04/2021.

39.– “EXCLUSIVE: Hunter Biden did help secure mil­lions in fund­ing for US con­trac­tor in Ukraine spe­cial­iz­ing in dead­ly pathogen research, lap­top emails reveal, rais­ing more ques­tions about the dis­graced son of then vice pres­i­dent” by JOSH BOSWELL; Dai­ly Mail [UK]; 3/25/2022.

40.—Idem.

41.—Idem.

42.—“Contemporary US-Russ­ian Nuclear Risks and Means for Risk Reduc­tion”; Mid­dle­bury Insti­tute of Inter­na­tion­al Stud­ies at Mon­terey; 10/18/2016.

43.— “Munich Re & In-Q-Tel Select Metabio­ta to Gain Deep­er Insights into Epi­dem­ic Risk and Glob­al Pre­pared­ness for Infec­tious Dis­eases;” iqt.org; 8/22/2017.

44.– “How AI is bat­tling the coro­n­avirus out­break” by Rebec­ca Heil­weil; Vox; 01/28/2020.

45.– “We Can Pro­tect the Econ­o­my From Pan­demics. Why Didn’t We?” by Evan Ratliff; Wired; 06/16/2020.

46.—Idem.

47.– All Hon­or­able Men by James Stew­art Mar­tin; Copy­right 1950 by James Stew­art Mar­tin; Lit­tle Brown [HC] 1950.

48.—What the Pandem­ic Sim­u­la­tions Missed” by Jacob Stern; The Atlantic; 05/2023.

49.– “Event 201 Play­ers: Avril Haines;” centerforhealthsecurity.org.

50.– “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].

51.– “We Can Pro­tect the Econ­o­my From Pan­demics. Why Didn’t We?” by Evan Ratliff; Wired; 06/16/2020.

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

53.—“Washington Has Been Lucra­tive for Some of Biden’s Team” by Ken­neth P. Vogel and Eric Lip­ton; The New York Times: 01/01/2021.

54.– “Let AI remake the whole U.S. gov­ern­ment (oh, and save the coun­try)” By Josh Tyrang­iel; Wash­ing­ton Post; 03/06/2024.

55.– “We Knew Dis­ease X Was Com­ing. It’s Here Now.” by Peter Daszak; The New York Times; 02/27/2020.

56.–  “Author of Wall Street Jour­nal ‘Wuhan Lab’ Sto­ry Wrote Lies about ‘Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruc­tion’” by Andre Damon; World Social­ist Web Site; 6/1/2021.

57.—Idem.

58—Idem.

59.–  “Sept. 11 Inves­ti­ga­tor Lays Ground­work for Impar­tial Pan­dem­ic Inquiry” by Sheryl Gay Stol­berg; The New York Times; 6/17/2021; p. A19 [West­ern Print Edi­tion].

60.—Idem.

61.—Idem.

62.– The Amer­i­can Deep State: Wall Street, Big Oil and the Attack on Amer­i­can Democ­ra­cy by Peter Dale Scott; Row­man & Lit­tle­field [HC]; Copy­right 2015 by Pete Dale Scott; ISBN 978–1‑4422–1424‑8; p. 75.

63.— The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of Amer­i­ca by Peter Dale Scott; Uni­ver­si­ty of Cal­i­for­nia Press [SC]; ISBN 978–0‑520–25871‑6; pp. 192–193.

64.– “Bats, Gene Edit­ing and Bioweapons: Recent DARPA Exper­i­ments Raise Con­cerns Amid Coro­n­avirus Out­break” by Whit­ney Webb; The Last Amer­i­can Vagabond; 1/30/2020.

65a.– “Fed Study Ties 1918 Flu Pan­dem­ic to Nazi Par­ty Gains” by Quint Forgey; Politi­co; 5/05/2020.

65b.– “How COVID Pushed a Gen­er­a­tion of Young Peo­ple to the Right” by Derek Thomp­son; The Atlantic; Feb. 18, 2025.

65c.—Idem.

65d.—Idem.

65e.—Idem.

65f.—Idem.

66.— “Genet­ic Mate­r­i­al from 1918 Flu is Found” by Gina Kola­ta; The New York Times; 3/21/1997.

67a.– “Biol­o­gists rush to re-cre­ate the Chi­na coro­n­avirus from its DNA code” by Anto­nio Regal­a­do; MIT Tech­nol­o­gy Review; 02/15/2020.

67b.– “Chi­na Locked in Hybrid War with U.S.” by Pepe Esco­bar [Asia Times]; Con­sor­tium News; 3/18/2020.

68.—FTR#1161: Bio-Psy-Op Apoc­a­lypse Now: What the Hell Does Dave Emory Mean by “Bio-Psy-Op?” Avail­able at https://www.spitfirelist.com

69.—“Existential Inse­cu­ri­ty and Def­er­ence to Author­i­ty: The Pan­dem­ic as a Nat­ur­al Exper­i­ment” by Rober­to Ste­fan Foa and Chris­t­ian Welzel; Fron­tiers in Polit­i­cal Sci­ence; 5/18/2023; Vol. 5–2023.

70.– Body of Secrets; by James Bam­ford; Copy­right 2002 [SC]; Anchor Books [Ran­dom House]; ISBN 0–385-49907–8; p. 82.

71.—Idem.

72.—Ibid.; pp. 83–84.

73.—Ibid.; pp. 84–86.

74.—Ibid.; pp. 88–89.

75.—Ibid.; p. 90.

76.– “Dis­trust of Chi­na Jumps to New Highs in Demo­c­ra­t­ic Nations” by Chris Buck­ley; The New York Times; 10/06/2020.

77.– JFK and the Unspeak­able: Why He Died and Why It Mat­ters by James W. Dou­glass; Touch­stone Books [SC]; Copy­right 2008 by James W. Dou­glass; ISBN 978–1‑4391–9388‑4; pp. 75–81.

78.– “Syn­thet­ic biol­o­gy rais­es risk of new bioweapons, US report warns” by Ian Sam­ple; The Guardian; 06/19/2018.

79.– Oper­a­tion Paper­clip by Annie Jacob­sen; HC Lit­tle, Brown and Com­pa­ny; Copy­right 2014 by Anne M. Jacob­sen; ISBN 978–0‑316–22104‑7; pp. 217–218.

80.– Gold War­riors-Amer­i­ca’s Secret Recov­ery of Yamashita’s Gold; by Ster­ling Sea­grave and Peg­gy Sea­grave; Ver­so [HC]; Copy­right 2003 by Ster­ling Sea­grave and Peg­gy Sea­grave; ISBN 1–85984-542–8; p. 110.

81.—“Peter Daszak;” Housaton­ic; https://sites.google.com/a/housatonicits.com/home/research/dr-peter-daszak-b1965.

82.– Gift­ed Lives: What Hap­pens when Gift­ed Chil­dren Grow Up by Joan Free­man; Google Books.

83.—“Janowska Con­cen­tra­tion Camp;” Wikipedia.org.

84.–https://web.archive.org/web/20220303044752/https:/twitter.com/PeterDaszak/status/149924512700872

85.– “A call for an inde­pen­dent inquiry into the ori­gin of the SARS-CoV­‑2 virus” by Neil L. Har­ri­son and Jef­frey D. Sachs; PNAS [Pro­ceed­ings of the Nation­al Acad­e­my of Sci­ences]; 05/19/2022.