FTR #317 AIDS, Biological Warfare and Apartheid

Fore­shad­ow­ing the anthrax attacks of 2001.

FTR #132 Update on Biological Warfare and Genetic Engineering

Lis­ten: One seg­ment This broad­cast high­lights aspects of the poten­tial appli­ca­tion of genet­ic engi­neer­ing to bio­log­i­cal war­fare. The seg­ment begins with dis­cus­sion of a fore­cast by the British Med­ical Asso­ci­a­tion that genet­i­cal­ly engi­neered, “eth­nic cleans­ing weapons” would become a real­i­ty with­in ten years. Tak­ing advan­tage of genet­ic dif­fer­ences between dif­fer­ent eth­nic groups, such weapons could […]

FTR #24 Biological Warfare and Persian “Gulf War Syndrome”

Lis­ten now: Side 1 | Side 2 These seg­ments explore pos­si­ble bio­log­i­cal war­fare con­nec­tions to “Gulf War Syn­drome,” begin­ning with an exam­i­na­tion of an indi­vid­ual (Dr. Joshua Leder­berg) involved with both a 1994 Pen­ta­gon study that min­i­mized “Gulf War Syn­drome” and a com­pa­ny that was heav­i­ly involved in ship­ping poten­tial­ly dead­ly micro-organ­isms to the Iraqis. […]

FTR #1111 and FTR #1112 Update on the Alleged “Suicide” of Iris Chang and the Destabilization of China and “BioWarfare-Psy-Op” Against China?

This descrip­tion encom­pass­es mate­r­i­al for two pro­grams. Fol­low­ing up on FTR #‘s 1107 and 1108, we high­light a San Fran­cis­co Chron­i­cle arti­cle about the alleged sui­cide of Iris Chang, a sug­ges­tive, impor­tant detail was noticed by a sharp-eyed listener/reader. A detail about the phys­i­cal cir­cum­stances sur­round­ing Iris’s “sui­cide” suggests–strongly–that she did not pull the trig­ger her­self. Her body was dis­cov­ered by a San­ta Clara Coun­ty Water Dis­trict Employ­ee. Some­one who had fired a .45 cal­iber black pow­der weapon into her mouth would be unlike­ly to have her hands crossed in her lap and with the revolver on her left leg. This sounds like it may well an arranged crime scene. “. . . . He noticed con­den­sa­tion on the win­dows, peered inside and saw Iris in the dri­ver’s seat with her hands crossed in her lap. The revolver lay on her left leg. . . .” Some­one who had fired a.45 cal­iber black pow­der weapon­in­to her mouth would be unlike­ly to have her hands crossed in her lap and with the revolver on her left leg. This sounds like it may well an arranged crime scene.

Tran­si­tion­ing to dis­cus­sion about bio­log­i­cal war­fare, we dis­cuss Unit 731–a Japan­ese chem­i­cal and bio­log­i­cal war­fare unit that com­mit­ted egre­gious atroc­i­ties in Chi­na dur­ing World War II.  We note: ” . . . . 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. . . .”

In con­nec­tion with the coro­n­avirus, we note that U.S. sci­en­tists had syn­the­sized a virus of that type in a lab­o­ra­to­ry by 2008–an virus that infect­ed mice, as well as human tis­sues. The syn­thet­ic coro­n­avirus was described, in part, as fol­lows: ” . . . .  Here, we report the design, syn­the­sis, and recov­ery of the largest syn­thet­ic repli­cat­ing life form, a 29.7‑kb bat severe acute res­pi­ra­to­ry syn­drome (SARS)-like coro­n­avirus (Bat-SCoV), a like­ly prog­en­i­tor to the SARS-CoV epi­dem­ic. Syn­thet­ic recom­bi­nant bat SARS-like coro­n­avirus is infec­tious in cul­tured cells and in mice. . . .”

Alto­geth­er curi­ous in the con­text of the stri­dent­ly alarmist cov­er­age of the coro­n­avirus out­break is the fact that Thai doc­tors have appar­ent­ly suc­cess­ful­ly treat­ed the virus with a drug cock­tail involv­ing some com­mon anti-virals. “. . . . A Chi­nese woman infect­ed with the new coro­n­avirus showed a dra­mat­ic improve­ment after she was treat­ed with a cock­tail of anti-virals used to treat flu and HIV, Thai­land’s health min­istry said Sun­day. The 71-year-old patient test­ed neg­a­tive for the virus 48 hours after Thai doc­tors admin­is­tered the com­bi­na­tion, doc­tor Kriengsak Atti­porn­wanich said dur­ing the min­istry’s dai­ly press brief­ing. ‘The lab result of pos­i­tive on the coro­n­avirus turned neg­a­tive in 48 hours,’ Kriengsak said. . . . The doc­tors com­bined the anti-flu drug oseltamivir with lopinavir and riton­avir, anti-virals used to treat HIV, Kriengsak said, adding the min­istry was await­ing research results to prove the find­ings. . . .”

Report­ed by both Agence France Presse and Reuters–two major wire services–this (appar­ent­ly suc­cess­ful) ther­a­peu­tic regime has gone unre­port­ed in U.S. media, so far.

The lift­ing of a mora­to­ri­um on the test­ing of virus­es such as the SARS and MERS coro­n­avirus­es was lift­ed at the end of Decem­ber of 2017, a lit­tle more than two years before the out­break occurred. A num­ber of key points of inquiry in a post by Dr. Joseph Mer­co­la should be scru­ti­nized:

1.–As men­tioned the mora­to­ri­um on the test­ing of this virus was lift­ed a lit­tle less than two years after the out­break. ” . . . . For starters, a 2014 NPR article32 was rather prophet­ic. It dis­cuss­es the Octo­ber 2014 U.S. mora­to­ri­um on exper­i­ments on coro­n­avirus­es like SARS and MERS, as well as influen­za virus, that might make the virus­es more path­o­gen­ic and/or easy to spread among humans. The ban came on the heels of ‘high-pro­file lab mishaps’ at the CDC and ‘extreme­ly con­tro­ver­sial flu exper­i­ments’ in which the bird flu virus was engi­neered to become more lethal and con­ta­gious between fer­rets. The goal was to see if it could mutate and become more lethal and con­ta­gious between humans, caus­ing future pan­demics. . . . ”
2.–Note that as the ban was lift­ed, it was known that a virus of the type now infect­ing Chi­na had been devel­oped in a U.S. lab. This appears to be the same virus men­tioned in the 2008 post men­tioned above. That link had been tem­porar­i­ly bro­ken, as men­tioned in FTR #1112. It has since been restored. ” . . . . The fed­er­al mora­to­ri­um on lethal virus exper­i­ments in the U.S. was lift­ed at the end of Decem­ber 2017,38 even though researchers announced in 2015 they had cre­at­ed a lab-cre­at­ed hybrid coro­n­avirus sim­i­lar to that of SARS that was capa­ble of infect­ing both human air­way cells and mice. . . .”
3.–China had opened a lev­el 4 lab­o­ra­to­ry to study the world’s most dan­ger­ous pathogens in Jan­u­ary of 2018 (one month after the U.S. resumed test­ing of lethal virus­es.) ” . . . . In Jan­u­ary 2018, Chi­na’s first max­i­mum secu­ri­ty virol­o­gy lab­o­ra­to­ry (biose­cu­ri­ty lev­el 4) designed for the study of the world’s most dan­ger­ous pathogens opened its doors — in Wuhan.41,42 . . . .”
4.–A cou­ple of months before the out­break in Chi­na, there was a (frankly sus­pi­cious) exer­cise in New York that was not only a har­bin­ger of what was about to hap­pen but may have been used to jour­nal­is­ti­cal­ly frame cov­er­age of the Wuhan virus. The sig­nif­i­cance of this, in our opin­ion, is the “psy­cho­log­i­cal war­fare” component–the utter hys­te­ria grip­ping the world (and dri­ving down mar­kets) may be dri­ven, in part, by the sug­ges­tion placed in peo­ple’s minds by this exer­cise. Giv­en that rough­ly nine hun­dred Chi­nese have suc­cumbed to the coro­n­avirus and almost ten times that num­ber have died from the flu in the U.S. (a coun­try with a pop­u­la­tion rough­ly one fifth the size of Chi­na’s) it would make more sense for peo­ple to be beside them­selves over the flu and/or the prospects of trav­el­ing to, or receiv­ing trav­el­ers from, the U.S. that is not the case. We also note, in this con­text, that the demo­graph­ic of peo­ple suc­cumb­ing to the coro­n­avirus is sim­i­lar to the demo­graph­ic of most flu fatal­i­ties: old­er peo­ple with oth­er infec­tions and/or chron­i­cal­ly ill patients. In oth­er words, peo­ple with weak­ened immune sys­tems. ” . . . . Equal­ly curi­ous is the fact that Johns Hop­kins Cen­ter for Health Secu­ri­ty, the World Eco­nom­ic Forum and the Bill and Melin­da Gates Foun­da­tion spon­sored a nov­el coro­n­avirus pan­dem­ic pre­pared­ness exer­cise Octo­ber 18, 2019, in New York called ‘Event 201.’46 The sim­u­la­tion pre­dict­ed a glob­al death toll of 65 mil­lion peo­ple with­in a span of 18 months.47 As report­ed by Forbes Decem­ber 12, 2019:48 ‘The experts ran through a care­ful­ly designed, detailed sim­u­la­tion of a new (fic­tion­al) viral ill­ness called CAPS or coro­n­avirus acute pul­monary syn­drome. This was mod­eled after pre­vi­ous epi­demics like SARS and MERS.’ Sounds exact­ly like NCIP, does­n’t it? Yet the new coro­n­avirus respon­si­ble for NCIP had not yet been iden­ti­fied at the time of the sim­u­la­tion, and the first case was­n’t report­ed until two months lat­er. . . . ”
5.–As not­ed above, press cov­er­age of the Chi­nese out­break sug­gests that media out­lets may well have been briefed about “Event 201.” ” . . . . Forbes also refers to the fic­tion­al pan­dem­ic as “Dis­ease X” — the same des­ig­na­tion used by The Tele­graph in its Jan­u­ary 24, 2020, video report, “Could This Coro­n­avirus be Dis­ease X?“49 which sug­gests that media out­lets were briefed and there was coor­di­na­tion ahead of time with regard to use of cer­tain key­words and catch­phras­es in news reports and opin­ion arti­cles. . . .”
6.–Also of sig­nif­i­cance is the fact that Johns Hopkins–the co-spon­sor of “Event 201,” is at the epi­cen­ter of nation­al secu­ri­ty relat­ed bio­med­ical research. FOIA requests on such infor­ma­tion are shield­ed: ” . . . . Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­si­ty (JHU) is the biggest recip­i­ent of research grants from fed­er­al agen­cies, includ­ing the Nation­al Insti­tutes of Health, Nation­al Sci­ence Foun­da­tion and Depart­ment of Defense and has received mil­lions of dol­lars in research grants from the Gates Foundation.50 In 2016, Johns Hop­kins spent more than $2 bil­lion on research projects, lead­ing all U.S. uni­ver­si­ties in research spend­ing for the 38th year in a row.51 If research fund­ed by fed­er­al agen­cies, such as the DOD or HHS is clas­si­fied as being per­formed ‘in the inter­est of nation­al secu­ri­ty,’ it is exempt from Free­dom of Infor­ma­tion Act (FOIA) requests.52 Research con­duct­ed under the Bio­med­ical Advanced Research and Devel­op­ment Author­i­ty (BARDA) is com­plete­ly shield­ed from FOIA requests by the public.53 Addi­tion­al­ly, agen­cies may deny FOIA requests and with­hold infor­ma­tion if gov­ern­ment offi­cials con­clude that shield­ing it from pub­lic view ‘pro­tects trade secrets and com­mer­cial or finan­cial infor­ma­tion which could harm the com­pet­i­tive pos­ture or busi­ness inter­ests of a com­pa­ny.’ . . .”

Next, we note that Steve Bannon–at the epi­cen­ter of the anti-Chi­na movement–is pro­fes­sion­al­ly aligned with an exiled Chi­nese bil­lion­aire and a wealthy Texas hedge fund man­ag­er posi­tioned to make a great deal of mon­ey from a down­turn in Chi­na’s mar­kets.

Ban­non is also very close to the accom­plished investor bil­lion­aire Robert Mer­cer, of Cam­bridge Ana­lyt­i­ca fame. In our next pro­gram, we will dis­cuss Mer­cer’s Reinais­sance Tech­nolo­gies hedge fund and its invest­ment posi­tion with regard to a phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal giant that may prof­it from the coro­n­avirus out­break.

Key points of analy­sis:

1.–G News is dis­sem­i­nat­ing dis­in­for­ma­tion about the coro­n­avirus:  ” . . . . On Jan. 25, G News pub­lished a false sto­ry say­ing the Chi­nese gov­ern­ment was prepar­ing to admit that the coro­n­avirus orig­i­nat­ed in one of its labs. It did not, but the arti­cle still racked up over 19,000 tweets and 18,000 Face­book engage­ments, accord­ing to social track­ing web­site Buz­zSumo. . . . ”
2.–4chan and 2chan have been ampli­fy­ing the dis­in­for­ma­tion about the coro­n­avirus, echo­ing the false­hood that the Chi­nese gov­ern­ment spread the virus. ” . . . . The web­site also pub­lished a ques­tion­able doc­u­ment that fed a con­spir­a­cy that the Chi­nese mil­i­tary spread the dis­ease delib­er­ate­ly. That doc­u­ment, which seems to have come from G News orig­i­nal­ly, has been pop­u­lar on anony­mous mes­sage boards like 4chan and 2chan. . . .”
3.–G News and its funder–Guo Wengui–are pro­fes­sion­al­ly asso­ci­at­ed with Steve Ban­non. ” . . . . G News is part of Guo Media, a project fund­ed by Chi­nese bil­lion­aire Guo Wen­gui, also known as Miles Kwok and Miles Guo. . . . In August 2018, Guo’s orga­ni­za­tion signed what Axios report­ed to be a $1 mil­lion con­tract with Steve Ban­non, for­mer White House strate­gist and for­mer chair of the hyper­par­ti­san news site Bre­it­bart. The con­tract required Ban­non to make intro­duc­tions to ‘media per­son­al­i­ties’ and advise on ‘indus­try stan­dards,’ accord­ing to Axios. Guo and Ban­non fre­quent­ly appear togeth­er in videos on G News that attack the Chi­nese gov­ern­ment. . . .”
4.–Associated with Steve Ban­non and G News is Dal­las-based hedge fund man­ag­er J. Kyle Bass, who is posi­tioned to make a great deal of mon­ey over a down­turn in the Chi­nese econ­o­my. ” . . . . Anoth­er per­son con­nect­ed to G News, hedge fund man­ag­er J. Kyle Bass, also spread a false coro­n­avirus claim in a tweet. His hedge fund report­ed­ly had invest­ments that will increase in val­ue if the Chi­nese econ­o­my fails . . . . Bass has remained a Chi­na crit­ic, fre­quent­ly echo­ing Ban­non.”
Bass, too, is tweet­ing dis­in­for­ma­tion about the virus: ” . . . . ‘A hus­band and wife Chi­nese spy team were recent­ly removed from a Lev­el 4 Infec­tious Dis­ease facil­i­ty in Cana­da for send­ing pathogens to the Wuhan facil­i­ty. The hus­band spe­cial­ized in coro­n­avirus research,’ Bass tweet­ed, link­ing to a CBC News arti­cle that did not sup­port his claim. . . .”
5.–Bass has no inten­tion of remov­ing his tweet, and is chair­man of a foun­da­tion that adver­tis­es on G News. ” . . . . When asked about his tweet, Bass said he had no plan to remove it. ‘I am extreme­ly con­cerned about the spread of mis­in­for­ma­tion about the coro­n­avirus by the Chi­nese gov­ern­ment,’ he said. Bass is the chair of the Rule of Law Foun­da­tion, a non­prof­it that runs ban­ner ads at the top and bot­tom of the G News web­site solic­it­ing dona­tions. . . .”
6.–Bass denies any link between the Rule of Law Foun­da­tion and the Rule of Law Fund, found­ed by Guo and Ban­non, a claim of which we are skep­ti­cal. ” . . . . He also claimed that the Rule of Law Foun­da­tion was sep­a­rate from the $100 mil­lion fund start­ed by Guo and Ban­non called the Rule of Law Fund. . . .”

Sup­ple­ment­ing the pre­vi­ous arti­cle about Ban­non, J. Kyle Bass and Guo Wen­gui, we note that Bass is close to, and may well be a co-investor with, Tom­my Hicks Jr., a key mem­ber of Team Trump. Hicks, Com­merce Sec­re­tary Wilbur Ross and nation­al secu­ri­ty offi­cials are, in turn, work­ing to deny Chi­nese elec­tron­ics firm Huawei access to devel­op­ing 5G net­works, fur­ther ham­string­ing the Chi­nese econ­o­my.

Paul Krug­man, among oth­ers, has not­ed that Wilbur Ross was open­ly cel­e­brat­ing the coro­n­avirus as a boon to the Unit­ed States.

We high­light key aspects of this dis­cus­sion:

1.–Tommy Hicks is at the epi­cen­ter of Trump admin­is­tra­tion maneu­ver­ing that, ulti­mate­ly, will hurt Chi­na eco­nom­i­cal­ly (and will ben­e­fit the invest­ments of J. Kyle Bass.) Hic Over the past two years, the Trump admin­is­tra­tion has been grap­pling with how to han­dle the tran­si­tion to the next gen­er­a­tion of mobile broad­band tech­nol­o­gy. With spend­ing expect­ed to run into hun­dreds of bil­lions of dol­lars, the admin­is­tra­tion views it as an ultra-high-stakes com­pe­ti­tion between U.S. and Chi­nese com­pa­nies, with enor­mous impli­ca­tions both for tech­nol­o­gy and for nation­al secu­ri­ty. Top offi­cials from a raft of depart­ments have been meet­ing to hash out the best approach. But there’s been one per­son at some of the dis­cus­sions who has a dif­fer­ent back­ground: He’s Don­ald Trump Jr.’s hunt­ing bud­dy. . . .”
2.–Hicks is not a gov­ern­ment offi­cial but has access to high-lev­el gov­ern­men­tal process, includ­ing (appar­ent­ly) CIA activ­i­ties. ” . . . . Tom­my Hicks Jr., 41, isn’t a gov­ern­ment offi­cial; he’s a wealthy pri­vate investor. And he has been a part of dis­cus­sions relat­ed to Chi­na and tech­nol­o­gy with top offi­cials from the Trea­sury Depart­ment, Nation­al Secu­ri­ty Coun­cil, Com­merce Depart­ment and oth­ers, accord­ing to emails and doc­u­ments obtained by ProP­ub­li­ca. In one email, Hicks refers to a meet­ing at ‘Lan­g­ley,’ an appar­ent ref­er­ence to the CIA’s head­quar­ters. . . .”
3.–Hicks has used his posi­tion to arrange for J. Kyle Bass to net­work with gov­ern­ment agen­cies and offi­cials. Bear in mind that Bass is posi­tioned to ben­e­fit from a down­turn in Chi­na’s econ­o­my. ” . . . . Hicks used his con­nec­tions to arrange for a hedge fund man­ag­er friend, Kyle Bass — who has $143 mil­lion in invest­ments that will pay off if China’s econ­o­my tanks — to present his views on the Chi­nese econ­o­my to high-lev­el gov­ern­ment offi­cials at an inter­a­gency meet­ing at the Trea­sury Depart­ment, accord­ing to the doc­u­ments. . . .”
4.–Hicks is no co-chair­man of the Repub­li­can Nation­al Com­mit­tee. ” . . . . Hicks lever­aged his Dal­las finan­cial net­work to become a top Trump cam­paign fundrais­er in 2016 and a vice chair­man of the inau­gur­al finance com­mit­tee; in Jan­u­ary, he was named co-chair­man of the Repub­li­can Nation­al Com­mit­tee. . . . ”
5.–In addi­tion to his rela­tion­ship with Don­ald Trump, Jr., Hicks is net­worked with Jared Kush­n­er. ” . . . . Even before becom­ing the sec­ond high­est-rank­ing GOP offi­cial, Hicks was a fre­quent White House guest. He liked to have lunch in the White House mess with his half sis­ter, who worked for a time in the com­mu­ni­ca­tions oper­a­tion. . . .  Hicks would then stroll the halls, accord­ing to a for­mer senior admin­is­tra­tion offi­cial, drop­ping in to offices for impromp­tu chats with var­i­ous offi­cials, includ­ing Jared Kush­n­er. Those sorts of con­nec­tions have giv­en Hicks a con­ven­ing pow­er, the abil­i­ty to call togeth­er mul­ti­ple offi­cials. . . . ”
6.–Again, Hicks net­work­ing can influ­ence pol­i­cy­mak­ing that could dam­age Chi­na eco­nom­i­cal­ly and assist Bass. ” . . . . ‘He basi­cal­ly opened the door for hav­ing a con­ver­sa­tion with peo­ple who I didn’t know but need­ed to know,’ said Robert Spald­ing, a for­mer senior direc­tor for strate­gic plan­ning at the Nation­al Secu­ri­ty Coun­cil dur­ing the Trump admin­is­tra­tion. The efforts, detailed in hun­dreds of pages of gov­ern­ment emails and oth­er doc­u­ments obtained under the Free­dom of Infor­ma­tion Act, show that Hicks had access to the high­est lev­els of gov­ern­ment to influ­ence pol­i­cy­mak­ing in ways that could lead to painful eco­nom­ic out­comes for the Chi­nese — and a poten­tial­ly lucra­tive result for Hicks’ hedge fund friend, Bass. . . .”
7.–Hicks and Bass have invest­ed togeth­er since 2011. ” . . . . Bass pre­sent­ed his views on China’s bank­ing sys­tem in the office of Heath Tar­bert, an assis­tant sec­re­tary at Trea­sury in charge of inter­na­tion­al mar­kets and invest­ment pol­i­cy and a pow­er­ful inter­gov­ern­men­tal com­mit­tee that reviews for­eign invest­ments in the U.S. for nation­al secu­ri­ty con­cerns. Among the offi­cials at the meet­ing with Tar­bert were Bill Hin­man, the direc­tor of the divi­sion of cor­po­ra­tion finance at the Secu­ri­ties and Exchange Com­mis­sion, and Ray Wash­burne, a wealthy Dal­las restau­rant own­er and fam­i­ly friend of Hicks’ who was nom­i­nat­ed by Trump to head the Over­seas Pri­vate Invest­ment Cor­po­ra­tion. Hicks and Bass, both Dal­las res­i­dents and long­time denizens of the finan­cial com­mu­ni­ty there, have invest­ed togeth­er since at least 2011, accord­ing to secu­ri­ties fil­ings and court records. . . .”
8.–Hicks did not deny that he par­tic­i­pat­ed in Bass’s funds, but was eva­sive.” . . . . But it’s not clear if Hicks or his fam­i­ly have an invest­ment in Bass’ Chi­na-relat­ed funds. Reached twice on his cell­phone, Hicks declined to be inter­viewed by ProP­ub­li­ca. In the sec­ond call, in June, Hicks didn’t dis­pute that he and his fam­i­ly have invest­ed in Bass’ funds. But when asked to detail their busi­ness rela­tion­ship, he cut the con­ver­sa­tion short. . . . ”
Bass has a his­to­ry of bet­ting against trends that will turn down­ward, hav­ing made his for­tune on the 2008 crash. ” . . . . Bass, who made his name and for­tune by bet­ting against sub­prime mort­gages before the crash and is known for large bets that economies or cer­tain macro trends will turn down­ward, declined to com­ment. . . .”
9.–Official review did not exam­ine pos­si­ble busi­ness rela­tion­ships between Hicks and Bass. H” . . . . An admin­is­tra­tion offi­cial briefed on the Bass meet­ing at the Trea­sury down­played it as ‘strict­ly a lis­ten­ing ses­sion.’ . . . . He acknowl­edged that the review didn’t include an exam­i­na­tion of any finan­cial rela­tion­ship between Hicks and Bass. . . .”
10.–Bass is posi­tioned to main­tain “mas­sive asym­me­try” to down turns in Hong Kong and Chi­na, in oth­er words, he will ben­e­fit if they go down. ” . . . . Bass has become a vocal advo­cate for an aggres­sive U.S. pol­i­cy toward Chi­na. On Twit­ter and on cable busi­ness chan­nels he’s denounced every­thing from the country’s Com­mu­nist Par­ty gov­ern­ment to its busi­ness prac­tices. Secu­ri­ties fil­ings show Bass raised $143 mil­lion from about 81 investors in two funds — invest­ments that would ben­e­fit if China’s cur­ren­cy were deval­ued or the coun­try faced cred­it or bank­ing crises. In April, in a let­ter to his investors, Bass wrote that his com­pa­ny, Hay­man Cap­i­tal Man­age­ment, was posi­tioned for com­ing prob­lems in Hong Kong and was set up to ‘main­tain a mas­sive asym­me­try to a neg­a­tive out­come in Hong Kong and/or Chi­na.’ . . . ”
11.–Hicks has net­worked with Wilbur Ross, who has open­ly cel­e­brat­ed the coro­n­avirus out­break. Ross is deeply involved with the 5G maneu­ver­ing.” . . . . Hicks’ work on the 5G ini­tia­tive was exten­sive. . . . .  he was part of an infor­mal group led by then NSC offi­cial Spald­ing, that advo­cat­ed for a strat­e­gy in which the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment would plan out a nation­al pol­i­cy for 5G. . . . That same month Hicks attend­ed a 5G meet­ing that he’d arranged with Com­merce Sec­re­tary Wilbur Ross. Com­merce plays a key role in the future of 5G since a divi­sion with­in the agency man­ages gov­ern­ment spec­trum and anoth­er main­tains a list of com­pa­nies the gov­ern­ment believes are, or will become, nation­al secu­ri­ty threats. Com­pa­nies that end up on that list can be effec­tive­ly shut out from glob­al deal-mak­ing. The meet­ing with Ross focused heav­i­ly on the threat of Chi­na, said Ira Green­stein, who served as a White House aide and was part of Spalding’s 5G crew. . . .”
12.–Hicks is net­work­ing with ele­ments in Tai­wan with regard to the 5G devel­op­ments. ” . . . . It isn’t clear what influ­ence, if any, Hicks had in those deci­sions. But his pro­file is only ris­ing. In April, he led a Repub­li­can del­e­ga­tion to Tai­wan along­side a U.S. gov­ern­ment del­e­ga­tion. Hicks met with the country’s pres­i­dent, Tsai Ing-wen, who has late­ly been posi­tion­ing her country’s cor­po­ra­tions as safer providers of 5G equip­ment than those in Chi­na. Tsai thanked the U.S. for sell­ing arms to Tai­wan. She asked Hicks to con­vey her regards to the Trumps. . . .”

The broad­cast con­cludes with a read­ing of head­lines and, in some cas­es, text excerpts of arti­cles about the eco­nom­ic impact of the coro­n­avirus out­break, as well as xeno­pho­bic over-reac­tion on the part of many gov­ern­ments.

Cancer Warfare

Nation­al Can­cer Insti­tute and the Fort Det­rick Link Richard Hatch Covert Action Infor­ma­tion Bul­letin Num­ber 39 (Win­ter 1991–92) Those who would increase the poten­cy of bio­log­i­cal weapons must search for improved meth­ods o f mass pro­duc­tion of organ­isms, fac­tors which will enhance the vir­u­lence, ways to pro­long the stor­age life of liv­ing agents, ways to […]

FTR#1304 Albert Hofmann, The Nazis and The CIA

Trans­formed into some­thing of an icon dur­ing the “Psy­che­del­ic Era” of the 1960’s, San­doz’s Albert Hoff­man’s polit­i­cal affil­i­a­tions are fun­da­men­tal­ly dif­fer­ent from his “Peace and Love” per­sona mint­ed dur­ing that time.

The real­i­ty of that time is fun­da­men­tal­ly dif­fer­ent from the sur­viv­ing cul­tur­al and polit­i­cal nar­ra­tive.

This pro­gram sets forth dis­turb­ing facts about Hoff­man, his rela­tion­ship with the CIA and the San­doz fir­m’s activ­i­ties in World War II.

“. . . . In the same inter­view [Gor­don] Was­son said that Albert Hof­mann ‘worked in some way with the CIA’ and that Hoffman’s ‘dis­cov­er­ies were impart­ed in whole by San­doz to the U.S. gov­ern­ment. San­doz want­ed to be on the right side of things.’ Hofmann’s con­nec­tion to the CIA has nev­er been offi­cial­ly con­firmed by the CIA, which main­tains a pol­i­cy of not com­ment­ing on or reveal­ing infor­ma­tion on for­eign cit­i­zens who find their way into its employ­ment. For­mer agency offi­cials have com­ment­ed anony­mous­ly that sev­er­al San­doz sci­en­tists and offi­cials, includ­ing Hof­mann, main­tained a close rela­tion­ship with the CIA, but the ‘Agency nev­er ful­ly trust­ed the Swiss’ and ‘always held a dual insur­ance pol­i­cy with San­doz’ by vet­ting and plac­ing covert employ­ees with­in the firm’s lab­o­ra­to­ries and admin­is­tra­tion. . . .”

Ele­ments of Dis­cus­sion and Analy­sis Include: The World War II indict­ment of San­doz for col­lab­o­rat­ing with Nazi Ger­many; Hof­man­n’s work for the CIA; the pres­ence of U.S. bio­log­i­cal war­fare per­son­nel in France at the time of the dis­as­trous Pont St.-Esprit ergot/LSD out­break; Hof­man­n’s pres­ence in Pont St.-Esprit in the imme­di­ate after­math of the out­break; Hof­man­n’s mis­rep­re­sen­ta­tion of the cause of the out­break, attribut­ing it to the use of a mer­cury com­pound used to pre­serve seeds: ” . . . . ‘The mass poi­son­ing in the south­ern France city of Pont-St. Esprit in the year 1951, which many have attrib­uted to ergot-con­tain­ing bread, actu­al­ly had noth­ing to do with ergo­tism. It rather involved poi­son­ing by an organ­ic mer­cury com­pound that was uti­lized for dis­in­fect­ing seeds]’ . . . .”; Hof­man­n’s dis­cus­sion with doc­tors inves­ti­gat­ing the out­break in the imme­di­ate after­math of the event–a dis­cus­sion in which the mer­cury poi­son­ing the­o­ry was dis­missed: ” . . . .The doc­tors at the meet­ing agreed that mer­cury poi­son­ing was not evi­dent in any man­ner, spe­cial­ly because of the per­sis­tent lack of kid­ney or liv­er dam­age. . . .”; an account of the Pont St.-Esprit out­break.

FTR#‘s 1292 and 1293 The Oswald Institute of Virology, Part 14: The Northwoods Virus, Part 2 and Apocalypse, The Satanic Presidency of Joe Biden

This descrip­tion opens with an unchar­ac­ter­is­tic qual­i­fi­ca­tion and apol­o­gy: There are two ele­ments of the titles of each of these pro­grams that were not ade­quate­ly explained in the broad­casts them­selves, although they are implic­it in the sub­ject mate­r­i­al.

The term “North­woods Virus” is more com­plete­ly pre­sent­ed in FTR#1215. Among the appar­ent goals of the “Covid Oper­a­tion” that pro­duced SARS CoV‑2 is the turn­ing of Amer­i­can pub­lic opin­ion against Chi­na. Oper­a­tion North­woods was a plan hatched by the Join Chiefs of Staff in the ear­ly 1960’s to stage appar­ent ter­ror­ist inci­dents against Amer­i­can civil­ian and mil­i­tary per­son­nel and infra­struc­ture in order to manip­u­late pub­lic opin­ion in this coun­try and gen­er­ate sen­ti­ment for an inva­sion of Cuba.

The sec­ond pro­gram refers to the Biden Pres­i­den­cy as “Satan­ic,” because behind a stu­dious­ly con­struct­ed façade of iden­ti­ty pol­i­tics, “Team Biden” is pur­su­ing an overt­ly war­like, impe­ri­al­ist agen­da that was accu­rate­ly char­ac­ter­ized by writer Hen­ry Miller in his nov­el Trop­ic of Can­cer: “Amer­i­ca is the very incar­na­tion of doom, and she will lead the rest of the world into the Bot­tom­less Pit.”

Per­haps the most insid­i­ous of Biden’s pro­grams is his “Can­cer Moon­shot.”

Omi­nous­ly, it may well be the suc­ces­sor to Richard Nixon’s “War on Can­cer,” which did not defeat can­cer, but did serve as the appar­ent plat­form for the devel­op­ment of bio­log­i­cal war­fare weapons, AIDS in par­tic­u­lar.

Mod­eled after DARPA, head­ed by a DARPA alum­na whose CV inter­sects with that Agency’s appar­ent involve­ment with the devel­op­ment of Covid-19 and with an act­ing direc­tor who is also a for­mer employ­ee of that benight­ed orga­ni­za­tion, this new “health agency–ARPA‑H”, this agency will employ new, syn­thet­ic biol­o­gy tech­nol­o­gy.

Although that devel­op­ment is rep­re­sent­ed as human­i­tar­i­an, the struc­ture of the agency and the nation­al secu­ri­ty back­grounds of its lead­ing per­son­nel sug­gest strong­ly that this agency, too, will serve as a clan­des­tine plat­form for the next gen­er­a­tion of bio­log­i­cal weapon­ry.

We begin FTR#1292 with a reprise of the audio from a (now delet­ed) 55-sec­ond video of Dr. Jef­frey Sachs sum­ma­riz­ing his two-year stew­ard­ship of The Lancet’s com­mis­sion inves­ti­gat­ing the ori­gins of SARS CoV‑2.

Sachs stat­ed that he is “pret­ty con­vinced” it came from a U.S. bio­log­i­cal lab­o­ra­to­ry.

Next, we recap a study released by US Nation­al Acad­e­my of Sci­ences at the request of the Depart­ment of Defense about the threats of syn­thet­ic biol­o­gy con­clud­ed that the tech­niques to tweak and weaponize virus­es from known cat­a­logs of viral sequences is very fea­si­ble and rel­a­tive­ly easy to do.

One of the cen­tral points Mr. Emory has made about the gen­e­sis of the coro­n­avirus con­cerns the legal prin­ci­ple of “con­scious­ness of guilt.”

Going a long way toward prov­ing con­scious­ness of guilt are:

1.–The clas­si­fi­ca­tion of infor­ma­tion about the nature of the bio­log­i­cal agents involved with the CDC’s clo­sure of the Unit­ed States Army’s Med­ical Insti­tute of Infec­tious Dis­ease in ear­ly August of 2019, on the eve of the pan­dem­ic.
2.–The behav­ior of Peter Daszak and col­leagues in “gam­ing” the Lancet state­ment on the “nat­ur­al” ori­gin of the coro­n­avirus (Dasza­k’s Eco­Health Alliance–funded and advised by the nation­al secu­ri­ty establishment–is impli­cat­ed in the cre­ation of the SARS COV‑2.) Note that the Eco­Health Alliance was syn­the­siz­ing “nov­el coro­n­avirus­es” at this point in time, an impor­tant fac­tor to remem­ber when eval­u­at­ing the Metabiota/Munich Re busi­ness mod­el being pre­sent­ed in 2018. (See #4 pre­sent­ed below.)
3.–The reac­tion of gov­ern­ment offi­cials to Trump admin­is­tra­tion fig­ures into the ori­gins of the virus, advis­ing would be inves­ti­ga­tors that such inquiries would open a “can of worms,” or “a Pan­do­ra’s Box” because it would should light on U.S. fund­ing of the projects.
4.–Metabiota–partnered with Eco­Health Alliance–was net­worked with In-Q-Tel (the intel­li­gence com­mu­ni­ty’s ven­ture cap­i­tal arm) and Munich Re to pro­vide pan­dem­ic insur­ance. Their 2018 busi­ness mod­el direct­ly fore­shad­owed the pan­dem­ic. “ . . . . Just two years ear­li­er, 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 . . . .”  In 2018, as well, Eco­Health Alliance pro­posed a “nov­el coro­n­avirus” for syn­the­sis by DARPA. Although there is no evi­dence that DARPA syn­the­sized the virus, the U.S. did syn­the­size close­ly relat­ed virus­es. With the genome of that nov­el virus hav­ing been pub­lished, it may well have been syn­the­sized either by DARPA or some­one else, giv­en the con­tem­po­rary tech­nol­o­gy. Again, this, also was in 2018.
5.–Many aspects of the SARS COV‑2 virus, includ­ing its curi­ous FCS site and insti­tu­tion­al­ized obfus­ca­tion of aspects of the pan­dem­ic it caused sug­gest delib­er­ate cov­er-up. Why would the NIH redact 290 pages of a doc­u­ment request­ed by an FOIA suit!! Why were sequences of bat coro­n­avirus genomes removed from pub­lic view.

The pro­gram fea­tures a recap of some of the more impor­tant arti­cles in the long series on the coro­n­avirus, fol­lowed by dis­cus­sion of the Ener­gy Department’s con­clu­sion that the coro­n­avirus escaped from a Chi­nese lab­o­ra­to­ry.

Excel­lent analy­sis pre­sent­ed by the Moon of Alaba­ma blog notes that the Wall Street Jour­nal arti­cle break­ing the “news” about the Ener­gy Department’s con­clu­sion was co-authored by Michael R. Gor­don, who trum­pet­ed the “Lab Leak” meme in the spring of 2021.

In a pre­vi­ous jour­nal­is­tic incar­na­tion, Gor­don helped gen­er­ate enthu­si­asm for the inva­sion of Iraq by par­rot­ing the dis­in­for­ma­tion about Sad­dam Hus­sein hav­ing WMD’s.

Sur­pris­ing to Moon of Alaba­ma but not to us is Edward Snowden’s endorse­ment of the Lab Leak Hypoth­e­sis.

Far from being the “hero” Snow­den has made out to be, Snow­den is an extreme right-winger, whose work on cyber-secu­ri­ty appears to be the work of a con­scious dou­ble agent. (We have cov­ered Snowden’s escapades in numer­ous pro­grams over the years, par­tic­u­lar­ly FTR#’s 1078–1081.)

For the con­ve­nience of the lis­ten­er, we recap a 2001 arti­cle dis­cussing the all-encom­pass­ing scope of U.S. elec­tron­ic snooping—an arti­cle that reveals the depth of Snowden’s duplic­i­ty.

In addi­tion to touch­ing on a sto­ry of a recent­ly-released book about the Coro­n­avirus being syn­the­sized as part of a U.S. bio­log­i­cal war­fare pro­gram, the pro­gram recaps the Biden administration’s cre­ation of a “Med­ical DARPA.”

Fol­low­ing dis­cus­sion of Moderna’s delib­er­ate with­hold­ing of data from reg­u­la­tors about its new biva­lent mRNA vac­cine, we note a study that indi­cates that new, dead­ly vari­ants of Covid that could over­whelm the health­care sys­tem are a dis­tinct pos­si­bil­i­ty.

Of great sig­nif­i­cance is analy­sis of a diplo­mat­ic break­through engi­neered by Chi­na. Bro­ker­ing a rap­proche­ment between Iran and Sau­di Ara­bia in the Mid­dle East, Chi­na has helped to re-set the polit­i­cal land­scape of the Mid­dle East.

As not­ed by M.K. Bhadraku­mar, the realign­ment may sig­nal a demise of the dol­lar as the glob­al reserve cur­ren­cy of choice. IF such a devel­op­ment ensues, it will prove dev­as­tat­ing to America’s impe­r­i­al sta­tus, cur­tail­ing the mil­i­tary indus­tri­al com­plex in par­tic­u­lar.

Mr. Emory express­es his great fear that this will not be allowed to develop—the above-men­tioned “Can­cer Moon­shot” and lethal, syn­the­sized micro-organ­isms and pan­demics will very like­ly be the Amer­i­can answer to the long-term eco­nom­ic and polit­i­cal impli­ca­tions of the Chi­nese diplo­mat­ic coup.

FTR#1277 and FTR#1278 Pandemics, Inc., Parts 9 and 10

Focus­ing pri­mar­i­ly on an extreme­ly omi­nous devel­op­ment, these pro­grams set forth a new “War on Can­cer,” launched by the Biden admin­is­tra­tion. The pri­ma­ry ratio­nale for the devel­op­ment of a new fed­er­al agency, this new orga­ni­za­tion appears to be a medical/scientific iter­a­tion of DARPA—the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

Omi­nous­ly, it may well be the suc­ces­sor to Richard Nixon’s “War on Can­cer,” which did not defeat can­cer, but did serve as the appar­ent plat­form for the devel­op­ment of bio­log­i­cal war­fare weapons, AIDS in par­tic­u­lar.

The Third Reich’s bio­log­i­cal war­fare pro­gram was masked as a can­cer research facil­i­ty.

Mod­eled after DARPA, head­ed by a DARPA alum­na whose CV inter­sects with that Agency’s appar­ent involve­ment with the devel­op­ment of Covid-19 and with an act­ing direc­tor who is also a for­mer employ­ee of that benight­ed orga­ni­za­tion, this new “health agency–ARPA‑H”, this agency will employ new, syn­thet­ic biol­o­gy tech­nol­o­gy.

Although that devel­op­ment is rep­re­sent­ed as human­i­tar­i­an, the struc­ture of the agency and the nation­al secu­ri­ty back­grounds of its lead­ing per­son­nel sug­gest strong­ly that this agency, too, will serve as a clan­des­tine plat­form for the next gen­er­a­tion of bio­log­i­cal weapon­ry.
The sec­ond pro­gram begins with a sig­na­ture point of information—a brief Twit­ter video of Pro­fes­sor Jef­frey Sachs opin­ing that SARS Cov‑2 orig­i­nat­ed from a U.S. bio­log­i­cal lab­o­ra­to­ry. His frankly oblig­a­tory qual­i­fi­ca­tion that it was a “blun­der” is best under­stood as “busi­ness as usu­al” for a rel­a­tive­ly high-pro­file pub­lic fig­ure.

Were he to say oth­er­wise, he would be sub­ject to ret­ri­bu­tion, pos­si­bly dead­ly.

As it is now, he will sim­ply be ignored.

Points of Dis­cus­sion and Analy­sis Include: An update on Philip Zelikow’s over­lap­ping roles in the 9/11 “inves­ti­ga­tion,” the real­iza­tion of PNAC’s defense rec­om­men­da­tions, as well as the “inquiry” into Covid-19; Review of Peter Thiel’s and Trump’s appar­ent­ly suc­cess­ful attempt at kneecap­ping the FDA; The numer­ous CIA and reac­tionary links to the devel­op­ment of Mod­er­na’s mRNA Omi­cron boost­er; A jel­ly­fish whose genome may very well yield infor­ma­tion for a syn­thet­ic biology/life exten­sion eugenic man­i­fes­ta­tion of inter­est to “Team Thiel;” The career of Antho­ny Fau­ci and its “bookends”–AIDS and Covid-19.

FTR#1257 Pandemics, Inc., Part 7 (Too Much Monkeypox Business)

This pro­gram con­tin­ues dis­cus­sion and analy­sis of the con­sor­tium of Eco­Health Analy­sis, Metabio­ta, In-Q-Tel and Munich Re–an asso­ci­a­tion inex­tri­ca­bly linked with bio­log­i­cal war­fare and gen­er­a­tion of the Covid-19 pan­dem­ic.

First, we review the fact that Metabiota–which uses AI and social media scrap­ing (among oth­er tools) to gauge the “fear fac­tor” involved with pan­dem­ic readi­ness (and the asso­ci­at­ed pan­dem­ic insur­ance policies)–was gaug­ing the fear fac­tor for mon­key pox, which had man­i­fest­ed some human infec­tions in the Con­go as “low.”

This was in ear­ly 2020. Now, the dis­ease is on the “front burn­er,” so to speak. Peo­ple are afraid of the “new pan­dem­ic.”

Despite only 306 doc­u­ment­ed cas­es in the U.S. (as of 6/28/2022), hun­dreds of thou­sands of vac­cine dos­es are being read­ied for human use.

The dis­ease bears an epi­demi­o­log­i­cal sim­i­lar­i­ty to AIDS: an African mon­key virus infect­ing gay males with mul­ti­ple sex part­ners.

In addi­tion, we review an excerpt­ing of an op-ed col­umn by Scott Got­tlieb, the head of the FDA under Trump, a mem­ber of the con­ser­v­a­tive Amer­i­can Enter­prise Insti­tute and a mem­ber of the board of direc­tors of Pfiz­er.

He notes that the new agency cre­at­ed by Biden to deal with mon­key­pox and oth­er emerg­ing infec­tions was for­mer­ly: ” . . . . an office inside ‌the Depart­ment of Health and Human Ser­vices that is charged with coor­di­nat­ing the fed­er­al response to bioter­ror­ism . . . .”

Media cov­er­age of the out­break char­ac­ter­izes mon­key­pox as a dis­ease afflict­ing pri­mar­i­ly gay males with mul­ti­ple sex partners–similar to the epi­demi­ol­o­gy of the ear­ly AIDS out­break.

Much of the broad­cast con­sists of infor­ma­tion indi­cat­ing the pos­si­bil­i­ty of air­borne trans­mis­sion of mon­key­pox. NB: Mr. Emory can­not com­ment def­i­nite­ly on this possibility–he presents this analy­sis to note the pos­si­bil­i­ty.

We con­clude that chil­dren have con­tract­ed the dis­ease, with­out engag­ing in the behav­ior asso­ci­at­ed with the spread of mon­key­pox, although this is appar­ent­ly quite rare.

FTR#1256 Pandemics Inc., Part 6

By way of intro­duc­tion, we present a link to a short Twit­ter video by Pro­fes­sor Jef­frey Sachs.

NB: The infor­ma­tion in this pro­gram and accom­pa­ny­ing descrip­tion is large­ly a recap of mate­r­i­al pre­sent­ed in the first five pro­grams in this series. It is repeat­ed and pre­sent­ed in a dif­fer­ent order in the audio file.

This rep­e­ti­tion is due to: A) the high­ly tech­ni­cal nature of much of the dis­cus­sion of the viral com­po­si­tion of SARS CoV‑2 and relat­ed virus­es and B) the tremen­dous sig­nif­i­cance of this infor­ma­tion.

Con­tin­u­ing analy­sis of a fright­en­ing con­sor­tium of insti­tu­tions appar­ent­ly linked to the delib­er­ate gen­e­sis of Covid-19, this pro­gram reit­er­ates ele­ments of analy­sis from FTR#‘s 1254 & 1255, pre­sent­ing the infor­ma­tion in a dif­fer­ent sequence for increased under­stand­ing and reten­tion.

Those insti­tu­tions are: Eco­Health Alliance, Metabio­ta, In-Q-Tel and Munich Rein­sur­ance. 

Tak­en togeth­er, a num­ber of points of infor­ma­tion high­light­ed here go a long way to prov­ing the legal con­cept of “con­scious­ness of guilt,” the guilt being intent to cre­ate the pan­dem­ic and knowl­edge that such a thing was done.

(The infor­ma­tion pre­sent­ed here should be tak­en in con­junc­tion with infor­ma­tion pre­sent­ed in–among oth­er programs–FTR#‘s 1251, 1252 and 1253. In turn, those pro­grams are devel­op­ments of doc­u­men­ta­tion pre­sent­ed in our many pro­grams about Covid-19.)

Of para­mount impor­tance in eval­u­at­ing the mate­r­i­al here and in the oth­er broad­casts about Covid-19 is the devel­op­ment of syn­thet­ic biol­o­gy and the man­ner in which it enables bio­log­i­cal war­fare: “ . . . Advances in the area mean that sci­en­tists now have the capa­bil­i­ty to recre­ate dan­ger­ous virus­es from scratch; make harm­ful bac­te­ria more dead­ly; and mod­i­fy com­mon microbes so that they churn out lethal tox­ins once they enter the body. . . In the report, the sci­en­tists describe how syn­thet­ic biol­o­gy, which gives researchers pre­ci­sion tools to manip­u­late liv­ing organ­isms, ‘enhances and expands’ oppor­tu­ni­ties to cre­ate bioweapons. . . . Today, the genet­ic code of almost any mam­malian virus can be found online and syn­the­sised. ‘The tech­nol­o­gy to do this is avail­able now,’ said [Michael] Impe­ri­ale. “It requires some exper­tise, but it’s some­thing that’s rel­a­tive­ly easy to do, and that is why it tops the list. . . .”

Going a long way toward prov­ing con­scious­ness of guilt are:

1.–The behav­ior of Peter Daszak and col­leagues in “gam­ing” the Lancet state­ment on the “nat­ur­al” ori­gin of the coro­n­avirus (Dasza­k’s Eco­Health Alliance–funded and advised by the nation­al secu­ri­ty establishment–is impli­cat­ed in the cre­ation of the SARS COV‑2.)
2.–The reac­tion of gov­ern­ment offi­cials to Trump admin­is­tra­tion offi­cials into the ori­gins of the virus, advis­ing would be inves­ti­ga­tors that such inquiries would open a “can of worms,” or “a Pan­do­ra’s Box” because it would should light on U.S. fund­ing of the projects.
3.–Metabiota–partnered with Eco­Health Alliance–was net­worked with In-Q-Tel (the intel­li­gence com­mu­ni­ty’s ven­ture cap­i­tal arm) and Munich Re to pro­vide pan­dem­ic insur­ance. Their 2018 busi­ness mod­el direct­ly fore­shad­owed the pan­dem­ic. In 2018, as well, Eco­Health Alliance pro­posed a “nov­el coro­n­avirus” for syn­the­sis by DARPA. Although there is no evi­dence that DARPA syn­the­sized the virus, the U.S. did syn­the­size close­ly relat­ed virus­es. With the genome of that nov­el virus hav­ing been pub­lished, it may well have been syn­the­sized either by DARPA or some­one else, giv­en the con­tem­po­rary tech­nol­o­gy. Again, this, also was in 2018.
4.–Many aspects of the SARS COV‑2 virus, includ­ing its curi­ous FCS site and insti­tu­tion­al­ized obfus­ca­tion of aspects of the pan­dem­ic it caused sug­gest delib­er­ate cov­er-up. Why would the NIH redact 290 pages of a doc­u­ment request­ed by an FOIA suit!! Why were sequences of bat coro­n­avirus genomes removed from pub­lic view?

It’s remark­able just how damn­ing our begin­ning arti­cle is.

Co-author of the let­ter to the Pro­ceed­ings of the Nation­al Acad­e­my of Sci­ences and for­mer chair­man of the Lancet’s com­mis­sion on the ori­gins of the pan­dem­ic, Sachs is some­one in a posi­tion to bring real pub­lic atten­tion to this top­ic, if he choos­es to do so. The authors make a com­pelling case for an inde­pen­dent inves­ti­ga­tion, and who would be in a bet­ter posi­tion than Sachs to make this case pub­licly after he dis­band­ed his Lancet Com­mis­sion over these kinds of con­cerns? That’s all part of what is going to make this a sto­ry to watch.

This arti­cle has some remark­able points of infor­ma­tion to be con­sid­ered and it is alto­geth­er wel­come and impor­tant that some­one of Dr. Sachs’ high pro­fes­sion­al pro­file and pres­tige has come for­ward:

1.–“ . . . . 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. . . .”
2.–“ . . . . 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. . . .”
3.–“ . . . . Act­ing NIH Direc­tor Lawrence Tabak tes­ti­fied before Con­gress that sev­er­al such sequences in a US data­base were removed from pub­lic view. . . .”
4.–“ . . . . Spe­cial con­cerns sur­round the pres­ence of an unusu­al furin cleav­age site (FCS) in SARS-CoV­‑2 (10) that aug­ments the path­o­genic­i­ty and trans­mis­si­bil­i­ty of the virus rel­a­tive to relat­ed virus­es like SARS-CoV­‑1 (11, 12). SARS-CoV­‑2 is, to date, the only iden­ti­fied mem­ber of the sub­genus sar­be­covirus that con­tains an FCS, although these are present in oth­er coro­n­avirus­es (13, 14). A por­tion of the sequence of the spike pro­tein of some of these virus­es is illus­trat­ed in the align­ment shown in Fig. 1, illus­trat­ing the unusu­al nature of the FCS and its appar­ent inser­tion in SARS-CoV­‑2 (15).From the first weeks after the genome sequence of SARS-CoV­‑2 became avail­able, researchers have com­ment­ed on the unex­pect­ed pres­ence of the FCS with­in SARS-CoV‑2—the impli­ca­tion being that SARS-CoV­‑2 might be a prod­uct of lab­o­ra­to­ry manip­u­la­tion. In a review piece argu­ing against this pos­si­bil­i­ty, it was assert­ed that the amino acid sequence of the FCS in SARS-CoV­‑2 is an unusu­al, non­stan­dard sequence for an FCS and that nobody in a lab­o­ra­to­ry would design such a nov­el FCS (13). . . .”
5.–“ . . . . In fact, the asser­tion that the FCS in SARS-CoV­‑2 has an unusu­al, non­stan­dard amino acid sequence is false. . . . (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]). . . .”
5.–“ . . . . 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. . . .”
6.–“ . . . . 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. . . .”
7.–“ . . . . 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. . . .”
8.–“ . . . . 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. . . .”

Recap­ping infor­ma­tion from our “Oswald Insti­tute of Virol­o­gy” series, we note that Trump offi­cials who were look­ing to tout the Chi­nese “lab-leak” hypoth­e­sis were told to avoid the top­ic, lest it cre­ate prob­lems for the U.S.

Note, as well, that both Peter Daszak and Ralph Bar­ic, asso­ci­at­ed with Eco­Health Alliance, were engaged in dubi­ous maneu­ver­ing to eclipse atten­tion on the pos­si­ble U.S. spon­sor­ship of the SARS COV‑2 gain-of-func­tion manip­u­la­tions.

1.–” . . . . 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. . . .”
2.–” . . . . 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.’. . .”
3.–” . . . . 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 . . . .”

Next, the pro­gram reviews an excerpt­ing of a “Wired” Mag­a­zine arti­cle about the Metabiota/Munich Rein­sur­ance project.

Bear in mind that In-Q-Tel, the ven­ture cap­i­tal arm of the CIA and the intel­li­gence com­mu­ni­ty, is greas­ing the wheels of this project with financ­ing.

We high­light two key points of infor­ma­tion:

1.–The busi­ness suc­cess of the pan­dem­ic insur­ance would nec­es­sar­i­ly incor­po­rate analy­sis of the “fear fac­tor” of poten­tial pan­dem­ic pathogens: ” . . . . As sophis­ti­cat­ed as Metabiota’s sys­tem was, how­ev­er, it would need to be even more refined to incor­po­rate into an insur­ance pol­i­cy. The mod­el would need to cap­ture some­thing much more dif­fi­cult to quan­ti­fy than his­tor­i­cal deaths and med­ical stock­piles: fear. The eco­nom­ic con­se­quences of a scourge, the his­tor­i­cal data showed, were as much a result of society’s response as they were to the virus itself. . . . The Sen­ti­ment Index was built to be, as Oppen­heim put it, ‘a cat­a­log of dread.’ For any giv­en pathogen, it could spit out a score from 0 to 100 accord­ing to how fright­en­ing the pub­lic would find it. . . . Mad­hav and her team, along with Wolfe and Oppen­heim, also researched the broad­er eco­nom­ic con­se­quences of dis­ease out­breaks, mea­sured in the ‘cost per death pre­vent­ed’ incurred by soci­etal inter­ven­tions. ‘Mea­sures that decreased per­son-to-per­son con­tact, includ­ing social dis­tanc­ing, quar­an­tine, and school clo­sures, had the great­est cost per death pre­vent­ed, most like­ly because of the amount of eco­nom­ic dis­rup­tion caused by those mea­sures,’ they wrote in a 2018 paper. . . .”
2.–More sin­is­ter, still, is the fact that Metabio­ta had ana­lyzed the sce­nario of a nov­el coro­n­avirus pan­dem­ic two years before it hap­pened. This appears to be the 2018 paper referred to above. Do not fail to note that, at the time that Metabio­ta was run­ning this sce­nario, they were part­nered with Eco­Health Alliance, which was using Pen­ta­gon and USAID mon­ey to research and per­form gain-of-func­tion on these types of coro­n­avirus­es!! ” . . . . As the human and eco­nom­ic dev­as­ta­tion mul­ti­plied in tan­dem across the globe, Metabiota’s employ­ees sud­den­ly found them­selves liv­ing inside their own model’s pro­jec­tions. Just two years ear­li­er, the com­pa­ny had run a large set of sce­nar­ios fore­cast­ing the con­se­quences of a nov­el coro­n­avirus spread­ing around the globe. . . .”

Piv­ot­ing to a anoth­er inter­est­ing, emerg­ing dis­ease that was a point of inter­est for Metabio­ta, we open  a dis­cus­sion of mon­key pox, a dis­ease that will be more com­plete­ly dis­cussed in the next pro­gram.

Metabio­ta was eval­u­at­ing mon­key­pox in late 2019: ” . . . .  it rat­ed this risk for the mon­key­pox virus in the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Repub­lic of the Con­go (where there have been report­ed cas­es of that virus) as ‘medi­um.’ . . .”

We con­clude this pro­gram with an excerpt­ing of an op-ed col­umn by Scott Got­tlieb, the head of the FDA under Trump, a mem­ber of the con­ser­v­a­tive Amer­i­can Enter­prise Insti­tute and a mem­ber of the board of direc­tors of Pfiz­er.

He notes that the new agency cre­at­ed by Biden to deal with mon­key­pox and oth­er emerg­ing infec­tions was for­mer­ly: ” . . . . an office inside ‌the Depart­ment of Health and Human Ser­vices that is charged with coor­di­nat­ing the fed­er­al response to bioter­ror­ism . . . .”