Oswald World
In numerous programs we have noted the decisively important position of avowed China hawk Avril Haines. Ms. Haines is the Director of National Intelligence, and, as such, is in charge of the “investigation” into the “Lab-Leak Theory.” The U.S. is now alleging that China hacked key Microsoft email infrastructure. Note in that context, that we have learned that the CIA’s hacking tools are specifically crafted to mask CIA authorship of the attacks. Most significantly, for our purposes, is the fact that the Agency’s hacking tools are engineered in such a way as to permit the authors of the event to represent themselves as Chinese, among other nationalities. ” . . . . These tools could make it more difficult for anti-virus companies and forensic investigators to attribute hacks to the CIA. Could this call the source of previous hacks into question? It appears that yes, this might be used to disguise the CIA’s own hacks to appear as if they were Russian, Chinese, or from specific other countries. . . .”
FTR#1193 The Oswald Institute of Virology, Part 12: Covid-19 and The American Deep State, Part 4
Embodying the “Deep State” ideological continuity being perpetuated from the “extremist” Trump administration to the “respectable” Biden administration, national security advisor Jake Sullivan now sees the “Lab Leak Theory” of Covid’s origins as “credible” as natural origins.
Sullivan is a national security advisor and has no scientific credentials in relevant disciplines.
Sullivan has intoned: ” . . . . National security adviser Jake Sullivan warned Beijing of potential consequences last month, telling Fox News that China will face ‘isolation in the international community’ if it does not cooperate with probes moving forward. . . .”
Isolating China is the biggest strategic goal of this “op,” as we have noted repeatedly since February of 2020.
Note that journalists covering the issue are not permitting discussion of the possibility of the virus’s deliberate creation and dissemination as part of a U.S. covert operation, the 800-pound gorilla in the room we have discussed for many hours.
As famed journalist Edward R. Murrow observed decades ago: “A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
Buttressing Murrow’s observation, 52% of Americans in a recent poll believed the “Lab Leak Theory,” largely because of the Biden administration’s renewed focus on that possibility.
” . . . . U.S. adults were almost twice as likely to say the virus was the result of a lab leak in China than human contact with an infected animal, which many scientists believe is the most likely scenario. . . . [Harvard Professor Robert] Blendon said Democrats likely became more receptive to the idea after President Joe Biden’s recent order that intelligence agencies investigate the virus’ origin and comments from Anthony Fauci, the White House chief medical officer, that it’s worth digging into. . . .”
Anthony Fauci’s expression of doubt about the natural origin theory of the virus is said to have influenced the increase in public acceptability of the “Lab-Leak Theory.”
Fauci himself set forth the “lab leak” scenario in his 2012 endorsement of a moratorium on gain-of-function manipulations, setting the intellectual stage for the “gaming” of just such a scenario.
In FTR#1187, we noted that Fauci’s NIH NIAID was among the institutions that presided over EcoHealth Alliance’s funding of experimentation on bat-borne coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
A Chinese spokesperson has hinted at the origins of the virus being found in U.S. biological warfare laboratories.
Again, the American and world wide press has failed to address the 800-pound gorilla in the room.
By the same token and as part of that failure, the closure of USAMRIID at Ft. Detrick on the eve of the pandemic (early August of 2019.)
“. . . . ‘What secrets are hidden in the suspicion-shrouded Fort Detrick and the over 200 US bio-labs all over the world?’ Zhao asked reprovingly when commenting after Biden announced the intelligence review. In China, officials have pointed to the US failure to publicize information about or accept an investigation of its own biodefense program—something that the government spokesperson cited as an example of ‘having a guilty conscience.’ . . .”
Supplementing the previous item, we recap an item from previous programs:
1.–The U.S. would not be acceptable to such a proposition, if the Chinese demanded access to Ft. Detrick (part of which was shut down by the CDC in early August of 2019 on the eve of the pandemic). A commenter also noted the Rocky Mountain lab in his analysis, which we noted was one of the areas where Willy Burgdorfer appears to have worked on the development of Lyme Disease. ” . . . . If a disease had emerged from the U.S. and the Chinese blamed the Pentagon and demanded access to the data, ‘what would we say?’ [Dr. Gerald] Keusch asked. ‘Would we throw out the red carpet, ‘Come on over to Fort Detrick and the Rocky Mountain Lab?’ We’d have done exactly what the Chinese did, which is say, ‘Screw you!’’ . . . .”
Reprising a portion of an article used in FTR#1191, we note Danielle Anderson’s experience of having been violently excoriated for exposing false information posted about the pandemic online.
The “last–and only” foreign researcher at the WIV, Ms. Anderson has shared the vitriol that many virologists have experienced in the wake of the pandemic.
Are we seeing a manifestation of what might be called “anti-virologist” McCarthyism, not unlike the “Who Lost China” crusade in the 1950’s?
Are virologists being intimidated into supporting–or at least not refuting–the “Lab Leak Theory?”
Bear in mind that Donald Trump’s attorney and political mentor was the late Roy Cohn, who was Senator Joe McCarthy’s top hatchet man.
In addition, we note that intellectual curiosity has been dampened by the financial gain that derives from government funding.
“. . . . One of the many prescient observations in President Eisenhower’s 1961 farewell speech warning about the dangers of the ‘military-industrial complex’ was that ‘a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. . . The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.’ . . . .”
We wonder if this, paired with the intimidation of virologists by the right-wing, is a factor driving acceptance of “The Lab-Leak Theory?”
Next, we once again reprise a study released by US National Academy of Sciences at the request of the Department of Defense about the threats of synthetic biology concluded that the techniques to tweak and weaponize viruses from known catalogs of viral sequences is very feasible and relatively easy to do.
Note that the Pentagon has funded research into bat-borne coronaviruses in China and at the “Oswald Institute of Virology,” through various vehicles, including and especially (in combination with USAID) the EcoHealth Alliance .
That research has led to the publication of research papers including some featuring the genomes of bat-borne coronaviruses.
Once those papers are published, the viruses can be “printed out” at will, either as direct copies or as mutated viruses.
Key points of discussion:
1.–” . . . . Advances in the area mean that scientists now have the capability to recreate dangerous viruses from scratch; make harmful bacteria more deadly; and modify common microbes so that they churn out lethal toxins once they enter the body. . . .”
2.–” . . . . In the report, the scientists describe how synthetic biology, which gives researchers precision tools to manipulate living organisms, ‘enhances and expands’ opportunities to create bioweapons. . . .”
3.–” . . . . Today, the genetic code of almost any mammalian virus can be found online and synthesized. ‘The technology to do this is available now,’ said Imperiale. ‘It requires some expertise, but it’s something that’s relatively easy to do, and that is why it tops the list.’ . . .”
4.–” . . . . Other fairly simple procedures can be used to tweak the genes of dangerous bacteria and make them resistant to antibiotics, so that people infected with them would be untreatable. . . .”
Recapping discussion from programs in early February of 2020, we note Event 201, one of whose key participants was former Deputy Director of Central Intelligence Avril Haines.
Ms. Haines is now Biden’s Director of National Intelligence and is presiding over Delaware Joe’s investigation into the pandemic’s origins.
It is straining credibility to see this concatenation as “coincidence.”
” . . . . a novel coronavirus pandemic preparedness exercise October 18, 2019, in New York called ‘Event 201.’46 The simulation predicted a global death toll of 65 million people within a span of 18 months.47 As reported by Forbes December 12, 2019:48 ‘The experts ran through a carefully designed, detailed simulation of a new (fictional) viral illness called CAPS or coronavirus acute pulmonary syndrome. This was modeled after previous epidemics like SARS and MERS.’ . . . .”
A chilling article may forecast the potential deployment of even deadlier pandemics, as operational disguise for biological warfare and genocide.
Note that the sub-heading in the conclusion referring to the lab-leak hypothesis is followed by no mention of the lab-leak hypothesis, per se.
Why not? We feel there may be a chilling subtext to this.
Is this a between-the-lines reference to impending biological warfare development and the deployment of another pandemic?
Note that the Army scientist quoted in the conclusion offers an observation that is very close to a Donald Rumsfeld quote reiterated by Peter Daszak in an article we reference in FTR#1170.
1.–From the Defense One article: ” . . . . ‘We don’t want to just treat what’s in front of us now,’ [Dr. Dimitra] Stratis-Cullum said. ‘I think we really need to be resilient. From an Army perspective. We need to be agile, we need to adapt to the threat that we don’t know that’s coming.’ . . .”
2.–From the article from Independent Science News: ” . . . . ‘There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns — there are things we don’t know we don’t know.’ (This Rumsfeld quote is in fact from a news conference) . . . . In the subsequent online discussion, Daszak emphasized the parallels between his own crusade and Rumsfeld’s, since, according to Daszak, the ‘potential for unknown attacks’ is ‘the same for viruses’. . . .”
Something to keep in mind–with Avril Haines in charge of the intelligence community under Biden–the latest salvo in the anti-China propaganda barrage should be evaluated against the disclosure that CIA disguises cyberweaponry as being Chinese in origin and nature.
” . . . . The Biden administration for the first time on Monday accused the Chinese government of breaching Microsoft email systems used by many of the world’s largest companies, governments and military contractors, as the United States rallied a broad group of allies to condemn Beijing for cyberattacks around the world. . . .”
Note in that context, that we have learned that the CIA’s hacking tools are specifically crafted to mask CIA authorship of the attacks. Most significantly, for our purposes, is the fact that the Agency’s hacking tools are engineered in such a way as to permit the authors of the event to represent themselves as Chinese, among other nationalities.
This is of paramount significance in evaluating the increasingly neo-McCarthyite New Cold War propaganda about “Russian interference” in the U.S. election and now China’s alleged hacks.
With the CIA’s disturbing track record of distortions and out right lies, such as the “Painting of Oswald Red” discussed in–among other programs–FTR #‘s 925 and 926, as well as our series of interviews with Jim DiEugenio, the ease with which the Agency can now disguise its cyberattacks as being of a different national origin, combined with the prevalence of online espionage might be said to leave us all in “Oswald World!”
” . . . . These tools could make it more difficult for anti-virus companies and forensic investigators to attribute hacks to the CIA. Could this call the source of previous hacks into question? It appears that yes, this might be used to disguise the CIA’s own hacks to appear as if they were Russian, Chinese, or from specific other countries. . . .”
FTR#1192 The Oswald Institute of Virology, Part 11: The 800-Pound Gorilla in the Room
The title of the program stems from a deadly dichotomization of the discussion of the origin of Covid-19 into either: “A naturally-occurring phenomenon” OR “The Lab Leak Theory.”
Tellingly missing is the deliberately-created, biological warfare pandemic hypothesis that Mr. Emory has been advancing since the very beginning of the pandemic. (This analysis was first advanced in FTR#‘s 1111 & 1112. This program was recorded in early February of 2020.)
With Michael R. Gordon helping craft journalistic justification for the “Lab-Leak Theory” and Philip Zelikow chairing a commission investigating Covid-19, we are seeing players in the PNAC/Iraqi WMD/9/11 nexus being recycled in connection with that theory.
In that context, we review a study released by US National Academy of Sciences at the request of the Department of Defense about the threats of synthetic biology concluded that the techniques to tweak and weaponize viruses from known catalogs of viral sequences is very feasible and relatively easy to do.
Note that the Pentagon has funded research into bat-borne coronaviruses in China and at the “Oswald Institute of Virology,” through various vehicles, including and especially (in combination with USAID) the EcoHealth Alliance .
That research has led to the publication of research papers including some featuring the genomes of bat-borne coronaviruses.
Once those papers are published, the viruses can be “printed out” at will, either as direct copies or as mutated viruses.
Key points of discussion:
1.– . . . . Advances in the area mean that scientists now have the capability to recreate dangerous viruses from scratch; make harmful bacteria more deadly; and modify common microbes so that they churn out lethal toxins once they enter the body. . . .”
2.–” . . . . In the report, the scientists describe how synthetic biology, which gives researchers precision tools to manipulate living organisms, ‘enhances and expands’ opportunities to create bioweapons. . . .”
3.–” . . . . Today, the genetic code of almost any mammalian virus can be found online and synthesized. ‘The technology to do this is available now,’ said Imperiale. ‘It requires some expertise, but it’s something that’s relatively easy to do, and that is why it tops the list.’ . . .”
4.–” . . . . Other fairly simple procedures can be used to tweak the genes of dangerous bacteria and make them resistant to antibiotics, so that people infected with them would be untreatable. . . .”
Reprising a portion of an article used in FTR#1191, we note Danielle Anderson’s experience of having been violently excoriated for exposing false information posted about the pandemic online.
The “last–and only” foreign researcher at the WIV, Ms. Anderson has shared the vitriol that many virologists have experienced in the wake of the pandemic.
Are we seeing a manifestation of what might be called “anti-virologist” McCarthyism, not unlike the “Who Lost China” crusade in the 1950’s?
Are virologists being intimidated into supporting–or at least not refuting–the “Lab Leak Theory?”
Bear in mind that Donald Trump’s attorney and political mentor was the late Roy Cohn, who was Senator Joe McCarthy’s top hatchet man.
A chilling article may forecast the potential deployment of even deadlier pandemics, as operational disguise for biological warfare and genocide.
Note that the sub-heading in the conclusion referring to the lab-leak hypothesis is followed by no mention of the lab-leak hypothesis, per se.
Why not? We feel there may be a chilling subtext to this.
Is this a between-the-lines reference to impending biological warfare development and the deployment of another pandemic?
Note that the Army scientist quoted in the conclusion offers an observation that is very close to a Donald Rumsfeld quote reiterated by Peter Daszak in an article we reference in FTR#1170.
1.–From the Defense One article: ” . . . . ‘We don’t want to just treat what’s in front of us now,’ [Dr. Dimitra] Stratis-Cullum said. ‘I think we really need to be resilient. From an Army perspective. We need to be agile, we need to adapt to the threat that we don’t know that’s coming.’ . . .”
2.–From the article from Independent Science News: ” . . . . ‘There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns — there are things we don’t know we don’t know.’ (This Rumsfeld quote is in fact from a news conference) . . . . In the subsequent online discussion, Daszak emphasized the parallels between his own crusade and Rumsfeld’s, since, according to Daszak, the ‘potential for unknown attacks’ is ‘the same for viruses’. . . .”
In FTR#456, we noted the eerie foreshadowing the the 9/11 attacks by Turner Diaries author William Luther Pierce. Key aspects of that book, in turn, foreshadow aspects of the 9/11 attacks.
In 1998, the author of that tome,–William Luther Pierce–explicitly foreshadowed the 9/11 attacks which defined and cemented Dubya’s administration. “ . . . . In one chilling commentary Pierce, (after noting that Bin Laden and the rest of the lost generation of angry Moslem youth had it with their parents’ compromises and were hell bent on revenge against infidel America) issued this stark, prophetic warning in a 1998 radio address titled, ‘Stay Out of Tall Buildings.’ ‘New Yorkers who work in tall office buildings anything close to the size of the World Trade Center might consider wearing hard hats . . .’ Pierce warned.’ . . . The running theme in Pierce’s commentaries is—to paraphrase his hero Hitler—that Osama Bin Laden’s warning to America is ‘I Am Coming.’ And so is bio-terrorism.’ . . .”
In that context, we note that China is devastated by a WMD/Third World War in Turner Diaries.
The program concludes with a look at some of the many aspects of the Covid-19 pandemic. Many of these were compiled in FTR#1125.
FTR#1191 The Oswald Institute of Virology, Part 10: “A Politically Useful Tool”
The program begins with an excerpt that comes from the consummately important Whitney Webb article he has used on many occasions.
The Project For A New American Century’s Rebuilding America’s Defenses argues that biological warfare–particularly when twined with genetic engineering–can become a “politically useful tool.”
Indeed, as we have said so many times, if one is going to detach the second-largest economy from the world and alienate that country from others, the Covid-19 pandemic is, indeed, “a politically useful tool” for so doing.
(In FTR#1190, we examined the PNAC agenda, its codification in national security policy in a document largely crafted by Philip Zelikow. Zelikow headed the 9/11 Commission and was centrally involved in writing its flawed report, the systematic shortcomings of which could be said to characterize the commission as “The Omission Commission.)
Zelikow is now heading a commission to examine the Covid-19 pandemic, including the so-called “Lab-Leak Hypothesis.”
The program references this excerpt, designating Covid-19 as a “politically useful tool.”
As seen below, there are indications that the DARPA program was, indeed, looking at the exploitation of genetics in the application of biological warfare.
Next, we highlight an excerpt from an article that is featured in FTR#‘s 686 and 1115. ” . . . . The production of vaccine against a stockpiled BW weapon must be considered an offensive BW project According to MIT scientists Harlee Strauss and Jonathan King, ‘These steps—the generation of a potential BW agent, development of a vaccine against it, testing of the efficacy of the vaccine—are all components that would be associated with an offensive BW program.’27 Clearly, without an antidote or vaccine to protect attacking troops, the utility of a stockpiled BW agent would be seriously limited. . . .”
We then review material from FTR#1166, among other programs, looking at the development of Moderna’s vaccine, the drug remdesivir and military domination of the Operation Warp Speed Covid vaccine program.
They key consideration is: do these developments indicate the dynamic Strauss and King cite above?
At a minimum, they are no more than the proverbial six degrees of separation from being part of an offensive biological warfare program.
In previous posts and programs, we have noted that Moderna’s vaccine work has been financed by DARPA. We have also noted that the overall head of Operation Warp Speed is Moncef Slaoui, formerly in charge of product development for Moderna!
Of great significance is the central role of the military in the development of treatment for Covid-19:
1.–The program notes that: ” . . . . Remdesivir predates this pandemic. It was first considered as a potential treatment for Ebola, and was developed through a longstanding partnership between the U.S. Army and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. . . .”
2.–Jonathan King, who has chaired the microbial physiology study section for the NIH has sounded the alarm about “vaccine research” masking offensive biological warfare research: “. . . . King, who has chaired the microbial physiology study section for the NIH, believes that without intensive independent scrutiny, the Pentagon is free to obscure its true goals. ‘The Defense Department appears to be pursuing many narrow, applied goals that are by nature offensive, such as the genetic ‘improvement’ of BW agents,’ King says. ‘But to achieve political acceptability, they mask these intentions under forms of research, such as vaccine development, which sound defensive. . . .”
3.–Moderna’s vaccine development was overseen by an unnamed Pentagon official: ” . . . . Moderna’s team was headed by a Defense Department official whom company executives described only as ‘the major,’ saying they don’t know if his name is supposed to be a secret. . . . .”
4.–The pervasive role of the military in Operation Warp Speed (the Trump administration’s vaccine development program) has generated alarm in civilian participants:”. . . . Scores of Defense Department employees are laced through the government offices involved in the effort, making up a large portion of the federal personnel devoted to the effort. Those numbers have led some current and former officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to privately grumble that the military’s role in Operation Warp Speed was too large for a task that is, at its core, a public health campaign. . . .”
5.–General Gustave Perna–one of the principals in Operation Warp Speed–has chosen a retired Lieutenant General to oversee much of the program: ” . . . . ‘Frankly, it has been breathtaking to watch,’ said Paul Ostrowski, the director of supply, production and distribution for Operation Warp Speed. He is a retired Army lieutenant general who was selected to manage logistics for the program by Gen. Gustave F. Perna, the chief operating officer for Operation Warp Speed. . . .”
6.–The military will be able to trace the destination and administration of each dose: ” . . . . Military officials also came up with the clever idea — if it works — to coordinate the delivery of vaccines to drugstores, medical centers and other immunization sites by sending kits full of needles, syringes and alcohol wipes. Vaccine makers will be alerted when the kits arrive at an immunization site so they know to ship doses. Once the first dose is given, the manufacturer will be notified so it can send the second dose with a patient’s name attached several weeks later. The military will also monitor vaccine distribution through an operations center. ‘They will know where every vaccine dose is,’ Mr. [Paul] Mango said on a call with reporters. . . .”
Central to the inquiry about a laboratory genesis for the virus is Ralph Baric. In the context of some of his actions in conjunction with the development of vaccines and prophylactic measures in connection with biological warfare, we note that:
1.–Baric’s modification of a horseshoe bat virus to make it more infectious (in collaboration with Shi Zhengli and in an EcoHealth Alliance affiliated project) took place in North Carolina, not Wuhan. “. . . . Critics have jumped on this paper as evidence that Shi was conducting “gain of function” experiments that could have created a superbug, but Shi denies it. The research cited in the paper was conducted in North Carolina. . . .”
2.–Baric has been using related techniques to text remdesivir (in 2017) and the Moderna vaccine. This places him in a milieu inextricably linked to the military and pre-dating the pandemic. ” . . . . Using a similar technique, in 2017, Baric’s lab showed that remdesivir — currently the only licensed drug for treating covid — could be useful in fighting coronavirus infections. Baric also helped test the Moderna covid vaccine and a leading new drug candidate against covid. . . .”
The flimsy evidentiary foundation of the Trump/Biden “Oswald Institute of Virology” did it charge is evidenced by a new allegation coming from David Asher, senior fellow at the right-wing Hudson Institute and the former State Department adviser who co-authored a fact sheet last January on activity inside the lab as described in Katherine Eban’s “Vanity Fair” piece.
Note that:
1.–Asher reportedly told NBC News that he is “confident” that the Chinese military was funding a “secret program” that involved Shi Zhengli’s coronavirus research at the WIV.
2.–Shi reportedly worked with two military scientists at the lab. (Not surprising given that the vast bulk of BW research is inherently “dual-use.”
3.–Asher claims he was told this by several foreign researchers who worked at the WIV who saw some personnel there in military garb.
4.–IF true, the [alleged] members of this secret Chinese military biowarfare research team apparently didn’t think it was important to not wear military clothing during their secret research at a research facility intended for civilian use only.
5.–We aren’t told the identity of these foreign researchers who allegedly saw this.
6.–We aren’t told if Asher meant “foreign researchers”–non-Chinese researchers working at the WIV (so foreign to China) or Chinese researchers working at the WIV (so foreign to Asher).
7.–Shi’s research could be characterized as funded by the US military through the EcoHealth Alliance collaboration.
8.–Keep in mind that this remarkable claim is based on anonymous sources that may not exist but are are claimed by Asher to exist.
Asher’s anonymously-sourced allegations contrast with information from a Bloomberg News article about Danielle Anderson, a bat-borne virus expert who worked at the WIV as late as November 2019
Note that:
1.–Anderson would have been at WIV during the period when an outbreak from the WIV would presumably have taken place under a lab-leak scenario.
2.–Anderson is described as the only foreign researcher working at the WIV.
3.–If Anderson was the lone foreign researcher at the WIV, who are Asher’s “several anonymous foreign WIV researchers?”
A chilling article may forecast the potential deployment of even deadlier pandemics, as operational disguise for biological warfare and genocide.
Note that the sub-heading referring to the lab-leak hypothesis is followed by no mention of the lab-leak hypothesis, per se.
Is this a between-the-lines reference to impending biological warfare development and the deployment of another pandemic?
Note that the Army scientist quoted in the conclusion offers an observation that is very close to a Donald Rumsfeld quote reiterated by Peter Daszak in an article we reference in FTR#1170.
1.–From the Defense One article: ” . . . . ‘We don’t want to just treat what’s in front of us now,’ [Dr. Dimitra] Stratis-Cullum said. ‘I think we really need to be resilient. From an Army perspective. We need to be agile, we need to adapt to the threat that we don’t know that’s coming.’ . . .”
2.–From the article from Independent Science News: ” . . . . ‘There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns — there are things we don’t know we don’t know.’ (This Rumsfeld quote is in fact from a news conference) . . . . In the subsequent online discussion, Daszak emphasized the parallels between his own crusade and Rumsfeld’s, since, according to Daszak, the ‘potential for unknown attacks’ is ‘the same for viruses’. . . .”
We conclude with another “look back looking forward.”
In FTR#456, we noted the eerie foreshadowing the the 9/11 attacks by Turner Diaries author William Luther Pierce. Key aspects of that book, in turn, foreshadow aspects of the 9/11 attacks.
In 1998, the author of that tome,–William Luther Pierce–explicitly foreshadowed the 9/11 attacks which defined and cemented Dubya’s administration. “ . . . . In one chilling commentary Pierce, (after noting that Bin Laden and the rest of the lost generation of angry Moslem youth had it with their parents’ compromises and were hell bent on revenge against infidel America) issued this stark, prophetic warning in a 1998 radio address titled, ‘Stay Out of Tall Buildings.’ ‘New Yorkers who work in tall office buildings anything close to the size of the World Trade Center might consider wearing hard hats . . .’ Pierce warned.’ . . . The running theme in Pierce’s commentaries is—to paraphrase his hero Hitler—that Osama Bin Laden’s warning to America is ‘I Am Coming.’ And so is bio-terrorism.’ . . .”
In that context, we note that China is devastated by a WMD/Third World War in Turner Diaries.
FTR#1190 The Oswald Institute of Virology, Part 9: Covid-19 and The American Deep State, Part 3
Continuing analysis of the propagation of the “Lab-Leak Theory” of the origin of Covid-19 in the context of what Mr. Emory calls “The Full-Court Press Against China,” this program highlights how what the brilliant Peter Dale Scott has termed “The American Deep State” is proceeding with the institutionalization of the anti-China effort, blaming that country for the Covid-19 pandemic, in particular.
After noting that the (primarily Pentagon and USAID-funded) EcoHealth Alliance cut-out has used Defense Department money to research organisms that can be used as biological-warfare weapons, we discuss Steve Bannon and Peter Thiel’s anti-Chinese chauvinism with regard to the Silicon Valley.
Even as liberal commentators lament the spread of anti-Asian racism, the genesis of the phenomenon is not hard to fathom.
Next, we review the institutionalization of the anti-China scare by Steve Bannon, utilizing allies like the Falun Gong cult and Uighur jihadis, now mainstays of the Full-Court Press strategy.
Although Bannon and company are now being diminished as “crackpots, xenophobes, extremists” etc., the policies they have initiated are now being carried forward by the “respectable” Biden administration.
” . . . . Fear of China has spread across the government, from the White House to Congress to federal agencies, where Beijing’s rise is unquestioningly viewed as an economic and national security threat and the defining challenge of the 21st century. . . .”
It is this continuity, that illustrates and embodies the functioning of the Deep State.
Returning to a very important (albeit heavily “spun”), modified limited hangout article from Vanity Fair article, we further develop the continuity between the “extremist” Trump administration and the “respectable” Biden administration.
Developed by Trump national security aide Mathew Pottinger and Mike Pompeo’s State Department, the Lab-Leak hypothesis was eclipsed by officials worried about exposure of the very Pentagon, USAID funding of bat-borne coronavirus research and gain-of-function manipulations at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and elsewhere in China.
As it gains momentum under the “respectable” Biden administration, the suppression of the Lab-Leak hypothesis is being spun as an attempt to avoid using that hypothesis as an extremist, chauvinist political cudgel. (This is ironic, because that is precisely what it is intended to be!)
Key aspects of the Vanity Fair article:
1.–Pompeo State Department officials pursuing the lab-leak hypothesis were told to cover it up lest it shed light on U.S. government funding of research at the “Oswald Institute of Virology!”: ” . . . . In one State Department meeting, officials seeking to demand transparency from the Chinese government say they were explicitly told by colleagues not to explore the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s gain-of-function research, because it would bring unwelcome attention to U.S. government funding of it. . . . .In an internal memo obtained by ‘Vanity Fair’, Thomas DiNanno, former acting assistant secretary of the State Department’s Bureau of Arms Control, Verification, and Compliance, wrote that. . . staff from two bureaus . . . ‘warned’ leaders within his bureau ‘not to pursue an investigation into the origin of COVID-19’ because it would ‘open a can of worms’ if it continued.’ . . . . As 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’. . . .”
2.–The Vanity Fair article paints Trump, Bannon and company as loonies, whereas they were fundamental to the beginning of the full-court press against China: “. . . . At times, it seemed the only other people entertaining the lab-leak theory were crackpots or political hacks hoping to wield COVID-19 as a cudgel against China. President Donald Trump’s former political adviser Steve Bannon, for instance, joined forces with an exiled Chinese billionaire named Guo Wengui to fuel claims that China had developed the disease as a bioweapon and purposefully unleashed it on the world. . . .”
3.–Matthew Pottinger, a China hawk in the Trump administration, headed up a team to investigate the Wuhan lab leak hypothesis. Note that the gain-of-function milieu in the U.S. national security establishment was a retarding factor in the inquiry: ” . . . . By then, Matthew Pottinger had approved a COVID-19 origins team, run by the NSC directorate that oversaw issues related to weapons of mass destruction. A longtime Asia expert and former journalist, Pottinger purposefully kept the team small . . . . In addition, many leading experts had either received or approved funding for gain-of-function research. Their ‘conflicted’ status, said Pottinger, ‘played a profound role in muddying the waters and contaminating the shot at having an impartial inquiry.’ . . . .”
4.–Note that Lawrence Livermore scientists were involved with the genesis of the “China did it” hypothesis, after allegedly being alerted by a foreign source to look into their own files. ” . . . . An intelligence analyst working with David Asher sifted through classified channels and turned up a report that outlined why the lab-leak hypothesis was plausible. It had been written in May by researchers at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which performs national security research for the Department of Energy. But it appeared to have been buried within the classified collections system. . . .”
5.–Note, also, that Chris Ford, a China hawk, was working to suppress the Wuhan lab leak hypothesis: ” . . . . Their frustration crested in December, when they finally briefed Chris Ford, acting undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security. He seemed so hostile to their probe that they viewed him as a blinkered functionary bent on whitewashing China’s malfeasance. But Ford, who had years of experience in nuclear nonproliferation, had long been a China hawk. . . .”
6.–Ford spins his obfuscation of the “Oswald Institute of Virology” link to the U.S. as not wanting to reinforce right-wing crackpots within the Trump administration: ” . . . . Ford told ‘Vanity Fair’ that he saw his job as protecting the integrity of any inquiry into COVID-19’s origins that fell under his purview. Going with ‘stuff that makes us look like the crackpot brigade’ would backfire, he believed. There was another reason for his hostility. He’d already heard about the investigation from interagency colleagues, rather than from the team itself, and the secrecy left him with a ‘spidey sense’ that the process was a form of ‘creepy freelancing.’ He wondered: Had someone launched an unaccountable investigation with the goal of achieving a desired result? . . . .”
7.–The “China did it/Wuhan lab leak” hypothesis survived from the Trump administration and Mike Pompeo’s State Department to the Biden administration: ” . . . .The statement withstood ‘aggressive suspicion,’ as one former State Department official said, and the Biden administration has not walked it back. ‘I was very pleased to see Pompeo’s statement come through,’ said Chris Ford, who personally signed off on a draft of the fact sheet before leaving the State Department. ‘I was so relieved that they were using real reporting that had been vetted and cleared.’ . . . .”
8.–Avril Haines, whom we have cited in this series as a key participant in the Deep State shepherding of the “Lab-Leak Hypothesis,” looms large in the inquiry into the perpetuation of this propaganda meme: ” . . . . Inside the U.S. government, meanwhile, the lab-leak hypothesis had survived the transition from Trump to Biden. On April 15, Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines told the House Intelligence Committee that two ‘plausible theories’ were being weighed: a lab accident or natural emergence. . . .”
In what may be shaping up to be a disturbing reprise of Philip Zelikow’s role in the events surrounding the 9/11 attacks and the resulting invasion of Iraq, Zelikow is positioned to preside over a commission to “investigate” the Covid-19 pandemic, ” . . . . an examination of the origins of the virus—including the contentious ‘lab leak’ theory. . . .”
We note that:
1.–The financial backers of the project include: ” . . . . 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. . . .”
2.–Former CIA and State Department chief under Trump Mike Pompeo is a protege of the Koch brothers.
3.–Zelikow’s 9/11 Commission presided over significant oversights and omissions: ” . . . . 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. . . .”
4.–PNAC (The Project for a New American Century) called for Rebuilding America’s Defenses: ” . . . . ‘The process of transformation,’ it reported, “even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.’ This was only one instance of a widely accepted truism: that it would take something like a Pearl Harbor to get America to accept an aggressive war. So the question to be asked is whether Cheney, Rumsfeld, or any others whose projects depended on ‘a new Pearl Harbor’ were participants in helping to create one. . . .”
5.–Zelikow helped draft the 2002 document that concretized the PNAC strategic goals: ” . . . . 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.) . . . .”
6.–PNAC’s paper foreshadowed what we feel underlies the pandemic: ” . . . . 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.’ . . .”
7.–There are indications that the anthrax attacks that occurred in the same time period as the 9/11 attacks may well have been a provocation aimed at justifying the invasion of Iraq and spurring the development off biological weapons, as advocated in the PNAC document. Ft. Detrick insider Steven Hatfill was a suspect in the attack, although he appears to have worn “operational Teflon.” “. . . . Steven Hatfill was now looking to me like a suspect, or at least, as the F.B.I. would denote him eight months later, ‘a person of interest.’ When I lined up Hatfill’s known movements with the postmark locations of reported biothreats, those hoax anthrax attacks appeared to trail him like a vapor cloud. But in February 2002, shortly after I advanced his candidacy to my contact at F.B.I. headquarters, I was told that Mr. Hatfill had a good alibi. A month later, when I pressed the issue, I was told, ‘Look, Don, maybe you’re spending too much time on this.’ Good people in the Department of Defense, C.I.A., and State Department, not to mention Bill Patrick, had vouched for Hatfill. . . . In December 2001, Dr. Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, a noted bioweapons expert, delivered a paper contending that the perpetrator of the anthrax crimes was an American microbiologist whose training and possession of Ames-strain powder pointed to a government insider with experience in a U.S. military lab. . . . Hatfill at the time was building a mobile germ lab out of an old truck chassis, and after S.A.I.C. fired him he continued work on it using his own money. When the F.B.I. wanted to confiscate the mobile lab to test it for anthrax spores, the army resisted, moving the trailer to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, where it was used to train Special Forces in preparation for the war on Iraq. The classes were taught by Steve Hatfill and Bill Patrick. . . . Meanwhile, friends of Fort Detrick were leaking to the press new pieces of disinformation indicating that the mailed anthrax probably came from Iraq. The leaks included false allegations that the Daschle anthrax included additives distinctive to the Iraqi arms program and that it had been dried using an atomizer spray dryer sold by Denmark to Iraq. . . .”
8.–Two key Democratic Senators were targeted by weapons-grade anthrax letters prior to changing their opposition to the Patriot Act: “. . . . We should not forget that the Patriot Act was only passed after lethal weapons-grade anthrax letters were mailed to two crucial Democratic Senators—Senators Daschle and Leahy—who had initially questioned the bill. After the anthrax letters, however, they withdrew their initial opposition. Someone—we still do not know who—must have planned those anthrax letters well in advance. We should not forget, either, that some government experts initially blamed those attacks on Iraq. . . .”
The “Lab Leak Theory” has been promulgated by Michael R. Gordon, who was instrumental in advancing the Saddam Hussein WMD connection which helped lay the propaganda foundation for the Iraq War.
Will the “Zelikow Pandemic Commission’s” treatment of the Lab-Leak Theory function in such a way as to pave the way for U.S. war with China, by focusing blame for the pandemic on what Mr. Emory has called “The Oswald Institute of Virology”?
Encore for Philip Zelikow? (UPDATED ON 6/20/2021 and 6/21/2021)
In what may be shaping up to be a disturbing reprise of Philip Zelikow’s role in the events surrounding the 9/11 attacks and the resulting invasion of Iraq, Zelikow is positioned to preside over a commission to “investigate” the Covid-19 pandemic, ” . . . . an examination of the origins of the virus—including the contentious ‘lab leak’ theory. . . .” Backers of the project include the Rockefeller Foundation and a David Koch NGO (Ex-CIA chief and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is a Koch Brothers protege.) Zelikow’s 9/11 Commission presided over significant oversights and omissions: ” . . . . 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. . . .” PNAC (The Project for a New American Century) called for Rebuilding America’s Defenses: ” . . . . ‘The process of transformation,’ it reported, ‘even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.’ Zelikow helped draft the 2002 document that concretized the PNAC strategic goals: ” . . . . 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.) . . . .” ” . . . . 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.’ . . .” There are indications that the anthrax attacks that occurred in the same time period as the 9/11 attacks may well have been a provocation aimed at justifying the invasion of Iraq and spurring the development off biological weapons, as advocated in the PNAC document. Ft. Detrick insider Steven Hatfill was a suspect in the attack, although he appears to have worn “operational Teflon.” “. . . . Steven Hatfill was now looking to me like a suspect, or at least, as the F.B.I. would denote him eight months later, ‘a person of interest.’ When I lined up Hatfill’s known movements with the postmark locations of reported biothreats, those hoax anthrax attacks appeared to trail him like a vapor cloud. But in February 2002, shortly after I advanced his candidacy to my contact at F.B.I. headquarters, I was told that Mr. Hatfill had a good alibi. . . . In December 2001, Dr. Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, a noted bioweapons expert, delivered a paper contending that the perpetrator of the anthrax crimes was an American microbiologist whose training and possession of Ames-strain powder pointed to a government insider with experience in a U.S. military lab. . . .Hatfill at the time was building a mobile germ lab out of an old truck chassis, and after S.A.I.C. fired him he continued work on it using his own money. When the F.B.I. wanted to confiscate the mobile lab to test it for anthrax spores, the army resisted, moving the trailer to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, where it was used to train Special Forces in preparation for the war on Iraq. The classes were taught by Steve Hatfill and Bill Patrick. . . .” Two key Democratic Senators were targeted by weapons-grade anthrax letters prior to changing their opposition to the Patriot Act: “. . . . We should not forget that the Patriot Act was only passed after lethal weapons-grade anthrax letters were mailed to two crucial Democratic Senators—Senators Daschle and Leahy—who had initially questioned the bill. After the anthrax letters, however, they withdrew their initial opposition. Someone—we still do not know who—must have planned those anthrax letters well in advance. We should not forget, either, that some government experts initially blamed those attacks on Iraq. . . .” The “Lab Leak Theory” has been promulgated by Michael R. Gordon, who was instrumental in advancing the Saddam Hussein WMD connection which helped lay the propaganda foundation for the Iraq War. Will Zelikow’s investigation help prime the pump for war with China? Will this be done by pointing blame for the pandemic on what Mr. Emory has called “The Oswald Institute of Virology”?
FTR#1189 The Oswald Institute of Virology, Part 8: Covid-19 and The American Deep State, Part 2 (The Cover-Up Obviates the Conspiracy)
This program continues our series analyzing the Wuhan Institute of Virology as having been set up to take the fall for the Covid-19 pandemic, which–in our considered opinion–is a covert operation by the U.S. as part of the full-court press against China.
Underscoring a point of analysis from previous broadcasts, we note that, of paramount importance in this context, is the fact that ANY virus can be made in a laboratory, from scratch as is being done for the SARS-CoV‑2 (Covid-19) virus.
Ralph Baric–who did the gain-of-function modification on the Horseshoe Bat coronavirus, has been selected to engineer the Covid-19.
Note what might be termed a “virologic Jurassic Park” manifestation: ” . . . . 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. . . .”
Central to the inquiry about a laboratory genesis for the virus is Ralph Baric. We note that:
1.–Baric’s modification of a horseshoe bat virus to make it more infectious (in collaboration with Shi Zhengli and in an EcoHealth Alliance affiliated project) took place in North Carolina, not Wuhan. “. . . . Critics have jumped on this paper as evidence that Shi was conducting “gain of function” experiments that could have created a superbug, but Shi denies it. The research cited in the paper was conducted in North Carolina.
2.–Baric has been using related techniques to text remdesivir (in 2017) and the Moderna vaccine. This places him in a milieu inextricably linked to the military and pre-dating the pandemic. ” . . . . Using a similar technique, in 2017, Baric’s lab showed that remdesivir — currently the only licensed drug for treating covid — could be useful in fighting coronavirus infections. Baric also helped test the Moderna covid vaccine and a leading new drug candidate against covid. . . .”
Next, we present analysis of a very important, albeit slanted Vanity Fair article:
1.–Pompeo State Department officials pursuing the lab-leak hypothesis were told to cover it up lest it shed light on U.S. government funding of research at the “Oswald Institute of Virology!”: ” . . . . In one State Department meeting, officials seeking to demand transparency from the Chinese government say they were explicitly told by colleagues not to explore the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s gain-of-function research, because it would bring unwelcome attention to U.S. government funding of it. . . . . In an internal memo obtained by Vanity Fair, Thomas DiNanno, former acting assistant secretary of the State Department’s Bureau of Arms Control, Verification, and Compliance, wrote that. . . staff from two bureaus . . . “warned” leaders within his bureau ‘not to pursue an investigation into the origin of COVID-19’ because it would ‘open a can of worms’ if it continued.’ . . . . As 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. . . .”
2.–Setting the orthodoxy in early 2020 with a Lancet article ruling out a laboratory origin for the virus was Peter Daszak, with approval from Ralph Baric: ” . . . . 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. . . .”
3.–” . . . . In late March, former Centers for Disease Control director Robert Redfield received death threats from fellow scientists after telling CNN that he believed COVID-19 had originated in a lab. . . . ”
4.–Matthew Pottinger, a China hawk in the Trump administration, headed up a team to investigate the Wuhan lab leak hypothesis. Note that the gain-of-function milieu in the U.S. national security establishment was a retarding factor in the inquiry: ” . . . . By then, Matthew Pottinger had approved a COVID-19 origins team, run by the NSC directorate that oversaw issues related to weapons of mass destruction. A longtime Asia expert and former journalist, Pottinger purposefully kept the team small . . . . In addition, many leading experts had either received or approved funding for gain-of-function research. Their ‘conflicted’ status, said Pottinger, ‘played a profound role in muddying the waters and contaminating the shot at having an impartial inquiry.’ . . . .”
5.–Note that Lawrence Livermore scientists were involved with the genesis of the “China did it” hypothesis, after allegedly being alerted by a foreign source to look into their own files. ” . . . . An intelligence analyst working with David Asher sifted through classified channels and turned up a report that outlined why the lab-leak hypothesis was plausible. It had been written in May by researchers at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which performs national security research for the Department of Energy. But it appeared to have been buried within the classified collections system. . . .”
6.–Note, also, that Chris Ford, a China hawk, was working to suppress the Wuhan lab leak hypothesis: ” . . . . Their frustration crested in December, when they finally briefed Chris Ford, acting undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security. He seemed so hostile to their probe that they viewed him as a blinkered functionary bent on whitewashing China’s malfeasance. But Ford, who had years of experience in nuclear nonproliferation, had long been a China hawk. . . .”
7.–The “China did it/Wuhan lab leak” hypothesis survived from the Trump administration and Mike Pompeo’s State Department to the Biden administration: ” . . . .. . . . The statement withstood ‘aggressive suspicion,’ as one former State Department official said, and the Biden administration has not walked it back. ‘I was very pleased to see Pompeo’s statement come through,’ said Chris Ford, who personally signed off on a draft of the fact sheet before leaving the State Department. ‘I was so relieved that they were using real reporting that had been vetted and cleared.’ . . . .”
8.–Avril Haines, whom we have cited in this series as a key participant in the Deep State shepherding of the “Lab-Leak Hypothesis,” looms large in the inquiry into the perpetuation of this propaganda meme: ” . . . . Inside the U.S. government, meanwhile, the lab-leak hypothesis had survived the transition from Trump to Biden. On April 15, Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines told the House Intelligence Committee that two ‘plausible theories’ were being weighed: a lab accident or natural emergence. . . .”
9.–The article concludes with the interesting use of the term “cut-out” to describe the EcoHealth Alliance. The term generally refers to an intelligence-community front organization. Is the author hinting at more? Did her editor take information out? ” . . . . The United States deserves a healthy share of blame as well. Thanks to their unprecedented track record of mendacity and race-baiting, Trump and his allies had less than zero credibility. And the practice of funding risky research via cutouts like EcoHealth Alliance enmeshed leading virologists in conflicts of interest at the exact moment their expertise was most desperately needed. . . .”
We conclude with two important points from an article used earlier in the program.
1.–Shi Zhengli has noted that opening up the WIV’s records is unacceptable: ” . . . . That demand is ‘definitely not acceptable,’ responded Shi Zhengli, who directs the Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases at the Wuhan Institute. ‘Who can provide evidence that does not exist?’ she told MIT Technology Review. Shi has said that thousands of attempts to hack its computer systems forced the institute to close its database. . . .”
2.–The U.S. would not be acceptable to such a proposition, if the Chinese demanded access to Ft. Detrick (part of which was shut down by the CDC in early August of 2019 on the eve of the pandemic). A commenter also noted the Rocky Mountain lab in his analysis, which we noted was one of the areas where Willy Burgdorfer appears to have worked on the development of Lyme Disease.) ” . . . . If a disease had emerged from the U.S. and the Chinese blamed the Pentagon and demanded access to the data, ‘what would we say?’ [Dr. Getrald] Keusch asked. ‘Would we throw out the red carpet, ‘Come on over to Fort Detrick and the Rocky Mountain Lab?’ We’d have done exactly what the Chinese did, which is say, ‘Screw you!’’ . . . .”
FTR#1188 The Oswald Institute of Virology, Part 7: Covid-19 and The American Deep State
This program continues our series analyzing the Wuhan Institute of Virology as having been set up to take the fall for the Covid-19 pandemic, which–in our considered opinion–is a covert operation by the U.S. as part of the full-court press against China.
As the “Lab Leak Hypothesis” of the pandemic’s origins moves toward becoming a mainstreamed propaganda theme, we note that:
1.–Anthony Fauci himself set forth the “lab leak” scenario in his 2012 endorsement of a moratorium on gain-of-function manipulations, setting the intellectual stage for the “gaming” of just such a scenario. In FTR#1187, we noted that Fauci’s NIH NIAID was among the institutions that presided over EcoHealth Alliance’s funding of experimentation on bat-borne coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. ” . . . . In 2012, Dr. Anthony Fauci, who leads NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, came out in support of a moratorium on such research, posing a hypothetical scenario involving a poorly trained scientist in a poorly regulated lab: ‘In an unlikely but conceivable turn of events, what if that scientist becomes infected with the virus, which leads to an outbreak and ultimately triggers a pandemic?’ Fauci wrote. . . .”
2.–USAID’s PREDICT project trained many of the scientists at the WIV. From the standpoint of covert operations, this would afford the opportunity to place one or more operatives inside that apparently targeted institution: [USAID is a State Department subsidiary that is one of the largest funders of the EcoHealth Alliance and a frequent cover for CIA activity.] ” . . . . . . . . Many of the scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology have been trained by the U.S. government’s PREDICT project. . . .”
3.–The journalistic generation of the lab-leak theory comes, in part, from Michael R. Gordon, who has a history of generating dubious journalism to support the plans of the national security establishment. Gordon: ” . . . . 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.’ . . . The letter notes: ‘But we have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been... On Sept. 8, 2002, the lead article of the paper was headlined ‘U.S. Says Hussein Intensified Quest for A‑Bomb Parts.’ That report concerned the aluminum tubes that the administration advertised insistently as components for the manufacture of nuclear weapons fuel. … it should have been presented more cautiously . . . .”
4.–Gordon: ” . . . . 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.’ . . .”
5.–New York Times right-wing columnist Ross Douthat has highlighted the propaganda significance of pinning the “Lab Leak Theory” on China: ” . . . . to the extent that the United States is engaged in a conflict of propaganda and soft power with the regime in Beijing, there’s a pretty big difference between a world where the Chinese regime can say, We weren’t responsible for Covid but we crushed the virus and the West did not, because we’re strong and they’re decadent, and a world where this was basically their Chernobyl except their incompetence and cover-up sickened not just one of their own cities but also the entire globe. . . .”
6.–Pompeo State Department officials pursuing the lab-leak hypothesis were told to cover it up lest it shed light on U.S. government funding of research at the “Oswald Institute of Virology!”: ” . . . . In one State Department meeting, officials seeking to demand transparency from the Chinese government say they were explicitly told by colleagues not to explore the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s gain-of-function research, because it would bring unwelcome attention to U.S. government funding of it. . . . .In an internal memo obtained by Vanity Fair, Thomas DiNanno, former acting assistant secretary of the State Department’s Bureau of Arms Control, Verification, and Compliance, wrote that. . . staff from two bureaus . . . “warned” leaders within his bureau ‘not to pursue an investigation into the origin of COVID-19’ because it would ‘open a can of worms’ if it continued.’ . . . . As 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. . . .”
7.–Setting the orthodoxy in early 2020 with a Lancet article ruling out a laboratory origin for the virus was Peter Daszak, with approval from Ralph Baric: ” . . . . 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. . . .”
8.–” . . . . In late March, former Centers for Disease Control director Robert Redfield received death threats from fellow scientists after telling CNN that he believed COVID-19 had originated in a lab. . . . ”
Supplement to the Oswald Institute of Virology Series ” . . . . ‘A Can of Worms’ . . . . ‘Pandora’s Box’ . . .”
We note three points in connection with our ongoing series about “The Oswald Institute of Virology”: Anthony Fauci himself set forth the “lab leak” scenario in his 2012 endorsement of a moratorium on gain-of-function manipulations, setting the intellectual stage for the “gaming” of just such a scenario. USAID’s PREDICT project trained many of the scientists at the WIV. From the standpoint of covert operations, this would afford the opportunity to place one or more operatives inside that apparently targeted institution: [USAID is a State Department subsidiary that is one of the largest funders of the EcoHealth Alliance and a frequent cover for CIA activity.] Pompeo State Department officials pursuing the lab-leak hypothesis were told to cover it up lest it shed light on U.S. government funding of research at the “Oswald Institute of Virology!”: ” . . . . In one State Department meeting, officials seeking to demand transparency from the Chinese government say they were explicitly told by colleagues not to explore the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s gain-of-function research, because it would bring unwelcome attention to U.S. government funding of it. . . . .In an internal memo obtained by ‘Vanity Fair’, Thomas DiNanno, former acting assistant secretary of the State Department’s Bureau of Arms Control, Verification, and Compliance, wrote that. . . staff from two bureaus . . . ‘warned’ leaders within his bureau ‘not to pursue an investigation into the origin of COVID-19’ because it would ‘open a can of worms’ if it continued.’ . . . . As 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’. . . .”
Recommended Reading
- Spitfire List is licensed under Creative Commons.
Recent Comments