Monday, March 9, 2020

Who or What Started the Wuhan Coronavirus Epidemic?, by Tony Hall - The Unz Review (Full text)

On the Condemnation of "Conspiracy Theories" as a Device for Protecting Officialdom’s Lies, Disinformation, and Obfuscation

The Wuhan Coronavirus epidemic of 2019-20 is moving many markers where life merges into death, where truth merges into lies. At age 34, Dr. Li Wenliang drew attention in Wuhan to these moving markers. The disease Dr. Li sought to warn against ended up taking his life as the epidemic gained fatal traction.
Before going down himself in the line of duty, Dr. Li faced a harsh reprimand from representatives of the Chinese Communist Party. Dr. Li was accused of spreading rumors and illegally threatening the social order with his tweets and posts and personal interventions. Nevertheless, Dr. Li was soon vindicated in calling attention to the coming plague.
It did not take long before the appalling force of the illness demonstrated that Dr. Li was anything but a wayward conspiracy theorist. Instead, the evidence proved him right even as it proved his powerful detractors were both wrong and negligent in the face of a genuine menace.
Dr. Li Wenliang is a martyr. It remains to be seen, however, how far the shadow of Dr. Li’s martyrdom will be cast.
The Novel Coronavirus, COVID-19, is cutting a broad and deep swath though epidemiological history with uncertain impact on the viability of many families, communities, institutions, economies, and even countries starting with the most heavily populated nation on earth. Many fates are hanging in the balance, not the least of which is that of the communist government that has ruled China since the Maoist Revolution brought it to power in 1949.
The new strain of Coronavirus has added novel genetic features to the same family of pathogens that brought the world the SARS crisis in 2002-3 and, a decade later, the less lethal MERS outbreak. This Novel Coronavirus strain, COVID-19, is showing itself to be much more contagious and lethal than was SARS and MERS.
Some have anticipated that, if not dramatically countered, the Wuhan Coronavirus epidemic could be headed in the direction of the Spanish flu outbreak of 1918. This prediction flows from the assessment of, for instance, Prof. Gabriel Leung, Chair of Public Health Medicine at Hong King University. Looking at the very fast rate of COVID-19’s spread from human to human through the air, Dr. Leung challenged any residual sense of complacency. He anticipated a possible 60 per cent infection rate of the world’s entire population with deaths numbering in the many tens of millions.
The so-called Spanish flu has set the bar for how severe and widespread a contagious plague can become. The pandemic of 1918 took more lives in one year than all deaths due to World War II. The Spanish flu of 1918 engendered more mortality in one year than the four peak years of the notorious Black Death Bubonic Plague that decimated Europe in the middle years of the fourteenth century. The worldwide pandemic of 1918 infected over a quarter of all people on earth. About 65 million people died from the illness.
News reports from the ground zero area of the Wuhan Coronavirus epidemic demonstrate that the effects of the viral infection cut far and wide. Every facet of Chinese society is being challenged to the limit by a fast-spreading plague disseminating germs of destruction disrupting many biological, political, economic, and knowledge systems simultaneously.
Questions about how to interpret the epidemic and how to explain to the public what is known or not known are quickly coming into focus. Who should be believed? Who is credible and who is not credible as the epidemic unfolds. What should be the role of social media and of whistle blowers in the process of deciding how to respond? What happens when genuine whistle blowers like Dr. Li are too quickly dismissed and reprimanded by ruling authorities as “conspiracy theorists”?
An essential task that must be faced in this initial phase of this crisis is to develop an accurate explanation of where contagion came from and how the first victims of the Novel Coronavirus came to be infected. The need for some degree of certainty about the origins of the virus and its subsequent genesis is absolutely essential to the development of sound and appropriate responses. It would be highly irresponsible to rush ahead with the development of an overall strategy for dealing with the plague without making an honest attempt to get at the truth of how the contagion first came into existence.
The importance of getting to the factual roots of what happened to put humanity on this epidemiological trajectory should be especially clear after the debacle of September 11, 2001. Without any sustained investigation of the 9/11 crimes, Americans were rushed into cycles of seemingly perpetual warfare abroad, police state and surveillance state interventions at home. This cycle of fast responses began within a month of 9/11 with a full-fledge military invasion of Afghanistan, an invasion that continues yet.
When two US Senators, Patrick Leahy and Tom Daschle, sought to slow the rush of the US executive into emergency measures and war, they and the US Congress they served were hit hard by a military grade bioweapon, anthrax. The violent tactic of the saboteurs proved effective in easing aside close scrutiny that might have slowed down the fast approval by the end of October of Congress’s massive Patriot Act.
Since then a seemingly endless cycle of military invasions has been pushed forward in the Middle East and Eurasia. The emergency measure powers claimed by the executive branch of the US government extended to widespread illegal torture, domestic spying, media censorship and a meteoric rise in extrajudicial murders especially by drones. This list is far from complete.
All of these crimes against humanity were justified on the basis of an unproven official explanation of 9/11. Subsequent scholarly investigations have demonstrated unequivocally for the attentive that officialdom’s explanations of what transpired on the fateful day in September were wrong, severely wrong. The initial interpretations are strongly at variance with the evidentiary record available on the public record.
We must not allow ourselves to be hoodwinked in the same manner once again. The stakes are too large, maybe even larger than was the case in 2001. The misinterpreted and misrepresented events of 9/11 were exploited in conformity with the “Shock Doctrine,” a strategy for instituting litanies of invasive state actions that the public would not otherwise have accepted.
The conscientious portion of humanity, many of whose members have done independent homework of their own on the events of 9/11, will well understand the importance of identifying the actual originating source of the Wuhan Coronavirus epidemic.
No less than in the wake of the 9/11 debacle, there are grave dangers entailed in being too quick or too naïve or too trustful in immediately accepting as gospel fact the Chinese government’s initial explanations of the COVID-19 outbreak. Why not take the time to investigate and test the current interpretations of the authorities that proved themselves to be so wrong in their decision to reprimand Dr. Li?
Especially when the stakes are extremely high, the need is great for objective, third-party adjudication to establish what really happened irrespective of official interpretations. History provides abundant evidence to demonstrate that official interpretations of transformative events often veer away from the truth in order to serve and protect the interests of entrenched power.
All semblance of due process and the rule of law can quickly evaporate when powerful institutions advance interpretations of catastrophic events used to justify their own open-ended invocation of unlimited emergency measure powers. The well-documented examples of the misrepresentation and exploitation of the 9/11 debacle demonstrate well the severity of the current danger. The origins of the Wuhan Coronavirus epidemic have yet to be adequately addressed and explained by a panel of genuinely independent investigators.
The Chinese Ambassador to the United States, Cui Tiankai, acknowledged on Feb. 9 on CBS’s Face the Nation that there is no certainty about the origins of COVID-19. When asked by CBS’s Margaret Brennan where the virus came from, the Chinese Ambassador responded, “We still don’t know yet.”
Although media giants like the Washington Post have run interference to justify the claims of established authority in this fiasco, there is still a high level of uncertainty about what COVID-19 is, where it came from, and why it spread so quickly. What factors resulted in the genetic modifications determining the biological structure of the new Coronavirus strain? What happened in the biological journey from the SARS Coronavirus to the Coronavirus strain that triggered the epidemiological bombshell starting in Wuhan?
Did the Chinese communist government have a role in creating COVID-19 either purposely or inadvertently? What did the Chinese government know when did its leadership know it? Such basic questions have yet to be objectively considered by a panel of genuinely independent experts not beholden to any centers of established authority, funding, publicity and political networking.
The need to transcend all conflict of interest in the formal investigation of this matter must somehow be realized if objectivity is to prevail in the process of unearthing, organizing and assessing the evidence. The primary objective of this process must be to bring out the truth, no matter how embarrassing such illuminations might be to the interests of entrenched power. A process must be initiated without any pandering to the political biases of institutions and individuals with much to protect, with major interests in determining the outcome of the investigations.
One version of events is that the contagion began when some mutated viral disease strain jumped from a bat or a snake into the biological workings of one of more humans. This animal to human leap is supposed to have taken place in the precincts of Wuhan’s open-air traditional food market where bats, snakes, cats, raccoons, fish, possums and the like can be bought and sold.
A growing perception of disbelief is developing in the face of the idea that all this mayhem started with a few people chomping down on some fatally infected critters purchased an open-air market. In fact, this explanation is becoming the subject of much satire and ridicule even as the horrifying nature of the unfolding of events is intensifying.
Another possible source of the contagion is the Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory, one of China’s most high-tech installations designed for biological research into the most deadly forms of viruses known to humankind. This research facility, with top level 4 containment capacities, emerged from the expansion and elaboration of an older agency known as the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory
Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory
As shall be demonstrated, the Wuhan Institute of Virology is thought by some experts, including a prestigious group at the South China Technological University in Guangzhou, to be the probable source of the contaminant. As shall be demonstrated below, the Wuhan Institute of Virology and its outgrowth, The National Biosafety Laboratory, are thought by some to be integrated with more secretive sites where the military operations of China’s alleged biological warfare program are centered.
A focus on the kind of procedures that take place at the Wuhan Institute of Virology begs the question of whether an accidental viral escape from this agency forms the primary origin of the epidemic. Another possibility is that some sort of power play within China’s ruling elite might have led to the decision to create and release a bioweapon in the heart of one of the most heavily populated zones on earth.
Yet another possibility is that the Wuhan Coronavirus epidemic is part of some agenda of “hybrid warfare” by the US government against China. Speculation surrounding this scenario emphasizes that hundreds of US soldiers were in Wuhan in late October of 2019 for the World Military Games.
As Mark Episkopos has argued in The National Interest, the theory that the US government is behind the spread of the COVID-19 Coronavirus has been well reported in some mainstream media venues in Russia. This “rumor” is also one that Chinese Ambassador to the United States, Cui Tiankai, specifically referred on CBS’s Face the Nation when he fended off the allegation that China’s biological warfare program was somehow implicated in the epidemic’s origins.
One of those interviewed on the subject is Igor Nikulin. Mr Nikulin has argued, “Wuhan was chosen for the attack [by US military officials] because the local presence of the Wuhun Institute of Virology offers the Pentagon and CIA a convenient cover story about bio-experiments gone awry.”
If it turns out the source of the Novel Coronavirus epidemic is a biological warfare weapon, yet another question concerns whether the attack germ is genetically engineered to target a specific ethnic group. Drawing on his observations of US biological research in some of the former republics of the Soviet Union, Nikulin remarked,
the supposedly Pentagon-funded U.S. laboratories in Eurasia have been collecting and treating genetic material from Russian and Chinese populations to allegedly create an “ethnically specific” virus that only targets certain peoples.
Episkopos adds that Nikulin’s observation are consistent with the position of Russian military expert, Viktor Baranets. Baranets has affirmed that biological warfare has become a new weapon “in the American fight for global supremacy against its main adversaries.” There is much evidence to indicate that one of the main thrusts of genetic research in biological warfare has long involved efforts to target specific ethnic groups for sickness and death. There are obvious reasons why those engaged in the development of biological weaponry would want to narrow their aim to envisaged enemies rather than breed germs to kill indiscriminately all humans in their path whether friend or foe.
Lance Welton covers some supposedly unmentionable yet nevertheless contested topics in an article entitled, “Asians Far More Susceptible to Coronavirus Than Other Races, More Likely to Die.”
Welton leaves aside the question of why it is that the COVID-19 seems to pack a much more virulent and lethal punch when it comes to the targeting of people sharing Chinese-Asian ancestry. The other side of the same coin is people of predominately European ancestry seem statistically to be much less at risk when it comes to succumbing to the epidemiological force of COVID-19.
Welton has observed how difficult it is has become in the Occident even to raise issues publicly concerning the different vulnerabilities of different ethnic groups to certain diseases. He cites anecdotal evidence that, so far at least, all the deaths outside China have mostly taken the lives of ethnic Chinese people. From this observation Welton concludes that racial characteristics are a significant factor in determining vulnerability to COVID-19-inflicted disease.
The fact that this subject is being so assiduously ignored by those engaged in the quest for political correctness leads Welton to comment,
“It only goes to show how pathological our taboo on “race” has become. Race denial is so strong that possible race differences in the incidence of a disease cannot be mentioned, or even suggested.”
The Wuhan Coronavirus epidemic of 2020 is causing the once-firm ground beneath many established institutions to shake uncontrollably. One of those institutions, the Chinese communist government, is encountering its Chernobyl moment.
There are many consequences and implications of the epidemic that are already extending beyond China to the whole world. The epidemic is having significant implications for, for instance, the state of the Chinese and global economy, the future of the transportation industry, the future of tourism, the conditions of international relations, the state of censorship, the interaction between academic and military research, as well as the ongoing breakdown of trust in government. This list is far from complete.
The remainder of this 6 part essay highlights the implications of the COVID-19 crisis for communicative interactions, especially in the public sphere. The issues to be addressed extend across social media and mainstream media. They touch on public education and different conceptions of the public interest.
The analysis of the breakdown in public health raises questions about law enforcement. It raises related questions about the governance of professional associations, academic institutions as well as the public and private agencies with significant responsibilities in the arenas of certification and scientific publication.
One of the primary areas of professional contention arising from the COVID-19 crisis involves the close connections between biological research aimed at finding preventions and cures for diseases and research aimed at creating biological weapons. Biological weapons can be designed with the goal of bringing about indiscriminate mass murder. They can also be used to bring about the targeted murder of specific human populations sharing common genetic attributes.
Gradually a portion of the public is becoming aware that a conflict of interests exists between the military and public health applications of the microbiology field within the so-called life sciences. How many practitioners of the so-called life sciences are really devoting themselves to the death sciences? The public has reason to question, for instance, the procedures involved in the production of vaccines by an industry with one foot in the health care field and another foot in military research.
Why should the public not fear that some practitioners in the field of microbiology might confuse their dual responsibilities in projects aimed at both saving and killing people? What is to be said of the development of vaccines, in some cases by the same people involved in genetically engineering the very diseases that vaccines are meant to protect against?
Similarly, why should the public trust that we are being well served by systems of research primarily driven by the quest for lucrative patents to enrich their owners? Why shouldn’t the public suspect that we are being used as guinea pigs in experiments on human beings that continue to be perpetuated in the course of applied medical research regardless of the prohibitions that have been enacted? Did the Wuhan Coronavirus epidemic begin as an experiment on human subjects that got out of control?
How many times can the public trust be betrayed before the habit ceases of giving possible professional offenders, including those in white lab coats, the benefit of the doubt? Where does the protection of the public interest and the common good fit into this complex and internally contradictory picture?
Where is there genuine accountability to a public required to support with our tax dollars scientific research that can result in both good and bad outcomes? Why does the financial return on this public investment so often end up in corporate and private hands whereas the liabilities and collateral damages accrued are expected to be absorbed by the public?
The fact that ground zero of the Novel Coronavirus is Wuhan, home of China’s newest and most sophisticated microbiology laboratory, naturally casts a shadow of doubt over narratives minimizing the role of human agency in creating the new strain of Coronavirus. Wuhan’s important role as a major Chinese research center, much of it secret and covert, has to be taken into account. Moreover, Wuhan just happens also to be the medical headquarters of the People’s Liberation Army.
The possible bioweapon was originally labeled 2019-nCoV. Then the UN’s World Health Organization changed the formal name to COVID-19. Is the World Health Organization a PR adjunct of Big Pharma? How tight is the relationship between the WHO and the Chinese Communist Party?
In an era of proliferating genetic engineering, how are governments and their Big Pharma partners dividing up the field of microbiology? How are they handling the divide between initiatives done in the name of public health and initiatives done to produce biological weapons for national governments including those of the United States, China, and Israel? How are the partners handling the apportionment of new wealth derived from securing patents?
These issues are finding expressions in the many legitimate questions that are coming to light in the course of the Novel Coronavirus emergency. Some of these questions arise because of a history of largely unexplained relations between the Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory and the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada (NML). It has been well reported that both institutions share the same top-level 4 certification assigned to containment facilities in research labs where staff can pursue high-level studies of the most dangerous pathogens known to humankind.
Built with French assistance between 2015 and 2017, the Wuhan facility at ground zero of the current epidemic is one of the premier pathogen research facilities in a country that is thought by some to be developing significant capacities for biological warfare. Similarly, the federal research facility in Winnipeg may well have an attending or indirect role in military research to advance capacities for biological warfare in collaboration with Canada’s two main allies, Israel and the United States.
Immunologist and Medical Doctor, Xiangguo Qiu, is the principal professional link at the nexus of relations between the Wuhan and Winnipeg facilities. Until recently Dr. Qiu was the head of the Vaccine Development and Antiviral Therapies Section of the Special Pathogens Programme of the NML. The NML in Winnipeg is administered by Canada’s federal Public Health Agency.
Qiu Xiangguo was one of the first scientists to develop a treatment for Ebola. Credit: Handout
Qiu Xiangguo was one of the first scientists to develop a treatment for Ebola. Credit: Handout
Dr. Qiu received her medical degree in China. In 1996 she moved from the Taijin area of China to the United States while already being subsidized as participant in China’s Thousand Talents Program. She soon moved to Canada from the US continuing her graduate work at the University of Manitoba. Dr. Qiu continued her professional life in both Canada and China, apparently visiting the Wuhan Biosafety Laboratory of the Chinese Academy of Science at least five times, each for two-week periods in 2017 and 2018. In each case an undisclosed Chinese entity paid her travel expenses.
After 2006 Dr. Qiu’s research specialty became the study of a variety of Ebola wild strains. The most virulent of these strains has an 80% death rate for those that contract the virus. An outbreak of Ebola from 2013 to 2016 took the lives of over 11,000 people in West Africa. Along with Dr. Gary Kobinger, Dr. Qui was said to be instrumental in developing the ZMapp treatment for Ebola using a cocktail of antibodies. In 2018 the duo received an Innovation Award from the Governor General of Canada for developing treatments for those infected with Ebola virus.
In March of 2019, Dr. Qiu and her research team sent off to China via Air Canada a package of deadly virus strains said to include Ebola and Nipah organisms. The shipment is said to have triggered an unexplained negative response from officials in China. The flagged problem probably involved an alleged failure to follow proper procedures in the transfer of materials that can be used for the manufacturing of bioweapons as well as in the making of vaccines to prevent the spread of infection.
The episode led to the decision of Canada’s Public Health Agency to call in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) to investigate. This investigation was directed at Dr. Qiu and her husband, Cheng Keding, who is also an acknowledged expert in the field of virology.
Chinese bacterial thief Xiangguo Qiu and her husband Chen Keding
Chinese bacterial thief Xiangguo Qiu and her husband Chen Keding
As a result of these developments an episode occurred that was reported on July 14 by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, CBC. In her CBC article, Karen Pauls reported,
A researcher with ties to China was recently escorted out of the National Microbiology Lab (NML) in Winnipeg amid an RCMP investigation into what’s being described as a possible “policy breach.” Dr. Xiangguo Qiu, her husband Keding Cheng and an unknown number of her students from China were removed from Canada’s only level-4 lab on July 5.
The CBC acted pretty much as a stenographer of official sources whose clear mission was to keep a lid on the potentially explosive story. The story would become even more explosive with the inception in December of 2019 of the Coronavirus crisis in China. Rather than trying to go around the official platitudes by engaging in some independent sleuthing known as investigative journalism, CBC did what most mainstream venues do these days. CBC acted as a xerox machine to relay the tepid pronouncements of a timid and ill-guided bureaucracy.
Paul cited, for instance, an official in Canada’s Public Health Agency referring to the removal of Dr. Qiu, her husband and her research team as an “administrative matter” that will be “resolved expeditiously.” Several officials including a RCMP spokesman, indicated, “There is no threat to public safety at this time.”
A federal media relations officer continued the effort of deflection by trying to make a really unusual, complex and many-faceted story seem unremarkable. The commentator affirmed, “the work of the NML continues in support of the health and safety of all Canadians.” Leah West, an International Affairs Professor at Carlton University of Ottawa, went as far as venturing that “national security” issues might be involved. This statement calls for explanations that Canadian reporters have so far not seriously attempted.
Lt. Colonel Dr. Dany Shoham is one of the most attentive figures outside Canada who responded especially quickly and skeptically to the perplexing questions raised by Dr. Qiu’s activities. Dr. Shoham is a reserve member of the IDF. He continues his military responsibilities in the fields of biological and chemical warfare as a senior researcher in the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies in Israel.
Dr. Dany Shoham. Credit: Wiki/ Shalom magazine
Dr. Dany Shoham. Credit: Wiki/ Shalom magazine
In 2014 Dr. Shoham was a visiting scholar at the New Delhi-based Institute for Defence Studies and Analysis (IDSA). There he collaborated professionally with the IDSA’s Deputy Director, Brigadier Rumel Dahiya. Dr. Shoham devoted much of his time in India to studying what he refers to as China’s Biological Warfare Programme.
Dr. Shoham published his findings in 2015 in an “integrative study” where he commented at significant length on the makeup and structure of China’s secretive military R and D initiatives in the alleged development of bioweapons. He maintains that these secretive military operations have been blended into the operations of “ostensibly civilian facilities” where public health initiatives in disease prevention and treatment are often highlighted
Dr. Shoham notes that the government of China became a signatory in 1984 to UN’s Biological Weapons Convention of 1972. The Israeli academic alleges, however, that China, a target of US biological war in the Korean War in the early 1950s, opted to secretly retain some continuing capacities in this military field.
Dr. Shoham has cast himself as an insistent whistle blower calling attention to the provocative circumstances attending the shipment from Canada to China of virulent pathogens. Dr. Shoham indicated that Dr. Qiu’s research has been conducted not only on behalf of the governments of Canada and China. Dr. Qui has also collaborated with three scientists from the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases in Maryland. Much of her success, however, is connected to her obtaining many grants from China, all on the “national level.”
In the July-December 2019 issue of the IDSA Journal, Dr. Shoman explained.
But the collateral Chinese plexus cannot be ignored. Married to a Chinese scientist – Dr. Keding Cheng, also affiliated with the NML (specifically the “Science and Technology Core”), and primarily a bacteriologist who shifted to virology – Dr. Qiu frequently visited and maintained tight bonds with China, generally speaking, and many Chinese students joined her works in the NML during the recent decade, coming from a notable range of Chinese scientific facilities. Nonetheless, among the latter there are four facilities that have been regarded to possess parts of the Chinese biological weapons alignment, namely
·         Institute of Military Veterinary, Academy of Military Medical Sciences, Changchun.
·         Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Chengdu Military Region.
·         Wuhan Institute of Virology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hubei.
·         Institute of Microbiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing.
All of the four mentioned facilities collaborated with Dr. Qiu within the context of Ebola virus, yet the Institute of Military Veterinary joined a study on the Rift Valley fever virus, while the Institute of Microbiology joined a study on Marburg virus too. Noticeably, the drug used in the latter study – Favipiravir – has been earlier tested successfully by the Chinese Academy of Military Medical Sciences, with the designation JK-05 (originally a Japanese patent registered in China already in 2006), against Ebola and additional viruses.
However, the studies by Dr. Qiu are considerably more advanced and fruitful, in certain aspects. They are apparently vital for the Chinese biological weapons developing, in case Ebola, Nipah, Marburg or Rift Valley fever viruses are included therein, which is a plausible postulation; let alone the wild type viruses in themselves. And it is of note that only Nipah virus is naturally found in China or neighboring countries. Collectively, then, the interface between Dr. Qiu and China has a priori been highly suspicious. On top of it, the shipment of the two viruses from NML to China apparently generated an alarm, beyond its seeming inappropriateness. And an unavoidable question is whether previous shipments to China of other viruses or other essential preparations, took place from 2006 to 2018, one way or another.
It has not gone unnoticed that this episode at the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg may be intertwined with the mounting diplomatic tension between the governments of Canada and China. The controversy is unfolding in a way that adds new uncertainty to the controversy instigated in December of 2018 with the Canadian government’s decision to arrest, detain and put on trial the Huawei cell phone company’s executive, Meng Wanzhou. Many have questioned the dubious nature of the decision to arrest the Huawei official in Vancouver for allegedly violating US law pertaining to sanctions against Iran.
The future role of the Huawei system for 5G wireless communications, a frightening and largely untested public health hazard in its own right, has emerged as a core issue in the conflict between the United States and China. To conceive of this conflict as a trade war alone is to underestimate the full scope of the antagonisms. These antagonisms over the future of wireless communications extend, for instance, far into the shape and form of future international espionage. Since the era began nearly 20 years ago of the 9/11 psychological operation, much international espionage has taken place by means of backdoor spying on digital flows of information. Israel has become especially closely identified with this type of digital spying throughout the Internet.
The Chinese strategy for achieving traction in this competitive milieu is to apply breakthroughs in digital computation and communications. The strategy is to integrate innovations in Artificial Intelligence, AI, with cutting edge developments in biotechnology. This methodology is understood by some Chinese students of geopolitics as integral to the military process of “preparing a new domain for warfare.”
In this digital and biological theatre of rivalry, the new gene splicing capacities of CRISPR technology constitute a formidable new tool for major and irreversible interventions into life’s most fundamental cycles of death and renewal. The ability to alter the genetic makeup of organisms, including human organisms, is thereby becoming a key facet in establishing new domains for warfare, including various forms of hybrid warfare.
More elements in China’s geopolitical strategy have come to light as the Wuhan Coronavirus epidemic gathers momentum especially in the ground zero region. The decision of Canadian federal officials, including federal police, to intervene by removing Dr. Qiu and her research team from the NML was to some extent mirrored in the United States.
In January of 2020 police in the United States arrested Prof. Charles Lieber, Chairman of Harvard University’s Chemistry and Chemical Biology Department. Dr. Lieber has been placed on indefinite administrative leave and charged under US criminal law with lying to officials in the Defense Department and in the National Institutes of Health. These agencies funded Dr. Lieber’s research at Harvard in the field of nanoscience to the tune of $15,000,000 in grants.
Prof. Charles Lieber, former Chairman of Harvard University’s Chemistry and Chemical Biology Department
Prof. Charles Lieber, former Chairman of Harvard University’s Chemistry and Chemical Biology Department
Dr. Lieber is alleged to have misled federal officials and Harvard officials about the extent of his contractual relations with several Chinese entities including, most prominently, the Wuhan Technological University. Among the allegations pointed his way are those that accuse Dr. Lieber of failing to reveal his participation in China’s controversial Thousand Talents program.
According to the FBI, “China’s talent recruitment plans, such as the Thousand Talents Program, offer competitive salaries, state-of-the-art research facilities, and honorific titles, luring both Chinese overseas talent and foreign experts alike to bring their knowledge and experience to China, even if that means stealing proprietary information or violating export controls to do so.” The Chinese-Canadian researcher, Dr. Qiu, is reported to be, like Harvard’s Dr. Lieber, a participant in China’s Thousand Talents program.
In its report on the caseBloomberg News described the work at Dr. Lieber’s Harvard lab as being dependent on “a pipeline of China’s brightest Ph.D. students and postdocs, often more than a dozen at a time, to produce prize-winning research.”
The North American research activities of Dr. Lieber and Dr. Qui seem to have been similarly dependent on China’s financial backing, collaboration and constant supply of promising young practitioners of scientific research. Both Dr. Lieber and Dr. Qiu clearly ran into a major sea change in the conditions of their work with major ramifications for the conduct of national security, international relations, law enforcement and academic governance.
No doubt administrators have been sent reeling behind-the-scenes at Harvard University, at the University of Manitoba and at institutions of higher learning throughout the world. These institutions depend heavily on international networks of academic collaboration. Suddenly the viability of many of these academic networks has been called into question though interventions by the criminal justice system in Canada and the United States.
Indeed, the sudden global spotlight on anything that might help shed light on the still-shady background of the Wuhan Coronavirus epidemic must be given its due. The startling developments associated with a major plague quite possibly cultivated in stages in both test tubes and animal hosts calls into question many things. It calls for explanations about the role of many corporations, government agencies and philanthropic foundations. The rules seem to be changing fast for entities that regularly sponsor scholarly research even as they participate in the process of applying research findings to technological innovations.
The arrest of Dr. Lieber followed the arrest in mid-December of 20019 of Zaosong Zheng at Logan International Airport in Boston for trying to smuggle to Beijing 21 vials of biological material. The vials were taken from Harvard University’s Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Centre where Zaosong Zheng was a visiting graduate student in pathology.
Commenting on his ongoing investigation of the case, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Benjamin Tolkoff remarked, “Zeng’s theft and attempt to smuggle biological specimens out of the U.S. was not an isolated incident. Rather it appears to have been a coordinated crime, with likely involvement by the Chinese government.”
A tight set of right-wing activists and agencies with deep-rooted antipathies to Chinese communism have provided a particular genre of criticism in the course of the current debacle. These agencies include Radio Free Asia, a former CIA-backed outlet now governed by a federally-funded Board of Governors answerable directly to the current Secretary of State and former CIA Director, Mike Pompeo. The criticisms of Radio Free Asia have been integrated into a matrix of criticism of the Chinese government highlighted especially in the Washington Times and The Epoch Times.
The Epoch Times emerges from an international group of newspapers published in several languages. It has a strong focus on China and on Chinese people globally. The Epoch Times was founded in 2000 by John Tang with a group of Chinese Americans associated with Falun Gong.
The Falun Gong organization is in the grips of an antagonistic relationship with the Chinese Communist Party. Falun Gong combines Taoism, Buddhism and meditation. It became so independently influential in China that in 1999 the Communist government declared it a heretical organization. The antagonism between Falun Gong and the Chinese government quite likely involves covert infiltration by the US CIA and related US agencies.
Whatever is happening behind the scenes, The Epoch Times has been running an unrelenting critique of the Chinese government’s handling of the Novel Coronavirus crisis. The journalistic coverage of the crisis is often been incisive and bold. The consistent message is that the Chinese government is not reporting on the epidemic honestly. Nor is The Epoch Times holding back from criticizing the Chinese government for secretly engaging in the violent repression of Chinese citizens especially in the most hard-hit regions.
Some managers of the dominant cartels’ media thought police try to ridicule and harass those publicly posing essential questions. The Epoch Times, however, has no hesitation in asking, “Is the Coronavirus a Bioweapon?” In explaining the position of those opposed to open debate on the geopolitics of biological warfare, The Epoch Times Steven W. Mosher has commented, “Much ink has been spilled by The Washington Post and other mainstream media outlets to try to convince us that the deadly coronavirus is a product of nature rather than nefariousness, and that anyone who says otherwise is an unhinged conspiracy theorist.”
Like The Epoch Times, the Washington Times is rooted in the politics of anti-communism. One of the primary journalists at the venue is the national security correspondent, Bill Gertz. Gertz is a career China expert who is sometimes invited to lecture for the FBI and CIA.
The Washington Times grew out of the controversial career of the Korean-American, Sun Myung Moon. Moon is founder of the Unification Church sometimes dubbed “the Moonies” by its detractors. The Washington Examiner is also known for its related right-wing orientation to news coverage. One of the lead authorities frequently highlighted in the output of this genre of anti-communist reporting is Dr. Dany Shoham. Recall that Dr. Shoham was one of the most insistent critics of the Wuhan-Winnipeg axis revealed in the summer of 2019.
Rev. Sun Myung Moon speaking in Las Vegas, NV, USA on April 4, 2010
Rev. Sun Myung Moon speaking in Las Vegas, NV, USA on April 4, 2010
Dr. Shoham was quoted, for instance, in the 26 January edition of the Washington Times asserting “Certain laboratories in the [Wuhan Institute of Virology] have probably been engaged, in terms of research and development, in Chinese [biological weapons], at least collaterally, yet not as a principal facility of the Chinese Biological Weapons alignment.”
Elsewhere Dr. Shoham, who is sometimes described as “a former Israel intelligence officer,” asserted his understanding that “China had intentionally leaked the new coronavirus from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”
Tom Cotton, Republican Party Senator for Arkansas, has emerged as another significant voice criticizing the role of the Chinese government in the Novel Coronavirus epidemic. In introducing the Senator’s position to its readership, Newsweek reported on 16 February, “Republican Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas on Sunday accused China of lying about the severity of the coronavirus outbreak and suggested that the new disease may have originated from a biosafety super laboratory in Wuhan.”
Senator Cotton has praised US President Donald Trump for his decision to temporarily cancel flights between China and USA. This cancellation, however, was seemingly contradicted by records revealing the continuation of much air traffic between China and USA in spite of the presidential pronouncement.
Senator Cotton referred to evidence pointing to the fact that some of the early victims of the disease had no contact whatsoever with the Wuhan open-air food market. The deadly virus, Senator Cotton insists, “went into the food market before it came out.”
Senator Cotton has unwaveringly underlined his contention that the Chinese authorities have from its inception withheld the truth about the crisis. According to the Senator, Chinese officials have been especially deceptive about the extent of the illnesses and mortality. “They’re still lying today,” he was reported as telling Newsweek. The young Arkansas politician has insisted on the need for some kind of reckoning on the part of the Chinese government leading to a full and proper investigation with full disclosure.
Newsweek’s interpretive angle is similar to that of other media survivors of the Mockingbird era of US propaganda. Most Big Media venues including Newsweekemployed writers and editors who happily accepted extra money from the CIA to tell the US government’s side of the story during the Cold War.
The common denominator in much of the dinosaur-style of reporting that characterizes a discredited old guard is to describe any interpretation that challenges established conventions and interests as “conspiracy theories.” As Lance DeHaven-Smith has demonstrated in his book of the same name, the CIA led the way in the conceptual tweeking of the term, “conspiracy theories,” with the goal of discrediting interpretations considered menacing to established interests.
Again and again the media conglomerates most deeply integrated into dominant matrixes of power deploy the weaponized terminology with the goal of limiting public discourse. They invoke the boogeyman of “conspiracy theories” as a meme to flippantly discredit skeptical journalism questioning the honesty of official sources.
Newsweek reported,
Cotton’s remarks came amid the proliferation of various conspiracy theories surrounding coronavirus’ origins, one of which suggests it may have come from a laboratory tied to Beijing’s biowarfare program. In response, Facebook and other social media platforms have cracked down on the reach of posts that perpetuate these unsubstantiated allegations.
There is much irony in Newsweek’s supportive account of Facebook’s intervention aimed at blocking open exchange on a major undecided topic. The irony occurs because of the propensity of some MSM venues to condemn the Chinese government for their imposition of censorship including the blocking of their critics on social media.
The heavy-handed crackdown in the Occident on the increasingly vandalized domain of violated free expression on the Internet is quite comparable to communist crackdowns on dissident news and views especially during the peak of the Cold War.
The US claim to be the heartland of the “free world” has long since become ludicrous in the extreme given many factors including the ailing superpower’s generation of an unrelenting flood of power-serving disinformation. Part of this agenda is to control the narrative no matter how deceptive. It is to engage in digital vandalism aimed at discrediting or altogether silencing dissident voices on the Internet.
One of the targets of Internet censorship on the Wuhan Coronavirus story is the web site, Zero HedgeZero Hedge was permanently deplatformed by the corporate censors at Twitter for reporting on interpretations that might be characterized as consistent with Senator Cotton’s skeptical critique of officialspeak on many aspects of the current Coronavirus debacle. One of the thought police agencies behind the attack Zero Hedgeis the Internet venue, BuzzFeed News.
Twitter’s decision to deplatform Zero Hedge came in the wake of its 29 January post that included the following comments by Tyler Durden:
..the official theory for the spread of the Coronavirus epidemic, namely because someone ate bat soup at a Wuhan seafood and animal market… … is a fabricated farce, and that the real reason behind the viral spread [of the disease] is because a weaponized version of the coronavirus (one which may have originally been obtained from Canada), was released by Wuhan’s Institute of Virology (accidentally or not), a top, level-4 biohazard lab which was studying “the world’s most dangerous pathogens.”
India, and especially India’s capital of New Delhi, have been important bases where challenging interpretations of the Wuhan Coronavirus epidemic have been formulated and distributed. In some circles in India there is a high level of attentiveness and concern about China’s interest in biological warfare. This concern was expressed in Tehelka, an important English-language publication based in New Delhi.
Tehelka reported on 18 Feb. that
China’s national strategy of military-civil fusion has highlighted biology as a priority, and the People’s Liberation Army – PLA could be at the forefront of expanding and exploiting this knowledge… China’s Biological Warfare Programme is believed to be in an advanced stage that includes research and development, production and weaponization capabilities. Its current inventory is believed to include the full range of traditional chemical and biological agents with a wide variety of delivery systems including artillery rockets, aerial bombs, sprayers, and short-range ballistic missiles.
As we have seen, New Delhi’s Institute for Defense Studies and Analysis hosted Dr. Shoham during a study leave in 2014. During his time in India, the Israeli intelligence officer devoted his study leave with the approval of his Indian hosts to investigating China’s alleged biological warfare program.
Not surprisingly, Indian scientists were especially fast off the mark in trying to understand the nature of the Wuhan Coronavirus epidemic. Some in India well remember that the Chinese government was slow in releasing information on the SARS infection of 2002-3. Some, including Dr. Dany Shoham, believe this delay had to do with the importance of SARS in the Chinese program of bioweapon research. Dr. Shoham has maintained that Coronaviruses, but particularly SARS, have been studied in the Wuhan Institute of Viriology. He adds, “SARS is included in the Chinese Bioweapons program, and is dealt with in several pertinent facilities.”
During January of 2020 a team of nine high-level researchers at the University of Delhi’s Kusuma School of Biological Sciences at the Indian Institute of Technology investigated the RNA side of the genetic blueprint of the COVID-19 virus. These Indian researchers collaborated in the analysis of the organism that some have taken to calling the Wuhan supervirus.
The initial findings of the researchers have been published on line in a paper entitled, “Uncanny Similarity of Unique Inserts in the 2019-nCoV Spike Protein to HIV-1 gp120 and Gag.” At the time of writing this essay, the University of Delhi’s much-smeared contribution to COVID-19 research continues to be available on the line even though it is still making its way through the process of peer review with possible future revisions.
The main finding of the study so far is that the genetic structure of the virus has “4 insertions in the spike glycoprotein (S) which are unique to the 2019-nCoV [COVID-19] and are not present in other coronaviruses.” These “4 inserts have identity or similarity to those in HIV-1 gp120 or HIV-1 Gag.” This finding “sheds light on the evolution and pathogenicity of this virus.”
The authors of the paper find that the genetic inserts into the virus “have identity/similarity to amino acid residues in key structural proteins of HIV-1.” These characteristics are “unlikely to be fortuitous in nature.” This key phrase indicates that in the opinion of the researchers the presence of HIV genes in COVID-19 was not the result of some process of random mutation in nature. Instead, the insertion of the HIV genes into the new coronavirus probably took place through an engineered intervention by experts in microbiology.
The finding that HIV genes are integral to the genetic structure of COVID-19 has not been seriously challenged. The fact that HIV treatments are being widely used to ease the symptoms of those suffering the effects of the new infection is highly suggestive. It implies that some of the analysis of the Kusuma School of microbiologists was quickly seized upon and applied in clinical situations.
The main subjects of the controversy that has been generated so far arise mostly from the question of whether or not the insertion of the HIV genes could have occurred without human intervention, without genetic engineering. That issue is bound to attract much scientific attention in the weeks and months ahead.
The work of the Kusuma microbiologists at the University of Delhi has become important in the interpretation of the epidemic advanced by Zero Hedge. The size of the group following Zero Hedge’s coverage of the Coronavirus crisis of 2020only became larger after the censorious thought police at BuzzFeed and Twitter intervened. The public is not taking well to corporate intervention aimed at dictating what can or cannot be communicated, viewed, considered or debated.
The hysteria aroused by the “Uncanny Resemblance” paper captured the attention of a site called GreatGameIndia. This operation publishes a regular “Journal of Geopolitics and International Relations.” The co-founders and editors of GreatGameIndia, an especially lively and edgy publishing venue, are Raja Sekhar and Shelly Kasli.
The interpretive bent of this venue begins with the surprising observation that the English East India Company was the most influential and large-scale business venture in all of history. According to Raja Sekhar, this history established patterns of Western kleptocracy in Asia that continue to this day.
The publication of GreatGameIndia on the background of the Wuhan Coronavirus epidemic has attracted positive attention from Tehelka and from many other publications throughout the world. The venue, unfortunately, is not always completely transparent. For instance the names of specific authors of specific essays are sometimes not published.
GreatGameIndia describes itself as “India’s one-of-a kind portal on international affairs providing global intelligence… in a geopolitical and historical framework to better understand international developments and the world around us. Experts in the field of Geopolitics and International Relations, we bring in fresh perspective to the otherwise redundant academic approach. We are read, recommended and published by decision makers, renowned personalities and organisations around the world.”
GreatGameIndia did indeed bring “fresh perspective” in highlighting a possible role for Canada in China’s alleged military program to develop bioweapons. This story was developed in a rapid-fire series of articles, most of which appeared in January and February of 2020. These items brought together intertwined news on the possible roles of the Wuhan Institute of Virology and Winnipeg’s National Microbiology Laboratory in the genesis of the Wuhan Coronavirus epidemic.
This juxtaposition of the two institutions highlights the work of Israeli intelligence expert, Dr. Dany Shoham. It seems he may have had some role in shaping the overall narrative. Dr. Shoham’s oft’ republished essay highlighting the role of Dr. Xiangguo in the Winnipeg-Wuhan axis of biotechnology was republished by GreatGameIndia.
A number of issues are raised by Dr. Shoham’s possible involvement in the genesis of the stories run by GreatGameIndia and by other related venues on the Wuhan Coronavirus crisis. Is Dr. Shoham to be understood as an agent of Israel in the discussions and debates? Is his consistently critical stance on China’s alleged bioweapons program together with his relative silence on similar US programs a significant sign of an Israel-US or an Israel-US-India alignment on this issue?
One could legitimately ask, for instance, if the series of narratives highlighting the Chinese-Canadian connection might have been meant as a diversion? Might such a diversion have been mounted to point attention away from the possibility that a germ warfare attack was covertly mounted in Wuhan by US soldiers taking part in the 7thWorld Military Games? Over 300 US military personnel took part in this event organized in Wuhan from October18-27, 2019.
In an interview with Jeff Brown, a veteran of US special operations in China, “Uriah Heep,” aka “Metallicman,” has speculated about the possibility that the US government was responsible for a biological attack resulting in the COVID-19 epidemic.
The GreatGameIndia essays are premised on a very harsh picture assessment of the Chinese government’s intentions as directed especially at North America. J. R. Nyquist is the author of the article in GreatGameIndia outlining the historical background of China’s emphasis on biotechnology, including the development of the means to conduct biological warfare.
A version of Nyquist’s GreatGameIndia essay also appeared in the Falun Gong-backed Epoch Times. Nyquist writes frequently for The Epoch Times. Many of his essays emphasize very critical assessments of communism in a variety of contemporary and historical settings.
The heart of the essay introducing readers to the genesis of China’s biological warfare capacities highlights a speech given in 2005 by Chi Hoatian, an important General in the People’s Liberation Army. Between 1993 and 2003 General Chi was also China’s Minister of National Defence. The full text of the speech is available here.
The essence of the presentation is based on the premise that by 2005 China had become severely overpopulated, a problem that entailed a growing degradation of the national environment. The solution to this problem, General Chi decided, was to colonize a portion of the globe as a second China. Chi observed that the region neighboring China was already densely populated. He added, “only countries like the United States, Canada, and Australia have the vast land to serve our need for mass colonization.”
General Chi indicated that is was Deng Xioping who was the most instrumental figure in the decision to build up his country’s arsenal of biological weapons in spite of China’s formal adherence to the Biological Weapons Convention. Deng is best known as the Chinese leader who oversaw the dramatic transformation of the Chinese economy beginning in the 1980s. Said General Chi
When Comrade Xiaoping was still with us, the Party Central Committee had the perspicacity to make the right decision not to develop aircraft carrier groups and focused instead on developing lethal weapons that can eliminate mass populations of the enemy country. Biological weapons are unprecedented in their ruthlessness, but if Americans do not die then Chinese have to die. If the Chinese people remain strapped to the present land, a total societal collapse is bound to take place.
As General Chi saw it, from the Chinese perspective biological weapons have advantages over nuclear weapons. According to his way of seeing things,’ “only by using non-destructive weapons that kill many people will we be able to reserve America for ourselves.”
GreatGameIndia did little to explain how average people in China have responded to General Chi’s surprising explanation of a perceived need to colonize a portion of the world for a second China. How seriously were General Chi’s words received in China? How many in China today consider General Chi’s analysis to be still relevant?
The account by GreatGameIndia of the strange viral infection starting in Wuhan depends on some documented evidence mixed in with speculative accounts of things that might have taken place. The essence of the scenario presented to the public is identified by the title of the core essay in the series. Published on 26 January, 2020 this title is “Coronavirus Bioweapon: How China Stole Coronavirus from Canada and Weaponized It.”
This essay was widely republished including by Zero Hedge.
The authors mix sheer conjecture with an evidence-based chronicle of certain events. The aim seems to be to stimulate thinking about what is known to be happening while encouraging concurrently reflections on what might be taking place or what might be about to take place.
Hence the overall nature of the narrative outlined by GreatGameIndia can best be described as an SOS about quickly deteriorating developments containing warnings about possible unseen factors or possible dangers up ahead. The GreatGameIndia project can be conceived, therefore, as a psychological operation meant to shift and enliven public attitudes, behavior and actions. Psychological operations, sometimes innocuously identified as PR campaigns, are very prominent in the media coverage of many events and topics these days.
What is actually known about the condition of Winnipeg’s National Microbiology Laboratory during the period when Dr. Qiu’s team of China’s researchers conducted themselves in ways that led to the removal of their security passes, followed by their physical removal from the facility? Recent media reports in Winnipeg have painted a picture of the breakdown of decorum at the NML. In September of 2019 the Winnipeg Free Press reported,
The lab, known as NML, is a source of pride for its role in creating the Ebola vaccine. It’s one of the few facilities in the world accredited to handle the most deadly pathogens. It officially opened in 1999 to much fanfare, after political wrangling had it ultimately placed in Winnipeg.
Yet numerous people who work there have told the Free Press of a workplace rife with intimidation, alcohol abuse and clashes between officials in Winnipeg and Ottawa, which was partially revealed this summer in an administrative breach that has the RCMP investigating a shipment of dangerous substances to China.
“The sad thing is, they do world-class science, but internally they’re almost self-destructing, in terms of how they treat their employees,” said Todd Panas, national president of the Union of Health and Environment Workers.
“The collateral damage to get that science is pretty remarkable.”
As far as the specifics of the RCMP investigation into the much highlighted shipment of deadly viruses from Winnipeg to China, all that has been reported in MSM is that it may have had something to do with “rules around copyright, patents and published works.”
The reporter, Dylan Robertson, went further, indicating, “multiple sources who spoke with the Free Press on the condition of anonymity, say the shipment lacked an agreement spelling out intellectual property rights, which is critical for protecting scientific research.” According to Robertson, the RCMP still will not say if its investigation is going forward in the organizational realm of either national security, or organized crime, or forensics.”
The GreatGameIndia essays highlight the role of Frank Plummer, a former Scientific Director of the Canada’s National Microbiology Laboratory and a leading researcher on HIV-AIDS. Prof. Plummer conducted much of his primary HIV research in Kenya. He focused especially on the heterosexual spread of AIDS in Africa, developing in the process a joint project between the University of Manitoba and the University of Nairobi.
GreatGameIndia included in their lineup of intertwined stories one describing Frank Plummer as the “key to the coronavirus investigation” who “was assassinated in Africa.” There is nothing but conjecture behind the assertion that Dr. Plummer was assassinated. It was widely reported in MSM that Prof. Plummer died quickly of an unexpected heart attack in Nairobi on 4 February of 2020 just as coverage on the Wuhan epidemic was reaching a point of critical mass.
The conjecture of assassination gave the story a contemporary resonance that captured considerable attention. This twist invested the larger narrative with sensationalist connotations. It strongly implied that some malevolent group of saboteurs had eliminated Dr. Plummer so he could not bear witness to what had apparently happened at the NML in Winnipeg to pour oil on the inflamed crisis in China.
No proof is offered that Dr. Plummer did not die of natural causes. The spotlight put on his career by GreatGameIndia, however, does call attention to the rather exotic career of a significant Canadian involved in many original types of genetic study and alteration totally new to medical and military science. The report serves to stimulate reflections on the types of intrigue that would probably arise on a regular basis in Dr. Plummer’s unusual line of work.
The account by GreatGameIndia of the Canadian connection to the Wuhan plague stresses the role of Dr. Plummer in the process that is said to have brought into Winnipeg’s level 4 pathogen lab a particular SARS strain that initially came from Saudi Arabia. Before arriving in Winnipeg, the strain of SARS said to be investigated by Dr. Plummer passed along a chain of custody involving collaboration with colleagues in Jeddah, Egypt and Rotterdam.
We learn from the narrative that the NML has a “long history of offering comprehensive testing services for Coronaviruses”; that it “isolated and provided the first genome sequence of the SARS Coronavirus and identified another Coronavirus as NL63 in 2004.” We learn that the “Canadian lab grew up stocks of the virus [originating in respiratory illnesses infecting Saudi Arabian victims] and used it to assess diagnostic tests being used in Canada. Winnipeg scientists worked to see which animal species can be infected with the new virus.”
The article uses provocative language calling Dr. Qui “a Chinese Bio-Warfare Agent.” After referring to Dr. Shoham, whose comments appear consistently throughout a wide array of reports critical of the alleged biowarfare program run by the Chines government, a reference is made to James Giordano. a is identified as a neurology professor at Georgetown University and a senior fellow in Biowarfare at the U.S. Special Operations Command. Prof. Giordano is reported to have commented,
China’s growing investment in bio-science, looser ethics around gene-editing and other cutting-edge technology and integration between government and academia raise the spectre of such pathogens being weaponized.
That could mean an offensive agent, or a modified germ let loose by proxies, for which only China has the treatment or vaccine. “This is not warfare, per se,” he said. “But what it’s doing is leveraging the capability to act as global saviour, which then creates various levels of macro and micro economic and bio-power dependencies.”
The authors of the GreatGameIndia series on the possible Canadian connection to the Wuhan Institute of Virology speculate that the shipments of viruses from the NML to China included the specific strain of Coronavirus that originated in Saudi Arabia. This conjecture caused me to speculate about why it is that the Israeli specialist in biological and chemical warfare, Dr. Dany Shoman, took such an active interest in the Winnipeg biolab. I have seen no evidence Dr. Shoham ever visited the Winnipeg lab but for some unexplained reason he seems well informed about its activities.
My own speculations cause me to wonder if Dr. Shoham might have come in contact with Dr. Plummer because of the latter’s reported work in doing the genetic sequencing of the virus causing the Saudi-based outbreak of a version of SARS. This speculation arises because of a serious report in London England highlighting the interests of Israeli biological warfare experts in an “ethnic bomb” that would specifically target Arabs.
The existence of such a program was outlined on 15 November, 1998 in a London Sunday Times story entitled, “Israel Planning ‘Ethnic Bomb’ as Saddam Caves In.” The story’s authors, Uzi Mahnaimi and Marie Cohen, explain the existence of such a clandestine research project on ethnic-specific bioweapons at Ness Ziona Israel near Tel Aviv. The Israeli research project, which still continues, apparently drew earlier on investigations on ethnically-targeted biological weaponry that took place in South Africa during the era of apartheid.
The Times article reported that
Israel, using research obtained from South Africa, was developing an “ethno bomb; In developing their “ethno-bomb”, Israeli scientists are trying to exploit medical advances by identifying a distinctive gene carried by some Arabs, then create a genetically modified bacterium or virus… The scientists are trying to engineer deadly micro-organisms that attack only those bearing the distinctive genes.
As an Israeli military and medical expert in the field of biological and chemical warfare, Dr. Shoham must have had some awareness of the founding and genesis of Ness Ziona “ethno-bomb” project.
What is the past or current relationship of Dr. Shoham to the Ness Ziona Institute for Biological Research? Did Dr. Shoham have professional interactions with Dr. Plummer following the reported cultivation and genetic sequencing by the Winnipeg scientist of the Saudi-derived strain of SARS. This strain came to be known as MERS. Was Dr. Plummers’s involvement in a strain of Coronavirus that initially targeted Arabs a factor in attracting Dr. Shoham’s interest to Winnipeg’s NML.
GreatGameIndia has published a rich and detailed academic paper presenting a chronicle and an assessment of the spread of the SARS strain that struck down Arab victims initially in Qatar and Jordan as well as Saudi Arabia. Some of the victims also spread the illness to family members in London and Pakistan. The labeling of this strain of infection as MERS comes from the name, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome.
Prof. Gufaraz Kahn is the author of the paper published on 28 February of 2013 in Vol. 10 (no. 66) of Virology Journal. Dr. Kahn’s professional base is the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at the College of Medicine and Health Sciences at United Arab Emirates University.
Dr. Kahn’s rich and erudite academic account of the early stages of the MERS infections in Virology Journal would almost certainly have drawn the attention of Israeli agents involved in the country’s alleged biological and chemical warfare program. This attraction would have been especially enticing for any Israeli military officials still seeking to target Arab victims with genetically-engineered viruses.
Did Dr. Plummer knowingly or inadvertently help Dr. Shoham with his research work based in Israel? How does the staff of the NHL navigate the inevitable military side of their research with its applications in Canada, in the US and internationally?
If Dr. Plummer did in some way collaborate with Dr. Shoham and with other Israeli researchers in biotechnology, might this activity have been a factor in the decision of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem to grant Dr. Plummer the Scopus Award? What level of accountability is owed by the managers of the NML in Winnipeg to the citizens who fund the research facility? Shouldn’t these managers and their supervisors in administrative and elected office make a commitment not to hide research for biological warfare behind veneers of public health research?
In the last year of his life Dr. Plummer agreed to the insertion of a surgically inserted implant in his brain meant to help the scientist cope with a severe case of alcoholism that plagued his life beginning in the 1980s. Dr. Plummer agreed to be a test case in this new biomedical therapy after he suffered a liver failure followed by a liver transplant in 2012.
The case was widely publicized by the BBC and many other media venues in the weeks and days before the death of Dr. Plummer by heart failure in Nairobi. It is legitimate to ask whether Dr. Plummer’s longstanding problem with alcoholism contributed to the breakdown of orderly procedures and civility reported to have overtaken the culture of scientific work at the Winnipeg’s NML?
On 27 January of 2020 the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation responded to the boisterous response created on the Internet to the GreatGameIndian series of articles. The CBC article was written by Karen Pauls and Jeff Yates. As we have seen, some elements of GreatGameIndia series drew on news conveyed through Karen Paul’s earlier CBC reports written during the spring and summer of 2019.
The CBC reporting on the factual lapses in the alleged Winnipeg-Wuhan axis of microbiology failed to deal with many germane subjects including the role of Dr. Dany Shoham. The stories featuring comments by Dr. Shoham have tended to develop storylines that the CBC report deems deceptive.
Dr. Shoham’s media interventions have been influential in creating the imagery of Chinese government malfeasance in the handling the COVID-19 crisis. This critical orientation to the CCP has become common in coverage generated by many venues. Prominent among them are The Epoch Times, the Washington Times, Steve Bannon’s and Miles Guo’s coverage on War Room: Pandemic, and Simone Gao’s Taiwan-based coverage on Zooming In.
Another very significant source of honest news reporting on the COVID-19 crisis has been Trunews, an evangelical Christian broadcasting operation hosted by Rick Wiles. Rev. Wiles and those who join him on-air emerged as pioneers in the in-depth coverage of of China in epidemiological crisis. They conducted their own independent research, crawled down rabbit hole after rabbit hole, and emerged with some excellent coverage that really does qualify as Trunews. In the course of their coverage the webcast was removed from the You Tube/ADL platform. The background of the deplatforming has to do with the fact that Rev. Wiles is a self-declared Born Again Christian who is highly critical of the preoccupations and ethics of Christian Zionists.
The CBC intervention labeled as “Fake” a screen shot of a tweet by a Dallas-based hedge fund manager named Kyle Bass. Citing CBC News, Bass tweeted that “a husband and wife Chinese spy team were recently removed from a level 4 Disease facility for sending pathogens to the Wuhan facility.” CBC reported that this tweet, one that combines documented facts with speculative supposition, was shared 12,000 times.
The CBC did not attempt to add background and context to the use made of its own stories formulated months before the inception of the Wuhan Coronavirus epidemic. There was no specific reference in the CBC “Fake News” diatribe to the GreatGameIndia series of articles. As noted, when taken together the GreatGameIndia publications created a fairly elaborate narrative by mixing straight reporting of well-documented facts with speculative interludes.
Bear in mind that this speculation was delivered pretty much into the vacuum created by the unwillingness or inability of many mainstream media venues to deal with the complexities of a fast-moving emergency spreading from China to the world. The genesis of the Wuhan Coronavirus epidemic provides an important window into a whole range of issues that are in many respects quite different from anything previously faced by humanity.
The recent introduction of the tools of genetic engineering into the production of food, vaccines, or bioweaponry is not an easy or familiar subject for many people. When it comes to introducing audiences to the wide array of new issues involving technologies integral to the COVID-19 epidemic, the media still has many big jobs of public education to mount. This public education is the necessary gateway to well-informed public discourse on the complex array of issues, some of them life-and-death in nature, that is fast bearing down upon us all.
Instead of conscientiously reporting on the situation, the CBC’s reporters tend like so many others in their position to fall back on what is becoming an old canard. Rather than evaluate all the gaping holes and omissions and silences in their own news coverage, they attribute all problems to some imagined tribe of malicious know nothings smeared collectively as “conspiracy theorists.”
By and large, most MSM reporters equate the concept of “conspiracy theorists” with kooks and losers who exist in some wayward zone well outside the charmed inner circle of “authoritative sources”? How are we to interpret what Pauls and Yates mean when they subjectively refer to a “conspiracy blog,” or to “conspiracy theory blogs” without giving any explanations, proofs or definitions of what they mean. Where is the trusted agency that is qualified and empowered to decide without bias or self-interest what is or is not a “conspiracy blog”? Is any interpretation that runs counter to the CBC’s often-vapid interpretation of events a “conspiracy theory”?
Doesn’t the MSM’s serial abuse of the “conspiracy theory” meme provide a license for lazy, groupthink-inclined stenographers of power to continue a policy of serving the continued reign of the status quo?
How often does it happen that whistle blowers who provide conscientious critiques of official narratives in many fields are dismissed as “conspiracy theorists”? Wasn’t Wuhan Medical Doctor, Li Wenliang, initially dismissed by Chinese authorities as a conspiracy theorist? How often does it happen that those who fall back on the conspiracy theory meme to discredit their detractors are in fact apologists and gate keepers for corrupt, self-serving lobbies?
The CBC story presents a screen shot that attributes to Zero Hedge the asking of the question, “Did China Steal the Coronavirus From Canada And Weaponize It?” No effort is made by the CBC reporters to put in context the important story of the attack on Zero Hedge by Twitter in order to protect the problematic official narrative of the COVID-19 epidemic. No effort has been made by CBC to identify GreatGameIndia as the source of the story on the alleged Canadian connection to COVID-19. No effort is made to assess the background, understanding and possible motivations of the creators of the GreatGameIndia essays.
If the CBC had held back its attack on Coronavirus “conspiracy theorists” one day longer, its reporters would have had before them the story of the arrest of Dr. Charles Lieber, the Chair of Harvard University’s Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology. Dr. Lieber is facing serious criminal charges for his failure to communicate to US authorities the full extent of his commitments in China, including his role at the Wuhan University of Technology.
The nature of the allegations against the activities of Dr. Lieber cast an important light on the case of Dr. Xiangguo Qui, her husband Keding Cheng, and on her many Chinese graduate students often afforded favorable treatment at the NML and the University of Manitoba. The clear and detailed explanations given by some US officials describing the content and broader implications of the Lieber case help clarify what is not being reported in Canada.
What and who was behind the attempt to identify and explain a significant Canadian connection to the COVID-19 crisis? What is the position of the federal government and the University of Manitoba on the case in Winnipeg that, in general terms, is seemingly being replicated by some aspects of the scandal that has opened up the Chemistry Department at Harvard University to considerable skeptical public scrutiny?
The reporting on the Lieber case helps clarify the nature information blackout imposed on Canadians by, for instance, by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, by the federal Public Health Agency, by the RCMP, and by the Crown’s public broadcaster known as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
In setting themselves up as virtue-seeking critics of “conspiracy theorists,” CBC reporters professionally roughed up an array of writers whose work they probably haven’t read, let alone considered in a careful and thoughtful way. In creating stereotypical accounts about a body of work they probably have not evaluated on a case-by-case basis, the CBC journalists resort to forms of blanket generalizations that have much in common with the racist caricaturing of ethnic groups.
Hence the CBC reporters continue down the road of incitement by demonizing interpretations that in many instances do not conform to their own way of viewing events. Part of this incitement is expressed in the decision to highlight the comments of Prof. Fuyuki Kurasawa. Kurasawa is a sociologist and Director of the Global Digital Citizenship Lab at York University. Kurasawa condemns “conspiracy theories” and “rumours” for “washing out factual information being reported on line.”
How can genuine “factual information” be credibly determined without providing space and time for open debate among proponents of competing interpretations? If the pursuit of truth by means of open debate is being spurned even by faculty members at academic institutions (which tragically is often the case these days), where else in society can such rituals of informed and civil disagreement take place in humanity’s quest for knowledge?
Kurasawa is one of those academic careerists who has decided to swim along professionally with a broad array of discredited assumptions underlying the Global War on Terror.
Kurasawa’s complicity in the war on terror’s culture of caricature shows up in his convoluted account how the Coronavirus “vigilantes” of his imagination might think and act. He imagines a subgroup of “conspiracy theorists” who
will take it on themselves to become vigilantes, where they’ll try to spot someone who supposedly is either holding the truth about some hidden truth about the coronavirus or a person who may be a carrier or supposed carrier of the virus because they appear to have certain symptoms, and then they’ll ask the general public to take matters into own hands.
Spiro Skouras, former executive producer at Newsbud, has emerged as one of the more engaging and erudite of the young investigative journalists who have been delving into the Wuhan Coronavirus epidemic. Skouras has documented the position of many prominent figures that have questioned the dubious claim that the source of COVID-19 infection was a diseased animal in Wuhan’s open-air food market.
Skouras has argued it would be “negligent” for researchers to refrain from investigating “the full array of possibilities” on how the contagion originated and how it spread.
Among the first figures, Skouras interviewed on the crisis was Francis Boyle, the renowned professor of international law at the University of Illinois. Prof. Boyle drafted the Biological Weapons and Terrorism Act, legislation that enabled US ratification of the UN’s Biological Warfare Convention in 1990.
Prof. Boyle indicated in his interview with Skouras that COVID-19 is most likely a genetically-engineered pathogen that escaped from the so-called Biosafety Laboratory in Wuhan. Prof. Boyle indicated,
It’s clear to me [the coronavirus] leaked out of the Wuhan Biosafety Level 4 Facility set up by the Chinese government that is working on every type of dangerous biological warfare agent you can consider.
Prof. Boyle points to the fact that the SARS virus leaked out from a Beijing lab in 2004. He describes as “propaganda” the widely promulgated opinion that COVID-19 originated in Wuhan’s exotic, open-air food market. Prof. Boyle expanded some of his interpretations in a subsequent interview published by GreatGameIndia.
Skouras specifically asked Dr. Boyle about his relationship with mainstream media given his record as one of the foremost academic experts on international law and military culture concerning the development of bioweaponry in the United States. Dr. Boyle responded that he was pretty much blacklisted from commenting on the subject of biological warfare ever since he publicly shared his interpretation of the anthrax attacks on two US Senators in October of 2001.
There has been considerable scholarly scrutiny of the anthrax attacks targeting the US Congress and some media organizations in early October of 2001. The anthrax attacks constitute the most serious assault ever on the operations of the US Congress, the primary interface between law and politics in the United States.
These attacks have come to be understood as an integral part of the large body of crimes committed in Manhattan and Washington DC on 9/11. The anthrax attacks killed five people including two postal workers. Seventeen people were injured and Congress was shut down for a few days.
Anthrax-laden letter attacks were specifically directed at two Democratic Party Senators, Patrick Leahy and Tom Daschle. When they received the contaminated letters both lawmakers were engaged in questioning provisions of the post-9/11 emergency measures legislation known as the Patriot Act. Both Senators Leahy and Daschle were hesitant to rubber stamp the enactment that was seemingly instantly drafted and put before Congress within three weeks of the 9/11 debacle.
The anthrax attacks took place just as the US Armed Forces began invading Afghanistan where the culprits of the 9/11 crimes were supposed to be hiding out. The perpetrators of the anthrax attack, who we were supposed to imagine at the time as al-Qaeda terrorists, succeeded in easing aside the major locus of opposition to the Patriot Act’s speedy passage in late October. Why, one might legitimately ask, ask, would Islamic jihadists want the Patriot Act to be rushed through Congress. In early October the US Armed Forces invaded Afghanistan at the same time that the US executive branch was seeking with the Patriot a license to kill and torture and steal without any checks of accountability.
Once the US Armed Forces went to war with Afghanistan on the basis of a fraudulent explanation of 9/11’s genesis, there was basically no chance that a genuine and legitimate evidence-based investigation of the September 11 crimes would ever take place. To this day the Global War on Terror continues to unfold on a foundation of lies and illusions that have had devastating consequences for the quality of life for average people throughout the United States and the world.
In his 2005 book, Biowarfare and TerrorismProf. Boyle’s analysis pointed to major problems in the FBI’s investigation of the anthrax attacks including the agency’s destruction of relevant evidence. To Prof. Boyle, the highly refined military-grade quality of the anthrax made it almost certain that the anthrax bioweapon was produced within the US Armed Forces at the lab in Fort Detrick Maryland. Anthrax, or Bacillus anthracis, is a rod-shaped bacteria found naturally in soil.
Looking back at the episode Dr. Boyle observed, “The Pentagon and the C.I.A. are ready, willing, and able to launch biowarfare when it suits their interests. They already attacked the American People and Congress and disabled our Republic with super-weapons-grade anthrax in October 2001.”
Prof. Boyle’s interpretation was later verified and expanded upon in a book by Canadian Prof. Graeme MacQueen. Prof. Boyle acknowledges the veracity of Prof. MacQueen’s study of the anthrax deception as part of a “domestic conspiracy.” He sees The 2001 Anthrax Deception as the most advanced finding of academic research on the topic so far.
Prof. MacQueen is prominent among a very large group of academics and public officials who condemn the official narrative of 9/11 for its dramatic inconsistencies with the available evidence. Those who share this understanding include former Italian Prime Minister Francesco Cossiga, former German Defence Minister Andreas von Bülow, former UK Minister of the Environment Michael Meacher, former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury Paul Craig Roberts, former Director of the US Star Wars Missile Defense Program Lt. Col. Bob Bowman, Princeton International Law Professor Richard Falk, and the author of ten academic books on different aspects of the 9/11 debacle, Claremont Graduate University Professor David Ray Griffin.
Prof. Francis Boyle shared the 9/11 skepticism of many when he asked,
Could the real culprits behind the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001, and the immediately-following terrorist anthrax attacks upon Congress ultimately prove to be the same people? Could it truly be coincidental that two of the primary intended victims of the terrorist anthrax attacks – Senators Daschle and Leahy – were holding up the speedy passage of the pre-planned USA Patriot Act … an act which provided the federal government with unprecedented powers in relation to US citizens and institutions?
In his coverage of the Wuhan Coronavirus epidemic, Spiro Skouras highlighted the proceedings known as Event 201. Event 201 brought together in New York on October 18, 2019 an assembly of delegates hosted by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Economic Forum and the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. The gathering anticipated the COVID-19 crisis by just a few weeks. I retrospect it is almost as if Event 201 announced many of the controversies about to arise with the outbreak of the real epidemic in Wuhan China. Event 201 performed functions similar to those of the drills that frequently mimic the engineered scenarios animating false flag terror events but especially those of 9/11.
A major subject of the meeting highlighted the perceived need to control communications during an epidemic. Levan Thiru of the Monetary Authority of Singapore went as far as to call for “a step up on the part of governments to take action against Fake News.” Thiru called for recriminatory litigation aimed at criminalizing “bad actors.” Cautioning against this kind of censorship, Skouras asked, Who is going to decide what constitutes “Fake News”? If fact checkers are to be employed, “who will fact check the fact checkers”?
Hasti Taghi, a media executive with NBC Universal in New York, was especially outspoken in condemning the activities of “conspiracy theorists” that have organized themselves to question the motives and methods of the complex of agencies involved in developing and disseminating vaccines. She frequently condemned the role of “conspiracy theories” in energizing public distrust of the role of pharmaceutical companies and media conglomerates in their interactions with government.
Tom Ingelsby of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security injected an interesting twist into the discussion. He asked, “How much control of information should there be? By whom should control of information be exercised? How can false information be effectively challenged?” Ingelsby then added, “What happens if the false information is coming from companies and governments?”
This final question encapsulates a major problem for conscientious citizens trying to find their way through the corruption and disinformation that often permeates our key institutions. Those that try to counter the problem that governments and corporations sometimes peddle false information can pretty much expect to face accusations that they are “conspiracy theorists.” Too often the calculations involved in deciding whom or what is credible (or not) depends primarily on simple arithmetic favouring the preponderance of wealth and power.
Spiro Skouras gives careful consideration to the possibility that the United States instigated the COVID-19 epidemic starting in Wuhan China.
He notes the precedent set in 1945 on the atomic attacks by the US government on the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Skouras points out that there is proof that since the Second World War, the US government has conducted at least 239 experiments, secretly deploying toxic chemical and biological agents against portions of its own population.
On the history of US involvement in biological warfare see herehere and here.
Skouras highlights the window presented for a covert US bioweapon attack at the World Military Games in Wuhan China in the second half of October of 2019. He notes that 300 US soldiers participated as athletes in the Wuhan Military Games together with a large contingent of American support personnel. The timing and the circumstances of the event were more or less ideal to open up a new pathogenic front in the US government’s informal “hybrid war” against China.
On Feb. 15 at the Munich Security Conference, US Defence Secretary, Mark T. Esper, developed a highly critical characterization of Chinese wrongdoing in order to seemingly justify recriminatory actions. Esper asserted, “China’s growth over the years has been remarkable, but in many ways it is fuelled by theft, coercion, and exploitation of free market economies, private companies, and colleges and universities… Huawei and 5G are today’s poster child for this nefarious activity.
The US antagonism to Huawei’s leadership in the design and worldwide dissemination of 5 G technology might well be a factor in the scandal generated by the Chinese connection to intertwined research in microbiology at the level 4 labs in Winnipeg and Wuhan.
Back in 2000 the notorious report entitled Rebuilding America’s Defenses, a publication brought forward by the neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC), proposed that the US government should refurbish and invoke its capacity to wage biological warfare. PNAC was the think tank that anticipated the events of September 11, 2001 by outlining a strategic scheme that could only be realized by mobilizing American public opinion with “a catalytic event like a New Pearl Harbor.”
After 9/11, the PNAC Team of related neoconservative activists and Zionist organizations pretty much took over the governance of the United States along with the build up and deployment of its formidable war machine. PNAC called for the invocation of “advanced forms of biological warfare that can ‘target’ specific genotypes.” In this fashion “biological warfare might be transformed into a politically useful tool.”
The relationship of this pandemic to internal disagreements within China has been put on full display in Steve Bannon’s coverage of the crisis entitled War Room: Pandemic. A prominent member of US President Donald Trump’s inner circle, Steve Bannon is often accompanied on the daily show by Chinese billionaire dissident, Miles Guo (aka Guo Wengui, Miles Haoyun, Miles Kwok).
Guo is an outspoken Chinese refugee. He is a persistent critic of virtually every facet of the policies and actions of the Chinese Communist Party.
Guo regularly condemns those who dominate China’s one-party system, a system run by an elite who, he alleges, are corrupt, incompetent and inveterate liars. Guo regularly asserts that all of the Chinese government’s numbers on the pandemic, including death rates and infection rates, can probably be multiplied by 10X or even 100X to get closer to accuracy.
[On the 10X guestimate of mortality and infection see this.]
Clearly Bannon and Guo would like to see the emergency conditions created by the pandemic as a wedge of division, protest and regime change within China. One of the subjects they regularly raise, as do others who accuse the Chinese government of systematic lying and deception, is that the crematoriums in Wuhan and nearby Chongqing are burning corpses of dead people at a rate far higher than official death figures. Some reports indicated that portable incinerators were being brought into the most infected core of the Wuhan Coronavirus epidemic.
It is troubling, to say the least, that some reports indicate dead people are being cremated far faster and at far higher rates than the Chinese government and the World Health Organization are reporting. Some reckoning with the apparent disparity between reported and actual deaths has led to widespread suspicions about what is actually going in the scenes of violent and angry exchanges between people in the Wuhan area.
Many of these videos show brutal confrontations between Chinese civilians and Chinese security police. The displays of desperation by some of those trying to escape apprehensions by uniformed officials seem sometimes to suggest the severity of a life or death struggle. It is made to seem that those seeking to escape the grip of authorities are aware that their failure to do so might lead to a quick death and a quick exit by incineration. These reflections are, of course, speculative rather than definitive.
Questions concerning who we are supposed to believe or not in this crisis are becoming ever more pressing and volatile. One of the emerging themes in the discourse developed at War Room: Pandemic is the propensity of some of the core agencies of mainstream media in the United States to accept at face value the reports they receive from official media outlets answering to the Chinese Communist Party. To Banning and Guo this pattern makes media organizations like the New York TimesThe Washington Post, and CNN essentially propaganda extensions of the Chinese government.
The Chinese people themselves are clearly grappling in new ways with the problem of how to understand the information and directives given them by the governing apparatus of the Chinese Communist Party. Clearly the Party initially failed the people by not intervening early and decisively enough after the first cases of Coronavirus illness began to show up. The exit from Wuhan of almost five million people in prior to the Chinese Lunar New Year celebrations had huge implications for spreading the contagion.
As noted in the introduction, the death in Wuhan of Dr. Li Wenliang on 7 February has become a flash point for popular criticism of the Chinese Communist Party led by General Secretary Xi Jinping. Dr. Li wrote to members of his medical school alumnus group suggesting that some significant action should be taken in response to the appearance of SARS-like symptoms that suddenly afflicted his patients.
For sending out this unauthorized communication, Dr. Li was summoned along with seven other supposed offenders to the Public Security Bureau. There he was warned by police to stop “making false statements.” He was ordered to cease and desist “spreading rumors,” and “acting illegally to disturb social order.”
Dr. Li signed a form indicating he would refrain from continuing to do what he had been accused of doing. The chastised professional returned to his medical practice. He took his own advice and began treating patients exhibiting signs of the new illness. He himself soon died from COVID-19 when it was still known as 19-nCoV.
Is Twitter’s permanent deplatforming of the Zero Hedge web site a North American version of the police intervention in China with the goal of silencing Dr. Li? Is the censorship of the Internet in the name of opposing “conspiracy theorists” repeating the Chinese Communist Party’s effort to silence Dr. Li?
Is Dr. Li to be appropriately understood as a Chinese version of a “conspiracy theorist”? How different was his treatment for allegedly “spreading rumours” and “acting illegally to disturb social order” from the treatment of those in the Occident who have been deplatformed, smeared and professionally defrocked for attempting to speak truth to power?
I have developed responses to these incursions based on hard-won experiences facing the propaganda blows of an especially powerful political lobby able to seize control of the governing board of my university. These professional lobbyists seek to discredit academic analysis of their own violations of law, ethics and civility by labelling critics of their zealotry as “conspiracy theorists” or worse.
More recently I have been grappling against a variation on this process in trying to counter the censorious attacks on the American Herald Tribune. These assaults on free expression and open debate began with the machinations of military hawks whose hit job instructions were passed along to the disinformation specialists at CNNand the Washington Post.
No one can say for sure where the Wuhan Coronavirus epidemic is taking the world. Wherever we are headed, however, we are leaving behind an era that can never be recreated. Whatever happened to originate the contagion, this crisis is forcing us to take stock of the framework of biological warfare as it has been developing in China, Russia, Israel and probably many other countries.
Nowhere, however, is biological warfare being more expansively and expensively developed and probably deployed than by the US Armed Forces. The death and destruction that humanity is presently experiencing should signal to us that it is time to get much more serious about inspecting military facilities and enforcing the terms of the Biological Warfare Convention of 1972. It is, in fact, time to get much more serious about enforcing all aspects of international criminal law in balanced ways that transcend the biases of Victors’ Justice.
It is time to throw off the weight of the pseudo-laws introduced after 9/11 through abhorrent tactics like the inside-job military anthrax attack on Congress. Most certainly, it is time to draw a clear distinction between research in the field of public health and research in the development of lethal bioweapons. Better yet, we should work towards putting an end altogether to militarization through the massive expansion of the “death sciences.” The vile activities of fallen practitioners of the endangered life sciences are, for starters, undermining the integrity of our besieged institutions of higher learning.
Anthony James Hall has been Editor In Chief of the American Herald Tribune since its inception. Between 1990 and 2018 Dr. Hall was Professor of Globalization Studies and Liberal Education at the University of Lethbridge where he is now Professor Emeritus. The focus of Dr. Hall’s teaching, research, and community service came to highlight the conditions of the colonization of Indigenous peoples in imperial globalization since 1492.
(Republished from American Herald Tribune by permission of author or representative)