According to a May 9, 2021, report by Sky News Australia (above), a Chinese-language e-book revealed in 2015, written by scientists and senior public well being officers working with the Chinese army, the People’s Liberation Army, mentioned the chance that SARS may need been a weaponized coronavirus.
The principle introduced within the e-book is that SARS-CoV-1, answerable for the SARS outbreak in 2003, was a artifical bioweapon unleashed in China by unidentified terrorists.
According to the 18 authors, which embody the previous deputy director of China’s Bureau of Epidemic Prevention, Lee Fang, and Xu Dezhong, a former professor of infectious illness with the Air Force Medical University in Xian who led the 2003 SARS epidemic evaluation knowledgeable group underneath the Chinese Ministry of Health and reported to the highest management of the army:1
“Based on ample evidence in epidemiology, molecular biology and evolutionary biology, this book concludes that SARS-CoV may have an unnatural, or man-made origin.”
- Have We Entered the Age of Biowarfare?
- Smoking Gun? Maybe, Maybe Not
- Congress Vows to Investigate Lab Leak Theory
- Fauci within the Hot Seat
- State Department Asked to Release What It Knows
- NIH and EcoHealth Alliance Asked for Documentation
- No Excuse for Withholding Answers
- Lab Origin Is Likely the Correct Conspiracy
- Journalists Forced to Eat Humble Pie
- Gain-of-Function Research Is the Real Threat
Have We Entered the Age of Biowarfare?
The e-book, “The Unnatural Origin of SARS and New Species of Man-Made Viruses as Genetic Bioweapons,” additionally discusses the “psychological terror” such bioweapons would possibly trigger, and:2
“… describe SARS coronaviruses as heralding a ‘new era of genetic weapons’ [that] … can be ‘artificially manipulated into an emerging human-disease virus, then weaponized and unleashed in a way never seen before,'” Markson says.
She stresses that whereas American authorities officers and intelligence companies have suspected SARS-CoV-2 may additionally have a laboratory origin, there isn’t a proof to counsel an intentional launch from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) or elsewhere.
“The significance of this paper is that it offers rare insight into how senior scientists at one of the PLA’s most prominent military universities, where high levels of defense research were conducted, were thinking about biological research,” Markson says.
Smoking Gun? Maybe, Maybe Not
Peter Jennings, government director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), has described the e-book as a “smoking gun,”3 implying China has been plotting the event of coronavirus bioweapons for years, however in accordance to a reporter with the South China Morning Post, Xu, within the e-book, reportedly complained that his principle of a artifical SARS was not taken significantly by Chinese authorities.4
A paper detailing his bioweapons principle was rejected by The Lancet and the World Health Organization as effectively.5 Much of the chapter describing strategies for creating organic weapons was apparently based mostly on unclassified analysis by the U.S. army, and never essentially any groundbreaking strategies developed in China.
So, to be clear, with out truly studying the e-book, it’s laborious at this level to achieve any actual perception into the authors’ intent, different than that Chinese researchers had been pondering the potential for coronaviruses being manipulated and changed into bioweapons, and what the impacts of organic warfare are.
That mentioned, they do, as Markson factors out, element issues just like the least and only types of supply of organic weapons. Intense daylight, for instance, will weaken launched pathogens, and rain or snow will trigger aerosolized pathogens to precipitate, thereby minimizing unfold.
To direct aerosolized pathogens right into a goal space, steady wind path is fascinating. With regard to the psychological impacts of biowarfare, the e-book notes that:
“Biological weapons won’t solely trigger widespread morbidity and mass casualties, but in addition induce formidable psychological stress that might have an effect on fight effectiveness. Just like different disasters, folks will reside underneath concern of assault for a substantial time period after an assault, inflicting transient or lasting psychological impairment amongst some.
In different phrases, assaults utilizing organic weapons may cause acute and continual psychological and psychological diseases, resembling acute stress reactions.”
Congress Vows to Investigate Lab Leak Theory
While the lab leak principle has been roundly dismissed and ridiculed as a conspiracy principle by mainstream media for over a yr, we’re now seeing authorities officers giving the idea some severe thought.
As reported by overseas coverage and nationwide safety columnist Josh Rogin in a May 6, 2021, Washington Post opinion piece,6,7 in gentle of the Biden administration’s reluctance to tackle the difficulty, a number of members of the U.S. Congress have vowed to launch their very own investigation to discover the lab accident principle:
“Chinese authorities undermined the WHO investigation so thoroughly that even WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus admitted that its team did not properly investigate the possibility of a lab accident origin and that more work needed to be done,” Rogin writes.
“Secretary of State Antony Blinken said8 last month that ‘we need to get to the bottom of this,’ and Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines has testified9 that the U.S. government is investigating both the natural spillover and lab accident theories.”
Fauci within the Hot Seat
In a letter addressed to Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) — an arm of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that in current years has funded gain-of-function analysis on bat coronaviruses on the WIV — Rep. Mike Gallagher, R-Wis., acknowledged:10
“Understanding the cause of this pandemic — and ensuring that something like it never happens again — is the most important question facing the world today. Given the stakes, we cannot afford to settle for a limited, blinkered, or politicized understanding of the origin of this terrible disease.”
Fauci11 is one in every of a number of conflicted people who’ve publicly dismissed the lab leak principle. In his letter, Gallagher asks Fauci to reply a variety of questions, together with what he does or doesn’t know in regards to the rumor that WIV staff contracted a COVID-19-like illness within the fall of 2019, earlier than the outbreak was formally acknowledged.
Gallagher additionally needs to know the way a lot funding the NIAID has given to the WIV over time, how a lot of that supported gain-of-function analysis particularly, and whether or not or not funds had been launched through the 2014-2017 moratorium on gain-of-function analysis within the U.S.
He’s additionally asking Fauci to remark on how the U.S. authorities ought to “modify or reconsider scientific exchanges with Chinese entities” in gentle of the Chinese Communist Party’s “extensive coverup and lack of transparency surrounding the origins of the pandemic.”
Perhaps most significantly, Gallagher needs to know if Fauci nonetheless believes gain-of-function analysis is a threat price taking, ought to it prove that COVID-19 was the results of such analysis.
State Department Asked to Release What It Knows
In one other letter,12 three Republican leaders — Reps. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, House Energy and Commerce Committee, Brett Guthrie, Subcommittee on Health, and Morgan Griffith, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations — ask Secretary of State Antony Blinken to hand over all paperwork that may help of their investigation of SARS-CoV-2’s origin.
Requested documentation consists of factual help for claims made in a January 15, 2021, assertion13 by the State Department by which they claimed the WIV hid its work with the Chinese army and that researchers on the lab contracted a COVID-19-like sickness within the fall of 2019.
NIH and EcoHealth Alliance Asked for Documentation
In March and April 2021, Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee additionally despatched letters to NIH director Francis Collins14 and EcoHealth Alliance president Peter Daszak,15 who served because the intermediary for funding flowing from the NIAID/NIH to the WIV.
As famous by Rogin, Daszak has been “the closest collaborator and the fiercest defender of the Wuhan lab.” In a May 5, 2021, article16 within the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (reprinted days later within the New York Post17), science author Nicholas Wade additionally factors out Daszak’s central function in manufacturing what grew to become the basis for the official narrative that the pandemic was pure in origin and anything was a kooky conspiracy principle.
“If the SARS2 virus had indeed escaped from research he funded, Daszak would be potentially culpable,” Wade notes, including that this “acute conflict of interest” was purposely hidden. The Energy and Commerce Committee requested in depth data from each the NIH and EcoHealth Alliance detailing analysis and collaborations with the WIV.
No Excuse for Withholding Answers
As of May 6, 2021, neither Fauci, Collins nor Daszak had responded to these congressional inquiries.18,19
“The State Department, the NIH, NIAID and EcoHealth Alliance should have no reason — and no excuse — to ignore these valid and important congressional inquiries,” Rogin writes. “But with out backing from Democrats, who’re conspicuously absent from these efforts, these investigations will wrestle …
It is evident that the NIH and different U.S. companies don’t need to have their actions investigated. But they need to work with Congress to decide whether or not their analysis could also be linked to the outbreak.
Also, present plans are to develop worldwide collaboration on dangerous virus analysis sixfold, by way of the $1.2 billion Global Virome Project.20 Shouldn’t we determine if this analysis sparked the pandemic earlier than drastically increasing it? …
It’s in everybody’s curiosity to preserve politics out of it as a lot as potential, as a result of fixing the origin query is an pressing job for the safety and public well being of your complete world.”
Lab Origin Is Likely the Correct Conspiracy
While the phrase “conspiracy” has been changed into a slur phrase used to debunk a given principle, it’s true definition has none of these connotations. Conspiracy means “an agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful or subversive act,” or “an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.”
As such, the lab leak principle is certainly a conspiracy principle, however merely calling it that on no account denies the potential truthfulness of the scenario. It does certainly seem as if a number of folks and/or organizations have agreed to carry out, at naked minimal wrongful, acts, and are working collectively to preserve their collusion a secret.
People attempting to expose this collusion are actually written off as conspiracy theorists — as if exposing wrongdoing is a nasty factor! It’s not. It’s a necessity if we wish to reside in a lawful and orderly society that doesn’t put the general public at pointless threat. In as we speak’s world, everybody ought to aspire to be a “conspiracy theorist” and be wanting into these issues extra deeply.
As reported by Wade in “Origin of COVID — Following the Clues: Did People or Nature Open Pandora’s Box at Wuhan?”21 if we are ever to resolve this thriller, we have to be keen to observe the science, as “it offers the only sure thread through the maze.”
In his in depth article, which I like to recommend studying in its entirety, Wade — a former science correspondent for The New York Times — evaluations what we learn about this virus thus far, from revealed analysis and commentary by scientists. He then describes the 2 prevailing theories, and the help that exists (and is missing) for every.
The first is that SARS-CoV-2 emerged naturally and jumped from wildlife to people, with or with out an middleman host. The different is that the virus was being stored and/or studied in a lab, from which it escaped.
If it seems that it was a lab escape, whether or not having undergone manipulation or not, it nonetheless issues vastly, as stopping one other pandemic will then require us to rethink how we accumulate, retailer and examine pathogens. If it’s pure, then a wholly totally different set of options and preventive measures shall be essential.
“It’s important to note that so far there is no direct evidence for either theory,” Wade writes.22 “Each depends on a set of reasonable conjectures but so far lacks proof. So I have only clues, not conclusions, to offer. But those clues point in a specific direction.”
In abstract, the preponderance of clues leans towards SARS-CoV-2 originating in a lab, almost definitely the WIV, and having undergone some kind of manipulation to encourage infectiousness and pathology in people.
As only one instance, there’s analysis courting way back to 1992 detailing how inserting a furin cleavage web site proper the place we discover it in SARS-CoV-2 is a “sure way to make a virus deadlier.” One of 11 such research was written by Dr. Zhengli Shi, head of coronavirus analysis on the WIV.
The arguments specified by help of pure origin theories, in the meantime, are grounded in inconclusive speculations that require you to throw out scientifically potential situations. From a scientific standpoint, doing so is sick suggested. “It seems to me that proponents of lab escape can explain all the available facts about SARS2 considerably more easily than can those who favor natural emergence,” Wade writes.23
Journalists Forced to Eat Humble Pie
In a Substack article,24 unbiased journalist Michael Tracey factors out how journalists who “screamed ‘conspiracy’” are actually getting humiliated as proof for the lab leak principle retains constructing. Tracey affords for example the case of Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton, who in February 2020 was smeared within the press as a conspiracy theorist spreading debunked rumors.
A headline in The Washington Post learn, “Tom Cotton Keeps Repeating a Coronavirus Conspiracy Theory That Was Already Debunked.” Ironically, a major supply cited as having debunked the lab leak principle in that article was molecular biologist Richard Ebright of Rutgers University.
As it seems, The Washington Post was the one spreading false rumors, as Ebright has publicly admitted the lab leak principle has been the strongest speculation since January 202025 — a month earlier than The Washington Post claimed Ebright had debunked the idea.
In an e mail to Tracey, Ebright states he mentioned each theories with the Post, and was keen to be quoted “that the virus may have entered humans through a laboratory accident.”
The Washington Post, nevertheless, selected to solely quote his feedback in regards to the genomic sequence of the virus and its properties, based mostly on which “there was no basis to conclude the virus was engineered.”
In different phrases, The Washington Post lied when it mentioned the lab principle was debunked, and it withheld feedback to the opposite made by the very particular person they cite as being the debunker. This isn’t journalism. It’s propaganda, and propaganda at all times has a specific objective. In his article, Tracey affords up a number of different examples of journalists who are actually uncovered as being something however.
As the case for a lab leak strengthens, the self-proclaimed arbiter of reality, NewsGuard — which is funded by the PR firm responsible for much of Purdue Pharma’s unethical and lethal opioid marketing — can also be going to discover itself in more and more scorching water. At the tip of February 2020, I acquired an e mail from NewsGuard questioning the veracity of my reporting on COVID-19’s origin.
From: John Gregory
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2020 1:07 PM
Subject: NewsGuard query about Mercola coronavirus story
My identify is John Gregory, deputy editor on well being at NewsGuard. You spoke final yr with a colleague of mine for our score on Mercola.com.
We are updating our score to replicate Mercola’s protection of the novel coronavirus pressure, often known as COVID-19. In an article titled “Novel Coronavirus — The Latest Pandemic Scare,” the positioning promotes two unfounded conspiracy theories in regards to the virus’ origins:
• The article acknowledged: “In January 2018, China’s first most safety virology laboratory (biosecurity stage 4) designed for the examine of the world’s most harmful pathogens opened its doorways — in Wuhan. Is it pure coincidence that Wuhan City is now the epicenter of this novel coronavirus an infection?”
There isn’t any proof that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was the supply of the outbreak, and genomic proof has discovered that the virus is “96% p.c an identical on the whole-genome stage to a bat coronavirus.”
• The article additionally acknowledged that “the hysteria being drummed up follows a now well-worn pattern where the population is kept in a perpetual state of anxiety and fear about microbes so that drug companies (aided by federal health officials) can come to the rescue with yet another expensive (and potentially mandatory) drug or vaccine.” It later suggested the outbreak was timed to coincide with the presidential budget request in order to benefit “the Pharma and public well being foyer.”
No proof is supplied to again this conspiracy, nor does any seem to exist. Why did Mercola.com publish these claims, regardless of the shortage of proof backing them up?
Since that e mail, ample proof that WIV was a possible supply of the outbreak has emerged. At the time, we didn’t know, which is why I posed it as a query. As time goes on, increasingly more information can also be popping out about Fauci’s and the NIH’s potential roles on this pandemic, so I’m on no account putting all of the blame on Chinese researchers or its authorities.26,27,28
Gain-of-Function Research Is the Real Threat
I imagine analysis cooperation and sharing between nations is such that blame will finally be shared by a number of events. The key subject, actually, if SARS-CoV-2 did in truth come from a lab, is how will we forestall one other lab escape? And, if it seems to have be a genetically manipulated virus, will we permit gain-of-function analysis to proceed?
I imagine the reply is to ban analysis that includes making pathogens extra deadly to people. As it stands, the identical institution that’s drumming up panic by warning of the emergence of latest, extra infectious and harmful variants can also be busy creating them. They simply by no means let you know about that half.
Already, scientists have found out a method to mutate SARS-CoV-2 such that it evades human antibodies. Were this mutated virus to ever get out, we’d be in deep trouble. While mankind has created a number of outbreaks, nature appears to have a method of NOT mutating animal viruses into world killers.
So, the hypocrisy wants to finish. World leaders want to notice that funding and defending gain-of-function analysis is the true risk right here. If SARS-CoV-2 was the product of a Chinese bioweapons program, the lesson ought to be crystal clear: You can not management or guarantee containment of organic weapons.
You can not management whom they have an effect on. Your personal inhabitants is as at-risk because the designated enemy. And, in fact, all pathogens manufactured to have an effect on people may be designated as organic weapons, whether or not the intent behind their creation is nefarious or not.