UPDATE 08. March 2020: Enhanced with: Bioweapons Expert Speaks Out About Novel Coronavirus
Who’s Behind It? Global Economic, Social and Geopolitical Destabilization
By Prof Michel Chossudovsky - 01. March 2020
The media hype and disinformation campaign regarding the spread of the COVID-19 novel coronavirus have created a Worldwide atmosphere of fear and uncertainty following the launching of a global public health emergency by the WHO on January 30th.
The fear campaign is ongoing. Panic and uncertainty. National governments and the WHO are misleading the public.
“About 84,000 people in at least 56 countries have been infected, and about 2,900 have died” says the New York Times. What they fail to mention is that 98% of those cases of infection are in Mainland China. There are less than 5000 confirmed cases outside China. (WHO, February 28, 2020)
While COVID-19 is a matter of Public Health concern, at the moment, there is no real pandemic outside Mainland China. Look at the figures.
At the time of writing, the number of “confirmed cases” in the US was 64.
A low number and the media is spreading panic.
Meanwhile, there are 15 Million Cases of Influenza in the USA.
The latest FluView surveillance from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that as of January 18, 2020, there have been 15 million cases of flu, 140,000 hospitalizations, and 8200 deaths in the US this influenza season. (emphasis added)
Data on the COVID-19 pandemic:
The World Health Organization (WHO) reported on February 28, 2020 83,652 confirmed cases of COV-19 of which 78,961 are in Mainland China. Outside China, there are 4691 “confirmed cases” (WHO, February 28, 2020, See table on right).
The WHO has also reported 2,791 deaths of which only 67 have occurred outside Mainland China.
These figures confirm that the pandemic is largely limited to Mainland China.
Moreover, recent data suggests that the epidemic in China is firmly under control. On February 21, 2020, China’s National Health Commission reported that 36.157 patients were designated as cured and discharged from hospital. (see graph below).
Chinese reports confirm that people have received treatment and are recovering from the virus infection. Concurrently, the number of infected patients is declining.
According to the National Medical Products Administration of China, hospitals are using Favilavir, an anti-viral drug, “as a treatment for coronavirus with minimal side effects”.
Lets Crunch the Numbers
The World Population is of the order of 7.8 billion.
The population of China is of the order of 1.4 billion.
The World population minus China is of the order of 6.4 billion.
4691 confirmed cases and 67 reported deaths (outside China) out of a population of 6.4 billion does not constitute a pandemic. 4691/6,4oo,ooo,ooo =0.00000073 = 0.000073 %
64 cases in the US which has a population of approximately 330 million is not a pandemic. (Feb 28 data): 64/330,000,000 = 0.00000019 = 0.000019 %
Why the Propaganda? Racism directed against Ethnic Chinese
A campaign against China was launched, a wave of racist sentiment against ethnic Chinese is ongoing largely led by the Western media.
The Economist reports that “The coronavirus spreads racism against—and among—ethnic Chinese”
And this phenomenon is happening all over the U.S.
Economic Warfare against China
US strategies consist in using COVID-19 to isolate China, despite the fact that the US economy is heavily dependent upon Chinese imports.
The short-term disruption of the Chinese economy is largely attributable to the (temporary) closing down of the channels of trade and transportation.
The WHO Global Public Health emergency is coupled with media disinformation and the freezing of air travel to China.
Panic on Wall Street
Spearheaded by media disinformation, there is another dimension. Panic in the stock markets.
The Coronavirus fear has triggered the drop of financial markets Worldwide.
According to reports, roughly $6 trillion have been wiped off the value of stock markets Worldwide. The decline in stock market values so far is of the order of “15 percent or more”.
Massive losses of personal savings (e.g. of average Americans) have occurred not to mention corporate failures and bankruptcies.
It’s a bonanza for institutional speculators including corporate hedge funds. The financial meltdown has led to sizeable transfers of money wealth into the pockets of a handful of financial institutions.
In a bitter irony, analysts in chorus have casually linked the market collapse to the escalation of the coronavirus at a time when there was less than 64 confirmed cases in the US.
It’s not surprising that the market went down because … the virus has gotten so expanded. … ‘
Was it Possible to “Predict” the February Financial Crash?
It would be naive to believe that the financial crisis was solely the consequence of spontaneous market forces, responding to the COVID-19 outbreak. The market was carefully manipulated by powerful actors using speculative instruments in the market for derivatives, including “short-selling”. Media disinformation on the “escalation of the COVID-19 pandemic certainly played a role.
The unspoken objective is the concentration of Wealth. It was a financial bonanza for those who had “inside information” or “foreknowledge” leading up to the WHO’s decision to declare a Worldwide public emergency on January 30.
Was there Foreknowledge of the COVID-19 (nCoV-2019) Pandemic? And of its Likely impacts?
In the Event 201 Simulation of a Coronavirus Pandemic, a 15% collapse of financial markets had been “simulated”. It was not “predicted” according to the organizers and sponsors of the event, which included the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as well the World Economic Forum.
Screenshot, 201 A Global Pandemic Exercise
The simulation conducted in October entitled nCoV-2019 was undertaken barely 2 months prior to to the outbreak of COVID-19.
The John Hopkins Pandemic Exercise simulated a stock market decline of “15% or more” (Video section 0.0 – 1’2″) which largely corresponds to the real market decline registered in late February 2020.
(See video below)
Many features of the “simulation exercise” do in fact correspond to what actually happened when the WHO Director General launched a global public health emergency on January 3o, 2020.
What must be understood is that the sponsors of the John Hopkins “simulation exercise” are powerful and knowledgeable actors respectively in the areas of “Global Health” (B. and M. Gates Foundation) and “Global Economy” (WEF).
It is also worth noting that the WHO initially adopted a similar acronym (to designate the coronavirus) to that of the John Hopkins Pandemic Exercise (nCoV-2019) before it was changed to COVID-19.
Corruption and The Role of the WHO
And what motivated WHO Director General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus to declare the coronavirus nCoV-2019 as a “Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC)” on January 30 when the epidemic was largely confined to Mainland China?
The evidence suggests that WHO Director-General Tedros was serving the interests of powerful corporate sponsors.
According to F. William Engdahl, Tedros had established a long lasting relationship with the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation. He had close ties to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Together with the Davos World Economic Forum (WEF) The Gates Foundation were the sponsors of the October John Hopkins 2019 nCoV-2019 “simulation exercise”.
As health minister, Tedros would also chair the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria that was co-founded by the Gates Foundation. The Global Fund has been riddled with fraud and corruption scandals.
“During Tedros’ three year campaign to win the WHO post he was charged with having covered up three major epidemics of cholera while health minister in Ethiopia, mislabeling the cases as “acute watery diarrhea” (AWD)—a symptom of cholera—in an attempt to play down the significance of the epidemics, charges he denied.”(Engdahl, op. cit.)
A massive vaccine campaign has been ordered by the Director General of the WHO Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. Numerous pharmaceutical companies are already working on the development of a vaccine.
In this regard, it is worth recalling the WHO scam during the mandate of his predecessor Dr. Margaret Chan, who stated in relation to the 2009 H1N1 Swine Flu Pandemic that:
“Vaccine makers could produce 4.9 billion pandemic flu shots per year in the best-case scenario”,Margaret Chan, Director-General, World Health Organization (WHO), quoted by Reuters, 21 July 2009, emphasis added)
There was no H1N1 pandemic in 2009. It was a money making scam as revealed by the European Parliament.
What’s the Next Phase of COVID-19 Pandemic? Is it Fake or is it Real?
- The propaganda campaign against China is not over.
- Neither is the “fear pandemic” outside China despite the exceedingly low number of “confirmed cases”.
- The financial crisis is ongoing, supported by media disinformation and financial meddling.
- If normal US-China trade (and transportation) relations fail to be duly restored, the shipping of “Made in China” consumer goods exported to America could be affected.
- This in turn could potentially trigger a major crisis in retail trade in the US, i.e “Made in China” commodities constitute a large share of monthly household consumption.
- From a public health point of view, there are favorable prospects for eliminating the COVID-19 in China. Progress has already been reported.
- For the rest of the World (which currently has approximately 3000 confirmed cases, 28 February 2020 ) the COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing coupled with propaganda in favor of a Worldwide vaccination program.
- Without a fear campaign coupled with fake news, the incidence of COVID-19 would not have made the headlines.
- From a health/medical standpoint is a Worldwide vaccination required?
- 43.3 percent of the “confirmed cases” in China are now categorized as “recovered” (See graph above). Western reports do not make the distinction between “confirmed cases” and “confirmed infected cases”. It is the latter which is relevant. The trend is towards recovery and decline of the “confirmed infected cases”.
The massive WHO vaccination campaign (referred to above) was duly confirmed by Director General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus on February 28:
“…work is also progressing on vaccines and therapeutics. More than 20 vaccines are in development globally, and several therapeutics are in clinical trials. We expect the first results in a few weeks” (emphasis added)
Needless to say this WHO decision is another financial windfall for the Big Five Vaccine producers: GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Merck & Co., Sanofi, Pfizer, which control 85% of the vaccine market. According to CNBC: (emphasis added)
These companies have jumped into the race to combat the deadly coronavirus, working on vaccine or drug programs. … Sanofi is teaming up with the U.S. government to develop a vaccine for the new virus, hoping its work on the 2003 SARS outbreak could speed up the process. Merck’s vaccine business generated $8.4 billion of revenues in 2019, the segment has been growing at an annual rate of 9% since 2010, according to Bernstein.
GlaxoSmithKline said this month it is partnering with the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations [CEPI] for a vaccine program. … CEPI was founded at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in 2017.
Of significance, CEPI was founded in Davos in 2017 by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Wellcome Trust (A British Multibillion Humanitarian Foundation), and the World Economic Forum (WEF). The governments of Norway and India are members, largely providing funding to CEPI.
October 18, 2019: The B. and M. Gates Foundation and the WEF were partners in the John Hopkins National Security October 2019 nCoV-2019 Pandemic “Simulation Exercise”.
December 31, 2019 China alerted WHO to several cases of “unusual pneumonia” in Wuhan, Hubei province.
January 7, 2020 Chinese officials announced they had identified a new virus, The novel virus was named by the WHO 2019-nCoV (exactly the same name as the virus pertaining to the John Hopkins simulation exercise, with the exception of the placement of the date).
January 24, 25, 2020: Meeting at Davos, under the auspices of CEPI which is also a WEF-Gates partnership, the development of a 2019 nCoV vaccine was announced. (2 weeks after the January 7, 2020 announcement, and barely a week prior to the launching of the WHO’s Worldwide Public Health emergency).
January 30th, 2020, WHO Director General announces the “Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC).
And now a Worldwide vaccination campaign has been launched to curb the COVID-19 under the auspices of CEPI in partnership with GlaxoSmithKline.
While COVID-19 (alias nCoV-2019) constitutes a multi-billion corporate bonanza for Big Pharma, it has also contributed to precipitating humanity into a dangerous and unfolding global process of economic, social and geopolitical destabilization.
The original source of this article is Copyright © Prof Michel Chossudovsky, 2020
MUST READ AND UNDERSTAND: ALREADY IN 2017
World Bank Launches First-Ever Pandemic Bonds to Support $500 Million Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility
Harvard Genetic Research Team Collected and Transferred China Blood and DNA Samples Back to the US
Introduction by Michel Chossudovsky
We bring to the attention of Global Research readers, excerpts from an important study entitled “An International Collaborative Genetic Research Project Conducted in China” which has a bearing on our understanding of China’s coronavirus epidemic.
At this juncture of the CoVid-19 pandemic there is no firm evidence that the virus is “Man Made”. The Western media initially claimed that “the virus was transferred to humans from animals or seafood” as analyzed by Larry Romanaff in an earlier article.
At the same time, we should not rule out a priori the possibility that the CoVid-19 coronavirus was “man made” in a laboratory.
The study below pertains to a US initiative by an unnamed “renowned University” involved in collecting blood and DNA samples in China’s Anhui province in the 1990s. The unnamed university is Harvard University.
Blood samples were collected. In turn, the US scientists “acquired DNA samples of the target group for research purposes.
“The principal investigator himself admitted that for the asthma research alone, 16,400 DNA samples had been transferred to the US.“. These DNA samples collected by the Harvard research team were then shipped to the US. They are part of extensive data base.
According to Romanoff (in an earlier article) the number of DNA samples transferred to the US was much larger than the figures quoted in Zhang Yong and Zhao Wenxia’s chapter:
… it became known that Harvard University had surreptitiously proceeded with experiments in China that had been forbidden by the authorities years earlier, where they collected many hundreds of thousands of Chinese DNA samples and then left the country.
makes a plea for justice for some 200,000 [? ] Chinese farmers [exact figures to be confirmed] who were used in 12 genetic experiments without their informed consent. The experiments were conducted by Harvard researchers and funded by the US government.
The underlying purpose of collecting Chinese DNA samples was not mentioned, nor was the relationship of Harvard University to several entities of the US government.
As documented by the authors, the Harvard study and “theft” of Chinese DNA (biopiracy) was also supported by Big Pharma. In this regard, the blood and DNA samples of Anhui province constitute a potential goldmine for the pharmaceutical companies which provided financial support to the Harvard team.
The authors do not openly condemn the renowned [Harvard] University or more specifically the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health (HSPH) which was involved in “biopiracy”. They nonetheless confirm the coverup:
On 2 May 2003, the US university [Harvard] published the investigation results of the US government, which stated that there had been some procedural errors in supervision and record-keeping, but no participant was found to have been harmed in any way, so the school would not be penalized (HSPH 2003). Some biomedical experts and ethicists in China expressed regret about these results. They insisted that the studies had apparently violated basic research ethics, and called for a joint US-Chinese review of the experiments
And now the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health (HSPH) has announced that it is collaborating in curbing the coronavirus pandemic. (click above)
There is money to be made. According to Harvard Magazine: “The U.S. efforts will be spearheaded by scientists at Harvard Medical School and Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health”.
In turn, Harvard will collaborate with “the Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Health as well as Zhong Nanshan, a renowned pulmonologist and epidemiologist. Zhong is also head of the Chinese 2019n-CoV Expert Taskforce and a member of the Chinese Academy of Engineering.”
Harvard University and the Guangzhou Institute will share in a $115 million research budget generously funded by the China Evergrande Group, a Fortune Global 500 company in China.
“Evergrande is honored to have the opportunity to contribute to the fight against this global public health threat,” said Hui Ka Yan, chair of the China Evergrande Group.
The important question: Will Harvard’s extensive GNA data bank of Chinese samples from Anhui province be used in the context of Harvard’s current coronavirus project in collaboration with the Guangdong Institute and the Evergrade Group? The names of the US pharmaceutical companies which supported Harvard’s Anhui project are not mentioned.
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, February 24, 2020
Data on the Covid-19 pandemic:
The World Health Organization (WHO) reported Sunday, February 22, 2020 78,811 confirmed cases of COVID-19 as of 10 a.m. CET (4 a.m. ET), with nearly all cases (98% or 77,042) having occurred in China. WHO has also reported 2,462 deaths, all but 17 of which have occurred in China.
As of midnight Sunday (11 a.m. ET), China’s National Health Commission reported 77,150 confirmed cases and 2,592 deaths, with 24,734 patients designated as cured and discharged from hospital.
These figures confirm that the pandemic is largely limited to Mainland China. The media hype and disinformation campaign regarding the spread of the virus have created an atmosphere of fear and intimidation following the launching of the global public health emergency by the WHO on January 30th. According to the WHO, 1769 cases were reported outside China.
by Zhao Yandong and Zhan Weixia
[Excerpts, emphasis added]
In 1995, a research team from a renowned US university started collecting blood samples from villagers living in Anhui province, China, with the cooperation of local research institutes and the Chinese government.
In 2000, the US university team was accused of violating research ethics principles by not adequately informing the participants about the research and not sharing benefits fairly. Subsequent investigations by American and Chinese media and authorities showed that the US research institute, its research personnel and a pharmaceutical company involved were benefiting substantially from the project, while the Chinese research participants and the government were not.
Genetic studies in urban and rural areas in Anhui province are the topic of this case study.
Specific Case and Analysis, Excerpts
On 20 December 2000, a Washington Post article titled “An isolated region’s genetic mother lode” (Pomfret and Nelson 2000) disclosed that a Chinese American researcher of a renowned US University had been collecting blood samples from villagers living in the Dabie Mountains region of China’s Anhui province since 1995 with the financial support of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and biopharmacy companies.
The blood samples were transferred to the US university’s genetic bank for research into asthma, diabetes, hypertension and other diseases. Because of the value of these carefully selected blood samples to the research and development of new drugs, the US team received a large amount of research funding from international organizations. The report exposed the loss of China’s genetic resources and triggered a stir both in China and worldwide.
The US university’s genetic harvest project, conducted in Anqing city in Anhui province between 1994 and 1998, involved tens of thousands of farmers in eight counties. The project, led by an associate professor at the US university as the “chief scientist” conducted genetics studies on multiple diseases, including asthma, high blood pressure, obesity, diabetes and osteoporosis, while the experiments on asthma and hypertension were funded by the NIH (Pomfret and Nelson 2000; Xiong and Wang 2001, 2002).
The principal investigator from the US team also collaborated with a US pharmaceuticals company, and received its financial support. The project had three Chinese partners, Beijing Medical University, Anhui Medical University (AMU) and Anqing Municipal Bureau of Public Health.
The US-based principal investigator started working with the AMU School of Public Health in 1993, and set up the Anhui Meizhong Bio-medicine and Environmental Health Institute in Anqing. The institute chose the Anqing Bureau of Public Health as its local partner, and selected the population groups suitable for taking samples based on grass-roots investigation.
It collected blood samples through physical examination and acquired DNA samples of the target group for research purposes. The joint research project, which was conducted under the guise of free physical examinations for the farmers, mobilized the local population with the help of the local government. Blood samples were collected from farmers in the eight counties of Anqing city: Zongyang, Huaining, Qianshan, Tongcheng, Taihu, Wangjiang, Susong and Yuexi.
Media reports and the complaints of research personnel from the US university later exposed details of certain parts of the project that were suspected of compromising research ethics. …
According to the investigation by Chinese journalists, the collection of genetic samples had not been sanctioned by the relevant ethics committee in China (Xiong and Wang 2002).
There were also serious breaches of the requirements to keep the participants informed. Many farmers who participated in the physical examination were not aware they were taking part in research. They were never shown or briefed about the “letter of informed consent” , and did not sign or put their fingerprints on any such document.
They did not even know which institution they had given their blood samples to, and nobody told them about the real purpose and results of their “physical examination” or the rights and benefits they were entitled to as part of their contribution to research.
The asthma project was only one of the dozen human genetic research projects conducted by the US team in China. Other projects also involved the genetic screening of blood samples collected from Chinese farmers for the purpose of establishing the genetic links behind diseases like hypertension, diabetes, obesity and osteoporosis. Many of these projects were first supported by the US pharmaceutical company before NIH funds flowed in (Xiong et al. 2003).
In March 1999, the US University sent a team to China to ensure that the Anhui research was ethically and scientifically sound. Five months later, regulators from the US Department of Health and Human Services launched an investigation into the US university’s genetic research in China.
In March 2002, the department found that the genetic project in China seriously violated the regulations in multiple respects, including medical ethics, participant safety, and supervision and management (Yangcheng Evening News 2002). On 2 May 2003, the US university [Harvard] published the investigation results of the US government, which stated that there had been some procedural errors in supervision and record-keeping, but no participant was found to have been harmed in any way, so the school would not be penalized (HSPH 2003). Some biomedical experts and ethicists in China expressed regret about these results. They insisted that the studies had apparently violated basic research ethics, and called for a joint US-Chinese review of the experiments (Pomfret and Nelson 2000).
In this international research cooperation on a “genetic harvest”, the actors and participants included both international and Chinese research institutes and research personnel, international companies, local government and the local residents who participated in the study.
During this cooperation, the US university [Harvard], from its commanding position as a world-famous, authoritative international scientific research institute with first-class research personnel and advanced technologies, attracted the participation of Chinese partners and sold them the idea of building partnerships and the opportunity for co-authorship with US research personnel in return for the provision of genetic resources used for research purposes. As a result, they obtained access to a valuable pool of research data resources.
In 2003, the Chinese Ministry of Health and the Chinese Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine jointly issued regulations limiting the export of special medical articles involving human genetic resources. However, most of the DNA samples the US team had collected in Anhui had already been shipped to the US. The principal investigator himself admitted that for the asthma research alone, 16,400 DNA samples had been transferred to the US (Zhao and Cai 2013). In 2002 and 2003, he set up a biopharmaceutical company and a biopharmaceutical research institute in China. Several Chinese research personnel who had participated in the genetic project in Anhui became his partners.
The US pharmaceutical company became the ultimate beneficiary after supplying research funds. As part of the agreement signed with the US university, they obtained the genetic information of Anhui farmers and claimed that it owned the relevant patents. In July 1995, the company announced that it was in possession of a large collection of asthma genetic samples from China. Soon afterwards, a large Swedish pharmaceutical company, invested USD 53 million in the pharmaceutical company for research into respiratory disease. The company’s control of obesity and diabetes genes from China attracted another commitment of USD 70 million from a pharmaceutical giant. The stock price of the company soared from USD 4 per share, when it was listed in May 1995, to more than USD 100 per share in June 2000. Several of the company’s senior executives earned a net profit of over USD 10 million each through trade in stocks (Xiong et al. 2003).
In striking contrast, the research participants from China received very few benefits from the project. Chinese research institutes and research personnel did gain the opportunity of working with renowned international research institutes, access to research funds and the co-authorship rights to scientific papers published in international academic journals – all of which appeal to most Chinese scientists – but the local residents who participated in the studies received nothing but a free meal and an insignificant sum of money in travel and job leave allowances. In the words of a Chinese journalist, it was China’s national interests and the unprotected Chinese farmers that were most harmed by the project, and it was the big US companies, research institutes and research personnel that received the real benefits (Xiong et al. 2003).
In November 1998, the Chinese Ministry of Health established the Committee of Ethical Review on Bio-medical Research Involving the Human Body. To regulate international cooperation in genetics, China promulgated the Provisional Methods for the Management of Human Genetic Resources in 1998, which clearly stipulated that international cooperation on China’s genetic resources must be conducted on the basis of equality and mutual benefit, with a formal agreement or contract, the approval of the Chinese government and informed consent in the collection of samples.
In 2003, the Chinese Ministry of Health and the Chinese Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine jointly issued a notice which prescribed that special medical articles involving human genetic resources were not to be taken abroad without authorization. The Methods for the Ethical Review of Human–involved Bio–medical Research (Provisional) were promulgated in 2007.
Part of the Springer Briefs in Research and Innovation Governance book series (BRIEFSREINGO)
Zhao Y., Zhang W. (2018) An International Collaborative Genetic Research Project Conducted in China. In: Schroeder D., Cook J., Hirsch F., Fenet S., Muthuswamy V. (eds) Ethics Dumping. Springer Briefs in Research and Innovation Governance. Springer, Cham
- 1. These documents (and others referred to later) are not available in English and have therefore not been included in the reference list.
Anhui (2016) Statistical bulletin on national economic and social development in Anhui province in 2015. Anhui Provincial Bureau of Statistics, 25 February [in Chinese]. http://www.ahtjj.gov.cn/tjj/web/info_view.jsp?strId=1461911669310505&_indextow=8
Cheng Y, Liu Y, Wang W (2015) Empirical research on international S&T cooperation promoting the Annual Conference of China Soft Science. BeijingGoogle Scholar
HSPH (2003) HSPH issues the US government’s findings on the school’s genetic research in China. Medicine and Philosophy 24(9):46Google Scholar
Hubei (2016) Statistical bulletin on national economic and social development in Hubei province in 2015. Hubei Provincial Bureau of Statistics, 26 February. http://www.stats-hb.gov.cn/tjgb/ndtjgb/hbs/112361.htm
Jiangsu (2016) Statistical bulletin on national economic and social development in Jiangsu province in 2015. Jiangsu Provincial Bureau of Statistics, 29 February. http://www.js.gov.cn/jszfxxgk/tjxx/201602/t20160229492951.html
Jin X (2012) China’s internationalization strategy for science and technology and current status of international scientific and technological cooperation [in Chinese]. Science & Technology Industry Parks 11:25–27Google Scholar
Pomfret J, Nelson D (2000) An isolated region’s genetic mother lode. Washington Post, 20 December. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/01/AR2008100101158.html
Witze A (2016) Research gets increasingly international. Nature, 19 January. http://www.nature.com/news/research-gets-increasingly-international-1.19198
Xiong L, Wang Y (2001) A suspicious international project of genetic studies. Outlook Weekly 13:24–28Google Scholar
Xiong L, Wang Y (2002) Harvard University’s genetic research in China is illegal. Outlook Weekly 15:48–50Google Scholar
Xiong L, Wang Y, Wang C (2003) Poaching China’s genetic resources: re-investigating the Harvard genetic project. Outlook Weekly 38:22–25Google Scholar
Yangcheng Evening News (2002) US government: there are serious moral problems in human studies of Harvard. 5 April. http://news.sohu.com/13/95/news148409513.shtml
Zhao X, Cai Z (2013) Social process and development mechanism on biopiracy; case studies from the perspective of constructivism. Studies in Science of Science 31(12)Google Scholar
Zhejiang (2016) Statistical bulletin on national economic and social development in Zhejiang province in 2015. Zhejian Provincial Bureau of Statistics, 24 March. http://www.zj.gov.cn/art/2016/3/24/art_5497_2075286.html
China’s Coronavirus: A Shocking Update. Did The Virus Originate in the USA?
Japan, China and Taiwan Reports on the Origin of the Virus
By Larry Romanoff - 04. March 2020
The Western media quickly took the stage and laid out the official narrative for the outbreak of the new coronavirus which appeared to have begun in China, claiming it to have originated with animals at a wet market in Wuhan.
In fact the origin was for a long time unknown but it appears likely now, according to Chinese and Japanese reports, that the virus originated elsewhere, from multiple locations, but began to spread widely only after being introduced to the market.
More to the point, it appears that the virus did not originate in China and, according to reports in Japanese and other media, may have originated in the US.
Chinese Researchers Conclude the Virus Originated Outside of China
After collecting samples of the genome in China, medical researchers first conclusively demonstrated that the virus did not originate at the seafood market but had multiple unidentified sources, after which it was exposed to the seafood market from where it spread everywhere. (1) (2) (3)
A new study by Chinese researchers indicates the novel coronavirus may have begun human-to-human transmission in late November from a place other than the Huanan seafood market in Wuhan.
The study published on ChinaXiv, a Chinese open repository for scientific researchers, reveals the new coronavirus was introduced to the seafood market from another location(s), and then spread rapidly from the market due to the large number of close contacts. The findings were the result of analyses of the genome data, sources of infection, and the route of spread of variations of the novel coronavirus collected throughout China.
The study believes that patient(s) zero transmitted the virus to workers or sellers at the Huanan seafood market, the crowded market easily facilitating further transmission of the virus to buyers, which caused a wider spread in early December 2019. (Global Times, February 22, 2020, emphasis added (2)
Chinese medical authorities – and “intelligence agencies” – then conducted a rapid and wide-ranging search for the origin of the virus, collecting nearly 100 samples of the genome from 12 different countries on 4 continents, identifying all the varieties and mutations. During this research, they determined the virus outbreak had begun much earlier, probably in November, shortly after the Wuhan Military Games.
They then came to the same independent conclusions as the Japanese researchers – that the virus did not begin in China but was introduced there from the outside.
China’s top respiratory specialist Zhong Nanshan said on January 27
“Though the COVID-19 was first discovered in China, it does not mean that it originated from China”
“But that is Chinese for “it originated someplace else, in another country”. (4)
This of course raises questions as to the actual location of origin. If the authorities pursued their analysis through 100 genome samples from 12 countries, they must have had a compelling reason to be searching for the original source outside China. This would explain why there was such difficulty in locating and identifying a ‘patient zero’.
Japan’s Media: The Coronavirus May Have Originated in the US
In February of 2020, the Japanese Asahi news report (print and TV) claimed the coronavirus originated in the US, not in China, and that some (or many) of the 14,000 American deaths attributed to influenza may have in fact have resulted from the coronavirus. (5)
A report from a Japanese TV station disclosing a suspicion that some of those Americans may have unknowningly contracted the coronavirus has gone viral on Chinese social media, stoking fears and speculations in China that the novel coronavirus may have originated in the US.
The report, by TV Asahi Corporation of Japan, suggested that the US government may have failed to grasp how rampant the virus has gone on US soil.
However, it is unknown whether Americans who have already died of the influenza had contracted the coronavirus, as reported by TV Asahi. (People’s Daily, English, February 23, 2020, emphasis added)
On February 14, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said they will begin to test individuals with influenza-like-illness for the novel coronavirus at public health labs in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago, and New York City.
The TV Asahi network presented scientific documentation for their claims, raising the issue that no one would know the cause of death because the US either neglected to test or failed to release the results. Japan avoided the questions of natural vs. man-made and accidental vs. deliberate, simply stating that the virus outbreak may first have occurred in the US. The Western Internet appears to have been scrubbed of this information, but the Chinese media still reference it.
These claims stirred up a hornet’s nest not only in Japan but in China, immediately going viral on Chinese social media, especially since the Military World Games were held in Wuhan in October, and it had already been widely discussed that the virus could have been transmitted at that time – from a foreign source.
“Perhaps the US delegates brought the coronavirus to Wuhan, and some mutation occurred to the virus, making it more deadly and contagious, and causing a widespread outbreak this year.” (People’s Daily, February 23, 2020) (1)
Shen Yi, an international relations professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, stated that global virologists “including the intelligence agencies” were tracking the origin of the virus. Also of interest, the Chinese government did not shut the door on this. The news report stated:
“Netizens are encouraged to actively partake in discussions, but preferably in a rational fashion.”
In China, that is meaningful. If the reports were rubbish, the government would clearly state that, and tell people to not spread false rumors.
Taiwan Virologist Suggests the Coronavirus Originated in the US
Then, Taiwan ran a TV news program on February,27,(click here to access video (Chinese), that presented diagrams and flow charts suggesting the coronavirus originated in the US. (6)
Below is a rough translation, summary and analysis of selected content of that newscast. (see map below)
The man in the video is a top virologist and pharmacologist who performed a long and detailed search for the source of the virus. He spends the first part of the video explaining the various haplotypes (varieties, if you will), and explains how they are related to each other, how one must have come before another, and how one type derived from another. He explains this is merely elementary science and nothing to do with geopolitical issues, describing how, just as with numbers in order, 3 must always follow 2.
click map to enlarge
One of his main points is that the type infecting Taiwan exists only in Australia and the US and, since Taiwan was not infected by Australians, the infection in Taiwan could have come only from the US.
The basic logic is that the geographical location with the greatest diversity of virus strains must be the original source because a single strain cannot emerge from nothing. He demonstrated that only the US has all the five known strains of the virus (while Wuhan and most of China have only one, as do Taiwan and South Korea, Thailand and Vietnam, Singapore, and England, Belgium and Germany), constituting a thesis that the haplotypes in other nations may have originated in the US.
Korea and Taiwan have a different haplotype of the virus than China, perhaps more infective but much less deadly, which would account for a death rate only 1/3 that of China.
Neither Iran nor Italy were included in the above tests, but both countries have now deciphered the locally prevalent genome and have declared them of different varieties from those in China, which means they did not originate in China but were of necessity introduced from another source. It is worth noting that the variety in Italy has approximately the same fatality rate as that of China, three times as great as other nations, while the haplotype in Iran appears to be the deadliest with a fatality rate of between 10% and 25%. (7) (8) (9)
Due to the enormous amount of Western media coverage focused on China, much of the world believes the coronavirus spread to all other nations from China, but this now appears to have been proven wrong. With about 50 nations scattered throughout the world having identified at least one case at the time of writing, it would be very interesting to examine virus samples from each of those nations to determine their location of origin and the worldwide sources and patterns of spread.
The Virologist further stated that the US has recently had more than 200 “pulmonary fibrosis” cases that resulted in death due to patients’ inability to breathe, but whose conditions and symptoms could not be explained by pulmonary fibrosis. He said he wrote articles informing the US health authorities to consider seriously those deaths as resulting from the coronavirus, but they responded by blaming the deaths on e-cigarettes, then silenced further discussion. …
The Taiwanese doctor then stated the virus outbreak began earlier than assumed, saying, “We must look to September of 2019”.
He stated the case in September of 2019 where some Japanese traveled to Hawaii and returned home infected, people who had never been to China. This was two months prior to the infections in China and just after the CDC suddenly and totally shut down the Fort Detrick bio-weapons lab claiming the facilities were insufficient to prevent loss of pathogens. (10) (11)
He said he personally investigated those cases very carefully (as did the Japanese virologists who came to the same conclusion).. This might indicate the coronavirus had already spread in the US but where the symptoms were being officially attributed to other diseases, and thus possibly masked.
The prominent Chinese news website Huanqiu related one case in the US where a woman’s relative was told by physicians he died of the flu, but where the death certificate listed the coronavirus as the cause of death. On February 26, ABC News affiliate KJCT8 News Network reported that a woman recently told the media that her sister died on from coronavirus infection. Montrose, Colorado resident Almeta Stone said, “They (the medical staff) kept us informed that it was the flu, and when I got the death certificate, there was a coronavirus in the cause of death.” (12)
We cannot ascertain the number of such cases in the US but since the CDC apparently has no reliable test kits and is conducting little or no testing for the virus, there may be others.
Just for information
In the past two years (during the trade war) China has suffered several pandemics:
- February 15, 2018: H7N4 bird flu. Sickened at least 1,600 people in China and killed more than 600. Many chickens killed. China needs to purchase US poultry products.
- June, 2018: H7N9 bird flu. Many chickens killed. China needs to purchase US poultry products.
- August, 2018: outbreak of African swine flu. Same strain as Russia, from Georgia. Millions of pigs killed. China needs to purchase US pork products.
- May 24, 2019: massive infestation of armyworms in 14 province-level regions in China, which destroy most food crops. Quickly spread to more than 8,500 hectares of China’s grain production. They produce astonishing numbers of eggs. China needs to purchase US agricultural products – corn, soybeans.
- December, 2019: Coronavirus appearance puts China’s economy on hold.
- January, 2020: China is hit by a “highly pathogenic” strain of bird flu in Hunan province. Many chickens died, many others killed. China needs to purchase US poultry products.
The standard adage is that bad luck happens in threes, not sixes.
Note to readers: Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet fora etc.
Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He can be contacted at: . He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
(9) Coronavirus has Mutated, Iran attacked by a Different Strain from Wuhan
The original source of this article is Copyright © Larry Romanoff, 2020
Bioweapons Expert Speaks Out About Novel Coronavirus
The video above was censored by Youtube (we leave it as evidence for the Yotube censorship), but listen to the original:
- Francis Boyle, who for decades has advocated against the development and use of bioweapons, suspects COVID-19 is a weaponized pathogen that escaped from Wuhan City’s Biosafety Level 4 facility, which was specifically set up to research coronaviruses and SARS
- According to Boyle, the COVID-19 virus is a chimera. It includes SARS, an already weaponized coronavirus, along with HIV genetic material and possibly flu virus. It also has gain of function properties that allow it to spread a greater distance than normal
- The incubation period for COVID-19 infection is still unknown, but estimates range from 14 days to 30 days
- The U.S. government spent $100 billion on biological warfare programs since September 11, 2011, up until October 2015
- While there have so far only been a limited number of reported cases of COVID-19 infection in the U.S., the U.S. military has designated several detention sites around the country to quarantine Americans, should the situation take a turn for the worse
As you know, a novel coronavirus (initially labeled 2019-nCOV before being renamed COVID-19 by the World Health Organization1) originating in Wuhan City, Hubei Province in China, is rapidly spreading across the world.
The first case was reported in Wuhan on December 21, 2019. Symptoms include fever, shortness of breath, severe cough and pneumonia which, in more severe cases, can lead to impaired kidney and liver function and kidney failure.2,3
On January 21, 2020, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention confirmed the first U.S. case4 — a patient in Washington state who had recently visited Wuhan. Then, the first U.S. death was reported February 29, 2020, in Washington state.5
Less than a week later, CBS News reported March 5, 2020, that the number of deaths had quickly risen to 11 nationwide in the U.S. — 10 in Washington state and one in California.6 Not only that, but as of that day, “The World Health Organization urged governments around the world to pull out ‘all the stops’” to fight the outbreak. On the up side, China “appeared to be over the worst” of it, CBS said.
All told, as of March 5, 2020, there were 98,067 reported cases of novel coronavirus infections affecting 88 countries, 80,430 of which were in China. Worldometer.info provides an easy overview of confirmed cases and deaths that you can check for the latest statistics.7
COVID-19 — A Weaponized Coronavirus?
In this interview, Francis Boyle — whose background includes an undergraduate degree from the University of Chicago, a juris doctor (lawyer) degree from Harvard and a Ph.D. in political science — shares his theory of the origin of this novel coronavirus.
For decades, he's advocated against the development and use of bioweapons, which he suspects COVID-19 is. In fact, Boyle was the one who called for biowarfare legislation at the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972, and the one who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, which was passed unanimously by both houses of Congress and signed into law by George Bush, Sr.
At the time of this recording, February 14, 2020, more than 50,000 people in China had been infected with the virus. Certainly, it does not originate from infected bat soup.
As a result of Boyle's antibiological warfare work, which goes back to the early days of the Reagan administration — a time in which they were using DNA genetic engineering to manufacture biological weapons — Boyle has carefully followed "mysterious outbreaks of disease in both humans and animals around the world" that have appeared since then.
"My biowarfare antiterrorism act was specifically designed to not only to deal with regular biological weapons but also with DNA genetic engineering for biological weapons that was just coming into its infancy when the BWC was being drafted.
Even though the BWC would cover DNA genetic engineering, I wanted to make it clear by name that it was covered. I also made it clear [that] it covered synthetic biology as well," Boyle says.
"So, when these unexplained mysterious illnesses break out, I monitor them a while and usually I just conclude they can be explained by normal reasons: lack of sanitation, poverty, things of that nature. But in Wuhan it seemed pretty suspicious to me.
There is this Biosafety Level 4 facility there in Wuhan. It's the first in China, and it was specifically set up to deal with the coronavirus and SARS. SARS is basically a weaponized version of the coronavirus.
There have been leaks before of SARS out of this facility, and indeed the only reason for these BSL-4 facilities, based on my experience, is the research, development, testing and stockpiling of offensive biological weapons.
For that reason, I stated my opinion: That this Wuhan coronavirus leaked out of that BSL-4 facility … maybe mid-November … and the Chinese government has been lying about it and covering up ever since."
Many Unknowns Remain
The first reported case of COVID-19 infection was December 1, 2019. Depending on the incubation period, which is still unknown, the initial lead, provided there was one, might have occurred anywhere in November. The official estimate is a 14-day incubation period, but a British health expert believes it's 24 days, and North Korean biological warfare experts believe it's 30 days, Boyle says.
"As for Wuhan and Hubei Province, they're basically under martial law. There's no other word for it. If you read the statements by President Xi and his assistants, they've made it very clear they're at war here, and that is correct. They're at war with their own biological warfare agent.
President Xi just fired the party apparatchiks in charge of this and has brought in trusted military personnel to handle it, as well as large numbers of PLA [People's Liberation Army] forces saying they're health care workers. They don't look like health care workers to me. So, as of now, that's my best reading of the situation."
When asked about rumors the COVID-19 virus might have been stolen from a high-security laboratory in Winnipeg, Canada, Boyle says:
"It could have been. I want to make it clear that, in my opinion they were already working on that at the Wuhan BSL-4 facility. They were working on a biological warfare weapon involving SARS, which is a coronavirus to begin with.
We do know that Dr. [Yoshihiro] Kawaoka at the University of Wisconsin … resurrected the Spanish flu virus for the Pentagon, obviously for weapons purposes, and he specializes in mating the Spanish flu virus to all sorts of hideous biowarfare instrumentalities. And there was a record of him shipping his products to Winnipeg.
Winnipeg is Canada's equivalent of our own Fort Detrick. It's a BSL-4 facility, and yes, they research, develop tests, manufacture and stockpile every type of hideous biological warfare weapon that we know of. So, some of this technology could have been stolen from Winnipeg. I don't know about that but, as I said, the Wuhan BSL-4 was already working on this to begin with.
They had already developed SARS. SARS had leaked out two to three times before this, and it seems they were turbocharging SARS, which is what [COVID-19] looks to be. This is a brand-new generation of biowarfare weapons we haven't seen before.
Its lethality goes from 15%, as estimated by Lancet, up to 17% to 18% by a British health official and even Chinese statistics. Its infectivity is 83%. It can infect maybe three to four people for every person infected.
It has gain of function properties, which means it travels through air at least 6 or 7 feet, and … there are reports that even contaminated human feces give it off, that the human feces radiate off maybe 6 or 7 feet. So, we've never seen anything like this before in the history of biological warfare, at least in the public record.
I want to make it clear: I have never worked for the United States government. I've never had a security clearance. I've never had access to any type of secret information.
I just read what is in the public record and the scientific record and try to draw my own conclusions, and that's what I'm giving you today. I could change my opinion if people can provide me reputable scientific evidence to the contrary.
Right now, I'm standing by my conclusion that it leaked out of the Wuhan BSL-4, the highest level of the Chinese government has known about it, they've been covering it up from the get-go, until they informed the WHO at the end of December."
Despite Laws, Biowarfare Experimentation Is Alive and Well
As noted by Boyle, the Wuhan lab is a designated WHO research lab, which may sound odd, considering these facilities specialize in developing and researching dangerous pathogens that can easily be turned into bioweapons.
According to Boyle, we should not be surprised however, as "WHO is up to its eyeballs in this type of work and has been for quite some time." The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the drug industry also appear to have had their hand in many of the outbreaks of what appear to be weaponized viruses.
"I won't go through the long history of big pharma getting involved in this. There's huge amounts of money here. I believe the West Africa Ebola pandemic originated out of the US BSL-4 facility in Sierra Leone, and [that] they were testing out a so-called vaccine that contained live Ebola and gave it to these poor people," Boyle says.
"As for the CDC, it has been involved in every … BSL-4 biological warfare death science you could possibly imagine … It's a matter of public record that during the Reagan administration, the CDC and the American Type Culture Collection sent 40 shipments of weapons-grade biological warfare agents to Saddam Hussein in Iraq, in the hope and expectation that he would weaponize these agents and use them against Iran …
Of course, the problem is that when that war was over … an order was given to U.S. military forces to blow up Saddam Hussein's biological warfare facilities, and that's not how you deal with biological warfare weapons …
[It] contaminated our own troops, and that was a causative factor in the Gulf War Syndrome that … murdered about 11,000 U.S. troops and disabled about 100,000."
According to Boyle, the U.S. government spent $100 billion on biological warfare programs since September 11, 2011, up until October 2015, which is no small sum. To put it into perspective, the U.S. spent $40 billion (assuming a constant dollar value) on the Manhattan Project, which developed the atomic bomb. Boyle also estimates the U.S. has some 13,000 life scientists working within the biowarfare industry.
"Clearly, the Reagan administration, under the influence of its neoconservatives who definitely believe in biological weapons and ethnic-specific biological weapons (you can see that in the PNAC report), were engaged in the use of DNA genetic engineering for the purpose of manufacturing biological weapons.
That is why I gave a Congressional briefing in Washington, D.C. in 1985. I was asked to do that by the Council for Responsible Genetics that I work with, which involves the leading life scientists in the world from MIT and Harvard.
I spent seven years at Harvard. I have three degrees and I knew all these people. They asked me to serve as their lawyer and give this Congressional briefing. I blew the whistle, and then they asked me to draft the implementing legislation, which I did …
I want to make it clear I'm not here to speak in their name, I'm only speaking in my name, but if you look at my book, 'Biological Warfare and Terrorism,' professor Jonathan King wrote the foreword. So, I have the leading MIT professor of molecular biology supporting what I'm saying, if you don't think I know enough science about it."
US Prepares for COVID-19 Pandemic
While there have so far only been a limited number of reported cases of COVID-19 infection in the U.S., the U.S. military has designated several detention sites around the country to quarantine Americans,8 should the situation take a turn for the worse.
For example, as detailed in my 2009 New York Times bestseller "The Great Bird Flu Hoax," then-President George Bush Jr. projected 2 million Americans would die from bird flu; the best-case scenario taking only 200,000 lives. The final death count in the U.S. from that pandemic was zero.
It generated massive profits, though, as U.S. taxpayer dollars were used to purchase 20 million doses of Tamiflu. One of the people who was able to line his pockets from that hoax was defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who was president of Gilead Sciences when the drug was created.
"[The bird flu] was another DNA, genetically engineered biological warfare weapon," Boyle notes. "It was a chimera. It had three different elements in it and we were all lucky that somehow they attenuated the lethality and the infectiveness of the bird flu."
Whether or not COVID-19 will be similarly ineffective in its spread and lethality remains to be seen. Judging by the statistics in China, "it doesn't look very good," Boyle says.
Understanding the COVID-19 Virus
According to Boyle, the COVID-19 virus is a chimera, like the avian flu virus before it. It includes SARS, an already weaponized coronavirus, along with HIV genetic material. "That was in a published article by Indian scientists. You could see the pictures right there, [but] political pressure was brought to bear upon them so they withdrew [the paper]."
This is why some scientists are now looking into using HIV drugs to treat it,9 Boyle says. COVID-19 may also have a flu virus mixed in, along with gain of function properties that allow it to spread a greater distance than normal.
Pandemics Repeatedly Used to Further Police State
Pandemics have also been used to chip away public freedoms. For example, the anthrax scare of 2001 was used as the impetus for signing the Patriot Act, which was the first step in taking away many of our personal freedoms and rolling out a complete surveillance state. To me, such outcomes are far more concerning than the risk of infection itself. Boyle adds:
"They used Amerithrax to ram the Patriot Act through, that is correct … We became a police state … And as I pointed out in 'Biowarfare and Terrorism,' I think the same people who were behind the 9/11 terrorist attack were also behind the Amerithrax, but I'm just connecting dots there …
What's called Amerithrax came out of a U.S. government biological warfare weapons lab and program, and I publicly blew the whistle on that the first weekend of November 2001.
The Council for Responsible Genetics was having its convention at Harvard Business School and I was chairing a panel with King and other experts on biological warfare, on U.S. biological warfare programs.
As I was walking into the Harvard Divinity School, Fox TV had a camera crew there and I said, 'Obviously, this came out a U.S. biological weapons program and probably Fort Detrick.'
I conducted the session and made the same comment. Then I made a comment to a Washington, D.C., radio station to that effect [and to] the BBC, so everyone in the world heard me.
At that point, someone gave an order that I was never to be interviewed again by any mainstream news about biological warfare programs. And that's been the case since the first week of November 2001."
As noted by Boyle, George Orwell's book, "1984," has become reality. Boyle has since lectured lawyers at DePaul Law School in Chicago about the totalitarian nature of the Patriot Act.
"Snowden has correctly pointed out the federal government is spying on everything we say, all of our electronic communications, you name it," Boyle says.
"And again, the proof is I've been completely blackballed out of U.S. media. Indeed, if you go back and look at the Amerithrax attacks, they also hit mainstream U.S. media to make it clear to them that if they covered this issue they will be killed too."
Bioweapons Are Developed To Be Used
As noted by Boyle, the U.S. government has a large stockpile of Amerithrax — a super weapons-grade nanotechnology anthrax with 1 trillion spores per gram — and that's just the tip of the iceberg of the biological weapons developed. What's more, Boyle has no doubt these weapons will eventually be put to use, as they have in the past. He says:
"There was a tabletop exercise at John Hopkins University last fall … on coronavirus.10 Tabletop exercise, that's a euphemism for a war game. Their estimate was that it killed 65 million people11 …
John Hopkins is up to their eyeballs in this Nazi biological warfare dirty work. They have a BSL-3 facility there … that they proudly announce on their website … They justify it by saying they're developing vaccines. OK … How do they do that?
They go out around the world, and this is a matter of public record, and scour for every type of hideous disease, fungus, virus and bacteria you can possibly imagine. They then bring it back to these BSL-4 labs and develop an offensive, biological agent using DNA genetic engineering and synthetic biology … set up by the Pentagon under DARPA …
Once they have this offensive agent, they then proceed to develop a vaccine, because the agent is no good unless you can have a vaccine to protect your own people.
So, they're developing vaccines to have biological weapons, because a biological weapon consists of two elements: the offensive biological warfare agent in the first place, and then, second, a vaccine to protect your own people, and that is what is being done at all these BSL-4 facilities, and many of the BSL-3s as well.
John Hopkins has a BSL-3 and they admit they do dual use. That's what dual use means. They first develop the offensive biological warfare agent and then they develop the supposed vaccine."
Indeed, Johns Hopkins University is the biggest recipient of research grants from federal agencies, including the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation and Department of Defense. It has also received millions of dollars in research grants from the Gates Foundation.12 In 2016, Johns Hopkins spent more than $2 billion on research projects, leading all U.S. universities in research spending for the 38th year in a row.13
How Can We Best Prevent or Treat COVID-19 Infection?
While it's unclear exactly which treatment is the most effective, my guess is that Dr. Paul Marik's intravenous vitamin C protocol for sepsis would be a good starting point, seeing how sepsis appears to be what kills those who succumb to a serious COVID-19 infection.
Marik's retrospective before-after clinical study14,15 showed that giving patients IV vitamin C with hydrocortisone and vitamin B1 for two days reduced mortality from 40% to 8.5%. The precise protocol used was 200 mg of thiamine every 12 hours, 1,500 mg of ascorbic acid every six hours, and 50 mg of hydrocortisone every six hours.16 Importantly, the treatment has no side effects and is inexpensive, readily available and simple to administer.
According to Marik, vitamin C and corticosteroids have a synergistic effect,17 which is part of why his combo protocol is so effective. Still, simply using high-dose IV vitamin C exclusively has been shown to improve survival in patients with sepsis and acute respiratory failure, reducing mortality from 46% to 30%.18
It also reduced the number of days they needed to remain hospitalized. On average, those who received vitamin C had by Day 28 spent three fewer days in the intensive care unit than the placebo group (seven days compared to 10). By Day 60, the treatment group had also spent seven fewer days in the hospital overall —15 days compared to 22.19
While there are no trials that look at integrating hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT), my suspicion is that this would provide a powerful synergy that could get the fatality rate from sepsis even closer to zero. Sadly, HBOT is not available at many hospitals, and even if it were, it is not approved for sepsis.
You can learn more about Marik's sepsis protocol in "Vitamin C — A Game Changer in Treatment of Deadly Sepsis," along with commonsense recommendations for how to lower your risk of sepsis in the first place.
You can also review Marik's PowerPoint presentation, "Hydrocortisone, Ascorbic Acid and Thiamine for the Treatment of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock," presented at the 2020 Critical Care Reviews meeting in Australia. For COVID-19 at-home care advice from the WHO, please see "Novel Coronavirus — The Latest Pandemic Scare."
One of the Most Powerful Videos Ever Seen:
The following video from Barbara Loe Fisher is one of the most powerful videos that I have ever seen. I am hopeful that watching this video will inspire you to take up the cause and join the fight for vaccine freedom and independence.
There is a cultural war and collusion between many industries and federal regulatory agencies that results in a suppression of the truth about vital important health issues. If this suppression continues we will gradually and progressively erode our private individual rights that our ancestors fought so hard to achieve. Please take a few minutes to watch this video.
Protect Your Right to Informed Consent and Defend Vaccine Exemptions
With all the uncertainty surrounding the safety and efficacy of vaccines, it's critical to protect your right to make independent health choices and exercise voluntary informed consent to vaccination. It is urgent that everyone in America stand up and fight to protect and expand vaccine informed consent protections in state public health and employment laws. The best way to do this is to get personally involved with your state legislators and educate the leaders in your community.
Bruce Aylward of the World Health Organization holds up a graphic showing China's plummeting coronavirus cases at a 24 February press conference in Beijing.
PHOTO: XINHUA/XING GUANGLI/GETTY IMAGES
Chinese hospitals overflowing with COVID-19 patients a few weeks ago now have empty beds. Trials of experimental drugs can't find enough eligible patients. And the number of new cases reported each day in China is dropping precipitously.
These are some of the startling observations in a report released on 28 February by a team of 12 Chinese and 13 foreign scientists who toured five cities in China to study the state of the COVID-19 epidemic and the effectiveness of the country's response. Even some on the team, organized jointly by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Chinese government, say they were surprised. “I thought there was no way those numbers could be real,” says epidemiologist Tim Eckmanns of the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin.
But the report is unequivocal. “China's bold approach to contain the rapid spread of this new respiratory pathogen has changed the course of a rapidly escalating and deadly epidemic,” it says. To Bruce Aylward, a Canadian WHO epidemiologist who led the mission and briefed journalists in Beijing and Geneva last week, the effort was a huge success. “Hundreds of thousands of people in China did not get COVID-19 because of this aggressive response,” he says.
Aylward and other members of the task force say the rest of the world should learn from China. But critics say the report failed to acknowledge the human rights costs of the most severe measures imposed by China's authoritarian government: massive lockdowns and electronic surveillance of millions of people. “I think there are very good reasons for countries to hesitate using these kinds of extreme measures,” says Lawrence Gostin, a global health law scholar at Georgetown University. Many also worry that a resurgence of the disease will occur after the country lifts some of its strictest control measures and restarts its economy, which has taken a huge hit.
The report comes at a critical time in what many epidemiologists now consider a nascent pandemic. The number of affected countries is rising rapidly—it stood at 72 as Science went to press, according to WHO. Alarmingly, in many of these countries, the virus has quickly gained a foothold and started to spread in communities.
But cases have plummeted in China. On 10 February, the first day of the mission, the country reported 2478 new cases. Two weeks later, when the foreign experts packed their bags, the daily number of new cases had dropped to 409. (On 3 March it had dropped further to 129 new cases, compared with 1848 in the rest of the world.) China's epidemic appears to have peaked in late January, according to the report.
Members of the team traveled to Beijing, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Chengdu, and the hardest hit city, Wuhan. They visited hospitals, laboratories, companies, live animal markets, train stations, and local government offices. “Everywhere you went, anyone you spoke to, there was a sense of responsibility and collective action—and there's a war footing to get things done,” Aylward says.
As part of the effort, Chinese scientists have compiled a massive data set that gives the best available picture of the disease. The mission report says about 80% of infected people had mild to moderate disease, marked by fever and a dry cough; 13.8% had severe symptoms; and 6.1% had life-threatening episodes of respiratory failure, septic shock, or organ failure. The case fatality rate was highest for people over age 80 (21.9%), and people who had heart disease, diabetes, or hypertension, but 3.8% overall. Children made up a mere 2.4% of the cases, and almost none was severely ill. People with mild and moderate illness took 2 weeks on average to recover.
The report highlights how China achieved what many public health experts thought was impossible: containing the spread of a widely circulating respiratory virus. “China has rolled out perhaps the most ambitious, agile, and aggressive disease containment effort in history,” the report notes. The most dramatic—and controversial—measure was the lockdown of Wuhan and nearby cities in Hubei province, putting at least 50 million people under a mandatory quarantine since 23 January. That has “effectively prevented further exportation of infected individuals to the rest of the country,” the report concludes. Most of China did not face such severe measures: People were asked, but not required, to quarantine themselves if they felt ill, and neighborhood leaders monitored their movements.
Chinese authorities also built two dedicated hospitals in Wuhan in about 1 week, sent health care workers from all over China to Hubei, and launched an unprecedented effort to trace contacts of confirmed cases. In Wuhan alone, more than 1800 teams traced tens of thousands of contacts. Aggressive “social distancing” measures implemented in the entire country included canceling sporting events and shuttering theaters, schools, and businesses. Anyone who went outdoors had to wear a mask.
Two widely used mobile phone apps, AliPay and WeChat—which in recent years have replaced cash in China—have helped enforce the restrictions, because they allow the government to keep track of people's movements and even stop people with confirmed infections from traveling. “Every person has sort of a traffic light system,” says mission member Gabriel Leung, dean of the Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine at the University of Hong Kong. Color codes on mobile phone screens—in which green, yellow, or red designate a person's health status—let guards at train stations and other checkpoints know who to let through.
“As a consequence of all of these measures, public life is very reduced,” the report notes. But the measures did work. In the end, infected people rarely spread the virus to anyone except members of their own household, Leung says. Once all the people living together were exposed, the virus had nowhere else to go and chains of transmission ended. “That's how the epidemic truly came under control,” Leung says.
It's debatable how much of this could be done elsewhere. “China is unique in that it has a political system that can gain public compliance with extreme measures,” Gostin says. The country also has an extraordinary ability to do labor-intensive, large-scale projects quickly, says Jeremy Konyndyk, a senior policy fellow at the Center for Global Development: “No one else in the world really can do what China just did.”
Nor should they, says lawyer Alexandra Phelan, a China specialist at Georgetown's Center for Global Health Science and Security. “There are plenty of things that would work to stop an outbreak that we would consider abhorrent in a just and free society,” Phelan says.
The report urges China “to more clearly communicate key data and developments internationally.” But it is mum on the coercive nature of China's control measures and the toll they have exacted. “The one thing that's completely glossed over is the whole human rights dimension,” says Devi Sridhar, a global public health specialist at the University of Edinburgh. Instead, the report praises the “deep commitment of the Chinese people to collective action in the face of this common threat.”
“To me, as somebody who has spent a lot of time in China, it comes across as incredibly naïve—and if not naïve, then willfully blind to some of the approaches being taken,” Phelan says. Singapore and Hong Kong may be better examples to follow, Konyndyk says: “There has been a similar degree of rigor and discipline but applied in a much less draconian manner.” Jennifer Nuzzo of the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health also wonders what effects China's strategy had on, for instance, the treatment of cancer or HIV patients, whose care may have been interrupted. “I think it's important when evaluating the impact of these approaches to consider secondary, tertiary consequences,” she says.
And the benefit may be short-lived. “There's no question they suppressed the outbreak,” says Mike Osterholm, head of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. Reducing the peak number of cases buys a health system time to deal with later ones, public health experts say. But once the restrictions are lifted, “It'll come roaring right back,” Osterholm predicts.
Aylward and the other visiting scientists on the team were well aware of the “reality of different political systems,” he says, but they spoke with hundreds of people around the country and “everyone agreed with the approach.” He hopes China's successes so far will encourage other countries to act quickly. “We're getting new reports daily of new outbreaks in new areas, and people have a sense of, ‘Oh, we can't do anything,’” Aylward says. “Well, sorry. There are really practical things you can do to be ready to be able to respond to this, and that's where the focus will need to be.”
Benjamin Fulford provides an update on the fake pandemic and martial law with Robert David Steele
The video above was censored by Youtube (we leave it as evidence for the Yotube censorship)