The recent (in September) disclosure, via a reliable insider / whistleblower, that the CIA bribed members of a special committee it had hired (to investigate the origin of the legendary Sars-CoV-2) so that they would NOT publish their conclusion that the virus was the result of genetic manipulation but, on the contrary, say that it is a “natural species”, definitively proves that the “coronavirus – that – shook – the – world” was, indeed, a laboratory product, where “experiments” of biological warfare were taking place, under the auspices, guidance, funding and control of American experts. This disclosure is definitive proof, firstly because it concerns the most historic “intelligence service” of the USA (there are now many), and secondly because such a central mechanism of the American military-police complex would not bribe to protect an opponent (Beijing) but only on behalf of some strategic secret, some strategic responsibility, or even some strategic guilt of the USA.
Certainly, such a revelation could lead to (at least temporary) confusion! Aren’t the American and Chinese state/capital antagonists? Isn’t a fourth world war unfolding around this antagonism? How could Washington ever possibly design and manufacture biological weapons in a laboratory of its enemy? Did the central Chinese government have knowledge of what was happening in the Wuhan biolab, or had this been colonized right under its nose by collaborators of the American military?
Interesting questions, for which we will attempt an answer at the end. In the meantime, we must turn back time, because the sequence of events contributes to clarifying this answer.
The “visionaries” of militarism’s love for bats is quite old. Not at all paradoxical in this pioneering love are the Americans. An article in the Washington Post on July 3, 2018 titled How the Pentagon is planning to use bats in the battle against bioweapons takes us through this interesting but unknown “old relationship”:
The American military has a long history of deploying animals for war. The dolphins’ sophisticated ability to detect objects through sound emissions allowed the Navy to locate and neutralize bombs that had fallen into the sea during the Iraq War, and homing pigeons played a significant role as covert messengers during both world wars, with some of them being awarded for their bravery.
However, there is one animal that the military had a notable failure in trying to deploy, and that is the bat.
After the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941, hundreds of Mexican free-tailed bats were enlisted for a foolish plan to blow up Japanese cities by equipping these flying insect-eaters with small bombs and releasing them from airplanes. The idea was that the bats would roost inside buildings, killing the enemy while they slept. What could possibly go wrong?
Unsurprisingly, scientists conducted a test under the name “Project X-Ray” using real bats and small bombs in June 1943. But things didn’t go according to plan. A report on this experiment vaguely stated that “the experiment was concluded … when a fire destroyed a large portion of the experimental equipment.”
It failed to mention that military barracks, the control tower, and various other buildings at the base in Carlsbad, New Mexico, were dramatically set ablaze by escaped bats. The need for military secrecy prevented civilian firefighters from entering the base, and the fire spread from building to building, destroying most of the base. In the end, a pair of flying bombs went to roost under a general’s car, blowing it up. “Project X-Ray” was subsequently canceled.
Today the American military is once again interested in bats, not as frontline attackers but as defenders against a potentially destabilizing threat: Russian biological weapons. Fruit bats possess a truly supernatural ability to host some of the planet’s deadliest viruses without becoming ill themselves. Inject an Egyptian fruit bat with the Marburg virus—a virus that causes hemorrhagic fever similar to the infamous Ebola virus—and it will suffer no ill effects. Do the same to a human, and within a week they will begin bleeding to death.
This extraordinary super-immunity of bats has long fascinated virologists, and new research has shed light on how these flying fruit-eaters achieve this top-tier trait. The approach to this mystery required a clever research effort by a team of scientists from Boston University and the Army’s infectious disease research institute (USAMRID). Their findings were published in the journal Cell.
“What we’re trying to do is study bat immunology, but that proved very difficult when starting from zero,” said Thomas Kepler, professor of microbiology at Boston University. “It took decades to build the appropriate materials needed to study human or mouse antibodies. With bats,” he explained, “we had to start from scratch.”
Thus, Kepler’s team launched their work by examining the entire genome of the Egyptian bat, chosen because it is a known carrier of the deadly Marburg virus. It took two years just to map the genome. Once completed, they compared it with the genomes of other mammals looking for peculiarities, especially in the size of all gene groups that control the production of defensive proteins related to immunity. They identified notably large interferon-producing genes.
“They are interesting and very significant, as they function as the first line of defense in anti-viral immunity,” said Kepler. Once a cell is infected by a virus, interferons warn neighboring cells. “It’s basically a warning mechanism, of the sort ‘I just got infected,'” he said. The neighboring cells then begin to strengthen themselves in anticipation of a viral invasion.
The other group of large genes in fruit bats controls the receptors on “natural killer” (NK) cells. These cells are essentially the body’s control mechanism, detecting infected cells. Typically, these receptors activate, meaning they push NK cells to kill infected cells. But in the case of bats, the NK receptor genes appear to both activate and limit the action of NK cells.
This led Kepler and his team to think that the bat immune system responds uniquely to viral infection, causing what they call “gentle protection.” Instead of NK cells attacking and destroying the infected cell, which leads to a range of inflammatory reactions in the infected body, bat NK cells have a slightly different response. They may, for example, “shut down” the cell’s metabolism, starving the virus.
This unique bat approach to viral infection could explain why viruses that jump from bats to humans, including Ebola, cause such severe infections. “A virus that has evolved coexisting with the bat’s anti-viral system is completely out of its element in humans,” said Kepler. “That’s why it’s so deadly – the human immune system is overwhelmed by the inflammatory response.”
Kepler believes that such an approach to bat super-immunity could eventually lead to some treatment for Marburg. “It’s possible that we could develop drugs that suppress inflammation and starve the virus by depriving it of what it needs to develop, instead of trying to kill it directly,” he said.
So when do biological weapons enter the scene? Natural outbreaks of infection from the Marburg virus occur in African countries and are rare but extremely deadly, with a fatality rate of over 90%. There is no antidote – and that is what made the Marburg virus a prime candidate for biological warfare.
The Soviets showed enthusiasm for the Marburg virus in the 1980s and managed to develop a particularly deadly variant after an accident at the Vector Institute, the biological warfare research center in Siberia. The lead scientist there, Nikolai Ustinov, accidentally punctured his finger with a syringe containing the virus, which was intended for an experimental animal he was holding. Ustinov died a painful death, but the Soviets managed to benefit from his mistake by studying his organs and searching for fresh samples of the virus. It turned out that these were even more potent than the original variant with which he had accidentally infected himself. According to a researcher at the Institute who wrote a book about his experiences there, Ken Alibek, the Soviets named this variant “Variant U” and proposed it to the Soviet Ministry of Defense in the early 1990s.
The Marburg virus has been classified as a Category A bioterrorism agent by the CDC, and the Kepler study was supported by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), a department of the Department of Defense that was created during the Manhattan Project era to deal with weapons of mass destruction.
If this virus is ever used as a biological weapon, the super-immunity of fruit bats may have the answer that will prevent its spread. But it may also cause the army to reassess bats – and perhaps make this animal, despite itself, a hero.
This article is characteristic of how, when it comes to the construction of weapons (in this case biological), demagogy can serve half-truths mixed with outright lies in order to create some kind of justification from the citizens’ side.
The Cossack Kenneth “Ken” Alibek (real name Kanatzhan “Kanat” Alibekov), mentioned above as a key figure in prompting the necessity of (always “defensive”…) American bat research, appeared (family-wise) in the US in 1992 as a defector from the dissolving USSR, presenting himself as a high-ranking official of the Soviet army’s biological weapons program. It goes without saying that he was enthusiastically welcomed, acquired American citizenship, received straightforward recognition as an expert for lectures and events related to the Soviet biological arsenal, favorable loans to establish a business (with a branch in Ukraine…), and whatever else is provided for such assets. Over time, however, he proved to be rather a fraud, one of those types who tell you “what you want to hear” that flourish around and within the American regime.
For example, he had declared “certain that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction”… Or, another example, in 2010 he was sent to his homeland, Kazakhstan, to establish (obviously on behalf of Washington) a university biochemistry department, to become president of various scientific organizations in Kazakhstan, and to conduct research on anticancer drugs. After 7 years (and certainly BEFORE the publication of the above article), and after being well-funded with several tens of thousands of dollars, he had zero (0) output, while attempting to deceive the Kazakh government by seeking patents for techniques that were already known and patented in the US. After these events, he was “shelved” in Astana, presumably not with the best of intentions.
This does not mean that the Soviet Union did not have a biological weapons program. It did, and it provided it! It is supposed to have abolished it after its collapse, something possibly true for a while (however, knowledge is not abolished…). It means something else serious: when Washington has proceeded with some of its militaristic plans and seeks either to justify it or to obtain broader legitimization for it, it always invokes some “wicked enemy” because of whom “the homeland is in danger.” Even if (in the second decade of the 21st century) this “wicked enemy” was … 30 years old.
The truth of the above article in the end is the coveted (for warlike biotechnologists / geneticists) “library” of viruses, highly morbid either as they are or after genetic modification / enhancement, which is called bat.
Coronaviruses occupy a good shelf in this library.
Contamination at a higher level
There is a vague, unclear idea “in the air” of history that the “scientific” interest in bats and the viruses they carry was created after the so-called “Sars outbreak” (the full name given to it was Sars-CoV-1, perhaps in anticipation of some subsequent model…) in eastern Asia, in late autumn of 2002. This idea is not simply wrong. It is (deliberately) misleading. For many serious reasons.
Firstly, because the coronavirus named Sars-CoV-1, which was considered particularly deadly in humans, followed a rule of viral nature literally: that if a virus kills its host (in this case, the infected person), then it is transmitted with great difficulty. The table alongside shows the tally of its spread across 30 countries (!): 8,096 confirmed infections, 782 deaths attributed to it. However, the same table clearly shows that the “mortality rate” (which rates the danger of a viral infection) varied enormously from place to place (0% in Germany and Mongolia with 9 “cases”, 40% in Malaysia with 5…), differences that remained unexplained, conveniently for the machinery of death propaganda.
Secondly, 782 deaths over 9 months would have gone unnoticed even in the places where they occurred—if it weren’t for an already pre-existing propaganda machine, whose origins we will explore shortly.
Thirdly, if the “scientific” interest were truly in addressing a deadly virus, then attention should have turned to Beijing to learn how it managed to achieve less than half the “mortality rate” compared both to semi-autonomous Hong Kong (in health matters) and to G7-member Canada (6.6% vs. 17%).
Fourth and not least: the origin of Sars-CoV-1 from bats was proven only after a systematic search lasting at least four years, in 2007; again based primarily on the indication that it was not transmitted directly to the first human, but through some intermediate animal, about which there was no definitive certainty. Meanwhile, however, bats—and especially their coronaviruses—had already become extremely popular among biotechnologists and geneticists.
The source and cause of Western geneticists’ obsession with the “deadly virus library” of bats and, consequently, the origin of the thread leading to Sars-CoV-2, lies in the 1990s. In American militarism/imperialism and its methodologies.
After the signing, in 1972, of the International Treaty on the Prohibition of Biological Weapons, then American president Nixon ordered the destruction of all stockpiles of weaponized viruses and microbes. However, that treaty had “loopholes”: it allowed the retention of small quantities of biological agents “for prophylactic or other peaceful purposes.” Moreover, it made no reference to genetic engineering, since this “science” had not yet been developed at the time. In 1989, then American president Bush Sr. went even further: he prohibited the “development, production, and storage of bacteriological and toxic weapons.” This was done on May 22, 1990. Theoretically, therefore, with the West (and certainly the US) emerging victorious from the third world war following the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the “Warsaw Pact,” the planet could have been hopeful…
But also!!! There were those who stayed awake on the ridges. They were those called “neo-conservatives,” representing the American military-industrial complex, who were worried about the emergence of “future competitors.” From 1995 onwards, their various think tanks began openly propagating, at the highest possible level of the American leadership system, the urgent need for a “New American Century” (the 21st…) and for the “Rebuilding of American defense.”
Against whom all this should be directed was unclear. What kind of threats these prophets saw on the horizon was more specific but general: weapons of mass destruction, namely nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons… The emergence of “biological weapons” obviously fit well with the development of biotechnologies.
There was, of course, a reasonable question, especially when a hyperpower has to face such “existential” threats; who could possibly have the know-how to construct either “chemical” or “biological” weapons, effectively and in sufficient quantities for the threat to be so great? Obviously, some state. Not Russia (considered dissolved and bankrupt by the early 21st century, thus completely powerless…). Not China (at that time destined to be the “cheap factory” for the benefit of Western bosses…). So, who then?
In September 2001, with Bush Jr. as president and the neoconservatives in political power in the U.S., the implementation of plans for preemptive military action began, so that the 21st century would be American. With two inside actions: it was the “Pearl Harbor” that the neoconservatives considered necessary for American society to emerge from its “slumber” and the “security” of its victory in World War III and to remilitarize itself in order to become “a fist” for the campaigns that would follow. First came the attacks on the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001…1 And then, a week later, on September 18, came the anthrax attack via “trapped” envelopes with specific recipients. This attack lasted several weeks2.
The “mysterious” anthrax attack brought the issue of “biological weapons” and “we are under threat” back to demagoguery. But from whom? A first hasty attempt at an answer, bordering on ridiculous, was “from al-Qaeda (!!!)”. It did not seem convincing that in the caves of Tora Bora, without electricity, it would be possible to have biological warfare laboratories. Subsequently, another culprit was chosen: Saddam Hussein. It was a state, and in the past it had used chemical weapons (which Washington had given it, against Iran…), so it met the basic requirements… Despite the crude campaign to “prove biological weapons” against the Iraqi regime (and its relative success), it was proven after the invasion in 2003 by the American army ‘n’ friends into Iraq that such weapons did not exist.
The rhetoric of rebuilding america’s defences about “threats from weapons of mass destruction”, especially with regard to biological weapons which had now become a field of cutting-edge techno-scientific development, had this problem from the beginning: who could make and use them against the US? A suspect or culprit could not be found in the form of a state. There was also an additional problem: if, for example, a state more capable than Iraq (let’s say Iran, or Russia, or China or North Korea) were to be incriminated, would a “punitive” war against it be the appropriate solution? Or would international mobilization for a new, even stricter, international agreement banning them be preferable? Even the citizens of Washington under the Patriot Act regime would prefer the latter; certainly so would its allies. However, leading things in that direction would create a problem even for the US, which had already begun relevant research: it too would have to be checked (something not provided for by the 1972 treaty).
The issue of “biological threat,” so crucial in the “legitimization” of research and creation of highly pathogenic or even deadly biological agents, should have been disentangled from the state form… Somewhere around that time, the idea of natural, zoonotic threats should have begun to mature! Threats, that is, from biological pathogenic factors that do not originate from state malice but from the peculiarities of nature, from other animal species – which in some ways “jump” to the human species.
The overemphasis (especially in the West) on Sars-CoV-1 at the end of 2002 and 2003 was completely disproportionate to the actual scale of the public health problem; we have already shown this. However, it was proportional to the urgent need of both the American military-technological complex and the “emerging” geneticists/biotechnologists to construct the phantom of threats that would free their hands (and funding…) to plunge into what is euphemistically and misleadingly called “dual-use” biotechnological research (and constructions): openly for “defensive” reasons (to protect the military or even the population from zoonotic epidemics…) and secretly for offensive purposes (biological weapons).
Gospel of joy!!!
SARS in 2002 was the impressive beginning. Bats and their library of potentially deadly (for our species) viruses came to the center of the scene. The specter of zoonotic threats (and, mainly, the demagogic exaggeration of them) seemed to have, if one paid attention with a clear mind to the horizon, a bright future. And it began to unfold with impressive density; from many sides, certainly however because it escaped every serious criticism and revelation of its goals, thus allowing it to proceed with friction indeed, but to improve continuously:
[2001: Anthrax / some barriers of the military-technological deep state of the USA (deaths in the USA in a few weeks: 2]·2002: SARS-CoV-1 / coronavirus / bats are to blame… (deaths worldwide in 9 months: 782)
2005: “bird flu” / H5N1 influenza virus / various birds implicated, cultivated or wild… (deaths worldwide within 4 years: 175);
2009: “swine flu” / H1N1 influenza virus / cultivated piglets are to blame… (deaths worldwide within 2 years from 18,449 to … as many as WHO says, which was already taking on the “role” of…)·
2012: MERS / coronavirus / bats would normally be to blame, but where it was first detected (Middle East) camels were preferred as the culprit; anyway, the rhetoric about how dangerous/deadly various animals are makes no distinctions!… (deaths from 2012 to 2020: 527)·
(MERS)
2020: SARS-CoV-2 / coronavirus / culprit;;;;;
When the timeline of specific developments begins in the aforementioned way, and from the very beginning (2001) involves demagogy, “health organizations,” secret services, biotechnologists, and political authorities (to which, immediately afterward in 2002, pharmaceutical cartels were added), it should have drawn the attention of anti-capitalist/anti-state critique. This did not happen, and it was not a simple failure. It was complicity.
In any case, it becomes enlightening to place this timeline alongside another one, that of the technoscientific “management” of coronaviruses. Indicatively:
It emerges in relief that over two decades, one between 2002 and 2012 and the other between 2005 and 2015, one decade of shaping and (socially…) embedding the idea of major zoonotic threats with flu viruses and coronaviruses as protagonists, and the other decade of advancing biotechnological / genetic knowledge of how coronaviruses “move”, these two decades unfold in parallel within capitalist space and time. Does this synchrony prove that (bio)technological developments were already causing “sanitary crises”? Not necessarily, according to the evidence we have presented so far. However, it must become clear that the biotechnological / genetic “sculpting” of viruses, microbes, cells (human and animal); the experiments, the models, the genetic recombinations, were not (and are not) undertaken with the pure intention of “protecting the human species from dangerous zoonotic infections”, full stop! That is only one side, the less provocative from a techno-scientific perspective. If that were the only dimension or even the most significant one, then (Western) scientific interest would be drawn to something entirely different: how populations that have coexisted in one way or another for many centuries with such animals / carriers and their viruses have managed to effectively deal with the vast majority of infections without biotechnology and genetic “sculpting”!!3
In reality, this “sculpting” serves a dual purpose. That is why it has been generously funded for decades: for “defensive” purposes but also for “offensive” ones, in the service of biological weapons and biological warfare. Once “biological threats” in Western rhetoric moved (not permanently!!!) away from the machinations of state adversaries and were relocated / “recognized” in nature as such, a vast field opened up for not only general capitalist but also specifically militaristic exploitation. Without the risk of social demands for “peace and disarmament”: nature is not peaceful (;) and does not disarm!!!
(This doctrine, of terrifying zoonotic threats, has naturally cultivated a broader idea about “nature”, about the “natural”, regarding how dangerous all this is and why it must be “replaced” / transformed / genetically modified… for the good of humanity… This is a very serious matter, but it goes beyond the scope of this particular report).
Bats and gain-of-function
If someone tries to remove the military exploitation of genetic engineering and related research in any way for decades now, with today’s data, very little would remain… “for the good of humanity.” Given also the deep ignorance of technocrats and specialists about most things related to Life, these few should be under constant strict supervision… On the contrary, from the perspective of its military exploitation, geneticists are allowed to make “mistakes” – as long as these are fatal for some Others. And of course, they are forbidden from being controlled…
Gain-of-function research (GoF or GoFR) is medical research that genetically modifies an organism in such a way as to enhance its genes’ biological functions. This may include reshaping their pathogenicity, transmissibility, or the range of those susceptible to infection, for example, the organisms that a microorganism can infect. This research aims to uncover ways to better predict the emergence of infectious diseases and develop vaccines and treatments. For example, type B influenza can only infect humans and a certain species of seals. A mutation that would allow the type B flu virus to infect rabbits in a controlled laboratory environment could be considered a gain-of-function experiment, since the virus normally does not affect rabbits. This type of experiment can help identify which parts of the virus genome are associated with the species they infect, allowing the creation of antiviral vaccines that block this function.
In virology, gain-of-function research is usually intended to better understand current and future pandemics…
In this “innocent” way, the well-known Wikipedia presents the deliberate mutations of viruses and other microorganisms: they are done for the good of humanity. The basic idea of “innocence” of these genetic modifications for the worse, an idea completely distorted for any rational person, is as follows: Why wait to see if a killer microorganism ever appears? Let us create it ourselves, let us create many and various such killers, to see how we will deal with them…
It would be impossible for anyone not to immediately detect the militaristic distortion that permeates this doctrine – although under today’s conditions of individual and collective intellectual and moral decline, it is quite likely that various people, “experts” and non-experts, demagogues and the demagogued, will consider it “logical”!!!
The distortion becomes evident if we extend the doctrine to other types of threats, within or beyond quotation marks. Why wait to see if a major earthquake ever occurs? Let us provoke it to see how our constructions will behave, so that we can see how to strengthen them… Why wait to see if a shipwreck ever happens?… Why wait to see if a heavily trafficked bridge ever collapses?… And so on, and so forth…
The creation of factors of high morbidity/mortality with the purpose of… benefiting humanity does not withstand any human ethics (even if, supposedly, these factors remain in a controlled environment…) – unless it involves weapons and war. Nevertheless, gain-of-function mutations are the sacred chalice of genetic engineering, even when related research is formally prohibited. In the face of the “progress of science,” that is, in the face of money, prestige, chairs in institutions and organizations, and “scientific fame,” there is no human ethics for integrated scientists, that is, the vast majority of them… (Perhaps once in the distant past, in the 18th or 19th century… Not since the chemical gases of WWI or the atomic bombs of WWII…)
There is, however, a substantial difference between explosive weapons and biological weapons. If you manufacture and store the former, in the worst case they might self-detonate. That’s why such storage facilities must be located far away, very far away from unrelated people. If you manufacture and store lethal or pathogenic microorganisms, there is no such thing as a “far enough” for safety! If the microorganism “escapes” from its supposedly well-guarded storage, it won’t take the bus to the nearest neighborhood; it will be transported inside some unsuspecting living being. This means that the biological weapon created by that nasty gain-of-function research (always for a “good purpose”…) might not kill enemy populations, but friendly ones…
Hmmm… If something like that happens, these friendly populations might not stoically accept that they are dying or being harmed for a “good cause” and for the “progress of science”—would they? Problem…
In October 2014, then U.S. President Obama (or some advisors) became aware of the problem: such “escapes” had been detected in military gain-of-function laboratories… And he ordered a temporary “freeze” on them, until new safety protocols could be established. “Freeze,” however, meant stopping funding, not necessarily (mandatory) cessation of activities.
Pay attention to the beginning of the second paragraph:
…The “freezing of funding” declared a White House blog, concerns “any new research … that can reasonably be considered to relate to influenza viruses, MERS and SARS in such a way that the virus is enhanced with regard to its pathogenicity or/and its transmissibility to mammals via the respiratory route…
Oh, with the thousands of scientific triumphs: as of October 2014, such weaponization research of both flu viruses and coronaviruses was being conducted in the US!! If not, why ban them? And there had been “security problems”… If not, why ban them?
Not for long:
…On December 19, 2017, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced that they are restarting funding for gain-of-function experiments concerning influenza, the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus [MERS], and the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus [SARS]….
… The National Institutes of Health (NIH) today lifted the 3-year moratorium on funding gain-of-function research on potential pandemic viruses such as avian flu, SARS, and MERS, paving the way for the resumption of specific types of research.
This action coincides with today’s announcement from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regarding the framework of guidelines for funding research proposals involving pathogens with enhanced potential to cause pandemics…
Fortunately! The bats had worried, lest they fell into the eyes of those who “study” (that is: construct) pathogenic organisms with increased potential for causing pandemics…
Meanwhile, hold on to the initial NIH: it is one of the “shops” of the recently so-called “pope” of humanity’s salvation, Mr. Fauci.
As of the end of 2014 and from the beginning of 2018 onwards, it has been officially recognized that various agencies of the American state have funded the enhancement of transmissibility and lethality of flu and coronavirus strains. The latter proved more popular: mutations in flu viruses aimed at turning them into weapons proved unstable. In contrast, coronaviruses had proven more “stable,” better able to retain any genetic additions or modifications—let’s say—the spikes of severe illness (in the human respiratory system…).
Not only agencies of the American state but also private companies. Pharmaceutical cartels—let’s say—those also striving for the salvation of humanity.
On January 25, 2023, Jordon Trishton Walker, director of research and development at Pfizer, director of strategic business operations for mRNA “vaccines,” having had his whisky, loosened up and confidentially confessed in front of a journalist and also an undercover camera, the existence of which he was unaware:4
… One of the things we’re looking for is in the style of why not mutate the virus ourselves so that we can make, develop prophylactic new vaccines, right? So we do this. If we go this way, there’s a risk, you can imagine it – no one wants to have a pharmaceutical industry that mutates fucking viruses… One thing that [the biotechnologists of the company] do is, in a way, to find out how all these new variants that pop up are created. That is, it’s like trying to catch them before they appear and for us to be able to make a vaccine prophylactically for the new mutations. This is roughly what happens, and it’s done in the laboratory, and they say that this is a new epitope [: antigenic determinant, the molecule of an antigen that is recognized by the immune system], so if it appears publicly later, we will already have an effective vaccine… It’s the goose that lays the golden eggs…
For a “good cause” always. If not for humanity, then certainly for the company.
A criminal truth had leaked out, not just a virus! The scandal was very big, although it also proved to be very short-lived (if you control the media you can even erase the destruction of Pompeii!). Pfizer had to say something, and it said it two days later. Confirming that it indeed conducts gain-of-function research on coronaviruses, that is, it arms them, while trying to deny it:
Recently, claims have been made regarding gain-of-function and directed evolution research by Pfizer, and the company would like to clarify the issue.
… In the ongoing development of the COVID-19 vaccine by Pfizer–BioNTech, Pfizer has not conducted gain-of-function and directed evolution research… In a limited number of cases, when a complete virus does not include certain known gain-of-function mutations, such a virus may be subjected to processing in order to assess antiviral activity in cells. Additionally, laboratory experiments are conducted in cells into which SARS-CoV-2 and nirmatrelvir [one of the two active ingredients in the discussed pill Paxlovid, from Pfizer of course…] have been introduced in our secure biosafety level 3 laboratory, in order to assess whether the main protease [an enzyme related to viral replication] can mutate, leading to the creation of resistant viral strains…
“Object of processing”;… A virus;… Okay!!
And the possible “leaks”; have they disappeared? Or perhaps they were incorporated into the military planning of the USA? The second: why not outsource such kinds of “research” so that if there is a “leak” it won’t affect vulnerable American citizens but others? Ultimately: why shouldn’t such “leaks” happen randomly (or even deliberately…) elsewhere, so that the degree of success of the X or Y gain-of-function miracle can be seen under real conditions, in vivo and not in vitro?
It seems twisted in the cube, but think about it冷静ly and with an awareness of what capitalism means. You make a good killing machine, let’s say an atomic bomb. Why not test it under real conditions at the expense of others? Especially if you can remain unpunished for your crime?
Seeking the political, labor response to the question “how did Sars-CoV-2 emerge”, we have arrived near the Wuhan laboratory. We see it in the distance; however, there is still a distance that we must traverse.
Wuhan
(Biodefence in the age of…)
The “export” of dangerous biotechnological “experiments,” their outsourcing, has only benefits for the American (and Western in general) bio-information-security complex and for biological weapons designers. We have already referred to one: any “escape” and any subsequent massacre does not concern “our own,” it concerns the “others,” and it is their problem. Which their friendly-to-us government will solve in their own way… The second is the proximity of experimenters, on the one hand, to the natural sources of viruses and, on the other hand, to the different DNA of different populations. Thus, on the one hand, the collection and re-collection and re-collection of “local” pathogenic factors is immensely facilitated. And on the other hand, the “genetic data bases” of various populations are enriched (including their “responses” to escaped turbo pathogenic factors) on behalf of Western military commands. The case of American laboratories in Ukraine and Georgia is now well known and documented5. There are at least 350 such known American biological warfare bases scattered across the planet.
At the beginning of 2020, during the first weeks of the Sars-CoV-2 “outbreak” in the industrial metropolis of Wuhan, two anti-Chinese themes emerged in the Western narrative. One was the imminent collapse of the Chinese regime (due to the pandemic) and the alleged concealment of thousands, perhaps even millions, of deaths. The other was the near certainty that the virus “escaped” from the Wuhan laboratory; therefore, it was man-made.
Both pleased a faction of the American establishment—but only a faction. The then American President Trump readily embraced the view blaming Chinese geneticists: having already declared an “economic war” against Beijing, he saw in this accusation a unprecedented opportunity for a U.S. court to condemn the Chinese regime, to force it to pay colossal compensation (which obviously it would not pay), so that subsequently seizures could follow of any Chinese assets outside Chinese territory… It was the idea of sustained nuclear-like economic bombardment against Beijing.
However, not everyone was satisfied with such a turn of events—and not out of any Sinophilia. Far from satisfied were all those (individuals and institutions) who had not merely known about but had supported (financially and otherwise) the outsourcing of related American gain-of-function “experiments” to Wuhan. Nor were these few in number or insignificant. Because, obviously, if the view of Chinese responsibility were to prevail, then Beijing would go on the counterattack, proving (obviously it has at its disposal everything necessary) that this particular laboratory only provided the facilities and personnel. And that the dangerous experiments, in terms of design and targeting, were entirely American, hence the responsibility for creating chimeric viruses.
Anxious about the fact that sooner or later various biotechnologists and geneticists around the planet would study whatever genome of chimeric viruses and reach the same conclusion (that it is artificial), those responsible for these specific gain-of-function experiments attempted to shut mouths once and for all. Under the auspices of Mr. Fauci (and with the help of some monetary funds where needed…), on March 30, 2020, an article signed by 30 “experts” was published in the reputable journal Lancet, declaring their solidarity with the Chinese authorities’ fight against the pandemic, supporting with absolute scientific certainty that the virus is entirely natural, and denouncing anyone who claimed otherwise as “conspiracy theorists.”
(Please keep in mind the last two names in the first row: Peter Daszak and Christian Drosten. The latter is the “priest” of the sanitarian terror campaign in Germany… A cross between Ferguson (England) and Fauci (USA)… He is so opportunistic that he managed to develop and patent a PCR test for detecting chimeric viruses BEFORE even seeing their genomic sequence… “I designed it based on the sequences of other known coronaviruses, they’re more or less all the same,” he proudly stated. This was the PCR test that circulated in the West—and although completely useless and irrelevant, it condemned millions of people to all kinds of emotional and psychological violence…
As for Daszak? Hmm… We’ll encounter him with all his baggage shortly…)
In reality, during a period of several months, where the (truly guilty) “scientific community” was saying “it’s natural,” and Trump along with his supporters was saying “it’s artificial” (considering Beijing’s retaliation), the Chinese regime developed an alternative line of defense, which did not receive due attention. That the virus was indeed manufactured; however, its creation did not take place in Wuhan but “somewhere else” (meaning American laboratories…) and came to Wuhan with the American delegation (infected individuals) for participation in the military Olympics, from the 18th to the 29th of October 2019.
Beijing did not have evidence for such a claim. However, it did have a fairly strong “virtual document”: that on October 18, 2019, the notorious “coronavirus pandemic response drill” named Event 201 had taken place in New York – with altogether suspicious organizers and participants. It would be sufficient (and very easy) to combine Event 201 in one’s mind with the American military/athletic delegation to Wuhan on the same days, thus causing a completely dissolving confusion even in the ranks of common (Western) supporters of the “act of nature” theory. This way, the Wuhan laboratory would be completely exonerated…
Unfortunately for the American bioinformatics-security complex, as soon as the terror campaign ended, some mouths opened, and some began to search more systematically. The first thing that was documented was that indeed, in 2018, just when “gain-of-function” research was once again “liberated” in the US, a proposal was made to DARPA (the American military technological arm, which is essentially responsible for the “advancement of science and technology for the good of humanity,” certainly of the American army, which is humanity…) to fund research and experiments aimed at making a coronavirus sufficiently transmissible and harmful to humans. The project was called DEFUSE, which means to disarm…
Pay attention to the highlighted paragraph on the second page: The proposal is considered to potentially involve GoF [gain-of-function]/DURC [dual use research of concern – dual use research!] research because it proposes the synthesis of a spike glycoprotein that binds to human cell receptors and its introduction into the SARSr-CoV [coronavirus reference…] backbone to investigate whether SARS-like disease can be caused.
DARPA deemed this idea “eligible”… (1st page). However, it decided not to fund it, fearing it did not have the required safety specifications (2nd page).
Who made the proposal (and would conduct the research/creation of the “enhanced” SARS-CoV)? The EcoHealth Alliance. What is the notorious EcoHealth Alliance? A shop run by Mr. Peter Daszak (the one who signed the “natural origin declaration” of the chimp…), and certainly a CIA front company!
However, Daszak had already secured funding of $666,442 for 5 years from 2014! From whom? From the National Institute of Food and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which falls under the NIH of Mr. Fauci!
Perhaps in 2018 the money ran out, and that’s why he turned to darpa. Or he wanted additional coverage. Or… darpa said “no”, so Daszak turned again to the generous Fauci… New funding..
There was still more money. We copy from a very recent article titled “Why did USAID fund the lab in Wuhan?”:6
…In April, Samantha Power, a former human rights activist and Obama’s right hand who now serves as administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Senator Rand Paul asked: “Did USAID fund coronavirus research in Wuhan?” In her response, Power evaded, repeatedly referring to USAID’s funding of the Wuhan lab, which took place “before my time.” But Power’s testimony raises a much larger question: why was USAID funding dangerous research in a Chinese lab that the U.S. Department of Energy and the FBI now assess was the source of Covid?
Since the early days of the pandemic, when leading scientists resorted to burner phones [disposable phones used to avoid surveillance] and secret meetings, journalists have uncovered thousands of pages of edited email messages, deleted virus sequences, and decrypted events related to the outbreak of Covid. Among the key revelations of this multi-year investigation were the enormous amounts of U.S. government funding spent on dangerous virus research worldwide, with particular emphasis on China. The vast majority of these funds were channeled through a New York-based NGO called EcoHealth Alliance, headed by British zoologist Peter Daszak. And by far the largest portion of the U.S. funds funneled through EcoHealth—no less than $65 million—came from USAID. Not even the pandemic itself was able to halt the investments. As late as the end of 2021, long after the EcoHealth Alliance was sanctioned by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for unethical practices regarding funding for the Wuhan lab, USAID provided EcoHealth Alliance with another $4.67 million.
This was simply the last in a long series of funding rounds. EcoHealth received its first tranche from USAID in 2009. The money came from an innovative at the time USAID program called Predict, the mission of which was to hunt viruses that jump from animals to humans and could potentially cause a pandemic. Predict was the brainchild of Dennis Carroll, an infectious diseases specialist, who had directed USAID’s Pandemic Influenza and Other Emerging Threats Unit (PIOET)…
…Under the leadership of Andrew Natsios, a former Republican political figure, USAID would make a dramatic turn toward the American defense establishment, and become “a quasi-security service.” This began in 2005, when USAID created the Office of Military Affairs (today the Office of Military Policy Cooperation). “The uniforms [of American military personnel] in the corridors of the Ronald Reagan building housing USAID are now so common that they are no longer even noticed,” wrote Henrietta Fore, USAID administrator from 2007 to 2009; “things are not the way they used to be”…
…With Predict, USAID sought to “detect the emergence of new infectious diseases in high-risk wild animals, such as bats, rodents and primates, that could pose a significant threat to human health.” Under Carroll’s leadership, however, Predict went far beyond detecting the “emergence” of new dangerous viruses. Instead, it began actively hunting them. It took samples from more than 164,000 animals and humans and obtained more than 1,100 unique viruses, including strains of Ebola, Marburg, MERS and SARS-like coronaviruses, 949 of which were previously unknown. In this way, Predict introduced an entirely new kind of pandemic risk: giving these deadly, unknown viruses a direct pathway to enter large human populations living in close proximity…
In August 2021, Joseph Murphy, an infantry colonel and DARPA official, decided to speak out – and testified under oath to the general prosecutor that:
Indeed. Immediately after the funding for gain-of-function constructions was “released” (this happened at the end of 2017), on January 4, 2018, DARPA announced a 3.5-year program to protect the American military, which (as it says itself) goes to the ends of the world and comes into contact with dangerous animal-borne viruses in areas that lack serious healthcare infrastructure. Therefore (says DARPA), the goal of the PREEMPT program is not treatments, but to “get involved” with all these pathogenic threats, see how they are biologically shaped, and deal with them at their source… This was the reason for the funding proposal, only 3 months after the announcement of PREEMPT, from Daszak’s side.
How can you actually “enter” bats, pigs, camels, chickens and monkeys and predict which of the viruses they live with will mutate on its own in such a way as to move to a new, unknown and perhaps hostile environment such as an American hiker?
Only in the way that Walker of Pfizer described: instead of waiting and searching blindly, we don’t gather viruses wherever we can, mutate them into highly virulent or/and lethal variants, and then create the antidotes? It’s not a lost effort: we will be able to use our gain-of-function works as weapons against our enemies without the proper antidote…
This is exactly what was happening in Wuhan, under the supervision of the CIA… The eagerness for it to be announced even by its own “special committee” (the Fauci committee wasn’t enough…) that the chimera was in every respect “natural”, an eagerness to the point of bribing 6 out of the 7 experts she had chosen herself, was the final proof.
But neither did the NIH (: Fauci) lag behind in efforts to hide – for funding and not only. The internet is available for “erasing / writing”. Only that there are some who preserve whatever they can. Thus, the attempt to delete the fact that it funds gain-of-function research was caught in the press:
Epilogue
Preparations (and equipment) for biological warfare take years. The American regime is entrenched in this story to the roots of its hair. We assume it is not alone. Moscow, Beijing, Tel Aviv are doing (we consider it certain, without evidence) the same. The difference with Washington is that it has by far the largest chain of such “research centers,” which it has scattered across the planet. These are American biological warfare bases—and they are not few.
The Chinese regime overreacted in Wuhan by mid-April 2020. The interesting thing is that cases were found in other Chinese cities as well; but only in Wuhan was a full military law imposed. Did they fear that the little chap might be as deadly as SARS or even more so? If yes, they quickly realized that artificial or not, it was essentially as dangerous as a flu virus. However, they conducted a localized (by Chinese standards) exercise in responding to a biological attack—and they barely concealed it in some statements after the alarm ended. (The same exercise was repeated on a much larger scale after the emergence of the “delta” variant…)
The truth is that Chinese experts did everything they could to honestly and promptly inform the West about both the low threat level of Sars-CoV-2 and the simple and mild but effective treatment methods for those who eventually fell ill—without vaccines and, naturally, without mRNA platforms. But for the Western bio-info-security complex, this minimally problematic virus was a maximum opportunity.
What followed, we have lived through and analyzed…
The initial question remains: why did the American deep state go to conduct such experiments on the territory of its adversary? The answer is simple: it’s the bats!!! Chinese caves have a very large collection of bats, which in turn carry large collections (and variations) of coronaviruses that could be weaponized.
The American biotech/genetic complex could not have had relatively free access to either bats or the rich (Chinese-owned) genetic archives of their viruses if it hadn’t sent its own, somehow, there. A pact with the devil, therefore: Washington allowed Chinese biotechnologists to have access to certain designs, methods, and techniques of its geneticists; in exchange for access to bats. For its part, Beijing allowed Americans access to its bats; in exchange for a look at the weaponization of certain coronaviruses.
Neither side is innocent in this “collaboration.” But the responsibilities for the “escape” of the manufactured pathogen are not equally shared. After all, Chinese nuclear physicists did not go to Nevada to test a bomb…
What remains however is this: the dogma that nature is an enemy (to us). A dogma that conceals the truth that the genetic modification/correction/”enhancement” of anything natural is destructive; not nature as such…
The extensions of this dogma are certainly evolving. Apart from “transhumanism” (the human species evolved as slowly and naturally as possible, but now its evolution must be accelerated through technical means, so as not to lag behind machines…) there is also “meta-nature” (what we call nature is incomplete or even dangerous; therefore, we must correct/disable/improve it…)
Hurry Tuttle
Ziggy Stardust