Yujia Alina Chan & Nikolai Petrovsky cf Shi Zhengli on binding energy
between SARS-CoV-2 spike protein & ACE2
Newsletter published on May 22, 2020
(1) Yujia Alina Chan & Nikolai Petrovsky cf Shi Zhengli on binding
energy between SARS-CoV-2 spike protein & ACE2
(2) SARS-CoV-2 is well adapted for humans. What does this mean for
re-emergence?
(3) Ministry of Truth cf First Amendment - directives on 'False Claims'
should be tested in Supreme Court
(4) Ron Unz in China camp: US Coronavirus catastrophe as Biowarfare
Blowback? defends Charles Lieber, denies Tiananmen massacre 1989
(1) Yujia Alina Chan & Nikolai Petrovsky cf Shi Zhengli on binding
energy between SARS-CoV-2 spike protein & ACE2
From: javier.ortiza@ehu.eus
In recent days some important news have arisen concerning the virus
origin . Curiously, most of them have focused on the study of the
affinity binding energy between S spike protein of coronaviruses and the
ACE2 receptor protein of human and wild animals.
On the side of laboratory (or at least not to discard it) procedence
theory two important articles must be mentioned.
First, the article entitled "SARS-CoV-2 is well adapted for humans"
reported by Yujia Alina from the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard
Here, "In a side-by-side comparison of evolutionary dynamics between the
2019/2020 SARS-CoV-2 and the 2003 SARS-CoV, we were surprised to find
that SARS-CoV-2 resembles SARS-CoV in the late phase of the 2003
epidemic after SARS-CoV had developed several advantageous adaptations
for human transmission. Our observations suggest that by the time
SARS-CoV-2 was first detected in late 2019, it was already pre-adapted
to human transmission to an extent similar to late epidemic SARS-CoV"
"Yet, the SARS-CoV-2 S has been demonstrated to bind more strongly to
human ACE2 and has a superior plasma membrane fusion capacity compared
to the SARS-CoV S."
In summary, comparing the evolution of the 2003 pandemic SARS and the
current SARS-CoV19 very striking difference appears: SARS evolved fast
after jumping from palm civets to humans following natural selection and
later the evolution was diminishing.
Meanwhile, SARS_CoV2 in the three last month collected genome samples
(included some from Food Market) there is almost no signs of genetic
evolution. That's why , when SARS-CoV-2-like viruses from an
intermediate host species are identified, it will become possible to
model selection pressure as was done for SARS-CoV. Moreover,SARS-CoV-2 S
spike affinity to Human ACE2 cells is higher than SARS-CoV.
Then, some questions are posed: "Did SARS-CoV-2 transmit across species
into humans and circulate undetected for months prior to late 2019 while
accumulating adaptive mutations?
Or was SARS-CoV-2 already well adapted for humans while in bats or an
intermediate species? More importantly, does this pool of human-adapted
progenitor viruses still exist in animal populations?
Even the possibility that a non-genetically-engineered precursor could
have adapted to humans while being studied in a laboratory should be
considered, regardless of how likely or unlikely."
The second article has been reported by australian team led by Dr.
Nicolai Petrovsky, entitled: "In silico comparison of spike protein-ACE2
binding affinities across species; significance for the possible origin
of the SARS-CoV-2 virus"
Here, putting together advance computerized models of the ACE2 receptor
of relevant species, humans and animals, along with a model
characterizing the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, the binding energy of
SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to each of these ACE2 receptors was calculated.
The goal was to know "which species may be permissive to SARS-CoV-2
becuse this is very important, both in respect of identifying
intermediate hosts and potential source of the original virus, as well
as helping to identify suitable species for use as infection models to
allow testing of COVID-19 drugs and vaccines".
The results of the calculations were: "Notably, this approach
surprisingly revealed that the binding energy between SARS-CoV-2 spike
protein and ACE2 was highest for humans out of all species tested,
suggesting that SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is uniquely evolved to bind and
infect cells expressing human ACE2.
This finding is particularly surprising as, typically, a virus would be
expected to have highest affinity for the receptor in its original host
species, e.g. bat, with a lower initial binding affinity for the
receptor of any new host, e.g. humans. However, in this case, the
affinity of SARS-CoV-2 is higher for humans than for the putative
original host species, bats, or for any potential intermediary host
species".
Later on, it is added: "To date, a virus identical to SARS-CoV-2 has not
been identified in bats or any other non-human species, making its
origins unclear. The fact that SARS-CoV-2 has also not been found in any
likely intermediate host raises questions of the origins of the original
SARS-CoV-2 virus that infected human case zero in late 2019".
On the side of the original theory proponents two new articles by Dr
Zheng-Li Shi have been published. As it is well known Dr. Shi is the
most notable researcher at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and now she
focuses her efforts on finding the host intermediate animal, ("the
missing link") prior to the jump to humans. In both of them experimental
assays with samples collected from different chinese bats (Rhinolophus
sinicus,Rhinolophus malayanus) were carried out.
The most recent is a new article entitled "Arms race between SARSr-CoVs
spike gene and host receptor" In the reported research multiple binding
affinity assays between SARS- and SARSr-CoV spike proteins (specifically
its RBD region) and ACE2 receptor molecules from bats and humans were
made. To this end the chinese horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus sinicus) was
chosen as reservoir host of severe acute respiratory syndrome
coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and many bat SARS-related CoVs (SARSr-CoVs) with
high genetic diversity, particularly in the spike gene.
Results showed:"All tested bat SARSr-CoV spike proteins had a higher
binding affinity to human ACE2 than to bat ACE2, although they showed a
10-fold lower binding affinity to human ACE2 compared with their
SARS-CoV counterpart". And it concludes: "These results suggest that the
SARSr-CoV spike protein and R. sinicus ACE2 may have coevolved over time
and experienced selection pressure from each other triggering the
evolutionary arms race dynamics. It further proves that R. sinicus is
the natural host of SARSr-CoVs."
In other words, two important consequences are remarked: First, (R.
sinicus bat) SARSr-CoV spike proteins had a higher binding affinity to
human ACE2 than to bat ACE2 but much less than SARS-CoV. And second, it
have been detected "interactions" between SARS-CoV and related viruses
and the ACE2 receptor cells of the R.Sinicus bat that have promoted
mutations specially in the spike S protein.
As it can be seen, here it's said that "All tested bat SARSr-CoV spike
proteins had a higher binding affinity to human ACE2 than to bat ACE2"
and this contradicts the statement made in the article above "typically,
a virus would be expected to have highest affinity for the receptor in
its original host species". Also that SARSr-CoV spike proteins binding
affinity to human ACE2 is much poorer than SARS-CoV. (note: SARSCoV19 is
classified as a SARSr-CoV) But, in the first article above, SARS-CoV-2 S
spike affinity to Human ACE2 cells is higher than SARS-CoV.
Yet, a couple of weeks ago another article published by the same Dr Shi
claimed the finding of a novel bat-derived coronavirus (named RmYN02)
detected in one sample of feces collected on June 25, 2019 from a
Rhinolophus malayanus bat. In this case, the research was not focused on
the RBD. "The most outstanding feature of this RmYN02 is that contains
an insertion at the S1/S2 furin cleavage site in the spike protein in a
similar manner to SARS-CoV-2. suggesting that such insertion events can
occur naturally in animal betacoronaviruses".
This feature, the insertion of a sequence of aminoacid at furin cleavage
site, is a key point, since, up to now, no bat or any animal with more
than a 40% similarity to CoV19, that harbour this cleavage site had been
found. However, this new coronavirus has poor similarity to CoV19 in the
RBD or binding region of the S proteine.
Yet earlier, In february 3, (received 20 january!!!!) just after the
pandemic breakout, another article "A pneumonia outbreak associated with
a new coronavirus of probable bat origin" Here,apart from isolating the
CoV19 virus, the full-length genome sequences from five patients at an
early stage of the outbreaak were obtained. in addition it was detected
than a bat coronavirus (RatG13) shared a 96% homology at the
whole-genome level to the CoV19 coronavirus. To this particular fast
response there are suspicions due to the very short interval between
samples collection and full genome obtaining as well as the surprising
appearance of this "new" RaTG13 bat coronavirus full genome.
These are the efforts of Dr Shi to show that these two relevant features
of the new CoV19, RBD with affinity to human ACE2 and furin cleavage
site already exist separatedly in bats. But till now, no both features
found in any bat or other animal.
(2) SARS-CoV-2 is well adapted for humans. What does this mean for
re-emergence?
Shing Hei Zhan, Benjamin E. Deverman, Yujia Alina Chan
This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review
Abstract
In a side-by-side comparison of evolutionary dynamics between the
2019/2020 SARS-CoV-2 and the 2003 SARS-CoV, we were surprised to find
that SARS-CoV-2 resembles SARS-CoV in the late phase of the 2003
epidemic after SARS-CoV had developed several advantageous adaptations
for human transmission. Our observations suggest that by the time
SARS-CoV-2 was first detected in late 2019, it was already pre-adapted
to human transmission to an extent similar to late epidemic SARS-CoV.
However, no precursors or branches of evolution stemming from a less
human-adapted SARS-CoV-2-like virus have been detected. The sudden
appearance of a highly infectious SARS-CoV-2 presents a major cause for
concern that should motivate stronger international efforts to identify
the source and prevent near future re-emergence. Any existing pools of
SARS-CoV-2 progenitors would be particularly dangerous if similarly well
adapted for human transmission. To look for clues regarding intermediate
hosts, we analyze recent key findings relating to how SARS-CoV-2 could
have evolved and adapted for human transmission, and examine the
environmental samples from the Wuhan Huanan seafood market. Importantly,
the market samples are genetically identical to human SARS-CoV-2
isolates and were therefore most likely from human sources. We conclude
by describing and advocating for measured and effective approaches
implemented in the 2002-2004 SARS outbreaks to identify lingering
population(s) of progenitor virus.
Competing Interest Statement
Shing Hei Zhan is a Co-founder and lead bioinformatics scientist at
Fusion Genomics Corporation, which develops molecular diagnostic assays
for infectious diseases.
[...] In consideration that several therapies and antibodies in
development target the SARS-CoV-2 S, it is important to track
non-synonymous substitutions and predict the evolution of resistance. We
analyzed the non-synonymous substitutions that occurred in the S of
SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 over the course of each epidemic. Numerous
adaptive mutations that evolved in SARS-CoV S RBD have been
experimentally demonstrated to enhance binding to the human ACE2
receptor and facilitate cross-species transmission, e.g., residues N479
and T487 (29,30), as well as K390, R426, D429, T431, I455, N473, F483,
Q492, Y494, R495 (31); or predicted to have been positively selected,
e.g. residues 239, 244, 311, 479, 778 (17) (Figure 3). In contrast, the
majority of the non-synonymous substitutions in SARS-CoV-2 S are
distributed across the gene at low frequency and have not been reported
to confer adaptive benefit (Figure 4). Yet, the SARS-CoV-2 S has been
demonstrated to bind more strongly to human ACE2 and has a superior
plasma membrane fusion capacity compared to the SARS-CoV S (32,33)
[...] It is important to recall that there were two SARS-CoV outbreaks
in 2002-2004, each arising from separate palm civet-to-human
transmission events (Figure 5): the first emerged in late 2002 and ended
in August, 2003; the second arose in late 2003 from a lingering
population of SARS-CoV progenitors in civets. The second outbreak was
swiftly suppressed due to diligent human and animal host tracking,
informed by lessons from the first outbreak (37,38). To prevent similar
consecutive outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 today, it is vital to learn from the
past and implement measures to minimize the risk of additional
SARS-CoV-2-like precursors adapting to and re-emerging among humans. To
do so, it is important to identify the route by which SARS-CoV-2 adapted
for human transmission. However, there is presently little evidence to
definitively support any particular scenario of SARS-CoV-2 adaptation.
Did SARS-CoV-2 transmit across species into humans and circulate
undetected for months prior to late 2019 while accumulating adaptive
mutations? Or was SARS-CoV-2 already well adapted for humans while in
bats or an intermediate species? More importantly, does this pool of
human-adapted progenitor viruses still exist in animal populations? Even
the possibility that a non-genetically-engineered precursor could have
adapted to humans while being studied in a laboratory should be
considered, regardless of how likely or unlikely (39).
What is known about possible intermediate hosts and SARS-CoV-2 species
tropism? Speculations that pangolins are the likely intermediate animal
host stemmed from the discovery of a pangolin CoV that shares 95.4% S
amino acid identity and six key RBD residues with SARS-CoV-2 (40). Since
then, another closely related lineage of pangolin CoVs has been
identified (41). However, the unique polybasic furin cleavage site in
the SARS-CoV-2 S is not found in pangolin CoVs (42), and SARS-CoV-2 is
not a recent recombinant involving any of the CoVs sampled to date
(41,43,44). The CoV that is most closely related to SARS-CoV-2 is
RaTG13, a bat CoV that was identified at the Wuhan Institute of Virology
and originally isolated from the Yunnan Province of China (45). RaTG13
shares 96.2% genome identity with the Wuhan-Hu-1 SARS-CoV-2 isolate. In
comparison, the most closely related pangolin CoV MP789 shares only
84.1% and 84.0% genome identity with Wuhan-Hu-1 and RaTG13,
respectively. No evidence as yet points to the adaptation of SARS-CoV-2
for human infection in pangolins or the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from
pangolins to humans.
In addition, it is plausible for SARS-CoV-2 S to have evolved its broad
species tropism naturally in bats or a wide range of intermediate
species. The SARS-CoV-2 S is predicted to bind to ACE2 from potentially
more than 100 diverse species (46–48), and was demonstrated to bind more
strongly than the SARS-CoV S to ACE2 from both bat and human (33). The S
of RaTG13 is also capable of binding to human ACE2 although the virus
does not infect humans (49). Similarly, the S of human MERS-CoV was
found to bind to receptors from humans, camels, and bats, and could
adapt to semi-permissive host receptors within three passages in cell
culture (50). Therefore, although no sampled bat CoVs have been found to
possess a SARS-CoV-2-like S RBD, these findings collectively suggest
that some CoVs in nature are evolving S that can bind at an optimal
level to the same receptor across diverse species (43), potentially by
interfacing with highly conserved parts of the receptor. As other groups
have recommended, CoV sampling from more species - to avoid bias
stemming from the focused scrutiny of Malayan pangolins - will provide
us with a better grasp of the range of species that harbor CoVs with
similar RBDs to SARS-CoV-2, as well as the natural diversity of bat CoVs
(43).
There has been considerable debate among scientists and the public on
whether SARS-CoV-2 originated from the Wuhan Huanan seafood market (2).
According to the Chinese CDC’s website, accessed on April 27, 2020,
SARS-CoV-2 was detected in environmental samples at the Huanan seafood
market, and the Chinese CDC suggested that the virus originated from
animals sold there (51). However, phylogenetic tracking suggests that
SARS-CoV-2 had been imported into the market by humans (52). To look for
clues regarding an intermediate animal host, we turned to samples
collected from the market in January, 2020. In contrast to the thorough
and swift animal sampling executed in response to the 2002-2004 SARS-CoV
outbreaks to identify intermediate hosts (37,53), no animal sampling
prior to the shut down and sanitization of the market was reported.
Details about the sampling are sparse: 515 out of 585 samples are
environmental samples, and the other 70 were collected from wild animal
vendors; it is unclear whether the latter samples are from animals,
humans, and/or the environment. Only 4 of the samples, which were all
environmental samples from the market, have passable coverage of
SARS-CoV-2 genomes for analysis. Even so, these contain ambiguous bases
that confound genetic clustering with human SARS-CoV-2 genomes.
Nonetheless, the market samples did not form a separate cluster from the
human SARS-CoV-2 genomes. We compared the market samples to the human
Wuhan-Hu-1 isolate, and discovered >99.9% genome identity, even at the S
gene that has exhibited evidence of evolution in previous CoV zoonoses.
In the SARS-CoV outbreaks, >99.9% genome or S identity was only observed
among isolates collected within a narrow window of time from within the
same species (Figure 5) (15). The human and civet isolates of the
2003/2004 outbreak, which were collected most closely in time and at the
site of cross-species transmission, shared only up to 99.79% S identity
(Figure 5) (37). It is therefore unlikely for the January market
isolates, which all share 99.9-100% genome and S identity with a
December human SARS-CoV-2, to have originated from an intermediate
animal host, particularly if the most recent common ancestor jumped into
humans as early as October, 2019 (54,55). The SARS-CoV-2 genomes in the
market samples were most likely from humans infected with SARS-CoV-2 who
were vendors or visitors at the market. If intermediate animal hosts
were present at the market, no evidence remains in the genetic samples
available.
Conclusion
The lack of definitive evidence to verify or rule out adaptation in an
intermediate host species, humans, or a laboratory, means that we need
to take precautions against each scenario to prevent re-emergence. We
would like to advocate for measured and effective approaches to identify
any lingering population(s) of SARS-CoV-2 progenitor virus, particularly
if these are similarly adept at human transmission. The response to the
first SARS-CoV outbreak deployed the following strategies that were key
to detecting SARS-CoV adaptation to humans and cross-species
transmission, and could be re-applied in today’s outbreak to swiftly
eliminate progenitor pools: (i) Sampling animals from markets, farms,
and wild populations for SARS-CoV-2-like viruses (38). (ii) Checking
human samples banked months before late 2019 for SARS-CoV-2-like viruses
or SARS-CoV-2-reactive antibodies to detect precursors circulating in
humans (56). In addition, sequencing more SARS-CoV-2 isolates from
Wuhan, particularly early isolates if they still exist, could identify
branches originating from a less human-adapted progenitor as was seen in
the 2003 SARS-CoV outbreak. It would be curious if no precursors or
branches of SARS-CoV-2 evolution are discovered in humans or animals.
(iii) Evaluating the over-or underrepresentation of food handlers and
animal traders among the index cases to determine if SARS-CoV-2
precursors may have been circulating in the animal trading community
(57). While these investigations are conducted, it would be safer to
more extensively limit human activity that leads to frequent or
prolonged contact with wild animals and their habitats.
(3) Ministry of Truth cf First Amendment - directives on 'False Claims'
should be tested in Supreme Court
To: Dr David Brownstein <info@drbrownstein.com>
Dear Dr. Brownstein,
Re the FTC orders banning 'False Claims'"
"we have been ordered by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to stop
making any statements about our treatment protocols of Vitamins A, C &
D, as well as nutritional IV’s, iodine, ozone and nebulization to
support the immune system with respect to Coronavirus Diseases 2019
(COVID-19)."
You and others too - as per the link below.
Yet, there are currently NO scientifically proven remedies for
Covid-19, as per the FTC's definition. This would mean that people
wishing to protect or save themselves have no options; and those who
have useful suggestions are censored.
All in the name of Science - rather, a Cult of Science. On which, see
the writings of Bruno Latour.
Yet the First Amendment guarantees Freedom of Speech.
Why isn't the onus of proof on the Federal Agencies posing as the
Ministry of Truth?
Federal Agencies' dictates banning 'False Claims' should be tested in
the Supreme Court - and Urgently.
Yours Faithfully,
Peter Myers
ADDITIONAL INFO BELOW
FTC Sends 21 Letters Warning Marketers to Stop Making Unsupported Claims
That Their Products and Therapies Can Effectively Treat Coronavirus
Technology: Is the FTC our Ministry of Truth?
Trump Goes to War Against CDC’s "Ministry of Truth"
Feds To Get Power To Target Websites Making "False Claims"
(4) Ron Unz in China camp: US Coronavirus catastrophe as Biowarfare
Blowback? defends Charles Lieber, denies Tiananmen massacre 1989
Our Coronavirus Catastrophe as Biowarfare Blowback?
RON UNZ
APRIL 21, 2020
Nearly 30,000 Americans have died from the coronavirus during the last
two weeks, and by some estimates this is a substantial under-count,
while the death-toll continues to rapidly mount. Meanwhile, measures to
control the spread of this deadly infection have already cost 22 million
Americans their jobs, an unprecedented economic collapse that has pushed
our unemployment rates to Great Depression levels. Our country is facing
a crisis as grave as almost any in our national history.
For many weeks President Trump and his political allies had regularly
dismissed or minimized this terrible health threat, and suddenly now
faced with such a manifest disaster, they have naturally begun seeking
other culprits to blame.
The obvious choice is China, where the global epidemic first began in
late 2019. Over the last week or two our media has been increasingly
filled with accusations that the dishonesty and incompetence of the
Chinese government played a major role in producing our own health
catastrophe.
Even more serious charges are also being raised, with senior government
officials informing the media that they suspect that the Covid-19 virus
was developed in a Chinese laboratory in Wuhan and then carelessly
released upon a vulnerable world. Such "conspiracy theories" were once
confined to the extreme political fringe of the Internet, but they are
now found in the respectable pages of my morning New York Times and Wall
Street Journal.
Whether plausible or not, such accusations carry the gravest
international implications, and there are growing demands that China
financially compensate our country for its trillions of dollars in
economic losses. A new global Cold War along both political and economic
lines may soon be at hand.
I have no personal expertise in biowarfare technology, nor access to the
secret American intelligence reports that seem to have been taken
seriously by our most elite national newspapers. But I do think that a
careful exploration of previous Sino-American clashes over the last
couple of decades may provide some useful insight into the relative
credibility of those two governments as well as that of our own media.
During the late 1990s, America seemed to reach the peak of its global
power and prosperity, basking in the aftermath of its historic victory
in the long Cold War, while ordinary Americans greatly benefited from
the record-long economic expansion of that decade. A huge Tech Boom was
at its height, and Islamic terrorism seemed a vague and distant thing,
almost entirely confined to Hollywood movies. With the collapse of the
Soviet Union, the possibility of large scale war seemed to have
dissipated so political leaders boasted of the "peace dividend" that
citizens were starting to enjoy as our huge military forces, built up
over nearly a half-century, were downsized amid sweeping cuts in the
bloated defense budget. America was finally returning to a regular
peacetime economy, with the benefits apparent to everyone.
At the time, I was overwhelmingly focused on domestic political issues,
so I only paid slight attention to our one small military operation of
that period, the 1999 NATO air war against Serbia, intended to safeguard
the Kosovo Albanians from ethnic cleansing and massacre, a Clinton
Administration project that I fully endorsed at the time.
Although our limited bombing campaign seemed quite successful and soon
forced the Serbs to the bargaining table, the short war did include one
very embarrassing mishap. The use of old maps had led to a targeting
error that caused one of our smart bombs to accidentally strike the
Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, killing three members of its delegation and
wounding dozens more. The Chinese were outraged by this incident, and
their propaganda organs began claiming that the attack had been
deliberate, a reckless accusation that obviously made no logical sense.
In those days I watched the PBS Newshour every night, and was I shocked
to see their U.S. Ambassador raise those absurd charges with host Jim
Lehrer, whose disbelief matched my own. But when I considered that the
Chinese government was still stubbornly denying the reality of its
massacre of the protesting students in Tiananmen Square a decade
earlier, I concluded that unreasonable behavior by PRC officials was
only to be expected. Indeed, there was even some speculation that China
was cynically milking the unfortunate accident for domestic reasons,
hoping to stoke the sort of jingoist anti-Americanism among the Chinese
people that would finally help bind the social wounds of that 1989 outrage.
Such at least were my thoughts on that matter more than two decades ago.
But in the years that followed, my understanding of the world and of
many pivotal events of modern history underwent the sweeping
transformations that I have described in my American Pravda series. And
some of my 1990s assumptions were among them.
Consider, for example, the Tiananmen Square Massacre, which every June
4th still evokes an annual wave of harsh condemnations in the news and
opinion pages of our leading national newspapers. I had never originally
doubted those facts, but a year or two ago I happened to come across a
short article by journalist Jay Matthews entitled "The Myth of
Tiananmen" that completely upended that apparent reality.
According to Matthews the infamous massacre had likely never happened,
but was merely a media artifact produced by confused Western reporters
and dishonest propaganda, a mistaken belief that had quickly become
embedded in our standard media storyline, endlessly repeated by so many
ignorant journalists that they all eventually believed it to be true.
Instead, as near as could be determined, the protesting students had all
left Tiananmen Square peacefully, just as the Chinese government had
always maintained. Indeed, leading newspapers such as the New York Times
and the Washington Post had occasionally acknowledged these facts over
the years, but usually buried those scanty admissions so deep in their
stories that few ever noticed. Meanwhile, the bulk of the mainstream
media had fallen for an apparent hoax.
Matthews himself had been the Beijing Bureau Chief of the Washington
Post, personally covering the protests at the time, and his article
appeared in the Columbia Journalism Review, our most prestigious venue
for media criticism. This authoritative analysis containing such
explosive conclusions was first published in 1998, and I find it
difficult to believe that many reporters or editors covering China have
remained ignorant of this information, yet the impact has been
absolutely nil. For over twenty years virtually every mainstream media
account I have read has continued to promote the Tiananmen Square
Massacre Hoax, usually implicitly but sometimes explicitly.
Even more remarkable were the discoveries I made regarding our
supposedly accidental bombing of the Chinese Embassy in 1999. Not long
after launching this website, I added former Asia Times contributor
Peter Lee as a columnist, incorporating his China Matters blogsite
archives that stretched back for a decade. He soon published a 7,000
word article on the Belgrade Embassy bombing, representing a compilation
of material already contained in a half-dozen previous pieces he’d
written on that subject from 2007 onward. To my considerable surprise,
he provided a great deal of persuasive evidence that the American attack
on the Chinese embassy had indeed been deliberate, just as China had
always claimed.
According to Lee, Beijing had allowed its embassy to be used as a site
for secure radio transmission facilities by the Serbian military, whose
own communications network was a primary target of NATO airstrikes.
Meanwhile, Serbian air defenses had shot down an advanced American
F-117A fighter, whose top-secret stealth technology was a crucial U.S.
military secret. Portions of that enormously valuable wreckage were
carefully gathered by the grateful Serbs, who delivered it to the
Chinese for temporary storage at their embassy prior to transport back
home. This vital technological acquisition later allowed China to deploy
its own J20 stealth fighter in early 2011, many years sooner than
American military analysts had believed possible.
Based upon this analysis, Lee argued that the Chinese embassy was
attacked in order to destroy the Serbian retransmission facilities
located there, while punishing the Chinese for allowing such use. There
were also widespread rumors in China that another motive had been an
unsuccessful attempt to destroy the stealth debris stored within. Later
Congressional testimony revealed that the among all the hundreds of NATO
airstrikes, the attack on the Chinese embassy was the only one directly
ordered by the CIA, a highly-suspicious detail.
I was only slightly familiar with Lee’s work, and under normal
circumstances I would have been very cautious in accepting his
remarkable claims against the contrary position universally held by all
our own elite media outlets. But the sources he cited completely shifted
that balance.
Although the American media dominates the English-language world, many
British publications also possess a strong global reputation, and since
they are often much less in thrall to our own national security state,
they have sometimes covered important stories that were ignored here.
And in this case, the Sunday Observer published a remarkable expose in
October 1999, citing several NATO military and intelligence sources who
fully confirmed the deliberate nature of the American bombing of the
Chinese embassy, with a US colonel even reportedly boasting that their
smartbomb had hit the exact room intended.
This important story was immediately summarized in the Guardian, a
sister publication, and also covered by the rival Times of London and
many of the world’s other most prestigious publications, but encountered
an absolute wall of silence in our own country. Such a bizarre
divergence on a story of global strategic importance—a deliberate and
deadly US attack against Chinese diplomatic territory—drew the attention
of FAIR, a leading American media watchdog group, which published an
initial critique and a subsequent follow-up. These two pieces totaled
some 3,000 words, and effectively summarized both the overwhelming
evidence of the facts and also the heavy international coverage, while
reporting the weak excuses made by top American editors to explain their
continuing silence. Based upon these articles, I consider the matter
settled.
Few Americans remember our 1999 attack upon the Chinese embassy in
Belgrade, and if not for the annual waving of a bloody June 4th flag by
our ignorant and disingenuous media, the "Tiananmen Square Massacre"
would also have long since faded from memory. Neither of these events
has much direct importance today, at least for our own citizens. But the
broader media implications of these examples do seem quite significant.
These incidents represented two of the most serious flashpoints between
the Chinese and American governments during the last thirty-odd years.
In both cases the claims of the Chinese government were entirely
correct, although they were denied by our own top political leaders and
dismissed or ridiculed by virtually our entire mainstream media.
Moreover, within a few months or a year the true facts became known to
many journalists, even being reported in fully respectable venues. But
that reality was still completely ignored and suppressed for decades, so
that today almost no American whose information comes from our regular
media would even be aware of it. Indeed, since many younger journalists
draw their knowledge of the world from these same elite media sources, I
suspect that many of them have never learned what their predecessors
knew but dared not mention.
Most leading Chinese media outlets are owned or controlled by the
Chinese government, and they tend to broadly follow the government line.
Leading American media outlets have a corporate ownership structure and
often boast of their fierce independence; but on many crucial matters, I
think the actual reality is not so very different from that in China.
I tend to doubt that Chinese leaders have any overwhelming commitment to
the truth, and the reasons for their greater veracity are probably
practical ones. American news and entertainment completely dominate the
global media landscape and they face no significant domestic rival. So
China recognizes that it is vastly outmatched in any propaganda
conflict, and as the far weaker party must necessarily try to stick
closer to the truth, lest its lies be immediately exposed. Meanwhile,
America’s overwhelming control over global information may inspire
considerable hubris, with the government sometimes promoting the most
outrageous and ridiculous falsehoods in the confident belief that a
supportive American media will cover for any mistakes.
These considerations should be kept in mind as we attempt to sift the
accounts of our often unreliable and dishonest media in hopes of
extracting the true circumstances of the current coronavirus epidemic.
Unlike careful historical studies, we are working in real-time and our
analysis is greatly hindered by the ongoing fog of war, so that any
conclusions are necessarily very preliminary ones. But given the high
stakes, such an attempt seems warranted.
When my morning newspapers first began mentioning the appearance of a
mysterious new illness in China during mid-January, I paid little
attention, absorbed as I was in the aftermath of our sudden
assassination of Iran’s top military leader and the dangerous
possibility of a yet another Middle Eastern war. But the reports
persisted and grew, with deaths occurring and evidence growing that the
viral disease could be transmitted between humans. China’s early
conventional efforts seemed unsuccessful in halting the spread of the
disease.
Then on Jan. 23rd and after only 17 deaths, the Chinese government took
the astonishing step of locking down and quarantining the entire 11
million inhabitants of the city of Wuhan, a story that drew worldwide
attention. They soon extended this policy to the 60 million Chinese of
Hubei province, and not longer afterward shut down their entire national
economy and confined 700 million Chinese to their homes, a public health
measure probably a thousand times larger than anything previously
undertaken in human history. So either the China’s leadership had
suddenly gone insane, or they regarded this new virus as an absolutely
deadly national threat, one that needed to be controlled at any possible
cost.
Given these dramatic Chinese actions and the international headlines
that they generated, the current accusations by Trump Administration
officials that China had attempted to minimize or conceal the serious
nature of the disease outbreak is so ludicrous as to defy rationality.
In any event, the record shows that on December 31st, the Chinese had
already alerted the World Health Organization to the strange new
illness, and Chinese scientists published the entire genome of the virus
on Jan. 12th, allowing diagnostic tests to be produced worldwide.
Unlike other nations, China had received no advance warning of the
nature or existence of the deadly new disease, and therefore faced
unique obstacles. But their government implemented public health control
measures unprecedented in the history of the world and managed to almost
completely eradicate the disease with merely the loss of a few thousand
lives. Meanwhile, many other Western countries such as the US, Italy,
Spain, France, and Britain dawdled for months and ignored the potential
threat, and have now suffered well over 100,000 dead as a consequence,
with the toll still rapidly mounting. For any of these nations or their
media organs to criticize China for its ineffectiveness or slow response
represents an absolute inversion of reality.
Some governments took full advantage of the early warning and scientific
information provided by China. Although nearby East Asian nations such
as South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Singapore had been at greatest risk
and were among the first infected, their competent and energetic
responses allowed them to almost completely suppress any major outbreak,
and they have suffered minimal fatalities. But America and several
European countries avoiding adopting these same early measures such as
widespread testing, quarantine, and contact-tracing, and have paid a
terrible price for their insouciance.
A few weeks ago British Prime Minister Boris Johnson boldly declared
that his own disease strategy for Britain was based upon rapidly
achieving "herd immunity"—essentially encouraging the bulk of his
citizens to become infected—then quickly backed away after his desperate
advisors recognized that the result might entail a million or more
British deaths.
By any reasonable measure, the response to this global health crisis by
China and most East Asian countries has been absolutely exemplary, while
that of many Western countries has been equally disastrous. Maintaining
reasonable public health has been a basic function of governments since
the days of the city-states of Sumeria, and the sheer and total
incompetence of America and most of its European vassals has been
breathtaking. If the Western media attempts to pretend otherwise, it
will permanently forfeit whatever remaining international credibility it
still possesses.
I do not think these particular facts are much disputed except among the
most blinkered partisans, and the Trump Administration probably
recognizes the hopelessness of arguing otherwise. This probably explains
its recent shift towards a far more explosive and controversial
narrative, namely claiming that Covid-19 may have been the product of
Chinese research into deadly viruses at a Wuhan laboratory, which
suggests that the blood of hundreds of thousands or millions of victims
around the world will be on Chinese hands. Dramatic accusations backed
by overwhelming international media power may deeply resonate across the
globe.
News reports appearing in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times
have been reasonably consistent. Senior Trump Administration officials
have pointed to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a leading Chinese
biolab, as the possible source of the infection, with the deadly virus
having been accidentally released, subsequently spreading first
throughout China and later worldwide. Trump himself has publicly voiced
similar suspicions, as did Secretary of State and former CIA Director
Mike Pompeo in a FoxNews interview. Private lawsuits against China in
the multi-trillion-dollar range have already been filed by rightwing
activists and Republican senators Tom Cotton and Lindsey Graham have
raised similar governmental demands.
I obviously have no personal access to the classified intelligence
reports that have been the basis of these charges by Trump, Pompeo, and
other top administration officials. But in reading these recent news
accounts, I noticed something rather odd.
Back in January, few Americans were paying much attention to the early
reports of an unusual disease outbreak in the Chinese city of Wuhan,
which was hardly a household name. Instead, overwhelming political
attention was focused on the battle over Trump’s impeachment and the
aftermath of our dangerous military confrontation with Iran. But towards
the end of that month, I discovered that the fringes of the Internet
were awash with claims that the disease was caused by a Chinese
bioweapon accidentally released from that same Wuhan laboratory, with
former Trump advisor Steve Bannon and ZeroHedge, a popular right-wing
conspiracy-website, playing leading roles in advancing the theory.
Indeed, the stories became so widespread in those ideological circles
that Sen. Tom Cotton, a leading Republican Neocon, began promoting them
on Twitter and FoxNews, thereby provoking an article in the NYT on those
"fringe conspiracy theories."
I suspect that it may be more than purely coincidental that the
biowarfare theories which erupted in such concerted fashion on small
political websites and Social Media accounts back in January so closely
match those now publicly advocated by top Trump Administration officials
and supposedly based upon our most secure intelligence sources. Perhaps
a few intrepid citizen-activists managed to replicate the findings of
our multi-billion-dollar intelligence apparatus, and did so in days
while the latter required weeks or months. But a more likely scenario is
that the wave of January speculation was driven by private leaks and
"guidance" provided by exactly the same elements that today are very
publicly leveling similar charges in the elite media. Initially
promoting controversial theories in less mainstream outlets has long
been a fairly standard intelligence practice.
Regardless of the origins of the idea, does it seem plausible that the
coronavirus outbreak might have originated as an accidental leak from
that Chinese laboratory? I am not privy to the security procedures of
Chinese government facilities, but applying a little common sense may
shed some light on that question.
Although the coronavirus is only moderately lethal, apparently having a
fatality rate of 1% or less, it is extremely contagious, including
during an extended pre-symptomatic period and also among asymptomatic
carriers. Thus, portions of the US and Europe are now suffering heavy
casualties, while the policies adopted to control the spread have
devastated their national economies. Although the virus is unlikely to
kill more than a small sliver of our population, we have seen to our
dismay how a major outbreak can so easily wreck our entire economic life.
During January, the journalists reporting on China’s mushrooming health
crisis regularly emphasized that the mysterious new viral outbreak had
occurred at the worst possible place and time, appearing in the major
transport hub of Wuhan just prior to the Lunar New Year holiday, when
hundreds of millions of Chinese would normally travel to their distant
family homes for the celebration, thereby potentially spreading the
disease to all parts of the country and producing a permanent,
uncontrollable epidemic. The Chinese government avoided that grim fate
by the unprecedented decision to shut down its entire national economy
and confine 700 million Chinese to their own homes for many weeks. But
the outcome seems to have been a very near thing, and if Wuhan had
remained open for just a few days longer, China might easily have
suffered long-term economic and social devastation.
The timing of an accidental laboratory release would obviously be
entirely random. Yet the outbreak seems to have begun during the precise
period of time most likely to damage China, the worst possible ten-day
or perhaps thirty-day window. As I noted in January, I saw no solid
evidence that the coronavirus was a bioweapon, but if it were, the
timing of the release seemed very unlikely to have been accidental.
If the virus was released intentionally, the context and motive for such
a biowarfare attack against China could not be more obvious. Although
our disingenuous media continues to pretend otherwise, the size of
China’s economy surpassed that of our own several years ago, and has
continued to grow much more rapidly. Chinese companies have also taken
the lead in several crucial technologies, with Huawei becoming the
world’s leading telecommunications equipment manufacturer and dominating
the important 5G market. China’s sweeping Belt and Road Initiative has
threatened to reorient global trade around an interconnected Eurasian
landmass, greatly diminishing the leverage of America’s own control over
the seas. I have closely followed China for over forty years, and the
trend-lines have never been more apparent. Back in 2012, I published an
article bearing the provocative title "China’s Rise, America’s Fall?"
and since then I have seen no reason to reassess my verdict.
China’s Rise, America’s Fall Which superpower is more threatened by its
"extractive elites"? RON UNZ o THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE, APRIL 17, 2012
o 7,000 WORDS For three generations following the end of World War II,
America had stood as the world’s supreme economic and technological
power, while the collapse of the Soviet Union thirty years ago left us
as the sole remaining superpower, facing no conceivable military rival.
A growing sense that we were rapidly losing that unchallenged position
had certainly inspired the anti-China rhetoric of many senior figures in
the Trump Administration, who launched a major trade war soon after
coming into office. The increasing misery and growing impoverishment of
large sections of the American population naturally left these voters
searching for a convenient scapegoat, and the prosperous, rising Chinese
made a perfect target.
Despite America’s growing economic conflict with China over the last
couple of years, I had never considered the possibility that matters
might take a military turn. The Chinese had long ago deployed advanced
intermediate range missiles that many believed could easily sink our
carriers in the region, and they had also generally improved their
conventional military deterrent. Moreover, China was on quite good terms
with Russia, which itself had been the target of intense American
hostility for several years; and Russia’s new suite of revolutionary
hypersonic missiles had drastically reduced any American strategic
advantage. Thus, a conventional war against China seemed an absolutely
hopeless undertaking, while China’s outstanding businessmen and
engineers were steadily gaining ground against America’s decaying and
heavily-financialized economic system.
Under these difficult circumstances, an American biowarfare attack
against China might have seemed the only remaining card to play in hopes
of maintaining American supremacy. Plausible deniability would minimize
the risk of any direct Chinese retaliation, and if successful, the
terrible blow inflicted to China’s economy would set it back for many
years, perhaps even destabilizing its social and political system. Using
alternative media to immediately promote theories that the coronavirus
outbreak was the result of a leak from a Chinese biowarfare lab was a
natural means of preempting any later Chinese accusations along similar
lines, thereby allowing America to win the international propaganda war
before China had even begun to play.
A decision by elements of our national security establishment to wage
biological warfare in hopes of maintaining American world power would
certainly have been an extremely reckless act, but extreme recklessness
has become a regular aspect of American behavior since 2001, especially
under the Trump Administration. Just a year earlier we had kidnapped the
daughter of Huawei’s founder and chairman, who also served as CFO and
ranked as one of China’s most top executives, while at the beginning of
January we suddenly assassinated Iran’s top military leader.
These were the thoughts that entered my mind during the last week of
January once I discovered the widely circulating theories suggesting
that China’s massive disease epidemic had been the self-inflicted
consequence of its own biowarfare research. I saw no solid evidence that
the coronavirus was a bioweapon, but if it were, China was surely the
innocent victim of the attack, presumably carried out by elements of the
American national security establishment.
Soon afterward, someone brought to my attention a very long article by
an American ex-pat living in China who called himself "Metallicman" and
held a wide range of eccentric and implausible beliefs. I have long
recognized that flawed individuals can often serve as the vessels of
important information otherwise unavailable, and this case constituted a
perfect example. His piece denounced the outbreak as a likely American
biowarfare attack, and provided a great wealth of factual material I had
not previously considered. Since he authorized republication elsewhere I
did so, and his 15,000 word analysis, although somewhat raw and
unpolished, began attracting an enormous amount of readership on our
website, probably being one of the very first English-language pieces to
suggest that the mysterious new disease was an American bioweapon. Many
of his arguments appeared doubtful to me or have been obviated by later
developments, but several seemed quite telling.
He pointed out that during the previous two years, the Chinese economy
had already suffered serious blows from other mysterious new diseases,
although these had targeted farm animals rather than people. During 2018
a new Avian Flu virus had swept the country, eliminating large portions
of China’s poultry industry, and during 2019 the Swine Flu viral
epidemic had devastated China’s pig farms, destroying 40% of the
nation’s primary domestic source of meat, with widespread claims that
the latter disease was being spread by mysterious small drones. My
morning newspapers had hardly ignored these important business stories,
noting that the sudden collapse of much of China’s domestic food
production might prove a huge boon to American farm exports at the
height of our trade conflict, but I had never considered the obvious
implications. So for three years in a row, China had been severely
impacted by strange new viral diseases, though only the most recent had
been deadly to humans. This evidence was merely circumstantial, but the
pattern seemed highly suspicious.
The writer also noted that shortly before the coronavirus outbreak in
Wuhan, that city had hosted 300 visiting American military officers, who
came to participate in the 2019 Military World Games, an absolutely
remarkable coincidence of timing. As I pointed out at the time, how
would Americans react if 300 Chinese military officers had paid an
extended visit to Chicago, and soon afterward a mysterious and deadly
epidemic had suddenly broken out in that city? Once again, the evidence
was merely circumstantial but certainly raised dark suspicions.
Scientific investigation of the coronavirus had already pointed to its
origins in a bat virus, leading to widespread media speculation that
bats sold as food in the Wuhan open markets had been the original
disease vector. Meanwhile, the orchestrated waves of anti-China
accusations had emphasized Chinese laboratory research on that same
viral source. But we soon published a lengthy article by investigative
journalist Whitney Webb providing copious evidence of America’s own
enormous biowarfare research efforts, which had similarly focused for
years on bat viruses. Webb was then associated with MintPress News, but
that publication had strangely declined to publish her important piece,
perhaps skittish about the grave suspicions it directed towards the US
government on so momentous an issue. So without the benefit of our
platform, her major contribution to the public debate might have
attracted relatively little readership.
Around the same time, I noted another extremely strange coincidence that
failed to attract any interest from our somnolent national media.
Although his name had meant nothing to me, in late January my morning
newspapers carried major stories on the sudden arrest of Prof. Charles
Lieber, one of Harvard University’s top scientists and Chairman of its
Chemistry Department, sometimes characterized as a potential future
Nobel Laureate.
The circumstances of that case seemed utterly bizarre to me. Like
numerous other prominent American academics, Lieber had had decades of
close research ties with China, holding joint appointments and receiving
substantial funding for his work. But now he was accused of financial
reporting violations in the disclosure portions of his government grant
applications—the most obscure sort of offense—and on the basis of those
accusations, he was seized by the FBI in an early-morning raid on his
suburban Lexington home and dragged off in shackles, potentially facing
years of federal imprisonment.
Such government action against an academic seemed almost without
precedent. During the height of the Cold War, numerous American
scientists and technicians were rightfully accused of having stolen our
nuclear weapons secrets for delivery to Stalin, yet I had never heard of
any of them treated in so harsh a manner, let alone a scholar of Prof.
Lieber’s stature, who was merely charged with technical disclosure
violations. Indeed, this incident recalled accounts of NKVD raids during
the Soviet purges of the 1930s.
Although Lieber was described as a chemistry professor, a few seconds of
Googling revealed that some of his most important work had been in
virology, including technology for the detection of viruses. So a
massive and deadly new viral epidemic had broken out in China and almost
simultaneously, a top American scholar with close Chinese ties and
expertise in viruses was suddenly arrested by the federal government,
yet no one in the media expressed any curiosity at a possible connection
between these two events.
I think we can safely assume that Lieber’s arrest by the FBI had been
prompted by the concurrent coronavirus epidemic, but anything more is
mere speculation. Those now accusing China of having created the
coronavirus might surely suggest that our intelligence agencies
discovered that the Harvard professor had been personally involved with
that deadly research. But I think a far more likely possibility is that
Lieber began to wonder whether the epidemic in China might not be the
result of an American biowarfare attack, and was perhaps a little too
free in voicing his suspicions, thereby drawing the wrath of our
national security establishment. Inflicting such extremely harsh
treatment upon a top Harvard scientist would greatly intimidate all of
his lesser colleagues elsewhere, who would surely now think twice before
broaching certain controversial theories to any journalist.
By the end of January, our webzine had published a dozen articles and
posts on the coronavirus outbreak, then added many more by the middle of
February. These pieces totaled tens of thousands of words and attracted
a half million words of comments, probably representing the primary
English-language source for a particular perspective on the deadly
epidemic, with this material eventually drawing many hundreds of
thousands of pageviews. A few weeks later, the Chinese government began
gingerly raising the possibility that the coronavirus may have been
brought to Wuhan by the 300 American military officers visiting that
city, and was fiercely attacked by the Trump Administration for
spreading anti-American propaganda. But I strongly suspect that the
Chinese had gotten that idea from our own publication.
As the coronavirus gradually began to spread beyond China’s own borders,
another development occurred that greatly multiplied my suspicions. Most
of these early cases had occurred exactly where one might expect, among
the East Asian countries bordering China. But by late February Iran had
become the second epicenter of the global outbreak. Even more
surprisingly, its political elites had been especially hard-hit, with a
full 10% of the entire Iranian parliament soon infected and at least a
dozen of its officials and politicians dying of the disease, including
some who were quite senior. Indeed, Neocon activists on Twitter began
gleefully noting that their hatred Iranian enemies were now dropping
like flies.
Let us consider the implications of these facts. Across the entire world
the only political elites that have yet suffered any significant human
losses have been those of Iran, and they died at a very early stage,
before significant outbreaks had even occurred almost anywhere else in
the world outside China. Thus, we have America assassinating Iran’s top
military commander on Jan. 2nd and then just a few weeks later large
portions of the Iranian ruling elites became infected by a mysterious
and deadly new virus, with many of them soon dying as a consequence.
Could any rational individual possibly regard this as a mere coincidence?
Biological warfare is a highly technical subject, and those possessing
such expertise are unlikely to candidly report their classified research
activities in the pages of our major newspapers, perhaps even less so
after Prof. Lieber was dragged off to prison in chains. My own knowledge
is nil. But in mid-March I came across several extremely long and
detailed comments on the coronavirus outbreak that had been posted on a
small website by an individual calling himself "OldMicrobiologist" and
who claimed to be a retired forty-year veteran of American biodefense.
The style and details of his material struck me as quite credible, and
after a little further investigation I concluded that there was a high
likelihood his background was exactly as he had described. I made
arrangements to republish his comments in the form of a 3,400 word
article, which soon attracted a great deal of traffic and 80,000 words
of further comments.
Although the writer emphasized the lack of any hard evidence, he said
that his experience led him to strongly suspect that the coronavirus
outbreak was indeed an American biowarfare attack against China,
probably carried out by agents brought into that country under cover of
the Military Games held at Wuhan in late October, the sort of sabotage
operation our intelligence agencies had sometimes undertaken elsewhere.
One important point he made was that high lethality was often
counter-productive in a bioweapon since debilitating or hospitalizing
large numbers of individuals may impose far greater economic costs on a
country than a biological agent which simply inflicts an equal number of
deaths. In his words "a high communicability, low lethality disease is
perfect for ruining an economy," suggesting that the apparent
characteristics of the coronavirus were close to optimal in this regard.
Those so interested should read his analysis and judge for themselves
his possible credibility and persuasiveness.
Was coronavirus a Biowarfare Attack Against China? OLDMICROBIOLOGIST o
MARCH 13, 2020 o 3,400 WORDS One intriguing aspect of the situation was
that almost from the first moment that reports of the strange new
epidemic in China reached the international media, a large and
orchestrated campaign had been launched on numerous websites and Social
Media platforms to identify the cause as a Chinese bioweapon carelessly
released in its own country. Meanwhile, the far more plausible
hypothesis that China was the victim rather than the perpetrator had
received virtually no organized support anywhere, and only began to take
shape as I gradually located and republished relevant material, usually
drawn from very obscure quarters and often anonymously authored. So it
seemed that only the side hostile to China was waging an active
information war. The outbreak of the disease and the nearly simultaneous
launch of such a major propaganda campaign may not necessarily prove
that an actual biowarfare attack had occurred, but I do think it tends
to support such a theory.
When considering the hypothesis of an American biowarfare attack,
certain natural objections come to mind. The major drawback to
biological warfare has always been the obvious fact that the
self-replicating agents employed will not respect national borders, thus
raising the serious risk that the disease might eventually return to the
land of its origin and inflict substantial casualties. For this reason,
it seems very doubtful that any rational and half-competent American
leadership would have unleashed the coronavirus against China.
But as we see absolutely demonstrated in our daily news headlines,
America’s current government is grotesquely and manifestly incompetent,
more incompetent than one could almost possibly imagine, with tens of
thousands of Americans having now already paid with their lives for such
extreme incompetence. Rationality and competence are obviously nowhere
to be found among the Deep State Neocons that President Donald Trump has
appointed to so many crucial positions throughout our national security
apparatus.
Moreover, the extremely lackadaisical notion that a massive coronavirus
outbreak in China would never spread back to America might have seemed
plausible to individuals who carelessly assumed that past historical
analogies would continue to apply. As I wrote a few weeks ago:
Reasonable people have suggested that if the coronavirus was a bioweapon
deployed by elements of the American national security apparatus against
China (and Iran), it’s difficult to imagine why the they didn’t assume
it would naturally leak back in the US and start a huge pandemic here,
as is currently happening.
The most obvious answer is that they were stupid and incompetent, but
here’s another point to consider…
In late 2002 there was the outbreak of SARS in China, a related virus
but that was far more deadly and somewhat different in other
characteristics. The virus killed hundreds of Chinese and spread into a
few other countries before it was controlled and stamped out. The impact
on the US and Europe was negligible, with just a small scattering of
cases and only a death or two.
So if American biowarfare analysts were considering a coronavirus attack
against China, isn’t it quite possible they would have said to
themselves that since SARS never significantly leaked back into the US
or Europe, we’d similarly remain insulated from the coronavirus?
Obviously, such an analysis was foolish and mistaken, but would it have
seemed so implausible at the time?
As some must have surely noticed, I have deliberately avoided
investigating any of the scientific details of the coronavirus. In
principle, an objective and accurate analysis of the characteristics and
structure of the virus might help suggest whether it was entirely
natural or rather the product of a research laboratory, and in the
latter case, perhaps whether the likely source was China, America, or
some third country.
But we are dealing with a cataclysmic world event and those questions
obviously have enormous political ramifications, so the entire subject
is shrouded by a thick fog of complex propaganda, with numerous
conflicting claims being advanced by interested parties. I have no
background in microbiology let alone biological warfare, so I would be
hopelessly adrift in evaluating such conflicting scientific and
technical claims. I suspect that this is equally true of the
overwhelming majority of other observers as well, although committed
partisans are loathe to admit that fact, and will eagerly seize upon any
scientific argument that supports their preferred position while
rejecting those that contradict it.
Therefore, by necessity, my own focus is on evidence that can at least
be understood by every layman, if not necessarily always accepted. And I
believe that the simple juxtaposition of several recent disclosures in
the mainstream media leads to a rather telling conclusion.
For obvious reasons, the Trump Administration has become very eager to
emphasize the early missteps and delays in the Chinese reaction to the
viral outbreak in Wuhan, and has presumably encouraged our media outlets
to direct their focus in that direction.
As an example of this, the Associated Press Investigative Unit recently
published a rather detailed analysis of those early events purportedly
based upon confidential Chinese documents. Provocatively entitled "China
Didn’t Warn Public of Likely Pandemic for 6 Key Days", the piece was
widely distributed, running in abridged form in the NYT and elsewhere.
According to this reconstruction, the Chinese government first became
aware of the seriousness of this public health crisis on Jan. 14th, but
delayed taking any major action until Jan. 20th, a period of time during
which the number of infections greatly multiplied.
Last month, a team of five WSJ reporters produced a very detailed and
thorough 4,400 word analysis of the same period, and the NYT has
published a helpful timeline of those early events as well. Although
there may be some differences of emphasis or minor disagreements, all
these American media sources agree that Chinese officials first became
aware of the serious viral outbreak in Wuhan in early to mid-January,
with the first known death occurring on Jan. 11th, and finally
implemented major new public health measures later that same month. No
one has apparently disputed these basic facts.
But with the horrific consequences of our own later governmental
inaction being obvious, elements within our intelligence agencies have
sought to demonstrate that they were not the ones asleep at the switch.
Earlier this month, an ABC News story cited four separate government
sources to reveal that as far back as late November, a special medical
intelligence unit within our Defense Intelligence Agency had produced a
report warning that an out-of-control disease epidemic was occurring in
the Wuhan area of China, and widely distributed that document throughout
the top ranks of our government, warning that steps should be taken to
protect US forces based in Asia. After the story aired, a Pentagon
spokesman officially denied the existence of that November report, while
various other top level government and intelligence officials refused to
comment. But a few days later, Israeli television mentioned that in
November American intelligence had indeed shared such a report on the
Wuhan disease outbreak with its NATO and Israeli allies, thus seeming to
independently confirm the complete accuracy of the original ABC News
story and its several government sources.
It therefore appears that elements of the Defense Intelligence Agency
were aware of the deadly viral outbreak in Wuhan more than a month
before any officials in the Chinese government itself. Unless our
intelligence agencies have pioneered the technology of precognition, I
think this may have happened for the same reason that arsonists have the
earliest knowledge of future fires.
Back in February, before a single American had died from the disease, I
wrote my own overview of the possible course of events, and I would
still stand by it today:
Consider a particularly ironic outcome of this situation, not
particularly likely but certainly possible…
Everyone knows that America’s ruling elites are criminal, crazy, and
also extremely incompetent.
So perhaps the coronavirus outbreak was indeed a deliberate biowarfare
attack against China, hitting that nation just before Lunar New Year,
the worst possible time to produce a permanent nationwide pandemic.
However, the PRC responded with remarkable speed and efficiency,
implementing by far the largest quarantine in human history, and the
deadly disease now seems to be in decline there.
Meanwhile, the disease naturally leaks back into the US, and despite all
the advance warning, our totally incompetent government mismanages the
situation, producing a huge national health disaster, and the collapse
of our economy and decrepit political system.
As I said, not particularly likely, but certainly a very fitting end to
the American Empire…
Related Reading:
The Myth of Tiananmen by Jay Matthews
China’s Rise, America’s Fall
Was Coronavirus a Biowarfare Attack Against China? by OldMicrobiologist
Bats, Gene Editing and Bioweapons: Recent Darpa Experiments Raise
Concerns Amid Coronavirus Outbreak by Whitney Webb
How It All Began: the Belgrade Embassy Bombing by Peter Lee
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.