Barry Kissin refutes Larry Romanoff claim that Covid-19 was a US bioweapon
Newsletter published on May 28, 2020
(1) My articles about Larry Romanoff and about China Miracle + Hudson &
Larouche are now online
(2) Barry Kissin refutes Larry Romanoff
(3) Biowar Expert Dr. Meryl Nass: Lancet’s "COVID-19 Is NOT a Bioweapon"
Is a Ludicrous Fraud
(4) Why are some of the US' top scientists making a specious argument
about the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2? - Meryl Nass, M.D.
(5) China’s ambitions: is Detente possible?
(1) My articles about Larry Romanoff and about China Miracle + Hudson &
Larouche are now online
(new material added)
Discussion with Larry Romanoff on White America, the Jewish Lobby and
the China Lobby. Larry Romanoff denies the Tiananmen massacre of 1989,
and claims that Covid-19 was a US attack on China. His ideas have been
taken up by leftist writers at Global Research and by Zhao Lijian of
China's Foreign Ministry. But what is Romanoff's real agenda?
(new material added)
China's economic miracle was achieved by a switch from Marxist economics
to National System Economics. Asia Model economies are based on the
economic theories of Friedrich List, not Adam Smith or Karl Marx.
Michael Hudson says he testified before grand juries to convict Lyndon
LaRouche.
(2) Barry Kissin refutes Larry Romanoff
Anthrax Expert Barry Kissin: "Slow Down! COVID-19 May NOT be a Bioweapon"
KEVIN BARRETT
APRIL 12, 2020
Barry Kissin is an attorney who lives near the Ft. Detrick biowar
facility where the 2001 false flag anthrax was made. He is an expert on
the anthrax aspect of the 9/11-anthrax false flag, and is knowledgable
and deeply concerned about our desperate need to ban biological weapons
while there is still time. But he is not convinced by Larry Romanoff’s
arguments that COVID-19 is a US bioweapon. He isn’t even sure about
Meryl Nass’s refutation of the "can’t be a bioweapon" propaganda push.
What’s more, he argues that we shouldn’t be highlighting the "it looks
like a bioweapon" argument!
I disagree. Given the abundance of circumstantial evidence, the leading
(neocon) suspects’ prior record (including the 2001 anthrax attack) and
the strong means-motive-opportunity argument, I think we should be
screaming "COVID 19 is probably a bioweapon" from the rooftops. So why
am I wrong? Let’s ask Barry!
Anthrax False Flag Expert Barry Kissin: "Romanoff’s Version of COVID-19
Conspiracy Doesn’t Hold Up"
By Kevin Barrett -April 10, 2020134325
Senior Editor’s note: This article and other work of Barry Kissin, seen
as ‘controlled opposition’ and without substance, would normally have
been rejected by VT except for the intercession of Kevin Barrett.
Otherwise it would be deemed "spam."
Barry Kissin discusses this article on tonight’s live radio show. -Kevin
Barrett, Veterans Today Editor
Romanoff’s Version of COVID-19 Conspiracy Doesn’t Hold Up
By Barry Kissin (this article was rejected by GlobalResearch.ca)
On March 12, Zhao Lijian, deputy director of and spokesperson for
China’s Foreign Ministry Information Department, issued two tweets, the
first providing a link to Global Research’s publication on March 4 of
Larry Romanoff’s "China’s Coronavirus: A Shocking Update. Did The Virus
Originate in the US?"[1] and the second providing a link to Global
Research’s publication on March 11 of Larry Romanoff’s "COVID-19:
Further Evidence that the Virus Originated in the US."[2]Zhao says that
these articles "changed many things I used to believe in" and should be
read and retweeted.
On the same day, March 12, The Hill reported that "a spokesman for the
Chinese government [Zhao Lijian] on Thursday promoted a conspiracy
theory that the coronavirus was brought to the city of Wuhan by the U.S.
military. Taiwan News reported: "Coincidentally, Zhao’s fellow foreign
ministry spokesman Geng Shuang backed the conspiracy theory suggesting
the virus was bio-engineered by the [U.S.]." On March 13, the New York
Times published about Zhao Lijian’s tweets in an article subtitled
"After criticizing American officials for politicizing the pandemic,
Chinese officials and news outlets have floated unfounded theories that
the United States was the source of the virus." [3]
On March 13, the U.S. summoned China’s ambassador in order to
communicate that "spreading conspiracy theories is dangerous and
ridiculous. We wanted to put the government on notice we won’t tolerate
it, for the good of the Chinese people and the world." Chinese
Ambassador Cui Tiankai "in contrast to Zhao, is known for his diplomatic
approach and has publicly called for US-Chinese cooperation against the
pandemic." [4]
I firmly reject that conspiracy theories in general are "ridiculous."
Conspiracies among the most powerful repeatedly have been factually
demonstrated and covered up. But when supporting facts are insufficient,
I also believe that conspiracy theories can be dangerous and can
undermine necessary cooperation.
I agree with what Xinhua journalist Gao Wencheng wrote on March 9 in
response to the equally unsubstantiated theory that the COVID-19
epidemic began with the leak of a Chinese biological weapon:
"[D]angerously irresponsible statements are highly counterproductive at
this drastic hour that demands solidarity and cooperation, and could be
much more menacing than the virus itself … it is time for countries to
build a united front to win the war on the disease."[5]
Global Research has attracted international attention to its many
articles on the subject of COVID-19, including not only a series of
Larry Romanoff’s articles, but also articles by its editor Professor
Michel Chossudovsky and others that rely upon Larry Romanoff’s work. As
I write on March 18, Global Research has posted "Beijing Believes
COVID-19 Is a Biological Weapon" that begins by referring to statements
by Zhao Lijan and continues with a rehashing of Romanoff’s misleading
evidence. The balance of this article critiques the two articles by
Romanoff cited by China’s Foreign Ministry Information Department. These
articles are supported by insufficient evidence, worse are contradicted
by their own footnoted sources.
Romanoff’s article published on March 4 has as its first contention that
"Chinese Researchers Conclude the Virus Originated Outside of China."
Romanoff cites in support of this contention three references set forth
in his Footnotes 1, 2 and 3.
The first source is a Global Times article that does not say that the
virus originated outside of China. The title of this article is "New
Chinese study indicates novel coronavirus did not originate in [Wuhan]
seafood market." Its conclusion is: "[B]ased upon limited samples in
other countries, the source of most infections is deemed to be the same.
In addition to their contact history with Wuhan, some may have been
infected in South China’s Guangdong Province and Singapore." [6]
The second source, CGTN, also only says that the Wuhan seafood market
was not the source. Its conclusion is: "The mysterious source of the
novel coronavirus outbreak has led to a divide among scientists
worldwide … The origin of the novel coronavirus is still unknown, but
it’s most likely an animal reservoir, said the World Health
Organization." [7]
Both Global Times and CGTN are reporting about the same scholarly study
by Chinese scientists which is titled "Decoding evolution and
transmissions of novel pneumonia coronavirus using the whole genomic
data." [8]
In no way does this Chinese study imply that the U.S. is the original
source. In one paragraph, this study links some of the American
"haplotypes" to Wuhan, others possibly to Guangdong Province, others
possibly to patients from Vietnam and Australia "who might be initially
from Wuhan." "[S]o the sources of imported infections are complicated."
This study explains that the "currently available samples do not include
the first identified infected patient and other patients from early
December" and that "genomic sequencing" of such samples would "help to
locate the birthplace" of COVID-19. This study concludes: "We suspect
that super-spreaders mediated the spread from China to the rest of
the world."
This scientific study also contradicts the other facet of Romanoff’s
theory, namely that COVID-19 is man-made, bio-engineered. In contrast,
the genomic analysis in this study attributes the evolving
characteristics of COVID-19 to mutations.
Footnote 3 of Romanoff’s March 4 article cites the only other scientific
study among his references, namely "Clinical features of patients
infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China," published in The
Lancet. This study says nothing about origination except to mention that
the related SARS and MERS coronaviruses "were believed to originate in
bats." The only potentially relevant fact adduced in this study is that
of the first 41 patients diagnosed with COVID-19, one-third (including
the first patient so diagnosed) did not have "directexposure to the
Wuhan seafood market." (emphasis added). [9]
Footnote 4 cites Xinhua for the following statement by "renowned Chinese
respiratory specialist Zhong Nanshan": "Though the COVID-19 was first
discovered in China, it does not mean that it originated from China."
The balance of Zhong’s statement quoted in the Xinhua article is: "We
need greater international cooperation. This is a human disease, not a
national disease." This hardly suggests a belief on Zhong’s part that
the origin of COVID-19 is a bio-engineered virus from the U.S.
Romanoff’s next contention is that Japanese media report that "The
Coronavirus May Have Originated in the US." Romanoff is referring to a
report by TV Asahi of Japan which he says "presented scientific
documentation." But the reference at Footnote 5 identifies only one
slender fact in support of U.S. origin, namely that "it is unknown
whether Americans who have already died of the influenza had contracted
the coronavirus." The reference at Footnote 5 itself expresses
skepticism about the meaningfulness of this slender fact. [10]
Romanoff’s next contention is "Taiwan Virologist Suggests the
Coronavirus Originated in the US." This is based on "a rough
translation, summary and analysis of selected content" of one particular
Taiwanese newscast on Feb. 27 in which someone referred to by Romanoff
as a "top virologist" explains that "the geographical location with the
greatest diversity of virus strains must be the original source" and
that "only the US has all the five known strains of the virus." Romanoff
does not reveal the source of this "rough translation, summary and
analysis of selected content," nor does he identify the virologist’s
database. Strangely, the only related footnote is to a series of social
media type comments posted at a Chinese "microblogging" site. [11]
The peer reviewed Chinese scientific study "Decoding Evolution … using
the whole genomic data" discussed above (that sets forth over 50
references) also engages in an analysis based on diversity of COVID-19
strains, but reaches no conclusion like that of Romanoff’s unidentified
Taiwanese virologist. For example, this Chinese study points out: "The
high haplotype diversity found in samples from other countries may be
because the sampling dates were mostly after 22 January 2020, while
those in China were before this date. In addition, the low level of
radiation exposure on long-distance international flights may have
accelerated mutation rates of [COVID-19]." [12]
The Taiwanese virologist is also said to believe that the COVID-19
outbreak began in September, 2019, two months prior to the infections in
China, because of "the case in September of 2019 where some Japanese
traveled to Hawaii and returned home infected, people who had never been
to China." Romanoff cites no other reference to substantiate this case,
and I could find nothing else on the internet that speaks of Japanese
becoming infected by COVID-19 in September, 2019. (Reuters did report on
the case of a Japanese man diagnosed with COVID-19 after visiting
Hawaii, but his visit was from Jan. 28 to Feb. 7, and he is believed to
have become infected in Japan before embarking on his trip to Hawaii.) [13]
Romanoff’s article published on March 11 begins by repeating points in
his March 4 article and then focuses on the "CDC totally shutting down
the US Military’s main bio-lab at Fort Detrick, Maryland, due to an
absence of safeguards against pathogen leakages," as if said "pathogen
leakages" included leaking COVID-19.
I happen to be a long-time resident of Frederick, Maryland, the home of
Fort Detrick. As an activist, I have organized opposition to the massive
expansion of bio-labs at Fort Detrick, arguing that such bio-labs do not
belong in the middle of what is now a densely populated community, but
also arguing that such bio-labs do not belong anywhere.
The problems that resulted in the shutdown in July, 2019, began in May,
2018, "when storms flooded and ruined a decades-old steam sterilization
plant that the Detrick had been using to treat wastewater from its
labs." Detrick then resorted to a decontamination system using
chemicals. "During an inspection in June, [2019], the C.D.C. found that
procedures were not being followed consistently. Inspectors also found
mechanical problems with the chemical-based decontamination system, as
well as leaks." [14]
To date, there is zero evidence that said leaks had anything to do with
COVID-19. My densely populated community has not experienced anything
like an epidemic attributable to any kind of virus or influenza. On
March 16 (2020), the Frederick County Health Department reported the
first case of COVID-19 in Frederick County. [15]
Though the March 11 article promises "further evidence that the virus
originated in the U.S.," there is no additional scientific evidence.
Footnote 1 is to another Chinese social media site. Footnote 2 is to a
Jan. 2020Sciencemagazine article which in a section titled "Where Did
the Virus Come From? begins: "Almost certainly from animals, but when
and how are mysteries. Genetic analyses are starting to yield some clues."
Footnote 3 is to another Jan. 2020 Sciencemagazine article essentially
recapping The Lancetarticle discussed above (Footnote 3 of Romanoff’s
March 4 article) and adding one Georgetown University scientist’s
opinion that COVID-19 did not originate in the Wuhan seafood market.
There is nothing in this article that remotely suggests COVID-19 was
bio-engineered or that it came from the U.S. Footnotes 4 and 5 are to
the same article in The Lancetabout "clinical features."
Footnote 6 is a mistake – the reference therein is completely unrelated
to the text for which it is cited. Footnote 7 merely repeats that some
of the first patients had no direct links to the seafood market.
Footnote 8 is to an interview with the same Georgetown University
scientist quoted in the Sciencearticle in Footnote 3 in which he repeats
that COVID-19 "could have begun in October-November or earlier in 2019."
Footnote 9 is to an article by another of the scientists quoted in the
Sciencearticle in Footnote 3 who states: "We are starting to see more
structure in the tree and overall the genetic data is highly suggestive
of a single-point introduction into the human population … This
introduction was likely via either a single infected animal or a small
cluster of recently infected animals directly into either a single human
individual or a small cluster of human individuals." Finally, Footnote
10 is to a scientific analysis published in 2013 about the coronavirus MERS.
Romanoff concludes his March 11 article by repeating the logic of the
(unidentified) Taiwanese virologist relied upon in his March 4 article
that is critiqued above.
Conclusion
The two articles by Larry Romanoff posted by Global Research and
endorsed by China’s Foreign Ministry present insufficient evidence that
COVID-19 originated in the U.S. as a bio-engineered virus. Most of the
sources set forth in Romanoff’s footnotes contradict his theory.
Barry Kissin is a retired attorney, dedicated peace activist and
columnist who resides in Frederick, Maryland, home of Fort Detrick. He
is regularly published in his local newspaper, The Frederick News-Post,
as well as in alternative media, including Global Research.
Notes
[2]
[3]
[4]
https://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/world/2020/03/14/US-summons-China-s-ambassador-to-Washington-o
ver-coronavirus-conspiracy-the
[7]
[8]
[12]
[13]
[14]
(3) Biowar Expert Dr. Meryl Nass: Lancet’s "COVID-19 Is NOT a Bioweapon"
Is a Ludicrous Fraud
April 8, 2020 Kevin Barrett
Dr. Meryl Nass is a world-class bioweapons expert. She recently
published a must-read article:
Why are some of the US’ top scientists making a specious argument about
the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2?
It seems that the usual-suspect Lancet authors who were trotted out to
dismiss the "bioweapon conspiracy theory" are the same kind of so-called
scientists as the NIST "experts" who assured us that WTC-7 miraculously
disappeared at free-fall into its own footprint due to minor office fires.
Q: Why are five dubious, germ-warfare-linked, cover-up specialist
scientists telling us this could not possibly be a bioweapon, and yet
obviously it could?
Meryl Nass: "Well, that’s the $64,000 question, isn’t it? …The Cubans
blame (the first author) who worked for a federal agency for their
Dengue outbreak…I knew of several of them…and they too were sort of
biological defense, biological warfare people. Well, let me just say two
of them I would call spooks with Ph.Ds, who have come out and done
research on a whole very odd collection of subjects, all of which the US
government has tried to cover up…And so these five scientists wrote a
piece in Nature Medicine which claimed to have found the scientific
linchpin to be able to make the argument that the new coronavirus is a
natural occurrence. And the argument they made was that had it been
constructed in the lab, it would have used the particular backbone that
laboratorians know about. But because it didn’t have that backbone, it
couldn’t possibly be a lab construct.
"The problem with that argument is basically it was a straw man
argument. They said, well, if I were going to make the novel
coronavirus, I would have made it this way, but because it isn’t made
that way, it’s not a lab construct. Of course, you can make the novel
coronavirus a lot of different ways. And I pointed out three different
ways one might have come up with a novel coronavirus that weren’t using
the method they suggested…my study of biological warfare, which has
extended over decades, (shows) that the biological warfare warrior never
chooses an (obvious) weapon. They always require plausible deniability…
"…It’s ridiculous to claim that only if you used an easily discoverable
method of producing a biological weapon would it be successful; or you
wouldn’t have done it any other way. I mean, it’s such a simplistic
argument. You wonder, couldn’t they have come up with a better argument?
Is that all they’re left with? Because any scientist could see through
it in a moment."
(4) Why are some of the US' top scientists making a specious argument
about the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2? - Meryl Nass, M.D.
Anthrax Vaccine -- posts by Meryl Nass, M.D.
This blog began in 2007, focusing on anthrax vaccine, and later expanded
to other public health and political issues. The blog links to media
reports, medical literature, official documents and other materials.
Thursday, April 2, 2020
Why are some of the US' top scientists making a specious argument about
the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2?
1. I know about biological warfare/biodefense. I am the first person
in the world (according to publicly available literature) to have
analyzed an epidemic and demonstrated that the epidemic was due to
biological warfare. (1992 study of the 1978-1980 Rhodesian anthrax
outbreak, published in Medicine and Global Survival, aka Physicians for
Social Responsibility Quarterly (name changed), hosted by International
Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War).
2. Prior to genetic engineering techniques being developed (1973) and
widely used (since late 1970s), more ‘primitive’ means of causing
mutations, with the intention of developing biological weapons, were
employed. Such methods were used by the Japanese beginning in the
1930s, by the US beginning in the 1940s, and by a number of other
countries. They resulted in biological weapons that were tested,
well-described, and in some cases, used. Such methods were also used
subsequent to the 1970s.
3. These methods can result in biowarfare agents that lack the
identifiable signature of a microbial agent constructed in a lab from
known RNA or DNA sequences. In fact, it would be desirable to produce
such agents, since it would be difficult to prove they were deliberately
constructed in a lab. Here are just a few possibilities for how one
might create new, virulent mutants:
a) exposing microorganisms to chemical or radiological agents that
cause high mutation rates and selecting for desired characteristics
b) passaging virus through a number of lab animals or tissue cultures
c) mixing viruses together and seeking recombinants with a new mix of
virulence factors
4. Top scientists circled their wagons to protest against "conspiracy
theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin," in a
statement published in the Lancet March 7. (It was published earlier
online.) Their reported aim was to "stand with" public health
professionals and scientists in China. Many who signed the statement
have worked in biodefense. Signers include Rita Colwell, former director
of the National Science Foundation, and James Hughes, former director of
CDC’s National Center for Infectious Diseases and former assistant
Surgeon General.
Science magazine wrote an article in support of these scientists, which
included the following: The authors of The Lancet statement note that
scientists from several countries who have studied SARS-CoV-2
"overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife,"
just like many other viruses that have recently emerged in humans.
"Conspiracy theories do nothing but create fear, rumours, and prejudice
that jeopardise our global collaboration in the fight against this
virus," the statement says. Five additional scientists soon provided the
"scientific evidence" to back up the natural origin claim. These 5
scientists have been affiliated with signers of the statement above,
they too have worked in biodefense, and their article was published in
Nature Medicine (in the print version) on March 17, 2020.
These scientists set up a straw man to knock down: they claimed that
had the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2 is the official name of the virus)
been created in a lab: "if genetic manipulation had been performed,"
then a known coronavirus backbone would have been used. But because no
known backbone forms part of SARS-CoV-2, "the evidence shows that
SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus."
As USA Today summarized this:
"If someone were seeking to engineer a new coronavirus as a pathogen,
they would have constructed it from the backbone of a virus known to
cause illness," the report said. "But the scientists found that the
SARS-CoV-2 backbone differed substantially from those of already known
coronaviruses and mostly resembled related viruses found in bats and
pangolins."
Their work was then discussed by Francis Collins, the current director
of the NIH.
Dr. Collins says,
"Some folks are even making outrageous claims that the new coronavirus
causing the pandemic was engineered in a lab and deliberately released
to make people sick. A new study debunks such claims by providing
scientific evidence that this novel coronavirus arose naturally... this
study leaves little room to refute a natural origin for COVID-19...
Finally, next time you come across something about COVID-19 online that
disturbs or puzzles you, I suggest going to FEMA’s new Coronavirus Rumor
Control web site..."
I know that the groups of scientists who wrote these pieces in the
Lancet and Nature Medicine, as well as NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins,
know that you don't need genetic engineering methods to create a
bioweapon. Like me, they are old, they recall a world before genetic
engineering, they know the history of biowarfare, and they know the
score. Why then are they participating in this charade?
Update April 29: Newsweek has been delving into "gain of function"
(which means increasing the virulence of a pathogen) coronavirus
research in Wuhan, China which might have contributed to the formation
of SARS-CoV-2... and the interesting fact (which I posted about here)
that the US government provided financial support for this research.
Newsweek's pieces were posted April 27, and 29. My other pieces
questioning the origin of SARS-CoV-2 are here and here. Posted by Meryl
Nass, M.D. at 11:32 AM 8 comments: David Slesinger said... Very helpful.
Weaponizing a virus hardly guarantees other than an inadvertent release.
Nevertheless, I agree with Caitlin Johnstone that the expensive lies
from major institutions is a good reason for many people to doubt
government announcements.
April 3, 2020 at 8:06 PM Juan Txonta said... It's appreciated. Your
opinion, your testimony, the courage. Thank you.
April 5, 2020 at 7:58 AM Anonymous said... Covid19 reportedly patient in
news is manikin https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9jej9sOZJRc
Covid 41 seconds https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mUsxlwMmtVM
Covid 19 diagnosis over phone 14 day quarantine prescribed
What Boris Really Said telegraphed https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GjdODiw-IWA
April 5, 2020 at 11:53 AM
Anonymous said...
Yes, I wrote a rebuttal to the article that appeared in Nature and
suggested that they were acting as coconspirators for even publishing
such an article, for not only was no new evidence added, the use of
exaggeration, and the total give away that it was propaganda was the
insistance that their word was the last unrefutable word on the issue. A
technique rarely if ever used by scientists.
April 6, 2020 at 8:55 AM
Anonymous said...
The attempted cover up says all about who and why they did this.
Unfortunately, even this comment is so censored I can't even say what I
attempted to say.
April 6, 2020 at 9:02 AM
Barry Kissin said...
"Kristian Andersen, an associate professor of immunology and
microbiology at Scripps Research, and his colleagues looked at the
genetic template for the spike proteins that protrude from the surface
of the virus. The coronavirus uses these spikes to grab the outer walls
of its host's cells and then enter those cells. They specifically looked
at the gene sequences responsible for two key features of these spike
proteins: the grabber, called the receptor-binding domain, that hooks
onto host cells; and the so-called cleavage site that allows the virus
to open and enter those cells.
"That analysis showed that the 'hook' part of the spike had evolved to
target a receptor on the outside of human cells called ACE2, which is
involved in blood pressure regulation. It is so effective at attaching
to human cells that the researchers said the spike proteins were the
result of natural selection and not genetic engineering.
"SARS-CoV-2 is very closely related to the virus that causes severe
acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), which fanned across the globe nearly
20 years ago. Scientists have studied how SARS-CoV differs from
SARS-CoV-2 — with several key letter changes in the genetic code. Yet in
computer simulations, the mutations in SARS-CoV-2 don't seem to work
very well at helping the virus bind to human cells. If scientists had
deliberately engineered this virus, they wouldn't have chosen mutations
that computer models suggest won't work. But it turns out, nature is
smarter than scientists, and the novel coronavirus found a way to mutate
that was better — and completely different— from anything scientists
could have created, the study found.
"Another nail in the 'escaped from evil lab' theory? The overall
molecular structure of this virus is distinct from the known
coronaviruses and instead most closely resembles viruses found in bats
and pangolins that had been little studied and never known to cause
humans any harm.
"'If someone were seeking to engineer a new coronavirus as a pathogen,
they would have constructed it from the backbone of a virus known to
cause illness,' according to a statement from Scripps."
Meryl certainly has expertise that I don't. But the argument here seems
stronger than Meryl suggests.
Suspect scientists are not the only ones to make such arguments. For
example, Richard Ebright who I know Meryl respects has said: "There’s
absolutely nothing in the genome sequence of this virus that indicates
the virus was engineered. The possibility this was a deliberately
released bioweapon can be firmly excluded."
The argument that Meryl is targeting is that there is no "genetic
manipulation" in COVID-19 which I interpret to refer to modern genetic
engineering. The methods she says are being (deliberately) overlooked
are all methods that she says are "more primitive means of causing
mutations."
I would also submit that just because COVID-19 might have leaked from a
bio-lab does not mean that the virus was "constructed in a lab."
Bio-labs deal with naturally occurring viruses. They also may be the
site where against expectations a virus jumps from an animal to a human,
naturally mutating in the process.
I would be appreciative of Meryl's response.
April 10, 2020 at 4:01 PM
Meryl Nass, M.D. said...
Barry Kissin, Perhaps I have not been sufficiently clear. I do not
exclude the possibility SARS-2 was created in a lab. I think it is more
likely than not it was created in a lab. But I am not a geneticist and
so my opinion may be of little value.
What I said was that historically the creation of biological agents for
weapons purposes has involved the use of strains that could not be
traced back to the perpetrator. Therefore, were I creating a deliberate
bioweapon, I would not construct it from published sequences that would
suggest a lab origin. I would construct it or choose it to not leave
that evidence of its origin.
April 14, 2020 at 10:18 PM
Anonymous said...
Hi Dr Nass,
Please look into research involving climate evolutionary microbiology.
We all agree virologist and bacteriologist are employed in gene
manipulation but I would like to submit an argument for considering
animal testing and climate manipulation studies.
The CDC or similar may have BSL-3/4 capability but your average climate
scientists with little over sight could be playing with super bug fire
under guise (funding) of citizen science.
Arizona U has recently found viral connection in G.I tract of veterans
with gulf war syndrome.
(5) China’s ambitions: is Detente possible?
From: Eric Walberg <walberg2002@yahoo.com>
re the burtka article below, he says 'confrontation', dismissing
Howard French, Everything Under the Heavens: How the Past Helps Shape
China’s Push for Global Power
calling for detente, to try to dialogue with and assimilate china into
the world without the chauvinism.
i think french is right. anything to avoid the thucycides syndrome and wwiii
that was my belief in soviet times. still holds
What Does China Want?
We can win this great power competition without war, but decoupling is
inevitable.
MAY 26, 2020|12:01 AM
JOHN A. BURTKA IV
What does China Want? A lot is riding on that question. Senator Josh
Hawley took to the floor of the Senate last week to assert that,
"…imperialist China seeks to remake the world in its own image, and to
bend the global economy to its own will." White House adviser and trade
hawk, Peter Navarro, went a step further in a recent interview with
ABC, alleging that the coronavirus was a tool deliberately leveraged to
accomplish their imperial ambitions: "The Chinese, behind the shield of
the World Health Organization for two months, hid the virus from the
world, and then sent hundreds of thousands of Chinese on aircraft to
Milan, New York and around the world to seed that."
Both of these men take their cues from the President, who, according to
bestselling author J.D. Vance, told TAC that Trump "…changed the
conversation on China in a way that almost no…political candidate or
president could have." And, thanks to the Coronavirus, it seems to be
working. According to polling from the Pew Research Center, across the
ideological spectrum, 90% of Americans now believe that China is a
threat. Even Joe Biden’s campaign, sensing the shifting winds of public
opinion, is taking a tougher line on China in hopes that Trump’s new
nickname for him, "Beijing Biden," won’t stick. Better to be remembered
as "Sleepy Joe," than to go down as "The Great Appeaser."
It seems that China threat inflation is good politics, but is it true?
Does China really want to dominate not only the Pacific, but the world?
One book published quietly in 2016 prior to the election sheds light on
these pressing questions. Howard French’s masterful, Everything Under
the Heavens: How the Past Helps Shape China’s Push for Global Power,
digs deep into China’s history to understand their self-conception as a
people and civilization. Former White House Chief Strategist, Steve
Bannon, told me that he considers it to be one of his top three China
books, but French is no Trumpian nationalist. In fact, quite the opposite.
French is on the faculty of Columbia University and formerly served as
The New York Times’ bureau chief in Japan and China. He is a respected
member of the foreign policy establishment. Judging by the new afterward
he penned for the book, which laments Trump’s victory as a "blow to
America’s power, prestige, and influence abroad," it’s clear that French
wanted to put some distance between himself and those in the White House
who might use his arguments as ammunition for driving a harder line on
China.
The book covers a lot of ground: from the ancient Zou dynasty dating
back to 1046 BCE to the Century of Humiliation to Mao’s Cultural
Revolution and the rise of Xi Jinping. French provides an excellent
historical primer for anyone looking to better understand China’s
relationship with the West, and it’s neighbors like Japan, Korea,
Taiwan, and Vietnam. For the sake of brevity, I will focus on the three
areas most relevant for our dealings with China today: The principle of
tian xia, the historical record of China’s encounters with the West, and
Chinese ambitions in the era of Xi Jinping.
The Principle of Tian Xia
The book takes its name from a stanza in The Book Of Odes, a compilation
of Chinese poetry dating back to the Zhou dynasty. In it, the poet
writes: "Everywhere under vast Heaven (tian xia) / There is no land that
is not the king’s. / To the borders of those lands / There are none who
are not the king’s servants."
What does this mean? According to French, "…for the emperors of the
Central Kingdom, this place we call China, the world could be roughly
divided into two broad and simple categories, civilization and
non-civilization, meaning the peoples who accepted the supremacy of it’s
ruler, the Son of Heaven, and the principle of his celestial virtue, and
those who didn’t—those who were beyond the pale."
In the footnotes, French points the reader to Yale political scientist,
James C. Scott, who explains that since the 12th century, the Chinese
have further divided the uncivilized into two distinct classifications,
"‘raw’ and ‘cooked’ with the latter meaning amenable to assimilation."
This mindset informed their approach to foreign affairs. The Central
Kingdom would not tolerate any peers in Asia or anywhere else in the
world. How could they? China is the sun, and every other country a moon
or satellite in their orbit. In the Pacific, French writes, "Chinese
values, Chinese culture, the Chinese language, Chinese philosophy and
Chinese religion were all regarded for long stretches of history as
essential references, even universal standards."
China would only tolerate vassal states as part of their tribute system.
The price of admission was nothing less than "ritual submission before
the Chinese emperor." And there could only ever be one emperor under the
heavens. French provides a telling historical example from the 2nd
century BCE of how this policy played out in practice.
There once was a ruler in Vietnam who had the audacity to "proclaim
himself emperor in his own land." The Chinese could not tolerate such
insubordination. The Han Emperor responded: "When two emperors appear
simultaneously, one must be destroyed…struggling and not yielding is not
the way of person endowed with humanity. Shortly after, the Vietnamese
emperor capitulated, writing, "The Han emperor is the sagacious Son of
Heaven. Henceforth, I shall suppress my own edicts."
By French’s reading, this event underscores two key components rooted in
tian xia that have guided Chinese foreign policy ever since:
"…it was a direct statement that in its home region, the Han emperor
would not countenance any would-be peers." "Beyond that, China was
signaling its determination to intervene anywhere in the world where it
felt its central role or its vital interests might be challenged."
China’s Encounters with the West
One of the more colorful stories in French’s book describes an attempt
by the British crown to open-up trade relations with China. King George
III sent Lord Macartney to meet with Emperor Qianlong to discuss his
proposal. Macartney arrived on a "sixty-four-gun man-of-war," loading
with gifts including "a room-size planetarium, giant lenses, a hot air
balloon…and modern weaponry." The British considered themselves to be a
global empire at the peak of their powers. The Chinese were not
impressed. To make matters worse, the British diplomat refused to
"perform the ‘full’ kowtow while presenting himself before the Chinese
throne…according to the standard ritualized submission demanded by
Chinese protocol under tian xia."
Such an affront to the Son of Heaven could not be tolerated. The Emperor
sent a letter back with Lord Macartney regarding his decision about free
trade. His message to the King was clear:
"…your Ambassador has now put forward new requests, which completely
fail to recognize the Throne’s principle to…exercise a pacifying control
over barbarian tribes, the world over…Nevertheless, I do not forget the
lonely remoteness of your island, cut off from the world by intervening
wastes of sea, nor do I overlook your excusable ignorance of the usages
of our Celestial Empire."
After carrying on with insults for a few more paragraphs, he concluded
with a sober warning: "Should your vessels touch the shore, your
merchants will assuredly never be permitted to land or to reside…but
will be subject to instant expulsion…Tremblingly obey and show no
negligence! A special mandate!"
This historic encounter is instructive as it reveals how the Middle
Kingdom conducted diplomacy with the West. The principles of tian xia
applied not only to tributary states in their own sphere of influence,
but also to great powers on the other side of the world. Access to
Chinese markets came at a price and that price was submission. Those who
were willing to bend a knee could gain access to one of the largest
markets in the world. For everyone else, the financial benefit to the
Middle Kingdom was not worth the humiliation of recognizing another
country as a peer, especially when that country was a "lonely" island
"cut off from the world…by wastes of sea."
Chinese Ambitions in the Era of Xi Jinping
Now, an imperial past does not necessarily mean an imperial future.
Great Britain doesn’t conduct itself today the way its monarchs did
centuries ago, and there’s nothing intrinsic in people’s DNA that says
they have to manage political affairs the way their ancestors did.
However, it would be foolish to write off history and tradition all
together. There’s something that rings true today about de Tocqueville’s
description of Americans even though his visit took place nearly two
hundred years ago. More importantly, we should pay attention when a
political leader invokes history and tradition as precedent for actions
today. When judged by that standard, Xi Jinping’s regime fits squarely
within the tradition of tian xia outlined by French.
For starters, the regime defends its claims in the South China Sea by
invoking time immemorial or "ancient times," in the words of Xi Jinping,
as their justification for "ownership" of island chains like the
Paracels & Spratlys and building artificial islands/ military bases at
places like Fiery Cross or Johnson Reef, the latter having been "seized
from the Vietnamese in the 1988 turkey shoot." A similar logic applies
when considering China’s contested claims to the Senkaku Islands in its
longtime dispute with Japan.
But what concern is it to the United States if a great power like China
wants to establish primacy in the Western Pacific, essentially a Chinese
version of our Monroe Doctrine? As Pat Buchan put it succinctly in TAC,
"There is no U.S. vital interest at risk in these islands to justify an
eternal war guarantee or treaty commitment to fight Beijing over rocks
and reefs in the South China Sea."
French would agree, "A country of China’s size cannot be contained, and
any effort to do so would be counterproductive…the most salient U.S.
goal…is thickening the web among China’s wary neighbors, who have a
shared interest in keeping China from using force to upend the existing
order."
Fair enough. But, as French later notes, it would be a mistake to look
at Chinese expansionism in the narrow context of "the hard elements of
the power balance." China’s "One Belt, One Road," initiative uses
technology, infrastructure, and trade, to establish a new Silk Road that
"would encompass ‘4.4 billion people, 64 countries, and a combined
economic output of $21 trillion, or 29% of global GDP.’" Kowtowing to
Chinese interests will be the cost of doing business for the countries
along this new trading route spanning from China thru Central Asia to
Eastern Europe. And many have already accused Beijing of using "debt
trap diplomacy" to hold these nations hostage for decades to come.
Combined with attempts to dominate the global telecom market by
expanding Huawei contracts for 5G into Western Europe and strategic
efforts to undermine American culture through its influence over
mainstream media, Big Business, and American universities, there’s no
question that China’s ambitions extend beyond the Pacific to encompass
the globe.
The window of opportunity for China is closing due to their coming
demographic crisis. The one-child policy has put them in an untenable
situation where they will have more than "329 million people over 65" by
2050, "which is equal to the entire current populations of France,
Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom combined," according to political
scientist, Mark Haas, cited in French’s book. This means they will
likely act swiftly in the next decade to expand their global influence
before redirecting national resources towards caring for the elderly at
home.
In light of this information, French concludes his book by saying that
we should "look upon China’s predicament with sympathy. The only
peaceful way forward, however, is to work even harder to draw China into
the international system…this is most painfully obvious with regard to
the international financial system…or in more generous and ready
acceptance of Chinese initiatives like One Belt, One Road."
Did he read his own book?
He goes on in the final paragraph: "A China that is treated as an equal
with much to contribute to human betterment…is a China that will mellow
as it advances in the decades ahead, and then most likely plateau. That
is a China that will grow more secure in its greatness, a China we can
live with."
No. That’s not a future we can live with because it’s not the future
China wants. French himself made the case that the principle of tian
xia, which is the central argument of his book, forbids China from
treating any other country as a peer. So why should we treat them as
one? And by "human betterment," is he referring to the forced organ
harvesting of Uighur Muslims that is allegedly conducted in
concentration camps in Xinjiang? Or covering up for the Coronavirus in
a manner that enabled it’s exponential spread? Or the new law proposed
in the NPC last week that will inevitably be used to silence free speech
and political dissent in Hong Kong, effectively upending the "one
country, two systems" policy in place for the past 23 years?
We know what China wants. In responding to the threat, however, it would
be severely misguided to pursue a strategy of regime change or kinetic
war over primacy in the South China Sea or within the larger First
Island Chain. Senator Hawley is correct in framing the challenge in
terms of economic competition: "The economy has become the principal
arena for the great power contest of this century. Economic policy is
now security policy."
A strategic decoupling is in order. Pat Buchanan said it first in his
book, TheGreat Betrayal, "The United States has the whip hand in this
relationship, and it’s time we use it…We should cancel China’s
most-favored-nation status and negotiate a reciprocal trade agreement
that recognizes our different societies and conflicting interests."
If it’s an essential supply—pharmaceuticals, medical supplies, or
military equipment—we should follow the advice of George Washington and
make it in the U.S.A. And perhaps more importantly, the most pressing
national security issue of our time is developing the technology of the
future so that the world doesn’t become dependent on China for 5G
networks and more, which can be used as a back door for Chinese
surveillance and military operations.
To accomplish this economic and technological pivot away from Asia, we
will assuredly need to pull out of the Middle East and reduce our
commitments in Europe and Africa. With $25 trillion in debt, a nation
must make trade-offs, and ending our forever wars is the best place to
start. We can win this great power competition without war, but
decoupling is inevitable. Whether or not it’s strategic depends on the
sagacity and foresight of our President and his allies like Sen. Hawley
in the Senate. The 21st century literally hangs in the balance.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
John A. Burtka IV, executive director and acting editor, graduated from
Hillsdale College and the Faculté Jean Calvin in Aix-en-Provence,
France. He was a Lincoln Fellow at the Claremont Institute in 2018. He
has appeared on Fox News and Fox Business and written for The Washington
Post, Richmond Times-Dispatch, First Things, The American Mind, and The
Intercollegiate Review, among others. Previously, he worked for the
Intercollegiate Studies Institute and participated in academic
fellowships at Washington College and The Trinity Forum.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.