CANNABIS CULTURE – A DEEP dive into the relevant facts – and predictions for the near future – regarding the pandemic of 2020.
“We are men of groans and howls,
Mystic men who eat boiled owls,
Tell us what you wish oh King,
Our magic can do anything.”
“I wish,” spoke the King, “to have you make something fall from my skies that no other kingdom has ever had before.”
– Bartholomew and the Oobleck, Dr. Seuss, 1949 (1)
`“Federal officials on Tuesday ended a moratorium imposed three years ago on funding research that alters germs to make them more lethal. Such work can now proceed, said Dr. Francis S. Collins, the head of the National Institutes of Health, but only if a scientific panel decides that the benefits justify the risks. Some scientists are eager to pursue these studies because they may show, for example, how a bird flu could mutate to more easily infect humans, or could yield clues to making a better vaccine. Critics say these researchers risk creating a monster germ that could escape the lab and seed a pandemic. . . . In October 2014, all federal funding was halted on efforts to make three viruses more dangerous: the flu virus, and those causing Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). . . . There has been a long, fierce debate about projects — known as “gain of function” research — intended to make pathogens more deadly or more transmissible. . . . When the moratorium was imposed, it effectively halted 21 projects, Dr. Collins said. In the three years since, the N.I.H. created exceptions that funded ten of those projects. Five were flu-related, and five concerned the MERS virus.”
– A Federal Ban on Making Lethal Viruses Is Lifted, Donald G. McNeil Jr., Dec. 19, 2017, nytimes.com (2)
“No matter where you go online these days, there’s bound to be discussion of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). 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.”
– Genomic Study Points to Natural Origin of COVID-19, March 26th, 2020, Dr. Francis Collins, NIH Director’s Blog, directorsblog.nih.gov (3)
I shall remind everyone that I’m not accredited in anything, so one should not take my word for any of this and should try and verify everything for one’s self. Of course, that advice also holds when getting information from the accredited, because history proves time and time again that one’s expertise in an area of science does not make one perfect – or even guarantee an appreciation for the benefits of moral or ethical behavior. To that end, I will supply citations for everything controversial that I find relevant to the discussion. I suspect they will be high-quality citations, as each of the 326 the citations I provided in part one – an article “liked” by over 1,100 Facebook readers – were debunked by exactly zero people. So far.
I am an anarchist – I think having rulers is problematic and unnecessary – and believe – as anarchist/naturalist Peter Kropotkin believed – that;
“. . . there is no generalization from the whole world of science, social or natural, which cannot be conveyed to a man of average intelligence, if you yourself understand it concretely.” (5)
In other words, if you make an effort to understand something, you can probably do so, as long as you are learning from someone who understands it themselves and can explain it using simple, non-technical terms. Along that same line of thought, I quote the great statesman and “first citizen of Athens”: Pericles. Like Kropotkin, Pericles had this to say about the non-accredited and their responsibility to involve themselves with the important issues of the day;
“An Athenian citizen does not neglect the state because he takes care of his own household; and even those of us who are engaged in business have a very fair idea of politics. We alone regard a man who takes no interest in public affairs, not as a harmless, but as a useless character: and if few of us are originators, we are all sound judges of a policy.” (6)
Those who attempt to discourage the unaccredited from trying to understand – or participate in – the research and discussion of these issues are worse than useless – they turn other potentially useful people into useless ones.
But enough about anarchism . . . let’s talk about pathology (the study of disease), immunology (the study of the immune system), epidemiology (the study of the spread and control of diseases and/or the study of epidemics), pharmacology (the study of drugs), herbalism (the study of medicinal plants) and maybe a bit of sociology (the study of society). If we want to understand SARS-COV-2 fully, we will need to look into all these things a little bit.
No marks will be given for this particular home-school COVID crash course – but the test is a practical exam, and failing it might mean death from a virus, a vaccine, from unnecessary poverty/starvation, or suffering horribly under a police-state, so try to pay attention.
If you haven’t read part 1 of this series, (4) I highly recommend going back and reading it first, as it serves as a foundation of understanding the ideas explored in this article.
Part 1 was published on March 30th, and since that time a bunch of new information has come my way that confirms a lot of the conclusions I arrived at in the previous article. Using that last article as a template, I hope to revisit these issues: the nature of the virus, it’s lethality compared to the seasonal flu, the likelihood of acquired immunity, the plausibility of various origin theories, a history of US involvement in germ warfare, an evaluation of vaccine profitability and pathology, attempts at Orwellian police states & Malthusian population culls, prior knowledge of pandemics in general and possible prior knowledge of this pandemic in particular, facemask safety and efficacy, and how proprietary concerns shape treatment policy. Since Part 1 was published, lots of interesting new data has arisen on Gain-Of-Function research, on facemasks, on Hydroxychloroquine, on colloidal silver and on a new herbal treatment – Artemisia annua – as well as on other herbs and supplements – including cannabis – as possible treatments.
Over the last few months of quarantine, when I wasn’t busy working on my reefer-madness history book, I’ve been playing chess – and Super Mario Bros. 3 – with my 6-year-old boy. I’ve found that home-schooling for the very young is just a matter of re-defining stuff he does anyway. Chess and video games: problem-solving. Lego and drawing: art class. His mom teaching him guitar: music class. Searching for things on Netflix and YouTube: spelling. Counting the coins in his piggy bank: math. Helping mom with our community garden plot: physical education and agriculture. Watching internet videos about the origins of video games or Lego: history. Nature shows: biology. Zoom visits/playdates: social graces.
My feeling is that six-year-old boys who can’t be provided with a fully-functioning society should at least be cut some slack – the last thing he needs is to feel like he’s in a home-school version of the classroom in Pink Floyd’s “The Wall”. I think slacker home school is working out pretty good – he’s constantly informing his mother and I of some fact he just learned about spiders or whales or porcupines, and he’s learning to read and write. “Daddy! How do you spell ‘Lego Minecraft Mountain Cave’?” Thanks, internet video service search engines!
And of course – pandemic or not – his mom and I both read him bedtime stories. Recently I read him the Dr. Seuss classic: “Bartholomew and the Oobleck”. It’s a story about a power-tripping King who tells his magicians to mess with nature in order to impress everyone, and the unintended, yet predictable, consequences of such an undertaking. The “Oobleck” – a green gummy substance – falls from the sky, threatening everyone’s life, until the King apologizes for his hubris. I found the part about the authority figure making an apology the most unrealistic part of the story.
SARS-COV-2, the virus that causes the disease COVID-19, has proven to be more damaging than first believed. Aside from killing off the old and the infirm with ease, it attacks nearly every organ in the body (7) and can cause strokes (8) and permanent damage to the lungs and heart of otherwise healthy, young people. (9)
Some say over 3% of those who catch COVID-19 require “intubation and invasive ventilation” – a tube shoved down their throat for days if not weeks at a time. (10)
This is an extremely risky and dangerous procedure, for both the intubated and the healthcare provider;
“Mechanical ventilation had been performed in 79% of critically ill people in hospital including 62% who previously received other treatment. Of these 41% died, according to one study in the United States.” (11)
There is also evidence to suggest intubation is over-prescribed. (12)
Doctors in Israel have noted that “more than half” of the “recovered” patients have continued health problems, including pain and anxiety. (13) UK neurologists have published indications “of mildly affected” or “recovering” Covid-19 patients with serious or potentially fatal brain conditions. (14)
SARS-COV-2 may have also now mutated into a virus that can kill the very young. (15) I say “may” because health officials are unsure if it’s the same virus, or a mutation of the virus, (16) or an entirely different virus, or even our reaction to the virus (disinfectant poisoning, for example) (17) causing “Kawasaki’s Syndrome” – a disease that affects the very young. (18)
The possibility that there are variations of SARS-COV-2 floating around that can do different things has been confirmed. It appears that one version of the virus has mutated into something more infectious. The mutation – called D614G – appears to have replaced the first variant of SARS-CoV-2, as it now is the dominant variant in the US national database. (19)
Lethality Compared to the Seasonal Flu
Apparently, the “Malthusian death cultists” and/or “Orwellian police-state engineers” and/or “vaccine sales departments” (for lack of better terms) that were discussed in Part 1 – the powerful people determined to achieve as high a mortality rate for COVID-19 as possible – have convinced the low-information humans that the virus is no big deal, no worse than (or even less serious than) the seasonal flu. 100% of the data available on that subject has disproved that argument. (20)
The World Health Organization estimates that global seasonal flu mortality ranges between “290,000 to 650,000 respiratory deaths”. (21) That equates to approximately 795 to 1780 deaths per day. So let’s take the high estimate: 1780 deaths per day from the seasonal flu. Since March, COVID-19 averaged somewhere between two to three times that, with an all-time high of 10,520 deaths in a single day back on April 16th, and a slightly upward trend in the daily death rate from late May onward. (22)
In fact, there are very good reasons to suspect that at least some of the estimated seasonal flu mortality stats (24,000 to 62,000 deaths in the US) is inflated to about four times the actual confirmed seasonal flu mortality stats, (23) and, to make matters even worse, that the typical COVID-19 mortality stats are under-representing true COVID-19 mortality by a significant factor – both in the US (24) and globally. (25)
This means that the confirmed daily death rate for the flu in the United States may be as little as under 10 per day, and the current daily death count for COVID-19 in the United States – averaging over 1129 in the week of July 27th to August 2nd – is an undercount. The average US daily death rate from COVID-19 was well over 1000 since the beginning of April, well over 500 since the beginning of June, and has begun to show an upward trend again since the beginning of July. The all-time high was set on April 16th, with 4928 deaths in a single day. (26)
This information tells me that COVID-19 is 50 to 100 times as deadly as the seasonal flu in North America, that the rate is getting worse, and that – unlike the flu – it may be leaving a significant portion of the “recovered” with permanent disabilities, and the rest with no permanent immunity. As of August 3rd, there are over 11.5 million “recovered” cases globally, according to Worldometer. (27) If, for example, just 10% of them are disabled by the virus, that’s another 1.5 million additional victims, on top of the over 700 thousand deaths (so far). And the rate of infection is increasing rapidly. For the first million cases to occur, it took 123 days. The second million cases took just 13 days. The third million took 12 days. The fourth million took 11 days. The fifth million took 12 days. The sixth million took 9 days. The seventh million took 9 days. The eighth million took 8 days, and the ninth million took 6 days, as did the tenth million and the eleventh million. The twelfth million took 5 days. The thirteenth million took 4 days. The fourteenth million took 5 days. The fifteenth million took 4 days, as did the sixteenth and the seventeenth. The eighteenth million took just 3 days.
Hong Kong Flu @ Woodstock
“But wait!” the low-information humans argue . . . “The Hong Kong Flu of 1968-1969 killed over a million people worldwide – about 100,000 in the United States – and Woodstock was held during that pandemic – without any facemasks!” (28)
But Woodstock was in August – the US Hong Kong flu season in 1969 was November to February. (29) People in the United States saw this flu in much different terms than the public views COVID-19. Hong Kong flu had a low death rate compared to other 20th century pandemics, and the public may have had some natural immunity to this particular strain of the flu from the Asian Flu strains which had been circulating since 1957. (30)
Then there’s the matter of immunity. In Part 1, there were numerous indications that at least some of the people who “recovered” from COVID-19 either got re-infected or weren’t really recovered. Information came out of Taiwan, (31) Singapore, (32) China, Japan & South Korea, (33) and 1990 data on coronaviruses in general that came out of the U.K.. (34)
More recently, indications have come out of Vancouver, Canada, (35) Dallas, Texas, (36) out of the World Health Organization, (37) and from a recent study conducted by researchers at the Chongqing Medical University in China, and published in Nature. (38) That study found;
“Levels of antibodies against COVID-19 were significantly lower in asymptomatic carriers than those with symptoms during active infection. – Antibody levels also dropped off far more quickly in people who never showed symptoms, and 40 per cent of them had no detectable antibodies eight weeks after recovery, compared with 13 per cent of symptomatic patients. – Those with asymptomatic infections tested positive for an average of five days longer than people with symptomatic infections — 19 days compared with 14 days — suggesting that they were shedding the virus longer.” (39)
Nobody knows if immunity is even possible, as other coronaviruses do not provide long-term immunity. (40) The implications of a lack of acquired immunity were mentioned in an article in the Globe & Mail;
“The implications are enormous, particularly before a vaccine is developed and made widely available. A Harvard University analysis published last month found that if people can be reinfected with COVID-19 within a year or two, the virus will likely take up permanent residence in the population. Only if immunity endures beyond a few years is there a chance that the virus will die out after the initial pandemic wave has run its course.” (41)
The way SARS-COV-2 attacks the immune system has been likened to HIV. (42) A study was done about SARS-COV-2 which pointed to signs of an HIV insert in it – and indicated that this might have been a sign of a laboratory origin;
“The finding of 4 unique inserts in the 2019-nCoV, all of which have identity /similarity to amino acid residues in key structural proteins of HIV-1 is unlikely to be fortuitous in nature.” (43)
The paper was subsequently pulled for further review due to the controversial nature of the findings, and the question of the HIV insert – given the similar action of SARS-COV-2 towards the immune system – was dropped from discussion nearly everywhere.
Recently, it was confirmed that the antibodies for SARS-COV-2 don’t last inside the human body for very long;
“A pair of studies published this week is shedding light on the duration of immunity following COVID-19, showing patients lose their IgG antibodies—the virus-specific, slower-forming antibodies associated with long-term immunity—within weeks or months after recovery. With COVID-19, most people who become infected do produce antibodies, and even small amounts can still neutralize the virus in vitro, according to earlier work. These latest studies could not determine if a lack of antibodies leaves people at risk of reinfection. One of the studies found that 10 percent of nearly 1,500 COVID-positive patients registered undetectable antibody levels within weeks of first showing symptoms, while the other of 74 patients found they typically lost their antibodies two to three months after recovering from the infection, especially among those who tested positive but were asymptomatic. In contrast, infections caused by coronavirus cousins such as SARS and MERS result in antibodies that remain in the body for nearly a year, according to The New York Times.” (44)
What can be said with certainty is that a virus that is 100 times more lethal than the flu, that also permanently cripples many of its victims, and that provides no acquired immunity is much, much worse than the flu.
The weird thing about this debate over the nature of COVID-19 is just how many “experts” are out there giving horrible advice or making unsubstantiated statements – about how the virus is “just like the flu”, (45) or how much of a “hoax” the virus is, or how it must be of natural origin, or how masks/hydroxy/colloidal silver/herbs don’t work, or how vaccines are our only hope of leading a normal life.
Plausibility of Various Origin Theories
“Paradoxically, it may be advantageous for a biologically weaponized virus to cause a severe protracted illness with high communicability rather than quick death with little opportunity for continued spread.”
– Medical Aspects of Chemical and Biological Warfare, chapter 35: Medical
Challenges In Chemical And Biological Defense For The 21st Century, 1997 (46)
In part one, I examined the likelihood of the three theories of where the virus may have originated: a) in nature, b) in a lab and released by accident, and c) in a lab and released on purpose. Part one explored the evidence of “unknown pathogenesis” or “unknown origin” or a lack of a known “natural reservoir” for all the lethal coronaviruses in humans – including SARS-COV-2 – which was a telltale sign of virus weaponization. Another sign of weaponization was “gain of function” – increased infectiousness or virulence or lethality. Since coronaviruses were all originally non-lethal, SARS, MERS and SARS-COV-2 have all displayed at least two signs of weaponization. Most researchers who give their opinions on the origins of SARS-COV-2 ignore these signs, and argue instead that it was “definitely” a naturally emerging virus.
The National Post, without citing any sources, claimed that;
“The broad scientific consensus holds that SARS-CoV-2, the virus’ official name, originated in bats.” (47)
Tina Hesman Saey, writing for the website Science News, (48) argued on March 26th that “A genetic analysis shows it’s from nature”. (49) Hesman Saey was reporting on the findings of Kristian Andersen and his colleagues in the March 17th edition of Nature Medicine. (50)
Newsweek magazine tried to contact Anderson to ask him about inconsistencies in his findings, but he didn’t respond. Newsweek published these inconsistencies in their April 27th edition;
“To figure out where SARS-CoV-2 came from, Kristian Andersen of Scripps Research and his colleagues performed a genetic analysis: they published the work, which has been widely cited, on March 17 in Nature Medicine. The researchers focused on certain genetic features of the virus for telltale signs of ‘manipulation.’ One feature was the spike of protein that the virus uses to attach so effectively to the human body’s ACE2 receptors, a molecular feature of the cells in our lungs and other organs. The spike in SARS-Cov-2, the authors conclude, differs from that of the original SARS virus in ways that suggest it was ‘most likely the product of natural selection’—in other words, natural, not manipulated in a lab. However, the paper’s reasoning as to why animal passage, in particular, can be ruled out, is not clear. ‘In theory, it is possible that SARS-CoV-2 acquired the . . . mutations during adaptation to passage in cell culture,’ the authors write. The theory that the virus mutated in mammalian hosts such as pangolins ‘provides a much stronger . . . explanation.’ Whether or not that includes animal passage in a lab, they don’t say. Andersen didn’t respond to Newsweek requests for comment. Rutger’s Ebright, a longtime opponent of gain of function research, says that the Andersen analysis fails to rule out animal-passage as an origin of SARS-CoV-2. ‘The reasoning is unsound,’ he wrote in an email to Newsweek. ‘They favor the possibility ‘that the virus mutated in an animal host such as a pangolins’ yet, simultaneously, they disfavor the possibility that the virus mutated in ‘animal passage.’ Because the two possibilities are identical, apart from location, one can’t logically favor one and disfavor the other.’” (51)
This Andersen/Nature Medicine article has been criticized by others. Meryl Nass, MD, posting this analysis on the website of the ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION, points to the paper’s key caveats;
“It contains these qualifiers: ‘. . . it is currently impossible to prove or disprove the other theories of its origin described here.’ . . . ‘More scientific data could swing the balance of evidence to favor one hypothesis over another.’” (52)
Other writers have pointed to 15-year-old research describing the ease in which such a lab origin might be engineered;
“In an email interview with GMWatch, Newman, who is editor-in-chief of the journal Biological Theory and co-author (with Tina Stevens) of the book Biotech Juggernaut, amplified this speculation by noting, ‘The Nature Medicine paper points to variations in two sites of the spike protein of the new coronavirus that the authors claim must have arisen by natural selection in the wild. However, genetic engineering of one of these sites, the ACE2 receptor binding domain, has been proposed since 2005 in order to help generate vaccines against these viruses (see this paper). It is puzzling that the authors of the Nature Medicine commentary did not cite this paper, which appeared in the prominent journal Science.’” (53)
Jonathan Latham, PhD and Allison Wilson, PhD, writing for Independent Science News, also pointed to the ACE2 receptor research as a clue to a lab origin, concluding that:
“Given the research and collection history of the Shi lab at WIV it is therefore entirely plausible that a bat SARS-like cornavirus ancestor of Sars-CoV-2 was trained up on the human ACE2 receptor by passaging it in cells expressing that receptor.” (54)
Dr. Chris Martenson, a PhD in pathology who has carefully walked his YouTube viewers through many different studies on SARS-COV-2 since January, had this to say on the issue of the origin of the virus;
“I can tell you that anybody that is saying that this is definitively from nature is absolutely not being completely open and honest.” (55)
Aside from not bothering to ask the questions that Newsweek reporters have figured out, Science News writer Tina Hesman Saey has also suggested that we should all “wait for a vaccine” (56) and has also concluded that “hydroxychloroquine doesn’t help treat COVID-19”, (57) demonstrating both her ineptitude in research and her preference for expensive treatments over cheaper ones.
To be fair, she has not completely abandoned hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), but doesn’t understand zinc is a factor in clinical trial success rates, (58) so she’s not demonstrating any understanding of how the drug works. More on HCQ later.
Then there is the prestigious director of the National Institute of Health (NIH), Dr. Francis S. Collins. In his blog, he also used the Anderson study in Nature magazine to argue there was a “natural origin” to COVID-19. (59) In the “Acknowledgements” section of the Nature study, (60) the authors identify four grants from the NIH that made that study possible, so it’s understandable why Dr. Collins would promote a study that he himself helped to fund and was in charge of.
This is the same Dr. Francis S. Collins responsible for the 2017 removal of the ban on experimentation on lethal-to-human viruses, so it’s not surprising that he is supporting conclusions that absolve him of involvement in and facilitation of mass murder. (61) Back when that ban on experimenting with lethal viruses was lifted, it was reported that – between 2014 when the moratorium on experimenting with lethal viruses (62) was imposed, and 2017 when it was lifted, Dr. Collins oversaw 10 “exceptions” to the ban – 5 experiments on influenza, and 5 experiments on MERS – another lethal coronavirus. (63)
“Therefore, to examine the emergence potential (that is, the potential to infect humans) of circulating bat CoVs, we built a chimeric virus encoding a novel, zoonotic CoV spike protein*—from the RsSHC014-CoV sequence that was isolated from Chinese horseshoe bats—in the context of the SARS-CoV mouse-adapted backbone. The hybrid virus allowed us to evaluate the ability of the novel spike protein to cause disease independently of other necessary adaptive mutations in its natural backbone. Using this approach, we characterized CoV infection mediated by the SHC014 spike protein in primary human airway cells and in vivo, and tested the efficacy of available immune therapeutics against SHC014-CoV. Together, the strategy translates metagenomics data to help predict and prepare for future emergent viruses.”
Translation: “We’re gonna whip up some new coronaviruses to make them more infectious so we can get the jump on the very profitable market of treatments such as pills and vaccines, should any of these little critters somehow emerge into human populations.”
Given the obvious insanity of making viruses more lethal for dubious reasons, the report goes to great lengths to provide assurances to the reader that every precaution was taken to maximize safety. Here’s a brief excerpt from that assurance section;
“These studies were initiated before the US Government Deliberative Process Research Funding Pause on Selected Gain-of-Function Research Involving Influenza, MERS and SARS Viruses. . . . This paper has been reviewed by the funding agency, the NIH. Continuation of these studies was requested, and this has been approved by the NIH.”
In other words, the same folks that spend their time promising (with no real evidence) that the emerging novel coronaviruses are natural, are the ones overseeing the making of novel coronaviruses in a lab.
Functional Mass Murder
What exactly is this “Gain-Of-Function” research mentioned in the safety assurance section of that paper? It’s scientist code for weaponization, similar to the “Dual-Use-Research-of-Concern” mentioned in Part 1. Since it’s key to understanding how prevalent and probable the creation of emerging viruses is, it’s helpful to take a deep dive into the concept:
“Gain-of-function (GOF) research involves experimentation that aims or is expected to (and/or, perhaps, actually does) increase the transmissibility and/or virulence of pathogens. Such research, when conducted by responsible scientists, usually aims to improve understanding of disease causing agents, their interaction with human hosts, and/or their potential to cause pandemics. The ultimate objective of such research is to better inform public health and preparedness efforts and/or development of medical countermeasures. Despite these important potential benefits, GOF research (GOFR) can pose risks regarding biosecurity and biosafety. In 2014 the administration of US President Barack Obama called for a ‘pause’ on funding (and relevant research with existing US Government funding) of GOF experiments involving influenza, SARS, and MERS viruses in particular. . . . While the decision to publish the initial ferret H5N1 influenza studies of the research teams headed by Ron Fouchier and Yoshihiro Kawaoka (Herfst et al. 2012; Imai et al. 2012) in full was based on the judgment that benefits of publication outweighed the risks, numerous critics have questioned the actual benefits of these studies. Purported benefits of publication were that this would facilitate (1) development/production of vaccines against pandemic strains of the virus and (2) surveillance enabling early identification of, and thus response to, pandemic strains that might occur naturally. Critics have argued that such benefits are limited, inter alia, because naturally occurring pandemic strains may turn out be different from those created via the studies in question (in which case production of vaccines for, or surveillance targeting of, the latter might not be very useful); international surveillance systems are too weak ‘to detect a pandemic viral sequence . . . before it is too late’ (Lipsitch and Galvani 2014, p. 3); ‘an important lesson learnt from pandemic H1N1 (swine flu) is that there is not much that can be done to contain outbreaks of pandemic strains of influenza once they emerge’ (i.e., so early identification via surveillance might not make much difference) (Selgelid 2013, p. 148); and, given the way the vaccine industry actually works, there is unlikely to be development/stockpiling of vaccines against naturally-occurring transmissible strains of influenza before such strains actually arise (Selgelid 2013).” (65)
Francis A. Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law and the author of the book Biowarfare and Terrorism, believes that SARS-COV-2 is “basically SARS” with some “Gain-Of-Function” inserts added:
“Boyle says this corona virus is basically SARS. SARS is already a weaponized version of a corona virus that has leaked out of that laboratory at least twice before. Then it was given Gain-Of-Function properties which basically means it can travel by air for at least six feet and is more transmittable and lethal.” (66)
In other words, these “Gain-of-Function Research” experiments are useless for their stated purposes. Their only real use is for unstated purposes – to make viruses more lethal and/or more transmissible, to release them on the unsuspecting public in order to create a biofascist biopolice state, to sell more pills and vaccines, and to kill off the poor and the non-white population for racist and/or mis-directed ecological reasons. More on racist virus lethality below.
A paper published in April 2020, examining the SARS-COV-2 virus (referred to in the paper by it’s old name: 2019-nCoV) mentions the possibility of evidence of a “Gain-Of-Function” quality to the spike protein, that makes SARS-COV-2 so infectious;
“This furin-like cleavage site, is supposed to be cleaved during virus egress (Mille and Whittaker, 2014) for S-protein ‘priming’ and may provide a gain-of-function to the 2019-nCoV for efficient spreading in the human population compared to other lineage b betacoronaviruses.” (67)
Aside from Gain-Of-Function qualities, another clue that a virus is lab-made is the fact (argued by some) that “inserts” generally happen in a lab, whereas “mutations” happen in nature. A mutation is where one gene is different, whereas an insert is where a whole series of genes in a row is different. There are evidence of inserts in SARS-COV-2 (2019-nCoV);
“Third, insertions 1 and 2 in 2019-nCoV have 6-AA motifs identical to those in V4 and V5 of certain HIV-1 gp120 isolates, which are structurally close to each other but separated by a LE loop (Figure 1C) . However, insertion 3 located between insertions 1 and 2 in 2019-nCoV has sequences similar (with deletions) to those in the V1 region of HIV-1 gp120. . . . How the three bat CoV viruses obtain those inserts remains unknown.” (68)
Of course, none of this evidence speaks to the question of whether the release of this virus was deliberate. There is evidence of accidental leaks in the past. Back in 2014, a couple of virologists estimated the chances of that happening over time;
“They estimate that if 10 American laboratories ran these types of experiments for a decade, there would be a 20 percent chance that a lab worker would become infected with one of these new super-flus and potentially pass it on to others.” (69)
Seems to me it’s also evidence of the capacity for such things to be released on purpose, and then blamed on an accident. When one reviews the entire history of bioweapons production (such as that which was found in part 1), one finds that there’s so much obvious, undeniable lying to the public when it comes to “Gain-Of-Function” and “Dual-Use-Research-of-Concern”, the entire industry seems pretty untrustworthy overall.
Check The Fact Checkers
The problem of trying to figure out the truth is compounded by censorship on social media – where increasing numbers of people get their news from each day – especially younger people. (70) Facebook’s fact checkers – straight out of recommendation seven from “Event 201” mentioned in Part 1 – are quick to pounce on anything that might deviate from the “emerged from nature” narrative the powers that be seem to have decided upon;
“Way back on Feb. 23, The Post ran an opinion piece by Steven Mosher saying that we couldn’t trust China’s story about the origins of COVID-19. He argued that the virus might — might — have jumped to the human population thanks to errors at a Chinese laboratory in Wuhan, rather than via that city’s now-notorious ‘wet market.’ The piece was widely read online — until Facebook stepped in. The social media giant’s ‘fact checkers’ decided this was not a valid opinion. If you tried to share Mosher’s column on Facebook, the social network stuck a ‘False Information’ alert on top, saying that finding was ‘checked by independent fact-checkers’ and preventing your friends from clicking to connect to the original article to see for themselves. Again, this was an opinion column, not a news report. Mosher cited a host of suggestive facts, including urgent government directives, the sudden trip of China’s top biowar expert to Wuhan and that nation’s shoddy record of lab safety — as well as gaping holes in the wet-market explanation, such as the fact that the market in question doesn’t sell bats, the animal from which the bug supposedly jumped.” (71)
And just as there has been a conflict of interest in those weighing in on the issue of the origin of COVID-19 – mainly vaccine pushers and those involved in the manufacture of lethal viruses – there’s a conflict of interest in the “fact checker” community at Facebook itself;
“And who did this fact checker rely on for their opinion? As reporter Sharyl Attkisson notes, one expert consulted had a clear conflict of interest: She has regularly worked with Wuhan’s researchers, and even done her own experiments there. Danielle E. Anderson, assistant professor, Duke-NUS Medical School in Singapore, personally attested to the lab’s ‘strict control and containment measures.’” (72)
As of May 2nd, the Facebook fact checker service still maintains that the bioweapon origin theory can be dismissed as a “conspiracy theory”, quoting Adam Lauring, Michigan Medical School professor. (73)
This is in spite of the fact that SARS-COV-2 has 1) “Gain Of Function” evidence, 2) insert evidence, 3) no natural reservoir yet found, and 4) arises out of a 70 year history of US bioweapons production and use (see Part 1 and also below). And guess where Lauring gets his expert opinion from? The, often-cited, (74) NIH-funded, pretty much debunked Kristian Andersen et al. March 17 Nature Medicine article;
“‘This origin story is not currently supported at all by the available data,’ said Adam Lauring, an associate professor of microbiology, immunology and infectious diseases at the University of Michigan Medical School. Lauring pointed to a study published March 17 in the journal Nature Medicine, which provided evidence against the idea that the virus was engineered in a lab.” (75)
Recent Lab-Origin Discussions
More and more, the official story is being questioned. On June 8th, biotech expert Yuri Deigin and biologist Bret Weinstein had a very frank discussion about the possible lab origin of SARS-COV-2. During the discussion, the topic of the “RaTG” strain of coronavirus came up. The RaTG strain is viewed as the most closely-related coronavirus to SARS-COV-2. (76) Deigin stated;
“It would probably have to be a huge inside job for them to know that Wuhan would have the RaTG strain.” (77)
In other words, Deigin was speculating on the likelihood of Wuhan being the patsy lab, and who might have been involved if that was the case.
On July 2nd, a story came out about Norwegian virologist Birger Sorensen, and his difficulties getting his findings regarding the lab origin of SARS-COV-2 published;
“Together with his colleagues, Angus Dalgleish and Andres Susrud have authored an article that looks into the most plausible explanations regarding the origins of the novel coronavirus. The article builds upon an already published article in the Quarterly Review of Biophysics that describes newly discovered properties in the virus spike protein. The authors are still in dialogue with scientific journals regarding an upcoming publication of the article. News outlets are thus confronted with a difficult question: Are the findings and arguments Sørensen and his colleagues put forward of a sufficiently high quality to be presented and discussed in the public sphere? Sørensen explains that they in their dialogue with scientific journals are encountering a certain reluctance to publishing the article – without, however, proper scientific objections. Minerva has read a draft of the article, and has after an overall assessment decided that the findings and arguments do deserve public debate, and that this discussion cannot depend entirely on the publication process of scientific journals. . . . In 2008, Sørensen’s work came to international attention when he launched a new immunotherapy for HIV. Angus Dalgleish is the professor at St. George’s Medical School in London who became world famous in 1984 after having discovered a novel receptor that the HIV virus uses to enter human cells. . . . ‘Secondly, this indicates that the structure of the virus cannot have evolved naturally. When we compare the novel coronavirus with the one that caused SARS, we see that there are altogether six inserts in this virus that stand out compared to other known SARS viruses,’ he goes on explaining. Sørensen says that several of these changes in the virus are unique, and that they do not exist in other known SARS coronaviruses. ‘Four of these six changes have the property that they are suited to infect humans. This kind of aggregation of a type of property can be done simply in a laboratory, and helps to substantiate such an origin,’ Sørensen points out. . . . ‘The properties that we now see in the virus, we have yet to discover anywhere in nature. We know that these properties make the virus very infectious, so if it came from nature, there should also be many animals infected with this, but we have still not been able to trace the virus in nature. The only place we are aware of where an equivalent virus to that which causes Covid-19 exists, is in a laboratory. So the simplest and most logical explanation is that it comes from a laboratory. Those who claim otherwise, have the burden of proof,’ Sørensen says.” (78)
In a July 7th Peak Prosperity video, Dr. Chris Martenson published an email which provides a very powerful indication that the virus was lab-made. This email is worth reading in its entirety in order to fully contemplate the conclusions it suggests;
“After re-reading the Henry Ford Hospital Study this morning and noting no zinc was used, I started a literature search on Zinc and ionophores. This paper caught my eye. Back in 2010, Robert (sic) Baric and other coronavirus researchers studied the potential for Zn and ionophores to block viral replication in vitro and in cell culture. That’s 10 years ago. What first surprised me was how old these data are. We’ve known this for a long time. But then what caught my eye and startled me was the author list. Robert Baric. In 2015, Robert (sic) Baric and his protégé, Shi Zheng Li from Wuhan Institute of Virology, among others, published their creation of a chimeric SARS virus with S protein adapted for greater infectivity and morbidity – part of the gain of function research program. https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985 Notice what they report: ‘The results indicate that group 2b viruses encoding the SHCO14 spike in a wild-type backbone can efficiently use multiple orthologs of the SARS receptor human angiotensin converting enzyme II (ACE2), replicate efficiently in primary human airway cells and achieve in vitro titers equivalent to epidemic strains of SARS-CoV. (original SARS) Additionally, in vivo experiments demonstrate replication of the chimeric virus in mouse lung with notable pathogenesis. Evaluation of available SARS-based immune-therapeutic and prophylactic modalities revealed poor efficacy; both monoclonal antibody and vaccine approaches failed to neutralize and protect from infection with CoVs using the novel spike protein. . . . We synthetically re-derived an infectious full-length SHCO14 recombinant virus and demonstrate robust viral replication both in vitro and in vivo. Our work suggests a potential risk of SARS-CoV re-emergence from viruses currently circulating in bat populations.” Now if Drs. Baric et al – who are world renowned coronavirus experts – demonstrated the potential risk of SARS CoV re-emergence not responsive to immune therapy or potential vaccine therapy via ‘gain-of-function research’, but also did research to show the potential for Zinc and ionophores might be effective at inhibiting replication of RNA-viruses (of which SARS-COV-2 is one), then why – now that there HAS been a ‘re-emergence’ of a SARS-COV virus – aren’t they vigorously advocating for post-exposure trials of cheap and available Zinc in combo with ionophores (of chloroquines and quercetin flavonoids are two examples) to mitigate this disease, if their own research shows this simple treatment has potential but immune modalities don’t? I’m suffering cognitive and moral dissonance. I think I just went down the rabbit hole.” (79)
In other words, Zinc and Hydroxychloroquine (or zinc and quercetin) work – but vaccines don’t work – on SARS-COV-2. The bioweapons producers have known this for 10 years, but they’re not talking about it now, for some odd reason. I guess “Dual Use” research should really be called “Uni Use” research or “Mono Use” research, as it doesn’t have a “good use” after all – only a bad one.
It turns out Ralph Baric was asked about “gain-of-function research” back in 2015, and he has this to say;
“According to Baric, the risk of ‘gain-of-function’ research is worth it. The findings could provide a way to create vaccines and immunotherapy treatments before the next epidemic strikes. Because we have identified both SARS and SHC014-CoV, it’s now possible to develop vaccines that could target those viruses and the viruses that share commonalities between them. In other words, the new findings may help develop vaccines for many more strains of infectious diseases even though we haven’t identified them yet. ‘Now, we can capture the entire swarm,’ Baric said. ‘That’s the beauty of the study and most important take-home.’” (80)
Baric knew in 2010 that zinc works, and knew in 2015 that vaccines don’t, and yet he’s not bothering to “capture the entire swarm” like he promised. I wonder why?
In a blog post written in June 2020 that was reported on in the New York Times, Dr. Daniel R. Lucey, an infectious disease specialist at Georgetown University gave WHO investigators headed to China to explore the origins of the coronavirus pandemic some tips on what questions to ask. One of the questions involved “gain of function”;
“Even so, given the wet market’s downgrading in the investigation, ‘It is important to address questions about any potential laboratory source of the virus, whether in Wuhan or elsewhere,’ Dr. Lucey wrote in his blog post. To that end, he urges the W.H.O. investigators to look for any signs of ‘gain of function’ research — the deliberate enhancement of pathogens to make them more dangerous. The technique is highly contentious. Critics question its merits and warn that it could lead to catastrophic lab leaks. Proponents see it as a legitimate way to learn how viruses and other infectious organisms might evolve to infect and kill people, and thus help in devising new protections and precautions. Debate over its wisdom erupted in 2011 after researchers announced success in making the highly lethal H5N1 strain of avian flu easily transmissible through the air between ferrets, at least in the laboratory. In his blog, Dr. Lucey asks ‘what, if any,’ gain-of-function studies were done on coronaviruses in Wuhan, elsewhere in China, or in collaboration with foreign laboratories. ‘If done well scientifically, then this investigation should allay persistent concerns about the origin of this virus,’ he wrote. ‘It could also help set an improved standard for investigating and stopping the awful viruses, and other pathogens, in the decades ahead.’” (81)
One might also ask the following question: why have 100% of those who have pronounced SARS-COV-2 “natural” not bothered to look into gain-of-function research on coronaviruses, to see if there’s any possible overlap between the work that’s been done in this area and SARS-COV-2? Seems like a catastrophic oversight to me. Or catastrophic cowardice. Or even catastrophic complicity.
Spreading Misinformation, Spreading Hatred
At least 30 countries have arrested people for “spreading misinformation” about the virus. (82) The problem with insisting it comes from a Chinese bat – or even a Chinese laboratory – are the predictable consequences: every Chinese-hating racist in the world is emboldened to take their rage out on any unlucky Chinese person that happens to be within shouting distance, as recently happened in Vancouver, where I live. (83) And US President Trump keeps calling it the “Chinese virus”;
Lately, Trump has begun calling it the “Kung Flu”. (85) Trump has also promised – back on April 15th – to look into the origin of the virus. (86) But don’t hold your breath for an honest appraisal. For much of the evidence – be it the Gain-Of-Function experiments and Dual-Use-Research-of-Concern – or the history of bioweapons research – points back at the United States. Also, Trump shut down the Ft. Detrick lab that was in charge of investigating such things back in 2017. (87)
“‘Attention is devoted to basic studies in genetics to understand the mechanisms involved, evolve new concepts and increase the body of knowledge in general,’ (Maj. Gen. Marshall) Stubbs said, adding that research into the basic ingredients of life ‘has indicated ways in which these ingredients may be altered or transformed to suit man’s desires.’ Such work could make a previously harmless disease highly lethal, or help produce mutants with increased infectivity.”
- Seymour M. Hersh, ‘Dare We Develop Biological Weapons?’ The New York Times, September 28th, 1969 (88)
As was mentioned in Part 1, until the emergence of SARS in 2002, all coronaviruses were “non-lethal”. Coronaviruses have been studied since 1968, as a cache of 5352 studies – recently uploaded to the internet – reveals. (89) The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) began investigating coronaviruses in 1969, (90) the year after the now-famous Dr. Anthony Fauci arrived there. (91)
The headquarters of the NIAID is in Bethesda, Maryland. (92) Interstate highway 270 is the road that connects Bethesda, Maryland, with Frederick, Maryland, arguably the center of biological weapons research on planet earth. A closer look at Frederick’s largest employer (93) – Ft. Detrick – will demonstrate that NIAID’s connection to the bioweapons industry is more than just geographic proximity.
A History Of US Involvement In Biological Weapons Production And Use
“Utilizing the recent advances in genetics, researchers have been working for years on techniques that will enable them to develop a variety of diseases such as bubonic plague, pneumonic plague and anthrax, that no longer could be cured by antibiotics such as penicillin or streptomycin. Thus, man’s ingenuity could develop what in effect would be a ‘doomsday bug,’ a disease so uncontrollable it would trigger a pandemic across the world.”
– Seymour M. Hersh, ‘Dare We Develop Biological Weapons?’
The New York Times, September 28th, 1969 (94)
“Look, those two specimens are worth millions to the bioweapons division, right? Now if you’re smart, we can both come out as heroes, and we will be set up for life.”
– Carter J. Burke, Special Projects Director, Weyland-Yutani, from the film Aliens 2, 1986 (95)
There are many different places where bioweapons are made and tested in the USA. But the center of bioweapons “defense” research in the United States is undoubtedly Ft. Detrick, Maryland. The word “defense” is in quotes, because – as many bioweapons researchers will tell you;
“. . . there is no feasible defense against biological attack . . . Vaccination can’t work because the variety of attack agents is too large . . . offensive and defensive research is indistinguishable. To make a vaccine, you must first make the pathogen the vaccine will defend against.” (96)
The US – like many countries – pretends it doesn’t have any bioweapons. After all, the US came up with the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (97) – it would look bad if it was seen as breaking its own rules. Mark Sanborne, who’s monumental history of biowarfare – “Bionoia” – I borrowed liberally from to fill out this section – described the “fatal loophole” of the 1972 bioweapons treaty:
“But the larger reason for Washington’s adamant if lonely opposition (to enforcement of the treaty) may have more to do with the treaty’s other fatal loophole: the ‘defensive’ research exception. The convention’s signatories pledge not to develop, produce, stockpile, or acquire biological agents or toxins ‘of types and in quantities that have no justification for prophylactic, protective, and other peaceful purposes.’ Unfortunately, that has been interpreted as allowing countries to continue developing ever-more-deadly pathogens, as long as it’s done in small amounts and only for the purpose of developing countermeasures, like drugs and vaccines. That exception allowed the U.S. and others—principally Britain and the Soviets—to continue business as usual by labeling their biowar programs as now being defensive in nature. The U.S. junked its germ stockpiles from the early Cold War period and launched a new generation of biowar research, using cutting-edge advances in recombinant DNA to devise new versions of already virulent diseases. Over the years more and more of that work has been farmed out to spooky ‘defense’ contractors like Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC) and the Battelle Memorial Institute. Never mind international inspectors, it’s not clear that anyone—and certainly not Congress—is overseeing this sprawling bio-industrial complex to ensure it’s in compliance with international treaty and domestic law.” (98)
The origin of the 1972 fatal loophole may very well have been National Security Decision Memoranda 35, section 3c, written by Henry Kissinger on November 25th, 1969. He wrote;
“The United States bacteriological/biological programs will be confined to research and development for defensive purposes (immunization, safety measures, et cetera). This does not preclude research into those offensive aspects of bacteriological/biological agents necessary to determine what defensive measures are required.” (99)
All the scientists working at Ft. Detrick are careful to maintain the fiction that they’re only involved in defensive research – even though small-scale bioweapons production can be just as deadly as large-scale weapons production (once released, these weapons go into large-scale production all on their own), and even though the topic of some Ft. Detrick-related studies are undeniably offensive bioweapons research – like studies involving how to make viruses airborne, such as this study written by Ft. Detrick-connected scientists, entitled “AEROBIOLOGY: HISTORY, DEVELOPMENT, AND PROGRAMS”;
“Collectively, in the aftermath of the decommissioning of the offensive biological programs, much of the infrastructure needed to effectively perform research for medical countermeasures was effectively rebuilt, albeit on a much smaller scale with significant technical and engineering limitations in mind. Present-day research organizations that incorporate aerobiology resources and expertise, such as the program at the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick, Maryland, embody a small-scale, sophisticated support structure similar to many programs at other federally supported, contracting, and academic laboratories
throughout the nation.” (100)
The people who run Ft. Detrick insist over and over again to the media that they do not involve themselves in bioweapons research:
“Until President Nixon renounced the use of chemical or biological warfare in 1969, and the U.S. signed the Weapons Convention in 1972, the biggest center for the development of biological warfare agents (including bubonic plague) was Ft. Detrick, Maryland. However, in 1989, a San Francisco Examiner article reassuringly quotes Col. David Hudson, currently the commander of Ft. Detrick: ‘Read my lips – we have no biological weapons. We develop vaccines, oxides, drugs, and antitoxins.’” (101)
This fiction has been echoed recently in relation to SARS-COV-2, in a Frederick, Maryland newspaper – the town that Ft. Detrick is located in, discussing United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, or “USAMRIID” – the US Army’s “biodefense” research institute;
“But now the conspiracy theorists and Chinese officials have turned their attention to another target: the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases on Fort Detrick. The conspiracy specifically points to the shutdown of biosafety level 3 and 4 work at USAMRIID by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in July 2019, suggesting that the laboratory was responsible for the virus. ‘That is an absolutely false claim,’ U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command spokeswoman Lori Salvatore wrote in an email to The News-Post. ‘USAMRIID does not take part in offensive research.’” (102)
As was pointed out in Part 1, instead of calling it “offensive bioweapons research” the US bioweapons research community just calls it “Dual Use Research of Concern” and “Gain Of Function Research” or even “chimeric virus research” (103) … and then they cross their fingers and hope nobody catches on.
There was an attempt to create an entity which would enforce the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention back in 2001, but it was derailed by John Bolton, who would later go on to be President Trump’s National Security Advisor:
“Bolton played a leading role in derailing a 2001 bio-weapons conference in Geneva that sought to endorse a U.N. proposal on how to enforce the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. U.S. officials, led by Bolton, argued that the plan would have put U.S. national security at risk by allowing spot inspections of suspected U.S. weapons sites. Without U.S. participation, any enforcement plan would be meaningless, so U.S. opposition essentially killed the proposal. As a result, there is no practical mechanism to stop the spread of biological weapons.” (104)
What sort of viruses do they do research on at Ft. Detrick? This author hasn’t seen much evidence of any limits in that category, so I would guess “all of them”. In the 2016 Documentary “Ghosts Of Ft. Detrick”, a local activist narrowed it down to “pretty much everything that is known to man that is deadly.” (105) In chapter 19 of the book “Medical Aspects of Chemical and Biological Warfare” entitled “The U.S. Biological Warfare and Biological Defense Programs”, the list of disease agents that isolation procedures were developed for include;
“Ebola virus, Marburg virus, Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus, Variola (smallpox) and monkeypox viruses . . . Yersinia pestis (pneumonic form), Lassa fever virus, Argentine hemorrhagic fever, (Junin) virus, Venezuelan hemorrhagic fever (Guanarito) virus . . . Tick-borne encephalitis complex, Yellow fever virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus, Rift Valley fever virus, Chikungunya virus, Dengue virus, Brucella species, Vibrio cholera, Bacillus anthracis (pulmonary or cutaneous forms), Francisella tularensis (pulmonary form), Yersinia pestis (bubonic or septicemic form) . . . Eastern equine encephalitis virus, Western equine encephalitis virus, Hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome Hantaan, Seoul, Puumala viruses), Japanese encephalitis virus, Sandfly fever viruses, Coxiella burnetii (Q fever), Chlamydia psittaci, Botulinum toxin, Staphylococcal enterotoxin B, Ricin toxin, Saxitoxin, Trichothecene mycotoxins” (106)
It’s a near certainty that the biological warfare agents they have developed isolation procedures for are the same agents they have stockpiles of and/or do research on.
There’s evidence they still do research on the plague (Yersinia pestis) – in 1425 Porter Street – the exact same building they weaponize diseases by making them airborne! (107) The plague, of course, was responsible for the most devastating pandemic in human history: the Black Death, which killed somewhere between 75 million to 200 million people. (108)
Fun fact – this very bacteria popped up in China at exactly the same time SARS-COV-2 did – in November of 2019! (109) What an amazing coincidence! I mean really . . . what are the odds?
As was pointed out in Part 1, the United States has long been involved in bioweapons development – and use – be it the massive stockpiles of anthrax and brucellosis in WW2, to Ft. Detrick’s (then Camp Detrick’s) program to attack food crops in the Soviet Union and China beginning in 1951, to accusations of the use of anthrax, plague, yellow fever against Korea and China in reports from the International Association of Democratic Lawyers in 1952, to the viral haemorrhagic fever Australian historian Gavan McCormack accused the US of releasing into Korea in 1951, to the 1956 US policy amendment on the use of biological weapons allowing for first-strike surprise attacks with Presidential go-ahead, to the Litton Bionetics/Merck/Pfizer “Special Virus Cancer Program” (Secret Cancer Virus Program) – some of which took place at Ft. Detrick – using cutting edge technology to recombine different viruses together to make viruses functionally identical to HIV, to the tell-tale fingerprints of US involvement in the Oct. 2001 anthrax attacks.
Lethal Human Experiments & Torture: Terrible Mistakes
The history of US involvement in bioweapons manufacture and use is massive, and finding more examples is just a matter of looking for them. For example, there is the tale of Frank Olson, a bioweapons technician who worked at Camp Detrick from 1943 to 1953, where he worked on such weapons as aerosolized anthrax. In 1948 Olson was made head of the Special Operations Division, in charge of coming up with “new and secret biological means for effective interrogation and warfare”. (110)
In May of 1953, Olsen was witness to one of thousands of horrible experiments on human beings with nerve gas;
“Frank Olson witnesses MI6 terminal experiments at Porton Down, U.K, where innocent soldiers (who think they are testing a cure for the common cold) are administered steadily increasing doses of Sarin nerve gas, resulting in horrible deaths. The purpose is to determine the ED50 and LD50 of Sarin nerve gas in man.” (111)
Apparently, there was quite a few of these experiments going on in the UK, America and Canada;
“From 1945 to 1989, Porton exposed more than 3,400 human ‘guinea pigs’ to nerve gas. It seems probable that Porton has tested more human subjects with nerve gas, for the longest period of time, than any other scientific establishment in the world. Two other nations have admitted testing nerve gas on humans: the American military exposed about 1,100 soldiers between 1945 and 1975, and Canada tested a small number before 1968.” (112)
In August of that same year, Olsen witnessed torture during interrogations by the CIA in Berlin. By that time he confided to a friend that “he was disgusted with what the CIA was doing and was determined to leave.” (113)
To make a long story short, the CIA lured Olsen out on a work retreat on Thursday, November 19th, 1953, and dosed him with LSD, probably to see if he would blab about secret things under its influence. When he found out he had been dosed without his permission, he was livid. When he returned home the next day, he admitted to his wife that he had made “a terrible mistake”. The next Monday morning, he resigned from work. (114)
The CIA convinced him not to resign, and told him to go to New York to see a Doctor on the CIA payroll. On November 28th, 1953, Olsen had either committed suicide, or was more likely “suicided”. The official story was that he threw himself out the window of his hotel room, but lots of evidence points to the probability that he was thrown out. (115)
A book about the Frank Olsen story – “A Terrible Mistake” – was written in 2009, (116) and a Netflix mini series – “Wormwood” – was released in 2017. (117)
Drowning In Evidence
Researching this subject is like studying the history of cannabis – you could spend your whole life devoted to the subject and never exhaust yourself of new data. Reviewing Mark Sanborne’s “Bionoia” series, a whack of other examples arise. There’s “Operation Marshall Plan” – a plan to blanket Cuba with equine encephalitis and Q fever had the US invaded during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, (118) or the admission by the U.S. government that it “released Aedes aegypti mosquitoes in a Pacific island in 1965” – (119) and – with the help of the World Health Organization – almost did the same thing to a densely-populated section of India in 1975;
“Indian scientists who had worked on the project say the latest revelation has convinced them that they were unwittingly helping the US biowarfare research under the cover of a public health programme to control malaria. NP Gupta, former director of the National Institute of Virology, told PTI that the then prime minister Indira Gandhi “acted correctly” and at the right time by ordering closure of the project before the planned massive release of Aedes aegypti mosquitoes in 1975 at Sonepat, Haryana. . . . Apparently the U.S interest in development of yellow fever as a biological warfare weapon was sustained even after President Nixon supposedly ended the biological warfare program in 1970, says Gupta. Only this time the trial was conducted outside the United States in a developing country under the umbrella of the WHO, he says. Rajagopalan is also surprised at the different standards employed by the US. Baker Island was unpopulated and remote from the mainland, the trial used informed volunteers and the mosquitoes were eradicated after the trial was over. No such plans existed for the proposed release in Sonepat, whose entire population of half a million was to become unwilling volunteers while the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) was in the dark about the real intention behind the release experiment, said Rajagopalan, who retired from an ICMR institute.” (120)
Then there’s the suspicious emergency in 1975 of lyme disease – 10 miles away from the US biological weapons testing ground Plum Island at the northeastern tip of Long Island, (121) or the apparent introduction of hemorrhagic dengue fever into Cuba in 1981 just as everyone at the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay were vaccinated for it, (122) and there’s even some evidence of Tularemia (rabbit fever) being used against anti-war protesters in Washington, D.C., in 2005. (123)
Protests at Ft. Detrick
Ft. Detrick has been the subject of many protests, beginning in 1959, with the year-long “Vigil at Fort Detrick”, organized by the Middle Atlantic Region of Fellowship of Reconciliation, a group of interfaith pacifists who first organized demonstrations against war back in WW1. (124)
The vigil resulted in many newspaper stories and magazine articles, and a pledge from “scientists at Columbia University, Rockefeller Institute and other research centers” “never to participate in any effort to develop germ warfare, for such participation would constitute a crime against mankind.” (125)
Then there was the 12 hour picket that took place on March 21st, 1967, which got some attention in the local newspapers. Some of the demonstrators even blocked traffic in and out of the Fort. The Fellowship of Reconciliation, and various student groups, took responsibility. (126) The same group picketed on August 5th, 1969, demanding;
“Initiation by the United States of serious chemical-biological warfare discussions leading to international disarmament agreements, civilian supervision of disposal of existing stockpiles of such weapons and re-submission of the 125 Geneva Protocol for ratification.” (127)
Did the public attention from the August 1969 protests lead to the Seymour Hersh New York Times September 1969 article, which led to the superficial policy changes in bioweapons policy by Nixon’s Department of Defense and Henry Kissinger in October and November of 1969? And, more importantly, could further protesting against the superficiality of these reforms lead to further policy changes?
A similar coalition of Quakers, ex-G.I.s, folk-singers and Fellowship members planted a pine tree on July 9th, 1970, outside the main gate, where all of the protests had taken place. (128)
All these efforts no doubt played some part in the creation of the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. But in spite of this toothless international treaty, and in spite of a similarly toothless “Containment Laboratory Community Advisory Committee” formed in Frederick, the municipality that Ft. Detrick resides in, in 2010, (129) the bioweapons labs at Ft. Detrick continue to conduct insane gain-of-function, dual use research, under the supervision of literally nobody.
Protests at the Ft. Detrick main gate have recently evolved into concern over all the cancer-causing chemicals from the bioweapons buried near the aquifer that supplies Frederick with water. Over 1300 documented cases of cancer have arisen in a one-mile radius next to the chemical dump site – “Area B” – at Detrick. A documentary about this chemical weapons pollution was released in 2016, entitled “The Ghosts of Ft. Detrick” – involving the activist group “The Yes Men” – can be found online. (130)
These recent protests are small and local in nature. But there’s no guarantee they will remain that way – levels of awareness in the age of information can change very rapidly, depending upon who gets – and how many get – involved in raising awareness.
Violations of International Law
Some researchers have indicated that gain-of-function research might run afoul of the Nuremberg Code – the rules guiding scientific experiments set up after WW2 in response to Nazi experiments on death camp attendees;
“The Nuremberg Code’s second point states: ‘The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.’ When projecting the benefits of experiments that put human life at risk, therefore, it is critical to compare against alternatives. What unique public health benefits do PPP (potential pandemic pathogens) experiments offer relative to the benefits of investing equivalent resources in alternative research strategies? If there are unique benefits to novel PPP experiments, do they justify the risks entailed? This concept, too, is partially incorporated in the HHS frameworks, which permit funding of H5N1 or H7N9 transmissibility gain-of-function experiments only if ‘there are no feasible alternative methods to address the same scientific question in a manner that poses less risk than does the proposed approach’. The Nuremberg Code suggests a broader criterion: that PPP experiments should be performed if the public health benefits envisaged cannot be obtained by safer methods. We argue that alternative scientific approaches are not only less risky, but also more likely to generate results that can be readily translated into public health benefits.” (131)
On the subject of the “public health benefits”: one of the “good use” duties, supposedly, of the “dual use bio-defense” program at Ft. Detrick is to determine whether an emerging virus is natural or human-made. Remember, Trump shut down the Ft. Detrick lab that did such things back in 2017. (132)
If coronavirus gain-of-function researchers are refusing to share what they know about dealing with coronaviruses during a coronavirus pandemic, and if labs that are supposed to be identifying the origins of emerging viruses are being shut down, is there anything going on in the “bio-defense” community other than secret bioweapons production and deployment? Are those responsible for the bio-defense program in violation of the Nuremberg Code right now? And is anyone in a position of responsibility able or willing to do anything about it?
Recent Research Of Concern
There’s also the matter of murky origins – no natural reservoir – to SARS, MERS and the 2009 swine flu (H1N1), and some indication of gain of function elements to those three viruses and bird flu (H5N1) as well.
In fact, scientists had even admitted to making bird flu airborne. Two famous papers (to virologists, anyway) were written about it – one in the journal Nature in May of 2012, (133) and one in the journal Science in June of 2012. (134)
The weaponization of Avian Flu (H5N1) to make it more transmissible – called “Dual Use Research of Concern” or “DURC” – was the topic of an article in Science in June of 2012 – the same issue the second paper was released in. In attempting to make the case for the “good use” of such research, the paper outlined the possible benefits;
“One of the goals of pandemic influenza research is to recognize and anticipate how viruses are evolving in the wild toward a phenotype that is dangerous to humans, thereby staying one step ahead of potential pandemics. In this regard, compelling research questions relevant to global health and pandemic preparedness include determining whether highly pathogenic viruses, such as H5N1, have the ability to mutate and/or reassort with another influenza virus to become readily transmissible by the airborne route among humans. If so, (i) what is the likelihood that such mutations or reassortments will happen in nature? (ii) Is there a genetic signature of such a virus that might be helpful in surveillance? (iii) Would such a virus be highly pathogenic for humans? And (iv), would such a virus be sensitive to currently available antiviral drugs and vaccines, or would new ones be necessary? In response to these and related questions, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has intensified the research we conduct and support on pandemic influenza.” (135)
I am not particularly convinced that learning the answer to any or all of those questions is worth risking a global pandemic with potentially millions of deaths. In fact, I am unable to find a single example of any of these types of benefits achieved at any time to any real-world scenario since “defensive research” began in 1972.
The authors then explored the downside of DURC – the “bad use”;
“However, whenever one deliberately manipulates a virus or a microbe, it is always possible, at least theoretically, that the research results could be used by bioterrorists to intentionally cause harm, or that an accidental release of a pathogen from a laboratory could inadvertently cause harm. Such research is referred to as ‘dual-use research,’ as the research potentially has both positive and negative applications. A particular subset of dual-use research is referred to as ‘dual-use research of concern’ or DURC. DURC is defined as life sciences research that, on the basis of current understanding, can be reasonably anticipated to provide knowledge, information, products, or technologies that can be directly misapplied to pose a significant threat with broad potential consequences to public health and safety, agricultural crops and other plants, animals, the environment, materiel, or national security. If a particular experiment is identified as DURC, that designation does not inherently mean that such research should be prohibited or not widely published. However, it does call for us to balance carefully the benefit of the research to public health, the biosafety and biosecurity conditions under which the research is conducted, and the potential risk that the knowledge gained from such research may fall into the hands of individuals with ill intent. Research that could enhance the transmissibility of H5N1 viruses clearly is DURC.” (136)
When listing the downsides – a) bioterrorists and b) accidental release – they forgot three others: c) creating universal/global demand for drugs or vaccines as a way for elites to get stupidly rich, and/or d) culling the global population as an unimaginative solution to ecological problems, and/or e) constructing an Orwellian police state nightmare for the sake of power-tripping control freaks. An honest review of the facts shows some evidence in support of c) d) and e), as well as evidence of better solutions to our medical, ecological and political problems.
High Profile Bio Warlords
When I looked to see who the authors of this paper happened to be, I noticed two names that I had become familiar with in my research. One was Francis S. Collins – head of the National Institute of Health, overseer of the exceptions to (and removal of) the prohibition on the manufacture of lethal viruses that existed between 2014 and 2017, and one of the people most likely to be held criminally responsible should any of the little monsters created under his watch escape or be released.
The other is Anthony Fauci – head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), who has a vested interest – at least with regards to his reputation – in vaccination as a cure for COVID-19. Apart from being the most high-profile COVID-19 doctor in the United States, Fauci is also on the Leadership Council of the Global Vaccine Action Plan, initiated by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, along with the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF). (137)
The group dedicated themselves to make the years 2010 through 2020 the “Decade of Vaccines”;
“The collaboration follows the January 2010 call by Bill and Melinda Gates for the next ten years to be the Decade of Vaccines. The Global Vaccine Action Plan will enable greater coordination across all stakeholder groups – national governments, multilateral organizations, civil society, the private sector and philanthropic organizations — and will identify critical policy, resource, and other gaps that must be addressed to realize the life-saving potential of vaccines.” (138)
On top of the 10 billion dollars Gates put towards the Global Vaccine Action Plan, in 0ctober of 2019, as the pandemic began, Gates gave the National Institute of Health – NIAID’s umbrella organization – 100 million dollars, in part to help with NIAID’s HIV research. (139)
Not only has Fauci committed himself to promoting vaccination, but has also promoted gain-of-function research. In fact, he has done so in Wuhan, China, ground zero of the outbreak;
“But just last year, the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the organization led by Dr. Fauci, funded scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and other institutions for work on gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses. In 2019, with the backing of NIAID, the National Institutes of Health committed $3.7 million over six years for research that included some gain-of-function work. The program followed another $3.7 million, 5-year project for collecting and studying bat coronaviruses, which ended in 2019, bringing the total to $7.4 million.” (140)
Perhaps the easiest way to make the last ten years the “Decade of Vaccines” would be to release a disease that devastated millions of people while promoting vaccination as the cure for such a disease. Given the history of the medical establishment to involve itself in unethical activities in the pursuit of profits, prestige and power, it’s definitely one of the possibilities to consider.
Rumors of a direct financial gain from the promotion of remdesivir – an expensive drug being investigated as a possible COVID-19 treatment – prompted USA Today to look into Fauci’s financial investments;
“The National Institutes of Health confirmed that Fauci has not authored any studies on remdesivir and does not own stock in any biomedical or pharmaceutical companies. . . . Similarly, Gates was not involved in the development of remdesivir or research into the drug. In March, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation convened a group of companies, including Gilead Sciences, to accelerate research on the new coronavirus.” (141)
So Fauci’s reasons for promoting various drugs or vaccines aren’t directly (or obviously) financial. But power and prestige – or something less obvious – hasn’t been ruled out. And Bill Gates doesn’t have any investments in remdesivir. But does Gates have investments in vaccines?
Vaccine Profitability and Pathology
The website statesman.com did a fact check on the issue of whether Fauci or Gates would profit from a COVID-19 vaccine. They determined that Fauci wouldn’t benefit, but didn’t discuss the Gates Foundation’s return on its investment;
“There are 70 potential COVID-19 vaccines in development, one of which was created by National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases scientists in partnership with Moderna, Inc. That vaccine is being manufactured by an organization that the Gates Foundation supports, but there’s no evidence that the agency or Fauci will directly profit from that support. And the Gates Foundation has pledged up to $60 million for vaccine development, not $100 million, as the post says.” (142)
Reporters who cover the Gates Foundation’s investments in vaccines have a good reason to investigate the possible profitability of such investments, as the Foundation has a bit of a reputation for being focused on profits at the expense of all other considerations – even on their Wikipedia page;
“The foundation trust invests undistributed assets, with the exclusive goal of maximizing the return on investment. As a result, its investments include companies that have been criticized for worsening poverty in the same developing countries where the foundation is attempting to relieve poverty. These include companies that pollute heavily and pharmaceutical companies that do not sell into the developing world. In response to press criticism, the foundation announced in 2007 a review of its investments to assess social responsibility. It subsequently canceled the review and stood by its policy of investing for maximum return, while using voting rights to influence company practices.” (143)
“Maximum return”? But isn’t the whole goal of a foundation to do good works? Only on the surface. A foundation basically has two goals: 1) as PR for the oligarchs: “using the occasional generous gift to try justifying their enormous wealth and power”, (144) but also 2) as a cover for making huge amounts of cash – ostensibly to be able to keep being generous, but mainly to keep the PR machine rolling and to maintain power and influence. Are foundations allowed to make a profit? Of course! If they don’t make a profit, they can’t afford to be generous! There are certain limits, of course;
“To maintain its status as a charitable foundation, it must donate at least 5% of its assets each year. Thus the donations from the foundation each year would amount to over US$1.5 billion at a minimum.” (145)
But the focus on a foundation’s needs to make those profits can sometimes be at odds with their PR goals. This appears to be true in the Gates Foundation’s case;
“In 2007, with colleagues at the Los Angeles Times, I examined whether those investments tended generally to support the foundation’s philanthropic goals. Instead, we found that it reaped vast profits by placing billions of dollars in firms whose activities and products subverted the foundation’s good works. . . . It had vast holdings in Big Pharma firms that priced AIDS drugs out of reach for desperate victims the foundation wanted to save.” (146)
According to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Gates has major investments in vaccine companies;
“In addition to using his philanthropy to control WHO, UNICEF, GAVI, and PATH, Gates funds a private pharmaceutical company that manufactures vaccines, and additionally is donating $50 million to 12 pharmaceutical companies to speed up development of a coronavirus vaccine.” (147)
The profits from selling vaccines are vast. The profits from providing clean water, hygiene, nutrition, and economic development are either tiny or non-existent by comparison. Thus the emphasis on vaccination by the rich and powerful. This concern is brought up by multiple sources;
“Global public health advocates around the world accuse Gates of steering WHO’s agenda away from the projects that are proven to curb infectious diseases: clean water, hygiene, nutrition, and economic development. The Gates Foundation only spends about $650 million of its $5 billion dollar budget on these areas. They say he has diverted agency resources to serve his personal philosophy that good health only comes in a syringe.” (148)
“Why are vaccines being pushed so strongly in a country which lacks clean drinking water and basic sanitation services? UNICEF blames Chad’s recurrent outbreaks of disease, including meningitis, on this vital, common-sense need. Why have major organizations spent $571 million on a vaccination project, when wells to provide access to clean drinking water have been constructed for less than $3,000 by the International Committee of the Red Cross?” (149)
“Another concern that comes up in the academic literature is that the Gates Foundation is too focused on drugs, vaccines, and other technological solutions for global health problems. But many researchers, by contrast, would prefer a focus on the less exciting but crucial work of strengthening the health systems of poorer countries.” (150)
This isn’t just an assumption, it’s a fact backed up by a lot of data. Take, for example, an article entitled “Draining the swamp: How sanitation conquered disease long before vaccines or antibiotics”, put online in January 2020. Everything stated in this concluding paragraph was backed up by data in the body of the text – it’s worth a read, but far too big to quote in full;
“The bottom line is that sanitation—pest control, water filtration and chlorination, safe sewage disposal, milk pasteurization and other food safety, and public education about general hygiene—probably did more than anything else to reduce mortality rates, if only because these techniques were available decades, and in some cases centuries, before anything else. Antibiotics were dramatically effective when they were finally introduced, but by this point a lot of the work had already been done. Vaccines too were extremely effective, but merely delivered the coup de grace for many diseases.” (151)
The crucial and seldom-stated difference between clean drinking water, hygiene, nutrition, economic development and health system infrastructure – not to mention sanitation, labour rights, a social safety net etc – on the one hand, and vaccines and proprietary medicines on the other hand, is that you can’t make billions of dollars and keep people under your control if you invest in the former, but you can if you invest in the latter. This also happens to be the major reason why cannabis was made illegal and kept illegal and now kept over-regulated, and why we are still using fossil fuels instead of hemp ethanol for our energy needs – the economy is organized to meet the desires of producers at the expense of consumers.
The Return Of I.G. Farben
Gates’ partners in vaccine development are an assortment of the least ethical corporations on planet earth;
“Following a conference call with Gates Foundation leadership earlier this month, companies are working to identify concrete actions that will accelerate treatments, vaccines, and diagnostics to the field. As a first step, 15 companies have agreed to share their proprietary libraries of molecular compounds that already have some degree of safety and activity data with the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator—launched by the Gates Foundation, Wellcome, and Mastercard two weeks ago—to quickly screen them for potential use against COVID-19. Successful hits would move rapidly into in vivo trials in as little as two months. . . . Companies participating in the collaboration include Bayer, BD, bioMérieux, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, Johnson & Johnson, Merck (known as MSD outside the U.S. and Canada), Merck KGaA, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi.” (152)
As was mentioned in part 1, Bayer and Novartis – in a previous cooperative effort known as “I.G. Farben” (153) – were responsible for putting the Nazi party into power, massive amounts of war profiteering, and testing vaccines on death camp inmates, (154) using mandatory vaccination policies as justification for such experiments, (155) which led to the Nuremberg Doctor’s code, (156) which was supposed to have ended such practices forever.
Merck, Pfizer and Litton Bionetics were responsible for the creation and distribution of AIDS in Merck’s Hep B vaccines in the mid 1970s in New York and Uganda – where AIDS first emerged. (157) Or consider, for example, Pfizer’s history of pharmaceutical product price mark-ups in the third world;
“In South Africa, where 4.5 million people have HIV, no one can afford Pfizer’s killer prices. AIDS activists in South Africa and the United States have been demanding that Pfizer drop the price or allow generic production of the drug. Instead, Pfizer opposes efforts by foreign companies to make and sell the same or similar medicines at considerably lower prices. In South Africa, Pfizer’s patent means that even the government must pay $4.15 (£2,83) per pill, while in Thailand, where Pfizer does not have a patent on fluconazole, the drug is only $0.29 (£0,19) per pill. In Kenya, where Pfizer also has exclusive rights, fluconazole costs $18.00 (£12,28) per pill — more expensive, even, than US prices.” (158)
Given the tendency of corporations to focus on the bottom line above all other considerations, (159) and the history of the pharmaceutical industry of price gouging, it is unlikely that the Gates Foundation or their corporate partners will pass up an opportunity to make a killing on the COVID-19 vaccine.
As was pointed out in part 1, Gates was inspired by Rockefeller in many ways. Rockefeller believed in Eugenics (called “population control” after WW2), and monopolistic capitalism, and vaccination. Rockefeller was a pioneer in using foundation money to shape global medicine to be fundamentally proprietary in nature. The Rockefeller Foundation’s International Health Division;
“. . . prioritised vector control, drug development and vaccine research as part of a ‘utopian, millenarian vision of applied science uniting a divided world’.” (160)
The Rockefeller Foundation let it slip in their 1968 annual report that they were thinking about using vaccines to “reduce fertility”! It was only a one-sentence mention in a report that was mainly about birth control . . . but still, it’s an astonishing statement;
“Very little work is in progress on immunological methods, such as vaccines, to reduce fertility, and much more research is required if a solution is to be found here.” (161)
Coincidentally, Rockefeller’s Standard Oil was business partners with I.G. Farben beginning in the late 1920s. (162)
Gates has been interested in matters related to overpopulation from an early age – a concern he shared with his father and namesake, Bill Gates Sr. (163) To see how Gates’ long-held plans for population control tie into his digital I.D. plans and his post-cash society plans (the “Better Than Cash Alliance”), please check out the YouTube video entitled “Bill Gates and the Population Control Grid”, from the Corbett Report. (164)
Gates’ Vaccines Safety Records
Gates’ organization GAVI – the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (165) – was set up by the Gates Foundation in 1999. (166) GAVI – by itself – seems to have had an effect on infant mortality, but not the one promised;
“Overall, child mortality improved more often in nations that received smaller than average GAVI grants per capita. In seven nations that received greater than average funding, child mortality rates worsened.” (167)
The inverse relationship between vaccines and infant mortality has been demonstrated in other research;
“. . . nations that require more vaccine doses tend to have higher infant mortality rates.” (168)
Bill & Melinda Gates used India as a testing ground for both HPV vaccines and polio vaccines. There was an investigation by the Indian government in 2013 into the Gates Foundation’s HPV vaccine program, which revealed problems with both vaccine safety and proper informed consent protocols. The program resulted in seven deaths. (169)
This event has been “fact-checked” with misinformation, in much the same way as the SARS-COV-2 origin issue was “f