GET INSTANT STOCK NOTIFICATIONS - follow our telegram channel and receive instant notifications every time our products become available.

<div>COVID-19, Cannabis & Herbal Medicine</div>

COVID-19, Cannabis & Herbal Medicine

CANNABIS CULTURE – What we know and don’t know about the current plague – and what you can  do to increase your odds of survival.

Image #1 by Komako Sakai from

“‘How about his old Bunny?’ she asked. ‘That?’ said the doctor. ‘Why, it’s a mass of scarlet fever germs!–Burn it at once. What? Nonsense! Get him a new one. He mustn’t have that any more!’”

  • The Velveteen Rabbit, Margery Williams, 1922 (1) 

The Boogeyman

I’m not an immunologist. In fact, I suck at science and don’t have any sort of accreditation of any kind. But I’ve adopted a boy who’s now six years old, and I have taken on certain responsibilities. Responsibilities like telling him bedtime stories like “The Velveteen Rabbit” or “The King’s Stilts” or “Rapunzel”, and looking after his health and wellbeing. I have chosen to be a responsible dad, to be able to look him in the eye and tell him I will do all I can to save him if any type of boogeyman ever comes knocking. The boogeyman, of course, is a mythical creature that eats children. 

These days, the boogeyman may very well take the form of a virus. While COVID-19 – the virus that’s all the rage these days – seems to spare children from death, it also shows signs of mutating, preventing acquired immunity, being more harmful after the first infection, and possibly crashing the world economy – all of which could end up harming our children in some way. Nobody really knows how bad the situation will get, but the general consensus of healthcare professionals is that it is serious. 

Every day since mid January I’ve been reading up on the exponential growth of “COVID-19” – the illness caused by the 2019 novel coronavirus – AKA SARS-CoV-2 and I’m convinced that it could end up being very deadly to humanity – not just in China, Iran and Italy, but everywhere on Earth. I’ve noticed that – at the epicenter in Wuhan, China – the authorities are overwhelmed and people are forced to fend for themselves (2) – and that due to the transmission of this virus being possible up to 27 days before symptoms appear, and due to it’s airborne transmission nature, and due to the fact that that many people left Wuhan after the epidemic spread but before the quarantine was instituted, and due to the fact that it’s now in almost every country and shows little sign of slowing down, the authorities where I live (or where you live) may one day end up being overwhelmed too. 

Like I said, I’m not an accredited anything. But I am fairly good at gathering information and putting it in order, and translating things into everyday language, so that’s what I’m going to do about this boogeyman … so I can look my son in the eye and tell him I did all I could for him, in case the pandemic reaches Vancouver, BC, Canada in a big way. 

The order I’m thinking of putting things in is 1) What we know and what we don’t know about the COVID-19 pandemic 2) How cannabis can help people survive, and  3) What other herbs (and other non-proprietary medicines) might help people survive. The first of the three topics is fairly broad, and has a few surprises in it, so ignore the fact that it’s a long read – you have time to kill now anyway – and read through to the end. I promise you it will be worth it. 

What we know and what we don’t know about the COVID-19 pandemic

Image #2 from

The Basics

First of all, a few definitions might be helpful. What is an “epidemic”? What is an “outbreak”? And what is a “pandemic”? 

  • Epidemic refers to a sudden increase in the number of cases of a disease above what is normally expected. 
  • Outbreak carries the same definition as an epidemic but is often used to describe a more limited geographic event.
  • Pandemic refers to an epidemic that has spread over several countries or continents, usually affecting a large number of people. (3)

Beginning around March 11th, 2020, the World Health Organization stopped calling COVID-19 an outbreak and began calling it a pandemic; (4) By that time it had spread to at least 115 countries and infected at least 120,000 people. On January 27th, 2020, Dr. Nancy Messonnier, director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases stated that she believed it may soon reach “pandemic” proportions. (5) By February 11th, 2020, the illness sometimes known as the 2019 novel coronavirus illness had a new name: “COVID-19”. (6) The illness name is not to be confused with the virus name, which has now been shortened to “SARS-CoV-2”. (7)

What is a “coronavirus” – and how is the 2019 novel coronavirus – or SARS-CoV-2 -different from the other coronaviruses? The Science Alert website provides this basic definition; 

“Coronaviruses are a family of viruses known for containing strains that cause potentially deadly diseases in mammals and birds. In humans they’re typically spread via airborne droplets of fluid produced by infected individuals. Some rare but notable strains, including Wuhan coronavirus (2019-nCoV), and those responsible for severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), can cause death in humans. First described in detail in the 1960s, the coronavirus gets its name from a distinctive corona or ‘crown’ of sugary-proteins that projects from the envelope surrounding the particle. Encoding the virus’ make-up is the longest genome of any RNA-based virus – a single strand of nucleic acid roughly 26,000 to 32,000 bases long.” (8)

Image #3 from The Akron Beacon Journal, Akron, Ohio, July 6th, 1970, pp. 1

When coronaviruses were first mentioned in newspapers, they were described as “non-fatal”:

“The coronas have tended to increase the complexity of the problem because they have been found in 21 varieties – any one of which can lay you low. There may still be additional strains still undiscovered. And to this clan must be added at least 125 known or suspected strains of the ‘rhino’ viruses – so named because they invade the nose. Collectively, these constitute the chief cause of misery-inducing but non-fatal colds in adults. (Baylor University’s) Dr. Couch and his team are after big game. One of their concepts is that if ‘hybrid’ viruses could be developed – that is, a single virus with the combined characteristics of two different ones – it would be theoretically possible with vaccine made from such combos to protect a person indefinitely against up to five of the 125 known or suspected rhinos.” (9)

How and why did the corona viruses evolve from the “non-fatal” variety to the fatal type? It may very well have had something to do with the hybridization spoke of in the article. More on that later. 


How does one tell if one has caught this virus? The symptoms, when they manifest, are often quite severe – but also may be confused with the flu:

“‘The symptoms of this disease are fever, cough and respiratory disease,’ she said. ‘That’s similar to the early symptoms of influenza and other viral respiratory diseases.’ … If you don’t have a fever of 100 degrees Fahrenheit or higher that lasts for three to five days, you likely just have the common cold.” (10) 

The World Health Organization put it this way:

“The most common symptoms of COVID-19 are fever, tiredness, and dry cough. Some patients may have aches and pains, nasal congestion, runny nose, sore throat or diarrhea. These symptoms are usually mild and begin gradually. Some people become infected but don’t develop any symptoms and don’t feel unwell. Most people (about 80%) recover from the disease without needing special treatment. Around 1 out of every 6 people who gets COVID-19 becomes seriously ill and develops difficulty breathing. Older people, and those with underlying medical problems like high blood pressure, heart problems or diabetes, are more likely to develop serious illness. People with fever, cough and difficulty breathing should seek medical attention.” (11) 

“Airborne droplets” are the most common – but not the only – way this virus spreads. One of the most frightening things about COVID-19 is that it can be passed through “asymptomatic infection” – transmission from humans that do not show any symptoms of having the disease. This information is according to the Lancet – a prestigious medical journal – way back in January 24th 2020 (12) – which means that officials have no excuse not to have been acting on this information from the beginning. Screening people who show symptoms and allowing free passage to those who don’t was practiced by most governments until mid March, unfortunately. Hindsight reveals that fighting diseases exhibiting asymptomatic infection involves a greater need for universal testing, greater restrictions on travel for all people, and greater precautions taken by all people (such as wearing masks) – not just the people showing symptoms of infection.

This information has been reaffirmed in other reputable medical journals. (13) The news has widely reported that such studies which prove asymptomatic infection are flawed, but they only find flaws (14) in the January 30th New England Journal of Medicine article, (15) and not the January 24th Lancet article or the February 19th New England Journal of Medicine article. There is a lot of evidence that the establishment has done a terrible job of identifying actual misinformation and endorsing factual information. 

Most official sources indicate that the virus can incubate within the host up to 14 days before symptoms present themselves, (16) but there are indications that it could be a month before symptoms show. (17) In spite of this evidence, on February 23nd, 2020, some Canadian health officials stated they were “not recommending testing” asymptomatic individuals, regardless of their exposure to others or their travel history. (18) As late as March 6th, 2020, a Canadian COVID-19 expert predicated testing for the virus in Canada to only those showing symptoms. (19)

As early as February 3rd, we have known that it can be transmitted through feces. (20) As early as February 8th, we have known that it’s airborne. (21) On March 3rd, 2020, a study was published indicating there were two strains of COVID-19 circulating, and another study came out on March 24th indicating there was as many as 40 different COVID-19 strains. (22) South China Morning Post has posted an instructional video – in English – for proper hand-sanitizing and facemask use. (23) Some Canadian public health officials have publicly doubted the efficacy of masks, but everyone seems agreed that hand-washing is a good thing. (24)

Past coronaviruses have survived in the environment in a range between a few hours to several days. This virus, however, can persist on surfaces for at least 9 days. (25)

How COVID-19 Kills

How does COVID-19 kill? Primarily through something called “ARDS” – Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome; 

“Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a type of respiratory failure characterized by rapid onset of widespread inflammation in the lungs. Symptoms include shortness of breath, rapid breathing, and bluish skin coloration. Among those who survive, a decreased quality of life is relatively common. Causes may include sepsis, pancreatitis, trauma, pneumonia, and aspiration.” (26)

The 2019 Coronavirus appears to cause ARDS through causing pneumonia. (27) What, exactly, is pneumonia? Basically, pneumonia is a form of inflammation in the lungs. (28) There is also evidence of COVID-19 causing permanent lung damage (29) and neurological damage. (30)

The most important way in which this disease differs from the flu is that the flu allows one to acquire a natural immunity to it, whereas COVID-19 appears to either allow no immunity to be developed in some or all victims, to prevent full recovery in some or all victims, or to make accurate testing difficult. And this is related to the reason that one should avoid, if at all possible, the synthetic drugs that are currently being used to treat COVID-19. According to the message forwarded to Taiwan News:

“It’s highly possible to get infected a second time. A few people recovered from the first time by their own immune system, but the meds they use are damaging their heart tissue, and when they get it the second time, the antibody doesn’t help but makes it worse, and they die a sudden death from heart failure.” (31) 

Alternatives to these synthetic “meds” are explored in the second and third parts of this article, below. 

This virus is far more deadly and dangerous than the flu, and due to it being easier to spread and harder to detect, much worse than SARS. So far, the number of cases within China has accelerated, far surpassing the rate of new SARS cases in 2003. (32) An “R0” or “R naught” value is “a mathematical term that indicates how contagious an infectious disease is. It’s also referred to as the reproduction number”. (33) If your R0 is 1, then it means every person who catches that disease will pass it on to 1 other person. For a disease to end, the R0 must eventually drop below 1.  For example, the R0 for SARS has been estimated to have gotten as high as 1.7 before dropping below 1, whereas the same source estimated the R0 for COVID-19 to be as low as 2.9. (34) Some sources argue that the R0 of as high as 4.08. (35) others have argued it’s even higher than that. 

One thing is for sure, it’s way worse than a typical flu – in spite of many assertions to the contrary. (36) It has a higher complication rate (15% severe pneumonia and 5% requiring intensive care), higher mortality rate (20 times the flu, unless the hospital is overrun, then 50 times the flu), an R0” as high as 6.7, it spreads asymptomatically, via aerosols, with an incubation period of up to 27 days, it can persist on surfaces for up to 9 days, humans have zero natural immunity, testing often results in false negatives, and the infectious period is “as long as 37 days”. (37). None of that is true of seasonal influenza. (38)

Mortality Undercount

There are at least two somewhat reliable sources for up-to-date statistics on COVID-19. A special COVID-19 page set up by Johns Hopkins University (39), and a statistics website known as does a fairly good job. (40) There is reason to doubt the statistics that both are relying on when it comes to China, however. For example, journalists posing as Chinese Communist Party officials have taken surveys of funeral homes in Wuhan, learning that only 6.29% of COVID-19-related deaths are reported as such, and that 61% of their customers died at home rather than in a hospital. (41) On February 1st, when the Johns Hopkins website was reporting 7,153 infected people in Hubei province, scientists at Hong Kong University were estimating that the actual number was closer to 75,815 infected people. (42) In late January, videos began circulating of a Wuhan healthcare system pushed to its limits. (43) Doubt of official figures was already widespread by then. (44) Reporters had by then noted that China had “heavily underreported” SARS incidents back in 2002. (45) 

In late January, some families in Wuhan had noticed that probable COVID-19 victims were being diagnosed as “severe pneumonia” instead. (46) Doctors who have spoken candidly about what was happening in Wuhan have been arrested, (47) as have critics of the Chinese Government’s response. (48) Citizen journalists covering the story have gone missing. (49) 

By early February, Taiwan journalists were reporting that Wuhan’s 7 crematoria were all working “24 hours a day, seven days a week”, which means that approximately 2800 bodies per week were being cremated at a time when the official death count was only 490. (50) Some noticed a “death smog” coming from the ashes of cremated bodies hung over Wuhan during this period. (51) One “billionaire whistleblower” estimated the true death toll at “over 50,000” at a time when the global death toll was estimated at just 910. (52) 

Possible Origins

The King’s Stilts, Dr. Seuss, 1939 (53)

“Before Eric could answer and push past him to the King, Lord Droon had grabbed him. He locked at Eric sharply and suddenly the corners of his mouth and turned up in a grin. A shrewd, evil grin. ‘Your face …!’ he said. ‘What’s wrong with your face?’ ‘My face …?’ said Eric. He rubbed his hand over his forehead. It was merely hot and moist from running. ‘Nothing at all is wrong with my face.’ ‘It’s red,’ said Lord Droon, with the sly look he always had when he lied. ‘It’s awfully, awfully RED. MEASLES!’ he shouted. ‘Ho, guards, … take him away! Lock him up!’”

  • The King’s Stilts, Dr. Seuss, 1939 (53)

What we don’t know for sure about COVID-19 is how it came to be. Some theorize it was just a coincidence – a random collection of viruses that recombined naturally, perhaps in the “wet market” in Wuhan, where wild animals and domesticated animals were kept, stacked in cages, wallowing in their own filth, waiting to be slaughtered. 

Some theorize it came from one of two “Bio Safety Level 4” laboratories in Wuhan, perhaps a leak or an animal sold to the seafood (wet) market nearby. 

And some wonder if it wasn’t another bio-weapon designed in one of the Level 4 labs in the United States, by the same people who designed AIDS, Ebola, weaponized anthrax, SARS, MERS, weaponized swine flu and weaponized bird flu. Let’s take a comprehensive and honest look at the facts involving each of these three theories. 

Wet Markets


Animal rights activists – rightfully drawing attention to the injustice of the living hell for animals that are the wet markets – point the finger at them as the “probable source” of the virus. (54) Journalists have done the same thing. (55) Many of the news stories of COVID-19 mention the “Huanan seafood wholesale market” where many of the earliest cases of COVID-19 had connections with. (56) There’s only one problem with this theory: a surprising number of early cases (about 33%) – including at least the first three cases – have absolutely no connection with the fish market … which means the origin of the outbreak might not be the fish market. (57)

Accidental Release

The possibility of a laboratory origin of this virus is quickly dismissed by most media sources – if it’s even mentioned at all:

“There is much speculation of whether this virus is a bio-engineered weapon. This speculation has part arisen because the Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory housed in the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan is authorised to host dangerous pathogens. Conspiracy theories have been widely peddled, but bottom line is we have no evidence to demonstrate that the virus has been intentionally meddled with. Either way the crucial thing now is to concentrate on containing the spread of the disease and not creating speculation. Blaming countries can only incentivize them to obfuscating data instead of transparently sharing disease burden and their response.” (58) 

Image #10 from

This author disagrees that the possible bioweapons origin of the virus isn’t worth investigating – a thorough, high profile investigation might mean the difference between having an airborne ebola/measles/smallpox hybrid come out in the near future or not come out at all. 

A journalist at Foreign Affairs ignored the long history of bioweapons production by many governments all over the world and actually argued that it couldn’t have been a bioweapon because there wasn’t any “incentive” to create one: 

“Within weeks of the pathogen’s appearance, social media lit up with suggestions that the virus was a biological weapon—either a Chinese one that had escaped from a laboratory in Wuhan or an American one inflicted on Wuhan. While such rumors are not credible, given that neither the United States nor China has incentive to develop biological weapons, they are difficult to dispel, because military officials on both sides still view with suspicion each other’s motives in building biosecurity programs.” (59)

Most media sources and government sources won’t even bring up the possibility of COVID-19 being created in a lab, but Republican Senator Tom Cotton has mentioned that possibility in the Senate – but only in the context of it being created in a Chinese lab. (60) And Chinese academics have argued that the virus might have “leaked” from the biolabs near the food market in Wuhan. (61) 

Image #11 from Wikipedia: “Biosafety level”

The biolabs in Wuhan were China’s “first” biosafety level 4 (BSL-4) labs – the first one had opened in 2015 (and received it’s BSL-4 certification in 2017) – a response to China’s SARS experience in 2003. (62) On April 5th, 2018, the Wuhan Institute of Virology – the association that ran the BSL-4 labs – made it into the news after discovering that a virus that gave pigs diarrhea and killed them was a “novel coronavirus” that “originated” in bats. (63) At least that was the official story. An article in 2017 from pointed out that the Wuhan BSL-4 lab was designed to handle SARS and Ebola, and that the “SARS virus has escaped from high-level containment facilities in Beijing multiple times”. (64)

Right wing media – including the Alt Right/Neo Nazi/Steve Bannon-affiliated media – are making a concerted effort to tie the outbreak to the Wuhan BSL-4 lab, one of which is located just 20 miles from the fishmarket – and the other just a few blocks from it – where the “first cluster of cases” was supposed to have originated. (65)

“Conspiracy” websites have pointed out criteria which would indicate the possibility of a novel virus being a “bio-warfare agent”: 

“In a thesis on Biological Weapons, Leonard Horowitz and Zygmunt Dembek stated that one clear sign of a genetically-engineered bio-warfare agent was a disease caused by an uncommon (unusual, rare, or unique) agent, with lack of an epidemiological explanation, i.e. no clear idea of source. They also mentioned an “unusual manifestation and/or geographic distribution”, of which race-specificity would be one. Recent disease outbreaks that would seem to possibly qualify as potential bio-warfare agents are AIDS, SARS, MERS, Bird Flu, Swine Flu, Hantavirus, Lyme Disease, West Nile Virus, Ebola, Polio (Syria), Foot and Mouth Disease, the Gulf War Syndrome and ZIKA. And in fact thousands of prominent scientists, physicians, virologists and epidemiologists on many continents have concurred that all these viruses were lab-created and their release deliberate. The recent swine flu epidemic in China has the hallmarks as well, with circumstantial evidence of the outbreak raising only questions.” (66)

Dual Use Research of Concern

Image #12 from

One of the “potential bio-warfare agents” on this list – Bird Flu – was confirmed (by the US Army itself) to have been weaponized – made airborne – in a bio lab in 2011. The Army even has a euphemism for the weaponization of viruses (something they’re not officially allowed to be involved in) – “dual-use research of concern”, or “DURC”:

“Perhaps the most prominent example of dual use research of concern in recent years occurred in late 2011, when two independent research groups prepared to publish in which mutations were introduced into highly pathogenic influenza H5N1 viruses that facilitated efficient transmission of the viruses in the ferret model.” (67) 

This admission from the Army of making Bird Flu airborne was echoed in the magazine Science:

“The publication in this issue of the research paper Airborne Transmission of Influenza A/H5N1 Virus Between Ferrets, plus its newer companion The Potential for Respiratory Droplet–Transmissible A/H5N1 Influenza Virus to Evolve in a Mammalian Host, marks the end of more than 8 months of widely reported controversy over whether some of the data now freely accessible should be withheld in the public interest … As a result, people worldwide are now much more aware of the potential threat that this virus, commonly known as “bird flu,” poses to humanity. And the open publication of new data concerning the potential of H5N1 to convert directly to a form that can be transferred through the air between ferrets will motivate many more policy-makers and scientists to work to reduce the likelihood that this virus will evolve to cause a pandemic. … As described in News and Commentary pieces in this special section, the prolonged controversy has also provided a ‘stress test’ of the systems that had been established to enable the biological sciences to deal with ‘dual-use research of concern’ (DURC): biological research with legitimate scientific purposes that may be misused to pose a biologic threat to public health and/or national security.” (68) 

The US Department of Homeland Security published a “Biological Attack Fact-Sheet” which mentions the “Australia Group” – a “loose association of nations that agrees not to export tools and technologies, including pathogens, that have ‘dual uses’ —that is, they can be used for both legitimate and nefarious purposes”. (69) Notice that they don’t agree to not engage in dual use tech – just not to share it. Apparently, according to their website, China is not a member of the group. (70)

One assumes that the “other use” in the dual use involve creating vaccines which defend against these weaponized viruses. But those “novel virus/bioweapons vaccines” never seem to materialize until it’s way too late – if they materialize at all – so the whole thing seems more like a pretext to build bio-weapons than a genuine positive application of the technology. 

Image #13 from, Dec. 19, 2017

There may be some connection with Canada’s BSL-4 lab and Chinese lab workers who were recently booted back to China for some unstated reason. (71) The Politifact website tried to argue there was no connection between the Canadian/Chinese BSL-4 incident and COVID-19 because those workers worked on MERS, not the Wuhan coronavirus. (72) But nobody is going to admit working on a virus that’s supposed to have arisen naturally – that would be admitting to mass murder and war crimes. And MERS is one of the components of COVID-19. (73) MERS might be a bio-weapon itself, for all we know. 

Ari Allyn-Feuer, a self-described “principle data scientist at a major pharmaceutical company” – GlaxoSmithKline (74) attempts to debunk the “lab origin” hypothesis by saying that other viruses such as SARS have jumped from bats to humans “by way of intermediates” before, therefore if SARS was natural then COVID-19 could also be natural. (75) But is it a safe assumption that SARS was naturally-occurring and not another lab-produced virus? 

Building Blocks

The Wikipedia page for SARS indicates that it could be “genetically traced to a colony of cave-dwelling horseshoe bats in China’s Yunnan province”. (76) But these bats didn’t actually contain SARS – just “the building blocks” of SARS (77), which indicates that they could also be the bats that supplied the version of the coronavirus a laboratory used to build SARS with. The lab workers that identified the proto-SARS bats worked at the Wuhan BSL-4 lab. (78)

Image #14 from

Another interesting fact is that this mostly bat-related virus was supposed to have originated in the Wuhan seafood market, but according to the Lancet, “no bats were sold or found at the Huanan seafood market”. (79) The assumption is that it must be an “intermediary” that transferred the virus from the bats to humans, but this intermediary has yet to be identified. According to one article on bats and coronaviruses, “the pathogenesis of most bat CoVs in humans remains unknown as the viruses have never been isolated or rescued” (80) – note that an “unknown pathogenesis” (unknown origin) is pretty much the “lack of an epidemiological (study of the cause) explanation” mentioned earlier as one of the hallmarks of a bio-weapon. Also recall that when coronaviruses were first discovered, none were lethal, but the new ones have all proven to be potentially fatal. According to Michael J. Ainscough, a bio-weapons expert and Colonel in the US Air Force, increased “virulence” (harmfulness) is another hallmark of a bio-weapon. (81) So that’s two hallmarks of a bio-weapon COVID-19 displays. 

The GlaxoSmithKline rep reveals his institutional bias in the following attempt to debunk the lab-origin theory:

“So in order to believe the Wuhan virus is a bioweapon, you’d have to believe that the Chinese government engineered a coronavirus by starting with an exotic wild strain instead of a strain known to infect humans. Then you also have to believe they either intentionally released it in the exact time, place, and manner that would be most suggestive of a wild origin (i.e. in a seafood market), or they falsified all the clinical data on early cases to suggest a fish market origin that was not real.” (82) 

There are many things wrong with this statement. A) If you wanted to make it seem like it was naturally-occurring instead of a bioweapon, why wouldn’t you try and release it in a place where the animals you took viruses from were located? B) The first victim – and 14 of the first 41 victims – had nothing to do with the seafood market. (83) C) Why assume that those who created the virus – if the virus was created – started with an exotic wild strain? Why couldn’t they have started with a strain known to infect humans and then added elements of the wild animal strain afterwards, to throw people off the trail? D) Why is the possible culprit limited to the Chinese government? Why couldn’t it have been another bioweapons program trying to appear as if it were China’s program?


The third possible origin of COVID-19 is that it was made in a lab, on purpose, and released, on purpose, for some really effed-up reasons. It’s hard to even discuss this possibility because of a CIA psy-op (84) dating back to 1967, using now well-known CIA influence in the mass media (85) to label anyone doubting the official story on the JFK assassination as a “conspiracy theorist” (86).

Image #15 from Wikipedia: “Single-bullet theory”

This has evolved into the situation we are in now, where anyone who questions any of the official stories the government provides is dismissed as a conspiracy theorist, even though concepts familiar to sociology students that would lead rational people to question official stories – such as “conflicts of interest” (87) and “elite deviance” (88) – are quite well-founded and backed up with lots and lots of evidence. Just watch the film “The Corporation” to see what I’m talking about. 

In spite of this “stigma against skepticism of our rulers” psy-op, some people have brought up the possibility that COVID-19 was created by forces other than China and was released on purpose. For example, the current Chinese foreign ministry spokesman (89) and the former President of Iran (90) have both made that claim. The Chinese Government spokesman – Lijian Zhao – supported his claims by sharing two articles on his Twitter account (91) on March 12th from the Canadian conspiracy website “Global Research”, a website which, upon close inspection, is sometimes truthful and sometimes untruthful. The first article hints at economic sabotage of the Chinese economy as the motive and the international Military World Games held in Wuhan in late October, 2019 (92) as the means to introduce COVID-19 into China, (93), while the second (94) suggests there may have been an accidental release in the US – stemming from containment problems at the Fort Detrick BSL-4 lab in Maryland back in August 2019, (95) which was then accidentally transferred to China through the Military World Games. 

Iran’s former President – Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – blames “some domineering powers” and/or “world hegemonic powers” for the release, “for establishing and/or maintaining political and economic upper hand in the global arena”. Ahmadinejad provides no evidence for his assertions, but one of the articles Zhao points to cites a report by a Taiwanese virologist who argues that there are multiple types of COVID-19, and that;

“… the type infecting Taiwan exists only in Australia and the US and, since Taiwan was not infected by Australians, the infection in Taiwan could have come only from the US … Neither Iran nor Italy were included in the above tests, but both countries have not deciphered the locally prevalent genome and have declared them of different varieties from those in China, which means they did not originate in China but were of necessity introduced from another source. It is worth noting that the variety in Italy has approximately the same fatality rate as that of China, three times as great as other nations, while the haplotype in Iran appears to be the deadliest with a fatality rate of between 10% and 25%.” (96)

US Bioterror History 

Image #17 by Diego Rivera from the Detroit Industry Murals: “The Uses And Abuses Of Science: Vaccination” from Pinterest

How likely are these accusations? A history of US involvement in bioweapon manufacture and bioterrorism might help put these accusations in context. The left wing website Countervortex has done a good job of outlining a general overview of the long, horrible history of the United States involvement in biological warfare weapons production and use. (97) This author’s overview of this history – a history of big chemical, big oil and the biological weapons industry – might also help put things into perspective. (98) But this is already a pretty long article, and that’s a lot of reading, so here are a few highlights. 

“No job too dirty for a fucking scientist…”

  • William S. Burroughs (99)

Image #18 from Wikipedia: “Operation Anthropoid

The US began it’s biological warfare weapons production program during WW2. While not actually using any bio-weapons against the Germans (unlike the British Army and Czech resistance, who succeeded in assassinating Reinhard Heydrich – the head of the Nazi security service, the man in charge of the Holocaust and the overseer of most of Czechoslovakia – with a grenade that some say way was laced with botulism) (100), they made preparations too, including “5,000 anthrax-filled bombs” (101) and an unspecified number of “brucellosis” bombs. (102) A 1945 report from the US “Joint Technical Warfare Committee on ‘Potentialities of Weapons of Biological Warfare During the Next Ten Years’” stated;

“Biological warfare need not remain a method of warfare repugnant to the civilized world. The further development of types such as US (code for a brucellosis weapon) coupled with a certain amount of informed guidance of the public might well result in its being regarded as very humane indeed by comparison with atomic bombs.” (103)

Image #19 from

After WW2 ended, the US took advantage of Japanese biological weapons research as one of the “spoils” of war:

“During the Second World War the Japanese operated the infamous biological weapons warfare research center, called United 731, in Manchuria and deliberately exposed some three thousand Chinese prisoners to a variety of agents, including the plague, anthrax and syphilis. Prisoners were tied to stakes in a grid pattern and then biological weapons were dropped from aircraft. The effectiveness of this was sometimes determined by live dissection of the prisoners without the use of anaesthetics. The atrocities were not confined to Unit 731. At one point during the war, plague-infected rats were grown in Unit 731 and then released in China. It is believed that they may have killed at least thirty thousand people in the Harbin area of China between 1946 and 1948. … There was a huge outcry after journalist Nicholas D. Kristof published an article in the New York Times on March 17th, 1995, that exposed this horrendous unit. But the anger was equally aimed at the U.S. government who, Kristof claimed, had agreed to a US-Japanese cover-up. He concluded that the United States had kept its knowledge of Unit 731 a secret in return for information from the experiments, an act that in itself ignores both international laws and any concept of human justice.” (104)

Image #20 from

In 1950, retired rear admiral and wartime Navy intelligence chief Ellis M. Zacharias was threatening to respond with “bacterial, biological and climatological” weapons against China if they went to war with the US;

Image #21 from Daily News, New York City, December 7th 1950, p. 286

“We should tell the Chinese we will not use our troops in that war, but will use against them those weapons of mass destruction that we have in vast quantities. I think the Chinese will understand that. … We have a certain type of chemical, a half ounce of which can wipe out millions of people.” (105) 

According to Ken Alibek – former Deputy Chief of the Soviet “Biopreparat” biological weapons program;

Image #22 from Democrat & Chronicle, Rochester, New York, June 27th, 1952, p. 21

“Beginning in 1951, agricultural agents were developed at Camp Detrick and other facilities to attack the Soviet wheat crop and the rice paddies of Communist China.” (106)

In 1952, the International Association of Democratic Lawyers issued two reports on the US use of biological weapons – one regarding use in Korea (107) and one regarding use in China. (108) Their reports detailed a number of different weapons;

“… feathers infected with anthrax; lice, fleas and mosquitos dosed with plague and yellow fever, diseased rodents; and various implements contaminated with deadly microbes – toilet paper, envelopes, and the ink in fountain pens. In 1958 the Eisenhower administration pressed sedition charges against three Americans who had published the germ warfare charge in China Monthly Review – John W. Powell, Sylvia Powell, and Julian Schuman – but failed to get convictions.” (109) 

Image #23 from Wikipedia: Allegations of biological warfare in the Korean War

These charges were supported with confessions from US soldiers who became prisoners of war in Korea – and who faced enormous pressure from both the Korean military who captured them, and the American military once they returned home and recanted. Modern academics are split on the veracity of the findings of these reports – not without reason:

“Australian historian Gavan McCormack argued that the claim of US biological warfare use was ‘far from inherently implausible’, pointing out that one of the POWs who confessed, Walker Mahurin, was in fact associated with Fort Detrick. He also pointed out that, as the deployment of nuclear and chemical weapons was considered, there is no reason to believe that ethical principles would have overruled the resort to biological warfare. He also suggested that the outbreak in 1951 of viral haemorrhagic fever, which had previously been unknown in Korea, was linked to biological warfare.” (110)

In 1956, The United States changed their official policy on biological weapons;

“US Army manuals which had previously stated that ‘gas and bacteriological warfare are employed by the United States against enemy personnel only in retaliation’ were rewritten. In future they said ‘the decision for US forces to use chemical and biological weapons rests with the President of the United States.’” (111) 

Image #24 from Florence Morning News, Florence, South Carolina, January 12th,

1960, p. 10

Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome

In 1964, a secret research program began to be run out of the many biological laboratories near Washington, D.C., eventually involving various National Cancer Institute labs in Bethesda, Maryland, the bio-weapons laboratories of the defense contractor – Litton Bionetics – and the bio-weapons laboratories run by the US Army at Fort Detrick, Maryland. This program was known as the “Special Virus Cancer Program”. (112) 

Image #25 from The Bristol Herald Courier, Bristol, Tennessee, April 5th, 1963, p. 24In 1973, no doubt thanks to the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (113) which forbade the creation of bioweapons, the program changed it’s name to the Virus Cancer Program, (114) probably because the word “Special” is military jargon for “secret” – as in “Special Ops”, “Special Forces” and “Special Activities Center”. (115) If you were going to have a “secret cancer virus program”, you couldn’t go ahead and call it that, or you risk it no longer being secret. 

Robert Gallo, one of the people credited with “discovering” AIDS, worked at the National Cancer Institute under contract from Litton Bionetics in the Special Virus Cancer Program. Gallo worked under contract with this defense contractor to develop “mutant viruses functionally identical to HIV” (116) – years before he “discovered” HIV. Gallo forgets to mention Litton Bionetics in his tell-all account of his AIDS-discovering work – “Virus Hunting”. Litton Bionetics and Gallo were both mentioned in a Palm Springs newspaper in 1984 for their work in the identification of the virus they probably created: 

 “Sarngadharan, a scientist with Litton Bionetics Inc., worked with Dr. Robert Gallo and his team at the National Cancer Institute in isolating HTLV-3, identifying it and developing a cell system in which to grow the virus in quantity.” (117)

Image #28 from The Physician, Life Science Library, Time Inc., New York, 1967 pp. 142-143

That Litton Bionetics/Gallo connection is just one of the smoking guns that suggest AIDS was created in a lab as a weapon. 

Image #29 from Emerging Viruses, Dr. Leonard Horowitz, Tetrahedron Publishing, Rockport, Massachusetts, p. 50

The biggest smoking gun of them all is “House Bill 15090”, (118) consisting of testimony from Dr. Donald MacArthur, then director of the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency, who on July 1st, 1969, testified before the defense subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee on the “research, development, testing and evaluation of synthetic biological agents,” a portion of which is reprinted below;

“Dr. MacArthur: There are two things about the biological agent Field 1 would like to mention. One is the possibility of technological surprise. Molecular biology is a field that is advancing very rapidly and many eminent biologists believe that in a period of 5-10 years it would be possible to produce a synthetic biological agent. An agent which does not naturally exist and for which no natural immunity could have been acquired.

Mr. Sikes: Are we doing any work in that field?

Dr. MacArthur: We are not.

Mr. Sikes: Why not? Lack of money or lack of interest?

Dr. MacArthur: Certainly not lack of interest.

Mr. Sikes: Would you provide for our records information on what would be required, what the advantages of such a program would be. The time and the cost involved?

Dr. MacArthur: We will be very happy to.” 

Image #30 from Medical Aspects of Biological Warfare, US Army Medical Department Center and School, Borden Institute, 2018, from

This information follows:

“The dramatic progress being made in the field of molecular biology led us to investigate the relevance of this field of science to biological warfare. A small group of experts considered this matter and provided the following observations:

  1. All biological agents up the present time are representatives of naturally occurring disease, and are thus known by scientists throughout the world. They are easily available to qualified scientists for research, either for offensive or defensive purposes.
  2. Within the next 5 to 10 years,it would probably be possible to make a new infective microorganism which could differ in certain important aspects from any known disease-causing organisms. Most important of these is that it might be refractory to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon which we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease.
  3. A research program to explore the feasibility of this could be completed in approximately 5 years at a total cost of $10 million.
  4. It would be very difficult to establish such a program. Molecular biology is a relatively new science. There are not many highly competent scientists in the field. Almost all are in university laboratories, and they are generally adequately supported from sources other than DOD. However, it was considered possible to initiate an adequate program through the National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council (NAS-NRC). The matter was discussed with the NAS-NRC, and tentative plans were plans were made to initiate the program. However decreasing funds in CB [chemical and biological warfare], growing criticism of the CB program, and our reluctance to involve the NAS-NRC in such a controversial endeavor have led us to postpone it for the past 2 years. It is a highly controversial issue and there are many who believe such research should not be undertaken lest it lead to yet another method of massive killing of large populations. On the other hand, without the sure scientific knowledge that such a weapon is possible, and an understanding of the ways it could be done, there is little that can be done to devise defensive measures. Should an enemy develop it, there is little doubt that this is an important area of potential military technological inferiority in which there is no adequate research program.”

Image #31 from The News, Frederick, Maryland, December 10th, 1969, p. 36

According to researcher Mark Sanborne: 

“The Pentagon got the requested $10 million for its research program, though it never officially announced what conclusions, recommendations, or ‘practical’ results ultimately emerged from the effort. But here’s the key for those suspicious of the official story: MacArthur said the research could be completed in five years and that a synthetic biological agent ‘for which no natural immunity could have been acquired’ could be produced ‘within the next five to 10 years.’ A decade later, people—initially gay American men and shortly thereafter Africans and other populations around the world—suddenly began dying of what subsequently came to be called Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome: AIDS.” (119) 

Image #32 from Emerging Viruses, Dr. Leonard Horowitz, Tetrahedron Publishing, Rockport, Massachusetts, p. 245

According to researcher Dr. Leonard Horowitz, “the first cases of AIDS appeared simultaneously and mysteriously in New York City and Central Africa” (120) – exactly where Merck (involved in bio-weapons production from the beginning and also involved in the Special Virus Cancer Program) set up Hepatitis B Vaccination Programs. (121) At the onset of the AIDS epidemic, the Center for Disease Control Hepatitis B chief Dr. Don Francis said:

“Combine these two diseases – feline leukemia and hepatitis – and you have the immune deficiency.” (122)

A close examination of the work done in the Special Virus Cancer Program reveals that was exactly the kind of work being done. (123)

 The 2001 Anthrax Attacks 

Image #33 from

One of the most famous biological weapons attacks ever perpetrated in the United States was the Anthrax attack of September/October, 2001. According to Professor Francis A. Boyle, the man who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989:

“The anthrax in the Daschle letter was extremely sophisticated: super-weapons-grade anthrax with a special treatment designed to eliminated electrostatic charges so it could float in the air. The only scientists who would have had the capability to manufacture this would be individuals who either are currently employed, or had been employed, by the U.S. government’s biowarfare program.” (124)

Professor Boyle goes on to state;

“I believe the FBI knows exactly who was behind these terrorist anthrax attacks upon the United States Congress in the Fall of 2001, and that the culprits were U.S. government-related scientists involved in a criminal U.S. government biowarfare program that violated both the BWC and U.S. domestic legislation implementing the same. For that reason, the FBI is not going to apprehend and have indicted the culprits because the ensuing legal process would, in a court of law, directly implicate the United States government itself …” (125)

Image #34 from the covers of the Oct. 8th, 2001 Time and Newsweek magazines

The FBI and CDC “both gave permission for Iowa State University to destroy the Iowa anthrax archive and the archive was destroyed on October 10 and 11, 2001”

making identification of the culprit through tracing the type of anthrax used in the attack impossible. (126) There were attempts to blame the attacks on Iraq (127) and then Fort Detrick workers Steven Hatfill (128) and then Bruce Edwards Ivans (129) but all these theories had problems, (130) and many people feel the culprit has yet to be found. (131)

Image #35 from the Oct. 8th, 2001 Time magazine, p. 38

Interestingly, a laboratory which handles weaponized anthrax – the Miles Cutter laboratory in Berkeley, California, is owned by Bayer, (132) who also make Cipro (133) – a medicine held out to be a cure for weaponized anthrax. In fact, the October 8th, 2001, editions of Time and Newsweek both repeatedly mention anthrax as a possible terror weapon that might soon be used against the people of the United States, (134) right before it became common knowledge that there had been an actual anthrax attack (135), and both magazines mention Cipro as a possible remedy. (136) Bayer made a killing from Cipro sales as a result of these ads for Cipro disguised as news stories. (137) Bayer also failed to warn some of their customers that Cipro caused nerve damage, and people were injured as a result. (138)

Bird Flu (H5N1), SARS, Swine Flu (H1N1), MERS

There are some important facts to consider regarding these emerging viruses. Bird Flu didn’t begin to infect humans until 1997. (139) SARS was the first lethal coronavirus, which emerged in 2002. (140) The latest Swine Flu appears to be a combination of bird, pig and human viruses, and appeared in 2009. (141) MERS – the second lethal coronavirus – appeared in 2012. (142)

Image #35 from the Oct. 8th, 2001 Time magazine, p. 38

The first thing to consider is how these viruses, with murky origins, have all evolved to be more dangerous. Sure, it could be all coincidence, but those coincidences are starting to pile up. The second thing to consider is the huge market for vaccines:

“The Global Vaccine Market was valued at over USD 32.5 billion in 2015 and is expected to reach over USD 77.5 billion by 2024 … Some of the key players in the market are Sanofi, Glaxo SmithKline PLC, Merck & CO., INC., Novartis AG, Aduro biotech, ImmunoCellular Therapeutics Ltd, Antigen Express, INC, Agenus Inc, Galena Biopharma Inc., Dynavax Technologies Corp., and Inovio Pharmaceuticals.” (143)

Image #37 from, “Cuts in flu vaccine orders may hit profits”, Dec. 17th, 2009

Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, CSL and Seqirus are involved with the Bird Flu vaccine, (144) CSL, Sanofi Pasteur and Novartis are involved with the Swine Flu vaccine, (145) GeneOne Life Science Inc. and Inovio Pharmaceuticals are involved with the MERS vaccine, (146) and SARS seems resistant to vaccine production, on account of all the evidence getting out that people were getting sicker after using it than they would have if they didn’t use it. (147)

Image #38 from, “Novartis flu vaccines banned by some European countries”, GlobalPost, Oct. 25th, 2012

NAZI Vaccine Experiments

If you look closely at the history of some of the pharmaceutical companies that make vaccines – especially ones that have been around for a while like Merck (the pharmaceutical company that began the US bioweapons program in WW2) and Novartis AG (made up of Ciba, Geigy and Sandoz – the Swiss wing of the German-led war profiteer chemical cartel I.G. Farben), you would find that they h