CANNABIS CULTURE – What we know and don’t know about the current plague – and what you can do to increase your odds of survival.
“‘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)
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
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)
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)
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 Worldometers.info 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)
“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.
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)
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)
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)
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 Nature.com 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
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.
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?
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)
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).
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
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)
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)
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)
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;
“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;
“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)
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)
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)
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:
That Litton Bionetics/Gallo connection is just one of the smoking guns that suggest AIDS was created in a lab as a weapon.
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.”
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- A research program to explore the feasibility of this could be completed in approximately 5 years at a total cost of $10 million.
- 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.”
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 have a long track record of committing war crimes and other atrocities for a profit. (148)
While vaccines are not as profitable as the rest of the pharmaceutical industry, that might not always be the case, as pills show no signs of being made mandatory, unlike vaccination, which gets more mandatory every year. As Wikipedia points out;
“Forced vaccination (as opposed to fines or refusal of services) is rare and typically only happens as an emergency measure during an outbreak.” (149)
The ironic thing about compulsory vaccination is that big pharma no doubt lobbies for it (Merck recently got caught lobbying for it) (150) – “big pharma” being groups of large pharmaceutical companies that work together on common goals (151) – and some of the exact same pharmaceutical corporations who are in these associations today were responsible for the creation of the Nuremberg Doctor’s Code in WW2 through using prisoners in death camps to test their vaccines on. (152) NAZI doctors even used the existence of mandatory vaccinations as a rationale for experimenting on people without their consent! (153) Nazi doctors also called typhus the “Jewish plague” (154), probably for the same reason president Trump calls COVID-19 the “Chinese Virus” (155) – to pretend the official enemy is the origin of the disease, and hide where the virus is really coming from. The resulting doctor’s code of ethics – AKA the “Nuremberg Code” – supposedly prevents the medical establishment from conducting experiments on people without their consent. (156)
The reality of the situation is that today’s vaccines have no long-term studies (impossible, as they are either brand new to deal with novel flus and other novel viruses or used in conjunction with other vaccines in a list that grows too fast for long term studies on the new recommended assortment of vaccines to ever be done) (157) so every person who is subject to mandatory vaccination is technically being experimented on without their consent. This author learned this first hand when he was told – while serving time in prison for cannabis & magic mushroom-related offenses – that the H1N1 vaccine might be forced on him under certain circumstances;
“When I first arrived at North Fraser, they asked me why I didn’t want the shot; I told them I didn’t trust it. They responded with the classic appeal to authority, ‘So you think you know better then the Center for Disease Control, eh?’ I responded with: ‘I know about the Swine Flu vaccination of 1976 where one person died of the flu and 25 people died of the vaccine, and over 1000 ended up with horrible vaccine-related diseases.’ The North Fraser doctor had no response to that. When I was moved from North Fraser to Fraser Regional it was at the height of the scare. The nurses were busy taking each prisoner’s temperature. When it came time for my turn, I asked one of them, ‘Isn’t true that at the Nuremberg Doctors’ Trial a precedent was established that medical procedures could not be conducted without the consent of the patient?’ ‘I’d agree with that,’ responded the nurse, adding, ‘unless there were extenuating circumstances.’ They didn’t elaborate.” (158)
The problems with today’s vaccines are many. Infant mortality is directly correlated to the number of vaccines taken – “nations that require more vaccine doses tend to have higher infant mortality rates.” (159) Vaccines for diseases such as measles in developed countries – diseases which are not much of a threat to human life in countries where there’s good nutrition and good living standards – these vaccines have a higher death rate than the disease itself. In the case of the measles vaccine in the US, between 2003 and 2017 there were 2 measles deaths and 127 measles vaccine deaths. (160) Evidence that various diseases were greatly reduced by cleaner water and improved sanitation and labour standards before the introduction of their vaccines is routinely dismissed or ignored. (161)
In spite of all this evidence, the education of doctors about the true nature of vaccine side effects is rumored to be weak. This author has been unable to find any stand-alone course in any medical school – or even any single textbook – devoted solely to vaccine side effects. Even if doctors were sufficiently educated about vaccine side effects, it’s not clear what good it would do – the US VAERS (the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System) and CAEFISS (the Canadian Adverse Events Following Immunization Surveillance System) – the systems designed to keep track of negative reactions to vaccines – seem to be designed to track vaccine injuries (so vaccine producers can eliminate problems too big to ignore) while at the same time preventing researchers from using the statistics to argue a causal relationship between certain vaccines and injury. (162) There should be a system that also records cases of causal relationships between vaccines and injury but we have these systems instead.
Record keeping of vaccine-injury statistics is made more difficult because vaccine court – the venue to address vaccine-related injury – is relatively unknown, “highly adversarial” and sends no reports to Health and Human Services regarding vaccine injury statistics. (163) Vaccine makers are absolved of all liability by national governments, a situation which removes incentives to care about vaccine safety. (164) And critics of vaccine safety have been railroaded by the medical establishment. (165) Detractors of the infamous Dr. Andrew Wakefield – the doctor who brought attention to the possible relationship between autism and vaccination – won’t even look at the evidence of the fraud perpetrated by his critics (166), or bother to listen to his own defense of his work. (167)
In spite of all this, the vaccine industry stands to make a killing if somehow they can create a situation where everyone in the world was forced to be vaccinated. The cost of a single flu shot in the USA is between $15 dollars to $85 dollars. (168) Imagine a pharmaceutical company getting $50 dollars per shot from each nation for every citizen for a “mandatory pandemic vaccine”. Multiply $50 by 7.77 billion people (169) or so, and you have over $388 billion – about 5 times as much money as the entire industry is projected to make in 2024 … off just one shot. Given the history of the chronic ethical lapses of the vaccine industry, $388 billion just might be too much temptation for them to resist. With that much scratch, they could even afford to spread a bit of it around with healthcare providers – or kick back some of it to cooperative politicians. With the expected demand being what it would be, they could charge whatever they wanted for it – and get it.
Making obscene amounts of money is just one motive behind the creation of a COVID-19-esque bioweapon. There are two others to consider: a) the creation of a police state where human medical autonomy – or even human autonomy itself – is but a distant memory, and b) the dramatic decrease in population by those who – for various ignorance-based reasons, want to see a lot less people alive. Let us now consider those other motives.
China – already a totalitarian dictatorship with little room for dissent – intensified their control over their people using COVID-19 as a pretext. Chinese people have been dragged from their homes (170) to substandard facilities (171) while at the same time the Chinese government was claiming (as early as February 9th) that the situation had been “stabilized”. (172) Chinese people are also being locked into their apartments with chains and iron bars – or even being welded in – without regard to fire safety or other possible emergencies. Authorities are refusing to answer how long it would take them to respond in an emergency. (173)
Activists within China have taken the opportunity to point out how the authoritarian nature of the government has made everything worse. (174) There may be risks to being a whistleblower in China – some have died from the virus. (175) Some Chinese journalists have gone missing. (176) Critics have also gone missing. (177) Doctors have been arrested for being truthful about the situation on social media. (178) An intense battle over the flow of information has begun between the Chinese government and the Chinese (and Taiwanese) people. (179) The Chinese government has now claimed that Wuhan has “recovered”, and whistleblowers claim such assertions are false. (180) Journalists in the US who have kept track of what is happening in China have called it a “bio-police state”. (181)
But such activities are not limited to China. The fast-rising death rate has prompted Italy to use the military to enforce the lockdown. (182) Germany has banned gatherings of “2 or more” people (aside from families). (183) Israel has instituted a “24 hour curfew”, (184) and taken steps that some have called a “power grab”;
“In only four days, he has shut down Israeli courts, ordered the internal security services to secretly track citizens using their cellphone data and incapacitated the nation’s parliament. Legal experts say the measures — ostensibly taken to protect public health — is a power grab without precedent in Israeli history, including wartime, and may serve as an example to other leaders as the crisis unfolds.” (185)
In Hungary, the government has plans to “introduce prison sentences for those deemed to be spreading false information. … Promoting false information that hinders authorities’ efforts would carry a prison term of as long as five years.” (186)
In British Columbia, Canada, the Provincial Government has declared a state of emergency, and passed measures that would allow them to do many things, including “enter any building without a warrant”. (187) The Governor of California is floating the idea of instituting martial law in that state, possibly suspending “right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, freedom of association, and freedom of movement”. (188) The US Department of Justice has begun taking even more drastic measures;
“The Trump Department of Justice has asked Congress to craft legislation allowing chief judges to indefinitely hold people without trial and suspend other constitutionally-protected rights during coronavirus and other emergencies, according to a report by Politico’s Betsy Woodruff Swan.” (189)
The Trump administration is also clamping down on the freedom of speech. Health officials and scientists have been banned from speaking about COVID-19 without the approval of Vice President Mike Pence. (190) And it appears as though a whistleblower nurse in New York who called attention to “shortages in protective equipment” has been penalized by hospital managers. (191) Critics of the Trump administration (and of authoritarian regimes in general) have warned of a impending “global detention state” and have described the situation as “bio-fascism”. (192)
Unless you have spent your life studying sustainable ecology, renewable energy and non-intrusive zero population growth strategies, you might have some pretty bizarre ideas about possible solutions to the problems that come with over-population, climate destabilization and ecological collapse. These bizarre ideas are nothing new;
“In his 1798 book An Essay on the Principle of Population, Malthus observed that an increase in a nation’s food production improved the well-being of the populace, but the improvement was temporary because it led to population growth, which in turn restored the original per capita production level. In other words, humans had a propensity to utilize abundance for population growth rather than for maintaining a high standard of living, a view that has become known as the “Malthusian trap” or the “Malthusian spectre”. Populations had a tendency to grow until the lower class suffered hardship, want and greater susceptibility to famine and disease, a view that is sometimes referred to as a Malthusian catastrophe. … He also stated that there was a fight for survival amongst humans and that only the strong who could attain food and other needs would survive, unlike the impoverished population he saw during his time period.” (193)
This brutal reaction – a competitive “fight for survival” instead of an attempt to cooperate for survival – has manifested in various types of policies, literature and other media over the years, from the eugenics movement (194) and sterilization programs (195) of Canada, the US, Germany and other countries in the first half of the 20th century, to the 1967 satire/not satire “Report From Iron Mountain”, (196) to the 1974 Henry Kissinger document “National Security Study Memorandum 200”, (197) to the 1980 Georgia Guidestones which suggest the global population be maintained at 500 million people, (198) to the 1988 “joke” by Prince Philip – the husband of Queen Elizabeth II – who was quoted as saying;
“In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, to contribute something to solving overpopulation.” (199)
For the “population cull” theory of COVID-19 to be a truly plausible theory, you would need to prove a few things. You would need to prove that such a virus could be created in a lab and that similar viruses have been manufactured and released in the past. You would need to prove that it would be advantageous for elites to release such a virus – to benefit them financially and that it would consolidate their hold on power. I believe, based on the facts gathered above, that such criteria have been met. But the case would be made even more compelling if you could find evidence of prior knowledge of the virus being released and evidence of elites actively attempting to exacerbate the problem on purpose. Does such evidence exist?
All of the familiar elements of a plague – the predictable public response and the proper public response – are well understood, and have been the subject of much study. For example, take the yellow fever outbreak in Philadelphia in 1793. (200) An excellent, award-winning book was published about the outbreak in 2003 called “An American Plague” (201) which I happened to find in a used bookstore in January, when I first learned of the Novel Coronavirus. What happened in Philadelphia – a result of virus-infected mosquitoes, unbeknownst to the population – played out in a similar fashion to how COVID-19 is playing out, and how most serious outbreaks and pandemics played (and will play) out.
The disease spread quickly and was difficult to treat. (202) Rich people could afford to leave the city, but poor people had nowhere else to go. (203) People debated the origin of the disease. (204) Herbal medicines were used by many people – including those who employed the strategy of “clutching bags of camphor”. Carrying around lots of camphor – the essence of which is now used in insect repellant – is probably the only measure taken that would have had any effect on keeping the virus-infected mosquitos away. (205) As history proved time and time again, non-proprietary folk medicine is effective medicine.
People practiced social distancing. (206) Stores and schools closed. (207) The medical establishment ignored the true source of the problem – mosquitos – while the unaccredited advice-givers displayed insightful intuition, focused on the real problem, and gave practical advice on how to kill them off. (208) Quarantines and “emergency powers” were enacted by the officials. (209) The disease began picking off the poor in greater numbers, as they couldn’t afford to flee, and couldn’t afford treatment – or even basic nutrition. (210) Food shortages began to occur. (211) Nurses – mostly non-white – did most of the risky work caring for the sick. (212) Renters were left without work, and landlords were merciless and evicted many. (213) All of these situations can be found in this pandemic – and in most outbreaks.
Many people could predict the typical response to a pandemic – poor people getting decimated for one – but did anyone predict specific elements of this particular pandemic? There are a couple of eerie examples of that happening. Novelist Dean Koontz wrote about a disease called “Gorki-400” in his 1981 book “The Eyes Of Darkness” that got changed to the “Wuhan-400” in the 1989 version (no doubt because the official enemy had changed from Russia to China by then) – predicting the location of the emergence of a deadly disease 30 years before it emerged. Koontz wrote;
“They call the stuff ‘Wuhan-400’ because it was developed at their RDNA labs outside the city of Wuhan, and it was the four-hundredth viable strain of man-made microorganisms created at that research center.” (214)
All the news coverage of this coincidence points to the differences between COVID-19 and the Wuhan-400: That the Wuhan-400 has 100% mortality rate, and that it was built in a lab. While it is true that COVID-19 appears to be far less lethal, the assumption that it’s “natural” has yet to be proven. But you could never tell from the reporting;
“It’s true that the current coronavirus outbreak began in Wuhan, China. But the idea that the virus was created in a lab is actually a conspiracy theory that originated from unverified social media accounts and has since been widely dismissed by scientists from both China and the West. Experts are still trying to figure out the exact source of the virus, but research indicates that it likely originated in bats and was transmitted to an intermediate host before jumping to people — just like its cousin that caused the 2003 SARS epidemic.” (215)
That one just seems like a coincidence, but there’s no way to know for sure, and Koontz isn’t discussing his inspiration for the name of the disease at the moment. (216)
Then there’s the “Event 201 Pandemic Exercise”. Elites from around the world – hosted by Johns Hopkins University – held a novel coronavirus conference just one month before the Novel Coronavirus first appeared – two months before the media got wind of the virus – and the media, for the most part, have failed to mention this astounding fact. (217) ABC.net in Australia mentioned it in a one minute, seven second video on January 30th, (218) the NYmag.com mentioned it February 27th, (219) and Bloomberg mentioned it on March 4th. (220) A number of smaller media websites and blogs mentioned it too. (221) But no mainstream press coverage of this very important event was provided by the major networks – unlike the “Eyes of Darkness”, which was covered by CNN and others.
Factcheck.org (222) and Snopes (223) mentioned it – only to “debunk” it. Both websites said it was false that “Health experts predicted the new coronavirus could kill 65 million people.” What ended up being true was that health experts predicted a new coronavirus could kill 65 million people. Big difference.
Both websites quote from a statement put out by Johns Hopkins;
“In October 2019, the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security hosted a pandemic tabletop exercise called Event 201 with partners, the World Economic Forum and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Recently, the Center for Health Security has received questions about whether that pandemic exercise predicted the current novel coronavirus outbreak in China. To be clear, the Center for Health Security and partners did not make a prediction during our tabletop exercise. For the scenario, we modeled a fictional coronavirus pandemic, but we explicitly stated that it was not a prediction. Instead, the exercise served to highlight preparedness and response challenges that would likely arise in a very severe pandemic. We are not now predicting that the nCoV-2019 outbreak will kill 65 million people. Although our tabletop exercise included a mock novel coronavirus, the inputs we used for modeling the potential impact of that fictional virus are not similar to nCoV-2019.” (224)
This statement is sort of true. The “germ game”, for lack of a better term, didn’t make a “prediction” of 65 million dead. It created a “scenario” with 65 million dead. (225) I guess the difference is that a prediction only applies to real life, whereas a scenario … well, I don’t understand the difference – The Center For Health Security didn’t bother to explain it – but we are assured that there is one.
The similarities between the October 2019 germ game scenario and the current COVID-19 reality are many;
“That center’s latest pandemic simulation, Event 201, dropped participants right in the midst of an uncontrolled coronavirus outbreak that was spreading like wildfire out of South America to wreak worldwide havoc. As fictional newscasters from ‘GNN’ narrated, the immune-resistant virus (nicknamed CAPS) was crippling trade and travel, sending the global economy into freefall. Social media was rampant with rumors and misinformation, governments were collapsing, and citizens were revolting.” (226)
“Event 201 simulates an outbreak of a novel zoonotic coronavirus transmitted from bats to pigs to people that eventually becomes efficiently transmissible from person to person, leading to a severe pandemic. The pathogen and the disease it causes are modeled largely on SARS, but it is more transmissible in the community setting by people with mild symptoms.” (227)
So there were differences. It didn’t arise out of South America, and the revolts have been few and far between – mostly protests against Chinese evacuees who were the victims of infection rumors. (228) The effects of COVID-19 on the recently growing but now non-existent anti-Chinese takeover in Hong Kong (229) and the anti-pipeline movement in Canada (230) has been to quell revolt. But as for “uncontrolled coronavirus outbreak” and “spreading like wildfire” and “worldwide havoc” and “immune-resistant” and “crippling trade and travel” and “global economy into freefall” and “efficiently transmissible from person to person” and “the pathogen and the disease it causes are modeled largely on SARS, but it is more transmissible in the community setting by people with mild symptoms” – that all checks out. 8 similarities … that’s a lot of coincidence.
It’s too soon to judge whether or not governments will collapse from COVID-19, and whether the “rumors and misinformation” on social media were from official or unofficial sources remains debatable. But most of the scenario in Event 201 turned out to be true – as of late March, 2020, virus incident rates and death rates continue to grow exponentially in most countries, and we’re well on our way to 65 million deaths within a few months.
The result of the conference was to issue 7 recommendations regarding how the global community should ready itself for a novel coronavirus outbreak, and, aside from focusing on vaccine development and “countering misinformation” on social media (including the suppressing of “false messages … though the use of technology”) (231), the global community shows no signs of heeding these recommendations.
It’s impossible to prove, but it just seems like the whole thing was an attempt to plant in the minds of the public the idea that coronaviruses arise from the mix of bats and pigs – not from labs – and that the media should be ready to drive this point home. If that was the point of the exercise, it was a total success. If it was meant to mitigate the negative effects of a novel coronavirus outbreak, it was a total failure.
The “about” section of the event website (232) informs us that “The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, World Economic Forum, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation jointly propose these recommendations.”
Maximum Return Investments
Bill Gates has been thinking about global pandemics for a long time. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has given billions of dollars to vaccine initiatives over the last 20 years (233) and has pledged tens of millions of dollars to develop a COVID-19 vaccine. (234) Bill Gates had some very interesting insights into “the next outbreak” that he shared with the public in a Ted Talk in 2015. He first talked about Ebola, and how lucky we humans were that it didn’t appear in urban areas. He then said,
“The next time we might not be so lucky. You can have a virus where people feel well enough while they’re infectious that they get on a plane or they go to a market. The source of the virus could be a natural epidemic like Ebola or it could be bio-terrorism. And so there are things that would literally make things a thousand times worse.” (235)
Gates cites David Rockefeller as a “major influence”, focuses on investing in GMOs, vaccines and other proprietary technology, and has been accused by the Los Angeles Times for “investing … in companies that have been accused of worsening poverty, pollution and pharmaceutical firms that do not sell to developing countries”, and has ignored these criticism and have continued to focus on “investing for maximum return”. (236) This might explain his lack of interest in non-proprietary medicine.
According to the Sunday Times, Gates and Rockefeller met with other billionaires in 2009 to discuss how to deal with global overpopulation. (237) David Rockefeller’s family funded the eugenics movement in the first half of the 20th century, (238) until the Nazis ruined the brand and it was rebranded as “population control”. (239)
For all the planning done at Event 201, the powers that be have demonstrated zero evidence of preparation for this pandemic. In fact, if any preparation has been done, it’s preparation to sabotage relief efforts. We can begin with Trump’s removal of restrictions on manufacturing of lethal viruses in 2017 and his 2018 firing of the “pandemic preparedness office” that Obama set up in 2016:
“Trump has acknowledged that he cut global health experts from his staff and tried to slash funding for the World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other agencies charged with spotting and responding to such epidemics.” (240)
When the effects of the outbreak began to have an effect on the stock market, Trump called it a “Hoax”, then (like the Chinese Government) claimed it “had nearly been vanquished” prematurely, and then rejected WHO testing kits, “instead opting to develop its own, which turned out to be faulty”. (241) There has been shortages in testing equipment (242), protective gear for hospital workers, (243) and ventilation units for the severely ill. (244)
Trump lied about how “nobody” could have foreseen the need for ventilators (there have been at least ten reports saying so since 2003), how “automakers including Ford, GM, and Tesla” are making a bunch of ventilators right away (they’re months away) and how the need for masks is “really at a level that nobody would’ve believed”. (245) A Congressional Budget Office report from 2006 clearly stated,
“As occurred during the SARS outbreak in Canada, hospitals would especially need N95 particulate respirators to protect medical staff against infection … Widely adopted just-in-time practices … leave too small an inventory margin to accommodate the increased demand for supplies that would accompany an influenza pandemic.” (246)
Kaiser Permanente, the corporation that “greatly expanded for-profit health care in America” through lobbying Richard Nixon to create the HMO act in 1973, (247) threatened to fire their nurses for wearing their own masks;
“Nurses at Kaiser Permanente hospitals and clinics in California could be fired immediately for wearing their own face masks, according to unions representing nurses at the facilities. … Kaiser nurses last week received guidelines downgrading protective standards and giving instructions on how to reuse certain types of eyewear and masks. That change came after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention earlier this month downgraded from protocols for airborne contamination to protocols for droplet contamination, noting that the change was based on supply rather than science.” (248)
The Center for Disease Control not only downgraded protocols from airborne contamination to droplet contamination, it also de-emphasized the importance of testing. Instead of increasing the COVID19 testing to the same levels as South Korea, the CDC removed the “total tested” figure from their website on March 2nd. (249)
The Center for Disease Control was one of the participants in the Event 201 “germ games”, by the way. New York Corrections Officers have also been told not to wear masks. (250)
And it’s not just the US government and medical establishment that have failed their people. Nearly all institutions globally have made similar errors of judgment. For just one example of hundreds available, health experts in Canada seem totally oblivious to the evidence of airborne transmission – insisting that COVID-19 is a “heavier-than-air virus”. (251) A very simple way to visualize that the virus is indeed airborne is to watch Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau speak from his podium outside his home. As he speaks, because the temperature in Ottawa is below freezing, one can see his breath hang in the air. The droplets of his breath do not immediately fall to the ground. You can see for yourself that the breath floats into the air and disperses up and outwards. The clincher is that he is in quarantine with his wife, who is positive for COVID-19. It is quite possible he is an asymptomatic carrier and we are actually seeing the virus escaping from his body in real time.
We’ve known COVID-19 has been asymptomatic since January 24th. (252) An Italian study mentioned in the March 18th Guardian pointed out that the number of transmissions can be reduced to zero if you test everyone. (253) Governments that stand in the way of universal testing – or access to masks and protective gear – are complicit in mass manslaughter if they are incompetent, and mass murder if they are malicious.
Really, that’s the only remaining question. Are our leaders merely totally incompetent, unable to manage their way out of a wet paper bag much less a pandemic, or are they part of some Malthusian death cult, unable to imagine any way to manage “overpopulation” and environmental crisis other than a massive cull through war or famine or disease?
One need not be a rocket surgeon to provide the leadership needed to help one’s community survive a pandemic. The advice from YouTube researchers (254) seems both simple and straightforward: 1) Halt inbound infections by initiating travel bans, 2) provide facemasks for everyone, 3) provide easy and fast tests for everyone, 4) carefully record the contacts the infected made while likely infected, and alert them to the need to be extra careful, 5) pay for the testing, treatment and quarantine of everyone, and 6) record and share all the data collected in this process. When politicians tell you there’s not enough money to do these things, what they’re really saying is that they have prioritized corporate bailouts and subsidies to toxic, destructive industries instead of spending money on these things.
Avoiding ecological catastrophe is also quite simple. In 1992, and again in 2017, scientists from all over the world made a simple list for the rest of us to follow;
“(a) prioritizing the enactment of connected well-funded and well-managed reserves for a significant proportion of the world’s terrestrial, marine, freshwater, and aerial habitats; (b) maintaining nature’s ecosystem services by halting the conversion of forests, grasslands, and other native habitats; (c) restoring native plant communities at large scales, particularly forest landscapes; (d) rewilding regions with native species, especially apex predators, to restore ecological processes and dynamics; (e) developing and adopting adequate policy instruments to remedy defaunation, the poaching crisis, and the exploitation and trade of threatened species; (f) reducing food waste through education and better infrastructure; (g) promoting dietary shifts towards mostly plant-based foods; (h) further reducing fertility rates by ensuring that women and men have access to education and voluntary family-planning services, especially where such resources are still lacking; (i) increasing outdoor nature education for children, as well as the overall engagement of society in the appreciation of nature; (j) divesting of monetary investments and purchases to encourage positive environmental change; (k) devising and promoting new green technologies and massively adopting renewable energy sources while phasing out subsidies to energy production through fossil fuels; (l) revising our economy to reduce wealth inequality and ensure that prices, taxation, and incentive systems take into account the real costs which consumption patterns impose on our environment; and (m) estimating a scientifically defensible, sustainable human population size for the long term while rallying nations and leaders to support that vital goal.” (255)
Getting to zero population growth isn’t that difficult either: “raising the standard of living of women and girls” is the simple, straightforward answer. Bill Nye explains;
“As women and girls get better educated, they have fewer kids. And the kids they do have have more resources, so they’re better taken care of and they are more successful. … The world’s population is almost certainly going to go to nine billion humans. It may very well go to ten billion. And apparently the earth has enough resources for that. We just have to redistribute or reconfigure the way we use energy, water and the way we distribute information.” (256)
The way to reconfigure the way to use energy – as I outlined in my recent article on hemp ethanol – is to a) shift subsidies away from non-renewables and put them instead towards renewables, to b) factor the health and environmental costs into the cost of each product, and 3) remove the red tape around industrial hemp. (257) All of these solutions involve empowering people more, resulting in less power over people by the ruling elite. It very well may be that we are suffering – not from elites being unable to find solutions – but from elites not being able to face solutions.
What We Know And Don’t Know About COVID-19
In spite of the massive amount of evidence available of incompetence displayed by elected representatives, given the above information regarding the history of bioweapons manufacture and use, and of the prevalence of Malthusian mentalities amongst elites, and the evidence of the outright sabotaging of the response to the pandemic, and the near-universal failure of the various healthcare institutions of the world to prepare or to test properly or treat this disease like the asymptomatic, airborne, survive-on-surfaces-for-9-days disease that it is, I can’t say for certain that COVID-19 wasn’t made in a lab and released, on purpose, to decimate the numbers of the masses while strengthening the hold on power of the mighty … and nobody else can say for sure either way. If they pretend like they do, they’re doing humanity a great disservice. Barring a confession from those guilty of mass murder, we are unlikely to ever know for sure – and given the history of those guilty of mass murder never coming forward, we are unlikely to ever get one.
What I can say for certain is that we need a greater respect for (and support for) herbal medicine, non-proprietary medicine, universal healthcare and a robust social safety net, along with a greater skepticism of the bio “defense” industry and the vaccine industry and the healthcare-for-profit industry, and greater protection for whistleblowers within these industries, if we are to survive this pandemic … and the next one.
What I do notice from researching all of this material is how little herbal medicine – and non-proprietary medicine – are mentioned as possible solutions to some of these COVID-19-related problems, even though the healthcare system is overwhelmed in more and more countries – leaving people to their own devices – and even though there’s more solid data than ever before that these medicines are safe, effective and affordable.
How cannabis can help people survive
Again, I will remind people I’m not a doctor. I’m just a person that’s fairly good at assembling information for people to inform themselves with so that they can ask a doctor the right questions. But doctors aren’t always accessible or available during a pandemic – resources can sometimes be swamped – so medical choices must occasionally be made in isolation. If a doctor isn’t available, I suggest a person does additional research before taking any medicine – herbal or otherwise. Pay careful attention to warnings – some herbs might not mix well with other herbs or other medicines. But generally speaking, the number of herb-related deaths each year are small – usually related to the misidentification of mushrooms – and a fraction of a fraction of the deaths related to pills and vaccines.
The first thing a skeptic of herbal medicine might argue is that there’s no need to attempt to use any “folk medicine”, because conventional synthetic medicine – or botanically-based pharmaceutical products – are perfect in every way, or at the very least superior to the herbal alternatives one can grow, collect in the wild or find in a health-food store or herbalist retailer.
That’s debatable. As was pointed out earlier in this article;
“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.” (258)
One of the medications used to treat COVID-19 (259) is “Ritonavir” (trade name Norvir) (259) which is associated with Arrhythmia. (260) Also known as cardiac arrhythmia or heart arrhythmia – arrhythmia is a group of conditions in which the heartbeat is irregular, too fast, or too slow. (261)
Another drug used in COVID-19 treatment is “Remdisivir” (262) – which has been associated with at least one death from its side effects during a trial on ebola victims. (263)
“Chloroquine” is the third drug being used to treat COVID-19, (264) but it’s only available by prescription. It is also associated with heart arrhythmia (265) and other heart problems. (266) It’s based on Quinine, a drug that comes from the bark of the cinchona tree. (267) Quinine is found in tonic water. (268) Those with “abnormal heart rhythms” should avoid Quinine, (269) as it has arrhythmias listed as a possible side effect. (270)
Even standard anti-inflammatories such as ibuprofen, cortisone, brufen, Voltarol and naproxen have been said to make young people more vulnerable to the disease, (271) although this has yet to be confirmed.
Healing Of The Nations
Interestingly, cannabis may be useful in viral infection as an anti-inflammatory – and inflammation of the lungs is (mostly) how the 2019 Corona virus kills;
“The anti-inflammatory activity of cannabinoids may compromise host inflammatory responses to acute viral infections, but may be beneficial in persistent infections.” (272)
The cannabinoids and terpene which exhibit anti-inflammatory action are CBD, (273) THCV and β-Myrcene (274) According to Leafly, “lab results show that THCV is most abundant in sativas, particularly landrace strains from Africa”, (275) and that;
“One of the most common terpenes found in cannabis is myrcene. Beyond cannabis, myrcene is found in hops and is responsible for the peppery, spicy, balsam fragrance in beer. It’s also expressed in lemongrass, which has been used in traditional folk medicine for centuries. … More research is also needed to support myrcene’s potential anti-inflammatory effects. Evidence for myrcene’s role in reducing inflammation comes mainly from animal studies.” (276)
One source argues that cannabinoids won’t affect the heart rate like the pharmaceutical products mentioned above:
“Cannabinoids found in the plant serve to strengthen the body’s endocannabinoid system, which is essential for regulating the core functions of our body such as appetite, sleep, and pain. This allows cannabis to provide well-rounded relief from viruses like the common cold while also helping regulate pain through its anti-inflammatory properties. Inflammation of the body leads to excess mucus, which results in clogged sinuses and runny noses. Cannabis can effectively treat this source of inflammation without affecting blood pressure or heart rate unlike other decongestants, and is free of any serious side effects to boot.” (277)
Another source mentions cannabinoids moderate the immune response, diminishing the ARDS effect – which (as was explained above) is how COVID-19 most often kills:
“According to the CDC the Avian flu (H5N1) has a 63% mortality rate. Unfortunately, the Swine flu, while causing death at a much lower rate than the Avian flu, also appears to result in death via a similar mechanism. The common cause of death with these strains is organ failure, especially as seen in the lungs with the development of Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). ARDS is caused by an excess immune-generated inflammatory response that leads to apoptosis (cell death) and subsequently to organ failure. When the immune system launches an attack on a virus it causes an inflammatory response that produces flu symptoms such as runny nose, sore throat, and body aches. The body uses its’ own endocannabinoids to moderate the immune response, but it is sometimes unable to fully control the inflammatory process. The cannabinoids present in marijuana also have an inhibitory effect on the immune system giving the natural endocannabinoid mechanism a boost.” (278)
CBD – arguably the most readily available anti-inflammatory element of cannabis medicine – is present in some marijuana strains, and abundant in industrial hemp strains, (279) but is made artificially expensive through over-regulation, partly through traditional “reefer madness” tactics, (280) and partly through a new type of scare-tactics specific to CBD. (281)
That’s all well and good to mitigate inflammation – which is the main cause of death from COVID-19. But is there any element in cannabis that acts as an anti-viral? Apparently, industrial hemp essential oils seem to exhibit antiviral properties;
“The various terpenes in cannabis have antifungal, antimicrobial, antiviral and insect re