Coronavirus – its goals, authors and masters. Part III

(Links to previous Chapters are available here: Part I, Part II)

June 12, 2020.

The main grievance that the Americans constantly voiced at the Munich Security Conference, which was held in the midst of COVID-19, concerned the growth of Chinese technological power. As well as the fact that Europeans do not want to contribute to deterring and suppressing this power, while doing so is absolutely necessary.


2015. Not 2019, not 2018, not 2017, not 2016, but 2015! I’ll read what was published more than four years ago – long before the coronavirus story began.

November 9, 2015. On that day Nature Medicine, a very famous and reputable medical journal, published an article. Years later, this article will be both played down and refuted. But, as they say in such cases, once words are marked down on paper they cannot be taken back. I repeat, it was written long before this coronavirus story began, and this is the main thing. The article is very important, authoritative, and serious. Therefore, let’s not discuss it on the principle whether or not it plays into someone’s hands (especially since it was written in 2015 – there was not even a hint of what would later become the COVID hysteria). Let’s discuss the content of this article directly.


This is what it specifically says.

It is entitled “A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence.”

The article was written by a team of researchers.

The main work was carried out at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

In addition to researchers from this significant University and its special laboratories, the team of authors included representatives from:

  • The National Center for Toxicological Research, US Food and Drug Administration
  • Wuhan Institute of Virology
  • Institute for Research in Biomedicine, Zurich, Switzerland
  • Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

This is a mark of quality.

The authors of the article note that the emergence of the coronavirus that causes severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)-CoV makes apparent the threat of cross-species transmission events leading to outbreaks in humans.

It emerges in other species, and then it crosses over onto humans.

They go on to say that the goal of the study, the results of which are described in this article, was to examine the disease potential of a SARS-like virus. SARS-like, but different. The authors indicate that this SARS-like virus, SHC014-CoV, is currently circulating in Chinese horseshoe bat populations.

The article describes a series of experiments.

The first experiment is to create a chimeric virus that expresses the spike of bat coronavirus SHC014, but with other features of SARS-CoV. I emphasize the word “chimeric” because today there are too many people, eager to say that this topic has not been investigated; and therefore, it’s not worth talking about an artificially created virus.

Well, a novel spike protein from the bat virus is added to the SARS virus, which has already shown how harmful it is to humans. And the result is a chimeric virus. The chimera is not completely new. It has a new spike protein, but the remaining properties are the same as SARS-CoV. Is it possible to create this chimeric virus? The authors of the article say that it’s not only possible, but it has already been created. Here it is, look at it!

This was but the first experiment.

The second experiment is to infect human epithelial cells with this chimeric virus. And then to compare virus titers (that is, the concentration of viral particles) in the cells infected with a chimeric virus and the virus titers in cells infected with the wild type SARS-CoV. It turned out that the chimeric virus is able to infect and multiply in primary human airway cells as successfully as the wild type virus.

The third experiment described in the article is to infect laboratory mice with the chimeric virus. Another group of mice was infected with the SARS-CoV – MA15 virus, a variant of the wild type virus adapted specifically to mice. The chimeric virus was less lethal for mice than SARS-CoV – MA15. At the same time, older mice infected with the chimeric virus (age 12 months) were much more severely affected than younger mice (age 10 weeks).

An interesting prologue from 2015 to what will happen in five years, isn’t it?

The next, moving now to the fourth experiment, was an attempt to protect mice from being infected with the chimeric virus using an existing inactivated SARS-CoV vaccine. The attempt failed. They changed the spike protein, and the vaccine that worked for SARS stopped working. And you can no longer save the poor mice.

During the fifth experiment, they tried protecting mice against infection using monoclonal antibodies against SARS-CoV. The result was partially successful.

What I am describing here is not a conspiracy theory. I did not add anything to what was said in this authoritative article. Scientists conducted experiments to create a new virus and described these experiments, because they wanted to understand how this all happens, whether or not it is possible to use existing vaccines. The researchers have their own scientific programs, in which they give tremendous opportunities to the virus. Maybe the scientists are creating these tremendous opportunities for a good cause. But as soon as they create them, those involved in biological weapons will immediately say, “Well, well, interesting, interesting… The lethality is higher? Tell me more!”

The conclusion of the research team is as follows: “Evaluation of available SARS-based immune-therapeutic and prophylactic modalities revealed poor efficacy (in relation to the new virus.S.K.); both monoclonal antibody and vaccine approaches failed to neutralize and protect from infection with CoVs using the novel spike protein.”

How should specialists involved in the creation of biological weapons perceive this information? Something like, “Wow! So, known therapeutics don’t help? That means it’s better at killing! That’s great! Well done!”

“On the basis of these findings,” the authors of the article write, “we synthetically re-derived an infectious full-length SHC014 recombinant virus and demonstrate robust viral replication both in vitro (that is, outside a living organism. – S. K.) and in vivo (that is, during an experiment on a living organism. – S.K.). Our work suggests a potential risk of SARS-CoV re-emergence from viruses currently circulating in bat populations.”

I didn’t distort a single word here. I’m just repeating what the article says. This is my core method in this investigation of COVID-19.

So, on November 9, 2015, Nature Medicine published the article that we have just reviewed.

And on November 12, 2015, Declan Butler published an article in Nature titled, “Engineered bat virus stirs debate over risky research” with the subtitle, “Lab-made coronavirus related to SARS can infect human cells.”

This article is also of interest to us. I will present it, slightly abridged.

“An experiment that created a hybrid version of a bat coronavirus – one related to the virus that causes SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) – has triggered a renewed debate over whether engineering lab variants of viruses with possible pandemic potential is worth the risks,” says Declan Butler.

He goes on to say that the article published in Nature Medicine on November 9, 2015, describes a study of the SHC014 virus, which was found in horseshoe bats in China. The researchers created a chimeric virus. This chimeric virus was able to infect human airway cells.

Although almost all coronaviruses isolated from bats have not been able to bind to the key human receptor, SHC014 was not the first to do so (i.e., to bind to the key human receptor), Butler writes. According to him, researchers reported this ability for the first time in a different coronavirus isolated from the same bat population, back in 2013.

Next, I quote Butler’s article, “The findings reinforce suspicions that bat coronaviruses capable of directly infecting humans (rather than first needing to evolve in an intermediate animal host) may be more common than previously thought, the researchers say.

But other virologists question whether the information gleaned from the experiment justifies the potential risk. Although the extent of any risk is difficult to assess, Simon Wain-Hobson, a virologist at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, points out that the researchers have created a novel virus that ‘grows remarkably well’ in human cells. ‘If the virus escaped, nobody could predict the trajectory,’ he says.

The argument is essentially a rerun of the debate over whether to allow lab research that increases the virulence, ease of spread or host range of dangerous pathogens – what is known as ‘gain-of-function’ research.”

And what, after that you say that there are no chimeras and no one is working on this? How can they not do this? The debate is only about whether or not this should be allowed.

“In October 2014, the US government imposed a moratorium on federal funding of such research on the viruses that cause SARS, influenza and MERS”, – Butler continues. “The latest study was already under way before the US moratorium began, and the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) allowed it to proceed while it was under review by the agency, says Ralph Baric, an infectious-disease researcher at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a co-author of the study.” (the one that I described in detail in the beginning of my investigation. – S.K.).  The NIH eventually concluded that the work was not so risky as to fall under the moratorium, he says.”

And therefore, despite the fact that in 2014 they began to ponder about if it is better it to step on the brake, these studies in North Carolina continued in 2015.

“But Wain-Hobson disapproves of the study because, he says, it provides little benefit, and reveals little about the risk that the wild SHC014 virus in bats poses to humans.” – indicates the author of the article.

“Other experiments in the study show that the virus in wild bats would need to evolve to pose any threat to humans – a change that may never happen, although it cannot be ruled out. Baric and his team reconstructed the wild virus from its genome sequence and found that it grew poorly in human cell cultures and caused no significant disease in mice.”

Sure, it grew poorly, but what is described in Nature Medicine on November 9, 2015, grows remarkably! But let’s return to the article.

“‘The only impact of this work is the creation, in a lab, of a new, non-natural risk,’ agrees Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist and biodefence expert at Rutgers University in Piscataway, New Jersey. Both Ebright and Wain-Hobson are long-standing critics of gain-of-function research.”

So, everything that the articles I read described is called a “gain-of-function”. What function? The pathogenic function of the virus!

“In their paper, the study authors also concede that funders may think twice about allowing such experiments in the future. ‘Scientific review panels may deem similar studies building chimeric viruses based on circulating strains too risky to pursue,’ they write, adding that discussion is needed as to ‘whether these types of chimeric virus studies warrant further investigation versus the inherent risks involved.’

But Baric and others say the research did have benefits. The study findings ‘move this virus from a candidate emerging pathogen to a clear and present danger’, says Peter Daszak, who co-authored the 2013 paper. Daszak is president of the EcoHealth Alliance, an international network of scientists, headquartered in New York City, that samples viruses from animals and people in emerging-diseases hotspots across the globe.

Studies testing hybrid viruses in human cell culture and animal models are limited in what they can say about the threat posed by a wild virus, Daszak agrees. But he argues that they can help indicate which pathogens should be prioritized for further research attention.

Without the experiments, says Baric, the SHC014 virus would still be seen as not a threat. Previously, scientists had believed, on the basis of molecular modelling and other studies, that it should not be able to infect human cells. The latest work shows that the virus has already overcome critical barriers, such as being able to latch onto human receptors and efficiently infect human airway cells, he says. ‘I don’t think you can ignore that.’”

This is Declan Butler’s article that he wrote in November 2015.

Not so long ago, in the electronic version of Nature, they added an editorial note immediately before this article. It was not made in 2015, not in 2016 and not in 2017, but in March of 2020, in the midst of the coronavirus panic. This note says:

“We are aware that this article is being used as the basis for unverified theories that the novel coronavirus causing COVID-19 was engineered. There is no evidence that this is true; scientists believe that an animal is the most likely source of the coronavirus.”

Judge for yourself what is worth more: an article or such a snide response, obviously dictated by some censorship, which demands that no one discuss the artificial origin of coronavirus? What kind of censorship is this? We in Russia are not the only ones who have it. Its center is not in Russia. But how does this center communicate its will to Russia? This question naturally arises.

I don’t just want to serve my idea. Many people doubt that the coronavirus is artificial. And these doubts arise not because someone slams the table with his fist and says “don’t you dare!” but this is a factor. And not because people are biased, but this is also a factor. But there are other factors. And in order to maintain objectivity, I must also describe this.

Among those who doubt the artificial nature of the coronavirus is, for example, the Scripps Research Institute. This is the largest private center in the United States engaged in research on our topic of interest. So, what do the experts at the Scripps Institute say? They claim that the coronavirus is too complex and even too perfect to be created at the current level of development of science and technology.

I do not have the opportunity to delve into the details. I just want to draw attention to the fact that the problem of artificial or natural occurrence of COVID-19 is extremely debatable. And to equate some very professional researchers who support the idea that the coronavirus is artificial, with some apologists of the perpetual motion machine is completely inappropriate. What if everyone starts talking about its artificial origin in the future?


SARS-CoV-2 virus through a transmission electron microscope


So, in November 2015, Nature Medicine first published the article describing experiments on creating a chimeric virus, and then Declan Butler’s reaction to the articles appeared in Nature.

Now, we will look at an article that appeared in The New York Times on August 5, 2019, that is, after almost four years.

The name of the article is “Deadly Germ Research Is Shut Down at Army Lab Over Safety Concerns”

The subtitle reads, “Problems with disposal of dangerous materials led the government to suspend research at the military’s leading biodefense center.”

Do you feel what is happening again? The article was published on August 5, 2019. Perhaps someone with special binoculars already had an idea about the looming cloud of the future COVID-19. But so far there is no reason to somehow link the event described in this article with what was described in the two articles we examined from 2015.

Here is what the article written on August 5, 2019, says, “Safety concerns at a prominent military germ lab have led the government to shut down research involving dangerous microbes like the Ebola virus. ‘Research is currently on hold,’ the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, in Fort Detrick, Md., said in a statement on Friday. The shutdown is likely to last months, Caree Vander Linden, a spokeswoman, said in an interview. The statement said the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention decided to issue a ‘cease and desist order’ last month to halt the research at Fort Detrick because the center did not have ‘sufficient systems in place to decontaminate wastewater’ from its highest-security labs.”

The CDC is led by Robert Redfield, a member of the Red Dawn group and now a key figure in the whole COVID-19 story. We will examine this in greater detail.

“‘There has been no threat to public health, no injuries to employees and no leaks of dangerous material outside the laboratory,’ Ms. Vander Linden said,” The New York Times reports.

True or not… Again, when does anyone here say everything directly? Work was shut down in one of the most prominent centers engaged in precisely what we are discussing.

According to the newspaper, the institute, the work of which was shut down, “is a biodefense center that studies germs and toxins that could be used to threaten the military or public health, and also investigates disease outbreaks.”

And moreover, if it studies all of this, I add from myself, it cannot help but study offense, both by others and by its own side. With a gain of pathogenic functions.

I quote further,

“It carries out research projects for government agencies, universities and drug companies, which pay for the work. It has about 900 employees.

‘The shutdown affects a significant portion of the research normally conducted there,’ Ms. Vander Linden said.

The suspended research involves certain toxins, along with germs called select agents, which the government has determined have ‘the potential to pose a severe threat to public, animal or plant health or to animal or plant products.’ There are 67 select agents and toxins; examples include the organisms that cause Ebola, smallpox, anthrax and plague.” This list also includes the toxin ricin.

“In theory, terrorists could use select agents as weapons, so the government requires any organization that wants to handle them to pass a background check, register, follow safety and security procedures, and undergo inspections through a program run by the C.D.C. and the United States Department of Agriculture. As of 2017, 263 laboratories – government, academic, commercial or private – had registered with the program.

The institute at Fort Detrick was part of the select agent program until its registration was suspended last month, after the C.D.C. ordered it to stop conducting the research.”

The New York Times then indicates that the shut down of the institute was first reported on August 2, 2019 by the local newspaper The Frederick News Post.

According to Ms. Vander Linden, the problems date back to May 2018, when storms flooded and ruined a decades-old steam sterilization plant that the institute had been using to treat wastewater from its labs. The damage halted research for months, until the institute developed a new chemical decontamination system.

“The new system required changes in certain procedures in the laboratories. During an inspection in June, the C.D.C. (I mention this organization continuously and I will discuss it later in more detail. – S. K.) found that the new procedures were not being followed consistently. Inspectors also found mechanical problems with the chemical-based decontamination system, as well as leaks, Ms. Vander Linden said, though she added that the leaks were within the lab and not to the outside world.

 ‘A combination of things’ led to the cease and desist order, and the loss of registration, she said.

Dr. Richard H. Ebright, a molecular biologist and bioweapons expert at Rutgers University, said in an email that problems with the institute’s new chemical-based decontamination process might mean it would have to go back to a heat-based system.”

But the construction of the new steam sterilization plant, according to Ebright, may entail very long delays and very high costs.

“Although many projects are on hold, Ms. Vander Linden said scientists and other employees are continuing to work, just not on select agents. She said many were worried about not being able meet deadlines for their projects.”

The article says, such missteps had previously occurred (this addition is worth a lot!) at other government laboratories, including those at the Centers for Disease Control (i.e. under Redfield’s auspices) and the National Institutes of Health. Who writes about this? The New York Times!

The publication reports that earlier, in 2009, research at the Fort Detrick Institute had already been suspended because it was storing pathogens not listed in its database.

The New York Times also indicates, that Bruce E. Ivins, a microbiologist who was a leading suspect in the anthrax mailings in 2001, also worked at the Institute at Fort Detrick.

Here the article ends. I will continue with our own note. Letters containing anthrax spores were sent to members of the US media, as well as to two Democratic senators on September 18, 2001, a week after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack. As a result, 22 people became infected, and 5 of them died.

Dr. Ivins died in 2008. It is believed to have been a suicide. He was found unconscious in his home on July 27, 2008. July 29, Ivins died without regaining consciousness. Detailed medical examinations that could clearly determine the cause of Ivins’ death were not carried out. Not even an autopsy was carried out.

What kind of minimalism is this, given the question at hand? Doesn’t it seem strange to you?

On August 31, 2019, The New York Times published an article with the following title, “The Mysterious Vaping Illness that’s ‘becoming an Epidemic’.” Subtitle “A surge of severe lung ailments has baffled doctors and public health experts.” The authors of the article are Sheila Kaplan and Matt Richtel.

The article is long, it covers a lot of topics. I quote it here with substantial abridgements, highlighting only the points that are meaningful to us. That is, “COVID” or “COVID-like” topics.

The article talks about an 18-year-old, who showed up in a Long Island emergency room, gasping for breath, vomiting and dizzy. When a doctor asked if the teenager had been vaping, he said no. The patient’s older brother, a police officer, was suspicious. He rummaged through the youth’s room and found hidden vials of marijuana for vaping.

I continue reading: “‘I don’t know where he purchased it. He doesn’t know,’ said Dr. Melodi Pirzada, chief pediatric pulmonologist at NYU Winthrop Hospital in Mineola, N.Y., who treated the young man. ‘Luckily, he survived.’

Dr. Pirzada is one of the many physicians across the country treating patients – now totaling more than 215 – with mysterious and life-threatening vaping-related illnesses this summer. The outbreak is “becoming an epidemic,” she said. ‘Something is very wrong.’

Patients, mostly otherwise healthy and in their late teens and 20s, are showing up with severe shortness of breath, often after suffering for several days with vomiting, fever and fatigue. Some have wound up in the intensive care unit or on a ventilator for weeks.” This refers to respirator.

“On lung scans, the illnesses look at first like a serious viral or bacterial pneumonia, but tests show no infection. ‘We’ve run all these tests looking for bacteria, looking for viruses and coming up negative,’ said Dr. Dixie Harris, a critical care pulmonologist in Salt Lake City.”

According to the newspaper, on Aug. 6 Dr. Harris was working in a Salt Lake City-area hospital when she was called to the intensive care unit to consult on a patient with the severe lung ailment. The patient was in his 20s and a heavy e-cigarette user who also vaped THC.

She later consulted with two dozen hospitals around the state on patients with difficult pulmonary or critical care issues.

 “‘I saw a second case,’ she said. ‘I’m like, ‘Wait a second, this is weird – two hospitals, two young people, almost identical story.’”

The next morning, she called Dr. Joseph Miner, the chief medical officer for the Utah state health department, who told her he would try to figure out what was going on.

In the ensuing weeks, Dr. Harris saw two other patients firsthand and reviewed nine other cases for the hospital group where she works. She said the first 10 cases were from eight different hospitals; overall, the state of Utah reported 21 cases.

Dr. Harris said that the four patients she had been directly involved with “have been doing e-cigarettes with nicotine constantly, like round the clock. Maybe there’s some sort of accelerant effect causing inflammation in the lung caused by the THC oil.” She added that her interviews with patients suggested they were getting the marijuana liquid from friends in states with legal supplies of the drug, like California and Colorado.

“Some patients are suffering from another condition known as lipoid pneumonia, doctors said. When vaped oils get into the lungs, the lungs treat them as a foreign object and mount an immune response, resulting in inflammation and the buildup of liquids, which can cause lipoid pneumonia.” – continued by The New York Times.

But this is what they say about the COVID-19 – an enhanced immune response. What is it caused by – it is a separate issue. I continue to quote,

“Dr. Nora D. Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, a part of the National Institutes of Health, said she was surprised at the severity of the lung disease involved in this summer’s cases. (Summer of 2019. – S.K.).

The Long Island teenager, who was on a ventilator at one point, has a long road to recovery and doctors still haven’t identified the cause of his illness.”

Does that ring any bells? This is 2019…

The New York Times cites the words of this teenager’s father, “We were helpless. We didn’t know what to do. The doctors didn’t know what to do.”

Another recent case, the newspaper reports, involves a 31-year-old Queens resident named Kevin Corrales. In late July he was in the back seat of a car heading to a Long Island beach when he started gasping for air. “It was terrifying,” he said. “I was really gasping. I should have been rushed to the hospital. They thought I was exaggerating.”

This is August 2019, which is what the Chinese are asking the Americans about: don’t you want to finish investigating all these incidents? There is just too much that happened at the same time!

Chimera by Charles Fichot. 1894

The next event, “Event 201”, can in no way be classified as the product of some conspiracy theorists myths. Various reputable media have spent a long time chewing on it from many different angles. “Event 201” is the name of a pandemic exercise held on October 18, 2019 (it’s clear that it’s close to the beginning of coronavirus hysteria, but not immediately preceding it) in New York by the Johns Hopkins University Health Safety Center.

In addition to Johns Hopkins University, the World Economic Forum and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation took part in organizing these high-level pandemic exercises.

I would like to draw your attention to the timing of these pandemic exercises. October 18, 2019 is an interesting date. It is close enough to the beginning of the real pandemic, but at the same time, it still somewhat precedes its official beginning.

After all, what can be called the beginning of the official coronavirus story? Probably, the discovery of the first cases of pneumonia of unknown origin in the city of Wuhan in late December 2019. But this is December 2019! And the exercises called “Event 201” took place in October 2019.

And then, the real issue is not in the first registered cases.

Only on December 31, 2019, did the Chinese authorities inform the World Health Organization (WHO) of an outbreak of this unknown pneumonia.

Only on January 22, 2020, was Wuhan quarantined. According to media reports, 11 million people live in Wuhan, and almost all of them are staying in their homes. People are scared of the deadly virus. To prevent its spread, the authorities decided to cancel all the trains and airplanes going to Wuhan.

Only on January 30 did the WHO recognize the new coronavirus outbreak as an emergency.

Only on March 11, 2020, did the WHO announce that the outbreak had become a pandemic.

So, everything that can officially be called the prologue to the pandemic lasted from December 2019 to March 2020. And “Event 201” is dated, I repeat, October 2019. It is thus located quite close to the beginning of this coronavirus epic and at the same time far enough away from this beginning. Therefore, it is not uninteresting what exactly this “Event 201”, also called a high-level pandemic exercise, was.

This is what Johns Hopkins University itself reports:

According to the “Event 201” scenario, there is an outbreak of a new zoonotic coronavirus transmitted from bats to pigs and people.

This outbreak leads to a severe pandemic.

During the first year, there is no way to obtain the necessary vaccine.

There is a fictitious antiviral drug that can help patients, but it cannot limit the spread of the disease.

The “Event 201” scenario ends with 18 million people dying 18 months later.

The pandemic begins to slow due to a decrease in the number of susceptible people. The pandemic continues until an effective vaccine is created or until 80–90% of the world’s population is exposed to the disease.

Does this remind you of anything? And this is close to what later happened in reality?

December 12, 2019, Forbes magazine returns to the description of “Event 201”. That is, the “Event” has passed, but there is no pandemic yet. It says the following:

“The experts ran through a carefully designed, detailed simulation (“Event 201” – S.K.) of a new (fictional) viral illness called CAPS or coronavirus acute pulmonary syndrome. This was modeled after previous epidemics like SARS and MERS. The scenario was quite realistic… There were even prepared ‘news’ clips from a fictional GNN, with health experts and talking heads pontificating, and flashy graphics showing the spread of the pandemic. At various steps, the experts discussed possible interventions and needs – were there adequate supplies of masks, for example?

Surveillance and data collection are spotty (we are still talking about the “Event 201” pandemic exercise. – S. K.) as some LMIC (low- and middle-income countries) don’t have the capacity to obtain specimens that wealthier countries do. As in other, real epidemics, responding to the logistical supply issues was complicated by false or misleading news reports, by on-line trolls, and by some people who just seem to want to sow discord and chaos. Driving people underground and forcing them to hide illness fuels epidemics and travel and trade bans can devastate economies. 

None of these prevent the spread of an epidemic spread by air – or waterborne – transmission.

As the CAPS virus spread in the simulation, supplies were stretched and distribution was disrupted.”

The conclusions note that the best response to a pandemic requires global cooperation, and the rise in nationalism and protectionism in various countries are viewed as obstacles.

And finally, on January 17, 2020, the same Johns Hopkins University notifies the public that the next severe pandemic will not only cause great illness and loss of life but could also trigger major cascading economic and societal consequences. Efforts to prevent such consequences or to respond to them as they unfold will require unprecedented levels of collaboration between governments, international organizations, and the private sector.

In other words, the creation of a world government.

Hunters for fakes and conspiracy theories! What part of the information I presented belongs to this category? I give only other people’s completely objective data. Respectable data. I’m not citing reports from spiteful critics who are trying to make something else out of what is happening, but information from the organizers of the event under discussion, and from media outlets that advertised this event, without introducing any conspiracy theories.

So, on October 18, 2019, a pandemic exercise called “Event 201” will be organized by Johns Hopkins University. The exercise considers a hypothetical situation, not just close to what will happen soon thereafter, but fantastically close to what happened, amazingly close.

And from October 15 to October 28, 2019 (can there be such coincidences?) in the city of Wuhan, the Military World Games were held. A US delegation was present at the games, with 200 participants. The games ended in late October.

And in December 2019, an infection with the virus, subsequently named COVID-19, was first recorded in Wuhan.

That is the chronology.

And now about another event – the yearly Munich Security Conference. It was held from February 14 to February 16, 2020. That is, when everyone was already talking about the coronavirus. The President of Germany, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, who opened the conference, said that Europe was concerned about Washington, which (I quote Steinmeier) “rejects very concept of an international community.”

Steinmeier said, Year by year, we are distancing ourselves from the goal of international cooperation to create a more peaceful world. Our closest ally, the United States, under the current administration itself rejects the idea of an international community. Every country, it believes, should look after itself and put its own interest before all others.”

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo tries to object to Steinmeier, calls his assessment exaggerated. French President Emmanuel Macron in his speech states that Steinmeier’s words about the United States “seemed clear enough to him.”

But all this was only a warm-up for the main topic, which is obviously (and it is clear!), the United States’ systemic reorientation towards confrontation with China, to turn China into the United States’ most dangerous enemy, a Communist enemy.

At the same time, the Americans continued to view Russia as an enemy, quite a serious and dangerous one. But for the first time, the Americans named Communist China as the main global demon.

US Secretary of Defense Mark Esper says, “The Chinese Communist Party is heading even faster and further in the wrong direction – more internal repression, more predatory economic practices, more heavy-handedness, and most concerning for me, a more aggressive military posture. The Communist Party and the associated organs including the People’s liberation army, are increasingly operating in theatres outside its borders including Europe, and seeking advantage by any means and at any cost. Communist China is exerting financial and political pressure on many Indo-Pacific and European nations while pursuing new strategic relationship worldwide.”

The main grievance that the Americans constantly voiced at the Munich Security Conference, which was held in the midst of COVID-19, concerned the growth of Chinese technological power. And also, the fact that Europeans do not want to contribute to deterring and suppressing this power, while doing so is absolutely necessary. This is what both Secretary of State Pompeo and Secretary of Defense Esper said.

Michael Pompeo stated, “There will always be naysayers, but our tasks as leaders should rise above that. It is to stay focused on the things that really matter to us. You mentioned the Chinese Communist party. We understand, we have deep commercial relationships with China, we have many Chinese students, but the China Communist party presents enormous risk to the central idea, not the place of the West, but the idea of the West”

Previously, they did not notice this risk.

Esper directly demanded that NATO allies not cooperate with the Chinese electronics company Huawei. Esper emphasized, “We want China to behave like a normal country that adheres to the international rules and order. If the PRC will not change its ways, then defending the system must be our collective priority. We can only do this by making greater investments in our common defense, by making the hard economic and commercial choices needed to prioritize our shared security.”

This US pivot in an anti-Chinese direction is very significant. But what’s even more significant is the fact that high-ranking Chinese representatives – not those who have the right to counteract American imperialism on a daily basis (mainly the military), but those who usually let such slander in one ear and out the other and smile, also adjusted their line in everything that concerns US-Chinese relations.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi reacted to American attacks in this way, “Indeed, we do have our problems (in relations with the USA). Some of these problems and issues emerge as we have greater interactions with each other, but some issues are artificially created. The root cause of all these problems and issues is that the US does not want to see rapid development and rejuvenation of China, still less would they want to accept the success of a socialist country, but that is not fair, China has the right to develop. China’s drive towards modernization is an inevitable trend of history and will not be held back or stopped by any force in the world.”

And that was just the beginning.

About 20 days pass after the Munich skirmish, which, with all the restraint of Wang Yi’s position, marks something new in US-Chinese relations, or at least feeling out some new possibilities for building these relations on a more confrontational basis.

March 11, 2020, we got the opportunity to become acquainted with what is happening at a meeting of the House of Representatives of the US Congress. Dr. Robert Redfield, the head of the CDC – the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is invited to a meeting.

Congressman Harley Rouda notes that the number of test kits is insufficient and access is lacking to these kits. And he asks Redfield, who is responsible for providing all this: “Were these test suites available last Friday?”

Redfield replies, “Yes, sir.”

Rouda, continuing to interrogate Redfield, says, “Thank you.” And he continues, as if not noticing that Redfield does not recognize the fact of insufficient test kits, “And if somebody dies from influenza are we doing post-mortem testing to see whether it was influenza or whether it was COVID-19?”

Do you hear what the congressman is saying? A congressman, not Chinese opponents or conspiracy theorists. A US congressman!

Redfield continues to evade. Then Rouda takes the bull by the horns and asks Redfield, “So we could have people in the United States dying for what appears to be influenza when in fact it could be the coronavirus or COVID-19”

Redfield replies, “Some cases have been actually diagnosed that way in the United States today.” That is, he confirms that there were cases of COVID-19 diagnosed as influenza.

He didn’t say anything about how this is in any way related to the lab shutdown at Fort Detrick, to the cases in August and even earlier, when people were presenting with severe respiratory distress, and everyone was confused about what it was, and there were no tests. He is only saying, “some cases have been actually diagnosed that way in the United States today.” In other words, he’s confirming that there were COVID-19 cases that were diagnosed as the flu.

I remind you that a similar statement was made by the same Robert Redfield, who, along with others, back during the “Red Dawn” times under Rumsfeld, that is, about 15 or more years before, planned the project of the first total quarantine, which would have been justified through a Chinese biological attack. This is the same Redfield.

Since this is so, we will have to say something about this Redfield and some people associated with him.

Redfield is a prominent American virologist with a military background. As a virologist, he obtained his knowledge in laboratories at Columbia University, which studied the effects of so-called retroviruses (these are RNA viruses – viruses without DNA, which insert a copy of their genome into the DNA of the host cell and thereby cause the disease).

Columbia University is a symbolic place.

But Georgetown University is even more symbolic. Redfield graduated in 1973 from the College of Arts and Sciences at Georgetown University, and he completed medical school there in 1977.

Georgetown University, like Columbia, is the CIA’s home turf. And, of course, this is an institution where the influence of the Jesuits is very significant. This is not a conspiracy theory – it is historically and politically obvious. Is Georgetown not related to the Jesuits? Who are you telling this to? Anyone who studies American elites knows this.

Redfield, after becoming a Doctor of Medicine, worked at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC), which is named after the yellow fever researcher. This center and that Fort Detrick, which is under constant discussion in connection with talks about the artificiality of the coronavirus and the US trail in this story, are part of a single whole.

Prior to becoming director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the administrator of the Toxic Substances and Disease Registration Agency, Redfield was a full-time professor of medicine and microbiology at the University of Maryland, not far from Fort Detrick.

Redfield co-founded the Institute of Human Virology there in 1996.

From 2005 to 2009, i.e. under George W. Bush, Redfield was a member of the Presidential Advisory Board. This council had a narrow specialization (he focused on HIV), and a wider specialization. In fact, it was a biological weapons council.

Redfield was involved in the closed project to establish a total quarantine because he already had these positions.

People who have examined Redfield’s career constantly emphasize that he had an inappropriately close relationship with Shepherd Smith’s non-governmental group, which consists of fairly radical evangelicals. At the same time, Redfield himself is a devout Catholic.

In particular, this was the reported on August 17, 2018 by Washington Post.

This is what is being said about Shepherd Smith, with whom Redfield is so closely associated. But first, about the source.

The origins of Shepherd Smith’s high-profile contacts are detailed in memos, letters, and military documents in an archive of AIDS research records at the University of Michigan.  Kaiser Health News examined hundreds of pages there to help assess the Trump administration’s approach to health policy and AIDS treatment and prevention.

So information about Smith and others is not from conspiracy theories. It is historical and archival in nature, based on specific documents.

According to this information and his own acknowledgements during a series of interviews with Kaiser Health News (these are his own words) in the late 1980s, Shepherd Smith developed relationships with scientists even as other religious leaders balked at the idea of getting involved in AIDS prevention efforts, because you cannot save homosexuals.

Under Smith’s direction, Redfield who then worked at Walter Reed Army Medical Center joined the advisory board of Smiths’ organization Americans for a Sound AIDS/HIV Policy – ASAP.

Redfield also served as chairman and an advisory board member of another organization Smith and his wife later founded.

According to a government transcript stored in the University of Michigan archives, Smith sized up Redfield swiftly when they first met. “He was as happy to see us as we were him,” Smith said in an interview with military investigators. Their relationship deepened as the activist and scientist rose in prominence. Smith’s letters to Walter Reed officials, which both investigators and journalists have familiarized themselves with suggest this.

Smith, who secured CDC dollars for Americans for a Sound AIDS/HIV Policy in the 1980s, regularly stopped by Walter Reed to see Redfield and others who joined the organization’s board, according to military records in the archive.

Under Smith’s direction, ASAP touted Redfield’s vaccine research as being “the most important scientific advancement in the epidemic to date.”

In turn, as ASAP chairman, Redfield called the group “the most effective AIDS/HIV organization I know” in its 1991 annual report.

It’s like a mutual admiration society.

Now about this Shepherd Smith, who influences Redfield in such a great way.  But, does he influence only him?

Shepherd Smith met in the White House with President George W. Bush. He is one of the religious leaders who congregated around Bush.

The presidency of Donald Trump has provided the evangelical community with the opportunity to reaffirm their role both in defining US global health strategy and in ensuring that religious organizations in the US and around the world have the opportunity to receive public funds for the implementation of their strategy regarding infectious diseases.

Shepherd Smith is an evangelical Christian who worked as a political strategist with Pat Robertson, a former Southern Baptist pastor who ran for US presidency in 1988.

Shepherd Smith’s wife, Anita, served as co-chair of Presidential Advisory Council on HIV and AIDS under President George W. Bush. I emphasize once again that this Council was concerned with much more than just HIV.

It is believed that Redfield owes a great deal to his connections with the Smiths for his appointment to the high post of head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Another person associated with these same Smiths, and this is also established by researchers and journalists, is Deborah Birx, who was appointed coordinator of the White House coronavirus task force on February 29, 2020.

Unfortunately, I do not have the opportunity to discuss these figures in more detail. But since they are closely associated with US Vice President Mike Pence, something needs to be said about Pence.

Pence is a Catholic who was “born again”, gradually shifting toward the evangelical church, the New York Times said. This junction of evangelicals and Catholics is extremely interesting. To a significant extent, this shift happened because of his wife Karen.

In 2016, Pence, who had previously supported Trump’s rival, Senator Ted Cruz, was offered the vice presidency under Trump. And he agreed.

As Vice President, Pence created a Bible study group made up of members of the Trump administration and is heavily influenced by the evangelicals.

On February 27, 2020, Donald Trump assigned Vice President Mike Pence to take control of government measures to combat the spread of coronavirus in the United States.

Pence calls himself a Catholic evangelical. He described Putin as a “small and bullying leader.”

Pence is known for saying: “the Russian bear never dies, it just hibernates.”

Pence has emphasized many times that he draws inspiration from Russell Kirk, the author of The Conservative Mind. All this definitely cannot be examined without a certain connection to global restructuring.

Thus, the Pence-Redfield-Smith-Birx link, defining everything related to the coronavirus, and much of what is associated with biological weapons, is very clear. Finding this link has nothing to do conspiracy theories. It is obvious to everyone who studies the American elite. For the American military, investigators, journalists. And of course, it (that’s what I want to emphasize!) is largely defined by Rumsfeld’s long-standing initiatives on total quarantine among the civilian population, despite the fact that the need for this quarantine will supposedly come from a Chinese biological attack on the United States. This initiative has already included Redfield and others.


Artist and Chimera by Jacek Malczewski. 1906


March 13, 2020 (that is, two days after Redfield’s hearing, which was essentially a veiled acknowledgement of very gloomy things) RBC reports that the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs considers it possible that the coronavirus was brought into the PRC from the United States. It is specifically reported that the deputy head of the information department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China, Zhao Lijian, after sharing Redfield’s hearing on Twitter, commented on this statement: “Perhaps the US military brought the epidemic to Wuhan. America must be transparent! Data must be publicly available! The United States must give us an explanation!”

And then the exchange of mutual accusations begins. And the Chinese are in no way inferior to the Americans here. They’re not sitting with their tail between their legs, not at all.

The Chinese remind the Americans, in particular, that back in 2004, the US National Intelligence Council published a report entitled “Mapping the global future”. That in this official document, which was by no means written by conspiracy theorists, and which is available for review, it was said: “Short of a major global conflict, which we regard as improbable… another large-scale development that we believe could stop globalization would be a pandemic… it is only a matter of time before a new pandemic appears…  Such a pandemic in China, India, Bangladesh or Pakistan would be devastating and could spread rapidly throughout the world… In several major countries the spread of the disease put a halt to global travel and trade during an extended period.”

Those who elaborate on this topic direct attention to the fact that military exercises took place in October 2019, which took place, firstly, at Joint Base Charleston, South Carolina, and secondly, in South America. They both were aimed at practicing military actions during a pandemic-related emergency. (October 2019… Do you remember all these chronological coincidences? “Event 201” and all the rest…).

The scenario for these exercises mentions “an uncontrolled coronavirus reservoir, that spreads like a wildfire”, creating “chaos around the world.”

The Chinese reasonably include “Event 201”, which we have already examined in detail, in the same series of strange coincidences.

On March 11, 2020, the following was reported on the website of the Canadian Global Research center, “It would seem the only possibility for origination is the US because only that country has the ‘tree trunk’ of all the varieties. And it may therefore be true that the original source of the COVID-19 virus was the US military bio-warfare lab at Fort Detrick.”

On March 18, 2020, the Italian newspaper Il Messaggero quoted the Catholic Cardinal of Sri Lanka, Archbishop of Colombo Malcolm Ranjith, claiming that the virus came out of the laboratory of “one powerful and rich country.” Here, above all, the unequivocal statement by the archbishop precisely about the laboratory origin of the coronavirus is essential. After all, it is said directly that the virus “left the laboratory.”

Well, and what are we to do with all these verdicts? “Don’t you dare, shut up!”

What am I doing? I’m drawing some trajectories – from different sides, in different directions, on coming from people at different levels of qualification, different ideological orientations, from different countries – and these trajectories converge. Whether you want it or not, they converge. Do you know what the theory of probability, that I studied, says? That when something coincides so many times, this is no longer just a hypothesis.

Basing themselves off of Redfield’s hearing, the Chinese demand that the US government publish information on the shutdown of the US Army’s Infectious Disease Research Laboratory at Fort Detrick. There are calls to the US government to clarify whether the lab was linked to the deadly virus.

For example, a “large-scale flu killed more than 10,000 people” in the US in August 2019, after the closure of Fort Detrick; The COVID-19 epidemic erupted around the world in February 2020 after the United States conducted “Event 201”, the global pandemic exercise, in October of 2019.

Redfield’s statement obviously ignites Chinese society.

On the Web, Chinese experts are calling for attention to a statement by Washington-based journalist George Webb, who insists that US soldier Maatje Benassi, who participated in the October World Military Games in Wuhan, brought the virus to China.

Webb says, that it all started with a US service member from Fort Belvoir, a sergeant from Fort Belvoir, who was patient Zero in Wuhan, China. How could this happen, he asks.

Moreover, a relative of Maatje Benassi worked at the Walter Reed Army Research Institute, where, according to Webb, the US is developing biochemical weapons.

CNN later denied this information, saying that neither the athlete who Webb pointed to nor her husband had coronavirus.

I do not want to absolutize the accusations, but to absolutize the denials would also be strange. But the point is not the evidence of these accusations. But their political and social significance.

On March 23, 2020, China Central Television announced the following, Some US politicians have recently referred to the new coronavirus as the Chinese virus on many occasions, triggering criticism from the international community. Racism, xenophobia, and searching for scapegoats have become high-frequency words used by the European and American media to criticize the US’s language. As more and more questions from outsiders point to the United States, the US government must explain the three questions about the epidemic clearly to the public and give the world an explanation.

First of all, according to the latest estimates by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the US flu season that began in September 2019 has infected more than 30 million Americans and killed more than 20,000 people. Robert Redfield, director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, recently publicly admitted that some influenza deaths were actually infected with novel coronavirus pneumonia. So, out of these 20,000 deaths from influenza, how many cases of novel coronavirus pneumonia are there? Has the United States used the flu to cover up the situation of new coronary pneumonia?

Question: There are over 20,000 deaths from the seasonal flu in America starting last September, how many of those cases were the novel coronavirus undetected?”

This is asked by a great power, and not some ambitious conspiracy theorist. I continue to quote,

If the United States has a clear conscience, it should immediately publish official data and require officials, experts and scholars in the field of public health to respond positively, and even invite the WHO to send an investigation team to participate in the investigation.

That is the 2019 flu investigation.

Explaining this issue clearly is not only an urgent need for the United States to respond to the current epidemic, but also an explanation for some Americans whose causes of death are unknown. After all, if a country can easily prevaricate and cover up causes of death, what human rights and credibility does it have?

The second question the United States needs to answer is: Why did the Fort Detrick biological and chemical weapons base in Maryland suddenly shut down in July 2019? The base is the largest research and development center for biological and chemical weapons in the US military. The New York Times stated that it was closed because there was no sufficient system to purify the wastewater of its highest safety level laboratory.

However, with the development of a series of events that followed, people doubted the real reason for the closure of the base. Because shortly after it was closed, a series of pneumonia or pneumonia-like cases appeared in the United States. Relevant departments blamed it on e-cigarettes, but scientists pointed out that e-cigarettes cannot explain its symptoms and conditions. Almost at the same time, the H1N1 flu broke out in the United States; then in October 2019, multiple agencies in the United States organized a global pandemic exercise code-named Event 201; in December 2019, the first patient with novel coronavirus pneumonia in Wuhan appeared symptoms.

In February 2020, new coronavirus epidemic appeared in many parts of the world.

The third question is: Why did the US government downplay the country’s novel coronavirus pneumonia epidemic in mid-February, while many officials of the Senate Intelligence Committee sold stocks worth millions of dollars at that time? Could politicians use insider trading to sell stocks while concealing the epidemic from the public? Should they face the epidemic, is their priority capital rather than life?

Experts discuss the relationship between the shutdown of the Fort Detrick laboratory and the laboratory’s involvement with the anthrax letters in 2001. The stories emerge not only of Ivins, but of Frank Olson, who worked at Fort Detrick. Olson’s son filed a lawsuit in 2012 with the US District Court in Washington, arguing that his father did not commit suicide and that the CIA killed him in connection with his father’s concern over the biological warfare experiments carried out at Fort Detrick.

And here again the story of Ivins, this Fort Detrick scientist, who was suspected of sending letters with anthrax in September 2001, and who allegedly committed suicide when the FBI began investigating, emerges. Whether Ivins really committed suicide or he was killed is the same kind of open-ended question that we have with Olson.

This is the picture that I can present today by analyzing a vast number of events and identifying those of them that are obviously connected in a single whole.

I am not saying anything. I’m just saying that if there is a meaning to the game, then it lies on the territory that I just outlined.

(To be continued.)


Source (for copy):


This is the translation of the third article (first published in the “Essence of Time” newspaper issue 381 on June 12, 2020) by Sergey Kurginyan.

Leave a Reply