Did The CCP Intentionally Release the Wuhan Pandemic?

Xi and Bio weapon

This Murrination follows my article Are We At War written on 30th March 2020 which will give context to the key questions that need to be asked.  Early in January 2020, I was one of the first commentators who expressed the view that I was 90% certain the Wuhan Virus came out of a laboratory. The characteristics that made me almost certain this was the case were the virus’s ability to spread asymptomatically via air and contact transmission as well as the fact that it was immediately very well adapted to human hosts. These are qualities of an ideal bioweapon and made it impossible to prevent the disease from spreading without total economic lock down. However, due to the RNA nature of the virus and its capability to mutate to the extent that a more dangerous mutation could bounce back on China at a later date means that it was unlikely to be a CCP sanctioned intentional release from the Wuhan laboratory. However, I added a caveat that only by watching China’s behaviours through the pandemic could we gauge the CCP’s level of aggressive intention and use that to consider the possibility of an intentional release of a Bio weapon to constrain the Western economies and allow China to close the power gap.

 

1. Confirmation of China’s Aggressive Intentions

China's behaviour has exceeded all and any of my worst fears in regard to it’s level of aggression. We have seen the invasion of a portion of India in the Himalayas, the annexation of Hong Kong, aggressive actions in the South China seas by PLN warships and cyber attacks on Western vaccine companies. Meanwhile, tensions are rising between North Korea and South Korea with there being every chance that China is encouraging such aggression with the aim of uniting the peninsula under its ally's control. Most of all China has increased its rhetoric against Taiwan and a potential invasion should be considered very possible if America shows any weakness. In all probability this is part of a broad coherent plan to expand and consolidate China’s power base out to the first island chain and constrict any Western influence within its boundaries. These actions expose China’s aggressive intentions and reveal a possible motive for potentially releasing the virus in the first place and certainly doing all it could to maximise its spread beyond Chinese shores.

Australia has been shouting the loudest for an international and independent investigation (not by the WHO as it has been infiltrated by the CCP) into the source of the Virus inside China. In return, China has placed inordinate pressure upon  Australia in the form of a beef import ban that has had a significant economic impact. More notably there are aggressive and sustained cyber campaigns against the Australian government, threatening critical infrastructure. The very fact that China has mounted such a campaign suggests that it has something to hide with respect to the origins of the Wuhan Virus and is trying to muffle Australian concerns by all and any means of coercion at its disposal. These aggressive behaviours mean that we must re-examine the potential origins of the Wuhan Virus.

 

2 A hypothesis on the  Development of an Effective and Deployable Biological weapon

Over the past two decades, the development of biological warfare weapons pursued through research in viruses and by other means has been a major development focus in all of the world’s significant military programs. On a benign level, the justification is research into defence against such agents. On the opposite side of the spectrum the research into  ‘gain of function’ is aimed at building a deployable viral agent.

To confirm this new reality a retired Chinese PLA general, Zhang Shibo, stated in the 2017 book, “New Highland of War,” that biotechnology advances were increasing the likelihood of offensive bioweapons, including the danger of “specific ethnic genetic attacks.” To further support this a report by the Chinese military’s National Defence University in 2017 included a section warning that biology is a new domain of warfare and that a future germ conflict could include “specific ethnic genetic attacks.”

 A Bioweapon would fall into one of a group of asymmetric warfare strategies that could allow China to leap ahead of America. In such a case Western arrogance works in China’s favour, as would the presumption that the West’s military labs would spot a deliberate Chimera. The reality is China’s developing cutting edge weapons in asymmetric areas that grant it an advantage over America. The assumption that the West could spot a deliberate use of a bio-weapon may not be valid, particularly as Chinese creativity has made major advances that are frequently underestimated by Western powers.  There would seem to be two paths to designing and deploying a biological weapon.

A Bio-genetic weapon that can target a particular race with unique qualities, e.g. European genes. The only issue with such a weapon is that its specific genetic targeting would then suggest where it originated from by a process of exclusion. Such a weapon would be useful once war has been declared, but not so good as secret untraceable and deniable use of a weapon.

A Deadly Twin Bioweapon. A second potential route suggested by Stuart Fraser, who has been a part of intensive investigations into the history and development of gain of function research, would be to create two versions of a highly contagious virus.

Version 1 would be relatively benign in its symptoms much like flu. Version 2 would have only a slight difference in construction, but would significantly increase impact and lethality. I am informed that subtle genetic differences have been found in the Wuhan Virus’s one truly unique feature, the furin cleavage insert, resulting in a 270-fold difference in lethality between the two versions of the virus. Today, in advanced  bio laboratories it is easy to make  small changes to the furin cleavage site. Just a couple of nucleotides could make all the difference in symptom lethality.

Having created such a deadly virus combination, Version 1 would then be released  to inoculate the general population earlier with the exclusion of a single region. This version of the virus would inevitably spread through the home nation’s population, and to a limited extent into the outside world, creating mild flu like symptoms but conferring immunity to the second more lethal version . This first wave would have effectively inoculated the home nation.

Version 2 would be released into a sacrificial city within the home nation that was at a central communications hub, from which it could be spread to the outside world. This second wave would be seen as a spreading pandemic due the death rate that it left in its wake.

Thus in both the home nation and to a lesser degree other nations spread by the Diaspora there should be a pattern of antibodies from an earlier exposure. If this strategy  were  followed, and if the prevalence of the less lethal version of the virus in the nation launching the attack were to be hidden  then the initial inoculation wave would not be readily detected making this type of weapon ideal for a covert attack on competitor nations.

In the case of the Wuhan virus we know that less pathogenic strains were detected early in the outbreak in China, and that laboratories were prevented from publishing genome sequences that might have shown the prevalence of the less deadly version of the Virus in China.  However, we can see the circumstantial evidence of this in the form of the very low fatality rate in all provinces of China other than Wuhan.

 

3. Would The CCP Dare  Release a Deadly Twin Bioweapon?

We are living in a time when Putin released Novochok (I recommend watching the BBC Salisbury Poisonings). He released a weapon of mass destruction and yet there was no retaliation. I wrote at the time that there would be dire consequences as a result of such a failure in deterrence by PM May.

The Wuhan Virus may well be just that consequence. Certainly, with Xi’s strategic drive to dominate the world by the end of 2030 when India will become a major factor, deploying such a deadly pair would provide a massive opportunity for Chinese expansion as long as they were confident that the source of the pandemic could be obfuscated. If this is the case, just as Hiroshima ushered in a new phase of human warfare in the form of the atomic age, then the development and potential  deployment  of covert bio weapons has just ushered in a new era in mankind’s history that will profoundly change the geopolitics of the decades ahead

 

4. The Questions Raised by the Wuhan Pandemic

1 How was the Wuhan  Virus so well adapted to Humans?  When a virus jumps from one species to another it is not normally very successful in the new species until it mutates to adapt to the new host.  The Wuhan Virus was instantly very successful in humans as measured by its high level of transmission between humans. This strongly implies it has been engineered in a laboratory. Further sign of its lab origin is the mere existence of the furin cleavage site.  No other bat CoV has this, and its impact on facilitating cell entry is well known and much studied in gain of function research.

2 Why has China not been as affected as it should have been? The chart below shows the anomalous reported figures compared to the population size. To put this in perspective, China has reported 83,293 cases with 4634 deaths in a population of 1.2 Billion. In the UK we have 300,500 cases with 42,300 deaths with a 62 million population. Is this a function of manipulated figures? Or a high level of personal discipline? We do know that they have impressive testing capabilities that are able to test twice a day in some cases. Similarly, their track and trace capabilities are equally impressive. It would be interesting to find out the timeline to the development of such capabilities. All that aside, with such a large population dealing with such a virulent virus, so few outbreaks and very few fatalities other than in Wuhan is fascinating. The big question is do Chinese people have immunity to the Wuhan Virus?

Image
countries

Why did China report 10 times more flu cases than usual in December, i.e 1.2 million cases? This was confirmed by The Harvard Study last week that there was increased traffic to Chinese hospitals in December. Could this have been  caused by  the spread of Version 1 which could have been the relatively benign form of the Wuhan Virus? In the UK and other parts of the world that were close to the Diaspora of China  we need to see the statistics as if there was a spike in flu cases in November, December and January before the pandemic hit. This could be the footprint of a Version 1 release that was designed to immunise the Chinese population. Notably the Chinese authorities stopped providing reports on 27 December and virus genomes as to which version had infected elements of the population. Supporting  this hypothesis is preliminary data on lower fatality rates in Chinese Diaspora. Additionally, we have some information on the Virus being present within Europe in early December (sewage samples collected in Turin and Milan, one patient in France whose blood was collected in early December and recently found to have SARS2 RNA).

4 Was the timing and location of the deadly outbreak significant? Wuhan was the ideal epicentre to maximise the spread as it was an international travel hub.  Timing wise, an event such as Chinese New Year would be ideal as it massively increases the rate of flow of infected people into the outside world.

5 Why was the Wuhan outbreak more deadly than the early flu-like version in December? Could the Wuhan outbreak have been the intentional release of the Version 2 of the deadly pair? 

6 Did the CCP seek to maximise the Spread of The Wuhan Virus to the Rest of the world ? Yes, there was clear CCP interference and manipulation of the WHO designed to optimise the effective spread of the Version 2. This would accelerate the spread of the Virus as would be the obfuscation of the extent of the infection in the home city, Wuhan.

7 Has there been CCP action to block the origins of the Virus? Yes . On the face of it, to deny the laboratory origins of the Virus. Perhaps there is a further layer of obfuscation to ensure that its twin nature never came to light, along with its engineered creation.

8 Why are there so many articles suggesting zoonotic origins?  I believe that there are a number of contributing factors. Firstly, most laboratories require funding and speaking out with high profile conclusions would risk future funding. There appear to be  some nefarious connections between one senior Trump administration member and  US corporations working with Chinese labs in gain of function research, though the Obama moratorium has yet to come to light, that is  potentially driving a zoonotic cover up. Lastly, even if they had the evidence most Western governments would seek to avoid panic that this was actually a biological weapon, that would risk a potential war.

 

5. Summary

The evidence that the Wuhan Virus spread through China and then into the outside world in two waves is very clear. First, there came a benign version and then the more deadly version.

It is clear that the Chinese are hiding the origins to the Wuhan pandemic, but further questions by intelligence services have to be asked; was this an intentional state sanctioned release? If so, the Chinese have already committed an act of war and it's up to the West to act decisively.

If this was a deliberate attack using a bio weapon then that reality must be uncovered swiftly. Otherwise, just as in the case of the Salisbury attacks, the world risks a second even more deadly release of an evolved bioweapon by the CCP. However, what is clear is that the old boundary associated with weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical, and biological, that constrained the Cold War has been irrevocably broken. Just as cyber operations carry deniability, the reality that biological warfare may now be viewed similarly is terrifying.

Even before these questions have been answered, actions speak louder than words and it is clear China is on the march, just as Germany was from the annexation of the Rhineland in 1936. Only strong acts of powerful deterrence can head China off at the pass, which means that we are already deep in a new Cold War, but not mobilised to the level that the situation requires to deter ongoing Chinese aggression.

To preserve our way of life, America, Britain and the West need to wake up to the road to war we are now blindly navigating and start to deter both covert and overt aggression, by defining new boundaries and rules of engagement the encompass Cyber Chemical and Biological warfare.

 

Further Reading

Lab escape theory of SARS-CoV-2 origin gaining scientific support

The most logical explanation is that it comes from a laboratory

Post Article Information

The day after this Murrination was published, the Telegraph reported that the Chinese has developed a vaccine, proven it works and vaccinated only its armed forces. If this is correct then how did the Chinese create a vaccination program so rapidly when 160 programs in the West have failed to do so? The only answer would be that they had it before their outbreak. The second question is why have they chosen the armed forces to be the first recipients? The only answer is that they consider the armed forces to be critical to the CCPs plans at this point in time. 

 

 

 

 

 

Category

Comments

Permalink

What’s your thoughts on the £1B investment in Cambridge micro chip R&D by Huawei? Certainly doesn’t play into the UK’s ‘right brained’ leadership theory?
Let’s hope we wake up & the West takes sanctions (trade ban) on China!