Häufig liest man an vielerlei Stellen, die Pandemie sei geplant gewesen. Belege dafür liefert kaum jemand. Es scheint an der Zeit, einmal zu fragen, wer denn überhaupt ein Motiv dafür gehabt haben könnte.
Archiv: Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) / BSL-4 laboratory
Judicial Watch: Records Show Funding for EcoHealth/Wuhan Institute Research to Create Coronavirus ‘Mutants’
(April 19, 2023 )
EcoHealth Alliance’s $3.3 million grant to fund a project titled “Understanding the Risk of Coronavirus Emergence” was initially to run from October 1, 2013, to September 30, 2018. The first “Project/Performance Site Location” is the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Three other Chinese sites follow: East China Normal University in Shanghai, Yunnan Institute of Endemic Disease Control and Prevention in Dali, and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention of Guangdong in Guangzhou.
On May 27, 2014, the NIH awarded EcoHealth Alliance $3,086,735 over five years for “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence.”
An EcoHealth Alliance grant application, received by the NIH on June 5, 2013, includes a list of “Senior/Key Personnel” including Shi Zhengli and Zhang Yun-Zhi of the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV); Peter Daszak, CEO of EcoHealth Alliance; and other Chinese scientists, including Ke Changwen of the Chinese “CDC and Prevention of Guangdong Province.”
Das Corona-Laborvirus: Die unbequeme Wahrheit kommt ans Licht
In der Periode der zweiten Obama-Präsidentschaft (2012-2016) war nach heftigen Debatten um „GoF“ die bundesstaatliche Förderung dafür mit Gültigkeit ab 2014 vorerst ausgesetzt worden – ein zeitweiliges „Moratorium“. Ein eigenes Verfahren zum Genehmigen von Vorhaben mit „besonders riskanten“ Mikroben sollte entwickelt werden. (2) Das setzte Grenzen für den Fortgang der Vorhaben an Barics UNC-Instituten für Virologie und Epidemiologie. Zur Hilfe kam eine Absprache zur Zusammenarbeit mit dem WIV, vermittelt durch die New Yorker Organisation „EcoHealth Alliance“ und deren Chef Peter Daszak, die dafür gerade noch rechtzeitig eine Finanzierung seitens NIH/NIAID beantragt hatte, die dann von Faucis NIAID ebenfalls noch 2013 für fünf Jahre ab 2014 genehmigt wurde.
DARPA’s Man in Wuhan
In 2017, the U.S. Department of Defense awarded a $6.5 million contract to a company called EcoHealth Alliance, Inc to carry out research on “the risk of bat-borne zoonotic disease emergence in Western Asia”. Journalist Dilyana Gaytandzhieva uncovered the Pentagon project, which focused on “genetic studies on coronaviruses in 5,000 bats collected in Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkey and Jordan”.
Gaytandzhieva also detailed the multiple covert activities being carried out by the USG, such as American diplomats trafficking in blood and pathogens for a secret military program, as well as an instance in which a breakout of hemorrhagic fever in the area immediately surrounding the Center was traced back to experiments being carried out by Pentagon scientists on “tropical mosquitos and ticks“.
Not coincidentally, EcoHealth Alliance had previously received a $3.5 million grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 2014 to study coronaviruses in bats in Asia. This particular study was carried out in partnership with scientists at none other than the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Angeblicher Experte in China: Der mysteriöse Wilson Edwards
Der Fall zeigt, wie hoch politisiert die Suche nach dem Ursprung des Corona-Virus gerade auf chinesischer Seite ist. Für die USA und die Weltgesundheitsorganisation ist die Laborthese nicht vom Tisch. Solange diese These aber weiter im Spiel ist, blockt China weitere Untersuchungen ab – und sucht Unterstützung notfalls auch bei Phantom-Forschern.
Anthony Fauci and the Wuhan Lab
(03.06.2021)
Of particular interest: From 2014-19, the National Institutes of Health sent $3.4 million to the WIV through the nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance. “I just wanted to say a personal thankyou on behalf of our staff and collaborators, for publicly standing up and stating that the scientific evidence supports a natural origin,” EcoHealth Alliance chief Peter Daszak gushed to Dr. Fauci in a partly redacted April 2020 email.
Fact-checking the Paul-Fauci flap over Wuhan lab funding
(May 18, 2021)
Juicing up super viruses is not new. Scientists in the U.S. have long known how to mutate animal viruses to infect humans. For years, Dr. Ralph Baric, a virologist in the U.S., has been collaborating with Dr. Shi Zhengli of the Wuhan Virology Institute, sharing his discoveries about how to create super viruses. This gain-of-function research has been funded by the NIH. … Dr. Fauci, do you still support funding of the NIH funding of the lab in Wuhan?”
— Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), remarks at a Senate hearing, May 11
“Senator Paul, with all due respect, you are entirely and completely incorrect that the NIH has not never and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”
— Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in response.
Wuhan-Affäre: “Die Weltbevölkerung in die Irre geführt”
Nun aber ist auch in der Presse und dem Rundfunk ein starker Stimmungsumschwung wahrnehmbar. Wodurch wurde der ausgelöst?
Es gab zunächst einmal einen großen Stimmungsumschwung in den USA, das war das Wesentliche. Ich war selbst in viele Gespräche mit amerikanischen Kollegen involviert. In den USA einen Stimmungsumschwung zu erreichen, war sehr wichtig, gerade wegen der besonderen Situation dort. Wir wissen, dass eine Unterabteilung der National Institutes of Health (NIH), die von [dem medizinischen Chefberater des Weißen Hauses; S.F.] Anthony Fauci geleitet wird, mehrere hochriskante Gain-of-function-Forschungsprojekte mit Coronaviren [Experimente, die darauf abzielen, die Übertragbarkeit und/oder Virulenz von Krankheitserregern zu erhöhen; S.F.] in Wuhan jahrelang gefördert hat.
EXCLUSIVE: COVID-19 ‚has NO credible natural ancestor‘ and WAS created by Chinese scientists who then tried to cover their tracks with ‚retro-engineering‘ to make it seem like it naturally arose from bats, explosive new study claims
– An explosive new study claims researchers found ‚unique fingerprints‚ in COVID-19 samples that they say could only have arisen from manipulation in a laboratory
– DailyMail.com exclusively obtained the new 22-page paper authored by British Professor Angus Dalgleish and Norwegian scientist Dr. Birger Sørensen set to be published in the Quarterly Review of Biophysics Discovery
– The study showed there‘s evidence to suggest Chinese scientists created the virus while working on a Gain of Function project in a Wuhan lab
– Gain of Function research, which was temporarily outlawed in the US, involves altering naturally-occurring viruses to make them more infectious in order to study their potential effects on humans
According to the paper, Chinese scientists took a natural coronavirus ‚backbone‘ found in Chinese cave bats and spliced onto it a new ‚spike‘, turning it into the deadly and highly transmissible COVID-19
– The researchers, who concluded that COVID-19 ‚has no credible natural ancestor‚, also believe scientists reverse-engineered versions of the virus to cover up their tracks.
‚We think that there have been retro-engineered viruses created,‘ Dalgleish told DailyMail.com. ‚They‘ve changed the virus, then tried to make out it was in a sequence years ago.‘
Wuhan lab director says US intelligence report is „a complete lie“
The director of the Wuhan National Biosafety Lab told Chinese state media Monday the claim in a new United States intelligence report that several researchers at the lab were hospitalized in November 2019, was „a complete lie.“
„Those claims are groundless,“ lab director Yuan Zhiming told nationalist tabloid Global Times. „The lab has not been aware of this situation, and I don‘t even know where such information came from.“
Worrying new clues about the origins of Covid: How scientists at Wuhan lab helped Chinese army in secret project to find animal viruses, writes IAN BIRRELL
An update in 2018 said that the scientific teams – who published many of their findings in international journals – had found four new pathogens and ten new bacteria while ‚more than 1,640 new viruses were discovered using metagenomics technology‘. Such research is based on extraction of genetic material from samples such as those collected by Prof Shi from bat faeces and blood in the cave networks of southern China.
Such extensive sampling led to Prof Shi‘s rapid revelation last year of RaTG13, the closest known relative to the new strain of coronavirus that causes Covid.
It was stored at the Wuhan lab, the biggest repository of bat coronaviruses in Asia.
WHO-Chef will Laborthese weiter untersuchen
Die Möglichkeit einer absichtlichen Freisetzung von SARS-CoV-2 wurde nicht untersucht.
Studie zum Ursprung der Coronavirus-Pandemie
Zusammenfassend kann festgehalten werden, dass es sehr viele Indizien gibt, die einen Laborunfall im „Wuhan Institute of Virology“ als die mit Abstand wahrscheinlichste Ursache für die Corona-Pandemie erscheinen lassen. In diesem Fall würde es sich nicht um eine „Naturkatastrophe“ handeln, sondern um eine von Menschen selbst herbeigeführte Tragödie. Es besteht eine sehr große Gefahr darin, die Frage nach der Ursache für die gegenwärtige Pandemie „als geklärt“ zu deklarieren, wie etwa in dem Statement [III.4] einiger Virologen. Für politische Entscheidungsträger macht es unbestreitbar einen Unterschied, ob sie Wildtiermärkte oder Hochrisikoforschung mit gentechnisch manipulierten Viren weltweit verbieten sollen. Diese Frage muss verstärkt in den Vordergrund rücken, ansonsten könnten Corona- und andere Virenarten noch ein viel größeres Gefahrenpotential entwickeln, nicht nur in der Gegenwart, sondern auch in der Zukunft.
(…)
Auffallend bei der gegenwärtigen Pandemie im Vergleich zu früheren Ausbrüchen von Coronavirus-bedingten Erkrankungen ist:
1) Wir haben es in der gegenwärtigen Pandemie mit einem Erreger zu tun, der mit einer bislang nicht bekannten Effizienz menschliche Zellen angreift.
2) Dabei werden nicht nur die (oberen) Atemwege, sondern auch innere Organe angegriffen und in ihrer Funktion teilweise schwer geschädigt.
Man muss sich daher notwendigerweise die Frage stellen, wie eine solche nahezu perfekte Adaption von Coronaviren an menschliche Zellrezeptoren zustande kommen konnte, um zukünftige Pandemie-Gefahrenpotentiale identifizieren zu können.
Dokumentation zu Virusherkunft: Kaum Belege für Labortheorie
Der Professor scheint seit Langem kursierende Vermutungen wissenschaftlich zu bestätigen. Doch nicht das Ergebnis steht nun im Mittelpunkt, stattdessen löste die Pressemitteilung eine Debatte über die Qualität seiner Arbeit aus. So distanzierten sich Studierende der Universität Hamburg und der Studierendenausschuss von der Veröffentlichung. Sie entspreche nicht den wissenschaftlichen Standards, die von einer Universität erwartet würden.
Thanks @kakape for the opportunity to clarify our findings. One of the misunderstanding has been about the nature of our work in the past month. It was a joint @WHO – #China mission to review the July agreed phase 1 studies and plan a series of new studies. Work in progress.
This was NOT my experience on @WHO mission. As lead of animal/environment working group I found trust & openness w/ my China counterparts. We DID get access to critical new data throughout. We DID increase our understanding of likely spillover pathways.
(13.02.2021)
WHO-Experten fordern mehr Daten von China
Aus chinesischer Sicht war es gut gelaufen: Bei der Abschlusspressekonferenz der WHO-Mission vergangene Woche in Wuhan gab es keine Kritik an China. Allerdings auch keine wirklich dramatisch neuen Erkenntnisse über den Ursprung der Pandemie. Jetzt aber kommen aus dem Kreis der WHO-Experten Forderungen nach Zugang zu mehr chinesischen Daten, um die Spur der Pandemie weiter zurückverfolgen zu können.
LIVE from Wuhan : Media briefing on #COVID19 origin mission
WHO: Ursache für Ausbruch in Wuhan noch nicht geklärt
Die Forschung müsse sich aber darauf konzentrieren, wie das Virus in Tieren zirkuliert, bevor Menschen infiziert werden, sagte der Experte. Ein Virus, das eine Pandemie auslösen kann, müsse bereits an den menschlichen Kontakt angepasst sein, sagte Liang.
Did the Covid-19 virus really escape from a Wuhan lab?
Chan and her colleague Dr Shing Hei Zhan scrutinised the evolutions of SARS-CoV-1 (the cause of the 2003 SARS epidemic) and SARS-CoV-2 (the cause of the current pandemic) in the early months of their respective outbreaks and found that while the former mutated rapidly in early human cases, as the virus adapted to its new host, the latter did not. This implies that the virus causing Covid-19 was already well adapted to infecting human beings, a point that was also suggested by the World Health Organization in its global study on the origins of Covid-19, published in November.
There are three possible explanations for this. The first is that the virus had circulated, undetected, in people for months. The second is that the virus was already highly adept at human-to-human transmission, even while it was still in bats or other animals. The third is that it had become adapted in human cells, or humanised animals, in a laboratory.
The World Needs a Real Investigation Into the Origins of Covid-19
The world needs an inquiry that considers not just natural origins but the possibility that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, escaped from a laboratory. The WHO team, however, plans to build on reports by Chinese scientists rather than mount an independent investigation. Given that Chinese authorities have been slow to release information, penalized scientists and doctors who shared clinical and genomic details of the novel coronavirus, and have since demonstrated a keen interest in controlling the narrative of how the virus emerged, this is not a promising foundation for WHO’s investigation.
World Health Organization team arrives in Wuhan to investigate coronavirus pandemic’s origins
They will undergo a two-week quarantine as well as a throat swab test and an antibody test for COVID-19, according to CGTN, the English-language channel of state broadcaster CCTV. They are to start working with Chinese experts via video conference while in quarantine.
The team includes virus and other experts from the United States, Australia, Germany, Japan, Britain, Russia, the Netherlands, Qatar and Vietnam.
Two Members of W.H.O. Team on Trail of Virus Are Denied Entry to China
But in a sign of Beijing’s continuing efforts to control the investigation, the team of scientists and W.H.O. employees almost immediately ran into obstacles. Two scientists were unable to enter China at the last minute and remained in Singapore because they tested positive for coronavirus antibodies, the W.H.O. said in a Twitter post. The Chinese authorities required the remaining 13 experts to undergo two weeks of quarantine in Wuhan, where the virus first emerged in late 2019.
WHO experts to visit China on January 14 for virus origins probe
„After consultation between the two sides, the WHO international experts team on the traceability of the novel coronavirus will visit China on January 14 to conduct joint scientific cooperation with Chinese scientists,“ according to a statement published on the NHC website on Monday.
The commission did not provide further details on the scientists‘ itinerary.
China erlaubt WHO-Experten Einreise am 14. Jänner
Die Delegation soll nun am 14. Jänner eintreffen, teilte die Nationale Gesundheitsbehörde in Peking mit, ohne weitere Einzelheiten zu nennen.
China blocks entry to WHO team studying Covid‘s origins
The WHO has been attempting to send in the team of global experts from a number of countries for some months. It has been talking with Chinese officials since July. Scientists have long said it is essential to find out how the virus jumped species into humans.
China blockierte WHO-Experten in letzter Minute
Das genaue Datum und die Details der Mission hat die WHO bis zuletzt geheim gehalten. Das zehnköpfige internationale Team sollte Anfang Jänner nach China aufbrechen und sich dort für fünf bis sechs Wochen aufhalten. Die Mission gilt als politisch äußerst heikel. Die Regierungen mehrerer Länder werfen den chinesischen Behörden Vertuschungsversuche am Anfang der Pandemie vor.
Die Vertuschungsaktion
(22.12.2020)
Laut Alina Chan, Molekularbiologin am Broad Institute of Harvard und am MIT, kann man die Evolution von SARS-CoV-2 nicht mit der These eines zoonotischen Ursprungs in Einklang bringen, denn das Virus war bereits vollständig für die Mensch-zu-Mensch-Übertragung angepasst, als es zum ersten Mal auftrat.
Die renommierte medizinische Fachzeitschrift „Nature“ erlaubte anscheinend einigen Autoren, ihre Daten heimlich zu ändern, ohne auf diese Korrekturen in den Artikeln hinzuweisen.
Chans Untersuchungen zeigen, dass die Autoren ihre Proben umbenannt, falsch zugeordnet und ein Genomprofil generiert haben, das mit keiner ihrer Proben übereinstimmt. In anderen Papers fehlen Daten.
Das Coronavirus RaTG13, zu 96 Prozent mit SARS-CoV-2 identisch und somit der engste Verwandte, ist in Wirklichkeit btCoV-4991. Dieses Genom wurde schon 2013 in Proben nachgewiesen und 2016 veröffentlicht.
Coronavirus: Scientists cast doubt on WHO’S China mission to find COVID-19 origin in Wuhan
(today)
Daszak was a frequent traveller to Wuhan and the bat colonies of Yunnan with WIV scientists on projects funded by EcoHealth with US grants — until the Trump administration abruptly severed support, citing bio-security concerns.
The British scientist has forcefully dismissed the scenario of a laboratory leak as “baloney” and a “conspiracy theory”, and praised the work of his Chinese counterparts, notably Shi Zhengli, the “bat woman” of Wuhan, who traced the origins of the earlier Sars coronavirus outbreak to a colony of horseshoe bats in Yunnan.
The world must investigate all the mounting evidence Covid leaked from a Wuhan lab, writes IAN BIRRELL
(2 January 2021 | Updated: 12:06 GMT, 3 January 2021)
Now there is growing clamour from experts around the world that no stone should be left unturned during this inquiry – and that it must include one key element of a hunt which has all the hallmarks of a thriller novel.
This centres on a cave filled with bats, a clutch of mysterious deaths, some brilliant scientists carrying out futuristic experiments in a secretive laboratory – and a cover-up of epic proportions that, if proven, would have huge consequences for the Chinese Communist Party and the global practice of science.
Did Top Medical Journal Help Cover Up Origins of SARS-CoV-2?
(11.09.2020)
– According to Alina Chan, a molecular biologist at the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, SARS-CoV-2 did not evolve in a manner you’d expect, had it jumped from an animal to a human. It sprang into action fully evolved for human transmission
– It appears Nature, a top medical journal, has allowed authors to secretly alter data sets in their papers without publishing notices of correction
– Chan’s investigation reveals authors have renamed samples, failed to attribute them properly, and produced a genomic profile that doesn’t match the samples in their paper. Others are missing data
– RaTG13 — the coronavirus that most resembles SARS-CoV-2, being 96% identical — is actually btCoV-4991, a virus found in samples collected in 2013 and published in 2016
– If SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19 and the subsequent response to it, came from a lab, then we need to reassess the future of gain-of-function research that allows for the weaponization of viruses
Get ready. This is going to be an important thread. Election season will be over soon and hopefully more people will devote some attention to this… I‘m going to walk through a timeline of SARS2-related virus data published in the months after the outbreak. (1/30)
(25 Oct 20)
Since the outbreak in late 2019, events have been unfolding at such a fast pace that it is difficult to keep track of what happened and in what order.
I use visualizations of the timeline to follow key events relating to the search for the animal host of SARS2. (2/30)
Even today, I still hear people saying that SARS-CoV-2 came from pangolins and a Seafood market in Wuhan. I hope this analysis will help to clear things up. It will refresh us on significant early pandemic events and major publications discussing the origins of the virus (3/30).
SARS-CoV-2: lab-origin hypothesis gains traction
(October 12, 2020)
– Researchers say there’s evidence within the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein that suggests the virus is a product of genetic manipulation.
– Exiled Chinese scientist Li-Meng Yan says SARS-CoV-2 is an “unrestricted bioweapon” and there’s been “large-scale, organised scientific fraud”.
– Six miners in Yunnan, who were removing bat faeces from a cave, suffered a severe pneumonia-like illness in 2012 and three of them died. They had a high fever, dry cough, sore limbs, and headaches – all symptoms associated with Covid-19.
– A database containing information about the sequencing of samples collected from the Yunnan mine by researchers from the Wuhan Institute of Virology has been taken offline.
– There are said to be sequences of HIV-1 in the SARS-CoV-2 genome.
American and Chinese scientists have collaborated for decades on gain-of-function research.
– There have been numerous ‘leaks’ of viruses from laboratories, including during the SARS outbreak in 2003–2004.
THE AUSTRALIAN | RaBtCoV/4991 | Out of the bat cave: China’s deadly maze Deep in China, three men entered a cave and died with a mystery illness. Why was it kept under wraps for years?
(July 6th, 2020)
Ebright believes an even more controversial theory should not be ruled out. “It also, of course, is a distinct possibility that work done in the laboratory on RaTG13 may have resulted in artificial in-laboratory adaptation that erased those three to five decades of evolutionary distance.”
It is a view Hibberd does not believe is possible. “Sars-Cov-2 and RaTG13 are not the same virus and I don’t think you can easily manipulate one into the other. It seems exceptionally difficult.”
Ebright alleges, however, that the type of work required to create COVID-19 from RaTG13 was “identical” to work the laboratory had done in the past. “The very same techniques, the very same experimental strategies using RaTG13 as the starting point, would yield a virus essentially identical to Sars-Cov-2.”
Scientific history of RaTG13
(Jul 07, 2020)
In early February 2019, Dr. Shi’s team suddenly tossed a brand new genome online and published a paper, citing that hCoV-2019 must come from (horseshoe) Bats because it is so similar to this other sample obtained from Bats in July 2013.
*If an existing genome was already in the system and the new data was uploaded we would expect to see reference notes and that the previous listing had been removed or updated.
*The scientists were forcing an argument that this newly published genome (RaTG13) came from a Bat and is the closest relative to hCoV-2019, therefore our pandemic virus more than likely came from a bat.
At the time of this publication, there is quite literally zero record or publication referencing this sudden new virus that they designated as Bat SL-CoV RaTG13 (Ra being Rhinolophus affinis, 13 being sampling year). How could this new virus have been just ABSENT from the scientific community for SEVEN YEARS?!
In fact, there are (comparatively) barely any Rhinolophus Affinis Samples in our databases. Meaning there is a small pool or Bat viruses from this specific species. The team simply renamed the sample and maybe forgot that 4991 was already in GenBank?! Because 4991 is actually RaTG13, yet this super important publication which was read by all of the top scientists in the world makes zero mention of this important fact.
SARS-CoV-2 is well adapted for humans. What does this mean for re-emergence?
(May 02, 2020)
Abstract: In a side-by-side comparison of evolutionary dynamics between the 2019/2020 SARS-CoV-2 and the 2003 SARS-CoV, we were surprised to find that SARS-CoV-2 resembles SARS-CoV in the late phase of the 2003 epidemic after SARS-CoV had developed several advantageous adaptations for human transmission. Our observations suggest that by the time SARS-CoV-2 was first detected in late 2019, it was already pre-adapted to human transmission to an extent similar to late epidemic SARS-CoV. However, no precursors or branches of evolution stemming from a less human-adapted SARS-CoV-2-like virus have been detected. The sudden appearance of a highly infectious SARS-CoV-2 presents a major cause for concern that should motivate stronger international efforts to identify the source and prevent near future re-emergence.
Scientists from the Wuhan virus lab have ‚defected‘ to the West, reveals senior Trump ally Steve Bannon – as FBI gathers evidence that coronavirus pandemic was caused by an accidental leak
He said: ‘The thing was built with French help, so don’t think that there aren’t some monitoring devices in there. I think what you are going to find out is that these guys were doing experiments which they weren’t fully authorised [for] or knew what they were doing and that somehow, either through an inadvertent mistake, or on a lab technician, one of these things got out.
‘It’s not that hard for these viruses to get out. That is why these labs are so dangerous.
‘You essentially had a biological Chernobyl in Wuhan, but the centre of gravity, the Ground Zero, was round the Wuhan lab, in terms of the casualty rates. And like Chernobyl, you also had the cover-up – the state apparatus reports to itself and just protects itself.’
Geheimdienst-Dossier: Coronaviren in Labor „genetisch modifiziert“, Zusammenarbeit von China und Australien
(03.05.2020)
Man darf annehmen, dass nun versucht wird, die üblichen Überschriftenjunkies weiter zu blitzdingsen und die hochbrisante, bislang dezent verschwiegene Zusammenarbeit von Stellen in China und Australien, sowie in den USA (siehe Universität von North Carolina) irgendwie wieder unter den Teppich zu bekommen und stattdessen eine Konfrontation zwischen den Vereinigten Staaten und China insgesamt hinzubekommen. Das hätte für die Weltbevölkerung wieder einmal die üblichen Folgen und könnte stattdessen die Machtarchitektur der internationalen Nomenklatura (z.B der Kriegslobby) eher noch stärken.
Aber – ist der Virus SARS-CoV-2 oder schlicht SARS 2 nicht irgendwie zufällig genau jetzt aus dem Hut gesprungen, bei so sensiblen Wahlen und Wundern hi und da im Jahre 2020, hätte dies ernsthafte Konsequenzen.
Unter Anderem wäre die unendlich bräsige Selbstgefälligkeit so mancher Funktionäre und Pressevertreter erklärbar, die bereits jetzt vor einer „zweiten Welle“ vom Coronavirus und unverhohlen vor einer Aufhebung des Ausnahmezustands warnen. Ebenso, warum z.B. ein enger Vertrauter des Machthabers im Iran starb, um ein Haar auch der britische Premierminister Boris Johnson (der zunächst einen Ausnahmezustand verweigert hatte) und ausgerechnet der libertäre U.S.-Senator Rand Paul, der sich ebenfalls gegen einen Ausnahmezustand gestellt hatte, als einziges Mitglied des Kongresses insgesamt mit dem Virus infiziert wurde.
Es müsste in Betracht gezogen werden, dass eine beabsichtigte, gezielte Ausbreitung, ein Streuen des Virus erfolgte, ggf. kombiniert mit anderen biotechnologischen Komponten, durch Stellen bzw Hierarchien mit den entsprechenden Möglichkeiten.
Und natürlich wären Billionen von Profiten aus der internationalen Biotech- und Pharmalobby futsch, die nun allererst ihre bemerkenswerte Hellseherei im Zuge der Pandemie-Simulation Event 201 im Oktober 2019 zu erklären hätten.
Ebenso viel zu eklären, hätte die U.S.-Seuchenbehörde C.D.C., die eine unbekannte Anzahl von „Corona-Tests“ verschickte, die selbst mit dem Coronavirus kontaminiert waren. Diese gelangten übrigens auch nach Europa und wurden dort verwendet, was nur einem einzigen kommerziellen Konsortium auffiel, namentlich Eurofins in Luxemburg, welches die britischen Behörden erst über die kontaminierten Tests in Kenntnis setzen musste.
Von den Rechenkünstlern bei W.H.O., Johns-Hopkins-Universität und Robert-Koch-Institut ganz zu schweigen.
Daher unsere Übersetzung.
Intel shared among US allies indicates virus outbreak more likely came from market, not a Chinese lab
The third source said it is also possible the US is not sharing all of its intelligence. While the overwhelming majority is shared among the Five Eyes members, there are pockets of information that each country keeps to itself.
Key U.S. Allies Skeptical of Trump’s Coronavirus Lab Leak Claims
Australia, the United Kingdom, and Canada have pointedly not backed up America’s apparent surety that the novel coronavirus was either deliberately or accidentally leaked from a Chinese lab. All three countries are members of the Five Eyes, the postwar espionage pact designed to share intelligence between like-minded governments, along with New Zealand.
Geheimdienst-Dossier: Coronaviren in Labor „genetisch modifiziert“, Zusammenarbeit von China und Australien
Bezüglich des Ursprungs von SARS 2 (Coronavirus) zitierte gestern der australische „Daily Telegraph“ aus einem Dossier des Geheimdienstverbunds „Five Eyes“‚ (Geheimdienste aus den Vereinigten Staaten, Großbritannien, Kanada, Australien und Neuseeland).
Radio Utopie veröffentlicht nun eine Übersetzung des Artikels
Coronavirus NSW: Dossier lays out case against China bat virus program
It can also be revealed the Australian government trained and funded a team of Chinese scientists who belong to a laboratory which went on to genetically modify deadly coronaviruses that could be transmitted from bats to humans and had no cure, and is now the subject of a probe into the origins of COVID-19.
As intelligence agencies investigate whether the virus inadvertently leaked from a Wuhan laboratory, the team and its research led by scientist Shi Zhengli feature in the dossier prepared by Western governments that points to several studies they conducted as areas of concern.
Intelligence Community Statement on Origins of COVID-19
“The entire Intelligence Community has been consistently providing critical support to U.S. policymakers and those responding to the COVID-19 virus, which originated in China. The Intelligence Community also concurs with the wide scientific consensus that the COVID-19 virus was not manmade or genetically modified.
“As we do in all crises, the Community’s experts respond by surging resources and producing critical intelligence on issues vital to U.S. national security. The IC will continue to rigorously examine emerging information and intelligence to determine whether the outbreak began through contact with infected animals or if it was the result of an accident at a laboratory in Wuhan.”
In Rare Move, U.S. Intelligence Agencies Confirm Investigating if Coronavirus Emerged From Lab Accident
In an unusual public statement, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, or ODNI, also said that U.S. intelligence agencies concur with the broad scientific consensus that “the Covid-19 virus was not manmade or genetically modified.”
Chinese lab conducted extensive research on deadly bat viruses, but there is no evidence of accidental release
“It’s far more likely that Mother Nature is just a step ahead of us and has created a novel pathogen, now able to move quite effectively from human to human,” said Jason Rao, a biosecurity specialist, former senior policy adviser to President Barack Obama and executive director of Health Security Partners, a D.C.-based nonprofit organization focused on global biological threat reduction.
Trump says U.S. investigating whether COVID-19 came from Wuhan lab
The source of the virus remains a mystery. General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Tuesday that U.S. intelligence indicates that the coronavirus likely occurred naturally, as opposed to being created in a laboratory in China, but there is no certainty either way.
State Department cables warned of safety issues at Wuhan lab studying bat coronaviruses
“The idea that it was just a totally natural occurrence is circumstantial. The evidence it leaked from the lab is circumstantial. Right now, the ledger on the side of it leaking from the lab is packed with bullet points and there’s almost nothing on the other side,” the official said.
As my colleague David Ignatius noted, the Chinese government’s original story — that the virus emerged from a seafood market in Wuhan — is shaky. Research by Chinese experts published in the Lancet in January showed the first known patient, identified on Dec. 1, had no connection to the market, nor did more than one-third of the cases in the first large cluster. Also, the market didn’t sell bats.