Thursday, August 6, 2026

"From The Front Lines".

“From The Front Lines”.
Originally Published In April, 2020.
 
Now that many of us have some more time on our well-washed hands, maybe it’s time to more critically and carefully review the background facts and sources, and the role of the “Wuhan Virology Institute” alias “Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV)” and the “Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory” within it, regarding the RNA code-sequence of the “novel coronavirus” 2019-nCoV - the virus causing the disease known as “COVID-19”.
 
Why?
 
Because the “diseased bat” or “probably bats” explanation of origin, at least on its surface, sounds like totally-fictitious post hoc nonsense, of the nature of which a government propagandist might try to indulge and propagate in a hurry, or when otherwise left in haste with no other option. It’s not only that the military arm of the Chinese government has been less than forthcoming about this virus. The Chinese government resisted sharing information about COVID-19 with WHO and CDC specialists. The Chinese government silenced and imprisoned the now-late Doctor Li Wenliang for sounding the alarm about it in his interview with the Beijing Youth Daily newspaper. The Chinese government is also reported to be ejecting western journalists from the country who would otherwise report on the pandemic.
 
Moreover, without knowing the real cause of COVID-19, it may be difficult if not impossible to shut the pandemic down. The locksmith probably has the keys.
 
Maybe it’s time to find the “first patient”, and put that “first patient” on the proverbial international witness-stand with a translator - if she or he is still even WITH us, that is.
 
The first COVID-19 identified “ground zero” patient in China had no contact history – that is, NO connection - to the now-infamous Wuhan market. 
See also Nature, Vol 579, 12 March 2020):
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2008-3
 
That Wuhan market, by the way, is about 20 miles away from the “Wuhan Virology Institute”. Other markets were closer.
 
My friend Dr. Craig Werner and I have had some interesting recent discussions about this general topic. Craig is an infectious disease specialist practicing medicine in New York. I’m certainly not.
 
First of all, Craig does not believe that a virologist would elect to use coronavirus as a starting point for a human-made biological weapon in development, due to the instability and high rate of mutation of the coronavirus itself, as a membrane-bound single-stranded RNA virus. So far, I think that I can follow that. However, I understand something else from my further colloquy with Craig. I understand that this same very instability and high rate of mutation, while not on the wish-list of a militarist seeking execution of the bioweapon, may well be the same thing that allows the same militarist to develop millions of permutations of the same weapon in the laboratory prior to use, in order to arrive at a previously-unknown string like COVID-19.
 
I’m looking at this as a possible case of accidental “premature” release of COVID-19 by the Wuhan Virology Institute, as opposed to a willful drop.
 
Additionally, although Craig can explain this next part a lot more clearly than I can, Craig believes that COVID-19 doesn’t resemble the strand that a malicious weapon-maker would create, hypothetically speaking, in a laboratory. The ill-intended lab scientist would instead probably leave intentional markers - the conceptual equivalent of bookmarks, as I understand it - within the string, so as to be able to further revisit and further develop the creation thereafter if and as needed or desired. If otherwise, apparently, the lab scientist could never find his or her place when revisiting the string for further “development”.
 
So, could a deviously-brilliant lab scientist on de facto military payroll have generated this monstrosity in one concentrated session, perhaps after studying the bat-sequences already on file (Ed. note: Or, for that matter, using a proto form of artificial intelligence)?
 
I would keep in mind that the “Wuhan Virology Institute” was set up in the wake of previous bio-leaks of the SARS virus from other labs in China circa 2004 - to engage in research on the world’s most dangerous viruses. Chinese researchers tell us that COVID-19 (also dubbed “SARS-CoV-2”) is one of many SARS-related coronaviruses, or “SARSr-CoVs” – belonging to the “species” of “SARSr-CoV”. Yet COVID-19 is different than the known predecessors in its startling ability to easily adhere and bind to its human protein entry-point cell-receptor, known as “angiotensin converting enzyme II” (ACE2). ACE2 is the same entry-point “used” by SARS-CoV. Some have suggested that the “spiky” physical configuration of the virus is what gives it the ability to hook into human lung tissue. Could that physical characteristic have been the product of human experimentation and engineering?
 
The “Wuhan Virology Institute” was the first lab ever in China designed to meet biosafety-level-4 (“BSL-4”, or, simply, “Level 4”) standards – the highest biohazard level – so as to be qualified to handle the most dangerous pathogens. The Wuhan lab is not simply China’s first Level 4 facility. Rather, it is China’s ONLY Level 4 facility, under close and active supervision by the Chinese military. It is one of only two bioweapons research labs in all of China.
 
At a recent press conference in Beijing, Chinese leader Xi Jinping spoke about the need to contain the coronavirus and set up a system to prevent similar epidemics in the future. What Xi didn’t mention at the press conference is that, by that time, the coronavirus had already sickened more than 76,000 and claimed more than 2,200 lives. Yet the next day, the Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology released a new directive titled “Instructions On Strengthening Biosecurity Management In Microbiology Labs That Handle Advanced Viruses Like The Novel Coronavirus”. That’s right. The CCP shamed and scolded their lab techs on the very next day.
 
Here’s the further question. Assume that a militarist with an acknowledged intent and history of developing biological weapons has control of a “Level 4” lab overseas like the lab at the “Wuhan Virology Institute”. Assume that the same militarist is seeking to create a biological weapon for later use that would, once inevitably studied, appear untraceable back to the lab and would therefore misdirect investigators elsewhere. Wouldn’t the militarist and the one or more paid scientists enabling the militarist, at least consider sequencing the virus to make it appear like a more “naturally”-occurring bat-disease instead? - assuming that they had enough Spearman’s “g” between them to do so?
 
As to how the substance may have escaped the lab prematurely thereafter – well, it would only take one instance of a failed decontamination protocol, perhaps after one particularly bad late night all alone with the test-tube. Any of you ever touch their own face by accident recently? Even scientists make mistakes sometimes. Again remember that not only has China already spawned and released multiple contagions, but SARS itself was the subject of one or more laboratory leaks back in 2004:

Craig asked me why I didn’t believe the bat-transmission story. My answer was because it was just too convenient. And, because we were talking about the Chinese version of the military-industrial complex.
 
I read the words of a lot of people saying that the lab leak explanation was “debunked”, without anyone explaining how it was “debunked”. The other point is that if the virus was a weapon, it wasn’t intended to be a weapon YET. In other words, the assumption is that it was still being worked on and studied, when then accidentally released. That’s a totally different scenario than purposeful release.
 
Craig observed that, because bats live in close proximity, they are prone to epidemics, so there is probably a lot more research on bat pathogens than on pathogens from other species such as pangolins, which skews the database. But the fact is, the first human viral sequence was closest to one from a bat than from other sources.

My reaction, was that this could have been the product of emulation.
 
The other thing is, those that purport to have “debunked” the role of “Wuhan Virology Institute”, were probably those inclined to make me believe they play Tiddlywinks at “Wuhan Virological Institute”. Seriously, what does anyone rationally think actually goes ON in that facility? Would it make sense to trust the veracity of the Chinese Propaganda Minister about this?
 
When the inscrutable Chinese Propaganda Minister “Wu Yuanbin” said “most likely bats”, when he’s supposed to be a scientist and government official – that wasn’t “speculation”?
 
What I think was funny is how the whole “bat defense” appears to have been initiated. The inscrutable “Wu Yuanbin” of the venerable “Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology” assures the media that it was “most likely bats” - and then everyone in the media runs with his scripted 12-times vetted story. Not “DOCTOR Wi Yuanbin”. But Chinese Disinformation Minister Wu Yuanbin.
 
Query: Would I be better off believing Baghdad Bob, or a publicist for the Chinese government?
 
Craig’s rightful response, was that we will eventually learn from the scientists.
My reaction - preferably the ones on our side that are still alive.
 
As for witnesses? Wu’s on first:
https://nypost.com/2020/03/13/coronavirus-case-from-november-could-be-patient-zero/
at
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,