The Wuhan Disaster – COVID Reexamined Part 2

“[Months] into this national and worldwide catastrophe, some huge elephants are rampaging around the room, conspicuously being ignored, lied about, and manipulated to destroy, not to rescue the nation.”

One such elephant is China’s initial culpability, dragging the world into this disaster. Why does no one in leadership in the US – or on the world stage – seem to be very interested in holding the communists accountable?

The first cause – the first event – and the responsibility for this worldwide calamity belong solely to the CCP – the Chinese Communist Party.

We know that the Chinese purposely waited to inform the world for at least six weeks, quite possibly much longer, that a new SARS virus was wreaking mayhem in Hubei Province and the city of 11 million, Wuhan. Then the Chinese government sealed the Province from intra-China travel yet allowed international flights to leave Wuhan – overnighting the virus across the planet like a Fed-Ex package.

The only reason the world learned about the virus as early as it did, was that a brave Chinese doctor alerted his colleagues to the outbreak. Dr. Li Wenliang, an eye specialist in the Wuhan Central Hospital, warned other doctors using the social media platform WeChat on December 30, 2019, that seven people had died of a “new respiratory” virus, urging them to be careful. (Dr. Wenliang himself soon afterward succumbed to the virus.)

What other conclusion can one reach? The Communist regime made a deliberate decision to unleash COVID-19 worldwide.   

In early 2020, Dr. Li-Meng Yan, a Chinese virologist working at Hong Kong University’s public health laboratory – a WHO infectious diseases research center –was tasked to investigate the outbreak in Wuhan. She and three other doctors produced a paper; Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification.

After the paper was officially suppressed and fearing for her safety, Dr. Yan fled to the US in April 2020. She continues to write and speak publicly on the origins of SARS-CoV-2, which she believes was “conveniently created.” (Here)

Another Chinese defector, Vice Minister for State Security Dong Jingwei, reportedly fled with a treasure trove of classified information. The Chinese state secrets he provided to US intelligence agencies included pathogenic “studies” of the virus and detailed “models” that predicted the spread of COVID-19 worldwide and its potential lethality. In addition, Mr. Jingwei had comprehensive financial records of organizations and governments funding “research” on biological weapons, including SARS-CoV-2. (Here)

[In Anchorage, Alaska, on March 19, 2021, Mr. Jingwei’s presence in the US was confirmed when a Chinese delegation meeting with US officials, including the humiliated new Secretary of State, Antony Blinkin, demanded MR. Jingwei’s return.]

This month Americans learned through email traffic released under a FOIA request what was already widely suspected based on grant applications. NIH and Dr. Fauci used taxpayers’ money to pursue “gain of function” (to make the virus more virulent) research at the Wuhan lab, despite his repeated denials, including during sworn testimony before Congress. (Perhaps this explains why Dr. Fauci was a shill for the Chinese from the first day of the pandemic and remains so.)

His only consistency is Dr. Fauci’s almost weekly contradictions of previous positions and statements since the pandemic started.

Whether SARS-CoV-2 was created, enhanced, or natural in origin – it seems most likely created based on the Chinese witnesses – there is no doubt it came from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Why the silence from world leaders? Especially in the West? The Chinese premeditatedly murdered 4.5 million people worldwide. The only answer that fits the facts is that many leading politicians are in financial bed with the Chinese.

[A minimal starting point for holding the Chinese accountable, to this writer, seems the forfeiture of trillions of dollars of debt and bonds owned by China from countries across the world.]

After the Chinese finally informed the world that a new variant of the SARS virus had escaped, health experts worldwide, with few exceptions, ignored history and science. Prior pandemics followed a well-understood medical pattern found as far back as the Old Testament – practices that played out with even deadlier modern outbreaks, based on mortality rate and population. Instead, the world turned to “expert planning” pioneered by the World Health Organization (WHO) in conjunction with other scientists, epidemiologists, and public health organizations in the mid-2000s.

The computer models and “remedies” for new epidemics, which became the basis for the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, were initially conceptualized by the World Health Organization (WHO) in conjunction with, among others, the Imperial College London and their infamous Professor, Neil Ferguson. (Mr. Ferguson’s early work on computer modeling projecting deaths from mad cow disease, bird flu, and swine flu proved wildly incorrect and earned him public scorn (here.)

Then-President George W. Bush, at the same time, responded to the alarming 2005 flu season by tasking the government with strategies to deal with severe epidemics in the US. In a curious turn of events, an internist at the Department of Veteran Affairs, Dr. Carter Mecher, began working on a plan with Dr. Richard Hatchett, then a White House advisor. Their plan proposed stay-at-home orders and other “mitigations,” which ran into a buzz-saw of objections. (Writer Jeffery A. Tucker details this in AIER here.)

Help would arrive in the form of a computer scientist at Sandia National Laboratories in Los Alamos, New Mexico, Robert Glass. For a science project, Mr. Glass’s 14-year-old daughter, Laura, had created a computer model of how “social distancing” would slow the spread of the flu in a school. Mr. Glass built on that model to make a simulation demonstrating that “mitigation strategies” could reduce an influenza epidemic of 10,000 people by 90 percent in a hypothetical town.

The computer simulation and a paper written by the father-daughter Glass team were presented to the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and used in part for CDC’s planning during 2006. It’s not altogether clear how mass lockdowns of entire economies for extended duration found their way into the final 2007 plan. But that extreme measure was not in the Glass paper, nor the CDC’s conceptual planning. Nonetheless, despite the published objections of many leading scientists and physicians arguing that there was no evidence that lockdowns and other draconian interventions worked, the CDC made lockdowns – (calling them non-pharmaceutical Interventions) official US policy in 2007.

Both of these unproven, untested, and eventually devastating theories merged in early 2020.

On March 16, 2020, the Imperial College London and Mr. Furguson released a report, terrifyingly predicting 2 million American coronavirus deaths without immediate action, or “suppressions,” as he and his team termed lockdowns. And the CDC had just the policy already in place.

In the end, there was no more science behind advanced computer modeling than there was for locking down an entire country. The initial modeling was self-evidently preposterous based on past epidemics and what was already known about the coronavirus. And, there was not a shred of evidence that mitigating strategies – lockdowns – were useful against a virus at all. No historical evidence would suggest they work going back thousands of years. And there is still none. 

Unsurprisingly, bad or ignored science begot more bad science.

The pandemic was horrible enough in terms of death and long-term health issues. But to add to the injury, the country – the world – was sent into catastrophic economic meltdown with incalculable pain and ruin — all based on the stuff you’d find in a bad science fiction novel.

It seems there are three serious issues to consider eighteen months into the Wuhan Express. One, if masks work, then why didn’t they? And if lockdowns and closing down the economy were helpful in stopping the spread of COVID, why didn’t they work? And, if the vaccines worked as promised, why don’t they?

As I write, there is a spike in COVID cases in the US – and other countries such as Israel and Great Britain, where an alarming percentage of the new COVID cases have been vaccinated individuals who carry a far more substantial viral “load” of COVID (here).

But when the vaccines were first introduced, the public was told they had to get the jabs to prevent COVID and that with a shot, you would no longer need a mask because you could not spread the virus.

Now with the summer-fall spike and the considerable uptick of cases, it’s obvious that you can get COVID, and evidently, you can pass it on. The CDC has now changed the actual definition used for a “vaccine” to deflate public expectations. What a mess.

The only thing that seems obvious is that COVID-19 will be around – like the flu – in various forms forever. And like all viruses, there is precious little anyone can do about it. We have to tough it out as humans have always had to do. You can lock everyone and everything down tighter than a tick and destroy the economy and tens of millions of jobs and companies – but COVID in some form will be waiting. It’s better to let it burn out in the herd than to attempt to control the uncontrollable. That’s the cold reality.

The other truth is that we have learned a great deal about the leaders we tolerate, from mayors to county officials to governors and national leaders. They have way too much-unchecked power. That is never a good thing. We have tested them in this crisis and found all but a few wanting. Small men and women. Totalitarian in nature while weak in smarts – a dangerous combination. Power-hungry politicians and bureaucrats are far worse than any virus.

Finally, what about us? What have we learned personally? I’m not sure there is an answer to that question – yet. Trust is only learned in the dark. Perhaps we’ll know more next year, God willing, when we can put some space between the event and our understanding of how it’s changed us.