Team B III Covid Report - CCPatWar

The CCP is at War
with America
The Chinese Communist Party’s
COVID-19 Biological Warfare
Attack and What’s Next
REPORT OF TEAM B III
Center for Security Policy

This book may be reproduced, distributed and
transmitted for personal or non-commercial use.
Contact the Center for Security Policy for bulk order information.
The CCP is at War with America

is published in the United States
by the Center for Security Policy Press, a division
of the Center for Security Policy
Copyright © 2022
THE CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY
Washington, DC 20006
June 22, 2022
ISBN: 9798837464881
Phone: (202) 835-9077 | Email: info@securefreedom.org

For more information, please see securefreedom.org
Cover art by Oleg Atbashian

Book Design by JP Watson
TEAM B III
Co-Chairmen
Hon. Pete Hoekstra

Former Member of Congress and Chairman of the House Intelligence
Committee; former U.S. Ambassador to the Netherlands; Chairman,
Center for Secuity Policy Advisory Board
Lieutenant Gen. William “Jerry” Boykin

U.S. Army (Ret.); former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence; former Commander, Delta Force; Member, Center for
Security Policy Advisory Board
Members
Charles “Sam” Faddis
Clandestine Service Officer, Central Intelligence Agency (Ret.);
Senior Editor, AND Magazine
Kevin D. Freeman
Host, “Economic War Room with Kevin Freeman”; author, Secret Weapon
and Game Plan; Senior Fellow, Center for Security Policy
Frank J. Gaffney
Former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy
(Acting); Vice Chairman of the Committee on the Present Danger:
China; Executive Chairman, Center for Security Policy
Dr. Steven Hatfill, MD, MSc, MSc, M.Med

Former Senior Medical Advisor to the Executive Office of the President;
author, Three Seconds Until Midnight; Senior Fellow, London Institute for
Policy Analysis
Brian T. Kennedy
Chairman, Committee on the Present Danger: China; former President,
Claremont Institute; President, American Strategy Group
Colonel John Mills

U.S. Army (Ret.); former Director of Cybersecurity Policy, Strategy, and
International Affairs, Office of the Secretary of Defense; Senior Fellow,
J.R. “Jeff” Nyquist

Author, Origins of the Fourth World War, essayist at JRNyquist.blog
CONTENTS
Foreword
China’s Crime of the Century.............................................................................i
By Gordon G. Chang
Executive Summary................................................................................................1
Introduction ............................................................................................................ 17
By Team B III Co-Chairmen Amb. Pete Hoekstra
and Lt. Gen. William “Jerry” Boykin
Considerations Necessitating a ‘Second Opinion’ on the Origins of SARS-
CoV-2................................................................................................................................18
The COVID Pandemic as a Microcosm of What
Ails the Intelligence Community’s Analytic Products...................................20
An Increasingly Dysfunctional Process ..............................................................22
The Defective COVID-19 Intelligence Community Assessment.............24
Chapter 1
The CCP’s Global Ambitions........................................................................... 27
‘Unrestricted Warfare’................................................................................................28
Remaking the World Minus the U.S.....................................................................30
Elite Capture in America...........................................................................................32
Chapter 2
The CCP’s Weapon of Choice: Biowarfare.......................................... 35
The ‘Hide and Bide’ Strategy...................................................................................37
A ‘Humanitarian Communist’?..............................................................................38
Biowarfare and Bio Sabotage...................................................................................40
A Case Study of Elite Capture.................................................................................44
Chapter 3
Breaking the Code on the Origin of SARS-CoV-2 and
COVID-19.......................................................................................................................... 51
Chapter 4
‘The China Model’: How the Chinese Communist Party and
U.S. and Foreign Collaborators used the COVID Pandemic
as an Instrument of Political Warfare.....................................................117
Event 201..................................................................................................................... 117
The Globalist Tie-in................................................................................................. 125
The Digital ID............................................................................................................. 126
Censoring Dissent as ‘Disinformation’ ............................................................ 127
Chapter 5
COVID-19 as an Instrument of the Chinese Communist
Party’s Economic Warfare................................................................................131
Recommendations.............................................................................................143
Acknowledgments............................................................................................ 147
FOREWORD
China’s Crime of the Century
By Gordon G. Chang
A t the end of 2019 and the beginning of 2020, one nation, for the first
time in history, attacked all the other ones.
The attacker was big: China. Its weapon was small: a virus.
The virus caused a once-in-a-century pandemic. Over a half billion
people have been sickened. Millions have died. Economic losses are
measured in the trillions of dollars; societal damage is incalculable.
COVID-19 continues to paralyze the world.
Not everyone, however, shares the view that China conducted an
attack. For one thing, there is no agreement on the origins of SARS-
CoV-2, the pathogen causing this disease.
Prominent members of the scientific community believe that a series
of zoonotic transfers of the pathogen—from a bat in a cave in southern
China to an intermediary mammal to a human in Wuhan—is responsible
for the disease. Despite the wide acceptability of this theory, so far no one
has been able to either find the reservoir of SARS-CoV-2 or document the
transmission links.
The zoonotic theory also has supporters in the IC, as the 18 agencies
of the U.S. intelligence community are called. The IC believes “the virus
was not developed as a biological weapon,” states an August 27, 2021,
unclassified summary of a report, released by the Biden administration, on
the origins of the disease. “Most agencies also assess with low confidence
that SARS-CoV-2 probably was not genetically engineered.”
Both a “natural exposure to an infected animal and a laboratory-
associated incident” are “plausible,” the summary states.
i
The report’s bottom line: “The IC remains divided on the most likely
origin of COVID-19.”
“The world deserves answers, and I will not rest until we get them,”
President Biden said in a statement accompanying the release of the
summary. Unfortunately, he has been doing nothing but resting. The
American leader has not, for instance, raised the issue with Xi Jinping, the
Chinese ruler, despite opportunities to do so.
These pages, a “second opinion” on the IC’s conclusions, show that
the preponderance of evidence indicates that SARS-CoV-2 was lab-
manufactured. In any event, Beijing acted with murderous intent in
spreading the disease beyond China’s borders.
As an initial matter, SARS-CoV-2 looks like it was manufactured in a
Chinese laboratory. Its genetic makeup, for one thing, is unnatural. There
are unusual arrangements of amino acids and a furin cleavage site, for
instance. The virus “suddenly appeared” when it was already adapted to
humans, something that could only happen if it were created in a lab.
The Chinese central government first prevented and then inhibited
the World Health Organization and scientists from studying the disease
in China. Moreover, there are incidents in 2019 and 2020 that can best be
explained by a release of a pathogen from a research facility, probably the
Wuhan Institute of Virology, in central China.
Yet, even if one does not believe SARS-CoV-2 started out as a biological
weapon, there is no question that Beijing turned it into one. For at least
five weeks beginning no later than December 2019, Chinese officials first
covered up and then lied about the human-to-human transmissibility of
SARS-CoV-2, telling the world COVID-19 was essentially not contagious,
when they knew it in fact was highly so.
Moreover, while locking down Wuhan and other cities—the
lockdowns indicated they thought this tactic was effective in stopping
disease—these officials were pressuring other countries to accept arrivals
from China without restriction. They had to know they were, considering
everything, spreading the disease, making the millions of deaths outside
China intentional.
COVID-19’s fatalities outside China, therefore, must be considered
murder victims.
ii
Why should the world now care about COVID-19’s origins? “We’ll
have another pandemic,” Bill Gates told CNBC’s Hadley Gamble at the
Munich Security Conference in February. “It will be a different pathogen
next time.”
That new pathogen is likely to be even more deadly. In clear violation
of the Biological Weapons Convention, Chinese researchers have, for
decades, been engaged in biological weapons research.
These researchers have not been bashful about their pursuits. They
talk about bioweapons in public journals, for instance. China’s National
Defense University, in the 2017 edition of the authoritative Science of
Military Strategy, mentioned a new kind of biological warfare of “specific
ethnic genetic attacks.” American officials are concerned that China has
actually been experimenting with such weapons. Beijing’s relentless efforts
to collect genetic profiles of foreigners while preventing the transfer of the
profiles of Chinese outside China are indications of sinister intentions.
Beijing denies it has a doctrine of “Unrestricted Warfare”—the
name of an infamous 1999 book by two Chinese air force colonels—but
unrestricted germ warfare, one of the book’s recommended lines of attack,
is coming our way, nonetheless.
If Chinese scientists succeed in designing pathogens targeting only
foreigners, the next germ, virus, or microbe from China could end non-
Chinese societies. This will be Communist China’s civilization-killer, its
weapon against the world.
And its weapon of choice against America. Nearly two decades ago,
China’s General Chi Haotian, then-defense minister, reportedly gave
a secret speech about clearing out the United States with biological
weapons so that the Chinese could settle there. Chi’s ambition and
maliciousness continue to infect regime thinking. In October 2020, in
the coronavirus pandemic, Dr. Li Yi, a Chinese sociologist, returned to
the theme of extermination in public comments. “We are,” he bragged,
“driving America to its death.”
Xi Jinping knows he has just killed more than six million foreigners
and that the international community has not imposed any cost on
China. What, therefore, is to stop him from spreading the next disease?
He has, for decades, been promoting the millennia-old idea that China’s
ruler has the Mandate of Heaven to rule tianxia—all under Heaven—but
iii
Xi will be the first supremo to possess a weapon making worldwide Chinese

rule possible.
Analysts have talked about biological weapons as unfeasible. No
more. The world’s collective reactions to the coronavirus have educated
Chinese military planners on how to make a future bio-attack an even
greater success. SARS-CoV-2, therefore, is the ultimate proof of concept.
After all, that virus has racked up a horrific toll. Just imagine what
happens next time, when China attacks with a more targeted pathogen.
COVID-19, as documented in these pages, was no natural occurrence.
It was China’s crime of the century.
Gordon G. Chang is the author of The Coming Collapse of China. Follow

him on Twitter @GordonGChang.
iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
T he Chinese Communist Party (CCP) seeks to achieve the status

of sovereign of the world. To that end, it has for decades pursued
a comprehensive strategy known as “unrestricted warfare” to defeat
and destroy the nation that constitutes the greatest impediment to the
realization of the CCP’s ambitions: the United States of America.
In May 2019, the Party’s preeminent propaganda arm, People’s Daily,
actually declared a “People’s War” against the U.S. And within months,
the virus officially known as SARS-CoV-2 began circulating worldwide,
thanks to the CCP’s deliberate actions to spread it.
Planning and preparations to disseminate biological agents have been
part of China’s illegal biological warfare program for decades. Particularly
worrying is the emphasis placed in recent years by China on utilizing
bioengineering techniques to enhance the virulence of biological weapons
used against targeted populations and ethnicities.
Introducing Team B III

These are facts. They have informed this analysis by a distinguished
group of experienced American national security practitioners, subject
matter experts, and public policy leaders dubbed “Team B III” (TB3).
Like two previous Team B inquiries—one in 1976, the other in 2010—
this report offers an informed “second opinion” or “competitive analysis”
to the official U.S. government assessment of a significant threat to
America.
Today, as in the past, there are reasons to be seriously concerned
about the defective nature of the process whereby the official estimates
are developed on such threats, as well as its specific products. Team B
III believes that the manifest shortcomings evident in the Director of
National Intelligence’s (DNI) Assessment of September 2021—that
could not ascertain the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the causative
agent of the disease COVID-19—demand not only a repudiation of that
1
assessment, but a fundamental overhaul of the Intelligence Community

(IC) mechanisms that have given rise to this and other flawed estimates
and assessments.
Specifically, under the leadership of one of the world’s top biological
warfare experts, Dr. Steven Hatfill, Team B III found no evidence to support
one of the two possible explanations the DNI’s assessment offered for the
SARS-CoV-2 virus, namely that it was the result of a natural outbreak of
an emerging infectious disease. There is, by contrast, a significant body of
evidence that indicates the virus was a product of a Chinese laboratory
associated with the CCP’s illegal biological warfare program: the Wuhan
Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China, ground-zero of the initial outbreak.
Such evidence is necessarily, at the moment, circumstantial in nature.
Definitive proof of a laboratory origin of COVID-19 will require the
genetic analysis of a documented, very early strain of the virus from the
first cases of a flu-like illness that was likely circulating in China in the
summer of 2019. Not coincidentally, the CCP ordered all hospital patient
viral samples destroyed before it announced that person-to-person
transmission of SARS-CoV-2 was indeed occurring.
There are, however, nine major observations that significantly
challenge the proposition that the virus had a natural origin:
1. The pathogen causing COVID-19 has unusual genetic features.
Most notable is a small amino acid sequence called a furin cleavage
site in the outer spike protein of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. This is not a
feature of any other SARS Beta coronavirus.
2. There is a unique long amino acid motif preceding the furin
cleavage site which is also not present in any other SARS Beta
coronavirus. Structurally and functionally, this peculiar chain of
amino acids is closely similar to Staphylococcal Enterotoxin-B, a
known biological warfare toxin.
3. In the two-plus years since the start of the COVID-19
pandemic, no natural source for SARS-CoV-2 has been convincingly
demonstrated. Unlike SARS-1 and MERS, the COVID-19 virus
has no intermediate animal vector, and it has no discernible
evolutionary linage. We are to believe that this virus just “suddenly
appeared,” already well-adapted to humans and capable of causing
a global pandemic.
2
4. The Chinese Communist Party has an active biological warfare

(BW) program drawing upon extensive dual-use biomedical research.
Open-source writings by senior members of the People’s Liberation
Army (PLA) have consistently promoted the aggressive pursuit of
dual-use genetic biotechnology for future warfare.
5. It is now known that during the period of 2018-2020 (well
before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic), a series of “gain-of-
function” genetic experiments were conducted on the spike protein
of the coronavirus family. This was a cooperative effort between a U.S.
university laboratory and the Chinese Wuhan Institute of Virology.
These studies were partially funded by the U.S. National Institutes
of Health (NIH), subjected to a moratorium, and then reinstated
without proper NIH panel review or NIH supervision.
6. Following its admission of a new coronavirus outbreak in
Wuhan on New Year’s Eve 2019, the CCP stated the virus was poorly
transmitted from person-to-person and was not a pandemic risk.
Yet the Party locked down several of its major cities and prohibited
intercity travel to stop viral transmission.
7. At the same time, the CCP allowed the unrestrained travel of
millions of its citizens to international destinations. It also attempted
to buy up the global supply of individual personal protective
equipment for infection control inside China.
8. It remains unclear how SARS-CoV-2 entered into the general
population of Wuhan. From the start of the pandemic, however,
officials in China and a few officials in the U.S. have actively conspired
to obstruct any consideration of a laboratory origin for the virus.
This includes the deletion of early viral sequence databases and the
destruction of biomedical samples from early clinical cases.
9. It is now known that, at the time of the announcement of this
new coronavirus outbreak on December 31, 2019, multiple strains
of SARS-CoV-2 were circulating in the Wuhan population. These
viruses were different from the two strains recovered from the “live”
wet market in Wuhan initially claimed by the CCP as the origin of the
virus.
The case for concluding that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was a biological
weapon that—however it emanated from the Wuhan Institute of
3
Virology—once unleashed in China, was deliberately spread by the

Chinese Communist Party to the United States and other parts of the
world is further reinforced by other key elements of the TB3 analysis.
Highlights include the following:
The CCP’s Global Ambitions

CCP General Secretary Xi Jinping has made no secret of his
determination to restore China to its historic status as the “Middle
Kingdom” ruling “all under heaven.” Unlike his predecessors, who
preferred to conceal their true intentions toward the United States, Xi’s
dictatorship has let the mask slip. The decades-long use of unrestricted
warfare stealthily to divide, subvert, and otherwise weaken this country
has, of late, been accompanied by more and more overt threats of the
kinetic military kind of conflict, as well.
Indeed, on June 10, 2022, Chinese Defense Minister Gen. Wei Fenghe
warned his American counterpart, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin,
that China would not hesitate to launch a war over Taiwan. Evidence of
preparations for such a war has been accumulating, including a videotape
reportedly recording a secret meeting of senior CCP and military officials
in Guangdong at which the execution of national orders to mobilize the
province was mapped out.
We need not wonder what such a war might look like. The Chinese
People’s Liberation Army has been on a crash buildup which, together
with the CCP’s “Belt and Road Initiative,” is acquiring power-projection
capabilities literally all over the world. As a result, we will confront a peer
competitor, at best. At worst, we risk being outgunned quantitatively,
possibly qualitatively and globally.
More to the point, the Chinese have already given us a taste of what
appears to be their preferred means of decisively defeating—and, indeed,
destroying—the United States: Biological Warfare (BW).
The CCP’s Weapon of Choice: Biological Warfare

As noted above, in May 2019, Xi’s regime actually declared a People’s
War against America. Shortly thereafter, the COVID-19 pandemic was
unleashed here with particularly devastating effect. Team B III notes that
4
the Chinese have long pursued illegal biological weapons programs with
a specific emphasis on their use against the United States.
According to a secret speech made two decades ago by then-Chinese
Defense Minister Gen. Chi Haotian in the early 1990s, CCP General
Secretary Deng Xiaoping gave the PLA’s BW program the task of
depopulating the United States so that it could be colonized by China.
Gen. Chi claimed that China’s economy has not been built to raise the
living standard of the Chinese people. Instead, this economy was built
for the purpose of waging a future war against America. Once America is
defeated in a biological attack, he said, “The Western countries of Europe
would bow to us, not to mention Taiwan, Japan and other small countries.”
Gen. Chi described the lengths to which the Chinese would have to
go to conceal these genocidal designs, noting that “Right now, it is not
time to openly break up with [America]. … Our reform and opening to
the outside world still rely on their capital and technology. We still need
America. Therefore, we must do everything to promote our relationship
with America, learn from America in all aspects and use America as an
example to reconstruct our country.”
Evidence of such a strategy at work includes the Chinese Communist
Party’s success in tapping American taxpayer-funding and gain-of-
function technology from Dr. Anthony Fauci and the U.S. National
Institutes of Health; its deep penetration of American universities,
research laboratories, and scientific centers by Chinese nationals (all
approved by the CCP, including People’s Liberation Army personnel);
and the CCP’s partnership with Bill Gates, affording them, among other
things, access to tabletop exercises he sponsors simulating pandemics and
how they might be exploited to advance global governance.
Of particular note at the moment is Gen. Chi’s characterization
of Taiwan as a diversionary tactic. He told his audience of senior Party
cadre: “[You should] understand why we constantly talk loudly about the
‘Taiwan issue’ but not the ‘American issue.’ We all know the principle of
doing one thing under the cover of another. If ordinary people can see the
island of Taiwan in their eyes, then you as the elite of our country should
be able to see the whole picture of our cause.” In short, according to Chi’s
speech, Taiwan is not China’s primary target. America is the target.
5
Proof of Concept
After reviewing rigorously the circumstantial evidence outlined
above supporting the conclusion that the COVID-19 pandemic was an
act of deliberate biological warfare against the United States and others,
Team B III assessed the resulting damage achieved.
Political Warfare Success: The ‘China Model’

In September 2019, the Chinese government participated in one of
the tabletop pandemic exercises sponsored by Bill Gates. Held in New
York City, it was called “Event 201.” Its bottom line: Just weeks before a
coronavirus pandemic erupted in China, a gaggle of globalist foundations,
leftist-dominated government institutions, and the Chinese Communist
Party doing business as that country’s Centers for Disease Control mapped
out how such an event could be parlayed into greater power, funding, and
control for them and their friends in international organizations (both
official and non-governmental), multinational corporations, and aligned
media and social media entities.
Not only was such a coronavirus pandemic deliberately disseminated
by the Chinese Communist Party shortly thereafter. The CCP also
promptly rolled out a series of measures aligned with the kind of
authoritarian, if not totalitarian, pandemic responses recommended by
Event 201. This so-called “China Model” was swiftly imposed throughout
the People’s Republic of China. And the CCP relentlessly worked to ensure
it was adopted worldwide, as well, through its dominance of the World
Health Organization (WHO), relationships with Dr. Anthony Fauci and
Bill Gates, other influence operations, United Front Work Department
assets, bilateral diplomacy, and multilateral ties with, for example, Belt
and Road client states and others seeking Chinese vaccines, personal
protective equipment, and/or guidance on the nature of the disease.
6
Key elements of this China Model included the following:

• Widely imposed “lockdowns” (with the notable exception of
allowances made for Wuhan residents to fly internationally when
they were not permitted to travel inside China);
• Requiring the use of masks of dubious value in diminishing transmission
of a coronavirus but of very great value as instruments of control;
• Introducing vaccines in the midst of a pandemic;
• Mandating the use of inadequately tested vaccines and continuing
to do so despite evidence they were of limited effectiveness and/or
dangerous;
• Issuing digital and other “vaccine passports” to monitor and enforce
mass compliance with the vaccine mandates; and
• Ramping up dramatically the CCP’s so-called “Social Credit
System” as a vehicle for not just surveilling and monitoring, but
controlling, the Chinese population.
The China Model had one other ominous attribute: a lack of
truthfulness, transparency, and accountability on the part of public health
and other authorities enabled by state-controlled media and propaganda.
This was especially true regarding the origins of the virus, its virulence,
best practices for treating those infected with it, and the actual benefits
versus costs of the draconian steps prescribed by the Chinese in response
to the CCP virus.
Unfortunately, the Chinese Communist Party has succeeded,
probably beyond its wildest dreams, in insinuating the China Model
elsewhere around the world, including inside the United States. The cost
in lives needlessly lost and otherwise impacted is literally incalculable. So,
too, has been the cost in terms of constitutional rights infringed upon and,
to varying degrees, irreparably harmed. Freedom of religion, freedom of
association, freedom to petition our representatives for the redress of
grievances, and most especially freedom of speech have all been sacrificed
in the name of contending with the pandemic.
7
A further windfall for Communist China was the defeat of Donald

Trump, the one U.S. president who actually stood up to them. In addition
to the pandemic’s trauma to the American body politic and economy
(discussed further below), it appears to have contributed to that outcome
in one other way: by serving as a pretext for the adoption of voting
arrangements and procedures, ostensibly to prevent the virus’ spread, but
that were known to be susceptible to fraud.
While some of the most egregious of these infringements on our
society, people, and freedoms have been alleviated in recent months in the
run-up to the November elections, the mechanisms and infrastructure for
re-imposing them at will are still in place. So are the precedents established
for doing so at the whim of an elected official or a wholly unaccountable
domestic or international bureaucrat.
Of particular concern are the digital technologies that have already
been introduced or are in the offing. These so-called “passports” or
“health IDs” have been insinuated in the name of monitoring vaccine
status and other health factors. But, in practice, these are building blocks
for the ultimate objective of the China Model: the institution worldwide
of the CCP’s totalitarian “Social Credit System.”
The World Health Organization’s active involvement in, support for,
and sponsorship of such infrastructure build-out as part of the China
Model is a powerful reminder, if any were needed, that the United
States must not surrender its sovereignty—whether via amendments to
International Health Regulations or a new Pandemic Treaty—to such a
discredited, supranational shill for the CCP.
The cumulative effect of all these responses to the Chinese Communist
Party’s biological warfare attack on this country and the rest of the world
has been to advance immeasurably the CCP’s agenda of subverting—and,
if possible, destroying—America and dominating the entire planet. By
advancing the cause of “fundamentally transforming” the United States
in these ways, the CCP has accomplished unprecedented damage to
its principal adversary and validated the proposition that an even more
virulent biological weapon could finish the job.
8
COVID-19 as an Instrument of the CCP’s Economic

Warfare
Since a main line of attack in the Chinese Communist Party’s
unrestricted warfare against the United States has been its sustained
assault on America’s economy, industrial base, and financial sector, it is
unsurprising that its COVID-19 biological attack advanced that purpose,
as well.
Indeed, the principal beneficiary of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak
economically, as well as politically and strategically, was its perpetrator:
the CCP.
We have established that Chinese Communist Party General Secretary
Xi Jinping is determined to achieve China’s domination of the rest of the
world. Key to his plans is creating economic conditions that render the
PRC superior to its rivals. That can be accomplished via strengthening the
PRC, weakening its rivals, or a combination of the two.
At the beginning of 2020, thanks in part to President Trump’s tariffs,
the Chinese economy was in trouble. Matters were made vastly worse,
however, with the spread of the COVID pandemic due to China’s
production effectively being shut down at many manufacturing facilities as
mass quarantines were put in place. Even the CCP’s unreliable economic
data acknowledged that PRC economic growth would fall to 4 percent,
well below the original prediction of 6 percent. That imperiled China’s
highly leveraged banks, with the prospect of them holding $6 trillion in
bad loans posing an existential threat to the CCP itself.
While TB3 cannot say for certain whether the CCP deliberately
released the SARS-CoV-2 virus or it happened accidentally, Xi’s regime
clearly saw the imperative need to ensure that it would not suffer
economic privation alone, to the advantage of its enemies, especially the
United States. Actively spreading the virus was, thus, a means of waging
economic warfare, and the Chinese Communists applied themselves to
doing so with a vengeance.
9
As noted above, as the CCP successfully transformed their

COVID-19 outbreak into a global pandemic, Beijing encouraged the
adoption worldwide of “the China Model” that would impose economic
policies, as well as political and social changes, advantageous to China and
detrimental to its adversaries. This strategy was the focus of comprehensive
propaganda and information operations aimed at ensuring other nations
would adopt its lockdowns, quarantines, vaccine mandates, and passports
and deflecting blame for the pandemic from where it belongs: the Chinese
Communist Party.
On March 16, 2020, President Trump asked Americans to stay at
home as much as possible for 15 days to “slow the spread” of the CCP
virus. In short order, however, many state and local governments issued
their own lengthy, if not actually open-ended, lockdown orders, and
businesses across America were shuttered. As a result, between February
and April 2020, the United States lost 22 million jobs. The economy
shrank a record 31.4 percent in the second quarter of 2020. Quarterly
GDP had never dropped more than 10 percent since 1947.
To attempt to fix the economic damage caused by American adoption
of the China Model, the U.S. Congress passed several stimulus bills,
totaling $6 trillion, in what the New York Times called the “largest flood of
federal money in the United States economy in recorded history.” When
the government pumps $6 trillion into the economy, it creates problems.
By February 2022, the inflation rate accelerated to 7.5 percent—a 40-year
high—and food, electricity, housing, and energy prices sharply increased.
In the months since, the trend has continued.
The Federal Reserve’s main tool to fight inflation is raising interest rates,
which makes borrowing more expensive and slows down investments. In
March 2022, the Fed raised the interest rate for the first time in three years
and is said to be planning to increase rates further at the most aggressive
pace in 15 years.
As Covid restrictions waned, the United States had a national debt
approaching $30 trillion (now surpassed), and the government was paying
an average of a little over 1 percent in interest on that debt annually. Since
then, due to the inflationary impact, interest rates have begun a sharp
rise. If interest rates were to go up to 6 percent on $30 trillion, interest
payments would jump from under $400 billion per year to $1.8 trillion.
10
To put that in perspective, it would take half of all federal tax revenue for
the year. We would be paying more in interest than we do for Medicare,
Social Security, national defense, or any government program. And as
a practical matter, we could not engage in discretionary, but necessary,
spending—notably for the military—without defaulting on at least some
of the debt. A principal beneficiary of such economic trauma would be
the Chinese Communist Party.
As things stand now, the only reason we have been able to fund our
massive debt at all is because the dollar is the world’s reserve currency,
allowing the United States to simply print more money to meet spending
needs. Inevitably, however, that practice debases the value of the
currency and adds to growing pressure to end its reserve status—the
acknowledged goal of a multinational effort led by the CCP and Putin’s
Russia. Ominously, of late, even U.S. allies are engaging in international
transactions in currencies other than dollars.
Adding insult to injury is the fact that the CCP’s financial warfare
against America has continued unabated through the COVID-19
pandemic. With help from its “Old Friends” on Wall Street—especially
Larry Fink’s BlackRock—and a May 2013 Memorandum of Understanding
brokered by then-Vice President Joe Biden, which gave PRC companies,
including some sanctioned by the U.S. government as national security
threats or human rights abusers, preferential access to U.S. capital markets,
the Chinese Communists have transferred an estimated $3-6 trillion from
American investors to China. These funds have underwritten much of the
CCP’s unrestricted warfare against us.
Incredibly, in the wake of China’s biological warfare attack against us,
and despite increasing CCP threats of war to come, Larry Fink is trying
to help our enemy tap the world’s largest pension fund, the $800 billion
federal retirement Thrift Savings Plan, to provide further U.S. bankrolling
of the threat the Chinese Communists pose to all Americans. That cannot
be allowed to happen.
11
Conclusions
1. The preponderance of evidence indicates that the SARS-
CoV-2 virus was man-made, engineered in the Wuhan Institute of
Virology (WIV), a product of the CCP’s illegal biological warfare
program and exploited (whether as a result of an intentional release
with plausible deniability or opportunistically after an accidental leak
from the lab) to inflict damage on China’s enemies and obtain proof-
of-concept for Chinese BW attacks.
2. The damage inflicted by the COVID-19 pandemic has been
enormously exacerbated by Chinese deception about the nature
of the disease and its origins; the collusion in that deception by Dr.
Anthony Fauci and other U.S. government officials who knew the
truth about the WIV’s gain-of-function experiments and deliberately
concealed it; and the active suppression of information about and
use-authorization for therapies.
3. The CCP must be held accountable for its genocidal crimes
against humanity—and should be required to pay reparations.
Those who colluded with the CCP in developing this disease and
compounding its devastating repercussions for the public health,
economy, and national security of Americans must be punished.
4. Given the serious risks associated with the various mRNA
“vaccines” and boosters developed in response to the COVID-19
virus, vaccine mandates should not be imposed on children,
pregnant women, young male adults, or anyone else who is unwilling,
for religious or other reasons, to be inoculated. Instead, the widest
possible early use should immediately be made of therapeutics (including
ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine) and monoclonal antibodies.
5. The development and deployment of appropriate deterrents
to China’s use of its bio-arsenal and defenses against such PRC
weapons must be made U.S. national priorities.
6. Actions taken in the name of protecting the American people
against COVID-19, including obligatory mask-wearing, lockdowns,
and vaccine mandates and passports—which have been shown to
be of dubious medical value but help enforce political agendas—
should be rejected, as must the “China Model” for insinuating its
totalitarian system, more generally, on the rest of the world.
12
Recommendations
Based on its analysis and conclusions, Team B III offers the following
recommendations:
1. A concerted effort must be made to educate the American
people about not only the truth regarding the Chinese Communist
Party’s responsibility for the COVID-19 pandemic. They must also
be equipped to understand the priority that this apparent example of
the CCP’s willingness to use biological weapons suggests biological
warfare will play in the larger People’s War the CCP has declared
against the United States and its goal of destroying our country in
order to dominate the world.
2. U.S. failures in pandemic preparedness must be outlined
and accountability established, and new efforts to achieve the
needed, robust capabilities to deal with future outbreaks must
be implemented immediately. It is estimated that 10 to 40 new,
naturally occurring viruses are still unknown to science, some of
which are expected to naturally jump into the human population
over the next 20 years. The pathogenic severity of these viruses and
their epidemic/pandemic potential are currently unknown, but the
threat is real and growing. The world seems to be entering an age of
pandemics where, by the time a new virus is discovered in humans, it
is too late easily to contain its spread.
Outside of preemptive measures, the only practical, cost-effective
defense to a serious biological threat involves a comprehensive
“bottom-up” strategy. If every local community in the U.S. can
manage its own medical surge requirements, then the nation as
a whole can manage a serious biological event. Therefore, a new
concentration must be made with respect to Local Community
Public Health preparedness. This will require a return to the type of
civil defense planning originally entailed under Public Law 920 of the
81st Congress.
It will also entail a mandatory partial restructuring of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to teach local
authorities how to prepare for and respond to a major infectious
disease event. From this solid foundation, an interlinked, solid
public health infrastructure for epidemic/pandemic control can be
created for the nation.
13
3. The imperative need to reestablish effective pandemic response

plans has grown enormously with the transfer of U.S. gain-of-function
technology and techniques to the Chinese Communist Party. During
the Cold War, the United States maintained a robust Biological
Defense program. This capability and spirit has evaporated and
must be re-established with alacrity.
4. The practice of allowing Chinese nationals—including those
with ties to the People’s Liberation Army—to conduct research with or
otherwise have access to U.S. government and other laboratories,
pharmaceutical companies, and research institutions must end.
Thanks to the CCP’s whole-of-society unrestricted warfare against
this country and, especially, its “civil-military fusion” in support
of China’s biological warfare program, such access amounts to an
unrestricted vehicle for transferring militarily relevant technology
and know-how directly to our mortal enemy.
5. American investors must stop underwriting the Chinese
war effort. The preferential access CCP-owned and -controlled
companies enjoy to U.S. capital markets has resulted in the transfer
to China of trillions of dollars, much of which is enabling, to name
just a few of the threats thus posed to our national security and vital
interests: the Chinese Communists’ biological warfare program and
other military enhancements; the CCP’s supply-chain dominance of
medicines, personal protective equipment, rare earth minerals, flat
screens, chips, and other vital products; human rights abuses; and
colonial infrastructure build-out worldwide.
6. The proposed surrender of U.S. sovereignty to the World
Health Organization, by which its director-general would be
empowered to dictate what constitutes “public health crises of
international concern” in this country and how we must respond to
them, is wholly unacceptable and must be rejected. The abysmal
performance of the WHO in the COVID-19 pandemic and its
domination by the Chinese Communist Party—which now is
manifested not only by its selection of and close relationship with
the Ethiopian Marxist Dr. Tedros Ghebreyesus but also by its recent
acquisition of a seat on the WHO’s Executive Committee—should
preclude any arrangement other than voluntary cooperation with the
WHO by a fully sovereign America.
14
Any and all changes to WHO International Health Regulations,

as well as the proposed Pandemic Treaty, must be critically
reviewed and receive the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate.
7. We must never again allow our constitutional freedoms to be
denied on the pretext of a public health emergency, especially
at the insistence of foreign powers, let alone our mortal enemy.
The “China Model,” with its lockdowns, quarantines, mandatory
vaccinations with inadequately tested gene therapies, vaccine passports,
and “canceling” of those who object, are unacceptable and must not be
imposed in the future without the express consent of the governed.
15
INTRODUCTION
By Team B III Co-Chairmen Amb. Pete Hoekstra

and Lt. Gen. William “Jerry” Boykin
A s national security practitioners, intelligence professionals and

experts in other relevant fields, we feel compelled to offer the
American people a second opinion on the official assessment provided by
the U.S. government through the Director of National Intelligence (DNI)
as to the origin, nature, and repercussions of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and
the COVID-19 pandemic it unleashed. We have, therefore, engaged in
what participants in a similar undertaking—dubbed “Team B”—at a
critical moment during the Cold War called “an exercise in competitive
analysis.”
The Center for Security Policy, sponsor of this study, undertook a
previous effort known as “Team B II” (TB2) in 2015. It challenged the
then-prevailing government characterization of the impetus behind the
“terrorist” threat that gave rise to the so-called “War on Terrorism.”1
Specifically, TB2 found that authoritative Islam’s Sharia doctrine obligates
its adherents to engage in jihad. While all Muslims do not conform to
Sharia’s dictates, many do and feel obliged at a minimum to support and
otherwise enable jihad, if not themselves engage in acts of violence in its
name. Consequently, we call this current exercise in competitive analysis
Team B III (TB3).
1 The resulting book, Shariah: The Threat to America, established that the supremacist Islamic
code known as Sharia—with its mandate for adherent Muslims to engage in jihad—was actually
the driving force behind the international terrorist threat. Consequently, Sharia-supremacism
had to be addressed as such if the United States and the rest of the Free World were to counter
effectively, let alone decisively, that threat.
17
Considerations Necessitating a ‘Second Opinion’ on the

Origins of SARS-CoV-2
The TB3 initiative draws upon a painstaking evaluation of the
preponderance of the available public evidence to challenge the
conclusions of the October 29, 2021, Intelligence Community
Assessment (ICA). With respect to the source of the SARS-CoV-2 virus,
the official U.S. intelligence assessment asserted that a conclusion could
not be reached. We disagree.
The official estimate is woefully inadequate in its analysis of these
topics. For example, it appears to have simply ignored relevant and
critically important data, including evidence that the CCP knowingly and
intentionally facilitated the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
Unfortunately, the Intelligence Community’s (IC) failure with
respect to identifying the provenance of the COVID-19 pandemic is
just one of several reasons necessitating a second opinion on the origins,
dissemination, and impact of SARS-CoV-2.
A second impetus for our TB3 study is the erroneous belief
embraced by the Intelligence Community as outlined in their analysis
that the Chinese government had no foreknowledge of the virus prior
to its outbreak. That premise prompted the ICA to lend credence to the
Chinese claim that the SARS-CoV-2 virus emanated from nature.
A third consideration is that the IC seemed to have accepted
uncritically the “naturally occurring virus” narrative early in the
COVID-19 pandemic—long before a rigorous, let alone informed,
investigation could have been undertaken. Such a hasty conclusion may
have been consistent with the assertions at the time of U.S., Chinese, and
international health authorities. But in light of the preponderance of now-
available evidence, it is no longer tenable.
These three factors, drivers of the IC’s COVID-19 ICA, clearly suggest
a high degree of politicization of the intelligence community that must be
challenged and counteracted.
Concerns on this score have only been intensified by the open-source
information that has developed in the period since the beginning of the
pandemic in early 2020—information that discredits the objectivity,
credibility, and conduct of American officials, including Dr. Francis
18
Collins and Dr. Anthony Fauci, and the leadership of the World Health
Organization. And yet the DNI ICA neither acknowledges nor seems
informed by such data, further calling into question the independence
and reliability of the official IC assessment.
Fourth, the IC appears to have accepted uncritically the official
Chinese party line that the CCP’s lack of cooperation in establishing the
facts about the provenance and emergence of SARS-CoV-2 is justified
because of the CCP’s uncertainty about where such an investigation
will lead and because of its conviction that the world is treating the PRC
unfairly. Again, this is politicized spin, not fact-based analysis.
Fifth, monitoring Chinese biological research was not an IC priority
before the outbreak of the COVID pandemic. The result of this oversight
by the intelligence community is that there was no monitoring of Chinese
government biological warfare research or facilities such as the Wuhan
laboratory. There was not an extensive data set for the IC on which to
make its assessments.
Sixth, as the country has learned, the IC had become increasingly
politicized before and during the Trump administration. From
embracing, supporting, and leaking the Steele dossier in early 2017,
to the public declaration by 51 former intelligence officials in October
2020 that the Hunter Biden laptop imbroglio had all the earmarks of a
Russian information operation, the actions by much of the intelligence
community during this time frame must be questioned. The IC as an
independent arbiter has been called sharply into question.
We also believe that the intelligence community assessment fails to
account for the CCP’s objectives and strategies as outlined publicly by
the Communist Chinese. It is clearly relevant that the CCP aspires to
world domination, which necessitates displacing the United States as the
preeminent power. Officials of the Chinese government have also stated a
willingness to use kinetic means to achieve its global objectives, including
the use of biological weapons.
By contrast, the TB3 analysis factors in such considerations in the
interest of putting what is known about the CCP’s actions in context.
Specifically, in order to understand the pandemic one must consider:
19
• The CCP’s global ambitions;

• The CCP’s weapon of choice: asymmetric biological warfare;
• How the CCP used the pandemic as an instrument of political
warfare; and
• How the CCP used the pandemic as an instrument of economic
warfare.
The COVID-19 pandemic must be viewed through this larger lens of
analyzing what has happened during the last two plus years. These were
all missing in the analysis performed by the intelligence community.
The American people have suffered greatly as a result of the COVID-19
pandemic and the toll it has taken in terms of loss of life, prosperity, and
freedom. They deserve a much more thorough review of the origins and
spread of the COVID-19 virus and the role of the CCP. To those ends,
TB3 is presenting an informed and authoritative alternative assessment
based: a) on the facts as they are now known; and b) on the preponderance
of available evidence where proof positive is still not available, thanks
especially to a lack of cooperation by the Chinese Communist Party.
Finally, Team B III offers recommendations about what America must do
to prepare for the future. After all, the question is when, not if, there will
be another pandemic.
The COVID Pandemic as a Microcosm of What

Ails the Intelligence Community’s Analytic Products
The evident need for Team B3’s second opinion on the nature and
source of the SARS-Cov-2 virus underscores a larger problem requiring
urgent attention: the IC’s defective process for developing products
known as National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs) and Intelligence
Community Assessments (ICAs).
NIEs and ICAs are supposed to be seminal presentations of the truth
on urgent national security threats and topics. Unfortunately, the process
and culture that generate these community-wide assessments are increasingly
fraught with problems—to the point where their products and the processes
by which they are generated may no longer be relied upon.
For one thing, NIE/ICAs are the results of a negotiated political
20
process among all 17 members of the Intelligence Community. In other

words, a large array of bureaucracies with many competing agendas (and
motives) is acting as an unwieldy committee to find “truth.” As is generally
the case in such exercises, what they find instead is the lowest common
denominator, which may or may not bear any resemblance to the truth.
Such outcomes are neither what is needed nor what was envisioned
by successive Executive Orders, statutes, and regulations2—namely,
products that reflect an impartial rendering of the facts objectively
analyzed without regard for the preferred findings of the consumers in
U.S. government officialdom.
Instead, the current NIEs and ICAs typically are loaded with
assertions qualified by various statements that are supposed to indicate
the varying degrees of confidence with which the contributing agencies
believe them to be accurate. As a practical matter, the analysts generally
don’t know the “truth” and are making what can charitably be called best
guesses as to what it is.
2 Relevant guidance to the Intelligence Community’s assessment process includes the

following:
• The defining document that outlines the organization and roles of the Intelligence
Community (IC) is Executive Order 12333, released by President Ronald Reagan on
December 4, 1981. In the wake of the 1975 Senate’s controversial Church Hearings,
the IC was in disarray and a shadow of its former self in terms of its capabilities to take
on heightened Soviet adventurism. Then-Director of Central Intelligence William
Casey used E.O. 12333 to restore the IC to fighting trim so it could go directly head-
to-head with the aggressive intelligence activities of the Soviet Union.
• President George W. Bush updated EO 12333 on August 27, 2004, with Executive
Order 13355 and again, on July 30, 2008, with Executive Order 13470. Both E.O.s
redefined roles and missions of the IC and the new Director of National Intelligence
position and staff structure.
• There are today 17 members of the U.S. Intelligence Community and, pursuant to
presidential guidance, they are to operate in a coordinated fashion under the oversight of
the Director of National Intelligence. The Community’s premier decision-making body is
the National Intelligence Council (NIC), established in law under 50 U.S. Code § 3027.
• The key policy document that outlines the conduct and proceedings of the NIC
is Intelligence Community Directive (ICD) 207. The specter of the 1975 Church
hearings was greatly influential in E.O. 12333 and all subsequent law and policy on the
way the IC is to operate to this day.
21
An Increasingly Dysfunctional Process

The current process to generate professional, informed IC opinions
and actionable recommendations has proven to be increasingly
problematic.
The pinnacle of the IC’s assessment process is the National Intelligence
Estimate (NIE), which is generally longer and more detailed than an
Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA). Both NIEs and ICAs are
supposed to be conducted under the standards of Intelligence Community
Directive 203 “Analytic Standards” and properly cited in accordance with
ICD 206 “Sourcing Requirements for Disseminated Analytic Products.”
Members of TB3 have been personally involved in several NIE and ICA
projects, affording the Team with authoritative, first-hand knowledge and
informed critiques of the actual fruits of such proceedings.
In the NIE and ICA efforts, all processed information that has
become intelligence is supposed to be reviewed and assessed to provide
the definitive “So what?” and the “What does it mean?” in a concise
format to senior IC leadership and, as appropriate, to senior members of
other U.S. government departments and agencies, including, of course,
the Executive Office of the President. The working assumption is that the
aforementioned “intelligence” affords the IC perfect, or at least decisive,
knowledge of the situation or topic being assessed.
This is where the reality of a significant gap or seam begins to degrade
the value of the analytical quality and quantity of the immense resources
of the IC in their production of an NIE or ICA. The intelligence available
for these efforts is dependent upon established collection priorities, which
are subject to ICD 204 “National Intelligence Priorities Framework.”
Simply put, the necessary and precise information or intelligence needed
is often not available to support these efforts.
Further degrading the inputs that are available and incorporated into
these senior deliberative drafting exercises is an analytical quality that is
often thin and superficial. Numerous intelligence analysts providing the base
reports from which the NIE/ICAs derive their foundational knowledge
have political-science backgrounds. They make assessments of capabilities,
intentions, organizations, and personalities even though they may have little
relevant experience or knowledge upon which to draw. Equally disturbing,
22
analysts are graded for their annual performance evaluations by the quantity
of their report writing, not necessarily their quality.
Such factors contribute to the phenomenon of “recycling,” whereby,
among other things, open-source, unclassified reports are brought into
the classified environment and presented as new “intelligence.” Often
this practice is accompanied by undue hyping designed successfully to
compete for the limited attention span of IC leadership.
Another phenomenon that contributes to the diminished value of an
NIE or ICA is what is known as the “tyranny of the established narrative.”
When required to address complex and rapidly evolving topics—
confronting simultaneously the ambiguities arising from problems with
the quality, quantity and depth of reporting, compressed deadlines, and
“group-think” among a well-established cohort of analysts—there is often
a tendency to default to a predetermined narrative. It’s the “We’ve seen
this before” storyline that tends to suffocate any fresh look or intellectual
curiosity about other possible theses.
That is especially true when the upshot of these studies is essentially
predetermined—either by the political agenda and dictates of the
consuming official(s), the inadequacies of the available intelligence, and/
or an absence of competent “red-teaming.”
In short, the typical NIE or ICA effort is all too often a rote process
that results in affirmations of preexisting opinions and analyses.
Garbage In, Garbage Out

Examples of faulty IC assessments and the “group think” that often
contributes to them abound. Two warrant brief mention here:
1. A memorandum issued on January 7, 2021, by then-Director of
National Intelligence John Ratcliffe entitled “Views on Intelligence
Community Election Security Analysis” described a moment
during the Cuban Missile Crisis in which the Director of Central
Intelligence, John McCone, felt compelled to challenge and overrule
the CIA analytic community that had dismissed the possibility
the Soviet Union would place nuclear missiles in Cuba. McCone
directed reconnaissance overflights of Cuba, placing at risk the lives
of American pilots but also showing that the CIA’s analysis was dead
wrong. If Director McCone had not sought the evidentiary basis for
23
a second opinion against the advice of the Intelligence Community,

the Cuban Missile Crisis might have had a much less peaceful ending.
2. A more recent, and shameful, example of a woefully deficient
intelligence assessment was the hastily done report issued in
November 2016 concerning Donald Trump’s alleged collaboration
with the Russians. The assessment was falsely presented as a
unanimous Intelligence Community product reflecting the judgment
of all 17 intelligence agencies. It actually was generated by just a few
analysts handpicked to produce preordained results by then-CIA
Director John Brennan. Predictably, it did exactly that, finding that
candidate Trump collaborated with the Kremlin. The document
was subsequently discredited as nothing more than an instrument
of political warfare. Yet, at the time, it went unchallenged in the
assessment vetting process.
The Defective COVID-19 Intelligence Community

Assessment
Now, the IC has reviewed and publicly released an ICA on COVID-19
origins. Its findings are so bland, so cautious, so riddled with caveats—
and so lacking in needed data and apparent analytic expertise—as to
render the product worse than useless. It is misleading, and probably
dangerously so. As we will demonstrate in this competitive analysis, a
serious review of even open-source information allows conclusions to be
reached about the probable source of the SARS-CoV-2 virus; Chinese
government involvement and malfeasance; relevant U.S.-funded gain-of-
function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology; and that facility’s
association with the Chinese biological warfare program.
Experience with the ICA process suggests this study cost
approximately a million dollars to produce—an outrageous sum for a
document that, at best, says nothing and, at worst, lends credibility to the
CCP’s false narrative that SARS-CoV-2 emanated from a “wet market.”
Not only is such a product a waste of taxpayer resources. It further
undermines confidence in the abilities and competence of the IC.
The Team B III assessment is based additionally on two other, glaring
examples of how the IC assessment process has failed in this case:
24
First, it appears that collecting intelligence on Chinese government

laboratories and leaks from those labs was simply not in the intelligence
“stack” of priorities. As a result, the ICA assessment of the Wuhan virus
and its source was unable to draw on detailed and reliable intelligence in
reaching its conclusion. It was more an exercise in speculation than an IC
product informed by actual intelligence.
Second, the COVID-19 ICA exemplifies an abiding problem for
which a number of former national intelligence community leaders,
including John Brennan, James Clapper, Michael Hayden, and James
Comey, bear significant responsibility—namely, their willingness a) to
ensure that IC products served political needs and b) do not offend the
Chinese Communist Party.
For all these reasons, a second opinion on the origin, nature, and
repercussions of the COVID-19 pandemic is clearly in order, and we are
proud to present that of Team B III.
25
CHAPTER 1
The CCP’s Global Ambitions
T he context for this exercise in competitive analysis concerning the

nature and origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the pandemic it
spawned must be squarely set in an understanding of the Chinese
Communist Party’s quest for world dominance—and its attendant
need to remove the United States of America as an impediment to the
realization of that longstanding goal.
Overview
In the history of the world, weak nations do not determine the course
of human events. That is the purview of great nations in their application
of politics, economic might, and military power. One such nation today
is the People’s Republic of China under the control of the Chinese
Communist Party (CCP).
The Chinese Communists have organized themselves to acquire,
in a relatively short period of time, a first-class strategic nuclear arsenal
and military, and a First World economy with the capacity to produce
goods and services upon which most of the rest of the world is critically
dependent. As a result, the CCP can now project military and economic
power virtually anywhere they choose and, increasingly, determine
world events. Today, Communist China rivals—and clearly intends to
surpass—the United States by every measure.
The People’s Republic of China’s ruling Communist Party is nominally
led by a Politburo. In practice, it is General Secretary Xi Jinping who calls
the shots, although there is growing evidence of restiveness within the
past and present leadership cadre.
An important fault-line for such fractiousness appears to be Xi’s
27
departure from the strategy toward the United States adopted by one
of his predecessors, Deng Xiaoping, in the early 1990s. Deng dubbed it
the “hide and bide” strategy, whereby the CCP’s true intentions to take
down the United States would be concealed as it patiently built up the
capabilities decisively to do that.
For his part, Xi believes that the time has arrived to let the mask slip.
He has boldly declared his determination to achieve once again China’s
historic status as the “Middle Kingdom,” whose rightful place, Xi insists,
is as the sovereign of the world. While such a goal has eluded the CCP to
date, the mere fact that the Chinese Communist Party, with its 90 million
members, can control a nation of 1.4 billion Chinese people speaks
volumes about its ambitions and its ruthlessness in achieving them.
‘Unrestricted Warfare’
Such unstinting ruthlessness is evident in the strategic approach the
Chinese Communist Party has followed for well over two decades in
order to secure its victory over the United States and ultimate dominion
globally. In 1999, two People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Senior Colonels,
Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui, dubbed this approach “unrestricted
warfare.” Their book by that name detailed the methods to be employed
to set the stage for defeating the technologically and militarily more
advanced America long before China obtained comparable, let alone
superior, capabilities.
Among the methods the colonels recommended was a range of
asymmetric, non-kinetic options by which the PRC could wage a
debilitating war against this country, including economic warfare,
cyberattacks, subversion, information operations, espionage, the use of
grid-destroying electromagnetic pulses, and terrorism.
Particularly relevant to the subject of this study, the two colonels
described an array of “future warfare” whose value in achieving the
Chinese Communist Party’s objective of destroying the United States is
spelled out in this chilling statement:
“It cannot be denied that man-made earthquakes, tsunamis,
weather disasters, or subsonic wave and new biological and
chemical weapons all constitute new concept weapons, and that
28
they have tremendous differences with what we normally speak

of as weapons, but they are still all weapons whose immediate
goal is to kill and destroy, and which are still related to military
affairs, soldiers, and munitions. Speaking in this sense, they are
nothing more than non-traditional weapons whose mechanisms
have been altered and whose lethal power and destructive
capabilities have been magnified several times over.”1
In short, for these two PLA officers, the concept of biological warfare
is a perfectly reasonable option in their plans for war against the United
States. More importantly, as we shall discuss in greater detail in the next
chapter, the CCP has never renounced its proposed use of biological
warfare or addressed its inconsistency with China’s treaty obligations
pursuant to the Biological Weapons Convention it signed in 1984.
It is noteworthy that Unrestricted Warfare was not a state secret or
classified document. It was clearly meant for Western consumption. As
such, it is not merely the ominous basis for the Communist Chinese
strategic doctrine being pursued by the PLA. It serves notice of the CCP’s
malign intentions that we ignore at our extreme peril.
A People’s War
An even more direct warning was delivered in a declaration published
on May 13, 2019, by the Communist Party’s propaganda arm, People’s
Daily. It announced a “People’s War” against the United States. Its
purpose was to alert the Chinese people that total war was coming and
that it would include kinetic as well as non-kinetic unrestricted warfare
techniques. The secondary purpose of this declaration was to encourage
the national security apparatus of the United States to acquiesce to, rather
than resist, China’s inevitable victory.
The pretext for the People’s War declaration was that President
Donald Trump had made good on his campaign promise to: hold the
Communist Chinese to account for their theft of over $5 trillion worth
of American intellectual property (some $500 billion a year of which had
occurred over at least a decade); impose tariffs on certain Chinese goods;
and renegotiate trade deals that would level the playing field between
China and the United States.
1 Unrestricted Warfare, pp. 24-25
29
These actions were seen as both an immediate threat to China’s rise

and an affront to Xi’s determination to return his nation to its “rightful”
place in the world. The declaration of a People’s War told the Chinese
people that serious and unusual steps were about to be taken by the
Chinese government and that they were to prepare themselves for a world
that was not going to operate as before and for the associated hardships
and sacrifices.
Within months, the COVID-19 pandemic began to spread. Whether
that was by design in this People’s War or was simply aggressively exploited
by the Chinese Communist Party once the SARS-CoV-2 virus emerged
is, for all practical purposes, immaterial. Either way, as the following pages
will document, what has become known popularly as the “CCP Virus”
led to vast numbers of deaths, lockdowns, economic dislocations, and
societal upheaval here in the United States, among many other places.
One particularly consequential—and predictable—result of such
devastating turmoil was that it gave rise to a radical remaking of the
American electoral process that essentially mandated the ubiquitous use
of mail-in balloting. That practice, as the bipartisan Carter-Baker U.S.
Commission on Federal Election Reform warned in 2005, is an invitation
to fraud. In the event, it contributed to the realization of a key Chinese
objective: the end of the Trump presidency.
Remaking the World Minus the U.S.

In considering the lengths to which the Chinese Communist Party is
prepared to go to displace and, if possible, destroy the United States, three
other elements of its unrestricted warfare aimed at creating a world order
to its liking warrant special mention.
Taking Down the Dollar

The Chinese Communist Party has long recognized that the dollar’s
status as the world’s reserve currency is an impediment to its global
ambitions. Were it able to topple King Dollar, the economic repercussions
would be devastating to the American people and economy.
To this point, the absence of a viable alternative has thwarted this
agenda. But the exploding U.S. debt, the dollar’s attendant loss in value,
30
and the perceived decline of America’s military power and reliability as

a guarantor of global security are intensifying other nations’ interest in
an alternative reserve currency arrangement. That sentiment has been
boosted further by the West’s use of dollar-dominated institutions and
trade arrangements to punish Russia for its invasion of Ukraine.
Translating such impetuses into the dollar’s downfall will likely take
time. But straws in the wind are the headway the Chinese are reportedly
making in negotiating oil purchases with payments to be made in yuan.
They are also beginning to roll out a gold-backed central bank-issued
cryptocurrency that may prove to be more appealing than the non-
convertible yuan, despite its obvious problems with Beijing’s access to
private data and ability to control the use of such digital currency.
The Belt and Road Gambit

Another vehicle for advancing what Xi calls his China Dream is
through his so-called “Belt and Road Initiative” (BRI). It amounts to a
colonial empire build-out based on seductive Chinese “pay-day” loans
that underwrite infrastructure development particularly in strategic
parts of the Third World. The BRI has proven to be an effective method
of extending China’s access to markets, presence, influence, and power-
projection capabilities worldwide.2
To those ends, the CCP employs “debt trap diplomacy,” whereby the
Chinese lend money to a Third World government which is then used to
engage, not local laborers typically in desperate need of employment, but
Chinese corporations and their workers to build road and rail networks,
airports, and seaports. If those loans are not repaid, the Chinese have the
right to seize the infrastructure or other assets in question.
To date, the CCP has induced over 140 countries to give it such a
foothold on their territory, often by the corrupt practice of “elite capture”
that lubricates a nation’s alignment with the interests of the Chinese
Communist Party.
The Third World is not the only focus of China’s Belt and Road
Initiative. The CCP has also made major investments and inroads, for
example, in strategically located NATO nations like Greece and Italy
2 See “China’s Dream, The World’s Nightmare,” https://presentdangerchina.org/first-report-on-
ccps-belt-and-road-initiative/
31
through its state-owned enterprises that give Beijing similar influence and
reach. What appear to be merely commercial relations have long-term
and negative strategic implications when they include the deployment
of sensitive telecommunications systems and U.S. allies’ shipping and
transport infrastructure.
Elite Capture in America

The Chinese Communist Party has not overlooked the opportunity
to do to U.S. elites what it has systematically done elsewhere. Those
successfully targeted by China’s United Front Work Department and
Ministry of State Security cadre have been aggressively compromised and
recruited by such influence operators, contemptuously branded as “old
friends” of China and shamelessly used to advance the CCP’s interests.
This process was greatly enabled by the success of Deng Xiaoping’s
hide and bide strategy and its embrace by successive U.S. administrations
of both parties in the name of “engaging” Communist China. The PRC
dangled the prospect of garnering immense wealth to meet the needs
of its potential market of 1.4 billion people or otherwise serve China’s
interests to seduce key American financial, business, academic, cultural,
sports, media, and political figures. Predictably, this process created here, as
in other nations, powerful forces encouraging accommodation to the CCP.
In the case of Wall Street, that de facto lobby has rendered an even
greater service to Beijing. It has transferred by some estimates $3 trillion or
more from U.S. investors to underwrite the PRC’s astonishing economic
growth, military buildup, foreign espionage, subversion and influence
operations, and the Belt and Road Initiative’s colonial build-out.
Bluntly stated, in exchange for lucrative fees, financiers like Larry
Fink of BlackRock have enabled the emergence of America’s most
dangerous adversary.
Worse yet, these U.S. elites have continued to promote engagement
with China long after it became obvious they were not making China
more like us, or at least more benign. And lest any have second thoughts,
the CCP has made clear there will be harsh consequences for any “old
friends” who decide to back America instead.
32
Conclusion
At the heart of Communist Chinese statecraft is not competition with
the West, but a set of policies and actions that, if successful, will mean
the conquest of the Free World and the demise of its strongest nation:
the United States. Every Chinese policy and stratagem is aimed at not
only strengthening China in this zero-sum game, but actually effecting
America’s terminal decline and setting the stage for, at best, its submission
to the CCP and, at worst, its occupation and colonization by the Middle
Kingdom.
The next chapter will examine how the Chinese Communists have
planned and prepared for the use of biological warfare as a decisive
instrument for achieving this terrifying China Dream and American
nightmare.
33
CHAPTER 2
The CCP’s Weapon of Choice: Biowarfare
T he foregoing assessment of the Chinese Communist Party’s

(CCP) pursuit of global domination and the unrestricted warfare
techniques it has long used to advance that goal sets the stage for a
focus on the role successive CCP leaders have envisioned for a particularly
insidious means of destroying this country: biological warfare.
The Secret Speech of Defense Minister Chi Haotian

Some twenty years ago, then-Defense Minister Chi Haotian, a general
in the People’s Liberation Army, delivered a secret speech to an elite group
of CCP cadres.1 In the course of his remarks, Chi laid out the problems
that his country would face due to overpopulation and pollution,
observing that “China’s great economic expansion will inevitably lead to
the shrinkage of per-capita living space for Chinese people, and this will
encourage China to turn outward in search for new living space.” Even
worse for China, he declared, “Economic development in the last twenty-
plus years had a negative impact. … Our resources are in short supply.
The environment is severely polluted, especially that of soil, water, and air.
Not only our ability to sustain and develop our race, but even its survival
is gravely threatened. …”2
1 General Chi Haotian’s secret speech was first translated into English and published by The
Epoch Times in 2005. See “The Secret Speech of General Chi Haotian” at https://jrnyquist.
blog/2019/09/11/the-secret-speech-of-general-chi-haotian/
Team Member J.R. Nyquist spoke on condition of anonymity with one of the Pentagon
specialists who translated the speech and found it to be consistent with Chi’s idiosyncratic way of
talking.
2 Ibid.
35
To solve these problems, the Defense Minister said, the Chinese

people must be taught to “go out.” China’s goal, he said, must be to
conquer and colonize the lower 48 states of America following a surprise
biological attack.
Was this speech, with its genocidal focus, all that incredible? Experts
who know the Chinese Communist regime best, say China’s leaders are
not psychologically normal. As Chinese expatriate scholar and dissident
Harry Wu stated in an interview 24 years ago, the leaders of the CCP
are “murderers.” This characterization, Wu insisted, is supported by the
inhumanity of the Chinese labor camp system.3
What we find in the People’s Republic of China, in fact, are institutions
animated by a genocidal mindset. The ruling Chinese Communist Party
has never adhered to moral norms. Power is what Mao and his followers
were after. They have shown themselves ready to use any means to enlarge
their power. And according to the Chi Haotian speech, that power has
been built up with a future genocidal war in mind.
Indeed, Chi explained, China’s economy has not been built to raise
the living standard of the Chinese people. This economy was built for the
purpose of waging a future war against America. Once America is defeated
in a biological attack, he said, “The western countries of Europe would
bow to us, not to mention Taiwan, Japan and other small countries.”4
According to the text of the speech, the Defense Minister emphasized
to his audience of trusted CCP elites that discretion in their genocidal
course was mandatory; the Chinese need for “living space” could not be
publicly acknowledged. “The reason we don’t want to discuss this too
openly,” Chi explained, “is to avoid the West’s association of us with Nazi
Germany, which could, in turn, reinforce the view that China is a threat.”
3 Amazon.com: Laogai, the Chinese Gulag: 9780813317694: Hongda Harry Wu, Ted
Slingerland, Fang Lizhi: Books
4 The Secret Speech of General Chi Haotian – Original article appeared in the Epoch Times,
reprinted at J.R.Nyquist.Blog.
36
The ‘Hide and Bide’ Strategy

Harkening back to the Deng Xiaoping “hide and bide” strategy, Chi
emphasized the need to wait before taking action. “Right now,” he said,
“it is not time to openly break up with [America]. … Our reform and
opening to the outside world still rely on their capital and technology.
We still need America. Therefore, we must do everything to promote
our relationship with America, learn from America in all aspects and use
America as an example to reconstruct our country.”
In other words, if you are preparing a surprise biological attack on
America, deception becomes mandatory. You must use the enemy’s
institutions and personnel to advance your plan. At this point, Chi quotes
Deng Xiaoping himself: “Refrain from revealing ambitions and put others
off the track.” Showing his hand still further, Chi added, “We must put up
with America; we must conceal our ultimate goals, hide our capabilities,
and await the opportunity.”
The Taiwan Diversion

Chi then described China’s push for Taiwan as a diversion:
“[You should] understand why we constantly talk loudly about
the ‘Taiwan issue’ but not the ‘American issue.’ We all know
the principle of doing one thing under the cover of another. If
ordinary people can see the island of Taiwan in their eyes, then
you as the elite of our country should be able to see the whole
picture of our cause.”
According to Chi’s speech, Taiwan is not China’s primary target.

America is the target. The speech envisions a biological war: “If our
biological weapons succeed in the surprise attack, the Chinese people will
be able to keep their losses at a minimum in the fight against the United
States. If, however, the attack fails and triggers a nuclear retaliation from
the United States, China would perhaps suffer a catastrophe in which
more than half its population would perish. That is why we need to be
ready with air defense systems for our big and medium-sized cities.”
37
A ‘Humanitarian Communist’?
According to Chi, the ruling Chinese Communist Party considers
biological weapons to be the most important for accomplishing their goal
of “cleaning up America.” It is noteworthy that Chi credits Deng Xiaoping
with embracing this strategy. “When Comrade Xiaoping was still with
us,” said Chi, “the Party Central Committee had the perspicacity to make
the right decision not to develop aircraft carrier groups and focus instead
on developing lethal weapons that can eliminate mass populations of the
enemy country.”
It may seem difficult to believe, but Chi considers himself to be a
“humanitarian Communist” and therefore admits to mixed personal
feelings about genocide against America: “I sometimes think how cruel
it is for China and the United States to be enemies.” After all, he noted,
America helped China in World War II. But none of that matters now, said
Chi. “In the long run, the relationship of China and the United States is
one of a life-and-death struggle.” This tragic situation must be accepted,
he said. “We must not forget that the history of our civilization repeatedly
has taught us that one mountain does not allow two tigers to live together.”
In his speech, Chi provided the key to understanding China’s
economic development strategy. “Our economic development,” he said,
“is all about preparing for the needs of war!” Clearly, then, it is not about
improving the life of Chinese people in the short run. It is not about
building a consumer-oriented capitalist society. “Publicly,” said Chi,
“we still emphasize economic development as our center, but in reality,
economic development has war as its center!”
Meanwhile, Russia’s mobilization against Ukraine has raised further
concerns for the West, which fears similar moves from Russia’s “partner,”
China. Perhaps Iran and North Korea have choreographed moves as well.
In light of all this, the COVID-19 pandemic might prove to be a precursor
event. Putting the Chi Haotian secret speech in context, nobody can safely
rule out a worst-case scenario: namely, that a biological war has begun
and the West is not even acknowledging it.
38
Further Confirmation of the CCP’s Plans for Warfare

Against the U.S. and the West
Evidence of Chinese preparations for an invasion of the U.S. via
Mexico has been percolating up from the borderlands for many years. In
Scott Gulbransen’s journalistic account, The Silent Invasion, he described
Chinese, Russian, and Cuban commandos in the Mexican desert and
told of secret arms shipments through the port of Ensenada involving
coordination between Mexican criminals and the People’s Liberation
Army. In the course of his investigation, Gulbransen’s sources were
threatened, and one was murdered. Gulbransen was warned to avoid
writing about Chinese activity in Mexico by a Mexican Communist, who
nevertheless told Gulbransen, “You tell the fat Americans about the real
Mexico. You tell them their day to pay is coming fast. Coming very fast.”5
Insights into the Conduct of Biological Warfare and the

COVID-19 Pandemic
In 1964, the Commanding General of the U.S. Army Chemical
Corps Research and Development Command, Brigadier General J.H.
Rothschild, wrote a book entitled Tomorrow’s Weapons. It described what
Rothschild called “toxic weapons” used in chemical and biological warfare
and read like a possible playbook for Chinese doctrine in this warfighting
domain.
The general’s most prescient chapter was on “Special Operations
with Toxic Weapons.” He explained that toxic weapons were “very
powerful … particularly when used against an open society, such as ours,
in times of supposed peace.”6 Touching on the use of toxic weapons in
sabotage operations, Rothschild noted that these weapons could be
used “over a period of time to break down the confidence of … people
in their country.”7 This point cannot be overemphasized. Confidence
in government, especially at the outset of a conflict, is indispensable. A
country cannot effectively fight when its leadership is no longer trusted to
carry out defensive measures.
5 Scott Gulbransen, The Silent Invasion (Ainsworth, NE: Counting Coup Press, 2003), p. 43.
6 Brig. Gen. J.H. Rothschild, USA (Ret), Tomorrow’s Weapons (New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, 1964), p. 132.
7 Ibid.
39
Rothschild also warned that sabotage committed by way of toxic

agents—biological and chemical—could be used to “destroy our
confidence in the ability of our government to insure the protection of our
food, medicines, and the like.” There are, in addition, grave implications
with regard to the freedom of the American people. He noted that, even
during the Cold War, “Little control is exercised over the movements
or actions of our people [and this] simplifies the saboteur’s job. If the
enemy’s use of sabotage forces us to institute restrictive measures on our
freedom to move about, that in itself is a victory for the enemy.”8
Biowarfare and Bio Sabotage

Rothschild’s warnings about bio sabotage have been vindicated with
the advent of sophisticated bio-technology used in gain-of-function
research capable of producing novel organisms with unfamiliar effects on
the human body. Several of his observations deserve special mention:
• “Dependence upon artificial immunization as a protective measure
[against a weapon] must be carefully evaluated because the efficacy
of most artificial immunity is relative.”9
• Our “food, drug, and cosmetic industries are all likely sabotage
victims. The production processes of all are vulnerable to the
introduction of chemical and biological agents, and the resultant
contaminated products could be widely distributed.”10
• The contamination of widely used food additives could have a
devastating effect, especially because safeguards have never been
put into place.
• While mass contamination of medicines and vaccines was not likely
to occur under normal Cold War conditions, “this [contamination]
would be used to break down public confidence immediately
preceding the outbreak of hostilities, or otherwise tied into an
overall design. A sustained campaign of sabotage … irregularly
dispersed with regard to time and area of occurrence, can produce
a constant buildup of public fear and a complete loss of confidence
8 Ibid, pp. 132-133.

9 Ibid.
10 Ibid, p. 133.
40
in authority. If such a campaign were conducted in peace time

with no particular climax in view, effects would be inconclusive
and it would give time to establish a defense.”11 In other words, bio
sabotage is best used prior to the outbreak of a major war.
Chinese Agents ‘Inside Our Wire’ and the Potential for

Bio Sabotage
A biological attack against a country—especially a soft target like the
United States—could be amplified by a variety of factors arising from
the Chinese Communist Party’s deep penetration of our society and
institutions. For example:
Information Operations: Over the past two years, the CCP has
engaged, both directly and through the subjection of Americans to its
elite-capture campaigns, in sophisticated information warfare in response
to the COVID-19 pandemic. The United States and other targeted
countries have, for example, been persuaded more or less to adopt “the
China Model,” which involves taking inappropriate, or even dangerous,
actions including the mandatory use of masks that do not prevent, or
even slow, the spread of the virus; economy- and society-devastating
lockdowns; rolling out “vaccines” in the midst of a pandemic, despite the
likelihood of propagating more virulent disease strains; and compulsory
mass vaccination with experimental, inadequately tested and potentially
harmful gene therapies while banning low-cost, widely available therapies
that are safe and effective.
Penetration: A further threat vector for bio sabotage is the presence
of Chinese nationals—including People’s Liberation Army personnel—
in America’s university and national laboratories, research centers,
National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC), etc. (This subject will be addressed in additional
detail in “Breaking the Code.”) According to a New York Times report
on December 31, 2019, federal officials were at the time “investigating
hundreds of cases” of espionage by visiting scientists, “nearly all of
them Chinese nationals.”12 The article went on to say, “Researchers of
11 Ibid, pp. 134-5.

12 Stolen Research: Chinese Scientist Is Accused of Smuggling Lab Samples - The New York
Times (nytimes.com).
41
Chinese descent make up nearly half the work force in American research
laboratories.”13
Rothschild lamented that effective measures for protecting the
country’s drug and food supply were not adopted in the 1960s, despite
urgent recommendations from the military back in 1955. Today, the
problem is vastly worse. To cite but one example: Large numbers of
Chinese nationals are enrolled at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia,14
and the school collaborates closely with the CDC, also in Atlanta.15 In
essence, the CDC has opened itself to massive infiltration by agents of a
hostile foreign power. If Rothschild was worried about the adulteration
of foods and medicines in the 1960s, we must now contend with the
adulteration of science itself—and the adulteration of policies based on
scientific research.
When we examine the relationships that exist between U.S. research
labs and China,16 the CDC and China,17 Dr. Anthony Fauci and China,
social media companies and China,18 a disturbing story of Chinese
economic and political influence emerges. The CDC, by its own
admission, has been closely collaborating with the Chinese Communists
for many years. Last but not least, the NIH has admitted to funding
gain-of-function work in the same Wuhan Institute of Virology believed,
as discussed in “Breaking the Code,” to have created the SARS-CoV-2
virus.19 Meanwhile, Anthony Fauci and his allies have used their power
and financial resources actively to “quash” the COVID-originated-in-a-
lab theory—“protecting Chinese interests over American lives.”20
The corrupting power of greed can always be leveraged by intelligence
networks, especially given the scale of China’s influence and espionage
operations in the United States. These networks are said to involve many
13 Ibid.
14 Facts & Figures (emory.edu).
15 CDC Collaboration | MMG | GDBBS | Emory University.
16 Which U.S. medications are manufactured in China? | by Gabriel Levitt | PharmacyChecker
| Medium
17 CDC Global Health - China
18 How China Uses Contractors to Spread Propaganda on Facebook and Twitter - The New
York Times (nytimes.com)
19 Fauci’s agency admits it funded gain-of-function work in Wuhan: What else are they keeping
from us? (nypost.com)
20 Fauci, Feds tried to quash COVID lab leak origin theory--protecting Chinese interests over
American lives | Fox News
42
thousands of agents, plus Chinese nationals who help collect national

security secrets, personal data, and other proprietary information, either
willingly or under duress. According to FBI Director Christopher Wray,
the scale of Chinese spying in the United States is like nothing we’ve
ever seen from any country. “The scale of their hacking program, and the
amount of personal and corporate data that their hackers have stolen,
is greater than every other country combined,” he said.21 According to
Wray, there are over 2,000 cases of Chinese espionage currently under
investigation by the FBI,22 with a new one being opened every 10 hours.23
Economic “engagement”: Chinese infiltration has not been limited
to U.S. research labs. American pharmaceutical companies, among other
industries, and scientific exchanges have also been successfully penetrated
by the CCP. This not only facilitates wholesale theft of this country’s
intellectual property, it affords the People’s Republic of China (PRC) the
opportunity to weaponize their supply chains against America.
Such a threat was brilliantly illuminated by the 2018 bestseller China
Rx: Exposing the Risks of America’s Dependence on China for Medicine.
According to its authors, Rosemary Gibson and Prasad Singh, “China’s
biggest footprint … is making the key ingredients in prescription drugs
and over-the-counter products. It is the dominant world supplier of the
essential ingredients needed to make thousands of medicines found in
American homes and used in hospital intensive care units and operating
rooms.”24
As the China Rx authors explain, America’s private market has
“handed control over America’s drug supply to China.”25 Using trade as a
weapon, China has become our largest supplier of Active Pharmaceutical
Ingredients (APIs). This supply chain could be disrupted or shut down
permanently at any time and without notice.
Worse yet, China’s dominance in API production and China’s
infiltration of America are almost certainly part of a wider Chinese
21 FBI Director Wray says scale of Chinese spying in the U.S. ‘blew me away’ (nbcnews.com).
22 Ibid.
23 https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/14/politics/fbi-director-china-investigations-intl-hnk/
index.html
24 Rosemary Gibson & Janardan Prasad Singh, China RX: Exposing the Risks of America’s
Dependence on China for Medicine (Guilford Connecticut: Prometheus Books, 2018), p. 9.
25 Ibid, p. 200.
43
strategy—calculated, planned, and potentially deadly.

In addition to being able to advocate harmful scientific solutions,
Chinese agents are well-positioned to do what Rothschild feared most—
namely, contaminate drugs or vaccines by adulterating APIs and/or
vaccine precursors. Chinese executives could even apply financial pressure
to U.S. pharmaceutical companies to allow Chinese access to U.S. vaccine
production. Robert Kennedy Jr. attributes official malfeasance during
the pandemic to corporate greed, yet half a million or more needless
deaths in this country might well be the result of China’s penetrating,
influencing, and/or corrupting vulnerable U.S. regulatory agencies and
other institutions.26
Another harmful CCP strategy would be to export APIs with toxins
that have subtle, long-term effects on the human body. The following
question must be asked: Who is watching the incoming supply of
APIs from China? According to authors Gibson and Singh, there is no
inspection regime worthy of the name.27
A Case Study of Elite Capture
Mao’s Yenan Way

In his 1963 book Subversion of the Innocents, Daniel Kurzman
described the evolution of Mao Zedong’s cynical use of deception that he
called the “Yenan Way” for the isolated North Chinese stronghold where
he first conceived it. Mao’s theory, wrote Kurzman, “was that he could beat
[nationalist leader] Chiang [Kai-shek] only if he could swing most of the
people behind him, and he wasn’t interested in the political orientation
of his supporters as long as they followed him. Ideological indoctrination
would come later, when the country was safely in his hands.”
Mao envisioned disguising Communism behind “the mask of a
legitimate national movement, such as anti-imperialism or agrarian
reform, to win over workers, peasants, lower-and-middle-class citizens,
26 Robert F. Kennedy Jr., The Real Anthony Fauci (USA: Skyhorse Publishing Kindle Edition,
2021), See Chapter 1, “McCullough points out that hundreds of peer-reviewed studies now
show that early treatment could have averted some 80 percent of deaths attributed to COVID.” –
p. 64.
27 Ibid, p. 203.
44
the intelligentsia, and even businessmen….”28 Kurzman reports that

Mao told Peruvian Communist Eudocio Ravines in 1934: “Let them
get rich today. Very soon we can expropriate everything. The more help
they get from us in their pillage, the more positions they will let us take
and occupy; they will help us to capture … [these positions] and even to
extend them.”
“Mao then cautioned Ravines against participating in any of their
enemies’ ‘frauds.’ He warned not to take their plunder. Collaborate with
them in secret and leave no proof of the collaboration behind. ‘This
delights your robber friends,’ said Mao. ‘For your integrity leaves more for
them to divide among a larger number of fellow rogues.’ This method of
taking power might seem slow, noted Mao, but it is ‘actually quicker and
surer.’ ”
After China began trading with the West, Mao’s Yenan Way strategy
was applied to the largest corporations and richest billionaires in America
and Europe.29 Here, the Chinese Communists followed through on Lenin’s
insight that the capitalists “will furnish credits … and, by supplying us
materials and technical equipment which we lack, will restore our military
industry necessary for our future attacks against our suppliers.”30
With Lenin’s vision and Mao’s refinements, the Chinese Communists
brought the Yenan Way to Wall Street and to the pharmaceutical industry.
As money-making became the core concern of the post-Cold War
world, the CCP extended its hand in false friendship. “We can make you
rich,” they said to American businessmen. “It is glorious to be rich.” But
the Communist endgame necessarily entails the expropriation of the
capitalists, facilitated at some point by a viral pandemic along the lines
of Chi Haotian’s secret speech. In his little red book, Quotations from
Mao Tsetung, Mao explained, “As for the imperialist countries, we should
unite with their peoples and … do business with them … but under no
circumstances harbor any unrealistic notions about them.”31 (Emphasis
added.)
28 Ibid.
29 Peter Schweizer, Red-Handed: How American Elites Get Rich Helping China Win (Kindle
Edition).
30 Oxford Essential Quotations, 5th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), “Lenn 1870-
1924.”
31 Mao Tsetung, Quotations From Chairman Mao Tsetung (Peking: Foreign Language Press,
1972), p. 66.
45
By 1999, the Chinese Communist Party’s pursuit of this strategy had

supplied the PRC with a vast array of Western credits and technology that
set in motion the establishment of its military industry. At the same time,
China laid the groundwork for an advanced biological warfare program
by establishing, at the West’s expense, a near-monopoly position in the
production of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients and vaccine precursors.
And, as we have seen, Chinese scientists began flooding into U.S. labs.
Enter Bill Gates

In keeping with the Yenan Way, Beijing sought business partners in
the West who could facilitate the CCP’s long-range strategic preparations.
China needed especially to find the right American billionaire as a partner,
and that partner proved to be Microsoft’s Bill Gates. Here was a “visionary”
entrepreneur who built a massive information technology industry. And
Gates, for his part, was not troubled with the oppressive nature of the CCP
regime. Microsoft teamed up with the Chinese Communists in the 1990s
and has continued to deepen its relationship with Beijing.32 According to
researcher Peter Schweizer, Gates’s relationship with the Chinese regime
has been “deeply troubling.”33
Bill Gates was lured into this “deeply troubling” relationship because
China represented the largest potential tech market on earth. With four
times America’s population, a smiling Communist dictator ready to
promise the moon, and encouragement to engage with China from his
own government, Gates was all-in.
Of course, Bill Gates has not been the only billionaire to join with
the Chinese Communists. But he has, arguably, been the most important.
“Gates has cooperated with the regime in ways that the other tech titans
have not,” wrote Schweizer. “He has lent credence to the claims of the
Chinese Communist Party and been rewarded with access, favors and
titles. He has done the bidding of the regime in the tech world and has
apologized or made excuses for its aberrant activities.”34
While arguing that the Internet “cannot be controlled,” Gates has
facilitated CCP Internet censorship and the suppression of free speech
32 Microsoft Plans Massive China Expansion in Asia-Wide Cloud Push - Bloomberg.
33 Peter Schweizer, Red-Handed: How American Elites Get Rich Helping China Win (Kindle
Edition), pp. 85-86.
34 Ibid, p. 86.
46
in China (and across the Internet).35 According to Schweizer, it is hardly

surprising that “Gates’s efforts to support the regime have been rewarded.”
Gates is celebrated by the CCP as one of fifty foreigners who shaped
modern China. This same list includes such luminaries as Karl Marx,
Lenin, and Stalin. When former Chinese President Hu Jintao made his
first official trip to the United States, he “stopped off in Seattle for a visit
with Gates at his ‘palatial home’ before heading to Washington, D.C.”36
Gates Enables China’s Biotech Buildup

In this context, it is alarming to see that Gates has shifted his focus
from computer technology to biosciences, investing in companies and
technologies associated with vaccines and pandemics—and, by extension,
with dual-use capabilities useful for biological warfare. For example, Gates
has invested in pharmaceutical companies such as Gilead Sciences, Inc.,
which developed Remdesivir, a drug credited by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
with exacerbating the COVID pandemic.37 (Another notorious billionaire
who has “partnered with China”38 has also been associated with Gilead:
George Soros.)
The website of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is instructive in
this regard, evincing its principals’ full-on submission to the seductiveness
of the Yenan Way: “Since opening our China office in 2007, we have
supported China in addressing major domestic health and development
challenges and working with Chinese partners to help the country
become a stronger health and development partner for the rest of the
developing world.” The Foundation’s work is described as “In China for
China” as well as being “In China for the world.” As explained on the site,
the Foundation has been tackling problems related to immunization and
infectious diseases, “also extending the global reach of China’s health and
development expertise.” The Gates Foundation also facilitates “China’s
ability to share its expertise and innovations—including high-quality,
35 Microsoft’s Bing Briefly Blocked ‘Tank Man’ on Tiananmen Anniversary - The New York
Times (nytimes.com).
36 Schweizer, p. 89.
37 Ibid., p. 64. Kennedy refers to hundreds of peer review studies showing that early treatment
with repurposed drugs could have saved 500,000 American lives in the pandemic. Remdesivir
was integral to the faulty COVID response protocol that facilitated these deaths.
38 Bill Gates and George Soros Partner with China in Coronavirus vaccine | kenyaconfidential.
com.
47
low-cost vaccines and other health products—with sub-Saharan Africa

and the rest of the developing world.”39
Of particular concern to Team B III are the various Gates-sponsored
pandemic war games, which have showcased the effectiveness of Chinese-
style administrative tyranny in response to a global outbreak. Here the
Yenan Way acquires a lab coat, a test kit, and a vaccine ampule. It is global
governance under the guise of health care—with Chinese Communist
characteristics.
As Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wrote in The Real Anthony Fauci, “Each
of these Kafkaesque exercises became uncanny predictors.”40 He aptly
characterized them as follows: “Each rehearsal ends with the same grim
punchline: The global pandemic is an excuse to justify the imposition of
tyranny and coerced vaccination. The repetition of these exercises suggests
that they serve as a kind of rehearsal or training drill for an underlying
agenda to coordinate the global dismantling of democratic governance.”41
The Gates pandemic tabletops featured scenarios designed “for Public
Health Risk Communicators.” In 2017, there were two such exercises:
MARS and SPARS.42 The latter simulation imagined a coronavirus
pandemic that would supposedly take place from 2025 to 2028. It was,
noted Kennedy, an “eerily precise predictor of the COVID-19 pandemic.”
In fact, he added, “The only thing Gates and his planners got wrong was
the year.”43
The SPARS exercise simulated a coronavirus pandemic “culminating
in mass vaccination of the global population.”44 Even more striking is the
fact that the scenario envisioned “waves of severe neurological vaccine
injuries soon appearing among children and adults.” The simulation even
predicted a case fatality rate of 0.6 percent in the United States.45 How
were the participants in the exercise supposed to respond? The blueprint
called for employing fear-porn to overcome public complacency,
39 Beijing, China | Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation - Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
40 Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on
Democracy and Public Health (Kindle Edition), p. 838.
41 Ibid, 839.
42 See, especially, spars-pandemic-scenario.pdf (jhsphcenterforhealthsecurity.s3.amazonaws.
com).
43 Kennedy, p. 855.
44 Ibid.
45 Ibid, p. 859.
48
ensuring that the population would be vaccinated, by hook or by crook.

As Kennedy observed, this was not about public health. The exercise was
about accomplishing mass vaccination whether it made sense or not.
And, as we will see in “The China Model,” the 2019 edition of these
pandemic exercises, known as Event 201, was made possible not only
by the largesse of the Gates Foundation. Other key sponsors were the
Rockefeller Foundation, the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns
Hopkins, the U.S. Director of National Intelligence, and the Chinese
Centers for Disease Control.
If we put in this context Gates’s relationship to China, Brig. Gen.
Rothschild’s warnings about a toxic attack through the adulteration of
medicines (or vaccines) springs to mind. The question occurs whether,
under such circumstances, vaccines themselves might serve as an attack
vector. If universal vaccination is imposed—especially if an attacker can
contaminate the vaccines—hundreds of millions could unknowingly be
victimized. In addition, the national governments and elites who imposed
such a vaccination regimen would likely be discredited, with an attendant
breakdown in civil order.
Conclusion
Many will think it a contradiction for the Communist Chinese
to employ capitalist billionaires in their strategy. But contradictions
are intrinsic to Communist philosophy. Indeed, in his essay, “On
Contradictions,” Mao Zedong explained Communist dialectics in terms
of ancient Chinese philosophy, noting, “When a thing reaches the limit
in one direction, it will turn back to the other direction.”46 In terms of
Mao’s long game, the Cultural Revolution had run its course. A return
to Mao’s Yenan Way would naturally be expected. And this is exactly
what happened.
Bioscience is big business. Military power depends on that business.
Specifically, biological warfare lies squarely within the scope of that
business. Through the Yenan Way, this business can be subverted and
used to facilitate Chinese strategy. What is most disturbing about China’s
best billionaire friend, Bill Gates, is the way in which his pandemic
46 Wing-Tsit Chan, A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1963), p. 781.
49
simulations have prepared “public health communicators” to support a

policy that might well enable an attack vector. If the public is frightened
by a pandemic, and a program of mass vaccination is offered as a solution
when mass vaccination is not safe, a question of motive and opportunity
presents itself.
Given the CCP’s motivations, is there not an opportunity here?
Rothschild’s scenario of a “special operation with toxic weapons”
screams out from today’s headlines. Yet the U.S. Intelligence Community
and defense establishment seem shockingly disinterested. To date, neither
they nor their political overseers have launched a proper investigation of
the COVID-19 pandemic’s origins. It is our hope that this report will
precipitate, and inform, such a long-overdue and much-needed inquiry.
50
CHAPTER 3
Breaking the Code on the Origin of

SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19
C ontrary to the Director of National Intelligence’s assessment of

September 2021, a significant body of circumstantial evidence
contradicts the theory that the SARS-CoV-2 virus (the causative
agent of the disease COVID-19) is the result of a natural outbreak of an
emerging infectious virus. This chapter will examine in detail a series of
observations that challenge the proposition this virus has a natural origin.
1. The Telltale Genetic Features of SARS-CoV-2

a. The Furin Cleavage Site
This coronavirus demonstrates a number of unusual genetic features
that are difficult to account for if a natural origin for this pathogen is
exclusively considered. The spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 is a trimeric
transmembrane protein responsible for host cell recognition, attachment,
and entry of the virus into a normal human cell. Multiple copies of this
spike protein extend outward from the main structure of the virus.1
Each spike protein features two extremely large monomers termed
S1 and S2, each containing roughly 1,300 amino acid residues. These are
fixed to an amino acid scaffold to form the complete trimeric 3D spike
protein structure.2
The first early suspicion of a laboratory origin was focused on the
1 See Figure One

2 Ismail, A.M., and Elfiky, A.A., A monoclonal antibody against staphylococcal enterotoxin
B superantigen inhibits SARS-CoV-2 entry in vitro. Nature; Signal Transduction 5:252; 2020.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41392-020-00365-7
51
furin cleavage site, a short chain of four amino acids (Proline-Arginine-

Arginine-Alanine, or PRRA) at the junction of the S1 and S2 monomers
of the spike protein. Most curiously, the RR part pf the PRRA furin
cleavage site is coded by the mRNA gene sequence CGG-CGG, a rare
but stable double codon.3,4,5,6
It must be added that China never supplied the world with an actual
early sample of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Instead, international scientists
were forced to rely on the
published sequence of the
virus released by the CCP.
The Chinese government
order for the destruction of
all early hospital samples
from the first clinical cases is
unheard-of behavior in any
previous pandemic outbreak.
It appears to be part of a
larger general violation by
China of the World Health
Organization’s International
Health Regulations (IHR).
After cell entry and intracellular viral replication and assembly, the
new daughter viruses are transported back to the surface of the infected
cell, where they are released to infect more normal cells in the body. As
part of this process, the virus’s S1 monomer is cleaved at the furin cleavage
3 Segreto R, Deigin Y. The genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 does not rule out a laboratory
origin: SARS-COV-2 chimeric structure and furin cleavage site might be the result of
genetic manipulation. Bioessays. 2021 Mar;43(3):e2000240 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/33200842/
4 Q., Qiu, Y., Li, JY. et al. A Unique Protease Cleavage Site Predicted in the Spike Protein of the Novel
Pneumonia Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Potentially Related to Viral Transmissibility. Virol. Sin. 35,
337–339 (2020). https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s12250-020-00212-7.pdf
5 Postnikova A, Uppal S, Huang W, Kane MA, Villasmil R, Rogozin IB, Poliakov E, Redmond
TM. The Functional Consequences of the Novel Ribosomal Pausing Site in SARS-CoV-2 Spike
Glycoprotein RNA. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2021; 22(12):6490. https://
www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/22/12/6490
6 Li, Xin, et al. “A furin cleavage site was discovered in the S protein of the 2019 novel
coronavirus.” Chinese Journal of Bioinformatics (2020): 103-108. https://search.bvsalud.org/
global-literature-on-novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov/resource/en/covidwho-827739
52
site, where it snaps open, changing its 3D conformation from a closed

into an open configuration (Figure One).
This allows the S1 protein to recognize the ACE-2 Receptors located
on the surface of other uninfected cells and facilitate the binding and
fusion of the virus with them.7
As will be discussed, documents have now surfaced showing that
both China and the U.S. conducted gain-of-function coronavirus
experiments pertaining to the spike protein and its ability to bind to
human ACE-2 Receptors.
b. Both SARS-CoV-2 and the mRNA Vaccines Carry a Toxin
“Superantigen” Motif
Much has been written about the furin cleavage site of the spike
protein of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. But what is largely ignored is a preceding
curious stretch of ∼20 amino acids (segment T678 to Q690) embedded
in the S-1 monomer of the trimeric spike protein.
Staphylococcal Enterotoxin B (SEB) is one of the most potent
bacterial superantigens known to science. It can generate severe clinical
symptoms in humans at concentrations as low as 0.0004 μg/kg of body
weight, with death from multi-organ failure and toxic shock at 0.02 μg/
kg of body weight for individuals exposed by the small particle aerosol
route.8
It is of note that the SEB toxin itself is potent enough to be classified
as a Category B select agent and that it was manufactured on a large-scale
as a biological weapon during the 1960s.9
With SARS-CoV-2, when the furin cleavage site is cut and the S1
protein opens to expose the ACE-2 Receptor Binding Domain, the amino
acid sequences forming the SEB SAg-like motif are also exposed to the
outside extracellular space. (Figure Two).10
7 Ismail, A.M., and Elfiky, A.A., A monoclonal antibody against staphylococcal enterotoxin
B superantigen inhibits SARS-CoV-2 entry in vitro. Nature; Signal Transduction 5:252; 2020.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41392-020-00365-7.
8 Li, H., Llera A., Malchiodi E.L., Mariuzza R.A. The structural basis of T cell activation by
superantigens. Annu. Rev. Immunol. 1999;17:435–466. doi:https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/10358765/
9 Personal Communication; William C. Patrick III July 11, 1998.
10 Kappler, J.W., Herman, A., Clements, J., et.al,. Mutations defining functional regions of the
53
Figure Two. The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is preceded by a PRRA polybasic insert of
amino acids enclosed within a string of ∼20 amino acids associated with an overall sequence
and final folded protein structure highly resembling the bacterial toxin Staphylococcal Entero-
toxin-B. This “superantigen” motif was only discovered during a sophisticated computational
analysis of the crystal structure of the spike protein. This superantigen motif is common to the
spike protein of both the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the mRNA vaccines directed against it.11
The exposed SAg-like motif on the S1 monomer is now free to

recognize and bind to the T-cell receptors found on circulating cytotoxic
T-cell lymphocytes (Figure Three).
This leads to a massive production of circulating proinflammatory
cytokines, including IFNγ, TNFα, and IL-2 from T cells, as well as
IL-1 and TNFα from macrophages. This is theorized to cause a positive
feedback loop between elevated cytokine levels and severe tissue damage,
septic shock, and death or permanent injury.
Of note is that this SEB-like released cytokine profile is similar to
the cytokine profile in COVID-19 patients with a prognosis of severe
superantigen staphylococcal enterotoxin B. J Exp Med. 1992;175:387–396. https://pubmed.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1370682/
11 Chenga, M. H., Zhang, S., R., Porritt, R.A., et.al., Superantigenic character of an
insert unique to SARS-CoV-2 spike supported by skewed TCR repertoire in patients with
hyperinflammation. PNAS. Oct 2020, 117 (41) 25254-25262; doi: 10.1073/pnas.2010722117
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2010722117
54
infection and death.12 This includes elevated levels of IL-6, TNFα, IL-8,
and IL-1β, which leads to multiorgan tissue damage. In some SARS-CoV-2
infections and post mRNA vaccine injuries, the SEB-like superantigen
sequence appears to be a major pathogenic factor.
A cohort analysis of adult COVID-19 patients reveals that cases with
severe hyperinflammatory disease also exhibit a marked skewing of the
TCR repertoire that is
consistent with
superantigen activity.13
An abnormal cytokine
profile is also a feature of
COVID-19 “Long
Hauler Syndrome.”14
It also occurs in
natural COVID-19
infections and in
some mRNA vaccine
recipients, as well as in
rare cases of Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome (MIS-C) observed
in COVID-19-infected European and American children.15,16 It is curious
that MIS-C cases have apparently never been reported in Asian children.
12 Del Valle, D.M., et al., An inflammatory cytokine signature helps predict COVID-19 severity
and death. medRxiv. 2020 May 30;2020.05.28.20115758. doi: 10.1101/2020.05.28.20115758.
Preprint https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32511562/
13 Chenga, M. H., Zhang, S., R., Porrittb, R.A., et.al., Superantigenic character of an
insert unique to SARS-CoV-2 spike supported by skewed TCR repertoire in patients with
hyperinflammation. PNAS. Oct 2020, 117 (41) 25254-25262; doi: 10.1073/pnas.2010722117
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2010722117
14 Patterson, B.K., Guevara-Coto, J., Yogendra, R., et.al., Immune-Based Prediction of
COVID-19 Severity and Chronicity Decoded Using Machine Learning. Front in Immunol., 28
June 2021, doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.700782 . https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34262570/
15 Belhadjer, Z., Bajolle, F., Khraiche, D., et. al., (2020). Acute heart failure in multisystem
inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) in the context of global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.
Circulation 142, 429–436. 2020. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.048360. Epub 2020
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32418446/
16 Porritt RA, Paschold L, Rivas MN, Cheng MH, Identification of a unique TCR repertoire,
consistent with a superantigen selection process in Children with Multi-system Inflammatory
Syndrome. bioRxiv. 2020 Nov 9:2020.11.09.372169. doi: 10.1101/2020.11.09.372169. Preprint.
PMID: 33200133 Identification of a unique TCR repertoire, consistent with a superantigen
selection process in Children with Multi-system Inflammatory Syndrome - PubMed (nih.gov)
55
Lacking a defined natural evolutionary lineage for the SEB-like motif

in the S1 monomer, a consideration must be given to a laboratory origin
for SARS-CoV-2. However, it must be remembered that the presence of
the S1 SAg-like motif is covert. It was not picked up by the normal protein
or nucleotide search tools and was discovered only after a structure and
dynamics analysis. This would imply a high multidisciplinary level of
laboratory expertise outside that of a dedicated virology laboratory.
It is of note that the former Soviet Biopreparat offensive biological
weapons program was experimenting with the genetic insertion of
peptide toxins and immunogenetic peptides (Myelin Basic Protein) into
known biological warfare pathogens during the 1990s.17,18
Also of note is that previous statements allegedly made in the 2003
timeframe by Chinese Defense Minister Chi Haotian have been reported
to advocate the continuation of this type of gain-of-function offensive
biological warfare research.19
Among all the SARS-CoV-2 viral genes, increasing evidence has
shown that the SAg-like motif and the furin cleavage site are highly
genetically unstable, and various deletions and mutations have been
detected or isolated in SARS-CoV-2-infected Vero cell cultures,
as well as in patients. This would be expected behavior with an
intentionally genetic-modified insert artificially spliced into the
SARS-CoV-2 viral genome.20
Although the majority of SARS-CoV-2 infections have been
accompanied by a very low mortality rate, if the SEB SAg-like motif
in SARS-CoV-2 proves to be an intentional genetic manipulation, it
would represent a physical confirmation of the PLA rhetoric promoting
toxigenic gain-of-function capabilities for offensive biological warfare.
17 Personal Communications Kanatjan Alibekov, 1998

18 Biohazard . Delta Publishers. Authors; Ken Alibek Stephen Handelman, Reprint edition
(April 11, 2000). ISBN-10 ‫‏‬ 0385334966 ISBN-13 ‫ ‏‬‎ 978-0385334969
19 Purported speech by Chinese Defense Minister Chi Haotian. 2003. Translated into
English and published by The Epoch Times in 2005. https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=g J7JcYOKHnE
20 Zou W, Xiong M, Hao S, et.al., The SARS-CoV-2 Transcriptome and the Dynamics
of the S Gene Furin Cleavage Site in Primary Human Airway Epithelia. mBio. 2021 May
11;12(3):e01006-21. doi: 10.1128/mBio.01006 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/
PMC8262919/
56
This would represent a direct, severe, and growing strategic threat to the
United States and its allies.
2. What is the Evidence for a Natural Origin of SARS-

CoV-2?
The evidence for a natural origin for COVID-19 is only historical and
based on the natural outbreak of two previous coronavirus pandemics.
The first was SARS-1 in 2002-2003. This outbreak was firmly documented
to have been due to a viral species jump from Chinese horseshoe bats into
a human index case through an intermediate animal called a civet cat (a
mongoose-type of mammal) in a crowded “live” animal food market in
China. This is consistent with the concept that emerging zoonotic human
infections often require a secondary intermediate host animal where the
virus can mutate and adapt to increase its host range. This is observed
with other dangerous RNA viruses like Nipah, Hendra, and Influenza.
The SARS-1 virus found associated with the masked palm civet in
the “live” market had genome sequences that were 99.8 percent identical
to the SARS-1 virus that jumped into humans in 2003. Only two major
viral genotypes predominated the initial phase of the resulting pandemic,
demonstrating a short evolutionary period following the spillover from
the civet into man. Some 80 percent of the palm civets in the affected
Guangzhou “live” market later tested positive for SARS-1 antibodies.
The earliest SARS-1 human patients had either butchered or cooked these
wild animals at the market and thus had a firm, documented, occupational
exposure to the virus. This bat-civet-man transmission was compelling
evidence for a natural animal origin of the first SARS-1 coronavirus.
In June 2012, the second coronavirus to cause a pandemic was
the Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV
virus). In the case of MERS, this coronavirus had jumped from bats
into dromedary camels imported from Australia into the Mideast.
A later serological survey of over 10,000 healthy human adults from
all 13 provinces of Saudi Arabia from 2012 to 2013 found MERS-CoV
antibodies in only 0.15 percent of samples. However, for camel shepherds,
MERS-CoV antibody seropositivity rates were 15 times higher. For camel
slaughterhouse workers, they were 23 times higher than the general
population. Archived dromedary blood specimens tested positive for
57
MERS-CoV antibodies, indicating that cross-reacting viruses had been

circulating in camels for decades. This also was compelling evidence of
an animal origin for the MERS-CoV virus.21
In contrast to SARS-1 and MERS, after two and a half years of
searching and sample testing, there is no direct evidence for a natural
spillover of SARS-CoV-2 into man. Neither the virus, nor antibodies to
the virus, have been identified in animals sampled in the Wuhan “live”
seafood market, the location initially purported by the Chinese to be the
epicenter of the current COVID-19 pandemic.22 Outside a small cluster
of recognized cases in the market, no correlation is observed between
human occupational exposures to animals and higher rates of infection
or seropositivity to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Chinese serological surveys
have encompassed thousands of people to assess prevalence of the rate of
SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, but none included any data on work occupations
that could support a natural spillover.23 There are suspicions this lack of
occupational data was intentional on the part of the Chinese investigators.
Chinese data from February 2020 indicates there were 41 cases
of SARS-CoV-2 infection between December 2, 2019, and January 2,
2020. Fourteen of these had no case-contact or association with the
Huanan seafood “live” market in Wuhan, including the very first initially
acknowledged case on December 1, 2019.24
21 Müller, M.A., Meyer, B., Corman, V.M., Presence of Middle East respiratory syndrome
coronavirus antibodies in Saudi Arabia: a nationwide, cross-sectional, serological study. Lancet,
Volume 15, Issue 5, P559-564, May 01, 2015. April 08, 2015.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(15)70090-3
Presence of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus antibodies in Saudi Arabia: a
nationwide, cross-sectional, serological study - The Lancet Infectious Diseases
22 Gao, G., Liu, W., Liu, P., Lei, W., et.al Surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 in the environment
and animal samples of the Huanan Seafood Market. Surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 in the
environment and animal samples of the Huanan Seafood Market | Research Square https://doi.
org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1370392/v1
23 Zhongjie. Li. , et.al., Antibody seroprevalence in the epicenter Wuhan, and six selected
provinces. Lancet Regional Health Western pacific, Vol 8, 100094, Published: February 06,
2021: doi.org/10.1016/j.lanwpc.2021.100094 Antibody seroprevalence in the epicenter Wuhan,
Hubei, and six selected provinces after containment of the first epidemic wave of COVID-19 in
China - The Lancet Regional Health – Western Pacific
24 Chaolin Huang Yeming Wang., et. al, “Clinical Features of Patients Infected with 2019 Novel
Coronavirus in Wuhan, China,” The Lancet, Vol. 395, no. 10223 (February 15, 2020): 497-
506, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30183-5 Clinical features of patients infected
with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China - PubMed (nih.gov)
58
On May 26, the CCP abandoned its previous official story about the
seafood market being the origin of COVID-19. However, it also ruled
out any possibility of a lab leak as the origin of SARS-CoV-2. China’s top
epidemiologist, Gao Fu, director of the Chinese CDC, confirmed that
the testing of samples from the Wuhan “live” market “failed to show links
between the animals being sold there and the pathogen.” His comments
appeared in China’s state media.25
3. What is the Evidence for a Laboratory Origin of SARS

CoV-2?
A great deal more data exists to create a high index of suspicion and
bullet points for the possibility of a laboratory origin for SARS-CoV-2
rather than a natural outbreak.
There is zero evidence that SARS-CoV-2 originated as a natural
outbreak of infectious disease with a spillover into man. In no way does
it follow the classical coronavirus spillovers involving the 2003 SARS-1
and the 2012 MERS coronavirus outbreaks, in which animals infected
humans. In each of those cases, the virus and/or antibodies to the virus
were identified in both humans and in specific animals. Humans that had
the most contact with the animals had higher antibody levels than other
humans in the area. None of this is found in the COVID-19 outbreak.
• There is no direct evidence for a natural spillover of COVID-19.
Neither the virus nor antibodies to the virus have been identified in
animals sampled in Wuhan in 2019.
• The virus’s ability to bind tightly to the ACE-2 receptor on human
cells is far greater than its ability to bind to the same protein in bats
and other mammals. This argues against a recent natural species
jump into humans.26
25 Areddy, J. T., China rules out Animal Market and Lab as Coronavirus origin,” Wall Street
Journal, May 26, 2020, https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-rules-out-animal-market-and-lab-
as-coronavirus-origin-11590517508. China Rules Out Animal Market and Lab as Coronavirus
Origin: Comments by Chinese scientists aim to counter what Beijing perceives as efforts from
top U.S. officials to focus solely on China’s role in pandemic : CCP_virus (reddit.com)
26 Piplani, S., et al, “In Silico Comparison of Spike Protein-ACE2 Binding Affinities across
Species: Significance for the Possible Origin of the SARS-CoV-2 Virus,” ArXiv:2005.06199
[q-Bio], May 13, 2020, https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.06199
59
• Early human cases of COVID-19 were occurring in Wuhan that had

no case-contacts or association with the Wuhan “live” animal market.
• Recovered partial sequences of 13 early epidemic viruses
(sequences deleted by China from the Google Cloud) indicate
that the “live” market SARS-CoV-2 viral sequences were not fully
representative of the viruses circulating in Wuhan early in the
epidemic.
• By early 2020, Chinese physicians had conducted many serological
surveys of thousands of people to assess prevalence rates of SARS-
CoV-2 antibodies, but none included occupational data. This
negated any assessment concerning a natural spillover into the
“live” market.
• The Chinese CDC has publicly discredited its own claim that the
Wuhan Seafood Market was the original source for animal-to-
human transmission of COVID-19.27
• Pathogenic viruses have escaped before from Chinese laboratories
(2004 SARS-1).
• Both the WHCDC laboratories and the WIV had current,
continuing safety problems with multiple safety incidents flagged
by national biosafety inspectors, as well as reported accidents in
the field that occurred when workers were trying to capture bats
for study.
• In June 2019, the CCP requested that the roughly 200 coronavirus
genetic sequences that it had submitted to an international database
be suddenly deleted. In November and December of that year,
China also deleted 8 index-genomes, 174 index and inception case
patient samples/clinical files, and pertinent laboratory logs.
• No “live” viral samples from the early COVID-19 cases were ever
given to the U.S. or other outside investigators. In addition, the
CCP ordered that all clinical hospital samples and paperwork
concerning the virus be destroyed.
27 Woodward A. The Chinese CDC now says the coronavirus didn’t jump to people at
the Wuhan wet market - instead, it was the site of a super-spreader event. Business Insider,
May 29, 2020. Coronavirus Did Not Jump to People at Wuhan Market, Chinese CDC Says
(businessinsider.com)
60
• The Chinese government closed the laboratory in Shanghai on

January 10, 2020, the day after it published the genome of SARS-
CoV-2 on the Internet, explaining only that the lab had been closed
for “rectification.”
• On January 1, 2020, the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s Director-
General, Yanyi Wang, messaged her colleagues, saying the National
Health Commission told her the lab’s COVID-19 data should not
be published on social media or disclosed to the media.
• There is a record of gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute
of Virology, beginning with the 2007 creation of “humanized”
mice genetically manipulated to give the animals the human Ace-2
receptor protein. This is the binding target for the human SARS-
CoV-2 virus.
• In 2015, WIV researchers learned advanced infectious-clone
technology from joint research with a laboratory at the University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
• A 2015 research paper by Drs. Shi Zhengli (WIV) and Ralph Baric
at UNC-Chapel Hill described inserting the spike protein from a
Chinese rufous horseshoe bat into the molecular structure of the
SARS-1 virus collected in 2002 to create a new, infectious pathogen
that they tested on mice.
• Shi and Baric themselves flagged the danger of this experiment,
writing, “Scientific review panels may deem similar studies … too
risky to pursue.” Thereafter, China began a program for the genetic
construction of novel chimeric coronaviruses without the UNC.
• During the 2016 time frame, WIV researchers used reverse genetics
techniques to construct a series of infectious Bacterial Artificial
Chromosome (BAC) clones using the backbone of the WIV1
coronavirus strains and variants of the spike protein genes from
eight different bat SARS-like viruses. These were tested for gain-of-
function cytopathic effect.
• In 2017, the WIV took a piece of the original SARS-1 virus and
inserted different genetic sequences from different SARS-like
bat coronavirus to create chimeric viruses that were increasingly
capable of infecting human cells.
61
• These preparations were almost certainly tested on the genetically

manipulated “humanized” mice carrying the human version of
the ACE-2 receptor, the entry target of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
(Note: This type of testing would later be openly repeated in 2020
to demonstrate SARS-CoV-2 pathogenicity, with eight separate
laboratories capable of this task).28
• The resulting specificity for these chimeric SARS-like viruses for the
human ACE-2 receptor in the human airway became so enhanced
for human transmission that it would only take the infection of a
single laboratory worker to create a major public health hazard.
• The U.S. State Department became alarmed that scientific
investigators were sent to Chinese laboratories to assess their
biological safety. Numerous problems were outlined.
• A small amino acid sequence called a furin cleavage site is located
in the spike protein of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. This is not a feature
of any other SARS Beta coronavirus.
• There is a unique amino acid motif preceding the furin cleavage
site that is not present in any other SARS Beta coronavirus. This
is both structurally and functionally similar to Staphylococcal
Enterotoxin-B, a known biological warfare agent.
• The Staphylococcal Enterotoxin-B like-motif and the furin
cleavage site are highly genetically unstable, and various deletions
and mutations have been detected or isolated in patients and cell
cultures. This is often seen with genetic-modified inserts spliced
into viral genomes.29
• The unusual genetic features of this virus have no discernible
evolutionary linage. Essentially, this already exceptionally human-
adapted pathogenic virus just “suddenly appeared” to cause a global
pandemic.
28 Bao L, Deng W, Huang B, , The pathogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 in hACE2 transgenic mice.
Nature. 2020 Jul;583(7818):830-833. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2312-y. Epub 2020 May 7. PMID:
32380511. The pathogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 in hACE2 transgenic mice - PubMed (nih.gov)
29 Zou W, Xiong M, Hao S, et.al., The SARS-CoV-2 Transcriptome and the Dynamics
of the S Gene Furin Cleavage Site in Primary Human Airway Epithelia. mBio. 2021 May
11;12(3):e01006-21. doi: 10.1128/mBio.01006-21. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/
articles/PMC8262919/
62
• The CCP has generated a significant public disinformation

campaign in regard to the origin of SARS-CoV-2.
• This disinformation campaign was supported by a small number of
U.S. scientists, many with significant conflicts of interest.
• Representatives of the National Institutes of Health tried to
minimize the fact that it had funded the Wuhan Institute of
Virology. U.S. State Department officials intentionally tried to
minimize investigations into U.S. funding of the WIV.
• In other actions, the CCP repeatedly stated that SARS-CoV-2 was
poorly transmitted from person-to-person, and it influenced the
World Health Organization to follow the same mantra. In addition,
the CCP influenced the WHO to delay its announcement of a
“Public Health Emergency of International Concern.” The WHO
violated its own IHR that were crafted after China’s missteps during
the 2002-2003 SARS-1 pandemic.
• China locked down several of its major cities and prohibited
inter-city travel to stop viral transmission, while at the same time
it attempted to purchase the global supply of individual personal
protective equipment for infection control inside its own borders.
• At the time of China’s formal announcement of a new coronavirus
outbreak on December 31, 2019, multiple strains of SARS-CoV-2
were already circulating in the Chinese population. This implies
that the virus was in existence and causing human disease weeks
before the CCP’s IHR announcement to the WHO.
These are the summary facts, bullet points, and timeline of SARS-CoV-2
and COVID-19 to date. The criteria for determining that a non-endemic
virus has participated in a natural human spillover with a species jump
from an animal to man depend on finding an intermediate animal where
the virus has already increased its host range and shows a basic binding to
human cell receptors that increases in its specificity with time. This has been
well defined with SARS-1 in 2002-2003 and MERS in 2009. These criteria
include a source animal, an intermediate animal, and initially humans but
with a low binding affinity to the virus/human cell receptor.
None of this can be shown for SARS-CoV-2. When taken in summary
together with the CCP’s deceptive behavior and its intentional violation
63
of the WHO International Health Regulations, it makes this a serious

legal matter for the international courts.
If SARS-CoV-2 is proven to have a laboratory origin, the

fact that the CCP locked down several of its major cities
and prohibited inter-city travel—while at the same time it
allowed over a million of its citizens to travel overseas—can
technically be considered as the intentional dissemination
of a biological agent via a global asymmetrical biological
warfare attack.
4. The CCP Suppressed Early Coronavirus Data

It is curious that as early as June 2019, the CCP requested that the
roughly 200 coronavirus genetic sequences that it had submitted to an
international database be suddenly deleted. It is also curious that the CCP’s
knowledge of the new COVID virus seemed to be already extensive at the
formally declared start of the outbreak at the end of December 2019.
Other actions taken in November and December 2019 point to a
large effort underway in China to conceal potentially critical information.
This included the deletion of 8 index-genomes, 174 index and inception
case patient samples/clinical files, and pertinent laboratory logs. No
“live” viral samples from these early cases were ever given to U.S. or other
outside investigators. In addition, as previously mentioned, the CCP
ordered that all clinical hospital samples and paperwork concerning the
virus be destroyed.30
On January 1, 2020, the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s director
general, Yanyi Wang, messaged her colleagues, saying the National Health
Commission told her the lab’s COVID-19 data was not to be published
on social media or disclosed to the press.
On May 16, 2020, the Chinese government admitted to this
destruction … but said it was for public safety. This explanation has no
scientific credibility. China appeared to be covering something up, and
30 Milton Leitenberg June 4, 2020 Did the SARS-CoV-2 virus arise from a bat coronavirus
research program in a Chinese laboratory? Very possibly. - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
(thebulletin.org)
64
it soon added an extra layer of review for any researchers who wanted to

publish papers on the pandemic’s origins.
a. The Huanan Seafood “Live” Market Viral Sequences are Not
Representative of the Early Viruses in the Wuhan Epidemic
Although much speculation has centered on RaTG13 (the bat virus
that most closely resembles SARS-CoV-2), differences in the sequences
of the two viruses suggest they diverged from a common ancestor
somewhere between 20 and 70 years ago. Chinese coronavirus researcher
Dr. Shi Zhengli has noted that her lab never cultured the bat virus, making
an accident far less likely.31
On March 17, 2020, as COVID-19 began its rampage through
the United States, a researcher from Wuhan University named Ben
Hu submitted COVID-19 genetic sequences for upload to the NIH’s
Sequence Read Archive (SRA). With open cooperation as the intended
goal, the NIH operated this database as part of its participation in the
International Nucleotide Sequence Database Collaboration (INSDC).
The stated goal of this database is to “capture, organize, preserve and
present nucleotide sequence data as part of the open scientific record.”
However, in June 2020, the NIH received another request from
researchers at China’s Wuhan University. The request was to delete the
submitted COVID-19 genetic sequences from the SRA. The data was
subsequently deleted by the NIH.
This activity was noticed and reported a year later in a June 22, 2021,
preprint by Jesse Bloom, a virologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer
Research Center. Bloom managed to recover these deleted sequences
from the Google Cloud, and he discovered they were derived from
early in the Wuhan epidemic. Bloom’s subsequent research paper titled
“Recovery of Deleted Deep Sequencing Data Sheds More Light on the
Early Wuhan SARS-CoV-2 Epidemic,” states:
“I recover the deleted files from the Google Cloud and reconstruct
partial sequences of 13 early epidemic viruses. Phylogenetic analysis
of these sequences in the context of carefully annotated existing data
31 Trump ‘owes us an apology.’ Chinese scientist at the center of COVID-19 origin theories
speaks out | Science | AAAS
65
suggests that the Huanan Seafood Market sequences are not fully
representative of the viruses in Wuhan early in the epidemic.
Instead, the progenitor of currently known SARS-CoV-2 sequences
likely contained three mutations relative to the market viruses that
made it more similar to SARS-CoV-2’s bat coronavirus relatives.”32
Frustrated after months with no response from the NIH to a FOIA

request, on November 17, 2021, Empower Oversight filed a lawsuit (with
an amended complaint) against the agency to force its compliance with the
FOIA and obtain requested emails dealing with the deleted sequences.33
Subsequently, 238 pages of released documents from the National
Institutes of Health (NIH) reveal that, on July 5, 2021, more than a
year after the sequences were withdrawn from the NIH Sequence Read
Archive, the sequences were quietly uploaded to a database maintained
by the China National Center for Bioinformation. This was only after
Bloom’s report was published online..34
The FOIA emails also reveal that the NIH intentionally misled
reporters about its policy for removing sequences and guided reporters
away from a critical New York Times article on Bloom’s finding.
At this writing, the NIH has refused to participate in a transparent
process to examine archival copies of deleted sequences in an open
scientific process to determine whether any of that information might be
able to shed light on the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic. The CCP
continues to actively obstruct all international efforts to verify the actual
timeline for the emergence of COVID-19.
5. China’s Ongoing Deception About the Origin of the

COVID-19 Pandemic
32 Bloom, J.D., Recovery of deleted deep sequencing data sheds light on the early Wuhan SARS-CoV-2
epidemic. BioRxiv doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.18.449051 Recovery of deleted deep
sequencing data sheds more light on the early Wuhan SARS-CoV-2 epidemic | bioRxiv Now
published in Molecular Biology and Evolution doi: 10.1093/molbev/msab246
33 EMPOWER OVERSIGHT WHISTLEBLOWERS & RESEARCH vs NATIONAL
INSTITUTES OF HEALTH. Case 1:21-cv-01275-LMB-JFA Document 14-1 Filed 02/25/22
Page 1 of 104 Page ID# 59
2022-02-25-14-1-exhibit-a-first-amended-complaint.pdf (documentcloud.org)
34 Edwards, M., Just-Released Docs Reveal NIH Deleted COVID Data For Wuhan Researcher.
Undercover DC 2022. March 29, 2022. Just-Released Docs Reveal NIH Deleted COVID
Data For Wuhan Researcher - UncoverDC
66
The following behavior suggests that the Chinese Communist Party

has serially attempted to cover up the truth about its role in the genesis of
the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the associated pandemic:
a. China Violated the WHO International Health Regulations
In its official timeline, the CCP reported that, on December 31, 2019,
it declared to the World Health Organization that an unusual cluster
of pneumonia cases were occurring in the city of Wuhan, China. The
contention was that the victims were infected at a “live market” in the city
and the new virus outbreak was caused by a previously unknown SARS-
like virus that had jumped from a wild animal in the market into humans,
where it caused only limited person-to-person transmission.
Although international questions concerning this origin were raised
early on, these were met with an overt lack of cooperation on the part
of the CCP. This lack of cooperation continues to this day and has been
accompanied by behavior that can only be considered to be a coverup.
What is being covered up is debatable. But such behavior would be
consistent with the inadvertent escape from biocontainment of a Chinese
genetically modified SARS virus or a major violation of the WHO
International Health Regulations.35
China had reluctantly signed Article 6 of the 2005 WHO IHR on
June 15, 2007. The IHR clearly outline a number of precise mandates for
early event reporting, international travel, and the criteria used to define
a “Public Health Emergency of International Concern” (PHEIC), which
may require immediate international action. The IHR are binding on
196 nations under international law, and they provide the framework
that outlines any signatory nation’s obligations during the outbreak of a
serious new communicable disease.
This is important because these new regulations were specifically
formulated as a direct result of the CCP’s previous, irresponsible behavior
during the 2002-2003 SARS-1 outbreak. They leave China with a direct
moral and financial liability for any violation of the new WHO IHR
requirements.
35 Hunger, I., Coping with Public Health Emergencies of International Concern. (2018).
Oxford University Press. DOI:10.1093/oso/9780198828945.003.0004 https://oxford.
universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780198828945.001.0001/oso-
9780198828945-chapter-4
67
Considering the rapidity of modern commercial air travel, any delay in

infectious disease reporting or data obfuscation by a country in the early
throes of a possible pandemic can have severe, even tragic, international
repercussions.
Irrespective of whether the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus was
the result of a gain-of-function experiment that escaped laboratory
biocontainment or the result of a natural outbreak of a new emerging
infectious disease, any effort by the CCP to conceal the presence of
the COVID-19 outbreak prior to December 31, 2019, makes China
morally and financially responsible for the global catastrophe that is the
COVID-19 pandemic.
b. Circumstantial Evidence of an Early COVID-19 Outbreak—
August to September 2019
Events occurring in China in the months leading up to the December
31, 2019, declaration by the CCP of an unusual cluster of pneumonia cases
in the city of Wuhan may help shed light on the origins of the COVID-19
pandemic.
Circumstantial evidence suggests the SARS-CoV-2 virus may have
been circulating in China at least as early as August 2019, four months
before the CCP announced its first supposed cluster of cases at the Wuhan
seafood “live” market. One retrospective study conducted by the National
Cancer Institute in Milan examined archived blood samples to discover
COVID-19 antibodies in 111 people out of 959 archived blood samples
taken from the Veneto region of Italy. The first sample that tested positive
was dated September 3, 2019.36
Archived blood samples from the Emilia-Romagna and Liguria
regions of Italy also tested COVID positive on the 4th and 5th of September
2019, and on September 9 the first two antibody-positive blood samples
appeared in Lombardy, Italy. The city of Milan is located in this region, and it
would shortly become one of the most heavily infected areas in the world.37
36 Blanchard, S., (2 December 2020) “How Did COVID Really Spread Around the World?
New Damning Test Results That Show Antibodies Were In Us In December – Weeks Before
China Raised The Alarm – Add To Growing Global Evidence Of A Cover-Up” https://www.
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9009297/How-did-COVID-REALLY-spread-world-Coronavirus-
blood-samples-December.html
37 Apolone G, Montomoli E, Manenti A, et.al. Unexpected detection of SARS-CoV-2
antibodies in the pre-pandemic period in Italy. Tumori. 2020 Nov 11:300891620974755. doi:
68
While the most definitive test for viral infection is the isolation of a virus
from patient clinical samples, the Italian antibody evidence is important
because it suggests that an early, mild to moderate strain of the SARS-
CoV-2 virus may have been circulating as early as September 2019.
This would have been in the form of an upper respiratory tract infection
with a low transmission and low hospitalization rate. As such, it would have
been able to slip past the Italian national disease surveillance system.
If the virus was in Italy in early September, then it had to be circulating in
China during August of 2019. Circumstantial evidence for an August 2019
COVID-19 outbreak in China comes from the study of archived satellite
images taken of the hospital parking lots in the city of Wuhan. The hospital
traffic reflects a steep progressive increase in hospital occupancies in the
city beginning in August and lasting through October 2019.38
To indirectly support this contention, Harvard University scientists
examined the Chinese Baidu, the world’s second-largest Internet search
engine, for the months of August through October 2019, specifically
looking for search queries involving SARS-like symptoms. The researchers
found a sharp increase in that type of search activity in China beginning
in August 2019.39
While correlation is not causation, this data is consistent with the
spread of a viral respiratory pathogen causing acute hospitalizations in
Wuhan during the August-to-September 2019 time frame.
It is a fact that Italy only announced its first official COVID-19 case
on February 21, 2020. That leaves a discrepancy between China, where
patients were apparently being admitted to hospital, and Italy, where the
disease appeared to be initially mild and hospitalizations were low enough
to not cause an initial public health alarm. Is there anything that can
account for that? The answer is yes, there are two possible explanations.
10.1177/0300891620974755. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 33176598. https://pubmed.ncbi.

nlm.nih.gov/33176598/
38 Nsoesie, E. Okanyene, B, Yiyao L. Barnoon, L, Brownstein.m J. (2020). Analysis of hospital
traffic and search engine data in Wuhan China indicates early disease activity in the Fall of 2019.
https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/42669767
39 Indolfi C, Spaccarotella C. The Outbreak of COVID-19 in Italy: Fighting the Pandemic. J Am
Coll Cardiol Case Rep. 2020 Jul, 2 (9) 1414–1418. https://www.jacc.org/doi/full/10.1016/j.
jaccas.2020.03.012
69
The first explanation involves a phenomenon called “serial passage.”40

Whenever an RNA virus, like the one causing COVID-19, propagates
quickly through a large, high-density human population, genetic
mutations of the virus constantly appear to form “quasi-species” of the
virus that may become more transmissible or virulent with time. This is
one of several reasons why it is essential to quickly identify and contain
any outbreak of a new emerging infectious viral disease to prevent more
lethal viral strains from becoming better adapted to man.
Could an early COVID-19 virus causing mild disease have been
circulating in China and Italy in the summer of 2019 which then
underwent mutations in China that made it a more communicable and
lethal strain? Yes, this is possible. It is also possible that this more severe
strain traveled back to Italy, where it amplified into the B clade that went
on to seriously affect the East Coast megaregion of the United States.41
Because of Chinese obstruction, there is no direct evidence of
such a postulated early-circulating, mild, COVID-19 strain. However,
the nucleic acid sequences of the virus supposedly collected in Wuhan
and supplied to the international scientific community by the CCP can
be examined for any unusual characteristics that might suggest genetic
laboratory manipulation. As outlined, there are genetic sequences that are
consistent with this type of origin.
In addition, as will be described, there are indications that there were
early viral SARS-CoV-2 sequences circulating in the Wuhan population
that were not representative of the viral strains supposedly isolated from
the Wuhan “live” seafood market in December 2019.
c. Circumstantial Evidence of an Early COVID-19 Outbreak—
October to November 2019
In October 2019, an apparently leaked CCP memo indicates that
the Chinese were struggling with a malfunctioning disease surveillance
system. Termed the Contagious Disease National Direct Reporting System,
it was created in China after the first 2002-2004 SARS-1 pandemic. Its
40 Domingo E, Sobrino F., Quasispecies and molecular evolution of viruses. Rev Sci Tech. 2000
Apr;19 (1):55-63. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11189726/
41 Gonzalez-Reiche, A., Hernandez, M., Sullivan, M.J., et.al., Introductions and early spread of
SARS-CoV-2 in the New York City area. Science, 29 May 2020, Vol 369, Issue 6501, pp. 297-301.
DOI: 10.1126/science.abc1917
70
purpose was to detect and report any clustering of patients with viral
pneumonia-like symptoms from which central health officers in Beijing
could review reports from hospitals or local disease control centers within
a few hours of a doctor seeing a patient.42
This CCP memo urged health authorities to “rigorously find the weak
link in the work of disease control, and actively analyze and make up for the
shortcomings.”43
Logically, it appears something unusual involving an infectious disease
was happening and that the Chinese national surveillance system was not
working properly. It is reasonable to infer that this was due to an influenza-
like illness, which conceivably could have been a coronavirus. To date, the
CCP has not been helpful explaining the supposedly leaked memo.
d. Circumstantial Evidence of an Early COVID-19 Outbreak—
November to December 2019
EpiWatch is an open-source epidemic “observatory” funded by the
Australian Medical Research Council. It uses advanced data mining to
detect unusual infectious disease cases and epidemic signals in the digital
open-source global and social media.
Scientists performed EpiWatch searches in the Chinese language from
October 1, 2019, to February 14, 2020, using keywords for potential early
signals of COVID-19 infection, with Wuhan and China as the targeted
locations. This database was reviewed for any potential early signals of
infection before the CCP made its first IHR report on December 31, 2019.44
This intelligence method did identify a case of severe pneumonia in
the city of Xiangyang, Hubei Province (325 km from Wuhan), where
a patient was transferred to Wuhan for treatment on November 21,
42 New York Times (29 March 2020) “CHINA CREATED A FAIL-SAFE SYSTEM TO
TRACK CONTAGIONS. IT FAILED” https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/29/world/
asia/coronavirus-china.html
43 Walsh, N.P., The Wuhan files: Leaked documents reveal China’s mishandling of the early
stages of COVID-19. CNN, December 1, 2020. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/30/asia/
wuhan-china-covid-intl/index.html
44 Kpozehouen EB, Chen X, Zhu M, Macintyre CR. Using Open-Source Intelligence to
Detect Early Signals of COVID-19 in China: Descriptive Study. JMIR Public Health Surveill.
2020;6(3):e18939. Published 2020 Sep 18. doi:10.2196/18939 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pmc/articles/PMC7505682/
71
2019.45 Further investigation of that case is warranted to determine if the

patient did in fact have COVID-19, as it may be a connection with a still-
unidentified cluster outside Wuhan.
After November 21, 2019, there are no further reports of pneumonia
in the local media. This was in spite of the confirmation that, by December
30, 2019, there were 27 cases of “pneumonia of unknown cause” in
Wuhan. This could indicate CCP media suppression during November
2019.
Four months later, the South China Morning Post, Hong Kong’s
colonial-era newspaper-of-record, described a leaked document from
CCP officials revealing that the first confirmed case of COVID-19 was
actually a 55-year-old man in Hubei province, hospitalized on November
17, 2019.46,47 Following this revelation, retrospective studies by Chinese
scientists indicate that at least nine cases (four men and five women) were
hospitalized with COVID-19 during November 2019.48,49
Approximately two weeks after the November 17-21 time frame
(which is one COVID virus cycle), the first formally reported cases in
Wuhan became symptomatic between December 1 and December 8,
2019. According to a previously undisclosed U.S. intelligence report,
three workers from the Wuhan Institute of Virology were also apparently
admitted to a Wuhan hospital.50,51
45 Wuhan Evening News (22 November 2019) “PATIENTS WITH SEVERE PNEUMONIA
IN PUYANG “TAKE” A HELICOPTER TO HAN EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT” https://
www.sohu.com/a/355347300_120424456
46 Jeanna Bryner “1ST KNOWN CASE OF CORONAVIRUS TRACED BACK TO
NOVEMBER IN CHINA” https://www.livescience.com/first-case-coronavirus-found.html
47 Hale T. The First COVID-19 Case Was Earlier Than Initially Thought, Suggests New Report.
IFLScience. 2020. Mar 17, [2020-03-17]. https://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/
the-first-covid19-case-was-earlier-than-intially-thought-suggests-new-report/
48 Reich, A. On This Day: COVID-19 patient zero reportedly diagnosed in China in 2019,
Jerusalem Post, November 17, 2021. https://www.jpost.com/health-and-wellness/coronavirus/
on-this-day-covid-19-patient-zero-reportedly-diagnosed-in-china-in-2019-685195
49 Li Q, Guan X, Wu P, et. al., Early Transmission Dynamics in Wuhan, China, of Novel
Coronavirus-Infected Pneumonia. N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 26;382(13):1199–1207. http://
europepmc.org/abstract/MED/31995857. [PMC free article] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/31995857/
50 Gordon, M.R., Strobel, W.P., Hinshaw, D., (23 May 2021) “INTELLIGENCE ON SICK
STAFF AT WUHAN LAB FUELS DEBATE ON COVID-19 ORIGIN” https://www.wsj.com/
articles/intelligence-on-sick-staff-at-wuhan-lab-fuels-debate-on-covid-19-origin-11621796228
51 Sky News (18 January 2021) COVID-19: US INTELLIGENCE CLAIMS WUHAN
72
An unnamed Biden State Department official apparently has

confirmed the accuracy of this declassified information.52 While it is
undocumented precisely where these three workers picked up their
infection, this nonetheless may represent the start of a case cluster of a
SARS-like disease.
Using a coalescent framework that combines retrospective molecular
clock inference with forward epidemiological simulations to determine
how long SARS-CoV-2 could have circulated before the time of the
most recent common ancestor of all the sequenced SARS-CoV-2 strains,
scientists placed the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic between mid-
October and mid-November 2019.53
e. The December 2019 Wuhan COVID-19 Outbreak and the Chinese
WeChat Study
WeChat is a Chinese messaging and social media application
developed and released in 2011. The application is also an intelligence
tool with which the CCP collects user information as part of a national
mass surveillance network. Using methodologies similar to those
employed by EpiWatch, Chinese researchers reportedly began in mid-
November 2019 to examine WeChat for the prevalence of the terms
“SARS, Coronavirus, Shortness of Breath,” and other COVID identifiers
in posts and searches.54,55
LAB RESEARCHERS HAD CORONAVIRUS SYMPTOMS BEFORE FIRST REPORTED

CASES” https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-us-intelligence-claims-wuhan-lab-researchers-
had-coronavirus-symptoms-before-first-reported-cases-12190416
52 Dunleavy, J., March 10, 2021, Biden team gives nod to Trump State Department Fact sheet
on Wuhan Lab https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/biden-team-gives-nod-trump-
state-department-fact-sheet-wuhan-lab
53 Pekar J, Worobey M, Moshiri N, Scheffler K, Wertheim JO. Timing the SARS-CoV-2 index
case in Hubei province. Science VOL. 372, NO. 6540, March 18, 2021 https://www.science.
org/doi/full/10.1126/science.abf8003
54 Wang, W., Wang, Y., Zhang X., MD, et.al., (27 September 2020) “USING WECHAT,
A CHINESE SOCIAL MEDIA APP, FOR EARLY DETECTON OF THE COVID-19
OUTBREAK IN DECEMBER 2019: RETROSPECTIVE STUDY” https://mhealth.jmir.
org/2020/10/e19589/authors
55 Secon, H., (1 March 2020) “CHINESE SOCIAL-MEDIA PLATFORM WECHAT SAW
SPIKES IN THE TERMS ’CORONAVIRUS,’ ‘SHORTNESS OF BREATH,’ AND ‘SARS,’
WEEKS BEFORE THE FIRST CASES WERE CONFIRMED, A STUDY SUGGESTS”
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/wechat-users-posted-coronavirus-before-China-
confirmed-cases-2020-2?r=US&IR=T
73
The word index for “SARS” began to spike in frequency abnormally

during the first three days in December. The first COVID-19 patient the
CCP originally acknowledged at the time was hospitalized in Wuhan on
December 1, 2019. CCP officials claim his biomedical samples were sent
to three Chinese laboratories, including the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
There, the SARS-CoV-2 virus was isolated and genetically sequenced,
with the results apparently available only on December 26, 2019.
The use of the Chinese term for “SARS” began to rise again on
December 15, accompanied by a spike in Wuhan hospital admissions.
Other search terms applicable to the COVID scenario peaked near the
end of December. After that time, taxi drivers began reporting on social
media that they were taking numerous patients to hospital. In response,
the CCP began to censor WeChat on December 31, 2019. That was the
same day the CCP made its IHR report to the WHO.
It is curious that the actual start date for the WeChat study was
not mentioned and that the study’s published report runs only from
November 17, 2019—when the government revised the date of its
earliest COVID case—to December 31, 2019, when the CCP made its
IHR declaration to the WHO. The study results were not released until
February 2020, when the CCP was exerting extreme control over all its
COVID-19 related media.
The only reason the WeChat study was allowed to be published
was that the CCP wanted it published. In light of the CCP’s documented
practice of blatantly minimizing the increasing hospitalizations and
deaths in Wuhan during January 2020, the timeline for the WeChat results
must be viewed with suspicion.
f. Continued Deception by the CCP
On December 26, 2019, the genetic sequencing of the virus isolated
from the December 1, 2019, Wuhan patient was announced. Senior
CCP officials were informed that “a new coronavirus with an 87 percent
similarity to the 2003 SARS virus was causing the illness.” Again, under
IHR Article 6, the CCP was obliged to report a Public Health Emergency
of International Concern to the WHO within 24-hours. Ignoring that
requirement, the CCP waited at least an additional five days before
informing the WHO.
74
Finally, on December 31, 2019, the WHO’s China office was informed
that a new coronavirus was responsible for a cluster of 27 cases at the
Huanan Seafood “live” market.56 The CCP claimed the virus had limited
person-to-person transmission, but officials had to know before then
that there were COVID-19 infections with no connection to the Huanan
market and that the virus was clearly spreading throughout Wuhan. By
May 2020, the virus had split into six major clades and 14 subclades from
the time China announced its outbreak of SARS-CoV-2.57
The CCP had to be aware that COVID-19 was being transmitted
from person to person. Yet it continued to conceal this information even
as it issued directives to minimize the severity of the outbreak. The CCP
intentionally misled the WHO while, at the same time, it initiated a global
propaganda campaign designed only to obfuscate.58
In terms of the CCP’s culpability for COVID-19, a critical fact

is that although the Chinese government acted forcefully to
quarantine China’s largest cities, at the same time it continued
to allow its citizens to travel overseas. This was essentially the
intentional dissemination of a biological agent.
Strong circumstantial evidence indicates that an early strain of the

Wuhan SARS-CoV-2 virus was already in the U.S. at the time of the CCP’s
IHR announcement. Published peer-reviewed research indicates that 39
archival blood samples taken between December 13 and 16, 2019, in
California, Oregon, and Washington State tested positive for antibodies
to the virus.59
56 Pneumonia of unknown cause reported to WHO China Office, December 31, 2019. https://
www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/events-as-they-happen
57 Koyama, T. & Platt, D., Parida, L. (2020). Variant analysis of COVID-19 genomes. Bulletin
of the World Health Organization. 98. 10.2471/BLT.20.253591. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/32742035/
58 Zhong R., Mozur, P., Krolik, A., The New York Times, and Jeff Kao, ProPublica (19
December 2020) “LEAKED DOCUMENTS SHOW HOW CHINA’S ARMY OF PAID
INTERNET TROLLS HELPED CENSOR THE CORONAVIRUS” https://www.propublica.
org/article/leaked-documents-show-how-Chinas-army-of-paid-internet-trolls-helped-censor-
the-coronavirus
59 Basavaraju, S,V., Patton, M.E., Grimm, K., et.al., Serologic Testing of US Blood Donations
to Identify Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)–Reactive
Antibodies: Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 72, Issue 12, 15 June 2021, https://doi.
75
While it appears that the mild Wuhan quasi-species were spread to

the West Coast of the U.S. directly from China, the virus was allowed to
spread into Italy, where the more dangerous Italian clades of viral quasi-
species developed and spread to the New York City megaregion.
As previously mentioned, while this was underway, the CCP
initiated the overseas purchase of billions of items of personal protective
equipment, such as masks, gloves, and powered respirators, and it
sequestered these items from the world market. This left other nations
critically short of essential supplies. The CCP would also soon halt the
export of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine drugs to the U.S., and it
threatened to violate the patent rights for the U.S. experimental anti-viral
drug remdesivir for its use in China.60 These are all the actions of desperate
national leaders in a crisis who were well aware of the potentially dire
implications of China’s public health emergency.
6. Chinese Attempts to Confuse and Distract the Origin of

COVID-19
In March 2020, a Joint WHO-China report did not provide any
definitive answer to the origins of SARS-CoV-2. It did mention, however,
some of the hypotheses that required more investigations, such as cold-
chain food transmission and mass gatherings, specifically the World
Military Games held in Wuhan in October 2019, about two months
before the declared COVID-19 outbreak in the city.61,62
Any suggestion of a food cold-chain transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is
ridiculous unless the food was stored and transported in liquid nitrogen
or inside special -70-degree C double-compressor ultracold laboratory
freezers. Simple common 4-degree C refrigeration cycles are so far out of
tolerance that any prolonged cold-chain storage at this higher temperature
can disrupt delicate viral and nucleic acid structures.
org/10.1093/cid/ciaa1785. https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/72/12/e1004/6012472
60 Max Nisen (5 February 2020) “CHINA’S DRUG PATENT GRAB MAKES
CORONAVIRUS SCARY FOR PHARMA” https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/
articles/2020-02-05/coronavirus-china-drug-patent-grab-is-scary-for-pharma
61 Wuhan’s seafood market a victim of COVID-19: CDC director,” Global Times [China], May
26, 2020, https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1189506.shtml. Wuhan Seafood Market Was a
‘Victim’ of Coronavirus, Says Director of China’s CDC (newsweek.com)
62 who-china-joint-mission-on-covid-19-final-report.pdf
76
With increased focus being given to a laboratory origin for COVID-19,

the Chinese seemed desperate that their false narrative for a natural origin
was failing. The CCP soon made accusations against Italy claiming the
virus originated there. This only served to verify Italy’s claims (based on
antibody evidence in their population) that a Wuhan strain of the SARS-
CoV-2 virus was circulating in Italy as early September 2019.
The CCP continues to try and resurrect the Wuhan “live” market
theory. But none of these attempts has credibility. For example, two recent
papers by Worobey et al. and Pekar et al. present a geospatial analysis of
animal stalls in the Huanan “live” seafood market and a separate viral
phylogenetic analysis. These, however, lack evidence for an initial natural
viral spillover into humans.63,64
There is no animal sampling data in the first paper, and Worobey uses
old second-hand photographs of caged animals that cannot be confirmed
as being present at the Wuhan “live” market in November/December
2019. In addition, the paper ignores published literature indicating that
COVID-19 cases were occurring in the general population of Wuhan
before any cases were associated with the market. Moreover, COVID-19
cases were reportedly occurring in individuals that had no contact with the
Huanan Seafood “live” market.65 The paper also ignores later data showing
that the viral sequences at the market are not fully representative of the
viruses circulating in Wuhan during the early phase of the developing
pandemic.66
Worobey is also a co-author on the second paper, which is just as
deficient as the first and essentially expresses a theory that a recombination
event between A and B clades of SARS-CoV-2 occurred. The authors’
63 Worobey, M., Levy, J.I., Malpica Serrano ,L.M., The Huanan market was the epicenter of
SARS-CoV-2 emergence. February 26, 2022. Doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6299115.
64 Pekar, J. E., Magee, A., Parker, E., SARS-CoV-2 emergence very likely resulted from
at least two zoonotic events. February 26, 2022. https://zenodo.org/record/6291628#.
YniboejMLIUOI 10.5281/zenodo.6291627.. SARS-CoV-2 emergence very likely resulted from
at least two zoonotic events | Zenodo
65 Gordon, M.R., Strobel, W.P., Hinshaw, D., (23 May 2021) “INTELLIGENCE ON SICK
STAFF AT WUHAN LAB FUELS DEBATE ON COVID-19 ORIGIN” https://www.wsj.com/
articles/intelligence-on-sick-staff-at-wuhan-lab-fuels-debate-on-covid-19-origin-11621796228
66 Bloom, J.D., Recovery of deleted deep sequencing data sheds light on the early Wuhan
SARS-CoV-2 epidemic. BioRxiv doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.18.449051 Recovery
of deleted deep sequencing data sheds more light on the early Wuhan SARS-CoV-2 epidemic |
bioRxiv Now published in Molecular Biology and Evolution doi: 10.1093/molbev/msab246.
77
assertion that the data and analyses support only the natural spillover
hypothesis is false. It does not rule out that SARS-CoV-2 originated at
another location and was subsequently brought to the market and then
amplified in the crowded market by humans.
In this respect, Gao et al. support a laboratory origin of COVID-19,
and their conclusions are opposite to the claims of Worobey and Pekar.
Gao’s group confirmed there were no positive animal samples at the
Huanan market and no correlation between the locations of the animal
sellers in the market or the locations with the highest densities of humans
and the positive environmental samples in the market complex. Based on
these findings, Gao suggests the data is consistent with the market “acting
as an amplifier,” with infections brought into the market by humans that
were infected elsewhere.67
Finally, Worobey and Pekar cannot account for Bloom’s Google Cloud
recovery of partial sequences of 13 early epidemic COVID-19 viruses
previously deleted from a database by China. These sequences indicate
that the Huanan Seafood “live” market SARS-CoV-2 sequences are
not fully representative of the viruses in Wuhan early in the epidemic
before the market outbreak.68
a. Further Deception for an Animal Origin of SARS CoV-2?
In September 2021, apparently because there is safety in numbers,
21 authors conducted a critical review of the origin of SARS-CoV-2.69 Of
these authors, five have received consulting fees and compensation for
expert testimony on SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID-19 pandemic. Among
them is Andrew Rambaut from the Institute of Evolutionary Biology,
University of Edinburgh, who is the final author of the paper.
67 Gao, G., William Liu, W., Peipei Liu P., Lei, W., Jia, Z., et.al., Surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 in
the environment and animal samples of the Huanan Seafood Market. preprint; 25 Feb, 2022.
Nature Portfolio. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1370392/v1. Surveillance of SARS-CoV-2
in the environment and animal samples of the Huanan Seafood Market | Research Square
68 Bloom, J.D., Recovery of deleted deep sequencing data sheds light on the early Wuhan
SARS-CoV-2 epidemic. BioRxiv doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.18.449051 Recovery
of deleted deep sequencing data sheds more light on the early Wuhan SARS-CoV-2 epidemic |
bioRxiv Now published in Molecular Biology and Evolution doi: 10.1093/molbev/msab246
69 Holmes, E.C., Goldstein, S.A., Rasmussen, A.L., et.al., The origins of SARS-CoV-2: A critical
review. CelPress Open Access, Cell 184, September 16, 2021. https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/
S0092-8674(21)00991-0.pdf The origins of SARS-CoV-2: A critical review - PubMed (nih.gov)
78
The paper itself is theory and suppositions and, most importantly,

fails to discuss or acknowledge the Superantigen-like Motif upstream
from the furin cleavage site that is structurally and functionally analogous
to the active T-cell binding site of the Staphylococcal-B Enterotoxin, a
well-known BW agent.
The first primary and corresponding author of the paper is Edward
C. Holmes from the Institute for Infectious Diseases and Biosecurity,
University of Sydney. He is an honorary visiting professor at Fudan
University (Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center), Shanghai,
China. From 2014–2020, Holmes was a guest professor at the Chinese
CDC in Beijing, China. Somehow, these affiliations involve no formal
appointment, no duties, and no remuneration or research funding. They
curiously are only used in papers co-authored with Prof. Yong-Zhen
Zhang at the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center.
Another author of the paper is Kristian G. Andersen from the Scripps
Research Institute. On January 31, 2020, Andersen wrote an email to
NIAID Director Anthony Fauci. In this email, Andersen said that
COVID-19 appeared to be “engineered” and that the virus possessed
a “genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.”70
However, within a few days of his email to Fauci, Andersen would
completely reverse his opinion about the origin of SARS-CoV-2. In a
February 4, 2020, email discussing a draft letter to the National Academies
of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, Anderson ridiculed “crackpot
theories” that COVID-19 was “somehow engineered with intent and that
is demonstrably not the case.” In March 2020, Anderson published a paper
in Nature reporting that COVID-19 exhibited no signs of laboratory
manipulation. This paper was later cited by Fauci the following month as
“evidence” that SARS-CoV-2 could not have come from a lab.71 However,
Fauci has now since changed his mind on the possibility of a laboratory
origin, saying on May 23, 2021, he was “not convinced” that COVID-19
developed naturally.72
70 Kerr, A., Infectious Disease Expert Told Fauci in January 2020 That COVID-19 Looked
Potentially “Engineered.” The Federalist Papers. June 2, 2021.Infectious Disease Expert Told
Fauci In January 2020 That COVID-19 Looked Potentially ‘Engineered’ | The Daily Caller
71 Wade, N., Fauci Email Bolsters the Lab-Leak Theory A top scientist said the virus couldn’t
have evolved naturally—then reversed his position weeks later. https://www.wsj.com/articles/
fauci-email-bolsters-the-lab-leak-theory-11622830092
72 Moore, M., Fauci not convinced COVID developed naturally, backs investigation. May 23,
79
This is the type of substandard biomedical leadership that Americans

have had to endure throughout the entire COVID-19 crisis.
b. Antarctica COVID-19 Samples?
The Chinese continue to drive the rhetoric for a natural origin of the
SARS-CoV-2 virus at every opportunity, with the most recent example
concerning soil samples collected from, of all places, Antarctica.
In January 2019, scientists from the University of Science Technology
of China collected 12 soil samples during a study of penguin bacteria on
King George Island in Antarctica. In December 2019, these soil samples
were sent to the Sangon Biotech laboratory in Shanghai, China, for genetic
sequencing. Supposedly, a barcode error caused these soil samples to
become contaminated by a different sample from another project that
originated at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.73
Supposedly, this contaminating sample contained a mutated version
of the SARS-CoV-2 virus along with genetic material from both monkeys
and hamsters, suggesting the sample was derived from laboratory
experiments. In early 2020, these viral sequences were uploaded to an
international database along with the dataset from the Antarctic soil
samples. There, the information went unnoticed for over a year.
Eventually, in January 2021, scientists at the Lorand University and
the University of Veterinary Medicine in Hungary discovered that the
readout of three of these Antarctic soil samples contained traces of what
may be an ancestral version of the COVID-19 virus. On December 23,
2021, the scientists published a pre-print paper online suggesting that the
contaminated samples could have detected a variant that is a descendant
of the original Wuhan strain of SARS-CoV-2 and that it may be the missing
link between a bat coronavirus and COVID-19.
Shortly after the pre-print was released, the Chinese authorities
revoked all public access to this data until January 2022. The Chinese
researchers at the University of Science and Technology of China, near
2021. New York Post. Fauci ‘not convinced’ COVID-19 developed naturally (nypost.com)
73 Csabai, I., Solymosi, N., Host genomes for the unique SARS-CoV-2 variant leaked
into Antarctic soil metagenomic sequencing data. February 7th, 2022, DOI: https://doi.
org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1330800/v1 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358420568_
Host_genomes_for_the_unique_SARS-CoV2_variant_leaked_into_Antarctic_soil_
metagenomic_sequencing_data?msclkid=0b488039cf9511eca7ea847b0ad869df
80
Shanghai, said they did not ask to have the data deleted or restored. Then,
in February 2022, the data mysteriously reappeared in the database. This
is a repeated pattern of behavior, as China previously deleted crucial
data from the earliest confirmed COVID patients in Wuhan and then
silenced Chinese scientists who questioned the official narrative for an
animal origin for the virus. With the data then back online, the Hungarian
scientists published a second pre-print again suggesting that the Antarctica
samples may be contaminated with an early version of SARS-CoV-2.74
According to the phylogenetic analysis, the viral samples seem to
contain very early variants most closely related to Pango lineage “A” using
nomenclature from the “Phylogenetic Assignment of Named Global Outbreak
Lineages.” This database is currently used to track the transmission and
spread of SARS-CoV-2, including variants of concern.
The paper does not detail any raw data or show the presence of
coliform bacterial genetic sequences, which would have been present
in the soil in a penguin habitation area. In any event, the loss of a clear
sample chain-of-custody and the absence of a sample test date means this
data is worthless to “forensically” establish an origin for SARS-CoV-2.
7. The U.S. State Department Takes Sides and Interferes in

the COVID-19 Origin Investigation
On February 19, 2020, The Lancet—formerly one of the most highly
respected medical journals in the world but now heavily influenced by
China—published a statement signed by 27 scientists. These scientists,
considered to be leaders in the field of emerging infectious diseases,
supported a zoonotic origin for COVID-19 and called any notion of a
laboratory origin for the SARS-CoV-2 virus a radical conspiracy theory.
The Lancet statement was not only signed but also organized by
zoologist Peter Daszak, who had previously repackaged his NIH and
USAID grants and allocated them to facilities conducting gain-of-
function research, among them the Chinese Wuhan Institute of
Virology (WIV).
74 Solis-Moreira, J., Antarctic soil sample from 2018 adds to the enigma of the COVID-19
pandemic. News Medical Life Sciences, February 9, 2022 https://www.news-medical.net/
news/20220209/Antarctic-soil-sample-from-2018-adds-to-the-enigma-of-the-COVID-19-
pandemic.aspx
81
The open letter co-authored by Daszak, signed by 27 other scientists,

and published in The Lancet stated: “We stand together to strongly
condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have
a natural origin … and overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus
originated in wildlife.” It further warned that blaming Chinese researchers
for the virus’s origin jeopardized the fight against the disease. According
to a September 2021 report from The Daily Telegraph, 26 out of the
27 signatories were found to have links to WIV researchers, their
colleagues, or funders.75
The Lancet statement effectively ended the debate over COVID-19’s
laboratory origin before it even properly began.
It was not long before the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence became involved. On April 30, 2020, it put out a nebulous—
and incorrect—statement that the overall scientific consensus was that
the COVID-19 virus was not man-made or genetically “modified.” This
definitive statement in itself was complete nonsense, because even a
cursory look showed unusual genetic sequences in the SARS-CoV-2 virus,
the causative agent of COVID-19.
When multiple FOIA requests and hundreds of pages of U.S.
government emails and memos were made public two years later, they
revealed that several U.S. agencies, including NIAID under Anthony
Fauci and the NIH, were actually funding controversial gain-of-function
virology research in Communist China through Peter Daszak’s non-profit
organization, EcoHealth Alliance.
At every step, investigations for a laboratory origin of COVID-19
were hampered by a select group of senior U.S. State Department officials.
They warned the department’s Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and
Compliance and its Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation
not to explore the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s gain-of-function research
because it would bring unwelcome attention to the NIH’s funding effort.76
A more likely repercussion would be that such investigations would
illuminate the incompetent deficiencies in past assessments by the senior
75 Lancet letter (COVID-19) – Wikipedia

76 Golding, B. State Department staffers were warned against probing COVID origin: report. New
York Post. June 3, 2021. https://nypost.com/2021/06/03/state-dept-staffers-were-warned-
against-probing-covid-origin-report/
82
leadership of these two State Department bureaus that were supposed to

be safeguarding U.S. dual-use technology. To have allowed the NIH and
USAID to funnel U.S. taxpayer funding to China in light of the CCP’s
openly stated interest in biological warfare reflects, to say the least,
extremely poor judgment on the part of the senior leadership of these
two bureaus.
Meanwhile, in the Executive Office of the President, the National
Security Council was attempting to conduct a non-biased investigation
into the origin of COVID-19. Investigators from the Bulletin of the
Atomic Scientists as well as a private coalition of multidisciplinary
scientists would soon enter the fray. On May 14, 2021, in a statement
published in Science, 18 prominent scientists now called for a transparent,
objective investigation into COVID-19’s origins, noting; “We must take
hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have
sufficient data.”77
Interestingly, among the signers of this statement was Dr. Ralph
Baric. Fifteen months earlier, he had worked behind the scenes to help
Peter Daszak stage-manage the original Lancet statement for a natural
origin of the virus. Before that, he had transferred critical techniques and
procedures for gain-of-function experiments to two senior scientists at
the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
In short, the scientific consensus that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was the
result of a natural zoonotic outbreak was beginning to prove untenable.
8. Chinese Laboratories Are Engaged in Dangerous

Coronavirus Gain-of Function Experiments
There are two main virology institutes in Wuhan: the Wuhan
Institute of Virology (WIV) and the Wuhan Center for Disease Control
and Prevention (WHCDC). Both have conducted research on bat
coronaviruses, and apparently both have maintained research collections
of the different virus strains. In addition, there is a non-human primate
(monkey) research facility at Wuhan University’s Animal Biosafety
77 Bloomyujia, J.D., Chanralph, A., et.al., Investigate the origins of COVID-19. SCIENCE • 14
May 2021. VOL. 372, NO. 6543 Investigate the origins of COVID-19 (science.org).
83
Level-3 (ABSL-3) laboratory in the Wuchang District, which is in the

city center.
• Working with Dr. Ralph Baric and his research team at the
University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill, preliminary
gain-of-function research at the WIV was advanced in 2007 with
the creation of “humanized” chimeric mice. These were mice
genetically manipulated to give the animals the ability to express
the human ACE-2 receptor protein. This is the binding target for
the human SARS-CoV-2 virus that allows it to enter and infect
human cells.78
• In 2015, WIV researchers also learned both basic and traceless
infectious-clone technology from Baric and his team at UNC.
Immediately thereafter, the WIV began a program for the genetic
construction of novel chimeric coronaviruses without UNC. The
WIV’s first publication on the use of basic infectious-clone technology
to construct novel chimeric coronaviruses appeared in 2016.79
• During this same 2016 time frame, WIV researchers used reverse
genetic techniques to construct a series of infectious Bacterial
Artificial Chromosome clones mixing WIV1 coronavirus strains
with variant spike protein genes from eight different bat SARS-
like viruses. These were tested for their ability to cause cell damage
(gain-of-function) in laboratory tissue cultures.
• WIV’s first publication on the use of traceless, signature-free
infectious-clone technology appeared in 2016.80
78 Yang XH, Deng W, Tong Z, Liu YX, Zhang LF, Zhu H, Gao H, Huang L, Liu YL, Ma CM, Xu
YF, Ding MX, Deng HK, Qin C. Mice transgenic for human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2
provide a model for SARS coronavirus infection. Comp Med. 2007 Oct;57(5):450-9. https://
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17974127/
79 Zeng LP, Gao YT, Ge XY, Daszak P, Shi ZL., et.al., Bat Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-
Like Coronavirus WIV1 Encodes an Extra Accessory Protein, ORFX, Involved in Modulation of
the Host Immune Response. J Virol. 2016 Jun 24;90(14):6573-6582. doi: 10.1128/JVI.03079-
15. PMID: 27170748; PMCID: PMC4936131. Bat Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Like
Coronavirus WIV1 Encodes an Extra Accessory Protein, ORFX, Involved in Modulation of the
Host Immune Response - PubMed (nih.gov)
80 Hu B, Zeng LP, Yang XL, Daszak P, Shi ZL., et.al., Discovery of a rich gene pool of bat
SARS-related coronaviruses provides new insights into the origin of SARS coronavirus. PLoS
Pathog. 2017 Nov 30;13(11):e1006698. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1006698. PMID: 29190287;
PMCID: PMC5708621. Discovery of a rich gene pool of bat SARS-related coronaviruses
provides new insights into the origin of SARS coronavirus - PubMed (nih.gov)
84
• Although as-yet unacknowledged, it is almost certain that the

new chimeric viral preparations were tested on the genetically
manipulated “humanized” mice carrying the human ACE-2
receptor. This is exactly the kind of gain-of-function research
that would represent the greatest risk of infection of laboratory
personnel, unless the scientists were working under BSL-4 safety
conditions in a fully encapsulated, pressurized suit in a high-
containment Biosafety Level-4 (BSL-4) facility.81
• One can speculate that some of these experiments may have been
conducted at the Wuhan University’s Animal Biosafety Level-3
(ABSL-3) laboratory in the Wuchang District in the city center.
• Throughout 2017, the WIV continued this gain-of-function
research on chimeric viruses using “humanized” mice as their
target, creating viruses that were increasingly capable of infecting
human cells—and man.
• Later reports appeared that helped place the WIV’s advancement
in genetic manipulation techniques in greater technical detail.82
• The resulting specificity of these chimeric SARS-like viruses for the
human ACE-2 receptor in the human airway became so enhanced
for human transmission that it would only take the unrecognized
infection of a single laboratory worker to create a major public
health hazard.
9. A Record of Poor Biosafety at the Wuhan Institute of

Virology
China has a history of laboratory accidents and pathogen escape,
starting with a 2004 laboratory accident that caused several SARS-1
infections of lab workers in Beijing following the natural SARS-1 outbreak
that had occurred two years before.83
81 Yuri Deigin, “Lab-Made? SARS-CoV-2 Genealogy Through the Lens of Gain-of-Function
Research, April 22, 2020, https://medium.com/@yurideigin/lab-made-cov2-genealogy-
through-the-lens-of-gain-of-function-research-f96dd7413748
82 Jonathan Latham and Allison Wilson, “The Case is Building That COVID-19 Had a Lab
Origin,” Independent Science News, June 2, 2020, https://www.independentsciencenews.org/
health/the-case-is-building-that-covid-19-had-a-lab-origin/
83 Walgate R. (2004). SARS escaped Beijing lab twice. Genome Biology, 4,
spotlight-20040427-03. https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-spotlight-20040427-03
85
Information derived from official Chinese government sources soon

appeared outlining biological safety problems at both the WHCDC
laboratories and the WIV. This included the high-containment Biosafety
Level-4 facility at the new Wuhan Institute of Virology campus in the
Jiangxia District, 11 miles south of Wuhan.84
Voice of America (VOA) investigators also located state media
reports indicating there were multiple safety incidents flagged by national
biosafety inspectors, as well as reported accidents in the field that occurred
when workers were trying to capture bats for study.85
Much of the work using live bat coronaviruses (that were not SARS-1
or MERS related) were conducted under BSL-2 conditions, which seem
too lax when considering potential accidents.
In 2018 (a year before the COVID-19 outbreak), a security review
conducted by a Chinese national team found that these labs did not meet
national standards in five categories.86 The review team also put forward
further rectification recommendations on the five non-conformities and
two observations found during the review.
Alarmed, the State Department repeatedly sent U.S. scientists to
the WIV in 2018. They observed numerous safety and management
deficiencies at the WIV lab and proposed U.S. assistance. They also
noted a shortage of technicians for the high-security BSL-4 laboratory
constructed under French guidance in 2014. Their biggest warning,
however, was the lab’s work on bat coronaviruses and the risk for
inadvertent human transmission.87
The gain-of-function search for human high-affinity coronavirus
spike proteins, when combined with an apparently blasé attitude toward
biological safety in the relevant laboratories, would have created a perfect
recipe for a future, serious incident.
84 Rogin, J., “State Department cables warned of safety issues at Wuhan lab studying bat
coronaviruses,” Washington Post, April 14, 2020. Opinion | State Department cables warned of
safety issues at Wuhan lab studying bat coronaviruses - The Washington Post
85 John Xie, “Chinese Lab with Checkered Safety Record Draws Scrutiny over COVID-19,”
VOA News, April 21, 2020. Chinese Lab with Checkered Safety Record Draws Scrutiny over
COVID-19 (voanews.com)
86 Milton Leitenberg June 4, 2020 Did the SARS-CoV-2 virus arise from a bat coronavirus
research program in a Chinese laboratory? Very possibly. - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
(thebulletin.org)
87 Ibid, Rogin, J.
86
It is noteworthy that several weeks after the disease cluster at the

Wuhan “live” market and the Chinese report to the WHO, Chinese
President Xi Jinping stressed the need to ensure “biosafety and biosecurity
of the country.” This was followed immediately by a China Ministry of
Science & Technology announcement of new guidelines for laboratories,
especially in handling viruses.88
While the asymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2 appears to be
largely a myth, it is known that a large percentage of infected individuals
do not become severely ill. Mildly infected individuals, especially young
adults, might make an inappropriate choice to avoid self-quarantine at
home when they were first mildly ill and it would take only one infected
scientist, ancillary technician or maintenance worker to start a pandemic.
10. The WHO Does the CCP’s Bidding, as Does the U.S.
COVID-19 Task Force
China’s aberrant and destructive lockdown policy was nonetheless
quickly praised by WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus
of Ethiopia. Dr. Ghebreyesus is not a physician and is under Ethiopian
investigation for “misconduct and violation of his professional and legal
responsibility.”89 The WHO director simply ignored the fact that the
lockdowns were being promoted by a regime indifferent to civil liberties
and hostile to individual freedoms. Worse yet, Ghebreyesus and his staff
actually promoted the CCP narrative that the China Model established a
new standard for outbreak management, applauding it as a lesson for the
entire global COVID-19 response.90
Demonstrating either incompetence or abject submission to Chinese
influence, the WHO director-general waited until January 20, 2020, to have
his experts review the data and issue a statement that there was, indeed,
evidence of human-to-human transmission of COVID-19 in Wuhan.
88 Caiyu, L., Shumai, L., “Biosafety guidelines issued to fix chronic management loopholes at
virus labs,” Global Times, February 16, 2020. https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1179747.
shtml.Biosafety guideline issued to fix chronic management loopholes at virus labs - Global
Times
89 https://www.dw.com/en/ethiopia-wants-who-to-investigate-tedros-over-tigray-
remarks/a-60431323
90 World Health Organization, Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission on Coronavirus
Disease 2019 (COVID-19), Feb. 16–24, 2020, https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/
coronaviruse/who-china-joint-mission-on-covid-19- final-report.pdf.
87
Inexcusably, the WHO did not publish official infection prevention

precautions until July 9, 2020.91 Thousands more had been infected by
that time. This announcement was made more traumatic by the release of
wildly exaggerated predictions of a catastrophic global public health crisis
generated by Neil Ferguson’s “Pandemic Model.” They suggested that,
with no action, the U.S. could quickly face 2.2 million deaths.92
Such inaccurate predictions were then promoted by incompetent
assessments by Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of
Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) at NIH, and, most particularly,
Dr. Deborah Birx (both considered as senior members of the U.S.
COVID-19 Task Force), and new guidance on U.S. social distancing and
lockdowns quickly followed. None of these measures was based on any
firm science.
At the same time, the PCR became the instrument of choice for
diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infections and the progression of the COVID-19
pandemic. The PCR was a research tool, highly sensitive to contamination,
and never designed for high-throughput mass diagnostic screening.
Worse yet, it was being used with an excessive replication cycle (called a Ct)
of 40, resulting in an inaccurate over-diagnosis that quickly gave rise to
the myth that asymptomatic individuals were causing widespread “super-
spreader” events. This fear appeared to lead to a global domino effect,
where state after state and country after country rushed into prolonged
societal lockdowns. This served to delay herd immunity while fostering
the generation of new viral variants and prolonging the economic damage
to the Western world.
The primary question remains: Do lockdowns actually work to reduce
infection numbers and mortality during a pandemic?
The current definitive study on the effectiveness of lockdowns is an
exhaustive survey of social distancing measures performed by the Johns
Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics and published in January 2022.
The study employed a strict systematic search and screening procedure in
91 Transmission of SARS-CoV-2: implications for infection prevention precautions. 9 July

2020. https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/transmission-of-sars-cov-2-
implications-for-infection-prevention-precautions
92 Adam, D., Nature; News Feature, Special Report: The simulations driving the world’s
response to COVID-19. Nature 580, 316-318, 02 April (2020) doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/
d41586-020-01003-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01003-6
88
which 18,590 studies were identified. This screening assessed lockdown

stringency, shelter-in-place-order (SIPO) studies, and specific non-
pharmaceutical interventions (NPI) studies directed against COVID-19.93
The large Johns Hopkins study supports the conclusion

that lockdowns have had little to no effect on COVID-19
mortality. Specifically, lockdowns in Europe and the U.S.
reduced COVID-19 mortality only by an average of 0.2
percent. SIPO were also ineffective, reducing COVID-19
mortality only by an average of 2.9 percent. Specific NPI
studies could also find no broad-based evidence of a
significant effect on COVID-19 mortality.94
The 2020 lockdowns for COVID-19 were nothing but a global

experiment initiated by the CCP on the orders of Chinese General
Secretary Xi Jinping. Like other social distancing measures, the collected
data shows that lockdowns have not controlled the COVID pandemic,
nor have they reduced mortality rates. The practice has only decreased
the rate of development of herd immunity, crippled the U.S. economy,
and damaged a generation of children who, because of the normal lack of
high-density viral ACE-2 receptors in their upper airway, were not at any
great risk for COVID mortality anyway.
Non-sterilizing mRNA vaccinations have not worked, either, as
evidenced by the current official tally of over one million deaths in the
U.S. caused by COVID-19. The nations and states with the highest
mRNA vaccination rates show the same mortality as low-vaccination rate
nations. States with mask mandates demonstrate the same infection rates as
the states without them.95 None of these social distancing measures has had
93 Jonas Herby ,J., Jonung, L., Hanke, S.H. A LITERATURE REVIEW AND META-
ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECTS OF LOCKDOWNS ON COVID-19 MORTALITY. No.200/
January 2022 https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-
Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf
94 More than 400 studies on the failure of compulsory COVID-19 mandates: https://
brownstone.org/articles/more-than-400-studies-on-the-failure-of-compulsory-covid-
interventions/
95 Subramanian, S.V., Kumar, A. Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination
across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States. Eur J Epidemiol (2021). https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10654-021-00808-7
89
any major effect on controlling the mortality of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Experience has shown that communities faced with epidemics or
other adverse events respond best and with the least anxiety when the
normal social functioning of the local community is least disrupted.
11. The Chinese Communist Party Pioneered Societal

Lockdowns. Do These Constitute a Valid Biological Agent
Defense?
As mentioned above, the CCP’s initial contention was that COVID-19
first emerged in a “live” seafood market in Wuhan when the SARS-CoV-2
virus jumped from a wild animal into humans causing only limited person-
to-person transmission. Within days, the CCP’s declaration was under
suspicion by some U.S. scientists. As contrary evidence continued to leak
out of China, the CCP changed its story to state that the expansion of
the Wuhan epidemic was due to a “super-spreader” event, which occurs
when infected but completely non-symptomatic individuals are capable
of transmitting their infection to others.
This mistake was further amplified by the incompetence of the CDC
and FDA to create a viable, validated test for COVID-19 infection. Instead
of using a known and well understood antigen-capture immunological
method, the CDC decided to incorrectly pursue a Polymerase Chain
Reaction (PCR) test with a Ct replication cycle set too high to avoid
false positive results. Although this concept was quickly proven false
for COVID-19, lockdowns were amplified by the WHO and by several
prominent members of the U.S. COVID-19 Task Force who seemed to
have forgotten what scientists call a “Minimal Human Infective Dose” of
a respiratory human pathogen.96
The possibility that a COVID-infected individual with no symptoms
could transmit their infection to many others was not supported by any
large body of evidence. But it created a national fear that made Americans
more willing to accept an initial lockdown, social distancing, and other
measures associated with the so-called “China Model.”
96 Yezli, S., Otter, J. A., Minimum Infective Dose of the Major Human Respiratory and Enteric
Viruses Transmitted Through Food and the Environment. Food and environmental virology, 3( 1),
1–30. (2011).https://doi.org/10.1007/s12560-011-9056-7 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pmc/articles/PMC7090536/
90
One hundred years earlier, in order to mitigate the spread of the deadly
H1N1 virus during the devastating influenza pandemic of 1918, some local
authorities in the U.S. had tried to restrict certain public activities for a limited
period of time. For example, during the second pandemic wave, city health
authorities in St. Louis proactively quickly closed schools and prohibited
public gatherings in places like theaters, churches, restaurants, and bars.97 At
the same time, the city of Philadelphia failed to take any measures to reduce
social contact until the pandemic outbreak was well underway in the city.
A comparison of the death rates in the two cities is illustrative. From
September 8 to December 28, 1918, the excess death rate in Philadelphia
was five times greater than in St. Louis. However, this is deceptive. The
final total number of deaths is comparable in both cities. It is just that
in St. Louis, the local epidemic lasted much longer and the deaths were
spread out over a longer period of time. While not stopping the epidemic,
the proactive measures did help prevent the hospitals in St. Louis from
being overwhelmed with case numbers.
1918 Pandemic Death Rates in Philadelphia and St. Louis: Mortality

from influenza in the U.S. First Edition: Government Printing Office 1930
A realistic archival examination of the mitigation efforts used

during the 1918 influenza pandemic shows that nothing even remotely
approaching the 2020 lockdowns in the U.S., much less the drastic
measures being taken in China, was ever imposed.
97 Hatfill, S., Walsh, J., Coullahan, R., Three Seconds Until Midnight. Amazon Press. Nov 1,
2019. ISBN-10 1700120298 https://www.amazon.com/Three-Seconds-Midnight-Steven-
Hatfill/dp/1700120298
91
Once an epidemic is already underway, social distancing

measures will have little effect in moderating the composite result
of infections and death. However, under the best outcome for their
employment, what they can do is prolong the length of the pandemic to
allow local authorities to develop and initiate measures to prevent local
authority healthcare collapse.
The draconian Chinese concept of locking down an entire city or state
and forcibly shutting down businesses, public places, and supply chains
was never discussed in any Western pandemic debates or literature. Yet on
January 23, 2020, Xi Jinping, the general secretary of the CCP, personally
issued instructions to the CCP’s Politburo Standing Committee that
authorized the unprecedented lockdown of Wuhan (a city of 11 million
people) and several other Chinese cities.98
Several weeks after the lockdowns began, the CCP reported the
beginning of an exponential decline in COVID-19 cases. The CCP
claimed this was due to its lockdown policy. No mention was ever made
of the fact that a natural post-peak downturn is seen in all acute infectious
disease outbreak cycles and that this was most probably in play in Wuhan
at that time.
12. China’s Biological Warfare Defense Capabilities

a. Detection and Surveillance
Militarily, China has integrated biological weapons defense into
its armed forces to the extent it can field armed, technical, biological
reconnaissance vehicles that are similar to U.S. designs.
With respect to civilian biological defense, the Chinese SARS-CoV-1
outbreak in 2003, combined with the CCP’s observations of open-source
French Code of Defense actions and the U.S. civilian programs, such
as the Nunn-Luger Domestic Preparedness Initiative, appears to have
spurred the CCP’s own advancements in national disease surveillance
efforts.
China’s recent civilian integration of biological defense began with
China’s new $150 million infectious disease surveillance system.
98 Qin, A., China‘s Leader, Under Fire, Says He Led Coronavirus Fight Early On, N.Y. Times,
Feb. 15, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/15/world/asia/xi-china-coronavirus.html.
92
United States Fox Military NBC Reconnaissance Vehicle
Chinese Copy of Russian RKhM-4 Military

NBC Reconnaissance Vehicle
93
b. The Contagious Disease National Direct Reporting System

China’s network-based infectious disease reporting system is
coordinated by the Chinese Center for Disease Control (Chinese CDC),
and it has supposedly transformed how the country collects, analyzes,
and reacts to infectious disease information.
Created in the two years following the SARS-1 outbreak in 2003,
this surveillance system uses a standardized platform to constantly gather
epidemiologic information on 37 infectious diseases from every hospital
and clinic across every province in China. This is accomplished by direct
reporting from hospitals, clinics, local Centers for Disease Control, and
other medical institutions at all levels that feed into an expanded national
CDC network.99
The system is designed to function as part of a true fusion center
that allows the National Chinese CDC to coordinate with the Ministry
of Health in the CCP central government and the dispersed public
health system at China’s provincial, municipal (prefecture), and county
(district) levels. Because of state independence, this is a goal the U.S. has
been unsuccessfully trying to achieve for the past 50 years.
The new Chinese surveillance system features a relational database
that can process information through a virtual private network (VPN)
connection, using Java 2 Platform Enterprise Edition ( J2EE standard)
technology. The system also employs a Web-based geographic information
system (GIS) dynamic display feature for epidemic information, which
can graphically display infectious disease case clusters at the provincial,
municipal, and county Levels.
A specialized Chinese CDC data center stores and processes all
incoming disease information in a central data warehouse with data
reports that can be tailored according to different analytical needs. These
include assessing local health conditions and outbreak investigations and
presenting findings for publication. Daily and weekly reports, as well as a
general analysis report, are automatically distributed across the system for
appropriate leadership attention and response.
There was just one problem. As previously described, this vaunted
99 Wang ,L. D., Wang, Y., 2 Gong-Huan Yang, G. H., et.al., China Information System for
Disease Control and Prevention (CISDCP). https://www.nbr.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/
programs/CISDCP.pdf
94
national disease surveillance system may have broken down in October

2019, when circumstantial evidence suggests clusters of viral pneumonia
cases (possibly COVID-19) were occurring.100
c. Mass Laboratory Testing for Infectious Diseases
Mobile and field transportable laboratories in the U.S. have long
been used for health and environmental monitoring activities. Among
the purposes of deploying such laboratories are early warning, on-site
investigations, verifications, and active response measures to biological
incidents of all types. China has now firmly incorporated rapid on-
site diagnostic testing into its national infectious disease response. To
facilitate this, the Chinese CDC has designed and deployed its first
three 12.67-meter x 2.5-meter-wide environmentally controlled mobile
laboratories.101
Constructed in 2004 after the original SARS-CoV-1 outbreak, each
mobile BSL-3 laboratory features 30 square meters of climate-controlled,
negative pressure lab space with a team of four technicians capable of
completing roughly 1,600 diagnostic on-site PCR-based rapid tests in
one day or, alternatively, process thousands more samples for large off-
site multiplex analysis facilities.
Initially, the mobile laboratories were assigned to the Guangdong
Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the Chinese Academy of
Medical Sciences, and the Shanghai Institute of the Materia Medica of
the Chinese Academy of Sciences. These three laboratories provided
frontline support at the start of the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak.102
These Chinese mobile facilities are equivalent to the containerized
mobile laboratories used in support of U.S. Special Operations and the
smaller mobile laboratories in use by the State National Guard CST teams
for civilian applications.
100 Walsh, N.P., The Wuhan files: Leaked documents reveal China’s mishandling of the early
stages of Covid-19. CNN, December 1, 2020. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/30/asia/
wuhan-china-covid-intl/index.html
101 Junxia, J., Science and Technology Daily http://m.stdaily.com/zhuanti/
chuangxcj/2020-08/21/content_1009156.shtml
102 Ibid.
95
FEMA U.S. Intermodal Transfer Unit
Credit: li Junxia Science and Technology Daily

Chinese Mobile Laboratory
The next step in outbreak surveillance for both the United States and
China would be to advance beyond traditional antibody and PCR-based
detection technologies. The most promising approach for such rapid
96
diagnostics would be the development of microfluidic DNA microarray

detection technology for rapid pathogen identification detection down to
the viral Family level.103
Mobile laboratories equipped with updated Affymetrix Axiom DNA
microarray type-systems have the ability to allow rapid new pathogen
identification down to the species, strain, and sequence level, giving a
genetic profiling of all microorganisms present in a biological sample
within 8 hours. This could include a comprehensive coverage of over
11,000 organisms across five microbial domains: the archaea, the bacteria,
fungi, protozoa, and viruses.
To elucidate zoonotic viruses that are still unknown to science,
pooled species samples could be subjected to random multiplex (RT)-
PCR with 3’-locked random primers for later ion-torrent rapid nucleic
acid sequencing.
In addition, the current COVID-19 pandemic has outlined the need
for accurate hand-held point- of-care diagnostics for breath analysis
of patients with infected airways. This technology was not available
during the first two years of the COVID-19 pandemic. But experimental
prototype breath analyzers developed in the U.S. have now appeared and
are undergoing evaluation.104
13. China’s Development of an Offensive Biological

Warfare Program
As with other existing and previous national biological warfare (BW)
programs, the CCP would have started its effort with a highly classified
core group of personnel from within the ranks of its military. This most
likely began around 1950, at a time when Russia was still assisting China
and Korea in its post-war reconstruction. During the Korean War, North
Korea, China, and the Soviet Union all alleged that the United States used
BW on an enormous scale in both China and North Korea.105
103 Bednar M: DNA microarray technology and application. Med Sci Monit 2000; 4: 796 –800.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11208413/
104 News Release FDA Permits Marketing of First SARS-CoV-2 Diagnostic Test Using
Traditional Premarket Review Process. March 17, 2021 https://www.fda.gov/news-events/
press-announcements/fda-permits-marketing-first-sars-cov-2-diagnostic-test-using-traditional-
premarket-review-process
105 https://diplomacy21-adelphi.wilsoncenter.org/publication/chinas-false-allegations-the-
97
To aid this accusation, the Russians supplied BW consultants, the most

influential being Dr. Nikolay Zhukov-Verezhnikov, a Soviet microbiologist
and KGB general. He had served as the chief medical expert for the Soviet
trial in Khabarovsk for the Japanese biological warfare scientists attached
to Unit 731, and he understood the air-dropped devices and materials
that Japan had used to disperse BW agents in China.106
With Russian advice, an initial, small PLA cadre would have set up
the required funding, offices, and small basic facilities for research and
animal care. This early BW program would have been engaged solely in
small research and animal studies with no stockpile BW agent production.
During the Korean War (1950–53), the earliest semblance of any
routinized defense against BW in the PLA were the 1952 sanitation/anti-
plague units, formed through the involvement of the Chinese People’s
Volunteer Army in Korea. At the same time, intensive PLA educational
campaigns to control disease-carrying pests were conducted during the
Korean War. Consequently, in 1954, PLA delegations and students visited
the USSR for training in microbiology and infectious diseases.107
Officially, China declared that its BW defense program was initiated
in 1958. It was based on a network of stationary anti-plague clinics and
mobile sanitation facilities dedicated to plague outbreaks and infectious
diseases found in military camps.108
It is important to note that only a few biological warfare agents are
suitable for long-term storage, and then for only a fixed period of time.
Both liquid and dry powder agents develop a lower agent viability and
dissemination efficiency with time in storage. A BW program’s goal is to
use fresh agent production, quickly load this into munitions, and rapidly
use-biological-weapons-the-united-states-during-the-korean
106 Milton Leitenberg, “China’s False Allegations of the Use of Biological Weapons by the
United States during the Korean War,” Cold War International History Project Working Paper 78
(March 2016), accessed at https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/chinas-false-
allegations-the-use-biological-weapons-the-united-states-during-the-korean
107 Shoham, D., China’s Biological Warfare Program: An Integrative Study with Special
Reference to Biological Weapons Capabilities, Journal of Defense Studies, (2015): Vol.
9, No. 2 April-June 2015, pp. 131-156 Reference 20. http://idsa.in/jds/9_2_2015_
ChinasBiologicalWarfareProgramme.html
98
disseminate the agent as an aerosol over a target.

Most of the early scientific effort for a Chinese BW program would
have been directed to new pathogen characterization and manipulation,
and determining the parameters for large-scale growth, development of
aerosol stabilization formulas, creation of high-efficiency dissemination
munitions, and open-air target coverage testing.
China’s prolonged isolation following the end, in 1961, of its then-
existing friendly relationship with the Soviet Union and its 1969 Sino-
Soviet border confrontations would have slowed CCP technology
acquisition and forced the creation of an early military-public partnership
among select academic institutions within China. These institutions would
serve as a source of academic knowledge, technology, and other resources
and provide a legitimate cover for dual-use biological research. These
affiliations would also serve as a source of new talent for the military’s BW
program.
By the mid-1970s, an orderly offensive BW alignment was already
operating within the PLA using first generation liquid agent-based
agents with limited storage potential. Research on freeze-dried dry agent
preparations soon would have advanced, driven by China’s innate desire
to possess a non-nuclear weapon of high strategic value. Such a motive
seems typically to reside in the Chinese national outlook regarding nearly
any type of advanced weaponry.109
China’s technological isolation from the rest of the world ended
in 1978, when the Carter administration finally established formal
diplomatic relations with the CCP. On January 1, 1979, a group of 52
Chinese students arrived to study in the United States. By the end of
that year, there were 2,000 Chinese students in American colleges and
universities. By late 1981, there were 6,500 Chinese students in the
U.S., and by 1988 there were some 28,000. Currently (in 2020/21), there
are more than 317,000 Chinese students enrolled in U.S. institutions.110
110 U.S. Embassy and Consulates In China. China Remains the Top Sender of International
Students to the United States in 2020/2021 - U.S. Embassy & Consulates in China (usembassy-
china.org.cn)
99
China acceded to the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC)

in 1984, but in a report entitled “Adherence To and Compliance With
Arms Control Agreements,” the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament
Agency contended: “China maintained an offensive biological weapons
program throughout the 1990s. The program included the development,
production, stockpiling or other acquisition or maintenance of biological
warfare agents.”111
The Pentagon also published a similar paper, entitled “Proliferation:
Threat and Response,” which claimed that China’s biological weapons
program included the manufacturing of infectious microorganisms and
toxins.112 In 1993, U.S. intelligence officials stated it was highly probable
that China had an active and expanding offensive BW program, following
assessment that two civilian-run biological research centers were actually
controlled by the Chinese military.113
These research centers were known to have engaged previously in the
production and storage of BW. U.S. suspicions intensified when one of
the biological centers was enlarged. Suspicions were heightened further
thirty years ago, when the Chinese Foreign Ministry described all U.S.
suspicions as groundless. It denied that China had a biological weapons
program and made a false declaration to the United Nations (UN) that
it had never made any germ weapons or conducted any work to bolster
biological weapon defenses.114
In the meantime, the Soviet leadership had become alarmed by 1984
with respect to the U.S. “Star Wars” anti-ballistic missile program. Fearful
over the possible neutralization of its nuclear triad, the Kremlin began a
dramatic expansion of its existing BW program under the guise of civilian
biotechnology projects. The program was called Biopreparat. Within a
few years, China had also started to expand its BW program to the point
111 US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Adherence to and Compliance with Arms
Control Agreements, Washington, DC: US Department of State, July 1998.. 1998 Adherence to
and Compliance With Arms Control Agreements (state.gov).
112 Smith, R. J., ‘China may have Revived Germ Weapons Program, U.S. Officials Say’, The
Washington Post, 24 February 1993.
113 ‘Suspected Biological Centers in China’, The Washington Post, 26 February 1993, p. 3
100
where it would eventually encompass some 53 facilities controlled and/

or owned by the PLA or integral to its defense administrative bodies, with
direct or indirect relatedness to biological warfare.115
Of these 53 relevant facilities, about 30 are presumably involved in
the research and development or production of BW agents or munitions.
Some of these facilities are dual-purpose and are involved in civilian
applications, as well. The expanded Soviet BW program was reportedly
shut down in the early 1990s following the breakup of the Soviet
Union. But the military-oriented Chinese state and its technological
ambitiousness continued to expand and refine its BW effort.
In the process, China’s biotechnology sector has acquired a vast
amount of information, with skills and technology in all aspects of
applied science, not just biology. All of this fed back to China’s civilian
and military research and development programs. In some cases, this
process has actually been underwritten by U.S. taxpayers. One example
is the gain-of-function experiments conducted on the spike protein of
SARS-CoV-2 that have now been disclosed in emails between the U.S.
NIH and the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Some of China’s dual-use scientists used their interactions with
American scientists to absorb advanced techniques and technology in
line with China’s military requirements. This effort is directed primarily
by a civilian ministry within the State Council called the Commission for
Science, Technology, and Industry for National Defense (COSTIND),
with PLA guidance.116
In 1992, U.S. President George H.W. Bush issued an Executive
Order that was later solidified by the Congress with the Chinese Student
Protection Act. This allowed Chinese academics to obtain permanent
U.S. residency, and more than 50,000 did so. By 2012, Chinese students
in American universities numbered 235,000. Since then, a number of the
Chinese scientists in the U.S. and Canada have been identified as PLA
officers who have intentionally hidden their backgrounds.117
115 Ibid.
117 Fife, R., Chase, S., Chinese Major-General worked with fired scientist at Canada’s top
101
These relationships were scaled back sharply under the U.S. Trump

Administration in response to China’s militarization of the South China
Sea and its continuing espionage and trade violations.118,119 In 2017, China
was labeled a “strategic competitor” to the U.S. in a National Security
Strategy (NSS) document.120
14. China Is Focused on Acquiring a Global Dominance in

Biotechnology
In 2016, China released its “13th Five-Year Plan,” which featured a
special emphasis for the close integration of its military with advanced
civilian applied science and biotechnology. In pursuit of the PLA’s goals,
this national strategy incorporated all Chinese universities, pharmaceutical
companies, and “civilian” biotechnology research centers.121
Currently, assessments of the state of China’s advanced biological
warfare program remain somewhat conjectural. As research progresses to
a more active stage in China and becomes more sensitive, it disappears
from open-source view. With time, however, hidden research sometimes
leaks out via small waves of open-source general commentary articles
that highlight certain aspects of scientific enquiry or applications.
That said, for the last decade, the PLA’s interest in biotechnology and
biological warfare has been reflected openly in strategic writings which
emphasize that new advances in biology have modified the nature of war.
Beginning in 2010, topical military articles on biological warfare began to
appear in the open Chinese literature.122
One outspoken author has been Ji-Wei Guo, a professor with
infectious disease lab. The Globe and Mail September 16, 2021. https://www.theglobeandmail.
com/politics/article-chinese-pla-general-collaborated-with-fired-scientist-at-canadas-top/
118 Swanson, A.; Mozur, P., “U.S. Blacklists 28 Chinese Entities Over Abuses in Xinjiang”. The
New York Times. (7 October 2019). ISSN 0362-4331
119 Perlez, J., “F.B.I. Bars Some China Scholars From Visiting U.S. Over Spying Fears”. (14 April
2019). The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331.
120 “A New National Security Strategy for a New Era”. whitehouse.gov. 18 December 2017.
Retrieved 22 May 2020 – via National Archives.
121 the full text of the “thirteenth five-year plan” special plan for the integration of military-
civilian development of science and technology_love thought (aisixiang.com)
122 Kania, E.B and VornDick, W. Weaponizing Biotech: How China’s Military Is Preparing
for a ‘New Domain of Warfare’ August 14, 2019. HTTPS://WWW.DEFENSEONE.COM/
IDEAS/2019/08/CHINAS-MILITARY-PURSUING-BIOTECH/159167/
102
China’s Third Military Medical University, who for the last 20 years has
consistently emphasized the potential of linking military applications of
biotechnology into a larger theory of command.123,124
Guo is the author of a 2010 book entitled The war of life-making
right reconstruction of military strategy. Part of a series, the book openly
promotes the close association of biotechnology with military medicine.
In it, Guo states that biotechnology can provide nonlethal, reversible,
and what he calls “merciful ways” of warfare that will play an important
role in defense. His belief is that by applying military biotechnology for
“aggressive purposes on a large scale, future wars will make biological warfare a
real power for attack.” The author states his belief that continuing biological
warfare research will provide the ability to cause “new categories of injury
in a more accurate and effective fashion.”125
Guo also theorizes that biotechnologies based on genomics and
proteomics will permit precision human injury and wounding down to
different levels of specific gene, protein, cell, tissue, and organs. In a thinly
veiled threat of invasion and conquest, he terms advanced biological
warfare as being more “civilized” than conventional munitions in terms of
postwar reconstruction and “hatred control.”
Guo summarizes his book by stating that biotechnology aggressiveness
gives rise to a relatively merciful conquest as compared to other weapons
and that military goals can be achieved without the need for massive
killing, which represents a certain degree of war civilization.
This is exceedingly brash commentary considering that China
is among the many nations that have a treaty obligation to prohibit
the acquisition, stockpiling, and use of offensive biological weapons.
Unfortunately, China’s Guo is not alone in his beliefs.126
123 Ji-Wei Guo, The Command of Biotechnology and Merciful Conquest in Military
Opposition
MILITARY MEDICINE, 171, 11:1150, 2006 : https://academic.oup.com/milmed/
article/171/11/1150/4577887 Downloaded 15 April 2022.
124 Guo JW: Analysis on the prospect of the application of biotechnology in future military
affairs. World Milit Rev 2005; 1: 63–5. milmed.171.11.1150
125 Guo JW: Command of biotechnology: the Summit of Future Evolution of Warfare, Ed 1,
pp 217–8. Beijing, China, People’s Liberation Army Press, 2006.
126 Guo, J.W., “War of life-making right reconstruction of military strategy in the new era,”
publisher: xinhua publishing house publication date: January 2010 “war of life-making power,
military strategy reconstruction in the new era guo jiwei, [genuine book]” [introduction_book
103
In 2015, Lu Beibei He Fuchu, then-president of China’s Academy

of Military Medical Sciences, argued that biotechnology will soon
become the new “strategic commanding heights” of national defense,
from biomaterials to “brain control” weapons.127
In 2017, Zhang Shibo, a retired general and former president of
the Chinese National Defense University, wrote a book titled The
New Highland of War. In it he categorized biology as among the seven
“new domains of warfare” and emphasized that modern biotechnology
development is showing strong signs of an offensive capability, including
the possibility that “specific ethnic genetic attacks” might be employed.128
Also in 2017, the PLA’s National Defense University published a
textbook called The Science of Military Strategy. The book features a section
concerning biotechnology as a domain of military struggle and also
describes the future potential of biological warfare to conduct “specific
ethnic genetic attacks.”129
This is frightening rhetoric from a nation of 1.4 billion people with
an aggressive Communist leadership that seems dedicated to achieving
global dominance.
In addition to an increasing rhetoric for the desire to achieve
biotechnology superiority and the development of new, more targetable
biological weapons that can be considered “merciful” on the battlefield,
China has clearly maintained an active, ongoing program of dual-use
research.
This appears to include a concentration on new emerging infectious
disease agents as well as a multi-decade technological program exploring
liquid and dry small-particle aerosol generation and stability as well as
attenuated explosive cluster submunitions for biological agent delivery.130
review_online reading] - dangdang - easy to move book franchise store

127 biotechnology will become a new strategic commanding height for the future military
revolution - china military network (archive.org)
128 (amazon.cn) “new heights of war” [abstract book review trial reading] book (amazon.cn)
129 Kania, E.B and VornDick, W. Weaponizing Biotech: How China’s Military Is Preparing
for a ‘New Domain of Warfare’ August 14, 2019. HTTPS://WWW.DEFENSEONE.COM/
IDEAS/2019/08/CHINAS-MILITARY-PURSUING-BIOTECH/159167/
104
Biological weapons are notoriously difficult to store, and liquid BW

munitions have only about a two-week period after manufacture before
they must be reprocessed. The most efficient method for offensive BW
is to maintain a just-in-time production capability with growth and
processing equipment maintained in a ready operational state. China
most certainly has a second generation of biological warfare agents (for
example, Japanese Encephalitis virus) in a ready-to-produce state, plus a
third generation of BW agents (including Marburg). It has admitted to
the desire for fourth-generation weapons (for example, coronaviruses
and influenza viruses) containing genetic toxin RNA inserts.
Anti-livestock bioweapons such as Hoof and Mouth Disease and anti-
crop BW agents, such as Wheat Stem Rust and Soybean Rust, would also be
included in any classical BW inventory. A spectrum of toxins may have already
been weaponized with stabilizing additives, with others under development.
The quality, extensiveness, and characteristics of aerobiological work
conducted by related facilities indicates that China is also able, in all
likelihood, to construct a spectrum of dispersal devices, warheads, and
delivery systems. Hypothetically, this would include 3.5-inch bomblets
for surface-to-surface missiles and cluster bomb units.
Facilities thought to be involved include the Institute of Microbiology
and Epidemiology in Beijing, which is responsible for developing dispersal
systems at the laboratory level, and the Huifenglong Biotechnology
Development company in Beijing, which is apparently responsible for
technical upgrading and production of instrumentation for laboratory
and field tests.131
Finally, there is the Institute of Medical Equipment in Tianjin,
which seems to be involved in field tests as well, presumably with live,
virulent agents, in addition to published studies with model/stimulant
bacteria and viruses. This does not include the five corporations
administered by COSTIND and/or the State-owned Assets Supervision
and Administration Commission of the State Council, which deals with
warheads and delivery systems, at large.132
132 Report to Congress Chemical and Biological Defense Program: Annual NCJ;
105
Collectively, it can be concluded that China is capable of producing

effective and operational BW warheads and delivery systems, and that it
has on-demand BW agent production and processing facilities together
with “pack and load” facilities necessary to quickly deploy a BW arsenal.
The U.S. Department of Defense concluded as far back as 2001 that
China possesses the munitions production capabilities necessary to
develop, produce, and weaponize biological agents.133
15. Americans Deserve Answers for a Dysfunctional U.S.

Pandemic Response
The discovery of the SEB-like functional superantigen motif in the
spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 was published as an Open Access report in
the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on September 28,
2020. Yet only now is it receiving attention with the clinical significance
of the SAg-like motif in the spike protein of the virus still being debated.
When published in 2020, the in-silico computational modeling report
should have triggered an immediate vaccine review by Dr. Anthony
Fauci and the COVID-19 Task Force, Dr. Francis Collins at the NIH,
Professor Arnold Monto at the University of Michigan (the Chair of the
outside panelists at the FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation), and FDA
Commissioner Dr. Stephen Hahn, together with Dr. Janet Woodcock and
Dr. Peter Marks. That review also should have included Moncef Slaoui,
the Ph.D.-level scientist who was tasked to manage the Operation Warp
Speed project, as well as representatives from the vaccine manufacturers.
To the best of our knowledge, no such meeting concerning the
COVID-19 superantigen motif ever occurred, yet questions over mRNA
vaccine safety had appeared as early as February 2021. The extensive,
serious adverse events associated with the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines
are currently the subject of ongoing discussion with many countries now
moving away from their ineffective mRNA vaccination mandates. Indeed,
Number192419. Date Published; March 2000, https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/

abstracts/chemical-and-biological-defense-program-annual-report-congress
106
throughout 2021 and into 2022, the number of recorded serious, adverse,
post-vaccination events has dramatically intensified.
This is inexcusable, considering that millions of Americans and Europeans
have already been injected with this mRNA sequence as part of the global
mRNA vaccination program.
America deserves clear answers for the poor decisions, poor
performance, and the lack of honesty and pre-planning by federal, state,
and local authorities who had two decades of repeated warning that
something like COVID-19 was going to happen.
16. Is There a Common U.S. Defense Against Both a

Metropolitan Biological Warfare Attack and a Natural
Pandemic Outbreak?
Moving past COVID-19, the public health direction that should
be taken is a return to the original 2005 National Plan for Respiratory
Viral Pandemics that was essentially abandoned during the Obama
Administration and blocked by rogue administrators at the NIH and
FDA in 2020. This plan is based on individual local-community medical
preparedness, and it has nothing to do with devastating lockdowns. It is
focused on finding and implementing early outpatient drug treatment
and not mass vaccination as an initial pandemic response. The premise of
this approach is easy to understand:
If every local community in the United States can manage its
epidemic outbreak with respect to finding extra medical staff,
hospital beds, drugs, and medical equipment for patients, then the
city, state, and federal governments are free to manage other aspects
of a national pandemic.
To discuss this fully, it is necessary to understand both the differences
and similarities between a biological warfare attack and a natural pandemic
to look for common reinforcing interventions. Much can be derived from
a study of the former U.S. offensive biological warfare program.
a. Characteristics of a Biological Warfare Aerosol Attack
The power of a properly formatted biological weapon attack has
been known since September 20, 1950, when the United States Army
107
conducted a simulated large-area-coverage biological attack using a

simulant consisting of a live, common variant of a harmless soil bacterium
called Bacillus subtilis (variant niger).
Several days before the test, scientists set up numerous all-glass
impinger air samplers on government building rooftops and inside offices.
Under ideal meteorological conditions, a converted naval minesweeper
then sailed a 2-mile straight-line course, 2 miles off the coast of San
Francisco. As it sailed at night, it disseminated 150 gallons of the liquid
simulated biological warfare agent as an onshore breeze blew the invisible
small-particle aerosol cloud over the city.
When later analyzed, the air samplers revealed that most of the urban
population of 700,000 had received a dose of at least 500 particle minutes per
liter of air at a normal breathing rate of 10 liters per minute. Had the aerosol
contained an actual biological warfare agent such as anthrax, this would have
equated to a simulated 50 percent minimal infectious dose of 5,000 bacteria
or more for virtually every individual in the 49-square-mile city area.134
It must be added that this simulated biological attack was conducted
with late 1940s technology using a liquid biological warfare simulant
and a low-efficiency E-22 type of aerosol generator. If a real bacterial
biological warfare agent had been used, the economic impact of such
an attack was estimated in 1998 to be $26.2 billion per every 100,000
persons exposed.135
During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was an unjustified premise
that asymptomatic individuals were transmitting the infection by so-called
“super-spreader” events. Millions of dollars were spent on inaccurate, PCR
testing using a too-high Ct value of 40 instead of the more reliable, well
understood, and easy to use enzyme-linked immunosorbent (ELISA)
viral-capture tests.136
Testing will assume a much less important role in a real biological
134 Special Report No 142, “Biological Warfare Trials at San Francisco, California; 20-27
September 1950. U.S. Chemical Corps Biological Laboratories, January 22, 1951. DTIC.
135 Kaufmann, A.F., Meltzer, M.I., Schmid, G.P., The Economic Impact of a Bioterrorist Attack:
Are Prevention and Post-Attack Intervention Programs Justifiable? Emerging Infectious Diseases,
Volume 3, Number 2-June 1997. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9204289/
136 Fiore, K., False Negatives Still Common With COVID PCR Testing - one in five people
get negative result even if they have COVID MedPage Today, January 21, 2022 https://www.
medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/96789
108
warfare attack, because the first wave of casualties will be the high-dose
exposures that will become symptomatic over the next roughly 48 hours
after aerosol release. The San Francisco simulant test showed that this
would have involved all the individuals living close to the bay. After initial
pathogen identification, most of the activity would be devoted to a rushed,
reactive response directed toward maintaining the city infrastructure,
managing the dead and dying, and attempting to triage and treat the
casualties who received a minimal infecting dose of the biological agent.
In the aftermath of an actual BW attack of this type, hospitals inside
the target area would rapidly become nonfunctional due to staff illness,
failure to report for work, overwhelming casualties, a lack of drugs, and a
slow or inadequate “medical surge” capacity.
These consequences would in many ways resemble the front lines of
a large conventional battlefield. It would be a localized lethal epidemic
inside a highly compressed time frame. However, a huge amount of
federal and state assistance and national resources would be available to
be directed to the target city of a biological warfare attack.
b. Characteristics of a National Pandemic
As witnessed with COVID-19, and in contrast to a large-area-
coverage metropolitan biological warfare attack, a national viral
respiratory pandemic is a more prolonged and chronic event lasting weeks
to months. Furthermore, in the high-density populated urban areas, the
growing population of the poor and disadvantaged are collecting in larger
numbers than ever before, creating an ideal breeding ground for any
highly infectious viral disease.
Based on the 1918 influenza event and the current COVID-19
pandemic, a serious new emerging infectious disease outbreak is likely
to occur as several pandemic waves, each lasting several weeks, with
outbreaks occurring simultaneously across the United States. The first
outbreaks of a new pandemic disease on U.S. soil will likely already be
well underway before the pandemic is recognized.
Over the next six months, cases of a highly infectious respiratory
virus could appear in almost every village, town, city, and county in every
state. Lockdowns, if they are employed, will only delay herd immunity,
damage the economy and supply chains, and prolong the pandemic by
109
months. Mass vaccination is unlikely to stop a rapidly mutating RNA viral

pandemic because of new variant evolution and selection.
Unlike a targeted biological warfare attack, there might be little
mutual aid available between metropolitan jurisdictions, severely limiting
the ability of one area to assist another. Morbidity and mortality may be
variable between different age groups, and it will be essential to identify
the most vulnerable populations early.
17. The Biological Weapons Improved Response Plan

From April to December 1998, the U.S. Army Soldier and Biological
Chemical Command (SBCCOM) of the Department of Defense formed
a study partnership with civilian first- responders under the umbrella of the
Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Domestic Preparedness Program. Its goal was to
develop a new Biological Weapons Improved Response Program (BWIRP).137
The team divided their response to a BW attack into phases, with
timelines for each response activity. They then looked at how well the
activities would work together and analyzed what personnel and resources
would be needed to perform each part of the response led by the local
community. Local pre-planning before the event would be critical, and
rapid implementation of the plan following an attack was the key to
success. It acknowledged that the local community could best assess its
own needs and develop its own response based on its existing resources.
This was more in line with the neighborhood-community-city-
county-state “bottom-up” approach to pandemic planning that scientists
had sought for years. Using a “common response template” and existing
resources, the cost for a city’s local authorities to plan, prepare, and
maintain an effective BW response was considered to be modest.
The goal was to keep up with the onset of BW mass casualties in a non-
chaotic manner while keeping the main hospitals open and functional
for other medical conditions. The method used was called the Modular
Emergency Medical System. With the recognition of a severe biological
event, the goal was to quickly establish and operate local Neighborhood
137 Biological Weapons Improved Response Plan; A Mass Casualty Care Strategy for a
Biological Terrorism Incident. https://www.ecbc.army.mil/downloads/reports/ECBC_comp_
mass_casualty_care.pdf
110
Illustration by Brian Scaglione at the P-Value Group
Figure Four. The local Neighborhood Emergency Help Centers (NEHC) serve as
community resource centers for diagnosis, with confirmatory testing based on breath analysis
or capture antigen ELISA, early outpatient drug treatment, and referral to quarantine in
Alternate Treatment Centers (ATC). Home Visitation Teams play a major role for home-
quarantined families. Both the NEHC and the ATC allow a community hospital to effectively
manage normal daily community care without being overloaded with infectious disease cases.
Emergency Help Centers in pre-identified buildings of opportunity

together with Alternate Treatment Centers (Acute Care Centers) in
buildings such as vacated high schools.
With the much-vaunted lockdowns now shown to have little beneficial
effect on COVID-19 mortality, what routes should the U.S. consider for
future pandemic preparedness? The BWIRP and its later 2005 modifications
into the Health and Human Services National Influenza Pandemic Plan
define what personnel numbers and skills are required for a community
hospital to manage its effective medical surge requirements for either a BW
111
attack or a major national pandemic (Figure Four).138,139,140

At the same time, using modified established infection control measures,
the area hospital would be free to continue managing normal daily
community care needs without being overloaded with infectious disease
cases. Other local efforts would include central Nurse Triage phone lines
and Community Outreach Teams.
Again, it must be restated: If the local authorities can manage their
own local area epidemic, the federal government will be able to manage a
national pandemic. In this respect, the acclaimed 2019 legislation entitled
Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act
(Public Law 116-22) has little applicability to the real world in improving
local authority pandemic preparedness.141
The same is true for the Biden administration’s March 2022 National
COVID-19 Preparedness Plan. This plan is essentially an endorsement of
the current national program for mass vaccination which, in reality, has
failed to control the spread of COVID-19.142 It also incorrectly advises
using new, expensive, and still highly experimental anti-viral drugs
with questionable efficiency and safety for outpatient treatment. This
course of action is recommended over the use of already established,
proven, and inexpensive medications such as hydroxychloroquine and
ivermectin.143,144
138 Biological Warfare Improved Response Program, March 10, 1999, Summary Report on
BW Response Template and Response Improvements. https://www.ecbc.army.mil/downloads/
bwirp/ECBC_bwirp_executive_summary.pdf
139 State of Delaware, Department of Health and Social Services, Division of Public Health;
Neighborhood Emergency Help Center Plan: http://www.dhss.delaware.gov/dhss/dph/php/
files/nehcplan.pdf
140 Pandemic Influenza: Community Planning and Response Curriculum for Community
Responders, Volunteers, and Staff. Humanitarian Pandemic Preparedness (H2P) initiative,
July 2009 https://www.cdc.gov/nonpharmaceutical-interventions/toolsresources/published
research.html)
141 Public Law 116 - 22 - Pandemic and All- Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation
Act of 2019
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/PLAW116publ22#:~:text=An%20act%20to%20
reauthorize%20certain,response%2C%20and%20for%20other%20purposes
142 National COVID-19 Preparedness Plan. White House, March 22, 2022.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/NAT-COVID-19-
PREPAREDNESS-PLAN.pdf
143 HCQ for COVID-19: real-time analysis of all 411 studies. https://c19hcq.com/
144 COVID-19 treatment studies for Ivermectin. https://c19ivermectin.com/
112
The current COVID-19 Response Coordinator for the Biden

Administration is Dr. Ashish Jha, MD, MPH, a physician and the third
Dean of the Brown University School of Public Health. He is a political
appointee to the White House who has demonstrated no understanding
of pandemic control. Before joining Brown, Jha was the K.T. Li
Professor of Global Health at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public
Health and director of the Harvard Global Health Institute. There are
possible associations with the Peking University Institute for Global
Health and Development.
On November 19, 2020, during the Senate hearings on early use
drug treatment for COVID-19, Jha represented the Democratic side of
the aisle. There by videoconference, he stated that he had never treated a
single COVID-19 patient and demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge
concerning the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin for
early use treatment.
Do Not Surrender U.S. Sovereignty to the WHO

The foregoing history of the COVID-19 pandemic and the dismal
role played in it by the World Health Organization under its Director-
General, Dr. Tedros Ghebreyesus—who owes his position to and takes
orders from the Chinese Communist Party—argues powerfully against
relying on the WHO to mitigate pandemics or other “public health
emergencies of international concern.” Under no circumstances should
the WHO be entrusted with still more authority to dictate what constitutes
such emergencies and/or how they should be addressed.
Unfortunately, at this writing, that is the object of not only the CCP
and the WHO. It is one shared by the Biden administration. The vehicle
for such a self-inflicted disaster is a block of 13 amendments to the WHO
International Health Regulations (IHR) proposed by the United States
government for adoption by the World Health Assembly during its
meeting in Geneva from May 22-28, 2022.
In the medical domain, the WHO will have the authority to invoke
the amended IHR to order unilaterally how pandemics and, for that
matter, other diseases will be treated. As we have seen, in the course of
the COVID-19 pandemic and even without these increased powers, Tedros’
calls at the CCP’s behest for social distancing, lockdowns, quarantines,
113
mask- and vaccine-mandates, and vaccine passports—all features of the

totalitarian “China Model”—shaped U.S. public health policy decisions
and traditional and social media coverage thereof.
The WHO’s exercise of such expanded authority would deny the
American people the accountability inherent in their representative
form of government, including on matters of life and death. It would, in
addition, fatally compromise our government’s ability to have national
interests, rather than supranational directives, drive policy choices. And
the WHO’s diktats would violate the United States’ federalist system
by trampling responsibilities reserved to the states and their governors,
legislatures, and localities.
The U.S.-sponsored amendments would enable Tedros to dictate
not only U.S. policy toward medical crises, but also with respect to
whatever other events he decides constitute “public health emergencies of
international concern.” As U.S. government officials have depicted “gun
violence” and “climate change” as threats to public health, it is not hard
to imagine the extent of the overreach the administration’s amendments
would enable.
Predictably, fiats from such a supranational entity will be seized
upon by this U.S. government and at least some governors to impose
unconstitutional and other restrictions with the claim that they are only
following the WHO’s orders. And if recent experience is any guide,
America’s traditional and social media platforms will collude to suppress
criticism of such official malfeasance.
The WHO has catastrophically failed in every pandemic outbreak
since 2002, encompassing the original SARS-1, 2009 H1N1, Zika virus
pandemic, West Africa Ebola pandemic, and the COVID-19 pandemic.
It is inevitable that the WHO will soon have an actual Chinese CCP
member as its director-general, someone who will even more reliably
than Tedros prioritize China’s interests, not global health.
In short, it should be clear by now that the WHO is completely
unsuitable for recommendations and management of any future
pandemics. The United Nations as a whole has also failed in this respect.
For all these reasons, a concerted effort must be made to negate
the Biden administration’s amendments to the International Health
Regulations and defeat any other actions that would interfere with
114
America’s sovereign exercise of public health policy, especially in

emergency circumstances.
If we fail to do so at this juncture, we will find it exceedingly difficult—
if not, as a practical matter, impossible—to claw back the authority to
exercise national prerogatives, rights, and authorities that Team Biden
is determined to surrender to the Chinese Communist Party and other
Global Resetters.
It is abundantly clear that severe biological events, such as the
COVID-19 pandemic or an intentional biological attack, present a
primary strategic threat to the United States. The current U.S. “top down”
approach for respiratory viral pandemic control by mass vaccination,
lockdowns, and other mandates as promoted by the World Health
Organization (WHO) and the U.S. COVID-19 task force is a failure.
This is evidenced by the fact that the total number of deaths in India
(population 1.2 billion) is only half that of the United States, with a
population of only 320 million.
Outside of preemptive measures, the only practical cost-effective
defense to a serious biological threat involves a comprehensive “bottom
up” strategy. If every local community in the U.S. can manage its own
medical surge requirements during the outbreak of a serious infectious
disease, then the nation as a whole can manage a serious biological event.
Therefore, a new concentration must be made with respect to Local
Community Public Health preparedness. This will require a return to the
type of civil defense planning originally entailed under Public Law 920 of
the 81st Congress.145
145 Health Services and Special Weapons Defense. (AG-11-1) FCDA. 1950. 264 p.
115
CHAPTER 4
‘The China Model’: How the Chinese

Communist Party and U.S. and Foreign
Collaborators used the COVID
Pandemic as an Instrument of Political
Warfare
I f free people are able to write the history of the COVID-19 pandemic,
it will be in no small measure because they were able to overcome the
political warfare aggressively waged against them, their institutions,
and their liberties in response to this putative public health emergency,
waged initially by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and then
enabled, reinforced, and applied elsewhere by its friends, clients, and
supplicants. At this writing, it is too early to tell if that will be the outcome
or, alternatively, whether freedom will be vanquished by the cumulative
effects of the CCP virus, the economic devastation it has wrought, and
the toll taken by the political warfare techniques described below.
Event 201
On October 18, 2019, Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in
partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda
Gates Foundation hosted “Event 201,” a high-level pandemic tabletop
exercise in New York, NY.1 The exercise featured as participants not
only the U.S. Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence
Agency, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but also
1 Videos of the entire exercise can be viewed at https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/

event201/videos.html
117
the Chinese Centers for Disease Control. Remarkably, it simulated a

coronavirus pandemic and preceded by just a few weeks such an outbreak
in Wuhan.
Event 201 was explicitly designed to explore not only the public/
private partnerships deemed necessary to respond to such a pandemic. It
also gamed out how such a crisis could be utilized to advance a new world
order at the expense of sovereign nations and to the benefit of global
governance institutions.
As the organizers put it: “There are major unmet global vulnerabilities
and international system challenges posed by pandemics that will require
new robust forms of public-private cooperation to address.” Some of the
recommendations for what that cooperation would entail are troubling
from the perspective of individual freedoms, national sovereignty, and
global governance. For example (emphasis added throughout):
1. “Governments, international organizations, and businesses
should plan now for how essential corporate capabilities
will be utilized during a large-scale pandemic. … The Global
Preparedness Monitoring Board would be well positioned to help
monitor and contribute to the efforts that governments, international
organizations and businesses should take for pandemic preparedness
and response.”
2. “Industry, national governments, and international
organizations should work together to enhance internationally
held stockpiles of medical countermeasures (MCMs) to enable
rapid and equitable distribution during a severe pandemic. The
World Health Organization currently has an influenza vaccine virtual
stockpile, with contracts in place with pharmaceutical companies
that have agreed to supply vaccines should WHO [the World Health
Organization] request them.
“As one possible approach, this virtual stockpile model could
be expanded to augment WHO’s ability to distribute vaccines and
therapeutics to countries in the greatest need during a severe pandemic.
This should also include any available experimental vaccine stockpiles
for any WHO R&D Blueprint pathogens to deploy in a clinical trial
during outbreaks in collaboration with the Coalition for Epidemic
Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), the Global Alliance for Vaccines
and Innovation (GAVI), and WHO.”
118
3. “Countries, international organizations, and global

transportation companies should work together to maintain travel
and trade during severe pandemics. Travel and trade are essential to
the global economy as well as to national and even local economies, and
they should be maintained even in the face of a pandemic….The fear and
uncertainty experienced during past outbreaks, even those limited to
a national or regional level, have sometimes led to unjustified border
measures, the closure of customer-facing businesses, import bans,
and the cancellation of airline flights and international shipping. A
particularly fast-moving and lethal pandemic could therefore result
in political decisions to slow or stop movement of people and goods,
potentially harming economies already vulnerable in the face of an
outbreak.
“Ministries of Health and other government agencies should
work together now with international airlines and global shipping
companies to develop realistic response scenarios and start a
contingency planning process with the goal of mitigating economic
damage by maintaining key travel and trade routes during a large-scale
pandemic.”
4. “Governments should provide more resources and support
for the development and surge manufacturing of vaccines,
therapeutics, and diagnostics that will be needed during a severe
pandemic. … In coordination with WHO, CEPI, GAVI, and other
relevant multilateral and domestic mechanisms, investments should
be made in new technologies and industrial approaches, that will
allow concomitant distributed manufacturing. This will require
addressing legal and regulatory barriers among other issues.”
5. “Global business should recognize the economic burden
of pandemics and fight for stronger preparedness. … While
governments and public health authorities serve as the first line of
defense against fast-moving outbreaks, their efforts are chronically
under-funded and lack sustained support. Global business leaders
should play a far more dynamic role as advocates with a stake in
stronger pandemic preparedness.”
6. “International organizations should prioritize reducing
economic impacts of epidemics and pandemics. Much of the
economic harm resulting from a pandemic is likely to be due to
119
counterproductive behavior of individuals, companies, and countries.

For example, actions that lead to disruption of travel and trade or that
change consumer behavior can greatly damage economies. In addition
to other response activities, an increase in and reassessment of pandemic
financial support will certainly be needed in a severe pandemic as many
sectors of society may need financial support during or after a severe
pandemic, including healthcare institutions, essential businesses, and
national governments.
“Furthermore, the ways in which these existing funds can now be
used are limited. The International Health Regulations prioritize both
minimizing public health risks and avoiding unnecessary interference
with international traffic and trade. But there will also be a need to
identify critical nodes of the banking system and global and national
economies that are too essential to fail—there are some that are likely
to need emergency international financial support as well. The World
Bank, the International Monetary Fund, regional development
banks, national governments, foundations, and others should explore
ways to increase the amount and availability of funds in a pandemic and
ensure that they can be flexibly used where needed.”
7. “Governments and the private sector should assign a greater
priority to developing methods to combat mis- and disinformation
prior to the next pandemic response. Governments will need
to partner with traditional and social media companies to research
and develop nimble approaches to countering misinformation.
This will require developing the ability to flood media with fast,
accurate, and consistent information. Public health authorities should
work with private employers and trusted community leaders such
as faith leaders, to promulgate factual information to employees
and citizens. Trusted, influential private-sector employers should
create the capacity to augment public messaging, manage rumors
and misinformation, and amplify credible information to support
emergency public communications readily and reliably.”
“National public health agencies should work in close collaboration with
WHO to create the capability to rapidly develop and release consistent
health messages. For their part, media companies should commit to
ensuring that authoritative messages are prioritized and that false
messages are suppressed including though the use of technology.”
120
In short, just weeks before a coronavirus pandemic erupted in

China, a gaggle of globalist foundations, leftist-dominated government
institutions, and representatives of the Chinese Communist Party doing
business as that country’s Centers for Disease Control mapped out how
such an event could be parlayed into greater power, funding, and control
for them and their friends in international organizations (both official
and non-governmental), multinational corporations, and aligned media
and social media entities.
The China Model

What emerged in short order was not only the SARS-CoV-2 virus,
initially in Wuhan, but the rollout of a series of measures by the Chinese
Communist Party’s government that would, in short order, be imposed
relentlessly throughout the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The CCP
would also seek to impose its approach worldwide through its dominance
of the World Health Organization, influence operations, United Front
Work Department assets, bilateral relationships, and multilateral ties,
for example, with Belt and Road client states and others seeking Chinese
vaccines, personal protective equipment, and/or guidance on the nature
of the disease.
Key elements of what Beijing came to call “the China Model”
included the following:
• Widely imposing “lockdowns” (with the notable exception of

allowances made for Wuhan residents to fly internationally when
they were not permitted to travel inside China);
• Requiring the use of masks of dubious value in diminishing
transmission of a coronavirus;
• Introducing vaccines in the midst of a pandemic;
• Mandating the use of inadequately tested vaccines, and continuing
to do so despite evidence that they were of limited effectiveness
and/or dangerous;
• Issuing digital and other “vaccine passports” to monitor and enforce
mass compliance with the vaccine mandates; and
121
• Ramping up dramatically the CCP’s so-called “Social Credit

System” as a vehicle for not just surveilling and monitoring, but
controlling, the Chinese population.
The China Model had one other ominous attribute: a lack of
truthfulness, transparency, and accountability on the part of public health
and other authorities enabled by state-controlled media and propaganda.
This was especially true about the origins of the virus, its virulence, best
practices for treating those infected with it, and the actual value and costs
of the draconian steps prescribed by the Chinese in response to the CCP
virus.
The China Model Here

Unfortunately, the Chinese Communist Party has succeeded,
probably beyond its wildest dreams, in insinuating the China Model
elsewhere around the world, including inside the United States. For
example, in this country, we have been subjected to the following to date:
• “Lockdowns” of various durations and intensity with government-
imposed restrictions—although, so far, none as draconian as their
Chinese counterparts that have resulted in apartment buildings’
gates being welded shut. Nonetheless, public gatherings, schools,
churches, businesses, and the society at large have been greatly
impacted.
• After initial, truthful comments by Dr. Anthony Fauci about the
inutility of masks, they were mandated for schools, indoor events,
commercial settings, sports programs, transportation, and virtually
every other aspect of life—at various points including private
family gatherings at home.
• Inadequately tested gene therapies were depicted as “vaccines” and
rushed into emergency use following the suppression of evidence
of the availability of effective, safer, and far less costly alternative
therapies.
• Those vaccines were mandatorily imposed on large numbers of
Americans—including young adults and children who were at little
to no risk of being harmed by the SARS-CoV-2 virus and in the
122
face of evidence of adverse events (much of which was suppressed),

declining effectiveness, and religious objections.
• The imposition of digital and other “vaccine passports”—some
euphemistically portrayed as “SMART health IDs” or “digital
medical cards”—to monitor and enforce mass compliance with the
vaccine mandates.
Here, as in China, the truth about virtually every aspect of the COVID
pandemic was one of its early casualties. Public health authorities, other
government officials at every level, federal regulators, most legislators,
pharmaceutical industry leaders and trade association executives, military
commanders, the preponderance of private sector doctors and medical
administrators, philanthropic and non-governmental organizations,
and the vast majority of traditional, scientific, and social media became
instruments of mis- and disinforming the American people.
The cost in lives needlessly lost and otherwise impacted is literally
incalculable. So, too, has been the cost in terms of constitutional rights
infringed upon and, to varying degrees, irreparably harmed. Freedom of
religion, freedom of association, freedom to petition our representatives
for the redress of grievances, and most especially freedom of speech have
all been sacrificed in the name of contending with the pandemic.
Worse yet, while some of the most egregious of these infringements
on our society, people, and freedoms have been alleviated in recent weeks,
the mechanisms and infrastructure for re-imposing them at will—and the
precedents established for doing so at the whim of an elected official or a
wholly unaccountable bureaucrat—are still in place.
The cumulative effect of all these responses to the Chinese Communist
Party’s biological warfare attack on this country and the rest of the world
has been to advance immeasurably the CCP’s agenda of subverting—and,
if possible, destroying—America and dominating the entire planet. By
advancing the cause of “fundamentally transforming” the United States
in these ways, the CCP has accomplished unprecedented damage to
its principal adversary and validated the proposition that an even more
virulent biological weapon could finish the job.
123
Election 2020
Evidence continues inexorably to mount that the COVID-19
pandemic had one very direct consequence in the political warfare
battlespace: It was seized upon to justify the use of voting procedures
and instruments known to be prone to fraud in ways that would redound
to the detriment of a man the Chinese Communists were determined to
deny reelection: President Donald Trump.
In 2005, a bipartisan Commission on Election Integrity co-chaired by
former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker
issued a report entitled Building Confidence in U.S. Elections.2 It described
a number of problems that contribute to electoral fraud. Among them were
the use of mail-in ballots, the failure to require Voter IDs, incomplete or
inaccurate voter rolls, and voting machines that are insecure.
All of these problems were created and/or exploited in the 2020
election and, it increasingly appears, contributed to President Trump’s
defeat. Mark Zuckerberg’s $400 million takeover of election operations
in key districts and states evidently took advantage of insecure mail-
in balloting to affect outcomes across the country. A lack of voter
identification and up-to-date lists of eligible voters, combined with
same-day registration and the widespread use of machines that leading
Democrats had publicly warned before the election were susceptible to
fraud all helped Joe Biden.
Another boost for Biden was the concerted effort by mainstream
media and social media outlets to suppress information about his son
Hunter contained on a laptop hard-drive handed over to the FBI in
2019. That information made clear the Biden family had been deeply
compromised by, among others, the Chinese Communist Party. A post-
election poll indicated that 17 percent of Democratic voters who voted
for Joe Biden would not have done so had they known about the laptop
and its contents—considerably more than would have been required to
deny him victory.
The full extent of the Chinese Communist Party’s role in helping
remove from office arguably the most formidable opponent they had ever
faced in the U.S. presidency and install in his stead an American politician
they could control—whether through the COVID pandemic, through
2 https://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/election_reform_report.pdf
124
the attendant changes in voting procedures, CCP involvement in pivotal

voter registration campaigns, or its interfering with election machines
and/or their tabulations—may never be known. What’s clear is that the
Chinese Communist Party has achieved a massive strategic windfall from
the outcome of the 2020 presidential election and must be gratified by
whatever role its political warfare played in achieving it.
The Globalist Tie-in

Of course, the Chinese Communists and their ideological fellow
travelers are not the only ones who have long sought a fundamental
transformation of America. As we have seen, their admirers and partners
among the world’s globalist elites joined forces with the CCP in Event 201
in planning for a coronavirus pandemic. And such elites have also sought
to capitalize on it to take out a sovereign and powerful U.S. constitutional
republic that would impede the so-called “Great Reset” that is their
preferred endgame.
Notably, a prominent globalist who came alongside China and
its lockdown model early on was Hillary Clinton,3 who, in April 2020,
remarked that COVID would be “a terrible crisis to waste.” Clinton’s
remarks were echoed by her and China’s longtime friend, Bill Gates,
who, along with Klaus Schwab, the founder and executive chairman of
the World Economic Forum, explicitly seeks to coalesce and grow world
government power.
“Now is the time for a Great Reset,” proclaimed Schwab4 in July 2020,
just four months after President Trump initiated his “Two weeks to Slow
the Spread” campaign. “The pandemic,” said Schwab, “represents a rare
but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our
world.”
Schwab’s book, The Great Reset, published in September 2020,
details not only his vision, but that of the World Economic Forum, an
international organization promoting the decidedly leftist character
of global elites’ policies and innovations. It is a blueprint for the post-
3 PBS News Hour, April 28, 2020, Joe Biden for President Virtual Townhall. https://www.pbs.
org/newshour/politics/watch-live-joe-biden-holds-virtual-town-hall-on-womens-issues
4 World Economic Forum, Interview with Klaus Schwab. Sound Cloud, July 17, 2020. https://
soundcloud.com/world-economic-forum/the-great-reset-resetting-the
125
America world and how to bring it about.

The reset Schwab envisions embraces, under the guise of a global
pandemic response, the three pillars of a globalist economic, social,
and environmental re-engineering project called the U.N. Sustainability
Agenda for 2030. A centerpiece of Agenda 2030 is the imposition of a
Digital ID on everyone on the planet.
“Everything should be digitized which can be digitized,” said Schwab
during an interview accompanying the book’s release.
The Digital ID
The Digital ID is a technological development that plays a critical role
in the Chinese Social Credit System (SCS) that, in turn, is at the core
of the China Model. The SCS’ surveillance, monitoring, and tracking
capabilities—fueled by the CCP’s massive investments in facial- and gait-
recognition, artificial intelligence, quantum computing, data-mining,
and related technologies—have enabled the PRC to become the testbed
for the world’s ideological and globalist authoritarians. If they have their
way, the Uyghur Muslims, Falun Gong, and Christians being severely
persecuted using these capabilities in China today will soon be joined by
the rest of us.
The institution of vaccine mandates and passports in societies
worldwide has dramatically advanced Agenda 2030’s goals. The adoption
of the Digital ID by both governments and large corporations, whether
in the form of SMART Health Passes—favored by some on both sides of
the political aisle—or the more comprehensive version now required in
Communist China, mortally threatens individual privacy and other rights.
As we have begun to see in response to the COVID pandemic, it is ripe for
abuse by both government agencies and private sector providers. Worse
yet, it can become the vehicle here, as in the PRC, for unprecedented
totalitarian control.
In fact, one leading psychiatrist and medical ethicist, Dr. Aaron
Kheriaty, has warned that we are already on the cusp of an oppressive
“biosecurity state”:
“The people who are empowered to declare the state of emergency
are also typically those who assume additional powers during
126
the state of emergency. Perhaps we give a governor the authority

short-term to declare a 15 day or 30-day emergency. But, before
long, there needs to be judicial review or some legislative review
for that state of emergency.”
Kheriaty is particularly concerned about contribution to this

biosecurity state being made by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC). A participant in Event 201, CDC has the two-fold
mission of a) collecting and distributing data from the 50 states and b)
making policy recommendations. He argues that this double-hatted role
inevitably creates a conflict of interest that drives the CDC to suppress
data that undermines their recommendations. If that arrangement is not
to play into the hands of those within the organization and elsewhere
seeking to catalyze a biosecurity state, Kheriaty recommends creating
a firewall between the two, with the establishment of a data collection
and distribution agency and a separate agency mandated to make policy
recommendations.
The argument for such an arrangement has taken on particular
urgency in the wake of a welcome injunction by a federal judge bringing
to an end, at least temporarily, the federal mask mandate dictated by the
CDC that the judge ruled was an overreach of that agency’s authority. That
is particularly true in light of Dr. Anthony Fauci’s contention on April 21,
2022, that questions about the requirement for masks on airplanes and
elsewhere “should be decided as a public health issue by the public health
organizations, in this case the CDC. This is a public health matter, not a
judicial matter.”
Censoring Dissent as ‘Disinformation’

Another instrument long favored by totalitarians like the Chinese
Communist Party, but for most of U.S. history opposed by the American
left and right alike, has been the suppression of free speech. The COVID-19
pandemic, however, helped give political cover to leftists inside the
United States and their media allies who now aspire to achieving “thought
control” over their opponents. It also provided them with a pretext for
institutionalizing the practice and building out the infrastructure for
performing it.
127
Drawing on the practices of state-controlled media and propaganda

that are necessary for consolidating and perpetuating power in
authoritarian systems and from the playbook and recommendations
of Event 201, the leftist-dominated media, traditional and social, in the
United States began early in the pandemic silencing critics of the official
COVID narrative—starting with the Chinese origins of the SARS-CoV-2
virus. This practice was institutionalized in the Trusted News Initiative,
“a partnership that includes organizations such as First Draft, Google/
YouTube, Twitter, Reuters, Meta, and The Washington Post. It is the only
forum in the world of its kind designed to take on disinformation in
real time.”5 While it was originally developed to counter “dis- and mis-
information” about COVID-19, it has been employed to shape public
attitudes during the run-up to and the aftermath of the 2020 election and
to counter voices of medical and other critics of Big Pharma’s vaccines.
On April 21, 2022, former President Barack Obama made the
following, ominous comments at Stanford University:
“…While content moderation can limit the distribution of

clearly dangerous content, it doesn’t go far enough.”
***
“Now, some companies have been taking the next step in
managing toxic content, experimenting with new product
designs that, you know to use just one example, add friction
to slow the spread of potentially harmful content. And that
kind of innovation is a step in the right direction. It should be
applauded, but I also think decisions like this shouldn’t be left
solely to private interests.”
“These decisions affect all of us, and just like every other
industry that has a big impact in our society, that means these
big platforms need to be subject to some level of public oversight
and regulation.”
***
“A regulatory structure, a smart one, needs to be in place,
designed in consultation with tech companies, and experts
and communities that are affected, including communities of
5 https://www.bbc.co.uk/beyondfakenews/trusted-news-initiative/
128
color and others that sometimes are not well represented here
in Silicon Valley, that will allow these companies to operate
effectively while also slowing the spread of harmful content.
In some cases, industry standards may replace or substitute for
regulation, but regulation has to be part of the answer.”
In the absence of the sort of regulation Obama yearns for, so-

called “fact checkers” have been employed to respond to and justify the
muzzling of information that might, despite official efforts under the
Biden administration as well as those of its allies, gain some currency.
These guardians of truth and accuracy have become another instrument
for suppressing information, such as the provenance of the COVID-19
pandemic and available therapeutics for treating the virus; the truth
about election fraud in the 2020 election and the events of January 6,
2021; Joe Biden’s physical fitness to serve as president; and the extent of
his compromise by the Chinese Communists.
These techniques have even contributed to one of the most ominous
of totalitarian advances in the United States: the official designation of
political opponents of the Biden administration—including parents
critical of local school boards and those who are critical of or otherwise
opposed to COVID vaccines and mandates for their use—as “domestic
terrorists.” The Chinese Communist Party is, of course, one of the principal
beneficiaries of the diversion of the FBI, the Defense Department, and the
Intelligence Community to identifying, rooting out, and “reeducating”
such alleged internal “enemies” rather than those here who actually do
seek to bring down our constitutional republic and their allies, the most
important of which is the CCP.
The Next ‘Shoe’ to Drop: A Sovereignty-crushing Treaty

Empowerment of the WHO?
At the end of May 2022, the organization the Event 201 wargamers
believed should be a principal beneficiary of the present pandemic, the
World Health Organization, was the focus of intense negotiations aimed
at giving its Director-General sweeping new powers. On that occasion,
the amendments in question were rejected. But they are expected to
continue to be advanced by the Biden administration, the WHO, and
others in ongoing drafting sessions.
129
As we have seen, the participants in Event 201 inveighed at length

in their recommendations against interfering with travel and trade. Will
the WHO—which has, after all, been rendered effectively a puppet of the
CCP—prohibit signatories from doing as President Trump did in January
2021 by restricting travel from Communist China? That decision is widely
credited with sparing the United States millions of deaths due to COVID.
The trouble with multilateral negotiations on amending the WHO
International Health Regulations or creating a new Pandemic Treaty is
that they generally take place in protracted, behind-the-scenes sessions
for which there is little transparency or accountability. Without notice,
agreements are pushed forward—usually with a take-it-or-leave-it
approval process with little engagement or oversight by even the U.S.
Congress, let alone the public at large.
Such a practice must not be allowed to operate when, as in the
case of accords that would put the WHO on steroids, such vital equities
as sovereignty, public health policy, and, at the end of the day, national
security are on the line.
130
CHAPTER 5
COVID-19 as an Instrument of the

Chinese Communist
Party’s Economic Warfare
I t is no secret that the COVID-19 pandemic inflicted one of the greatest

economic catastrophes in world history. Less well understood is the
fact that what the preponderance of evidence indicates was a man-
made disaster engineered and unleashed on the rest of us by the Chinese
Communist Party is also a prime example of the CCP’s longstanding
practice of “unrestricted warfare” to inflict enduring damage on its
adversaries, especially the United States, without having to resort to
kinetic techniques.
Indeed, the principal beneficiary of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak
economically, as well as politically and strategically, was its perpetrator:
the CCP.
As has been discussed elsewhere in this report, starting on January 23,
2020, China locked down Wuhan for 76 days,1 prohibiting all domestic
travel but allowing 4 million people to leave that city to head to overseas
destinations.2 While Wuhan doctors were aware by the second week of
December 20193 that coronavirus was transmissible human-to-human,
the CCP did not alert the world to that fact. And on January 12, 2020,
1 https://www.nytimes.com/article/coronavirus-timeline.html
2 https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/economicwarroom/pages/786/attachments/
original/1592592929/ep93_Economic_Battle_Plan%E2%84%A2_Bill_Gertz.
pdf?1592592929
original/1610148856/ep120_Economic_Battle_Plan%E2%84%A2_China_Summit_1.
pdf?1610148856
131
at the CCP’s direction, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared

there was no human-to-human transmission.4 The WHO also shilled for
China by discouraging other nations from making the sovereign decision
to curtail travel from the People’s Republic of China (PRC).
A study found that 95 percent of deaths would have been avoided
if the Chinese had been truthful at the beginning.5 As renowned China
expert Gordon Chang put it:
“Xi Jinping lied about its contagiousness. He told the world it
was not transmissible when he knew it was contagious. Then he
pressured other countries to accept arrivals from China without
restriction while he was locking down his own country. You put
those things together, and the only explanation is he wanted to
spread this disease beyond China’s borders.”6
We have established that Chinese Communist Party General Secretary

Xi Jinping is determined to achieve China’s domination of the rest of the
world. Key to his plans is creating economic conditions that render the
PRC superior to its rivals. That can be accomplished via strengthening the
PRC, weakening its rivals, or a combination of the two.
The Economic Impetus Behind the CCP’s COVID-19

Proliferation
At the beginning of 2020, thanks in part to President Donald Trump’s
tariffs, the Chinese economy was in trouble. Matters were made vastly
worse, however, with the spread of the COVID pandemic due to China’s
production effectively being shut down at many manufacturing facilities
as mass quarantines were put in place. The PRC government estimated
that its economic growth would fall to 4 percent, well below the original
prediction of 6 percent. That imperiled China’s highly leveraged banks,
original/1592592929/ep93_Economic_Battle_Plan%E2%84%A2_Bill_Gertz.
pdf?1592592929
5 https://www.axios.com/timeline-the-early-days-of-chinas-coronavirus-outbreak-and-cover-
up-ee65211a-afb6-4641-97b8-353718a5faab.html?fbclid=IwAR2RZGrbs0TkgD-0iyNfMJHZ
MkGzQOXgVvn_7DcrsHeYCqe1f NM1Bt3QAws
original/1634606780/ep161_Economic_Battle_Plan%E2%84%A2_Gordon_Chang.
pdf?1634606780
132
with the prospect of them holding $6 trillion in bad loans posing an

existential threat to the CCP itself.7
While we cannot say for certain whether the CCP deliberately
released the SARS-CoV-2 virus or it happened accidentally, Xi’s regime
clearly saw the imperative need to ensure that it would not suffer
economic privation alone, to the advantage of its enemies, especially the
United States. Actively spreading the virus was, thus, a means of waging
economic warfare, and the Chinese Communists applied themselves to
doing so with a vengeance.
As the CCP successfully transformed their COVID-19 outbreak into
a global pandemic, China encouraged the adoption elsewhere of “the
China Model” that would inflict economic policies, as well as political and
social changes, advantageous to China and detrimental to its adversaries.
Notably, in March 2020, the Daily Mail reported that the British
government “believes China is seeking to build its economic power
during the pandemic with ‘predatory offers of help’ [to] countries around
the world.”8
“They have a post-virus strategy, and it is already underway,” said
Nate Picarsic, co-founder of Horizon Advisory, a consultancy that tracks
Chinese government and economic activity, in March 2020. “China
intends to seek out more foreign direct investment, seize market share
in critical industries and try to stop the West from confronting its bad
behavior,” Picarsic said.9
Economic Warfare’s Enabling Information Operations

The CCP’s economic warfare was accompanied and enabled by a
campaign of global information and other influence operations designed
to entice other countries into doing what was most advantageous
economically for China.
This campaign utilized three main lines of attack:
original/1583120233/ep76_Economic_Battle_Plan%E2%84%A2_Coronavirus.
pdf?1583120233
8 https://www.dailywire.com/news/british-scientific-advisers-claim-chinas-outbreak-could-
be-15-to-40-times-worse-than-reported-report-says
9 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/03/16/how-china-is-planning-use-
coronavirus-crisis-its-advantage/
133
First, the CCP insisted that other nations impose lockdowns,

too. Thanks to China’s so-called “zero-COVID” policy and its brutal
incarceration of tens of millions of people,10 China’s economy reportedly
shrank by 6.8 percent in the first quarter of 2020 (though this statistic, like
all official Chinese data, should be regarded with extreme skepticism).11
By ensuring other countries were subjected to similar, large-scale
paralysis and dislocation, everyone else would also experience economic
contraction and China would not be disproportionately harmed.
Unfortunately, that is precisely what happened.
On March 16, 2020, President Trump asked Americans to stay at
home as much as possible for 15 days to “slow the spread” of the CCP
virus.12 In short order, however, many state and local governments issued
their own lengthy, if not actually open-ended, lockdown orders, and
businesses across America were shuttered.
As a result, between February and April 2020, the United States
lost 22 million jobs.13 The economy shrank a record 31.4 percent in the
second quarter of 2020. Quarterly GDP had never dropped more than 10
percent since 1947.14
To blunt any effort aimed at holding the CCP accountable for its
COVID-19 pandemic, let alone demanding reparations for the economic
losses thus inflicted, the Chinese Communists utilized a second line of
propaganda attack: They promoted the false narrative that the virus
started in the United States, not China. On March 12, 2020, the Chinese
Foreign Ministry tweeted that the U.S. military brought coronavirus to
Wuhan during military games.15 Leaked CCP documents show that this
tweet was part of an official CCP effort instructing diplomats to blame the
pandemic on other countries.16
10 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/05/this-is-inhumane-the-cost-of-zero-
covid-in-shanghai
11 https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/17/china-economy-beijing-contracted-in-q1-2020-gdp-
amid-coronavirus.html
12 https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/16/trumps-coronavirus-guidelines-for-next-15-days-to-
slow-pandemic.html
13 https://carsey.unh.edu/publication/COVID-19-Economic-Impact-By-
State#:~:text=Every%20state%20is%20on%20the,to%2080%25%20of%20those%20jobs.
14 https://www.thebalance.com/how-covid-19-has-affected-the-us-economy-5092445
15 https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3075051/chinese-foreign-ministry-
spokesman-tweets-claim-us-military
16 https://bitterwinter.org/de-sinicizing-the-virus-how-ccp-propaganda-is-rewriting-history/
134
Since the preponderance of available evidence shows that the source

of the virus was a lab in Wuhan, China transparently sought to deflect
responsibility by blaming the United States and Italy, in particular. The
CCP also insisted that, contrary to convention, the name of the SARS-
CoV-2 virus not reflect the place where it first was discovered, i.e., Wuhan.
Those who adopted the term “Wuhan Virus” were accused of xenophobia,
a meme promptly embraced by the Chinese-controlled WHO and
Western media.17 The practical effect was to help Beijing’s propagandists
sow doubts about the actual origins of the pandemic.
The third CCP propaganda strategy was aimed at showing, as part
of its promotion of the China Model, that communism is inherently
superior to capitalism because, thanks to the Party’s centralized and
absolute power, it was able to do what Western democracies could not
do—quickly control the public health crisis. This, of course, was not
true. In May 2021, The Economist estimated that China understated the
COVID death rate by 17,000 percent.18 China claimed only 4,636 people
from their population of 1.4 billion died, but it is likely it had lost by that
time around 1.7 million.19
Even more unbelievably, China did not report a single COVID death
between January 2021 and March 2022.20 These preposterously low-
balling data were, nonetheless, accepted by many Western governments
and media outlets as legitimate and, in some cases, were even used as a
reason to emulate China’s “zero-COVID” approach and its associated
lockdowns and other techniques for controlling not so much the disease
as the population that might contract it. Consistent as well with its second
line of propaganda attack, the CCP asserted that America’s “slow response
is a direct cause” of the pandemic.21
By the spring of 2022, most countries have removed lockdowns and
restrictions, and COVID deaths and infections are retreating.22 The PRC,
17 https://twitter.com/jmichaelwaller/status/1502127967337594889
18 https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/05/13/how-we-estimated-the-true-
death-toll-of-the-pandemic
19 https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/05/13/how-we-estimated-the-true-
death-toll-of-the-pandemic
20 https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/03/18/world/covid-19-mandates-cases-vaccine
21 https://centerforsecuritypolicy.org/china-pla-pandemic-disinformation-propaganda/
22 https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/covid-19-retreating-americas-says-regional-
health-agency-2022-03-16/
135
however, is redoubling its zero-COVID regimen in the face of continuing

outbreaks of the Omicron variant with, by some estimates, as many as
400 million people in important cities across China, including Beijing,
under harsh lockdown. If someone tests positive for COVID, their entire
building is secured and everyone in it must be tested and isolated.23 People
have been sealed off24 in shopping malls overnight. While the full extent
of the problem has not been publicly disclosed, such strict measures have
caused suicide rates in Hong Kong to hit “crisis level.”25
Naturally, such measures are having knock-on effects on the
manufacture, export, and domestic and foreign consumption of Chinese
products and the country’s gross domestic product. For example,
according to a Citi analysis, “Economic loss may be real this time. Jointly
considering the spillover effect to other regions, we think the lockdown
and tightened quarantine measures this round could potentially deduct
~0.5-0.8 ppt of GDP growth in Q1, assuming no policy responses.”26
Inflation Caused by COVID Relief

To attempt to fix the economic damage caused by American adoption
of the China Model, the U.S. Congress passed several stimulus bills,
totaling $6 trillion, in what the New York Times called the “largest flood of
federal money in the United States economy in recorded history.”27 When
the Government pumps $6 trillion into the economy, it creates problems.
By February 2022, the inflation rate accelerated to 7.5 percent—a 40-year
high—and food, electricity, housing, and energy prices sharply increased.28
The money the federal government added to the economy went
substantially to individuals who could spend it only on goods because
of the lockdowns. People could not travel, go to restaurants, concerts,
23 https://thehill.com/opinion/international/3256866-the-brutality-and-absurdity-of-chinas-
zero-covid-policy/
24 https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/14/world/asia/china-covid-omicron-lockdowns.html
25 https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/3172319/coronavirus-show-concern-
family-and-friends-experts-urge-hong-kong
26 https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/16/what-we-know-about-the-economic-impact-of-
chinas-covid-spike.html
27 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/03/11/us/how-covid-stimulus-money-was-
spent.html
28 https://www.wsj.com/articles/us-inflation-consumer-price-index-
january-2022-11644452274
136
movies, or even get a haircut. Americans ended up buying about 15

percent more goods than they would normally purchase, but there were
fewer goods available because so much production had stopped. Nobody
was prepared for the surge in pent-up demand, whether it was mom-
and-pop shops or large corporations. The result was massive supply-
chain problems from shortages of raw materials and manufacturing and
protracted delays in shipping such products as were available.
In an effort to keep interest rates low, the Federal Reserve monetized
the debt. But the drastic increase in money supply without an increase in
the supply of goods and services nonetheless sparked galloping inflation.
The Fed’s main tool to fight inflation is raising interest rates, which
makes borrowing more expensive and slows down investments. In March
2022, the Fed raised the interest rate for the first time in three years and
is said to be planning to increase rates further at the most aggressive pace
in 15 years.29
As Covid restrictions waned, the United States had a national debt
approaching $30 trillion (now surpassed), and the government was paying
an average of a little over 1 percent in interest on that debt annually. Since
then, due to the inflationary impact, interest rates have begun a sharp rise.
If interest rates were to go up to 6 percent on $30 trillion, interest payments
would jump from under $400 billion per year to $1.8 trillion. To put that
in perspective, it would take half of all federal tax revenue for the year. We
would be paying more in interest than we do for Medicare, social security,
national defense, or any government program. And as a practical matter,
we could not engage in discretionary, but necessary, spending30—notably
for the military—without defaulting on at least some of the debt.
As things stand now, the only reason we have been able to fund our
massive debt at all is because the dollar is the world’s reserve currency,
allowing the United States to simply print more money to meet spending
needs. Inevitably, however, that practice debases the value of the currency
and adds to growing pressure to end its reserve status.
29 https://www.wsj.com/articles/fed-raises-interest-rates-for-first-time-since-2018-
11647453603?mod=article_inline
original/1612439543/ep124_Economic_Battle_Plan%E2%84%A2_Inflation.pdf?1612439543
137
Challenges to the U.S. Dollar

America represents less than 5 percent of the world’s population
but produces about 25 percent of the world’s gross domestic product,
and 80 percent of the world’s transactions are done in dollars.31 America
continues to benefit greatly from its reserve currency status.
Dr. Gal Luft, an expert on energy, economics, and currency, offered a
sense of the strategic value of that arrangement32:
“If Vladimir Putin wants to obtain a $100 bill, you need to
send his people to Siberia and drill two barrels of oil out of
the ground. But if America wants to get $100, all it has to do is
press print. This gives you a tremendous advantage when you
are able to not only print your own money, but also get other
countries to borrow your money. … We have a debt of $23
trillion. And it is growing at a rate of $1 trillion a year. About half
of this is borrowed overseas, and it’s borrowed against dollar-
denominated debt instruments. So, this special status has given
the United States the ability to borrow much more money and to
run trade deficits that are bigger than any other country would
be able to. This enables the U.S. to run those kind of deficits, and
also build the kind of military that we have today.”
The reserve currency is, arguably, the single most important source of
American power today. It enables us to impose U.S. foreign policies around
the world. The dollar’s weaponization to punish Russia in the aftermath
of its invasion of Ukraine is a prime example of both the strategic value of
this unique status and why others are intent on terminating it.
Most notably, Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran are collaborating
in concerted unilateral and multilateral efforts to undermine the dollar.
Russia began in earnest in 2009. China followed in 2013. North Korea and
Iran would love to see the dollar fail, as they are subject to our sanctions.
America’s huge and growing federal debt provides a further impetus
for their efforts, and the perceived decline in the value of U.S. security
original/1584465432/ep79_Economic_Battle_Plan%E2%84%A2_DeDollarization_Dr_Gal_
Luft.pdf?1584465432
original/1584465432/ep79_Economic_Battle_Plan%E2%84%A2_DeDollarization_Dr_Gal_
Luft.pdf?1584465432
138
guarantees is prompting even some U.S allies to pursue international

transactions denominated in currencies other than the dollar.
In March 2022, the Wall Street Journal reported Saudi Arabia was
in talks to price some of its oil sales in yuan. The Saudis are incensed at
the Biden administration’s pursuit of another nuclear deal with Iran and
because of the steps it has taken to demean and endanger the Kingdom
(notably, by removing Iran’s Huthi proxies from the terrorism list and
withdrawing from Saudi Arabia U.S. Patriot missiles needed to defend
against the Huthis’ missile attacks). If Saudi Arabia agrees to price oil it
sells in yuan, it would be a huge blow to the “petrodollar” that has operated
since Richard Nixon’s time.33 The CCP’s rollout of its digital “e-yuan” for
international transactions will only intensify that pressure.34
In the aftermath of U.S. and Western economic and financial
retaliation against Russia over its invasion of Ukraine at the end of
February 2022, the Kremlin has begun requiring rubles in payment for its
energy sales. India’s and European nations’ willingness to engage in such
transactions is another sign that the dollar may be dethroned, setting in
motion dire economic repercussions that will make the stagflation crisis
of the moment pale by comparison.
Financing the Rope

The Chinese Communist Party has added insult to its considerable
injury via the COVID-19 pandemic by continuing in its practice of getting
American investors to underwrite Beijing’s unrestricted warfare against
this country. Especially since May 2013, when then-Vice President Joe
Biden helped arrange a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between
the United States and China, the CCP’s “Old Friends” on Wall Street like
BlackRock’s Larry Fink have transferred by some estimates $3 trillion
or more to corporations owned or controlled by the Party. The U.S.
government has sanctioned some of these companies for their enabling
of threats posed to us by the People’s Liberation Army and/or the CCP’s
human rights abuses.
33 https://www.wsj.com/articles/saudi-arabia-considers-accepting-yuan-instead-of-dollars-
for-chinese-oil-sales-11647351541
34 See Kyle Bass’ interview on “American Thought Leaders,” https://podcasts.apple.com/us/
podcast/kyle-bass-chinas-digital-currency-is-a-blackmail/id1471411980?i=1000557555130
139
Worse yet, Biden’s MoU actually gave the Chinese Communists

preferential access to U.S. capital markets, allowing their companies to
ignore statutes and regulations designed to protect American investors
from non-transparent and unaccountable fraudsters. Thanks to this
sweetheart arrangement, among other factors, those Americans lost
approximately $600 billion in bad Chinese investments in 2021.
Especially in light of the success of Xi Jinping’s economic warfare
enabled by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, it is unconscionable—if not actually
treasonous—for financiers properly described as “CCP Groomers” to
continue moving vast resources from mostly unwitting U.S. investors to
our mortal enemy, the Chinese Communist Party, providing trillions of
U.S. dollars for PLA military buildup and the rope with which to hang
ourselves.
Conclusion
For well over twenty years, the Chinese Communist Party has
systematically engaged in economic warfare, among other techniques,
aimed at displacing the United States as the global hegemon. When
this doctrine known as Unrestricted Warfare was published in 1999, few
recognized the magnitude of the threat its relentless application by Beijing
would represent.
Never has that threat been clearer than now, in the wake of the CCP’s
decision to spread deliberately the pandemic with all its harmful economic
and other repercussions. After all, as Gordon Chang has observed, it is
the first time one nation has simultaneously attacked all the others. Yet to
date, Xi Jinping and his fellow Chinese Communists have not been held
accountable, let alone punished, for their actions.
The CCP’s failure to secure justice and compensation for the 6
million lives lost so far to COVID-19—including those of roughly a
million Americans—and the enormous economic damage it has caused is
made all the more outrageous by the degree to which America’s financial
sector persists in underwriting what is nothing less than a Transnational
Criminal Organization.
That practice by Wall Street of investing in Chinese Communist
Party-owned or -controlled companies must end forthwith. And we must
thwart efforts to expand what the Coalition for a Prosperous America
140
has properly dubbed “economic treason”35 by major financiers like Larry

Fink. In particular, they must not be allowed to facilitate the CCP’s bid to
tap the retirement funds of U.S. government employees, past and present,
military and civilian, invested in the world’s largest pension fund: the
Thrift Savings Plan.36
35 https://prosperousamerica.org/cpa-to-federal-retirement-board-investing-federal-pension-
in-chinese-companies-is-economic-treason/
36 https://presentdangerchina.org/release-c-p-d-c-calls-on-federal-pension-system-board-to-
respect-bipartisan-opposition-to-investing-in-chinese-companies/
141
RECOMMENDATIONS
B
ased on its analysis and conclusions, Team B III offers the following
recommendations:
1. A concerted effort must be made to educate the American
people about not only the truth regarding the Chinese Communist
Party’s responsibility for the COVID-19 pandemic. They must also
be equipped to understand the priority that this apparent example of
the CCP’s willingness to use biological weapons suggests biological
warfare will play in the larger People’s War the CCP has declared
against the United States and its goal of destroying our country in
order to dominate the world.
2. U.S. failures in pandemic preparedness must be outlined
and accountability established, and new efforts to achieve the
needed, robust capabilities to deal with future outbreaks must
be implemented immediately. It is estimated that 10 to 40 new,
naturally occurring viruses are still unknown to science, some of
which are expected to naturally jump into the human population
over the next 20 years. The pathogenic severity of these viruses and
their epidemic/pandemic potential are currently unknown, but the
threat is real and growing. The world seems to be entering an age of
pandemics where, by the time a new virus is discovered in humans, it
is too late easily to contain its spread.
Outside of preemptive measures, the only practical, cost-effective
defense to a serious biological threat involves a comprehensive
“bottom-up” strategy. If every local community in the U.S. can
manage its own medical surge requirements, then the nation as
a whole can manage a serious biological event. Therefore, a new
concentration must be made with respect to Local Community
Public Health preparedness. This will require a return to the type of
civil defense planning originally entailed under Public Law 920 of the
81st Congress.
It will also entail a mandatory partial restructuring of the Federal
143
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to teach local

authorities how to prepare for and respond to a major infectious
disease event. From this solid foundation, an interlinked, solid
public health infrastructure for epidemic/pandemic control can be
created for the nation.
3. The imperative need to reestablish effective pandemic response
plans has grown enormously with the transfer of U.S. gain-of-function
technology and techniques to the Chinese Communist Party. During
the Cold War, the United States maintained a robust Biological
Defense program. This capability and spirit has evaporated and
must be re-established with alacrity.
4. The practice of allowing Chinese nationals—including those
with ties to the People’s Liberation Army—to conduct research with or
otherwise have access to U.S. government and other laboratories,
pharmaceutical companies, and research institutions must end.
Thanks to the CCP’s whole-of-society unrestricted warfare against
this country and, especially, its “civil-military fusion” in support
of China’s biological warfare program, such access amounts to an
unrestricted vehicle for transferring militarily relevant technology
and know-how directly to our mortal enemy.
5. American investors must stop underwriting the Chinese
war effort. The preferential access CCP-owned and -controlled
companies enjoy to U.S. capital markets has resulted in the transfer
to China of trillions of dollars, much of which is enabling, to name
just a few of the threats thus posed to our national security and vital
interests: the Chinese Communists’ biological warfare program and
other military enhancements; the CCP’s supply-chain dominance of
medicines, personal protective equipment, rare earth minerals, flat
screens, chips, and other vital products; human rights abuses; and
colonial infrastructure build-out worldwide.
6. The proposed surrender of U.S. sovereignty to the World
Health Organization, by which its director-general would be
empowered to dictate what constitutes “public health crises of
international concern” in this country and how we must respond to
them, is wholly unacceptable and must be rejected. The abysmal
performance of the WHO in the COVID-19 pandemic and its
domination by the Chinese Communist Party—which now is
144
manifested not only by its selection of and close relationship with

the Ethiopian Marxist Dr. Tedros Ghebreyesus but also by its recent
acquisition of a seat on the WHO’s Executive Committee—should
preclude any arrangement other than voluntary cooperation with the
WHO by a fully sovereign America.
Any and all changes to WHO International Health Regulations,
as well as the proposed Pandemic Treaty, must be critically
reviewed and receive the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate.
7. We must never again allow our constitutional freedoms to be
denied on the pretext of a public health emergency, especially
at the insistence of foreign powers, let alone our mortal enemy.
The “China Model,” with its lockdowns, quarantines, mandatory
vaccinations with inadequately tested gene therapies, vaccine passports,
and “canceling” of those who object, are unacceptable and must not be
imposed in the future without the express consent of the governed.
145
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
T eam B III (TB3) benefited enormously from the assistance of a

number of individuals whose efforts in drafting, editing, otherwise
improving, and disseminating The CCP is at War with America were
indispensable to the realization of this “exercise in competitive analysis.”
Special thanks goes to Dr. Steven Hatfill, an extraordinary patriot
as well as arguably the preeminent American authority on biological
warfare. Dr. Hatfill’s contributions to this study were extensive and of the
greatest importance to the specific rebuttals to the Director of National
Intelligence (DNI) assessment that the SARS-CoV-2 virus may have
emanated either from nature or from a Chinese laboratory. His tireless
attention to detail and unparalleled subject matter expertise are deeply
appreciated by the entire team.
Gordon Chang is one of our country’s most indefatigable opponents
of the Chinese Communist Party. His willingness from the outset of this
project to provide a Foreword to the Report was a powerful affirmation of
the importance of the TB3 initiative, and a great inspiration for all those
who worked on it.
Dede Laugesen, the Executive Secretary of the Committee on the
Present Danger: China (CPDC), and Morgan Wirthlin, Chief of Staff
for the Center for Security Policy, were instrumental in assembling data
and content in support of the Team. And Oleg Atbashian, the CPDC’s
webmaster was, as always, critical to the design and online elements of the
Report. Team B III wishes to thank Don Woodsmall, President and CEO
of the Center for Security Policy, for his help with both the content and
proofreading of the manuscript to assure quality control. TB3 also thanks
Deborah and Michael Hamilton and their team at Hamilton Strategies
for their excellent counsel and help in the publicizing and otherwise
maximizing of the impact of the Report.
Last but hardly least, TB3 is deeply grateful to JP Watson, who when
asked on extremely short notice, dropped everything to help with
the copyediting, formatting, and other essential preparations for the
Report’s publication.
147

Team B III Covid Report - CCPatWar

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Team B III Covid Report - CCPatWar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The CCP is at War

REPORT OF TEAM B III

Center for Security Policy

The CCP is at War with America

June 22, 2022

Phone: (202) 835-9077 | Email: info@securefreedom.org

Cover art by Oleg Atbashian

Hon. Pete Hoekstra

Lieutenant Gen. William “Jerry” Boykin

Dr. Steven Hatfill, MD, MSc, MSc, M.Med

Colonel John Mills

J.R. “Jeff” Nyquist

China’s Crime of the Century

Xi will be the first supremo to possess a weapon making worldwide Chinese

Gordon G. Chang is the author of The Coming Collapse of China. Follow

T he Chinese Communist Party (CCP) seeks to achieve the status

Introducing Team B III

assessment, but a fundamental overhaul of the Intelligence Community

4. The Chinese Communist Party has an active biological warfare

Virology—once unleashed in China, was deliberately spread by the

The CCP’s Global Ambitions

The CCP’s Weapon of Choice: Biological Warfare

Political Warfare Success: The ‘China Model’

Key elements of this China Model included the following:

A further windfall for Communist China was the defeat of Donald

COVID-19 as an Instrument of the CCP’s Economic

As noted above, as the CCP successfully transformed their

3. The imperative need to reestablish effective pandemic response

Any and all changes to WHO International Health Regulations,

By Team B III Co-Chairmen Amb. Pete Hoekstra

A s national security practitioners, intelligence professionals and

Considerations Necessitating a ‘Second Opinion’ on the

• The CCP’s global ambitions;

The COVID Pandemic as a Microcosm of What

process among all 17 members of the Intelligence Community. In other

2 Relevant guidance to the Intelligence Community’s assessment process includes the

An Increasingly Dysfunctional Process

Garbage In, Garbage Out

a second opinion against the advice of the Intelligence Community,

The Defective COVID-19 Intelligence Community

First, it appears that collecting intelligence on Chinese government

The CCP’s Global Ambitions

T he context for this exercise in competitive analysis concerning the

they have tremendous differences with what we normally speak

1 Unrestricted Warfare, pp. 24-25

These actions were seen as both an immediate threat to China’s rise

Remaking the World Minus the U.S.

Taking Down the Dollar

and the perceived decline of America’s military power and reliability as

The Belt and Road Gambit

Elite Capture in America

The CCP’s Weapon of Choice: Biowarfare

T he foregoing assessment of the Chinese Communist Party’s

The Secret Speech of Defense Minister Chi Haotian

To solve these problems, the Defense Minister said, the Chinese

The ‘Hide and Bide’ Strategy

The Taiwan Diversion

According to Chi’s speech, Taiwan is not China’s primary target.

Further Confirmation of the CCP’s Plans for Warfare

Insights into the Conduct of Biological Warfare and the

Rothschild also warned that sabotage committed by way of toxic

Biowarfare and Bio Sabotage

8 Ibid, pp. 132-133.