The Chinese Communist Party owes the entire world restitution for its negligent handling and release of a virus which they fully understood could be deployed as a weapon of war. A virus which has destroyed human rights, worldwide economies, and furthermore resulted in over 5 million deaths globally to date.
When the United States Navy mistakenly shot down a civilian airliner over the Persian Gulf, Iran Flight 655 on July 3rd 1988, despite some reasonable evidence as to its helicopters having coming under fire during that incident, the United States could not have reasonably made the claim ‘Does it really make a difference who is at fault? Let’s focus on making sure there is no repeat of this type of incident’.
Despite most folks understanding that it would not (usually) intentionally shoot down a civilian passenger airliner, the United States in this instance still owed restitution to Iran and its harmed citizens for malicious negligence in the handling and safekeeping of a potential weapon of war – an Aegis/SM-2MR anti-air warfare missile system. The United States had been entrusted by the international community with keeping peace in the Persian Gulf and furthermore maintaining the safety of key shipping lanes therein. The U.S. was negligent and cavalier in that duty however, mistakenly releasing a missile and causing the death of multiple innocents. In February 1996, the U.S. agreed to pay Iran US$131.8 million in settlement to discontinue a case brought by Iran in 1989 against the U.S. in the International Court of Justice (The Hague).
Ethically, a gain-of-function man-made virus is no different than a missile system or weapon of war. Those who are entrusted by the international community with safekeeping of such weapons of mass destruction must be held accountable for incompetence in their handling and employment, as well as the harm derived thereof.
The mistaken disposition of an IFF (Identify friend or foe) aircraft transponder signal as ‘foe (hostile)’ – is not materially different from the inept execution of bio safety level (BSL) lab procedures – both involve a hazardous ‘lab’ environment entrusted to professionals supposedly trained in their craft and its safekeeping protocols. Negligence here, imparts liability.
This responsibility mandate is the impetus behind obfuscation efforts on the part of Chinese officials regarding the origins of Covid-19 – efforts to block a reasonable process of discovery, which are profiled in this article. The People’s Republic of China and its Chinese Communist Party (hereinafter ‘the CCP’, ‘China’s CCP’, or ‘The Party’) owe the world restitution along the same legal lines as those which presided in the Iran Flight 655 case. Theirs was a case of malicious negligence in the handling of a Chinese-made virus which could be mistakenly released as a defacto weapon of war, no different than a missile inadvertently deployed from an anti-air warfare, or even strategic nuclear system. A duty which was entrusted to them by the international community for handling and safekeeping of such a potential weapon. A duty they were negligent and cavalier in executing, causing the ‘shoot-down’ death of myriad innocents outside their nation.2
How do we infer that the Chinese Communist Party both reacted to and concealed the existence of SARS-CoV-2 as far back as March 2018? There is a critical path of query and dependency necessary and sufficient in prosecuting this problem from a deductive perspective. The questions which compose this pathway are exhibited in detail within this article. To summarize in advance, the critical arguments within this article involve eight key avenues of consilient inference:
1. The mismatch in timing of Chinese SARS-CoV-2 B.1 and B.1.617.2 variant global rates of spread
2. The conclusive evidence of both risk and culpability that SARS-CoV-2 was released (not zoonotic) from a Chinese BSL gain-of-function lab (during a U.S. ‘pause’ in such research)
3. The elevated rates of unidentified ‘flu’ in longitude E65-180 nations during 2018/19, matching geographic pathogenic history
4. The observed footprint of Covid prior immunity in longitude E65-180 nations (up until Delta variant prior natural-immunity breakthrough infections)
5. The genetics of SARS-CoV-2 itself, which strongly suggest an inception case date of March 2018
6. The CCP’s social response to an unknown, which resulted in unprecedented CO2 ppm reductions during 2018/19
7. The CCP’s reactive social disruption patterns exhibited during 2019
8. The CCP’s concerted efforts to conceal the critical databases, genomes, and lab production logs which pertain to SARS-CoV-2 origins.
What follows within this article therefore, and through confirmation of its central themes on the part of U.S .Intelligence services (see Question #17 near end of article), does not constitute a conspiracy theory.
1. Did China’s CCP misrepresent Covid’s speed and means of spread/transmission in Jan 2020? Answer: Yes.
China deceptively communicated that Covid-19 had gone from a first infection on December 27th 2019, to the entire world, inside of three months. In fact, Covid actually spreads geographically slow, by season (see Question #2 below), from an impetus which involves primarily fecal aerosols active in seasonal atmosphere. Principal spread was by means of household toilet aerosols and plumbing, as well as spraying of Class B Biosolids bearing human sewage sludge onto (primarily corn) fields in the Fall, and
Convective Available Potential Energy from Surface (CAPES) driving aerosolization of open wastewater (shown in the CAPE chart on the left below).3 These three factors became the origin of most Covid outbreaks. These outbreaks then followed a Hope-Simpson seasonal-latitude progression and did not principally spread through breathing fomites as does the flu – as China had claimed early on to the international community.
The seasonal spread from the chart peak on the left below, to the peak depicted in the chart on the right below, will actually span a period of 4 to 5 months. Covid’s natural spread does not come in the form of rocketing across the globe in just over two months as it turns out, contrary to what we believed (were told by China’s CCP) in March 2020. Remember that the first priority of China’s CCP was to confuse the international community as to Covid’s characteristics and measures – so that their culpability in its release could not be directly observed nor inferred.
Rule #1: The Party must not be mocked.
2. How long does the most communicable Covid variant (B.1.167.2 Delta) take to progress globally? Answer: 10 months.
One must remember two principles in this deliberation. First, Covid vaccines do not stop the transmission of the virus, rather only serve to mitigate its severity in vaccinated individuals.4 In fact, the opening of society based upon higher levels of vaccination, only served to speed the transmission of the Delta variant, not slow it. Second, the Delta variant still infected those with natural prior immunity from previous Covid B.1 and B.1.1.7 infection. So the notion that, for these reasons, the Delta variant spread more slowly across the globe is incorrect. Therefore, the fastest actual global spread we witnessed for a Covid variant, was indeed 10 months in duration.
3. Were lockdowns ‘successful’ as a means to mitigate Covid spread, as China’s CCP claimed? Answer: No.
“We cannot rule out the possibility that the local population’s fear in the early days of COVID-19 determined both the strictness of state-imposed lockdowns and subsequent COVID-19 death rates, with no direct causal link between state actions and subsequent observed deaths.
By shutting down large portions of the economy, lockdowns were accompanied by the failure of many businesses and a massive increase in unemployment. While the entire country has been affected by the pandemic, low-income and middle-income workers have been disproportionately impacted. As a result of furloughs, layoffs, and general economic retraction, as many as 8 million Americans have fallen into poverty since the pandemic began.”5
~ Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy; Report on State Restrictions versus Covid Death Rates
Sweden, one of the few nations which refused to heed the lockdown-fable boasts on the part of the long E65 – 180 nations, has fared far better than all of its peer nations in terms of Covid deaths.
Neither a 70% vaccination rate, nor extensive lockdowns have proven effective in quelling Australia’s severe SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant outbreak. The Gompertz progression proceeded unabated through a normal profile as shown below. States such as Australia and New Zealand paid a heavy price for misunderstanding what exactly worked and did not work against Covid-19.
Suddenly, with the onset of the Delta variant, the boasting about superior national lockdown policy and execution has ended.
Finally, just as in the case of Australia, as soon as these nations in the long E65 – 180 geographic block were hit with the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, the variant with the most genetic divergence from B.1 – they suddenly found lockdowns to be useless as well. The case is clear. Prior immunity benefited these nations, but only lasted for a couple years up until the Delta variant (B.1.617.2) breakthrough against a waning IgG antibody base.
4. Did Covid spread in Feb/Mar 2020 as if it was a pathogen novel to the entire globe? Answer: No.
By August 2020 it had become clear that the contiguous group of nations in the East Asia-Pacific region between longitudes E65 and E180 all bore a prior immunity to Covid-19. This was falsely passed off as the result of superior knowledge, governing, mitigation practices, and racial stereotypes on the part of those nations. In fact, as it turned out, those nations had been exposed to a precursor SARS-CoV-2 or SARS-CoV-2 itself, long before the theater of coercion which encompassed 2020.
Specifically, nations in this geographic cluster bore a null relationship between size of population and number of Covid cases or deaths (beige dots and Pearson line in the chart below). Since Covid spreads in the household and inside venues which cannot be sanitized completely, only prior immunity can create a lack of association between these two variables to this comprehensive degree. It is clear that SARS-CoV-2 behaved as if already endemic inside this geographic block of nations.
This block of nations, between longitude E65 ad E180 bore the highest level of immunity to Covid, followed by central African nations with high concentrations of Chinese workers/projects, and exposure along equatorial trade winds along CAPES (see Question #1 above) concentrations.
Moreover, these exact same nations have a solid history of being the first nations which gain exposure/immunity to Asian novel pathogens in the past. Thus there exists a long precedent of history as to this pattern of pathogen progression globally. Below we observe that the 1957 H2N2 flu took the same exact pathway of spread which SARS-CoV-2 has under this article’s line of conjecture.
5. Were the nations hardest and least hit by Covid concentrated into longitudinal groups by human travel and climate pathways? Answer: Yes.
Not only were the nations which exhibited prior immunity to SARS-CoV-2 all grouped together inside traditional pathways of historic virus spread, as well, these nations (outside of China) happened to reside along equatorial trade wind latitudes transferring virus material westward towards central Africa and the remainder of Pacific Oceania.
Just as did the 1957 H2N2 influenza, SARS-CoV-2 transferred along CAPE pathways of viral conveyance globally. Geographic proximity, regional worker migration corridors, and CAPES-energized air movements, in that order, appeared to be the primary factors which related to prior immunity against SARS-CoV-2. Below, one can observe that SARS-CoV-2 communicated not only along CAPES and worker-migration pathways, but along the exact same geographics as the 1957 H2N2 influenza did as well (see Question #4 above).
6. Were there indicators that an unknown pathogen struck areas least hit by Covid, in the years prior to Covid-19 – and further then finally struck Western nations 10 to 18 months later? Answer: Yes.
It became clear in my investigation, that the Pacific Rim and Oceania nations bore the sole success in lockdowns globally. Eventually lockdowns were disproved as an effective means of mitigating SARS-CoV-2. The next candidate for such mitigation was prior immunity to SARS-CoV-2 in particular. But this required that Covid, or a precursor thereof, circulate in the 12 to 21 months immediately prior (based on IgG antibody dilution curves which left the same region vulnerable to the Delta variant in 2021) to the 2020 pandemic. Was there evidence that such a pathogen indeed circulated in these regions and in this timeframe? Yes, good evidence in fact. The next two charts show clearly that a sudden rise in illness and death preceded Covid in these prior immunity nations during the 2018 and 2019 timeframe.
Remember that very few cases of influenza are actually derived from a tested phenotype. Most cases are diagnosed abductively (are simply declared to be flu). In the years immediately prior to 2020, the Pacific Rim and Oceania nations which showed prior immunity, just happened to also experience much higher rates of influenza and death in their 85+ age cohorts.
This excess death in the 85+ age cohort (shown in the chart below) in 2018/19, then dovetailed nicely into Covid excess deaths in Italy and the U.S. beginning in 2019. Our contention is that this demonstrates the natural and well-documented actual spread rate of Covid identified in Question #2 above. The challenge therefore that, ‘Why didn’t Covid spread to the entire world in 2019?’ becomes moot. It did spread. Just not at the Chinese-advertised rate and during a time where we were simply not aware of it.
Meanwhile, Australia and other Pacific Rim and Oceania nations struggled with a severe ‘not subtyped’ flu during the 2018/19 season. This ‘flu’ then conferred the observed Covid prior immunity upon the long E65 – 180 group of nations. Below are three charts showing annual rates of influenza for the Philippines, Japan, and Australia.
Note that Australia’s flu peak, superimposed in red below, coincides nicely with both Japan’s rate of excess death as well as China’s sigma reductions in carbon dioxide emissions for that timeframe. SARS-CoV-2 might or might not have hit the region in 2017, however it is clear that China knew about its presence by Covid’s peak in early 2018. While the CCP responded too late in 2018 to have an impact on the pathogen, by 2019 they knew exactly what they were facing and how they wanted to go about mitigating it (although in the end what turned out to be feckless measures) – but of course the CCP failed to inform the world community because it was ‘none of their business’. This was a Chinese internal-state matter.
Rule #2: Matters of The Party are matters of The Party only.
Not only was there an exceptionally large ‘flu’ rate in China in 2018/19, prior to SARS-CoV-2, but as well there was a curious pause in the 2018 flu altogether, right as carbon emissions in China plummeted to their lowest levels. Levels which were the result of an unknown-in-cause social clampdown. Curiously this constituted a flu-disappearing-act which was also observed later in western nations during their peak period of SARS-CoV-2.
7. Do Covid-19’s genetics indicate that it existed as a lab-release pathogen well before Oct 2019? Answer: Yes.
The virus bears an exception in the form of a furin specific cleavage site which cannot exist in a zoonotic virus of this phenotype, and had to be created in a lab and gain-of-function setting.
As well, despite circulating in myriad number of human hosts for almost two years now, most of SARS-CoV-2’s human-adaptation variations occurred in the ‘early phase’ of (read as ‘in a lab’ or the ‘two years prior to’) the pandemic.
Precursor genetics of the virus identified by China in December of 2019, indicate one or two years of mutation prior to the index case genomics of the B.1 variant.
If one takes a sample of the rate of mutation of the SARS-CoV-2 virus around October 2020, avoiding both the early ‘pseudo-hyper-mutation’ period and the later accelerated mutation brought on by an extreme amount of circulation in the population, one can derive the actual 2018 through mid-2020 intrinsic rate of mutation for the virus. When this real rate of mutation is then extrapolated linearly, it suggests strongly an index case in mid-early 2018.
Please take note that fully one quarter of all Covid variations to date occurred in that first month of the virus’ ‘existence’. This is a ridiculous assumption (see the accelerating red curve in the chart below), revealing that this portion of the mutation base probably occurred over the two years prior to January 2020, and not inside the two months shown in the chart below.
Similarly, when linear extrapolations are compared between variants of Covid from outside China, Wuhan, and China areas outside of Wuhan, a progressive story can be witnessed in the mutation base. The areas in China outside of Wuhan featured the oldest variants of Covid, with a suggested index case in mid-late 2018. Thereafter, the strains of the virus in Wuhan coincide with exactly the dates in which Wuhan residents were protesting about an unidentified deadly respiratory illness (Jun 2019) in the city’s population. In turn, these timeline milestones also happen to coincide exactly with China’s anomalous (45-year exception) reductions in CO2 ppm output.
8. Do the progression timelines of the wild (B.1) and delta (B.1.617.2) variants of SARS-Cov-2 agree in their implications? Answer: No.
China’s CCP lied about the speed at which SARS-CoV-2 B.1 spread globally. This variant of the virus not only did not spread globally in a mere 3 months, but moreover when indexed against the well-measured rate of spread for the Delta variant, indicates a probable index case in China of around mid-to-late 2018, or into 2019 at the latest.
9. Did the CCP bear the capacity and opportunity to release, and imminent risk of releasing Covid in 2018/19? Answer: Yes.
Before they were aware that their emails would become critical evidence, members of Anthony Fauci’s team expressed the opinion that SARS-CoV-2 genetics were inconsistent with a virus of zoonotic origin. They believed that it was the product of a gain-of-function lab – but both a lab and a genomic signature about which they had no specific knowledge.
Note the date of this alert memorandum, January 19th 2018. Our estimated release date of SARS-CoV-2 was around March 2018, two months after this warning was issued: “but [the Wuhan BSL-4 lab’s] current productivity is limited by a shortage of the highly trained technicians and investigators required to safely operate a BSL-4 laboratory and a lack of clarity in related Chinese government policies and guidelines.”
Finally, based upon the commissioning and operating schedule of China’s 5 top BSL-level operations, there existed ample opportunity for this novel pathogen, featuring a genetically manipulated furin cleavage site, to have escaped from poorly security-administered labs in both 2018 and 2019.
10. Did other nations besides China bear this capacity, opportunity, and imminent risk of Covid release? Answer: No.
The Obama Administration had placed a pause on the very gain-of-function research which would have been required to produce SARS-CoV-2, from 17 October 2014 until 19 December 2017. Given that the United States and China were the only principal nations involved in this research, this leaves China as the only researching body which could have conducted the gain-of-function development necessary for a March 2018 release of the SARS-CoV2 virus.
In fact, in 2016/17 and during the ‘pause’ in gain-of-function research in the US, the National Institutes of Health funded and conducted this very gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses – in and only in – China.
11. Were there indicators of potential virus social impact and disruption in China during the ‘unknown pathogen years’ experienced by its contiguous nations? Answer: Yes.
“…in late June and early July of 2019 the residents of Wuhan began to fill the streets, angry that officials responsible for the health and prosperity of the city’s 11 million people had betrayed them. They were sick, and feared getting sicker. The elderly gasped for breath. There was fear that the ill had suffered permanent damage to their immune and nervous systems.”
China proper experienced an alarmingly robust 2019 flu season as well. Remember that the vast (99%+) majority of these flu cases were guesses as to the actual virus involved.
Of key significance is the extraordinary set of 45-year exceptions in CO2 emissions produced out of China during the June 2018 through March 2020 timeframes. The dotted red line in the chart below depicts 2018 CO2 ppms measured at Mauna Loa observatory, while the solid red line shows 2019. Parts per million measures during those two years were anywhere from 2 to 6 standard deviations (sigmas) lower than their 45-year well-established precedent. This was an extraordinary set of occurrences which dovetailed nicely into being explained by Chinese lockdown, once December 2019 arrived. The key inference here is that the prior suppressed periods, could only be explained by Chinese lockdown as well. A lockdown which began in earnest in May of 2018.
Finally, notice that as soon as China ceased its lockdown in March of 2020, the world immediately experienced a 45-year record in CO2 ppm spring increase, demonstrating that it was China, and not Western nations, which imparted the most significant impact in terms of CO2 production.
Meanwhile Japan, as we noted earlier in this article, struggled with the same set of ‘severe flu season’ issues in terms of excess deaths, at the same time as Australia’s record illness peak, and commensurate with China’s CO2 production shutdowns.
Many observers as well noted increased traffic patterns at Chinese hospitals in mid 2019, accompanied by decreased mobility measures on the part of Chinese cell phone users. Of course, we now know that the pandemic did not begin in China ‘in August’ as the article below cites – however, that was the peak of actual virus circulation and lockdown activity on the part of the CCP. So this makes sense relative to our argument.
12. Was this social response/carbon reduction reaction due to African Swine Fever or Trump Trade Tariffs? Answer: No.
The 2018 African Swine Fever resulted in a single-year hit to China’s GDP of 0.78%. Despite this large of a hit to GDP, when we contrast the CO2 reduction sigmas seen in Question #11 above with the progression of African Swine Fever, we are able to falsify the notion that ASF served to produce the 45-year exception reductions in carbon emissions on the part of China.
As well, Trump Administration tariffs approached nowhere near a 0.78% impact upon Chinese GDP. In fact 2019 was a record year for China in terms of global containerized shipping, with the greatest fluctuation in export volume being attributable to China’s annual celebration of the Lunar New Year.6 A normal condition which has existed for all 45 years analyzed in Question #11 above.
If anything, it is more likely that the African Swine Fever and various chicken pathogens to which the CCP responded during this timeframe, also served as a diversion away from their activity in attempting to mitigate SARS-CoV-2.
13. Did the world exhibit blood antibody serum profiles which matched an exposure to Covid-19 prior to Oct 2019? Answer: Yes.
Blood tests and sewage sampling for serum antibodies even in Western nations such as Italy and Spain, consistently showed antibodies to Covid-19 which were generated as far back as January 2019. Given that it takes 10 months (Question #2) for Covid to spread across the globe, this places an inception first case in China, around March 2018.
The U.S. blood donation antibody tests below, in particular demonstrated IgG antibodies in the population which were generated as far back as March 2019 in the United States alone.
India demonstrated a serum antibody rate of 60% in June 2021, despite only documenting Covid in a mere 2.1% of the population up to that time. Comparatively, it took the United States a full 18 months of exposure, just to get to a 38% seroprevalence. By deduction, India would have to have been exposed to a precursor of Covid, or Covid itself, a full 2 years prior to January 2020.
14. Did China’s CCP attempt to conceal its gain-of-function activities and genome libraries from the 2014 – 2019 period? Answer: Yes.
China’s CCP requested that 200 coronavirus samples submitted to the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) be deleted in June of 2019. As it turned out, these sequences suggested that the virus was circulating in Wuhan earlier than previously thought, and could perhaps point toward answers on the origins of Sars-CoV-2 – answers that could not only help end this pandemic but prevent the next one. China’s CCP regarded its Party interests as being more important than global health however.
Rule #3: There are no interests more important than the interests of The Party.
15. Did China’s CCP appear to fudge its case and fatality measures regarding Covid, thereby obfuscating data indicating a much longer period of Covid exposure nationally? Answer: Yes.
Now that we know that lockdowns were not effective in quelling SARS-CoV-2, we can infer that China’s report of cases (cited in green in the chart below), were both mitigated by prior immunity, and as well were fabricated even given this reality. The sole purpose of this under-reporting was to ensure that the Chinese Communist Party did not appear weak before the international community. Lockdowns had failed for 2 years, however now that the nation was seeing herd resistance at play, the CCP decided to use this natural phenomenon to make itself appear brilliant.
Rule #4: Every decision on the part of The Party is both brilliant and correct.
Moreover, in a display of how fudged the Chinese numbers were, the reduced case reporting shown above served to artificially decrease the denominator in China’s advertised case fatality ratios (CFR’s). As a result, China’s CCP gave the world a false depiction of Covid’s fatality rate at 4.15%, sending most nations into overreaction. Accordingly, instead of preparing medical resources and treatment capabilities, panicked nations elected to pursue feckless ‘zero-Covid’ impossibilities and a rushed vaccine. Many people died from the ensuing shortfall in understanding as to how to actually treat Covid. Not only was Covid ‘not like the flu’, apparently it was like Ebola. National policies were hastily enacted under this erroneous level of coerced panic.
Rule #5: Every action on the part of The Party is virtuous.
16. Did China’s CCP refuse to cooperate with efforts to investigate SARS-CoV-2 and impose an obfuscating veil of secrecy around its origins and timing? Answer: Yes.
China falsely portrayed willingness to continue further investigation into the origins of SARS-CoV-2. But the reality was that this was under the condition that ‘lab leak’ was not one of the options under consideration to investigate. China delayed and terminated critical investigations, secured veto rights over critical participants, and clumsily tried to affix blame for SARS-CoV-2 upon other nations – especially the United States.
Rule #6: The narrative is the truth.
17. Did various nation’s/intelligence agencies agree with the above assessment on the part of The Ethical Skeptic? Answer: Yes, for most of it.
“It is the opinion of Committee Minority Staff, based on the preponderance of available information; the documented efforts to obfuscate, hide, and destroy evidence; and the lack of physical evidence to the contrary; that SARS-CoV-2 was accidentally released from a Wuhan Institute of Virology laboratory sometime prior to September 12, 2019.
The virus …was likely collected in the identified cave in Yunnan Province, PRC, sometime between 2012 and 2015. Its release was due to poor lab safety standards and practices, exacerbated by dangerous gain-of-function research being conducted at inadequate biosafety levels…”
~ House Intelligence Committee Minority Staff Report, August 2021
The mistakes outlined above, along with the conjecture as to who bears responsibility for them, therefore do not constitute a conspiracy theory. They were enacted on the part of a Chinese Communist Party which wholly underestimated the level of rigor required to manage and control a potential bio-weapon. They further then mistakenly launched this weapon upon a planet-load of innocent civilians. Finally, like any mafia they followed up their crime with an utter disregard for ethics, humanity, and any semblance of accountability.
Rule #7: In the end, only The Party is of any importance.
China’s CCP owes the international community recompense for the resulting harm to their livelihoods and loved ones.
The Ethical Skeptic