Are We Being Conditioned for Another Lab Leak?

"Preparing for Disease X" resembles 2019 planning for coronavirus outbreak.

AUTHOR’S NOTE: The following post pertains to a matter of vital public interest that is happening right now. Please share it with your networks.

On January 17, 2024, the World Economic Forum is hosting a discussion titled “Preparing for Disease X.” As this discussion is described on the WEF’s website:

With fresh warnings from the World Health Organization that an unknown “Disease X” could result in 20 times more fatalities than the coronavirus pandemic, what novel efforts are needed to prepare healthcare systems for the multiple challenges ahead?

Among the conference speakers is Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General, World Health Organization (WHO), which is currently lobbying for support of its proposed Pandemic Treaty. The WHO has announced a target date of May 2024 for a legally binding agreement to be adopted by the U.N. health agency's 194 member countries.

The recent chatter about Disease X is reminiscent of the autumn of 2019, when preparations got underway for a “hypothetical” coronavirus pandemic.

Consider the following events leading up to January 31, 2020, when the WHO’s International Health Regulation Emergency Committee declared the 2019 Novel Coronavirus outbreak a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC).

SEPTEMBER 10, 2019: A research team at Johns Hopkins prepares a study about the growing risk of an infectious disease outbreak for the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board. Founded in 2018 by the World Bank Group and the World Health Organization, Board members include Antony Fauci, Jeremy Farrar (head of the Wellcome Trust) and George Gao (Director of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention from August 2017 to July 2022).

SEPTEMBER 12, 2019: The Wuhan Institute of Virology’s online, public database of samples and virus sequences is taken offline in the middle of the night between 2:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m. local time. The database contained more than 22,000 entries consisting of sample and pathogen data collected from bats and mice. The database contained key information about each sample, including what type of animal it was collected from, where it was collected, whether the virus was successfully isolated, the type of virus collected, and its similarity to other known viruses.

SEPTEMBER 18, 2019: a report titled A World At Risk is published by the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board.

The report’s title page is illustrated with an image of a coronavirus, and its text is an urgent call to action for the world to invest far more in preparedness for a respiratory viral pandemic. As the report states on page 8:

What is most notable about the report is that it mentions NOTHING about the need to invest in bolstering bio-laboratory safety. It expressly warns about the threat of a lethal respiratory pathogen “accidentally or deliberately released,” but its entire call to action is to invest a fortune to responding to such a pathogen instead of preventing it from being released in the first place.

OCTOBER 19, 2019: The Johns Hopkins Center for Public Security, in collaboration with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the World Economic Forum, conducted a Pandemic Simulation Exercise. As Johns Hopkins described the event:

The center’s latest pandemic simulation, Event 201, dropped participants right in the midst of an uncontrolled coronavirus outbreak that was spreading like wildfire out of South America to wreak worldwide havoc. As fictional newscasters from “GNN” narrated, the immune-resistant virus (nicknamed CAPS) was crippling trade and travel, sending the global economy into freefall. Social media was rampant with rumors and misinformation, governments were collapsing, and citizens were revolting.

Note that in this simulation, the “uncontrolled coronavirus outbreak” originates in South America and not in China, even though that latter country had long been regarded as the likely location of the next coronavirus outbreak. This strikes me as a rather crude misdirection.

It seems very unlikely that the above events in September and October of 2019—just a few months before SARS-CoV-2 was officially detected and announced—were just a coincidence. To be sure, most of the participants were probably unaware that a novel coronavirus was already spreading in Wuhan at the time they conducted these studies and seminars. Full knowledge was probably limited to a few intelligence and public health officials in China and the United States.

OCTOBER 29, 2019: Drs. Anthony Fauci and Rick Bright—director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA)—attend a conference at the Milken Institute to discuss the need for a universal flu vaccine. The moderator, New Yorker staff writer Michael Specter, repeatedly lamented that there wasn’t sufficient motivation to invest the resources necessary to make the “disruptive” leap from traditional vaccine technology to new vaccine technology. Dr. Bright states that the most promising new technology to combat the flu or other viral pandemics is “nucleic acid based, and messenger RNA based sequences that can be rapidly shared around the world.”

DECEMBER 12, 2019: A MATERIAL TRANSFER AGREEMENT (see pages 105-107) from NIAID/Moderna (“Provider”) to Ralph Baric (“Research Recipient”) is signed by Professor Ralph Baric at UNC Chapel Hill. The Agreement specifies the transfer of “mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidates developed and jointly owned by NIAID and Moderna” to Dr. Baric “to perform challenge studies with the mRNA vaccine.”

The Agreement is signed by Ralph Baric on December 12, 2019—19 days BEFORE the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission informed the WHO China Country Office of “cases of pneumonia of unknown etiology detected in Wuhan City, Hubei Province of China on December 31, 2019, and 24 days BEFORE the genome of SARS-CoV-2 was published on January 5, 2020.

Here it is important to note Dr. Ralph Baric’s remarkable history. Starting in 2013, Baric worked with scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) to perform gain-of-function work on Bat SL-CoV-WIV1 and SHCO15 coronaviruses. His collaboration with Ge Xing-Ye and Shi Zhengli began shortly after they (along with Peter Daszak) discovered these two viruses in horseshoe bats in southern China. Xing-Ye, Zhengli, and Daszak published their discovery in Nature magazine in a 2013 paper titled Isolation and characterization of a bat SARS-like coronavirus that uses the ACE2 receptor. They were very excited about it, because for the first time in history, they found a wild bat coronavirus that would bind with a human ACE2 receptor—a protein (enzyme) on the surface of many cell types.

With this important discovery, Baric commenced work with his Chinese colleagues to fashion these two viruses into two new chimeric viruses that would infect the human respiratory tract. They reported their results in papers published in 2015 and 2016.

1). A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence (published in Nature Medicine)

2). SARS-like WIV1-CoV poised for human emergence (published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, or PNAS).

Note that Dr. Baric signs the Material Transfer Agreement “to perform challenge studies with NIAID/Moderna’s mRNA vaccine” four years later.

Speaking of MODERNA: On Feb. 4, 2016, the company filed a patent for a proprietary genetic sequence (SEQ ID11652, nt 2751-2733) patented by Bancel S. et al. in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

As reported in the February 21, 2022 issue of Frontiers in Virology (MSH3 Homology and Potential Recombination Link to SARS-CoV-2 Furin Cleavage Site):

SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein and MSH3

A peculiar feature of the nucleotide sequence encoding the PRRA furin cleavage site in the SARS-CoV-2 S protein is its two consecutive CGG codons. This arginine codon is rare in coronaviruses: relative synonymous codon usage (RSCU) of CGG in pangolin CoV is 0, in bat CoV 0.08, in SARS-CoV 0.19, in MERS-CoV 0.25, and in SARS-CoV-2 0.299 (8).

A BLAST search for the 12-nucleotide insertion led us to a 100% reverse match in a proprietary sequence (SEQ ID11652, nt 2751-2733) found in the US patent 9,587,003 filed on Feb. 4, 2016 [by Bancel S. et al. in Cambridge, Massachusetts].

On the question of whether this perfect match could be mere coincidence, the authors noted:

Conventional biostatistical analysis indicates that the probability of this sequence randomly being present in a 30,000-nucleotide viral genome is 3.21×10^-11 [approximately 1 in 3 trillion].

Note as well that, prior to becoming CEO of Moderna in 2011, Stephane Bancel was the CEO of bioMérieux—a French diagnostic company that designed and built a new BSL-4 lab at the Wuhan Institute of Virology between the years 2004-2014.

No reasonable adult would conclude that all of the above is just a coincidence. The timeline and the documentary evidence clearly indicate that SARS-CoV-2 leaked or was deliberately released from a lab at the Wuhan Institute of Virology sometime in 2019.

The documentary evidence further reveals that certain key players were aware that a SARS coronavirus, highly contagious to humans, was detected spreading in Wuhan in the fall of 2019.

We are putting the WEF, the WHO, and the world’s BSL-3 and BSL-4 bio-labs on notice.

• Millions of prudent citizens in nations all over the world now understand that SARS-CoV-2 was created in a Wuhan Lab using French and American biotechnology to make a Chinese bat coronavirus highly contagious to humans.

• We know that bio-labs in China, Ukraine, the UK, and the USA continue to perform dangerous gain-of-function and serial passage procedures on viruses in order to make them infectious to humans.

• We know that the grounds for this dangerous work is to make “countermeasures”—that is, vaccines that can be sold for hundreds of billions to captured governments.

• We know that the WEF’s Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) was a key player in the COVID-19 vaccine racket and is now positioning itself to be a key player in the Disease X vaccine racket when this “hypothetical, unknown pathogen” becomes a known pathogen and starts spreading.

• Tens of millions have gotten wise to this racket. We will not be deceived a second time.

For over a decade, prudent and ethical biosecurity experts have been calling for the closure of dangerous labs. See for example, this July 14, 2014 Reuters report How to fix U.S. biosecurity leaks? Close some labs.

In 2018, the prominent virologists Edward C. Holmes, Andrew Rambaut and Kristian G. Andersen published a paper in Nature titled Pandemics: spend on surveillance, not prediction. In this paper, these scientists argue that it’s impossible to predict what natural pathogens are going to evolve to infect humans. It’s one of the great ironies of scientific history that Holmes, Rambaut, and especially Andersen played key roles in concealing the true, lab origin of SARS-CoV-2.

That the entire prediction endeavor is based on a false pretext has done nothing to hinder the growth of a huge infectious disease prediction industry, with hundreds of millions of grant money thrown at it.

Prediction is the pretext for performing dangerous gain-of-function work on animal viruses that are deemed the most likely to make the evolutionary jump from animal hosts to humans.

Dr. Peter McCullough and I urge all prudent adults of the world to join together in demanding the closure of dangerous bio-labs. We cannot wait for the “hypothetical, unknown pathogen” that is now called Disease X to escape or be deliberately released from one of these labs. If this happen again, there will be grave consequences for the responsible parties.