The Corona Triumvirate - Xi Jinping, Klaus Schwab and Bill Gates

The Corona Triumvirate - Xi Jinping, Klaus Schwab and Bill Gates  

A Thought Game

By Tylor Tao

All warfare is based on deception. (Sun Tzu)

******* 

The following text, written in spring 2021, has been partially revised up to date. 

*******

Following the main text at the end is an account of the Lancet Open Letter scandal (Feb 2020) initiated by Peter Daszak, with the aim of denigrating the lab leak theory, which seemed dangerous to many mainstream political and scientific representatives until in 2022 it became increasingly accepted.

*******

Of the three explanations for the origin of the so-called Corona pandemic, the theory of zoonotic origin has meanwhile fallen by the wayside. It is artificially ventilated by one or the other study, e.g. by Hyuncheol Jung et al. from August 2022, which is also referred to by Peter Daszak, who has an interest like hardly anyone else outside China in keeping the suspicion of a laboratory leak away from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). Yet even a February 2022 study by China's top disease control agency found that the initially suspected seafood market in Wuhan's Huanan district was not a source, but only an amplifier, for the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. There are so many arguments in favor of a laboratory leak, i.e., an unintentional escape of the virus from the WIV, that the theory named after it currently seems to offer the most plausible explanation. 

A third approach, the intentional release theory, has so far played the role of a little-noticed Cinderella, but could one day blossom into a princess if the suspicions are substantiated. Only a few authors have devoted themselves to this theory in depth, among them as the first the Chinese dissident Li-Meng Yan, a virologist with over 140,000 Twitter followers, whose promotion by the anti-China Far-Right ideologue Steve Bannon, however, is already sufficient for skeptics to declare her virological arguments, published as 'Yan Reports 1-3' from September 2020, null and void as purely politically motivated. Another attempt to substantiate the theory of an intentional release is my article from June 2021. In both theories, the CCP is considered suspicious of having brought the virus into the world as a political bioweapon, with my theory expanding the circle of suspects to include Klaus Schwab and Bill Gates, who together with Xi Jinping operate as the 'Corona Triumvirate', mind you within the framework of a purely speculative theory, one could also say: a mind game with no claim to factuality.

It says:

Neither the laboratory leak theory nor the natural origin theory, both of which are supposed to explain how the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak occurred, are true. Rather, the virus is a cunningly engineered bioweapon that was deliberately released sometime between May and August 2019 in two locations, Lombardy in Italy und Wuhan in China. The time frame and the localizations are explained in detail at the end of this article. The release was part of a revolutionary strategy concocted by Xi Jinping, Klaus Schwab, and Bill Gates. The lockdown was not a remedy for the virus, but the virus was a trailblazer for the lockdown and the Great Reset. So the purpose of the virus was exactly what it achieved: for Xi, the weakening of the West in hara-kiri light mode; for Schwab, the red carpet to the Great Reset; and for Gates, the global vaccination nirvana he dreamed of and prophesied. SARS-CoV-2 is strong enough to produce enough deaths to give governments a pretext for lockdowns, and weak enough not to threaten the whole population, but mainly the very old. For the purpose to weaken rather than destroy societies, it is the perfect bioweapon. Therefore, the counter-argument against the bioweapon theory that SARS-CoV-2 binds strikingly strongly but not optimally to the human receptor ACE2 does not make sense, because this might be exactly what was intended to achieve the appropriate effect, not too weak and not too strong. The flaw in that argument lies in the assumption that a bioweapon is always designed to cause the greatest possible damage.

In the following, this playful theory around Xi, Schwab and Gates will be substantiated.

There is an illuminating article by Michael P. Senger entitled ‘China’s Global Lockdown Propaganda Campaign’ that appeared in the online magazine Tablet in September 2020. It describes how, starting in early 2020, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) succeeded in imposing its lockdown policy, according to Senger an invention by China’s President Xi Jinping, on all other states, but primarily on the West, as the no-alternative strategy to combat the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. In more detailed form, Senger et al. elaborate on this in a January 2021 online article titled ‘The Chinese Communist Party’s Global Lockdown Fraud,’ which is an Open Letter addressed to the FBI, MI5, Australian Intelligence, Canadian Intelligence, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the German Federal Intelligence Service.

Building on this convincingly substantiated theory is the very readable article ‘China and the Great Reset’ by Aya Velazquez, which correlates the CCP’s lockdown propaganda aimed at weakening the West with the totalitarian Great Reset propaganda of World Economic Forum (WEF) leader Klaus Schwab, and explains the cooperation of both parties by their “convergence of interests.”

I quote a passage from Velazquez’s article:

“The imperial ambitions of China and Western corporate globalists are not currently opposed to each other as long as everyone gets his piece of the pie. China propagates lockdowns worldwide to economically weaken its opponents and to export its own cultural model. The transhumanists and globalists around the WEF are planning the complete restructuring of the global economy from a neoliberal, resource-intensive turbo-capitalism towards a digital surveillance state with a planned economy for their own benefit, framed as the ´Great Reset.´ The WHO serves as their unremarkable instrument of transition to that end, with the China lobbyist Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, who sells China’s lockdown propaganda as a scientifically assured finding. This never-before-seen convergence of interests leads to the absurd stability of a ´New Normal´, which already carries undeniable fasco-totalitarian traits in its early form. During this process, all countries seem to be becoming increasingly similar to China.”

The question of the hypothetical initiators of the deliberate release of the SARS-CoV-2 virus can be based on the criminalistic principle that a person is suspected of a crime if they had the motive, means and opportunity to commit it. In this case, this applies in full to China's dictator Xi Jinping. The fact that he had the means and opportunity to release a highly contagious coronavirus hardly needs explaining.

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has full control over the WIV and the research carried out there. This is ensured by a CCP committee integrated into the institute with four subdivisions, each of which has its own propaganda committee, as well as a committee for monitoring discipline. The Chinese army is also involved in the WIV's research, although Shi Zenghli, the institute's infamous "batwoman" and top research director, denied this during a discussion at Rutgers University in June 2021, which is easy to refute.

Now, is it enough to describe Xi Jinping and Klaus Schwab as the leading lights in the Corona crisis (very much a political rather than a health crisis), or is there another actor whose role is so significant that he deserves to be considered as a separate head of a revolutionary triumvirate? As the title of this article indicates, I see Bill Gates in this role, whom many — underestimating the importance of Xi and Schwab — even consider the mastermind of the crisis. What makes Gates stand out among the WEF-coordinated mega-magnates is his role as an all-powerful commander in the global sanitation and vaccination war against democracy, freedom and human dignity. No one other than Gates would have been able to design and to advance this strategy of world conquest so unerringly. Who else talks so big in the healthcare field as Gates did on April 14, 2020, on German television:

“We will ultimately give this vaccine to be developed to seven billion people.”

“We”… A pluralis majestatis?

Indeed, His Vaccinity was also the driving force behind the audacious plan to develop RNA-based vaccines in just a few months and to ‘telescope’ the first two phases of testing, thus reducing the safety of the vaccines to such an extent that the vaccination campaigns could well be called human trials. This is all the more alarming because there is great pressure on all citizens to be vaccinated, although the objective risk situation does not require this at all for the vast majority. Since 2010, research into RNA vaccines has been driven primarily by millions of dollars from the Gates Foundation and, since 2017, also by CEPI, which is co-funded by Gates and was founded at the 2017 World Economic Forum meeting in Davos. Without Gates, the current vaccination mania would probably not exist. In order to paint the danger that he has so energetically set out to avert in the most horrible colors possible, Gates reaches deep into the rhetorical trick box when he states in an interview in September 2020:

“It’s sad that this took a Richter scale 9 earthquake to wake us up.”

This gross exaggeration raises the suspicion that Gates is desperately trying to justify certain activities and measures that cannot be rationally justified. After all, Richter scale 9 means the greatest degree of destruction of any earthquake known to date. But what Covid-19 actually does is kill people at a median age of 82 and with a strikingly low mortality rate. If that is Richter scale 9, at what level above 10 (not possible of course) would be a really bad pandemic which endangers people in all age groups equally and with a high mortality rate?

Thus Gates, at a time when the Covid vaccination campaign was still imminent, in his emotional way exaggerates the viral event into a catastrophe that others see more in the society-damaging effects of the policies that, in accordance with the planning calculus of Xi et al, have turned the world upside down. “Thank you, Bill, for your leadership,” purred corrupt EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in 2017 to demonstrate to everyone who is sitting in the director’s chair in global healthcare. As a matter of course, Gates, mentioned on the speaker list as “entrepreneur”, is even allowed to give a virtual speech on the Corona crisis at the Munich Security Conference 2021 alongside Biden, Macron, Merkel and Tedros, as if he held an official office. However, he does not even have medical training, but is just a billionaire megalomaniac vaccine octopus with tentacles to the far corners of the globe.

As for Biden, it has been clear since November 2020 at the latest that he is - if you want to put it that way - an agent of Schwab's Great Reset project. His long-standing close acquaintance with Schwab would be indication enough. Now that John Kerry, now Biden's go-to guy for the alleged man-made climate crisis, has reinforced that assumption at a WEF panel discussion in that November, so there is no longer any doubt. Kerry, when asked if the WEF was expecting too much from Biden in terms of supporting the Great Reset, said:

"The answer to your question is, no, you´re not expecting too much (...) And yes, it (the Great Reset, H.Tr.) will happen. And I think it will happen with greater speed and with greater intensity than a lot of people might imagine."

Another set of questions concerns the virus: How did it originate, how did it break out, when did it happen, and who, if anyone, is behind it? There are theories about this, too, but they are only piecemeal. I want to offer a possible view of the whole here tentatively.

As to the World Economic Forum, the both programmatic and coordinating role of this organization is clearly visible in the process of political transformation of much of the Western world which we have been witnessing since Spring 2020. Leading politicians of North America (Biden, Trudeau), of New Zealand (Jacinda Ardern) and Europe are very well connected to the WEF and its head Klaus Schwab, in some cases even trained by the WEF as ´Global Leaders´ (Merkel, Macron, Putin, Trudeau, Ardern, Kurz, Spahn, Baerbock, Blair, Brown, Barroso, Juncker, Sarkozy, etc.). Likewise, the Big Techs, who increasingly exercise censorship against critics of Great Reset measures, are closely networked with the WEF and partly trained as Global Leaders (Facebook's Zuckerberg and Sandberg). Youtube CEO Susan Wojcicki, responsible for the increasing censorship activities of this platform against Corona critics, is not a WEF global leader, but equally well connected to the WEF. That vaccination pope Bill Gates as well as Amazon´s Jeff Bezos and Google´s Larry Page, to name just a few of the more than 1,000 other Global Leaders, also underwent WEF training, as did Jeffrey Zients, Biden´s Coronavirus Response Coordinator, and the media stars Leonardo DiCaprio and Bono (both active climate propagandists and the latter also a vaccination propagandist), rounds off the picture of the World Economic Forum as a cadre for global political overturn - or „Reset“, as it is expressed more diplomatically.

Whether the lockdown is an invention of Xi, as Senger thinks, or whether Schwab put him up to it in order to be able to enforce his Great Reset in fast-forward mode, can only be speculated. As to Schwab, the viral outbreak puts his Great Reset within reach, as he himself emphasizes in his book ‘Covid-19 — The Great Reset’ in several places (capitalization by me):

“We should take advantage of this unprecedented OPPORTUNITY to re-imagine our world, in a bid to make it a better and more resilient one as it emerges on the other side of this crisis.“

Unprecedented opportunity…

„With the economic emergency responses to the pandemic now in place, the OPPORTUNITY can be seized to make the kind of institutional changes and policy choices that will put economies on a new path towards a fairer, greener future.“

„If governments want the shift to a new and better kind of growth, they have a window of OPPORTUNITY to act now to create incentives for innovation and creativity in the areas outlined above.“

„The moment must be seized to take advantage of this unique window of OPPORTUNITY to redesign a more sustainable economy for the greater good of our societies.“

„For these companies, the pandemic is a unique OPPORTUNITY to rethink their organization and enact positive, sustainable and lasting change.“

Unique opportunity…

Can Schwab betray his strong interest in a pandemic as a catalysator any more clearly?

The timing of the October 2019 Event 201 organized by Gates and Schwab, in which a global coronavirus (“CAPS”) disaster scenario was played out with the participation of China’s top public health official George Fu Gao just days before the ´official´ outbreak of the current pandemic (Patient Zero on November 17), is a particularly striking indication of the planning nature of the pandemic, because the proximity in timing and content is most probably no coincidence. One is either naive or biased to see it otherwise. Event 201 clearly points to a deliberate release of the virus, which, as noted above, presumably occurred months earlier at two widely separated locations.

In terms of content, Event 201 is largely focused on the issues of how to get vaccines to people in the most efficient way possible and how to deal with opponents of vaccination on social media. For the latter problem, participants recommend rigorous actions against “disinformation” including deletion of a “disturbing number“ of Twitter and Facebook accounts (as is being done in the real pandemic), as well as massive vaccine propaganda by “flooding” social media with “good” information. And since there are no fools at the table at Event 201, it is anticipated that skeptics will suspect the pandemic is a profitable mise-en-scène. Says Tara Sell from the Gates-sponsored Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, the third event organizer besides Gates and the WEF:

“Pharmaceutical companies are being accused of introducing the CAPS virus so they can make money on drugs and vaccines and have seen public faith in their products plummet.“

Sell’s remedy for this problem:

“We know that social media is now the primary way that many people get their news, so interruptions to these platforms could curb the spread of misinformation.”

So, at its core, Event 201 was for the most part devoted to strategic planning for Big Pharma, which was represented at the table by a representative of Johnson & Johnson, the largest pharmaceutical company in the world, which for decades has knowingly sold baby powder containing asbestos, thus fostering cancer, and for years has flooded the U.S. with opioids, which are addictive to millions of Americans and weaken the immune systems of many to the point that they contract and die from Covid-19 for that reason alone.

It is easy to recognize the signature of event organizer Bill Gates behind this thematic focus. If you count one and one together, much indicates Gates’ involvement in the virus outbreak. First, the proximity of Event 201 to the pandemic in terms of timing and content cannot possibly be a coincidence. Second, Event 201 was highly conducive to Big Pharma profit maximization planning in the event of a coronavirus pandemic. Third: Bill Gates is a fanatical advocate and financial supporter of vaccination campaigns and has repeatedly predicted a new world-wide pandemic. Fourth, Bill Gates co-hosted Event 201. From these premises, it is logical to conclude that Gates is most likely behind the pandemic outbreak. A similar logic applies to co-host Schwab, except that point 3 then reads: Schwab is a proponent of total surveillance, the implementation of which will be greatly accelerated by the vaccination of humanity (more on this below). Add to this, as mentioned, his conspicuous enthusiasm for a pandemic which acts like lubricating oil for the desired social transformation.

That Event 201 is focused on vaccination campaigns as a no-alternative strategy for pandemics can be explained by the apparent sense of purpose of the main organizers, Bill Gates and Schwab/WEF.

Gates is considered a representative of the ‘Californian ideology’ (a hippie-yuppie mix of Love&Peace and humanity-blissing high-tech-capitallsm), but this takes a back seat in his personality profile to his vaccination mania. In a BBC interview in 2012, Pulitzer Prize winning health and science author Laurie Garrett said about the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation located in Seattle:

“What we think is global health, how we define this mission, is increasingly decided by a relatively small number of Americans living in Seattle, Washington.”

Even the billions in profits which Gates indirectly obtains from the investments of his foundation, seem to take second place as a motivating factor behind his obsession with wanting to physically penetrate humanity.

Schwab and his WEF pursue a much more complex goal: the implementation of a green-painted world dictatorship, in which a big-tech elite enforces its interests through a world government (euphemistically called ‘global governance’) and brainwashing mass media against a synchronized mass population, well-supplied by industrial robots and totally monitored to the point of mind control (brain scans).

As to the final purpose of total inoculation of mankind, which was announced in Event 201 and was concretely set in motion in the real pandemic, this undoubtedly lies in the implementation of the total surveillance of all citizens. This is not only clear to every reasonable conspiracy theorist, but also to a mainstream magazine like Forbes, which rather carefully formulates:

“The use of masses of connected sensors makes it clear that the coronavirus pandemic is–intentionally or not–being used as a test bed for new surveillance technologies that may threaten privacy and civil liberties. So aside from being a global health crisis, the coronavirus has effectively become an experiment in how to monitor and control people at scale.”

For some time, a number of high-tech companies have been working at full speed to achieve this noble goal. Of course, they are all directly or indirectly linked to the WEF and are more or less consciously creating the conditions for the most important aspect of the Great Reset, the total surveillance of all citizens, to be fully realized. Only this goal can explain why the governments guided by Big Tech and Big Pharma and partly (e.g. Schwab buddy Biden, Schwab disciples Merkel and Macron) also by the WEF are intent on vaccinating the entire population, preferably including the children, until even the last one receives his or her vaccination passport, which will sooner or later be highly digitalized and contain pseudo-data-protected personal data in the cloud which go far beyond health issues. In any case, all stored data will be accessible to government institutions, regardless of the country.

A look at the companies involved in the development of the American SMART Health Card reveals that the vaccination card project only serves hygiene purposes on the surface. To make the card a reality, the Vaccination Credential Initiative (VCI), whose founders include Microsoft, Oracle, MITRE and Salesforce, was set up. MITRE’s participation is particularly suspect. It has created, as a first finger exercise for larger tasks in citizen surveillance, a contact tracing system called Sara Alert that has been deployed in several U.S. states to track Corona outbreaks. MITRE’s focus so far is on creating tools for the military, security agencies and intelligence agencies. Homeland Security uses them to hack into smart watches, fitness trackers and home thermometers, and the FBI to collect ‘fingerprints’ on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, to name just two examples. MITRE is also researching technical ways to determine if a person is lying by body odor.

That such a company is tinkering with a vaccination record speaks volumes about its ultimate purpose.

Salesforce, another VCI co-founder, hardly seems more trustworthy, even if CEO and multi-billionaire Marc Benioff, like Gates, gives himself the image of a philanthropist. Before founding Salesforce, Benioff was vice at VCI co-founder Oracle, which as a CIA offspin has ties to that agency. He is also a member of the WEF Board of Trustees and as such is a staunch advocate of the Great Reset. In addition, he is chairman of the WEF Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution. According to Schwab’s conception, this revolution aims at a transhuman type of humans in which the biological merges with the digital — for critical minds a horror vision and ultimate self-alienation of man. Anyway, Schwab disciple that he is, TIME Magazine owner Benioff even devoted an entire issue of the magazine last year to propaganda for the Fourth Industrial Revolution and the Great Reset.

Under these circumstances, it is clear that Salesforce’s interest in the vaccination card goes far beyond the medical aspect, if it matters at all.

Also interesting in this context is Salesforce’s vice president, Peter Schwartz, who interviewed Schwab for a video at a Davos meeting (´The Salesforce Conversations with Peter Schwartz and Klaus Schwab´). In 2002, the futurist and scenario planner worked as a consultant for Spielberg’s ‘Minority Report,’ which is set in a world of total surveillance that even includes people’s future actions. Something similar is already being envisioned as AI experts research ways to make predictions about a person’s future behavior from data about them or from their brain scan. For sure, such methods will find application in China and a great-resetted West in the near future That´s what Master Schwab himself says on this in his ‘Shaping the Future of the Fourth Industrial Revolution’, of which the South Korean military alone has bought 16,000 copies (!):

“Even crossing a national border may one day require a detailed brain scan to assess a person’s security risk.”

As for the increasing surveillance of society, Schwartz, of course, sees it in rosy light: “Little by little, we’re going to accept a lot more surveillance. And in the end, we won’t mind it because it will do more good than harm for most people in most situations.”

What a blessing for companies like MITRE and Salesforce and Microsoft and many others that the virus opens up a field of experimentation and work that would have been unthinkable before in this limitlessness. Whether Schwab has helped a little to bring his worldwide fans and himself closer to the Garden of Eden? I think it is likely.

The obvious objection that Event 201 would have been conducted in strict secrecy in the event of a plandemic in order to avoid any subsequent suspicion of conspiracy can be countered by the argument that presumably none of the immediate participants was aware that the event should serve to analyze and theoretically solve certain problems of a deliberately caused pandemic. Secrecy would have generated suspicion among the participants because comparable simulations had previously taken place openly, and, in view of the real pandemic and its consequences, would have made them certain that they had unintentionally contributed to the strategic safeguarding of a global revolution. Only by holding the event openly and allowing for the, albeit specious, argument of coincidence could it be prevented that one of the participants would become a whistleblower out of remorse. The paradoxical trick, then, regarding the participants, was to openly display the conspiracy in order to conceal it — one of the many subterfuges with which the Lockdown and Great Reset movement operates. As for the gullible majority of the public, if they hear about Event 201 at all (certainly not from the mainstream media), they swallow the coincidence argument as willingly as they do the mostly questionable measures for health protection. Those conspiracy theorists, on the other hand, who seem to impute involvement in the conspiracy to the event participants, cannot conclusively answer the question of why Event 201 was not conducted in secret — in any case, a question I have not yet encountered anywhere. I have given one possible answer above. What is striking is that there was never any talk of lockdowns at Event 201. This inhuman as well as ingenious move could only have occurred to a great one, Xi or Schwab.

Now, as for Gates’ remarks about China’s handling of the virus, a CCP 50-cent troll would hardly phrase them differently. He told CNN that Beijing “did a lot of things right in the beginning” and that criticism of it was “unfair.” To ‘Le Figaro,’ Gates claimed that “the Chinese made all the data available,” and praised the country for its contribution to research on the new coronavirus.

That the Chinese authorities did “everything right” at the beginning is, of course, nonsense, because up to the lockdown they did almost everything wrong, measured by the criterion of health protection. They did “everything right” only under the hypothetical criterion of exacerbating a health crisis for the purpose of lockdown implementation. So Gates is producing CCP propaganda, but without a conspiracy context this comes across as naive misconception.

That the Chinese have “made all data accessible” is false, as the Wuhan Laboratory of Virology (WIV) has made all self-generated data on coronaviruses inaccessible, i.e., password-protected, as of September 2019. The WHO investigation team, highly controversial mainly because of the massive conflicts of interest of participant Peter Daszak, which submitted their meaningless report in late March 2021, has also been denied access to WIV internal coronavirus files during its three-week stay under the constant supervision of CCP officials (the whole thing according to Jamie Metzl a „highly-chaperoned, highly-curated study tour“).

As DRASTIC member Gilles Demaneuf’s February 2021 article ‘An investigation into the WIV databases that were taken offline’ shows, the coronavirus database ‘Batvirus.whiov.ac.cn’ was locked for a week in August 2019 (in my theory possibly the month of the release of SARS-CoV-2 in Italy, as substantiated further below) and went offline permanently from September 12. Until February 2020, it was online occasionally, but without being accessed from outside. In short, since September 2019, the WIV internal coronavirus database has not been accessible from outside WIV except for rare brief exceptions.

Presumably, the locked database contains concrete evidence of WIV-internal gain-of-function research with coronaviruses with potential for bioweapons and has been sealed off from the public by order from above to avoid any suspicion of bioengineering a coronavirus into a viral weapon. The occasional openings prior to February 2020 can be interpreted to mean that data on SARS-CoV-2, whose genome sequence was not disclosed by public health authorities until January 11, 2020, were not part of the WIV database at any earlier time, even in case of its development as a bioweapon, because otherwise the WIV would have been compromised as source of the virus.

Bottom line: the WIV has something to hide with respect to its coronavirus research, and has been doing so since the summer of 2019, just when the suspected releases of SARS-CoV-2 occurred, as I will show below.

That gain-of-function research, i.e., the breeding or production of viral mutations with enhanced pathogenicity, was conducted at WIV, even with the participation of gain-of-function specialists Peter Daszak and Ralph Baric, is no secret. Officially, GoF research is designed to provide data for the development of vaccines in the event of natural viral mutations. But the difference with bioweapons research is essentially in the intended purpose.

Evidence of Xi Jinping’s causal involvement in the pandemic is for example the cover-up behavior of the authorities up to the start of the Wuhan lockdown, which I believe was not, as is the common perception, to cloak weaknesses in Chinese problem handling, but rather to artificially inflame a health crisis to the point where the introduction of lockdown measures seemed justified, i.e. the Corona outbreak was intended to legitimize the lockdown, the means created by Xi to ruin the democratic West, and was staged solely for that purpose. Moreover, the cover-up and failure to take containment measures until shortly before the Wuhan lockdown served to spread the virus unhindered to other countries so that the lockdown could be imposed on them. Especially the days immediately before the start of the lockdown clearly show the calculation behind it, as will be shown below.

Suspicious is also a passage in a speech by Xi on February 3, 2020, which states (my translation from the Chinese transcript via translator program, originally published in the CCP organ Qiushi):

“After the outbreak of the new coronavirus pneumonia in Wuhan, I formulated requirements for the prevention and control of the new coronavirus pneumonia epidemic on January 7, when I chaired a meeting of the Standing Committee of the Central Politburo.”

On that January 7, the virus had been identified for the first time in a Chinese laboratory as a new type of coronavirus. It is strange, however, that at a time when not a single person had died from the virus, Xi uses its outbreak as a reason for directives in a Politburo meeting. This seems very disproportionate in a country of well over a billion people. The first death of someone suffering from SARS-CoV-2 occurred four days later on January 11. The second death occurred on January 17. Even stranger, Xi’s “requirements to prevent and control the new coronavirus pneumonia epidemic” do not appear to have been put into action at all over the next sixteen days until the lockdown, as events just before the Wuhan shutdown demonstrate that either there were no real substantive directives or that their implementation was omitted by order from the very top.

Reports of infected hospital workers were suppressed by hospital management and authorities to maintain the illusion of human noncommunicability imposed from above. Medical staff had been generally forbidden from disclosing information to the public.

On January 10, the state CDC assured the state newspaper People’s Daily that the virus outbreak could be brought under control. On the same day, the Wuhan Health Commission issued its initial evaluation of the outbreak, counterfactually claiming that there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission and that no medical personnel were infected. Human-to-human transmissibility was not officially confirmed until January 20, 2020.

Any quarantine measures outside of hospitals have not occurred in those weeks. Instead, the usual huge mass gatherings occurred in the run-up to the New Year Festival, most notably on January 19 at the annual Ten Thousand Families Banquet in the Baibuting residential district of central Wuhan, which was attended by 40,000 families, with no security precautions in place. Organizers had asked Wuhan Municipal Government three days earlier to cancel the event due to medical concerns, but were refused. Similar festivals, all organized by the city government, have been held in other places under the same circumstances.

All this covering up and downplaying of a situation that would have been classified as very concerning one day later (announcement of interpersonal transmissibility on January 20) and as highly dramatic four days later (lockdown) is per se suspicious, since evidence of human-to-human transmissibility was ample due to multiple family clusters and infected clinic staff. Moreover, a ban on festive events on January 19 would certainly not have generated a level of mass hysteria in the population that could serve as a motive for official restraint. After all, as evidenced by the organizers’ request to ban the giant banquet, as well as various social media posts by people about worrying conditions in hospitals, some awareness of danger had developed in parts of the population. However, most did not realize at this stage that the average age of death from this disease was unusually high compared to other epidemics.

What is of primary interest here is the massive contradiction between the directives supposedly issued by Xi Jinping in the Politburo meeting on January 7 and the authorities’ decision not to cancel the Ten Thousand Family Banquet on January 19 or to hold it under conditions conducive to infection, which opposed the official purpose of the upcoming lockdown — "official" because, as emphasized several times, it must be assumed that the unofficial purpose of the lockdown was quite different. That the Wuhan city government was unaware of Xi’s lockdown plan a few days before the giant festival can be ruled out with a high degree of probability, since it was the main addressee of the lockdown order and a city of 11 million people cannot be locked down overnight.

In other words, it seems that the city government allowed the festival to happen without any restrictions, contrary to the request of the concerned organizers, while making clandestine preparations for the lockdown that came into effect four days later, on January 23.

This contradiction hardly allows any other interpretation than that a massive spread of the virus, deliberately promoted by allowing the festivities, especially the Ten Thousand Families Banquet with its 40,000 families, should justify the lockdown after the fact. So if the hypothesis put forward here is correct, that the plan designed Xi Jinping was to deny the human-to-human transmissibility of the virus for weeks in order to generate as many infected people as possible in Wuhan until the lockdown was implemented, then the festivals with their huge infection potential formed the perfect conclusion of this strategy.

Finally, a few notes on the debate about the origin of the virus and, following that, its earliest appearance in Italy in August 2019 (fairly certain) and in Wuhan in October 2019 (uncertain, but quite possible).

This is not the appropriate place for a more detailed account of the highly controversial virological debate over whether SARS-CoV-2 is natural or cultured. Briefly, the following can be said:

Some peculiarities of the virus point to an artificial mode of origin. As for the theory of natural origin persistently held by the Western scientific mainstream and conspicuously consistent with the CCP dogma, it has additionally been thrown into doubt by WIV-Batwoman Shi Zhengli’s attempt to pull a close natural relative of SARS-CoV-2 out of a hat, RaTG13. For the first time, this virus is mentioned in a study co-authored by WIV-Batwoman on February 3, 2020. However, RaTG13 objectively consists so far only of data uploaded on the DNA sequence database GenBank by WIV on February 13, 2020, although it is said to have been discovered as early as 2013.

These and other even deeper discrepancies have created the impression among a number of scientists (Mona Rahalkar, Rosanna Segreto, Domina Petric, Xiaoxu Sean Lin, Shizhong Chen, and many others) that there must be something fishy about RaTG13. The virologist Li-Meng Yan, who fled from Hong Kong to the USA and became famous for her thesis that SARS-CoV-2 is a bioweapon, even says openly that RaTG13 is a fabrication with the purpose to support the false theory of natural origin in the interest of the CCP. In her October 2020 Yan Report 2 titled ‘SARS-CoV-2 is an Unrestricted Bioweapon’, Yan writes:

“However, no living virus or intact genome of RaTG13 has ever been isolated or reconstructed. Therefore, the only evidence for the ‘existence’ of RaTG13 in nature is its genomic sequence published on GenBank.”

Now, as for the hypothetical intentional releases of SARS-CoV-2, the first may have occurred on Xi’s order in Italy, where SARS-CoV-2 antibodies had formed in many residents starting in September. That’s according to a little-known study by Milan’s IRCCS (Institute of Neurology), titled ´Unexpected Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies in the Prepandemic Period in Italy,´ which came out Nov. 11, 2020. From September 2019 to March 2020, blood samples had been collected from 959 subjects for pulmonary tumor research and stored for further use. When SARS-CoV-2 cases began to accumulate in Italy from February 2020, it occurred to scientists to scan all samples for corresponding antibodies. Indeed, 111 samples contained such antibodies, meaning that 111 subjects had contracted the virus during those months and had antibodies without ever showing Covid-typical symptoms.

In 23 of these subjects, who lived widely scattered in Italy, the antibodies had already formed in September, as stated in the study:

„The first positive sample (IgM-positive) was recorded on September 3 in the Veneto region, followed by a case in Emilia Romagna (September 4), a case in Liguria (September 5), two cases in Lombardy (Milano Province; September 9), and one in Lazio (Roma; September 11). By the end of September, 13 of the 23 (56.5%) positive samples were recorded in Lombardy, three in Veneto, two in Piedmont, and one each in Emilia Romagna, Liguria, Lazio, Campania, and Friuli. A similar time distribution was observed when considering Lombardy alone.“

From that — and this is my amateur reasoning — one can infer infections between June and August 2019, since antibodies form after about ten days in asymptomatically infected persons and gradually recede after two months, so that they could still have been present in the blood of the test subjects in residual amounts in September if infection occurred in June. Based on both the blood samples tested and the pandemic statistics, it appears that Lombardy was the most affected area, from which it would be reasonable to conclude, within the framework of my theory, that the virus was most likely released there.

Now,  there is the argument that an appearance of the virus in Italy is well possible in the way that a virus already spread in China could have been imported to northern Italy by Chinese businessmen who are particularly frequent there. However, it can be countered that a deliberate release of the virus by a CCP agent would logically, in order to enable that argument and to conceal the true origin, take place precisely where many Chinese regularly travel.

The question why infections with dramatic consequences occurred only after half a year can be answered in such a way that the virus had to mutate for a while in order to overcome sufficiently effectively the resistance that antibodies put up against them in infected persons. Afterwards, it became known that in the last months of the year, a noticeable number of lung diseases had occurred. So the Italian study states:

“Since November–December 2019, many general practitioners began reporting the appearance of severe respiratory symptoms in elderly and frail people with atypical bilateral bronchitis, which was attributed, in the absence of news about the new virus, to aggressive forms of seasonal influenza. “

In any case, given the lack of a vaccine, the question of whether a unknown virus that must develop its dangerousness over months through mutation to have a lethal effect can serve as a bioweapon must be answered in the affirmative.

So did Xi’s agent — in my thought experiment — release a natural virus in Lombardy in the hope that it would mutate into a killer virus? Against it speaks that this development would be hardly plannable with a natural virus. Somehow, in its initial stage, the virus had to have special properties — created in a laboratory — that qualified it for its deadly job. Moreover, as shown above, its genome structure is so unique that an ominous RaTG13 had to appear out of the woodwork to make the naturalness of SARS-CoV-2 more believable.

The second — hypothetical — release happened in Wuhan sometime before October 2019. It is impossible to date it more precisely backwards, as no blood samples from 2019 have been tested for antibodies in China to my knowledge, or if they have, it was without a published study.

Wuhan hosted the World Military Games from October 18–27, 2019, with over 9,000 athletes from around the world participating. Months later, when the Corona crisis was the talk of the world, it dawned on some that the health complaints that began a few days after arrival in many participants may have been caused by the new coronavirus. Italy’s Olympic fencing champion Matteo Tagliariol told Corriere della Sera, for example:

“When we arrived in Wuhan we almost all got sick. But the worst was the return home. After a week I had a very high fever, I felt that I wasn’t breathing. The sickness didn’t even go away with antibiotics, I recovered after three weeks and remained debilitated for a long time. Then my son and my partner got sick. When they started talking about the virus, I said to myself: I got it too.”

French Olympic silver medalist in the pentathlon, Elodie Clouvel, also fell ill with her boyfriend Valentin Belaud after returning from Wuhan. Speaking on French TV channel Television Loire 7, she said:

“We were in Wuhan for the World Military Games at the end of October. And afterwards, we all fell ill. Valentin missed three days of training. Me, I was sick too … I had things I had never had before. We weren’t particularly worried because no one was talking about it yet. A lot of athletes at the World Military Games were very ill. We were recently in touch with a military doctor who told us, ‘I think you had it because a lot of people from this delegation were ill.”

German volleyball player Jacqueline Brock told the ‘Mail’:

“After a few days, some athletes from my team got ill, I got sick in the last two days (…) I have never felt so sick, either it was a very bad cold or COVID-19, I think it was COVID-19.”

Eric Caumes, a specialist in infectious and tropical diseases, thinks it is “very plausible” that the athletes in Wuhan had contracted Covid-19.

I’ll summarize the thought game again:

In the summer of 2019 in Italy and at the latest in the fall of 2019 in Wuhan, the SARS-CoV-2 virus was be released by agents of Xi Jinping. In Italy, this was done to ensure dissemination through Europe, and in Wuhan, to have a pretext for the lockdown later, which was exported to the West with much propaganda effort, to weaken it economically and psychologically.

 

********

(Postscript from April 2022)

About the Lancet Open Letter scandal initiated by Peter Daszak

There was a case in the Corona field in February 2020 that showed particularly clearly the censorship of scientific media against non compliant opinions. It´s about the open letter statement in support of the scientists, public health professionals, and medical professionals of China combatting COVID-19 in the scientific journal 'The Lancet', which was signed by 27 scientists, among them Christian Drosten. One of the initiators was Peter Daszak (head of EcoHealthAlliance), who worked for years with the Chinese virologist Shi Zenghli at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, for which he had procured a $600,000 grant from Fauci´s NIAID (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, part of the NIH = U.S. National Institutes of Health), for the purpose of Coronavirus research which certainly included to a large extent dangerous gain-of-function research, in which a virus is artificially given new properties in order to be able to study it under more dangerous conditions, e.g. for the development of future vaccines.

When the first suspicions arose that the virus could have escaped from this or another laboratory (lab leak theory), Daszak came up with the idea of countering these assumptions with a public letter, in whose final version it says:

„We strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not
have a natural origin.“

To this end, he sent on February 6, 2020, 3:44 pm, to several colleagues, including Ralph Baric who was also heavily involved in virus reseach in Chinese labs, this email:

"I have been following the events around the novel Coronavirus emergence in China very closely and have been dismayed by the recent spreading of rumors, misinformation and conspiracy theories on its origins. These are now specifically targeting scientists with whom we have collaborated for many years, and who have been working heroically to fight this outbreak and share data with unprecedented speed, openness and transparency. These conspiracy theories threaten to undermine the very global collaborations that we need to deal with a disease that has already spread across continents."

First, the term „conspiracy theories“ is completely nonsensical in the case of lab leak theories, since a lab leak is not a conspiracy but an accident. This rhetoric is here, as in countless other examples when critics of Corona or climate propaganda are attacked, a popular and psychologically effective means to ridicule unwanted views in public. Second, it is clear that Daszak, as a long standing participant in corona research in the WIV, would be suspected of being partially responsible for the alleged outbreak of the virus through negligence. As it later turned out, as many as 26 of the 27 signatories had a connection to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which of course questions their neutrality. Two of the signatories, Charles Calisher and Stanley Perlman, qualified the letter's rigid basic statement this way:

"I don't see how anyone could definitively claim that the virus could not have come from this lab (...) I am not claiming that it happened, only that it is possible." (Calisher in an April 2020 email).

"It is difficult to rule out a possible leak from the lab as part of the process, so this still needs to be considered." (Perlman in an interview with The Telegraph in 2021)

Nevertheless, these gentlemen had signed an open letter "condemning" the lab leak theory as a conspiracy theory.

As to Daszak, he couldn't help but organize a campaign against the feared theory. Because his involvement in this research was known, however, he decided not to sign the letter, which he had mainly planned and written himself, so that he would not be accused of a blatant conflict of interest.

Therefore Daszak wrote this email to Ralph Baric on February 6, 2020, 3:16 pm,
shortly before he sent the email cited above:

"I spoke with Linfa last night about the statement we sent round. He thinks, and I agree with him, that you, me and him should not sign this statement, so it has some distance from us and therefore doesn´t work in a counterproductive way. Jim Hughes, Linda Saif, Hume Field and I believe Rita Colwell will sign it, then I`ll send it round some other key people tonight. We`ll then put it out in a way that doesn´t link it back to our collaboration so we maximize an independent voice.

Later at 4:01 pm, Baric replied:

„I also think this is a good decision. Otherwise it looks self-serving and we lose impact.“

So the three to be excluded from the signing were Daszak as well as Ralph Baric and Linfa Wang, who had also conducted research on coronaviruses at the Wuhan laboratory together with Shi Zhengli and would therefore have had to fear the accusation of a conflict of interest, which, as all three rightly feared, would put the propagandistic "impact" at risk. Later Daszak changed his mind and added his name to the list of signatories. However, he remained unidentified as initiator and author of the letter. Baric and Linfang remained completely unmentioned. In an e-mail to four signatories on the same day at 10:23 pm, Daszak explained his strategy:

"Please note that this statement will not have EcoHealth Alliance logo on it and will not be identifiable as coming from any one organization or person, the idea is to have this as a community supporting our colleagues."

One of the signatories, Linda Saif, asked him whether it would be helpful to add just one or two statements in support of why nCOV is not a lab generated virus and is naturally occuring? "Seems critical to scientifically refute such claims!“

But Daszak replied:

"I think we should probably stick to a broad statement."

This obviously manipulative PR action, which served to avert damage to the image and to clear the air of possible complicity of certain researchers, especially Daszak (and Fauci in the background), in the emergence of the virus, also - and more importantly - confirmed the narrative of dangerous impending pandemics that had been cultivated for years, fueled above all by the all powerful vaccination pope Gates.

The Lancet letter dominated public opinion on the subject of virus origin for more than a year, and came only in dubious light when it became known that Daszak's organization, EcoHealth Alliance, had financially supported the WIV. This also shook the message of the letter, so that the lab leak theory gained sympathy and conspicuously persuaded some who had previously rejected it to turn back. At this point, it should be noted that there is a rarely openly advocated theory that goes beyond the lab leak theory by assuming a deliberate release of the virus. I published in 2021 an essay of my own with this hypothetical premise (see above). The most prominent proponent of this theory is exile Chinese virologist Li-Meng Yan, who, however, is hardly noticed outside her and Steve Bannon's followership due to her connection to her current promoter, bogeyman Bannon, which is regrettable considering her extensive research on the possible artificiality of the virus.

Anyway, since March 2021 an attitude arose, even in WHO´s Tedros and then Biden, that the question of origin should be approached in an open-ended way.

Until June 2021, Facebook users could even expect to be censored if they doubted the theory of natural origin in favor of the lab theory. Then this censorship policy was ended. This shaky behavior seems quite absurd. Finally, in September 2021, the Lancet journal was willing to print a new statement by other scientists in which the lab leak theory was considered as a possibility to be explored. However, journals such as The Lancet and Nature had consistently refused to publish scientific articles that did not harmonize with the natural origin  doctrine or other Corona-related authority-conforming doctrines since the beginning of the so-called pandemic. One central motive which the journal editors seem to take strictly to heart, was certainly that many scientists who experiment with viruses, often in the gain-of-function sector, and who receive large research funds for this purpose, have no interest in getting a reputation as playing with fire and possibly losing the state subsidies. So even renowned authors who positively dealt with the lab leak theory in articles had to switch to other media for publication, where official peer reviewing (i.e. confirmation by other scientists) is not possible. Funnily enough, this gave advocates of the natural origin theory the argument that these were just meaningless pre-prints instead of "serious" peer-reviewed studies. In this way, the impression arose that there is a scientific "consensus" on this issue, when in fact this supposed consensus was only the result of censorship.

Whether political pressure for censorship weighed on these journals can only be speculated. At any rate, it is worth considering whether the mentioned egoistic and money-oriented motive was supported by additional political pressure exerted on editorial offices. The lab leak theory certainly did not seem politically opportune to many authorities during the first lockdown, as it would have weakened the willingness of the population to submit to the lockdown dictates and would have created political hatred against China, which provided the officially praised model for the lockdowns, while the NIH / NIAID and US health pope Fauci, as sponsor of the coronavirus research in Wuhan, would have looked very foolish.