Spiro Skouras, former executive producer at Newsbud, has emerged as one of the more engaging and erudite of the young investigative journalists who have been delving into the Wuhan Coronavirus epidemic. Skouras has documented the position of many prominent figures that have questioned the dubious claim that the source of COVID-19 infection was a diseased animal in Wuhan’s open-air food market.
Skouras has argued it would be “negligent” for researchers to refrain from investigating “the full array of possibilities” on how the contagion originated and how it spread.
Among the first figures, Skouras interviewed on the crisis was Francis Boyle, the renowned professor of international law at the University of Illinois. Prof. Boyle drafted the Biological Weapons and Terrorism Act, legislation that enabled US ratification of the UN’s Biological Warfare Convention in 1990.
Prof. Boyle indicated in his interview with Skouras that COVID-19 is most likely a genetically-engineered pathogen that escaped from the so-called Biosafety Laboratory in Wuhan. Prof. Boyle indicated,
It’s clear to me [the coronavirus] leaked out of the Wuhan Biosafety Level 4 Facility set up by the Chinese government that is working on every type of dangerous biological warfare agent you can consider.
Prof. Boyle points to the fact that the SARS virus leaked out from a Beijing lab in 2004. He describes as “propaganda” the widely promulgated opinion that COVID-19 originated in Wuhan’s exotic, open-air food market. Prof. Boyle expanded some of his interpretations in a subsequent interview published by GreatGameIndia.
Skouras specifically asked Dr. Boyle about his relationship with mainstream media given his record as one of the foremost academic experts on international law and military culture concerning the development of bioweaponry in the United States. Dr. Boyle responded that he was pretty much blacklisted from commenting on the subject of biological warfare ever since he publicly shared his interpretation of the anthrax attacks on two US Senators in October of 2001.
There has been considerable scholarly scrutiny of the anthrax attacks targeting the US Congress and some media organizations in early October of 2001. The anthrax attacks constitute the most serious assault ever on the operations of the US Congress, the primary interface between law and politics in the United States.
Once the US Armed Forces went to war with Afghanistan on the basis of a fraudulent explanation of 9/11’s genesis, there was basically no chance that a genuine and legitimate evidence-based investigation of the September 11 crimes would ever take place. To this day the Global War on Terror continues to unfold on a foundation of lies and illusions that have had devastating consequences for the quality of life for average people throughout the United States and the world.
In his 2005 book, Biowarfare and Terrorism, Prof. Boyle’s analysis pointed to major problems in the FBI’s investigation of the anthrax attacks including the agency’s destruction of relevant evidence. To Prof. Boyle, the highly refined military-grade quality of the anthrax made it almost certain that the anthrax bioweapon was produced within the US Armed Forces at the lab in Fort Detrick Maryland. Anthrax, or Bacillus anthracis, is a rod-shaped bacteria found naturally in soil.
Looking back at the episode Dr. Boyle observed, “The Pentagon and the C.I.A. are ready, willing, and able to launch biowarfare when it suits their interests. They already attacked the American People and Congress and disabled our Republic with super-weapons-grade anthrax in October 2001.”
Prof. Boyle’s interpretation was later verified and expanded upon in a book by Canadian Prof. Graeme MacQueen. Prof. Boyle acknowledges the veracity of Prof. MacQueen’s study of the anthrax deception as part of a “domestic conspiracy.” He sees The 2001 Anthrax Deception as the most advanced finding of academic research on the topic so far.
Prof. MacQueen is prominent among a very large group of academics and public officials who condemn the official narrative of 9/11 for its dramatic inconsistencies with the available evidence. Those who share this understanding include former Italian Prime Minister Francesco Cossiga, former German Defence Minister Andreas von Bülow, former UK Minister of the Environment Michael Meacher, former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury Paul Craig Roberts, former Director of the US Star Wars Missile Defense Program Lt. Col. Bob Bowman, Princeton International Law Professor Richard Falk, and the author of ten academic books on different aspects of the 9/11 debacle, Claremont Graduate University Professor David Ray Griffin.
Prof. Francis Boyle shared the 9/11 skepticism of many when he asked,
In his coverage of the Wuhan Coronavirus epidemic, Spiro Skouras highlighted the proceedings known as Event 201. Event 201 brought together in New York on October 18, 2019 an assembly of delegates hosted by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foun-dation, the World Economic Forum and the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. The gathering anticipated the COVID-19 crisis by just a few weeks. I retrospect it is almost as if Event 201 announced many of the controversies about to arise with the outbreak of the real epidemic in Wuhan China. Event 201 performed functions similar to those of the drills that frequently mimic the engineered scenarios animating false flag terror events but especially those of 9/11.
A major subject of the meeting highlighted the perceived need to control communications during an epidemic. Levan Thiru of the Monetary Authority of Singapore went as far as to call for “a step up on the part of governments to take action against Fake News.” Thiru called for recriminatory litigation aimed at criminalizing “bad actors.” Cautioning against this kind of censorship, Skouras asked, Who is going to decide what constitutes “Fake News”? If fact checkers are to be employed, “who will fact check the fact checkers”?
Hasti Taghi, a media executive with NBC Universal in New York, was especially outspoken in condemning the activities of “conspiracy theorists” that have organized themselves to question the motives and methods of the complex of agencies involved in developing and disseminating vaccines. She frequently condemned the role of “conspiracy theories” in energizing public distrust of the role of pharmaceutical companies and media conglomerates in their interactions with government.
Tom Ingelsby of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security injected an interesting twist into the discussion. He asked, “How much control of information should there be? By whom should control of information be exercised? How can false information be effectively challenged?” Ingelsby then added, “What happens if the false information is coming from companies and governments?”
This final question encapsulates a major problem for conscientious citizens trying to find their way through the corruption and disinformation that often permeates our key institutions. Those that try to counter the problem that governments and corporations sometimes peddle false information can pretty much expect to face accusations that they are “conspiracy theorists.” Too often the calculations involved in deciding whom or what is credible (or not) depends primarily on simple arithmetic favouring the preponderance of wealth and power.
Spiro Skouras gives careful consideration to the possibility that the United States instigated the COVID-19 epidemic starting in Wuhan China.
He notes the precedent set in 1945 on the atomic attacks by the US government on the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Skouras points out that there is proof that since the Second World War, the US government has conducted at least 239 experiments, secretly deploying toxic chemical and biological agents against portions of its own population.
On the history of US involvement in biological warfare see here, here and here.
Skouras highlights the window presented for a covert US bioweapon attack at the World Military Games in Wuhan China in the second half of October of 2019. He notes that 300 US soldiers participated as athletes in the Wuhan Military Games together with a large contingent of American support personnel. The timing and the circumstances of the event were more or less ideal to open up a new pathogenic front in the US government’s informal “hybrid war” against China.
On Feb. 15 at the Munich Security Conference, US Defence Secretary, Mark T. Esper, developed a highly critical characterization of Chinese wrongdoing in order to seemingly justify recriminatory actions. Esper asserted, “China’s growth over the years has been remarkable, but in many ways it is fuelled by theft, coercion, and exploitation of free market economies, private companies, and colleges and universities… Huawei and 5G are today’s poster child for this nefarious activity.
The US antagonism to Huawei’s leadership in the design and worldwide dissemination of 5 G technology might well be a factor in the scandal generated by the Chinese connection to intertwined research in microbiology at the level 4 labs in Winnipeg and Wuhan.
Back in 2000 the notorious report entitled Rebuilding America’s Defenses, a publication brought forward by the neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC), proposed that the US government should refurbish and invoke its capacity to wage biological warfare. PNAC was the think tank that anticipated the events of September 11, 2001 by outlining a strategic scheme that could only be realized by mobilizing American public opinion with “a catalytic event like a New Pearl Harbor.”
After 9/11, the PNAC Team called for the invocation of “advanced forms of biological warfare that can ‘target’ specific genotypes.” In this fashion “biological warfare might be transformed into a politically useful tool.”
The relationship of this pandemic to internal disagreements within China has been put on full display in Steve Bannon’s coverage of the crisis entitled War Room: Pandemic. A prominent member of US President Donald Trump’s inner circle, Steve Bannon is often accompanied on the daily show by Chinese billionaire dissident, Miles Guo (aka Guo Wengui, Miles Haoyun, Miles Kwok).
Guo is an outspoken Chinese refugee. He is a persistent critic of virtually every facet of the policies and actions of the Chinese Communist Party.
It is troubling, to say the least, that some reports indicate dead people are being cremated far faster and at far higher rates than the Chinese government and the World Health Organization are reporting. Some reckoning with the apparent disparity between reported and actual deaths has led to widespread suspicions about what is actually going in the scenes of violent and angry exchanges between people in the Wuhan area.
Many of these videos show brutal confrontations between Chinese civilians and Chinese security police. The displays of desperation by some of those trying to escape apprehensions by uniformed officials seem sometimes to suggest the severity of a life or death struggle. It is made to seem that those seeking to escape the grip of authorities are aware that their failure to do so might lead to a quick death and a quick exit by incineration. These reflections are, of course, speculative rather than definitive.
Questions concerning who we are supposed to believe or not in this crisis are becoming ever more pressing and volatile. One of the emerging themes in the discourse developed at War Room: Pandemic is the propensity of some of the core agencies of mainstream media in the United States to accept at face value the reports they receive from official media outlets answering to the Chinese Communist Party. To Banning and Guo this pattern makes media organizations like the New York Times, The Washington Post, and CNN essentially propaganda extensions of the Chinese government.
The Chinese people themselves are clearly grappling in new ways with the problem of how to understand the information and directives given them by the governing apparatus of the Chinese Communist Party. Clearly the Party initially failed the people by not intervening early and decisively enough after the first cases of Coronavirus illness began to show up. The exit from Wuhan of almost five million people in prior to the Chinese Lunar New Year celebrations had huge implications for spreading the contagion.
As noted in the introduction, the death in Wuhan of Dr. Li Wenliang on 7 February has become a flash point for popular criticism of the Chinese Communist Party led by General Secretary Xi Jinping. Dr. Li wrote to members of his medical school alumnus group suggesting that some significant action should be taken in response to the appearance of SARS-like symptoms that suddenly afflicted his patients.
For sending out this unauthorized communication, Dr. Li was summoned along with seven other supposed offenders to the Public Security Bureau. There he was warned by police to stop “making false statements.” He was ordered to cease and desist “spreading rumors,” and “acting illegally to disturb social order.”
Dr. Li signed a form indicating he would refrain from continuing to do what he had been accused of doing. The chastised professional returned to his medical practice. He took his own advice and began treating patients exhibiting signs of the new illness. He himself soon died from COVID-19 when it was still known as 19-nCoV.
Is Twitter’s permanent deplatforming of the Zero Hedge web site a North American version of the police intervention in China with the goal of silencing Dr. Li? Is the censorship of the Internet in the name of opposing “conspiracy theorists” repeating the Chinese Communist Party’s effort to silence Dr. Li?
Is Dr. Li to be appropriately understood as a Chinese version of a “conspiracy theorist”? How different was his treatment for allegedly “spreading rumours” and “acting illegally to disturb social order” from the treatment of those in the Occident who have been deplatformed, smeared and professionally defrocked for attempting to speak truth to power?
I have developed responses to these incursions based on hard-won experiences facing the propaganda blows of an especially powerful political lobby able to seize control of the governing board of my university. These professional lobbyists seek to discredit academic analysis of their own violations of law, ethics and civility by labelling critics of their zealotry as “conspiracy theorists” or worse.
More recently I have been grappling against a variation on this process in trying to counter the censorious attacks on the American Herald Tribune. These assaults on free expression and open debate began with the machinations of military hawks whose hit job instructions were passed along to the disinformation specialists at CNN and the Washington Post.
No one can say for sure where the Wuhan Coronavirus epidemic is taking the world. Wherever we are headed, however, we are leaving behind an era that can never be recreated. Whatever happened to originate the contagion, this crisis is forcing us to take stock of the framework of biological warfare as it has been developing in China, Russia, Israel and probably many other countries.
Nowhere, however, is biological warfare being more expansively and expensively developed and probably deployed than by the US Armed Forces. The death and destruction that humanity is presently experiencing should signal to us that it is time to get much more serious about inspecting military facilities and enforcing the terms of the Biological Warfare Convention of 1972. It is, in fact, time to get much more serious about enforcing all aspects of international criminal law in balanced ways that transcend the biases of Victors’ Justice.
It is time to throw off the weight of the pseudo-laws introduced after 9/11 through abhorrent tactics like the inside-job military anthrax attack on Congress. Most certainly, it is time to draw a clear distinction between research in the field of public health and research in the development of lethal bioweapons. Better yet, we should work towards putting an end altogether to militarization through the massive expansion of the “death sciences.” The vile activities of fallen practitioners of the endangered life sciences are, for starters, undermining the integrity of our besieged institutions of higher learning.o
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of TA NEA NEWSPAPER AND 3XY RADIO.
