Editor’s Note: What’s happening in America today is a clear and present danger to the Constitutional Republic of the United States of America. Wake Up or lose your freedoms forever.
You’re being scammed by enemies of America who occupy powerful positions in government and the media. November 2020 is the way we, the people, can fight back. Know your enemy. Ditch the masks. Rise.
Source: YouTube
Chinese authorities in Tibet have ordered the destruction of prayer flags in many parts of the region in one of China’s most direct assaults to date on visible symbols of Tibetan culture and religious belief, sources in the region say.
The campaign, described as a program of “behavioral reform,” began in June in Qinghai’s Golog (in Chinese, Guoluo) Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture and in Tengchen (Dingqing) county in the Chamdo municipality of the Tibet Autonomous Region, a local source told RFA this week.
“Government officials and police have summoned the local people to meetings, ordering them to take part in what they called an environmental cleanup drive and movement of behavioral reform,” RFA’s source said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
“Led by the police, local Tibetans are now taking down prayer flags in their villages and on the hilltops,” where they are traditionally hung in the belief that they will ward off evil and bring good luck, the source said.
Whether old or new, the prayer flags bearing mantras are all being removed from their traditional locations, the source said, adding that even the poles on which the flags were hung are being dismantled.
“This is an act of contempt and utter disregard for local Tibetans’ customs and faith,” the source said, adding that he fears this new campaign will spread and encourage even more restrictions on traditional customs and religious practice.
“Chinese authorities in general have always vowed to eliminate any Tibetan behavior that they say will harm people’s productivity and adversely affect their livelihood,” he said.
“Thus, the authorities have now set out to root out this Tibetan tradition of hanging prayer flags everywhere, directing local officials, the heads of monasteries, and relevant authorities at the district and township level to carry out the order.”
The campaign against flags came as annual review by the Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy found that Chinese policies systematically wear away and destroy Tibetans’ national and cultural identity, with a growing use of surveillance and online monitoring to suppress political dissent, and strengthened restrictions on Tibetan children’s right to classroom instruction in their own language.
Throughout the year, Chinese police forces and surveillance teams moved into monasteries and villages to monitor Tibetan residents for signs of opposition to China’s rule, the Dharamsala, India-based center said, adding, “facial-recognition software and careful monitoring of digital spaces [were] deployed to suppress political protests against the increased clampdowns on civil and political rights.”
Reported by Lhuboom for RFA’s Tibetan Service. Translated by Dorjee Damdul. Written in English by Richard Finney.
Source: RFA News
Since the Chinese Communist Party virus (CCP virus, commonly known as novel coronavirus) first broke out in Wuhan, China, the World Health Organization (WHO) repeated the Chinese regime’s talking points. It initially parroted the Chinese regime’s official statements that there was little or no risk of human-to-human transmission of the virus. Mounting evidence, including from leaked internal documents, however, shows that the regime knew about the outbreak’s severity and hid it from the public. The virus has since spread to more than 200 countries and territories, with more than 4 million people infected and more than 300,000 deaths worldwide.
A growing number of countries are calling for an evaluation of the WHO’s pandemic response.
Source: The Epoch Times
By David J. Lynch & Emily Rauhala
President Trump on Friday leveled an extraordinary broadside at the Chinese government, accusing it of a comprehensive “pattern of misconduct” and ordering U.S. officials to begin the process of revoking Hong Kong’s special status under U.S. law.
The president did not outline a deadline for the historic action. But if carried out, it would mean that the United States would no longer treat Hong Kong and China as separate entities for the purposes of extradition, customs, trade and visa issues, he said. And the announcement could include sanctions on Hong Kong or Chinese officials.
In Rose Garden remarks, Trump alleged that the Chinese government covered up the coronavirus outbreak and instigated “a global pandemic that has cost more than 100,000 American lives and over 1 million lives worldwide.” The president also attacked the World Health Organization as effectively controlled by Beijing.
“We will today be terminating our relationship” with the WHO, the president said, adding that the organization’s more than $400 million annual U.S. contribution will be diverted to other health groups.
The president later issued a proclamation to protect sensitive American university research from Chinese spying and to bar an unspecified number of Chinese nationals from entering the United States for graduate study. He also directed an administration working group headed by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to evaluate Chinese corporations listed on U.S. financial markets as potential targets of future restrictions.
The moves seemed certain to intensify growing U.S.-China tensions , though investors on Friday took them in stride.
The president’s comments were as notable for what he did not say. There was no mention of his irritation with China’s failure to quickly increase purchases of American goods as required by the trade deal he signed in January. He also made no direct reference to Chinese President Xi Jinping, even as he said “the world is now suffering as a result of the malfeasance of the Chinese government.”
In one sign of Trump’s increased fury with the world’s second-largest economy, on Friday morning he tweeted simply: “CHINA!”
His formal Friday announcement — while long on harsh rhetoric — was short on details. The president reiterated some familiar grievances, blaming the Chinese for stealing American trade secrets and jobs and assailing his predecessors for allegedly letting them get away with it.
He expanded his indictment of the Chinese government to include its program of island construction in the South China Sea, a national security concern he rarely addresses.
“The Chinese government has continually violated its promises to us and so many nations,” he said.
Trump also stopped short of taking concrete action against the U.S.-listed Chinese companies he said posed “hidden and undue risks” for American investors. The Securities and Exchange Commission and other regulators have complained for years about China’s refusal to grant access to their companies’ audit records.
As of last year, 156 Chinese companies — including 11 with significant government ownership — traded on U.S. markets, according to the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a nonpartisan congressional body.
After Trump’s remarks, Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) suggested the president was trying to use China to distract from the pandemic and battered economy.
“President Trump’s Rose Garden event just now was pathetic,” he said. “It perfectly encapsulates his inability to lead when our nation needs it most. The only question is whether President Trump is afraid to lead or just doesn’t know how.”
Trump’s announcement followed Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s statement earlier this week that Hong Kong was no longer sufficiently autonomous from mainland China to deserve separate treatment. Under the 1997 handover agreement with the United Kingdom, China agreed to preserve the former British colony’s democratic system for 50 years. Xi’s decision to impose security legislation on Hong Kong directly rather than by working through the territory’s local legislature may mark the collapse of that “one country, two systems” approach.
Some advocates of a tougher U.S. approach to China were disappointed by the president’s 10-minute statement.
“They didn’t do anything with regard to Hong Kong. His Hong Kong comments could have been issued as a statement a week ago,” said Derek Scissors, a China specialist at the American Enterprise Institute. “The administration has absolutely considered specific actions since the NPC proposal was made public but decided not to announce a single one.”
Receive the most important pandemic developments in your inbox every day. All stories linked in the newsletter are free to access.
Caught in the middle of the deepening U.S.-China dispute are more than 1,350 U.S. corporations with offices in Hong Kong. The erosion of the city’s freedoms, including an independent judiciary, threatens to turn one of the global economy’s financial centers into just another Chinese city and calls into question the rationale for such a sizable commercial presence there.
The Chinese National People’s Congress, the country’s rubber-stamp legislature, on Thursday approved a plan to impose national security legislation in Hong Kong. The move was denounced in a joint statement by the United States, Canada, Australia and United Kingdom as in “direct conflict” with China’s promises in 1997 when it regained sovereignty over the former British colony.
“The United States may well have to do something the market doesn’t like in light of its longer-term interests,” said Patrick Chovanec, economic adviser for Silvercrest Asset Management in New York. “But there is concern about whether the U.S. is in a spiral of escalation with China on several fronts.”
The president’s visa move targets Chinese graduate students in the United States who have worked, studied, or been employed by entities linked to China’s efforts to “acquire or divert” technology for the People’s Liberation Army.
It is not immediately clear how many of the 350,000 Chinese students in the United States will be affected. And the announcement is expected to draw strong pushback from U.S. universities; some are heavily reliant on the full-fee tuition payments from Chinese students.
Over a 10-year period, the People’s Liberation Army dispatched 2,500 scientists and engineers to study overseas, focusing on democracies like the United States, according to a 2018 report by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank.
In January, the FBI arrested a 29-year-old Boston University student, accusing her of failing to disclose on her visa application that she was a lieutenant in the PLA.
Friday’s action represents only the administration’s latest slap at Beijing. The president earlier this month pushed a federal retirement pension board to abandon plans to invest in Chinese securities. And the Commerce Department tightened limits on Chinese telecom giant Huawei’s ability to purchase American computer chips.
Just four months after Trump celebrated a partial trade deal with China, marking an apparent truce in a two-year diplomatic conflict, relations between the two countries have plummeted. The president has been openly displeased with China’s failure to quickly fulfill the trade deal’s terms, including massive additional purchases of American crops, energy products and manufactured goods.
“Frankly the U.S. government is — I’ll use the word furious with what China has done in recent days, weeks and months. They have not behaved well and they have lost the trust I think of the whole Western world,” Larry Kudlow, director of the National Economic Council, said Friday on Fox News.
Lawmakers in both parties also are increasingly impatient with Beijing, and the president failed to address some issues of concern on Capitol Hill. He made no reference, for example, to new legislation that requires him to impose sanctions on Chinese officials implicated in human rights violations in the Muslim-majority province of Xinjiang.
Trump’s decision to “terminate” the United States’ relationship with the World Health Organization comes after repeated threats to act.
Of the $893 million the United States sent in the 2018 and 2019 funding period, $237 million was an “assessed contribution” — a type of membership fee that may prove hard to cut without congressional approval.
At greater risk is what’s known as the “voluntary contribution,” that is money provided to U.S. agencies for health efforts and then given to WHO programs. The largest share of this money goes to polio eradication, with large chunks to fight vaccine preventable disease, malaria, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS and the provision of basic health care.
The prospect of cutting U.S. funding for public health issues like polio in the middle of the pandemic drew immediate fire. Patrice Harris, president of the American Medical Association, said the action “serves no logical purpose and makes finding a way out of this public health crisis dramatically more challenging.”
Source: Washington Post
This article is just a quick run-down of the Top Twelve Lies.
1. People dropping dead in the streets.
Guardian January
Metro January 31st
The Sun January 31st
This is how the media portrayed COVID-19 at the beginning: a disease so dangerous that people walking along the street suddenly dropped down dead. Virtually all the UK media carried these photos. It’s very odd that in the first two pictures, and variants of them in other papers, those emergency workers have no equipment with them, and appear to be just standing around doing nothing. Are these faked photos? There have been no reports of people dropping dead in the street anywhere since then. And if it had been true in China, the virus would have been noticed very quickly. We now know that the symptoms are indistinguishable from colds, flu or pneumonia. These photos were the start of the Coronapanic lies.
2. Three Percent Will Die.
The WHO put out this 3% death rate figure early on. You don’t need to be a maths wizard to know that’s one person in thirty. That’s a serious reason to panic. We now know that the death rate is around 0.1%. That’s about one in a thousand, and comparable to seasonal flu. But just as important, the figures are massively skewed towards people around eighty who have at least two existing serious conditions, and are already in a care home: people who have minimal quality of life, and little remaining expectation of life. For younger, healthy people, and younger here can mean under seventy, never mind twenty or thirty, the risk of death is vanishingly small.
3, Herd Immunity is a Dangerous Idea.
This is one of the most serious corruptions of science ever. You don’t need a degree in Epidemiology to know that epidemics come and go. The very definition of the word implies that. (Conversely, a disease which stays around for many years is called endemic.) You do need to know just a smidgen of Epidemiology to understand why epidemics come and go. It’s not rocket science. When the new disease arrives, everybody is susceptible to it, because it is new and therefore nobody has any immunity. The disease can race through the population, but as it does so it leaves immune people in its wake. As the number of immune people grows, the disease finds it harder and harder to spread. When the number of immune people reaches a certain point (which varies with different diseases) the bug can find no new people to infect, so the bug itself effectively dies. That point is called herd immunity. It is the only way to defeat a new virus. But see number 4.
4. We Need a Vaccine to Give us Herd Immunity.
Vaccines work by creating artificial herd immunity, but that’s no better than natural herd immunity. And the simple fact is, as everyone knows, we don’t have a vaccine. How long will it take to make one, test it properly, and roll it out? Eighteen months? Three years? Never? In any event, even if we use a vaccine before proper safety testing, it will still take longer than it does to reach herd immunity naturally. (And note that the Common Cold is also often caused by some other Coronaviruses. Still no sign of a vaccine for any of those.)
5 Lockdowns Work.
The evidence here is very, very weak. It is common sense that they must have some effect. But we have New York, with a hard lockdown and massive deaths, while Tokyo with a minimal lockdown has hardly any. Or Sweden with a very mild lockdown having a lower death rate than Britain with a draconian one. Or Spain and Portugal, which together make up the Iberian Peninsula, having massively different death rates. There is another factor, or factors, involved here, and the mass media seem to have no concern as to what they might be. Happily there are some scientists who do seek to explain the differences. Several factors have been put forward with good evidence:
One could tease out many other factors, but not one comes close to the Grand Deal-Breaker in Epidemiology, which is immunity. Immunity is the principal reason people do not get sick with any disease. Hence the primary factor in differential death rates must be how long different countries had the virus before they realised. As the infection travelled through populations, confused with colds and flu, it was steadily building immunity. China has a truly miniscule number of deaths given its huge population. The virus there was on the rampage right through Winter Flu Season, before they realised there was something new. When they did, they locked down, and the lockdown appeared to be very effective; but only because they were already close to herd immunity. The countries surrounding China, which have a great deal of intercourse with it, have similarly low death rates (Vietnam, nobody at all!) How and when the virus got into other countries is difficult to unravel now; but one should be aware that Wuhan Airport is a major hub, with flights all over the World. We can reasonably infer that Norway, for example, was infected early, yielding the much lower recorded deaths later. Such a conclusion is borne out by the fact that, having now eased its lockdown, cases are still going down. In other words, there is no sign of a “Second Wave”. After a tight and effective lockdown preventing transmission, and also therefore preventing the growth of immunity, there should indeed be a second wave. The lack of one points very strongly to previously acquired immunity. (In all of this New York remains the ultimate outlier, and I’m no more prepared to attempt a complete explanation of NY statistics at this stage than anybody else.)
6. Lockdown Does Not Cause More Deaths than it Saves.
The leaked figure of 150,000 lockdown-caused deaths has never been refuted by the UK Government. It is only common sense that with the NHS shut down to almost everyone, there will be more deaths from other causes. Also more suicides, more domestic violence, and the array of problems that increase mortality when poverty increases. The economic crash is going to have a big effect there. And do we regard the suicide of a healthy 20-year-old as equivalent to the death of an ailing 85-year old? Lockdown is not a One-Way Street when it comes to saving lives; more likely a Wrong-Way Street.
7. Being Infected May Not (or Does Not) Make You Immune.
This is a truly bizarre assumption to make about any specific infection. (Note that the Common Cold, which is endemic, is caused by a number of different viruses.) This “fact” was allegedly based on some people who seemed to be infected twice. But the extreme difficulty of distinguishing between Colds, Flu, Covid19 and Pneumonia means this was always a ridiculous conclusion to reach. And if it were true it would be a one shot kill of the “Race for a Vaccine.” Vaccines only work because they stimulate the immune system in the way a natural infection does. If Covid19 did not provoke a normal immune response, any vaccine would be useless.
8. Having Covid Means Having Serious Symptoms.
In the beginning of this sorry saga, the most serious symptom, as noted in Lie 1 above, was instant death. Now we know that it mostly has no symptoms at all, or presents like a Common Cold. All the World’s highly-paid and endlessly-promoted “experts” somehow didn’t notice this.
9. Masks Work.
If they do, why can’t we all wear them and get back to normal? If they don’t, why are we ever recommended to use them? The effectiveness or otherwise of masks has been a controversial matter for months. Some Doctors have said that healthy people wearing them outside of a clinical setting is definitely a bad idea. Is the mask controversy just another way to ramp up fear and confusion?
10. Two Meter Social Distancing is Necessary.
There is no good science behind this. In Norway, with its incredibly low death rate, they use one metre. And there is never a reference to whether you are indoors or out. If you breathe out virus indoors, it has little choice but to hang around in the room for a while. If you are outside in fairly still air, which has a speed of about 2 metres per second, the virus you breathed out 2 seconds ago is already 4 metres away. And because the air you breathe out is always warmer than the surrounding air, and warm air rises, that potentially virus-laden air will rise up outside with no ceiling to stop it. So two metres is not necessary in Norway, but it is in England, whether you are in a small room or on a breezy beach. Is this fear-mongering nonsense, or science? It is certainly not the latter.
11. Money has Nothing to do with Any of This.
The influence and mega-bucks of Bill Gates and Big Pharma is supposedly not skewing the debate. Bill Gates’s donations to Prof Lockdown Ferguson’s Imperial College, or to the WHO, make no difference, and Bill Gates’s desire to produce seven billion doses of vaccine does not give him a financial interest. Bill Gates is a nice guy who knows a lot about computer viruses, so we should all look to him as our Saviour from this virus. I fancy there’s more logic in Alice in Wonderland.
12. The Destruction of Basic Human Rights is a Price Worth Paying.
People being under virtual House Arrest, with Freedom of Movement, Freedom of Association, Freedom of Speech, Freedom to Work, Freedom to attend School, all curtailed, is OK? The introduction of mass personal surveillance is a good thing? If a foreign invader threatened our Rights like that we would fight for them, and accept casualties in the process. Why are we suddenly turning that logic on its head, and deciding to give up Rights to (possibly) save lives? Do we all fondly imagine that we will soon have our Rights back? History shows that Rights are generally hard won, and once lost they are very hard to get back. And if you think you still have Freedom of Speech, try as I and others have, to put across a view that is different to the Government. Yes, you can get it across to a few. But if it reaches many more, Google, or YouTube, or Facebook will soon censor it. If you are reading this article, it is because you are one of a small number, meaning the article is still below the censor’s radar, or the popularity level that triggers censorship.
In those wonderful days before Covid19, we all knew that Politicians, Journalists and Salesmen are inveterate Purveyors of Porky Pies. Now these same people are regarded as Saints and Saviours, with absolutely nothing but our best interests and well-being in their hearts. It is a fact, meaning a real one, not a fake one, that I can think of no topic ever that has had so many utterly bizarre lies told about it. It is also a fact that I cannot think of any matter where politicians around the World all suddenly started braying like donkeys with the same awful hoo-ha. And also a fact that I cannot think of any occurrence which has simultaneously destroyed human rights and wrecked the economy across the entire Globe. Is it not odd that all of those three extreme observations should apply to the very same little virus? If anyone can’t see a problem here, it can only be that Coronapanic has totally obliterated their thought processes.
Source: The Lockdown
Editor’s Note: The National Library of Medicine (NLM), on the campus of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, has been a center of information innovation since its founding in 1836. The world’s largest biomedical library, NLM maintains and makes available a vast print collection and produces electronic information resources on a wide range of topics that are searched billions of times each year by millions of people around the globe. It also supports and conducts research, development, and training in biomedical informatics and health information technology. In addition, the Library coordinates a 6,500-member National Network of Libraries of Medicine that promotes and provides access to health information in communities across the United States.
Background: An ongoing outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread around the world. It is debatable whether asymptomatic COVID-19 virus carriers are contagious. We report here a case of the asymptomatic patient and present clinical characteristics of 455 contacts, which aims to study the infectivity of asymptomatic carriers.
Material and methods: 455 contacts who were exposed to the asymptomatic COVID-19 virus carrier became the subjects of our research. They were divided into three groups: 35 patients, 196 family members and 224 hospital staffs. We extracted their epidemiological information, clinical records, auxiliary examination results and therapeutic schedules.
Results: The median contact time for patients was four days and that for family members was five days. Cardiovascular disease accounted for 25% among original diseases of patients. Apart from hospital staffs, both patients and family members were isolated medically. During the quarantine, seven patients plus one family member appeared new respiratory symptoms, where fever was the most common one. The blood counts in most contacts were within a normal range. All CT images showed no sign of COVID-19 infection. No severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections was detected in 455 contacts by nucleic acid test.
Conclusion: In summary, all the 455 contacts were excluded from SARS-CoV-2 infection and we conclude that the infectivity of some asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers might be weak.
Keywords: Asymptomatic carrier; Contacts; Infectivity; SARS-CoV-2.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Features, Evaluation and Treatment Coronavirus (COVID-19).
The Coronavirus Pandemic: What Does the Evidence Show?
Source: National Library of Medicine
Johnny Liberty, Editor’s Note: After reading this expose’ I realized why the race for 5G dominance is also a race for which political system will prevail – capitalism or communism. China has taken the lead in 5G and already dominates the marketplace. Unless the USA steps up along with its telecommunications partners and has the ability to compete in a free market with China, it will lose the battle for freedom as well. This does not imply that I wholeheartedly support 5G especially with regards to the untested health and safety issues. Already we know that millimeter radiation damages human health, but the industry refuses to study or mitigate these. It’s a grand experiment which has already resulted in tens of thousands of deaths which were falsely attributed to COVID-19.
By Bonnie Evans
As calls to decouple U.S. industries from dependency on manufacturing in China are growing, President Donald Trump has helped prepare the ground for a shift from China by taking a more skeptical approach to relations with the regime in Beijing than his predecessors.
While globalists are pushing back against the efforts to decouple, the key telecommunications technology of 5G shows the limitations of their approach, according to one expert.
The argument for protecting the deeply intertwined U.S.–China economic relationship is widely supported in some circles.
Last December, former World Bank President Robert Zoellick, who served the George W. Bush administration as U.S. trade representative, asked a gathering of the U.S.–China Business Council, “Are you ready for this?”
“The 20th century painted a shocking picture of industrial age destruction; do not assume that the cyber era of the 21st century is immune to crack-ups or catastrophes of equal or even greater scale,” Zoellick said.
“You need to decide whether you think the United States can still cooperate with China to mutual benefit while managing differences, and if so, how.”
The Financial Times said that Zoellick’s words “captured the fears—particularly within parts of Washington’s economic and foreign policy establishment—that U.S. President Donald Trump’s trade war against Beijing has paved the way for an irreversible ‘decoupling’ of the world’s two largest economies.”
Zoellick was responsible for completing the negotiations that brought China into the World Trade Organization.
Zoellick’s views are echoed by other trade and China specialists.
Harry G. Broadman, an economist who has worked in key U.S. government, international organization, private sector, and academic roles during his 30-plus-year career, wrote in Forbes in September 2019 that decoupling from China potentially presents “worldwide negative spillover impacts.”
Of those consequences, Broadman suggests, “technological bifurcation, which could fundamentally jeopardize harnessing global benefits from advances in science and technology,” is one of the riskiest aspects of taking the United States out of China.
In plain English, Broadman’s argument is that without globalization, which is largely underpinned by the U.S.–China relationship, technologies go their own way, developing standards and specifications for the regions in which they emerge, rather than under a globalized standard common throughout the world.
“He’s mistaken,” Robert Spalding said, referring to Broadman’s views on technological bifurcation. Spalding is a retired Air Force brigadier general and architect of the U.S. National Security Strategy, which named China as an adversary. He is now a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington, and author of the recent book “Stealth War: How China Took Over While America’s Elite Slept.”
The real danger, Spalding told The Epoch Times in an extensive interview, is in the ongoing struggle for dominance in fifth-generation—5G—mobile technology and standards that are already beginning to change how data is collected and used around the world.
“The U.S. was the first to develop the smartphone in 4G,” Spalding said. As a result, “we dominate the information market.”
But as the world moves into 5G, the risks are greater if the “concept of open data” and “open data markets” of those 4G networks are maintained. In Europe, the open data concept has already “created concern for privacy protection.”
In China, however, open data markets create a global opportunity.
“In the hands of China,” Spalding said, open data “lets the state take hold of power that Google and Amazon have.”
The “state” in China is led and run by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
“The ability of these companies to pinpoint your location and the things you’re doing and buying is incredibly powerful and counter to privacy concerns and counter to the principles of our liberal democracies,” Spalding said.
Spalding pointed out that “as Android and Apple become less of dominant players in 5G, now Tencent and Alibaba and DJI and Hikvision can begin to dominate that data space. So we move from a world centered on the U.S. to one centralized on Baidu and Tencent.”
All five companies are Chinese technology companies with ties to the CCP. Alibaba and Tencent generally rank in the top 10 internet companies in the world by market capitalization.
“That’s why he’s mistaken [about the problem of technological bifurcation]. It’s positive if we move to a data system that is focused on privacy and security and sovereignty and deploying secure 5G,” Spalding said.
Referring to Broadman, Spalding said that “what he’s advocating is that China dominate the technological space.”
Already, Spalding said, 3GPP, the umbrella body under which the key telecommunications standards organizations in the world operate and coordinate, is heavily dominated by China.
Since American network equipment manufacturers “are not expected to survive,” that leaves only four companies in the world that will make the networking equipment for the 5G future.
Those companies are Ericsson, Nokia, Samsung, and China’s Huawei—all subject to the standards that are being so heavily influenced by Chinese technical specifications.
Functionally, therefore, Spalding points out that even though Ericsson and Nokia are Swedish and Finnish respectively, and Samsung is South Korean, they end up building the same system as Huawei.
“Essentially,” Spalding said, “everybody is building a Chinese network based on open data, not on a secure network. That’s why he’s incorrect. His theory promotes China,” Spalding said.
This means, Spalding said, that China’s “acquisition of intelligence” and “ability to influence societies” is greatly enhanced both in China and abroad, including in the United States.
Statistics from the Institute of Electronics and Electronic Engineers support Spalding’s claim.
In a March 17 post titled “Strategy Analytics: Huawei 1st among top 5 contributors to 3GPP 5G specs,” Alan Weissberger reports that “even though there are more than 600 member companies participating in 3GPP, their 5G specification process is actually led by only a few leading telecom companies. … New research from Strategy Analytics … finds that 13 companies contributed more than 78% 5G related papers and led 77% of the 5G related Work Items and Study Items.”
Of those 13, the top five are, in order, Huawei, Ericsson, Nokia, Qualcomm, and China Mobile.
“By allowing China to be in the global trading system, you’re actually undermining the foundational premises” of that system, Spalding said. That global trading system has “a market-based approach to both capital allocation and trade.”
“China is not a market-based economy,” Spalding said. China, Spalding has said earlier, is not “a centrally planned economy, but it is centrally resourced.”
“When the state is providing resources and capital to a company, that’s not a market-based solution,” he said.
“Prices are set by China, not by the market.
“If you really want to have a free trading system … then China can’t be a part of it because they don’t believe in it.”
Source: The Epoch Times
Johnny Liberty, Editor’s Note: This is a fine documentary with the utmost detail about how COVID-19 was created in a Wuhan bioweapons laboratory and debunks the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) version of reality which insists that it originated in the Huanan Seafood Market. Click here on on the above graphic to watch the film.
By Joshua Phillips, Investigative Reporter
As the world is gripped by the ongoing pandemic, many questions remain about the origin of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) virus—commonly known as the novel coronavirus.
Join Epoch Times senior investigative reporter Joshua Philipp as he explores the known facts surrounding the CCP virus and the global pandemic it caused.
In his investigation, Philipp explores the scientific data, and interviews top scientists and national security experts. And while the mystery surrounding the virus’s origin remains, much is learned about the CCP’s cover-up that led to the pandemic and the threat it poses to the world.
From the start of the virus outbreak in China, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has not been forthcoming with information about the virus. In the early days of the outbreak, medical professionals who sounded the alarm were reprimanded by police for spreading “rumors.”
Initially, the CCP said the virus originated at the Huanan Seafood Market, even though it knew patient zero had no connection with the market. Fearing that it might be held accountable for the worldwide pandemic, the CCP shifted its narrative to suggest that the virus originated in the United States and was brought to China by the U.S. military.
As a leading voice in covering China for the past 20 years, we understand very well the CCP’s deceptive nature and its history of cover-ups. With this outbreak, we saw a case of history repeating itself—in 2003, we exposed the CCP’s cover-up of the SARS epidemic in China, far ahead of other media.
In this documentary, we present viewers with the known scientific data and facts surrounding the origin of the virus along with experts’ opinions. We don’t draw conclusions, but we point out that serious questions remain about the origins of the virus as well as the CCP’s handling of the outbreak.
Some of our viewers felt the documentary was taking a position on the origin of the virus, which was not our intent. The documentary has been slightly updated as of April 14 to better reflect our position, which is not to provide a definitive answer, but rather to present the known facts.
Source: The Epoch Times & NTD Films
By Collin Rugg
According to a bombshell new report, the World Health Organization (WHO) blocked medical experts from recommending travel bans to help stop the spread of the Coronavirus during the early days of the pandemic.
“A report by Australia’s Sky News revealed that on January 30, WHO bureaucrats met with a group of doctors and medical experts to discuss a response to the coronavirus, which at the time was spreading from Wuhan, China, to nations like the United States, Italy, Iran, and South Korea,” Breitbart reports. “The report is based on the meeting’s official records.”Medical experts were intent on implementing travel bans however they were talked out of it by WHO bureaucrats during a meeting in Geneva, Switzerland. The bans would have most likely saved thousands of lives.
Check out what Sky News digital editor Jack Houghton had to say:
[WHO] actually decided not to go ahead with [travel ban recommendations] and not declare a global health emergency but there were a few dissenting voices. So the official meeting records say there was a divergence of views but they won’t actually go into detail about who was trying to block it. But there were doctors there who wanted to issue travel bans and the World Health Organization blocked it.
Breitbart continues:
In early and late February, while thousands of coronavirus cases were confirmed across the world, WHO bureaucrats continuously urged nations not to impose travel bans.
“WHO continues to advise against the application of travel or trade restrictions to countries experiencing COVID-19 outbreaks,” an official WHO statement from February 29 reads.
Despite WHO bureaucrats stopping the experts from recommending travel bans to nations looking to keep the coronavirus from spreading, President Trump moved forward with travel bans on China and Iran within weeks of the first confirmed case in the U.S.
About a month later, Trump issued a travel ban on Europe after the nation’s leading medical experts said the coronavirus was primarily being spread due to European travel. Specifically, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Dr. Anthony Fauci said the travel bans were critical to fighting the coronavirus.
“I believe we would be in a worse position,” Fauci told congressional lawmakers on March 11 when asked what position the U.S. would have been in if not for Trump’s travel bans.
A study by experts at Mount Sinai states that New York City’s record-high coronavirus cases and deaths are “predominately” due to travel from Europe.
As Breitbart News reported, Australia implemented similar life-saving immigration restrictions despite the opposition of WHO bureaucrats. Australia moved relatively quickly to ban travel from China regardless of WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesu claiming such bans would “unnecessarily interfere with international travel and trade.”
Source: Trending Politics & Breitbart News
Editor’s Note: This is a fine overview and summary of the film about the origins of the Wuhan virus.
By Jo-Est B. Tan
Part 1. The Story of The Seafood Market
The Wuhan Health Commission released an internal notice on December 30, 2019 saying, “There has been a continuous occurrence of pneumonia cases of unknown cause at Huanan Seafood Market”
Shortly afterward, the Wuhan Health Commission issued a public notice saying that new pneumonia cases were related to the seafood market, but did not transmit virus from human to human.
“Some medical institutions found a link between the pneumonia cases and the Huanan Seafood Market” but that “there was no evidence of ‘obvious human to human transmission’ and no infection among medical personnel.”
So on January 1, 2020, the Huanan Seafood market posted a notice of closure, and had a thorough clean up. Guan Yi, a Hong Kong expert mentioned that it was like they were trying to cover up a crime scene. Officials in Wuhan said that most of the pneumonia cases have had a history in the Huanan Seafood.
On January 26, 2020, the Institute of Virology of China, CDC said that 33 of the 585 environmental samples from Wuhan market had the novel coronavirus nucleic acid, and added that the virus came from wild animals in the market.
On January 24, The Lancet produced an article called Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China that suggested the virus might not have originated from the market.
The first author of the paper was Huang Chaolin, the Deputy Director of Jin Yin-tan Hospital, and this facility was the first to treat patients with the unknown pneumonia in Wuhan.
Dr. Sean Lin, former Lab Director of the Viral Disease Branch, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research said the symptom onset of the first patient was on December 1, 2019, and had no relation to the Huanan Seafood Market, and no epidemiological link was found between the first patient and later cases.
On December 10, 2019, there were 3 more cases, and 2 of the 3 cases had no relation to the Huanan Seafood Market.
Since December 15, 2019, a cluster of cases with a history of seafood market exposure have been reported. Soon after the December 10, 2019 analysis of 3 patients, there were 14 of 41 patients studied that were found to not have been to the Huanan Seafood Market.
Judy A. Mikovits, Ph.D., a molecular biologist and former Director of Lab of Antiviral Mechanism NCI, pointed out that a Lancet article said that patient zero was did not even go to the seafood market, and that there are no bats at the market or anywhere close. However, a high similarity of SARS CoV-2 nucleotide sequences were found with bat-related viruses.
But reports from NBC and Fox News have stated that bats are a likely source of the Coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic.
On Janaury 29, The Lancet said 50 of the 99 cases from Jin Yan-Tan, were unrelated to the market.
The New England Journal added that the 45 cases confirmed before January 1st have not been to the market. This information came from two authors who are doctors and medical experts from China.
Daniel Lucy, an epidemiologist from the University of Georgetown said that if the Lancet paper was accurate, the first case would have been infected as early as November 2019 because due to the incubation period of the virus.
This can only mean that the virus was spreading in different areas in Wuhan before the reports suggested that the pneumonia cases had a history of exposure to the seafood market that reportedly started on December 15.
The first panel of experts from the National Health Commission arrived in Wuhan on December 31, 2019. After investigating cases in Jin Yin-Tan hospital, they said that the initial criteria for a confirmed case are fever, history to the seafood market, and whole-genomer sequencing.
The second group of experts that consisted of Zhong Nanshan arrived on January 18th and revised the criteria. They questioned why exposure to the seafood market would be a criterion when one third of the cases were unrelated to that area.
Dr. Lin pointed out the existence of a clear outside source of the infection and possible malfeasance involved in the Chinese information that the CPP is trying to cover up.
“It can go a long way to covering up the actual source by imposing a false place and you’re not looking at the actual victims, then you’re only allowed to find your keys under the light post,” said Mikovits.
Asian Affairs Experts Columnist Gordon Chang thinks the reports of deaths and cases by China are highly ‘suspicious’.
“Beijing for six weeks, in December, in January, suppressed information of the epidemic and then when they officially acknowledged it on January 20, they then started a campaign of suppression of information.
“We know that because the central leading group that was announced on January 26 has a nine person roster, and it’s very heavy with propaganda officials.
“The vice chairman of the group is the Communist Party’s propaganda czar. It appears that the Party’s main goal here is suppression of information, controlling the narrative. That’s more important to them than actually ending the epidemic,” he said.
Part 2 The Mysterious Gene Sequence
China released the full genome sequence of the Wuhan novel coronavirus on January 10, and virologists worldwide started analyzing it.
On February 3, a paper by Zhang Yongzhen from the National Institute of Communicable Disease Control and Prevention and his team, along with the School of Public Health of Fudan University was published by Nature which claimed that the Wuhan coronavirus is closely related to CoVZC45 and CoVZXC21, which are viruses sampled from bats in Zhoushan by the People’s Liberation Army.
The Wuhan coronavirus has an 89.1% nucleotide similarity to the CoVZC45 and exhibits 100% amino acid similarity in the NSP7and E proteins.
Other scientists then used Blast, a program developed by the National Institute of Health and the National Center for Biotechnology Information to compare the viral sequence based on the data released by Chinese authorities on January 12, and the results match with Zhang’s findings.
Scientist Lu Roujian from Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention published a paper in The Lancet on January 30 saying the Wuhan Virus has an 88% similarity to two bat-derived SARS-like coronaviruses collected in Zhoushan, Zhejiang Province.
Additionally, a 2018 paper says that scientists from the Research Institute for Medicine of Nanjing Command have confirmed that there are many SARS-like coronavirus in Zhoushan City which are referred to as Zhoushan virus.
Philipp explains that the Wuhan coronavirus is highly similar to a bat SARS-like coronavirus discovered by the Nanjing Military Research Institute with 100% amino acid similarity in NSP7 and the envelope protein (e protein).
With that information out, Dr. Lin thinks that this might have been created somewhere, just not in a natural environment.
“Hard to see a protein is 100% identical when the virus jumps species. That’s suggesting maybe the virus could be generated with a reverse engineer process.”
Mikovits says the similarity “can’t possibly be a natural mutation.”
“It almost certainly is a recombination event that was laboratory driven,” she said.
Philipp discovered that on January 21, “researchers from the Institute Pasteur Shangai Chinese Academy of Sciences published a paper in Science China Life Sciences suggests that a key part of S protein of Wuhan virus has high homology with the SARS virus.”
The S proteins allow the virus to enter human cells.
“The S proteins are like little mushrooms attached to the surface of the virus. These are also known as spine proteins or spike proteins and are an important tool for the coronavirus to invade human cells.
“The S protein acts as a key which can unlock the lock on the surface of the cell and then invade the cell to propagate and destroy it.”
Dr. Lin says this is the reason for multiorgan failure.
“That’s probably one of the important reasons contributing to multiorgan failure. They can spread out in the human body much faster.”
Mikovits says the virus couldn’t possibly enter human cells without the S protein.
“That’s the lock and key. That’s going to be what drives it right through human cells.
“So now you’re allowing that access to human tissues because the spike proteins of the natural evolutionary strains don’t infect human cells at all.
“And clearly if that spike protein from SARS weren’t on the new COVID-19 or SARS2, it wouldn’t be able to enter human cells.”
This only shows that the virus was modified in a laboratory,
“This is evidence that it couldn’t’ go through the seafood market because how did you get that spike protein off the original SARS from bats or any other way.”
“It’s lab-derived,” she added.
The Shanghai P3 laboratory, which first shared the Wuhan coronavirus genome, was then ordered by authorities to stop operating on February 28. Professor Zhang Yongzhen and his team worked on this laboratory.
A February 26 report on Caixin, a media company associated with the CPP, says Zhang and his team isolated and completed the genome sequence of the unknown virus on January 5.
On the same day, the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center this to the National Health Commission, and recommended prevention measures.
No response was given as of January 11, so the team publicized the sequence on virological.org, which is the first worldwide.
On January 1, the Hubei Health Committee ordered genome sequencing organizations saying “Existing virus samples must be destroyed. Information about the samples, related papers and related data are all prohibited from release”
The Chinese science community was basically told to keep quiet.
Chang thinks that the CPP is just plain dangerous.
“It’s the response to this virus is extremely troubling. It ignored it for six weeks. It allowed it to spread around China. This is dangerous, irresponsible behavior.”
Former US Air Force brigadier general Robert S. Spalding says that China is responsible for every COVID-19 case.
“Every person that it harms is directly attributable to the Chinese Communist Party.”
Part 3 The Discoveries of Dr. Shi Zhengli
Dr. Shi Zhengli, virologist from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, has been studying bats and coronaviruses for many years and was the first to locate the key to how cross-species transmission can happen that would infect humans.
Zhengli has been researching about coronavirus since the 2003 outbreak. Since 2010, Zhengli and her team have been studying how coronaviruses can be transmitted to humans.
In 2010, Zhengli and her team finally published a paper showing how they discovered “the passageway for coronaviruses to enter human bodies.”
Another paper published by the same team in 2013 showed that they were able to successfully isolate 3 viruses from bats, and one of those had an S protein that integrated with human ACE-2 receptors, which only suggested that “direct human infection of SARS-like viruses to humans without the need for an intermediate host.”
Furthermore, in a 2015 paper, her team discussed a synthetic, and self-replicating Chimeric virus. This virus basically had the ability to allow for cross-species infection. Animals trials were also done on mice and subjects had lung damage that had no cure.
“Zhengli’s successful splicing of the SARS virus was a key to open the door to the cross-species transmission.”
Zhengli then mentioned she wanted experiments on primates.
“Her move to research on primates suggest this was to more closely simulate the infection of humans, with this new synthetic virus.”
This had the academic community concerned.
Simon Wain-Hobson of the Pasteur Institute in France told Nature, “If the new virus escaped, nobody could project the trajectory.”
Mikovits thinks that this is just evidence that the virus was made in a laboratory.
“Her work proves the hypothesis that it could not possibly have been generated in a natural, zoonotic transmission but had to come from a hospital setting, the laboratory setting, the bio safety level 4 Wuhan research facility.”
On November 14, 2018, Zhengli gave a presentation called “Studies on Bat Coronavirus and its cross-species infection”. The Shanghai Jiao Tong University has since deleted reports of the study on their website.
Chang thinks that since China is blaming the US for the virus, the latter should just lay out the facts.
“The US needs to defend itself because China is propagating this narrative that we [US] spread the coronavirus to China.”
“The US needs to just come out with the facts about how China took coronavirus samples from Canada and the US, they sent them to Wuhan.”
Part 4 The Secret of the Wuhan P4 Laboratory
On February 3, Zhengli published a paper on Nature on February 3 saying the virus was of “probable bat origin”, and used the same key as SARS to infiltrate human bodies.
Zhengli added that the 2019-nCov genome sequence was 96.2% consistent with a bat coronavirus originating in Yunnan, China called RaTG13, suggesting the Wuhan virus comes from a natural source.
But it drew skepticism, as the outbreak started in Wuhan, the place where the P4 laboratory is located that has various similar viruses and might leakage might have happened. But the government decided to blame the seafood market, which doesn’t even sell bats.
Chinese authorities prevented international experts from joining the investigation and attacked doctors such as Li Wenliang who disclosed the outbreak for spreading rumors.
The big question is why would the CCP censor information if the virus did actually come from a natural source?
Chang says that the alleged origin of the virus is peculiar to say the least.
“Almost every disease that starts in China begins in Guangdong Province that surrounds Hong Kong in the south, but Wuhan is in the central portion of the country, and so this was extremely unusual.”
The Lab Origin theory can’t even be considered a conspiracy since no there is no definitive answer regarding the origin of the virus.
“It’s not a conspiracy theory to think that the coronavirus came from the Wuhan lab. And until we know [the truth], the theory about the lab origin is certainly something that we should consider.”
On January 2, an email from the Director-General from the institute said, “Notice regarding the strict prohibition of disclosure of any information related to the Wuhan unknown pneumonia. “
“National Health Commission clearly mandates that all detection, empirical data, results, and conclusions related to this outbreak cannot be published on self-media or social media, nor disclosed to any media (including state media) or collaborative organizations (including any technical services companies”
On January 21, ”a new drug, “Remdesivir” provided to China by the US for Wuhan Coronavirus treatment was patented by the Wuhan Institute of Virology”
During the month of February, a lot of things happened regarding the P4 laboratory.
In addition, Dr. Francis Boyle, famous for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, said, “The novel coronavirus we’re facing here is an offensive biological warfare weapon.”
In 1999, the People’s Liberation Army published a book called “Unrestricted Warfare” discussing how weaker nations can fight against stronger nations in the context of modern warfare.
Author Qiao Liang wrote “After the first Taiwan Strait crisis, we realized that if Chinese and American military fought head on, we are at a disadvantage. Therefore we need a new strategy to help our military tilt the balance of power”
The Federation of American Scientists expressed concern saying that the CCP has advanced chemical warfare projects, including research, development, manufacturing, and weaponizing capabilities.
Spalding thinks China wants to be the best in biological weapons.
“I believe they have them. I think they want to be the most advanced nation on earth when it comes to biological weapons.”
Anthony Shaffer, former CIA trained officer says that China has some big plans.
“There’s a lot of concern about what China’s ambitions are regarding long term global domination.
“Their military doctrines indicated that they intend to be the dominant political and military force to Pacific Rim”
Chang says that the US should start defending itself since China has declared ‘war’,
“Last May, the communist party, through People’s Daily, carried a piece which said there was a “people’s war” against the United States. There is a war. China told us there’s one.”
Part 5 Facing The Pandemic
The virus has spread to 190 countries. Europe is now the center of the outbreak, and the US has called a state of national emergency.
Spalding emphasizes that China has a strong influence on many organizations, including the World Health Organization.
“All you have to do is look at the photo of Tedros (Adhanom, Director-General of WHO) and Xi (Jin Ping, Chinese president) shaking hands. It really is indicative of how China controls many of these international institutions.”
“You can see that the WHO is essentially following Chinese communist party’s guidelines.”
Chang similarly acknowledges how China is willing to go the extra mile to conceal essential information.
“From the very beginning of the coronavirus outbreak, the communist party has done its best to prevent the CDC and others from studying the origin of the disease.”
Mikovits says that the real fight is not against the virus, but against the CPP.
“The biggest issue is fighting a system that is determined to cover up and persecute anyone who reveals the truth behind.”
Chang thinks the same.
“Every country has diseases, but in China they become national emergencies and global emergencies because the real disease here is communism.”
Philipp also added that the scientists who suggested the lab theory declined to be interviewed and avoided questions regarding the virus.
Shaffer thinks the media such as those In the US have also been influenced by China because they wouldn’t discuss subjects that are sensitive to China being responsible for the deaths of thousands.
“In this case there is a lot of things not being said.”
Spalding says that this is because those media companies make a lot of money from China, and if they go against the country’s wishes, then they would suffer great consequences.
“Chinese communist party suppressing speech in the West because these companies make money from China. The CCP is going to punish them if they essentially publish this stuff. There is no other reason”
Chang thinks that China’s influence alone contributed to the spread of the virus.
“Communist Party is maligned and is grossly irresponsible. It has pressured governments to keep their borders open and it had to know that would result in the fast spread of coronavirus to other countries.”
“Chinese communism is evil.”
Source: MSN
Liberty International News 