Lab Leak Op Confirmed

Late discovering of Will Jones' bombshell

Summary (click to expand):

US Intelligence Origin of the Lab Leak Theory

On January 10, I reiterated my longstanding appraisal of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Gain-of-Function “lab leak” origin theory:

However, the clear artificial preparation and promotion of the “lab leak,” “GOF” anti-narrative convinces me that Unz was right about the intentional release [of SARS-CoV-2 by US deep state actors] in of itself.

I am only today discovering that on the same day as I wrote that, it was reported by Will Jones at Daily Sceptic that the artificial, US-intelligence-associated origin of the lab leak theory has been hiding in plain sight for three years.

dailysceptic.org

Jones’ report puts the nail in the coffin of the GOF / lab leak origin theory.

The Wuhan Institute of Virology did not make SARS-CoV-2; the theory that it did (which originated from Radio Free Asia, a US-intelligence-associated propaganda outfit, on January 9, 2020) was intended from the start as deflection of the theory of a US origin.

This deflection was depicted as retaliatory; but as there was nothing to retaliate against yet, this depiction functions as a confession that the lab leak theory was anticipatory, preemptive:

The Washington Times report [from January 24] indicates at one point it is in response to rumours “circulating on the Chinese Internet claiming the virus is part of a U.S. conspiracy to spread germ weapons”, citing an unnamed “U.S. official”.

One ominous sign, said a U.S. official, is that false rumours since the outbreak began several weeks ago have begun circulating on the Chinese Internet claiming the virus is part of a U.S. conspiracy to spread germ weapons.

That could indicate China is preparing propaganda outlets to counter future charges the new virus escaped from one of Wuhan’s civilian or defence research laboratories

Why is the report anticipating “future charges” of a lab leak – particularly when it is in the process of making such charges?

This isn’t surprising; it’s just something no one thought to look for (as far as I know, please correct me in the comments if this was already known).

It isn’t surprising because, again, the lab leak narrative has obvious signs of being staged for years in advance in the form of the ridiculous antics of EcoHealth and “DEFUSE.” As with last years’ Project Veritas document dump, the whole thing has always smelled like an op to distract from intentional release:

I Could Have DARPED All Night

Here, again, the spectre is raised that the DEFUSE proposal was designed from the start as a smoke-screen, and that the project never actually took place. The apparent (for now) need to retroactively plant the scare-words “Gain of Function” on the project certainly does nothing to purge the whole thing of the odor of a psy-op. It seems designed as fodder for “the opposition,” a lightning-rod to distract from The Big I-word. [intentional release]

Jones proceeds to puzzle over why, if it is the case that the US government is the origin of the theory, the US government would later suppress the lab leak theory. In so doing (whereas I never found it very puzzling), he produces an interesting, cogent alternate theory of mind based on epistemic in-fighting, which I will discuss below.

Jones’ Reconstruction of the Unz Case

Jones’ article is the fourth of an excellent archeological reconstruction of the case for US intelligence foreknowledge of SARS-CoV-2’s existence in Wuhan — that “we” knew about if before China did. The second and third are reported by Unz to stem from collaboration in the wake of the first.

The three installments below are highly recommended reviews of the scant, but damning evidence for US government release of SARS-CoV-2.

1. “How Did U.S. Intelligence Spot the Virus in Wuhan Weeks Before China?” (December 21, 2023.) This is followed-up by discussion of the months-long work of Robert Kadlec, Trump’s “Biosecurity” Director, in rehearsing a coronavirus pandemic immediately before it occurred, which I haven’t read.

2. “U.S. Accidentally Proves It Could Not Have Spotted the Virus in China in November 2019.” (January 1, 2023.)

Thus this Harvard report, intended to show how U.S. intelligence analysts spotted the virus in November 2019 in China even though China itself had not noticed it yet, has ended up inadvertently revealing there was no signal of a respiratory viral outbreak in Wuhan at that time and thus no way that U.S. intelligence analysts could have spotted one.

Naturally, this does nothing to diminish the growing suspicions about how U.S. intelligence came to be following the coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan, and only Wuhan, at a time when no one else, including the Chinese, were even aware of its existence

3. U.S. Government Identified as Original Source of Lab Leak Theory. What’s Really Going On? [linked above] (January 10, 2023.)

Or, see Unz’s overview of the series and commentary, “The Alt-Covid Community Begins Unraveling the Origins of Covid.”

Jones’ timeline of the “abandonment” of the lab leak theory.

In his January 10 bombshell, Jones reconstructs the apparent chronology of the pivot from the US floating of the lab leak theory (starting on January 9, 2020) to overt suppression of the same a few months later. It results in a compelling theory of why the pivot occurred (emphasis added; duplicate hyperlinks removed):

The fears of this group of scientists [prominent virologists associated with Gain of Function research, who collectively formed the zoonati to denounce the artificially floated and promoted lab leak theory] about being implicated in the creation of the virus led them to organise a highly effective effort to dismiss and suppress the [artificially floated and promoted] lab origin theory. This intervention greatly complexified the cover story, with the result that the output from the U.S. intelligence community (IC) became confused and inconsistent. In what follows I enumerate the six main interventions of the U.S. intelligence community during the pandemic and suggest what likely lay behind them. They are:

1. The November 2019 secret intelligence report claiming to show a large respiratory outbreak in Wuhan that was used to brief the U.S. Government, NATO and Israel. Importantly, the alleged evidence for this outbreak has never been produced, and what evidence there is suggests that in reality there was no detectable outbreak in Wuhan in November 2019, meaning the report appears to have been largely a work of fiction.

2. The January 2020 introduction and promotion of the Chinese lab origin story, as set out above.

3. The early April 2020 media briefings from unnamed intelligence sources about the November intelligence reports noted in (1) above. These briefings were particularly odd because by that point the main origin story being pushed by official U.S. channels was the wet market theory, which this information contradicted because it implied a large outbreak (an “out of control” epidemic and “cataclysmic event”) well before the wet market outbreak in December.

4. The late April and early May 2020 public endorsement by the U.S. intelligence community of the wet market natural origin theory. This contradicted both the early April anonymous media briefings in (3) and the lab origin story in (2), while at the same time embarrassing Mike Pompeo and President Trump who were at the time strongly pushing the lab leak theory.

5. The August 2021 declassified intelligence report on Covid origins, which gave a somewhat mixed picture of how the intelligence community assessed the lab leak theory. What the report was sure to make clear on the first page, however, is that the virus was “not developed as a biological weapon” and it was “not genetically engineered”. The report says that a small number of [intelligence community] elements thought the virus might have escaped from a lab (though as a natural, not engineered, virus); in particular the National Center for Medical Intelligence (NCMI), which was responsible for the November 2019 secret intelligence report and (presumably) the April 2020 anonymous media briefings, endorsed this theory with “moderate confidence”. Note that by this point the lab leak theory was back in play following the WHO origins investigation in February 2021.

6. The October 2022 Senate minority report, which for the first time set out the evidence in favour an engineered virus and a lab leak. U.S. biodefence bigwig Robert Kadlec was behind this report and it notably did not mention the November 2019 secret U.S. intelligence report, which appears to have been entirely ‘forgotten’ (indeed, it has never been officially acknowledged). It also made no reference to the United States’ considerable involvement in bat coronavirus research in the years prior to the pandemic. We should also note that the evidence presented in the report of an alleged safety breach at the WIV in November 2019 was all assembled retrospectively – there is no suggestion that such evidence was known at the time, and the report makes clear that all its information comes from publicly available sources, stating: “This report has reviewed open source, publicly available information relevant to the origins of the virus.”

So here’s what I suggest was really going on with these often curious and clashing IC interventions.

The November 2019 secret intelligence report (1) was intended to forewarn the U.S. Government and its allies of the potential need for epidemic countermeasures given the risk of blowback from the attack. While blowback was probably not expected (after all, SARS and MERS never troubled Europe and America), it was obviously a risk. Note that those responsible for the November 2019 report had to know there wasn’t really any evidence of an outbreak in Wuhan at that time, and thus that their report was based on fabrication. This appears to implicate the NCMI, which produced the report, in the attack.

The early April 2020 anonymous media briefings (3) about the November 2019 intelligence report were most likely an attempt by the intelligence community (or, rather, the NCMI) to point out that they did try to warn everyone about the virus and the need to prepare. This would explain why they went ahead with the anonymous briefings despite, by that point, those briefings contradicting the new ‘official narrative’ that the virus came from the wet market.

The official endorsement by the intelligence community in late April and early May 2020 of the wet market theory (4) would then have occurred because of a switch amongst most of the intelligence community to the narrative created and endorsed by Anthony Fauci, Jeremy Farrar etc. Those in the [intelligence community] not involved in the attack (likely the vast majority) had probably figured out what was going on, i.e., the lab leak theory was a cover story put out by reckless colleagues, and would be very aware of the terrible fallout should the truth become known. Hence also the suppression around this time within the U.S. Government of all Covid origins investigations, which a senior Government official said would only “open a can of worms.”

The government does not care

The final emphasized comment above is crucial for the theory of mind of whoever decided to release SARS-CoV-2. In April, 2020, ABC News was prompted by insider tips to report that the White House was warned of intelligence awareness of a viral outbreak in Wuhan in the preceding November; but by the time the story aired, the insider tips were contradicted by official comment from the Pentagon (if you haven’t already read all the linked articles, Unz’s video with Kevin Barrett (rumble.com) replays and reviews the original ABC story).

This is essentially the classic “knowing too much about the crime scene” proof of guilt.

Readers, because of the implications, might be uncomfortable applying the same standard to the US government that humans have used to litigate who is guilty of crimes for centuries, but it is the tool that serves here. The US government knew there was a viral outbreak because it had caused it.

Given that the ABC story, though it relies on unsubstantiated tips, is near-proof of the US government releasing the virus, one might imagine the belated realization of the same implication seems like a parsimonious theory for why the November briefing was denied the same day. Someone thought to ask, “Wait — Is it really true that we had the capability to detect a viral outbreak in Wuhan second-hand in November; that any evidence for the same actually existed yet?” (Obviously not, as the virus was spreading elsewhere already and yet there was no awareness claimed of the same.)

The more prosaic cause of the reversal suggested by Jones strikes me as plausible for a simple reason: The US government doesn’t care if its war on humanity is obvious.

Therefore, the aborted leak of pre-awareness in November was another reflection of conflicting strategies regarding the Huanan market theory which were already evident at the same time of the story. After all, the Wet Market Origin insists that the virus broke out in December, not before, directly from infected animals to the denizens of a bustling market representing a whopping one-thousandth of 1% of the entire Chinese illicit wildlife farming industry.

It is therefore only an ironic accident that the US government’s confession of guilt, in this case, was not more emphatically confirmed.

Was uncontainable blowback really not expected?

To re-reiterate my position on the lab leak theory, I have regarded it as an obviously planted “alt”-narrative; it was meant from the start to not only be promoted but suppressed. The lab leak theory would never have struck skeptics as convincing if it hadn’t been.

From “Refining the Deep State Origin Case.” Note that I ended up declaring the 2020 VOCs as “not guilty,” so I’m 50-50 about whether they are also lab products.

In support of my theory of the case is the following observation:

It worked, didn’t it?

Under my paradigm, Wuhan was a stage designed and choreographed for years in advance to foster a great, big distracting “controversy” between a WIV and Huanan origin. Thus, the only reason to release the virus in Wuhan in the first place was to seed this controversy; in other words, Wuhan’s location in China was secondary to the broader aims.

Jones has assembled a compelling overview of Unz’s case that China was the target, not merely a vector for global release, and that Kadlec et al.’s pandemic countermeasures were meant to effect containment, rather than being an end in of themselves. In other words, the orchestrators of this scheme were literal, raging idiots.

1. They thought containment would work, despite the US not being an island. Why?

   1. They thought the virus wouldn’t spread well, despite this being unknowable in advance. Why?

2. They thought anyone would listen to them in November, facilitating containment. Why?

3. They didn’t feel it necessary to make the link between Wuhan Institute of Virology and SARS-CoV-2 air-tight, despite having set up the frame in advance. Why?

4. They thought no one else in academia and government would care that the links between Wuhan Institute of Virology and Ecohealth, carefully planted in advance, would be potentially career-ending. Why?

To rephrase 3 and 4, what the Unz-Jones case proposes is that the orchestrators of the virus’s release planned to frame elements of the Public Health Apparatus for SARS-CoV-2, but rather than enticement to commit an actual crime (get WIV to create SARS-CoV-2), left partial exoneration on the table (there is no indication WIV was working on a precursor to SARS-CoV-2). It just simply didn’t occur to this arm of the intelligence community to expect resistance from the other actors in government they were trying to implicate!

On the other hand, perhaps the problem with my theory — that the WIV origin was always meant to be unprovable and therefore suppressible, leading to the construction of a false dichotomy between two fatally flawed theories — is the opposite: It implies that the perpetrators weren’t raging idiots.

Regardless, lab leak was an op

Whether Jones’ timeline vindicates Unz’s theory (economic attack on China) or the motive of releasing SARS-CoV-2 was always to cause a global lock-down, the lab leak narrative was from the start a deflection from US release.

If you derived value from this post, please drop a few coins in your fact-barista’s tip jar.

click button or visit https://ko-fi.com/unglossed