Where did COVID-19 Come From and What Can be Done to End this Pandemic?

Based upon my knowledge of the history of previous pandemics (and the aspirations of Big Tech), by the end of 2019 I was of the opinion that unless effective off-patent treatments for COVID-19 existed, a biosecurity state would emerge to address the virus, and a great deal of unnecessary suffering, hardship and death would follow throughout the War on COVID-19. My hope was that since COVID-19 would affect everyone, unlike past instances like AIDS which only affected easy-to-ignore demographics of the population (such as male homosexuals), it would not be possible to bury effective therapeutics for the disease as had happened over and over in the past.

For this reason, I put most of my focus into developing treatment protocols for COVID-19 and although there was some delay, many members of the medical field did so as well.

Note: One of the most important concepts within logic is that of necessary and sufficient conditions. Briefly, a necessary condition designates something that is required for something else to occur (for example, being alive is necessary to have a chance at passing a driving license test but no means guarantees you will pass it), while a sufficient condition goes a step further and by itself guarantees something else will happen (for example, being a human being is sufficient for being a mammal).

At the start of the pandemic, I had naïvely believed that an effective treatment protocol for COVID-19 that utilized existing FDA-approved pharmaceuticals would be sufficient to end the pandemic. What I have now realized is that because there are so many forces seeking a perpetual war on COVID-19, an effective treatment protocol is only a necessary but not sufficient condition for ending the War on COVID-19.

I was recently sent an excellent presentation that was given by Doctor Richard Fleming. It touches on a variety of very important topics that will be the focus of today’s article. I have spent a great deal of time researching these topics, and due to my own familiarity with the subject it is clear to me Dr. Fleming is highly knowledgeable in this area and his presentation was the result of spending an enormous amount of time in research.

After I saw his presentation, I reached out to a few colleagues who somewhat knew Dr. Fleming to further inquire about him. In addition to the content of his presentation, we are of the opinion he is a credible source for the following reasons:

•He is self-funding his work and asking for nothing in return besides help in ending the War on COVID-19.
•He is both a Doctor (M.D.) and a Lawyer (J.D.).
•He is a Cardiologist and a PhD with extensive experience conducting research for publication in scientific journals (such as the development of a treatment protocol for heart disease) and being a reviewer for premier medical journals.

This is a very, very unusual combination that I believe makes him uniquely qualified to address this issue and it is incredible how much time he has put into it. I also feel it is extremely fortunate that someone with his background has been willing to defy his own medical community to try to address this issue, especially given just how much he had to have personally invested to be part of that community.

Because this was a very long presentation, I spent a while editing to shorten it in order to focus on the essential points. Although the edited version below is still on the longer end, I would highly encourage you to watch it at a speed you can follow. If you would instead like to see the longer more complete version, it can be viewed here while his complete deposition on this subject can be viewed here.

Biological Weapons

Virtually every superpower has been messing around with bioweapons for decades. In general, this research has been treated as a major taboo because it was viewed as too dangerous and inhumane to release and a variety of treaties have been enacted to outlaw it.

Unfortunately, because there is so much money and power tied to developing biological weapons, people keep on doing it. For example, The Real Anthony Fauci details how Fauci has been paid over and over by the Pentagon to conduct bioweapon research, which is likely the motivating factor behind these illegal projects.

A major problem with this research is that lab leaks are inevitable and often disastrous. The first book I read on the subject, The Hot Zone, pertained to Ebola and was published in 1994. Since then, I have also learned of numerous disastrous experiments in the USSR and the USA, and I am sure there are many more we will never hear of. Some of the more memorable examples include:

•An accidental release of weaponized Anthrax spores in 1979 that officially killed 66 civilians in a gruesome manner (the actual death count was likely higher) and was covered up for decades by the USSR (a detailed summary of the catastrophe can be found within Vaccine A).

•An abandoned Soviet island between Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, used as a biological weapons testing site, had accidental releases of wonderful things like smallpox, and now is home to many of the most dangerous biowarfare agents in existence (in case you want somewhere to visit besides Chernobyl).

•A covert series of experiments in the Texas prison system to develop a weaponized mycoplasma that sickened many in the community with severe and often fatal disease, most likely leaked out into the general population and now contributes to numerous chronic illnesses.

•A very good case can be made that Lyme Disease originated from a biological testing facility on Plum Island off New York. In addition to documenting the history of research dating back to World War II that may have led toward the development of this bioweapon, the author of Lab 257 showed that this facility had accidents the Federal Government often covered up and that the expected isolation of the island failed due to deer from the mainland regularly swimming to the island. Birds may have also have transferred pathogens from the island to the mainland.

Presently, we are often placing highly dangerous bioweapon labs in the middle of population centers, which as Wuhan has shown is an unacceptably risky proposition. At this point in time, the best solution I have come up with is that a new treaty must be made that stipulates any research of this type can only be conducted on an island that is far away from any other landmass and staffed by scientists from many different nations who will independently ensure everyone follows the necessary safety protocols. It would be ideal if research of this type could be outlawed, but since some have so much to gain from it, that is unlikely to happen.

The Biological Weapons Convention does not prohibit biological weapons.

Unfortunately, as Robert Malone has shown above, the current treaty against biological weapons has a massive loophole that effectively still allows bioweapons research. Fleming discusses in his presentation, how, in 2001, the US vetoed independent inspection of their biological weapons facilities (nonetheless invading Iraq not long after on account of its failure to allow proper weapons inspections). In short, there is a lot of ground to cover with reforming these treaties to prevent anything like COVID-19 from happening again, and it is my sincere hope that the political will to create an effective treaty against the use of biological weapons will finally emerge in the near future.

The SARS Virus

At this point in time, I am of the opinion that the original SARS (SARS-CoV-1) virus was engineered and accidentally released. One of my colleagues was a specialist in this field who worked in Canada during the 2003 Toronto outbreak and has studied the virus ever since. They reached the conclusion that SARS probably emerged because coronaviruses are among the easiest viruses to genetically modify. As a result countless experiments have been performed on them, also made clear in Fleming’s presentation.

SARS-CoV-2 is a much more dangerous version of SARS, and was most likely the product of decades of research to further weaponize the virus. For example, a key distinction between SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 is that SARS-CoV-1 did not cause the highly unusual clotting that is seen with SARS-CoV-2. Since that realization, we have spent a lot of time looking at competing theories over what has changed in the spike protein that has caused this clotting to occur (such as the spike protein having a high affinity for attacking the endothelium, the spike protein having a very high positive charge density, the spike protein directly activating the clotting cascade, and the spike protein directly inhibiting the body’s natural anticoagulants).

One of the most suspicious aspects of SARS-CoV-2 is how well suited it is to eliminate those who create the greatest economic burden on Western governments—the elderly, the obese and the diabetic. Given the enormous economic incentive to address these societal costs (many Western governments are on the verge of bankruptcy from these ballooning fiscal obligations to these demographics), it is entirely possible that a research program had been developed to explore developing biological weapons for that purpose, but we will likely never know why SARS-CoV-2 was created.

Nonetheless, there is a very clear documented history of years upon years of research to weaponize the SARS virus. For example, in the early days of COVID-19, I discovered this website which archived many of the studies I and many others online were unearthing on the deliberate engineering of SARS-CoV-2. Since then much more data has emerged (for instance, Igor Chudov recently provided a summary of the key points of evidence here and briefly in his comment here).

However, while I have seen many summaries of why COVID-19 is a bioweapon, Fleming has taken that research much further, and touches upon many studies I had never seen before that explicitly prove a long trail of research had been conducted to develop SARS-CoV-2. Some of the most interesting things I learned from his presentation include:

•The spike protein used in the synthetic COVID vaccines differs from that of the original SARS-CoV-2 virus, but the one part of the spike protein which was perfectly preserved in the vaccine was the prion-forming section of it. This implies that the vaccine was designed to cause long term illness within the population and may explain why extremely rare prion diseases have been associated with the vaccine.

•The main researchers who were involved in this work actually repeatedly admitted to doing so (such as in recorded presentations or putting their names on scientific papers).

•One paper on SARS-CoV-2 that was published after the pandemic began admitted that the research in the paper was conducted prior to the onset of the pandemic!

•A key argument cited by the virus debunkers is that because the original SARS-CoV-2 genome used to create the PCR primers for detecting COVID-19 was assembled within a computer, the entire virus and the positive PCR tests were therefore a fabrication and never really existed. I dispute this interpretation because so much independent evidence has since emerged showing that genome was correct.

An alternative explanation proposed by Fleming is that Baric (of the University of North Carolina specializing in the genetic engineering of coronaviruses as part of vaccine and drug research, and a key architect of SARS-CoV-2) was working on three different viruses (RsSHC014-COV-MA15, SARS-COV-M15, SARS-COV-RS3367), each of which shared the originally chosen PCR primer. This argues that the actual coverup was of multiple viruses being released from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (which is plausible) and the extreme variation in the severity of SARS-CoV-2 is a result of the different viruses causing completely different diseases. That said, at this point in time, I have not had the resources available able to compare these three genomes and assess if they could be expected to differ in pathogenicity.

•A major question with SARS-CoV-2 has been why so many different variants have emerged so quickly. The commonly provided answer is that this was a predictable consequence of vaccination. Although I originally endorsed this theory, I have come to wonder if it was a smokescreen for something else; by already being highly controversial it prevents alternative explanations from being considered by those who typically question mainstream opinions. At this point in time, I know of 4 potential causes for the proliferation of variants besides vaccination:
•Fleming advances the hypothesis that if there were multiple viruses circulating originally, they could have mixed with each other and recombined to form a large number of variants.
•Igor Chudov discovered a 2010 paper by Baric that in 2010 showed Baric specifically engineered the original SARS virus to rapidly mutate and create variants.
•Variants of concern (such as Delta) followed a highly unusual pattern of emerging in Asia over a very short period of time, and in contrast to the many variants of interest that have also emerged (and lack significant pathogenic changes), each of the dangerous mutations of SARS-CoV-2 in the variants of concern had a genome that deviates from the natural patterns of evolution typically seen with viruses. I learned this from a friend who spent months studying the topic and concluded the variants of concern had to have been deliberately engineered and released.
•Some of the variants may have emerged from areas with high prevalence of HIV (such as South Africa) where immunologically-suppressed individuals provided internal environments conducive to significant mutations of SARS-CoV-2. This is also happening to some extent within vaccinated individuals who become infected with COVID-19 .

How did COVID-19 begin?

Over the last two years, I have looked at a large number of theories to explain how SARS-CoV-2 got out. Although a desire to sink Trump’s presidency or the need for a crisis to put mRNA vaccines onto the market have often been cited as a reason for Fauci (or someone similar) to release the SARS-CoV-2, by reviewing their emails from the early days of the pandemic Fleming makes an excellent case that it was an accident and the NIH panicked when they realized one of their pet projects had escaped.

A common maxim used to challenge conspiracy theories is that one should never attribute malice to something when the same events can also be explained through greed and incompetence. In reviewing The Real Anthony Fauci (and the FIOA documents from the NIH), it is abundantly clear Fauci that was willing to engage in dangerous and unethical behavior for profit and his vision for the NIH as a pharmaceutical production pipeline.

In 2018, our diplomats in China repeatedly warned the US of unsafe practices at the Wuhan Institute of Virology that risked causing a dangerous lab leak, yet for a still-unknown reason, the warnings were ignored. I now suspect this was because senior staff at the NIH did not want their projects there to be threatened and exerted pressure to ignore these warning.

Similarly, having reviewed Scott Atlas’s account of his time at the White House on Trump's Covid Task Force (discussed here) it was made abundantly clear that Fauci and Deborah Birx (who has now admitted she knew the vaccines they relentlessly pushed on the public were a scam) were extremely incompetent, lacked critical scientific literacy and were highly unqualified for their positions. It should be noted that Judy Mikovits previously went on record with similar observations about Fauci.

When I reviewed the chronology of events in China (I looked at a lot of things from the start of the pandemic including many Chinese social media postings) I was left with the impression that someone at the Wuhan lab accidentally leaked the virus and tried to cover it up from their supervisors. The supervisors eventually figured this out, and then likewise tried to cover it up from the local government of Wuhan. The local government of Wuhan inevitably discovered an outbreak had occurred and tried to cover it up from the national government in Beijing, who in turn tried to cover it up from the international community for as long as possible after they became aware of it.

This seems quite difficult to believe, but if you understand the cultural behaviors (i.e. scientific and political) that exist in many parts of China and the cultural ethos of preserving face (which prioritizes never being found at fault or publicly shamed over the actual significance of any mistake you make) this pattern of behavior makes a lot more sense.

As a result, when one considers the extreme risks involved in working with dangerous pathogens and the corruption and incompetence that frequently emerges in this business, it becomes clear this is a topic of public interest that must be handled in a much more responsible manner. Fleming also notes that the consequences of this enterprise go even further than a global pandemic. For example, a key motivation for the Russian war in Ukraine appears to have been the presence of covert US bioweapons labs in the immediate vicinity of Russia’s borders. It is not well known, but the Russians in turn had repeatedly petitioned the United Nations for a means to address these labs at their borders prior to the invasion on account of these alleged lab leaks resulting in disease outbreaks that directly threatened Russia’s national security.

Although what is detailed above is my working hypothesis for what happened, I will also share a few other ideas I have considered at length.

One theory was that the Chinese deliberately worked with Fauci and the NIH to develop SARS-CoV-2 so that when it was released, China would be able to blackmail them into covering everything up and shielding China from accountability in their joint project. This explanation is congruent with my understanding of the Chinese art of war, and to some extent has been corroborated by Chinese defector and virologist Li Meng Yan.

I was also told through a secondhand source who spoke with Yan that she believes some of the dangerous SARS-CoV-2 variants were deliberately created by the Chinese military, but I have been unable to find an interview where she explicitly stated this (admittedly I have not watched all of them). Although there were many potential reasons for China to have wanted to release the SARS-CoV-2 virus, one of the things that has made me the most suspicious it was intentional was the fact that despite many requests to, China completely avoided using mRNA spike protein vaccines even though the Chinese government was intimately involved in the development of Pfizer’s vaccine. This in turn argues the vaccine could be the actual bioweapon China released on the rest of the world. Likewise, the many videos of Chinese dropping dead from COVID-19 seen throughout the early days of the pandemic (which never have been filmed since and thus were likely fake) also suggests that China wanted to create as much fear about COVID-19 as possible in order to weaken their enemies through lockdowns and mRNA spike protein vaccinations. Keep in mind that at the start of the pandemic, even though China locked down internally its people were simultaneously encouraged to travel globally while the CCP was still denying COVID-19 was a global pandemic.

Many pieces of evidence have surfaced that show SARS-CoV-2 likely was circulating prior to the initially recognized Wuhan outbreak. For example, I have spoken to doctors, patients and readers inside and outside of the USA who developed or observed a COVID-like illness before it should have been possible to have been exposed to it, and as Fleming discusses, Wuhan held an international sporting event that may have been used to deliberately disseminate COVID-19 around the globe. One explanation I heard for this revised timeline of COVID-19 is that the USA accidentally leaked it and decided to try to pin the blame on China by having a second leak in Wuhan. I believe this explanation was most likely CCP propaganda to get them out of their responsibility for the lab leak, but I also gave it a lot of thought since they were able to provide multiple pieces of evidence suggesting an earlier spread of the virus.

Options for Ending the Pandemic

Three options to challenge a tyrannical governmental system are:

1. Directly fight the tyrannical system.
2. Boycott the tyrannical system.
3. Make the best possible use of the checks and balances that have been provided by the existing governmental structure.

I do not support the combat approach for three key reasons:
•In almost all cases, that violence ends up benefitting the existing government because the actions are framed as “terrorism” and justify harsh responses that ultimately lead to even more tyranny. This is why Federal agents always seem to be attempting to provoke individuals with anti-government sentiments into planning acts of violence.
•War is something everyone likes to romanticize, but in reality it is one of the most horrific things imaginable. I would chose almost anything over having to be involved in an armed conflict, including a government much worse than the one we have now.
•Anytime a violent revolution happens, the government that follows ends up being much worse than the government that preceded it. The only exception I know of to this rule was the American Revolutionary War.

Many of the most successful protest leaders in history (such as Ghandi and Martin Luther King) instead used non-violent protest where they peacefully refused to comply with the system. In the same way that acts of violence from dissatisfied members of society only serves to strengthen the existing government, nonviolent protest reverses this equation and puts the government in a lose-lose situation: ignoring the protesters collectively undermines its legitimacy, but at the same time, any act of violence against the protesters weakens it in the eyes of the public. This is why it is critically important to peacefully but firmly speak out against these policies whenever possible; historically this is critical for ending collective societal psychoses. From observing the anti-mandate groups I have worked with, this has been one of their most effective strategies.

In order to prevent these collective protest movements from forming, governments always work to maintain insecurity (particularly economic insecurity), hatred and tribal divisions within the population. The government may also plant violent agitators into protests so that the government has a justification to shut them down (Nixon for example, I know from a first hand source, would often send violent convicts out to disrupt protests against the Vietnam war). Whenever possible, I always try to focus on messages that promote unity and not messages that promote division.

Another highly effective way activists have discovered to oppose tyrannical systems is to create parallel economies. Our current system of societal control is based on demanding compliance with the economic system for survival (such as requiring a vaccine for work, or having to spend most of your waking hours working) and using the lust for profit to endlessly motivate those in the higher economic classes to exploit and enslave those in the lower and middle classes (along with government siphoning off much of the populace’s work through taxation on every aspect of life). What many fail to realize is that most of what we actually need from the economic system can be directly produced with high quality at a reasonable cost within small independent communities. Similar to how nonviolent protest will cause oppressive hierarchies to collapse upon themselves, economic boycotting of an existing system will also trigger its implosion by removing the fuel that sustains it.

From a human rights perspective, constitutional democracies have so far proven themselves to be the best form of government. I would argue this benefit arises not from the democratic process of voting, but rather from the separations of power within democracies and the various checks and balances that are enacted to establish a stable equilibrium of governmental power and through that competition between separated powers to encourage a free enterprise meritocracy where innovation and hard work are rewarded. For example, the United States has the strongest military in the world, and has never faced a threat of a military coup; many have argued this is because each branch of the military (i.e. the Air Force, Army, etc.) operates independently of and competes with the other branches of the military.

Presently, in parallel to the gradual corruption that has entered our system, almost every check and balance against tyranny has been bought out by those pushing the pandemic (this is a frequent point made by RFK). This makes it very challenging to correct our current course. Fortunately, it appears the pandemic pushers overplayed their hand, and have made the general public receptive to those who previously would have been ignored: the independent media has exploded, activists such as RFK have come in vogue, and independent candidates who never stood a chance in the past are winning elections.

COVID-19 and the Courts

As shown throughout this article, there are a variety of strategies that can be utilized to end the war on COVID-19. Unfortunately, while many of these are helpful, I do not believe any will be sufficient to end the pandemic response. The only accesible resource capable of this is the legal system, and it is my belief that the work which has already been done in other areas (such as developing a robust independent media that has exposed the abysmal failures of the vaccination campaign) has played a key role in making the courts more receptive to ending the war on COVID-19.

Classically, the group which was supposed to be responsible for addressing this is the ACLU. Unfortunately, many nonprofit groups with a long history of public service have been heavily undermined by the new generation of college graduates who are zealously focused on promoting the current progressive ideology at the expense of everything else. This has happened to the ACLU and led to odd situations like the organization forcing women’s prisons to accept female-identifying inmates while simultaneously refusing to advocate for women who are directly threatened by these inmates, whereas previously the ACLU aggressively advocated for the safety and well-being of female prisoners.

Not surprisingly, the ACLU’s position on bodily autonomy in the setting of vaccination has also significantly shifted. As recently as 2015, the ACLU stood up for individuals against mandatory vaccination. Now they are filing lawsuits for access to boosters and have gone so far as to take the official position of “In fact, far from compromising civil liberties, vaccine mandates actually further civil liberties,” with absurd reasoning that violates their core principles, and is almost identical to what I heard from liberal Supreme Court justices advocating for Biden’s vaccine mandates.

Presently some parties have been attempting to solve this issue through the courts.

•The first are Republican Attorney Generals such as Eric Schmitt who have filed lawsuits directly against the federal mandates (in this regard I am profoundly grateful to Schmitt) and public figures such as Steve Kirsch who have attempted to pave the way for their involvement.

•The second is Make Americans Free Again, a highly strategic group that in many ways is doing what the ACLU should be doing, and could greatly use more support. MAFA’s approach has been to select a few critical legal issues (such as protecting doctors who prescribe early treatments to COVID-19 from state medical boards, since allowing doctors to do this is critical for ending the pandemic) and to identify legal jurisdictions expected to rule fairly on those issue (many courts sadly now are compromised) in order to set important legal precedents other courts would then required to follow. MAFA has also followed an approach of filing notices of liability to elected officials (which removes their protection from subsequent lawsuits over their conduct while in office) and has found in many cases this corrects the behavior of those officials.

•The final approach is that advocated by Fleming in his presentation. He argues that many of the individuals who orchestrated the pandemic response can be prosecuted criminally, and that if criminal indictments go out from a grand jury, many of those involved will testify against others who are also responsible, which will likely lead to the house of cards collapsing. In most states, a grand jury can only be convened by someone in a position of authority within the legal system (i.e. a district attorney or attorney general). However in six states (Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Nevada) citizens can directly convene a grand jury, which may be the best path forward to assembling that grand jury.

Fleming has therefore assembled materials to assist in the formation of a grand jury that will deliver indictments, and probably been doing much more behind the scenes. Although I am not a lawyer, this seems like a very good idea and is why I wrote this article. It is my hope that once judges, prosecutors and elected officials realize the danger they directly face from infectious biological agents cannot be contained (meaning they are just as vulnerable to them as the rest of the population), they will likely be far more receptive to pursue criminal prosecutions.

There are a variety of other legal avenues to end this pandemic I am also hopeful for but less familiar with.  These include:
•Reiner Fuellmich’s class action lawsuit
•David Martin’s lawsuit against the Biden administration for mandating a bioweapon.
•Gradually succeeding lawsuits from employees or students who were fired by their employers who denied their vaccination exemptions (or those who then vaccinated under these circumstances and as a result were injured)
•The fiscal angle being proposed by Edward Dowd to take away Pfizer, Moderna and J&J’s emergency liability shield by proving they committed fraud. This would allow pension plans and insurance companies to sue to recover the massive losses they are suffering from the wave of vaccine injuries and deaths.

Winning in the Courts

I never intended to fall into the role I am in with this substack (I am publicly pursuing a very different path to improve the medical field), and from having spoken to quite a few of the leading activists opposing the war on COVID-19, I have found they did not either. Doing this takes a lot of work and requires making sacrifices to support it. The main motivation we seem to share is wanting to actually get this done in the most effective way possible. I try to be selective about what I write (only covering things I believe to be of a high yield) and, in the same vein believe we need to focus on the strongest arguments we have before the pandemic response further metastasizes into every facet of our lives.

When I studied the entire legal battle that unfolded after the 2020 election, I concluded that Trump lost his election fraud case because his lawyers performed quite poorly. Irrespective of who should have won that case, it (and many other similar failed court cases) provide a critical insight for moving forward: to win in the courts you must have credible and well constructed arguments that will stand up to legal scrutiny. Forsaking this rule is a guaranteed strategy for failure.

One of the key reasons I have invested a significant amount of time to respond to those who insist viruses do not exist (here and here) is because I believe we already have strong arguments that will stand up in court if trials were ever to commence. Conversely, although many of the virus debunking arguments sound compelling, they would immediately lose in a court of law and cannot be allowed to influence the legal strategy that is pursued in a court of law.

For example, Christine Massey’s claim to fame (and her username) is that she filed FOIA requests that proved the CDC and other governmental agencies have never isolated SARS-CoV-2 and thus cannot prove it exists, thereby proving SARS-CoV-2 is a hoax. However, if you read through her FOIA requests it becomes clear that she used a very unique definition of what it means to isolate and purify a virus that no one else in the virology field uses (because it does not make sense), so as a result, no records matching her stipulations existed. If an argument like that were to be used in court, it would immediately result in the dismissal of the case.

Going forward, one of the most important things our movement can do is agree on effective strategies for addressing our common goals in the immediate future, while ensuring the same issues don’t emerge again a few years down the road after the public forgets what has happened. I hope this was helpful for providing insights in this regard. Please watch the video at the start; it is the most important part of this article. Thank you for reading this and sharing it with those who can benefit from hearing this message.