Two weeks ago I published an article on Prof. Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University, prompted by some of his recent public remarks.

During one of his regular weekly interviews on Andrew Napolitano’s podcast, he had briefly stated that the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy had been the result of a conspiracy involving elements of the CIA. He went on to suggest that the killing might have been “the most decisive event in modern American history” and wondered whether any of our subsequent presidents had been anything more than mere “factotums of the system,” completely subject to the powerful hidden groups that actually control our society.

Such sentiments would hardly be uncommon within fringe, conspiratorial circles, but in sixty years I do not think they have ever been publicly expressed by an individual of Prof. Sachs’ elite establishment stature, and others shared my opinion.

A dozen years ago I had discovered that since the early 1990s a prominent progressive academic I know had been absolutely convinced that the JFK assassination had indeed been engineered by those sinister forces, but he had always carefully kept those views to himself. He now told me he was shocked by Sachs’ public courage on the matter, although even a year before he had already been tremendously impressed by Sachs’ remarkable candor: “no question he’s the most important public intellectual we have.”

That previous endorsement had been prompted by some of Sachs’ earlier statements on other matters. As chairman of the Covid Commission, Sachs had declared that the virus responsible for killing more than a million Americans and perhaps another twenty million worldwide had almost certainly been produced in a biolab, while he denounced the U.S. government for desperately working to conceal those facts. After the 2022 outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine war, Sachs had explained that the underlying cause had been the 2014 American overthrow of the democratically-elected Ukrainian government and the years of NATO provocations against Russia that followed, with all of these dangerous policies being a result of the unbroken stranglehold that the Neocons had enjoyed over our country’s foreign policy for more than thirty years. And on Bloomberg TV, he stated that America had obviously destroyed the Nord Stream pipelines, Europe’s most important civilian energy infrastructure, thereby committing the greatest act of industrial terrorism in world history.

In late 2022 these developments had led me to publish an article on the remarkably outspoken Columbia University scholar, and since that time all his activities have further strengthened my verdict. All of us can say whatever we like on a corner of the Internet, but I emphasized that when a figure of very high international standing takes that same position, the impact is considerably different:

Until just a few months ago, I doubt there were many American academics more solidly situated in the topmost ranks of our elite mainstream establishment than Prof. Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University.

In 1983 he gained Harvard University tenure at the remarkably young age of 28, then spent the next 19 years as a professor at that august academic institution; by the early 1990s the New York Times was already hailing him as the world’s most important figure in his field. Lured to Columbia University in 2002, he has spent the last couple of decades teaching there and also directing a couple of its research organizations, most recently the Center for Sustainable Development. TIME Magazine has twice ranked him among the world’s 100 most influential individuals, and for nearly twenty years he served as Special Advisor to several Secretary-Generals of the United Nations, while publishing many hundreds of articles and op-eds on a wide variety of subjects in our most influential media outlets.

It would be difficult to construct a more illustrious and establishmentarian curriculum vitae for an international academic figure…

Although he has retained the subdued manner and careful phraseology of a mild academic, in recent months the incendiary content of his published articles and his public statements have exploded across the global landscape, reaching many millions who might otherwise never have questioned what they were so uniformly being told by all our mainstream media organs. His critics defending that orthodoxy must surely believe that he has gone dangerously rogue, and given the enormous weight of his past credibility, I suspect that the phrase “rogue elephant” has sometimes entered their thoughts.

Last month, Napolitano took a short break from his show to speak at a Vatican conference on the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas, and after his return he thanked Sachs for having arranged that invitation. Sachs himself had also attended as a speaker, and Napolitano expressed his amazement that the American economist had been greeted with such admiring recognition by the Roman Catholic cardinals who attended, almost suggesting that they had treated him as a conquering hero.

Sachs’ influence is hardly confined to those Princes of the Church. A central element of the West’s power is its overwhelming control over the global media infrastructure, whose continual stream of propaganda shapes the ideas and beliefs of most of the world’s population, even including political leaders, multi-billionaires, and influential celebrities. A handful of publications sit at the apex of that media hierarchy, with the Economist certainly being one of these, and given the dramatic recent decline in quality of the New York Times, that former publication might now possibly even rank as first among equals. Since 2015, the top Economist editor has been Zanny Minton Beddoes, whose first job out of college was working as a young assistant to Sachs during his highly successful early 1990s restructuring of Poland’s post-Communist economy. Although I know nothing of their relationship, I assume she spent most of the last three decades filled with admiration for her early former mentor, and if so, she must surely take his highly controversial remarks of the last couple of years quite seriously, even if she understands that they cannot possibly be mentioned in print.

Sachs’ personal background includes some memorable events. In a couple of his discussions on the roots of the Ukraine conflict, he recalled that in 1991 he was seated in a room discussing economic policy with Russia’s top leadership when all of them were suddenly informed that the Soviet Union had officially been dissolved, allowing him to experience a historical moment shared by few if any other Americans.

Over the last few months, he has been extremely outspoken in his denunciation of Israel’s ongoing slaughter of tens of thousands of helpless civilians in Gaza, even declaring that Israel was controlled by “a criminal government,” and he had regularly emphasized the need for international organizations to take public action on the matter. Soon afterward, South Africa successfully charged Israel with genocide before the International Court of Justice, whose distinguished jurists affirmed those accusations in a series of near-unanimous rulings. Although I have no evidence, I suspected at the time that Sachs may have used his extensive network of influential global connections to help set that legal project into motion.

I’ve also noticed that despite Sachs’ extremely outspoken public statements, none of those groups and organizations that so fiercely monitor political speech in America have dared to publicly attack him. I think they realize that his international stature is simply too great and any such failed attacks would merely make them look weak and ineffective.

After publishing that recent article, I assumed that many months would pass before I would directly focus again on Sachs and his work, but I was quickly proven wrong.

No sooner had my piece appeared than I discovered that Sachs had been interviewed by Piers Morgan, a British former cable TV host of decidedly mainstream sentiments, with such an appearance representing a significant media breakthrough. In their exchange, Morgan demonstrated that he had been living entirely within the cocoon of our official narrative regarding Russia, Ukraine, and Gaza, and was deeply ignorant of the important facts that Sachs brought to his attention. But much more importantly, those facts were also probably surprising to many of the half-million viewers who watched that discussion on Youtube, thereby perhaps helping to shift some of them in a different direction.

Two weeks earlier, Morgan had similarly interviewed Prof. John Mearsheimer, an eminent political scientist and close Sachs ally on those same issues, with similar results. Indeed, an overwhelming majority of the Youtube comments were critical of Morgan’s strictly establishmentarian position.

But even more importantly, I discovered that Sachs had also just published a new article surely as controversial as anything he had previously written.

In that piece, he outlined the overwhelming accumulated evidence that the Covid virus had been the product of American bioengineering technology and was developed by American government funding. Although he certainly recognized that China’s Wuhan lab might have been the immediate source, he emphasized that several American biolabs had also been undertaking very similar viral research at that time, and argued that a full investigation of all those possible sources of the virus was warranted. His provocative title—“What Might the US Owe the World for Covid-19?”—summarized his controversial conclusion that America would probably need to compensate the rest of the world for having unleashed such a devastating global plague that killed tens of millions and disrupted the lives of many billions more.

Considering both his international stature and the very broad range of his courageous public positions, Prof. Jeffrey Sachs may easily rank as the most consequential American ideological defector of the last one hundred years, with no comparable name coming to my mind.

I suspect that a sociological factor may have contributed to Sachs’ easy willingness to violate so many powerful ideological taboos. Most Americans, even including most American academics and intellectuals, exist in a world completely dominated by our own mainstream media, knowing that much of their social circle and peer-group would be horrified or outraged at any sentiments too far outside those acceptable boundaries. If most of your friends and associates are “normies,” you may be very reluctant to take positions that would alienate them.

Sachs, however, has been an influential academic on the world stage for more than three decades, and he seems to spend much of his time traveling to international conferences at which he is often a prominent speaker. So unlike so many of his American colleagues, he is a global figure and his peer group and social circle is an international one, with many of their views likely shaped by entirely different media environments.

Even the early votes in the UN General Assembly on the Israel-Gaza conflict found America and Israel standing almost alone, with more than 150 countries ranged on the other side, including many of our strongest allies. The U.S. has regularly cast the sole dissenting vote in the 15-member UN Security Council and Sachs has often mentioned that many of his top-ranking international friends have expressed their horror at our government’s current policies. So while his controversial views might be very disconcerting to some of the assistant professors and office interns at Columbia University, they are probably much more in line with those of the senior world figures whom he has known and considered his friends for the last twenty or thirty years, a situation that surely fortifies his personal confidence in taking those positions.

Over the last decade or two, I’ve noticed the increasing signs that our own country seems to be following the unfortunate trajectory of the late and unlamented USSR, its longtime Cold War rival, and perhaps may similarly be heading towards the dustbin of history. President Joseph Biden certainly recalls memories of decrepit figurehead leaders such as Leonid Brezhnev or Konstantin Chernenko, while Sachs may represent our own Andrei Sakharov, a figure at the very top of the Soviet academic hierarchy who publicly broke with the corrupt, despotic, and decaying regime that had once so greatly honored him.

The Soviet leadership eventually exiled that dissenting physicist to the city of Gorky, and over the last couple of years Sachs has been similarly exiled and blacklisted from the mainstream media, which in past generations might have ensured his complete disappearance. But just as the samizdat literature of the 1970s and 1980s successfully circumvented official Soviet censorship, the Internet today plays much the same role for Sachs and our other intellectual dissenters.

I have never met Sachs and nearly everything I know about him comes from his writings and his numerous interviews. As discussed in my recent article, my impression is that until quite recently he had never considered the possibility that the official story of the JFK assassination or any other major historical event might be false. But once he encountered direct evidence of massive deception with regard to the origins of Covid, the roots of the Ukraine war, and the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines, he naturally began to realize that those particular cases might not be so unusual.

In one of his interviews a year or two ago, he had emphasized the deep sense of betrayal he had felt when the trusted media outlets that had faithfully informed him for decades had recently become so dishonest and deceptive. But now that he has discovered that those same outlets had spent six decades concealing the truth of the JFK assassination from all their readers, he must surely recognize that they may always have been deceitful on many important matters but prior to the growth of the Internet, neither he nor most other Americans could have ever recognized that reality.

If my reconstruction is correct, Sachs may now be experiencing a considerable upheaval in his long-assumed framework of reality, the disorientation and vertigo that occurs after one has “taken the red pill” in that powerful metaphor drawn from the Matrix films. And if so, I can certainly empathize with his situation since I had undergone a very similar process myself over the last dozen years.

My American Pravda series now includes some ninety-odd articles totaling almost 700,000 words and may represent the largest such compendium of alternative historical analysis—so-called “conspiracy theories”—found anywhere on the Internet, or at least I’m not aware of anything comparable. But as I’ve sometimes explained, I lived most of my entire life paying absolutely no attention to those sorts of controversial ideas.

Throughout all of those decades, I’d never had any regard for a conspiratorial view of historical events, dismissing such speculative theories as nonsense, just as all of my trusted media outlets had always assured me. If I occasionally happened to see a few of those notions discussed somewhere, they usually seemed a mixture of possible sense and obvious nonsense, with the latter severely discrediting the former. It was only many years later that I began to wonder whether that very damaging juxtaposition may have been intentional, a deliberate attempt to “poison the well.”

My first turning point came with the growth of the Internet and the very widespread reports of Saddam’s non-existent WMDs used to justify our disastrous 2003 Iraq War. The former unavoidably brought to my attention a vast profusion of controversial ideas I’d never previously considered while the latter severely damaged the credibility of the mainstream media and its leading outlets, upon which I’d always relied. The almost uniform support our terribly wrong-headed Iraq policy received from the Economist, the New York Times, the New Republic, and almost every other outlet I read struck me as an almost personal betrayal, made much worse because I was also aware that highly-regarded figures who held contrary positions were being denied any public platform to present their views.

A prime example was my old friend Bill Odom, the three-star general who had run the NSA for President Ronald Reagan. Although he was widely regarded as one of the leading national security experts in DC, his sharply discordant views on the Iraq War were entirely unwelcome in any of the major publications that normally sought his opinion and he was reduced to publishing his dissenting columns on a small website.

His passing in 2008 led me to write an article on the media blackout he had suffered and my broader conclusions on the reliability of our mainstream sources. I eventually regarded that tribute as my first American Pravda piece, though I did not formally launch my series for almost another decade.

An even greater watershed came later that same year when I discovered the astonishing Vietnam War revelations of Sydney Schanberg, a Pulitzer Prize winner who had been one of America’s most celebrated journalists of that conflict and a former top-ranking editor at the New York Times.

Schanberg had produced a massively documented expose of a huge Vietnam War scandal involving Sen. John McCain. But although McCain was then running for the presidency on the strength of his heroic and unblemished war record, no mainstream media outlet was willing to publish Schanberg’s revelations, and when the article finally appeared on a small website, none of our media took any notice of it. If so explosive a story by such an esteemed journalist could be completely ignored by our entire media, my faith in its reliability totally collapsed.

At that time I was publisher of The American Conservative, so I eventually contacted Schanberg, satisfied myself about his material, and then published a cover-symposium on his findings, including my own short introduction and had the author provide an account of his years of fruitless effort. A number of prominent journalists privately expressed shock and astonishment at Schanberg’s material, but none of them dared to report it in their own outlets. I later regarded my introductory column as the second item in my American Pravda series.

Many of my other articles sharply challenged prevailing media narratives, including a widely-discussed 2012 article descriptively entitled “China’s Rise, America’s Fall.” But although I’d already served as publisher of The American Conservative for a number of years, only in 2013 did I finally publish my first piece squarely within the conspiratorial camp. That article proved extremely popular and also received very favorable attention from a number of prestigous mainstream media outlets and columnists. However, the controversial issues it raised were considered quite touchy in certain other quarters and I was soon purged from TAC as a consequence.

Yet even at that relatively late date, I’d still never read a single book on the JFK assassination, about which I’d only gradually begun to become a little suspicious, while my doubts about the official 9/11 story were almost as vague and fragmentary.

A couple of years later, I published my own sequel to Schanberg’s important work on McCain, focusing on what it suggested about the American media, and this piece also attracted a considerable amount of favorable attention:

The following year, Schanberg’s passing led me to reflect on the implications of his groundbreaking work, and this prompted me to finally launch my American Pravda series.

Thus, in my own case more than a dozen years elapsed between my early suspicions that major elements of our official narrative were false and the beginning of my series documenting many of those discrepancies. I had required well over a decade to fully digest and absorb the shocking conclusion that so much of what I’d always accepted as real was actually contrived. My original 2013 American Pravda article included a passage that I’ve frequently quoted over the years:

The realization that the world is often quite different from what is presented in our leading newspapers and magazines is not an easy conclusion for most educated Americans to accept, or at least that was true in my own case. For decades, I have closely read the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and one or two other major newspapers every morning, supplemented by a wide variety of weekly or monthly opinion magazines. Their biases in certain areas had always been apparent to me. But I felt confident that by comparing and contrasting the claims of these different publications and applying some common sense, I could obtain a reasonably accurate version of reality. I was mistaken.

Aside from the evidence of our own senses, almost everything we know about the past or the news of today comes from bits of ink on paper or colored pixels on a screen, and fortunately over the last decade or two the growth of the Internet has vastly widened the range of information available to us in that latter category. Even if the overwhelming majority of the unorthodox claims provided by such non-traditional web-based sources is incorrect, at least there now exists the possibility of extracting vital nuggets of truth from vast mountains of falsehood. Certainly the events of the past dozen years have forced me to completely recalibrate my own reality-detection apparatus.

Although I had closely followed Sachs’ important 1990s work in restructuring international economies, by the end of that decade and certainly after his relocation to Columbia University I’d seen much less mention of him. This was especially true because his new area of concentration—sustainability and global poverty—was rather far removed from my own foreign policy focus on the many years of Middle East wars set in motion by the 9/11 Attacks. I might occasionally see one of his op-ed pieces but that was about the limit of his visibility. Therefore his sudden 2022 appearance as a leading public dissenter from the official Covid narrative came as a major surprise to me.

I doubt that he had ever expected that his personal involvement in that global public health crisis would eventually transform him into one of the West’s most important ideological defectors, and although I had discussed that story nearly two years ago, I think elements of it are worth recapitulating.

The global Covid outbreak beginning in early 2020 quickly infected many millions and greatly disrupted most of the world’s economies, thereby threatening to throw hundreds of millions more into terrible poverty. The Lancet, a leading medical journal, soon established a Covid Commission to investigate all aspects of the deadly worldwide pandemic, and given Prof. Sachs’ international standing and his long association with the United Nations, he was a natural choice to serve as its chairman.

As he has explained in his interviews, at first he fully accepted the supposed scientific consensus that the virus was entirely natural, just as a large group of leading virologists had declared in a top scientific journal. But as time went by, he became increasingly suspicious that the true origins of the disease were being concealed, even discovering that some of the scientists he had selected for his commission were attempting to hide those facts and deceive him.

As I explained in a late 2022 article:

From the earliest days of the Covid epidemic, an official narrative was promoted that the virus was natural and editors of the leading scientific journals closed their pages to any submissions that suggested otherwise. With no reputable academic papers challenging their perspective, the natural origins advocates were able to cite this silence as proof that their position represented the overwhelming scientific consensus, thereby intimidating most mainstream journalists into toeing that same line. A massive propaganda-bubble had been inflated and maintained by such administrative means.

However, as a member of the National Academy of Sciences, Prof. Sachs had publication privileges in the prestigious PNAS journal, so in May he and a co-author published an important article documenting the highly suspicious characteristics of the Covid virus and calling for further investigation. This constituted a breakthrough, becoming the first and only paper published in a major journal that presented the very strong evidence of Covid bioengineering.

Given his role as chairman of the Covid Commission, Sachs’ paper should have been treated as a bombshell, reaching the headlines of all our leading newspapers. But instead, it was almost totally ignored, as was the author’s public statements on the subject.

Recognizing that his vital information was being blocked and boycotted by all the mainstream media outlets upon which he normally relied, he did a lengthy interview with a small progressive webzine, explaining that the U.S. government was preventing any real investigation into the Covid pandemic. When I brought his remarks to the attention of an eminent academic scholar with whom I’d been friendly for many years, he was stunned:

An amazing article.

Sachs is not only remarkably candid; he’s also remarkably knowledgeable about the issue.

Another prominent academic had a similar reaction:

That’s one hell of an interview, no doubt about it.

Soon afterward, Sachs spent an hour discussing the topic on Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s popular podcast, explaining the enormous dishonesty he had encountered in his role as chairman and that he had eventually concluded that the true nature of the virus and its origins were the subject of a massive cover-up. Everyone who listened to that interview was very impressed, certainly including a leading science journalist heavily involved in the Covid origins debate:

This is an amazingly good interview on Sachs’s part – clear, forceful, humorous and all the more compelling because he started off on the other side of the issue. Interesting what a deep perspective he has now developed, tracing the train of events back to Fauci’s acquisition of the biodefense portfolio.

Perhaps some of Sachs’ academic peers and close colleagues had similar reactions, strengthening his determination to get his views into wider circulation.

A few months earlier, the Russia-Ukraine war had broken out, soon dominating the world’s headlines. Sachs had spent much of the previous three decades as a top-level economic advisor to both those countries, so surely there would have been few individuals with better personal insights into the conflict, but once again he soon discovered that the mainstream media was closed to his views. Therefore, during July and August he published a couple of opinion columns in alternative outlets condemning our reckless policies towards Russia and China, with the former having already provoked a bloody and dangerous war in Ukraine and the latter periodically threatening to do the same over Taiwan.

Then in late September, a series of massive underwater explosions severely damaged the $30 billion Russian-German Nord Stream pipelines. This constituted the greatest act of industrial terrorism in the history of the world, with potentially crippling long-term impact upon the energy supplies of Germany and other European countries. Although there was enormous circumstantial evidence implicating America in those attacks, and renowned investigative journalist Seymour Hersh later revealed the exact details of the sabotage operation, the entire Western media and political establishment stubbornly pretended to see nothing, instead absurdly accusing Russia of having destroyed its own energy pipelines.

Sachs refused to support that cover-up and instead he soon played a crucial role in breaking the media blockade:

Then a few days later, Bloomberg TV invited Sachs to share his concerns over the Ukraine war. His hosts were flabbergasted when he flatly declared that America had probably destroyed the Russian pipelines, even mentioning that top journalists had privately told him the same thing, although none of those vital facts could ever appear in their own newspapers.

As a consequence of Sachs’ candor, the interview was cut short—with Sachs “yanked off air” in the words of the hostile New York Post—but the entire segment was watched at least a couple of hundred thousand times on Youtube and the short clip of Sachs’ Nord Stream remarks soon went super-viral on Twitter, viewed more than 4 million times in one Tweet and another million times across a couple of others.

Given such candid statements, the mainstream electronic media was now obviously closed to him, but as I discussed at the time, The Grayzone, a prominent alternative media outlet soon arranged to interview Sachs:

On Sunday morning, the media outlet released two outstanding segments with the Columbia professor, separately focused on the Ukraine war and the Covid origins controversy, and these have already accumulated more than 100,000 views after less than a day. The Grayzone possesses a great deal of influence and credibility in alternative media circles, and I would hope that these interviews lead to an avalanche of additional coverage for Sachs in other outlets, many of which seem to have previously shied away from the explosive charges he had been making.

The first Grayzone segment was descriptively entitled “End Ukraine Proxy War or Face Armageddon,” and some of Sachs’ crucial points may have surprised his listeners. As he emphasized, America is actually already at war with nuclear-armed Russia in Ukraine, given that we are providing all the funding, military equipment, and command and control facilities for the forces fighting and killing Russian troops on Russia’s own border, as well as supplying unknown numbers of direct combat participants. This is an extraordinarily dangerous situation that would have been considered almost unimaginable during the days of our original Cold War, and our recent destruction of Russia’s Nord Stream pipelines was merely the latest manifestation of this undeclared but very real conflict.

Although American leaders may seek to hide their responsibility behind the supposedly independent decisions of the Ukrainian government, this is a transparent fig-leaf. Ukraine’s political leadership is merely our puppet regime, totally financed and controlled by our own government, and pretending otherwise is simply a propaganda-ruse aimed at deceiving our gullible public.

The second, slightly shorter Grayzone segment focused on the Covid origins issue, and provided Sachs the best opportunity he has yet had to present the important facts he uncovered while running the Covid commission. Just a couple of days earlier, he had also been interviewed on physicist Steve Hsu’s podcast discussing the same subject. I would highly recommend both these interviews to anyone interested in understanding the true origins of the viral epidemic that killed more than a million Americans and disrupted the lives of many billions around the world during the last couple of years.

Sachs’ interviews became the most popular ever broadcast on those two channels, and I think the hosts were deeply impressed that a mainstream academic of such high establishment rank was so extremely candid and forthright in his public statements. Numerous other alternative channels and podcasters soon began inviting the Columbia University professor to share his views, allowing him to reach many, many millions since that time, eventually becoming a regular weekly guest on Napolitano’s popular channel.

The gradual end of the Covid pandemic combined with the deadly conflicts taking place in Ukraine and Gaza have led Sachs to focus nearly all his attention on those latter events during most of the last two years. But a couple of weeks ago he published a new article that deserves widespread attention for the important points that he summarized:

As he explains, continuing investigation by diligent researchers have revealed a long series of important new clues regarding the origin of the virus.

For example, we now know that the primary source of American government funding for Covid-related research came from the biowarfare/biodefense projects of our Defense Department, which also supported the simultaneous development of vaccines meant to provide projection against those same potentially offensive bioweapons.

A portion of that Defense funding was directed to the EcoHealth Alliance (EHA), an NIH-backed research group that passed along some of that in the form of small grants to China’s Wuhan lab and many other biological facilities around the world. But according to former EHA officers, those grant-making activities mainly served as intelligence-gathering operations, intended to gain access to those biolabs in other countries and then monitor the development work taking place.

As I’ve emphasized, following the 2011 “Pivot to Asia” of the Obama Administration, our Defense Department began focusing on China as our most formidable long-term potential adversary and by 2015 most officials in DC had begun to assume that a future war with that country was quite likely. In such a conflict, one of our most important military advantages would be our great superiority in biowarfare technology.

Under that strategic framework does it really seem likely that in 2017 our Defense Department would have begun funding and encouraging Chinese efforts to adopt our own cutting-edge biotechnology, allowing them to develop powerful bioweapons of their own? Or does it seem more plausible that the small FHA grants provided to the Wuhan lab were instead elements of the intelligence-gathering operation that former FHA employees have claimed?

For the last several years, large portions of both the alternative and mainstream media have regularly claimed that the Covid virus was probably developed at the Wuhan lab and then accidentally leaked out, starting the worldwide pandemic. But since 2020 I’ve repeatedly argued in a long series of articles that there is absolutely no evidence that any such lab-leak had occurred in Wuhan and a great deal of evidence to the contrary.

• American Pravda: Our Coronavirus Catastrophe as Biowarfare Blowback?
  Ron Unz • The Unz Review • April 21, 2020 • 7,400 Words


• American Pravda: Covid Epidemic as Lab-Leak or Biowarfare?
  Ron Unz • The Unz Review • July 12, 2021 • 13,100 Words


• American Pravda: Confronting Covid Crimestop
  Ron Unz • The Unz Review • December 13, 2021 • 6,400 Words


• American Pravda: The JFK Assassination and the Covid Cover-Up
  Ron Unz • The Unz Review • December 19, 2022 • 6,900 Words


• The Alt-Covid Community Begins Unraveling the Origins of Covid
  Ron Unz • The Unz Review • January 16, 2023 • 4,500 Words

Some of the other crucial clues regarding the deadly Covid epidemic have been almost entirely ignored by both the mainstream and alternative media but can be easily summarized in just a few paragraphs, as I have done on a number of occasions since April 2020:

For example, in 2017 Trump brought in Robert Kadlec, who since the 1990s had been one of America’s leading biowarfare advocates. The following year in 2018 a mysterious viral epidemic hit China’s poultry industry and in 2019, another mysterious viral epidemic devastated China’s pork industry…

From the earliest days of the administration, leading Trump officials had regarded China as America’s most formidable geopolitical adversary, and orchestrated a policy of confrontation. Then from January to August 2019, Kadlec’s department ran the “Crimson Contagion” simulation exercise, involving the hypothetical outbreak of a dangerous respiratory viral disease in China, which eventually spreads into the United States, with the participants focusing on the necessary measures to control it in this country. As one of America’s foremost biowarfare experts, Kadlec had emphasized the unique effectiveness of bioweapons as far back as the late 1990s and we must commend him for his considerable prescience in having organized a major viral epidemic exercise in 2019 that was so remarkably similar to what actually began in the real world just a few months later.

With leading Trump officials greatly enamored of biowarfare, fiercely hostile to China, and running large-scale 2019 simulations on the consequences of a mysterious viral outbreak in that country, it seems entirely unreasonable to completely disregard the possibility that such extremely reckless plans may have been privately discussed and eventually implemented, though probably without presidential authorization.

But with the horrific consequences of our own later governmental inaction being obvious, elements within our intelligence agencies have sought to demonstrate that they were not the ones asleep at the switch. Earlier this month, an ABC News story cited four separate government sources to reveal that as far back as late November, a special medical intelligence unit within our Defense Intelligence Agency had produced a report warning that an out-of-control disease epidemic was occurring in the Wuhan area of China, and widely distributed that document throughout the top ranks of our government, warning that steps should be taken to protect US forces based in Asia. After the story aired, a Pentagon spokesman officially denied the existence of that November report, while various other top level government and intelligence officials refused to comment. But a few days later, Israeli television mentioned that in November American intelligence had indeed shared such a report on the Wuhan disease outbreak with its NATO and Israeli allies, thus seeming to independently confirm the complete accuracy of the original ABC News story and its several government sources.

It therefore appears that elements of the Defense Intelligence Agency were aware of the deadly viral outbreak in Wuhan more than a month before any officials in the Chinese government itself. Unless our intelligence agencies have pioneered the technology of precognition, I think this may have happened for the same reason that arsonists have the earliest knowledge of future fires.

According to these multiply-sourced mainstream media accounts, by “the second week of November” our Defense Intelligence Agency was already preparing a secret report warning of a “cataclysmic” disease outbreak taking place in Wuhan. Yet at that point, probably no more than a couple of dozen individuals had been infected in that city of 11 million, with few of those yet having any serious symptoms. The implications are rather obvious. Furth