COVID-19 was a planned bioweapon of China’s People’s Liberation Army.
Already in 2005, Colonel Ji-Wei Guo of the People’s Liberation Army’s Southwest Hospital, Third Military Medical University in Chongqing, China described a new type of bioweapon.
Colonel Guo rejected the clumsy, traditional biological weapons that produced mass destruction, ones that:
depend on microbiology, especially bacteriology, which uses destructive bacteria, viruses, and toxic living bodies obtained directly from the natural world. These weapons are subject to nature, are difficult to control, and have irreversible effects.”
China would use biotechnology to create new forms of designed “biotechnological weapons” that would be “controllable” and “recoverable” for which China had sole possession of the vaccine or antidote.
Such weapons would be highly contagious, but of low lethality and capable of being deployed under “pre-war” conditions. Although artificially created, the new bioweapons would retain “plausible deniability,” that is, could be attributed to a disease of natural origin.
Thus, spawned the PLA’s massive joint bioweapon development-vaccine production program, which incorporated China’s universities and their access to international knowledge and skills, particularly those from the United States.
In a 2006 follow-up article, Colonel Guo expands on his thesis, advocating the weaponization of military medicine, in order to make it:
a fighting power in addition to a tool of maintaining and strengthening the fighting power of the army–that is, forming an aggression system of biotechnology.”
Unlike weapons of mass destruction, Colonel Guo proposed that military medical scientists use biotechnology to produce weapons that target specific physiological effects on the human body:
The goal of precision injury is not necessarily to terminate a life, but to choose a degree of injury depending on the purposes of operations and the types of enemies.”
In 2006, Colonel Guo concluded:
Since war is an act of violence aiming at annihilating enemies or depriving them of resistant abilities, the modern biological techniques used for attack purposes have a more direct and precise target at humans than other methods, which will play a more important role in future military operations.”
Sometime after 2011, Colonel Guo was trained in English and sent abroad, likely for espionage purposes, although it is unclear to what country he went.
Colonel Guo and his PLA colleagues continued to promote biotechnological weapons and “bio-based war” in Chinese language military journals in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016, and 2018.
Specifically, Colonel Guo’s student, Kun Huo, in his 2013 Chinese language Master’s thesis, described the military doctrine underlying the use of “non-lethal” biowarfare agents like COVID-19:
This paper is the first to systematically put forward the thought of “non-lethal” biological warfare in which future war will focus on ultrastructural biological field and demonstrate scientifically the necessity and feasibility of the construction of “non-lethal” biological warfare.”
It is perhaps no coincidence that Colonel Guo’s home institution, the Third Military Medical University in Chongqing played an outsized role in the PLA’s coronavirus research during and immediately after the 2002-2004 SARS pandemic.
Chinese whistleblower Dr. Li-Meng Yan claims that the COVID-19 virus originated in laboratories overseen by China’s PLA, using bat coronaviruses ZC45 and/or ZXC21 collected from Zhoushan, China, and used as the viral “backbone” for genetic engineering.
Those bat coronaviruses were originally isolated and characterized between July 2015 and February 2017 under the supervision of the Third Military Medical University and the Research Institute for Medicine of the then PLA Nanjing Military Command.
There should now be no doubt that China has had an active and extensive biological warfare program of which COVID-19 was one of its “biotechnological weapons.”
This column was originally published at The Gateway Pundit
The views expressed in CCNS member articles are not necessarily the views or positions of the entire CCNS. They are the views of the authors, who are members of the CCNS.
