Wednesday’s Child: Sicilian Defense 7

The Chinese fortune cookie with a Russian message inside, which I strove to decipher in last week’s post, is beginning to crumble.  Last week Luc Montagnier, winner of the 2008 Nobel Prize in Medicine for the discovery of the HIV virus, said in an interview that the killer contagion is undoubtedly the result of genetic manipulation by molecular biologists and in all likelihood a product of the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

A totalitarian regime, however, wraps its lies in falsehoods and ties them with a silk ribbon of prevarication.  Initially the Chinese announced, and the WHO dutifully repeated, that the virus could not spread; then, when it had spread, they accused the Americans of bringing it into China; then they launched the canard of it having come from horseshoe bats and spread through the Wuhan “wet market”; now, once they’ve been forced to admit that it’s a natural coronavirus-based, laboratory-engineered pathogen, they will have to deny that it was created as a bioweapon; and, even if they admit that it’s a bioweapon, they will need to lie again, swearing on Mao’s Little Red Book that its exit from the laboratory was an accident, rather that the deliberate use of a bioweapon; but even if they admit it was the latter, they will never admit that the purposeful release, rather than accidental escape, of the virus was a joint Sino-Russian action by the security services in a bid for power maximization.  Because, as I wrote last week, by then the ruling Communist Party of China will be no more, and all evidence of past crimes against humanity will be safe in its tomb.

Foundations for the accident theory are already being laid. Thus the same Luc Montagnier, who, apart from his position at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, is a tenured professor of virology at Shanghai Jiao Tong University, has told an Italian interviewer that “la Cina è un grande paese e spero che sia in grado di riconoscere un errore” (“China is a great country, and I hope it will see its way to acknowledging a mistake”).  Errare humanum est,” the interviewer quotes the professor as saying, “credo però che in questo caso è il governo di Pechino che ha nascosto le cose” (“though I believe in this case the Beijing government has been hiding things”).  A laboratory mishap, in other words, is being covered up by Communist Party bonzos, but surely the truth will out in the end.

The main pivot of the accident theory, however, are the 2018 visits to the Wuhan laboratory, first reported in the Washington Post, by two American diplomats, Jamison Fouss, consul general in Wuhan, and Rick Switzer, U.S. Embassy’s “counselor of environment, science, technology, and health” in Beijing. The pair are said to have voiced concern over a lack of safety protocols and the biosafety of the laboratory's research, and dispatched two “sensitive but unclassified” cables to Washington, asking for assistance to help the Chinese upgrade the security.  In other words, they asked Uncle Sam for money, which is not entirely surprising for a laboratory that became operational only six years ago and had been set up by the French, “as part of a 2004 cooperative agreement on the prevention and control of emerging infectious diseases,” with initial assistance from the Americans.  The laboratory was only too happy to upload the pair’s assessment of the situation as a news release to its website, where it stayed for almost two years until deleted two weeks ago. And Washington did nothing, which is likewise unsurprising in view of the fact that the U.S. had been pulling back from supporting various bioresearch laboratories around the world, notably the Richard Lugar Public Health Research Center at Alekseyevka, near Tbilisi in Georgia, which the Americans stopped supporting in 2017.

What is surprising is the spin.  How on earth could that pair of clowns, Jamie and Ricky, judge the Wuhan laboratory “unsafe”?  What expertise did the American guests possess that qualified them to draw such conclusions, unless these were dictated to them by their hosts over a nice plate of bat innards washed down with civet cat milk?  Jamie, before 2018, worked with refugees in the Philippines and spent a few years as “a country desk officer at Peace Corps headquarters.”  Ricky seems to have whittled his life away on Twitter, where one day he exclaimed that “Secretary John Kerry knows what true leadership means – calls for action on oceans.”  Another day, another twit: “To protect our ocean, I will not eat shark fin soup.”  And yet another: “Beijing smog at dangerous levels, hope all in Beijing have clean air soon!”  No such luck, Ricky.

So it’s 2018 and the two nincompoops are visiting the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which three years earlier became China’s first laboratory to achieve the highest level of international bioresearch safety, known as BSL-4.  Neither speaks Chinese, and they find themselves in a country whose 2018 exports total two trillion four hundred ninety-four billion two hundred thirty million dollars, of which $650,000,000,000 is of high technology, including pharmaceutical products and scientific instruments.  Their ignorance of molecular biology is only second to their ignorance of research laboratory procedure, but they have a looksee anyway and conclude that the place is unsafe – so that two years later the Washington Post, the WHO, the Chinese Communist Party, the Kremlin, and now that Fidel’s gone, maybe Raúl Castro for good measure, can all whine in concert: “It was an aaaaaaccident!”

It was only in the 1990’s, after the defection to Britain of Dr. Vladimir Pasechnik, that U.S. intelligence first learned of the existence of bioweapons research in laboratories like Russia’s Biopreparat, which had been operational for decades under the military classification of “Special Importance,” a higher grade than “Top Secret.”  Did Jamie and Ricky really think they knew what they were cabling Washington about?

Andrei Navrozov

Andrei Navrozov

34 Responses

  1. Konstantin Solodov says:

    Normally, there are two additional statements “everyone is doing the same thing” and “we will not speak about it at all”.

    It looks like as a variation of theme “Europe from Vladivostok to Lisbon with extension to Vancouver” which can be realized as a partnership only.

  2. Frank Brownlow says:

    “How on earth could that pair of clowns, Jamie and Ricky, judge the Wuhan laboratory ‘unsafe’? ” A deeply satisfying sentence in a splendid piece!

  3. andrei navrozov says:

    An update. Yesterday the Italian Federation of Life Science (Federazione Italiana Scienze della Vita), a body that incorporates 16 scientific societies and has some 10,000 members, roundly condemned Luc Montagnier’s findings as “unfounded.” Readers of my age or older, however, may recall that, in 1972, 10,000 Soviet chess masters could not outplay Bobby Fischer.

  4. Konstantin Solodov says:

    if 10000 members Italian Federation of Life Science only, it would be not so interesting

    Mr. Illarionov (expert of Cato institute) informed that Youtube has deleted the interview with Luc Montaggnier

    Video unavailable.
    This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by a third party.

  5. Robert Reavis says:

    If Cato institute is denying it, then I am more convinced of its truth!

  6. Avatar photo Thomas Fleming says:

    Ah, but Mr. Navrozov forgets the really essential facts about Bobby Fisher: He was not only an anti-Semite but he also defied the ban on doing business in Yugoslavia. One can only conclude that he never really was a good chess player.

    Many things have become clear during this panic, and among the most important is the confirmation of a point made by the British anthropologist EE Evans-Pritchard (father of our friend Ambrose). In defending Levy Bruhl’s famous thesis about the mentality of primitive man that cannot distinguish subject from object, dream or image from reality, and is totally ignorant of all logical principles including the principle of non-contradiction, he pointed out that most people in advanced societies are more like primitives than they are like Aristotle.

    When you hear the scientific experts discussing this plague, their arguments come down to irrational superstition and voodoo. On the one hand, they say, this disease is far worse than any influenza because of the higher mortality rate among the infected, and then, without pausing for breath, they declare that things are worse than we may think because 3 or 5 or ten times the number of people are infected. But if even three times the number of people are infected with the virus, then the mortality rate is no worse than that of flu.

    They tell us that they positively KNOW that the quinine derivatives do no good, while doctors around the world are reporting positive results and the worst cases. What, exactly, do they think that scientific knowledge is–just whatever you want to believe? The scientists I know are emphatic that science is a method for coming closer to the truth, not a body of established fact, and they know that only by rigorous testing–a process analogous to Aristotle’s method of syllogism–can they make progress.

    Scientists who know absolutely nothing certain about this virus–it’s much too early for such knowledge–make positive sweeping declarations by the bushel full. In hearing the news today that they now have evidence of the virus popping up in California two weeks before it did in Seattle. Apparently, they really believed they had proof that it did first appear on American soil in Washington state. On the basis of testing down on at most 1% of the population! I am reminded of the silly debates and agreements among palaeonnthropologists about the evolution of man in Africa. What percentage of early hominids have they found skeletal evidence for? 1%? .1%? .000001? They don’t even know. At best they are in a position to say that with extremely limited evidence, their best guess (hardly even an estimate) at this time would be something like this…. But no, they fill textbooks and learned journals with what appear to be statements of fact.

    Some day, you all should look at the early chapters of 18th century books on what we would now call human social evolution–Buffon, for example. It is all pure conjecture of the type, primitive man saw lightning strike a tree and when his raw meat was burned, he discovered it was more palatable. We make fun of religious “just-so” stories, but most of what most people think they know about science is on par with a Disney special.

    My conclusion is not so much that they are lying–though I think the parasites at the CDC lie about just about everything most of the time–but that they are intellectual primitives who cannot think through a problem. If this is what scientific education in schools produces, then there is absolutely no point in teaching science. We know that Latin, mathematics, and logic increase a student’s ability to sort through a problem and come to a rational decision. Apparently, science classes only teach students to follow orders.

  7. andrei navrozov says:

    Thank you, Konstantin. I checked both YouTube and Illarionov’s blog, and you’re quite right, that video has been deleted. But the original French interview with Montagnier is still up: .

  8. Konstantin Solodov says:

    Mr. Fleming,

    If to consider the history as cyclical history of cultures and not as a progressive history of mankind, the actual decadence of west culture is logical.

    The mentioned mentality of primitive man (cannot distinguish subject from object, dream or image from reality, and is totally ignorant of all logical principles including the principle of non-contradiction), is applicable for newborn child and for Germans of 9-11th century.

  9. Konstantin Solodov says:

    But without philosophy, I think, in this case we don’t deal with primitive mans who don’t understand what they are doing.

    If you take any country, the politic of left-globalist groups are the same, as a copy paste.

    For example, Germany. Merkel:
    The population will have to deal with the virus and the restrictions in public life are for a long time. The relevant decisions were not easy for democracy, but necessary (as I understand, here is about freedom). The WHO is “an indispensable partner” in overcoming the pandemic and can count on the support of the federal government.

    Moscow (without definition left/right, it’s not applicable for Russia) supports WHO also and uses the politic of strong restrictions. The ghost of Trotsky comes back.

    What about your democrats?

    And who is in opposition to this politic?

  10. Avatar photo Thomas Fleming says:

    Theories of history are by definition a form of speculative theology from which no real-world conclusions can be drawn. The only comprehensive view that is both coherent and based on reality derives from the observable nature of human beings as they are known, whether in face-to-face existence, historical works, literature, anthropological studies, and from what can be learned from studies of the human nervous system, hormones, etc. Politics used to mean the practice of human beings living together in organized societies and the study thereof. Since at least the Renaissance, the term means almost exclusively the arts of gaining and maintaining power. Ideologies for most people are simply a means of gaining, holding, and justifying power. While he was still a student rather than a would-be world controller, Marx was well aware of this. As Burke observed so correctly, “Whatever is the road to power, that is the road that will be trod”–an observation worthy of Machiavelli.

  11. Raymond Olson says:

    What if Jamie and Ricky had helpers who knew how to assess the situation?

  12. andrei navrozov says:

    Mr. Olson: – A valid point, certainly, but on studying their biographies and utterances I doubt that they would have known what sort of helper to bring along. Besides, as almost always with foreign “inspectors” to any installation within a totalitarian state, be it a prison or a hospital or a museum, the tendency is for the guests to be quickly cowed by the hosts, indeed to look for and find “common ground,” father than to act as an adversarial force, mandated to discover the facts at issue. In this case it is obvious to me that the hosts were “confessing” (i.e. feigning) a weakness, and it would’ve been improbable for the Americans to reply, “Ah, but no, you fellows are the best in the business, you’re just pretending it’s all a shambles because you want U.S. money.”

  13. Frank Brownlow says:

    Dr. Fleming — How bang-on right you are. Sticks out a mile every time one of these pre-paleolithics opens his mouth, and what you say applies to all the so-called humanists romping around in our universities, too. Once real philology, on a basis of Latin grammar, logic, and rhetoric, dropped out of the curriculum everywhere, ability to distinguish fact from fancy disappeared with it.

  14. andrei navrozov says:

    Breaking news. Microbiologist Petr Chumakov, head of the Cell Proliferation Laboratory of the Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology of the Russian Academy of Sciences and Distinguished Visiting Professor at the University of Tübingen,, has weighed in on Montagnier’s side by telling an interviewer that the Wuhan lab was engaged in “absolutely crazy things,” such as “enabling the virus to infect human cells by interrupting the natural sequence of the genome with inserts that gave it special properties,” adding that “scientists were often just doing what they were told.'” He said this, and the interview saw light, despite the fact that on April 21 the Russian Supreme Court decided that not only the publication, but “verbal dissemination” of any “unofficial information” about the pandemic – not fake news, mind you, but anything at all that does not issue from a government source – is now a criminal offense.

  15. Konstantin Solodov says:


    “The only comprehensive view that is both coherent and based on reality derives from the observable nature of human beings as they are known, whether in face-to-face existence, historical works, literature, anthropological studies, and from what can be learned from studies of the human nervous system, hormones, etc.”

    This view is also a theory of history.

    The initial theology of west culture is a base for historical theories:
    Scholasticism -> Problem of universals -> Realism vs Nominalism

  16. Avatar photo Thomas Fleming says:

    Gee, I thought I was making it clear that I was talking about a theory of history. How, exactly, could I have made that any plainer? The difference is that an approach based on human nature begins with observable reality rather than some postulate pulled out of thin air. Progressive and cyclical theories are for the mythopoetically inclined, and I have as little interest in them as I am in abstractions like scholasticism, nominalism, etc. You might as well be speaking Hittite–with this exception, that Hittite might stimulate a discussion of Indo-European.

  17. Konstantin Solodov says:

    “forbidden on pain of laryngotomy” – you can work as an expert for russian security services

    I can reformulate without “isms”, if you are so sensitive

    The initial theology of west culture is a base for historical theories which are formed in this culture.
    There were two views in 9-13th centuries.
    The first denies the existence of universals and abstract objects (that don’t exist in space and time).
    The second view – a persuasion that they exist.

  18. Robert Reavis says:

    On universals, abstraction scholastics,positivists, Platonists, Aristotelians, empiricists, idealists, rationalists and communists.

    One must always in abstract knowledge advert to the singular, about which there is no science.

  19. Konstantin Solodov says:

    If Mr.X has little interest in something, it doesn’t mean that this something does not exist.
    In addition, it doesn’t mean that Mr.Y believes in something (for example, progres).
    Mr.Y says that there are two views.

    “I have as little interest in them as I am in abstractions like scholasticism, nominalism, etc.”

    Even more, you can define them as anti-west (you did that already).
    I disagree, because both movements are parts of west culture.


  20. Dot says:

    Mr. Navrozov:

    Has anybody shopped at the supermarket lately? Well, in addition to zero paper products and a shortage of meat, there is a shortage of almost everything – except wine.

  21. andrei navrozov says:

    Dear Dot, I would’ve been aggrieved had it been the other way around, plenty of paper products and no wine. (I think Dr. Fleming is with me on this one.) And meat? Let us simply imagine we’re still in Lent!

  22. andrei navrozov says:

    Notable quote. From Shi Zhengli, director of the Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, on February 8, 2020: “I, Shi Zhengli, swear on my life that none of this has anything to do with our laboratory. I advise all those who believe and spread rumors from malicious media sources, as well as those who give credence to the unreliable so-called academic analysis of the Indian scientists [who anticipated Luc Montagnier’s conclusions – AN], to shut their stinking mouths.”

  23. andrei navrozov says:

    The “Fire the Lot of Them” thought of the day. Statement from the Office of the U.S. Director of National Intelligence: “The Intelligence Community concurs with the wide scientific consensus that the COVID-19 virus was not manmade or genetically modified (!). The IC will continue to rigorously examine emerging information and intelligence to determine whether the outbreak began through contact with infected animals (!) or if it was the result of an accident (!) at a laboratory in Wuhan.” (Exclamation marks added for emphasis.) – ABC News, April 30.

  24. andrei navrozov says:

    Statement from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to Newsweek magazine: “Scientific research indicates that there is no evidence that suggests the virus was created in a laboratory.”

    This is the same NIH that, jointly with the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci, who now oversees America’s response to the epidemic, “funded scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and other institutions for work on gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses […] which involves manipulating viruses in the lab to explore their potential for infecting humans.”

    Link to article:

  25. andrei navrozov says:

    Update. “Twitter suspends account of Chinese virologist who claims COVID-19 was developed in a Wuhan lab. Li-Meng Yan’s account was taken down on Tuesday after she accused China of intentionally manufacturing and releasing COVID-19.” – Headline in the Daily Mail, 16.9.2020

  26. andrei navrozov says:

    Another update, less than a month later. “Chinese virologist who fled to the US after claiming coronavirus was made in a military lab says her mother has now been arrested by Beijing.” Headline in the Daily Mail, 6.10.2020. Article here:

  27. Dot says:

    At this point, what difference does it make? Is it going to change anything? So we wear our masks – to protect myself from others and others from myself. We do simple things like wash our hands 20 seconds in water of 77 degrees and keep a distance of 6 feet which now looks like it may be greater than 6 feet. We have become enemies of each other. And the latest is that the CDC has discovered that the virus is in the air. Well? Where else should it be? Every so-called virologist is an expert and the story keeps changing. They are talking out of two sides of their mouth. Their excuse is that it is novel. Novel???

  28. Vince Cornell says:

    If the coronavirus was made in a military lab, then it must be suffering the same fate as other made-in-China cheap junk. What kind of a bioweapon lets an overweight 74 year old waltz away with one night rest in a hospital? I’m also curious why Li-Meng Yan didn’t get her mother and other folks she cares about to safety before going public? Surely she knew this was the next step for the CCP (they have already set this as a precedent). Perhaps she did and was unable to convince her mother to take precautions?

  29. Dot says:

    What is this “like button notice (view)”? Definitely, IT is controlling and taking away more and more of our freedoms.

  30. andrei navrozov says:


    “‘Now everybody is agreeing that I was right when I very early on called Wuhan as the source of COVID-19, sometimes referred to as the China Virus,’ Trump said in a statement on Tuesday. ‘To me it was obvious from the beginning but I was badly criticized, as usual. Now they are all saying “He was right.” Thank you!’ he added. The lab leak theory, which Trump’s administration pushed during his presidency, was long ridiculed as ‘disinformation’ by a media seemingly intent on discrediting him.” – DAILY MAIL, May 26, 2021.

    If only he had added that the “China Virus” was released intentionally and not escaped from the “source” by accident!

  31. Dot says:

    We got the virus under control with Pres. Trump’s “warp speed ” order to find a vaccine and Pfizer did it first along with Moderna shortly thereafter. Unfortunately this was at the end of his presidency and the good fortune fell to the new president.
    Unfortunately, we have a race problem and a push to defund the police because of an incident that happened one year ago. The powers that be didn’t think there would be a mass exodus of officers that would leave a dangerous job. The result? Crime has increased in places where this has happened.

  32. andrei navrozov says:

    NEW UPDATE. Dr. Li-Meng Yan, the virologist who fled to the US only to have her intelligence suppressed by Dr. Fauci, says in her most recent report, published on March 31: “The causative agent of COVID-19, is not a naturally occurring pathogen but an Unrestricted Bioweapon. It is a product of the bioweapons program of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) government, the network of which includes not only the CCP scientists but also certain overseas scientists and organizations.” – Daily Mail, June 4, 2021.

  33. Dot says:

    That “Unrestricted Bioweapon” is biological warfare from the CCP. Dr. Fauci is the country’s virologist who likes the limelight. There were and are too many experts who voiced their opinions on this virus. The reporting of number of cases was high but also included people in nursing homes who had a high mortality rate due to weakened immune systems. The number of cases have dropped such that life can go back to normal for most people. It feels more refreshing.

    This virus was an evil as expressed in Shakespeare’s monologue in Hamlet. But this evil wasn’t the only virus. It still exists in men’s
    thoughts and voices of who’s right and who’s wrong. The media is most culpable because it takes sides and the virus spreads. Wrong is right; right is wrong. The whole story is suppressed and the people are being denied the truth.

  34. andrei navrozov says:

    FINAL UPDATE, JUST OVER 1 YEAR ON. “Majority of Americans – both Republican and Democrat – now believe COVID did leak from Wuhan lab in dramatic shift for idea once dismissed as a ‘conspiracy theory.'” Daily Mail headline, July 9, 2021.