Origin of Pandemic and Biowarfare: Writings and Interviews


Below are pieces relating to the origin of the pandemic. I was one of the few who publicly raised this possibility from early 2020. 

Major pieces, some investigative, are in bold. 

On Feb. 11, 2020: 
Questioning the CDC: Is it a Complete Coincidence That China's Only BSL4 Is in Wuhan? -- Audio and Video

April 24, 2020:
"Contrary to claims, the pandemic may have come from a lab — and regardless, it exposes the threat of biowarfare arms race." 
(Originally published by Salon)

April 30, 2020:
A version of this was also published as "The Long History of Accidental Laboratory Releases of Potential Pandemic Pathogens Is Being Ignored In the COVID-19 Media Coverage" by Independent Science News on May 5, 2020. 

May 2020: 

Featured in "Perspectives on the Pandemic" -- see video and transcript -- going through findings on the above pieces. 


Interview with Geopolitics and Empire. 

June 2020:
Interview with Joanne Leon on "Around the Empire." 

US Right to Know has a strong list of reporting on this issue.  

Dec. 16, 2020:
(Originally published by Independent Science News)

Dec. 28, 2020: 

Jan. 4, 2021:

May 2021
Interview with Sameer Dossani. (Somewhat autobiographical) 

June 2021:

With Whitney Webb, who has also done much to make connections to the 2001 anthrax attacks: "COVID Origins and Gain of Function." 

With Cindy Sheehan. (Parallels between lab origin story and Iraq WMD story) 

July 14, 2021:
Interview with Russell Mokhiber of Corporate Crime Reporter  

July 23 on Substack: 

Aug. 25 on Substack: 

Sept. 1 Washington Babylon interview with Andrew Stewart: 



Anthrax War

"Anthrax War" via Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's "The Passionate Eye" 

Film was originally aired in 2009. Higher resolution but slightly shorter on Vimeo. Transcript: 


And now on the Passionate Eye - Who was behind the 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States? 

Montage: “He's dead. And they can close the case and he can't defend himself.”

“The lone gunman theory fits the needs of the FBI.”

The investigation spans the globe, uncovering the deadly world of germ warfare.

Montage: “It was about killing people and not being able to be found out. Designing assassination weapons, classic spy stuff.”

Are we on the verge of the unthinkable? 

Montage: “They could launch biowarfare by means of anthrax anywhere in the world today.” 

Read more »

Questioning Dan Rather of CBS Evening News about US War Crimes in Yugoslavia in 1999


June 25, 1999 at the National Press Club 

Dan Rather: On my second trip to Belgrade I was there the night they turned off the lights. Remember, the first time we had a raid that shut down the power, turned off the lights for most of Yugoslavia and that also meant turning off the water because the water needed the power to go. You could not only see it, hear it, but feel it, the change in mood between before they shut off the lights and the power and the next day after they shut off the lights and the power. I said to myself at the time and I wrote in my notebook, "I think this might be the decisive moment in the war." ... I think there's a legitimate question to be asked, "Well, If we had chosen to use this weaponry on the second, third, fourth day or the second or third week of the war, would it have made a difference?" I don't know the answer to that question. I'm here to bear witness, eye witness, that when we did do it, when we did turn off the lights for the first time, there was a distinct change in mood. The mood of the Serbian street and countryside ceased to be one of complete, total, and utter defiance and complete confidence that they would prevail, to something considerably less than that. So make of that what you will. Yes sir.

Sam Husseini: Thank you. I was struck by your comments just now about when you say "we" took out the lights. You seemed to be criticizing the U.S. government for waiting as long as it did to take out the lights and the water facilities. Isn't part of the reason -- I hope -- part of the reason that they waited as long as they did, is that that's a war crime? And it troubles me when you say "we" when your talking about the U.S. government when you're, presumably, a journalist and an independent journalist.

Dan Rather: I would hope not presumably -- I take your point.

Sam Husseini: And why do we -- [laughs] why do we -- seem to only recognize a war crime when it's done by another government and not our own?

Read more »

Interview on the O'Reilly Factor with John Gibson on Palestinians - "Give me Liberty or Give me Death"

October 13, 2000

JOHN GIBSON, GUEST HOST: Hi, everybody. I'm John Gibson filling in for Bill O'Reilly, who's on assignment. Thanks for watching us tonight.

We've got a packed program for you. The political Hollywood film "The Contender" is released today and the producer and one of the stars say the studio chiefs reedited it to present a pro-Gore agenda. Much ado about now much or Hollywood liberals at it again?

Plus, the presidential race is in a statistical dead heat, but the violence in the Middle East could affect who wins in November. We'll find out how the stakes have changed. And the crisis in the Mideast is our top story tonight. Here are the latest developments.

One Palestinian is dead and 12 injured in clashes today in Hebron. Ninety-eight people have been killed in 16 days of violence. President Clinton is calling for calm while many say the peace process is dead. What will it take to resolve this and have the Palestinians been treated unfairly?

Joining me now from Washington, D.C. is the former media director for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Sam Husseini.

Sam, what is the case for the notion that Palestinians have been treated unfairly?

SAM HUSSEINI, INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC ACCURACY: Well, going back to the beginning of the Oslo Accords, if you take a look at it, as the group that I'm currently with, the Institute for Public Accuracy, has been doing, you find that the Oslo Accords were tremendously unfair to the Palestinians and the agreements that they have gone through since then, since the big handshake, the big photo-ops and so on.

They hide the fact that Israel continues to perpetuate its occupation over the Palestinians.

GIBSON: But Sam…

HUSSEINI: All the Israelis have done is withdrawn from some population areas.

GIBSON: Sam, I'm confused. Didn't the Palestinians agree to the Oslo Accords? So who was unfair to who?

HUSSEINI: Well, it was either agree or get nothing. Basically the Palestinians were put a gun to their head saying agree to this piece of paper or you get nothing or you get bombed or you, you know, just stay out of the picture or you get absolutely nothing at all because Israel's got all the weapons.

There's a tremendous disparity -- Israel's got one of the biggest, most powerful militaries in the world. They've got 200 nuclear weapons. And what they are at war, some people are saying against, is a civilian population…

GIBSON: But Sam…

HUSSEINI: … that's unarmed, that all they've got is rocks.

GIBSON: But Sam…

HUSSEINI: So it's an incredibly…

GIBSON: Israel is not going to bomb Gaza with nuclear weapons. That wouldn't…

HUSSEINI: No, but they can bomb other people in the region.

GIBSON: Well, sure, but -- all right, Sam, look…

HUSSEINI: They can determine their dominance of the region.

GIBSON: … how do you expect the American people at large to develop some empathy for the Palestinians when we see in the last couple of days mobs killing a couple of guys…

HUSSEINI: Well, you know, John…

GIBSON: … guys waving their bloody hands out a window in triumph?

HUSSEINI: Right, exactly. Exactly.

GIBSON: How does that build any empathy?

HUSSEINI: Yeah, what doesn't build empathy and I hear the music and I guess they'll show the clips that are getting played, I want to see the clips that haven't gotten played. There have been almost 100 Palestinian civilians, not soldiers -- I'm sorry about those soldiers, those Israeli soldiers getting killed. But what were they doing there? They're occupying soldiers.

GIBSON: They were…

HUSSEINI: They're occupying…

GIBSON: They were there by mistake.

HUSSEINI: They weren't in uniform, John.

GIBSON: They ran to the Palestinian police station for protection.

HUSSEINI: They weren't in uniform, John. You know, they're undercover units, OK? It's not a secret.

GIBSON: Well, Sam, I know that's in dispute. But I mean one picture…

HUSSEINI: So, let's see the pictures…

GIBSON: At least one picture today…

HUSSEINI: Let's see the pictures that we're not seeing…

GIBSON: … showed the guy in uniform being…

HUSSEINI: … of our -- John.

GIBSON: … shoved to the ground.

HUSSEINI: John, the other pictures of our, of American made helicopter gunships hitting civilian targets, of Palestinian children being shot. Neither one of the presidential candidates had the guts to say I condemn Israel's killing almost 100 Palestinian civilians.

Read more »

MLK: "Loving Your Enemies" Message for a Political System Based on Hate

I used to think we shouldn't get MLK Day "off" since we should work extra hard on this day. But I've mellowed and think of his own debauchery and give myself some slack. No matter how many self indulgent things you've done: plagiarism, cheating on your spouse (as King did) you can still do great, even historic, things and be capable of great love. Finding "bad" things about MLK didn't make me respect him less, it made me realize that whatever I or others do that's "bad" -- we can still do good and great. 

Read more »

VotePact Gives You Leverage Over the Duopoly

VotePact is a voting strategy that advocates that people vote for their actual preferences by pairing up with someone on the other side of the Democratic-Republican divide. So people can strategically vote for the candidates they most like without fear of helping those they most fear. Instead of effectively cancelling out each other -- one for Trump and one for Biden, they can both vote Libertarian or Green or whatever they want. 

It is effectively DIY ranked choice voting, which allows voters to list their preferences 1-2-3. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom just vetoed a RCV bill in California and Republicans in Maine are still trying to block voters from using RCV in the presidential election -- which is expected to be a historic first. 

Such attempts to limit voter choice are endemic to the establishment parties. indeed, much of our political and media system is designed to keep voters in perpetual subjugation to the Democratic and Republican parties: atomized, perpetually triggered by the latest outrage of 'the other side.' This effectively makes the establishment parties less and less accountable to the public since ironically, if each of the parties becomes worse, more fear kicks in spurring desperate support for the other. This creates a vicious cycle of fear and hatred and actually strengthens the duopoly. VotePact gives a strategic path out of this -- and even modest use of it could give the voting public leverage over the duopoly candidates since their votes can no longer be taken for granted."

While many establishment Democrats complain constantly that Green Party candidate Jill Stein 'took votes away' from Hillary Clinton and handed the 2016 election to Trump, they effectively block RCV reforms which would solve the problem. 

But unlike RCV and other institutional reforms, VotePact doesn't require waiting for governmental sign off that may never come. Anyone can do this right now with someone from the other side of the duopoly.

A related problem is polling. Most polls are phrased something like 'if the election were held today, which of the following would you vote for: Democrat Joe Biden, Republican Donald Trump, Libertarian Jo Jorgensen or Howie Hawkins, the Green Party candidate.' But that just echos the voting bind and doesn't get at voter preference.

If pollsters cared to measure actual voter preferences, they would ask people to rank candidates 1-2-3, RCV style. Or they can ask: "Biden, Trump, Jorgensen and Hawkins are in a four-way tie. You are the tie-breaker, the deciding vote. Who do you vote for?' That would get at actual voter preference. 

But voter preference and control are hindered, including by the Commission on Presidential Debates, a creation of the establishment Democrats and Republicans that is sponsoring what should be called a joint televised appearance Thursday night between Trump and Biden. Third party candidates are having their own debate with the group Free and Equal on Saturday. See my letter 'The Huge Problem with Polls' to Frank Newport of Gallup and the CPD. 

Some advocate that people voting third party in safe states and 'lesser evil' in swing states, which is certainly a positive step, but it obviously restricts voter choice in 'swing states,' is likely a recipe for muffling national advocacy of third parties -- and it's not scalable. That is, a third party candidate gaining traction would likely redefine which states are safe states, though that seems unlikely this year. VoteTrumpOut lists these as swing states: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, or Wisconsin.

But VotePact can work with two people in any state and it doesn't advocate for any candidate, it is simply a tool anyone can use to strategically vote for their preferred candidate with the radical act of cooperating with someone from the other side of the partisan divide. If needed, the issue of trust in this election can be overcome by people filling out mail in ballots together. A PAC backing Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson rebranded VotePact as 'The Balanced Rebellion' in 2016, got 37 million views on Facebook with an entertaining video featuring 'dead Abe Lincoln' and helped Johnson score the biggest third party success since Ross Perot. However, most third party candidates seem to have no strategy for electoral success, the Greens this year are saying they are largely out to preserve their ballot access.