Chinese scientists have been preparing for a Third World War fought with biological and genetic weapons including coronavirus for the last six years, according to a document obtained by US investigators. MailOnline has more.
The bombshell paper, accessed by the US State Department, insists they will be “the core weapon for victory” in such a conflict, even outlining the perfect conditions to release a bioweapon, and documenting the impact it would have on “the enemy’s medical system”.
This latest evidence that Beijing considered the military potential of SARS coronaviruses from as early as 2015 has also raised fresh fears over the cause of COVID-19, with some officials still believing the virus could have escaped from a Chinese lab.
The dossier by People’s Liberation Army scientists and health officials, details of which were reported in the Australian, examined the manipulation of diseases to make weapons “in a way never seen before”.
Senior government figures say it “raises major concerns” over the intentions of those close to Chinese President Xi Jinping amid growing fears about the country’s lack of regulation over its activity in laboratories.
The authors of the document insist that a third world war “will be biological”, unlike the first two wars which were described as chemical and nuclear respectively.
Referencing research which suggested the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan forced them to surrender, and bringing about the end of WWII, they claim bioweapons will be “the core weapon for victory” in a third world war.
The document also outlines the ideal conditions to release a bioweapon and cause maximum damage.
The scientists say such attacks should not be carried out in the middle of a clear day, as intense sunlight can damage the pathogens, while rain or snow can affect the aerosol particles.
Instead, it should be released at night, or at dawn, dusk, or under cloudy weather, with “a stable wind direction… so that the aerosol can float into the target area”.
Meanwhile, the research also notes that such an attack would result in a surge of patients requiring hospital treatment, which then “could cause the enemy’s medical system to collapse”.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“Covid hit the UK” Ffs!
I’m sure the authors of the report were all vocal in discouraging the “clapping” during the “pandemic”
Their silence was deafening, add also the key worker title for some turned them from self important oiks to really annoying, patronising, self important oiks, who feel they are even more entitled than what they considered themselves to be, prior to the covid initiated stop everything we need to do a national stock take debacle.
Clapping For NHS
May HaveWas Designed To Ensure it Was ShieldeditFrom Necessary Criticism And To Support An Entirely False NarrativeClapping for the NHS was a propaganda tool – one of countless others deployed during Covid – but served a very specific and critically important purpose. For the state to keep the lie alive it needed regular buy-in from the populace, and it needed to shape a war-type spirit of “we’re all in this together”. The state needed people to see that other people stood alongside them, and also stood alongside the organs of the state (NHS, BBC etc). This was absolutely fundamental to their psyop. Also the reason for masks of course.
No entity which produces something for consumption that is not part of a market price mechanism can know how its output is valued by those who consume it, cannot quantify efficiency or labour productivity, cannot manage its output to serve consumer interests.
It has no basis on which it can change to improve.
No entity which is assured it can never go bankrupt and the people in it lose their jobs, because it is protected by the entire political class for purely political reasons, has any incentive to put the needs of those who consume its output ahead of its own needs and those running it.
Each Party/Government can evade responsibility for the dire state of the NHS by blaming the one in power previously – serial denial.
NHS staff have been trained by the political class for the last 70 years to deflect criticism and avoid any blame by screeching: Not enough funding! Not enough doctors and nurses! And everyone’s favourite: Tory cuts!
The NHS is a fundamentally flawed institution as are all State-run socialised entities. Why people imagine it can be fixed when the fifty odd previous attempts to fix it failed, beggars belief.
The NHS, like the Norwegian Blue, is bloody-dead-mate – long dead, stillborn. Putting rouge on the cheeks of the corpse every now and then won’t bring it back to life.
We’ll put.
My father (in his 90’s) died last year having had a working life in company finance, his last role being that of company secretary. The quality of care he received when he became dependent on the NHS service in his last few years was seriously uncoordinated between the various clinical disciplines which had implications for his overall quality of care. He was continually saying that the NHS was far to too big to manage and had systemic structural issues that were not due to finance per se. His view was that the only hope was for it to be broken up.
I am proud to say that I never once clapped or banged pots and pans for “Our Wonderful NHS™”.
I went outside one Tuesday evening wondering what all the noise was about and quite honestly I thought I was dreaming. Then a few seconds later I thought simply,
“… idiots,”
and went back inside.
“Ms. Hilsenrath also emphasised that reform of the NHS should not focus on changing its funding, but the way it works”
The NHS will never change the way it works while there is no incentive to do so. The incentive being competition. The NHS absolutely needs to change it’s funding model, no other country uses the same system and while we have a state funded monopoly provider nothing will get better. The decline in service, productivity and health outcomes will continue, while the taxpayer funds the NHS.
Why should they get better when there are no penalties for failure?