U.S. Army Major General Paul Vallely (Ret.) speaks out on REELTalk with Audrey Russo. They discuss the current state of affairs regarding the civil unrest in major cities across the country. Should President Trump invoke the Insurrection Act? What has been the reaction to Antifa by city leaders where violent rioting and looting has erupted?
By: Col. Lawrence Sellin (Ret.) | CCNS
A disturbing pattern of cooperation between Dr. Anthony Fauci’s NIAID and the Chinese military raises questions about technology transfer and the origins of the current COVID-19 pandemic.
U.S. patent number 8933106 entitled “2-(4-substituted phenylamino) polysubstituted pyridine compounds as inhibitors of non-nucleoside HIV reverse transcriptase, preparation methods and uses thereof” is assigned to the Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Academy of Military Medical Sciences of China’s People’s Liberation Army.
One of the inventors of that patent, Shibo Jiang, is a graduate of the First and Fourth Medical University of the People’s Liberation Army, Xi’an, China.
He is a long-time collaborator with institutions associated with the Chinese military and, since 1997, a recipient of U.S. government research grants from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci.
In one of the two scientific references used to support the above-mentioned patent “Discovery of diarylpyridine derivatives as novel non-nucleoside HIV-1 reverse transcriptase inhibitors,” Shibo Jiang is listed as a co-author, along with the four other inventors on the patent.
In the Acknowledgments section of that scientific publication, which supports the patent application, three separate NIAID grants are cited, two of which, AI46221 and AI33066, were awarded to co-inventors on the patent, Shibo Jiang and Kuo-Hsiung Lee, respectively.
Shibo Jiang and Kuo-Hsiung Lee are co-inventors on another U.S. patent, 8309602, also assigned to the Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Academy of Military Medical Sciences of China’s People’s Liberation Army.
Although no scientific publications are listed in the 8309602 patent, you can compare the chemical compounds with those in “Diarylaniline Derivatives as a Distinct Class of HIV-1 Nonnucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors,” which has as co-authors all the co-inventors of the patent.
That research was also supported by three separate NIAID grants, two of which, AI46221 and AI33066, were awarded to co-inventors on the patent, Shibo Jiang and Kuo-Hsiung Lee, respectively.
NIAID funding of China’s military research programs does not appear to be restricted to those two patents.
Since 2004, Shibo Jiang has had scientific collaboration with Yusen Zhou, who was a professor at the State Key Laboratory of Pathogen and Biosecurity, Institute of Microbiology and Epidemiology, Academy of Military Medical Sciences in Beijing.
It is unclear whether Yusen Zhou also received his education at one of China’s military medical universities, but his early scientific work was associated with the Department of Infectious Disease, 81st Hospital of the People’s Liberation Army, Nanjing Military Command, and the Fourth Medical University of People’s Liberation Army, Xi’an, Shibo Jiang’s alma mater.
Until his recent death, Yusen Zhou’s collaboration with Shibo Jiang continued into the COVID-19 pandemic, publishing a July 30, 2020, Science article together with institutions associated with China’s military.
In a 2014 article, Shibo Jiang was working with the Institute of Biotechnology, Academy of Military Medical Sciences, Beijing.
In 2017, he conducted research with the Translational Medicine Center, People’s Liberation Army Hospital No. 454, and the Department of Epidemiology, Medicinal Research Institute, Nanjing Military Command.
Between 2012 and 2020, Shibo Jiang has published twelve scientific articles with the Wuhan Institute of Virology and eleven articles between 2013 and 2020 with the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB), Galveston Texas.
The UTMB has been designated one of the ten Centers for Research in Emerging Infectious Diseases newly funded by a NIAID grant totaling $82 million. UTMB has at least two permanent faculty members trained at China’s Military Medical Universities, has had connections to or former employees from the Wuhan Institute of Virology and Yusen Zhou’s State Key Laboratory of Pathogen and Biosecurity, Institute of Microbiology and Epidemiology, Academy of Military Medical Sciences in Beijing, as well as other Chinese institutions.
Another new center is the EcoHealth Alliance, a long-time collaborator with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which has been awarded $7.5 million.
Given the history described above and before any new funding is allocated, an investigation and auditing of previous NIAID grants should be undertaken to determine exactly how much U.S. taxpayer money has benefitted China’s military.
Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired U.S. Army Reserve colonel, who previously worked at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases and conducted basic and clinical research in the pharmaceutical industry. He is a member of the Citizens Commission on National Security. His email address is [email protected].
By: Denise Simon | Founders Code
Novichok is a series of nerve agent weapons developed as part of a secret Soviet program and continued once the Soviet Union collapsed.
A Novichok nerve agent was used to poison the former Russian double agent Sergey Skripal in the English town of Salisbury in 2018. Also in 2018, British counterterrorism officials on Wednesday confirmed that two people found unconscious near the same site where a former Russian spy and his daughter were poisoned earlier this year were exposed to the same nerve agent, novichok, The Guardian reported.
British nationals Dawn Sturgess, 44, from Salisbury, and Charlie Rowley, 45, of Amesbury, were the victims reported by Scotland Yard.
The weapons were developed under a program known as “Foliant,” according to Mirzayanov. In the 1990s, he had been tasked with ensuring the secrecy of Russia’s chemical weapons program, but he decided to go public because he believed the program violated the country’s commitment to the Chemical Weapons Convention that it had signed along with the United States. More here.
NPR: Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, hospitalized in Berlin for several weeks after being poisoned, has been taken out of his medically induced coma.
In this August photo, Alexei Navalny poses for a photo with Siberian politician Ksenia Fadeyeva. Navalny was removed from a medically-induced coma in a Berlin hospital after suffering what German authorities say was a poisoning with a chemical nerve agent while traveling in Siberia in August. Andrei Fateyev/AP
In a statement Monday, Berlin’s Charité hospital said Navalny’s condition has improved and he is being weaned off mechanical ventilation. Navalny is responding to verbal stimuli, however, “it remains too early to gauge the potential long-term effects of his severe poisoning,” the hospital said.
The hospital only released details of Navalny’s condition after first consulting with his wife, who reassured doctors that Navalny would want that information released.
The 44-year-old politician, one of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s most prominent critics, became ill from poison on Aug. 20 during a domestic flight in Russia. Suspicion immediately fell on the Russian government, which has poisoned critics of the state before.
Two days later, Navalny was flown to Germany for treatment, where doctors put him into a coma. A German military laboratory confirmed last week that Navalny had consumed a variant of Novichok, a Soviet-era nerve agent, prompting the German government to demand a Russian investigation.
“There’s no doubt whatsoever” that Navalny’s poisoning was approved by the highest levels of Russia’s government, former CIA chief of Russia operations Steven Hall told NPR’s Mary Louise Kelly.
The U.K. summoned the Russian ambassador to the country Monday to express its “deep concern” over Navalny’s poisoning, First Secretary of State Dominic Raab said on Twitter. “It’s completely unacceptable that a banned chemical weapon has been used and Russia must hold a full, transparent investigation,” he said.
The Kremlin has dismissed accusations that it had anything to do with poisoning Navalny. “Attempts to somehow associate Russia with what happened are unacceptable to us, they are absurd,” Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said, according to the BBC.
Now the big question is what are the consequences to be against Russia and where will the United States, Britain, or Germany be on this matter… crickets.
By: Denise Simon | Founders Code
Head fakes or rather deep fakes everywhere. Remember there was some robust chatter claiming that Ukraine was the genesis of the Trump impeachment process? Looks like he could be more right than wrong…
Hat tip to Byron York:
The most interesting thing about Byron York’s exhaustively reported and richly detailed new impeachment book, “Obsession: Inside the Washington Establishment’s Never-Ending War on Trump,” is that the whistleblower who filed the official complaint that got impeachment rolling isn’t ever identified.
It turns out that the heated discussion over the whistleblower, who was previously identified by Real Clear Investigations as the CIA’s Eric Ciaramella, was a diversion from allowing the American people to understand who was the actual instigator of the failed effort to oust President Donald Trump from office.
Rather than being a witness who independently supported the claims of the whistleblower, the National Security Council’s Lt. Col Alex Vindman was the driving force behind the entire operation, according to the book’s interviews with key figures in the impeachment probe and other evidence. The whistleblower’s information came directly from Vindman, investigators determined.
“Vindman was the person on the call who went to the whistleblower after the call, to give the whistleblower the information he needed to file his complaint,” said Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y.
“For all intents and purposes, Vindman is the whistleblower here, but he was able to get somebody else to do his dirty work for him,” explained one senior congressional aide.
Vindman was the only person at the National Security Council (NSC) listening in on the infamous call between President Donald Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky to be concerned by it. Vindman immediately began talking to his identical twin brother Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman, who also worked at the NSC. The twins both complained to NSC Counsel John Eisenberg. Alex Vindman talked about it with his direct supervisor Tim Morrison, who was also on the call. He talked about it with another NSC lawyer, Michael Ellis.
Vindman testified that he talked to only two people outside the NSC. One was George Kent, a State Department official who dealt with Ukraine. He refused to say who the other person was. Both Vindman and Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who led the impeachment proceedings, strenuously resisted any attempt by investigators to discuss who the other individual was, admitting only that it was a member of the “intelligence community,” the same nebulous descriptor used for the whistleblower.
In his complaint, the whistleblower claimed “multiple White House officials with direct knowledge of the call” described to him the contents of the conversation. It is unclear if he was sourcing his knowledge just to multiple Vindmans or any other White House officials.
The description of the call appeared to come from the White House’s rough transcript, which Vindman helped prepare. It repeated Vindman’s unique interpretation of the call as seeking foreign interference in a campaign. It mentioned that lawyers had been informed, and Vindman had done just that. The complaint also included information from public news reports.
At first Schiff publicly promised that the whistleblower would testify and that any attempt by the White House to thwart that would be fought vigorously. But then news broke that Schiff’s office had worked with the whistleblower prior to him filing his complaint. Schiff switched his stance to refusing to allow the whistleblower to testify. What’s more, he refused to allow any investigation into how the Ukraine investigation began.
The real instigator of the Ukraine investigation, Vindman, testified before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on October 29, 2019, and returned to the House in November for public testimony. York writes that Vindman’s extensive testimony was more complex than news reports suggested.
Vindman repeatedly said that he viewed Trump’s phone call with Zelensky as “wrong,” but he was unable to articulate precisely why. He expressed frustration that the elected president was pushing a foreign policy at odds from the “interagency consensus” of the bureaucracy that he felt should control foreign policy.
Vindman admitted under questioning that he had thrice been offered the prestigious position of defense minister for the Ukraine government. Despite his focus on Ukraine at the NSC, Vindman did not appear knowledgeable about well-established Ukrainian corruption problems. Vindman is a Ukrainian American. He grew hostile with members who sought to understand exactly to whom he had disclosed the phone call.
Using detailed information from interviews with White House officials, members of Congress, and their key staff, York shows how Republicans had to deal with Rep. Adam Schiff’s determination to hide from the American public not just who the whistleblower was but anything about the process that led to the whistleblower complaint.
But Schiff’s behavior inadvertently confirmed how the whistleblower found his information. Every time that members asked about the second non-NSC person Vindman disclosed the call to, Schiff and other Democrats would direct the witness to not answer in order to “protect the whistleblower.” York writes:
Could that have been any clearer? The Republican line of questioning established that: 1) Vindman told two people outside the NSC. 2) One of them was George Kent. And 3) The other was in the Intelligence Community but could not be revealed because Democrats did not want to identify the whistleblower. It did not take a rocket scientist to conclude that that unidentified other person was the whistleblower.
York shows that one of the reasons Republicans stopped pressing the issue was that while they opposed Vindman pushing his own foreign policy goals over the president’s, they respected his military service. “Republicans saw Vindman as a loyal American who had strong and inflexible views on what U.S. policy toward Ukraine should be and who was offended, and spurred to action, when the President of the United States appeared to change them,” York writes.
When Vindman retired from the Army in July 2020, media reports claimed he did so because of a hostile work environment. He had been transferred from the NSC in February 2020, following Trump’s acquittal on the charges that Vindman’s complaints instigated. Vindman received no punishment for his insubordination and disobeying of a direct order to not work with Congress on impeachment.
“Obsession: Inside the Washington Establishment’s Never-Ending War on Trump” was released today.