May 25, 2024



Formation of a COVID19 Red Team – Updated

Formation of a COVID19 Red Team – Updated

Updated 6 April 2020:

Unconstrained Analytics, Inc recommends the formation of a Red Team to assess activities associated with the COVID19 Pandemic from a political warfare perspective.

Download document: UA-Inc-Recommendation-for-a-COVID19-Red-Team 6APR20 (pdf)


Unconstrained Analytics, Inc recommends the formation of a Red Team to assess activities associated with the COVID19 Pandemic from a political warfare perspective.

Recognizing the necessity of undertaking all necessary public health measures to protect the population, Unconstrained Analytics, Inc recommends the formation of a Red Team to assess activities associated with the COVID19 Pandemic from a political warfare perspective.

Pandemics constitute a national security threat in their own right and demand an associated targeted intelligence collection effort. There are many aspects to the COVID19 Pandemic that raise red flags.

America is under intense public health, financial, economic, political, regulatory, social, psychological, media, and ideological stress. There are known political warfare scenarios that envision the leveraging of these circumstances to maneuver America into precisely the situation it currently finds itself – a situation that makes it vulnerable to hostile political warfare exploitation. As the Soviets would say, “Comrad, there are no exceptions.”


In 2019, Unconstrained Analytics, Inc warned of the urgent need to reassess current events from a political warfare perspective in Re-Remembering the MisRemembered Left. Political warfare is also known as the Maoist Insurgency Model.

While the principal focus in Re-Remembering is domestic, political warfare analysis includes both alliances and international activities. Early in the paper, two Chinese Colonels were quoted from their 1999 war college thesis to warn that America’s foes recognize America’s strategic vulnerability: that the United States is not capable of defending itself against hostilities waged at the political warfare level. From Unrestricted Warfare:

  • “Whether it be the intrusion of hackers, a major explosion at the World Trade Center, of a bombing attack by bin Laden, all of these greatly exceed the frequency bandwidths understood by the American military . . . This is because they have never taken into consideration and have even refused to consider means that are contrary to tradition and to select measures of operation other than military means.”[1]

Amplifying the relevance of the Chinese Colonels’ comments in the context of the pressures brought about by COVID19, the following textbox puts their observation in context.

[1] Col Qiao Liang, Col Wang Xiangsui, Unrestricted Warfare: China’s Master Plan to Destroy America, Pan American Publishing, Panama City, Panama, 2002 (Originally published in 1999 by China’s People’s Liberation Army, China, 1999), 122.

Unrestricted Warfare,1

Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui

Beijing: PLA Literature and Arts Publishing House, February 1999, 121 – 124.

The Americans have actually not been so dull as to not have the slightest reaction to this problem. Steven Maizi [as printed 7796 5417] and Thomas Kaiweite [0481 4850 3676] of the Strategic Institute of the Army War College of the United States who brought forth the problem of “the frequency band width of the new military revolution” had actually become sensitive to this point. They discovered the gap between the American military in terms of military thought and the real threat facing national security. Having thought lag behind reality (much less to speak of surpassing it) is not only a shortcoming of American soldiers, but it is very typical of them. When “a military gives excessive focus on dealing with a certain specified type of enemy,” this can possibly result in their being attacked and defeated by another enemy outside of their field of vision. Steven Maizi and

Thomas Kaiweite correctly expressed their concerns about this. They further pointed out that:

    • “Even though official documents stress the army (we can understand it as meaning the entire American military – note by the authors [Steven Maizi and Thomas Kaiweite]), it is necessary to break through fixed modern Western thinking to broaden the conception of future conflicts. However, most of the descriptions of how the digitized troops of the 21st century will conduct war sound like an armored war using new technology to fight with the Warsaw Pact nations.”

It is because the American military is making war preparations guided by this type of military thinking that they naturally hope war is like running into their own muzzle which is what they expect. Such ridiculous wishful thinking can only bring on one type of future prospect:

    • “The vast majority of development plans of the present American military, such as those of the army for the 21st century, are all focused upon dealing with an enemy with conventional heavy armor, and if the United States encounters an enemy with low level technology, an intermediate level enemy, or one with equivalent power at the beginning of the next century, then the problem of insufficient frequency band width will possibly occur.” 16

Actually, with the next century having still not yet arrived, the American military has already encountered trouble from insufficient frequency band width brought on by the three above mentioned types of enemies. Whether it be the intrusions of hackers, a major explosion at the World Trade Center, or a bombing attack by bin Laden, all of these greatly exceed the frequency band widths understood by the American military. The American military is naturally inadequately prepared to deal with this type of enemy psychologically, in terms or measures, and especially as regards military thinking and the methods of operation derived from this.This is because they have never taken into consideration and have even refused to consider means that are contrary to tradition and to select measures of operation other than military means.This will naturally not allow them to add and combine the two into new measures and new methods of operation.

In actuality, it only requires broadening one’s outlook a little and being uninhibited in thought to be able to avail oneself of the lever of the great volumes of new technology and new factors springing up from the age of integrated technology, thus prying loose the wheel of the military revolution rusted as a result of lagging behind in terms of thinking. We can here appreciate the deep significance of the old saying, “a stone from other hills may serve to polish the jade of this one.”

It would be well if we were somewhat bold and completely mixed up the cards in our hand, combined them again, and saw what the result would be.

Supposing a war broke out between two developed nations already possessing full information technology, and relying upon traditional methods of operation, the attacking side would generally employ the modes of great depth, wide front, high strength, and three-dimensionality to launch a campaign assault against the enemy. Their method does not go beyond satellite reconnaissance, electronic countermeasures, large-scale air attacks plus precision attacks, ground outflanking, amphibious landings, air drops behind enemy lines … the result is not that the enemy nation proclaims defeat, but rather one returns with one’s own spears and feathers.

However, by using the combination method, a completely different scenario and game can occur: if the attacking side secretly musters large amounts of capital without the enemy nation being aware of this at all and launches a sneak attack against its financial markets, then after causing a financial crisis, buries a computer virus and hacker detachment in the opponent’s computer system in advance, while at the same time carrying out a network attack against the enemy so that the civilian electricity network, traffic dispatching network, financial transaction network, telephone communications network, and mass media network are completely paralyzed, this will cause the enemy nation to fall into social panic, street riots, and a political crisis.

There is finally the forceful bearing down by the army, and military means are utilized in gradual stages until the enemy is forced to sign a dishonorable peace treaty. This admittedly does not attain to the domain spoken of by Sun Zi, wherein “the other army is subdued without fighting. However, it can be considered to be “subduing the other army through clever operations.” It is very clear who was superior and who inferior when comparing these two methods of operation.

This is, however, only a thought. However, it is certainly a feasible thought. Based on this thought, we need only shake the kaleidoscope of addition to be able to combine into an inexhaustible variety of methods of operation.

Military – Trans-military – Non-military

    • Atomic warfare –  Diplomatic warfare – Financial warfare
    • Conventional warfare – Network warfare – Trade warfare
    • Bio-chemical warfare – Intelligence warfare – Resources warfare
    • Ecological warfare – Psychological warfare – Economic aid warfare
    • Space warfare  -Tactical warfare – Regulatory warfare
    • Electronic warfare – Smuggling warfare – Sanction warfare
    • Guerrilla warfare – Drug warfare –Media warfare
    • Terrorist warfare – Virtual warfare (deterrence) – Ideological warfare

Any of the above types of methods of operation can be combined with another of the above methods of operation to form a completely new method of operation.17 Regardless of whether it is intentional or unintentional, the carrying out of combined methods of operation using different methods of operation that go beyond domains and categories has already been applied by many nations in the practice of warfare.

For example, the countermeasure used by the Americans against bin Laden is national terrorist warfare + intelligence warfare + financial warfare + network warfare + regulatory warfare; another example is what the NATO nations used to deal with the Southern Alliance Kosovo crisis: deterrence with the use of force + diplomatic warfare (alliance) + regulatory warfare; prior to this, the United Nations under pressure mainly from the United States adopted the methods of operation against Iraq: conventional warfare + diplomatic warfare + sanction warfare + media warfare + psychological warfare + intelligence warfare, etc.

16. Research Report of the Strategic Institute of the United States Army War College, Strategy and the Military Revolution: From Theory to Policy.

17. In our view, the three types of warfare here are all down-to-earth warfare and not allegorical or descriptive. Military-type wars are always traditional and classical wars which use weapons; the various types of wars among the non-military type are confrontational and nothing abnormal, yet they display warfare behavior and they are all novel; trans-military type wars are situated between the two wherein some have previous methods such as psychological warfare and intelligence warfare, and some are comprised of completely new methods such as network warfare and virtual warfare (this refers to the methods of electronic virtual and of Mozi [1075 1311] thwarting Gong Shu Ban [0361 6551 3803]. See the chapter entitled Gong Shu Ban Sets Up Machinery for the State of Chu to Attack the State of Song in Strategies of the Warring States, Protective Strategies of the Song).

Whether by design or not, we are where the Colonels would have us. The Chinese Colonels’ 1999 vision of future unrestricted warfare proved to be prescient concerning 9/11 and America’s inability to respond adequately. They also advocated a form of warfare that closely fits the situation in which America now finds itself. This, alone, warrants attention. Given these facts, any intelligence collection effort aimed at the standing up of a Red Team should be structured to rule-out political warfare activity, and not to rule it in. If an assessment cannot rule out a political warfare component to pandemic-related events, indicators should then be developed that can.  Stated in Intelligence terms:

  • In the most likely course of action, the COVID19 Pandemic is a naturally caused event brought on by poor public health and sanitation practices in China that nonetheless constitutes a national security threat to the United States, or;
  • In the most dangerous course of action, the Chinese government would use such an event, whether natural or engineered, as a political warfare platform. In this case, it serves as an even greater national security threat.

On the importance of calling Marxism Marxism (or Communism), Re-Remembering the MisRemembered Left was criticized for using old fashioned “divisive” terms like Marxism or Communism to explain the nature of the Left confronting America today. But consider, China is a Communist country that conceptualizes conflict along political warfare lines that are opaque to most American national security professionals. The General-Secretary of The World Health Organization (The WHO), Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, rose to power as a leader in a brutal communist regime in Ethiopia. While some may want to make too much of this, Unconstrained Analytics warns against discounting it too easily.


The WHO has put out questionable information. Tedros Adhanom, the General-Director of the WHO has links to China, the Marxist left, and terrorism. From XRVision:

Formation of a COVID19 Red Team – Updated

The information provided above on Tedros was made available by XRVision on March 23, 2020. Since this posting however, additional details and developments regarding Tedros, Ethiopia, the WHO, and China have emerged:


  • October 22, 2016  Regarding the October 2, 2016 Irreecha Cultural Festival massacre in Bishoftu, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia officially stated that, “No one was shot. Indeed, it is quite clear from the videos that there was no shooting and the police were unarmed. BACKGROUND:
    • Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus was the Ethiopian Minister of Foreign Affairs at that time (November 29, 2012 to November 1, 2016.)
    • Tedros lied about the massacre. As the graphic below suggests, and as The Illustrated Primer’s “When Tedros moves His Lips, Beijing Speaks,” a comprehensive analysis well worth the read, basic due diligence should never have countenanced the placement of Tedros as the chief official of the WHO. The United States is supposed to heavily rely on the WHO as a credible source of advice and information during a pandemic crisis. Yet, as will be further demonstrated, it is clear that Tedros’ history of prevarication, exaggeration, and coverup is grossly inappropriate to the grave responsibilities which have been entrusted to him.
Formation of a COVID19 Red Team – Updated
  • May 21, 2017 – Ethiopian Dr. Endalkachew Chala published a last ditch plea to stop Dr. Tedros’s selection as WHO’s Director-General. Tedros was known to Chala as a human rights abuser. Moreover, Tedros covered up epidemics like cholera. HISTORY:
  • May 18, 2017 – the Washington Post published “Ethiopia’s Candidate for World Health Organization doesn’t like Mentioning a Certain Disease.” The article described how Ethiopia’s then Health Minister, Tedros Adhanon Ghebreyesus, obstructed efforts to contain both Ebola and Cholera.
  • May 13, 2017 – The New York Times published “Candidate to Lead W.H.O. Accused of Covering up Epidemics.” It stated that “the likely rationale for not calling the disease cholera is the same one that delayed the labeling of the Ebola outbreak an emergency in 2014 — it would make Ethiopia look bad, hurt tourism and could result in some countries banning food exports from Ethiopia.”

American mainstream media has been on notice of Tedros’ background well before the COVID-19 outbreak.


  • March 23, 2020 – Detection – “When Tedros Moves His Lips, Beijing Speaks”
  • March 23, 2020 – GP – “WHO Director-General, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Reportedly”
  • March 27, 2020 – Fox – “WHO chief’s questionable past comes into focus following coronavirus response.”
  • March  31 2020 – Fox – “WHO leadership is a ‘lapdog’ for the Chinese government.”
  • April 1, 2020 –Legislator – “GOP senator wants coronavirus hearings, probe over WHO role promoting China’s ‘misinformation’.’’
  • April 2, 2020 – Canada’s Global Research: Centre for Research on Globalization published: “Can We Trust the WHO?” The article highlights the institution’s systemic corruption. This ought to have cast serious doubt upon the WHO’s fitness and credibility to perform the duties for which it exists.
  • April 3, 2020 – Foreign Policy published “How WHO Became China’s Coronavirus Accomplice.” This article builds on WHO’s questionable role in the COVID-19 epidemic.
  • COVID19 can be very useful for many reasons. For example:
    • It highlights and attacks a critical node in society – ICU beds, for example. Overwhelmed ICUs, take the healthcare system offline, and foster fatalities from other illnesses.
    • COVID19 wreaks havoc on populations with poor health (old, infirm, smokers, obese, etc.).
  • There are concerns that media coverage of COVID-19 rests within a controlled narrative arc that gives certain players with a dominant position the ability to shape public perceptions while excluding competing players and the information they have to offer. (See “Narrative Dominance”)
    • Some of the credible sources denied a forum in the mainstream media include the life science and medical journal STATYale’s Prevention Research Center, Stanford’s Medical staff, MIT (even with political motivation caveats), and Germany’s elite Institute for Medical Microbiology at the Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz.
  • “Social media should stop with the globalist conspiracy theories!” April 4, 2020 – The Financial Times (of London) is calling for “radical reforms” like a basic income and wealth tax in the light of this pandemic, “FT Editorial
  • April 6, 2020 – Pressenza reports “Gorbachev: Time to Revise the Entire Global Agenda.”


  • May 2006 – The United States Homeland Security Council releases the National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza Implementation Plan published by the CDC. The Implementation Plan was written as a specific response to the 1997 Avian Flu (H5N1) [referenced 167 times] but was also a response to the SARs pandemic (2002-2003)[mentioned 7 times]. Yet, despite causing enough concern to generate the production of a national strategy for pandemic influenza, the Implementation Plan failed to identify China as the origin of either flu strains.
    • The New England Journal of Medicine states that; “The Asian H5N1 virus was first detected in Guangdong Province, China, in 1996, when it killed some geese, but it received little attention until it spread through live-poultry markets in Hong Kong to humans in May 1997, killing 6 of 18 infected persons.”
      • Regarding the Avian Flu (H5N1), the CDC states that “The first report of a human infection with Asian H5N1 in the Americas was inCanada on January 8, 2014, and occurred in a traveler recently returning from China. Although human infections with this virus are rare, approximately 60% of the cases have died.”
    • The WHO identified SARs (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) as a coronavirus (SARS-CoV) that first infected humans in Guangdong province in China in 2002
      • December 12, 2003 – The CDC reported that; “8,098 probable SARS cases were reported to the World Health Organization (WHO) from 29 countries, including 29 cases from the United States; 774 SARS-related deaths (case-fatality rate: 9.6%) were reported, none of which occurred in the United States (6).”
    • Citizens of Hong Kong have long recognized – and become weary of – the chronic health threats arising from Mainland China’s inability to maintain appropriate health and sanitation standards. From the journal STAT; “Like bird flu in 1997 and the SARS epidemic of 2002 to 2003, the newest coronavirus has originated in the mainland, this time in Wuhan, most likely in a market where exotic wild animals are sold.”

Putting aside sensational claims that COVID19 was engineered, there remains the fact that China has an established history of originating pandemic level viruses. As the 2006 National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza Implementation Plan and the current response to COVID19 indicate, this constitutes a national security threat to the United States. China not only signals its willingness to exploit this threat but has formulated political warfare strategies to do so. Since at least 2006, the United States Government has been on notice that pandemics constitute real national security threats in their own right. There is the lingering sense that our National Security and Intelligence Community fail to recognize these pandemic events as such. Hence, the call for a Red Team is a call for addressing COVID19 as the national security crisis that it is.

  • October 21, 2014 – When the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services suspended the University of North Carolina’s “gain of function” research, both Dr. Shi Zhengli and the “gain of function” research transitioned to the Wuhan Institute of VirologyZhengli’s background is in “virology and molecular biology” with a focus on “cross-species bat virus infections.”
  • June 30, 2017 – Fauci was on the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Leadership Council along with the heads of The WHO, and UNICEF. [The date June 30, 2017 is cited because it is the last day Margaret Chan was Director General of The WHO was listed on the form naming them both to the council.] Dr. Fauci’s current status is unclear.
  • March 3, 2019 – The Wuhan Institute of Virology published “Bat Coronaviruses in China.” The document stated that: “It is generally believed that bat-borne CoVs will re-emerge to cause the next disease outbreak. In this regard, China is a likely hotspot. The challenge is to predict when and where, so that we can try our best to prevent such outbreaks.”
  • July 2, 2019 – President of Turkey, Erdogan, meets with Chinese President Xi in Beijing “to boost global stability” “as both nations’ relationships with the United States are tested over economic and diplomatic disputes.” “Turkey sees that China is on the rise and that if the world order is changing, one of its leaders will be China.” Background:
  • March 23, 2019 – Italy Joins China’s “Belt Road Initiative” during President Xi’s visit to Rome. Rome has direct flights with Wuhan. Background: Information about COVID-19’s rapid penetrationof Northern Italy remains underreported. Reports from October 29, 2007, to December 2, 2019, show continuous long-term Chinese presence in areas most severely affected by COVID-19BACKGROUND:
  • October 18, 2019 – “Event 201” held it’s “Global Pandemic Exercise” forecasting millions of deaths. Inserted into the Event 201 webpage is a link the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins School subsequently added, stating, “We are not now predicting that the nCoV-2019 outbreak will kill 65 million” Thus, the Bloomberg School published its own retraction. Nevertheless, it remains true that “Event 201” set the narrative arc that favors the dominant view and continues to do so to this day.
    • Event 201 was funded by the Bloomberg School of Public Health, which is named in honor of Michael Bloomberg, who has contributed close to $3 billion to Johns Hopkins, in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. This is far from bi-partisan.
  • November 6, 2019 – Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security reports on an “Event 201” exercise held on October 18, 2019, concerning “fast-spreading coronavirus with devastating impact.”
    • Support and funding of Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security come from Tianjin University, China, World Health Organization, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Taiwan, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, The Rockefeller Foundation, and others.
  • November 7, 2019 – Netflix releases The Next Pandemic in which Bill Gates figures prominently.
  • November 17, 2019 – The original case, patient zero, of the novel coronavirus emerged according to official Chinese government sources, but was not recognized at that time.
  • December 1, 2019 – The first known patient started experiencing symptoms on December 1, 2019. He had not been to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market of Wuhan. No epidemiological link could be found between this case and later cases.
  • December 12, 2019 – Chinese state broadcaster CCTV reported in a broadcast airing on January 12, 2020, that a “new viral outbreak was first detected in the city of Wuhan, China, on December 12, 2019.
  • December 21, 2019 – Chinese epidemiologists with the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CCDC) published an article on January 20, 2020, stating that the first cluster of patients with “pneumonia of an unknown cause” had been identified on December 21, 2019.
  • December 26, 2019 – A laboratory identified the coronavirus as closely related to a SARS-like virus from the sample collected in December.
  • December 27, 2019 – An almost complete genetic sequencing of the previous sample had been finished and shared with the Institute of Pathogen Biology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College (CAMS&PUMC).
  • December 30, 2019 –
    • Wuhan Dr. Li Wenliang disclosed on a chat service that the hospital had patients with severe flu-like symptoms. The doctor was subsequently detained by authorities and warned not to be “spreading rumors online” and not to be “severely disrupting social order.” On January 12, 2020, Dr. Wenliang contracted COVID19 and was hospitalized. He died in early February 2020.
    • Wuhan medical authorities forbade doctors from making public announcements and ordered them to report cases internally.
    • News of an outbreak of “pneumonia of unknown origin” started circulating on social media on the evening of 30 December 2019.The social media reports stated that 27 patients in Wuhan—most of them were stallholders at the Huanan Seafood Market—had been treated for the mystery illness.
    • It was ONLY AFTER the doctors leaked information on the emerging epidemic that the Wuhan Municipal Health Committee reported to the WHO that 27 people had been diagnosed with pneumonia of unknown cause.
  • January 12, 2020 – One month after (December 12, 2019), Chinese broadcaster CCTV announced a “new viral outbreak in the city of Wuhan.” Almost two weeks (December 30, 2019) later, Wuhan Hospital doctors sent WeChat messages warning of the infectious nature of the SARs-like virus (for which they were detained). On the same day (January 12, 2020) that Dr. Wenliang’s health so severely deteriorated, as a result of treating COVID19 patients, and “was admitted to the intensive care unit and given oxygen support,” the WHO issued a disease outbreak notice stating that “at this stage, there is no infection among healthcare workers, and no clear evidence of human to human transmission.”
  • January 14, 2020 – Either through sheer incompetence or simply covering for the Chinese authorities, the WHO assured the public that “no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the coronavirus (was) identified in Wuhan, China.”
Formation of a COVID19 Red Team – Updated
  • January 19, 2020 – Washington state reports America’s “Patient Zero,” the first COVID19 case in the United States.
  • January 28, 2020 –
    • The CDC reported 34,200 U.S. deaths from influenza in 2018-2019 which was similar to 2012 – 2013
    • The Justice Department charged Harvard Professor Charles Lieber in connection with his Wuhan, China connections. From the Justice Department release:
      • “According to court documents, since 2008, Dr. Lieber who has served as the Principal Investigator of the Lieber Research Group at Harvard University, which specialized in the area of nanoscience, has received more than $15,000,000 in grant funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Department of Defense (DOD). These grants require the disclosure of significant foreign financial conflicts of interest, including financial support from foreign governments or foreign entities. Unbeknownst to Harvard University beginning in 2011, Lieber became a ‘Strategic Scientist’ at Wuhan University of Technology (WUT) in China and was a contractual participant in China’s Thousand Talents Plan from in or about 2012 to 2017.”
      • In a related charge in the same Justice Department release:
        • “Zaosong Zheng, 30, a Chinese national, was arrested on Dec. 10, 2019, at Boston’s Logan International Airport and charged by criminal complaint with attempting to smuggle 21 vials of biological research to China.  On Jan. 21, 2020, Zheng was indicted on one count of smuggling goods from the United States and one count of making false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements.  He has been detained since Dec. 30, 2019.”
      • This is not an isolated event. For example:
      • February 14, 2020 – Reports that “Patient Zero had no connection to the Wuhan seafood market” and that “14 out of 41 patients were not linked to the place.”
      • February 22, 2020 – New York Post published an article that stated, “And then there is this little-known fact: Some Chinese researchers are in the habit of selling their laboratory animals to street vendors after they have finished experimenting on them.”
        • February 24, 2020 – Breitbart followed up on the Post article to amplify that the Wuhan facility is one of China’s two bioweapons research labs.
        • April 1, 2020 – This led Senator Cruz to speculate that the coronavirus might accidentally have been released from the Wuhan facility.
      • March 11, 2020 – The WHO declares a Coronavirus Pandemic.
      • March 11, 2020 – In a Turkish TV interview, a former Turkish Intelligence Colonel with a background in psychological warfare, Coşkun Başbuğ, engaged in disinformation about the cause of COVID-19. He deflected attention away from China by blaming Israel: “Jews, Zionists have organized & engineered Corona virus as biological weapon just like the bird flue & Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever (CCHF). They want to design the world, seize countries, neuter the world’s population.”
Formation of a COVID19 Red Team – Updated

March 13, 2020 – There are indicators that Turkish disinformation activities are aligning with progressive actors with ties to Steele. From The Ark Foundation with permission, Flag Disinformation Campaigns – COVID-19.

Formation of a COVID19 Red Team – Updated

For an additional example of media manipulation, note the change in the Wikipedia entry on the Spanish Flu that occurred between February 20, 2020, and March 16, 2020:

  • February 20, 2020 – Wikipedia entry for the Spanish Flu stated: “Around the globe – The global mortality ratefrom the 1918–1919 pandemic is not known, but an estimated 10% to 20% of those who were infected died (case-fatality ratio).”
  • March 16, 2020 – Wikipedia entry for the Spanish Flu was changed to state: “Around the globe – Estimates vary as to the total number who died. An estimate from 1991 says it killed 25–39 million people. A 2005 estimate put the death toll at probably 50 million (less than 3% of the global population), and possibly as high as 100 million (more than 5%).”
  • April 2, 2020  Wikipedia again changes its entry on the Spanish Flu.
  • NOTE: Running through online sources, references to the Spanish Flu Epidemic of 1918 is common. What is curious is the apparent effort to frame the COVID-19 crisis in terms of the Spanish Flu even if it means making the Spanish Flu fit the narratives driving the COVID-19 discussion. This may be the topic of a separate blog.
Formation of a COVID19 Red Team – Updated
  • March 24, 2020 – Chinese Central Bank announces its intent to issue digital currency.
    • August 12, 2019 – EARLY INDICATOR – Chinese Central Bank announced its plan to release a digital currency.
    • History – September 9, 2009  CBS News reported that the “United Nations Proposes New “Global Currency” where the buried lead is China’s interest in such a transition.
  • March 25, 2020 – The Federalist publishes an expose on COVID Act Now on the same day that TWITTER temporarily locks The Federalist for a separate COVID-19 article for “violating the Twitter Rules regarding COVID-19.
  • April 3, 2020 – Gateway Pundit article, “REVEALED: Soros Invested Heavily in Chinese Biotech Research Company with Facility in Wuhan that Researches Respiratory Models and Infectious Disease,” turns the table on fact-checkers. This entry is not focussed on what Soros does or does not own. Instead it is about the novel role online “fact-checkers” play in purposefully manipulating public opinion to enforce speech codes amounting to censorship. As the Ark Institute AI demonstrates, Soros has or has had an ownership interest in a Chinese Pharma company headquartered in Wuhan, China, that is involved in Virolgy and SARS related R&D.
    • March 15, 2020 – PolitiFact obscured the relationship first by distinguishing actual “ownership” from the purchasing of shares that gives the holder an “ownership interest” and; secondly, by describing WuXi as focussed “primarily on manufacturing and developing medical devices.”
    • April 2, 2020 – The “fact-checker” SNOPES reported the following question as FALSE: “Does George Soros Own a Lab that Developed COVID-19?” This is a much larger – and different – question than whether he owned stock in the company. Like PolitiFactsSNOPES also relied on an obscurantizing “ownership” theme.

As the 2011 SEC Form 13F indicates, Soros Fund Management purchased an ownership interest equaling $3,865,000.00 in WuXi. The fact-checkers could have said that with that level of investment, SFM could hardly have gained a dominant position. Instead, they chose to obscure the situation. As a result, questions whether SFM had voting rights in WuXi, which it id, and whether it could have had a seat on the board were left unaddressed.

This species of so-called “fact-checking” evades legitimate lines of inquiry. For example, through the SMF/WuXi transaction, SMF provided the Chinese government an entry point into the US Pharma market. A simple review of news releases indicates that thisrelationship has led to large-scale drug production in China, and away from the United States.  It has also resulted in the transfer of intellectual property from the United States to China that is required for the successful operation of large-scale R&D.

  • April 3, 2020 – Gateway Pundit reports that Dr. Birx, the White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator, also sits on a Gates-funded Foundation Board, The Global Fund. In that capacity, Birx promoted the Gates-funded model that was promoted by the Gates-funded Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation – IHME. As noted, this model turned out to be substantially inaccurate.

Dr. Birx has a professional relationship with the Gates Foundation, and Dr. Fauci was and may still be on the Gates Foundation Leadership Council. Therefore, President Trump seems to be surrounded and heavily influenced by senior COVID-19 staff with personal and professional interests beholden to the Gates Foundation which may add up to a grave conflict of interest. Given Gates Foundation support to Event 201 and the Johns Hopkins program, along with the Foundation’s support for the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, whose interests are really being addressed by COVID-19 decisions that affect the life of each and every American citizen? 


According to political warfare assessments, the COVID19 Pandemic places America in a state of extreme vulnerability. Simultaneously, China is advancing political warfare strategies to manipulate and exploit existing or perceived vulnerabilities, and to create those that do not yet exist. Therefore, a Red Team should be formed immediately to assess the situation along political warfare lines.

In making this recommendation, Unconstrained Analytics, Inc accepts the Chinese Colonel’s 1999 assessment that America is incapable of properly recognizing or effectively responding to hostilities waged at the political warfare level. There is no reason to believe that the Chinese estimation has changed since 1999.

Whether foreign or domestic, Neo-Marxist, or the Islamic Movement actors, America’s foes have long since concluded that America’s strategic vulnerability lies in its inability to defend its interests in the political warfare battlespace. It is only in this battlespace that China can realize its higher vision of warfare by “subduing the other through clever operations.”