The toll of the Covid-19 coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) epidemic has already reached 200,000 deaths and several million people infected throughout the world barely 6 weeks after the “pandemic” alert triggered by the WHO.

Financial markets have experienced the most violent and rapid crash in their history, governments are flirting with political crisis, entire countries are on lockdown and militaries are struggling to operate normally.

China is accused of having censored the doctors who raised the alarm about human-to-human transmission of the virus in early January 2020 and of having concealed the emergence of the virus on its territory as soon as November 2019, according to mainly Western sources.

While the animal origin of the virus from a food market is still prioritized, doubts have recently been expressed in both the Western and Asian press (excluding China) that it could originate from a P4 laboratory in Wuhan.

This succession of facts, the origin and chronology of which do not seem to be entirely spontaneous, added to the particularly serious human and economic consequences of the epidemic, especially in Western countries, raises questions of a procedural or protocol origin.

Considering the excessively worrying magnitude of the crisis and the dangers it represents for the interests of the affected countries, the most powerful among them may not deal with it from the health viewpoint alone.

Indeed, and without being specifically requested to do so, it can be assumed that intelligence agencies and military staffs are not ruling out any leads on the causes and effects of the coronavirus epidemic.

This is not necessarily a question of finding a culprit for a virus whose origin is more likely to be animal than anything else, but since countries are paying a high price and their national security is being affected, it makes sense to proceed on a “need to know” basis.

Answering definitively the questions on the origin and nature of the virus as well as on possible motivations is therefore a natural imperative of national security considering that the notion, deliberately vague, of “vital interests” could be engaged, in the most serious hypothesis and with consequences of a strategic nature.

For example, one may assume that the fact that Prime Minister Boris Johnson was so ill with the virus that he was rushed to intensive care triggered a series of protocols relating to UK’s national security and aimed at “knowing everything” about the virus.

Under these circumstances, and depending on the results of the investigations currently being carried out and publicly referred to only by the U.S. and UK governments, trade, diplomatic and strategic developments can’t be ruled out in the context of this health crisis if the action (or inaction) of a third country were duly proven.

Contents published on do not constitute investment advice.


Read more

More Posts...