COVID Pandemic Response
See also: Was COVID a Bioweapon?, COVID-19 Pandemic
The Pandemic Response as an Instrument of Statecraft
The global response to the COVID-19 pandemic was deeply intertwined with the sophisticated apparatus of modern statecraft and influence operations, often described as Soft Power.
Far from being solely a public health crisis, the pandemic and the reactions to it demonstrated the seamless integration of government agencies, private sector entities, civil society organisations, and media to control narratives and shape outcomes on both international and domestic fronts.
A key aspect highlighted is the alleged role of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in funding research connected to the virus's origins. USAID money is stated to have flowed from UC Davis to EcoHealth Alliance and subsequently to the Wuhan Institute, supporting research, including what is termed gain-of-function research.
This funding is presented within a broader context where USAID is allegedly used for activities deemed "too dirty for the CIA". The justification for such funding, even for potentially dangerous research like creating novel viruses or facilitating animal-to-human transmission, is framed by a "dual use" argument: that it is necessary for developing vaccines or building knowledge to counter biological warfare threats from other nations, thereby advancing US national interests.
This parallels other controversial activities supported by parts of the foreign policy establishment, such as allegedly supporting the flow of heroin from Afghanistan, also justified in terms of perceived geopolitical stability or economic factors.
Simultaneously, a massive effort was reportedly undertaken to control the information surrounding the pandemic. Organisations funded by USAID and the State Department played a central role in this, such as Internews and its "Rooted in Trust" programme. This initiative, described as a "global pandemic information response program", was specifically designed to counter the spread of "rumours and Misinformation" about the virus. It involved tracking thousands of alleged rumours across multiple languages, producing extensive media content (bulletins, radio broadcasts, stories), and supporting local media organisations to "scan and ban the internet" or provide approved information.
Crucially, the sources assert that much of the content labelled as "rumours and misinformation" by these funded organisations ultimately proved to be true.
Specific examples cited include:
• The death rate: The sources state that information related to the virus's death rate that was labelled as misinformation by the "Rooted in Trust" program turned out to be accurate.
• The virus's ability to stop infections and transmission: Similarly, information concerning the virus's ability to halt infections and transmission, which was classified as misinformation, is claimed to have been true.
• Vaccine side effects: Information regarding the side effects of vaccines is also cited as an example of content initially dismissed as misinformation that later proved true.
• The superiority of natural immunity: The assertion that natural immunity is far superior to vaccine-induced immunity is listed as another piece of information labelled as misinformation by these programs that the sources claim was accurate.
• The lab leak theory: The theory that the virus originated from a lab is highlighted as one of the "rumours and misinformation" that turned out to be true.
This hid the scandalous truth that, not only was it later established COVID-19 was created in a lab - but USAID funded the research connected to this, with money flowing from UC Davis to EcoHealth Alliance and then to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
This USAID funding supported gain-of-function research on SARS-CoV-2, described as creating "Frankensteinian freak monster viruses". USAID justified the funding with a "dual use" argument, claiming it was necessary for developing vaccines or building knowledge to counter biological warfare threats. The fact that "they" funded the capacity to do this and worked with networks involved in both the research and censorship is presented as evidence suggesting they created it and covered up at least the leak.
This information control extended to significant collaboration with major technology companies. Government agencies and their partners reportedly pressured platforms like Facebook, Twitter (now X), YouTube, TikTok, Reddit, and Twitch to "eliminate the financial incentives" for content deemed undesirable, effectively nuking their advertising revenue.
Organisations like the Global Disinformation Index and NewsGuard allegedly contributed by creating ratings that led to news sites being blacklisted by advertisers. This strategy, reportedly coordinated centrally from the White House, aimed to financially "re-engineer" the news industry and potentially bankrupt publishers opposing state messaging, including on sensitive issues like COVID vaccines. These efforts were framed under euphemisms like "information integrity".
The development of sophisticated tools, initially for counterterrorism purposes (scanning online data for extremist narratives), was reportedly adapted for wider application, including identifying and suppressing content related to the pandemic and political movements. These capabilities are described as "Weapons of Mass deletion," capable of destroying "entire political movements, governments, narratives" with just a few lines of code.
A significant concern highlighted is the application of these methods, developed for foreign influence and countering adversaries abroad, to domestic populations. This "bleed over" or blowback into US domestic life is seen as a consequence of the alleged removal of historical safeguards, such as the Smith-Mundt Act, which previously acted as a firewall preventing government-funded foreign propaganda from targeting US citizens. The "modernisation" of this act is argued to have allowed the apparatus designed for foreign "dirty tricks" to be weaponised domestically, impacting US media, social media, and even potentially influencing interactions with domestic legal processes.
The pandemic response is thus presented as a stark illustration of the "whole society" doctrine in action. It involved the coordinated efforts of a wide range of actors, including numerous government agencies (State Department, USAID, DoD, CIA, FBI, DHS, NSF, ODNI), major tech platforms, advertising networks, and a vast network of civil society organisations and think tanks. This integrated approach ensured that the control of information and narrative surrounding the pandemic was comprehensive, reaching across various sectors and national boundaries.
The pandemic itself is also characterised in stark economic terms, being referred to as the "greatest transfer of wealth in the history of the United States".
Overall, the pandemic response was not merely as a public health endeavour but as a complex operation deeply integrated into the landscape of modern soft power and statecraft. It involved the alleged use of aid organisations for strategic purposes, extensive narrative control and censorship facilitated by technology and media partnerships, and the controversial application of foreign influence tactics domestically.
This highlights the concerns raised in the sources about transparency, accountability, and the potential erosion of democratic norms when such powerful tools of influence are deployed, particularly when historical limitations on their domestic use are removed.