[Opinion] PLA’s Biowarfare Textbook Explained – Chapter 6

Author: Billwilliam Reviewer: Irene

This is a summary of chapter 6 of the PLA’s biowarfare textbook “The Unnatural Origin of SARS-1 and the Man-made Human Virus as a Genetic Bioweapon“. This chapter is a further elaboration presenting epidemiological and clinical evidence why the authors believed SARS-1 is an artificial bioweapon. But the most eyebrow-raising part of chapter 6 is its introduction, in which the People’s Liberation Army declared it has already developed principles on how to identify bioweapons during biowarfare.

Chapter 6 The Epidemiological and Clinical Evidence of the Unnatural Origin of SARS-1

The PLA has adopted advanced theories on biowarfare. The book declared on page 151: “The main academic strategy to distinguish a natural epidemic from an unnatural epidemic is to determine whether the epidemiological distribution is compatible with the natural history of this disease. This is also the strategy to distinguish bioweapons from human or animal epidemics caused by natural pathogens. Our military has already applied and will continue to apply this principle against biowarfare from enemies (the so-called ‘germ warfare’ in the past).” The original Chinese text is shown below. 

In addition, the book stated that epidemiological irregularities are one of the evidence to determine if a pathogen is unnatural. The book said on page 151: “Needless to say, by this theory, if a new epidemic has obvious differences or even irregularities from other infectious diseases of the same type, then we cannot rule out that the epidemic is unnatural and that the pathogen is of unnatural origin. If a disease is abnormal in comparison to all human infectious diseases in history and coupled with the evidence from different academic fields or if these can together form an evidence chain, this pathogen can be determined to be unnatural in origin!” The original Chinese text is shown below.   

As in the previous chapters, the authors reaffirmed SARS-1 is an artificial virus modified by serial passage in animal models. The book said on page 151: “After years of painstaking study, Chinese scholar Xu Dezhong and his team recently concluded that the director ancestor or reservoir host of SARS-1 doesn’t exist in nature. It was created by unnatural evolution (UE) (such as gene editing along with serial passage or adaptive trials in animals) from Bt-SLCoV. This virus disappeared from nature and the human population after a short outbreak, so they call SARS-1 ‘passenger virus’. This in fact demonstrates that humans have entered the era of ‘novel human virus’ (not just gene editing of an existing pathogen), in which a low-level virus in wild animals is modified by gene editing coupled with the serial passage in animals. This novel human virus can cause pandemics in one or many countries or globally. Therefore, global scientists and the public should pay enough attention.” The original Chinese text is shown below.   

The textbook basically wanted to emphasize two points: (1) the PLA already has a standard of how to identify bioweapons; (2) gene-editing followed by serial passage in animal models could be used to create novel, artificial pathogens that function as new bioweapons. The phrase “serial passage” is mentioned in almost every chapter of this textbook because this technique can be used to erase the marks of artificial gene editing, thus making the bioweapon appear “natural” in origin.

The epidemiological evidence why SARS-1 is unnatural

The epidemiological distribution of SARS-1 is significantly different from the H1N1 Spanish flu in 1918 and the H1N1 flu in 2009. The book cited several pieces of epidemiological evidence that SARS-1 is unnatural.

  1. SARS-1 was very infectious in the early phase from November 2002 to July 2003. But its infectivity lowered significantly during the later outbreak in Guangzhou from December 2003 to January 2004. (page 154)
  2. SARS-1 cases are concentrated in areas with Chinese populations or communities, such as mainland China, Hongkong, Taiwan, Singapore, and Vietnam. (page 154)
  3. The SARS-1 outbreaks in Hongkong or Guangzhou were concentrated in a few communities or hospitals. (page 154)
  4. The disease initially had a high mortality rate from November 2002 to July 2003. But the outbreak later in Guangzhou (December 2003 to January 2004) caused no death. (page 154)
  5. SARS-1 completely disappeared after the outbreak, except for accidental lab infections. (page 154)
  6. Most of the early SARS-1 cases are concentrated in a few cities to the west and south of Guangzhou (including Shenzhen). The abnormal disease distribution is suspicious: the areas to the east and north of Guangzhou are no different from the west and south in terms of social habits or natural environment. (page 156)
  7. The locals in Guangdong have been eating masked palm civets (Paguma Larvata) for decades, but why did the outbreak occur in 2002? (page 156)
  8. Civet cats are eaten in many parts of China, why is the outbreak concentrated in areas to the west and south of Guangzhou? (page 156)
  9. Only civet cats in two wet markets in Guangzhou and Shenzhen tested positive for SARS-1. Civet cats in other neighboring farms or other provinces tested negative. The authors believed that virus-carrying civet cats were artificially introduced into the wet markets, causing an unnatural outbreak. (pages 156-157)
  10. The SARS-1 virus exhibited reverse evolution and gradually weakened as it spread among the human population because it is an artificial pathogen that is not adapted to infect humans. The virus had low virulence during the later Guangzhou outbreak in December 2003. The lab outbreak in March 2004, however, had a higher mortality rate because it is an early virus strain with high virulence. (page 157)

The clinical evidence

Early SARS-1 patients displayed severe symptoms such as fever and difficulty breathing, whereas patients during the later Guangzhou outbreak had milder symptoms. This is another piece of evidence that the virus gradually underwent reverse evolution. A virus strain isolated from the later Guangzhou outbreak had a mutation that formed a stop codon in the ORF 1a gene, which may be responsible for suppressing the host’s immune system. The virus is significantly weakened when this gene lost function. Therefore, SARS-1 is an unnatural virus that goes through reverse evolution. (page 159)


As Lude media revealed, Communist China is engaging in acts of “perfect crime”, in which the culprit tries to commit crimes and get away with it. Perhaps that is why they took great length to cover up the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic.  

This textbook by the People’s Liberation Army stated that irregularities in epidemiological distribution could be used to determine if a pathogen is a bioweapon. To be fair, I want to apply their standard to test if COVID-19 is a bioweapon. Surprisingly, even a layman could point out several epidemiological abnormalities: (1) Communist China actively engaged in a cover-up of the pandemic. Doctors in Wuhan were told to shut up. Why? (2) The initial outbreak appeared at places close to two virus laboratories in Wuhan. Why are the cases clustered near the labs? (3) The outbreak first occurred in Wuhan, but why did the virus suddenly jump abroad and cause severe outbreaks in the US and Europe since March 2020? The US government already imposed travel restrictions on flights from Wuhan, but why did a severe pandemic still take place? (4) An emerging disease (Ebola, for example) should have low infectivity since it is not adapted to humans. But why are both COVID-19 and SARS-1 so infectious in the early phases of outbreaks? (5) An emerging disease should infect predominantly younger people because older people are more exposed to various kinds of pathogens and may have developed cross-immunity. But the age distribution of COVID-19 patients is abnormal—it predominantly targets elderly people. (6) The direct ancestor or natural host of COVID-19 has never been found, just like SARS-1.

In addition to the epidemiological evidence, Dr. Li-meng Yan presented molecular evidence in her two papers, such as (1) RaTG13 is a fabricated sequence. (2) The furin cleavage site is abnormal. (3) There are two rare codons in tandem at the furin cleavage site. (3) The receptor-binding domain of the Spike protein is flanked by two endonuclease restriction sites that can be used for gene editing. (4) The Envelope protein is 100% identical in amino acid sequence to that of the Zhoushan bat coronavirus.

Given the aforementioned chain of evidence, we want to ask Communist China one simple question: if you apply your own gold standard on abnormal pathogens, do you agree COVID-19 is an artificially created bioweapon just like SARS-1?

At last, I recommend my readers to read an article in the reference section. It is a protocol for how to turn pneumonia virus (RSV, not coronavirus) into dry powder by freeze-drying, which can greatly enhance virus stability in high temperature. Remember, chapter 2 of the PLA’s textbook said sprayers can be used to aerosolize virus dry powder.


Freeze-Drying of Respiratory Syncytial Viruses for Transportation and Storage“, Tannock, G., and et al., Journal of Clinical Microbiology. Vol. 25, No. 9: 1769-1771

For detail information, follow us on Twitter & GNews & G|TV!

1 Comment
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
16 hours ago

CCP got tons of questions to answer regarding this super unnaturally behavioral COVID-19. If there is nothing to cover up, why they tried so hard to hide all related information?