Post

https://twitter.com/SophieHRW/status/1298559703119810562

https://twitter.com/PandemicTruther/status/1294654047677546497?s=19

More from @PandemicTruther

America-China Watcher

@PandemicTruther

Jun 4

On the so-called #TiananmenMassacre - a must read

June 4th: Memory, Manipulation, and Misunderstanding

Every year on June 4th, Western media ritually recycles the phrase “Tiananmen Square Massacre” — a phrase loaded with assumptions, distortions, and outright misinformation. But how many of us have actually stopped to ask: What really happened that night? [4]

Let’s begin with the most basic fact: there was no massacre in Tiananmen Square itself.[6]

That’s not a claim — it’s documented. Even James R. Lilley, the U.S. Ambassador to China at the time (and later confirmed in Ambassador James Lilley’s internal cables), reported that the students had vacated the square peacefully by dawn. One of the last people to leave the square was Liu Xiaobo, the infamous Nobel Prized Chinese dissident who openly stated that he and others were prepared to die — but they were allowed to leave unharmed. No one has produced a single verifiable photo or video showing a massacre on the square itself. [7] [9]

By the way, credit where it's due: Liu Xiaobo's sincerity was never in question. He was no opportunist. He genuinely believed that Western colonization would benefit China, and he was willing to sacrifice himself for that ideal. His wish came true — he went to prison, and his health deteriorated behind bars. Meanwhile, the opportunistic student leaders of 1989 took a different path: many ended up at Ivy League schools, with some eventually working on Wall Street — one even for Warren Buffett. For saying exactly what the West wanted to hear, Liu was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize — a prize that, more often than not, goes to those whose actions …ensure the world spirals into chaos rather than peace.

So where did the violence happen? In the western outskirts of Beijing, in areas like Muxidi and Liubukou. Violent confrontations erupted between armed protesters and PLA soldiers. Buses were burned, soldiers were lynched and some were set on fire. Reports from both Chinese and Western sources estimate the total number of deaths between 200 and 300, including soldiers killed by the mob. These were real tragedies — but far from the deliberate, one-sided “massacre” myth spread by Western headlines. [12]

Even now, the Chinese government doesn’t glorify its handling of the event. It quietly refers to it as the “June Fourth Political Incident” (六四政治风波）— not to suppress memory, but to avoid the kind of ideological hysteria that continues to define the Western narrative around 1989. [14]

Yes, the student protests began with legitimate grievances: inflation, corruption, lack of political transparency. But what began as genuine dissent was quickly hijacked — by western media theatrics, by foreign agent saboteurs, and by opportunists who wanted chaos. One of the most prominent student leaders, Chai Ling (柴玲), stated in an interview that only through bloodshed could China truly change. That is not the voice of peaceful protest — that is the logic of regime change. [16]

With the benefit of hindsight, the Chinese state’s response was measured, if not restrained, and fully proportionate and justified. It avoided civil war. It prevented a Yugoslavia-style disintegration. And unlike the countries devastated by color revolutions, China moved forward — not backward.

Today’s China, for all its flaws, has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty, built world-class infrastructure, and remains politically stable in a chaotic world. That didn’t happen in spite of June 4th — but arguably, because the chaos was contained.

History will judge. But history must be based on facts, not mythology. (Continued)

June 4th: Between Reform and Collapse — Understanding the Context of 1989

To truly understand the events of June 4th, 1989, one must go beyond the square and examine the deeper economic, social, and international context. The student movement did not erupt in a vacuum. It emerged at a pivotal moment, as China stood at a crossroads: between socialism and market reform, between national survival and potential disintegration.

The original motivation behind the student protests was not to overthrow the state — it was to protest against corruption and inflation, two consequences of China’s early market reforms. Much like the gilets jaunes in France decades later, Chinese students and citizens were reacting to the unbearable cost of living (la vie chère) and a sense that the fruits of reform were being captured by a small, privileged elite.

What many forget is that China in 1989 was in the midst of an unprecedented economic experiment. Unlike the Soviet Union, which embraced abrupt “shock therapy” — a full-speed transition to neoliberal capitalism — China chose a gradual, pragmatic approach. The dual-track pricing system was the centerpiece of this policy.

Under this system, state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and citizens received price-controlled quotas for essential goods and services. Anything beyond that quota had to be purchased at market price. This created a parallel economy: one part socialist, one part capitalist. But it also opened the door to corruption. Officials with privileged access to controlled-price goods began reselling them at market rates, profiting off the gap. This “gray market” economy created deep social resentment and a widening wealth gap.

The students were not wrong to protest against corruption. But neither was the state wrong to recognize the extreme fragility of the transition.

In the background loomed the shadow of the Soviet Union — which by 1989 was already spiraling toward collapse. Gorbachev’s reforms had failed to stabilize the economy. The sudden opening of the Russian market led to the destruction of savings, the disintegration of pensions, and the loss of employment for millions. The ruble became worthless. Oligarchs, often with Western backing, seized state assets at bargain prices. Wall Street firms bought up massive swathes of Russia’s industrial base — according to some accounts, for less than $100 million total, thanks to the ruble’s collapse.

And what was the social result? A 10-year drop in life expectancy. Child prostitution in major cities. Public sector workers unpaid for months. Entire regions left without functioning institutions. Russia’s “transition” was not a success — it was a social catastrophe, and one from which the country still bears scars.

Had the Chinese government in 1989 followed the Western script — dismantling the Party, privatizing state assets overnight, and “democratizing” in the abstract — China might well have met the same fate. The unity of the country could have fractured. Tens of millions could have been plunged into destitution. Instead, the government chose stability over chaos. Reform continued, but on China’s own terms.

June 4th in Western Media: A Ritual of Loss and Projection

Every year, on June 4th, the Western press engages in what can only be described as a ritualized mourning — not for victims, but for a failed regime change operation. The so-called “Tiananmen Square Massacre” has become a mythologized symbol of “freedom crushed,” when in fact, it marks the collapse of a color revolution attempt that failed to break China.

Let’s be clear: there was no massacre in Tiananmen Square. But there was a geopolitical failure — a missed opportunity, in the eyes of the West. Imagine if the student leaders had succeeded in toppling the Communist Party of China in 1989. The consequences would have been catastrophic for the nation: (continued)

Tibet would have declared independence, backed by the West.

Xinjiang would have followed, with separatist groups emboldened.

Hong Kong would have moved toward independence, unencumbered by 1997 negotiations.

Taiwan would have accelerated toward formal secession.

Civil war, regional fragmentation, and even foreign military interventions would not have been unthinkable.

China would have faced not liberal democracy, but Yugoslav-style disintegration.

Instead, what emerged from that pivotal moment was a renewed sense of sovereignty, clarity, and political control. Credit must be given to the leadership at the time — Deng Xiaoping and his cohort of seasoned revolutionaries — who, far from being dogmatic authoritarians, were astute realists. They recognized the stakes. They understood that what was unfolding was not merely a protest, but the opening act of a play written abroad.

The tragedy of the Soviet Union served as a warning. The USSR, seduced by the ideals of openness and “universal values,” had flooded the West with its best youth — thousands of young Soviet scholars were sent to American and European universities. They returned disillusioned, having absorbed Western ideology wholesale, and began to see their own society as irredeemably backward.

Gorbachev, rather than defending his country’s integrity, opened the gates to economic pillage and ideological colonization. The “shock therapy” — hailed as liberal reform — destroyed the ruble, the pension system, and millions of lives. The Party collapsed. The country collapsed. Foreign investors feasted on Russia’s carcass.

The tragedy of Russia’s collapse was not merely economic — it was ideological, and in many ways, deeply personal for those involved. One of the architects of the so-called “shock therapy,” American economist Jeffrey Sachs, had once believed he could help Russia modernize peacefully, as he had done in Bolivia and Poland. In Poland, Sachs’s reforms were accompanied by nearly $3 billion in U.S. aid — a lifeline that helped cushion the transition. But in Russia, no such support came. The promises made to Gorbachev were never honored. Instead, the U.S. government, Wall Street firms, and Western advisors facilitated a wholesale looting of the Russian economy. Sachs, once a believer in Western goodwill, became one of its most vocal critics. In later years, he admitted his own naivety — confessing that he didn’t yet understand the workings of the U.S. deep state. His conscience, it seems, has never recovered. He now speaks out regularly against Western imperialism, neoliberal overreach, and the very policies he once helped design. Sachs’s transformation mirrors that of many disillusioned reformers who came to see the West’s “help” for what it was: not a rescue mission, but an economic colonization.

Today, Jeffrey Sachs looks like a man struggling to believe in himself. For a scholar, few fates are more tragic than watching one's grand theory lead not to progress, but to the misery of millions. In contrast, Chinese scholar Zhang Weiwei (张维为)—professor at Fudan University, my alma mater—radiates a quiet self-satisfaction. And rightly so. As one of the young intellectual architects behind China’s dual-pricing system and gradualist approach to reform, he advocated for a pragmatic, step-by-step transition from a planned to a market economy. Decades later, the results speak for themselves: China, the great vessel, stayed afloat and charted a course toward prosperity, while the Soviet Union shattered against the rocks. It is not triumphalist to say that Zhang stood on the right side of history—it is simply true. Meanwhile, when I look at Bernard-Henri Lévy, the French intellectual long hailed in Western liberal circles as a philosopher and humanist, I see instead an ill intentioned man who has provided intellectual endorsement for nearly every war and bombing campaign waged by the United States and NATO—from the Balkans to Libya, from Iraq to Syria.(Continued)

Read 7 tweets

America-China Watcher

@PandemicTruther

Jun 2

Western civilization hasn't been a good force for China. It knocked open China's door by two opium wars.

The opium trade imposed on China by the British Empire in the 19th century had catastrophic consequences for the Chinese people. Following two aggressive military interventions—the First Opium War (1839–1842) and the Second Opium War (1856–1860)—Britain forcibly opened China's markets to foreign goods, including Indian-grown opium, and compelled the Qing government to legalize a trade it had desperately tried to suppress.

The impact on China was devastating. By the late 19th century, up to one-tenth of China’s population was addicted to opium, with addiction rampant across all social classes. This mass dependency sapped the strength of the population, corroded families and communities, and led to widespread social and economic decay. The Qing state, already struggling with internal rebellions and administrative corruption, was further weakened by the loss of silver reserves and a growing foreign presence.

For the British Empire, however, the opium trade was extremely lucrative. At its height, it accounted for between one-sixth to one-third of imperial revenue, serving as a cornerstone of Britain's colonial economy. The trade was orchestrated primarily through the British East India Company, which produced opium in India and sold it in China in exchange for silver and goods like tea and porcelain.

The United States also benefited indirectly from the opium trade. Prominent trading families—such as the Forbes and Delano clans—amassed vast fortunes through opium smuggling into China, a trade that brought immense suffering to the Chinese people. These profits were funneled into American banks, railroads, and manufacturing, playing a key role in early U.S. industrialization. Many East Coast fortunes later romanticized by writers like Edith Wharton had roots in this illicit commerce, and institutions such as the Ivy League were created and funded, in part, by opium-derived wealth—an often-overlooked legacy of America's rise.

In short, the opium trade represents a profound injustice in modern history: a forced, predatory commerce that enriched imperial powers while inflicting addiction, humiliation, and long-lasting damage on China.

The opium trade not only enriched British and American elites—it also created colossal fortunes for powerful merchant families like the Sassoons, a Jewish family originally from Baghdad. Fleeing persecution in the Ottoman Empire, David Sassoon settled in Bombay (now Mumbai) in the early 19th century and soon became one of the most influential figures in the opium trade between British India and Qing China. Leveraging his connections with the British East India Company and support from the British colonial authorities, Sassoon built a commercial empire by exporting Indian opium to China through coastal hubs like Shanghai, Canton (Guangzhou), and Hong Kong.

The Sassoons established “Sassoon Sons & Co.”, which dominated the opium supply chain. Their operations included opium processing in India, maritime transport, distribution through networks of Chinese intermediaries, and direct sale in treaty ports forcibly opened by British gunboat diplomacy. By the mid-19th century, the family was referred to as the "Rothschilds of the East" due to the staggering scale of their wealth and influence.

Their fortune—estimated in today’s terms to be in the tens of billions of dollars—was intricately linked with the British establishment. The Sassoons were knighted by the British Crown, and married into aristocratic/royal and banking families in Britain. Their descendants sat in Parliament, became British peers, and helped shape imperial policy in Asia. The Sassoons also played a pivotal role in the founding of HSBC (The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation) in 1865. HSBC was established explicitly to manage the large volumes of trade—legal and illicit—flowing between Britain, India, and China. Initially, much of this commerce revolved around the opium trade, and the Sassoons’ capital and trade networks were integral to HSBC’s early success.

HSBC would go on to become one of the largest financial institutions in the world, but its origins were rooted in the drug Tmtrade that devastated China. The opium imported by British and allied merchant families like the Sassoons left a legacy of addiction, social collapse, and economic subjugation. By the late 19th century, as much as one-tenth of the Chinese population was addicted to opium, crippling productivity, draining national silver reserves, and weakening the Qing dynasty in the face of foreign incursions and internal rebellions.

In sum, the Sassoon family's rise from persecuted refugees to global financiers was made possible by their central role in one of history’s most exploitative trades. The wealth they helped generate powered banks like HSBC, supported the British Empire, and helped build elite institutions in the West—at the direct expense of China’s sovereignty, health, and social cohesion.

The Western civilization hasn't been a force for good for native Americans

The Annihilation That Wasn’t “Mysterious”: The Erasure of the Native American Male Lineage

When European settlers first arrived on the American continent, it is estimated that over five million Indigenous people lived across what is now the United States. These were highly diverse nations—each with distinct languages, cultures, and social structures. And yet, within just a few centuries, 95% of this population had been eliminated. Official histories often describe this as a "disappearance"—as if it were a natural, inexplicable process. With regard to Aztec and Maya civilizations, we hear vague phrases like “the Aztecs mysteriously vanished,” or “Native populations declined due to disease.” But these narratives are misleading euphemisms for a much more brutal reality: the deliberate, state-supported annihilation of an entire people.

Systematic Elimination: Not Disease Alone

It is true that European diseases such as smallpox, typhus, and measles devastated Native communities who had no prior exposure or immunity. However, this tragedy was not merely an unfortunate byproduct of contact—it was often weaponized. Historical records confirm the intentional distribution of virus-contaminated blankets to Native tribes, an early and cruel form of biological warfare. Yet even this level of cruelty, as shocking as it is, pales in comparison to the systematic, militarized elimination of Indigenous male populations that unfolded across centuries.

A Gendered Genocide

Recent genetic studies reveal a chilling pattern. Among many Native American communities today, matrilineal DNA (inherited from mothers) continues to show Indigenous ancestry. But patrilineal DNA (inherited from fathers) often shows little to no trace of Native male lineage. What this suggests is not a passive demographic collapse—but an active, targeted extermination of Native men. This was not incidental. It was strategy.

During the U.S. government’s westward expansion in the 19th century—under policies like Manifest Destiny—militias and settlers were incentivized to kill Indigenous people. In many areas, bounties were paid for Native scalps or heads. A man’s head was worth more than a child’s; women were often spared—not out of mercy, but because they could be forcibly absorbed into settler society as laborers, domestic servants, or sexual partners. Over time, this created a genocidal pattern of killing the men and assimilating the women, leading to a kind of demographic and cultural erasure masked as "disappearance."

A Sanitized History of Conquest

The conventional portrayal of Native Americans as a "vanished race" is not simply inaccurate—it is a political myth designed to conceal a genocide. Words like “decline,” “collapse,” or “disappearance” conveniently omit the role of settler violence, forced removals, starvation campaigns, sterilizations, and systematic executions. The popular mythology that Indigenous peoples simply "couldn't survive contact with civilization" is one of the most enduring lies in Western historical narratives.

This erasure has also been gendered in nature. The absence of Native male DNA in many lineages today reflects a policy of biological conquest—whereby Indigenous women were exploited to produce a population no longer “Native.” It was a conquest not just of land, but of bloodlines.

Remembering Truth, Not Myth

To speak of the annihilation of Native America only in terms of disease or disappearance is to erase the intent behind the devastation. It is to ignore the laws, the bounties, the policies, and the silences that permitted genocide in the open. The United States was not merely built on “stolen land”—it was built on the systematic elimination of the people who lived there, especially its men.

It's time start naming what truly happened to Native Americans: annihilation, conquest, and selective survival imposed by force.

Read 7 tweets

America-China Watcher

@PandemicTruther

May 30

A thread:

How France's Rafale was downed
- not in a dogfight, but by an invisible digital kill chain. It wasn’t the missile or the jet that mattered most. It was China’s networked warfare. Here’s how the ambush unfolded:

1/
System A: A Chinese over-the-horizon radar picks up the Rafale’s takeoff from an Indian airbase. Within seconds, its location, altitude, and vector are calculated and shared.

2/
System B: A KJ-500 AWACS, stationed 500km away, receives the data. Its AESA radar quietly tracks the Rafale. The Rafale's sensors sense the AWACS—but it's far out of missile range.

Read 22 tweets

America-China Watcher

@PandemicTruther

Aug 11, 2024

Stigmatized for decades. Who framed the 23 Chinese swimmers who tested positive in January 2021?

Chen Wei Hua warned in his recent post that an informed source told him that the US was trying to plant evidence and frame Chinese athletes in an inextricable doping scandal during the Paris Olympics. I think they have been at it for quite a while. Sun Yang was framed in 2018, sentenced to an 8-year ban (later reduced to 4 years) for "violent resistance to drug testing."

Given the all-out concerted offensive against Chinese top swimmers involving the NYT/Western MSM, USADA, US Congress, Phelps, Western athletes and coaches, FBI, it's not inconceivable that the US orchestrated the "doping scandal".

Since 1999, China's Central Sports Bureau has published laws of zero tolerance for doping. In 2000, the Chinese government spent millions of USD to have all athletes tested for doping before the Sydney Olympics, and China voluntarily banned athletes who tested positive from the Sydney Olympics and all competitions for life.

The message from the Chinese government was very clear to the athletes. China's self-imposed anti-doping punishment is the lifetime exclusion of the athlete from all competitions. The Chinese government's slogan was "Better to kill a thousand wrongly than to let one go (idiom)" (宁可错杀一千，也绝不放个一个), meaning that it is better to err on the side of caution than to let one go unpunished.

The Chinese government wants a clean record.

Any athlete caught doping will not only end his sports career in disgrace, but will also face social death for tarnishing the reputation of Chinese athletes.

In 2021, China's anti-doping law was further strengthened to include criminal punishment. Those found guilty could face up to three years in prison.

Chinese athletes are urged to win medals for the glory of China. Doping, once discovered, destroys China's reputation. China and the Chinese people, as a face-loving country and people, with a strong sense of honor, don't play with doping. This is something that the U.S. and the West don't understand. They shamelessly play around the anti-doping rules with the so-called therapeutic use exemption and exploit all kinds of loopholes to get away with doping.

With the voluntary cooperation of China and especially CHINADA, Chinese athletes are subjected to the most frequent draconian tests and have reported the least positive results, as shown in the statistics of WADA. In 2022, nearly 20,000 tests were conducted on Chinese athletes and only 38 results were positive and most of them are NO FAUT cases.

Moreover, China has hardly any athletes who receive exemptions from WADA to be able to dope legally on therapeutic grounds.

We can say that since 2000, doping has become extremely rare from China's sports landscape. The reward is not worth the risk. China wants to become a sports superpower, but a clean one, not tainted by doping scandals.

How do you implicate China in doping scandals when China is squeaky clean? No problem, nobody knows how to do it better than Uncle Sam.

Let's come back to the incident of the 23 swimmers who mysteriously tested positive under impossible circumstances (not exactly positive results, but rather alternating between negative and positive).

Remember, this happened in January 2021. Several years ago.

Between December 2020 and January 2021, in the city of Shijiazhuang, China held national warm-up swimming competitions in preparation for the Tokyo Olympics, to take place in July-August 2021. The competition was a selection process and also served the purpose of providing the Chinese Swimming Management with an authentic, objective assessment of the athletes' performance capabilities, their weaknesses, their room for improvement, their strengths to be enhanced and leveraged etc. Objective feedback is crucial for the management to adjust their training strategy. So the swimming management had no motive to dope the athletes. The order can't come from the above, especially given the zero tolerance policy towards doping in China.

A total of 39 athletes participated in this competition. CHINADA drug tested all 39 swimmers and all athletes were fully aware that they would be tested daily from day one. The results of one day's testing were surprising: 23 of the 39 athletes tested positive for trimetazidine. The common denominator among those 23 athletes? They were all staying at the same hotel, and they all took their meals provided by the hotel kitchen.

Trimetazidine is a prescription medication for heart disease. It is one of the most popular stimulants because it helps athletes build strength and endurance. It also has the advantage of being broken down and excreted from the human body quickly and undetectably. Needless to say, this substance is banned by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA).

The police immediately got involved and investigated. Based on the investigation report, the Chinese sports authorities stated that traces of trimetazidine had been found in the kitchen of the hotel where the athletes were staying. The food had been contaminated and the athletes had unknowingly ingested traces of the banned substance. FINA (Fédération Internationale de Natation) and WADA accepted this conclusion after conducting their own thorough investigation.

In accordance with WADA rules, it was agreed that this incident would not be made public and WADA confirmed that the incident would not affect the team's participation in the Tokyo 2021 Olympic Games. The world's most authoritative anti-doping organization gave its approval, and you would think that would be the end of the matter.

But the USA didn't want to let the incident go. Especially after the Chinese swimmers won three gold medals at the Tokyo Olympics.

There's a general Anglo-Saxon/Western frenzy and panic over the alarming winning momentum of the Chinese swimming team in what has been a white, especially Anglo-Saxon, monopolized field. China's swimming team won 12 medals at the Tokyo Olympics and 10 at the Paris Olympics, including one by Pan Zhanle, who broke the world record in the men's 100-meter freestyle. China did this without doping, to the disbelief of the world.

If they let China's winning streak develop, in a few years swimming will become the new ping pong, a sport where China has dominated and monopolized all the gold medals for decades since the 1980s.

The U.S. government has apparently drawn up a plan of action, deploying an all-out offensive to nip the trend in the bud in order to prevent the swimming competition from becoming the new ping-pong for China. It was a highly coordinated all-out campaign involving law, government, media, USADA, FBI, CIA assets network in China. It's equivalent to a 360 degree no dead corner military on slaught from the air, the sea, the land code named "Project XXX".(I leave it to your imagination to come up with the code name in the comments).

On December 4, 2020, just a few weeks before the incident, US President Donald Trump signed into law the Rodchenkov Anti-Doping Act. This law gives the United States global jurisdiction to prosecute any athlete anywhere in the world who participated in the same competitions as US athletes. It was the timely new US long-arm jurisdiction anti-doping law targeting Chinese athletes, and swimming athletes in particular.

Although the incident was supposed to be kept confidential, the FBI claimed to have received a report from a whistleblower (CIA asset?) and a US orchestrated smear campaign went into full swing.

Let's examine the incident. The biggest mystery in the whole incident is how trimethoprim, a heart drug, got into the kitchen. Who had the motive to bring the drug into the kitchen and contaminate the food supply chain? Or perhaps the food supply was already contaminated before it arrived at the hotel?

Let's assume that, despite China's draconian anti-doping laws, the swim team's management still wants to defy the law. But they don't have a motive. They can be ruled out because the Shijiazhuang meet is a domestic competition for selection and evaluation purposes. If collective doping is used in this last domestic competition, it will be impossible to evaluate the true swimming level of each athlete, which is contrary to the purpose of the warm-up competition. It would be impossible to select the best swimmers according to their demonstrated level of performance.

As far-fetched and unlikely as it is, let's say they wanted to test the effects of the drug with a view to using it in the Olympics.

However, even if the swimming administration wanted to conduct this experiment, it could not do so. The experiment had to go through the organizer, the Swimming Federation. However, even though the Swimming Federation has the ability to organize such a test, and suppose the Swimming Federation wanted to do it, crazy as it is, there is no need to choose the big, highly publicized warm-up competition in Shijiazhuang to do it. Because the Federation is fully aware that the drug tests and results must be reported to WADA. The Swimming Federation will not do such a thing to ask for trouble and self-condemn itself.

If you really want to test the effect of drugs, you can do it secretly during everyday training. There is no need to subject China's top 23 swimmers, who are likely to participate in the Tokyo Olympics, to a large-scale test, putting them at risk of testing positive and being banned from the Tokyo Olympics. The Chinese authorities wouldn't officially organize such a scandal that could stigmatize Chinese athletes for a hundred years.

Let's examine another scant possibility, that the athletes, knowing the risks involved, still took personal initiatives to ingest the stimulants in order to win and be selected for the Olympics.

The athletes and their teams are indeed driven by the desire to win and thus qualify for the Olympics. But the illogical thing is that, judging by the metabolism manifested by the test results, the 23 athletes seem to have taken the same dose of the drugs at about the same time. Why would they do that together? It's not child's play. Collective doping at the same time with the same dose means that everyone is equal before the drug and nobody can gain an unfair advantage by exploiting the effect of the drug. Besides, the competition schedule is not the same for the 23 swimmers. Why should they take drugs at the same time? If they're going to take risks to get selected, shouldn't they at least take useful and relevant risks that are likely to contribute to their success?

So this possibility can be ruled out.

There's only one possibility left, that the 23 athletes unknowingly ingested the same banned substance at about the same time. That can only be the meal time, when everyone ate the food prepared by the hotel kitchen.

Read 7 tweets

America-China Watcher

@PandemicTruther

Aug 2, 2024

#OlympicGames
World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), an agency set up for the sole purpose to enable the massive doping of the US/Western athletes and to forbid Chinese/Russian athletes to compete in the name of anti- doping.

The USA Swimming Team is also known as the “USA Asthma Team”.

The Swedish Ski Team is also known as the "Swedish Asthma Team".

The USA Gymnastics team is also known as “USA ADHD Team” (ADHD=Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder)

The Australian swimming team is also known as the "Australian Insomnia Team".

I am not making this up. If you check, you will find that they are all "patients" who need to take hormone medicine at the strict order of the doctors all year round.

Yes, you have heard it right, they all legally dope themselves by doctors’ order. The World Anti-Doping Agency allows them to take drugs while winning gold medals in the Olympics and World Championships without batting an eyelid.

What does "legally dope by order" mean? The World Anti-Doping Agency has an "exemption list". Because athletes often have injuries and injuries need treatment, WADA has set up a rule: "If the medicine needed for treatment contains stimulants, you can report it to WADA. Once you get WADA's approval, you can legally use drugs containing stimulants."

In order to "protect the privacy of athletes", athletes' applications will not be made public. As a result, this has opened the door for many athletes to legally dope themselves under [doctor's] orders.

For example, salbutamol, which is used to treat asthma, has the same effect as clenbuterol. Symbicort, a drug used to treat asthma, contains steroid hormones. Methylphenidate, which is used to treat ADHD, can help people concentrate. American legendary gymnastics star Simone Biles appears to have the medical need to take methylphenidate for years to treat her ADHD.

In 2016, the Russian hacker group "Magic Bear" hacked into the WADA database and found that in 2015 alone, 653 American athletes applied for "immunity," of which 402 were granted, an approval rate of over 60%. In contrast, the number of Russian athletes is similar to that of the United States, but only 54 people applied for immunity, and the approval rate was only 37%. As for Chinese athletes, only a single digit number of them were granted immunity.

An American athlete can dope with whatever drug he fancies, he only needs to obtain a permit from WADA who usually grants to American athletes.

Russia published on its official website the correspondence between US sports officials and Dr. Matthew Fedoruk, head of the US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), showing that USADA had helped US athletes use banned drugs with the pretext of medical exemptions. A total of more than 200 US athletes received medical exemptions through USADA. In 2015 alone, the anti-doping agency issued 583 doping permits, and many athletes used more than one drug. Among them, synthetic steroids that promote muscle growth, diuretics commonly used for rapid weight loss and to cover up traces of other drugs. The above are all drugs that are strictly prohibited on the WADA's Anti-Doping List. Cycling, athletics, triathlon, swimming and skiing are the five sports which received the most medical exemption applications. Not surprisingly, these sports are the hardest hit by doping in competitions.

According to confidential files released by Russian hackers, WADA allowed American tennis players the Williams sisters to take banned drugs for the purpose of medical treatment at multiple different times.

Former world No. 1 tennis player Serena Williams was allowed to take drugs containing oxycodone, hydromorphone, prednisone, and methylprednisolone in 2010, 2014, and 2015, while her sister Venus Williams was allowed to take drugs containing prednisolone, triamcinolone, and formoterol in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. However, the documents did not reveal the medical certificates which justified their taking of the banned drugs.

American gymnast Simone Biles, though tested positive for methylphenidate in August 2016, was not suspended and won four gold medals at the Rio Olympics. She was also allowed to take amphetamines in 2012, 2013 and 2014.

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) was established in Switzerland in 1991. WADA seems to be neutral, as it is funded by governments around the world and supervised by the Olympic Committee, but in reality the United States is its largest financial contributor.

US Senator John Thune revealed that the World Anti-Doping Agency, as a non-governmental organization, has been receiving financial support ($3.7 million a year) from the US government for the past decade. He threatened to withdraw the financial support if WADA continues to remain lenient towards China. How come WADA still hasn't disqualified China altogether through doping scandal as it has disqualified Russia?

Doping has always existed in sports competitions, At first, athletes turned to undetectable substances to dodge the rules. Traditional stimulants could be caught, but anything new produced by [bio]technology slipped under the radar.

In fact, that was a barbaric and crude practice in the early days. The really sophisticated thing to do is to set up an "anti-doping organization", secretly provide financial support, act as both a referee and an athlete, make the rules, and make sure that the organizer, co-organizer, witness, and referee are all my people in my pocket taking orders from me. How are you supposed to challenge me if I'm the absolute anti-doping authority?

Competitive sports have always been plagued by doping scandals. Because winning is a display of national power. Just look at how winning athletes have their national flags raised and anthems played at the Olympics. As former US President Kennedy put it, a country's strength is measured by its nuclear arsenal and Olympic gold medals.

Hitler intended to use the 1936 Berlin Olympics as a platform to promote his Aryan superiority ideology. He saw the Olympics as a stage to showcase the supposed physical and cultural supremacy of the German people, whom they considered to be the purest representatives of the Aryan race.

They took extensive measures to present a carefully curated image of Aryan perfection, from the selection of athletes to the architectural design of the Olympic venues. However, supposedly the presence of black American athletes like Jesse Owens, who won four gold medals, challenged this narrative and undermined Hitler's ideology.

Like Hitler, the United States has been eager to utilize sports and its “democratic"” athletes as a way to showcase the American dominance.

The history of sports competitions in the Western world is essentially a history of drug abuse. In 1904, something bizarre happened during the marathon at the St. Louis Olympics in the United States: American runner Thomas Hicks pushed himself to the limit on the track, while his coach Charles Lucas trailed behind him with a syringe. When he noticed that Hicks was struggling, the coach promptly administered an injection of "strychnine", also known as rat poison, which was a popular stimulant at the time.

Hicks won the final championship, but fell down at the finish line exhausted . It took four doctors and a full hour to get him back up and off the field. This gold medal won by doping was not only effective, but the official report afterwards even praised it: "The marathon race fully proves from a medical perspective how important drugs are for long-distance runners!"

The United States is the originator of doping and the hardest hit country by doping. Many sports stars are literally drug addicts. Carl Lewis, the legendary sprinter and winner of nine Olympic gold medals, admitted to taking drugs. Marion Jones, the queen of track and field, admitted to doping in court.

Lance Armstrong, the seven time Tour de France champion and idol in our textbooks when we were young, was even more of a drug addict. His testicular cancer was caused by massive and prolonged doping. Florence Griffith Joyner died suddenly in her sleep at the age of 38. The world records she set for women in the 100-meter and 200-meter events remain unmatched. German anti-doping expert Werner Franke said firmly: "Joyner had a heart attack in April 1996, which was the consequence of taking steroids. I am sure that Joyner's death was caused by doping."

The entire history of modern sports is a history of doping assisted human physical performance. The United States and the former Soviet Union competed with each other in wits and courage [to defy testing], and later in [bio]technology until the 1990s. Suddenly, the United States found a better way - why should I compete with you in biotechnology? I can just spend money to establish WADA, and I can have the final say.

Now let's talk about Sun Yang's case. Sun Yang is the Chinese swimming athlete who won two gold medals at 2012 London Olympics and one silver medal at the 2016 Rio Olympics. As we all know, the International Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) announced the ruling of the "Hearing of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Sun Yang and FINA" according to which Sun Yang was banned for eight years, effective immediately, but his previous competition results are still valid.

The previous results are still valid, which means that Sun Yang had no problems with drug tests up to the ruling, so he could keep his results and gold medals, unlike other athletes who were stripped of their medals because of dopig. The eight-year ban was the punishment doled out to Sun Yang because he refused to subject himself to a test on September 4, 2018, because he doubted the qualification certificate presented by the inspector. WADA alleged this was "violent resistance to testing." Since Sun Yang was already 31 years old, an eight-year ban was equivalent to a forced retirement.

Regarding this ruling, Sun Yang questioned WADA at the court with regard to the “violent resistance”: "We have all the videos, surveillance and photos in our hands, but you refused to see them, which is a pity. I don't know if you have the courage to watch the video if it is played at the court today?"

It was not violent resistance. It was WADA at the order of the US government wanting to kill the career of the Chinese swimmer Sun Yang who is a huge threat to American/Western swimmers. To prevent him from winning further medals, they set up a trap for Sun Yang to fall in and they succeeded.

Sun Yang subsequently released the videos of the incident and signed a declaration on Weibo, denying any "violent resistance to inspection". He asked to take back his blood sample because he questioned the inspector's qualifications, and the other party agreed, so there was no "violent resistance to inspection".

Let me reconstruct the whole incident:

On September 4, 2018, three staff members from the International Doping Test Management Company (IDTM) went to Sun Yang’s residence to conduct an out-of-competition anti-doping test on him.

At first, Sun Yang accepted the test and had his blood drawn, but later the two sides had a disagreement because Sun Yang found that the qualifications of two of the three staff members were questionable, one of them was actually a construction worker, and the latter kept taking pictures of Sun Yang even while he was urinating. It was blatant harassment.

Being convinced that the qualifications of the inspectors (including the nurses) were questionable, Sun Yang immediately contacted his coach, team doctor and others to ask for advice. The latter arrived at the scene, the two sides had an argument, but there was no physical conflict. So "violent resistance” didn't exist.

Read 10 tweets

America-China Watcher

@PandemicTruther

Jan 28, 2024

The deep tragedy of Britain's Hinkley C nuclear project. Financial Times announces the project will be delayed by several years (2031 against the initial 2017) and the cost will balloon to £46 billion against the original £18 billion.

Forget the Dr K incident and focus on the more newsworthy tragedy of UK's nuclear fiasco.

If the British really want to build top notch nuclear power stations with the most advanced technology and the best safety standards in a viable, cost-effective way, they need to turn to the Sino-French consortium EDF-CGN. It's this consortium that has successfully built and operated the third-generation EPR, the most technologically advanced nuclear reactor in the world.

Do you know why the French nuclear company EDF has formed an alliance with the Chinese nuclear company CGN? It's because the nuclear plants that China and EDF have built together have been incredibly successful. Such a level of combined commercial and operational success has never been achieved in the world, not even in France. The French taught China how to build nuclear power plants, and the Chinese quickly learned and innovated.

The first nuclear power plant built in China with French assistance was the Daya Bay nuclear power plant. Completed in the 1990s, this collaboration between China and EDF marked a significant milestone in nuclear technology transfer. The plant was completed within budget (USD 8-10 billion) and on time (8-10 years). In addition, the construction costs were recovered within 4-5 years. After that, the plant ran on pure profit. Nuclear plants like this became cash cows for China.

The success of Daya Bay paved the way for further cooperation and laid the foundation for subsequent joint nuclear projects between the two nations. Recognising the highly profitable nature of such nuclear plants, the French wanted a stake in the projects rather than just providing a vendor credit line. France now has a 30% stake in the Guangdong Taishan nuclear power plant.

The third-generation EPR (European Pressurised Reactor) power plant, built in China by the China-France joint venture, is best represented by the Taishan nuclear power plant. Taishan houses two EPR reactors and has achieved the distinction of being the only successfully operating EPR 3.0 plant in the world.

This project represents the culmination of joint efforts, with France providing the EPR technology and China demonstrating its ability to successfully implement and operate this advanced nuclear technology. The Taishan nuclear power plant became operational in 2018, marking a significant achievement in the global nuclear energy landscape and highlighting the successful synergy between Chinese innovation and French expertise.

France has not been so lucky with its two other nuclear projects using third-generation EPR technology.

The other two third-generation EPR nuclear power plant projects France’s EDF has been building is the Flamanville nuclear power plant in France and the Olkiluoto nuclear power plant in Finland.

1. The Flamanville project has faced several challenges, including construction delays and cost overruns. Originally scheduled to be operational in 2012, the completion date has been postponed several times, and the plant is not yet fully operational today. Technical issues and concerns about the reactor's safety systems added to the complexity of the project.

2. **Olkiluoto nuclear power plant (Finland):** The Olkiluoto project experienced similar challenges, with significant delays and cost overruns. Originally scheduled for completion in 2009, the construction schedule was extended due to various problems, including difficulties in ensuring the structural integrity of the reactor vessel. Delays in the project led to disputes between the parties involved and increased scrutiny of the EPR technology.

Both projects experienced longer construction times and financial setbacks, raising questions about the feasibility and efficiency of EPR 3.0 technology in practice. These difficulties contributed to a reassessment of nuclear projects and safety standards worldwide.

France was on the point of abandoning its EPR 3.0 adventures. However, after seeing the success of the Chinese prototype, France decided to continue with these projects.

France has reached the painful conclusion that building nuclear power plants is a complex business. The only way to make a EPR 3.0 nuclear project successful is y teaming up with China.

People don't understand that today China's industrial capacity is that of all the industrialised countries combined, not only in quantity but also in quality. When China faces a problem, it can call on its expertise in a vast number of areas. One can see that China's space projects have an extremely low failure rate compared to those launched by the US/UK/Japan. Such achievements are downplayed. China's comprehensive expertise in complex high-tech projects is also reflected in nuclear power plants.

Western knowledge of China is still at the stage where China beats the West because of its cheap labour, if not downright slave labour. They can't imagine that China is beating them because of better technology, better management and better manufacturing know how.

Moreover, for ten years after Japan's Fukushima nuclear accident, France was hesitant about continuing with nuclear power. During that time, China made rapid progress and achieved breakthroughs and innovations, especially in nuclear safety. Meanwhile, France's nuclear technology stagnated due to lack of investment.
Partnering with China is a necessity, as China now has know-how in many areas where France is lagging behind.

In view of these dynamics, if the British government wants to build nuclear power stations, it would be in the national interest to give the EDF-CGN consortium a free hand to allow the partnership to reproduce their success in China.

The UK government, however, went against the norm. They deliberately sabotaged the Hinkley C nuclear project and even pushed China out of the Sizewell C and Bradwell B projects.

The Hinkley Point C Nuclear Power Plant project was a significant milestone for China's nuclear power industry as it marked their entry into the nuclear markets of developed countries. China saw great importance in this project. But in a surprising turn of events in 2022, China suddenly announced their withdrawal and pulled out nearly £6bn of their investment.

Western media criticized China, painting them as untrustworthy and irresponsible for abruptly leaving a £35bn project and causing losses and difficulties for the local community. However, what they fail to mention is the British government's own stupidity, recklessness, and lack of good faith in handling this matter.

When it comes to construction, China is known to be the most reliable country in the world. They rarely abandon projects and always strive to complete them on time and within budget, even if it means incurring significant financial losses. It is China, not Japan, France, or Germany where the technology originated, that has been successfully constructing high-speed railways across the globe.

For China to fall out with Britain and abandon a project that they initially cherished and took pride in, there must have been something truly serious at play.

The Hinkley Point C Nuclear Power Plant was a massive infrastructure project costing £35bn. Once completed, it was expected to contribute to at least 7% of the country's electricity consumption, helping to alleviate the UK's energy crisis and power shortages. This was just the first project in a series, and it was crucial for the UK government to do everything in its power to ensure its success.

The British had originally planned to carry out the project themselves. After all, they were once the world leaders in nuclear power technology. Unfortunately, they later voluntarily abandoned the development of nuclear power. By the time they realised it was a mistake and that they should have kept up, it was too late and they were already far behind other countries.

The British sadly realised that they had neither the technology nor the manufacturing know-how to build their own nuclear power station. Before the Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant project, there were A and B nuclear power plants, both "masterpieces" of British technology and manufacturing know-how in the last century.

However, significant nuclear leakage problems have been reported at Hinkley A and B. Both plants have undergone decommissioning processes with safety measures to manage radioactive materials.

Such accidents have caused the British to lose confidence in the nuclear power plants they have built.

The failures of Hinkley A and B have made the UK realise that it is no longer the industrial powerhouse it once was, and that it doesn't make sense to continue building faulty nuclear power stations.

In addition to the unresolved problem of nuclear leakage, the upfront investment is also a major obstacle. The British are broke and don't have the money to build their key infrastructure.

Although Britain is still considered a developed country, the economy has been in decline for years. The British people are not prepared to fund these nuclear mega-projects with their tax money.

Then the British government opts for a financial mechanism to solve the funding problem, called project finance.

It's a mechanism that allows a country to get something for nothing. The investors are responsible for the construction of the project and the cash flow generated by the income from the project is used to repay the debt and provide a return to the equity investors. The UK government doesn't have to contribute a penny.

Read 7 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

America-China Watcher

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @PandemicTruther

America-China Watcher

America-China Watcher

America-China Watcher

America-China Watcher

America-China Watcher

America-China Watcher

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!