Media Party’s poll claims seven in ten Canadians back subsidies for struggling outlets like Saltwire ($250M bailout, 250 layoffs) and the Toronto Star ($110K/week from Trudeau), despite job cuts. Meanwhile, Epoch Times’ Joshua Phillip alleges COVID-19’s lab origins in Wuhan’s P4 facility—funded by Jiang Zemin’s faction—citing PLA-linked bat coronavirus matches and CCP cover-ups, including mobile incinerators and suppressed death tolls (potentially millions). Phillip warns of China’s hostile bioweaponization risks, from DNA data exploitation to weaponized viruses, while comparing its global influence to apartheid-era South Africa. The episode exposes media bias and questions whether bailouts serve foreign investors or public safety, revealing deeper geopolitical threats. [Automatically generated summary]
Today I take you through a poll that maybe you've seen in the media.
It suggests that Canadians overwhelmingly want the government to give more bailout money to TV stations and newspapers.
Could that possibly be true?
I'll actually take you through the pollsters questions and, well, I'll let you judge for yourself.
Hey, before I do, can I invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus?
That's basically the video version of this podcast, plus videos every week by Sheila Gunread and David Menzies that are also behind the paywall.
It's eight bucks a month.
No big deal to you, I hope, but it's a big deal to us because that's where we get a lot of the dough to pay our bills.
So please consider becoming a premium subscriber.
Anyways, here's today's podcast.
Tonight, the Media Party is publishing a poll by the Media Party calling for more subsidies for the Media Party.
Are you surprised?
It's April 8th, and this is the Ezra Levant Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're a biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say is government.
But why publish them?
is because it's my bloody right to do so.
Hey, have you seen this headline in the National Post?
COVID-19 crisis.
Most Canadians support bailout for media organizations, poll finds.
Oh, that is a work of art right there.
That headline, pandemic, crisis, COVID-19.
Oh, okay, now that we've got your attention, the story's actually not about those things, but it's about getting more corporate bailouts for journalists, including the journalist who wrote that story.
That's called clickbait.
That's a bait and switch.
That's junk journalism, and that's where we are these days with the media party.
That was in the National Post, which used to be against bailouts until they weren't.
I mean, as they said in the movie The Godfather, nothing personal.
It's just business.
I don't know if you know this, but the National Post and most Canadian daily newspapers, including the Toronto Sun Chain, the Calgary Herald, Montreal Gazette, Edmonton Journal, Vancouver Sun, etc., they're not actually owned by Canadians.
They're owned by a company called Postmedia, which in turn is owned by a U.S. investment fund called Chatham Asset Management.
Here, let me read to you from Postmedia's latest filings.
They say, as at November 30th, 2019, Chatham owns 62 million or 66% of our shares.
So yeah, the National Post, which nation are they talking about, says Canadians want to help fight the pandemic by giving tax dollars to their U.S.-based owners.
Here, let me read from this highly credible and not at all self-serving story in the Post.
The majority of Canadians support government bailouts for media organizations that are facing a collapse in advertising revenue since the COVID-19 pandemic shut down businesses across the country, according to a new poll.
Really?
Oh, yes.
The survey was conducted by Nanos Research for Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, a non-partisan media watchdog and was released Monday.
Non-partisan, really?
Here's an attack ad that Friends of Canadian Broadcasting ran when Stephen Harper was prime minister a few years ago.
Mr. Prime Minister, when you came to power, you promised accountability, transparency, and clean ethics.
Now that we've had the Robocalls, the In-N-Out scandal, the G20 abuses, the F-35 boondoggle, the shuttering of parliament, the canceling of the long-form census, muzzling of scientists, the Duffy Wallen scandal, losing track of $3.1 billion in security funding, stonewalling on digital spying, the military police investigation of CTV for breaking stories that embarrass the government, and now turning the CBC into a state broadcaster.
How do you respond to that?
There goes my Senate appointment.
Who is going to ask the tough questions now?
Join the campaign to free the CBC from political interference.
Yeah, non-partisan.
But look, the Post says they're nonpartisan, but the conflict of interest here isn't between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party.
It's that the National Post is a party.
It's a would-be beneficiary of more government bailouts.
Of course, it's relevant that the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting is a left-wing pro-CBC front group that hates conservatives, right?
But the point today is that it's now lobbying for the National Post's owners, Chatham Asset Management, so they can get Canadian tax dollars too.
That's a neat trick.
Here, let me read some more from the story.
It found that seven in 10 Canadians support 26% or somewhat support 41% the federal government sending financial aid to failing news organizations.
A majority of Canadians also agree that Ottawa should treat media bankruptcies and layoffs as an emergency because journalism is essential to keeping Canadians safe during the crisis.
Imagine writing that.
That it's critical to have journalists because that's who keeps Canadians safe.
Not doctors or nurses or truck drivers or farmers or people who make masks, but journalists?
Like this kooky CBC journalist who wrote a story saying masks don't work, so don't wear them.
What?
For some reason, the CBC keeps saying that.
Here's another doozy saying that the pandemic is caused by global warming.
Did you know that?
It's almost like, you know, the CBC is actually spreading disinformation that's dangerous.
They're not saving any lives.
And that's just the CBC.
They're obviously the worst.
But most of the media is the same.
They were against closing the borders.
They pretend the World Health Organization is a neutral, science-friendly entity rather than a puppet of the Chinese government, which it is.
So yeah, no, journalists are not saving us from the pandemic.
And you'll note the wording there.
There were no majorities.
They had to add together people who agree and people who sort of maybe agree to get a majority.
What a joke.
I'll read some more.
The survey notes that Canadian media outlets have seen advertising revenues fall by as much as 60%, and nearly 500 journalists were laid off in the first two weeks of the lockdown.
Tor Star, which publishes several daily newspapers, including the Toronto Star, announced on Monday it would eliminate 85 positions and cut its operating budget to offset advertising revenue losses.
Now look, I don't want anyone to lose their job, but seriously, you have, what is it, 4 million Canadians out of work in the last month?
But the poor deers at the Toronto Star laid off 85 people.
So that's the crisis?
Yeah, no.
Oh, well, they're just getting started.
Here, let me read some more.
Many of our most prominent journalism outlets face imminent failure, even after the government's proposed tax credits and wage subsidies are factored in.
Friends executive director Daniel Bernard said.
This is an acute emergency.
And Canadians want Ottawa to intervene quickly to save these trusted institutions from mass extinction.
Our democracy and our future as an independent country are at stake.
Holy cow, I didn't know that.
A country that can't talk to itself ceases to be.
If we lose our media, we lose our country.
Oh my God.
You know, I worked at the National Post during its glory days 20 years ago, right after it started.
It was amazing.
It fought so hard for conservative ideas for smaller government.
I remember we even had a whole series criticizing the CBC for being the media party, for taking government money.
Yeah, that old National Post is gone, my friends.
Now it publishes hysteria and fantasies from left-wing pressure groups without skepticism or rebuttal, because it's only the National Post in name.
The nation that owns 66% of its stock is, well, it's a hedge fund from the U.S.
And they don't care who they have to quote to get more government money.
They're already getting $140,000 a week from Trudeau, and they'd like some more.
Thank you very little.
Here's how their story ends.
The survey was conducted over landline, cell phones, and online between March 30th and April 2 as part of an omnibus survey.
Nanos Research carried out a random survey of 1,036 Canadians aged 18 and over.
The margin rare is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
Now that's the thing.
This is a laughable claim.
It's a joke of a story that Canadians care about journalists.
The journalists are the only ones who are going to save us.
The Canadians think these 85 layoffs at the star are the most pressing thing in our country.
And without those 85 journalists of the Toronto Star, we're all going to die from the pandemic or whatever the headline said.
But they're hanging it all on an opinion poll.
So they're really saying, hey, don't look at us.
We didn't make up this craziness.
We're not crazy.
Canadians actually believe this stuff and we paid a pollster to tell us that.
Now, I have no beef with Nick Nanos, the pollster here.
But I want to show you the junk poll that was used to get these numbers.
I mean, you've probably heard of a push poll before.
It's not even really a poll.
It pretends to be a poll, but it's a persuasion tool.
It would be like if someone called you up and said, I'm a pollsterer.
If you heard that Justin Trudeau took a million-dollar donation from the Communist Party of China, would that make you more or less likely to trust him?
That's not a real poll because everyone, of course, would be less likely to trust him.
That's a ridiculous question, but it's not really a question.
It's pretending to be a question.
It's really a veiled attack on him.
By the way, we have no evidence that Trudeau cashed any checks from China.
We do, of course, have plenty of evidence that the Liberal Party front group called Canada 2020 did cash huge checks from the Chinese phone company Huawei and that the Trudeau Foundation takes huge foreign checks that they refuse to disclose.
So we do have proof of that.
But back to the polls.
Do you get my point?
Ask a non-neutral question, get a non-neutral answer.
It's garbage.
So let's look at some of the questions that Nick Nanos actually agreed to ask.
And really, what a surprise.
You'd think that his reputation would be worth more than whatever he got paid for this one-off poll.
Anyway, let's take a look.
Here's what they published online.
Here's the poll in full.
I read it.
And can I draw your attention just to a couple lines in it?
Question.
Since the coronavirus COVID-19 outbreak began, because of the economic collapse, Canadian media outlets have seen advertising revenues fall by 60%.
In the first two weeks of the lockdown, nearly 500 journalists were laid off.
If current trends continue, parts of the country will have either no or fewer professional journalists covering important news stories.
Would you support, somewhat support, someone oppose, or oppose the following?
And I'll get into the actual questions in a moment, but about that whole preamble I just read.
Parts of the country will have no professional journalists covering important news.
Really?
Is that really what's going to happen?
There will not be a single reporter left to report the news in this country.
Are you crazy?
Does anyone actually believe that?
Or did this pollster have to say that because he knew people just don't care that a few journalists are being laid off, get in line, right?
I mean, journalists are not essential.
Anyone can be a journalist.
And the ones we have, well, they seem to be political activists as much as journalists.
I like that phrase, professional journalists, too.
Did you know that there's a profession, I guess?
Like doctors and engineers and lawyers for journalists?
What a laugh.
You know, a profession is a self-regulating industry with standards that you have to meet before you can practice.
Heck, even carpenters and plumbers and welders have to have a trade certificate.
No such thing for journalists.
It's whoever tells you what happened today.
That's journalism.
Imagine the twin lies here.
You're saying you're a profession, which is a lie.
Like a pharmacist is a profession.
Journalists are not like pharmacists.
And you're saying they're all going to be laid off.
Everyone, there will be no journalists left.
Yeah, Nick Nanos, that's a push poll.
I hope you cash the check quickly.
But remember, that was just the preamble to juice the numbers, like saying, if you heard Trudeau robbed a bank, would that make you more or less likely to support him?
It's not legitimate.
It puts a thumb on the scale.
But look at the wording of the questions that came right after the preamble.
Look at this one.
The government of Canada sending financial aid to failing news providers to keep them from closing down.
That's what they're checking if you support, somewhat support, oppose, or somewhat suppose.
So is that what will happen if Trudeau gives more money to media companies?
They won't shut down.
They won't lay people off.
Is that really what happens when you give companies money?
Fake News Promise00:03:58
I don't think so.
You see, the most, there's a newspaper company in the Atlantic that publishes most of the newspapers out there.
The company's called Saltwire.
They have received literally millions of dollars in bailout money from Trudeau, and yet they just laid off 250 people.
The Toronto Star gets $110,000 per week from Trudeau's bailout.
They just laid off 85 people.
So why is Nick Nanos and his pollsters, why are they promising people there won't be any layoffs if we just give a few more bucks to the media?
That's not how it works.
That's not how it has worked.
Of course there will still be layoffs.
The money just goes into the bank accounts of the media companies, including Chatham Asset Management in the States.
Do you think Chatham Asset Management really cares about keeping reporters?
I mean, I'm sure they'd like to, all things being equal, but all things are not equal.
That's not really their business.
Their business is making money.
In fact, their specialty is laying off reporters to save money.
That's what they do for a living.
This poll is a pack of lies.
I'm embarrassed for Nick Nanos.
And I have to say my esteem for his work, which is quite high, actually.
It's fallen a lot here.
That's not a real poll, Nick.
I'm embarrassed for the National Post publishing such a self-serving left-wing pack of baloney and those crazy quotes, the country will die.
I'm embarrassed for all the media companies who don't even pretend anymore.
They want to be crowned corporations.
They want bailouts.
They want to call Justin Trudeau their daddy.
And I'm embarrassed for every journalist who agrees to work for the government this way.
But I have a question.
This poll says most Canadians want a bailout to newspapers and TV news stations.
All right, well, let's put aside the junk poll I just showed you.
Let's take this headline at face value.
It's great news if it's true.
Most Canadians think journalism is important, newspapers and TV.
Well, that's amazing news.
Because in real life here, fewer than 1% of Canadians subscribe to a newspaper.
Think about it, 37 million of us.
Do you know how many copies they print every day of Canada's largest newspaper, the Toronto Star?
It's by far the largest newspaper in the country.
193,000.
That's it.
On Saturday, it's higher, just for that one day, 290,000.
There's 6.5 million people in the greater Toronto area.
The National Post, the Globe and Mail, much smaller.
TV stations, the average local TV newscast, supper time newscast of CBC in this country had 12,000 viewers.
Not 12 million, 12,000.
Nobody cares.
Nobody watches.
Nobody subscribes.
So if this poll is right, if we put aside the obvious propaganda in it and accept it, well, that's great news because then we don't need to reach into the taxpayer's pocket to grab our money as a bailout to their friends.
Because if suddenly millions of Canadians truly genuinely love the Toronto Star and those Atlantic newspapers and the CBC, and oh my God, we must save them to save the country.
Well, hallelujah.
This is great news.
Now go out there and start selling your newspaper subscriptions.
The fact that a once mighty Canadian newspaper like the National Post had to be bought up by a U.S. vulture fund tells me that, yeah, no, this poll is just fake news.
and stay with us for more.
I watch CNN, I watch Fox, I watch CBS.
Origin Mystery: Lab-Driven Recombination?00:10:36
And in this case, there's a lot of things not being said.
It almost certainly is a recombination event that was laboratory-driven.
This is just the essential nature of Chinese communism.
Chinese communism is evil.
Every person it harms is directly attributable to the Chinese Communist Party.
Absolutely riveting.
A new documentary released just last night, tracking down the origin of Wuhan coronavirus.
You might have recognized one of those folks there, our friend Gordon Cheng.
The film was produced and broadcast by Epoch Times, which is a newspaper website, both published in the Chinese language and in English.
And it has become my personal source of information for what's really going on in China.
There's so much inaccuracies being reported by the Western media either by accident or because they negligently re-broadcast without skepticism or corroboration propaganda from Chinese state media.
The Epoch Times, on the other hand, has dissident sources within Communist China and, of course, has great journalists outside of them.
And I'm delighted to bring you right now an interview with the host narrator and lead investigative journalist behind this documentary.
He joins us via Skype from Queens, New York, Joshua Phillip of Epoch Times.
Joshua, what a pleasure to meet you.
Hey, real pleasure being here.
Some interesting stuff to talk about.
That's for sure.
You know, I recently came across a study by two scholars, two academics in Wuhan, who published a paper that was then deleted claiming that the virus was spread in Wuhan not from a bat in the seafood market, but rather from the virus labs that the Communist Party has in Wuhan.
I found that compelling.
Your documentary goes a little bit further.
Why don't you tell us the thesis of your documentary?
And by the way, we've embedded it on our website.
People can watch it in full.
Go ahead, Joshua.
Great.
So, of course, we all heard the narrative that this virus started in this Wuhan seafood market, this wet market.
That narrative, that entire narrative is dead.
The Chinese Communist Party lied to the world when they told them that.
Patient Zero, at least the known one, had no connection whatsoever to that seafood market.
The Chinese Communist Party itself has stopped using that narrative.
And somehow the whole world has just been satisfied, at least at the government level, it seems, has just been satisfied at being lied to with not knowing what the origin was or what the intermediary species was, if there even was one.
And so the question is, where did the virus come from?
And I think all of us want to know that right now.
Now, we've all heard tons of information.
I think not just me, but I assume everyone watching.
You know, we're getting bombarded with information.
And so how do you sift through all that?
How do you go and track the origin of it?
How do you go and track the origin of these different stories coming out?
And what do they tell us when you put them all together?
That was the goal of this documentary, to basically do a full picture of all the credible information we've seen come out of China on this.
Look at the real information, the stuff that was deleted by the Chinese Communist Party.
Look at what whistleblowers in China were saying about the real origin of this virus.
And yeah, as you mentioned, out of that Wuhan lab itself, there were at least two whistleblowers who used their real names and came out publicly and said this virus came from our laboratory.
And somehow that never really got much attention outside of China.
Yeah.
I mean, this Wuhan virus lab has been in the news before.
Bizarrely, Canada approved the transfer of the Ebola virus from our research lab to China last year, which is crazy to me.
And then there was a startling case of a Chinese national and her students who were frog marched out of Canada's top virus lab in suspicious circumstances by our mounted police.
No charges were ever laid.
There was not a full disclosure of what happened.
But that Wuhan virus lab has been in the news in Canada.
And I have to tell you, when I heard of this Wuhan virus, I thought, what are the odds?
What is the sheer statistical likelihood that there was a natural organic starting of a virus in the same city of this virus lab without the connection?
I mean, it's almost ridiculous to believe there wasn't an involvement.
Tell us a little bit more about your positive evidence that there was a connection.
All right.
So let's look at this.
Now, that Wuhan lab, the P4 laboratory, is about 20 miles up the street from that marketplace.
When the Chinese Communist Party declared that the virus came from the marketplace, what do they do?
They go in there and they destroy the evidence.
They go and destroy the crime scene.
Now, if this was a murder mystery and you had a dead body on the ground and there's blood and there's bullets, they went in, they got rid of the body, they got rid of the blood, they got rid of the bullets, they wiped down all the fingerprints.
There's no possible way for the international community to go in now and either prove or disprove that narrative.
So, your Chinese Communist Party is destroyed.
Yeah, the Chinese Communist Party destroyed the evidence with that, right?
And so, again, now they looked into it.
Patient Zero had no connection to the marketplace.
The question then comes up: well, what was the origin?
Well, it just so happens that that laboratory 20 miles up the road from this place, first off, yeah, they were started to study the SARS virus around 2003-2002 when they were first announced.
The head of that laboratory was one of the top coronavirus bat coronavirus researchers in the world.
She had been writing papers about this, Dr. Xi.
She had been writing papers about this going back years.
In fact, one of the papers in 2015 described a synthetic virus that destroyed, it was shown to destroy the lungs of mice that had no known cure.
The symptoms of that, the nature of that, very closely fit the description of this current virus we're seeing now.
In addition to that, they talked about how to make bat coronaviruses transmittable to humans.
That laboratory was on the frontier of this type of research on how do you change the key, right?
The key that allows these viruses to connect to human cells.
That laboratory was one of the, it was the frontier laboratory doing that kind of research.
They had the SARS virus, they had these bat coronaviruses.
It just so happens now that this new coronavirus, this Wuhan virus or CCP virus, as we've been calling it, if you look at the actual virus sequence, what does it show us?
Well, it has a very close match to a bat from, I believe it's Nanjing province.
Two different parts of it, one's over an 80% match, the other is a 100% match to the different proteins.
Now, that bat coronavirus just so happens to have been submitted to the bat coronavirus database by the Chinese military, the PLA.
In other words, a PLA bat coronavirus is the closest match to this one, at least the virus shell, the outer part of it.
Now, what makes now these bat coronaviruses are not naturally transmittable to humans.
And so, what makes it transmittable?
It's those little spike proteins, the little mushroom-looking things coming off the virus.
It just so happens that that one, the one circulating now, appears to come from the SARS virus, which is why they're calling it, you know, SARS-like virus, right?
And so, this bat coronavirus is somehow a recombination, it appears, between this virus that was owned, submitted by the Chinese military to the bat, to this coronavirus database, combined, recombinated, not mutated, it appears, with the SARS virus.
So, how did the SARS virus join with the bat coronavirus?
Just so happens that P4 Laboratory was doing research on this.
They wrote papers on this.
This is the kind of stuff they were doing there.
And the fact of the matter that, you know, a virus gets out that just perfectly fit the template of exactly what they were publicly saying they were doing at that laboratory, spreads globally, even fits a description of what people feared would happen if some of the viruses they described got out.
And somehow it's called conspiracy if you talk about it, at least has been until very recently.
I think UK government now and some other countries are seriously looking into the possibility that it might be lab-derived.
And I think this documentary really shows that.
Here, let's take a quick clip from the documentary that discusses exactly this recombination that you're referring to.
Here, take a look.
After the Wuhan outbreak, Indian researchers compared the S-protein sequence between 2019 NCOV and SARS.
They discovered that 2019 NCOV had four new sequences inserted, all of which can be found in HIV sequences through a search on GenBank.
Xi Jeng Li discredited those observations, although she never denied the existence of the four inserted sequences.
However, scientists probing GenBank found that there were only three viruses containing all sequences.
The first is the HIV virus itself.
The second is a bat coronavirus discovered by Xi.
And the third is this new Wuhan coronavirus.
Chinese Leaders' Role Revealed00:07:31
We're talking with Joshua Phillip.
He's the narrator of this groundbreaking documentary published by Epoch Times.
Joshua, I can understand why the Chinese government would be absolutely terrified of their role in this.
It's bad enough that people are dying from a, quote, accident.
But if this virus was engineered in their labs, if this was a military weapon that was either purposefully or more likely accidentally released, I mean, at least Chernobyl in the Soviet Union, it didn't explode on purpose.
It wasn't designed as a bomb.
It just was poorly engineered and there was safety protocols that weren't followed.
The cover-up was just to save face.
But here it's not even just about saving face.
This looks, and you mentioned the People's Liberation Army.
This looks like it was a deliberate weaponization of a virus.
It could be.
Now, when people talk about bioweapons, they, of course, point to the fact that the Chinese Communist Party is a signatory in the Bioweapons Act.
They have agreed to not develop bioweapons.
But even just, I think, 2018, 2019, the State Department had a paper talking about this.
The Chinese Communist Party, we knew for a fact they had bioweapons programs going back decades.
When they signed onto that program, they never even acknowledged the programs that we knew they had, let alone showed any evidence they got rid of those programs.
The State Department was calling out the Chinese Communist Party even very recently, publicly before this whole virus came out, about this, noting even that a lot of the lab research they have appears to be dual use.
In other words, for both civilian purposes and for military purposes, a lot of what they're doing could be used for weaponization.
Now, when you're talking about bioweapons programs, let's be clear about this.
Countries around the world can talk all they want about how they don't have biowarfare programs.
You know what they call them?
They call them defensive programs.
Defensive programs are weapon programs.
And so they can run any experiments they want under the guise of defensive programs.
And when in reality, they can be used for weaponization.
Chinese Communist Party does it.
Many developed countries do it.
When it comes to the Chinese Communist Party, though, they've actually been very upfront, very public, about the nature of their interest in these types of weapons.
They have, for example, the unrestricted warfare doctrine.
They've had Chinese generals come out and talk about how they need to develop multiple bioweapons for use against the United States specifically.
The logic behind that is nuclear weapons.
In other words, mass extermination of nations is mutually assured destruction.
It's not applicable.
It's not practical if you want to actually destroy another nation.
So what do they suggest?
They suggest bioweapons.
They've talked about this publicly.
They've had papers on this publicly.
And somehow I think that a lot of the academic, let's say, community, they tend to write off a lot of what these Chinese generals say because it's so extreme, because it's so aggressively hostile and violent and horrific that they have trouble believing it.
But the Chinese Communist Party has never tried hiding the fact that it does this, never tried hiding the fact that this is part of their military doctrine and military program.
And it just so happens, yeah, that now that there is a, appears to be a very destructive virus that may have come from a Chinese laboratory, at least the evidence does suggest this, may have connections to the Chinese military.
We know for a fact that the head of China's biowarfare programs took control of this laboratory after this whole thing came out.
That laboratory is now under the control of the PLA's top biowarfare person.
And also during the building of the laboratory, a PLA-connected industry took over the construction.
Of course, they were working with France earlier on.
And when it comes to possible intentional, sorry, I'm in New York, you'd be amazed how many ambulances we have driving around here.
But when we talk about possible leaks and possible intention to it, we've shown the documentary some interesting information.
We look into the actual leadership of this laboratory, and guess who we trace it to?
The sons of Jiang Zemin.
Jiang Zemin was two leaders ago.
He was the head of the Chinese Communist Party two leaders ago.
It was Jiang Zemin, Hu Jing Tao, now Xi Jinping.
Jiang Zemin runs a rival faction to the current leadership of the Chinese Communist Party, Xi Jinping.
His faction is really probably just as bad, if not worse, than Xi's faction.
And they've been at each other's throats.
Xi Jinping's whole anti-corruption campaign was purging a lot of people connected to the Jiang faction.
Just so happens now, this lab is tied to the Jiang faction, specifically to Jiang Zemin's son.
And it just so happens too that guess who runs a lot of the medical institutions in China, including the one that controls this Western drug that was given to China to treat this virus, this remendosphere, I can't pronounce it.
Just so happens to be Jiang Zemin's son.
In other words, the guy who's connected to that laboratory also runs the institutions that control the possible cure for it.
And so, yeah, there's very strong possibility in this.
Let's show a quick clip of the movie in this regard here.
Take a look.
The Wuhan P4 Laboratory was a subsidiary of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which is managed by China Academy of Sciences.
The director of the laboratory was Yuan Shi Ming, who was also the head of Chinese Academy of Sciences Wuhan chapter.
Design and funding for construction were the responsibilities of the ex-vice presidents of the academy.
Jiang Mianheng from 1999 to 2011 and Chen Zhu from 2000 to 2007.
Jiang Mianheng was the eldest son of ex-CCP leader Jiang Zemin.
After Jiang Zemin ascended to power after the Tianmen Square massacre, his son entered the academy and led the Institute of High Technologies Research and Development.
Jiang Mianheng created the Shanghai Institute of Life Sciences and together with China Academy of Sciences, Shanghai colleges and universities, Shanghai hospitals, military hospitals and research institutions formed a profit group of life sciences organizations.
They controlled China's major life sciences research projects and allocation of massive funding.
Jiang Ji Cheng, son of Jiang Mianheng, is the controlling shareholder of Wu Shi Aptech, which in turn is controlling Fosun Pharmaceutical, China's agent for Remdesivir.
Effectively, Jiang Ji Cheng is the kingpin behind the specific medicine for the outbreak.
Meanwhile, Chen Zhu is the current president of the Red Cross Society of China, which had faced numerous scandals since the outbreak.
We're talking with Joshua Phillip, the host and narrator of this blockbuster documentary.
China's DNA Dilemma00:05:03
Joshua, one of the excuses used by Western political leaders for being unprepared for this virus sounds legitimate enough to me.
I mean, Taiwan wasn't fooled.
I think they know to distrust anything said by China or the World Health Organization.
But other leaders, including here in Canada, said, well, the World Health Organization told us it wasn't that big a risk.
It wasn't transmissible.
The Chinese government has said only a few thousand people have died out of a mighty country of 1.4 billion.
What do you think the actual death count in China is?
Because I find it hard to believe that it was as low as they say.
I find it hard to credit them when they say there are no more domestic cases.
It's all foreigners coming to China.
Using your sources, what do you estimate the real number of Chinese fatalities is?
I'd say it's easily in the millions.
Easily in the millions.
Now, this one piece of evidence.
A terrible backfire in their own country.
Like I mentioned Chernobyl before.
The death count from Chernobyl was nowhere this high.
I mean, it was a great disruption, great economic disruption.
It was a great moment of truth for the communist regime.
But millions of people did not die from Chernobyl.
And yet, Gorbachev said it was probably the central factor for the fall of the Soviet Union.
Millions dying in China.
How would we be able to corroborate that?
How would we be able to learn or know that?
So EPOC Times, we've been making a lot of phone calls into China.
We also have a lot of sources on the ground in China.
We know we're blacklisted in China, proudly blacklisted, because that means we're telling the truth about them.
And of course, you tell the truth, kick you out.
We actually did have an office in China early on.
They arrested everyone.
Our editor spent 10 years in prison and they tortured him.
That's what happens when you tell the truth in China.
And so when it comes to this, of course, we've made phone calls into some of the funeral homes, into the cremation centers.
They told us they were working 24-7.
And even then, they did not have the capacity to cremate all the bodies.
The Chinese Communist Party brought in mobile incinerators into the city.
They said it was for other materials.
They didn't say it was for bodies.
We know that in Iran, the Iranian government is being accused of covering up as well.
There was a report in the Atlantic that estimated the number of infections in Iran to be 2 million.
There were other reports showing you can see the mass graves from space.
There were so many of them.
And Iran right now is calling out the Chinese Communist Party for lying to them about the lethality of this virus.
Even Iran, which is a close ally of China, is calling them out for this.
When it comes to the virus itself, I saw an early commentator, it was speculation, but I want to bounce it off you, who was looking at the demographics of who dies from this virus.
And it's typically older men.
And there may be some other Demographic or ethnic characteristics to it.
I mean, I don't know.
And a theory that was bruted, again, this was pure speculation, was that China itself might have a diabolical idea of culling its non-productive senior citizens from the country.
I mean, I thought that was an outlandish thing when I heard it, that China would actually want this virus to euthanize its old and unproductive population.
I don't think there was any basis for that other than observation of who this virus kills.
Do you think there's anything special about how this virus works that was deliberate?
Or was this just a pure attempt to weaponize a virus and its manifestations are just random?
It's possible.
I wouldn't put it beyond the Chinese Communist Party, let's put it that way.
When you're talking about targeting with bioweapons, development of bioweapons, they can do that.
That's one of the reasons why biometrics can be such an issue.
You can target viruses in terms of bioweapons at specific, say, races, specific traits of genes.
If you remember, the U.S. military actually warned, there was a warning going out to U.S. military personnel to not use these different genealogy programs because the genealogy analysis of DNA is being sent to these Chinese labs.
Now, why would the military warn personnel to not do these things because the DNA is being processed in China?
I mean, you know, who knows?
Speculation.
DNA Processing in China00:03:37
But that came out, I think, last year.
And so, I mean, yeah, you can do that type of work.
You can alter a virus to target specific types of DNA, specific types of individuals, even races.
You can do that.
So whether that 23andMe, like when people take a sample of their saliva and send it to 23andMe or others like it, those are actually processed in China?
I can't remember off the top of my head exactly which companies, but yes, a lot of them do process DNA in China.
Allegedly, when they do it, they don't include the name of the individual.
But yes, a lot of them process it in Chinese labs.
Yeah, it's shocking.
Well, how is this going to end?
I mean, will it ever end?
I guess there's two parts to that question.
One is the health question, but the other is politically.
I mean, we saw yesterday Donald Trump musing about getting out of the World Health Organization.
I think that's very healthy.
I see Taiwan has come out of this looking responsible and public-minded.
And I really like how Taiwan is looking and how they're behaving.
So I see some hope.
But if China did misbehave in the way that your documentary suggests, do you see a larger realignment, a disconnect, a disconnecting of industry and security from China, a marginalization and maybe even a pariah status of China akin to South Africa during apartheid era?
Do you see the denormalization of China or is there financial clout and military clout just too powerful?
I think we're already seeing this happening, that the United States appears to be pulling out a lot of companies from China.
Companies are pulling out themselves from China because really they can't manufacture there right now.
They're realizing now that China is a national security threat on many, many fronts.
The Chinese Communist Party is hostile towards the West, towards the United States especially.
That it will hold medical equipment essentially ransom unless foreign countries want to cooperate with it.
France right now, for example.
China is only saying they'll give them masks if they agree to install 5G from Huawei.
And so, yes, the Chinese Communist Party is in a very bad state.
And yes, Taiwan is in a very good state because Taiwan used to be recognized as the official government of China.
They were the government in exile.
The UN was the first to recognize the Chinese Communist Party as the government of China.
The U.S. unfortunately followed that.
The Chinese Communist Party is a murderous regime.
Under Mao Zedong alone killed between 50 million and 70 million Chinese people.
It is continuing to do these kinds of abuses.
It's abuses against democracy activists, against, say, people who are critical of the regime, people who even spread online, you know, rumors, as they call them, information about viruses like this, like they do with these doctors, citizen journalists, people who believe in religion, whether it be Muslims or Christians, Falun Gong or Tibetan Buddhists, brutally persecuted in China.
I think the world needs to realize what the Chinese Communist Party is.
It is not a system that is in any way friendly to us.
And it is one that is extremely abusive to the Chinese people.
Exposing the Chinese Communist Party00:03:42
And I believe this is exposing that in a way that, I mean, I never saw coming.
I think everybody's starting to see now the nature of the Chinese Communist Party.
Well, this is riveting.
I want to tell our viewers that we will have a link to the full documentary below this video, and we've embedded it on our website as well.
Joshua, I admire your work.
Tell us where people can go to learn more.
There's your website, Epoch Times.
There's the paper, newspaper that you publish in English.
Tell us some of the places people can go if they want to go deeper on this websites or other advice you have for our viewers.
You can go to theepochtimes.com, T-H-E-E-P-O-C-H-T-I-M-E-S.com.
You can also check out my show.
It's Crossroads with Joshua Phillip.
You can find us on the Epoch Times homepage or on YouTube.
And this is probably the best places for you.
Excellent.
Well, thank you.
Stay safe.
This documentary certainly puts you, you were before, but you're definitely on the top 10 bad guys list for Communist China.
So stay safe because they are desperate now, and your documentary only adds to the pressure on them.
Congratulations, and thank you for coming on our show today.
My pleasure.
Thank you.
All right, there you have it, Joshua Phillip from theepochtimes.com.
We'll have the link below this video.
Check out the full documentary.
It's about 55 minutes.
I promise you you will learn more from that than from anything you've learned in the mainstream media.
And you'll recognize friends of the show, including our friend Gordon Chang.
Stay with us.
More ahead on The Rebel.
Hey, welcome back on my monologue yesterday about seven things that are better now because of the pandemic.
Matt writes, there are many people who appreciate alternative points of view from the mainstream.
And we also spread the word and try to get others thinking critically.
Thanks.
Seriously.
Wow, that's nice of you to say.
I think we have too many think-alikes.
And even though there's a few of us who are dissenters or critics or independent thinkers, Trudeau does his best to lock us out, banning us from reporting things like his daily pajama briefs outside his house.
Jack writes, many companies were failing before the pandemic that could have used a bailout, but the government did not fund them.
Why is the media getting funding other than Trudeau buying his support group?
Well, that's exactly right.
And that's what I talked about today in my monologue.
I mean, the railway blockades, that wasn't even a natural shutdown of a company.
That was illegal acts.
The police had no problem with illegal blockades of railways.
Oh, but my God, if you sit on a park bench in the city of Ottawa by yourself, you'll get a ticket.
Did you know that?
On my interview with Dr. Peter Chang, Ron writes, would you please take the interview with Peter Chang from Taiwan out from behind the paywall so viewers can send it to our provincial, federal, and provincial health ministers, officers and ministers?
Ron, I think we did.
I think we put that on YouTube.
And I learned a lot from him.
And we put subtitles on that just to make him slightly easier to understand because of his accent.
But I was really glad he joined us from Taiwan.
You know, we tried to send a journalist to Taiwan, but they told us that he would be stuck in quarantine for 14 days because they're very strict about it.
And I just didn't want to tie up one of our people for 14 days in a hotel in Taipei before they could get out and do a story.
Well, that's our show for today.
Until tomorrow on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters.