CAF member has come forward with explosive testimony that Canadian intelligence agents assessed soldiers were infected with COVID-19 at the 2019 Wuhan Games—but the findings were buried in Ottawa.

“I was in Wuhan in the fall of 2019 at the World Military Games. A significant number of the team, and I myself, contracted COVID and became very, very ill.”

With that statement, delivered in confidential testimony to The Bureau, a Canadian Armed Forces member added his voice to one of the most powerful emerging revelations in the global search for the origins of COVID-19. His account closely matches the U.S. Department of Defense’s newly declassified conclusion that seven American soldiers fell ill with COVID-like symptoms during the same October 2019 military competition in Wuhan, China.

The American military investigation was ordered by Congress in 2021 but kept from the public until a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit forced its release. Critics now say the Biden administration suppressed the findings, which suggest U.S. intelligence agencies had early evidence of a viral outbreak tied to the Games.

The Canadian soldier believes voters deserve to know that CSIS—Ottawa’s civilian intelligence agency—also assessed that Canadian military athletes were infected in Wuhan, and that the Trudeau government chose not to inform the public. “Yes, CSIS and a number of other such organizations did interview members of the contingent,” he said of his experience upon returning to Canada. “They were professional and concerned only with facts. But when completing their interviews, they let it be known that their work and report would be suppressed.”

The Bureau has independently confirmed, through multiple confidential interviews, that Canadian intelligence did in fact interview military athletes and concluded they had experienced COVID-like symptoms while in Wuhan.

“The story of U.S. athletes becoming very sick while in Wuhan, or shortly after returning, and the institutional cover-up since—it mirrors exactly what Canadian Forces athletes experienced,” the CAF member explained.

His testimony now stands alongside a torrent of new disclosures—including a bombshell release from the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency—that together appear to draw a new, starker picture of what happened in Wuhan and how it may be linked to dangerous Canadian research.

The DIA documents, made public only after a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by US Right to Know, include a 46-slide classified briefing dated June 25, 2020. It concludes that COVID-19 is most consistent with a lab-engineered virus created at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), likely under the direction of Dr. Shi Zhengli.

In chronology, the DIA report focuses on a 2008 study co-authored by Dr. Shi, which showed that bat coronaviruses could be altered to infect human cells. The study described how swapping small genetic pieces in the virus allowed it to attach to human receptors. This work laid the foundation for later experiments in Wuhan that involved creating new hybrid viruses.

From 2011 to 2015, Dr. Shi’s team conducted a sweeping field study in Yunnan province, where they collected over 600 samples from multiple bat species living in caves and forested regions. The viruses were brought back to Wuhan and stored at the Institute—forming the core of a growing coronavirus research bank.

Shi’s team engineered a full copy of a virus called WIV1—a clone developed between 2015 and 2017—and then swapped in spike proteins from other bat coronaviruses—creating entirely new lab-made, or “chimeric,” viruses. According to U.S. intelligence analysts, this was one of the key human-made modifications that allowed the virus to more effectively bind to human cells—marking a potential step toward weaponizing the bat virus.

During this same 2015–2017 window, Chinese scientists also began experimenting with dangerous pathogens like SARS and MERS. They inserted a genetic feature known as a furin cleavage site—another significant modification known to increase a virus’s ability to infect human cells. These modified viruses were tested both in lab dishes and in live animals. The experiments were conducted under BSL-2 safety conditions, which in China are less strict than in the United States. According to U.S. military intelligence, Chinese BSL-2 labs have a documented history of leaks.

In this process, between 2017 and 2019, scientists at the Wuhan lab likely created a new virus called Bat-CoV-X using a secret bat virus genome as the base, the intelligence slide says. They continued building more versions by swapping in different genetic parts—especially the pieces that help the virus bind to human cells—and adding the furin cleavage site. These chimeric viruses were again tested in the lab and in animals throughout 2018 and into 2019, just before the outbreak began.

The final readable slide in the redacted DIA document concluded: “The molecular biology capabilities of WIV and the genome assessment are consistent with the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 was a lab-engineered virus that was part of a bank of chimeric viruses in Zhen-Li Shi’s laboratory at WIV that escaped from containment.”

By early 2020—when athletes around the world, including Canadian and U.S. soldiers, had already returned to their home countries with COVID-19-like infections—the Wuhan Institute of Virology and other Chinese government-controlled agencies began publishing studies promoting a natural zoonotic origin for SARS-CoV-2 and deflecting scrutiny from any laboratory origin theory.

The Canadian–Chinese Lab Connection

What makes the Defense Intelligence Agency’s timeline bombshell especially troubling for Canada is how closely it aligns with The Bureau’s earlier reporting on Dr. Xiangguo Qiu. Dr. Qiu was the now-expelled head of special pathogens at Canada’s National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg. Canadian intelligence documents reviewed by The Bureau confirm that Qiu had an active working relationship with Dr. Shi Zhengli, the Wuhan lab, and the People’s Liberation Army, beginning in 2017. Together, they co-led research on Ebola and synthetic bat coronaviruses—projects funded by the Chinese Academy of Sciences and supported by CanSino Biologics, a state-owned company tied to China’s military.

In a previous interview with The Bureau, Dr. Asher said he could not reveal the classified intelligence his team reviewed. However, he made clear that his State Department investigators were deeply concerned that Beijing was using the Winnipeg lab for military intelligence gathering and bioweapons research.

“The Wuhan Institute of Virology wasn’t just a government lab creating novel pathogens—it was and is a civil-military fusion hub that had a biological intelligence operational collection mission ensconced in its web of nefarious activities,” Asher said, including “illicitly acquiring Ebola and doing research on bio-synthesis of this massively deadly pathogen, to make it super contagious.”

On April 10, Asher posted the newly released DIA report to social media, writing simply: “Read and weep.”

“I told people in the media and wrote repeatedly four years ago that, from the early days, U.S. Department of Defense and national lab analysts had highlighted the probability that COVID was created with synthetic biology,” Asher wrote. “Well now, thanks to US Right to Know, you can see one of several presentations on this likelihood from DIA.”

Although there is no evidence that Dr. Qiu transferred any bat coronavirus samples or physical materials related to the WIV bat project, the newly released U.S. intelligence raises the possibility that her intellectual contributions from Canada may have been more central than previously realized. At minimum, the documents confirm that Qiu was operating inside one of the world’s most advanced virology labs in Canada while simultaneously collaborating with the same Wuhan scientists now identified in the U.S. report as architects of a chimeric virus bank.

The documents also confirm that Wuhan scientists aggressively pressured Canadian researchers to share samples with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and that Chinese military agents repeatedly breached security protocols at the Winnipeg lab—roaming unchecked through restricted areas—and clandestinely transported biological materials in and out while working with Dr. Qiu and her husband.

In detail, what the CSIS intelligence records show is that Dr. Qiu—a senior scientist at Canada’s National Microbiology Laboratory—began building formal ties with the Wuhan Institute and the Chinese Academy of Sciences in the years leading up to the pandemic. She applied to join the Thousand Talents Plan in 2017, a covert Chinese government program designed to recruit foreign experts. CSIS determined that the Wuhan Institute co-sponsored her application and that Qiu began receiving undisclosed funding through a secret Chinese bank account. She worked closely with Dr. Shi Zhengli, China’s top bat virus expert.

In June 2018, Dr. Qiu applied for a “high-end” research project through the Chinese Academy of Sciences, an institution CSIS describes as working closely with the People’s Liberation Army on dual-use biotechnology. This suggests a turning point: Dr. Qiu moved from academic collaboration to direct involvement in China’s military-linked pathogen research programs, effectively bridging Canada’s Winnipeg Lab with the Wuhan Institute of Virology on synthetic bat virus research.

Between 2018 and 2019, Dr. Qiu co-led two classified research streams with Dr. Shi at the Wuhan lab: one focused on gain-of-function experiments with Ebola, aimed at studying how the virus could be made more contagious; the second on synthetic bat coronavirus construction, building lab-made viruses.

In October 2018, a Wuhan lab technician referred to as “Individual 2” in CSIS reports was caught attempting to remove 10 unlabelled test tubes from the Winnipeg lab. While the contents have never been disclosed, the incident triggered internal alarms over unauthorized transfers. Then, in March 2019, Dr. Qiu and another Winnipeg scientist shipped live samples of Ebola, Nipah, and specially adapted virus strains to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. These transfers occurred just months before the U.S. intelligence timeline suggests a lab-engineered virus escaped containment in Wuhan.

While the Ebola and Nipah viruses she is known to have transferred are not coronaviruses, her scientific standing, access to biocontainment environments, and coordination with Dr. Shi suggest her work likely supported, directly or indirectly, the scientific environment that produced the agent of the COVID-19 pandemic. If the escape occurred in mid-2019, it would place Qiu and her prior visits to WIV in the direct window of critical research activities.

For Canadian readers and voters—as new revelations emerge about Chinese interference and apparent favouritism toward the Liberal government under Mark Carney—the Trudeau government’s failure to act on early intelligence warnings demands renewed scrutiny.

Canada’s intelligence agency raised red flags about Dr. Xiangguo Qiu’s activities as early as 2018. Yet collaboration with Chinese military-linked laboratories continued right up to the brink of the COVID-19 outbreak. Samples were transferred. Funding continued to flow. Warnings were dismissed. No one was held accountable.

For the Canadian soldier who came forward, at a minimum, Canadians should know more about China’s suspected role in the creation of the bat coronavirus and cover-up, and whether Canadian scientific capacity played a direct or indirect role.

“I have no special insights as to links with the Winnipeg lab, CCP/MSS infiltration there, or how this tied to COVID-19,” the Canadian soldier said. “That said, considering the vast, deep, and broad collusion between Canadian officials and organs of the PRC, nothing should be dismissed.”

Dan Knight

The former central banker, who now postures as a man of the people, made it clear that if the Liberals are re-elected, the federal government will intensify efforts to regulate what Canadians are allowed to see, say, and share online.

At a campaign rally in Hamilton, Ontario, Liberal leader Mark Carney unveiled what can only be described as a coordinated assault on digital freedom in Canada. Behind the slogans, applause lines, and empty rhetoric about unity, one portion of Carney’s remarks stood out for its implications: a bold, unapologetic commitment to controlling online speech under the guise of “safety” and “misinformation.”

“We announced a series of measures with respect to online harm… a sea of misogyny, anti-Semitism, hatred, conspiracy theories—the sort of pollution that’s online that washes over our virtual borders from the United States.”

He then made clear his intention to act:

“My government, if we are elected, will be taking action on those American giants who come across [our] border.”

The former central banker, who now postures as a man of the people, made it clear that if the Liberals are re-elected, the federal government will intensify efforts to regulate what Canadians are allowed to see, say, and share online. His language was deliberate. Carney condemned what he called a “sea of misogyny, anti-Semitism, hatred, conspiracy theories” polluting Canada’s internet space—language borrowed directly from the Trudeau-era playbook. But this wasn’t just a moral denunciation. It was a legislative preview.

Carney spoke of a future Liberal government taking “action on those American giants who come across our borders.” Translation: he wants to bring Big Tech platforms under federal control, or at least force them to play the role of speech enforcers for the Canadian state. He blamed the United States for exporting “hate” into Canada, reinforcing the bizarre Liberal narrative that the greatest threat to national unity isn’t foreign actors like the CCP or radical Islamists—it’s Facebook memes and American podcasts.

But the most revealing moment came when Carney linked online speech directly to violence. He asserted that digital “pollution” affects how Canadians behave in real life, specifically pointing to conjugal violence, antisemitism, and drug abuse. This is how the ground is prepared for censorship: first by tying speech to harm, then by criminalizing what the state deems harmful.

What Carney didn’t say is just as important. He made no distinction between actual criminal incitement and political dissent. He offered no assurance that free expression—a right enshrined in Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms—would be respected. He provided no definition of what constitutes a “conspiracy theory” or who gets to make that determination. Under this framework, any criticism of government policy, of global institutions, or of the new technocratic order could be flagged, throttled, and punished.

And that’s the point.

Mark Carney isn’t interested in dialogue. He wants obedience. He doesn’t trust Canadians to discern truth from fiction. He believes it’s the job of government—his government—to curate the national conversation, to protect citizens from wrongthink, to act as referee over what is and isn’t acceptable discourse. In short, he wants Ottawa to become the Ministry of Truth.

Why They Don’t Actually Care About Antisemitism

The Liberal establishment talks a big game about fighting hate—but when it comes to actual antisemitic violence, they’ve shown nothing but selective enforcement and political cowardice.

Let’s look at the facts.

In 2023, B’nai Brith Canada recorded nearly 6,000 antisemitic incidents, including 77 violent attacks—from firebombed synagogues to shots fired at Jewish schools in Montreal and Toronto. This wasn’t a marginal increase. It was a 208% spike in violent antisemitism in a single year.

Statistics Canada echoed the same alarm bells. Jews—who make up just 1% of Canada’s population—were the victims of 70% of all religiously motivated hate crimes. That’s nearly 900 recorded incidents, up 71% from the previous year. Then came October 2023, when Hamas launched its attack on Israel—and the wave of hate turned into a tsunami: a 670% increase in antisemitic incidents across the country. Jewish schools, synagogues, and community centers were hit with bomb threats, arson attempts, and intimidation campaigns. This was a national security issue, not just a policing matter.

And yet, the government’s response? Virtually nonexistent.

Case in point: the Montreal Riot, November 2024. A 600-person mob, waving anti-NATO and pro-Palestinian banners, turned violent—setting fires, smashing windows, and attacking police. Amid this chaos, a man was filmed screaming “Final Solution”—a direct reference to the Nazi plan to exterminate the Jews. It went viral. There was no ambiguity, no misunderstanding. It was a public call for genocide.

So what happened?

Three arrests. None for hate crimes. None related to antisemitism. Montreal Police Chief Fady Dagher insisted there were “no confirmed antisemitic acts,” and as of early 2025, no hate crime charges have been filed against the individual caught on camera.

That man, as it turns out, owned a Second Cup franchise. His punishment? His café was shut down by the company. Not by law enforcement. Not by hate crime investigators. A corporate HR department showed more backbone than Canada’s justice system.

And this is what reveals the truth: they don’t care. They’ll enforce hate speech laws when it’s politically convenient—when it can be used to silence critics, crush dissent, or placate woke constituencies. But when Jewish communities are being threatened, attacked, and terrorized? The same laws suddenly go limp. The same political class that claims to protect minorities becomes paralyzed. They won’t touch it. Because confronting real antisemitism would require standing up to their political allies in activist circles, university campuses, and radical protest movements.

This isn’t an accident. It’s a pattern.

The Liberals aren’t weak on antisemitism because they’re unaware of it. They’re weak on it because they don’t see political value in enforcing the law when it conflicts with their ideological allies. Their obsession isn’t with hate speech—it’s with controlling “wrong” speech. And what qualifies as “wrong” isn’t defined by law or principle. It’s defined by what the Liberal establishment deems unacceptable.

Their target isn’t violent bigotry. It’s dissent. They’ll chase down citizens for questioning carbon taxes or criticizing globalist policy—but when Jewish schools get shot at, or someone calls for genocide in the street, they shrug.

This isn’t leadership. It’s selective justice. And it proves, beyond any doubt, that their agenda was never about protecting Canadians. It was always about protecting control.

The Online Harms Act: Carney’s Blueprint for Speech Control

This isn’t hypothetical. Mark Carney’s remarks in Hamilton mirror the exact logic and intent behind the Online Harms Act (Bill C-63)—legislation drafted under the Liberal banner and introduced in 2024 that pushes Canada into territory no free society should accept.

At its core, Bill C-63 hands the federal government sweeping powers to police digital speech. It creates a Digital Safety Commission, an unelected bureaucratic authority empowered to monitor, investigate, and punish online platforms and individuals for content deemed “harmful.” That word—harmful—is never concretely defined. It includes things like “hate speech,” “conspiracy theories,” and vague notions of “harm to children,” but it’s written broadly enough to be used as a political weapon.

The most chilling provision? Preemptive imprisonment. Under this law, Canadians could be jailed for up to a year—without having committed a crime—if a judge believes they might post something harmful in the future. This isn’t law enforcement. This is thought policing.

Carney didn’t just echo this approach—he amplified it. In his Hamilton rally, he described the internet as being flooded with “misogyny, anti-Semitism, hatred, conspiracy theories,” and laid blame on foreign content “washing over our borders from the United States.” He didn’t argue for open debate or for empowering users to challenge dangerous ideas. He argued for the state to intervene and shut them down.

He told Canadians that these ideas are “changing how people behave” and claimed his government will go after “those American giants” that allow this content to circulate. There’s no ambiguity here: this is a public declaration that a Liberal government under Mark Carney intends to censor, de-platform, and penalize dissenting views. Not illegal ones—just ones they don’t like.

And this isn’t new for him. Back in 2022, during the Freedom Convoy, Carney referred to protesters as committing “sedition” and demanded the government “thoroughly punish” them. These weren’t violent rioters or foreign agitators—these were working-class Canadians honking their horns and standing in the cold, protesting vaccine mandates. For Carney, their real crime was disobedience.

Carney’s view of speech is simple: if it challenges the ruling order, it’s dangerous. And now, with Bill C-63 on the table and Carney at the helm, he’s building the legal infrastructure to lock down the digital public square—not to protect Canadians from violence, but to protect the Liberal establishment from criticism.

That law is real. Carney’s agenda is real. And if he wins, enforcement is coming.

Final thoughts

This is the Canada Mark Carney envisions—one where citizens can’t speak freely online without first checking their views against government guidelines. A country where speech is no longer a right but a privilege granted by bureaucrats. A country where opposition isn’t argued with, it’s labeled harmful and erased.

There was a time when Liberals championed civil liberties. That era is over. The new Liberalism is authoritarian—cloaked in the language of safety and inclusion, but animated by control. Carney’s rally in Hamilton wasn’t a policy rollout. It was a warning to anyone who still thinks they live in a country where dissent is allowed.

They don’t want to fight hate. They want to define “wrong” speech—and then eliminate it. And by “wrong,” they mean anything the Liberal establishment disapproves of. Criticize the government, question the orthodoxy, challenge the state’s narrative, and you’ll be branded a threat. Not a citizen. Not a participant. A threat.

So here we are.

The speech laws are written. The censors are waiting. And Mark Carney is ready to pull the trigger.

This election isn’t about tax credits or campaign slogans. It’s about whether Canada remains a free country or slides deeper into soft tyranny, one regulation, one commission, one silenced voice at a time.

There is a choice. And the choice is this: bring it home—restore freedom, restore sanity, restore this country.

Or: hand the keys to the same people who think you’re the problem for having the nerve to think for yourself.