Elaine Dewar: Who’s Afraid of Angela Rasmussen?

The following is a response from Elaine Dewar to Dr. Angela Rasmussen, regarding her recent appearances on Canadaland and The John Gormley Show.

Once upon a time, scientists explained their findings and opinions in peer-reviewed journals or in carefully worded lectures delivered at scientific meetings. Now science moves at internet speed and Twitter has taken the place of learned societies as a favored forum. In the white hot propaganda war over the origin of SARS-CoV-2, scientists on opposing sides of the lab-leak versus nature debate have taken to Twitter like penguins in search of lunch in Antarctica’s waters. On Twitter, they heave nasty adjectives at their opponents with all the subtlety and care of the late Rush Limbaugh. Recently, a virologist named Angela Rasmussen (who claims over 200,000 Twitter followers), formerly of Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, and now with the University of Saskatchewan’s Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization, threw certain adjectives at me. I had been a guest on a Canadaland podcast explaining the findings of my new book, On the Origin of the Deadliest Pandemic in 100 Years, to Jesse Brown. Ms. Rasmussen, who, since the pandemic began, has turned into a one-woman defender of globalized virological science on as many TV shows, newscasts, magazines, newspapers willing to quote her (see her cv) got herself invited to the Canadaland podcast to denounce my book and her version of the main theory it propounds.

I don’t normally fuss over critiques of my published work. Journalists who throw stones are used to stones being thrown back and a good critique improves the work. I also try to live by a line made famous by champion boxer John L. Sullivan when some drunken twerp challenged him in a bar: “If you hit me,” said Sullivan, “and I hear about it….” On the Origin of the Deadliest Pandemic in 100 Years exposes undeclared competing interests, cover-ups by China’s officialdom, the manipulation of Canada’s National Microbiology Laboratory by China’s civilian/military virological establishment, and that labs outside the reach of US regulation have been doing dangerous gain-of-function experiments with USAID and NIH money given to them via a New York charity. The book follows the money and it names names. It shows that science done in authoritarian regimes cannot be trusted and why. So I expected pushback and I welcome it.

Nevertheless, I must respond to Ms. Rasmussen. She makes too many untruthful claims to ignore. While Ms. Rasmussen is entitled to dump on my book if she’s read it, her critique on the Canadaland podcast made it clear she hadn’t. Though I wrote to Jesse Brown, as did my publisher, asking him to attach my rebuttal of her false assertions to her podcast episode, Canadaland decided not to “re-litigate” the matter. Thus, this blog post.

I listened with amazement as Ms. Rasmussen began by accusing me of publishing a book that is “riddled with error starting with the title.” Why was the title in error? Ms. Rasmussen insisted that HIV/AIDS is the deadliest pandemic in 100 years, not SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19. While it is true that HIV/AIDS has killed about 35 million people over fifty years, Ms. Rasmussen must know that the WHO—which is the international body charged with declaring pandemics—did not declare HIV/AIDS to be one. Killing 35 million over fifty years is bad, but killing at minimum 6 million people around the world (while infecting hundreds of millions) in 18 months is the worst pandemic in 100 years.

Ms. Rasmussen then asserted that my publisher failed to fact check the book as evidenced by the title. In fact my publisher had four fact checkers go over it from the cover to the acknowledgements—400 pages with over 400 endnotes drawn mainly from scientific publications but also from interviews with virologists—starting with the title.

Ms. Rasmussen insisted that if only I’d bothered to interview virologists, I would have been set straight on a number of points, including the function of a genetic sequence conserved in all coronaviruses known as the RdRp ( which stands for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase). That’s when it became quite clear that she had not bothered to read the book but was responding to what she thought I said in the interview I’d given Jesse Brown. If she had read the book, she would have known how many virologists I tried to interview, and who among them finally agreed to speak with me. One who did consent to be interviewed, virologist Linfa Wang, is a close associate of Shi Zhengli, the so-called Bat Woman of China. It is Shi Zhengli’s lab that has become a focus for those arguing that a leak from a lab may have caused the pandemic. I interviewed others as well, but in particular a Canadian government virologist, Basil Arif, who, since 1998, has worked on the journal Shi edits, Virologica Sinicawhich is published by the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Arif has also done important papers with Zhihong Hu, the former director of the WIV and the former boss of Shi Zhengli. Arif has been going annually to the Wuhan Institute of Virology for more than twenty years, which cannot be said of Ms. Rasmussen who admits she doesn’t know Shi Zhengli, but knows “friends” of hers, and that she is “honest.” Unfortunately, as my book shows, that claim is also far from true.

When Brown asked Rasmussen why, if my book is riddled with errors, the well-known science writer and editor, Nicholas Wade, had praised it, she replied that Nicholas Wade should be ignored on the grounds that a book he wrote in 2014 defines him as a racist. (Racist is a word she hurls around fairly frequently, along with the epithet grifter.) Wade’s views on the subject of intelligence, the subject of his book, are beside the point. The article he wrote in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientistsdescribing, among other things, his concern about how leading scientists tried to label as conspiracy theorists all who raised the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 leaked from a lab—finally made it possible for leading major media in the US to publicly consider the question. Instead of speaking to Wade’s points, she used a vile name to try to write him off.

Similarly, she mis-characterized what I wrote about the unusual five year relationship between the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg and the leading military/civilian virologists in China, including George F. Gao and Major General Chen Wei of the Peoples’ Liberation Army.

She also insisted that I believe the genome sequence known as RaTG13 is the viral ancestor of SARS-CoV-2. In fact, the book makes clear that I believe RaTG13 is a red herring and a symptom of the many things we have not been told about work done in Shi Zhengli’s lab. While until recently RaTG13 was the closest published viral sequence to SARS-CoV-2, it is fairly distant and does not have the furin cleavage site which makes SARS-CoV-2 so efficient at causing infection. (We now know that Shi Zhengli, Linfa Wang, and American colleagues Ralph Baric and Peter Daszak sought $14 million from DARPA in 2018 to, among other things, insert furin cleavage sites into SARS-related coronaviruses isolated by Shi’s lab. They didn’t get that grant, but we don’t know if Shi Zhengli got grant money elsewhere and did the planned experiments herself.) My book makes clear that I like best a quite different origin theory proposed by plant virologists Jonathan Latham and Allison Wilson. They sought to explain why SARS-COV-2 appeared to be so well-adapted to human beings from the start of the pandemic. If it originated in a bat or jumped to humans through an intermediate animal, why were there so few mutations in the first few months of its circulation? This adaptation to humans from the start was pointed to by Alina Chan and colleagues who compared it to SARS’s rapid mutation in the first quarter of its circulation. Chan’s work was only published as a pre-print (and poohpoohed as such by Rasmussen) but many other scientists in peer-reviewed papers pointed to the same issue, including one paper published in the journal Cell and commented on by Rasmussen herself.

Latham and Wilson argue that SARS-COV-2 or its direct ancestor, became well-adapted to humans in the lungs of six miners back in 2012. They had been hired to clear bat feces out of a copper mine in Yunnan, China. They got terribly sick with a SARS-like pneumonia. Three died. Samples from their lungs, taken over the course of several months, were sent to Shi Zhengli at the Wuhan Institute of Virology because she was by then expert in SARS-like coronaviruses. Shi only admitted she had those samples after a Masters thesis and PhD thesis describing the miners’ illnesses, treatments, and where their samples were sent, were discovered by members of a group of curious volunteers called DRASTIC. Shi Zhengli has still not published anything about what she found in those samples but has confirmed that they remain in her lab. Latham and Wilson argue that studying those samples would have given Shi a ringside seat as a bat virus evolved in real time into something that could easily infect humans. When challenged by Jesse Brown on that point, Ms. Rasmussen said Latham and Wilson are plant virologists, so their argument holds no water. In fact, their argument had already been supported by a study done in the UK and published in a medical journal in February. Doctors there took a series of samples over several months from the lungs of a man infected with SARS-CoV-2. These samples were sequenced and showed in real time how the virus adapted through mutation to the different treatments tried.

Toward the end of the podcast, Brown asked Rasmussen if she knew why W. Ian Lipkin—one of the coauthors of an early paper published in Nature Medicine that claimed a lab leak to be highly unlikely—had changed his mind and wanted a proper investigation of that possibility. Over most of 2020, that Nature Medicine paper was pointed to again and again as the refutation of any who dared to say a lab leak might have been possible. That paper served the propaganda interests of China, but also the interests of the American institutions that had funded Shi Zhengli’s work—USAID, the NIH/NIAID—through EcoHealth Alliance, also a major funder of Lipkin’s work at Columbia’s Mailman School. Most of the papers’ coauthors, including Lipkin, failed to acknowledge any competing interests, such as their relationships with those funders and with China. Ms. Rasmussen told Brown that though she used to work for Lipkin (until 2020), she did not know why he’d changed his mind. Yet Lipkin had been widely quoted on that subject. He said information had emerged about very dangerous gain-of-function experiments done by Shi Zhengli and her colleagues in low security labs which was “unsafe.” Even if Ms. Rasmussen did not read those articles, if she’d read my book she would have known exactly why Lipkin changed his mind.

Ms. Rasmussen may be a terrific virologist but critiquing a book she did not read is a dubious scientific practice. She might want to reconsider as well her strong support of global cooperation among scientists without regard to the conditions under which some scientists work. In particular, she should rethink whether we can rely on science done by colleagues working in authoritarian regimes. Early in the pandemic, China’s officials made clear to its scientists that they must get official permission to publish anything on SARS-CoV-2, or else, and that getting that permission would depend upon whether an article fit the propaganda interests of the government of China. Scientists in the west need to take care to avoid being dragged into China’s propaganda machinery which is extensive. The Propaganda Department of China regards scientific publishing as part of its purview and reports directly to the highest leadership.

Ms. Rasmussen’s appearance on the Canadaland podcast was clearly useful to China. CGTN—the China Global Television Network—took note of it and published on its website an article that bears this false title: “Virologist refutes Dewar’s theories….”

Read the original post on Elaine Dewar’s blog here.

Elaine Dewar’s bio.

Get your copy of On the Origin of the Deadliest Pandemic in 100 Years here.


On the Origin Launch Video

Last night we celebrated the virtual launch of Elaine Dewar’s On the Origin of the Deadliest Pandemic in 100 Years! Elaine Dewar had a fascinating discussion with Wayne Grady, Canadian writer, editor, and translator. Afterward, there was an audience Q&A and giveaway of a copy of On the Origin of the Deadliest Pandemic in 100 Years!

And if you weren’t able to join last night, don’t worry! You can still watch the event here:


In this compelling whodunnit, Elaine Dewar reads the science, follows the money, and connects the geopolitical interests to the spin.

When the first TV newscast described a SARS-like flu affecting a distant Chinese metropolis, investigative journalist Elaine Dewar started asking questions: Was SARS-CoV-2 something that came from nature, as leading scientists insisted, or did it come from a lab, and what role might controversial experiments have played in its development? Why was Wuhan the pandemic’s ground zero—and why, on the other side of the Atlantic, had two researchers been marched out of a lab in Winnipeg by the RCMP? Why were governments so slow to respond to the emerging pandemic, and why, now, is the government of China refusing to cooperate with the World Health Organization? And who, or what, is DRASTIC?

Locked down in Toronto with the world at a standstill, Dewar pored over newspapers and magazines, preprints and peer-reviewed journals, email chains and blacked-out responses to access to information requests; she conducted Zoom interviews and called telephone numbers until someone answered as she hunted down the truth of the virus’s origin. In this compelling whodunnit, she reads the science, follows the money, connects the geopolitical interests to the spin—and shows how leading science journals got it wrong, leaving it to interested citizens and junior scientists to pull out the truth.


Elaine Dewar—author, journalist, television story editor—has been honoured by nine National Magazine awards, including the prestigious President’s Medal, and the White Award. Her first book, Cloak of Green, delved into the dark side of environmental politics and became an underground classic. Bones: Discovering the First Americans, an investigation of the science and politics regarding the peopling of the Americas, was a national bestseller and earned a special commendation from the Canadian Archaeological Association. The Second Tree: of Clones, Chimeras, and Quests for Immortality, won Canada’s premier literary non-fiction prize from the Writers’ Trust. Called “Canada’s Rachel Carson,” Dewar aspires to be a happy warrior for the public good.


Order your copy from Biblioasis here!

Biblioasis News, Reviews, and Excerpts!



Elaine Dewar, author of On the Origin of the Deadliest Pandemic in 100 Years: An Investigation (August 31, 2021), was featured in an article on CBC Manitoba titled “New book debunks Winnipeg-lab conspiracy theory but questions collaboration with Chinese military scientist”! The article was published online on August 31. You can read it here.

Elaine Dewar also appeared on CHCH Morning Live for an interview about her book On the Origin of the Deadliest Pandemic in 100 Years. The interview with Annette Hamm aired on September 2. You can watch it on their website here.

Get your copy from Biblioasis here!


HOUSEHOLDERSHouseholders cover

On August 25, Quill & Quire published their Best of Fall 2021 Guide for Fiction, Short Fiction, and Poetry, and Kate Cayley’s Householders (September 14, 2021) was on the list!

Andrew Woodrow-Butcher wrote about Householders:

“The accomplished fiction writer, playwright, and poet veers from the fantastic to the mundane and back again in her latest collection of intertwined stories, which features neighbourhood drama, zombies, and an underground bunker.”

The Best of Fall 2021 Guide will be published in the September 2021 issue, and can be read on their website here.

Householders (September 14, 2021) was also included by the Lambda Literary on their list “September’s Most Anticipated LGBTQIA+ Literature”! The list was put together by Sydney Heidenberg on September 1, and it can be read on the Lambda Literary website here.

Order your copy from Biblioasis here!


On Decline cover


Andrew Potter, author of On Decline (August 17, 2021), published an article in The Globe and Mail titled “The COVID-19 pandemic. Climate change. Culture wars. For the West, the party is over”! The article was published online on August 20. You can read it here.

An excerpt was also published in The Walrus on August 25. You can read the excerpt here.

Get your copy from Biblioasis here!

A Biblioasis Interview with Elaine Dewar

Elaine Dewar’s On the Origin of the Deadliest Pandemic in 100 Years is not what readers have come to expect from Biblioasis. But it seems to us one of the most important works we’ve been part of at the press. As Phil Marchand pointed out with her last book, Dewar “is justly well-known for her relentless research and we’re fortunate to have her,” and this relentless research is on full display with On the Origin.

What she uncovers is a scientific world of little oversight, questionable motives, greed, deception, and political malfeasance, one open to manipulation and sabotage by outside forces, all of it with deep implications for how we move forward, not just with the COVID-19 pandemic itself but with the systems and structures that allowed for it, and which, if they are not reformed, may result in the same thing happening again. Dewar has uncovered facts about this case and made connections that have not yet been made public, in either our national newspapers or parliamentary debates. Its implications are explosive. She has provided language for what we are all experiencing, and in total this book should be read as a wake-up call to all of us, to demand more accountability and transparency from all, but especially those in positions of power.

Q1: Your new book On the Origin of the Deadliest Pandemic in 100 Years tackles one of the most troubling and controversial subjects of our age. To start, can you tell us a little bit about the book’s origin?

A1: I started clipping bits and pieces about the pandemic in January of 2020 because the coverage I was reading so reminded me of SARS, up to and including the false assurances from Canadian authorities that Canadians had nothing to fear, that the risk to Canadians was “low.” I was struck by how in those early stories the numbers kept doubling; the sure mark of easy person-to-person transmission of an infectious disease, and clearly a bad disease because the Wuhan hospitals were apparently very crowded. And China’s authorities were playing that down. By the end of January, Canada already had its first cases, yet the federal government kept saying nothing to worry about, we have no direct flights to Wuhan, as if that meant anything. It was obvious there was a great deal to worry about. China had locked down a city of 11 million and was frantically erecting enormous field hospitals. They clearly expected an unprecedented disaster. By then I had already started reading whatever I could find on the pandemic and noticed a story about two researchers in Wuhan who published what is called a preprint claiming that the virus might have leaked from one of two labs in Wuhan that study coronaviruses sampled from bats in the field, and that the researchers don’t take proper precautions. At about that time, someone asked the Minister of Health at a press conference about the possibility that the virus had leaked from a lab in China. She snapped the reporter’s head off and accused him of asking a racist question. By then I had been following the story of the collapse of Canada’s relations with China for some time, and the two stories sort of snapped together in my head. By the time Dan Wells got in touch in May and asked me to do a quick book for a new series he was launching, suggesting something on pandemic profiteers, I was already hooked on the origin story. Where did it come from? Lab or nature? How could I find out with the borders shut and Canada in lockdown?

Q2: Well, how could you find out? And what did you find? How did the research and writing of this book differ from those which preceded it?

A2: How to find out was the big problem. I don’t work for a newspaper: I could not argue that I needed to cross borders to do interviews. And I couldn’t get to people anyway because labs were closed, government offices were shut down with most bureaucrats working from home. So I was reminded of I.F. Stone, the great American journalist who published a weekly out of Washington D.C. He found his most explosive stories by reading published documents and making Freedom of Information applications for documents that were not public. I thought given this was a story about the science of virology, I should start by reading the publications in peer-reviewed journals about the origin of a virus that clearly seemed to have adapted immediately to human beings. And so that’s what I did. And what I found in peer-reviewed journals and in papers published by the scientists at the heart of the story led me into the story of a science that has gone global since SARS with very few regulations and a whole lot of pandemic potential danger attached to it. The more I read, the more the lab leak thesis seemed possible, not the deranged maunderings of racists and tinfoil-hatted conspiracy theorists as they were by then being described by scientists who were organizing all kinds of publications to knock that theory down. At which point the story expanded from reading the science to following the undeclared interests…

Q3: Yes, undeclared interests. That could have been the title of the book, and it’s one of the main things, I think, that On the Origin untangles. By the end of it I was wondering how we could trust anyone on anything remotely touching on the pandemic. There are too many to list for this interview, but is there any undeclared interest you would like to highlight here?

A3: I think the undeclared interests I found that upset me most, angered me most, were those connected with an article that appeared in the most highly rated science peer-reviewed journal Nature, which purported to show that the genome of SARS-CoV-2 could not have been the result of laboratory manipulation. There were five authors on that peer reviewed paper. The only one who declared a competing interest was an expert from Tulane University who declared he had interests related to a company he’s involved in. Three others on that paper all had serious interest in staying on the good side of China, who used this paper like a shield for the next year to say “You see, serious scientists say it couldn’t have been made in a lab.” Kristian Andersen, the lead author who is at the Scripps, which was in such financial trouble that it entered a relationship with a Chinese entity to keep it out of trouble, also had an application into the NIAID, a grant he later won. The NIAID had funded work done at one of the labs thought to be a possible source of a lab leak in Wuhan, Shi Zhengli’s lab at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. And that funding was aimed at the kinds of gain-of-function experiments which had caused fear and concern to critics for years. Another author on that paper, Ian W. Lipkin at Columbia, worked out of an institution that had been paid large sums of money from USAID through a charity called EcoHealth Alliance, which funded one of the labs in Wuhan. He had been honoured by China and has an honorary position there. Nothing was said about his competing interest. The third is E.C. Holmes, whose work is mainly done in China though he has a position at the University of Sydney and also at Fudan University in Shanghai. He had helped his Fudan colleague put up the genome sequence of the virus on a blog run out of Edinburgh because China’s officials were holding off its publication. This article was written shortly after both Holmes and Andersen called Anthony Fauci, head of the NIAID, on January 31, 2020, after Science ran a story in which one expert said a lab leak was a possibility. They told Fauci that their investigation of the genome revealed that a small portion of it might have been engineered in a lab. Holmes did not reveal in the Nature paper that he had done a number of papers with the lead bat /coronavirus researcher in Wuhan who works at the other lab suspected of being the source of the leak, the Wuhan CDC. The very next day, Andersen and Holmes were part of an emergency conference call organized by Fauci, Francis Collins of the NIH, Fauci’s boss, and several others in which this possibility was urgently discussed. Undoubtedly the difficult position of these funding agency directors was that they might be accused of funding the creation of SARS by funding one of those labs. Yet two days after that, Andersen was participating in crafting a letter to send to the White House accusing anyone who said a lab leak was a possible origin of the virus of being conspiracy theorists. He wanted to make the letter tougher than the man writing it, Peter Daszak. Daszak was also the author of a statement in Lancet yelling about a lab origin thesis as a conspiracy theory. Daszak did not declare a competing interest on that statement—specifically that his charity, EcoHealth Alliance, had been acting as a cutout for US funders like the National Science Foundation, the NIAID, and USAID, who all had funded Shi Zhengli’s work at the WIV’s lab. And we’re not talking about a little bit of money, we’re talking millions. Daszak went on to become chair of Lancet’s task force on the origin of the virus, again without declaring his interest in avoiding any investigation of a lab leak at the WIV, and also got himself appointed to the WHO-convened study of the origin of the virus. The WHO did not publish the competing interests of those foreign researchers who participated in that study and had them all sign confidentiality agreements so they couldn’t squeal on each other. The study’s phase one pointedly avoided any kind of investigation of the labs in Wuhan without doing any study on that question at all. It took months for various researchers to put these interests together.

Q4: There is a Canadian thread to your book, one which, though not directly connected to the origin of COVID, nevertheless sheds some light on the issue. Can you tell us a little bit about this?

A4: There was a theory in the early days of the pandemic that the virus might have been shipped from the National Microbiology Laboratory to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the leading coronavirus study group in China. Back in 2019, two researchers had been taken out of the lab, their security clearances revoked: one of them had done papers on both SARS and on ACE2, one of the receptors for SARS-CoV-2 in humans. There was nothing to it: but it got me looking at what had gone on at the lab, about the two suspended researchers who came to Canada in the middle 90s when a whole group of researchers were sent from China to study in western labs, and what I discovered about their connections to China and the Wuhan Institute of Virology shed a lot of light on how biological science has become a globalized operation, and how China has placed its people in very important western institutions and then made use of them. It gave me the framework for the larger story of China’s long term plan to treat biology and biotechnology as a strategic high ground. The NML story took me to a bigger one.

Q5: And what was this bigger story?

A5: The larger story is about China’s long term plan to occupy the strategic high ground with regard to biology, and biotechnology, including apparently both the capacity to wage and defend against bio warfare. In pursuit of that strategy, which dates back to Deng Xiaoping’s time leading China, many very bright young aspiring scientists were sent to the West for their graduate studies. Many of them were high achievers who ended up on leading academic positions as well as in leading pharmaceuticals (like Sanofi in Canada) and also in the main high containment laboratories in the US (like Galveston) and in Canada at the National Microbiology Laboratory (Qiu and Cheng, etc.) Some of these people smuggled out important reagents, hid their connections to China’s military and transferred important data to China.

Q6: As you know, the Trudeau government faced a lot of pressure to release information about why Qiu and Cheng were fired from Winnipeg’s National Microbiology Laboratory, and that they went further than perhaps any government before them by suing the Speaker of the House to keep these documents from parliamentarians. This week, and in the middle of an election, as reported in the Globe and Mail, the government quietly withdrew its lawsuit. What is the significance of this? And why should Canadians care about who Qiu and Cheng are, and why they were fired?

A6: The timing of the election was in part to avoid having to produce the documents as per the June resolution of the House of Commons that the President of PHAC deliver unredacted versions of all emails and documents relating to the firing of Qiu and Cheng. The President, Iain Stewart, had claimed he could not provide unredacted documents due to the Privacy Act. The Canada-China committee brought forward a resolution in the minority Parliament which passed it demanding the unredacted documents. When the House voted in favour of the resolution, and PHAC and the Minister of Health still did not comply, the President was admonished at the bar of Parliament, which has not happened to a non-politician since 1910, the Speaker was about to decide whether to send the Sergeant at Arms to PHAC to get the documents when the House rose for the summer break. The Speaker decided to hold off sending the Sergeant at arms until the House resumed in September, but the government by then had decided to call the election. By going to the Governor General and asking for an election, the House was dissolved, the resolution became moot, and so the government withdrew its suit against the Speaker. It would have lost in the Federal Court. The Supreme Court has already ruled that Parliament is supreme, no court can stop it from getting information it asks for from the government of the day. The government was doing its best to cover up what had been going on at the National Microbiology Laboratory for years, which entailed what seem to be really outrageous breaches of national security, including experiments done by Qiu and Cheng along with a major general in the Peoples Liberation Army. If that woman, Chen Wei, did not have access to the NML labs, and I am pretty sure she did, she certainly had access to its data, which also requires a security clearance, long after Qiu and Cheng were suspended and their clearances retracted. Papers were published in 2020 that make that clear. Instead of being transparent about the mistakes made, over which the Minister of Health should have resigned, along with the Minister of Public Safety, the government chose to call an election to avoid the public knowing the exact nature of its amazing failure of oversight.

On the Origin of the Deadliest Pandemic in 100 Years coverQ7: This book is part of the Field Note pamphlet series, and was signed on as On Blame. But over the course of your research the focus of the book changed and expanded, and blame became a far lesser concern, if only because there was so much to go around. It’s about the origin of this specific pandemic, yes, but it is about much more than this, too, with ramifications for how we move forward. If there were one or two quick takeaways you would like your readers to have on finishing On the Origin of the Deadliest Pandemic in 100 Years, what would it/they be?

A7: The most important takeaway is that this book demonstrates the real danger is from arrogant and reckless globalized biological science which may have let loose the whirlwind. Globalized science is usually presented as a great boon, the best minds wherever they are working together for the good of humankind and the planet. What this book shows is what just about everyone who studies the practice of science knows: scientists are not sweet and selfless souls just following their curiosity. Like the rest of us, they must compete to achieve. For their work to continue and their prestige to grow, they must capture public resources. She who can do that best acquires power, which will in turn be used to defend those interests. In other words, research science is by definition intensely political, and when it is done across national boundaries by scientists from countries that are competitors, the merely political becomes geopolitical. China sees itself as a rising nation held back by the US. The US and Canada rightly see China as a strategic threat. The US in particular has been very careless about who and what it funded in China, apparently so it could keep a close eye on what China might be doing in the way of biological warfare research. But that meant work was done in China with American support that remained outside the regulatory purview of the US and in conditions that are not acceptable in the US. Canada, under intense economic pressure from China, clearly allowed our top containment lab, which used to do wonderful work, to be captured by China’s operatives acting in China’s interests, which do not coincide with our own. All governments and the scientists involved in this story have done what governments and people often do when they’ve screwed up. They covered up. And it’s up to us, the stakeholders as we are called, who have suffered and died from their mistakes, to hold them to account.

Available August 31 in Canada and September 14 in the USA. You can pre-order a copy here.

Biblioasis 2017 Media Year in Review

2017 was a big year for us here at the Bibliomanse!  We released a ton of great new titles, two new Bibliofolk arrived as Casey Plett and Jonny Flieger joined the team, Biblioasis books made it onto some very prestigious awards lists, and we had a lot of great coverage in the media. Here are just a few highlights of some of the spectacular reviews and coverage our books received this past year:

Trade Paper $19.95
eBook $9.99

Alejandro Saravia’s Red, Yellow, Green had a great review in Montreal Review of Books“a labyrinthine narrative that lodges like shrapnel—bracing and painful…playfully absurdist, funny, brilliant, and courageous… Saravia’s accomplishment in Red, Yellow, Green is to make you care, and deeply”
Montreal Review of Books: History vs. Oblivion

Trade Paper $19.95
eBook $9.99

Kevin Hardcastle and John Irving spent some time “Bro-ing down” at the International Festival of Authors together. Kevin’s new novel In the Cage has been collecting heaps of praise from places such as Globe & Mail, Toronto Star, Maclean’s, National Post, and Foreword Reviews.
In Conversation: Kevin Hardcastle & John Irving
Maclean’s: Five Must Read Books for October
Toronto Star: Twenty-Five must-read books this fall
National Post: Book Review

Trade Paper $19.95
eBook $9.99

The Vancouver Sun recognized their Vancouver daughter, Cynthia Flood, and her new short story collection What Can You Do, saying it  “…makes for page-turning reading…Flood’s writing is sparse and direct, and tackles the challenging topics unfolding in her stories with welcome clarity.”

Trade Paper $19.95
eBook $9.99

Quill & Quire wrote that David Huebert’s Peninsula Sinking “…establishes Huebert as one of Canada’s most impressive young writers … the stories are far-reaching, but tightly woven, each focused on characters in significant moments of development or change.”
Quill & Quire Review



Trade Paper $24.95
eBook $13.99

The late Norman Levine’s collected short stories, I Don’t Want to Know Anyone Too Well, took some people by surprise this year. André Forget wrote in The Walrus “If Levine lacks for a Canadian readership, it could be in part because there is no definitive, breakout collection of his stories…that might change with I Don’t Want to Know Anyone Too Well. If great writing has a mark, surely this is it.”
Ian McGillis raised the stakes even higher for Levine, writing in The Montreal Gazette that Levine’s short stories should be compared to Gallant, Munro, and even Chekhov, believing “Norman Levine deserves it and his time has come.”
The Walrus: Will a Posthumous Story Collection Help Canada Forgive Norman Levine?
Montreal Gazette: Neglected story master Norman Levine gets his due in new collection

Trade Paper $19.95
eBook $9.99

 Robyn Sarah’s long-awaited selection of poems, Wherever We Mean to Be, was named one of CBC books’ “Canadian Poetry Collections to Watch For” and Anita Lahey wrote a beautiful profile on Sarah for The Walrus.
CBC: 16 Canadian poetry collections to watch for
The Walrus: Robyn Sarah’s Exquisitely Untrendy Poetry

Trade Paper $18.95
eBook $9.99

The Toronto Star wrote of Molly Peacock’s The Analyst, that “The poems bear witness to loss and change in the lives of two women, but they also offer a remarkable account of the restorative power of creativity… [Peacock’s] poetry’s orderly grace can seem paradoxical when she’s describing intense, chaotic emotions. But that lyrical craft is exactly what makes these poems resonate.”
Toronto Star: Poetry transforms Molly Peacock’s relationship with her analyst


Trade Paper $17.95
eBook $9.99

Even celebrities couldn’t keep their hands off of Biblioasis books this year!  Sarah Jessica Parker of Sex in the City fame raved about Carys Davies, saying  “Oh my God! Oh my God! It was so great! The Redemption of Galen Pike. A collection of short stories. I never read short stories. This book is so wonderful. One of the clerks at Three Lives Bookstore convinced me to get that book. It’s fantastic!”
Sarah Jessica Parker & The Redemption of Galen Pike
The Redemption of Galen Pike was also an Indie Next pick and a Women’s National Book Association pick for their National Reading Group Month Great Group Reads 2017 List.
National Reading Group: Great Group Reads
Indiebound List

Trade Paper $19.95
eBook $9.99

The long-form review lives on over at Music and Literature. It’s a disservice to their careful and thoughtful review of Elise Levine’s Blue Field to excerpt such a short quote but needs must. Hannah Leclair writes “Reading the novel is a sensation akin to drifting weightlessly beneath the surface of the text…dazzling, textured, tightly woven.”
Music & Literature Review

The Winnipeg Review agreed, saying “Elise Levine’s new novel takes place in a state of not suspense, but suspension. It is set, tellingly, in the rough space between two deaths in the protagonist’s life—first Marilyn’s parents, back to back, then her best friend. The novel ceaselessly evokes the hanging feeling of being deep underwater: all is muted, slow, and yet sensation is almost unbearably heightened … Levine is, undeniably, an outstanding wordsmith. Her writing style moves in multiple directions, making high stakes out of small movements while turning panic into poetry.”

Winnipeg Review

In The New York Times

The Newspaper of Record took notice of a number of Biblioasis books this year. The New York Times featured glowing reviews for Alison Moore’s The Lighthouse, Mark Kingwell’s Fail Betterand Jorge Carrion’s Bookshops.

Trade Paper $19.95
eBook $9.99

Trade Paper $22.95
eBook $9.99

Trade Cloth $32.95
eBook $9.99

The Lighthouse—New York Times’ On the Road in Germany, Accompanied by Troubling Memories
Fail Better—New York Times’ Now Batting: 14 New Baseball Books
Fail Better—New York Times’  How to Throw a Baseball
Bookshops—New York Times’ A Love Affair With Bookstores







Trade Cloth $29.95
Trade Paper $19.95
eBook $9.99

 Biblioasis’ Awards


Trade Cloth $29.95
Trade Paper $19.95
eBook $9.99

Author, editor, and Bibliofriend John Metcalf won an Ottawa Book Award for his collection The Museum at the End of the World. Metcalf also edited Biblioasis’ successful relaunch of Best Canadian Stories (Biblioasis authors David Huebert, Paige Cooper, Cynthia Flood, K.D. Miller & Grant Buday are among those included in the anthology!).
2017 Ottawa Book Awards


Patricia Young was a finalist for the Victoria Butler Book Prize for her collection of poems Short Takes on the Apocalypse.
Victoria Butler Book Prize

Trade Paper $18.95
eBook $9.99

Boundary, written by Andrée A. Michaud and translated from the French by Donald Winkler, was named to the 2017 Scotiabank Giller Prize longlist. World Literature Today says Boundary is “a haunting novel, rich with the details of the families’ daily lives and brilliant internal monologue, but the translation doesn’t draw attention to itself, a common flaw in translators too conscious of the masterful prose they are rendering. This is particularly appropriate here as Michaud’s remarkable writing seems entirely relaxed, belying what can only be very meticulously composed. Boundary has been recognized by a number of prizes in Canada, including the author’s second Governor General’s Award for Fiction. She deserves to be better known as one of the best writers in North America.”

Trade Paper $19.95
eBook $9.99

Scotia Bank Giller Prize: 2017 Long List Announced
World Literature Today: Book Review

And last but not least, Elaine Dewar was a Governor General’s Literary Award Finalist for her controversial book The Handover: How Bigwigs and Bureaucrats Transferred Canada’s Best Publisher and the Best Part of Our Literary Heritage to a Foreign Multinational. The book is all about the shady backroom deals that went on in order to package McClelland & Stewart off to international megapublisher Random House, robbing Canadians of one of the most definitively Canadian presses in the name of bigger profits and global monopolization.
Read the Maclean’s article on the deal and Dewar’s book here!

Trade Cloth $29.95
eBook $9.99

Phew. All that and we’ve barely skimmed the surface. There’s so much more to discover–all of our authors have been killing it and there’s so much great coverage and great responses to their amazing work out there.  Come down to the shop or stumble around the website here and find out more.  Congratulations to all our amazing Biblioasis authors and thank you so much to all our readers!  See you in the New Year!