The third in a series of articles exploring each aspect of the pandemic in detail.
The pandemic is, itself, a product of racketeering, fraud, and malfeasance on an unbelievable scale
The DOD and Biodefense
From 1991 onward, the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program sought to secure and dismantle Russian WMDs after the fall of the Soviet Union, supposedly reducing the threat posed by their massive stockpiles of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.
The Soviets had a number of facilities where they experimented with deadly pathogens for use in warfare, such as Biopreparat’s infamous VECTOR facility, where the Soviets played around with weaponized smallpox.
In 1992, Kanatzhan “Kanat” Alibekov (a.k.a. Ken Alibek) defected from Russia to the US. He was a Colonel in the Soviet Army and the First Deputy Director of Biopreparat. He oversaw the Soviets’ handling of – and experimentation with – various weaponized pathogens. He compiled his experiences in a truly chilling tome entitled Biohazard.
In the early 2000s, a fellow named Michael Callahan visited a number of Biopreparat’s facilities, under the BII program.
The BioIndustry Initiative’s mission is to counter the threat of bioterrorism through targeted transformation of former Soviet biological weapons research and production capacities.
The U.S. Department of State BioIndustry Initiative (BII) is a nonproliferation program authorized in the Defense and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 2002 (Public Law 107-117). BII focuses on two objectives:
- The reconfiguration of former Soviet biological weapons (BW) production facilities, their technology and expertise for peaceful uses.
- The engagement of Soviet Biological and Chemical Weapons scientists in collaborative R&D [research and development] projects to accelerate drug and vaccine development for highly infectious diseases.
This was a program run by the US DOS, which saw numerous prominent American biologists and virologists visit former Soviet biowarfare facilities (such as the aforementioned VECTOR) to examine the technology they’d developed over the years and see if anything was suitable for patenting and repurposing for civilian use.
Raul Diego and Whitney Webb wrote a truly stellar article about all of this that must be seen to be believed:
A year later, in 2002, Callahan would be tapped by the State Department’s director for the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation to serve as “clinical director for Cooperative Threat Reduction [CTR] programs” at six former Soviet Union Biological Weapons facilities as part of the Bioindustry Initiative (BII) program, where he was officially tasked with carrying out the stated goals of the mission, which entailed the “reconfiguration of former biological weapons production facilities” in the former Soviet Union and the acceleration of “drug and vaccine production”. More specifically, however, Callahan would be put in charge of gain-of-function programs for viral agents at these facilities.
In 2005, two things of note happened.
Ken Alibek testified before Congress alongside Michael Callahan. This testimony would, alongside many other warning signs, act to swell DARPA’s war chest. Soon, DOD think tanks would see their biodefense budgets swell by hundreds of millions of dollars.
The other thing that happened was that Senator Barack Obama and Dick Lugar oversaw the establishment of jointly-operated laboratories and epidemiological monitoring stations in Ukraine, with Victor Yuschenko’s blessing, and with the participation of the United States Department of Defense. More on that, later.
After the SARS outbreak of 2002 through 2004, there was a lot of interest in these new types of coronaviruses and the opportunities to conduct GOF research involving them.
In 2009, USAID began the PREDICT program at UC Davis, part of USAID’s overall Emerging Pandemic Threats (EPT) program.
PREDICT, a project of USAID’s Emerging Pandemic Threats (EPT) program, was initiated in 2009 to strengthen global capacity for detection of viruses with pandemic potential that can move between animals and people. PREDICT has made significant contributions to strengthening global surveillance and laboratory diagnostic capabilities for both known and newly discovered viruses within several important virus groups, such as filoviruses (including ebolaviruses), influenza viruses, paramyxoviruses, and coronaviruses.
PREDICT activities supported emerging pandemic threats preparedness and the Global Health Security Agenda, primarily in Africa and Asia. A decade later, more than 30 countries around the world have stronger systems to safely detect, identify, prevent and respond to viral threats. PREDICT initiated One Health Surveillance, a transdisciplinary collaborative approach to understanding infectious disease risk at the animal-human interface. The PREDICT-trained workforce, including zoonotic disease specialists and laboratory scientists at more than 60 national, university and partner laboratories, is one of the best response resources to assist with safe and secure detection and response to COVID-19 and other emerging biological threats.
The stated goal of this program was to conduct surveillance of pathogens that could be a zoonotic spillover risk. This seems reasonable on the surface. Some of the worst diseases in human history started in wildlife and made the jump to people.
However, the way spillover risk is “predicted” is by sampling animal viruses and conducting GOF research on them to make them capable of infecting human cells, which is a process basically indistinguishable from bioweapon research. This is why they refer to it as DURC, or dual-use research of concern.
Gain-of-function research is when a pathogen is altered in a laboratory to make it more infectious or virulent in humans.
Many animal viruses cannot infect humans because their structural proteins are specialized to make use of host receptors that are based on animal genes, which are often close homologs of the human versions of those genes, but not quite identical. One typical method of imbuing a virus with the ability to infect people is to alter its structural proteins, either by artificial recombination (manually inserting the genes) or by serial passage (forced evolution in human cell lines).
For SARS-CoV-2, for instance, which uses the interaction of Spike and ACE2 to infect cells, human and bat ACE2 receptors are not really the same. They’re close, but not identical. In SARS research, it is typical to use transgenic hACE2 mice which possess the human version of the gene for ACE2, making their cells susceptible to infection by human-adapted SARS strains.
In 2007, Dr. Paul McCray, et al from the University of Iowa published a study in which they introduced a vector carrying a human ACE2-coding sequence into wild-type mice and subsequently developed a successful hACE2 transgenic mouse strain. ACE2 expression, which is regulated by the human cytokeratin 18 (K18) promoter in epithelial cells, was observed in the initially infected airway epithelial cells. Studies showed that the K18-hACE2 transgenic mouse infected with a human SARS-CoV strain via intranasal inoculation would not survive.
The infection would begin in the airway epithelium, spread to the alveoli and finally out of the lungs to the brain. The infection causes infiltration of macrophages and lymphocytes in the lungs and up-regulation of pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines in the lungs and brain. Three to five days following infection, K18-hACE2 mice began to lose weight and become lethargic with labored breathing. All died within seven days. These observations support that transgene expression of hACE2 in epithelial cells can convert moderate SARS-CoV infection into a fatal disease.
With these studies, scientists were able to determine that SARS was capable of causing inflammatory reactions in murine models, particularly in the lungs and in brain tissue, presaging the pneumonia and neurological complications of COVID-19.
None of this was a mystery to SARS experts, no matter how often the press painted it as a blank spot in humanity’s knowledge during the recent pandemic.
Other things that meet the definition of gain-of-function include, for instance, the creation of chimeraviruses with features from multiple viruses blended together, like making airborne rabies, or putting Ebola genes in measles. Experiments of this nature have been performed all over the globe, under the euphemism “gain-of-function”.
In 2002, a team of researchers at the State University of New York led by Eckard Wimmer assembled a DNA template for the RNA poliovirus using an internet-available nucleotide sequence and mail order synthetic oligonucleotides. Using a routine laboratory procedure, they then converted the DNA into RNA and produced an infectious, neurovirulent poliovirus capable of paralyzing and killing mice.1 This work demonstrated clearly for the first time the feasibility of chemically synthesizing a pathogen knowing only its nucleotide sequence. Some called the work “irresponsible,” and there was widespread speculation in the press that bioterrorists might use the technology to create more virulent viruses, such as smallpox, from published gene sequences or create novel, more lethal viruses. Wimmer countered that “an evildoer would not use that very tedious method to synthesize a virus. That terrorist would rather use already existing viruses in nature.”
The technology to do this is becoming more and more widespread and accessible. It is only a matter of time before a number of violent non-state actors get some funny ideas, and some biohacker in their midst decides to produce viable pathogens synthetically in their basement with some tens of thousands of dollars in equipment jury-rigged together from stuff off eBay. However, doing it safely without the experimenter accidentally infecting themselves is a whole different story.
In 2014, a number of scientists in the US decided they’d had enough. SARS GOF research was, and still is, too dangerous to perform casually, in university BSL-3 labs. They pushed for, and obtained, a moratorium on such research.
From 2014 through 2017, there was to be no federal funding for GOF research involving Influenza, MERS, or SARS in the US, whatsoever.
USAID and their PREDICT program, however, did not stop. They continued funding GOF research by laundering the money through NGOs, in direct defiance of the moratorium.
Ralph Baric is a virologist and a longtime expert in SARS-like coronaviruses at UNC Chapel Hill in North Carolina, where he has performed award-winning research for over a decade. There is no question as to the man’s technical acumen. By all accounts, he is a brilliant virologist.
Here he is in a panel in 2014, elucidating the importance of gain-of-function work in predicting zoonotic spillover events:
Here he is holding a talk in 2018, lecturing his audience on the same thing:
The media claim that Dr. Baric is the subject of a witch hunt, amplified by Rand Paul’s grilling of Anthony Fauci.
In August, after President Joe Biden assigned intelligence officials to investigate the origin of COVID-19, news publications close to the Chinese government also took aim at Baric, publishing reports saying that labs at UNC and Fort Detrick, Maryland, should be investigated, The N&O previously reported. The articles, which spread across Google search results, were part of a disinformation campaign by China, The New York Times reported. In recent months, Baric has been more forceful in his denunciations that his lab had anything to do with the origin of the virus — especially after Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky accused him of making super viruses.
Is this true? Did Ralph Baric have no connection to Fort Detrick whatsoever?
Actually, that’s not true. He did, in fact, possess such connections, through his relationship with Peter Jahrling. They co-wrote a paper together, as a matter of fact:
In order to characterize clinically relevant parameters of SARS-CoV infection in NHPs, we infected cynomolgus macaques with SARS-CoV in three groups: Group I was infected in the nares and bronchus, group II in the nares and conjunctiva, and group III intravenously. Nonhuman primates in groups I and II developed mild to moderate symptomatic illness. All NHPs demonstrated evidence of viral replication and developed neutralizing antibodies. Chest radiographs from several animals in groups I and II revealed unifocal or multifocal pneumonia that peaked between days 8 and 10 postinfection. Clinical laboratory tests were not significantly changed. Overall, inoculation by a mucosal route produced more prominent disease than did intravenous inoculation. Half of the group I animals were infected with a recombinant infectious clone SARS-CoV derived from the SARS-CoV Urbani strain. This infectious clone produced disease indistinguishable from wild-type Urbani strain.
Peter Jahrling, in turn, was involved in the construction of NIAID’s Integrated Research Facility at Fort Detrick, thus putting NIAID and Anthony Fauci’s hands in the pie, allowing civilian virologists to collaborate closely with military researchers:
Scientists at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Integrated Research Facility at Fort Detrick, Frederick, Maryland, coordinate and facilitate preclinical research on infectious diseases to develop medical countermeasures for high-consequence pathogens. This facility is unique in that it is the only maximum containment laboratory in the world where conventional and molecular medical imaging equipments are incorporated into the design of the facility. This capability provides investigators with unique tools to dissect disease pathogenesis, evaluate the ability of animal models to recapitulate human disease, and test candidate countermeasures. Importantly, advanced molecular imaging has the potential to provide alternative endpoints to lethality. Using these alternative endpoints, investigators can reduce the number of animals used in experiments and evaluate countermeasures in sublethal models. With the incorporation of medical imaging modalities, a clinical laboratory modeled after those existing in hospitals, and a highly trained veterinary medicine team, IRF-Frederick is uniquely suited to advance our understanding of emerging infectious diseases and to facilitate the development of medical countermeasures and clinical care paradigms previously considered impossible.
Ralph Baric also collaborated with Shi Zhengli in her own SARS research, and they co-wrote a paper together in 2015:
The emergence of SARS-CoV heralded a new era in the cross-species transmission of severe respiratory illness with globalization leading to rapid spread around the world and massive economic impact3,4. Since then, several strains—including influenza A strains H5N1, H1N1 and H7N9 and MERS-CoV—have emerged from animal populations, causing considerable disease, mortality and economic hardship for the afflicted regions5. Although public health measures were able to stop the SARS-CoV outbreak4, recent metagenomics studies have identified sequences of closely related SARS-like viruses circulating in Chinese bat populations that may pose a future threat1,6. However, sequence data alone provides minimal insights to identify and prepare for future prepandemic viruses. Therefore, to examine the emergence potential (that is, the potential to infect humans) of circulating bat CoVs, we built a chimeric virus encoding a novel, zoonotic CoV spike protein—from the RsSHC014-CoV sequence that was isolated from Chinese horseshoe bats1—in the context of the SARS-CoV mouse-adapted backbone. The hybrid virus allowed us to evaluate the ability of the novel spike protein to cause disease independently of other necessary adaptive mutations in its natural backbone. Using this approach, we characterized CoV infection mediated by the SHC014 spike protein in primary human airway cells and in vivo, and tested the efficacy of available immune therapeutics against SHC014-CoV. Together, the strategy translates metagenomics data to help predict and prepare for future emergent viruses.
In this research, they used reverse genetics to examine how modifications to various genes affected the viral phenotype. What this paper states is that they quite literally produced a SARS chimera with an altered Spike protein that was capable of infecting human cells in vitro. This meets the definition of gain-of-function research.
Nature themselves admitted as much, in an article published that same year:
In an article published in Nature Medicine1 on 9 November, scientists investigated a virus called SHC014, which is found in horseshoe bats in China. The researchers created a chimaeric virus, made up of a surface protein of SHC014 and the backbone of a SARS virus that had been adapted to grow in mice and to mimic human disease. The chimaera infected human airway cells — proving that the surface protein of SHC014 has the necessary structure to bind to a key receptor on the cells and to infect them. It also caused disease in mice, but did not kill them.
Although almost all coronaviruses isolated from bats have not been able to bind to the key human receptor, SHC014 is not the first that can do so. In 2013, researchers reported this ability for the first time in a different coronavirus isolated from the same bat population2.
MIT Technology Review also had this to say:
In 2013, the American virologist Ralph Baric approached Zhengli Shi at a meeting. Baric was a top expert in coronaviruses, with hundreds of papers to his credit, and Shi, along with her team at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, had been discovering them by the fistful in bat caves. In one sample of bat guano, Shi had detected the genome of a new virus, called SHC014, that was one of the two closest relatives to the original SARS virus, but her team had not been able to culture it in the lab.
Baric had developed a way around that problem—a technique for “reverse genetics” in coronaviruses. Not only did it allow him to bring an actual virus to life from its genetic code, but he could mix and match parts of multiple viruses. He wanted to take the “spike” gene from SHC014 and move it into a genetic copy of the SARS virus he already had in his lab. The spike molecule is what lets a coronavirus open a cell and get inside it. The resulting chimera would demonstrate whether the spike of SHC014 would attach to human cells.
If it could, then it could help him with his long-term project of developing universal drugs and vaccines against the full spectrum of SARS-like viruses that he increasingly considered sources of potential pandemics. A SARS vaccine had been developed, but it wasn’t expected to be very effective against related coronaviruses, just as flu shots rarely work against new strains. To develop a universal vaccine that will elicit an antibody response against a gamut of SARS-like viruses, you need to show the immune system a cocktail of spikes. SHC014 could be one of them.
Ralph Baric, an expert in serial passaging techniques, shared proprietary American technology and know-how with Shi Zhengli. This means that Shi Zhengli could have independently carried on similar work, of her own initiative, with or without Dr. Baric’s help.
On December 12th, 2019, Ralph Baric took delivery of “mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidates developed and jointly-owned by NIAID and Moderna”.
The material transfer agreement was signed the December 12th 2019 by Ralph Baric, PhD, at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and then signed by Jacqueline Quay, Director of Licensing and Innovation Support at the University of North Carolina on December 16th 2019.
The agreement was also signed by two representatives of the NIAID, one of whom was Amy F. Petrik PhD, a technology transfer specialist who signed the agreement on December 12th 2019 at 8:05 am. The other signatory was Barney Graham MD PhD, an investigator for the NIAID, however this signature was not dated.
The agreement can be viewed on Page 105 of this document:
This is extremely suspicious for a number of reasons.
- This was December 12th, 2019, before anyone really knew an outbreak had occurred in Wuhan.
- Ralph Baric is a SARS expert and a colleague of Shi Zhengli.
- The only mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidate that we know of that Moderna was working on was mRNA-1273.
- It states that NIAID and Moderna co-own an mRNA vaccine.
- Moderna claimed to have received the sequence for 2019-nCoV on January 11th, 2020, and developed a vaccine from it within 48 hours. The timeline does not match. If we assume the vaccine being discussed in this Material Transfer Agreement was mRNA-1273, then the vaccine actually existed a whole month earlier, or more.
Ralph Baric and his lab were also involved in the validation and testing of Remdesivir, through the direct partnership of Gilead Sciences and Baric Lab:
Remdesivir was developed through an academic-corporate partnership between Gilead Sciences and the Baric Lab at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s Gillings School of Global Public Health. The biopharmaceutical company sought the talents of a research team led by William R. Kenan, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Epidemiology Ralph Baric, who has studied coronaviruses for more than 30 years and pioneered rapid-response approaches for the study of emerging viruses and the development of therapeutics.
Remdesivir ended up being both useless and potentially hepatotoxic, however, COVID-19 is capable of causing AST/ALT abnormalities on its own, which may be masking or even augmenting the toxicity of the drug:
Background and Aims: Remdesivir is identified as an effective therapeutic option in COVID-19, but its’ hepatic safety has not been well studied. So, we aimed to identify the pattern and severity of hepatotoxicity in remdesivir treated COVID-19 patients. Methods: This cross-sectional study was carried out at a dedicated COVID-19 unit of a university hospital in Dhaka, Bangladesh among severe COVID-19 cases. Alterations of liver functions were compared between the remdesivir and the non-remdesivir treated patients. Results: Out of 50 severe COVID-19 cases 25 had received remdesivir and 25 had received other supportive care without remdesivir. Median serum aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) values were significantly higher in the remdesivir treated arm (p-value for AST <0.0001 and ALT <0.001). Grade-2 elevation of AST and ALT and grade-3 elevation of AST levels were significantly higher among the remdesivir treated group. No patients had significant bilirubin elevation (≥2.5 mg/dl) and only 1 patient had INR >1.5 in the remdesivir treated arm. Conclusion: Many of the patients with severe COVID-19 had mild to moderate aminotransferases elevation. If the elevation of liver enzymes occurs after the initiation of remdesivir, adverse drug reactions need to be considered and drug discontinuation may require if severe elevation occurs.
Remdesivir was one of the most heinous cash grabs in pharmaceutical history. It cost $3,120 a course:
The company announced its pricing plans in preparation for it to begin charging for the antiviral drug in July. The company has been donating doses to the U.S. government for distribution since it received emergency use authorization in May.
This is made even worse by the fact that Remdesivir itself isn’t even the actual drug. It is a prodrug that is transformed into the actual drug by liver enzyme activity. Its far less toxic and more potent metabolite, GS-441524, is the actual drug. There is a black market in the US for GS-441524 for feline infectious peritonitis.
Why not just give people GS-441524 and call it a day? The answer, unsurprisingly, is money.
The consumer watchdog group Public Citizen charged Tuesday that the company refuses to test and develop GS-441524 because selling the inferior drug remdesivir is more profitable. (Gilead did not respond to a request for a comment.)
In other words, Gilead owns a gold mine, but it will only sell us the tin it unearths. It leaves the gold in the ground, because the inferior metal is more profitable.
“It is unclear why Gilead and federal scientists have not been pursuing GS-441524 as aggressively as remdesivir, but the answer may be found in the corporation’s patent holdings,” Public Citizen said in a letter sent to the company and to top federal health officials. “The corporation’s monopoly over remdesivir may last five years longer than that for GS-441524, allowing Gilead to make substantially greater profits from the sale of remdesivir as a COVID-19 treatment.”
If your blood isn’t boiling yet, it soon will be.
Peter Daszak is the President of EcoHealth Alliance. EcoHealth Alliance is an NGO based in New York City that purports to be involved in research into zoonotic spillover prevention. They fund researchers who sample and experiment with animal viruses. They’re very hands-on about this process.
Who is Peter Daszak, actually? He’s a parasitologist and zoologist of British-Ukrainian descent. His brother, John Daszak, is an opera singer.
His father, Bohdan/Bogdan Daszak, was a Ukrainian Nazi collaborator.
John Daszak not only had a powerful mother, but his father, Bogdan Daszak, had lived a life of exceptional bravery and determination. He had managed the extraordinary feat of reaching England from the Ukraine during WWII.[As a Prisoner-of-War] When he was about 16, in March 1944, the German’s had occupied his country. They captured him by going round the villages threatening to shoot the families unless the sons joined the German army. At that time the boys hated the Russians even more, and so were willing to join the the German’s who were fighting the Russians. But since the Russians and become allies of the British, the boys became enemies of the British. Many who had been badly treated ran off and escaped. Bodgen though was an educated town boy, not a peasant like the others, so he was used for paperwork in a [Nazi death] camp.1. He was eventually taken as a POW by the British. He could not know whether his family was alive, nor could he try to contact them becase he knew that is someone found out his was alive, they would torture his family. In fact Bogdan’s father was tortured by the Russians. About 40 years later, the the mid-1980’s, a friend spotted the name Zenon Daszak in a magazine and told Bogdan, who was thrilled to find his long lost brother alive. Zenon he said, was always practicing the violin, and though he’d preferred football himself, and he used to laugh at his brothers devotion. Zenon had become head of music Conservatories in Lvov in the Ukraine, their home town, and had played in the Bolshoi orchestra. Lvov was at the time under Soviet rule and it was forbidden for a Westerner to openly contact someone there. Bogdan though managed to pass his brother a secret message, along with his childhood pet name that no one else would know. They met in 1989 in Munich where Zenon was adjudicating at an international string competition. This had to be in secret shaking off the KGB. Zenon had named one of his sons Bogdan. Another one of his sons Uri had become a well known viola player. Both brothers died in their 60’s and John no longer and John no longer has contact with Zenon’s family. It had been particularly important to Bogdan that his family became totally British. He forbade them from visiting the Ukraine.
EDUCATION & TRAINING
Bangor University, North Wales, B.Sc., Zoology with applied zoology, 1987.
University of East London, UK, Ph.D., parasitic infectious diseases, 1994.
Dr. Daszak directs EcoHealth Alliance, an international network of scientists and educators engaged in work to save endangered species and their habitats from extinction in 20 high-biodiversity countries. He previously served as Executive Director of the Consortium for Conservation Medicine. He is originally from Britain, where he earned a B.Sc. in zoology and a Ph.D. in parasitology. His research focuses on the taxonomy, pathology, and conservation impact of parasitic diseases, particularly those of non-mammalian vertebrates and invertebrates. In collaboration with groups in Britain, Australia, and the United States, he discovered a previously unknown fungal disease of amphibians, chytridiomycosis, that is a major cause of frog population declines globally and may be transmitted by bullfrogs. This discovery highlights the link between global trade and disease emergence, a process known as pathogen pollution.
Dr. Daszak has adjunct positions at three American and two British universities; has served on committees of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, World Health Organization, National Academy of Sciences, and Department of the Interior; and has advised a range of governmental, commercial, and non-commercial organizations. He has been published in Science and in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. In addition, he is currently co-authoring a popular science book on emerging wildlife diseases. Dr. Daszak has received a number of awards, including the 2000 CSIRO medal for collaborative work on the amphibian disease chytridiomycosis, and his work has been the focus of extensive media coverage in The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and US News & World Report. He has appeared on broadcasts such as CNN, ABC, NPR’s Talk of the Nation, and NPR’s Morning Edition.
He also writes truly bizarre things, such as this letter he penned alongside Aleksei Chmura, entitled A Fall From Grace To… Virulence?, which is three large paragraphs of this deranged lunatic fantasizing about viral spillover events using Bruegel’s 1562 painting, The Fall of the Rebel Angels, as an analogy.
It is the context, and the position of responsibility that Peter Daszak possesses, that makes it so alarming. If a fireman wrote a poem about the sinister beauty of flames, about the delight he experiences in witnessing charred black bones, would you want him to rescue you from a burning building?
I’m no philistine. I can see the point he was trying to make, and the aesthetic value of the art itself, but in light of Peter’s other actions, perhaps it is a thing he should be elaborating upon in a padded cell, far, far away from the rest of us.
If his sins ended there, then this would be a very short article indeed. But they didn’t.
Daszak also shared that during the recent Ebola outbreak, EcoHealth Alliance issued a press release and an analysis predicting which countries would be the first to be infected as a result of global air travel.2 The United States was predicted to be one of the top three countries that would receive infected individuals from countries with EVD, and it was predicted the patient would arrive into Dulles, Boston Logan, Newark, and/or JFK airport. They anticipated a lot of attention and coverage, but instead, again, there was very minimal pickup by the media. Daszak reiterated that, until an infectious disease crisis is very real, present, and at an emergency threshold, it is often largely ignored. To sustain the funding base beyond the crisis, he said, we need to increase public understanding of the need for MCMs such as a pan-influenza or pan-coronavirus vaccine. A key driver is the media, and the economics follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of process, Daszak stated.
Peter Daszak was very interested in getting the public to receive mandatory “pan-influenza” or “pan-coronavirus” vaccines, back in 2016. But why?
According to Andrew Huff, the former Vice President of EcoHealth Alliance turned whistleblower, Peter Daszak began working with the US Central Intelligence Agency in 2015:
In late October 2021, Huff says he “came forward as a material witness and whistleblower related to numerous unethical and criminal behaviors that took place at EcoHealth Alliance. EcoHealth Alliance engaged in fraud against the U.S. government (Timecard Fraud and contract reimbursement fraud).” Huff “brought them to the attention of Peter Daszak, Dr. Aleksei Chamura, and CFO Harvey Kasdan. After raising these issues at the meeting, Harvey Kasdan went home from work, had a heart attack, and died.”
Huff’s letter states that Daszak disclosed to him in late 2015 and early 2016 that he was working with the CIA. In fact, at the end of his letter, he posits “that Dr. Peter Daszak could be a double agent working on behalf of the Chinese government based on his observations of his behavior and the nature of statements related to working with the Chinese (did not see risks, concerns, or other obvious problems) related to conducting gain of function work or other high-risk laboratory work in China.”
Huff has posted several documents on Twitter in the past ten days, including an InQTel pitch deck authored and presented by Dr. Daszak in 2015 and an EcoHealth Alliance grant funding proposal. Huff also posted an Intelligence Advanced Research Project Agency Report (IARPA) report he wrote.
I will not mince words. The CIA operates, essentially, like an organized criminal syndicate. Douglas Valentine has described their crimes at length. If anyone claims to be working with the CIA, that should arouse immediate suspicion of ill-intent. USAID are a known CIA slush fund.
There are two versions of this whistleblower complaint. One, in rough draft form, was posted on Andrew Huff’s Twitter, and apparently submitted to Senator Gary Peter’s office:
Another, more refined version of the letter was sent to Senator Roger F. Wicker:
My Name is Dr. Andrew Huff. I was the Vice President of Data and Technology at EcoHealth Alliance. I was the executive in charge of data analysis and technology development related to emerging infectious diseases across a large portfolio of government funded contracts. This work was funded by a wide variety of agencies: DoD, DTRA, IARPA, USAID (CIA), NIH, USDA, and many other governmental and non-governmental sponsors (Welcome Trust, Smithsonian, Google). I was also the country coordinator for the PREDICT Program (Jordan, Sudan) where we were searching for novel corona viruses globally, was a senior member of the modeling and analytics team, and served as an advisor to the United Nations.
There is a very conspicuous party in that list, referred to here as the Welcome Trust(sic). It’s actually spelled Wellcome Trust, with two ls. The reason why their funding for EcoHealth Alliance is suspicious is because the Wellcome Trust are closely linked to the Tavistock Institute, who are the subject of many rather grim theories about psychological warfare research and social manipulation experiments thought to be conducted there.
They also received funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation:
Huff says EcoHealth partners with and receives funding from a variety of sources such as other government agencies, and private entities or foundations like Google, Wellcome Trust, and the Gates Foundation. A variety of funding sources allows scientists who know how to work the grant system to leverage the funding they need. It also allows scientists to ensure the grants are there when they need them.
Thanks to their tireless work and collaboration with whistleblowers, a group called D.R.A.S.T.I.C. Research came into possession of a number of highly damning documents. In 2018, EcoHealth Alliance proposed the DEFUSE project, in response to DARPA’s PREEMPT program.
This program would have involved exposing bats in the wild to recombinant, human-adapted SARS Spikes in the hopes of getting these bats to produce an immune response to anything that looked like human-adapted SARS Spike proteins.
DARPA understandably rejected the proposal for numerous reasons. For one thing, EcoHealth Alliance had failed to elaborate on what, if any, models they would employ to measure their success.
However, several weaknesses to the proposal were also noted. These include a lack of detail regarding data, statistical analyses and model development and how prior work will be leveraged and extended.
Basically, EcoHealth Alliance stated that they would chase after bats with squirt guns loaded with chimeric Spike, or whatever, but not what they would actually do afterward. A major oversight.
However, it gets worse.
The team discusses risk mitigation strategies to address potential risks of the research to public health and animal safety but does not mention or assess potential risks of Gain of Function (GoF) research and DURC. Given the team’s approach does potentially involve GoF/DURC research (they aim to synthesize Spike glycoproteins that may bind to human cell receptors and insert them into SARSr-CoV backbones to assess capacity to cause SARS-like disease), if selected for funding an appropriate DURC risk mitigation plan should be incorporated into contracting language that includes a responsible communications plan.
Yes, it’s exactly what it sounds like.
As soon as the outbreak began in Wuhan, Peter Daszak immediately went into damage control mode, working very sloppily to cover his very obvious tracks.
The folks at The Intercept were quick to FOIA all the documents from the involved parties, giving us a small glimpse into what happened.
Li-Meng Yan posted this on ResearchGate:
Apparently, as soon as it became clear that people were pointing fingers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, one of the first things Peter Daszak did was contact Ralph Baric via email on February 6th, 2020, to request that he not sign the forthcoming letter that Daszak planned on penning in the Lancet, rebuking the Lab Leak Theory as a “conspiracy theory”. This was due to the very obvious conflict of interest it entailed. Basically, Peter Daszak didn’t want people to draw a line from him, to Ralph Baric, to Shi Zhengli.
He euphemistically and absurdly states in this email that Ralph Baric “should not sign this statement” so that it “has some distance from us and therefore doesn’t work in a counterproductive way”, further adding that “we’ll then put it out in a way that doesn’t link it back to our collaboration so we maximize an independent voice”.
On February 19th, 2020, Peter Daszak and a number of scientists published the letter, billing it as a statement of solidarity with China:
The rapid, open, and transparent sharing of data on this outbreak is now being threatened by rumours and misinformation around its origins. We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin. Scientists from multiple countries have published and analysed genomes of the causative agent, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and they overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife, as have so many other emerging pathogens.
This is further supported by a letter from the presidents of the US National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine and by the scientific communities they represent. Conspiracy theories do nothing but create fear, rumours, and prejudice that jeopardise our global collaboration in the fight against this virus. We support the call from the Director-General of WHO to promote scientific evidence and unity over misinformation and conjecture. We want you, the science and health professionals of China, to know that we stand with you in your fight against this virus.
The listed authors included the following:
- Charles Calisher
- Dennis Carroll
- Rita Colwell
- Ronald B Corley
- Peter Daszak
- Christian Drosten
- Luis Enjuanes
- Jeremy Farrar
- Hume Field
- Josie Golding
- Alexander Gorbalenya
- Bart Haagmans
- James M Hughes
- William B Karesh
- Gerald T Keusch
- Sai Kit Lam
- Juan Lubroth
- John S Mackenzie
- Larry Madoff
- Jonna Mazet
- Peter Palese
- Stanley Perlman
- Leo Poon
- Bernard Roizman
- Linda Saif
- Kanta Subbarao
- Mike Turner
Apparently, Peter Daszak contacting Ralph Baric to tell him not to sign the letter was a futile gesture, because, as it turned out, most of these scientists had direct connections to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, despite lying and falsely declaring that they had no conflicts of interest.
Despite declaring no conflicts of interest at the time, it has since emerged that the letter was orchestrated by British zoologist Peter Daszak, president of the US-based EcoHealth Alliance, which funded research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where the leak was suspected.
However, The Telegraph can disclose that 26 of the 27 scientists listed in the letter had connections to the Chinese lab, through researchers and funders closely linked to Wuhan.
While Mr Daszak eventually declared his involvement in the EcoHealth Alliance, he failed to mention that five other signatories also worked for the organisation.
Later on, on April 28th, 2020, Peter Daszak emailed Hongying Li at his own organization and Tammie O’Rourke at Metabiota, warning them that they needed to keep certain coronavirus sequences out of Genbank, because they would “being(sic) very unwelcome attention to UC Davis, PREDICT and USAID”.
Metabiota, in turn, are backed by Rosemont Seneca Technology Partners, an investment firm founded by Hunter Biden.
Metabiota was started with help from U.S. President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden and his investment firm Rosemont Seneca Technology Partners (RSTP), which he founded alongside John Kerry’s stepson in 2009.
Besides Hunter Biden, Google and the Pentagon, Metabiota is in a working relationship with known CIA front In-Q-Tel.
Peter Daszak was also a Facebook fact-checker, and a part of the WHO’s investigative team on the ground in Wuhan, where he investigated himself and found himself not guilty.
To further complicate the issue, Daszak has been running defense on the virus since before we’d even determined the severity of it. In the WHO’s report, “Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19),” the WHO determined that the virus likely originated from a zoonotic spillover (or natural mutation) event, thus acquitting the WIV of any liability in the release of the virus. Remember, the same determination about the SARS-CoV outbreak took years to accomplish, while the Chinese report was completed on February 24th, 2020. Again, the report found that the initial infection was a “zoonotic source” yet couldn’t determine what that source was. The first US case of COVID-19 that was determined to not come from China wasn’t identified until February 26th. And just who do you suppose was one of the authors of the WHO report and the only American to participate in the process? Dr. Peter Daszak.
Yet, the conflicts of interest do not stop there. Daszak, who again funded and investigated the lab, was later used by Facebook’s fact-checker, Science Feedback, as an expert and was cited in fact-check articles regarding the source of SARS-CoV-2. Those articles were used by Facebook to present what now has been proven to be misinformation and to deplatform those who posited that a lab leak was a possible pandemic origin, at the behest of Daszak, who is critically invested in distancing himself from the potential of a lab release.
Dr Peter Daszak, a zoologist and member of the WHO investigation, criticised the approach on Twitter.
He said that while President Joe Biden “has to look tough on China”, he should not rely too heavily on US intelligence which was “increasingly disengaged under Trump (and) frankly wrong on many aspects”.
“I’m disappointed that a statement came out that might undermine the veracity of this work even before the report is released,” said Dr Daszak, who has previously worked closely with experts at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).
Speaking after a visit to a hospital where some of the first coronavirus patients were treated more than a year ago, Dr Daszak said the team looks set to gain “access to all the places we want to visit” and conversations with Chinese scientists and doctors have not been censored or “vetted”.
He added: “We’re keeping completely open minded on all possible hypotheses. But I think that if we carry on the way we did today, we’re going to be able to, at the end of this mission, say something more serious about which hypotheses hold more weight.
“You know, where does the evidence seem to be pointing? Was the Huanan seafood market truly the origin of Covid? What was the first case ever at that market? Or is there evidence that it was circulating for longer? Is there evidence that animals were involved?
According to journalists, the WHO’s investigators on the ground in Wuhan only visited the WIV for a few hours, did no investigation work, and basically collected a few statements from the personnel there before leaving.
The report’s most definitive conclusion is also its most controversial: that it is “extremely unlikely” SARS-CoV-2 leaked out of a Chinese laboratory that was already studying coronaviruses, the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). There’s little evidence to back the lab-escape hypothesis, but some researchers have criticized the WHO team members for all but ruling out the possibility when they were not authorized to investigate it independently. The WHO experts only spent a few hours at WIV and the report’s discussion of the lab leak scenario is sparse.
That’s understandable, some researchers say. “Given all the constraints and complexities here, they have probably done what they could,” says Yanzhong Huang, a global health specialist at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York City.
There have been a number of documentaries about all of this, so far:
Glenn Beck misremembers many details (in his defense, it is difficult to keep all of this straight without constantly consulting one’s notes), but the general gist of his documentary is, to my knowledge, correct.
Peter Daszak maintains his innocence even now, using his Twitter account to brazenly signal-boost articles exonerating him.
So, my question is, when do the arrests begin?
Shi Zhengli is a bat SARS expert at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. She has previously collaborated with Ralph Baric and her lab has received funding from EcoHealth Alliance for over a decade.
The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) has reinstated a research organization’s multimillion-dollar grant to study how coronaviruses move from bats to people — which it cancelled in a controversial move earlier this year. But as Peter Daszak, the head of the small non-profit organization — EcoHealth Alliance in New York City — found out in early July, the funding can’t be used unless the organization meets what he says are absurd conditions. The demands, detailed in a letter from the NIH, are politically motivated, he says.
To carry out its research, EcoHealth Alliance partners with the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in China, which has been at the centre of unfounded rumours that the COVID-19 pandemic was caused by a coronavirus released from its laboratory. The NIH cancelled EcoHealth Alliance’s grant in April, days after US President Donald Trump told a reporter that the United States would stop funding work at the WIV.
EcoHealth Alliance and Daszak have been working with Shi Zhengli, a virologist at the WIV, for more than 15 years. Since 2014, an NIH grant has funded EcoHealth’s research in China, which involves collecting faeces and other samples from bats, and blood samples from people at risk of infection from bat-origin viruses. Scientific studies suggest that the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus most likely originated in bats, and research on the topic could be crucial to identifying other viruses that might cause future pandemics. The WIV is a subrecipient on the grant.
Shi Zhengli and the WIV have studied bat SARS for an extensive period of time; since the end of the first SARS outbreak, in fact.
When word of the lab leak theory reached Shi Zhengli’s ears, she was furious.
Professor Ebright said that “A denial is not a refutation,” referring to China’s top virologist Shi Zhengli, who works at the lab in Wuhan, and has repeatedly denied that it was the source of the pandemic.
Zhengli, known as ‘bat-woman’, because she works with bat-borne viruses, has said that the coronavirus spread is “nature punishing the human race for keeping uncivilized living habits.”
“The novel 2019 coronavirus is nature punishing the human race for keeping uncivilized living habits. I, Shi Zhengli, swear on my life that it has nothing to do with our laboratory,” she wrote in early February, adding “I advise those who believe and spread rumors from harmful media sources … to shut their stinking mouths.”
Shi Zhengli’s papers can be viewed here:
They show that, indeed, she is a SARS expert, involved in the laboratory manipulation of these deadly coronaviruses.
While Shi’s team at the Wuhan institute, an affiliate of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, raced to uncover the identity of the contagion—over the following week they connected the illness to the novel coronavirus that become known as SARS-CoV-2—the disease spread like wildfire. By April 20 more than 84,000 people in China had been infected. About 80 percent of them lived in the province of Hubei, of which Wuhan is the capital, and more than 4,600 had died. Outside of China, about 2.4 million people across 210 or so countries and territories had caught the virus, and more than 169,000 had perished from the disease it caused, COVID-19.
Scientists have long warned that the rate of emergence of new infectious diseases is accelerating—especially in developing countries where high densities of people and animals increasingly mingle and move about. “It’s incredibly important to pinpoint the source of infection and the chain of cross-species transmission,” says disease ecologist Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance, a New York City–based nonprofit research organization that collaborates with researchers, such as Shi, in 30 countries in Asia, Africa and the Middle East to discover new viruses in wildlife. An equally important task, he adds, is to hunt down other pathogens to “prevent similar incidents from happening again.”
Viruses like SARS-CoV-2 come from bats found in Yunnan Province, such as Rhinolophus affinis, the Intermediate Horseshoe Bat.
These bats range in caves near Kunming, 1300 kilometers away from Wuhan.
The Wuhan Institute of Virology’s P4 Lab, meanwhile, is located at 30°22’34.64″N, 114°15’44.76″E, a mere 20 kilometers south of Wuhan’s downtown core.
The explanation given by the WIV as to SARS-CoV-2’s origins is that it is a relative of a virus known as RaTG13. The problem is that RaTG13 does not exist. It’s a forgery that the WIV invented from whole cloth to cover their tracks.
Can the sequence of such a virus be fabricated? It cannot be any easier. It takes a person less than a day to TYPE such a sequence (less than 30,000 letters) in a word file. And it would be a thousand times easier if you already have a template that is about 96% identical to the one you are trying to create. Once the typing is finished, one can upload the sequence onto the public database. Contrary to general conception, such database does not really have a way to validate the authenticity or correctness of the uploaded sequence. It relies completely upon the scientists themselves – upon their honesty and consciences. Once uploaded and released, such sequence data becomes public and can be used legitimately in scientific analysis and publications.
Now, does this RaTG13 sequence qualify as credible evidence in judging the matter? Well, remember, a central part of the matter is whether or not this Wuhan coronavirus was engineered or created by ZHENGLI SHI. It is Shi, not anybody else, who is the biggest suspect of this possible crime that is grander than anything else in human history. Given the circumstances, wouldn’t she have a strong enough motive to be deceitful? If the evidence she raised to prove herself innocent was nothing but a bunch of letters recently typed in a word file, should anyone treat it as valid evidence?
The leading academic hypothesis of the origin was that of a natural recombination event between the Bat coronavirus RaTG13 and the pangolin coronavirus MP789, followed by adaptation in humans after zoonotic transfer.
However, this theory hinges critically on the validity of both RaTG13 and MP789, which require both strains to be able to be independently sequenced, tested and validated for infectivity of it’s original host. Here we provide evidence that the validity of both strains are highly dubious and are incapable of sufficing the required conditions for both to be considered valid evidence for the hypothesis of a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2.
An intense scientific debate is ongoing as to the origin of SARS-CoV-2. An oft-cited piece of information in this debate is the genome sequence of a bat coronavirus strain referred to as RaTG13 1 mentioned in a recent Nature paper 2 showing 96.2% genome homology with SARS-CoV-2. This is discussed as a fossil record of a strain whose current existence is unknown. The said strain is conjectured by many to have been part of the ancestral pool from which SARS-CoV-2 may have evolved 7, 8, 9. Multiple groups have been discussing the features of the genome sequence of the said strain. In this paper, we report that the currently specified level of details are grossly insufficient to draw inferences about the origin of SARS-CoV-2. De-novo assembly, KRONA analysis for metagenomic and re-examining data quality highlights the key issues with the RaTG13 genome and the need for a dispassionate review of this data. This work is a call to action for the scientific community to better collate scientific evidence about the origins of SARS-CoV-2 so that future incidence of such pandemics may be effectively mitigated.
In covering her tracks, Shi Zhengli committed shocking and atrocious scientific fraud.
Anthony Fauci is the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), one of the 27 National Institutes of Health. He is also a pathological liar and a grandiose psychopath who has been killing innocent people with his lies for years and years.
A venomous open letter to Anthony Fauci dated to 1988 illustrates this perfectly.
Anthony Fauci, you are a murderer and should not be the guest of honor at any
event that reflects on the past decade of the AIDS crisis. Your refusal to
hear the screams of AIDS activists early in the crisis resulted in the deaths
of thousands of Queers. Your present inaction is causing today’s increase in
HIV infection outside of the Queer community. We are outraged that Project
Inform, an organization that supposedly works on behalf of the infected
community, would insult us by bringing you to our city. You can’t hide the
fact that you are nothing but a despicable Reagan-era holdover and drug
With 270,000 dead from AIDS and millions more infected with HIV, you should
not be honored at a dinner. You should be put before a firing squad.
Anthony Fauci, you are a murderer because you oversee government sponsored
clinical trials that test and retest combinations of immunosuppressive, toxic
therapies that kill people with HIV. The majority of U.S. clinical trials
involve worthless antivirals like AZT combined with some other drug
(generally another toxic antiviral). What these tests have proven is that you
are able to piss away billions of dollars testing dangerous compounds that DO
NOTHING to improve the quality of life, to stop opportunistic infections or
to extend survival for people with HIV. AZT, 3TC, ddI, ddC, d4T and the
current crop of protease inhibitors are nothing but poison. Ten years of the
plague has shown us that trying to kill the virus kills people with AIDS, and
you, Dr. Fauci, know it.
Fauci was indeed responsible for pushing AZT on AIDS sufferers. But AZT was toxic and ineffective.
The rise and fall of AZT: It was the drug that had to work. It brought hope to people with HIV and Aids, and millions for the company that developed it. It had to work. There was nothing else. But for many who used AZT – it didn’t
Horwitz never became famous. Recently he said AZT ‘was a terrible disappointment . . . we dumped it on the junkpile. I didn’t keep the notebooks.’ The compound remained ‘on the shelf’, occasionally tried by other researchers but always found to be useless. There was no reason to patent it. But 20 years later, Burroughs Wellcome brought it back to life.
THE WELLCOME group was founded in London by two Americans in 1880. Its first significant achievement was the creation of the tablet – previously most medication had been administered in powder form. In the 1930s the group was split into two distinct parts: the Wellcome Trust, a large charity which devoted its income to scientific research and the maintenance of an institute and library concerned with the history of medicine; and the Wellcome Foundation Ltd, a profit-making pharmaceuticals company that was called Burroughs Wellcome in the United States. In the course of its research, Wellcome employees have won five Nobel prizes.
Again, the name Wellcome Trust comes up.
Fauci also pushed the false notion that HIV was transmissible by casual contact.
Press accounts, noticing Fauci’s article, immediately sounded the alarm. “Household contacts can transmit AIDS,” read one nationally syndicated report on the UPI wire dated May 5, 1983. The Associated Press queried the next day “Does AIDS spread by Routine Contact?” and quoted Fauci as their lead authority. The New York Times raised the specter of household transmission between family members, invoking Fauci’s commentary as its main authority.
We now know of course that Fauci’s theory was wrong. HIV, the virus that was later discovered to cause AIDS, only transmits by exposure to infected bodily fluids such as blood, or by sexual contact. The infant infection discussed in the same JAMA issue involved vertical transmission from the mother to child during pregnancy.
The damage was already done though, as the media went to work stoking alarm about AIDS transmission through simple routine contacts. Hundreds of newspapers disseminated the distressing theory from Fauci’s article. Writing a few weeks later, conservative columnist Pat Buchanan enlisted Fauci as the centerpiece of a rebuttal against Health and Human Services Secretary Margaret Heckler, who told him “there is no evidence…that the general population is threatened by [AIDS].”
Anthony Fauci was harshly criticized by Kary Mullis, the inventor of the PCR technique.
What is PCR?
PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction)
is a revolutionary method developed by Kary Mullis in the 1980s. PCR is based on using the ability of DNA polymerase to synthesize new strand of DNA complementary to the offered template strand. Because DNA polymerase can add a nucleotide only onto a preexisting 3′-OH group, it needs a primer to which it can add the first nucleotide. This requirement makes it possible to delineate a specific region of template sequence that the researcher wants to amplify. At the end of the PCR reaction, the specific sequence will be accumulated in billions of copies (amplicons).
The PCR technique is a means of copying and amplifying scant genetic material, which is very useful to geneticists. Every cycle of a PCR machine doubles the copies (2^n, essentially). If you had one copy of a given sequence in a sample, then after 40 cycles of a PCR machine, you now have well over a trillion.
A PCR test cannot tell you if someone has live virus in them. It only shows the presence of a given genetic sequence. It could be a fragment of genetic material, not part of any live virus, and it could still trip a PCR test. A positive PCR test is not proof of “infection”. Without the presence of symptoms, it cannot diagnose a disease.
Furthermore, PCR tests for COVID-19 used cycle thresholds that were basically fraudulent.
“if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the rule in most laboratories in Europe and the US), the probability that said person is infected is less than 3%, and the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%.”
The court further notes that the cycle threshold used for the PCR tests currently being made in Portugal is unknown.
The threshold cycles used in PCR tests in India is between 37 and 40, which makes the reliability of the PCR test less than 3% and the false positive rate as high as 97%.
After the COVID-19 vaccination campaign began, the CDC quietly lowered their cycle thresholds for COVID-19 PCR tests for vaccinated people to 28. That is, they lowered the sensitivity of the test from a range that would generate false positives down to a range that would generate false negatives.
As reported by Daniel Horowitz at Blaze Media, the new CDC guidance for “COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough case investigation” – meaning people who tested positive after getting vaccinated – says PCR tests should be set at 28 CT or lower. The stated reason for the 28 CT maximum is to avoid false positives on people who have been vaccinated, which would discourage acceptance of the vaccines.
This is another example of ‘following the science’ only when it suits a political purpose; to wit, CDC is not recommending the lower threshold for anyone else being tested. False positives must be avoided to encourage vaccinations, but false positives to prevent children from attending school or maintain other government restrictions seem OK with CDC.
Last summer, the New York Times reported that CTs above 34 almost never detect live virus but most often, dead nucleotides that are not contagious. The Sentinel found that many private labs in Kansas used thresholds of 38 and 40, and another one in Lenexa potentially at 45. The state lab at the Kansas Department of Health initially used a 42 CT on its most commonly performed test; on January 7, they reduced it to 35.
If the CDC can arbitrarily alter the sensitivity of COVID-19 tests to game statistics, what else can the authorities do to mislead the public?
Just ask Anthony Fauci. A year before, right at the outset of the pandemic, he was stating that masks were useless for COVID-19, allegedly to prevent a run on masks needed by healthcare workers.
In March 2020, as the pandemic began, Anthony Fauci, the chief medical adviser to the president of the United States, explained in a 60 Minutes interview that he felt community use of masks was unnecessary. A few months later, he argued that his statements were not meant to imply that he felt the data to justify the use of cloth masks was insufficient. Rather, he said, had he endorsed mask wearing (of any kind), mass panic would ensue and lead to a surgical and N95 mask shortage among health care workers, who needed the masks more. Yet, emails from a Freedom of Information Act request revealed that Fauci privately gave the same advice—against mask use—suggesting it was not merely his outward stance to the broader public.
Although some have claimed that the evidence changed substantively in the early weeks of March, our assessment of the literature does not concur. We believe the evidence at the time of Fauci’s 60 Minutes interview was largely similar to that in April 2020. Thus, there are two ways to consider Fauci’s statement. One possibility is, as he says, that his initial statement was dishonest but motivated to avoid a run on masks needed by health care workers. The other is that he believed his initial statements were accurate, and he subsequently decided to advocate for cloth masks to divert attention from surgical or N95 masks, or to provide a sense of hope and control to a fearful and anxious public.
Meanwhile, the US Government turned down offers from local manufacturers who saw the approaching crisis and wanted to correct the shortfall.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) turned down an opportunity to access millions of U.S.-manufactured N95 masks in January, according to The Washington Post.
The N95 masks have been in high demand since the pandemic hit the United States and as health care workers scramble to protect themselves while caring for thousands of patients flooding local hospitals.
On Jan. 22, Prestige Ameritech, a medical supply company in Fort Worth, Texas, offered to ramp up production to make an additional 1.7 million N95 masks, noting that the federal government’s stockpile was diminishing.
Throughout 2020, Fauci was practically worshipped by an adoring public as the logical and scientific foil to Trump’s flippant excesses. However, the following year, cracks in the mask began to show. Senator Rand Paul began grilling Fauci before Congress.
If you look up Fauci and the NIH’s funding for GOF research in Wuhan on YouTube, you are greeted with a “fact check” at the top of the page that links this article:
Even now, it’s not clear whether the research funded by EcoHealth in China amounted to gain of function. When the Intercept obtained EcoHealth documents in September, seven of 11 scientists who are virologists or work in adjacent fields told the Intercept that the work appeared to meet NIH’s criteria for gain-of-function research. Obviously, it’s a matter of dispute within the scientific community.
But Cotton claimed NIH admitted that it had funded gain-of-function research. That’s wrong. No such admission appears in the letter, and NIH officials continue to insist that the EcoHealth work using NIH funds did not constitute gain-of-function research.
Did the NIH fund gain-of-function research in Wuhan? Actually, yes, they did. Anthony Fauci perjured himself before Congress, and this can be proven in two quick steps.
First, did the NIH fund EcoHealth Alliance?
Yes, they did.
Second, were EcoHealth Alliance engaged in GOF research?
Military documents state that EcoHealth Alliance approached DARPA in March 2018 seeking funding to conduct gain of function research of bat borne coronaviruses. The proposal, named Project Defuse, was rejected by DARPA over safety concerns and the notion that it violates the gain of function research moratorium.
The main report regarding the EcoHealth Alliance proposal leaked on the internet a couple of months ago, it has remained unverified until now. Project Veritas has obtained a separate report to the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, written by U.S. Marine Corp Major, Joseph Murphy, a former DARPA Fellow.
Yes, they were.
By all accounts, Anthony Fauci is not even a real scientist, but merely a career bureaucrat who has somehow evaded justice for compromising America’s health and wellbeing for decades.
Perjuring oneself before Congress is a felony under US Code Title 18, Section 1001.
The penalty is imprisonment for up to five years.
Stéphane Bancel is the CEO of Moderna. He’s also a squirming liar.
Moderna never made a commercial product before mRNA-1273/Spikevax. Not a single one.
Pfizer makes hundreds of medicines and vaccines and operates at least 40 manufacturing facilities registered with the FDA around the world. Despite being founded a decade ago, Moderna has never had a product win FDA approval. And it only has one factory registered with the FDA — and the registration occurred just this week.
Moderna kicked off its phase 3 trial of mRNA-1273 Monday with plans to enroll 30,000 Americans in the placebo-controlled study. Given that the vaccine, if approved, would be Moderna’s first product, the company’s pricing plans will likely remain a topic of interest on Wall Street. So investors should expect to hear more chatter on the topic Aug. 5, when the company releases its second-quarter earnings report.
They have spent the past decade heavily engaged in R&D, much of it a product of US DOD funding.
Established years before the current pandemic, the program was halfway done when the first case of the novel coronavirus arrived in the United States early this year. But everyone involved in the effort by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) knew their time had come ahead of schedule.
The four teams participating in the program abandoned their plans and began sprinting, separately, toward the development of an antibody for covid-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus.
“We have been thinking about and preparing for this for a long time, and it’s almost a bit surreal,” said Amy Jenkins, manager of DARPA’s antibody program, which is known as the Pandemic Prevention Platform, or P3. “We are very hopeful that we will at least be able to have an impact on this outbreak. We want to make a difference.”
In October 2013, DARPA awarded Moderna up to approximately $25 million to research and develop potential mRNA medicines as a part of DARPA’s Autonomous Diagnostics to Enable Prevention and Therapeutics, or ADEPT, program, which is focused on assisting with the development of technologies to rapidly identify and respond to threats posed by natural and engineered diseases and toxins. This award followed an initial award from DARPA given in March 2013. The DARPA awards have been deployed primarily in support of our vaccine and antibody programs to protect against Chikungunya infection.
According to former employees, Moderna was a failing company with a CEO who had a strict and disciplinarian management style. It was a mystery why anyone would invest so much money in them, and yet, Moderna continually attracted substantial capital.
Thrilled is probably the last word you would hear Bancel use to describe the newly posted investigation at Stat, which claims that Moderna’s “caustic work environment” has driven away top staff at a time where “signs” have appeared that the company’s top projects are running into trouble. Bancel himself, reports Stat, is over-controlling, obsessed with secrecy and impatient with setbacks.
The story is heavy with criticism and anonymous finger pointing, but light on details. Moderna’s former CSO, Joseph Bolen, left last fall after two years at the company, which Stat used to illustrate its claims of a toxic work environment at Moderna. Bolen was pushed out, according to unnamed “insiders,” after being relegated to a small role. Bolen himself, though, declined comment. And Bancel says he tried to get him to stay on, unsuccessfully.
Melissa Moore now gets a shot at either proving or disproving Stat’s claims at a time the company is nearing the rapids of mid-stage development, when it will have to start outlining specific proof-of-concept data on what its drugs can do. If the company can accomplish that with several programs, Bancel tells me he plans to file for an IPO.
Moderna Therapeutics, biotech’s highest-profile and most richly funded startup, is losing another key executive, struggling to retain talent despite the company’s unwavering promise that it’s on pace to change the face of medicine.
It was to be the first therapy using audacious new technology that Bancel promised would yield dozens of drugs in the coming decade.
But the Crigler-Najjar treatment has been indefinitely delayed, an Alexion spokeswoman told STAT. It never proved safe enough to test in humans, according to several former Moderna employees and collaborators who worked closely on the project. Unable to press forward with that technology, Moderna has had to focus instead on developing a handful of vaccines, turning to a less lucrative field that might not justify the company’s nearly $5 billion valuation.
“It’s all vaccines right now, and vaccines are a loss-leader,” said one former Moderna manager. “Moderna right now is a multibillion-dollar vaccines company, and I don’t see how that holds up.”
Before working at Moderna, Stéphane Bancel was the CEO of bioMérieux, a medical diagnostics company founded by French billionaire Alain Mérieux.
Alain Mérieux was, in turn, a consultant for the construction of the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s P4 laboratory.
The maximum-level biosafety laboratory at the Wuhan Institute of Virology was the first of its kind to be built in China, and has been the centre of huge speculation since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic which originated in that city. The laboratory, which is equipped to handle Class 4 pathogens (P4) including dangerous viruses such as Ebola, was built with the help of French experts and under the guidance of French billionaire businessman Alain Mérieux, despite strong objections by health and defence officials in Paris. Since the laboratory’s inauguration by prime minister Bernard Cazeneuve in 2017, however, France has had no supervisory role in the running of the facility and planned cooperation between French researchers and the laboratory has come to a grinding halt. Karl Laske and Jacques Massey report.
Alain Mérieux has accepted an award from the CCP for his collaboration with China, a fact that is bragged about on his foundation’s website.
Alain Mérieux’s award is a continuation of the longstanding relationship the Mérieux family and its companies have built with China over the past 40 years. China has become a strategic location for all of Institut Mérieux’s work in the field of diagnostics, immunotherapy, and nutrition. Through its companies bioMérieux, Transgene, and Mérieux Nutrisciences, and alongside the Mérieux Foundation, Institut Mérieux has partnered with Chinese authorities and health stakeholders to address major public health issues in the country.
SARS-CoV-2’s Spike contains a sequence the reverse complement of which is known to be found only in one other place; Moderna’s patented cell lines.
Among numerous point mutation differences between the SARS-CoV-2 and the bat RaTG13 coronavirus, only the 12-nucleotide furin cleavage site (FCS) exceeds 3 nucleotides. A BLAST search revealed that a 19 nucleotide portion of the SARS.Cov2 genome encompassing the furing cleavage site is a 100% complementary match to a codon-optimized proprietary sequence that is the reverse complement of the human mutS homolog (MSH3). The reverse complement sequence present in SARS-CoV-2 may occur randomly but other possibilities must be considered. Recombination in an intermediate host is an unlikely explanation. Single stranded RNA viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 utilize negative strand RNA templates in infected cells, which might lead through copy choice recombination with a negative sense SARS-CoV-2 RNA to the integration of the MSH3 negative strand, including the FCS, into the viral genome. In any case, the presence of the 19-nucleotide long RNA sequence including the FCS with 100% identity to the reverse complement of the MSH3 mRNA is highly unusual and requires further investigations.
And, as mentioned previously, under a confidentiality agreement, Moderna transferred samples of a coronavirus vaccine “jointly-owned by NIAID and Moderna” to Ralph Baric, Shi Zhengli’s colleague, a whole month before China allegedly sent us the sequence to SARS-CoV-2.
Any one of these facts would be suspicious on their own. Taken together, it paints a bleak picture.
- Moderna’s CEO is a close associate of a man who helped China build the P4 lab at the WIV, equipping them to work on deadly viruses.
- SARS-CoV-2 was created at the WIV using patented Moderna cell lines as a medium.
- Moderna had a vaccine for this virus ready before China even sent us the sequence to it, and they validated it by sending it to Ralph Baric, a man directly involved in EcoHealth Alliance’s GOF research.
This is why the lab leak theory is suppressed so hard. If you pull that thread, you will quickly find that the same people behind the Moderna vaccine are also behind the virus, and that Moderna has significant NIH and DOD funding and ties.
This is racketeering, fraud, and mass murder, perpetrated upon the American public by a private company, with our own government as accomplices.
The CEO of Pfizer. This is a man who would not even take his own vaccine.
What’s in the vaccine, Albert?
Well, if you read my previous articles, you know it’s basically poison.
In November of 2021, this pathetic, manipulative, overgrown baby with a pulsating gular pouch for a neck whined that people who criticize his product, which he himself initially refused to take, are “criminals”.
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla on Tuesday described people who spread false information about the coronavirus vaccines as “criminals.”
“Those people are criminals,” Bourla said to Atlantic Council CEO Frederick Kempe, CNBC reported. “They’re not bad people. They’re criminals because they have literally cost millions of lives.”
Why won’t the media say anything bad about Pfizer? Well, it’s because they’re all sponsored by Pfizer.
Pfizer actually wanted some governments in Latin America to put up their own literal infrastructure as collateral to pay for future lawsuits if they refused to grant Pfizer legal immunity. Does that sound like a company with a trustworthy product?
Pfizer has been accused of “bullying” Latin American governments during negotiations to acquire its Covid-19 vaccine, and the company has asked some countries to put up sovereign assets, such as embassy buildings and military bases, as a guarantee against the cost of any future legal cases, according to an investigation by the U.K.-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism.
In the case of one Latin American country, demands made by the pharmaceutical giant led to a three-month delay in a vaccine deal being reached. For Argentina and Brazil, no national deals were agreed to at all with Pfizer. Any hold-up in countries receiving vaccines can lead to more people contracting Covid-19 and potentially dying.
Officials from Argentina and the other Latin American country, which cannot be named as it has signed a confidentiality agreement with Pfizer, said the company’s negotiators demanded more than the usual indemnity against civil claims filed by citizens who suffer serious adverse events after being inoculated. They said Pfizer also insisted the governments cover the potential costs of civil cases brought as a result of Pfizer’s own acts of negligence, fraud, or malice. In Argentina and Brazil, Pfizer asked for sovereign assets to be put up as collateral for any future legal costs.
How about the rest of the stipulations in Pfizer’s confidential purchase agreements?
Pfizer also tried to wash its hands off the adverse effects of the vaccine, in the long run, stating that the purchaser acknowledges that the long-term effects and efficacy of the vaccine are currently unknown and that there may be side effects that are currently not known.
Concerning the termination clause, the buyer almost has nothing that can be considered as contract breached while Pfizer can easily end the contract if they don’t get the money or if they deem so.
Then there was the indemnity clause that obligated the purchaser to indemnify, hold and defend Pfizer from any suits, claims, actions, demands, losses, damages, liabilities, settlements, penalties, fines, costs and expenses.
Does that sound like something you want in your body?
Pfizer wanted to cover up reports of adverse events from Comirnaty for several decades. A judge ordered them to release everything immediately. This was the result:
Among adverse event reports received into the Pfizer safety database during the cumulative period, only those having a complete workflow cycle in the safety database(meaning they progressed to Distribution or Closed workflow status) are included in the monthly SMSR. This approach prevents the inclusion of cases that are not fully processed hence not accurately reflecting final information. Due to the large numbers of spontaneous adverse event reports received for the product, the MAH has prioritised the processing of serious cases, in order to meet expedited regulatory reporting timelines and ensure these reports are available for signal detection and evaluation activity. The increased volume of reports has not impacted case processing for serious reports, and compliance metrics continue to be monitored weekly with prompt action taken as needed to maintain compliance with expedited reporting obligations. Non-serious cases are entered into the safety database no later than 4 calendar days from receipt. Entrance into the database includes the coding of all adverse events; this allow for a manual review of events being received but may not include immediate case processing to completion. Non-serious cases are processed as soon as possible and no later than 90 days from receipt. Pfizer has also taken a multiple actions to help alleviate the large increase of adverse event reports. This includes significant technology enhancements, and process and workflow solutions, as well as increasing the number of data entry and case processing colleagues. To date, Pfizer has onboarded approximately additional full-time employees (FTEs). More are joining each month with an expected total of more than additional resources by the end of June 2021.
Again, racketeering, fraud, and mass murder.
Look. Look at this finger-steepling, smug, smirking freak with age spots all over his body, trying to dictate health policy to the rest of us.
Do I even need to say anything?
How about the fact that he’s a Neo-Malthusian anti-natalist, and yet, he purports to be very interested in our health?
Bill Gates is not a doctor or a scientist, and yet, he spends all his time hawking vaccines.
The Gates Foundation funds extensive pharmaceutical research. Going into detail about their connections would constitute a whole article in itself.
Microsoft holds a patent entitled WO/2020/060606 – CRYPTOCURRENCY SYSTEM USING BODY ACTIVITY DATA. You can read the text of it here:
Human body activity associated with a task provided to a user may be used in a mining process of a cryptocurrency system. A server may provide a task to a device of a user which is communicatively coupled to the server. A sensor communicatively coupled to or comprised in the device of the user may sense body activity of the user. Body activity data may be generated based on the sensed body activity of the user. The cryptocurrency system communicatively coupled to the device of the user may verify if the body activity data satisfies one or more conditions set by the cryptocurrency system, and award cryptocurrency to the user whose body activity data is verified.
This is a system for quite literally tracking a person’s body movements and awarding them money digitally for it. What is this for?
More on that in our next article.
And Mr. Gates, you deserved every last scrap of that pie.
What Actually Happened in China?
E-PAI’s data shows that in October, 2019, cell phones were mysteriously absent from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, as if the whole facility had been locked down.
A private analysis of cellphone location data purports to show that a high-security Wuhan laboratory studying coronaviruses shut down in October, three sources briefed on the matter told NBC News. U.S. spy agencies are reviewing the document, but intelligence analysts examined and couldn’t confirm a similar theory previously, two senior officials say.
The report — obtained by the London-based NBC News Verification Unit — says there was no cellphone activity in a high-security portion of the Wuhan Institute of Virology from Oct. 7 through Oct. 24, 2019, and that there may have been a “hazardous event” sometime between Oct. 6 and Oct. 11.
Sometime in November, 2019, a few personnel at the WIV became sickened with something resembling seasonal flu, according to a US intel report.
A U.S. intelligence report identified three researchers at a Wuhan lab who sought treatment at a hospital after falling ill in November 2019, a source familiar with the matter tells NBC News.
The new details, first reported by The Wall Street Journal, add to the body of circumstantial evidence that supports a hypothesis that the Covid-19 virus may have spread to humans after it escaped from a Chinese research lab in Wuhan. But the evidence is far from conclusive.
This reporting adds a new level of detail to the information put out in a Department of State fact sheet last year, which said the United States had confirmed that researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology had fallen ill.
What followed was like something out of a disaster movie.
There was extensive video documentation of the events on the ground in Wuhan. Many of these videos are disturbing, and viewer discretion is advised.
What do the videos depict?
- Hospitals flooded with people.
- People suffering seizures and collapsing on the ground.
- Hospital hallways filled with dead patients in body bags.
- Distressed healthcare workers having mental breakdowns and screaming in break rooms.
- Authorities dragging people away to quarantine camps.
- Authorities welding people into their apartments.
- Police roadblocks being rammed by fleeing vehicles.
- Riots and chaos.
- Police roughing people up.
- Police escorting multiple people in a zip-tie chain gang.
- People and tank trucks spraying “disinfectants” all over the city, including men in Tyvek suits on self-balancing scooters absurdly using mosquito foggers on sidewalks.
And so on, and so forth.
Li Wenliang, the brave Chinese doctor who tried raising the alarm about human-to-human transmission of a new SARS strain in Wuhan, was forced by the authorities to recant. If his warning had been heeded, the entire pandemic could have been prevented by tracing and isolating the sick. Ultimately, he tragically ended up dying of the disease, himself.
Li Wenliang died after contracting the virus while treating patients in Wuhan.
Last December he sent a message to fellow medics warning of a virus he thought looked like Sars – another deadly coronavirus.
But he was told by police to “stop making false comments” and was investigated for “spreading rumours”.
Due to the fact that these scenes were not replicated elsewhere, some believe these videos were staged. Essentially, propaganda to create panic in the West.
This is absurd. You cannot disinfect a city of a virus by spraying antiseptics everywhere. Officials in China would have known this. To any sane person, this is nothing but theater.
China lied flagrantly about the casualty figures, underreporting cases and deaths by an order of magnitude or more. It is likely that tens of thousands of people died of COVID-19 in Wuhan in those harrowing first few months.
The long lines and stacks of ash urns greeting family members of the dead at funeral homes in Wuhan are spurring questions about the true scale of coronavirus casualties at the epicenter of the outbreak, renewing pressure on a Chinese government struggling to control its containment narrative.
The families of those who succumbed to the virus in the central Chinese city, where the disease first emerged in December, were allowed to pick up their cremated ashes at eight local funeral homes starting last week. As they did, photos circulated on Chinese social media of thousands of urns being ferried in.
Outside one funeral home, trucks shipped in about 2,500 urns on both Wednesday and Thursday, according to Chinese media outlet Caixin. Another picture published by Caixin showed 3,500 urns stacked on the ground inside. It’s unclear how many of the urns had been filled.
We may never know the true death toll.
Epidemiology or Lack Thereof
Most government responses to COVID-19 worldwide were based on the highly alarmist work of a single epidemiologist, Professor Neil Ferguson at Imperial College London.
When Neil Ferguson visited the heart of British government in London’s Downing Street, he was much closer to the COVID-19 pandemic than he realized. Ferguson, a mathematical epidemiologist at Imperial College London, briefed officials in mid-March on the latest results of his team’s computer models, which simulated the rapid spread of the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 through the UK population. Less than 36 hours later, he announced on Twitter that he had a fever and a cough. A positive test followed. The disease-tracking scientist had become a data point in his own project.
Ferguson is one of the highest-profile faces in the effort to use mathematical models that predict the spread of the virus — and that show how government actions could alter the course of the outbreak. “It’s been an immensely intensive and exhausting few months,” says Ferguson, who kept working throughout his relatively mild symptoms of COVID-19. “I haven’t really had a day off since mid-January.”
Research does not get much more policy-relevant than this. When updated data in the Imperial team’s model1 indicated that the United Kingdom’s health service would soon be overwhelmed with severe cases of COVID-19, and might face more than 500,000 deaths if the government took no action, Prime Minister Boris Johnson almost immediately announced stringent new restrictions on people’s movements. The same model suggested that, with no action, the United States might face 2.2 million deaths; it was shared with the White House and new guidance on social distancing quickly followed (see ‘Simulation shock’).
The actual text of his report, dated March 16th, 2020, can be read here:
The global impact of COVID-19 has been profound, and the public health threat it represents is the most serious seen in a respiratory virus since the 1918 H1N1 influenza pandemic. Here we present the results of epidemiological modelling which has informed policymaking in the UK and other countries in recent weeks. In the absence of a COVID-19 vaccine, we assess the potential role of a number of public health measures – so-called non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) – aimed at reducing contact rates in the population and thereby reducing transmission of the virus. In the results presented here, we apply a previously published microsimulation model to two countries: the UK (Great Britain specifically) and the US. We conclude that the effectiveness of any one intervention in isolation is likely to be limited, requiring multiple interventions to be combined to have a substantial impact on transmission. Two fundamental strategies are possible: (a) mitigation, which focuses on slowing but not necessarily stopping epidemic spread – reducing peak healthcare demand while protecting those most at risk of severe disease from infection, and (b) suppression, which aims to reverse epidemic growth, reducing case numbers to low levels and maintaining that situation indefinitely. Each policy has major challenges. We find that that optimal mitigation policies (combining home isolation of suspect cases, home quarantine of those living in the same household as suspect cases, and social distancing of the elderly and others at most risk of severe disease) might reduce peak healthcare demand by 2/3 and deaths by half. However, the resulting mitigated epidemic would still likely result in hundreds of thousands of deaths and health systems (most notably intensive care units) being overwhelmed many times over. For countries able to achieve it, this leaves suppression as the preferred policy option.
As it turns out, his computer model was absolute garbage.
In one instance, a team at the Edinburgh University attempted to modify the code so that they could store the data in tables that would make it more efficient to load and run. Performance issues aside, simply moving or optimizing where the input data comes from should have no effect on the output of processing, given the same input data. What the Edinburgh team found however, was this optimization produced a variation in the output, “the resulting predictions varied by around 80,000 deaths after 80 days”which is nearly 3X the total number of UK deaths to date.
Edinburgh reported the bug to Imperial, who dismissed it as “a small non-determinism” and told them the problem goes away if you run the code on a single CPU (which the reviewer notes “is as far away from supercomputing as one can get”).
Alas, the Edinburgh team found that software still produced different results if it was run on a single CPU. It shouldn’t, provided it is coded properly. Whether the software is run on a single CPU or multi-threaded, the only difference should be the speed at which the output is produced. Given the same input conditions, the outputs should be the same. It isn’t, and Imperial knew this.
And in spite of the lockdowns he helped engineer, along with the misery and social isolation they wrought worldwide, apparently, Professor Ferguson didn’t happen to think that the virus was dangerous enough to preclude him ignoring social distancing rules to have sex with a married woman.
Prof Ferguson, whose advice to the prime minister led to the UK lockdown, said he regretted “undermining” the messages on social distancing.
The Telegraph reported that a woman he was said to be in a relationship with visited his home in lockdown.
Health Secretary Matt Hancock said it was “extraordinary” and that he “took the right decision to resign”.
They are extremely incompetent bordering on actively malicious.
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus lied and carried water for China every step of the way.
Most critically, Beijing succeeded from the start in steering the World Health Organization (WHO), which both receives funding from China and is dependent on the regime of the Communist Party on many levels. Its international experts didn’t get access to the country until Director-General Tedros Adhanom visited President Xi Jinping at the end of January. Before then, WHO was uncritically repeating information from the Chinese authorities, ignoring warnings from Taiwanese doctors—unrepresented in WHO, which is a United Nations body—and reluctant to declare a “public health emergency of international concern,” denying after a meeting Jan. 22 that there was any need to do so.
After the Beijing visit, though, WHO said in a statement that it appreciated “especially the commitment from top leadership, and the transparency they have demonstrated.” Only after the meeting did it declared, on Jan. 30, a public health emergency of international concern. And after China reported only a few new cases each day, WHO declared the coronavirus a pandemic March 11—even though it had spread globally weeks before.
The WHO insisted that SARS-CoV-2 was droplet-borne, and not an airborne virus, even though it spread around the globe like wildfire and was clearly airborne.
The World Health Organization (WHO) — which sets the tone for many nations — early on denied COVID-19 was spreading through these tiny aerosols suspended in air.
As evidence mounted, alongside pressure from scientists like Noakes, the agency eventually acknowledged the possibility of airborne transmission — but continued to downplay its significance in favour of droplets, placing a heavy emphasis on handwashing and disinfecting surfaces instead of more stringent measures.
Then as evidence suggesting the virus behind COVID-19 was primarily airborne grew to be overwhelming, the agency finally admitted in December 2021 that the virus could indeed be spreading via aerosols.
They dragged their heels in declaring a pandemic.
They were also responsible for coming up with the ridiculous-sounding name COVID-19 (short for Coronavirus Disease 2019), which was deliberately chosen instead of the far more sensible SARS-2 for the sake of political correctness, so as not to anger the WHO’s CCP masters.
And now, the WHO are trying to establish a pandemic treaty that can override any signatory nation’s constitution, forcing them to establish pandemic lockdowns and other measures as the WHO sees fit.
The World Council for Health (WCH), a coalition of scientists, doctors, lawyers, and civil society advocacy organizations, opposes the World Health Organisation (WHO)’s moves to implement a power grab in the form of a global pandemic agreement, while the world’s attention is diverted by the latest crisis.
The proposed WHO agreement is unnecessary, and is a threat to sovereignty and inalienable rights. It increases the WHO’s suffocating power to declare unjustified pandemics, impose dehumanizing lockdowns, and enforce expensive, unsafe, and ineffective treatments against the will of the people.
The WCH believes that the people have a right to participate in any agreement that affects their lives, livelihoods, and well-being. However, the WHO has not engaged in a process of public participation, which is evidence that its priority is capturing more power for itself and its corporate accomplices, than serving the interests of the people. Without an unbiased democratic process, any agreement by the WHO, acting via the United Nations, will be unlawful, illegitimate, and invalid.
“The COVID-19 pandemic has shone a light on the many flaws in the global system to protect people from pandemics: the most vulnerable people going without vaccines; health workers without needed equipment to perform their life-saving work; and ‘me-first’ approaches that stymie the global solidarity needed to deal with a global threat,” Dr Tedros said.
“But at the same time, we have seen inspiring demonstrations of scientific and political collaboration, from the rapid development of vaccines, to today’s commitment by countries to negotiate a global accord that will help to keep future generations safer from the impacts of pandemics.”
The Health Assembly met in a Special Session, the second-ever since WHO’s founding in 1948, and adopted a sole decision titled: “The World Together.” The decision by the Assembly establishes an intergovernmental negotiating body (INB) to draft and negotiate a WHO convention, agreement, or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, with a view to adoption under Article 19 of the WHO Constitution, or other provisions of the Constitution as may be deemed appropriate by the INB.
The insanity of giving these bunglers and sycophants any more power than they already have should be obvious to anyone who has followed their immense failure to contain SARS-CoV-2.
The Murder of Bing Liu
Bing Liu was a COVID-19 researcher in Pittsburgh who was killed suspiciously by a man named Hao Gu in a murder-suicide.
Bing Liu, a University of Pittsburgh research assistant professor studying COVID-19, was found shot and killed in his townhouse on Saturday in what was apparently a murder-suicide, authorities say.
Officials found Liu in his home in Ross Township, Pennsylvania, with gunshot wounds to his torso, neck, and head. Local police say they believe a second man, software architect Hao Gu, 46, who was found dead in his car, may have shot Liu before shooting himself.
According to a statement issued by the university’s Department of Computational and Systems Biology, Liu was “on the verge of making very significant findings toward understanding the cellular mechanisms that underlie SARS-CoV-2 infections and the cellular basis of the following complications.” Dr Ivet Bahar, the head of the Computational and Systems Biology Department, told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that Liu “was just starting to obtain interesting results” in his work on the virus.
What was Bing Liu’s area of expertise?
Bing was a prolific researcher. During his career he co-authored in 30+ publications, including four in 2020, in addition to a book. He played a critical role in the Bahar Lab and was the leader in systems biology research for Ivet and her lab. He single-handedly helped all of us as well as many collaborators including clinicians here and in other institutions, understand and quantitatively model many complex processes, including immune signaling events, apoptotic and ferroptotic cell death, autophagy, redox lipid programming, response to radiation and radiation therapy, systems (poly)pharmacological treatments. In recent years, he had three publications in Nature Chem Biol, three in Radiation Research, two in Scientific Reports, one in Science Signaling, one in International Journal of Molecular Sciences, and one in Frontiers in Pharmacology.
If you’ve read our prior writings on COVID-19’s pathology, then you would know exactly why this man was murdered. To make it easier for readers, I highlighted the important part in bold.
The Suppression of Treatments
SARS-CoV-2 is not a pneumonia. It’s an aggressive viral sepsis that attacks the lining of human blood vessels, which just incidentally happens to cause pulmonary edema and pneumonia by way of alveolar capillary leakage. Redox phenomena in the body are central to sepsis. The balance of oxidation and reduction reactions in the body is modulated by the many enzymes and substrates involved in these processes. Immune cells such as neutrophils use powerful oxidants such as hydrogen peroxide and hypochlorous acid to attack pathogens and their oily membranes, bleaching bacteria to death. Human cells have the same exact kinds of lipid membranes as pathogens, and are vulnerable to this as well, which is why they have enzymes that run on glutathione and selenium to detoxify radicals. In COVID-19, lipid peroxidation is so aggressive that it leads to ferroptosis, or iron-mediated cell death.
Michael Callahan, DARPA’s man in Wuhan, stated that famotidine could be a COVID-19 remedy, a sentiment mirrored by Dr. Robert Malone. The media later bashed this with ridiculous hit pieces.
In mid-April, the Trump administration funded a study of famotidine, the main ingredient in Pepcid, despite a lack of published data or studies to suggest heavy doses would be effective against the novel coronavirus. When government scientists learned of the hastily produced proposal to spend millions in federal funding on the research, they considered it laughable.
Now, the Pepcid project faces an uncertain future. Northwell Health, the New York health care provider hired to conduct the testing at its hospitals, put the trial on hold due to a shortage of hospitalized COVID-19 patients in that state. Northwell is partnered with Alchem Laboratories, the Florida-based pharmaceutical company that received the contract.
The Pepcid project underscores what critics describe as the Trump administration’s casual disregard for science and anti-corruption rules — regulations meant to guard against taxpayer dollars going to political cronies or funding projects that aren’t based on more rigorous science.
It’s actually not just famotidine that’s an antioxidant. It’s the entire class of common H2 blockers; famotidine, cimetidine, and ranitidine. They all inhibit lipid peroxidation.
Ulcerogenesis of the gastroduodenal mucosa is caused by the digestive action of gastric juice and initially involves an inflammatory reaction with infiltration of phagocytes. The anti-inflammatory activity of many drugs have been attributed to the inhibition of the leukocyte enzyme, myeloperoxidase (MPO). In this study, the H2-antagonists in clinical use were found to be potent inhibitors of MPO-catalysed reactions (IC50< 3 μM) under conditions resembling those in experiments with intact neutrophils. Since peak plasma concentrations of cimetidine, ranitidine and nizatidine are well within the micromolar range, after oral therapeutic dosing, our results may be of clinical relevance. The inhibitory actions of cimetidine and nizatidine were largely due to scavenging of hypochlorous acid (HOC1), a powerful chlorinating oxidant produced in the MPO-H2O2-Cl− system. In contrast to famotidine, ranitidine was also a potent scavenger of HOCl, while both drugs inhibited MPO reversibly by converting it to compound II, which is inactive in the oxidation of Cl−. The HOCl scavenging potencies of ranitidine and nizatidine were about three times higher than that of the anti-rheumatic drug, penicillamine, which had a potency similar to that of cimetidine. The rapid HOCl scavenging ability of penicillamine is thought to contribute to its anti-inflammatory effects. Using riboflavin as a probe, the H2-antagonists were found to be inhibitors of hydroxyl radical (·OH) generated in a Fe2+-H2O2 reaction mixture. Spectral analyses of the interaction of iron ions with the drugs and studies with chelators, suggest that the drugs were efficient chelators of Fe2+, in addition to their ·OH scavenging abilities. Since the gastrointestinal tract can contain potentially reactive iron, the simultaneous presence of H2-antagonists may help to suppress iron-driven steps in tissue damage.
In light of this, why did the FDA order a recall of Zantac (ranitidine) on April 2nd, 2020, for supposed industrial contamination with carcinogenic Nitrosodimethylamine, even though cancer risks from the use of Zantac have never been conclusively proven? Sure is some odd timing, there.
For that matter, why did the FBI raid a clinic providing Vitamin C injections to COVID-19 sufferers?
The media suppressed interest in hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 antiviral, stating that it was an anti-parasitic and not an antiviral at all. They also compared it to chloroquine phosphate fish tank cleaner, using the tragic case of Gary and Wanda Lenius to smear HCQ.
And yet, a study from 2005 stated that chloroquine is indeed antiviral against SARS-CoV because it interferes with the glycosylation of SARS Spike and alters vesicular pH, both modes of action that could reasonably affect SARS-CoV-2’s replication, despite its genetic differences with SARS-CoV.
We report, however, that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection of primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage. In addition to the well-known functions of chloroquine such as elevations of endosomal pH, the drug appears to interfere with terminal glycosylation of the cellular receptor, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2. This may negatively influence the virus-receptor binding and abrogate the infection, with further ramifications by the elevation of vesicular pH, resulting in the inhibition of infection and spread of SARS CoV at clinically admissible concentrations.
Chloroquine is synthetic quinine, the active ingredient in cinchona bark responsible for the bitter taste of tonic water. It has been used as an anti-malarial for years and years and is on the WHO’s list of essential medicines.
Sapan Desai and Surgisphere published research in the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine that stated that HCQ caused cardiovascular issues, but were forced to retract their study when their data failed to pass an audit because Surgisphere refused to transfer their dataset that they used to come to their conclusions.
Two controversial studies of COVID-19 patients have been retracted after the authors failed to demonstrate that the data were reliable. The first study to be retracted, published last month (May 22) in The Lancet, had found harmful effects associated with the antimalarial drug, hydroxychloroquine, but quickly drew fire after scientists raised questions about the massive database supposedly underpinning it, and about that database’s owner, Surgisphere Corporation.
Today, three authors—all the coauthors on the study except Surgisphere founder and CEO Sapan Desai—contacted The Lancet to retract their report. “They were unable to complete an independent audit of the data underpinning their analysis,” the retraction notice in The Lancet reads. “As a result, they have concluded that they ‘can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources.’”
The three coauthors are Mandeep Mehra, the medical director of Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart and Vascular Center, Frank Ruschitzka of University Hospital Zurich, and Amit Patel of the University of Utah.
As it turns out, Surgisphere was actually a fake company that was basically just Sapan Desai and a few non-scientist pals of his.
Surgisphere, whose employees appear to include a sci-fi writer and adult content model, provided database behind Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine hydroxychloroquine studies
A factory in Taiwan making chemical precursors to hydroxychloroquine was blown to kingdom come on December 23rd, 2020 under mysterious circumstances.
This slipped out of the news cycle and everyone collectively, conveniently forgot it ever happened. Based on the footage, my own pet theory is that Wile E. Coyote slipped and dropped a box of ACME-brand bright red sticks of dynamite and a can of napalm on the factory grounds.
The media also slammed Ivermectin as “horse dewormer”, essentially arguing that it was a veterinary drug and anti-parasitic and not an antiviral, despite the fact that it had been used in humans for many, many years.
Also, it just so happens that ivermectin is both anti-parasitic and antiviral.
A schematic of the key cellular and biomolecular interactions between ivermectin, host cell, and SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19 pathogenesis and prevention of complications: ivermectin (IVM) (red block) inhibits and disrupts binding of the SARS-CoV-2 S protein at the ACE-2 receptors (green). The green dotted lines depict activation pathways and the red dotted lines depict the inhibition pathways. The TLR4 receptors are directly activated by SARS-CoV-2 and also by LPS mediated activation (seen during ICU settings) causing activation of NF-Kb pathway and MAP3 kinases leading to increased intranuclear gene expression for proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines (responsible for cytokine storm) and NO release (responsible for blood vessel dilatation, fluid leak, low blood pressure, ARDS and sepsis). The NF-Kb and STAT-3 pathway activation is central to the pathogenesis and sequelae of COVID-19. STAT-3 physically binds to PAK1 and increases IL-6 transcription.
Various clinical trials of both ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine disproved their effectiveness in severely ill COVID-19 patients, showing no benefit. The reason why they showed no benefit is because hospitalized COVID-19 patients are all suffering from viral sepsis and don’t have any virus left in their bodies to prevent the replication of, which means that these studies did not determine whether or not these antivirals would be effective as pre-exposure or post-exposure prophylaxis, which means that these studies are scientifically bankrupt because they provided a futile treatment to patients.
Similarly to IAV infection, the highest viral load and infectivity for SARS-CoV-2 are observed +/−1 day around the day of symptom onset . Both the amount of infectious virus as well as the amount of viral RNA as measured by qRT-PCR decrease rapidly thereafter. Accordingly, the number of cells within the patient’s respiratory tract that are newly infected with SARS-CoV-2 declines sharply within a few days of disease onset. It is now well accepted that immunopathology plays a key role in severe COVID-19 . Accordingly, treatment with corticosteroids, such as dexamethasone, improves survival in critically ill COVID-19 patients in the later stages of the disease . It is important to note that corticosteroids are among the most potent pro-viral agents as they efficiently inhibit both the innate and adaptive immune response. The apparent benefits of steroids for COVID-19 patients provide further strong evidence that uncontrolled virus replication is no longer of major importance for disease outcome > 7–10 days after the onset of symptoms. A recent clinical trial on remdesivir reported that five days of treatment is not inferior to ten days of treatment . While remdesivir may still have some clinical benefits during the first few days of treatment of COVID-19, inhibition of virus replication was no longer of clinical relevance a few days later, with patients requiring low-flow oxygen or corticosteroids (Figure 1).
Meanwhile, studies of early treatment with antivirals have shown promising results.
Ivermectin continues to be savagely suppressed.
Ivermectin, which is a drug often used in animals to combat parasites, has been praised by some as an effective treatment against COVID-19. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently warned that Ivermectin is not an approved treatment against COVID-19 and can cause health issues in humans if used improperly.
“There are approved uses for ivermectin in people and animals but it is not approved for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19,” the FDA said on its website, adding that the drug is approved for human use to treat parasites, head lice and “skin conditions such as rosacea.”
In addition to the package from China, CBP said that they intercepted another package arriving from Mexico that contained 32 more Ivermectin tablets and 40 Hydroxychloroquine pills.
Officials can seize and destroy minuscule amounts of Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine, but they can’t do the same for the literal metric tons of deadly fentanyl flooding into the US from China?
Obviously, they’re very concerned for our health.
David Martin and M-CAM
David Martin is the head of M-CAM, a company that specializes in tracking innovative patents and analyzing them for technologically disruptive effect. This includes biotech patents.
He put out a file entitled The Fauci/COVID-19 Dossier showing how every aspect of SARS is patented.
David Martin was interviewed by Reiner Fuellmich for over an hour, where he offered some rather disturbing revelations about the coronavirus.
Recently, presumably after reviewing the data on LINE-1 Reverse Transcription of COVID-19 vaccines in liver cells in vitro, he stated that, and I quote, this is “In fact gene therapy designed to harm humanity and perpetually make humanity a slave to the ongoing gene editing fantasies of psychopaths.”
The Drills – Rockefellers’ Lock Step, SPARS 2025-2028, and Event 201
In 2010, the Rockefeller Foundation published a file entitled Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development.
The first of these scenarios was called Lock Step. It bears an eerie resemblance to the COVID-19 pandemic’s government response.
A new influenza strain — originating from wild geese — was extremely virulent and deadly. Even the most pandemic-prepared nations were quickly overwhelmed when the virus streaked around the world, infecting nearly 20 percent of the global population and killing 8 million in just seven months, the majority of them healthy young adults. The pandemic also had a deadly effect on economies: international mobility of both people and goods screeched to a halt, debilitating industries like tourism and breaking global supply chains. Even locally, normally bustling shops and office buildings sat empty for months, devoid of both employees and customers.
The pandemic blanketed the planet — though disproportionate numbers died in Africa, Southeast Asia, and Central America, where the virus spread like wildfire in the absence of official containment protocols. But even in developed countries, containment was a challenge. The United States’s initial policy of “strongly discouraging” citizens from flying proved deadly in its leniency, accelerating the spread of the virus not just within the U.S. but across borders. However, a few countries did fare better — China in particular. The Chinese government’s quick imposition and enforcement of mandatory quarantine for all citizens, as well as its instant and near-hermetic sealing off of all borders, saved millions of lives, stopping the spread of the virus far earlier than in other countries and enabling a swifter post-pandemic recovery.
China’s government was not the only one that took extreme measures to protect its citizens from risk and exposure. During the pandemic, national leaders around the world flexed their authority and imposed airtight rules and restrictions, from the mandatory wearing of face masks to body-temperature checks at the entries to communal spaces like train stations and supermarkets. Even after the pandemic faded, this more authoritarian control and oversight of citizens and their activities stuck and even intensified. In order to protect themselves from the spread of increasingly global problems — from pandemics and transnational terrorism to environmental crises and rising poverty — leaders around the world took a firmer grip on power.
In 2017, the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security published a document called The SPARS Pandemic 2025-2028:
One of the fictive scenarios in this document describes adverse neurological effects from a vaccine called “Corovax”, among many other odd coincidences.
In contrast to Alyssa Karpowitz’s story, not all changes in opinion were in favor of public health messaging. As time passed and more people across the United States were vaccinated, claims of adverse side effects began to emerge. Several parents claimed that their children were experiencing neurological symptoms similar to those seen among livestock exposed to the GMI vaccine. By May 2027, parental anxiety around this claim had intensified to the point of lawsuits. That month, a group of parents whose children developed mental retardation as a result of encephalitis in the wake of Corovax vaccination sued the federal government, demanding removal of the liability shield protecting the pharmaceutical companies responsible for developing and manufacturing Corovax.
Shortly before the COVID-19 outbreak, Johns Hopkins conducted a drill entitled Event 201, of a coronavirus pandemic very similar to the one that would happen a couple months later. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the World Economic Forum took part, naturally.
We understand that such exercises are an essential part of public policy, however, these scenarios are not general; they describe oddly specific events that seem to be occurring in the present.
Klaus Schwab, the Great Reset, and the Young Global Leaders
Klaus Schwab is the founder of the World Economic Forum in Davos, a fancy club where world leaders and other intelligentsia in the professional-managerial clerisy go to discuss what shape the global economy should take, without any input whatsoever from the working poor.
Towards the end of 2020, various world leaders began muttering something about “building back better” and how the pandemic was an opportunity for a “reset”.
When people began questioning why all these politicians were using the same slogans everywhere, the media immediately began gaslighting us, stating that the “Great Reset” was nothing more than a silly conspiracy theory.
We start with the revival of the baseless conspiracy theory, known as the ‘Great Reset’, which claims a group of world leaders orchestrated the pandemic to take control of the global economy.
The conspiracy theory has its origins in a genuine plan entitled ‘The Great Reset’, drawn up by the World Economic Forum (WEF), the organisers of an annual conference for high-profile figures from politics and business. The plan explores how countries might recover from the economic damage caused by the coronavirus pandemic.
The WEF recovery plan has been interpreted as sinister, first by fringe conspiracy theory groups on social media, and then by prominent conservative commentators – prompting tens of thousands of interactions across Facebook and Twitter.
And no, there is no plot, as described in a supposed e-mail from a member of the “Strategic Committee” of the Liberal Party of Canada, to relieve citizens of their debts in return for their surrender of “any and all property and assets forever,” with dissenters to be held indefinitely in “isolation facilities.”
There isn’t even a plan, as such, to “re-engineer economies and societies to empower the elites at the expense of the people,” as alleged in a petition posted on Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre’s website.
But damned if what there is doesn’t sound a whole lot like it.
On June 3rd, 2020, the World Economic Forum published this video on YouTube:
On July 14th, 2020, the WEF also livestreamed this:
Also, Klaus Schwab has published a number of books on what he believes the future will look like, including one entitled COVID-19: The Great Reset. It really doesn’t get any more on the nose than that.
Are his detractors correct? Do his books read like an accurate description of Bug-Eating Pod People Socialism ripped straight from the pages of the UN’s Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals? Actually, yes. Yes, they do. And worse.
The world these people are imagining has zero privacy and requires no cultural or sociopolitical contribution from anyone who isn’t an asexual, silver lamé-wearing spaceman with their own personal flying saucer, lording over decrepit hives of bug-eating worker-serfs. Don’t take my word for it. Read them yourself, and see.
It gets worse. The WEF basically own all of our leaders.
As Klaus Schwab says in the introductory quote, it has become very successful. Already in the first year, 1992, a number of highly influential candidates were elected. Among 200 selected were global profiles such as Angela Merkel, Tony Blair, Nicolas Sarkozy, Bill Gates, Bono, Richard Branson (Virgin), Jorma Ollila (Shell Oil), and José Manuel Barroso (President of the European Commission 2004–2014).
More examples of influential Young Global Leaders :
Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden
Crown Prince Haakon of Norway
Crown Prince Fredrik of DenmarkPrince Jaime de Bourbon de Parme, Netherlands
Princess Reema Bint Bandar Al-Saud, Ambassador for Saudi-Arabia in USA
Jacinda Arden, Prime Minister, New Zealand
Alexander De Croo, Prime Minister, Belgium
Emmanuel Macron, President, France
Sanna Marin, Prime Minister, Finland
Carlos Alvarado Quesada, President, Costa Rica
Faisal Alibrahim, Minister of Economy and Planning, Saudi Arabia
Shauna Aminath, Minister of Environment, Climate Change and Technology, Maldives
Ida Auken, MP, former Minister of Environment, Denmark (author to the infamous article “Welcome To 2030: I Own Nothing, Have No Privacy And Life Has Never Been Better”)
Annalena Baerbock, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Leader of Alliance 90/Die Grünen, Germany
Kamissa Camara, Minister of the Digital Economy and Planning, Mali
Ugyen Dorji, Minister of Domestic Affairs, Bhutan
Chrystia Freeland, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Canada
Martín Guzmán, Minister of Finance, Argentina
Muhammad Hammad Azhar, Minister of Energy, Pakistan
Paula Ingabire, Minister of Information and communications technology and Innovation, Rwanda
Ronald Lamola, Minister of Justice and Correctional Services, South Africa
Birgitta Ohlson, Minister for European Union Affairs 2010–2014, Sweden
Mona Sahlin, Party Leader of the Social Democrats 2007–2011, Sweden
Stav Shaffir, Leader of the Green Party, Israel
Vera Daves de Sousa, Minister of Finance, Angola
Leonardo Di Caprio, actor and Climate Activist
Mattias Klum, photographer and Environmentalist
Jack Ma, Founder of Alibaba
Larry Page, Founder of Google
Ricken Patel, Founder of Avaaz
David de Rothschild, adventurer and Environmentalist
Jimmy Wale, Founder of Wikipedia
Jacob Wallenberg, Chairman of Investor
Niklas Zennström, Founder of Skype
Mark Zuckerberg, Founder of Facebook
They also own half of Justin Trudeau’s cabinet. When someone confronted the Canadian Parliament over this, they cut off his mic very, very quickly.
The Ukraine Connection
By now, I am sure most of you are aware of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, as well as their claim that Ukraine was host to a number of DOD-affiliated bioweapon laboratories.
This was staunchly denied by the US representatives at the United Nations. It was also debunked by the media.
On March 2, Foreign Policy reported on Twitter user WarClandestine’s post in February that said: “It certainly appears Putin is targeting the cities and locations with #USBiolabs present. He is 100% going after the alleged bioweapons.”
In the same thread, WarClandestine outlined what they said was credible evidence that the US had bioweapons in Ukraine. The account — which has since been suspended — was run by an individual named Jacob, who appeared to be American and claimed to have served in the US military, per Foreign Policy.
Following the tweet, the QAnon-linked Infowars platform published an article titled: “Russian Strikes Targeting US-Run Bio-Labs in Ukraine?” Citing information from various Twitter posts, the article claimed that US biological weapons laboratories “are believed to operate in many cities that were recently attacked by Russia.”
But wait. Days earlier, Victoria Nuland said there were labs in Ukraine, and implied that their capture could be harmful if the materials there fell into Russia’s hands. What materials were kept there?
This was followed by Marco Rubio, visibly perturbed by Victoria’s frank admission, attempting to give her an escape hatch by coaching her to say that any bioweapon release would be Russia’s fault.
Shortly after the invasion, the US Embassy in Ukraine deleted multiple files on their website pertaining to these laboratories.
In the last 24 hours, all PDF files from the embassy website (https://ua.usembassy.gov/embassy/kyiv/sections-offices/defense-threat-reduction-office/biological-threat-reduction-program/) were removed without any explanation.
However, these files were backed up, and are available both on the Wayback Machine, and over IPFS, using Brave or an IPFS gateway.
A whistleblower came forward with documents pertaining to these labs, which we were able to obtain copies of:
On January 1st of this year, an English translation of an article dated to 2018 was published, which claimed that these labs were connected to the Defense Threat Reduction Agency.
As a reminder, in Ukraine there is a whole network of American biological laboratories, operating under the wing of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) – a division of the US Department of Defence, which declares as their mission “decreasing biological threats”. Only here the situation develops exactly the opposite: there are more and more laboratories, and less and less so-called biosafety.
Ukraine is literally stuffed with reference-laboratories – before the coup it was known that there were 15 of such objects (without counting the monitoring stations at every laboratory), but after the “revolution of dignity” information was hidden from the general public. But it is impossible to not see that against the background of the liquidation of the Sanitary and Epidemiological Service of Ukraine, American biolaboratories didn’t prevent the epidemics that seized the country. And not only didn’t prevent, but didn’t help whatsoever. There is a question: what in reality is this military-biological structure that entangled the Ukrainian State involved in?
Yes, the same DTRA that funded EcoHealth Alliance and carried out the stipulations of the Cooperative Threat Reduction program and the Nunn-Lugar act alongside DARPA, USAID, and the rest.
While pretending to be engaged in bioweapon disarmament, DTRA, DARPA, and USAID have been secretly involved in transferring advanced American technology and know-how to foreign labs and potentially engaging in dual-use research of concern there.
If you believe any of this and repeat it to anyone else, you are now a peddler of Russian propaganda, according to the media and public officials.
A Grim Conclusion
It appears that the US DOD and Intelligence Community have violated the Biological Weapons Convention, and have done so subtly, outsourcing the research to foreign labs and masking it as mere gain-of-function pandemic preparedness work. This involved decades of network-building and a great deal of funding allocated to DARPA, DTRA and USAID’s burgeoning biodefense portfolios, but also a number of grants and concessions to pharmaceutical companies who would provide a sham “cure” in the form of a toxic vaccine that kills people.
Some of the money involved in all of this was funneled into EcoHealth Alliance and, in turn, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where they almost certainly created the pathogen that would become SARS-CoV-2, terrorizing the globe.
At best, the CIA were engaging in intelligence work, infiltrating foreign labs in the hopes of shedding light on illicit biowarfare research, resulting in, to paraphrase Andrew Huff, an intelligence failure orders of magnitude worse than the Iran-Contra scandal. This is something which they should face harsh censure for.
At worst, the CIA were intentionally transferring advanced American technology and know-how to rival powers in the hopes of using a manufactured virus scare for political leverage, ignoring our Constitution and empowering an international agenda to transform our societies without our consent. This is treason.
On top of that, many NGOs, public officials, heads of state, and CEOs appear to be in on the scheme, in a massive network of private-public partnerships interested in bringing about global technocratic neo-feudalism. They are strong-arming the public into quiet obedience to their bizarre agenda, even going as far as to debank protesters and have police armed like paramilitary forces arrest them in Canada.
To date, nearly a million Americans have died from something our own tax dollars paid for. In a sane country, every public official involved in perpetrating this ludicrous farce would be tried in a court of law. And yet, all we get is denial after denial, coverup after coverup.
None of the conspirators ever intended to come clean. Their hope was that they could brand all of this as a matter of national security and manipulate the media and fact-checkers to distract the public long enough to hush it all up. The current insanity in Ukraine is a godsend, to them; an opportunity to direct the public’s attention away from intensifying anti-mandate protest movements.
If these monsters had their way, we would have believed everything that happened in the past two years was the result of someone mishandling a live animal in a wet market in Wuhan.
Instead, even a casual investigation reveals that every single thing about the official narrative is a lie, and many public officials we have entrusted our lives and wellbeing to are involved in a conspiracy to deceive and actively harm the public while profiting immensely off of our misery.
Even cartoon villains are not this cruel and sadistic. The sheer magnitude of this conspiracy and the oafish bungling of everyone involved in it would almost be comical if the real-world consequences weren’t so horrifying. Millions of people are dead, with many millions more made jobless and destitute. Various ghouls are creeping out of the woodwork, trying to capitalize on the crisis to manifest their utterly despicable political projects.
The stance taken by the Department of Homeland Security is that if you disagree with the official narrative and aim to engender distrust in the authorities, that makes you a terrorist.
(1) the proliferation of false or misleading narratives, which sow discord or undermine public trust in U.S. government institutions
Such authoritarian language has no place in a democracy. In fact, it deserves the sternest rebuke we can muster.
No one is immune from scrutiny. These people are under our microscope, and they have a lot of explaining to do.
These pathetic cowards will answer to the public. They will not sweep millions of innocent lives under the rug on our watch.
Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…
Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…
WE URGENTLY NEED YOUR HELP…
We’re not funded by the Government
to publish lies & propaganda on their
behalf like the mainstream media.
Instead, we rely solely on our support. So
please support us in our efforts to bring you
honest, reliable, investigative journalism
today. It’s secure, quick and easy…