Spitfire List Search Results Verges

FTR #453 Verges for the Defense

Posted by FTR ⋅ May 6, 2004 ⋅ One comment

Recorded March 28, 2004 MP3 One segment REALAUDIO NB: This stream contains two 30 minute broadcasts: FTRs #452 and FTR #453, in sequence. Returning to a subject covered in several past broadcasts, this program highlights the enigmatic career of French attorney Jacques Verges. Recently hired to assist with the defense of Saddam Hussein in his […]

FTR#1421 The Walls Came Tumbling Down: Nazis, Fascists and the 9/11 Attacks

Posted by Dave Emory ⋅ March 25, 2026 ⋅ Post a comment

Introduction: With hostilities in the Iran war escalating, the possibility of a false-flag terrorist incident is one we must contemplate. In that context, the reality of the 9/11 attacks should be carefully weighed. The central role of Nazis and fascists in the attacks, as well as the links of that fascist milieu to the highest levels of the George W. Bush administration are fundamental to an understanding of that event.

These articles were taken out from behind the paywall on Mr. Emory’s Patreon platform.

First of The Covid-19 “Op” Articles

Posted by Dave Emory ⋅ February 17, 2026 ⋅ Post a comment

Because the online reading of the first and most important of Mr. Emory’s articles on the Covid-19 “Op” was subpar, it is presented here for your use and convenience. This was taken out from behind the Patreon paywall. As people with an obligation to our descendants, we have the responsibility to preserve a record of the events leading to the collapse of our social and political milieu. There is no better way of fulfilling that obligation than by obtaining the latest flash drive, containing all of Dave’s 45+ years on the air and a library of old anti-fascist books. WFMU-FM is podcasting For The Record–You can subscribe to the podcast HERE.

FTR#‘s 1404, 1405, 1406, 1407: The Covid I9 “Op,” Parts 1 through 4

Posted by Dave Emory ⋅ October 30, 2025 ⋅ Post a comment

Introduction: Mr. Emory reads into the record the first, longest and most important of his Covid-19 articles featured on his Patreon platform.

Initially behind a paywall, Mr. Emory has made the other articles on the pandemic available. This is his gift to humanity. Having devoted years to the boiler-plate research, broadcasts and the crafting of his articles, Dave has placed the vehicle for humanity’s salvation in their collective hands.

If the human race does not come to terms with the information contained in these articles, it is doomed.

Spurred by alarms that AI’s could fulfill the prediction Mr. Emory made in January of 1995 about AI’s exterminating humanity by creating viruses; a thought experiment by the brilliant Michael Osterholm in which he speculates about a new, global pandemic and, once again, looks to bat caves in China (sigh).

“The Walls Came Tumbling Down: Nazis, Fascists and the 9/11 Attacks,” Parts 1 and 2

Posted by Dave Emory ⋅ September 10, 2025 ⋅ Post a comment

With the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks upon us, Mr. Emory unpacks two articles from his Patreon platform: “The Walls Came Tumbling Down: Nazis, Fascists and the 9/11 Attacks” Parts 1 and 2. These articles and Dave’s cornucopia of anti-fascist talks, articles and Zoom interviews with other experts are fundamental to understanding the horror show unfolding around us. As people with an obligation to our descendants, we have the responsibility to preserve a record of the events leading to the collapse of our social and political milieu. There is no better way of fulfilling that obligation than by obtaining the latest flash drive, containing all of Dave’s 45+ years on the air and a library of old anti-fascist books. WFMU-FM is podcasting For The Record–You can subscribe to the podcast HERE.

FTR#1256 Pandemics Inc., Part 6

Posted by Dave Emory ⋅ August 14, 2022 ⋅ Post a comment

By way of introduction, we present a link to a short Twitter video by Professor Jeffrey Sachs.

NB: The information in this program and accompanying description is largely a recap of material presented in the first five programs in this series. It is repeated and presented in a different order in the audio file.

This repetition is due to: A) the highly technical nature of much of the discussion of the viral composition of SARS CoV‑2 and related viruses and B) the tremendous significance of this information.

Continuing analysis of a frightening consortium of institutions apparently linked to the deliberate genesis of Covid-19, this program reiterates elements of analysis from FTR#‘s 1254 & 1255, presenting the information in a different sequence for increased understanding and retention.

Those institutions are: EcoHealth Alliance, Metabiota, In-Q-Tel and Munich Reinsurance.

Taken together, a number of points of information highlighted here go a long way to proving the legal concept of “consciousness of guilt,” the guilt being intent to create the pandemic and knowledge that such a thing was done.

(The information presented here should be taken in conjunction with information presented in–among other programs–FTR#‘s 1251, 1252 and 1253. In turn, those programs are developments of documentation presented in our many programs about Covid-19.)

Of paramount importance in evaluating the material here and in the other broadcasts about Covid-19 is the development of synthetic biology and the manner in which it enables biological warfare: “ . . . Advances in the area mean that scientists now have the capability to recreate dangerous viruses from scratch; make harmful bacteria more deadly; and modify common microbes so that they churn out lethal toxins once they enter the body. . . In the report, the scientists describe how synthetic biology, which gives researchers precision tools to manipulate living organisms, ‘enhances and expands’ opportunities to create bioweapons. . . . Today, the genetic code of almost any mammalian virus can be found online and synthesised. ‘The technology to do this is available now,’ said [Michael] Imperiale. “It requires some expertise, but it’s something that’s relatively easy to do, and that is why it tops the list. . . .”

Going a long way toward proving consciousness of guilt are:

1.–The behavior of Peter Daszak and colleagues in “gaming” the Lancet statement on the “natural” origin of the coronavirus (Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance–funded and advised by the national security establishment–is implicated in the creation of the SARS COV‑2.)
2.–The reaction of government officials to Trump administration officials into the origins of the virus, advising would be investigators that such inquiries would open a “can of worms,” or “a Pandora’s Box” because it would should light on U.S. funding of the projects.
3.–Metabiota–partnered with EcoHealth Alliance–was networked with In-Q-Tel (the intelligence community’s venture capital arm) and Munich Re to provide pandemic insurance. Their 2018 business model directly foreshadowed the pandemic. In 2018, as well, EcoHealth Alliance proposed a “novel coronavirus” for synthesis by DARPA. Although there is no evidence that DARPA synthesized the virus, the U.S. did synthesize closely related viruses. With the genome of that novel virus having been published, it may well have been synthesized either by DARPA or someone else, given the contemporary technology. Again, this, also was in 2018.
4.–Many aspects of the SARS COV‑2 virus, including its curious FCS site and institutionalized obfuscation of aspects of the pandemic it caused suggest deliberate cover-up. Why would the NIH redact 290 pages of a document requested by an FOIA suit!! Why were sequences of bat coronavirus genomes removed from public view?

It’s remarkable just how damning our beginning article is.

Co-author of the letter to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and former chairman of the Lancet’s commission on the origins of the pandemic, Sachs is someone in a position to bring real public attention to this topic, if he chooses to do so. The authors make a compelling case for an independent investigation, and who would be in a better position than Sachs to make this case publicly after he disbanded his Lancet Commission over these kinds of concerns? That’s all part of what is going to make this a story to watch.

This article has some remarkable points of information to be considered and it is altogether welcome and important that someone of Dr. Sachs’ high professional profile and prestige has come forward:

1.–“ . . . . The NIH could say more about the possible role of its grantees in the emergence of SARS-CoV‑2, yet the agency has failed to reveal to the public the possibility that SARS-CoV‑2 emerged from a research-associated event, even though several researchers raised that concern on February 1, 2020, in a phone conversation that was documented by email (5). Those emails were released to the public only through FOIA, and they suggest that the NIH leadership took an early and active role in promoting the ‘zoonotic hypothesis’ and the rejection of the laboratory-associated hypothesis. . . .”
2.–“ . . . . The NIH has resisted the release of important evidence, such as the grant proposals and project reports of EHA, and has continued to redact materials released under FOIA, including a remarkable 290-page redaction in a recent FOIA release. . . .”
3.–“ . . . . Acting NIH Director Lawrence Tabak testified before Congress that several such sequences in a US database were removed from public view. . . .”
4.–“ . . . . Special concerns surround the presence of an unusual furin cleavage site (FCS) in SARS-CoV‑2 (10) that augments the pathogenicity and transmissibility of the virus relative to related viruses like SARS-CoV‑1 (11, 12). SARS-CoV‑2 is, to date, the only identified member of the subgenus sarbecovirus that contains an FCS, although these are present in other coronaviruses (13, 14). A portion of the sequence of the spike protein of some of these viruses is illustrated in the alignment shown in Fig. 1, illustrating the unusual nature of the FCS and its apparent insertion in SARS-CoV‑2 (15).From the first weeks after the genome sequence of SARS-CoV‑2 became available, researchers have commented on the unexpected presence of the FCS within SARS-CoV‑2—the implication being that SARS-CoV‑2 might be a product of laboratory manipulation. In a review piece arguing against this possibility, it was asserted that the amino acid sequence of the FCS in SARS-CoV‑2 is an unusual, nonstandard sequence for an FCS and that nobody in a laboratory would design such a novel FCS (13). . . .”
5.–“ . . . . In fact, the assertion that the FCS in SARS-CoV‑2 has an unusual, nonstandard amino acid sequence is false. . . . (The one non-human non-great ape species with the same sequence is Pipistrellus kuhlii, a bat species found in Europe and Western Asia; other bat species, including Rhinolophus ferrumequinem, have a different FCS sequence in ENaC a [RKAR’SAAS]). . . .”
5.–“ . . . . We do know that the insertion of such FCS sequences into SARS-like viruses was a specific goal of work proposed by the EHA-WIV-UNC partnership within a 2018 grant proposal (“DEFUSE”) that was submitted to the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) (25).The 2018 proposal to DARPA was not funded, but we do not know whether some of the proposed work was subsequently carried out in 2018 or 2019, perhaps using another source of funding. . . .”
6.–“ . . . . We also know that that this research team would be familiar with several previous experiments involving the successful insertion of an FCS sequence into SARS-CoV‑1 (26) and other coronaviruses, and they had a lot of experience in construction of chimeric SARS-like viruses (27–29). In addition, the research team would also have some familiarity with the FCS sequence and the FCS-dependent activation mechanism of human ENaC (19), which was extensively characterized at UNC (17, 18).For a research team assessing the pandemic potential of SARS-related coronaviruses, the FCS of human ENaC—an FCS known to be efficiently cleaved by host furin present in the target location (epithelial cells) of an important target organ (lung), of the target organism (human)—might be a rational, if not obvious, choice of FCS to introduce into a virus to alter its infectivity, in line with other work performed previously. . . .”
7.–“ . . . . Of course, the molecular mimicry of ENaC within the SARS-CoV‑2 spike protein might be a mere coincidence, although one with a very low probability. The exact FCS sequence present in SARS-CoV‑2 has recently been introduced into the spike protein of SARS-CoV‑1 in the laboratory, in an elegant series of experiments (12, 30), with predictable consequences in terms of enhanced viral transmissibility and pathogenicity. Obviously, the creation of such SARS‑1/2 “chimeras” is an area of some concern for those responsible for present and future regulation of this area of biology. . . .”
8.–“ . . . . Information now held by the research team headed by EHA (7), as well as the communications of that research team with US research funding agencies, including NIH, USAID, DARPA, DTRA, and the Department of Homeland Security, could shed considerable light on the experiments undertaken by the US-funded research team and on the possible relationship, if any, between those experiments and the emergence of SARS-CoV‑2. . . .”

Recapping information from our “Oswald Institute of Virology” series, we note that Trump officials who were looking to tout the Chinese “lab-leak” hypothesis were told to avoid the topic, lest it create problems for the U.S.

Note, as well, that both Peter Daszak and Ralph Baric, associated with EcoHealth Alliance, were engaged in dubious maneuvering to eclipse attention on the possible U.S. sponsorship of the SARS COV‑2 gain-of-function manipulations.

1.–” . . . . It soon emerged, based on emails obtained by a Freedom of Information group called U.S. Right to Know, that Daszak had not only signed but organized the influential Lancet statement, with the intention of concealing his role and creating the impression of scientific unanimity. . . .”
2.–” . . . . In one State Department meeting, officials seeking to demand transparency from the Chinese government say they were explicitly told by colleagues not to explore the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s gain-of-function research, because it would bring unwelcome attention to U.S. government funding of it. . . . because it would ‘open a can of worms’ if it continued.’. . .”
3.–” . . . . As the group probed the lab-leak scenario, among other possibilities, its members were repeatedly advised not to open a ‘Pandora’s box,’ said four former State Department officials interviewed by Vanity Fair. The admonitions ‘smelled like a cover-up,’ said Thomas DiNanno . . . .”

Next, the program reviews an excerpting of a “Wired” Magazine article about the Metabiota/Munich Reinsurance project.

Bear in mind that In-Q-Tel, the venture capital arm of the CIA and the intelligence community, is greasing the wheels of this project with financing.

We highlight two key points of information:

1.–The business success of the pandemic insurance would necessarily incorporate analysis of the “fear factor” of potential pandemic pathogens: ” . . . . As sophisticated as Metabiota’s system was, however, it would need to be even more refined to incorporate into an insurance policy. The model would need to capture something much more difficult to quantify than historical deaths and medical stockpiles: fear. The economic consequences of a scourge, the historical data showed, were as much a result of society’s response as they were to the virus itself. . . . The Sentiment Index was built to be, as Oppenheim put it, ‘a catalog of dread.’ For any given pathogen, it could spit out a score from 0 to 100 according to how frightening the public would find it. . . . Madhav and her team, along with Wolfe and Oppenheim, also researched the broader economic consequences of disease outbreaks, measured in the ‘cost per death prevented’ incurred by societal interventions. ‘Measures that decreased person-to-person contact, including social distancing, quarantine, and school closures, had the greatest cost per death prevented, most likely because of the amount of economic disruption caused by those measures,’ they wrote in a 2018 paper. . . .”
2.–More sinister, still, is the fact that Metabiota had analyzed the scenario of a novel coronavirus pandemic two years before it happened. This appears to be the 2018 paper referred to above. Do not fail to note that, at the time that Metabiota was running this scenario, they were partnered with EcoHealth Alliance, which was using Pentagon and USAID money to research and perform gain-of-function on these types of coronaviruses!! ” . . . . As the human and economic devastation multiplied in tandem across the globe, Metabiota’s employees suddenly found themselves living inside their own model’s projections. Just two years earlier, the company had run a large set of scenarios forecasting the consequences of a novel coronavirus spreading around the globe. . . .”

Pivoting to a another interesting, emerging disease that was a point of interest for Metabiota, we open a discussion of monkey pox, a disease that will be more completely discussed in the next program.

Metabiota was evaluating monkeypox in late 2019: ” . . . . it rated this risk for the monkeypox virus in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (where there have been reported cases of that virus) as ‘medium.’ . . .”

We conclude this program with an excerpting of an op-ed column by Scott Gottlieb, the head of the FDA under Trump, a member of the conservative American Enterprise Institute and a member of the board of directors of Pfizer.

He notes that the new agency created by Biden to deal with monkeypox and other emerging infections was formerly: ” . . . . an office inside ‌the Department of Health and Human Services that is charged with coordinating the federal response to bioterrorism . . . .”

FTR#‘s 1254 & 1255 Pandemics, Inc., Parts 4 and 5

Posted by Dave Emory ⋅ July 27, 2022 ⋅ 2 comments

This program further develops the consortium of EcoHealth Alliance, Metabiota, In-Q-Tel and Munich Reinsurance.

By way of introduction, we present a link to a short Twitter video by Professor Jeffrey Sachs.

Taken together, a number of points of information highlighted here go a long way to proving the legal concept of “consciousness of guilt,” the guilt being intent to create the pandemic and knowledge that such a thing was done.

(The information presented here should be taken in conjunction with information presented in–among other programs–FTR#‘s 1251, 1252 and 1253. In turn, those programs are developments of documentation presented in our many programs about Covid-19.)

Of paramount importance in evaluating the material here and in the other broadcasts about Covid-19 is the development of synthetic biology and the manner in which it enables biological warfare: “ . . . Advances in the area mean that scientists now have the capability to recreate dangerous viruses from scratch; make harmful bacteria more deadly; and modify common microbes so that they churn out lethal toxins once they enter the body. . . In the report, the scientists describe how synthetic biology, which gives researchers precision tools to manipulate living organisms, ‘enhances and expands’ opportunities to create bioweapons. . . . Today, the genetic code of almost any mammalian virus can be found online and synthesised. ‘The technology to do this is available now,’ said [Michael] Imperiale. “It requires some expertise, but it’s something that’s relatively easy to do, and that is why it tops the list. . . .”

Going a long way toward proving consciousness of guilt are:

1.–The behavior of Peter Daszak and colleagues in “gaming” the Lancet statement on the “natural” origin of the coronavirus (Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance–funded and advised by the national security establishment–is implicated in the creation of the SARS COV‑2.)
2.–The reaction of government officials to Trump administration officials into the origins of the virus, advising would be investigators that such inquiries would open a “can of worms,” or “a Pandora’s Box” because it would should light on U.S. funding of the projects.
3.–Metabiota–partnered with EcoHealth Alliance–was networked with In-Q-Tel (the intelligence community’s venture capital arm) and Munich Re to provide pandemic insurance. Their 2018 business model directly foreshadowed the pandemic. In 2018, as well, EcoHealth Alliance proposed a “novel coronavirus” for synthesis by DARPA. Although there is no evidence that DARPA synthesized the virus, the U.S. did synthesize closely related viruses. With the genome of that novel virus having been published, it may well have been synthesized either by DARPA or someone else, given the contemporary technology. Again, this, also was in 2018.
4.–Many aspects of the SARS COV‑2 virus, including its curious FCS site and institutionalized obfuscation of aspects of the pandemic it caused suggest deliberate cover-up. Why would the NIH redact 290 pages of a document requested by an FOIA suit!! Why were sequences of bat coronavirus genomes removed from public view?

We begin by noting the OUN/B affiliation of Ulana Suprun, who was the Ukrainian Minister of Health from 2016 until2019, placing her very much “in the mix” with Andrew C. Weber and the Metabiota, EcoHealth Alliance and Munich Re consortium.

” . . . . Suprun is the husband of the Ukrainian American Ulana Suprun, a prominent Bandera enthusiast with ties to the Ukrainian far-right who served as the Healthcare Minister of Ukraine from July 2016 through August 2019. . . .”

We can confidently conclude that Metabiota founder NathanWolfe was in Jeffrey Epstein’s orbit.

We include a link to an excellent Covert Action Magazine article about Epstein and his myriad intelligence connections for the convenience of the listener and requisite background information.

Recapping information from our “Oswald Institute of Virology” series, we note that Trump officials who were looking to tout the Chinese “lab-leak” hypothesis were told to avoid the topic, lest it create problems for the U.S.

Note, as well, that both Peter Daszak and Ralph Baric, associated with EcoHealth Alliance, were engaged in dubious maneuvering to eclipse attention on the possible U.S. sponsorship of the SARS COV‑2 gain-of-function manipulations.

1.–” . . . . It soon emerged, based on emails obtained by a Freedom of Information group called U.S. Right to Know, that Daszak had not only signed but organized the influential Lancet statement, with the intention of concealing his role and creating the impression of scientific unanimity. . . .”
2.–” . . . . In one State Department meeting, officials seeking to demand transparency from the Chinese government say they were explicitly told by colleagues not to explore the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s gain-of-function research, because it would bring unwelcome attention to U.S. government funding of it. . . . because it would ‘‘open a can of worms’ if it continued.’. . .”
3.–” . . . . As the group probed the lab-leak scenario, among other possibilities, its members were repeatedly advised not to open a ‘Pandora’s box,’ said four former State Department officials interviewed by Vanity Fair. The admonitions ‘smelled like a cover-up,’ said Thomas DiNanno . . . .”

In our exhaustive series on the Covid-19 pandemic, we have presented overwhelming evidence that the SARS CoV‑2 was synthesized in a U.S. lab.

Having chaired a Lancet commission to investigate the origins of SARS CoV‑2, Dr. Jeffrey Sachs is “pretty convinced” that the virus came from a U.S. laboratory.

He opines that it was a “blunder.”

Although we believe Covid-19 was a biological warfare attack, we are greatly encouraged that someone of Sachs’ stature has come forward in this regard.

In many past programs, we have highlighted institutions implicated in the apparent “bio-skullduggery” surrounding the U.S. biological warfare gambit involving what Mr. Emory has termed “The Oswald Institute of Virology.” This is discussed in: FTR#‘s 1157–1159, 1170, 1183 through 1193, and 1215.

The essence of the “Oswald Institute of Virology” gambit concerns the DTRA and Pentagon funding of bat-borne coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, much of it through Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance. Once the research was complete, it resulted in publication which included the genome of the bat viruses being researched. Using technology discussed above (in the Guardian article), the viruses were then synthesized from scratch and population groups were vectored with the same viral strains being researched by the WIV.

Dr. Sachs’ ruminations about a U.S. biological laboratory origin of SARS-CoV‑2 are fleshed out in an interview–featured on his website–with the Tehran Times.

Note that he continues to opine that the release was a “blunder” and that it did not result from biological warfare research. Again, this is modified limited hangout.

Next, the program reviews an excerpting of a Wired Magazine article about the Metabiota/Munich Reinsurance project.

Bear in mind that In-Q-Tel, the venture capital arm of the CIA and the intelligence community, is greasing the wheels of this project with financing.

We highlight two key points of information:

1.–The business success of the pandemic insurance would necessarily incorporate analysis of the “fear factor” of potential pandemic pathogens: ” . . . . As sophisticated as Metabiota’s system was, however, it would need to be even more refined to incorporate into an insurance policy. The model would need to capture something much more difficult to quantify than historical deaths and medical stockpiles: fear. The economic consequences of a scourge, the historical data showed, were as much a result of society’s response as they were to the virus itself. . . . The Sentiment Index was built to be, as Oppenheim put it, ‘a catalog of dread.’ For any given pathogen, it could spit out a score from 0 to 100 according to how frightening the public would find it. . . . Madhav and her team, along with Wolfe and Oppenheim, also researched the broader economic consequences of disease outbreaks, measured in the ‘cost per death prevented’ incurred by societal interventions. ‘Measures that decreased person-to-person contact, including social distancing, quarantine, and school closures, had the greatest cost per death prevented, most likely because of the amount of economic disruption caused by those measures,’ they wrote in a 2018 paper. . . .”
2.–More sinister, still, is the fact that Metabiota had analyzed the scenario of a novel coronavirus pandemic two years before it happened. This appears to be the 2018 paper referred to above. Do not fail to note that, at the time that Metabiota was running this scenario, they were partnered with EcoHealth Alliance, which was using Pentagon and USAID money to research and perform gain-of-function on these types of coronaviruses!! ” . . . . As the human and economic devastation multiplied in tandem across the globe, Metabiota’s employees suddenly found themselves living inside their own model’s projections. Just two years earlier, the company had run a large set of scenarios forecasting the consequences of a novel coronavirus spreading around the globe. . . .”

Despite our deep reservations about Jeffrey Sachs—expressed in numerous programs and posts–it’s remarkable just how damning our concluding article is.

Sachs is someone in a position to bring real public attention to this topic, if he chooses to do so. The authors make a compelling case for an independent investigation, and who would be in a better position than Sachs to make this case publicly after he disbanded his Lancet Commission over these kinds of concerns? That’s all part of what is going to make this a story to watch.

“ . . . . Information now held by the research team headed by EHA (7), as well as the communications of that research team with US research funding agencies, including NIH, USAID, DARPA, DTRA, and the Department of Homeland Security, could shed considerable light on the experiments undertaken by the US-funded research team and on the possible relationship, if any, between those experiments and the emergence of SARS-CoV‑2. . . .”

If our suspicions about Sachs are well-founded, he might be in position to control the results that do emerge.

Nonetheless, this article has some remarkable points of information to be considered and it is altogether welcome and important that someone of Dr. Sachs’ high professional profile and prestige has come forward:

1.–“ . . . . Much of the work on SARS-like CoVs performed in Wuhan was part of an active and highly collaborative US–China scientific research program funded by the US Government (NIH, Defense Threat Reduction Agency [DTRA—Pentagon, D.E.], and US Agency for International Development [USAID]—State Department, frequent cover for CIA, D.E.), coordinated by researchers at EcoHealth Alliance (EHA—Chief funders are Pentagon, USAID, science and policy advisor is David Franz, former commanding officer of the U.S. Army Research Institute of Infectious Disease—D.E.), but involving researchers at several other US institutions. For this reason, it is important that US institutions be transparent about any knowledge of the detailed activities that were underway in Wuhan and in the United States. The evidence may also suggest that research institutions in other countries were involved, and those too should be asked to submit relevant information (e.g., with respect to unpublished sequences). . . .”
2.–“ . . . . as outlined below, much could be learned by investigating US-supported and US-based work that was underway in collaboration with Wuhan-based institutions, including the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), China. It is still not clear whether the IC investigated these US-supported and US-based activities. If it did, it has yet to make any of its findings available to the US scientific community for independent and transparent analysis and assessment. If, on the other hand, the IC [Intelligence Community] did not investigate these US-supported and US-based activities, then it has fallen far short of conducting a comprehensive investigation. . . .”
3.–“ . . . . Participating US institutions include the EHA, the University of North Carolina (UNC), the University of California at Davis (UCD), the NIH, and the USAID.Under a series of NIH grants and USAID contracts, EHA coordinated the collection of SARS-like bat CoVs from the field in southwest China and southeast Asia, the sequencing of these viruses, the archiving of these sequences (involving UCD), and the analysis and manipulation of these viruses (notably at UNC). A broad spectrum of coronavirus research work was done not only in Wuhan (including groups at Wuhan University and the Wuhan CDC, as well as WIV) but also in the United States. The exact details of the fieldwork and laboratory work of the EHA-WIV-UNC partnership, and the engagement of other institutions in the United States and China, has not been disclosed for independent analysis. The precise nature of the experiments that were conducted, including the full array of viruses collected from the field and the subsequent sequencing and manipulation of those viruses, remains unknown. . . .”
4.–“ . . . . The NIH could say more about the possible role of its grantees in the emergence of SARS-CoV‑2, yet the agency has failed to reveal to the public the possibility that SARS-CoV‑2 emerged from a research-associated event, even though several researchers raised that concern on February 1, 2020, in a phone conversation that was documented by email (5). Those emails were released to the public only through FOIA, and they suggest that the NIH leadership took an early and active role in promoting the ‘zoonotic hypothesis’ and the rejection of the laboratory-associated hypothesis. . . .”
5.–“ . . . . The NIH has resisted the release of important evidence, such as the grant proposals and project reports of EHA, and has continued to redact materials released under FOIA, including a remarkable 290-page redaction in a recent FOIA release. . . .”
6.–“ . . . . Acting NIH Director Lawrence Tabak testified before Congress that several such sequences in a US database were removed from public view. . . .”
7.–“ . . . . Special concerns surround the presence of an unusual furin cleavage site (FCS) in SARS-CoV‑2 (10) that augments the pathogenicity and transmissibility of the virus relative to related viruses like SARS-CoV‑1 (11, 12). SARS-CoV‑2 is, to date, the only identified member of the subgenus sarbecovirus that contains an FCS, although these are present in other coronaviruses (13, 14). A portion of the sequence of the spike protein of some of these viruses is illustrated in the alignment shown in Fig. 1, illustrating the unusual nature of the FCS and its apparent insertion in SARS-CoV‑2 (15).From the first weeks after the genome sequence of SARS-CoV‑2 became available, researchers have commented on the unexpected presence of the FCS within SARS-CoV‑2—the implication being that SARS-CoV‑2 might be a product of laboratory manipulation. In a review piece arguing against this possibility, it was asserted that the amino acid sequence of the FCS in SARS-CoV‑2 is an unusual, nonstandard sequence for an FCS and that nobody in a laboratory would design such a novel FCS (13). . . .”
8.–“ . . . . In fact, the assertion that the FCS in SARS-CoV‑2 has an unusual, nonstandard amino acid sequence is false. The amino acid sequence of the FCS in SARS-CoV‑2 also exists in the human ENaC a subunit (16), where it is known to be functional and has been extensively studied (17, 18). The FCS of human ENaC a has the amino acid sequence RRAR’SVAS ( 2), an eight–amino-acid sequence that is perfectly identical with the FCS of SARS-CoV‑2 (16).ENaC is an epithelial sodium channel, expressed on the apical surface of epithelial cells in the kidney, colon, and airways (19, 20), that plays a critical role in controlling fluid exchange. The ENaC a subunit has a functional FCS (17, 18) that is essential for ion channel function (19) and has been characterized in a variety of species. The FCS sequence of human ENaC a (20) is identical in chimpanzee, bonobo, orangutan, and gorilla (SI Appendix , Fig. 1), but diverges in all other species, even primates, except one. (The one non-human non-great ape species with the same sequence is Pipistrellus kuhlii, a bat species found in Europe and Western Asia; other bat species, including Rhinolophus ferrumequinem, have a different FCS sequence in ENaC a [RKAR’SAAS]). . . .”
9.–“ . . . . One consequence of this “molecular mimicry” between the FCS of SARS CoV‑2 spike and the FCS of human ENaC is competition for host furin in the lumen of the Golgi apparatus, where the SARS-CoV‑2 spike is processed. This results in a decrease in human ENaC expression (21). A decrease in human ENaC expression compromises airway function and has been implicated as a contributing factor in the pathogenesis of COVID-19 (22). Another consequence of this astonishing molecular mimicry is evidenced by apparent cross-reactivity with human ENaC of antibodies from COVID-19 patients, with the highest levels of cross-reacting antibodies directed against this epitope being associated with most severe disease (23). [Auto-immune reaction, possibly overlapping mRNA vaccines—D.E.]. . . .”
10.–“ . . . . We do know that the insertion of such FCS sequences into SARS-like viruses was a specific goal of work proposed by the EHA-WIV-UNC partnership within a 2018 grant proposal (“DEFUSE”) that was submitted to the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) (25).The 2018 proposal to DARPA was not funded, but we do not know whether some of the proposed work was subsequently carried out in 2018 or 2019, perhaps using another source of funding. . . .”
11.–“ . . . . We also know that that this research team would be familiar with several previous experiments involving the successful insertion of an FCS sequence into SARS-CoV‑1 (26) and other coronaviruses, and they had a lot of experience in construction of chimeric SARS-like viruses (27–29). In addition, the research team would also have some familiarity with the FCS sequence and the FCS-dependent activation mechanism of human ENaC (19), which was extensively characterized at UNC (17, 18).For a research team assessing the pandemic potential of SARS-related coronaviruses, the FCS of human ENaC—an FCS known to be efficiently cleaved by host furin present in the target location (epithelial cells) of an important target organ (lung), of the target organism (human)—might be a rational, if not obvious, choice of FCS to introduce into a virus to alter its infectivity, in line with other work performed previously. . . .”
12.–“ . . . . Of course, the molecular mimicry of ENaC within the SARS-CoV‑2 spike protein might be a mere coincidence, although one with a very low probability. The exact FCS sequence present in SARS-CoV‑2 has recently been introduced into the spike protein of SARS-CoV‑1 in the laboratory, in an elegant series of experiments (12, 30), with predictable consequences in terms of enhanced viral transmissibility and pathogenicity. Obviously, the creation of such SARS‑1/2 “chimeras” is an area of some concern for those responsible for present and future regulation of this area of biology. . . .”
13.–“ . . . . Information now held by the research team headed by EHA (7), as well as the communications of that research team with US research funding agencies, including NIH, USAID, DARPA, DTRA, and the Department of Homeland Security, could shed considerable light on the experiments undertaken by the US-funded research team and on the possible relationship, if any, between those experiments and the emergence of SARS-CoV‑2. . . .”

FTR#1233 How Many Lies Before You Belong to The Lie?, Part 6

Posted by Dave Emory ⋅ March 12, 2022 ⋅ 3 comments

This program continues our coverage of the Ukraine War.

We begin by highlighting a full-page ad in the New York Times, attacking Russia for its invasion of Ukraine.

“Nobel Laureates Support Ukraine;” Full Page Ad in The New York Times; 3/10/2022; p. A7 [Western Edition]. The ad was paid for by the Ukrainian World Congress.

As noted in previous programs: ” . . . . In 1967, the World Congress of Free Ukrainians was founded in New York City by supporters of Andriy Melnyk. [The head of the OUN‑M, also allied with Nazi Germany.–D.E.] It was renamed the Ukrainian World Congress in 1993. In 2003, the Ukrainian World Congress was recognized by the United Nations Economic and Social Council as an NGO with special consultative status. It now appears as a sponsor of the Atlantic Council . . . . The continuity of institutional and individual trajectories from Second World War collaborationists to Cold War-era anti-communist organizations to contemporary conservative U.S. think tanks is significant for the ideological underpinnings of today’s Intermarium revival. . . .”

Mr. Emory takes note of a PBS Newshour interview with Artem Semenikhin of the neo-Nazi Svoboda party. Portraying him as an anti-Russian hero, the program does not note that the portrait of OUN/B leader Stephan Bandera is clearly visible in the background, despite the Zoom blurring effect.

Next, we tackle “Volodymyr Zelensky and the ‘Jewish Question.’ ” (This is a grim pun. “The Jewish Question” was the Third Reich’s euphemism for the impending “Final Solution” to “The Jewish Question.”)

The altogether valid Russian military goal of the invasion was “De-Nazification.” That justification has been attacked as a ruse by using Zelensky’s Jewish affiliation as a rebuttal.

In that regard we note:

1.–” . . . . Zelensky’s top financial backer, the Ukrainian Jewish oligarch Igor Kolomoisky, has been a key benefactor of the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion and other extremists militias. . . . Igor Kolomoisky, a Ukrainian energy baron of Jewish heritage, has been a top funder of Azov since it was formed in 2014. He has also bankrolled private militias like the Dnipro and Aidar Battalions, and has deployed them as a personal thug squad to protect his financial interests. . . .”
2.–” . . . . Though Zelensky made anti-corruption the signature issue of his campaign, the Pandora Papers exposed him and members of his inner circle stashing large payments from Kolomoisky in a shadowy web of offshore accounts. . . .”
3.–” . . . . They are the ultranationalist National Militia, street vigilantes with roots in the battle-tested Azov Battalion that emerged to defend Ukraine against Russia-backed separatists but was also accused of possible war crimes and neo-Nazi sympathies. Yet despite the controversy surrounding it, the National Militia was granted permission by the Central Election Commission to officially monitor Ukraine’s presidential election on March 31. . . .”
4.–” . . . . In March 2019, members of the Azov Battalion’s National Corps attacked the home of Viktor Medvedchuk, the leading opposition figure in Ukraine, accusing him of treason for his friendly relations with Vladimir Putin, the godfather of Medvedchuk’s daughter. Zelensky’s administration escalated the attack on Medvedchuk, shuttering several media outlets he controlled in February 2021 with the open approval of the U.S. State Department, and jailing the opposition leader for treason three months later. Zelensky justified his actions on the grounds that he needed to ‘fight against the danger of Russian aggression in the information arena.’ Next, in August 2020, Azov’s National Corps opened fire on a bus containing members of Medvedchuk’s party, Patriots for Life, wounding several with rubber-coated steel bullets. . . .”
5.–” . . . . According to one Greek resident in Mariupol recently interviewed by a Greek news station, ‘When you try to leave you run the risk of running into a patrol of the Ukrainian fascists, the Azov Battalion,’ he said, adding ‘they would kill me and are responsible for everything.’ Footage posted online appears to show uniformed members of a fascist Ukrainian militia in Mariupol violently pulling fleeing residents out of their vehicles at gunpoint. Other video filmed at checkpoints around Mariupol showed Azov fighters shooting and killing civilians attempting to flee. . . .”

Jewish identity is not relevant to the situation as the Bormann group’s business operations have included Jewish participants as a matter of strategic intent. In turn, this has given the Bormann organization considerable influence in Israel.

” . . . . I spoke with one Jewish businessman in Hartford, Connecticut. He had arrived there quite unknown several years before our conversation, but with Bormann money as his leverage. Today he is more than a millionaire, a quiet leader in the community with a certain share of his profits earmarked, as always, for his venture capital benefactors. This has taken place in many other instances across America and demonstrates how Bormann’s people operate in the contemporary commercial world, in contrast to the fanciful nonsense with which Nazis are described in so much ‘literature.’ So much emphasis is placed on select Jewish participation in Bormann companies that when Adolf Eichmann was seized and taken to Tel Aviv to stand trial, it produced a shock wave in the Jewish and German communities of Buenos Aires. . . .”

Next, we conclude with an article which embodies Mr. Emory’s analysis of the war and its attendant coverage as a “philosopher’s stone,” effecting an alchemical transformation of the U.S., the West in general and most of the people and institutions in them into what might be called “the embodiment of the Ukrainian Institute of National Memory.”

Golinkin penned an op-ed piece for The New York Times in which he mentioned none of what he spoke about three years ago. Instead, he repeated anti-Soviet and/or anti-Russian material which is practically institutionalized at this point.

At the end of his Nation piece, Golinkin gave voice to a very important insight: ” . . . . By tolerating neo-Nazi gangs and battalions, state-led Holocaust distortion, and attacks on LGBT and the Roma, the United States is telling the rest of Europe: “We’re fine with this.” The implications—especially at a time of a global far-right revival—are profoundly disturbing. . . .”

Points of analysis and discussion in Golinkin’s older work include:

* The elevation of the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion that was formally incorporated into Ukraine’s armed forces yet remains a neo-Nazi battalion.
* Azov is now engaged in policing with its National Druzhina street patrol units that have engaged in anti-Roma pogroms.
* Azov’s campaign to turn Ukraine into an international hub of white supremacy.
* Andriy Parubiy’s role in creating Ukraine’s Nazi Party that he continues to embrace and that’s routinely ignored as he has become the parliament speaker.
* The deputy minister of the Interior—which controls the National Police—is a veteran of Azov, Vadim Troyan.
* Government sponsorship of historical revisionism and holocaust denial though agencies like Ukrainian Institute of National Memory. It is now illegal to speak unfavorably of the OUN/B or the UPA, both of which were Nazi collaborationist organizations with bloody, lethal histories.
* Torchlight parades are now normal.
* Within several years, an entire generation will be indoctrinated to worship Holocaust perpetrators as national heroes.
* Books that criticize the now-glorified WWII Nazi collaborators like Stepan Bandera are getting banned.
* Public officials make threats against Ukraine’s Jewish community with no repercussions.
* The neo-Nazi C14’s street patrol gangs are both responsible for anti-Roma pogroms and also the recipient of government funds to run a children’s educational camp. Last October, C14 leader Serhiy Bondar was welcomed at America House Kyiv, a center run by the US government.
* It’s open season on the LGBT community and far right groups routinely attack LGBT gatherings.
* Ukraine is extremely dangerous for journalists and the government has supported the doxxing and intimidation of journalist by the far right like Myrovorets group.
* The government is trying to repeal laws protecting the many minority languages used in Ukraine.

And yet, as the article notes at the end, its many examples were just a small sampling of what has transpired in Ukraine since 2014:

FTR#1232 How Many Lies Before You Belong to The Lie?, Part 5

Posted by Dave Emory ⋅ March 10, 2022 ⋅ 4 comments

We continue our coverage of the war in Ukraine.

President Putin has been portrayed as a “madman” in the West. As we have seen, his stated war goal of “De-Nazification” is altogether relevant and valid.

The article below is summed up as follows: ” . . . . After a ‘New York Times’ reporter grossly distorted what Putin and Zelensky have said and done about nuclear weapons, Steven Starr corrects the record and deplores Western media, in general, for misinforming and leading the entire world in a dangerous direction. . . .”

His claim that Ukraine was seeking nuclear weapons also is substantive.

Mr. Emory has stated that he think that Putin fell into a well-laid trap, a European iteration of the Afghanistan gambit, in which Zbigniew Brzezinski lured the Soviet Union into invading Afghanistan, in order to give them their “Vietnam.” Together with the deliberate collapse of petroleum prices, that war helped topple the U.S.S.R.

(Ian Brzezinski, Zbigniew’s son, is a key member of the Atlantic Council–one of the major vehicles for the OUN/B milieu’s activities in the U.S.)

Key Points of Discussion and Analysis:

1.–One element of the baited trap was Ukraine moving to gain either “nukes or Nato membership. If, for the sake of argument, Ukraine became a member of NATO, then they could develop nukes with impunity, because a Russian attack would trigger World War Three. ” . . . . In other words, the Budapest Memorandum was expressly about Ukraine giving up its nukes and not becoming a nuclear weapon state in the future. Zelensky’s speech at Munich made it clear that Ukraine was moving to repudiate the Budapest Memorandum; Zelensky essentially stated that Ukraine must be made a member of NATO, otherwise it would acquire nuclear weapons. . . .”
2.–” . . . . So, when the leader of Ukraine essentially threatens to obtain nuclear weapons, this is most certainly considered to be an existential threat to Russia. That is why Putin focused on this during his speech preceding the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Sanger and The New York Times must discount a Ukrainian nuclear threat; they can get away with doing so because they have systematically omitted news pertaining to this for many years. . . .”
3.–There has been no more alarming development in the war than the Russian combat around Ukraine’s nuclear facilities. The significance of that combat comes into clear view in light of the following, which shows that this is not mere reckless behavior on the part of Russia. ” . . . . Ukraine has plenty of plutonium, which is commonly used to make nuclear weapons today; eight years ago Ukraine held more than 50 tons of plutonium in its spent fuel assemblies stored at its many nuclear power plants (probably considerably more today, as the reactors have continued to run and produce spent fuel). Once plutonium is reprocessed/separated from spent nuclear fuel, it becomes weapons usable. Putin noted that Ukraine already has missiles that could carry nuclear warheads, and they certainly have scientists capable of developing reprocessing facilities and building nuclear weapons. In his Feb. 21 televised address, Putin said Ukraine still has the infrastructure leftover from Soviet days to build a bomb. . . .”
4.–” . . . . ‘Ukraine has the nuclear technologies created back in the Soviet times and delivery vehicles for such weapons, including aircraft, as well as the Soviet-designed Tochka‑U precision tactical missiles with a range of over 100 kilometers.’ . . .”
5.–Another element of the baited trap was an apparent Ukrainian military buildup at the border of the breakaway provinces in the East. ” . . . . The New York Times, in its overall coverage, chose not to report that the Ukrainian forces had deployed half of its army, about 125,000 troops, to its border with Donbass by the beginning of 2022. . . .”
6.–Historical background to the secession bid: ” . . . . both the provinces of Donetsk and Lugansk in the Donbass region voted for independence from Ukraine in 2014 in resistance to a U.S.-backed coup that overthrew the elected president Viktor Yanukovych in February of that year. The independence vote came just eight days after neo-Nazis burned dozens of ethnic Russians alive in Odessa. To crush their bid for independence, the new U.S.-installed Ukrainian government then launched an “anti-terrorist” war against the provinces, with the assistance of the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, which had taken part in the coup. It is a war that is still going on eight years later, a war that Russia has just entered. . . .”
7.–” . . . . For years the U.S. proclaimed that the Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) facilities it was placing in Romania and Poland, on the Russian border, were to protect against an “Iranian threat,” even though Iran had no nuclear weapons or missiles that could reach the U.S. But the dual-use Mark 41 launching systems used in the Aegis Ashore BMD facilities can be used to launch Tomahawk cruise missiles, and will be fitted with SM‑6 missiles that, if armed with nuclear warheads, could hit Moscow in five-to-six minutes. Putin explicitly warned journalists about this danger in 2016; Russia included the removal of the U.S. BMD facilities in Romania and Poland in its draft treaties presented to the U.S. and NATO last December. . . .”

Next, we tackle “Volodymyr Zelensky and the ‘Jewish Question.’ ” (This is a grim pun. “The Jewish Question” was the Third Reich’s euphemism for the impending “Final Solution” to “The Jewish Question.”)

The altogether valid Russian military goal of the invasion was “De-Nazification” has been attacked as a ruse using Zelensky’s Jewish affiliation as a rebuttal.

In that regard we note:

1.–” . . . . Zelensky’s top financial backer, the Ukrainian Jewish oligarch Igor Kolomoisky, has been a key benefactor of the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion and other extremists militias. . . . Igor Kolomoisky, a Ukrainian energy baron of Jewish heritage, has been a top funder of Azov since it was formed in 2014. He has also bankrolled private militias like the Dnipro and Aidar Battalions, and has deployed them as a personal thug squad to protect his financial interests. . . .”
2.–” . . . . Though Zelensky made anti-corruption the signature issue of his campaign, the Pandora Papers exposed him and members of his inner circle stashing large payments from Kolomoisky in a shadowy web of offshore accounts. . . .”
3.–” . . . . They are the ultranationalist National Militia, street vigilantes with roots in the battle-tested Azov Battalion that emerged to defend Ukraine against Russia-backed separatists but was also accused of possible war crimes and neo-Nazi sympathies. Yet despite the controversy surrounding it, the National Militia was granted permission by the Central Election Commission to officially monitor Ukraine’s presidential election on March 31. . . .”
4.–” . . . . In March 2019, members of the Azov Battalion’s National Corps attacked the home of Viktor Medvedchuk, the leading opposition figure in Ukraine, accusing him of treason for his friendly relations with Vladimir Putin, the godfather of Medvedchuk’s daughter. Zelensky’s administration escalated the attack on Medvedchuk, shuttering several media outlets he controlled in February 2021 with the open approval of the U.S. State Department, and jailing the opposition leader for treason three months later. Zelensky justified his actions on the grounds that he needed to ‘fight against the danger of Russian aggression in the information arena.’ Next, in August 2020, Azov’s National Corps opened fire on a bus containing members of Medvedchuk’s party, Patriots for Life, wounding several with rubber-coated steel bullets. . . .”
5.–” . . . . According to one Greek resident in Mariupol recently interviewed by a Greek news station, ‘When you try to leave you run the risk of running into a patrol of the Ukrainian fascists, the Azov Battalion,’ he said, adding ‘they would kill me and are responsible for everything.’ Footage posted online appears to show uniformed members of a fascist Ukrainian militia in Mariupol violently pulling fleeing residents out of their vehicles at gunpoint. Other video filmed at checkpoints around Mariupol showed Azov fighters shooting and killing civilians attempting to flee. . . .”

Jewish identity is not relevant to the situation as the Bormann group’s business operations have included Jewish participants as a matter of strategic intent. In turn, this has given the Bormann organization considerable influence in Israel.

” . . . . I spoke with one Jewish businessman in Hartford, Connecticut. He had arrived there quite unknown several years before our conversation, but with Bormann money as his leverage. Today he is more than a millionaire, a quiet leader in the community with a certain share of his profits earmarked, as always, for his venture capital benefactors. This has taken place in many other instances across America and demonstrates how Bormann’s people operate in the contemporary commercial world, in contrast to the fanciful nonsense with which Nazis are described in so much ‘literature.’ So much emphasis is placed on select Jewish participation in Bormann companies that when Adolf Eichmann was seized and taken to Tel Aviv to stand trial, it produced a shock wave in the Jewish and German communities of Buenos Aires. . . .”