- Spitfire List - https://spitfirelist.com -

FTR #1170 Bio-Psy-Op Apocalypse Now, Part 25: The Oswald Institute of Virology

You can sub­scribe to e‑mail alerts from Spitfirelist.com HERE [1].

You can sub­scribe to RSS feed from Spitfirelist.com HERE [1].

You can sub­scribe to the com­ments made on pro­grams and posts–an excel­lent source of infor­ma­tion in, and of, itself, HERE [2].

Mr. Emory’s entire life’s work is avail­able on a 32GB flash dri­ve, avail­able for a con­tri­bu­tion of $65.00 or more (to KFJC). Click Here to obtain Dav­e’s 40+ years’ work, com­plete through Fall of 2020 (through FTR #1156). [3]

Please con­sid­er sup­port­ing THE WORK DAVE EMORY DOES [4].

FTR #1170 This pro­gram was record­ed in one, 60-minute seg­ment [5].

Intro­duc­tion: Revis­it­ing Peter Daszak, cen­tral­ly involved in the gain-of-func­tion research that appears to have spawned the SARS CoV2 virus and Covid-19, we note that Daszak has deflect­ed inquiries into his work by call­ing crit­ics “con­spir­a­cy the­o­rists.”  ” . . . The ‘media-indus­tri­al com­plex’ includes peo­ple in pow­er who vehe­ment­ly, if irra­tional­ly, deny a con­spir­a­to­r­i­al ver­sion of his­to­ry, auto­mat­i­cal­ly mock­ing any­one who sub­scribes to it as a ‘con­spir­a­cy the­o­rist,’ code words for ‘dan­ger­ous­ly deranged fool.’ Utter­ing the phrase ‘con­spir­a­cy the­o­rist’ is used as a con­ve­nient way of shut­ting down con­ver­sa­tion on a sub­ject. . . .”

We begin by return­ing to the sub­ject of syn­the­siz­ing virus­es in a lab­o­ra­to­ry. A study [6] released by US Nation­al Acad­e­my of Sci­ences at the request of the Depart­ment of Defense about the threats of syn­thet­ic biol­o­gy con­clud­ed that the tech­niques to tweak and weaponize virus­es from known cat­a­logs of viral sequences is very fea­si­ble and rel­a­tive­ly easy to do.

In FTR #‘s 1157, 1158 and 1159 [7], we high­light­ed very dis­turb­ing con­nec­tions between Peter Daszak and his Eco­Health Alliance and the Pen­ta­gon and USAID, a State Depart­ment sub­sidiary that serves as a fre­quent cov­er for CIA.

The Eco­Health Alliance–financed by USAID–partnered with the Wuhan Insti­tute of Virol­o­gy and Dr. Ralph Bar­ic of the Uni­ver­si­ty of North Car­oli­na at Chapel Hill to research bat-borne coro­n­avirus­es. A “chimeric” virus was cre­at­ed by Bar­ic [8] under this pro­gram in 2015, and Bar­ic [9] was sub­se­quent­ly select­ed [10] to cre­ate the SARS Cov‑2 virus from scratch.

It is our con­sid­ered view that the WIV was set up for the blame for Covid-19, in a man­ner not unlike the “Paint­ing of Oswald Red” dis­cussed in–among oth­er pro­grams–FTR #‘s 925 [11]and 926 [12], as well as our series [13] of inter­views [14] with Jim DiEu­ge­nio.

We have also not­ed the pro­found links [15] between ele­ments of the mil­i­tary and treat­ment reg­i­mens (vac­cines and med­i­cines) for Covid-19.

A new arti­cle adds fur­ther depth to the alarm­ing con­nec­tions of Daszak, the Eco­Health Alliance and Jef­frey Sachs. (As dis­cussed in a num­ber of pro­grams, includ­ing the above-men­tioned FTR #‘s 1157, 1158 and 1159 [7], Sachs presided over the Har­vard Insti­tute of Inter­na­tion­al Devel­op­ment, a US-fund­ed orga­ni­za­tion that advised Boris Yeltsin’s dis­as­trous eco­nom­ic pol­i­cy in Rus­sia.)

Many in Rus­sia view Sachs as “an emis­sary either of Satan or the CIA.” Recent polit­i­cal incar­na­tions have him as a mem­ber of the [Bernie] Sanders Insti­tute [16] and an advi­sor to AOC [17].

A bril­liant, insight­ful arti­cle by Sam Hus­sei­ni on Inde­pen­dent Sci­ence News [18] pro­vides crit­i­cal depth to our pre­vi­ous cov­er­age of Cit­i­zen Daszak.

Hus­sei­ni notes that:

  1.  The Pen­ta­gon and USAID (a State Depart­ment sub­sidiary that has fre­quent­ly front­ed for CIA) are the largest fun­ders of Eco­Health Alliance, which obscures this fact: “ . . . . Daszak’s Eco­Health Alliance obscures its Pen­ta­gon fund­ing. . . . Only buried under their ‘Pri­va­cy Pol­i­cy,’ [19] under a sec­tion titled ‘Eco­Health Alliance Pol­i­cy Regard­ing Con­flict of Inter­est in Research,’ does the Eco­Health Alliance con­cede it is the ‘recip­i­ent of var­i­ous grant awards from fed­er­al agen­cies includ­ing . . . . the US Agency for Inter­na­tion­al Devel­op­ment and the Depart­ment of Defense.’ . . . Even this list­ing is decep­tive. It obscures that its two largest fun­ders are the Pen­ta­gon and the State Depart­ment (USAID) . . . . These two sources thus total over $103 mil­lion. . . .”
  2. One of the prin­ci­pal advis­ers to Eco­Health Alliance is David Franz: ” . . . . The mil­i­tary links of the Eco­Health Alliance are not lim­it­ed to mon­ey and mind­set. One note­wor­thy ‘pol­i­cy advi­sor’ to the Eco­Health Alliance is David Franz. Franz is for­mer com­man­der of Fort Det­rick, which is the prin­ci­pal U.S. gov­ern­ment biowarfare/biodefense facil­i­ty. . . .”
  3. Peter Daszak has high regards for Don­ald Rums­feld, whom he enthu­si­as­ti­cal­ly quotes. (Rums­feld was Chair­man of the Board of Gilead Sci­ences [20] for many years, leav­ing that posi­tion to become Sec­re­tary of Defense for George W. Bush. Rums­feld made mil­lions [20] on his sale of Gilead stock, which soared in val­ue fol­low­ing the Pen­tagon’s pur­chase of Gilead­’s Tam­i­flu to com­bat a feared break­out of H5N1 influen­za. Gildead Sci­ences makes remde­sivir, which was being test­ed [20] on rhe­sus macaques at the U.S. Army’s Med­ical Research Insti­tute of Infec­tious Dis­eases at Fort Det­rick in the spring of 2019. The USAAMRIID was shut down by the CDC in ear­ly August of 2019, in part for the improp­er dis­pos­al [20] of waste from “non-human pri­mates” infect­ed with a “select agent” which has not been dis­closed for nation­al secu­ri­ty rea­sons.) ” . . . . ‘It’s an awe­some quote! And yes, it’s Don­ald Rums­feld, Jeff, and I know he’s a Repub­li­can, but — what a genius!’ . . .”
  4. The close asso­ci­a­tion of Jef­frey Sachs and Daszak: ” . . . . In Sep­tem­ber, Sachs’ com­mis­sion [on the Lancet–D.E.] named Daszak to head up its com­mit­tee [21] on the pandemic’s ori­gins. Daszak is also on the WHO’s com­mit­tee to inves­ti­gate the pandemic’s ori­gin [21]. He is the only indi­vid­ual on both com­mit­tees. . . .”

Pro­gram High­lights Include: Fur­ther devel­op­ment [22] of the medi­a’s reflex­ive use of “con­spir­a­cy the­o­ry” and/or “con­spir­a­cy the­o­rists” to pre­empt intel­li­gent analy­sis of lethal covert operations–both for­eign and domes­tic; The New York Times’ lead role [22] in rhetor­i­cal fire­wall pro­tect­ing both domes­tic and for­eign covert oper­a­tions.

1. A study released by US Nation­al Acad­e­my of Sci­ences at the request of the Depart­ment of Defense about the threats of syn­thet­ic biol­o­gy con­clud­ed that the tech­niques to tweak and weaponize virus­es from known cat­a­logs of viral sequences is very fea­si­ble and rel­a­tive­ly easy to do:

“Syn­thet­ic biol­o­gy rais­es risk of new bioweapons, US report warns” by Ian Sam­ple; The Guardian; 06/19/2018 [6]

The rapid rise of syn­thet­ic biol­o­gy, a futur­is­tic field of sci­ence that seeks to mas­ter the machin­ery of life, has raised the risk of a new gen­er­a­tion of bioweapons, accord­ing a major US report into the state of the art.

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.

The three sce­nar­ios are picked out as threats of high­est con­cern in a review of the field pub­lished on Tues­day by the US Nation­al Acad­e­my of Sci­ences at the request of the Depart­ment of Defense. The report was com­mis­sioned to flag up ways in which the pow­er­ful tech­nol­o­gy might be abused, and to focus minds on how best to pre­pare.

Michael Impe­ri­ale, chair of the report com­mit­tee, and pro­fes­sor of micro­bi­ol­o­gy and immunol­o­gy at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Michi­gan, said the review used only unclas­si­fied infor­ma­tion and so has no assess­ment of which groups, if any, might be pur­su­ing nov­el bio­log­i­cal weapons. “We can’t say how like­ly any of these sce­nar­ios are,” he said. “But we can talk about how fea­si­ble they are.”

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. “As the pow­er of the tech­nol­o­gy increas­es, that brings a gen­er­al need to scru­ti­nise where harms could come from,” said Peter Carr, a senior sci­en­tist at MIT’s Syn­thet­ic Biol­o­gy Cen­ter in Cam­bridge, Mass­a­chu­setts.

More than 20 years ago, Eckard Wim­mer, a geneti­cist at Stony Brook Uni­ver­si­ty in New York, high­light­ed the poten­tial dan­gers of syn­thet­ic biol­o­gy in dra­mat­ic style when he recre­at­ed poliovirus in a test tube. Ear­li­er this year, a team at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Alber­ta built an infec­tious horse­pox virus. The virus is a close rel­a­tive of small­pox, which may have claimed half a bil­lion lives in the 20th cen­tu­ry. Today, the genet­ic code of almost any mam­malian virus can be found online and syn­the­sised. “The tech­nol­o­gy to do this is avail­able now,” said Impe­ri­ale. “It requires some exper­tise, but it’s some­thing that’s rel­a­tive­ly easy to do, and that is why it tops the list.”

Oth­er fair­ly sim­ple pro­ce­dures can be used to tweak the genes of dan­ger­ous bac­te­ria and make them resis­tant to antibi­otics, so that peo­ple infect­ed with them would be untreat­able. A more exot­ic bioweapon might come in the form of a genet­i­cal­ly-altered microbe that colonis­es the gut and churns out poi­sons. “While that is tech­ni­cal­ly more dif­fi­cult, it is a con­cern because it may not look like any­thing you nor­mal­ly watch out for in pub­lic health,” Impe­ri­ale said.

One bioweapon that is not con­sid­ered an imme­di­ate threat is a so-called gene dri­ve that spreads through a pop­u­la­tion, rewrit­ing human DNA as it goes. “It’s impor­tant to recog­nise that it’s easy to come up with a scary-sound­ing idea, but it’s far more dif­fi­cult to do some­thing prac­ti­cal with it,” said Carr.

2. In FTR #‘s 1157, 1158 and 1159 [7], we high­light­ed very dis­turb­ing con­nec­tions between Peter Daszak and his Eco­Health Alliance and the Pen­ta­gon and USAID, a State Depart­ment sub­sidiary that serves as a fre­quent cov­er for CIA.

The Eco­Health Alliance–financed by USAID–partnered with the Wuhan Insti­tute of Virol­o­gy and Dr. Ralph Bar­ic of the Uni­ver­si­ty of North Car­oli­na at Chapel Hill to research bat-borne coro­n­avirus­es. A “chimeric” virus was cre­at­ed by Bar­ic [8] under this pro­gram in 2015, and Bar­ic [9] was sub­se­quent­ly select­ed [10] to cre­ate the SARS Cov‑2 virus from scratch.

It is our con­sid­ered view that the WIV was set up for the blame for Covid-19.

We have also not­ed the pro­found links [15] between ele­ments of the mil­i­tary and treat­ment reg­i­mens (vac­cines and med­i­cines) for Covid-19.

A new arti­cle adds fur­ther depth to the alarm­ing con­nec­tions of Daszak, the Eco­Health Alliance and Jef­frey Sachs. (As dis­cussed in a num­ber of pro­grams, includ­ing the above-men­tioned FTR #‘s 1157, 1158 and 1159 [7], Sachs presided over the Har­vard Insti­tute of Inter­na­tion­al Devel­op­ment, a US-fund­ed orga­ni­za­tion that advised Boris Yeltsin’s dis­as­trous eco­nom­ic pol­i­cy in Rus­sia.)

Many in Rus­sia view Sachs as “an emis­sary either of Satan or the CIA.” Recent polit­i­cal incar­na­tions have him as a mem­ber of the [Bernie] Sanders Insti­tute [16] and an advi­sor to AOC [17].

A bril­liant, insight­ful arti­cle by Sam Hus­sei­ni on Inde­pen­dent Sci­ence News [18] pro­vides crit­i­cal depth to our pre­vi­ous cov­er­age of Cit­i­zen Daszak.

Hus­sei­ni notes that:

  1.  The Pen­ta­gon and USAID (a State Depart­ment sub­sidiary that has fre­quent­ly front­ed for CIA) are the largest fun­ders of Eco­Health Alliance, which obscures this fact: “ . . . . Daszak’s Eco­Health Alliance obscures its Pen­ta­gon fund­ing. . . . Only buried under their ‘Pri­va­cy Pol­i­cy,’ [19] under a sec­tion titled ‘Eco­Health Alliance Pol­i­cy Regard­ing Con­flict of Inter­est in Research,’ does the Eco­Health Alliance con­cede it is the ‘recip­i­ent of var­i­ous grant awards from fed­er­al agen­cies includ­ing . . . . the US Agency for Inter­na­tion­al Devel­op­ment and the Depart­ment of Defense.’ . . . Even this list­ing is decep­tive. It obscures that its two largest fun­ders are the Pen­ta­gon and the State Depart­ment (USAID) . . . . These two sources thus total over $103 mil­lion. . . .”
  2. One of the prin­ci­pal advis­ers to Eco­Health Alliance is David Franz: ” . . . . The mil­i­tary links of the Eco­Health Alliance are not lim­it­ed to mon­ey and mind­set. One note­wor­thy ‘pol­i­cy advi­sor’ to the Eco­Health Alliance is David Franz. Franz is for­mer com­man­der of Fort Det­rick, which is the prin­ci­pal U.S. gov­ern­ment biowarfare/biodefense facil­i­ty. . . .”
  3. Peter Daszak has high regards for Don­ald Rums­feld, whom he enthu­si­as­ti­cal­ly quotes. (Rums­feld was Chair­man of the Board of Gilead Sci­ences [20] for many years, leav­ing that posi­tion to become Sec­re­tary of Defense for George W. Bush. Rums­feld made mil­lions [20] on his sale of Gilead stock, which soared in val­ue fol­low­ing the Pen­tagon’s pur­chase of Gilead­’s Tam­i­flu to com­bat a feared break­out of H5N1 influen­za. Gildead Sci­ences makes remde­sivir, which was being test­ed [20] on rhe­sus macaques at the U.S. Army’s Med­ical Research Insti­tute of Infec­tious Dis­eases at Fort Det­rick in the spring of 2019. The USAAMRIID was shut down by the CDC in ear­ly August of 2019, in part for the improp­er dis­pos­al [20] of waste from “non-human pri­mates” infect­ed with a “select agent” which has not been dis­closed for nation­al secu­ri­ty rea­sons.) ” . . . . ‘It’s an awe­some quote! And yes, it’s Don­ald Rums­feld, Jeff, and I know he’s a Repub­li­can, but — what a genius!’ . . .”
  4. The close asso­ci­a­tion of Jef­frey Sachs and Daszak: ” . . . . In Sep­tem­ber, Sachs’ com­mis­sion [on the Lancet–D.E.] named Daszak to head up its com­mit­tee [21] on the pandemic’s ori­gins. Daszak is also on the WHO’s com­mit­tee to inves­ti­gate the pandemic’s ori­gin [21]. He is the only indi­vid­ual on both com­mit­tees. . . .”

“Peter Daszak’s Eco­Health Alliance Has Hid­den Almost $40 Mil­lion In Pen­ta­gon Fund­ing And Mil­i­ta­rized Pan­dem­ic Sci­ence” by Sam Hus­sei­ni; Inde­pen­dent Sci­ence News; 12/16/2020. [18]

“Pan­demics are like ter­ror­ist attacks: We know rough­ly where they orig­i­nate and what’s respon­si­ble for them, but we don’t know exact­ly when the next one will hap­pen. They need to be han­dled the same way — by iden­ti­fy­ing all pos­si­ble sources and dis­man­tling those before the next pan­dem­ic strikes.”

This state­ment was writ­ten in the New York Times ear­li­er this year by Peter Daszak. Daszak is the long­time pres­i­dent of the Eco­Health Alliance [23], a New York-based non-prof­it whose claimed focus is pan­dem­ic pre­ven­tion. But the Eco­Health Alliance, it turns out, is at the very cen­tre of the COVID-19 pan­dem­ic in many ways.

To depict the pan­dem­ic in such mil­i­ta­rized terms is, for Daszak, a com­mon­place. In an Oct. 7 online talk orga­nized by Colum­bia University’s School of Inter­na­tion­al and Pub­lic Affairs [24], Daszak pre­sent­ed a slide titled “Don­ald Rumsfeld’s Pre­scient Speech.”:

“There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns — there are things we don’t know we don’t know.” (This Rums­feld quote is in fact from a news con­fer­ence)

In the sub­se­quent online dis­cus­sion, Daszak empha­sized the par­al­lels between his own cru­sade and Rumsfeld’s, since, accord­ing to Daszak, the “poten­tial for unknown attacks” is “the same for virus­es”.

Daszak then pro­ceed­ed with a not ter­ri­bly sub­tle pitch for over a bil­lion dol­lars. This mon­ey would sup­port a fledg­ling virus hunt­ing and sur­veil­lance project of his, the Glob­al Virome Project [25] — a “doable project” he assured watch­ers — giv­en the cost of the pan­dem­ic to gov­ern­ments and var­i­ous indus­tries.

Also on the video was Colum­bia Uni­ver­si­ty pro­fes­sor Jef­frey Sachs [26]. Sachs is a for­mer spe­cial advi­sor to the UN, the for­mer head of the Mil­len­ni­um Vil­lages Project, and was recent­ly appoint­ed Chair of the new­ly-formed EAT Lancet Com­mis­sion on the pan­dem­ic [27]. In Sep­tem­ber, Sachs’ com­mis­sion named Daszak to head up its com­mit­tee [21] on the pandemic’s ori­gins. Daszak is also on the WHO’s com­mit­tee to inves­ti­gate the pandemic’s ori­gin [21]. He is the only indi­vid­ual on both com­mit­tees.

These lead­er­ship posi­tions are not the only rea­son why Peter Daszak is such a cen­tral fig­ure in the COVID-19 pan­dem­ic, how­ev­er. His appoint­ment dis­mayed many [28] of those who are aware that Daszak’s Eco­Health Alliance fund­ed bat coro­n­avirus research, includ­ing virus col­lec­tion, at the Wuhan Insti­tute for Virol­o­gy (WIV) and thus could them­selves be direct­ly impli­cat­ed in the out­break [29].

For his part, Daszak has repeat­ed­ly dis­missed [30] the notion that the pan­dem­ic could have a lab ori­gin [31]. In fact, a recent FOIA by the trans­paren­cy group U.S. Right To Know [32] revealed that Peter Daszak draft­ed an influ­en­tial mul­ti-author let­ter [33] pub­lished on Feb­ru­ary 18 in the Lancet. That let­ter dis­missed lab ori­gin hypothe­ses as “con­spir­a­cy the­o­ry.” Daszak was revealed to have orches­trat­ed the let­ter such as to “avoid the appear­ance of a polit­i­cal state­ment.”

Sachs for his part seemed sur­prised by Daszak’s depic­tion of Rums­feld but Daszak reas­sured him. “It’s an awe­some quote! And yes, it’s Don­ald Rums­feld, Jeff, and I know he’s a Repub­li­can, but — what a genius!”

Fol­low­ing the Eco­Health Alliance’s mon­ey trail to the Pen­ta­gon

Col­lect­ing dan­ger­ous virus­es is typ­i­cal­ly jus­ti­fied as a pre­ven­tive and defen­sive activ­i­ty, get­ting ahead of what “Nature” or “The Ter­ror­ists” might throw at us. But by its nature, this work is “dual use”. “Biode­fense” is often just as eas­i­ly biowar­fare since biode­fense and the prod­ucts of biowar­fare are iden­ti­cal. It’s sim­ply a mat­ter of what the stat­ed goals are.

This is open­ly acknowl­edged [See below] by sci­en­tists asso­ci­at­ed with Eco­Health Alliance when talk­ing about alleged pro­grams in oth­er coun­ties — like Iraq.

For much of this year, Daszak’s Eco­Health Alliance gar­nered a great deal of sym­pa­thet­ic media cov­er­age after its $3.7 mil­lion five-year NIH grant was pre­ma­ture­ly cut when the Trump admin­is­tra­tion learned that Eco­Health Alliance fund­ed bat coro­n­avirus research at the WIV.

The tem­po­rary cut was wide­ly depict­ed in major media [34] as Trump under­min­ing the Eco­Health Alliance’s noble fight against pan­demics. The ter­mi­na­tion was reversed by NIH in late August, and even upped to $7.5 mil­lion [35]. But entire­ly over­looked amid the claims and counter-claims was that far more fund­ing for the Eco­Health Alliance comes from the Pen­ta­gon than the NIH.

To be strict­ly fair to the media, Daszak’s Eco­Health Alliance obscures its Pen­ta­gon fund­ing. On its web­site Eco­Health Alliance states that “A copy of the EHA Grant Man­age­ment Man­u­al is avail­able upon request to the EHA Chief Finan­cial Offi­cer at finance ( at ) ecohealthalliance.org”. But an email to that address and numer­ous oth­ers, includ­ing Peter Daszak’s, request­ing that Man­u­al, as well as oth­er finan­cial infor­ma­tion, was not returned. Nei­ther were repeat­ed voice­mails.

Only buried under their “Pri­va­cy Pol­i­cy,” [19] under a sec­tion titled “Eco­Health Alliance Pol­i­cy Regard­ing Con­flict of Inter­est in Research,” does the Eco­Health Alliance con­cede it is the “recip­i­ent of var­i­ous grant awards from fed­er­al agen­cies includ­ing the Nation­al Insti­tute of Health, the Nation­al Sci­ence Foun­da­tion, US Fish and Wildlife Ser­vice, and the US Agency for Inter­na­tion­al Devel­op­ment and the Depart­ment of Defense.”

Even this list­ing is decep­tive. It obscures that its two largest fun­ders are the Pen­ta­gon and the State Depart­ment (USAID); where­as the US Fish and Wildlife Ser­vice, which accounts for a minus­cule $74,487, comes before either.

Metic­u­lous inves­ti­ga­tion of U.S. gov­ern­ment data­bas­es reveals that Pen­ta­gon fund­ing for the Eco­Health Alliance from 2013 to 2020, includ­ing con­tracts, grants and sub­con­tracts, was just under $39 mil­lion. Most, $34.6 mil­lion, was from the Defense Threat Reduc­tion Agency (DTRA), which is a branch of the DOD which states it is tasked to “counter and deter weapons of mass destruc­tion and impro­vised threat net­works.” [36]

Most of the remain­ing mon­ey to EHA was from USAID (State Dept.), com­pris­ing at least $64,700,000 (1). These two sources thus total over $103 mil­lion.

Anoth­er $20 mil­lion came from Health and Human Ser­vices ($13 mil­lion, which includes Nation­al Insti­tutes of Health and Cen­ters for Dis­ease Con­trol), Nation­al Sci­ence Foun­da­tion ($2.6 mil­lion), Depart­ment of Home­land Secu­ri­ty ($2.3 mil­lion), Depart­ment of Com­merce ($1.2 mil­lion), Depart­ment of Agri­cul­ture ($0.6 mil­lion), and Depart­ment of Inte­ri­or ($0.3 mil­lion). So, total U.S. gov­ern­ment fund­ing for EHA to-date stands at $123 mil­lion, approx­i­mate­ly one third of which comes from the Pen­ta­gon direct­ly. The full fund­ing break­down is avail­able here and is sum­ma­rized by year, source, and type, in a spread­sheet for­mat [37].

Pdf ver­sions of this the spread­sheet are avail­able to down­load. The sum­ma­ry is here [38] and all Fed­er­al grants and con­tracts are here. [39]

More mil­i­tary con­nec­tions

The mil­i­tary links of the Eco­Health Alliance are not lim­it­ed to mon­ey and mind­set. One note­wor­thy ‘pol­i­cy advi­sor’ to the Eco­Health Alliance is David Franz. Franz is for­mer com­man­der of Fort Det­rick, which is the prin­ci­pal U.S. gov­ern­ment biowarfare/biodefense facil­i­ty.

David Franz was part of UNSCOM which inspect­ed Iraq for alleged bioweapons — what were con­stant­ly referred to as WMDs or Weapons of Mass Destruc­tion by the U.S. gov­ern­ment and the media. Franz has been one of those eager to state, at least when dis­cussing alleged Iraqi pro­grams, that “in biol­o­gy … every­thing is dual use — the peo­ple, the facil­i­ties and the equip­ment.” (NPR, May 14, 2003; link no longer avail­able).

Just this year Franz wrote a piece with for­mer New York Times jour­nal­ist Judith Miller, whose sto­ries of Iraqi WMDs did much to mis­in­form the US pub­lic regard­ing the case for the 2003 inva­sion of Iraq. Their joint arti­cle, “A [40] Biose­cu­ri­ty Fail­ure: America’s key lab for fight­ing infec­tious dis­ease has become a Pen­ta­gon back­wa­ter [40],” urges more fund­ing for Fort Det­rick.

Miller and Franz are long-time asso­ciates. Miller co-wrote the book Germs, released amid the 2001 false flag anthrax attacks [41], which repeat­ed­ly quotes Franz. Miller at the time received a hoax let­ter with a harm­less white pow­der, increas­ing her promi­nence.

Franz con­tin­ued hyp­ing the exis­tence of Iraqi WMDs even after the inva­sion of Iraq. While she was still with the Times, Miller quot­ed him in a sto­ry “U.S. Ana­lysts Link Iraq Labs To Germ Arms [42]” on May 21, 2003 push­ing the the­o­ry that Iraq had mobile bio­log­i­cal WMD units. (This the­o­ry was debunked [43] by the British sci­en­tist Dr David Kel­ly, who would die, appar­ent­ly by sui­cide, soon there­after.

Four sig­nif­i­cant insights emerge from all this. First, although it is called the Eco­Health Alliance, Peter Daszak and his non-prof­it work close­ly with the mil­i­tary. Sec­ond, the Eco­Health Alliance attempts to con­ceal these mil­i­tary con­nec­tions. Third, through mil­i­taris­tic lan­guage and analo­gies Daszak and his col­leagues pro­mote what is often referred to as, and even then some­what euphemisti­cal­ly, an ongo­ing agen­da known as “secu­ri­ti­za­tion [44]“. In this case it is the secu­ri­ti­za­tion of infec­tious dis­eases and of glob­al pub­lic health [45]. That is, they argue that pan­demics con­sti­tute a vast and exis­ten­tial threat. They min­i­mize the very real risks asso­ci­at­ed with their work, and sell it as a bil­lion dol­lar solu­tion. The fourth insight is that Daszak him­self, as the God­fa­ther of the Glob­al Virome Project, stands to ben­e­fit from the like­ly out­lay of pub­lic funds.

Acknowl­edge­ments

Thanks to James Barat­ta and Mari­amne Everett for research­ing the fund­ing sources.

Foot­note

  1. The fig­ure for EHA’s USAID fund­ing was obtained from the Uni­ver­si­ty of Cal­i­for­nia at Davis, a major grantee of PREDICT funds, which EHA has been a major sub-grantee of Davis con­firmed that EHA’s fund­ing from PREDICT totaled $64,722,669 (PREDICT‑1: 2009 to 2014: $19,943,214; PREDICT‑2: 2014 to present (2020) $44,779,455)

3. Daszak has dis­missed dis­cus­sion of a lab­o­ra­to­ry ori­gin of the virus as the work of “con­spir­a­cy the­o­rists,” uti­liz­ing a time-worn device for dis­miss­ing infor­ma­tion with­out any intel­li­gent dis­cus­sion. ” . . . The ‘media-indus­tri­al com­plex’ includes peo­ple in pow­er who vehe­ment­ly, if irra­tional­ly, deny a con­spir­a­to­r­i­al ver­sion of his­to­ry, auto­mat­i­cal­ly mock­ing any­one who sub­scribes to it as a ‘con­spir­a­cy the­o­rist,’ code words for ‘dan­ger­ous­ly deranged fool.’ Utter­ing the phrase ‘con­spir­a­cy the­o­rist’ is used as a con­ve­nient way of shut­ting down con­ver­sa­tion on a sub­ject. . . .”

Into the Night­mare: My Search for the Killers of John F. Kennedy and Offi­cer J.D. Tip­pit by Joseph McBride; High­tow­er Press [SC]; Copy­right 2013 by Joseph McBride; ISBN 978–1939795250; p. 103. [22]

. . . . There is such a stark dif­fer­ence in view­point between the aver­age Amer­i­can who tends to believe in con­spir­a­cy and what film crit­ic Jonathan Rosen­baum calls “the media-indus­tri­al com­plex” that we seem to be liv­ing in two dif­fer­ent real­i­ties. The “media-indus­tri­al com­plex” includes peo­ple in pow­er who vehe­ment­ly, if irra­tional­ly, deny a con­spir­a­to­r­i­al ver­sion of his­to­ry, auto­mat­i­cal­ly mock­ing any­one who sub­scribes to it as a “con­spir­a­cy the­o­rist,” code words for “dan­ger­ous­ly deranged fool.” Utter­ing the phrase “con­spir­a­cy the­o­rist” is used as a con­ve­nient way of shut­ting down con­ver­sa­tion on a sub­ject. . . .

4. The rhetor­i­cal reflex of dis­miss­ing seri­ous inves­tiga­tive effort as “con­spir­a­cy the­o­ry” dates large­ly to the coup of 11/22/1963.

Into the Night­mare: My Search for the Killers of John F. Kennedy and Offi­cer J.D. Tip­pit by Joseph McBride; High­tow­er Press [SC]; Copy­right 2013 by Joseph McBride; ISBN 978–1939795250; pp. 177–178. [22]

Peo­ple who pre­tend that con­spir­a­cies don’t exist, when in fact they are among the most com­mon modus operan­di of sig­nif­i­cant his­tor­i­cal change through­out the world, includ­ing in this coun­try, become furi­ous when their naïve illu­sion is chal­lenged. They attack the mes­sen­gers, “con­spir­a­cy the­o­rists,” for propos­ing alter­nate accounts of real­i­ty. Not only do they attack, they demo­nize. The con­ven­tion of por­tray­ing con­spir­a­cy the­o­rists as crazy is crude but effec­tive way of stig­ma­tiz­ing them, ensur­ing that they aren’t tak­en seri­ous­ly by “rea­son­able” peo­ple, and send­ing the mes­sage to the main­stream media that such peo­ple are beyond the pale. Dr. [E. Mar­tin] Schotz writes that for years he thought the unpun­ished assas­si­na­tion of Kennedy was “a griev­ous wound to our democ­ra­cy in urgent need of being exposed so the soci­ety would heal,” but he came to real­ize it was instead “a wound against cer­tain polit­i­cal forces in our democ­ra­cy, but not to the democ­ra­cy itself. In fact, I sub­mit that the assas­si­na­tion was total­ly with­in the frame­work of how Amer­i­can democ­ra­cy works.” Much of Dr. Schotz’s analy­sis is acute­ly insight­ful, but I would sub­mit that the type of gov­ern­ment he describes is not a gen­uine “democ­ra­cy” but a mere sim­u­lacrum of one to fool the pub­lic into acqui­es­cence with the war poli­cies of dubi­ous legal­i­ty. In the regime of George W. Bush, fol­low­ing the stolen elec­tion of 2000, we saw the inevitable con­se­quences of the lack of gen­uine democ­ra­cy, the ulti­mate fall­out from the 1963 coup, on full ter­ri­ble dis­play in domes­tic ter­ror­ism, ille­gal wars of aggres­sion, and the strip­ping away of many of our basic civ­il lib­er­ties. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., per­sua­sive­ly demon­strat­ed in a 2006 inves­tiga­tive report for Rolling Stone that Bush and Dick Cheney also stole the 2004 elec­tion by com­mit­ting fraud in Ohio. This anti­de­mo­c­ra­t­ic trend in our coun­try unfor­tu­nate­ly did not end with the 2008 elec­tion of Barack Oba­ma, which was thought by many to be a form of heal­ing, but actu­al­ly only showed that the changes in the sys­tem had become sys­temic and almost impos­si­ble to reverse.

Our President’s mur­der in broad day­light on a pub­lic street fifty years ago, and the new government’s refusal to bring his killers to jus­tice, meant noth­ing less than the end of our long exper­i­ment in democ­ra­cy. We now live not in a democ­ra­cy but in what more accu­rate­ly can be termed a lim­it­ed police state, and that is the ulti­mate lega­cy of the Coup of 1963 . . . .

5. Pub­lish­er of the War­ren Report, The New York Times has “walked point” on the issue of dis­cred­it­ing crit­ics of the offi­cial lie about the JFK assas­si­na­tion.

In the imme­di­ate after­math of the coup of 11/22/1963, ” . . . . The paper’s man­ag­ing edi­tor, Turn­er Catledge, took the unusu­al approach of writ­ing a let­ter to the edi­tor on Novem­ber 26 object­ing to the label­ing of the mur­dered Oswald in the pre­vi­ous day’s paper as the ‘assas­sin.’ . . . .”

Into the Night­mare: My Search for the Killers of John F. Kennedy and Offi­cer J.D. Tip­pit by Joseph McBride; High­tow­er Press [SC]; Copy­right 2013 by Joseph McBride; ISBN 978–1939795250; pp. 111–112. [22]

. . . . Most Amer­i­can media out­lets were as quick to con­vict Oswald extrale­gal­ly as the Dal­las police were to allow him to be exe­cut­ed in their head­quar­ters. The New York Times would flat­ly iden­ti­fy Oswald as the assas­sin once he was dead, in its ban­ner head­line on Novem­ber 25 “PRESIDENT’S ASSASSIN SHOT TO DEATH IN JAIL CCORRIDOR BY A DALLAS CITIZEN . . . ”  This posthu­mous ver­dict with­out the ben­e­fit of a tri­al was a seri­ous breach of jour­nal­is­tic ethics, show­ing the Times to be more of an organ of gov­ern­ment pro­pa­gan­da than a dis­in­ter­est­ed seek­er of the truth. The enor­mous and egre­gious head­line on the day of Kennedy’s funer­al evi­dent­ly caused some dis­agree­ment with­in the Times. The paper’s man­ag­ing edi­tor, Turn­er Catledge, took the unusu­al approach of writ­ing a let­ter to the edi­tor on Novem­ber 26 object­ing to the label­ing of the mur­dered Oswald in the pre­vi­ous day’s paper as the “assas­sin.” Catledge not­ed that while the Dal­las police “thought they had an air-tight case against him, he was nev­er tried and con­vict­ed. Under the Amer­i­can sys­tem of jus­tice, he is inno­cent until proven guilty. Future sto­ries and head­lines will reflect that fact.” Yet the “paper of record” has kept call­ing Oswald the “assas­sin” ever since. The word “alleged” rarely appears in con­junc­tion with Oswald’s name in the main­stream media. The Times con­sis­tent­ly attacks those who ques­tion the lone-gun­man the­o­ry. Why that lead­ing news­pa­per has such a vest­ed inter­est in fol­low­ing and prop­a­gat­ing the offi­cial line after all these many years is a trou­bling ques­tion reflect­ing the extent to which our “free press” knuck­les under to the government’s pro­pa­gan­da needs. . . .”