WFMU-FM is pod­cast­ing For The Record–You can sub­scribe to the pod­cast HERE.

Mr. Emory’s entire life’s work is avail­able on a 64GB flash dri­ve, avail­able for a con­tri­bu­tion of $65.00 or more (to KFJC). (This is a new feature–the old, 32GB flash­drive will not hold the new mate­r­i­al. Click Here to obtain Dav­e’s 46+ years’ work, com­plete through fall/early win­ter of 2024 .)

“Polit­i­cal language…is designed to make lies sound truth­ful and mur­der respectable, and to give an appear­ance of solid­i­ty to pure wind.”

Mr. Emory has launched a new Patre­on site. Vis­it at: Patreon.com/DaveEmory

FTR#1411 This pro­gram was record­ed in one, 60-minute seg­ment.

Intro­duc­tion: Mr. Emory has tak­en the remain­ing five of his six arti­cles on the Covid-19 “Op” out from behind the pay­wall in his Patre­on pay­wall.

This broad­cast fea­tures the third of Mr. Emory’s arti­cles, deal­ing with vac­cines.

Dis­cus­sion and Analy­sis Includes: The devel­op­ment of vac­cines for bio­log­i­cal war­fare agents as offen­sive BW weapons; Mod­er­na’s financ­ing by DARPA; The cen­tral role of an unnamed Pen­ta­gon offi­cial known only as “The Major” in the devel­op­ment of Mod­er­na’s Covid-19 vac­cine; Mod­er­na prod­uct-devel­op­ment chief Mon­clef Slaoui’s role as head of Oper­a­tion Warp Speed (the Trump regime’s Covid-vac­cine devel­op­ment pro­gram); Slaoui’s sale of 155,000 shares of Mod­er­na stock imme­di­ate­ly fol­low­ing the announce­ment of his posi­tion in Oper­a­tion Warp Speed; The dom­i­nant role of the mil­i­tary in Oper­a­tion Warp Speed; The mil­i­tary’s use of Palan­tir to admin­is­ter Oper­a­tion Warp Speed; Mod­er­na’s use of the Resilience firm to devel­op the nano-par­ti­cle lipids for their Covid boost­er (nano-par­ti­cle lipids are the vehi­cle for intro­duc­ing the mRNA into cells); Resilience’s found­ing by Robert Nel­son, a key play­er on the nation­al secu­ri­ty and biotech­nol­o­gy scenes; The cen­tral role of Luciana Borio in Resilience; Bori­o’s posi­tion as a key Trump regime offi­cial charged with “Bio-Defense;” Bori­o’s links to In-Q-Tel  (the CIA’s ven­ture cap­i­tal arm); Resilience Board mem­ber Chris Dar­by (the for­mer CEO of In-Q-Tel) and his links to the CIA; The role of CIA-linked ven­ture cap­i­tal­ists like Joe Lons­dale (co-founder of Palan­tir) and Drew Oet­ting in financ­ing and direct­ing Resilience; The Pen­tagon’s devel­op­ment and launch­ing of a mas­sive “Black Pro­pa­gan­da Oper­a­tion” direct­ed at the Philip­pines, claim­ing the Chi­nese Covid vac­cines were inef­fec­tive; The poten­tial­ly-reveal­ing, block­buster law­suit filed by Mod­er­na against Pfiz­er-BioN­Tech, claim­ing that the lat­ter infringed on the spike pro­tein ele­ment of coro­n­avirus­es that the for­mer devel­oped in 2015!

The Covid-19 Op, Part 3: Vac­cines

In an inter­view with The Tehran Times, Jef­frey Sachs opined that the emer­gence of Covid-19 was prob­a­bly the result of dan­ger­ous research con­duct­ed by the U.S. (Sachs was the head of Lancet’s com­mis­sion on the ori­gins of the pan­dem­ic.)

We exam­ined this asser­tion at length and detail in the first arti­cle in this series.

Sachs not­ed that the U.S. was involved in dan­ger­ous manip­u­la­tion of virus: “ . . . . The U.S. gov­ern­ment was spon­sor­ing a lot of dan­ger­ous genet­ic manip­u­la­tion of SARS-like virus­es and has not yet hon­est­ly revealed the nature of that work. There are wor­ry­ing signs that this research may have cre­at­ed SARS-CoV­‑2, the virus that caus­es Covid-19 dis­ease.  We can sus­pect this because U.S. sci­en­tists declared the inten­tion to manip­u­late virus­es in a way that could have cre­at­ed the virus. . . .” (1)

When pressed by the inter­view­er about the pos­si­bil­i­ty that the emer­gence of the virus stemmed from bio­log­i­cal war­fare research, Sachs stat­ed that, in his opin­ion, the emer­gence of the virus from a U.S. bio­log­i­cal lab stemmed from vac­cine research.

“ . . . . I do not believe that Covid came from bio war­fare research. More like­ly, it came from research to cre­ate drugs and vac­cines. Either way, we need to know more. . . .” (2)

Miss­ing from Sachs’ analy­sis is the expert opin­ion that the devel­op­ment of a vac­cine for a bio­log­i­cal war­fare agent can be seen as an indi­ca­tion of the delib­er­ate cre­ation of a bio­log­i­cal war­fare agent.

Vac­cine Devel­op­ment as a Pre­cur­sor to Bio­log­i­cal War­fare

Experts have long seen the devel­op­ment of vac­cines by the mil­i­tary as a screen for, and har­bin­ger of, bio­log­i­cal war­fare research.

Note­wor­thy in that con­text is the obser­va­tion by Jonathan King (pro­fes­sor of mol­e­c­u­lar biol­o­gy at MIT), that Pen­ta­gon research into the appli­ca­tion of genet­ic engi­neer­ing to bio­log­i­cal war­fare could be masked as vac­cine research, which sounds “defen­sive.”

“ . . . . King, who has chaired the micro­bial phys­i­ol­o­gy study sec­tion for the NIH, believes that with­out inten­sive inde­pen­dent scruti­ny, the Pen­ta­gon is free to obscure its true goals. ‘The Defense Depart­ment appears to be pur­su­ing many nar­row, applied goals that are by nature offen­sive, such as the genet­ic ‘improve­ment’ of BW agents,’ King says. ‘But to achieve polit­i­cal accept­abil­i­ty, they mask these inten­tions under forms of research, such as vac­cine devel­op­ment, which sound defen­sive.’ . . .” (3)

King’s views on the inter­re­la­tion­ship between vac­cine devel­op­ment and bio­log­i­cal war­fare were echoed by MIT col­league Harlee Strauss: “ . . . . The pro­duc­tion of vac­cine against a stock­piled BW weapon must be con­sid­ered an offen­sive BW project. Accord­ing to MIT sci­en­tists Harlee Strauss and Jonathan King, ‘These steps—the gen­er­a­tion of a poten­tial BW agent, devel­op­ment of a vac­cine against it, test­ing of the effi­ca­cy of the vaccine—are all com­po­nents that would be asso­ci­at­ed with an offen­sive BW pro­gram.’. . .” (4)

The dynam­ics not­ed by King and Strauss should be borne in mind with regard to Covid and, in par­tic­u­lar, the cen­tral role played in the devel­op­ment of a coro­n­avirus vac­cine by the mil­i­tary.

The Mil­i­tary, Mod­er­na and Oper­a­tion Warp Speed

Oper­a­tion Warp Speed was the name for the crash pro­gram to devel­op a coro­n­avirus vac­cine. It was dom­i­nat­ed by the mil­i­tary.

“ . . . . Scores of Defense Depart­ment employ­ees are laced through the gov­ern­ment offices involved in the effort, mak­ing up a large por­tion of the fed­er­al per­son­nel devot­ed to the effort. Those num­bers have led some cur­rent and for­mer offi­cials at the Cen­ters for Dis­ease Con­trol and Pre­ven­tion to pri­vate­ly grum­ble that the military’s role in Oper­a­tion Warp Speed was too large for a task that is, at its core, a pub­lic health cam­paign. . . .” (5)

Gen­er­al Gus­tave Per­na co-chaired the project, and was assist­ed by anoth­er (new­ly-retired)

Gen­er­al: “ . . . . ‘Frankly, it has been breath­tak­ing to watch,’ said Paul Ostrows­ki, the direc­tor of sup­ply, pro­duc­tion and dis­tri­b­u­tion for Oper­a­tion Warp Speed. He is a retired Army lieu­tenant gen­er­al who was select­ed to man­age logis­tics for the pro­gram by Gen. Gus­tave F. Per­na, the chief oper­at­ing offi­cer for Oper­a­tion Warp Speed. . . .” (6)

Of sig­nif­i­cance in this con­text is the fact that the mil­i­tary was able to track the deliv­ery of vac­cines in pre­cise fash­ion: “ . . . . Vac­cine mak­ers will be alert­ed when the [vac­cine kits] arrive at an immu­niza­tion site so they know to ship dos­es. Once the first dose is giv­en, the man­u­fac­tur­er will be noti­fied so it can send the sec­ond dose with a patient’s name attached sev­er­al weeks lat­er. . . . The mil­i­tary will also mon­i­tor vac­cine dis­tri­b­u­tion through an oper­a­tions cen­ter. ‘They will know where every vac­cine dose is,’ Mr. [Paul] Man­go said on a call with reporters. [Man­go is the deputy chief of staff for pol­i­cy at the Depart­ment of Health and Human Ser­vices and the main spokesman for Oper­a­tion Warp Speed.–D.E.] . . .” (7)

The detailed, com­pre­hen­sive pre­ci­sion with which the mil­i­tary was able to over­see vac­cine dis­tri­b­u­tion and admin­is­tra­tion was a prod­uct of Palantir’s cen­tral par­tic­i­pa­tion in Oper­a­tion Warp Speed.

Co-man­ag­ing Oper­a­tion Warp Speed was Gen­er­al Gus­tave Per­na, a four-star gen­er­al. Per­na became a key employ­ee of Palan­tir, the alpha-preda­tor of the elec­tron­ic sur­veil­lance land­scape.

“ . . . . Per­haps Perna’s name sounds famil­iar. It should. He over­saw the effort to pro­duce and dis­trib­ute the first coro­n­avirus vac­cines . . . Per­na was a month from retire­ment in May 2020 when he got a Sat­ur­day morn­ing call from the chair­man of the Joint Chiefs. . . .” (8)

Palan­tir itself was deeply involved in Oper­a­tion Warp Speed: “ . . . . Then he met Julie and Aaron. They told him, ‘Sir, we’re going to give you all the data you need so that you can assess, deter­mine risk, and make deci­sions rapid­ly.’ Per­na shut down the process imme­di­ate­ly. ‘I said great, you’re hired.’ Julie and Aaron work for Palan­tir, a com­pa­ny whose name cur­dles the blood of pro­gres­sives and some of the mil­i­tary estab­lish­ment. We’ll get to why. But Per­na says Palan­tir did exact­ly what it promised. Using arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence, the com­pa­ny opti­mized thou­sands of data streams and piped them into an ele­gant inter­face. In a few short weeks, Per­na had his God view of the prob­lem. . . .” (9)

The alpha-preda­tor of the elec­tron­ic sur­veil­lance land­scape, Palan­tir will fig­ure promi­nent­ly in dis­cus­sion pre­sent­ed below about the role of Palan­tir in the pro­fes­sion­al and fis­cal land­scape of the devel­op­ment of the Resilience firm.

Mod­er­na uti­lized Resilience in the pro­duc­tion of one of its coro­n­avirus vac­cines.

Trump appoint­ed the head of prod­uct devel­op­ment for Mod­er­na as the head of Oper­a­tion Warp speed, the project to devel­op Covid vac­cines in record time. As we have seen, part­ner­ing with Slaoui to lead the project was Gus­tave Per­na, a four-star gen­er­al.

The co-head of Oper­a­tion Warp Speed was Mon­cef Slaoui, who sat astride prod­uct devel­op­ment for Mod­er­na. ” . . . . As the chair­man of the Mod­er­na board’s prod­uct devel­op­ment com­mit­tee, Dr. Slaoui might have been privy to the ear­ly indi­ca­tions of tests of whether the company’s approach appeared promis­ing . . . .” (10a)

“ . . . . Fol­low­ing Mon­cef Slaoui’s Fri­day appoint­ment as a co-leader of the Warp Speed pro­gram, he’s set to sell about 155,000 shares in Mod­er­na, accord­ing to press reports. . . .” (10b)

Of inter­est is the “undis­closed pro­gram” Slaoui ref­er­enced: “ . . . . At Friday’s event, Slaoui said he was ‘con­fi­dent’ in that goal after view­ing ear­ly data from an undis­closed pro­gram. . . .” (11)

Of inter­est in the con­text of the obser­va­tions of King and Strauss is the fact that Moderna’s covid vac­cine devel­op­ment was over­seen by an unnamed Pen­ta­gon offi­cial, nick­named “The Major.”

“. . . . Moderna’s team was head­ed by a Defense Depart­ment offi­cial whom com­pa­ny exec­u­tives described only as “the major,” say­ing they don’t know if his name is sup­posed to be a secret. . . . .” (12)

The fact that the firm’s for­tunes are inex­tri­ca­bly linked with the nation­al secu­ri­ty estab­lish­ment looms ever larg­er. DARPA, termed “The Pentagon’s Brain” in a recent book by Annie Jacob­sen, has financed the devel­op­ment of Moderna’s vac­cine, which was select­ed for mass dis­tri­b­u­tion to treat the pan­dem­ic.

“. . . . The sec­ond phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal com­pa­ny that was select­ed . . . to devel­op a vac­cine for the new coro­n­avirus is Mod­er­na Inc., which will devel­op a vac­cine for the nov­el coro­n­avirus of con­cern in col­lab­o­ra­tion with the U.S. NIH. . . . Moderna’s mRNA treat­ments, includ­ing its mRNA vac­cines, were large­ly devel­oped using a $25 mil­lion grant from DARPA and it often touts is strate­gic alliance with DARPA in press releas­es. . . .” (13)

Per­haps the most reveal­ing aspect of Moderna’s “pole posi­tion” in Oper­a­tion Warp Speed con­cerns a law­suit the com­pa­ny launched against Pfizer/Biontech. Mod­er­na claims patent infringe­ment by their mRNA vac­cine com­peti­tor, tres­pass­ing on the spike pro­tein tech­nol­o­gy it patent­ed in 2015!

Mod­er­na vs. BioN­Tech: Reveal­ing the U.S. Ori­gins of Covid?

A fas­ci­nat­ing and poten­tial­ly reveal­ing law­suit filed by Mod­er­na against Pfizer/BioNTech may prove reveal­ing in a way unfore­seen by the plain­tiffs (Mod­er­na).

Mod­er­na asserts that the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA coro­n­avirus vac­cines are infring­ing on Moderna’s patents. What’s eye­brow-rais­ing in this law­suit is the time­frame of Moderna’s claims. The com­pa­ny is argu­ing that Pfizer’s vac­cine copied work Mod­er­na had already done on coro­n­avirus vac­cines involv­ing human tri­als going back to 2015 and 2016. Beyond that, Mod­er­na asserts the full-sequence coro­n­avirus spike pro­tein used in Pfizer’s vac­cine was devel­oped by Mod­er­na years before the pan­dem­ic. (14)

The biggest set of ques­tions to be answered in this law­suit involve Moderna’s col­lab­o­ra­tive role in the broad­er US-gov­ern­ment-fund­ed gain-of-func­tion research being lead by the Eco­HealthAl­liance, in col­lab­o­ra­tion with labs around the world.

Ralph Bar­ic was work­ing on devel­op­ing coro­n­avirus ther­a­peu­tics back in 2017 using gain-of-func­tion-cre­at­ed coro­n­avirus­es in col­lab­o­ra­tion with Shi Zhengli’s lab at the Wuhan Insti­tute of Virol­o­gy (WIV). Bar­ic also helped test the Mod­er­na covid vac­cine in 2020.

So was Mod­er­na – which was fund­ed by DARPA – at all involved in this oth­er NIH-fund­ed coro­n­avirus-relat­ed gain-of-func­tion work? The cir­cum­stan­tial evi­dence sure points in that direc­tion.

Above all, there’s the part of the law­suit claim­ing that Pfiz­er effec­tive­ly stole the full-sequence coro­n­avirus spike pro­tein sequence Mod­er­na had worked out years ear­li­er.

What is Mod­er­na talk­ing about when claim­ing that it already devel­oped a coro­n­avirus spike pro­tein years ear­li­er? Recall how Mod­er­na was crit­i­cized back in 2020 over its deci­sion to file a patent in Feb 2020 for a “Beta­coro­n­avirus vac­cine” – a broad-spec­trum vac­cine designed for non-COVID coro­n­avirus­es – with­out acknowl­edg­ing the US gov­ern­ments role in that research. Pfizer/BioNTech filed a patent for a sim­i­lar “uni­ver­sal coro­n­avirus vac­cine” back in June. (15)

It appears that’s what Mod­er­na is refer­ring to when it claims to have devel­oped a coro­n­avirus spike pro­tein sequence years before the pan­dem­ic. That rais­es the obvi­ous ques­tion: was Mod­er­na part of the whole Eco­HealthAl­liance gain-of-func­tion research on coro­n­avirus­es back in their 2015–2016 peri­od? (16)

Gain-of-func­tion research was tech­ni­cal­ly banned in the US from 2014 until the Trump admin­is­tra­tion lift­ed the ban in 2017. Recall also how Baric’s gain-of-func­tion work that was start­ed before the mora­to­ri­um was put into place was allowed to con­tin­ue under a spe­cial exemp­tion.

If Moderna’s coro­n­avirus vac­cine devel­op­ment involved the use of virus­es being gen­er­at­ed by Ralph Bar­ic under an exemp­tion to the gain-of-func­tion mora­to­ri­um, that would obvi­ous­ly be a very sen­si­tive area of research. (17)

In the law­suit, Mod­er­na claims it suc­cess­ful­ly car­ried out human tri­als on a coro­n­avirus vac­cine as far back as 2015. It would seem that Moderna’s coro­n­avirus-relat­ed vac­cine research was being kept under wraps dur­ing this peri­od. (18)

We have to ask if the extreme secre­cy around its work dur­ing this peri­od may have been dri­ven by the con­tro­ver­sial nature of devel­op­ing coro­n­avirus vac­cines using gain-of-func­tion coro­n­avirus­es gen­er­at­ed by the Eco­HealthAl­liance net­work. Cir­cum­stan­tial evi­dence points in that direc­tion.

Mod­er­na is appar­ent­ly suing over patents it devel­oped dur­ing its most­ly-still-secret DARPA col­lab­o­ra­tion. Col­lab­o­ra­tion that might be direct­ly relat­ed to the most­ly-still-secret US-gov­ern­ment-financed inter­na­tion­al col­lab­o­ra­tion ded­i­cat­ed to mak­ing and study­ing nov­el coro­n­avirus­es. (19)

Again, we empha­size the fol­low­ing very inter­est­ing detail in Moderna’s com­plaint: the com­pa­ny is assert­ing that Pfiz­er and BioN­Tech copied Moderna’s full-length spike pro­tein for­mu­la­tion for a coro­n­avirus, which Mod­ern claims to have cre­at­ed years before the emer­gence of COVID-19! (20)

Recall how the shar­ing of the genet­ic sequence of SARS-CoV­‑2 by Chi­nese researchers with the glob­al com­mu­ni­ty allowed for Mod­er­na to and its NIH col­lab­o­ra­tors to design the vac­cine in just two days with just that spike pro­tein sequence infor­ma­tion.

Once again, Mod­er­na is suing Pfiz­er over the alleged theft of a coro­n­avirus spike pro­tein sequence devel­oped years ear­li­er, we have to ask whether or not this part of the law­suit is relat­ed to the “uni­ver­sal coro­n­avirus” vac­cine Pfiz­er and BioN­Tech start­ed test­ing back in June.

Note, again, that Mod­er­na caught flack back in August of 2020 after it filed patents relat­ed to the coro­n­avirus vac­cine that didn’t dis­close the bil­lions in dol­lars in DARPA mon­ey, includ­ing DARPA involve­ment in the devel­op­ment of a broad spec­trum “Beta­coro­n­avirus” vac­cine that Mod­er­na had filed a patent for in Feb­ru­ary 2020. (21)

This is a con­fus­ing part of the law­suit since, as we’ve been told, it was the SARS-CoV­‑2 spike pro­tein sequence that was at the heart of the mRNA COVID vac­cine devel­oped in record-break­ing time back in Jan­u­ary of 2020.

Note that, although it does not appear that Moderna’s work devel­op­ing the spike pro­tein in 2015 and 2016 is a focal point in the suit, it does appear that the work is an ele­ment in the research Mod­er­na con­tends was involved in the alleged infringe­ment: “ . . . . Mod­er­na said on Fri­day that it was not seek­ing dam­ages for activ­i­ties before March 8 and that none of the patents relate to intel­lec­tu­al prop­er­ty gen­er­at­ed dur­ing Moderna’s col­lab­o­ra­tion with the Nation­al Insti­tutes of Health on Covid-19, which it said began only after patent­ed tech­nolo­gies were proven suc­cess­ful in 2015 and 2016. . . .” (23)

Again, Moderna’s fil­ing is con­fus­ing, because the fol­low­ing pas­sage does seem to indi­cate that Moderna’s frankly sus­pi­cious and reveal­ing (and appar­ent­ly) DARPA-financed work on the spike pro­tein 2015. “ . . . . Mod­er­na said that Pfiz­er copied two fea­tures of its patent­ed tech­nol­o­gy. . . . Mod­er­na said it was the first com­pa­ny to val­i­date this tech­nol­o­gy in human tri­als in 2015, and that nei­ther Pfiz­er nor BioN­Tech had its lev­el of expe­ri­ence in devel­op­ing mRNA vac­cines for infec­tious dis­eases. . . .” (24)

Again, the firm’s work on the spike pro­tein in 2015 and 2016 does appear to fig­ure in the suit, although the fil­ing seems to deny that, as indi­cat­ed above. “ . . . . Sec­ond, Mod­er­na claims that Pfiz­er and BioN­Tech copied its full-length spike pro­tein for­mu­la­tion for a coro­n­avirus, which Mod­er­na had cre­at­ed years before Covid-19 emerged. . . .” (25)

The dis­cov­ery process in this law­suit may well shed light on U.S. devel­op­ment of the vac­cine.

The next sec­tion of our dis­cus­sion is also tak­en from the arti­cle The Mod­er­na File.

Although the pan­dem­ic was well under­way by the time Mod­er­na part­nered with Resilience, the cor­po­rate rela­tion­ship high­lights the fun­da­men­tal role of the nation­al secu­ri­ty estab­lish­ment in vac­cine devel­op­ment.

Once again, the obser­va­tions of Jonathan King and Harlee Strauss should be borne in mind.

Part­ner­ing with the CIA (Mod­er­na Shows “Resilience”)

The com­pa­ny man­u­fac­tur­ing the mRNA for Moderna’s boost­ers is con­sum­mate­ly impor­tant and all but over­looked. “ . . . . mes­sen­ger RNA for Moderna’s COVID-19 vac­cines, includ­ing its recent­ly refor­mu­lat­ed Omi­cron boost­er, has been exclu­sive­ly man­u­fac­tured by a lit­tle known com­pa­ny with sig­nif­i­cant ties to US intel­li­gence. . . .” (26)

The CIA-linked com­pa­ny is Nation­al Resilience, often referred to sim­ply as Resilience. It’s gen­e­sis and devel­op­ment are inex­tri­ca­bly linked with the nation­al secu­ri­ty estab­lish­ment. Exem­pli­fy­ing this rela­tion­ship is ven­ture cap­i­tal­ist Robert Nelsen.

“ . . . . Resilience was co-found­ed by Biotech ven­ture cap­i­tal­ist Robert Nelsen, who is known for lis­ten­ing ‘to science’s ear­li­est whis­pers, even when data are too ear­ly for just about any­one else.’ Nelsen was one of the ear­li­est investors in Illu­mi­na . . . . that is believed to cur­rent­ly dom­i­nate the field of genomics. As men­tioned in a pre­vi­ous Unlim­it­ed Hang­out inves­ti­ga­tion, Illu­mi­na is close­ly tied to the DARPA-equiv­a­lent of the Well­come Trust known as Well­come Leap, which is also focused on ‘futur­is­tic’ and tran­shu­man­ist ‘med­i­cines.’ Nelsen is now chair­man of Nation­al Resilience’s board, which is a ‘Who’s Who’ of big play­ers from the US Nation­al Secu­ri­ty State, Big Phar­ma and Phar­ma-relat­ed ‘phil­an­thropy.’ . . . .” (27)

The appar­ent prime mover of Resi­lence is a woman named Luciana Borio: “ . . . . he revealed in one inter­view that the idea for the com­pa­ny had actu­al­ly come from some­one else – Luciana Borio. In July of last year, Nelsen revealed that it was while talk­ing to Borio about ‘her work run­ning pan­dem­ic pre­pared­ness on the NSC [Nation­al Secu­ri­ty Coun­cil]’ that had ‘helped lead to the launch of Nelsen’s $800 mil­lion bio­log­ics man­u­fac­tur­ing start­up Resilience.’ At the time of their con­ver­sa­tion, Borio was the vice pres­i­dent of In-Q-tel, the ven­ture cap­i­tal arm of the CIA that has been used since its cre­ation in the ear­ly 2000s to found a num­ber of com­pa­nies, many of which act as Agency fronts. Pri­or to In-Q-Tel, she served as direc­tor for med­ical and biode­fense pre­pared­ness at the Nation­al Secu­ri­ty Coun­cil dur­ing the Trump admin­is­tra­tion and had pre­vi­ous­ly been the act­ing chief sci­en­tist at the FDA from 2015 to 2017. . . .” (28)

Ms. Borio is not the only In-Q-tel oper­a­tive linked to Resi­lence: “ . . . . Borio is hard­ly Resilience’s only In-Q-Tel con­nec­tion, as the CEO of In-Q-Tel, Chris Dar­by, sits on the company’s board of direc­tors. Dar­by is also on the board of direc­tors of the CIA Offi­cers Memo­r­i­al Foun­da­tion. Dar­by was also recent­ly a mem­ber of the Nation­al Secu­ri­ty Com­mis­sion on Arti­fi­cial Intel­li­gence (NSCAI), where mem­bers of the mil­i­tary, intel­li­gence com­mu­ni­ty and Sil­i­con Valley’s top firms argued for the need to reduce the use of ‘lega­cy sys­tems’ in favor of AI-focused alter­na­tives as a nation­al secu­ri­ty imper­a­tive. . . .” (29)

Worth men­tion­ing in pass­ing is Mr. Darby’s appar­ent mean­ing of “lega­cy sys­tems”: “ . . . . Among those ‘lega­cy sys­tems’ iden­ti­fied by the NSCAI were in-per­son doc­tor vis­its and even receiv­ing med­ical care from a human doc­tor, as opposed to an AI ‘doc­tor.’ The NSCAI also argued for the removal of ‘reg­u­la­to­ry bar­ri­ers’ that pre­vent these new tech­nolo­gies from replac­ing ‘lega­cy sys­tems.’ . . .” (30)

More about Resilience and its pro­found links with the nation­al secu­ri­ty estab­lish­ment: Intro­duc­ing Drew Oet­ting: “ . . . . Anoth­er notable board mem­ber, in dis­cussing Resilience’s intel­li­gence ties, is Drew Oet­ting. Oet­ting works for Cer­berus Cap­i­tal Man­age­ment, the firm head­ed by Steve Fein­berg who pre­vi­ous­ly led the President’s Intel­li­gence Advi­so­ry Board under the Trump admin­is­tra­tion. Cer­berus is notably the par­ent com­pa­ny of Dyn­Corp, a con­tro­ver­sial US nation­al secu­ri­ty con­trac­tor tied to numer­ous scan­dals, includ­ing scan­dals relat­ed to sex traf­fick­ing in con­flict zones. Oet­ting is also part of the CIA-linked Thorn NGO osten­si­bly focused on tack­ling child traf­fick­ing that was the sub­ject of a pre­vi­ous Unlim­it­ed Hang­out inves­ti­ga­tion. . . .” (31)

Oetting’s net­work involves the gen­e­sis of Palan­tir, deeply involved with both Gus­tave Per­na and Oper­a­tion Warp Speed.  “ . . . . Oet­ting is also the co-founder of 8VC, a ven­ture cap­i­tal firm that is one of the main investors in Resilience. 8VC’s oth­er co-founder is Joe Lons­dale and Oet­ting ‘start­ed his career’ as Lonsdale’s chief of staff. Lons­dale is the co-founder, along­side Peter Thiel and Alex Karp, of Palan­tir, a CIA front com­pa­ny and intel­li­gence con­trac­tor that is the suc­ces­sor to DARPA’s con­tro­ver­sial Total Infor­ma­tion Aware­ness (TIA) mass sur­veil­lance and data-min­ing pro­gram. . . .” (32)

The ele­ments and indi­vid­u­als set forth above are only some of the major intel­li­gence con­nec­tions of Resilience. What sig­nif­i­cance they may have is a mat­ter of con­jec­ture: “ . . . . It is cer­tain­ly telling that the nor­mal­ly pub­lic­i­ty hun­gry Mod­er­na has said so lit­tle about its part­ner­ship with Resilience and that Resilience, despite its ambi­tious plans, has also avoid­ed the media lime­light. Con­sid­er­ing Moderna’s his­to­ry and Resilience’s con­nec­tions, there may be more to this part­ner­ship that meets the eye and con­cerned mem­bers of the pub­lic would do well to keep a very close eye on Resilience, its part­ner­ships, and the prod­ucts it is man­u­fac­tur­ing. . . .” (33)

At min­i­mum, we can view the inex­tri­ca­ble link between Moderna’s coro­n­avirus vac­cine devel­op­ment and the appar­ent­ly delib­er­ate cre­ation of SARS CoV‑2 as rein­forc­ing the obser­va­tions of King and Strauss with regard to vac­cine devel­op­ment as a com­po­nent of offen­sive bio­log­i­cal war­fare devel­op­ment.

King/Strauss Doc­trine Expand­ed: Palan­tir and Its Ten­ta­cles

Recap­ping impor­tant points of infor­ma­tion, we note that pro­fes­sor Sachs [per­haps delib­er­ate­ly diplo­mat­i­cal­ly] that the devel­op­ment of SARS CoV‑2 in a U.S. lab: “ . . . . More like­ly, it came from research to cre­ate drugs and vac­cines. . . .” (34)

Decades ago, MIT pro­fes­sor Jonathan King “who has chaired the micro­bial phys­i­ol­o­gy study sec­tion for the NIH” cit­ed vac­cine devel­op­ment for infec­tious BW agents as signs of clan­des­tine offen­sive bio­log­i­cal war­fare capa­bil­i­ty. (35)

King’s warn­ings about the sig­nif­i­cance of Pen­ta­gon vac­cine research were echoed by his MIT col­league Harlee Strauss: “ . . . . The pro­duc­tion of vac­cine against a stock­piled BW weapon must be con­sid­ered an offen­sive BW project. Accord­ing to MIT sci­en­tists Harlee Strauss and Jonathan King, ‘These steps . . . are all com­po­nents that would be asso­ci­at­ed with an offen­sive BW pro­gram.’. . .” (36)

This frames the Trump administration’s Oper­a­tion Warp Speed, as well as the insti­tu­tions and indi­vid­u­als involved with it in a crit­i­cal­ly impor­tant frame­work.

Key points of analy­sis and dis­cus­sion of the sig­nif­i­cance of the nation­al secu­ri­ty establishment’s involve­ment with Covid vac­cine devel­op­ment include:

• DARPA fund­ing for Moderna’s Covid vac­cine.
• The exec­u­tive func­tion of the mys­te­ri­ous Pen­ta­gon offi­cial known only as “the major”. He was piv­otal­ly involved in the firm’s Covid vac­cine devel­op­ment.
• The role of Moderna’s chief of prod­uct devel­op­ment for Mod­er­na as the co-chief of Oper­a­tion Warp Speed.
• The role of the mil­i­tary in Oper­a­tion Warp Speed: Four-Star Gen­er­al Gus­tave Per­na was the co-head of the project.
• Perna’s efforts were brought to fruition by Palan­tir, the Alpha Preda­tor of the elec­tron­ic sur­veil­lance land­scape.
• Palan­tir was able to deliv­er to the mil­i­tary a “God’s‑Eye View” that per­mit­ted the Pen­ta­gon to know the where­abouts and sta­tus of every shot admin­is­tered by Oper­a­tion Warp Speed.
• The devel­op­ment of the nano-par­ti­cle lipids of Moderna’s more recent vac­cines by a CIA-linked corporation—Resilience.
• The heavy over­lap between the milieux of Resilience and those of both the CIA and Palan­tir. Note in par­tic­u­lar the exec­u­tive-lev­el involve­ment of peo­ple with back­grounds in the CIA’s In-Q-Tel, which financed Pan­dem­ic Insur­ance pro­gram with Metabio­ta. Metabio­ta, in turn, is linked to Eco­Health Alliance.

Per­haps the most sig­nif­i­cant, damn­ing infor­ma­tion con­cern­ing the devel­op­ment of Covid con­cerns infor­ma­tion that might come to light in Moderna’s law­suit against Pfizer/BioNTech over alleged patent infringe­ment on the spike pro­tein devel­oped by Mod­er­na in 2015.

That spike pro­tein allowed Mod­er­na to devel­op a vac­cine for SARS CoV‑2 with­in two days of the release of the virus’ genome by Chi­nese author­i­ties.

Dis­cov­ery in that law­suit might yield some vital infor­ma­tion about the deep Pen­ta­gon involve­ment with Moderna’s vac­cine devel­op­ment. Just how deep was it?

Clear­ly the infor­ma­tion pre­sent­ed here is in a spec­u­la­tive con­text. Nonethe­less, it is alto­geth­er damn­ing and is unlike­ly to be the focal point of “full dis­clo­sure.” This may be all we get!

Tak­en togeth­er with the oth­er points of inquiry set forth in this pro­ject­ed five-part series, the fact that devel­op­ment of a Covid vac­cine was real­ized large­ly through the nation­al secu­ri­ty estab­lish­ment is sug­ges­tive and sin­is­ter.

After­word

Reveal­ing­ly, a Pen­ta­gon “black pro­pa­gan­da” effort to dis­cred­it Chi­nese efforts to dis­sem­i­nate vac­cines and oth­er anti-pan­dem­ic tech­nol­o­gy is to be weighed against the mate­r­i­al dis­closed in the oth­er arti­cles in this series.

A very impor­tant sto­ry was car­ried by Reuters, set­ting forth this pro­pa­gan­da gam­bit.

We sum­ma­rize key aspects of this very impor­tant arti­cle.

When we read about the high­ly uneth­i­cal nature of the fol­low­ing secret Pen­ta­gon-run covert psy­cho­log­i­cal oper­a­tion revealed last week, it’s worth keep­ing in mind that, on some lev­els, none of this is new. There’s a dis­turbing­ly robust his­to­ry of wild­ly uneth­i­cal covert mil­i­tary pro­grams.

But at the same time, it’s hard to read about this oper­a­tion with­out arriv­ing at the con­clu­sion that this is bad, even by the dis­turb­ing stan­dards of covert psy­cho­log­i­cal oper­a­tions. So bad, in fact, that we nev­er actu­al­ly get a coher­ent jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for the pro­gram: The Pen­ta­gon ran mul­ti­ple psy­cho­log­i­cal oper­a­tions via social media from the spring of 2020 to the sum­mer of 2021 designed to con­vinced glob­al audi­ences that the Chi­nese Sino­vac COVID vac­cine was dan­ger­ous and should be avoid­ed. And in the case of Mus­lims, there was a spe­cial mes­sage about how China’s vac­cine was made with pork gelatin (it’s not).

Beyond that, sus­pi­cions about the safe­ty of face masks, test­ing kits, and oth­er resources to fight the COVID pan­dem­ic donat­ed by Chi­na to devel­op­ing coun­tries were sim­i­lar­ly tar­get­ed in the oper­a­tion. For over a year as the pan­dem­ic was unfold­ing, the Pen­ta­gon was secret­ly try­ing to con­vince pop­u­la­tions across Asia that they were bet­ter off with­out the Chi­nese masks, test kits, and vac­cines. Which seems like a mas­sive wild­ly unjus­ti­fi­able crime.

So what’s the expla­na­tion for this pol­i­cy? Well, we are told that the ini­tial impe­tus was anger over the sug­ges­tions Chi­nese offi­cials made back in March of 2020 that the SARS-CoV­‑2 virus actu­al­ly came from the US and was traf­ficked to the Wuhan via infect­ed mil­i­tary ath­letes in Wuhan in Octo­ber of 2019. A sce­nario that, as we’ve seen, has been but­tressed by the claims of numer­ous ath­letes from mul­ti­ple coun­tries who com­pet­ed at the games.

The diplo­mat­ic good­will Chi­na was gen­er­at­ing through­out the region with its pledges to pro­vide its vac­cine to devel­op­ing coun­tries along with oth­er sup­plies like masks and test kits. It was a gen­er­ous pol­i­cy that, as we’ll see, stood in stark con­trast to the approach the US took with the US-devel­oped mRNA vac­cines where the phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal com­pa­nies were allowed to “play hard­ball” with devel­op­ing coun­tries and try to extract as high a price as they could get away with.

The Philip­pines, in par­tic­u­lar, became a point of pal­pa­ble US con­cern, espe­cial­ly after a July 2020 speech by Pres­i­dent Duterte when he shared that he has made “a plea” to Pres­i­dent Xi that the Philip­pines be at the front of the line for access­ing China’s vac­cine when it became avail­able. In the same speech, he vowed that the Philip­pines would no longer chal­lenge China’s in the South Chi­na Sea. Days lat­er, Chi­na announced that it would pri­or­i­tize the Philip­pines for the vac­cine as part of a “new high­light in bilat­er­al rela­tions.” As one senior US offi­cer put it, “We didn’t do a good job shar­ing vac­cines with part­ners. So what was left to us was to throw shade on China’s.”

Keep in mind that, while the US did even­tu­al­ly make vac­cines avail­able to the Philip­pines, it wasn’t real­ly avail­able there until ear­ly 2022. China’s Sino­vac, on the oth­er hand, was made avail­able to the Philip­pines in March of 2021. So there was close to a year when that was the only option for the coun­try. And as we’re going to see, the psy­op turned out to be pret­ty effec­tive. Despite its ear­ly access to China’s vac­cine, the Philip­pines had one of the low­est vac­ci­na­tion rates in the world. Mis­sion accom­plished?

And while that gross­ly cyn­i­cal and uneth­i­cal expla­na­tion of oppos­ing China’s diplo­mat­ic pan­dem­ic over­tures does go fur­ther in explain­ing the motive for this covert pol­i­cy, there are some oth­er high­ly trou­bling poli­cies that pre-date the COVID pan­dem­ic that should be kept in mind. First, then-Defense Sec­re­tary Mark Esper signed a secret order in 2019 that ele­vat­ed the Pentagon’s com­pe­ti­tion with Chi­na and Rus­sia to the pri­or­i­ty of active com­bat. In addi­tion, 2019 was also the year when a con­gres­sion­al Pen­ta­gon spend­ing billed explic­it­ly autho­rized the mil­i­tary to con­duct clan­des­tine influ­ence oper­a­tions against oth­er coun­tries, even “out­side of areas of active hos­til­i­ties.” Final­ly, 2019 was also the year Trump autho­rized the CIA to launch a clan­des­tine cam­paign on Chi­nese social media designed to turn pub­lic opin­ion against the gov­ern­ment.

Sum­ming up: In the months lead­ing up to the emer­gence of the pan­dem­ic in Wuhan, the US effec­tive­ly declared a covert regime change pol­i­cy against Chi­na. Sub­se­quent­ly, just months into the pan­dem­ic, we find this gross­ly uneth­i­cal psy­op designed to encour­age peo­ple across Asia to turn away Chi­nese pan­dem­ic assis­tance. Glob­al pub­lic health was an after­thought, which is impor­tant to keep in mind when ask­ing the “could they real­ly have done some­thing that evil?” ques­tion regard­ing the accu­sa­tions about the US delib­er­at­ing traf­fick­ing the virus to Chi­na. There was a secret regime-change war afoot.

Anoth­er aspect of that secret 2019 order by Esper is that it removed the State Department’s check on psy­cho­log­i­cal oper­a­tions, allow­ing the Pen­ta­gon to over­ride State Depart­ment con­cerns. That’s notable giv­en that we are told at least six senior State Depart­ment offi­cials respon­si­ble for the region object­ed to the psy­op. Which is also notable in that it indi­cates the State Depart­ment was well aware of it at the time.

Anoth­er inter­est­ing aspect of all of this is that it appears that a con­trac­tor, Gen­er­al Dynam­ics IT, was used along­side psy­cho­log­i­cal war­fare sol­diers at the base in Tam­pa, Flori­da, where these oper­a­tions were con­duct­ed.

Gen­er­al Dynam­ics IT just won a new $493 mil­lion con­tract back in Feb­ru­ary of this year to con­tin­ue pro­vid­ing clan­des­tine influ­ence ser­vices for the mil­i­tary.

The Biden admin­is­tra­tion for­mal­ly end­ed the pro­gram in ear­ly 2021. Dis­turbing­ly, and in a sto­ry we first saw back in Sep­tem­ber of 2022, after the Pen­ta­gon decid­ed to final­ly audit this social media covert influ­enc­ing pro­gram, its pri­ma­ry com­plaint appeared to be slop­py trade­craft that allowed jour­nal­ists and social media com­pa­nies to iden­ti­fy the fake accounts.

Also note that we are get­ting hints in this report that there is a lot more under this rock. Like vague state­ments about how when the Biden admin­is­tra­tion end­ed this anti-vax psy­op, the order also includ­ed end­ing the cam­paigns against the vac­cines of “oth­er rivals”. We have no idea who those oth­er rivals may have been, but it’s not hard to imag­ine the anti-vax cam­paign extend­ing to Rus­sia.

Final­ly, it’s impor­tant to keep in mind anoth­er dimen­sion to this sto­ry: this trash­ing of a rival vac­cines was tak­ing place at the same time the US was effec­tive­ly back­ing what was still a high­ly exper­i­men­tal new form of mRNA vac­cines under woe­ful­ly inad­e­quate safe­ty test­ing con­di­tions.

The mRNA vac­cine that not only could end up mak­ing com­pa­nies like Mod­er­na bil­lions of dol­lars in prof­its direct­ly from the vac­cine, but had the poten­tial to launch a whole now mul­ti-tril­lion-dol­lar mRNA-based field of med­i­cine. The stakes in the glob­al ‘vac­cine race’ went far beyond diplo­ma­cy and geopol­i­tics.

As we have seen, the suit by Mod­er­na against Pfizer/BioNtech may dis­close pos­si­ble bio­log­i­cal war­fare appli­ca­tions before Covid actu­al­ly man­i­fest­ed.

The black pro­pa­gan­da oper­a­tion against Chi­na was clear­ly part of the US’s secret war to desta­bi­lize the Chi­nese gov­ern­ment. A secret war launched in 2019, months before the pan­dem­ic offi­cial­ly start­ed, that soon enveloped all of Asia in a cam­paign to encour­age the spread of the virus as China’s diplo­mat­ic cost. Many would con­sid­er such a war utter­ly unthink­able if the Pen­ta­gon wasn’t open­ly admit­ting it at this point. A con­sid­er­a­tion that makes the effort the kind of secret war where sce­nar­ios involv­ing the inten­tion­al release of the virus in Chi­na are a log­i­cal, ‘unthink­able’ step. (37)

Key points of this impor­tant arti­cle include:

• “ . . . . The U.S. mil­i­tary launched a clan­des­tine pro­gram amid the COVID cri­sis to dis­cred­it China’s Sino­vac inoc­u­la­tion – pay­back for Beijing’s efforts to blame Wash­ing­ton for the pan­dem­ic. One tar­get: the Fil­ipino pub­lic. Health experts say the gam­bit was inde­fen­si­ble and put inno­cent lives at risk. . . .”
• “ . . . . It [the oper­a­tion] aimed to sow doubt about the safe­ty and effi­ca­cy of vac­cines and oth­er life-sav­ing aid that was being sup­plied by Chi­na, a Reuters inves­ti­ga­tion found. Through pho­ny inter­net accounts meant to imper­son­ate Fil­ipinos, the military’s pro­pa­gan­da efforts mor­phed into an anti-vax cam­paign. Social media posts decried the qual­i­ty of face masks, test kits and the first vac­cine that would become avail­able in the Philip­pines – China’s Sino­vac inoc­u­la­tion. . . .”
• “ . . . . Almost all were cre­at­ed in the sum­mer of 2020 and cen­tered on the slo­gan #Chi­naangvirus – Taga­log for Chi­na is the virus. ‘COVID came from Chi­na and the VACCINE also came from Chi­na, don’t trust Chi­na!’ one typ­i­cal tweet from July 2020 read in Taga­log. The words were next to a pho­to of a syringe beside a Chi­nese flag and a soar­ing chart of infec­tions. Anoth­er post read: ‘From Chi­na – PPE, Face Mask, Vac­cine: FAKE. But the Coro­n­avirus is real.’. . .”
• “ . . . . After Reuters asked X about the accounts, the social media com­pa­ny removed the pro­files, deter­min­ing they were part of a coor­di­nat­ed bot cam­paign based on activ­i­ty pat­terns and inter­nal data. . . .”
• “ . . . . The U.S. military’s anti-vax effort began in the spring of 2020and expand­ed beyond South­east Asia before it was ter­mi­nat­ed in mid-2021, Reuters deter­mined. Tai­lor­ing the pro­pa­gan­da cam­paign to local audi­ences across Cen­tral Asia and the Mid­dle East, the Pen­ta­gon used a com­bi­na­tion of fake social media accounts on mul­ti­ple plat­forms to spread fear of China’s vac­cines among Mus­lims at a time when the virus was killing tens of thou­sands of peo­ple each day. A key part of the strat­e­gy: ampli­fy the dis­put­ed con­tention that, because vac­cines some­times con­tain pork gelatin, China’s shots could be con­sid­ered for­bid­den under Islam­ic law. . . .”
• “ . . . . The effort to stoke fear about Chi­nese inoc­u­la­tions risked under­min­ing over­all pub­lic trust in gov­ern­ment health ini­tia­tives, includ­ing U.S.-made vac­cines that became avail­able lat­er, Lucey and oth­ers said. Although the Chi­nese vac­cines were found to be less effec­tive than the Amer­i­can-led shots by Pfiz­er and Mod­er­na, all were approved by the World Health Orga­ni­za­tion. Sino­vac did not respond to a Reuters request for com­ment. Aca­d­e­m­ic research pub­lished recent­lyhas shown that, when indi­vid­u­als devel­op skep­ti­cism toward a sin­gle vac­cine, those doubts often lead to uncer­tain­ty about oth­er inoc­u­la­tions. . . .”
• “ . . . . In the wake of the U.S. pro­pa­gan­da efforts, how­ev­er, then-Philip­pines Pres­i­dent Rodri­go Duterte had grown so dis­mayed by how few Fil­ipinos were will­ing to be inoc­u­lat­ed that he threat­ened to arrest peo­ple who refused vac­ci­na­tions. . . .”
• “ . . . . When he [Duterte] addressed the vac­ci­na­tion issue, the Philip­pines had among the worst inoc­u­la­tion rates in South­east Asia. Only 2.1 mil­lion of its 114 mil­lion cit­i­zens were ful­ly vac­ci­nat­ed – far short of the government’s tar­get of 70 mil­lion. By the time Duterte spoke, COVID cas­es exceed­ed 1.3 mil­lion, and almost 24,000 Fil­ipinos had died from the virus. The dif­fi­cul­ty in vac­ci­nat­ing the pop­u­la­tion con­tributed to the worst death rate in the region. . . .”
• “ . . . . The cam­paign also rein­forced what one for­mer health sec­re­tary called a long­stand­ing sus­pi­cion of Chi­na, most recent­ly because of aggres­sive behav­ior by Bei­jing in dis­put­ed areas of the South Chi­na Sea. Fil­ipinos were unwill­ing to trust China’s Sino­vac, which first became avail­able in the coun­try in March 2021, said Esper­an­za Cabral, who served as health sec­re­tary under Pres­i­dent Glo­ria Maca­pa­gal Arroyo. Cabral said she had been unaware of the U.S. military’s secret oper­a­tion. ‘I’m sure that there are lots of peo­ple who died from COVID who did not need to die from COVID,’ she said. . . .”
• “ . . . . To imple­ment the anti-vax cam­paign, the Defense Depart­ment over­rode strong objec­tions from top U.S. diplo­mats in South­east Asia at the time, Reuters found. Sources involved in its plan­ning and exe­cu­tion say the Pen­ta­gon, which ran the pro­gram through the military’s psy­cho­log­i­cal oper­a­tions cen­ter in Tam­pa, Flori­da, dis­re­gard­ed the col­lat­er­al impact that such pro­pa­gan­da may have on inno­cent Fil­ipinos. . . .”
• “ . . . . Clan­des­tine psy­cho­log­i­cal oper­a­tions are among the government’s most high­ly sen­si­tive pro­grams. Knowl­edge of their exis­tence is lim­it­ed to a small group of peo­ple with­in U.S. intel­li­gence and mil­i­tary agen­cies.Such pro­grams are treat­ed with spe­cial cau­tion because their expo­sure could dam­age for­eign alliances or esca­late con­flict with rivals. . . .”
• “ . . . Over the last decade, some U.S. nation­al secu­ri­ty offi­cials have pushed for a return to the kind of aggres­sive clan­des­tine pro­pa­gan­da oper­a­tions against rivals that the Unit­ed States’ wield­ed dur­ing the Cold War.Fol­low­ing the 2016 U.S. pres­i­den­tial elec­tion, in which Rus­sia used a com­bi­na­tion of hacks and leaks to influ­ence vot­ers, the calls to fight back grew loud­er inside Wash­ing­ton. . . .”
• “ . . . . In 2019, Trump autho­rized the Cen­tral Intel­li­gence Agency to launch a clan­des­tine cam­paign on Chi­nese social media aimed at turn­ing pub­lic opin­ion in Chi­na against its gov­ern­ment, Reuters report­ed in March.As part of that effort, a small group of oper­a­tives used bogus online iden­ti­ties to spread dis­parag­ing nar­ra­tives about Xi Jinping’s gov­ern­ment. . . .”
• “ . . . . To Washington’s alarm, China’s offers of assis­tance were tilt­ing the geopo­lit­i­cal play­ing field across the devel­op­ing world, includ­ing in the Philip­pines, where the gov­ern­ment faced upwards of 100,000 infec­tions in the ear­ly months of the pan­dem­ic. . . .”
• “ . . . . Duterte said in a July 2020 speechhe had made ‘a plea’ to Xi that the Philip­pines be at the front of the line as Chi­na rolled out vac­cines. He vowed in the same speech that the Philip­pines would no longer chal­lenge Beijing’s aggres­sive expan­sion in the South Chi­na Sea, upend­ing a key secu­ri­ty under­stand­ing Mani­la had long held with Wash­ing­ton. . . .”
• “ . . . . U.S. mil­i­tary lead­ers feared that China’s COVID diplo­ma­cy and pro­pa­gan­da could draw oth­er South­east Asian coun­tries, such as Cam­bo­dia and Malaysia, clos­er to Bei­jing, fur­ther­ing its region­al ambi­tions. A senior U.S. mil­i­tary com­man­der respon­si­ble for South­east Asia, Spe­cial Oper­a­tions Com­mand Pacif­ic Gen­er­al Jonathan Bra­ga, pressed his boss­es in Wash­ing­ton to fight back in the so-called infor­ma­tion space, accord­ing to three for­mer Pen­ta­gon offi­cials. . . .”
• “ . . . . The com­man­der ini­tial­ly want­ed to punch back at Bei­jing in South­east Asia. The goal: to ensure the region under­stood the ori­gin of COVID while pro­mot­ing skep­ti­cism toward what were then still-untest­ed vac­cines offered by a coun­try that they said had lied con­tin­u­al­ly since the start of the pan­dem­ic. . . .”
• “ . . . . But in 2019, before COVID sur­faced in full force, then-Sec­re­tary of Defense Mark Esper signed a secret order that lat­er paved the way for the launch of the U.S. mil­i­tary pro­pa­gan­da cam­paign. The order ele­vat­ed the Pentagon’s com­pe­ti­tion with Chi­na and Rus­sia to the pri­or­i­ty of active com­bat, enabling com­man­ders to side­step the State Depart­ment when con­duct­ing psy­ops against those adver­saries. The Pen­ta­gon spend­ing bill passed by Con­gress that year also explic­it­ly autho­rized the mil­i­tary to con­duct clan­des­tine influ­ence oper­a­tions against oth­er coun­tries, even ‘out­side of areas of active hos­til­i­ties.’. . .”
• “ . . . . By 2010, the mil­i­tary began using social media tools, lever­ag­ing pho­ny accounts to spread mes­sages of sym­pa­thet­ic local voic­es – them­selves often secret­ly paid by the Unit­ed States gov­ern­ment. As time passed, a grow­ing web of mil­i­tary and intel­li­gence con­trac­tors built online news web­sites to pump U.S.-approved nar­ra­tives into for­eign coun­tries. Today, the mil­i­tary employs a sprawl­ing ecosys­tem of social media influ­encers, front groups and covert­ly placed dig­i­tal adver­tise­ments to influ­ence over­seas audi­ences, accord­ing to cur­rent and for­mer mil­i­tary offi­cials. . . .”
• “ . . . . In regions beyond South­east Asia, senior offi­cers in the U.S. Cen­tral Com­mand, which over­sees mil­i­tary oper­a­tions across the Mid­dle East and Cen­tral Asia, launched their own ver­sion of the COVID psy­op, three for­mer mil­i­tary offi­cials told Reuters. Although the Chi­nese vac­cines were still months from release, con­tro­ver­sy roiled the Mus­lim world over whether the vac­cines con­tained pork gelatin and could be con­sid­ered ‘haram,’ or for­bid­den under Islam­ic law. . . .”
• “ . . . . It tar­get­ed Cen­tral Asia, includ­ing Kaza­khstan, Kyr­gyzs­tan and Uzbek­istan, a coun­try that dis­trib­uted tens of mil­lions of dos­es of China’s vac­cines and par­tic­i­pat­ed in human trials.Translated into Eng­lish, the X post reads: ‘Chi­na dis­trib­utes a vac­cine made of pork gelatin.’. . .”
• “ . . . . And in Feb­ru­ary, the con­trac­tor that worked on the anti-vax cam­paign – Gen­er­al Dynam­ics IT – won a $493 mil­lion con­tract. Its mis­sion: to con­tin­ue pro­vid­ing clan­des­tine influ­ence ser­vices for the mil­i­tary.

The true dimen­sion and scope of the Covid “op” is dis­cernible with­in the frame­work of this gam­bit. The term Mr. Emory coined in his first series on Covid—“Bio Psy-Op Apoc­a­lypse” applies.

In addi­tion, the out­lines of U.S. impe­r­i­al gam­bits in the Pacif­ic the­ater from cre­ation of the “Uighur Per­se­cu­tion” meme (38) to the use of Fer­di­nand Mar­cos, Jr.’s anti-Chi­na stance and ongo­ing uti­liza­tion of the Gold­en Lily trea­sure from World War II (39) to fund covert oper­a­tions and enrich key play­ers in the West’s polit­i­cal and nation­al secu­ri­ty land­scapes.

Notes

1.– “Covid pos­si­bly came out of a U.S. biotech­nol­o­gy lab, says Colum­bia pro­fes­sor” by Moham­mad Mazhari [Tehran Times]; jeffsachs.org; 7/5/2022.

2.—Idem.

3.– Gene Wars: Mil­i­tary Con­trol Over the New Tech­nolo­gies by Charles Piller and Kei­th R. Yamamo­to; Beech Tree Books/William Mor­row [HC]; Copy­right 1988 by Charles Piller and Kei­th Yamamo­to; ISBN 0–688-07050–7; p. 217.

4.– “Can­cer War­fare: Nation­al Can­cer Insti­tute and the Fort Det­rick Link” by Richard Hatch; Covert Action Infor­ma­tion Bul­letin Num­ber 39 (Win­ter 1991–92).

5.– “Military’s Role in Vac­cine Will Be Behind the Scenes, Despite Trump’s Claims” by Jen­nifer Stein­hauer; The New York Times; 11/27/2020.

6.—Idem.

7.—Idem.

8.– “Let AI remake the whole U.S. gov­ern­ment (oh, and save the coun­try)” by Josh Tyrang­iel; Wash­ing­ton Post; 03/06/2024.

9.—Idem.

10a.–“Trump Vows Vac­cine by End of Year, and Mobi­lizes Mil­i­tary to Help” by David E. Sanger, Mag­gie Haber­man and Noah Wei­land; The New York Times; 5/15/2020.

10b.– “‘Warp Speed’ head Slaoui, chal­lenged for ‘huge con­flict of inter­est,’ sells off $12.4M in Mod­er­na stock” by Eric Sagonowsky; Fier­cePhar­ma; 05/19/2020.

11.– “Trump’s Vac­cine Chief Has Vast Ties to Drug Indus­try, Pos­ing Pos­si­ble Con­flicts” by Sheila Kaplan, Matthew Gold­stein and Alexan­dra Steven­son; The New York Times; 5/21/2020.

12.- “Pol­i­tics, Sci­ence and the Remark­able Race for a Viable Vac­cine” by Sharon LaFraniere, Katie Thomas, Noah Wei­land, David Gelles, Sheryl Gay Stol­berg and Denise Grady; The New York Times; 11/22/2020.

13.– “Bats, Gene Edit­ing and Bioweapons: Recent DARPA Exper­i­ments Raise Con­cerns Amid Coro­n­avirus Out­break” by Whit­ney Webb; The Last Amer­i­can Vagabond; 1/30/2020.

14.– “Mod­er­na Sues Pfiz­er and BioN­Tech Over Covid Vac­cine” by Jen­ny Gross and Rebec­ca Rob­bins; The New York Times; 08/26/2022.

15.—Idem.

16.—Idem.

17.—Idem.

18.—Idem.

19.—Idem.

20.—Idem.

21.—Idem.

22.—Idem.

23.—Idem.

24.—Idem.

25.—Idem.

26.– “RNA for Moderna’s Omi­cron Boost­er Man­u­fac­tured by CIA-Linked Com­pa­ny” by Whit­ney Webb; Unlim­it­ed Hang­out; 08/17/2022.

27.—Idem.

28.—Idem.

29.—Idem.

30.—Idem.

31.—Idem.

32.—Idem.

33.—Idem.

34.– “Covid pos­si­bly came out of a U.S. biotech­nol­o­gy lab, says Colum­bia pro­fes­sor” by Moham­mad Mazhari [Tehran Times]; jeffsachs.org; 7/5/2022.

35.– Gene Wars: Mil­i­tary Con­trol Over the New Tech­nolo­gies by Charles Piller and Kei­th R. Yamamo­to; Beech Tree Books/William Mor­row [HC]; Copy­right 1988 by Charles Piller and Kei­th Yamamo­to; ISBN 0–688-07050–7; p. 217.

36.– “Can­cer War­fare: Nation­al Can­cer Insti­tute and the Fort Det­rick Link” by Richard Hatch; Covert Action Infor­ma­tion Bul­letin Num­ber 39 (Win­ter 1991–92).

37.– “Pen­ta­gon ran secret anti-vax cam­paign to under­mine Chi­na dur­ing pan­dem­ic;” by Chris Bing and Joel Schecht­man; reuters.com; June 14, 024.

38.– “ ‘Forced Labor’ Sto­ries on Chi­na Brought to You By US Gov, NATO, Arms Indus­try to Dri­ve Cold War PR Blitz” by Ajit Singh; The Gray­zone; 3/26/20.

39.– Gold War­riors by Ster­ling and Peg­gy Sea­grave; Ver­so [SC]; Copy­right 2003, 2005 by Ster­ling and Peg­gy Sea­grave; ISBN 1–84467-531–9; p. 219.