You can sub­scribe to RSS feed from Spitfirelist.com HERE.

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

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 Late Fall of 2021 (through FTR #1215).

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

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

— George Orwell, 1946

EVERYTHING MR. EMORY HAS BEEN SAYING ABOUT THE UKRAINE WAR IS ENCAPSULATED IN THIS VIDEO FROM UKRAINE 24

COMMENT: Charges and counter-charges in the ongo­ing Ukraine war sur­round Pen­ta­gon-financed “vet­eri­nary” and oth­er  bio­log­i­cal lab­o­ra­to­ries in Ukraine.

We note that there are sig­nif­i­cant con­nec­tions between the agency over­see­ing the Ukrain­ian projects and 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 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 below, the virus­es were then syn­the­sized from scratch and pop­u­la­tion groups were vec­tored with the same viral strains being researched by the WIV. 

Just as Lee Har­vey Oswald was set up to look like a com­mu­nist before being framed for JFK’s mur­der, so, too the “Oswald Insti­tute of Virol­o­gy” was set up to take the blame for the coro­n­avirus pan­dem­ic.

Essen­tial back­ground infor­ma­tion to eval­u­ate the debate:

1. The alleged dif­fer­ence between “offen­sive” and “defen­sive” bio­log­i­cal war­fare research is aca­d­e­m­ic: If one if research­ing how “wee beast­ies” infect, sick­en and/or kill plants, ani­mals or humans, it is the same research, what­ev­er ter­mi­nol­o­gy one uses.
2. Con­tem­po­rary tech­nol­o­gy makes it pos­si­ble to syn­the­size dead­ly pathogens from scratch: ” . . . . 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. 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.’ . . .”
3. The essen­tial para­me­ters of the fact find­ing: ” . . . . So do bio labs exist inside Ukraine, and is the US sup­port­ing them? Yes, and yes. Ukraine does oper­ate bio­log­i­cal lab­o­ra­to­ries which receive US fund­ing. . . .”
4. ” . . . . Do the Ukraine lab­o­ra­to­ries store dan­ger­ous bio­log­i­cal agents? Yes, it appears so. [!] As part of their work research­ing dis­eases the bio labs do seem to hold dan­ger­ous pathogens. . . .”

The debate cen­ters on U.S. Pen­ta­gon-financed lab­o­ra­to­ries in Ukraine. Note that the lab­o­ra­to­ries are described as “vet­eri­nary laboratories”–the Pen­ta­gon is in the busi­ness of war-fight­ing, which essen­tial­ly con­sists of killing peo­ple and destroy­ing prop­er­ty. They are not in the busi­ness of tak­ing care of pup­py dogs and kit­ty cats.

Key con­sid­er­a­tions in the con­tro­ver­sy:

1. ” . . . . [Robert Pope, the direc­tor of the Pentagon’s Coop­er­a­tive Threat Reduc­tion Pro­gram] not­ed that some of the facil­i­ties may con­tain pathogens once used for Sovi­et-era bioweapons pro­grams, but he empha­sized that the Ukrain­ian labs cur­rent­ly did not have the abil­i­ty to man­u­fac­ture bioweapons. . . . In a March inter­view with the Bul­letin of the Atom­ic Sci­en­tists . . . . He spoke specif­i­cal­ly about the Pentagon’s sup­port of 14 vet­eri­nary lab­o­ra­to­ries that pro­vide Ukraine with sam­pling and diag­nos­tic abil­i­ties to detect infec­tious dis­eases. . . .”
2. The Pen­tagon’s Coop­er­a­tive Threat Reduc­tion Pro­gram is part of the Defense Threat Reduc­tion Agency. the for­mer was involved in research­ing bats and dead­ly pathogens: ” . . . . the U.S. mil­i­tary — specif­i­cal­ly the Depart­ment of Defense’s Coop­er­a­tive Threat Reduc­tion Pro­gram — began fund­ing research involv­ing bats and dead­ly pathogens, includ­ing the coro­n­avirus­es MERS and SARS, a year pri­or in 2017. . . .”
3. Peter Daszak–of Ukrain­ian heritage–heads the Eco­Health Alliance, the largest mil­i­tary con­trac­tor receiv­ing funds from the Defense Threat Reduc­tion Agency: ” . . . . 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.’. . .”
4. Fur­ther review of Shi’s research fund­ing [at the Wuhan Insti­tute of Virol­o­gy] from the Pen­ta­gon, via Eco­Health Alliance: ” . . . . Shi Zhengli and her col­lab­o­ra­tors are also fund­ed by the U.S. mil­i­tary. Peter Daszak’s Eco­Health Alliance cur­rent­ly receives more mon­ey from the Depart­ment of Defense’s Defense Threat Reduc­tion Agency (DTRA) for Sci­en­tif­ic Research Com­bat­ting Weapons of Mass Destruc­tion than any oth­er mil­i­tary contractor—$15 mil­lion (25.575 per­cent) of the $60.2 mil­lion dis­persed in the last 6 months. . . .”
5. The DTRA fund­ing of bat-borne coro­novirus research at WIV gains fur­ther grav­i­tas: “. . . . A Google Schol­ar search pro­duced two papers Shi has pub­lished that lists DTRA as a fun­der. To see how the first paper, ‘Com­par­a­tive Analy­sis of Bat Genomes Pro­vides Insight into the Evo­lu­tion of Flight and Immu­ni­ty,’ is rel­e­vant to bio­log­i­cal weapon­ry, it helps to under­stand the military’s inter­est in bat immu­ni­ty. . . .”

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

Whit­ney Webb has pro­vid­ed us with trou­bling insight into Pen­ta­gon research–some of which remains clas­si­fied:

• Osten­si­bly aimed at pre­vent­ing pan­demics but–very possibly–masking prepa­ra­tions for offen­sive bio­log­i­cal war­fare projects. ” . . . . Many of these recent research projects are relat­ed to DARPA’s Pre­vent­ing Emerg­ing Path­o­gen­ic Threats, or PREEMPT pro­gram, which was offi­cial­ly announced in April 2018. PREEMPT focus­es specif­i­cal­ly on ani­mal reser­voirs of dis­ease, specif­i­cal­ly bats, and DARPA even not­ed in its press release in the pro­gram that it ‘is aware of biosafe­ty and biose­cu­ri­ty sen­si­tiv­i­ties that could arise’ due to the nature of the research. . . . In addi­tion, while both DARPA’s PREEMPT pro­gram and the Pentagon’s open inter­est in bats as bioweapons were announced in 2018, the U.S. mil­i­tary — specif­i­cal­ly the Depart­ment of Defense’s Coop­er­a­tive Threat Reduc­tion Pro­gram — began fund­ing research involv­ing bats and dead­ly pathogens, includ­ing the coro­n­avirus­es MERS and SARS, a year pri­or in 2017. . . .”
• Into the DNA of both Russ­ian and Chi­nese pop­u­la­tions. ” . . . . Since the Pen­ta­gon began ‘redesign­ing’ its poli­cies and research towards a ‘long war’ with Rus­sia and Chi­na, the Russ­ian mil­i­tary has accused the U.S. mil­i­tary of har­vest­ing DNA from Rus­sians as part of a covert bioweapon pro­gram, a charge that the Pen­ta­gon has adamant­ly denied. Major Gen­er­al Igor Kir­illov, the head of the Russ­ian military’s radi­a­tion, chem­i­cal and bio­log­i­cal pro­tec­tion unit who made these claims, also assert­ed that the U.S. was devel­op­ing such weapons in close prox­im­i­ty to Russ­ian and Chi­nese bor­ders. Chi­na has also accused the U.S. mil­i­tary of har­vest­ing DNA from Chi­nese cit­i­zens with ill inten­tions, such as when 200,000 Chi­nese farm­ers were used in 12 genet­ic exper­i­ments with­out informed con­sent. Those exper­i­ments had been con­duct­ed by Har­vard researchers as part of a U.S. gov­ern­ment-fund­ed project. . . .”

2. “Mil­i­ta­rized Pan­dem­ic Sci­ence: Why Is The Pen­ta­gon Fund­ing The Eco­Health Alliance?” by Sam Hus­sei­ni; Coun­ter­punch; 12/21/2020.

1. ” . . . . 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.’. . .”

3. “Shi Zhengli: Weaponiz­ing Coro­n­avirus­es with Pen­ta­gon Fund­ing, at a Chi­nese Mil­i­tary Lab” by Alex­is Baden-May­er; Organ­ic Con­sumers Asso­ci­a­tion; 09/24/2020.

1. Fur­ther review of Shi’s research fund­ing from the Pen­ta­gon, via Eco­Health Alliance: ” . . . . Shi Zhengli and her col­lab­o­ra­tors are also fund­ed by the U.S. mil­i­tary. Peter Daszak’s Eco­Health Alliance cur­rent­ly receives more mon­ey from the Depart­ment of Defense’s Defense Threat Reduc­tion Agency (DTRA) for Sci­en­tif­ic Research Com­bat­ting Weapons of Mass Destruc­tion than any oth­er mil­i­tary contractor—$15 mil­lion (25.575 per­cent) of the $60.2 mil­lion dis­persed in the last 6 months. . . .”
2. More about mil­i­tary col­lab­o­ra­tion with Shi: ” . . . . In addi­tion to mil­i­tary fund­ing through DTRA, Shi’s paper was co-authored by two U.S. mil­i­tary sci­en­tists, Christo­pher C. Broder and Eric D. Laing of the Uni­formed Ser­vices Uni­ver­si­ty of the Health Sci­ences, Depart­ment of Micro­bi­ol­o­gy and Immunol­o­gy. . . .”
3. A lengthy excerpt of this arti­cle is impor­tant to con­sid­er in this con­text: “. . . . A Google Schol­ar search pro­duced two papers Shi has pub­lished that lists DTRA as a fun­der. To see how the first paper, ‘Com­par­a­tive Analy­sis of Bat Genomes Pro­vides Insight into the Evo­lu­tion of Flight and Immu­ni­ty,’ is rel­e­vant to bio­log­i­cal weapon­ry, it helps to under­stand the military’s inter­est in bat immu­ni­ty.

As Boston Uni­ver­si­ty micro­bi­ol­o­gist Thomas Kepler explained to the Wash­ing­ton Post in 2018, the bat’s unique approach to viral infec­tion explains why virus­es that trans­fer from bats to humans are so severe. This was the sub­ject of a paper, ‘The Egypt­ian Rousette Genome Reveals Unex­pect­ed Fea­tures of Bat Antivi­ral Immu­ni­ty,’ that he pub­lished with mil­i­tary sci­en­tists and DTRA fund­ing.

‘A virus that has co-evolved with the bat’s antivi­ral sys­tem is com­plete­ly out of its ele­ment in the human,’ Kepler said. ‘That’s why it is so dead­ly — the human immune sys­tem is over­whelmed by the inflam­ma­to­ry response.’

The bat immune sys­tem responds very dif­fer­ent­ly from ours to viral infec­tion. Instead of attack­ing and killing an infect­ed cell, which leads to a cas­cade of inflam­ma­to­ry respons­es, the bat immune sys­tem can starve the virus by turn­ing down cel­lu­lar metab­o­lism. The bat ori­gin of SARS-CoV­‑2 may explain the cytokine storms that are has­ten­ing some COVID-19 deaths. . . .”

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

. . . . 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.

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.”

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. . . .

5. “What are Russia’s bio­log­i­cal weapons claims and what’s actu­al­ly hap­pen­ing?” by Ed Pilk­ing­ton; The Guardian; 3/11/2022.

The UN secu­ri­ty coun­cil met on Fri­day to dis­cuss Moscow’s claims the US is fund­ing ‘mil­i­tary bio­log­i­cal activ­i­ties’ in Ukraine

The UN secu­ri­ty coun­cil met on Fri­day at Russia’s request to dis­cuss Moscow’s claims that the US is fund­ing “mil­i­tary bio­log­i­cal activ­i­ties” in Ukraine – in oth­er words, secret­ly devel­op­ing bio­log­i­cal weapons in Ukrain­ian lab­o­ra­to­ries. The event saw some heat­ed dis­cus­sion. The Russ­ian ambas­sador to the UN, Vasi­ly Neben­zya, evoked the ter­ri­fy­ing specter of an “uncon­trolled spread of bio agents from Ukraine” across Europe. His Amer­i­can coun­ter­part, Lin­da Thomas-Green­field, warned that Russia’s claim could be a pre­text for it launch­ing its own bio­log­i­cal weapons attack on Ukraine.

So what is the dis­pute all about, and what is actu­al­ly hap­pen­ing inside Ukraine?

How did “bio labs” become the lat­est front in the Ukraine infor­ma­tion war?

Last Sun­day the Russ­ian min­istry of for­eign affairs post­ed a tweet accus­ing the US and Ukrain­ian gov­ern­ments of run­ning a secret “mil­i­tary-bio­log­i­cal pro­gramme” inside the strick­en coun­try. Moscow claimed that its invad­ing forces had dis­cov­ered evi­dence of an “emer­gency clean-up” to hide the pro­gramme.

Moscow went on to claim that it had found doc­u­ments relat­ed to the secret US oper­a­tion in lab­o­ra­to­ries in the Ukrain­ian cities of Kharkiv and Polta­va.

The alle­ga­tions were quick­ly ampli­fied by Chi­na, which sup­port­ed the claims dur­ing Friday’s UN secu­ri­ty coun­cil debate. . . .

. . . . How have the US and Ukrain­ian gov­ern­ments respond­ed? . . .

. . . . Ukraine’s ambas­sador to the world body, Sergiy Kys­lyt­sya, used more colour­ful lan­guage. He called the idea being advanced by Rus­sia “a bunch of insane delir­i­um”. . . .

So do bio labs exist inside Ukraine, and is the US sup­port­ing them?

Yes, and yes. Ukraine does oper­ate bio­log­i­cal lab­o­ra­to­ries which receive US fund­ing. The US under­sec­re­tary of state Vic­to­ria Nuland affirmed those facts in a Sen­ate for­eign rela­tions com­mit­tee hear­ing this week in which the Repub­li­can sen­a­tor Mar­co Rubio asked her direct­ly whether Ukraine had bio­log­i­cal weapons.

Nuland did not answer the ques­tion head on. “Ukraine has bio­log­i­cal research facil­i­ties,” she replied, adding that there was con­cern that Russ­ian forces were try­ing to gain con­trol of the labs. “We are work­ing with the Ukraini­ans on how they can pre­vent any of those research mate­ri­als from falling into the hands of Russ­ian forces.” . . . .

. . . . The scheme was orig­i­nal­ly known as the Coop­er­a­tive Threat Reduc­tion (CTR) pro­gramme, but is now more com­mon­ly referred to as the bio­log­i­cal engage­ment pro­gramme. It has been suc­cess­ful in sup­port­ing for­mer Sovi­et and oth­er coun­tries to ful­fil pub­lic health oblig­a­tions. . . .

. . . . Do the Ukraine lab­o­ra­to­ries store dan­ger­ous bio­log­i­cal agents?

Yes, it appears so. [!] As part of their work research­ing dis­eases the bio labs do seem to hold dan­ger­ous pathogens. We know that because WHO is urg­ing Ukraine to destroy any high­ly dan­ger­ous agents in its lab­o­ra­to­ries to avoid the risk of a dis­as­trous out­break should one of the labs be hit under Russ­ian attack. . .

“As part of this work, WHO has strong­ly rec­om­mend­ed to the min­istry of
health in Ukraine and oth­er respon­si­ble bod­ies to destroy high-threat
pathogens to pre­vent any poten­tial spills,” the UN health agency said.

The WHO has worked in Ukraine for sev­er­al years help­ing the bio labs improve their safe­ty and secu­ri­ty, so it knows what it is talk­ing about. . . .

6. “The­o­ry on U.S.-Funded Bioweapons Labs Is Base­less” by Lin­da Qiu; The New York Times; 3/12/2022.

. . . . Mr. Carl­son also point­ed to an inter­view with Robert Pope, the direc­tor of the Pentagon’s Coop­er­a­tive Threat Reduc­tion Pro­gram, which helps coun­tries in the for­mer Sovi­et Union secure or elim­i­nate nuclear and chem­i­cal weapons. (This pro­gram is a major fun­der of Eco­Health Alliance, as not­ed in FTR#1170.)

. . . . In con­gres­sion­al tes­ti­mo­ny this week, Ms. Nuland, the under sec­re­tary of state for polit­i­cal affairs, was asked by Sen­a­tor Mar­co Rubio, Repub­li­can of Flori­da, whether Ukraine has chem­i­cal or bio­log­i­cal weapons.

“Ukraine has bio­log­i­cal research facil­i­ties which, in fact, we are now quite con­cerned Russ­ian troops, Russ­ian forces, may be seek­ing to gain con­trol of,” she respond­ed. “So we are work­ing with the Ukraini­ans on how they can pre­vent any of those research mate­ri­als from falling into the hands of Russ­ian forces should they approach.” . . .

. . . . The State Depart­ment said Ms. Nuland was refer­ring to Ukrain­ian diag­nos­tic and biode­fense lab­o­ra­to­ries dur­ing her tes­ti­mo­ny, which are dif­fer­ent from bio­log­i­cal weapons facil­i­ties. Rather, these biode­fense lab­o­ra­to­ries counter bio­log­i­cal threats through­out the coun­try, the depart­ment said. . . .

. . . . Mr. Pope had warned that Russia’s inva­sion of Ukraine may dam­age lab­o­ra­to­ries in the coun­try that con­duct research and dis­ease sur­veil­lance and are sup­port­ed by the Unit­ed States. He not­ed that some of the facil­i­ties may con­tain pathogens once used for Sovi­et-era bioweapons pro­grams, but he empha­sized that the Ukrain­ian labs cur­rent­ly did not have the abil­i­ty to man­u­fac­ture bioweapons. . . .

. . . . In a March inter­view with the Bul­letin of the Atom­ic Sci­en­tists, Mr. Pope also echoed Ms. Nuland’s con­cerns about the lab­o­ra­to­ries falling into Russia’s hands. He spoke specif­i­cal­ly about the Pentagon’s sup­port of 14 vet­eri­nary lab­o­ra­to­ries that pro­vide Ukraine with sam­pling and diag­nos­tic abil­i­ties to detect infec­tious dis­eases.

“Should Russ­ian forces occu­py a city with one of these facil­i­ties, we are con­cerned that Rus­sia will fab­ri­cate ‘evi­dence’ of nefar­i­ous activ­i­ty in an attempt to lend cred­i­bil­i­ty to their ongo­ing dis­in­for­ma­tion about these facil­i­ties,” he said.

The Unit­ed Nations Secu­ri­ty Coun­cil con­vened a meet­ing on Fri­day about Russia’s accu­sa­tions con­cern­ing bio­log­i­cal weapons in Ukraine. Izu­mi Nakamit­su, the U.N.’s high rep­re­sen­ta­tive for dis­ar­ma­ment affairs, said the Unit­ed Nations was “not aware of any bio­log­i­cal weapons pro­grams.” . . . .