FTR#1257 Pandemics, Inc., Part 7 (Too Much Monkeypox Business)
This program continues discussion and analysis of the consortium of EcoHealth Analysis, Metabiota, In-Q-Tel and Munich Re–an association inextricably linked with biological warfare and generation of the Covid-19 pandemic.
First, we review the fact that Metabiota–which uses AI and social media scraping (among other tools) to gauge the “fear factor” involved with pandemic readiness (and the associated pandemic insurance policies)–was gauging the fear factor for monkey pox, which had manifested some human infections in the Congo as “low.”
This was in early 2020. Now, the disease is on the “front burner,” so to speak. People are afraid of the “new pandemic.”
Despite only 306 documented cases in the U.S. (as of 6/28/2022), hundreds of thousands of vaccine doses are being readied for human use.
The disease bears an epidemiological similarity to AIDS: an African monkey virus infecting gay males with multiple sex partners.
In addition, we review an excerpting of an op-ed column by Scott Gottlieb, the head of the FDA under Trump, a member of the conservative American Enterprise Institute and a member of the board of directors of Pfizer.
He notes that the new agency created by Biden to deal with monkeypox and other emerging infections was formerly: ” . . . . an office inside the Department of Health and Human Services that is charged with coordinating the federal response to bioterrorism . . . .”
Media coverage of the outbreak characterizes monkeypox as a disease afflicting primarily gay males with multiple sex partners–similar to the epidemiology of the early AIDS outbreak.
Much of the broadcast consists of information indicating the possibility of airborne transmission of monkeypox. NB: Mr. Emory cannot comment definitely on this possibility–he presents this analysis to note the possibility.
We conclude that children have contracted the disease, without engaging in the behavior associated with the spread of monkeypox, although this is apparently quite rare.
FTR#1256 Pandemics Inc., Part 6
By way of introduction, we present a link to a short Twitter video by Professor Jeffrey Sachs.
NB: The information in this program and accompanying description is largely a recap of material presented in the first five programs in this series. It is repeated and presented in a different order in the audio file.
This repetition is due to: A) the highly technical nature of much of the discussion of the viral composition of SARS CoV‑2 and related viruses and B) the tremendous significance of this information.
Continuing analysis of a frightening consortium of institutions apparently linked to the deliberate genesis of Covid-19, this program reiterates elements of analysis from FTR#‘s 1254 & 1255, presenting the information in a different sequence for increased understanding and retention.
Those institutions are: EcoHealth Alliance, Metabiota, In-Q-Tel and Munich Reinsurance.
Taken together, a number of points of information highlighted here go a long way to proving the legal concept of “consciousness of guilt,” the guilt being intent to create the pandemic and knowledge that such a thing was done.
(The information presented here should be taken in conjunction with information presented in–among other programs–FTR#‘s 1251, 1252 and 1253. In turn, those programs are developments of documentation presented in our many programs about Covid-19.)
Of paramount importance in evaluating the material here and in the other broadcasts about Covid-19 is the development of synthetic biology and the manner in which it enables biological warfare: “ . . . Advances in the area mean that scientists now have the capability to recreate dangerous viruses from scratch; make harmful bacteria more deadly; and modify common microbes so that they churn out lethal toxins once they enter the body. . . In the report, the scientists describe how synthetic biology, which gives researchers precision tools to manipulate living organisms, ‘enhances and expands’ opportunities to create bioweapons. . . . Today, the genetic code of almost any mammalian virus can be found online and synthesised. ‘The technology to do this is available now,’ said [Michael] Imperiale. “It requires some expertise, but it’s something that’s relatively easy to do, and that is why it tops the list. . . .”
Going a long way toward proving consciousness of guilt are:
1.–The behavior of Peter Daszak and colleagues in “gaming” the Lancet statement on the “natural” origin of the coronavirus (Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance–funded and advised by the national security establishment–is implicated in the creation of the SARS COV‑2.)
2.–The reaction of government officials to Trump administration officials into the origins of the virus, advising would be investigators that such inquiries would open a “can of worms,” or “a Pandora’s Box” because it would should light on U.S. funding of the projects.
3.–Metabiota–partnered with EcoHealth Alliance–was networked with In-Q-Tel (the intelligence community’s venture capital arm) and Munich Re to provide pandemic insurance. Their 2018 business model directly foreshadowed the pandemic. In 2018, as well, EcoHealth Alliance proposed a “novel coronavirus” for synthesis by DARPA. Although there is no evidence that DARPA synthesized the virus, the U.S. did synthesize closely related viruses. With the genome of that novel virus having been published, it may well have been synthesized either by DARPA or someone else, given the contemporary technology. Again, this, also was in 2018.
4.–Many aspects of the SARS COV‑2 virus, including its curious FCS site and institutionalized obfuscation of aspects of the pandemic it caused suggest deliberate cover-up. Why would the NIH redact 290 pages of a document requested by an FOIA suit!! Why were sequences of bat coronavirus genomes removed from public view?
It’s remarkable just how damning our beginning article is.
Co-author of the letter to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and former chairman of the Lancet’s commission on the origins of the pandemic, Sachs is someone in a position to bring real public attention to this topic, if he chooses to do so. The authors make a compelling case for an independent investigation, and who would be in a better position than Sachs to make this case publicly after he disbanded his Lancet Commission over these kinds of concerns? That’s all part of what is going to make this a story to watch.
This article has some remarkable points of information to be considered and it is altogether welcome and important that someone of Dr. Sachs’ high professional profile and prestige has come forward:
1.–“ . . . . The NIH could say more about the possible role of its grantees in the emergence of SARS-CoV‑2, yet the agency has failed to reveal to the public the possibility that SARS-CoV‑2 emerged from a research-associated event, even though several researchers raised that concern on February 1, 2020, in a phone conversation that was documented by email (5). Those emails were released to the public only through FOIA, and they suggest that the NIH leadership took an early and active role in promoting the ‘zoonotic hypothesis’ and the rejection of the laboratory-associated hypothesis. . . .”
2.–“ . . . . The NIH has resisted the release of important evidence, such as the grant proposals and project reports of EHA, and has continued to redact materials released under FOIA, including a remarkable 290-page redaction in a recent FOIA release. . . .”
3.–“ . . . . Acting NIH Director Lawrence Tabak testified before Congress that several such sequences in a US database were removed from public view. . . .”
4.–“ . . . . Special concerns surround the presence of an unusual furin cleavage site (FCS) in SARS-CoV‑2 (10) that augments the pathogenicity and transmissibility of the virus relative to related viruses like SARS-CoV‑1 (11, 12). SARS-CoV‑2 is, to date, the only identified member of the subgenus sarbecovirus that contains an FCS, although these are present in other coronaviruses (13, 14). A portion of the sequence of the spike protein of some of these viruses is illustrated in the alignment shown in Fig. 1, illustrating the unusual nature of the FCS and its apparent insertion in SARS-CoV‑2 (15).From the first weeks after the genome sequence of SARS-CoV‑2 became available, researchers have commented on the unexpected presence of the FCS within SARS-CoV‑2—the implication being that SARS-CoV‑2 might be a product of laboratory manipulation. In a review piece arguing against this possibility, it was asserted that the amino acid sequence of the FCS in SARS-CoV‑2 is an unusual, nonstandard sequence for an FCS and that nobody in a laboratory would design such a novel FCS (13). . . .”
5.–“ . . . . In fact, the assertion that the FCS in SARS-CoV‑2 has an unusual, nonstandard amino acid sequence is false. . . . (The one non-human non-great ape species with the same sequence is Pipistrellus kuhlii, a bat species found in Europe and Western Asia; other bat species, including Rhinolophus ferrumequinem, have a different FCS sequence in ENaC a [RKAR’SAAS]). . . .”
5.–“ . . . . We do know that the insertion of such FCS sequences into SARS-like viruses was a specific goal of work proposed by the EHA-WIV-UNC partnership within a 2018 grant proposal (“DEFUSE”) that was submitted to the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) (25).The 2018 proposal to DARPA was not funded, but we do not know whether some of the proposed work was subsequently carried out in 2018 or 2019, perhaps using another source of funding. . . .”
6.–“ . . . . We also know that that this research team would be familiar with several previous experiments involving the successful insertion of an FCS sequence into SARS-CoV‑1 (26) and other coronaviruses, and they had a lot of experience in construction of chimeric SARS-like viruses (27–29). In addition, the research team would also have some familiarity with the FCS sequence and the FCS-dependent activation mechanism of human ENaC (19), which was extensively characterized at UNC (17, 18).For a research team assessing the pandemic potential of SARS-related coronaviruses, the FCS of human ENaC—an FCS known to be efficiently cleaved by host furin present in the target location (epithelial cells) of an important target organ (lung), of the target organism (human)—might be a rational, if not obvious, choice of FCS to introduce into a virus to alter its infectivity, in line with other work performed previously. . . .”
7.–“ . . . . Of course, the molecular mimicry of ENaC within the SARS-CoV‑2 spike protein might be a mere coincidence, although one with a very low probability. The exact FCS sequence present in SARS-CoV‑2 has recently been introduced into the spike protein of SARS-CoV‑1 in the laboratory, in an elegant series of experiments (12, 30), with predictable consequences in terms of enhanced viral transmissibility and pathogenicity. Obviously, the creation of such SARS‑1/2 “chimeras” is an area of some concern for those responsible for present and future regulation of this area of biology. . . .”
8.–“ . . . . Information now held by the research team headed by EHA (7), as well as the communications of that research team with US research funding agencies, including NIH, USAID, DARPA, DTRA, and the Department of Homeland Security, could shed considerable light on the experiments undertaken by the US-funded research team and on the possible relationship, if any, between those experiments and the emergence of SARS-CoV‑2. . . .”
Recapping information from our “Oswald Institute of Virology” series, we note that Trump officials who were looking to tout the Chinese “lab-leak” hypothesis were told to avoid the topic, lest it create problems for the U.S.
Note, as well, that both Peter Daszak and Ralph Baric, associated with EcoHealth Alliance, were engaged in dubious maneuvering to eclipse attention on the possible U.S. sponsorship of the SARS COV‑2 gain-of-function manipulations.
1.–” . . . . It soon emerged, based on emails obtained by a Freedom of Information group called U.S. Right to Know, that Daszak had not only signed but organized the influential Lancet statement, with the intention of concealing his role and creating the impression of scientific unanimity. . . .”
2.–” . . . . In one State Department meeting, officials seeking to demand transparency from the Chinese government say they were explicitly told by colleagues not to explore the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s gain-of-function research, because it would bring unwelcome attention to U.S. government funding of it. . . . because it would ‘open a can of worms’ if it continued.’. . .”
3.–” . . . . As the group probed the lab-leak scenario, among other possibilities, its members were repeatedly advised not to open a ‘Pandora’s box,’ said four former State Department officials interviewed by Vanity Fair. The admonitions ‘smelled like a cover-up,’ said Thomas DiNanno . . . .”
Next, the program reviews an excerpting of a “Wired” Magazine article about the Metabiota/Munich Reinsurance project.
Bear in mind that In-Q-Tel, the venture capital arm of the CIA and the intelligence community, is greasing the wheels of this project with financing.
We highlight two key points of information:
1.–The business success of the pandemic insurance would necessarily incorporate analysis of the “fear factor” of potential pandemic pathogens: ” . . . . As sophisticated as Metabiota’s system was, however, it would need to be even more refined to incorporate into an insurance policy. The model would need to capture something much more difficult to quantify than historical deaths and medical stockpiles: fear. The economic consequences of a scourge, the historical data showed, were as much a result of society’s response as they were to the virus itself. . . . The Sentiment Index was built to be, as Oppenheim put it, ‘a catalog of dread.’ For any given pathogen, it could spit out a score from 0 to 100 according to how frightening the public would find it. . . . Madhav and her team, along with Wolfe and Oppenheim, also researched the broader economic consequences of disease outbreaks, measured in the ‘cost per death prevented’ incurred by societal interventions. ‘Measures that decreased person-to-person contact, including social distancing, quarantine, and school closures, had the greatest cost per death prevented, most likely because of the amount of economic disruption caused by those measures,’ they wrote in a 2018 paper. . . .”
2.–More sinister, still, is the fact that Metabiota had analyzed the scenario of a novel coronavirus pandemic two years before it happened. This appears to be the 2018 paper referred to above. Do not fail to note that, at the time that Metabiota was running this scenario, they were partnered with EcoHealth Alliance, which was using Pentagon and USAID money to research and perform gain-of-function on these types of coronaviruses!! ” . . . . As the human and economic devastation multiplied in tandem across the globe, Metabiota’s employees suddenly found themselves living inside their own model’s projections. Just two years earlier, the company had run a large set of scenarios forecasting the consequences of a novel coronavirus spreading around the globe. . . .”
Pivoting to a another interesting, emerging disease that was a point of interest for Metabiota, we open a discussion of monkey pox, a disease that will be more completely discussed in the next program.
Metabiota was evaluating monkeypox in late 2019: ” . . . . it rated this risk for the monkeypox virus in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (where there have been reported cases of that virus) as ‘medium.’ . . .”
We conclude this program with an excerpting of an op-ed column by Scott Gottlieb, the head of the FDA under Trump, a member of the conservative American Enterprise Institute and a member of the board of directors of Pfizer.
He notes that the new agency created by Biden to deal with monkeypox and other emerging infections was formerly: ” . . . . an office inside the Department of Health and Human Services that is charged with coordinating the federal response to bioterrorism . . . .”
FTR#‘s 1254 & 1255 Pandemics, Inc., Parts 4 and 5
This program further develops the consortium of EcoHealth Alliance, Metabiota, In-Q-Tel and Munich Reinsurance.
By way of introduction, we present a link to a short Twitter video by Professor Jeffrey Sachs.
Taken together, a number of points of information highlighted here go a long way to proving the legal concept of “consciousness of guilt,” the guilt being intent to create the pandemic and knowledge that such a thing was done.
(The information presented here should be taken in conjunction with information presented in–among other programs–FTR#‘s 1251, 1252 and 1253. In turn, those programs are developments of documentation presented in our many programs about Covid-19.)
Of paramount importance in evaluating the material here and in the other broadcasts about Covid-19 is the development of synthetic biology and the manner in which it enables biological warfare: “ . . . Advances in the area mean that scientists now have the capability to recreate dangerous viruses from scratch; make harmful bacteria more deadly; and modify common microbes so that they churn out lethal toxins once they enter the body. . . In the report, the scientists describe how synthetic biology, which gives researchers precision tools to manipulate living organisms, ‘enhances and expands’ opportunities to create bioweapons. . . . Today, the genetic code of almost any mammalian virus can be found online and synthesised. ‘The technology to do this is available now,’ said [Michael] Imperiale. “It requires some expertise, but it’s something that’s relatively easy to do, and that is why it tops the list. . . .”
Going a long way toward proving consciousness of guilt are:
1.–The behavior of Peter Daszak and colleagues in “gaming” the Lancet statement on the “natural” origin of the coronavirus (Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance–funded and advised by the national security establishment–is implicated in the creation of the SARS COV‑2.)
2.–The reaction of government officials to Trump administration officials into the origins of the virus, advising would be investigators that such inquiries would open a “can of worms,” or “a Pandora’s Box” because it would should light on U.S. funding of the projects.
3.–Metabiota–partnered with EcoHealth Alliance–was networked with In-Q-Tel (the intelligence community’s venture capital arm) and Munich Re to provide pandemic insurance. Their 2018 business model directly foreshadowed the pandemic. In 2018, as well, EcoHealth Alliance proposed a “novel coronavirus” for synthesis by DARPA. Although there is no evidence that DARPA synthesized the virus, the U.S. did synthesize closely related viruses. With the genome of that novel virus having been published, it may well have been synthesized either by DARPA or someone else, given the contemporary technology. Again, this, also was in 2018.
4.–Many aspects of the SARS COV‑2 virus, including its curious FCS site and institutionalized obfuscation of aspects of the pandemic it caused suggest deliberate cover-up. Why would the NIH redact 290 pages of a document requested by an FOIA suit!! Why were sequences of bat coronavirus genomes removed from public view?
We begin by noting the OUN/B affiliation of Ulana Suprun, who was the Ukrainian Minister of Health from 2016 until2019, placing her very much “in the mix” with Andrew C. Weber and the Metabiota, EcoHealth Alliance and Munich Re consortium.
” . . . . Suprun is the husband of the Ukrainian American Ulana Suprun, a prominent Bandera enthusiast with ties to the Ukrainian far-right who served as the Healthcare Minister of Ukraine from July 2016 through August 2019. . . .”
We can confidently conclude that Metabiota founder NathanWolfe was in Jeffrey Epstein’s orbit.
We include a link to an excellent Covert Action Magazine article about Epstein and his myriad intelligence connections for the convenience of the listener and requisite background information.
Recapping information from our “Oswald Institute of Virology” series, we note that Trump officials who were looking to tout the Chinese “lab-leak” hypothesis were told to avoid the topic, lest it create problems for the U.S.
Note, as well, that both Peter Daszak and Ralph Baric, associated with EcoHealth Alliance, were engaged in dubious maneuvering to eclipse attention on the possible U.S. sponsorship of the SARS COV‑2 gain-of-function manipulations.
1.–” . . . . It soon emerged, based on emails obtained by a Freedom of Information group called U.S. Right to Know, that Daszak had not only signed but organized the influential Lancet statement, with the intention of concealing his role and creating the impression of scientific unanimity. . . .”
2.–” . . . . In one State Department meeting, officials seeking to demand transparency from the Chinese government say they were explicitly told by colleagues not to explore the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s gain-of-function research, because it would bring unwelcome attention to U.S. government funding of it. . . . because it would ‘‘open a can of worms’ if it continued.’. . .”
3.–” . . . . As the group probed the lab-leak scenario, among other possibilities, its members were repeatedly advised not to open a ‘Pandora’s box,’ said four former State Department officials interviewed by Vanity Fair. The admonitions ‘smelled like a cover-up,’ said Thomas DiNanno . . . .”
In our exhaustive series on the Covid-19 pandemic, we have presented overwhelming evidence that the SARS CoV‑2 was synthesized in a U.S. lab.
Having chaired a Lancet commission to investigate the origins of SARS CoV‑2, Dr. Jeffrey Sachs is “pretty convinced” that the virus came from a U.S. laboratory.
He opines that it was a “blunder.”
Although we believe Covid-19 was a biological warfare attack, we are greatly encouraged that someone of Sachs’ stature has come forward in this regard.
In many past programs, we have highlighted institutions implicated in the apparent “bio-skullduggery” surrounding the U.S. biological warfare gambit involving what Mr. Emory has termed “The Oswald Institute of Virology.” This is discussed in: FTR#‘s 1157–1159, 1170, 1183 through 1193, and 1215.
The essence of the “Oswald Institute of Virology” gambit concerns the DTRA and Pentagon funding of bat-borne coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, much of it through Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance. Once the research was complete, it resulted in publication which included the genome of the bat viruses being researched. Using technology discussed above (in the Guardian article), the viruses were then synthesized from scratch and population groups were vectored with the same viral strains being researched by the WIV.
Dr. Sachs’ ruminations about a U.S. biological laboratory origin of SARS-CoV‑2 are fleshed out in an interview–featured on his website–with the Tehran Times.
Note that he continues to opine that the release was a “blunder” and that it did not result from biological warfare research. Again, this is modified limited hangout.
Next, the program reviews an excerpting of a Wired Magazine article about the Metabiota/Munich Reinsurance project.
Bear in mind that In-Q-Tel, the venture capital arm of the CIA and the intelligence community, is greasing the wheels of this project with financing.
We highlight two key points of information:
1.–The business success of the pandemic insurance would necessarily incorporate analysis of the “fear factor” of potential pandemic pathogens: ” . . . . As sophisticated as Metabiota’s system was, however, it would need to be even more refined to incorporate into an insurance policy. The model would need to capture something much more difficult to quantify than historical deaths and medical stockpiles: fear. The economic consequences of a scourge, the historical data showed, were as much a result of society’s response as they were to the virus itself. . . . The Sentiment Index was built to be, as Oppenheim put it, ‘a catalog of dread.’ For any given pathogen, it could spit out a score from 0 to 100 according to how frightening the public would find it. . . . Madhav and her team, along with Wolfe and Oppenheim, also researched the broader economic consequences of disease outbreaks, measured in the ‘cost per death prevented’ incurred by societal interventions. ‘Measures that decreased person-to-person contact, including social distancing, quarantine, and school closures, had the greatest cost per death prevented, most likely because of the amount of economic disruption caused by those measures,’ they wrote in a 2018 paper. . . .”
2.–More sinister, still, is the fact that Metabiota had analyzed the scenario of a novel coronavirus pandemic two years before it happened. This appears to be the 2018 paper referred to above. Do not fail to note that, at the time that Metabiota was running this scenario, they were partnered with EcoHealth Alliance, which was using Pentagon and USAID money to research and perform gain-of-function on these types of coronaviruses!! ” . . . . As the human and economic devastation multiplied in tandem across the globe, Metabiota’s employees suddenly found themselves living inside their own model’s projections. Just two years earlier, the company had run a large set of scenarios forecasting the consequences of a novel coronavirus spreading around the globe. . . .”
Despite our deep reservations about Jeffrey Sachs—expressed in numerous programs and posts–it’s remarkable just how damning our concluding article is.
Sachs is someone in a position to bring real public attention to this topic, if he chooses to do so. The authors make a compelling case for an independent investigation, and who would be in a better position than Sachs to make this case publicly after he disbanded his Lancet Commission over these kinds of concerns? That’s all part of what is going to make this a story to watch.
“ . . . . Information now held by the research team headed by EHA (7), as well as the communications of that research team with US research funding agencies, including NIH, USAID, DARPA, DTRA, and the Department of Homeland Security, could shed considerable light on the experiments undertaken by the US-funded research team and on the possible relationship, if any, between those experiments and the emergence of SARS-CoV‑2. . . .”
If our suspicions about Sachs are well-founded, he might be in position to control the results that do emerge.
Nonetheless, this article has some remarkable points of information to be considered and it is altogether welcome and important that someone of Dr. Sachs’ high professional profile and prestige has come forward:
1.–“ . . . . Much of the work on SARS-like CoVs performed in Wuhan was part of an active and highly collaborative US–China scientific research program funded by the US Government (NIH, Defense Threat Reduction Agency [DTRA—Pentagon, D.E.], and US Agency for International Development [USAID]—State Department, frequent cover for CIA, D.E.), coordinated by researchers at EcoHealth Alliance (EHA—Chief funders are Pentagon, USAID, science and policy advisor is David Franz, former commanding officer of the U.S. Army Research Institute of Infectious Disease—D.E.), but involving researchers at several other US institutions. For this reason, it is important that US institutions be transparent about any knowledge of the detailed activities that were underway in Wuhan and in the United States. The evidence may also suggest that research institutions in other countries were involved, and those too should be asked to submit relevant information (e.g., with respect to unpublished sequences). . . .”
2.–“ . . . . as outlined below, much could be learned by investigating US-supported and US-based work that was underway in collaboration with Wuhan-based institutions, including the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), China. It is still not clear whether the IC investigated these US-supported and US-based activities. If it did, it has yet to make any of its findings available to the US scientific community for independent and transparent analysis and assessment. If, on the other hand, the IC [Intelligence Community] did not investigate these US-supported and US-based activities, then it has fallen far short of conducting a comprehensive investigation. . . .”
3.–“ . . . . Participating US institutions include the EHA, the University of North Carolina (UNC), the University of California at Davis (UCD), the NIH, and the USAID.Under a series of NIH grants and USAID contracts, EHA coordinated the collection of SARS-like bat CoVs from the field in southwest China and southeast Asia, the sequencing of these viruses, the archiving of these sequences (involving UCD), and the analysis and manipulation of these viruses (notably at UNC). A broad spectrum of coronavirus research work was done not only in Wuhan (including groups at Wuhan University and the Wuhan CDC, as well as WIV) but also in the United States. The exact details of the fieldwork and laboratory work of the EHA-WIV-UNC partnership, and the engagement of other institutions in the United States and China, has not been disclosed for independent analysis. The precise nature of the experiments that were conducted, including the full array of viruses collected from the field and the subsequent sequencing and manipulation of those viruses, remains unknown. . . .”
4.–“ . . . . The NIH could say more about the possible role of its grantees in the emergence of SARS-CoV‑2, yet the agency has failed to reveal to the public the possibility that SARS-CoV‑2 emerged from a research-associated event, even though several researchers raised that concern on February 1, 2020, in a phone conversation that was documented by email (5). Those emails were released to the public only through FOIA, and they suggest that the NIH leadership took an early and active role in promoting the ‘zoonotic hypothesis’ and the rejection of the laboratory-associated hypothesis. . . .”
5.–“ . . . . The NIH has resisted the release of important evidence, such as the grant proposals and project reports of EHA, and has continued to redact materials released under FOIA, including a remarkable 290-page redaction in a recent FOIA release. . . .”
6.–“ . . . . Acting NIH Director Lawrence Tabak testified before Congress that several such sequences in a US database were removed from public view. . . .”
7.–“ . . . . Special concerns surround the presence of an unusual furin cleavage site (FCS) in SARS-CoV‑2 (10) that augments the pathogenicity and transmissibility of the virus relative to related viruses like SARS-CoV‑1 (11, 12). SARS-CoV‑2 is, to date, the only identified member of the subgenus sarbecovirus that contains an FCS, although these are present in other coronaviruses (13, 14). A portion of the sequence of the spike protein of some of these viruses is illustrated in the alignment shown in Fig. 1, illustrating the unusual nature of the FCS and its apparent insertion in SARS-CoV‑2 (15).From the first weeks after the genome sequence of SARS-CoV‑2 became available, researchers have commented on the unexpected presence of the FCS within SARS-CoV‑2—the implication being that SARS-CoV‑2 might be a product of laboratory manipulation. In a review piece arguing against this possibility, it was asserted that the amino acid sequence of the FCS in SARS-CoV‑2 is an unusual, nonstandard sequence for an FCS and that nobody in a laboratory would design such a novel FCS (13). . . .”
8.–“ . . . . In fact, the assertion that the FCS in SARS-CoV‑2 has an unusual, nonstandard amino acid sequence is false. The amino acid sequence of the FCS in SARS-CoV‑2 also exists in the human ENaC a subunit (16), where it is known to be functional and has been extensively studied (17, 18). The FCS of human ENaC a has the amino acid sequence RRAR’SVAS ( 2), an eight–amino-acid sequence that is perfectly identical with the FCS of SARS-CoV‑2 (16).ENaC is an epithelial sodium channel, expressed on the apical surface of epithelial cells in the kidney, colon, and airways (19, 20), that plays a critical role in controlling fluid exchange. The ENaC a subunit has a functional FCS (17, 18) that is essential for ion channel function (19) and has been characterized in a variety of species. The FCS sequence of human ENaC a (20) is identical in chimpanzee, bonobo, orangutan, and gorilla (SI Appendix , Fig. 1), but diverges in all other species, even primates, except one. (The one non-human non-great ape species with the same sequence is Pipistrellus kuhlii, a bat species found in Europe and Western Asia; other bat species, including Rhinolophus ferrumequinem, have a different FCS sequence in ENaC a [RKAR’SAAS]). . . .”
9.–“ . . . . One consequence of this “molecular mimicry” between the FCS of SARS CoV‑2 spike and the FCS of human ENaC is competition for host furin in the lumen of the Golgi apparatus, where the SARS-CoV‑2 spike is processed. This results in a decrease in human ENaC expression (21). A decrease in human ENaC expression compromises airway function and has been implicated as a contributing factor in the pathogenesis of COVID-19 (22). Another consequence of this astonishing molecular mimicry is evidenced by apparent cross-reactivity with human ENaC of antibodies from COVID-19 patients, with the highest levels of cross-reacting antibodies directed against this epitope being associated with most severe disease (23). [Auto-immune reaction, possibly overlapping mRNA vaccines—D.E.]. . . .”
10.–“ . . . . We do know that the insertion of such FCS sequences into SARS-like viruses was a specific goal of work proposed by the EHA-WIV-UNC partnership within a 2018 grant proposal (“DEFUSE”) that was submitted to the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) (25).The 2018 proposal to DARPA was not funded, but we do not know whether some of the proposed work was subsequently carried out in 2018 or 2019, perhaps using another source of funding. . . .”
11.–“ . . . . We also know that that this research team would be familiar with several previous experiments involving the successful insertion of an FCS sequence into SARS-CoV‑1 (26) and other coronaviruses, and they had a lot of experience in construction of chimeric SARS-like viruses (27–29). In addition, the research team would also have some familiarity with the FCS sequence and the FCS-dependent activation mechanism of human ENaC (19), which was extensively characterized at UNC (17, 18).For a research team assessing the pandemic potential of SARS-related coronaviruses, the FCS of human ENaC—an FCS known to be efficiently cleaved by host furin present in the target location (epithelial cells) of an important target organ (lung), of the target organism (human)—might be a rational, if not obvious, choice of FCS to introduce into a virus to alter its infectivity, in line with other work performed previously. . . .”
12.–“ . . . . Of course, the molecular mimicry of ENaC within the SARS-CoV‑2 spike protein might be a mere coincidence, although one with a very low probability. The exact FCS sequence present in SARS-CoV‑2 has recently been introduced into the spike protein of SARS-CoV‑1 in the laboratory, in an elegant series of experiments (12, 30), with predictable consequences in terms of enhanced viral transmissibility and pathogenicity. Obviously, the creation of such SARS‑1/2 “chimeras” is an area of some concern for those responsible for present and future regulation of this area of biology. . . .”
13.–“ . . . . Information now held by the research team headed by EHA (7), as well as the communications of that research team with US research funding agencies, including NIH, USAID, DARPA, DTRA, and the Department of Homeland Security, could shed considerable light on the experiments undertaken by the US-funded research team and on the possible relationship, if any, between those experiments and the emergence of SARS-CoV‑2. . . .”
FTR#1253 Pandemics, Inc., Part 3
This program continues analysis of the “Pandemics, Inc.” consortium of Metabiota, EcoHealth Alliance, In-Q-Tel and Munich Re.
We note that Andrew C. Weber–a key executive of Metabiota–had an interesting background: ” . . . . He joined Metabiota in February 2016 as Head of Global Partnerships in the Government Business Unit. . . . He served until October 2014 as Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical & Biological Defense Programs. . . .”
Weber was in that post at Metabiota when, in October of 2016, Metabiota initiated its projects in Ukraine.
Next, the program reviews an excerpting of a Wired Magazine article about the Metabiota/Munich Reinsurance project.
Bear in mind that In-Q-Tel, the venture capital arm of the CIA and the intelligence community, is greasing the wheels of this project with financing.
We highlight two key points of information:
1.–The business success of the pandemic insurance would necessarily incorporate analysis of the “fear factor” of potential pandemic pathogens: ” . . . . As sophisticated as Metabiota’s system was, however, it would need to be even more refined to incorporate into an insurance policy. The model would need to capture something much more difficult to quantify than historical deaths and medical stockpiles: fear. The economic consequences of a scourge, the historical data showed, were as much a result of society’s response as they were to the virus itself. . . . The Sentiment Index was built to be, as Oppenheim put it, ‘a catalog of dread.’ For any given pathogen, it could spit out a score from 0 to 100 according to how frightening the public would find it. . . . Madhav and her team, along with Wolfe and Oppenheim, also researched the broader economic consequences of disease outbreaks, measured in the ‘cost per death prevented’ incurred by societal interventions. ‘Measures that decreased person-to-person contact, including social distancing, quarantine, and school closures, had the greatest cost per death prevented, most likely because of the amount of economic disruption caused by those measures,’ they wrote in a 2018 paper. . . .”
2.–More sinister, still, is the fact that Metabiota had analyzed the scenario of a novel coronavirus pandemic two years before it happened. This appears to be the 2018 paper referred to above. Do not fail to note that, at the time that Metabiota was running this scenario, they were partnered with EcoHealth Alliance, which was using Pentagon and USAID money to research and perform gain-of-function on these types of coronaviruses!! ” . . . . As the human and economic devastation multiplied in tandem across the globe, Metabiota’s employees suddenly found themselves living inside their own model’s projections. Just two years earlier, the company had run a large set of scenarios forecasting the consequences of a novel coronavirus spreading around the globe. . . .”
Next, we review aspects of important article presents depth on a number of overlapping considerations about biological warfare, the Covid “op” and the Ukraine war.
Of particular importance, here, is H5N1’s potential significance of the In-Q-Tel, Metabiota, Munich Re pandemic insurance consortium.
In addition to the H5N1’s real or potential impact on businesses involved with one aspect or another of commercial poultry, the possibility that a weaponized/zoonotic mutation of the virus could spawn a devastating human pandemic could be a major driver of “fear” and the willingness of businesses to purchase pandemic insurance.
Key Points of Analysis and Discussion Include:
1.–” . . . . The emergence of the virus in 1997 in Hong Kong was eerily predicted by Kennedy Shortridge, the scientist who would discover it. H5N1 didn’t infect humans until Shortridge and his colleagues had been studying its human infection potential in their labs for several years. At the time, the natural leap of a flu directly from poultry to humans was so improbable that scientists first suspected that it was the result of contamination from Shortridge’s lab. . . .”
2.–Normally, H5N1 human infections are extremely rare: ” . . . . H5N1 hardly ever infects people. News about highly pathogenic avian influenza usually leads with how deadly it is. Rarely is it mentioned that the disease hardly ever infects people. H5N1 kills more than half of the people who get it, but H5N1 has circled the globe for decades and there have only ever been 860 human infections worldwide. . . .”
3.–More about how rare human infections are and the rise of avian infections in 2022: ” . . . . There has never been an H5N1 pandemic and no human infectionwith H5N1 bird flu has ever been identified in the U.S. That’s an extraordinary safety record, given how filthy U.S. factory farms and slaughterhouses are and how fast the infection spreads among crowded birds. So far in 2022, 29 states have reported outbreaks of bird flu in 213 flocks resulting in the culling of nearly 31 million birds, including almost 5 percent of egg-laying hens. In 2015, it was even worse with 50 million birds culled, but there wasn’t a single human case. . . .”
4.–” . . . . Anthony Fauci has made significant investments in gain-of-function research to give H5N1 pandemic potential, making it easily transmissible from person to person—and Bill Gates chipped in, too! . . .”
5.–” . . . . In February 2006, Fauci convened a one-day in-house ‘NIAID Influenza Research Summit’ to identify influenza research priorities. In September, he opened up the topic to a 35-member ‘Blue Ribbon Panel on Influenza Research’ that included Fouchier and Kawaoka. The Blue Ribbon panel’s report doesn’t mention gain-of-function experiments, but Fauci gave them grants to do just that. [Ron] Fouchier and [Yoshihiro] Kawaoka’s now infamous gain-of-function research showed that, through lab manipulation, H5N1 could be altered to become highly transmissible among humans via airborne infection. . . .”
6.–” . . . . The first human H5N1 outbreak occurred in Hong Kong in 1997, the year of what the British call the ‘Hong Kong handover,’ when sovereignty over Hong Kong was transferred from the U.K. to China. It was during this ‘politically sensitive’ year that Kennedy Shortridge, an Australian scientist who was the director of the World Health Organization’s reference laboratory at the University of Hong Kong, confirmed human cases of highly pathogenic bird flu. . . .”
7.–” . . . .The 1997 Hong Kong H5N1 virus was unique in every respect. Time magazine reported, ‘On the H gene at a point called the cleavage site, [was] found a telltale mutation, the same kind of mutation found in other highly pathogenic avian viruses. …The virus … had regions that were identical to portions of [an] avian virus that struck Pennsylvania [chickens] in 1983.” The L.A. Times reported, ‘The H5 piece came from a virus in a goose. The N1 piece came from a second virus in a quail. The remaining flu genes came from a third virus, also in quail.’ . . . .”
8.–” . . . . Shortridge had been studying how avian influenza viruses spread to humans since 1975. Prior to discovering H5N1, Shortridge eerily predicted its emergence. As Frank Ching reported in ‘Bird Flu, SARS and Beyond’: As early as 1982, Shortridge had labeled southern China, where humans and domestic animals lived in close proximity, ‘an epicenter for the origin of pandemics.’ Ten years later, he called southern China a ‘virus soup’ and warned that pandemic influenza was a zoonosis, that is, it could be transmitted from animals to humans and, in 1995, he warned that influenza in southern China could not properly be called an ’emerging’ infection because it was constantly lurking. ‘Elusive might be more apt,’ he wrote. . . .”
9.–” . . . . An example of Shortridge’s penchant for such predictions is his 1995 Lancet article “The next pandemic influenza virus?” Curiously, H5N1 emerged two years later, in 1997, in the same city where Shortridge worked, Hong Kong. . . .”
10.–” . . . . At the time, the natural leap of a flu directly from poultry to humans was thought to be so unlikely that scientists first suspected contamination from Shortridge’s lab was the cause of the highly improbable H5N1 diagnosis. How would that contamination happen unless Shortridge hadn’t already been working with H5N1 in the lab? . . .”
11.–” . . . . H5N1 didn’t cause disease in humans until this potential had been studied in a lab for several years. Fauci had been funding Kawaoka and Fouchier’s efforts to get bird flu to leap to humans since 1990 and their work was connected to what Shortridge was doing in Hong Kong. For seven years prior to the first human H5N1 outbreak in 1997, Fauci had been funding Kawaoka’s gain-of-function bird flu research at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital and Kawaoka’s mentor there, Robert G. Webster, was working and publishing with Shortridge. Every year, Webster spent three months working with Shortridge at the University of Hong Kong, according to this profile of Webster which mentions Kawaoka as his protege. . . .”
12.–” . . . . The most eerie connection between Shortridge and Webster’s labs is that the closest known relative of the 1997 Hong Kong H5N1 was the avian virus that struck Pennsylvania chickens in 1983—that Yoshihiro Kawaoka had studied. According to Time magazine: Webster assigned a young scientist, Yoshihiro Kawaoka, to try to figure out how the [1983] virus transformed itself into such a ‘hot’ pathogen. Kawaoka, now a professor of virology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, compared the genetic structure of viruses from the first and second waves and found only a single, extremely subtle change in the H gene. The two viruses differed by just one nucleotide–one of 1,700 nucleotides that made up the gene. . . .”
13.–”. . . . There’s also a connection to Fouchier, through his mentor at the Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, Jan De Jong, also a colleague and collaborator of Shortridge and Webster’s. . . .”
14.–” . . . . Kawaoka’s colleague and mentor Robert G. Webster and Fouchier’s colleague and mentor Jan De Jong were the first scientists outside of Hong Kong to receive samples of the 1997 H5N1 flu from Shortridge’s lab. . . .”
15.–” . . . . De Jong is often credited with being the one who identified the 1997 Hong Kong flu as H5N1, but he did so with ‘a panel of reagents to every type of flu strain yet known’ that had been brought from Webster’s lab in Memphis to the National Influenza Centre in Rotterdam. . . .”
16.–” . . . . Kawaoka and Fouchier are of post-Biological Weapons Convention era where the weaponization of pathogens is euphemistically called ‘gain-of-function’ research, but their older colleagues, De Jong, Shortridge and Webster came of age prior to 1972 and their mentors were of the pre-Biological Weapons Convention era when virologists knowingly and openly engineered viruses for military purposes. . . .”
17.–” . . . . Shortridge and Webster were trained by Frank Macfarlane Burnet who served on the Australian Department of Defence’s New Weapons and Equipment Development Committee in the 1940s and 50s. The Federation of American Scientists lists some of the most chilling things Burnet recommended: Burnet … said Australia should develop biological weapons that would work in tropical Asia without spreading to Australia’s more temperate population centres. . . .”
18.–Burnet’s observations: ” . . . . ‘Specifically to the Australian situation, the most effective counter-offensive to threatened invasion by overpopulated Asiatic countries would be directed towards the destruction by biological or chemical means of tropical food crops and the dissemination of infectious disease capable of spreading in tropical but not under Australian conditions.’ . . .”
18.–The broadcast notes a frightening relationship between Metabiota and the selection of Philip Zelikow to head a commission to determine the origin of Covid-19: ” . . . . In 2008, Google.org committed $30 million to virus hunting and gain-of-function research on potential pandemic pathogens through a project it called Predict and Prevent. At least $5.5 million of that went to Dr. Nathan Wolfe’s non-profit Global Viral Forecasting Initiative, which was soon to become the for-profit Metabiota. Other GVFI funders at the time included the Skoll Foundation, which also gave $5.5 million, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Merck Research Laboratories and the US Department of Defense. . . .”
19.–” . . . . When the GVFI became the for-profit Metabiota, Google Ventures continued to invest. In addition, it created a business partnership with Metabiota, ‘offering its big-data expertise to help the company serve its customers–insurers, government agencies and other organizations–by offering them forecasting and risk-management tools.’ In other words, they sell pandemic insurance. . . .”
20.–”. . . . Now that Metabiota has gotten caught up in the COVID origins scandal, its original investors, Eric Schmidt of Google, Jeffrey Skoll of EBay, Rajiv Shah of The Rockefeller Foundation (formerly USAID director, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation) chipped in to fund the COVID Commission Planning Group, a white-wash led by Philip Zelikow who gave us the 9–11 Commission cover-up. . . .”
21.–In past programs, we have noted that David Franz, former head of the U.S.A.M.R.I.I.D at Fort Detrick was a key advisor to EcoHealthAlliance. Franz helped produce the encapsulated, weapons-grade anthrax used in the 2001 anthrax attacks: ” . . . . One of Metabiota’s PREDICT partners is EcoHealth Alliance, whose science and policy advisor, David Franz, produced the anthrax used in the 2001 attacks while working for Southern Research and partnering with scientists at Battelle. . . .”
The program concludes with discussion of Munich Re’s deep political association with the Third Reich, both in its initial, above-ground phase and in its role as a critical element of the remarkable, lethal Bormann capital association.
FTR#‘s 1251 and 1252: Pandemics Inc., Parts 1 and 2
The first program begins by noting the joining of Metabiota with Munich Re, which, as we shall see, is working with that firm and an American insurance broker to offer pandemic insurance.
The firms are being financed by In-Q-Tel, the CIA and intelligence community’s venture capital wing!
To provide depth and insight to the discussion, we review some key aspects of Metabiota:
Highlights of the Discussion:
1.–” . . . . The commander of the Russian Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Protection Forces, claimed there was a ‘scheme of interaction between US government agencies and Ukrainian biological objects’ and pointed to the ‘financing of such activities by structures close to the current US leadership, in particular the investment fund Rosemont Seneca, which is headed by Hunter Biden.’. . .”
2.–” . . . . Moscow’s claim that Hunter Biden helped finance a US military ‘bioweapons’ research program in Ukraine is at least partially true, according to new emails obtained exclusively by DailyMail.com. . . .”
3.–” . . . . emails from Hunter’s abandoned laptop show he helped secure millions of dollars of funding for Metabiota, a Department of Defense contractor specializing in research on pandemic-causing diseases that could be used as bioweapons. . . .”
4.–” . . . . Metabiota has been an official partner of EcoHealth Alliance since 2014, according to its website. . . .”
5.–” . . . . He also introduced Metabiota to an allegedly corrupt Ukrainian gas firm, Burisma, for a ‘science project’ involving high biosecurity level labs in Ukraine . . . .”
6.–” . . . . Emails and defense contract data reviewed by DailyMail.com suggest that Hunter had a prominent role in making sure Metabiota was able to conduct its pathogen research just a few hundred miles from the border with Russia. . . .”
7.–” . . . . Metabiota has worked in Ukraine for Black & Veatch, a US defense contractor with deep ties to military intelligence agencies, which built secure labs in Ukraine that analyzed killer diseases and bioweapons. . . .”
8.–” . . . . Hunter was also particularly involved in Metabiota’s operations in Ukraine. Hunter’s pitches to investors claimed that they not only organized funding for the firm, they also helped it ‘get new customers’ including ‘government agencies in case of Metabiota’. . . .”
9.–” . . . . Former senior CIA officer Sam Faddis, who has reviewed emails on Hunter’s laptop, told DailyMail.com that the offer to help assert Ukraine’s independence was odd for a biotech executive [Metabiota vice-president Mary Guttieri]. ‘It raises the question, what is the real purpose of this venture? It’s very odd,’ he said. . . .”
10.–” . . . . Guttieri had a leading role in Metabiota’s Ukraine operations, meeting with other company executives and US and Ukrainian military officials in October 2016 to discuss ‘cooperation in surveillance and prevention of especially dangerous infectious diseases, including zoonotic diseases in Ukraine and neighboring countries’ according to a 2016 report by the Science and Technology Center in Ukraine. . . .”
11.–” . . . . Four days after Guttieri’s April 2014 email, Burisma executive Vadym Pozharskyi wrote to Hunter revealing that the then-Vice President’s son had pitched a ‘science project’ involving Burisma and Metabiota in Ukraine. ‘As I understand the Metabiota was a subcontract to principal contactor of the DoD B&V [Black & Veatch]. . . .”
12.–” . . . . Faddis told DailyMail.com that the attempt to get Metabiota to form a partnership with Burisma was a perplexing and worrying revelation. ‘His father was the Vice President of the United States and in charge of relations with Ukraine. So why was Hunter not only on the board of a suspect Ukrainian gas firm, but also hooked them up with a company working on bioweapons research?’ Faddis said. . . .”
13.–” . . . . ‘The DoD position is that . . . . this is pandemic early warning research. We don’t know for sure that’s all that was going on. . . .”
14.–” . . . . Government spending records show the Department of Defense awarded an $18.4million contract to Metabiota between February 2014 and November 2016, with $307,091 earmarked for ‘Ukraine research projects’. . . .”
15.–” . . . . The US Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) also commissioned B&V to build a Biological Safety Level 3 laboratory in Odessa, Ukraine in 2010, which ‘provided enhanced equipment and training to effectively, safely and securely identify especially dangerous pathogens’ according to a company press release. Such labs are used to ‘study infectious agents or toxins that may be transmitted through the air and cause potentially lethal infections,’ the US Department of Health and Human Services says. . . .”
16.–” . . . . In another sign of the deep ties between Metabiota and the Department of Defense, Hunter’s RSTP business partner Rob Walker said he would ‘have a friend reach out to DoD on the down low’, in order to prove the company’s bona fides to top prospective investors Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley in October 2014. . . .”
17.–” . . . . Metabiota also has close ties to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), suspected to be the source of the COVID-19 outbreak. WIV was a hotspot for controversial ‘gain of function’ research that can create super-strength viruses. Chinese scientists performed gain of function research on coronaviruses at the WIV, working alongside a US-backed organization EcoHealth Alliance that has since drawn intense scrutiny over its coronavirus research since the COVID-19 pandemic. Researchers from the Wuhan institute, Metabiota and EcoHealth Alliance published a study together in 2014 on infectious diseases from bats in China, which notes that tests were performed at the WIV. Shi Zhengli, the WIV Director of the Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases who became dubbed the ‘bat lady’ for her central role in bat coronavirus research at the lab, was a contributor to the paper. . . .”
Next, we note that Metabiota–which uses AI and social media scraping (among other tools) to gauge the “fear factor” involved with pandemic readiness (and the associated pandemic insurance policies)–was gauging the fear factor for monkey pox, which had manifested some human infections in the Congo as “low.”
This was in early 2020. Now, the disease is on the “front burner,” so to speak. People are afraid of the “new pandemic.”
Despite only 306 documented cases in the U.S. (as of 6/28/2022), hundreds of thousands of vaccine doses are being readied for human use.
The disease bears an epidemiological similarity to AIDS: an African monkey virus infecting gay males with multiple sex partners.
Note that the Wired Magazine article that will comprise the bulk of this program presents the ludicrous “chimpanzee” origins of AIDS, which we analyzed in FTR# 557.
Next, we review an excerpt from testimony before a House appropriations subcommittee that was drawing up the defense budget for the following year. (The hearings were in 1969.) The testimony discusses the possibility of using genetic engineering to produce a disease that would be “refractory” to the immune system. This is virtually the clinical definition of AIDS. It is worth noting that the project was funded, and just such a disease—AIDS—appeared in just the time frame posited. It is also worth noting that, in the 2002 edition of A Higher Form of Killing, this passage is omitted!!
We have covered AIDS as a biological warfare weapon in numerous programs, including: AFA#16, as well as FTR#‘s 16, 19, 606, 644, 682, 1115, 1123.
The first program concludes with the beginning of the reading of a long Wired Magazine article about the Metabiota/Munich Reinsurance project. The reading is completed in the second program.
Before reading the article as a whole, we highlight two key points of information:
1.–The business success of the pandemic insurance would necessarily incorporate analysis of the “fear factor” of potential pandemic pathogens: ” . . . . As sophisticated as Metabiota’s system was, however, it would need to be even more refined to incorporate into an insurance policy. The model would need to capture something much more difficult to quantify than historical deaths and medical stockpiles: fear. The economic consequences of a scourge, the historical data showed, were as much a result of society’s response as they were to the virus itself. . . . The Sentiment Index was built to be, as Oppenheim put it, ‘a catalog of dread.’ For any given pathogen, it could spit out a score from 0 to 100 according to how frightening the public would find it. . . . Madhav and her team, along with Wolfe and Oppenheim, also researched the broader economic consequences of disease outbreaks, measured in the ‘cost per death prevented’ incurred by societal interventions. ‘Measures that decreased person-to-person contact, including social distancing, quarantine, and school closures, had the greatest cost per death prevented, most likely because of the amount of economic disruption caused by those measures,’ they wrote in a 2018 paper. . . .”
2.–More sinister, still, is the fact that Metabiota had analyzed the scenario of a novel coronavirus pandemic two years before it happened. This appears to be the 2018 paper referred to above. Do not fail to note that, at the time that Metabiota was running this scenario, they were partnered with EcoHealth Alliance, which was using Pentagon and USAID money to research and perform gain-of-function on these types of coronaviruses!! ” . . . . As the human and economic devastation multiplied in tandem across the globe, Metabiota’s employees suddenly found themselves living inside their own model’s projections. Just two years earlier, the company had run a large set of scenarios forecasting the consequences of a novel coronavirus spreading around the globe. . . .”
Latest on Patreon: Zooom Q & A on 7/3, Reflections on Supreme Court, Metabiota, In-Q-Tel, Munich Re
In the latest one-hour Patreon talks, Mr. Emory ruminates about the recent radical right rulings of the Supreme Court. In addition, we further discuss the terrifying alliance between Metabiota, In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s venture capital arm to provide pandemic insurance. Interestingly, Metabiota was discussing monkey pox as a possible pandemic in early 2020. The next Zoom Q & A session will be on 7/3 at 11:30 a.m. Ukrainian television anchor quotes Adolf Eichmann verbatim in this video from UKRAINE 24. This video of Ukraine’s top military medical officer discussing an order to castrate Russian males is an eye-opener. WFMU-FM is podcasting For The Record–You can subscribe to the podcast HERE. Mr. Emory emphatically recommends that listeners/readers get the 32GB flash drive containing all of Mr. Emory’s 43 years on the air, plus a library of old anti-fascist books on easy-to-download PDF files.
FTR #1166 Bio-Psy-Op Apocalypse Now, Part 22: A Pound of Cure, Part 1
Supplementing FTR #1138, this program continues discussion about drug treatments for, and vaccines to prevent, Covid-19.
In previous posts and programs, we have noted that Moderna’s vaccine work has been financed by DARPA. We have also noted that the overall head of Operation Warp Speed is Moncef Slaoui, formerly in charge of product development for Moderna!
Of great significance is the central role of the military in the development of treatment for Covid-19:
1.–The program notes that: ” . . . . Remdesivir predates this pandemic. It was first considered as a potential treatment for Ebola, and was developed through a longstanding partnership between the U.S. Army and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. . . .”
2.–Jonathan King has sounded the alarm about “vaccine research” masking offensive biological warfare research: “. . . . 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.–Moderna’s vaccine development was overseen by an unnamed Pentagon official: ” . . . . 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. . . . .”
4.–The pervasive role of the military in Operation Warp Speed (the Trump administration’s vaccine development program) has generated alarm in civilian participants: “. . . . 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–one of the principals in Operation Warp Speed–has chosen a retired Lieutenant General to oversee much of the program: ” . . . . ‘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.–The military will be able to trace the destination and administration of each dose: ” . . . . Military officials also came up with the clever idea — if it works — to coordinate the delivery of vaccines to drugstores, medical centers and other immunization sites by sending kits full of needles, syringes and alcohol wipes. Vaccine makers will be alerted when the 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. . . .”
This program begins with information about the ongoing professional massaging of Gilead Sciences’ anti-viral remdesivir.
The most positive studies have proved remdesivir/Veklury only modestly successful against SARS Cov‑2 (the virus that causes Covid-19). Remdesivir (now marketed under the brand name Veklury) has been propelled to the forefront of treatment regimens for the pandemic, a development which appears to diminish the chances for a competing, more effective drug to gain professional approval for treating Covid-19.
” . . . . Other studies have shown no benefit, including the World Health Organization’s Solidarity trial, released as a preprint on Oct. 15. Based on these results, the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine is now recommending that the drug not be routinely used in hospitalized Covid-19 patients. Infectious disease experts have stated that after examining all available evidence, we can reasonably conclude only that remdesivir may work. . . .”
Deeply disturbing, as well, is the news that the “positive news” about vaccine success and development has been generated by press releases from the companies that manufacture them: ” . . . . But the companies announced the findings in news releases, not in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and did not disclose the detailed data that would allow outside experts to evaluate their claims. Therefore, the results cannot be considered conclusive. The figures on effectiveness may change as the studies continue. . . .”
Program Highlights Include: The rapid spread of the disease is benefitting the speed-up of vaccine research; review of the attenuated, manipulated NIAID study on remdesivir that generated positive news, a run-up in the stock price of Gilead Sciences and a boost for the market as a whole; review of the role of “Scientists to Stop Covid-19” in massaging the vetting process for remdesivir; review of the CDC’s closing of the USAMRIID in August of 2019 and the testing of remdeisivir at that facility in March of 2019; review of the insidious, incestuous relationship between the authorities “regulating” treatment of Lyme Disease and those who benefit from the administration of that treatment; review of Lyme Disease as a biological warfare weapon.
FTR #1129 Bio-Psy-Op Apocalypse Now, Part 5: The Magic Virus Theory, Part 2
Updating our ongoing series of programs concerning the Covid-19 outbreak, we begin with several articles analyzing the political, economic and psycho-social ramifications of the phenomenon.
We have termed the Covid-19 outbreak and its multi-dimensional manifestations, a “bio-psy-op.” Amplifying what is meant by that term:
1.–An academic paper produced by a Federal Reserve economist posits the socio-political effects of the 1918 flu pandemic as a factor contributing to the rise of Nazism in Germany. Cited by numerous publications, including The New York Times, Bloomberg News and Politico, the study underscores some of our assertions concerning the fascist and extreme right-wing ramifications of the pandemic. ” . . . . The paper, published this month and authored by New York Fed economist Kristian Blickle, examined municipal spending levels and voter extremism in Germany from the time of the initial influenza outbreak until 1933, and shows that ‘areas which experienced a greater relative population decline’ due to the pandemic spent ‘less, per capita, on their inhabitants in the following decade.’. . . The paper’s findings are likely due to ‘changes in societal preferences’ following the 1918 outbreak, Blickle argues — suggesting the influenza pandemic . . . . may have ‘spurred resentment of foreigners among the survivors’ and driven voters to parties ‘whose platform matched such sentiments.’ The conclusions come amid fears that the current coronavirus pandemic will shake up international politics and spur extremism around the world, as officials and public health experts look to previous outbreaks for guidance on how to navigate the months and years to come. . . .”
2.–The social dislocation caused by the Great Depression also drove German and world political sentiment to the right, providing additional momentum to global forces of fascism. Current U.S. economic data bring that to mind. “U.S. Unemployment Is Worst Since Depression;” by Nelson D. Schwartz and Ben Casselman; The New York Times; 5/9/2020; pp. A1-A13 [Western Edition.]
3.–UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres warns that the pandemic has strengthened ethno-nationalism, populism, bigotry and authoritarian rule. Reactionary sentiment driven by the pandemic has also spurred eugenic rationale globally. ” . . . . UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said Friday the coronavirus pandemic keeps unleashing ‘a tsunami of hate and xenophobia, scapegoating and scare-mongering’ and appealed for ‘an all-out effort to end hate speech globally.’ Guterres said ‘anti-foreigner sentiment has surged online and in the streets, anti-Semitic conspiracy theories have spread, and COVID-19-related anti-Muslim attacks have occurred.’ The UN chief said migrants and refugees ‘have been vilified as a source of the virus – and then denied access to medical treatment.’ . . . ‘With older persons among the most vulnerable, contemptible memes have emerged suggesting they are also the most expendable,’ he said. ‘And journalists, whistleblowers, health professionals, aid workers and human rights defenders are being targeted simply for doing their jobs.’ . . . .”
4.–An article in The Guardian–citing a source within the Trump administration–compared the Covid-19 political landscape in the U.S. with late Weimar Germany: ” . . . . Welcome to the US in the age of coronavirus. Faces and fists pounded the windows of Ohio’s capitol like a zombie apocalypse. In Michigan, an armed crowd stormed the state house. Then, history repeated itself. . . . A Trump administration insider conveyed that it was all a ‘bit’ reminiscent of the ‘late’ Weimar Republic. We know how that ended. . . .Society’s guardrails crashed, the volk demanded its pound of flesh and democracy made the frighteningly unimaginable possible. Hell became part of the here and now. . . .”
5.–Critical observations by Wolfgang Schauble–the German/EU “Austerity Czar” who wrought so much suffering following the 2008 economic collapse–has clearly enunciated the functional and philosophical essence of “corporatist” and eugenic doctrine. After the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, he has redoubled his “Teutonic brutality” and his views have been embraced by the German establishment: ” . . . . Schäuble’s tactics [during the financial crisis] seemed to scare Europe with ‘traumatic effects’ and gave it a lesson in German economic ethics: Teutonic brutality and at all costs. ‘Terrifying,’ was the assessment the US Treasury Secretary made following his conversation with Schäuble. Paris and Madrid were also apprehensive; Athens called Schäuble an ‘arsonist,’ on a rampage through Europe. . . . Schäuble has elaborated in 2020 on what he had already made clear in 2012, during the international financial crisis: ‘If I hear that everything else must take a back seat to the preservation of life, I must say that this, in such unequivocalness, is not right.’ Protection of human life does not have an ‘absolute priority in our Basic Law.’ . . . Schäuble’s statements are exemplary and are of ‘national significance’ declared the German Ethics Council. . . .In fact, the government’s obligation to the constitution’s highest value — the protection of life — must be relativized, just as Schäuble is doing, confirm the majority of Germany’s government leaders. . . . a fellow Green municipal politician speaks in plain operational terms; ‘Let me tell you quite bluntly: We may be saving people in Germany, who, because of their age or serious previous medical conditions, may, be dead anyway in a half a year.’ . . . .”
In FTR #1128, we hypothesized about the possible role in the Covid-19 pandemic of a post-Apartheid, underground fascist milieu with links to elements of CIA and veterans of Project Coast. Those who reject such an hypothesis would do well to consider the musings of an FBI informant knowledgeable about “Die Organisasie.” That such a milieu might be willing to target the U.S. seems probable: ” . . . . South African trade attaché Gideon Bouwer raved about the ability to keep whites in power through biological warfare, and he hinted at being part of a separate agenda—some sort of extragovernmental conspiracy, like the one described in the Air Force report, that had plans to unleash biological agents worldwide on South Africa’s enemies if the need should ever arise. ‘Just be ready,’ Fitzpatrick remembers Bouwer warning him cryptically, then asking, ‘How fast could get your daughter out of the country if you had to?’ . . .”
The bulk of the discussion elaborates on discussion of the virus originating in a laboratory–in the U.S., NOT China.
As discussed in FTR #1124–among other programs–it is now possible to create ANY virus from scratch, using “mail-order” or “designer” genes. Sadly predictable journalistic bromides that the Covid-19 coronavirus could not have been/was not made in a laboratory fly in the face of bio-technology that has existed for 20 years. A BBC story from 1999 highlights the fears of experts that the advent of such technology could enable the development of ethno-specific biological weapons: ” . . . . Advances in genetic knowledge could be misused to develop powerful biological weapons that could be tailored to strike at specific ethnic groups, the British Medical Association has warned. A BMA report Biotechnology, Weapons and Humanity says that concerted international action is necessary to block the development of new, biological weapons. It warns the window of opportunity to do so is very narrow as technology is developing rapidly and becoming ever more accessible. ‘. . . The BMA report warns that legitimate research into microbiological agents and genetically targeted therapeutic agents could be difficult to distinguish from research geared towards developing more effective weapons. . . . Dr Vivienne Nathanson, BMA Head of Health Policy Research said: ‘The history of humanity is a history of war. Scientific advances quickly lead to developments in weapons technology. . . .‘Biotechnology and genetic knowledge are equally open to this type of malign use. . . . ”
Of paramount importance is the fact that the statements being issued that the virus was not made in a laboratory is not just irrelevant, but absurd. ANY virus can be made in a laboratory, from scratch as is being done for the SARS-CoV‑2 (Covid-19) virus. The bromides being issued–all too predictably–that the virus could not have been/wasn’t made in a laboratory are the virological equivalent of the Magic Bullet Theory.
In that context, we review the fact that Ralph Baric–who did the gain-of-function modification on the Horseshoe Bat coronavirus–has been selected to engineer the Covid-19. ” . . . . Researchers are trying to create a copy of the virus. From scratch. Led by Ralph Baric, an expert in coronaviruses—which get their name from the crown-shaped spike they use to enter human cells—the North Carolina team expects to recreate the virus starting only from computer readouts of its genetic sequence posted online by Chinese labs last month. . . .”
Note what might be termed a “virologic Jurassic Park” manifestation: ” . . . . The technology immediately created bio-weapon worries. . . . Researchers at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) drove that point home in 2005 when they resurrected the influenza virus that killed tens of millions in 1918–1919. . . .”
We note in passing the VERY unusual aspects of Covid-19. ” . . . . ‘I’ve been studying viruses since 1978,’ Dr. James Hildreth, Meharry Medical College CEO and an infectious disease expert based out of Nashville, told Yahoo Finance’s On the Move this week (video above). ‘And I think it’s fair to say we’ve not encountered a virus quite like this, just because of the broad range of tissue types in our body it infects.’ . . .”
The program concludes with discussion of two articles refuting the “Warren Report” of Covid-19 genesis–a Nature Medicine article that is accepted as Gospel.
Like the Bible, it is open to serious scientific refutation: ” . . . . To put it simply, the authors are saying that SARS-CoV‑2 was not deliberately engineered because if it were, it would have been designed differently. However, the London-based molecular geneticist Dr Michael Antoniou commented that this line of reasoning fails to take into account that there are a number of laboratory-based systems that can select for high affinity RBD variants that are able to take into account the complex environment of a living organism. This complex environment may impact the efficiency with which the SARS-CoV spike protein can find the ACE2 receptor and bind to it. An RBD selected via these more realistic real-world experimental systems would be just as ‘ideal’, or even more so, for human ACE2 binding than any RBD that a computer model could predict. And crucially, it would likely be different in amino acid sequence. So the fact that SARS-CoV‑2 doesn’t have the same RBD amino acid sequence as the one that the computer program predicted in no way rules out the possibility that it was genetically engineered. . . .”
Dr. Michael Antoniou notes that different genetic engineering processes than the one highlighted in the Nature Medicine paper can be used: ” . . . . There is another method by which an enhanced-infectivity virus can be engineered in the lab. A well-known alternative process that could have been used has the cumbersome name of “directed iterative evolutionary selection process”. In this case, it would involve using genetic engineering to generate a large number of randomly mutated versions of the SARS-CoV spike protein receptor binding domain (RBD), which would then be selected for strong binding to the ACE2 receptor and consequently high infectivity of human cells. . . .”
The notion that the Nature Medicine authors had not heard of the above process is not credible: ” . . . . Such a directed iterative evolutionary selection process is a frequently used method in laboratory research. So there is little or no possibility that the Nature Medicine article authors haven’t heard of it – not least, as it is considered so scientifically important that its inventors were awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2018. . . .”
Of more than passing significance is another article that finds serious fault with the Nature Medicine paper. ” . . . . Professor Stuart Newman, professor of cell biology and anatomy at New York Medical College, says that a key argument used to deny that it could be a genetically engineered strain that escaped from a laboratory actually points to the exact opposite. In other words, it indicates that SARS-CoV‑2 could well be genetically engineered and that it could have escaped from a lab. . . . As Adam Lauring, an associate professor of microbiology, immunology and infectious diseases at the University of Michigan Medical School, has noted, Andersen’s paper argues that, ‘the SARS-CoV‑2 virus has some key differences in specific genes relative to previously identified coronaviruses – the ones a laboratory would be working with. This constellation of changes makes it unlikely that it is the result of a laboratory ‘escape’.‘But Professor Newman says that this is totally unconvincing because ‘The ‘key differences’ were in regions of the coronavirus spike protein that were the subject of genetic engineering experiments in labs around the world (mainly in the US and China) for two decades.’ . . .”
Professor Newman goes on to highlight other, serious flaws in the argument: ” . . . In an email interview with GMWatch, Newman, who is editor-in-chief of the journal Biological Theory and co-author (with Tina Stevens) of the book Biotech Juggernaut, amplified this speculation by noting, ‘The Nature Medicine paper points to variations in two sites of the spike protein of the new coronavirus that the authors claim must have arisen by natural selection in the wild. However, genetic engineering of one of these sites, the ACE2 receptor binding domain, has been proposed since 2005 in order to help generate vaccines against these viruses (see this paper). It is puzzling that the authors of the Nature Medicine commentary did not cite this paper, which appeared in the prominent journal Science.’ Moreover, Newman added, “The second site that Andersen et al. assert arose by natural means, a target of enzyme cleavage not usually found in this class of viruses, was in fact introduced by genetic engineering in a similar coronavirus in a paper they do cite. This was done to explore mechanisms of pathogenicity. . . . .”
Worth noting, again, is the British Medical Association’s warning discussed above: ” . . . .The BMA report warns that legitimate research into microbiological agents and genetically targeted therapeutic agents could be difficult to distinguish from research geared towards developing more effective weapons. . . .”
As the GMWatch authors conclude: ” . . . . Such ‘enhanced infectivity’ research is carried out on viruses all over the world (and not just in China) to investigate their behaviour and to develop vaccines and other therapies, as well as for ‘biodefence’ purposes. . . .”
FTR #1123 The Past Is Prologue: Further Reflections on the Covid-19 Outbreak and the Genesis of the Military-Medical Complex
In this program we highlight important elements in the development of the amalgam of forces that, in our opinion, helped to precipitate the Covid-19 “Bio-Psy-Op.”
In Miscellaneous Archive Show M31, we examined the military inquiry into the killing of Wehrmacht Corporal Johannes Kunze, whose anti-Nazi sentiments were punished by his fellow prisoners with murder. In the inquest, it became clear that American officers had permitted their German POW counterparts to screen the mail of their fellow prisoners, which provided them the means to identify and kill Corporal Kunze.
The military prosecutor in the case–Leon Jaworski–exercised what was politely termed judicial restraint, and did not investigate the U.S. officers whose conduct led directly to the murder of Kunze.
Jaworski later participated in trials of Third Reich alumni accused of war crimes, including the trial of Dachau medical personnel, some of whom, after experimenting on concentration camp inmates, were awarded contracts to work for the U.S. under Project Paperclip. Again, he apparently exercised “judicial restraint.”
“. . . . Col. Leon Jaworski, who will be in charge of the trial, estimates that at least 5,000 Jews died at Dachau from ordinary mistreatment and torture, while anywhere between 1,000 and 3,000 died as a result of medical experiments performed upon them. . . .”
The gruesome Dachau medical experiments:
1.–Were performed by five doctors who were on the Project Paperclip payroll by the time Jaworski manifested judicial restraint: ” . . . . Five doctors working at the center starting in the fall of 1945 were on the list: Theodor Benzinger, Siegried Ruff, Konrad Schafer, Hermann Becker-Freyseng, and Oskar Schroder. Instead of firing these physicians suspected of heinous war crimes, the center kept the doctors in its employ and the list was classified. . . .”
2.–Involved trials by four of the Paperclip recruits of two processes aimed at purifying seawater for drinking, with gruesome results for the Dachau “Untermenschen”: “. . . . Dr. Oskar Schroder, head of the Luftwaffe Medical Corps, was thrilled. Konrad Schafer had ‘developed a process which actually precipitated the salts from the sea water,’ Schroder later testified. . . . The effectiveness of both the Schafer process and the Berka method would be tested on the Untermenschen at Dachau. A Luftwaffe physician named Hermann Becker-Freyseng was assigned to assist Dr. Schafer, and to coauthor with him a paper documenting the results of the contest. The senior doctor advising Becker-Freyseng and Schafer in their work was Dr. Siegfried Ruff. . . .”
3.–Were filmed and screened for SS chief Heinrich Himmler by the fifth Paperclip recruit, Dr. Theodor Benzinger: ” . . . .This was the same Dr. Benzinger who had overseen for Himmler the film screening at the Reich Air Ministry, in Berlin, of Dachau prisoners being murdered in medical experiments. . . .”
4.–Became part of an experimental continuum, in which the Nazi research on Aeromedical Medicine performed at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute proceeded uninterrupted under U.S. Army Air Force command: ” . . . . The Army Air Forces Aero Medical Center in Heidelberg . . . only a few months prior . . . had been the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Medical Research, a bastion of Nazi science where chemists and physicists worked on projects for the Reich’s war machine. At its front entrance, the Reich’s flag came down and the U.S. Flag went up. Photographs of Hitler were pulled from the walls and replaced by framed photographs of Army Air Forces generals in military pose. Most of the furniture stayed the same. In the dining room, German waiters in white servers’ coats provided table service at mealtimes. A single 5” X 8” requisition receipt, dated September 14, 1945, made the transition official: ‘This property is needed by U.S. Forces, and the requisition is in proportion to the resources of the country.’ The mission statement of the project, classified Top Secret, was succinct: ‘the exploitation of certain uncompleted German aviation medical research projects.’ Dr. [Hubertus] Strughold [who was the top researcher in the Dachau projects] was put in charge of hiring doctors, ‘all of whom are considered authorities in a particular field of medicine.’ . . . .”
This “judicial restraint” directly anticipates his work for the Warren Commission, his work as Watergate Special Prosecutor (and a VERY special prosecutor he was) and his work heading the “investigation” into the Korea-gate scandal.
Following President Kennedy’s assassination, Jaworski became both a Warren Commission counsel and, with Judge Robert Storey, headed the Texas Court of Inquiry, the Texas judicial body charged with investigating JFK’s murder. As discussed in the linked Guns of November, Part 3, Jaworski sat on the board of directors of the M.D. Anderson Fund, a documented CIA domestic funding conduit.
In an earlier professional incarnation, Storey–as Colonel Robert Storey–passed along the word that the de-Nazification edict was to be “relaxed” during the Nuremberg trials. ” . . . . Colonel Robert Storey, the U.S. executive trial counsel at the International Military Tribunal and a senior aide to Robert Jackson, has ‘passed the word down that the denazification directive was to be relaxed,’ . . . .”
Two key Warren Commission members were Allen Dulles–whose Nazi links stretch back before World War II and for decades thereafter–and John J. McCloy, former U.S. High Commissioner for Germany and complicit in the “rehabilitation” of many heinous Nazis and the employment of many of them by U.S. intelligence.
With people like McCloy and Dulles on the U.S. “investigation” and Storey and Jaworski heading the Texas “investigation” (and Jaworski working with the Warren Commission as well), it is not surprising that the Nazi and fascist links to the JFK assassination did not emerge into public view.
It seems probable that the selection of the composition of both the Warren Commission and the Texas Court of Inquiry was shaped, in part, by the perceived necessity of concealing the many Nazis under the American bed.
In numerous programs, we have accessed the brilliant, consummately important work of Ed Haslsm. Ed has developed a compelling thesis linking: research into a cancer-causing monkey virus contaminating the polio vaccine; a soft-tissue cancer epidemic; the development of AIDS; the assassination of JFK and the development of a biological warfare weapon.
Ed noted the presence in the research milieu in New Orleans of Colonel Jose Rivera, a biological warfare specialist and member of Douglas MacArthur’s staff. In light of the incorporation of Japan’s Unit 731 into the U.S. biological warfare establishment, we view this as very significant.
We conclude with discussion of the supervision of Ft. Detrick personnel of Dr. Kurt Blome, the Deputy Surgeon General of the Third Reich and another individual incorporated into the U.S. biological warfare establishment.
We have discussed Blome in, among other programs, FTR # 1012 and AFA #39.
(We misstated that both Erich Traub and Blome oversaw the Serratia marcesscens experiments. It was only Blome.
Both Blome and Traub reported directly to Reichsfuhrer SS Heinrich Himmler during World War II.
FTR #1115 Review of Some Information about AIDS as a Biological Warfare Agent
Against the background of our discussion of the Covid-19 outbreak as what Mr. Emory has termed a “Bio-Psy-Op,” we present archival material about the development of AIDS as a biological warfare agent.
(Programs containing information on AIDS as a BW weapon include: AFA #s 16 and 39, as well as FTR #‘s 16, 19, 63, 317, 324, 557, 597, 606, 642, 644, 682, 820, 912, 1012.)
The program begins with review of an interview with Dr. Wilbert Jordan of Martin Luther King Hospital in Los Angeles (from AFA 16.) Done in December of 1984, it gives perspective on the epidemiological aspects of AIDS–information that undermines the prevailing theories at the time concerning the origins of the disease.
Noting that a disease as lethal as AIDS was at the time (before anti-virals developed to treat HIV infection), Dr. Jordan is dismissive of the notion that such a lethal ailment could have been present in either Zaire or Haiti and then retrospectively traced there after being discovered in the U.S.
The notions of Haiti and/or Zaire being the point of origin of the disease played into the anti-immigrant/xenophobic dynamic that has become prevalent in the era of Donald Trump.
Dr. Jordan concludes by hypothesizing that the disease was created in a laboratory, in all probability in the United States.
Next, the program highlights information from FTR #686, setting forth information about the National Cancer Institute’s Special Viral Cancer Research Project.
After the [official] abandonment by the U.S. of offensive biological warfare research, the Nixon administration declared a “war on cancer” in 1971. As part of the War on Cancer Nixon turned Fort Detrick (the Army’s top BW research center) over to the National Cancer Institute for its Viral Cancer Project. The Viral Cancer Project was inextricably linked with biological warfare research and may well have served as a cover for ongoing BW work. (Listeners interested in this material are encouraged to check out, among other programs, FTR #‘s 606, 682.)
For the purposes of the present discussion, it is worth noting that it was the National Cancer Institute’s VCP that was at the epicenter of AIDS research in the United States.
The VCP/NCI biological warfare connection utilized strong connections to university research facilities. The Naval Biosciences Laboratory (managed by the University of California), as well as Fort Detrick were profoundly involved with the NCI’s VCP. The Cell Culture Laboratory at the Naval Biosciences Facility provided the seed stock for the production of vast quantities of carcinogenic and immunosuppressive viruses that were generated by the National Cancer Institute.
The production of those viruses for the NCI was overseen by Drs. James Duff and Jack Gruber, both longtime veterans of Fort Detrick and its biological warfare research.
The aerial transmission of deadly pathogenic agents was a major focal point of the NCI’s VCP, apparently overlapping BW research projects. Two other key researchers for the NCI, Drs. Alfred Hellman and Mark Chatigny also had biological warfare research backgrounds, including work with aerial transmission of pathogenic agents.
Yet another component of the NCI/VCP/BW connection was the incorporation of pharmaceutical companies in the research programs. The Pfizer company produced viruses for the NCI’s VCP, including the immunosuppressive Mason-Pfizer monkey virus, like HIV, a retrovirus.
Among the most significant and alarming aspects of the NCI’s VCP program is the fact that, when Fort Detrick was converted to the Frederick Cancer Research Center, it was administered by Litton Bionetics, a biotechnology subisidiary of Litton Industries. Litton was a major defense contractor and a frequent vehicle for covert operations.
Prior to assuming stewardship of Fort Detrick for the NCI, Litton Bionetics had employed Dr. Robert Gallo (the “discoverer” of HIV).
Of paramount importance in this investigation is the fact that the NCI’s VCP program involved numerous experiments and operations designed at getting organisms to “jump species.” Prominent researchers familiar with these efforts expressed alarm and the conviction that such work should be outlawed, lest it lead to the creation of new, deadly organisms that would infect humans.
Obviously, this broadcast and the line of inquiry approached in Mr. Emory’s decades-long investigation of AIDS as a man-made disease highlight the possibility/probability/near certainty that HIV is just such an organism.
The program concludes with review of an excerpt from testimony before a House appropriations subcommittee that was drawing up the defense budget for the following year. (The hearings were in 1969.) The testimony discusses the possibility of using genetic engineering to produce a disease that would be “refractory” to the immune system. This is virtually the clinical definition of AIDS. It is worth noting that the project was funded, and just such a disease—AIDS—appeared in just the time frame posited. It is also worth noting that, in the 2002 edition of A Higher Form of Killing, this passage is omitted!!
A Higher Form of Killing; Robert Harris and Jeremy Paxman; Hill and Wang [SC]; ISBN 0–8090-5471‑X; p. 241 (p. 266 in e‑book).
. . . As long ago as 1962, forty scientists were employed at the U.S. Army biological warfare laboratories on full-time genetics research. ‘Many others,’ it was said, ‘appreciate the implications of genetics for their own work.’ The implications were made more specific that genetic engineering could solve one of the major disadvantages of biological warfare, that it is limited to diseases which occur naturally somewhere in the world. ‘Within the next 5 to 10 years, it would probably be possible to make a new infective micro-organism which could differ in certain important respects from any known disease-causing organisms. Most important of these is that it might be refractory to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon which we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease.’ [Italics are Mr. Emory’s.] The possibility that such a ‘super germ’ may have been successfully produced in a laboratory somewhere in the world in the years since that assessment was made is one which should not be too readily cast aside. . . .
Program Highlights Include: Litton Bionetics’ work on the Mason-Pfizer monkey virus while under contract to the NCI and when it employed Dr. Robert Gallo; research emphasis on “zoonoses” (diseases that jump from animals to humans) by the joint military/civilian consortium; Gallo’s work with NCI VCP/Ft. Detrick veteran Dr. Jack Gruber in a mass viral inoculation program undertaken by Litton Bionetics; the use of the Mason-Pfizer monkey virus in the Litton Bionetics mass inoculation program.
Recommended Reading
- Spitfire List is licensed under Creative Commons.
Recent Comments