FTR #1161 Bio-Psy-Op Apocalypse Now, Part 21: What the Hell Does Dave Emory Mean by Bio-Psy-Op Apocalypse?
Beginning with discussion of rising distrust of China, the program notes the role in that rising distrust of the coronavirus. First detected in China, the available evidence chronicled in numerous programs points to the Covid-19 pandemic as a biological warfare false flag operation and provocation–part of the Full Court Press against China.
The bulk of the program consists of Mr. Emory reading articles from The New York Times published over the course of the lockdown in the U.S. Highlighting the stress experienced by various population groups and the behavioral and physiological symptoms stemming from that stress, the articles–covering a period from the spring through fall of 2020–document the manifestations of the “bio-psy-op apocalypse.”
The articles chronicle: Stress on marital relationships; duress on sexual behavior, with New York and Los Angeles (among other cities) advising people to masturbate, rather than engage in sexual encounters with others; psychological dislocation of children, who can’t play with others; psychological dislocation of athletic youths, who can’t compete in sports; workers who can’t interact at the office with their peers; stress on friendships; people losing their hair in clumps, because of stress; people grinding their teeth and cracking them; the effect of people wearing masks and limiting the ability of others to respond to facial stimuli–an innate and important element of human psycho-social behavior; cities experiencing soaring murder rates because of stress; the effect of lockdowns on street demonstrations pursuant to the deaths of George Floyd and Breanna Taylor; rising rates of domestic violence; rising consumption of alcohol; rising incidence of people feeling suicidal; rising drug abuse; people foregoing wearing masks and practicing social distancing because of what psychologists call “Covid Fatigue;” people flocking to contrarians opposing various public safety measures; people expressing support for political leaders because of feelings of insecurity.
Mr. Emory also opines that the pandemic may well have interdicted the projected “Blue Wave,” because people who might otherwise have endorsed a more altruistic political agenda instead were feeling frightened and–as a result–more needy and selfish.
Although Belarussians had put up with Alexander Lukashenko prior to the coronavirus: “Trapped inside their country by the coronavirus pandemic, many Belarusians began to chafe at the inhumanity in Mr. Lukashenko’s rule and language that had once been easy to ignore. . . .”
We conclude with a look at the past, which may reflect on the future.
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.
This timely and very important study will be referenced in future discussion of the psychological, sociological and socio-economic aspects of the Covid-19 outbreak.
Kristian Blickle’s analysis underscores points we have made about the demographic, economic and psychological devastation the pandemic is having on the body politic.
“A new academic paper produced by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York concludes that deaths caused by the 1918 influenza pandemic “profoundly shaped German society” in subsequent years and contributed to the strengthening of the Nazi Party.
“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’s disproportionate toll on young people 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. . . .”
FTR #1160 Bio-Psy-Op Apocalypse Now, Part 20: An Ounce of Prevention, Part 5
The program begins with discussion of operational links between the Nazi/GOP milieu analyzed in FTR #1159 and elements we have analyzed in the context of the destabilization of China. (For the convenience of the listener and reader, key points of that discussion are included in the broadcast and below in this description.)
In FTR #‘s 1103, 1143, 1144, 1153 and 1154, we detailed the presence of OUN/B‑connected elements in Hong Kong and working in a propaganda role vis a vis the Uighurs in Xinjiang province. In Hong Kong, elements of the Azov Battalion and Pravy Sektor (Right Sector) have been active in conjunction with the “pro-democracy” movement in Hong Kong (under the auspices of an EU NGO.)
German national and End Times Christian Adrian Zenz, a fellow with the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, has been the go-to figure for Western media on the alleged persecution of the Uighurs in Xinjiang Province. The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation is a subsidiary element of the Captive Nations Committee and the OUN/B.
In previous programs, we examined in detail the activity of Peter Daszak and his EcoHealth Alliance–an organization crafted to “prevent” future pandemics, yet networked with the Pentagon and other national security bodies in work disturbingly suggestive of biological warfare research.
Joining Daszak in a commission assembled by the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet is Jeffrey Sachs, economic adviser to Bernie Sanders and AOC and the principal economic adviser to Russian president Boris Yeltsin. Sachs’ advice drove the Russian economy back to the Stone Age.
In this program we detail the strong, eugenicist overlap between “mainstream” anti-abortion organizations and their closely linked white supremacist colleagues. Seeking to maximize the birth rate of “Aryan” offspring and their percentage in the world’s population, they may be seen as being part of a political continuum which includes the Third Reich.
” . . . . Coexisting in abortion opposition is . . . . a white supremacist ideology that only desires to prevent white women from obtaining abortions, but uses universal opposition to abortion as a pragmatic screen for its goals. As Kathleen Belew, author of Bring the War Home: The White Power Movement in Paramilitary America, told The Nation in an interview in September, for white supremacists, ‘opposing abortion, opposing gay rights, opposing feminism, in white power discourse, all of this is tied to reproduction and the birth of white children.’ . . . Tim Bishop, a representative of the white nationalist Aryan Nations, said, ‘Lots of our people join [the anti-abortion movement]…. It’s part of our Holy War for the pure Aryan race.’ . . . . ”
Central to our analysis is a speculative, yet terrifying biotechnological element–gene drive technology. We have spoken about this in numerous previous programs.
” . . . . Gene drives have been dubbed an ‘extinction technology’ and with good reason: gene drive organisms are created by genetically engineering a living organism with a particular trait, and then modifying the organism’s reproductive system in order to always force the modified gene onto future generations, spreading the trait throughout the entire population. . . .”
” . . . . the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) is forcing dangerous gene drive technologies onto the world. BMGF is either the first or second largest funder of gene drive research (alongside the shadowy U.S. military organisation Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency [DARPA] ). . . .”
Just imagine what such technology–applied to human reproductive capacity–could do when deployed by fascist and Nazi elements in the military/medical establishment!
The emergence of such a development is being facilitated:
” . . . . a private PR firm called Emerging Ag, was paid US$1.6 million by the BMGF. Part of their work involved coordinating the ‘fight back against gene drive moratorium proponents,’ as well as running a covert advocacy coalition to exert influence on the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the key body for gene drive governance. After calls in 2016 for a global moratorium on the use of gene drive technology, the CBD sought input from scientists and experts in an online forum. Emerging Ag recruited and coordinated over 65 experts, including a Gates Foundation senior official, a DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Project Agency) official, and government and university scientists, in an attempt to flood the official UN process with their coordinated inputs. . . .”
At the conclusion of the program we present a very disturbing hypothetical concept: we fear that the effort to find viral pathogens around the world and make them more infectious via gain-of-function manipulations is intended to realize a global, eugenicist, exterminationist and white supremacist agenda by creating pandemics in the Third World, profit enormously by making vaccines to treat those pandemics and introduce gene drive technology into those populations via the vaccines in order to diminish reproduction in those populations.
The mRNA and DNA vaccines being produced by the DARPA-supported Moderna and Inovio firms should be considered in connection with this nightmarish working hypothesis.
Supplement to FTR #‘s 1157, 1158 and 1159
This post supplements and is intended to call attention to FTR #‘s 1157, 1158 and 1159. A consummately important article about Peter Daszak (right) and the EcoHealth Alliance provides troubling insights into the uneven professional track record of Daszak and the profound involvement of the organization he heads with the Pentagon and other U.S. national security establishment institutions. Exemplifying EcoHealth Alliance’s work is a Pentagon contract with Tanzania, researching CCHF–Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever. ” . . . . EcoHealth Alliance has a $5‑million Pentagon contract, ‘Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever: Reducing an Emerging Health Threat in Tanzania.’ Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF) is a tick-borne disease, originally only infecting animals. . . . There was only ever one case of CCHF in Tanzania, and that was in 1986. . . . Gain-of-function research on CCHF is being conducted at the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) . . . . (The National Bio and Agro Defense Facility will take over the mission of the Plum Island Animal Disease Center and become the lead facility for Foreign Animal Disease research.) . . .”
FTR #‘s 1157, 1158 and 1159–Bio-Psy-Op Apocalypse Now, Parts 17, 18 and 19: An Ounce of Prevention, Parts 2, 3 and 4
A noteworthy development in the Covid-19 “op” concerns the selection of experts to oversee The Lancet’s investigation of the origins of the SARS CoV‑2.
In FTR #1156, we looked at the involvement of known U.S. intelligence cut-outs–notably USAID–and their funding of programs ostensibly aimed at preventing epidemics. Those programs involved the “Gain-of-Function” mutation of bat-borne coronaviruses, creating novel “chimeric” viruses that never existed before.
The ostensible purpose was to “prevent” future epidemics. We wondered in FTR #1156 if those ostensible epidemic “prevention” programs may have masked epidemic propagation programs, rather like Unit 731.
Peter Daszak of the EcoHealth Alliance was selected to lead the project.
His perspective would, on the surface, appear to be less than objective, in as much as he championed the very type of GOF experiments that are at the center of this inquiry.
Of interest, as well, is the selection of Jeffrey Sachs, an economist, member of the [Bernie] Sanders Institute, economic adviser to Bernie Sanders, economic adviser to AOC and, most importantly, head of the [partly] government financed Harvard Institute of International Development which (as advisers to Boris Yeltsin) drove the Russian economy back to the Stone Age.
Sachs has no medical or scientific credentials.
A consummately important article about Daszak and the EcoHealth Alliance provides troubling insights into the uneven professional track record of Daszak and the profound involvement of the organization he heads with the Pentagon and other U.S. national security establishment institutions.
EcoHealth Alliance looks disturbingly like an organization that fronts for elements and individuals involved with biological warfare research.
“Peter Daszak, President of EcoHealth Alliance, is a top scientific collaborator, grantwriter and spokesperson for virus hunters and gain-of-function/dual-use researchers, in labs both military and civilian.
Daszak works with dozens of high-containment laboratories around the world that collect pathogens and use genetic engineering and synthetic biology to make them more infectious, contagious, lethal or drug-resistant. These include labs controlled by the U.S. Department of Defense, in countries in the former Soviet Union, the Middle East, South East Asia and Africa.
Many of these labs are staffed by former biological weapons scientists. (See Arms Watch’s reports.) Before the Biological Weapons Convention was ratified, this research was called what it is: biological weapons research. Now, it’s euphemistically called gain-of-function or dual-use research.
Gain-of-function research to alter coronaviruses for the infection of humans goes back to 1999 or earlier, years before the first novel coronavirus outbreak. On behalf of the U.S. government, often the military, Daszak scours the globe for animal pathogens and brings them back to the lab to be catalogued, investigated and manipulated. . . .”
Key points of analysis and discussion include:
1.–EcoHealth Alliance contracts with the Pentagon in Tanzania, South Africa, Georgia and Malaysia, as well as the U.S.
2.–” . . . . A recent Wired magazine article quoting Daszak described how a virus collected in 2012 was found to be a 96-percent match to SARS-CoV‑2 in 2020 . . . ‘a lack of funding meant they couldn’t further investigate the virus strain now known to be 96 percent genetically similar to the virus that causes Covid-19’ . . . .”
3.–Daszak’s claim that they couldn’t further investigate that virus because of a lack of funding is dubious, in that recent grants to the organization are on top of ” . . . . $100.9 million that EcoHealth Alliance has received in government grants and contracts since 2003. . . .”
4.–Daszak does not explain how that virus (discovered in 2012) turned into SARS-CoV‑2. ” . . . . Some scientists say it would take 50 years for RaTG13 [the virus in question–D.E.] to turn into SARS-CoV‑2. . . .”
5.–Daszak is heavily networked with the Department of Homeland Security: ” . . . . the Department of Homeland Security’s National Biosurveillance Integration Center (NBIC) . . . . gave Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance a $2.2‑million contract (2016–2019) to create a ‘Ground Truth Network’ of ‘subject matter experts’ who could provide ‘contextual information pertaining to biological events.’ . . . .”
6.–The intellectual and professional track record of Daszak and EcoHealth Alliance is porous. EcoHealth Alliance floated a canard about Ebola potentially traveling to the U.S. ” . . . . an EcoHealth Alliance spokesperson, spread a false (not to mention racist and xenophobic) narrative, one that subsequently would be thoroughly debunked, that bushmeat smuggled to the U.S. from Africa could transmit Ebola to Americans. . . .”
7.–Daszak missed the boat badly with regard to SARS: ” . . . . It is commonly accepted that the SARS pandemic began in 2002, when humans caught a bat virus from civet cats at a wet market in Guangdong, China. But Daszak and his collaborators admit they have no evidence to explain how the virus leapt from bats to civets to humans. . . .”
8.–” . . . . SARS-CoV was found in civets at the Guangdong wet market, but civets aren’t the natural reservoir of this virus. Bats are. Only the civets at the market—and no farm-raised or wild civets—carried the virus. None of the animal traders handling the civets at the market had SARS. . . .”
9.–” . . . . When Daszak and his collaborators at the WIV searched the cave in Yunnan for strains of coronavirus similar to human versions, no single bat actually had SARS. Genetic pieces of the various strains would have to be recombined to make up the human version. Adding to the confusion, Yunnan is about 1,000 kilometers from Guangdong. . . .”
10.–” . . . . So, how did viruses from bats in Yunnan combine to become deadly to humans, and then travel to civets and people in Guangdong, without causing any illnesses along the way during this 1,000 kilometer trip? . . .”
11.–Daszak and the EcoHealth Alliance were deeply involved with a USAID and NIH funded joint WIV/University of North Carolina project we have covered extensively in past programs. ” . . . . The two institutions also worked as collaborators under another $2.6‑million grant, ‘Risk of Viral Emergence from Bats,’ and under EcoHealth Alliance’s largest single source of funding, a $44.2 million sub-grant from the University of California at Davis for the PREDICT project (2015–2020). . . .”
12.–” . . . . It’s the $44.2‑million PREDICT grant that EcoHealth Alliance used to fund the gain-of-function experiment by WIV scientist Zhengli Shi and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s Ralph Baric. Shi and Baric used genetic engineering and synthetic biology to create a ‘new bat SARS-like virus . . . that can jump directly from its bat hosts to humans.’ . . .”
13.–” . . . . The work . . . published in Nature in 2015 during the NIH’s moratorium on gain-of-function research, was grandfathered in because it was initiated before the moratorium (officially called the U.S. Government Deliberative Process Research Funding Pause on Selected Gain-of-Function Research Involving Influenza, MERS and SARS Viruses), and because the request by Shi and Baric to continue their research during the moratorium was approved by the NIH. . . .”
14.–” . . . . As a condition of publication, Nature, like most scientific journals, requires authors to submit new DNA and RNA sequences to GenBank, the U.S. National Center for Biotechnology Information Database. Yet the new SARS-like virus Shi and Baric created wasn’t deposited in GenBank until May 2020. . . .”
15.–” . . . . why is the government focusing on just one of EcoHealth Alliance’s projects, when the organization has received $100.9 million in grants, primarily from the Department of Defense, to sample, store and study bat coronaviruses at labs around the world? Coronaviruses, both those that have been collected from animals and those that have been created through genetic engineering and synthetic biology, at all of these labs should be compared with SARS-CoV‑2. . . . .”
16.–” . . . . Daszak’s collaborators working under contracts with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) aren’t allowed to conduct gain-of-function research unless specifically approved to do so by the Potential Pandemic Pathogen Care and Oversight (P3CO) committee. This committee was set up as a condition for lifting the 2014–2017 moratorium on gain-of-function research. The P3CO committee operates in secret. Not even a membership list has been released. . . .”
17.–Exemplifying EcoHealth Alliance’s work is a Pentagon contract with Tanzania, researching CCHF–Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever. ” . . . . EcoHealth Alliance has a $5‑million Pentagon contract, ‘Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever: Reducing an Emerging Health Threat in Tanzania.’ Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF) is a tick-borne disease, originally only infecting animals. . . . There was only ever one case of CCHF in Tanzania, and that was in 1986. . . . Gain-of-function research on CCHF is being conducted at the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) . . . . (The National Bio and Agro Defense Facility will take over the mission of the Plum Island Animal Disease Center and become the lead facility for Foreign Animal Disease research.) . . .”
Program Highlights Include: The prominent role in the Sanders Institute and AOC’s advisory team of Jeffrey Sachs, whose HIID team of advisers (with government funding) sent Russia back to the Stone Age, economically; the “handoff” to Jeffrey Sachs and his HIID of Russia and other former Soviet Republics by the Gehlen/GOP Nazis manifesting through the Free Congress Foundation; review of the operational political continuum stretching from the Third Reich, through the OSS, the CIA and the GOP; review of the roles of Allen Dulles, William Casey, Resorts International and Donald Trump in that continuum.
FTR #1156 Bio-Psy-Op Apocalypse Now, Part 16: An Ounce of Prevention . . . .
In past programs, we have briefly noted that military and [ostensibly] civilian programs officially involved with “epidemic prevention” might conceal clandestine biological warfare applications designed to create epidemics.
This program further develops that inquiry
The official distinction between “offensive” and “defensive” biological warfare research is academic.
In that context, one should note that the official title of Unit 731, the notorious Japanese biological warfare unit was “the Epidemic Prevention and Water Purification Department of the Kwantung Army.”
Noteworthy in that general context is the observation by Jonathan King (professor of molecular biology at MIT), that Pentagon research into the application of genetic engineering to biological warfare could be masked as vaccine research, which sounds “defensive.”
In FTR #1130, we noted the role of four-star general Gustave Perna in Trump’s “Operation Warp Speed,” instituted by General Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Whether the program serves as cover for military research seems a reasonable question to ask, under the circumstances.
In our last program, we weighed New York Times columnist Charles Blow’s thoughts about a white-supremacist minority grouped around the GOP. Blow saw those interests working to preserve their privilege in a number of respects.
This program asks, in effect, if the global equivalent of Blow’s malefactors might be doing something similar with the Covid-19 “op” and related, overlapping clandestine operations. How might the interests we saw in FTR #1128
Selected excerpts of a Whitney Webb article provide insight into the possible offensive nature of programs ostensibly aimed at preventing epidemics. Like Unit 731 (see above), “Epidemic Prevention” may well be masking “epidemic creation.”
In connection with that possibility, the DARPA focus on gene-driving technology is frightening and fraught with devastating possibilities.
Whether or not gene-driving impacts DARPA assisted Covid-19 vaccine development by Moderna and Inovio, the Pentagon underwriting of these firms is of concern.
Some interesting points raised by Dr. Daniel R. Lucey are particularly important in light of the information we have developed in the past about gain of function experiments.
Lucey’s points of inquiry–although not discussed in this article–are particularly important when considered in conjunction with the joint U.S./Chinese program to investigate bat-borne coronaviruses, a program whose American funding apparatus involved USAID, a frequent front for CIA operations.
The gain of function experiments we discussed in FTR #‘s 1116, 1117 and 1121 involving adapting the H5N1 avian flu virus to ferrets is worth contemplating in the context of information indicating that the SARS Cov‑2 virus is particularly infective for ferrets.
Was part of the modified H5N1 flu virus adapted to SARS Cov‑2?
A key factor spurring our suspicion concerning genetic-engineering of one or more variant of the Covid-19 virus concerns a 2015 Gain-of-Function experiment. This should answer Dr. Lucey’s query.
“. . . . Ralph Baric, an infectious-disease researcher at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, last week (November 9) published a study on his team’s efforts to engineer a virus with the surface protein of the SHC014 coronavirus, found in horseshoe bats in China, and the backbone of one that causes human-like severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in mice. The hybrid virus could infect human airway cells and caused disease in mice. . . . The results demonstrate the ability of the SHC014 surface protein to bind and infect human cells, validating concerns that this virus—or other coronaviruses found in bat species—may be capable of making the leap to people without first evolving in an intermediate host, Nature reported . . . .”
Critics have flagged Gain-Of-Function research as dangerous. Proponents are not dissuaded, including Peter Daszak. “. . . . But Baric and others argued the study’s importance. ‘[The results] move this virus from a candidate emerging pathogen to a clear and present danger,’ Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance, which samples viruses from animals and people in emerging-diseases hotspots across the globe, told Nature. . . .”
Of more than passing interest is the disclosure that the project on bat-borne coronaviruses conducted in the Wuhan laboratory was a joint U.S./Chinese project, and that Ralph Baric was a key American partner in the project.
This is the undertaking about which we have reported and discussed extensively in the past! ” . . . . One of Dr Shi’s co-authors on that paper, Professor Ralph Baric from North Carolina University, said in an interview with ‘Science Daily’ at the time: ‘This virus is highly pathogenic and treatments developed against the original SARS virus in 2002 and the ZMapp drugs used to fight ebola fail to neutralise and control this particular virus.’ . . . .”
We note that the WIV project co-funded by USAID involved genetic manipulation of bat-borne coronaviruses.
” . . . . Now Dr Richard Ebright, an infectious disease expert at Rutgers University (USA), has alerted the public to evidence that WIV and US-based researchers were genetically engineering bat viruses to investigate their ability to infect humans, using commonly used methods that leave no sign or signature of human manipulation. Ebright flagged up a scientific paper published in 2017 by WIV scientists, including Shi Zhengli, the virologist leading the research into bat coronaviruses, working in collaboration with Peter Daszak of the US-based EcoHealth Alliance. Funding was shared between Chinese and US institutions, the latter including the US National Institutes of Health and USAID. The researchers report having conducted virus infectivity experiments where genetic material is combined from different varieties of SARS-related coronaviruses to form novel ‘chimeric’ versions. . . .”
In May, the Trump administration terminated the funding for the project. A key point of analysis was set forth by Dr. Christine Johnson: ” . . . . Virus samples in labs are almost never still infectious, after being frozen in nitrogen during the collection process and then inactivated in the lab to preserve their genetic sequence. . . .
FTR #1155 Bio-Psy-Op Apocalypse, Now Part 15: Covid-19 Updates, Part 4
Continuing coverage of the Covid-19 pandemic–almost certainly a biological warfare project crafted by the U.S. national security establishment–the broadcast centers on the dual function of “epidemic prevention” and “epidemic causation” and supplementing a Charles Blow op-ed piece in “The New York Times.”
Building on the concept (discussed many times in the past) that the difference between “offensive” and “defensive” biological warfare research is academic, we note that credentialed observers have cited Pentagon “vaccine” research as a cover for offensive BW research. In addition, we observe that numerous, overlapping programs ostensibly aimed at “preventing” epidemics may well mask efforts at generating them.
One of the most notorious and advanced biological warfare programs in history was Japan’s Unit 731, melded into the U.S. biological warfare program at the end of World War II. The program was officially labeled: “the Epidemic Prevention and Water Purification Department of the Kwantung Army.”
Revisiting the consummately important Whitney Webb article about Pentagon research into bat-borne coronaviruses, we note:
1.–The DARPA research is ostensibly aimed at preventing pandemics but–very possibly–masking preparations for offensive biological warfare projects.
2.–The Pentagon is researching “gene-driving”–a biotechnological development that can permanently alter the genetic makeup of entire population groups and lead to the extinction of other groups.
3.–The Pentagon research is heavily networked with companies using DNA and mRNA vaccines for Covid-19.
The fundamental point of analysis and discussion in this program, and the next, concerns the use of “Epidemic Prevention” to mask exterminationist offensive biological warfare programs to entrench, expand or introduce a white-supremacist/First World Domination dynamic in the U.S. and abroad.
Is this the legacy of Unit 731, nominally an “Epidemic Prevention” program?!
A column by Charles Blow correctly notes that the right-wing is working to “lock-in” power. Blow’s observation is far more important when the context is expanded to include the full-court press against China and the effects of Covid-19 in the U.S.
Not a superpower at this point in time, China has made rapid, remarkable progress:
1.–In 1981, 88% of the Chinese population lived in poverty. That was down to 0.7% in 2015.
2.–The Chinese middle class was 4% of their population in 2002. By 2018, that was up to 31% of their population.
3.–In 2000, just 2% of the Chinese population had access to the internet. That was up to 29% by 2009.
With the stunning progress made by China, in combination with their enormous population, the nation will be a major power in the future.
Because they are not white and because their system of state capitalism is at loggerheads with the neo-liberal dogma to which the West is enthrall, that country will be brought to heel. The anti-China push by the West is fundamentally white supremacist in nature.
Pursuant to discussion of the Charles Blow column, Mr. Emory reads the headlines and bylines from a number of New York Times articles underscoring how the pandemic is working against two trends that Blow cites as inimical to continued GOP control.
The pandemic is badly damaging the fortunes of urban centers and education, both at the public school and university levels. In that regard, the pandemic is accomplishing what the Charles Blow column enunciates.
Some interesting points raised by Dr. Daniel R. Lucey are particularly important in light of the information we have developed in the past about gain of function experiments.
Lucey’s points of inquiry–although not discussed in this article–are particularly important when considered in conjunction with the joint U.S./Chinese program to investigate bat-borne coronaviruses, a program whose American funding apparatus involved USAID, a frequent front for CIA operations.
The gain of function experiments we discussed in FTR #‘s 1116, 1117 and 1121 involving adapting the H5N1 avian flu virus to ferrets is worth contemplating in the context of information indicating that the SARS Cov‑2 virus is particularly infective for ferrets.
Was part of the modified H5N1 flu virus adapted to SARS Cov‑2?
Another subject worth contemplating concerns Gilead Sciences, Tamiflu and the prognostications concerning a “twindemic” this fall, with influenza and Covid-19 combining to overwhelm the health system.
Might we see an enhanced H5N1 avian influenza this fall, providing enormous profits to Gilead Sciences, which, as we saw in FTR #1138, made an enormous amount of money (for itself and former Chairman of the Board Donald Rumsfeld) developing Tamiflu to negate the possibility of an H5N1 pandemic?
A key factor spurring our suspicion concerning genetic-engineering of one or more variant of the Covid-19 virus concerns a 2015 Gain-of-Function experiment performed by Ralph Baric, employed in a joint U.S./Chinese experiment partly financed by USAID (a front for CIA activity in the past) and NIH (used by both CIA and the Pentagon in the past). In that project, Baric: ” . . . . published a study on his team’s efforts to engineer a virus with the surface protein of the SHC014 coronavirus, found in horseshoe bats in China, and the backbone of one that causes human-like severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in mice. The hybrid virus could infect human airway cells and caused disease in mice. . . . The results demonstrate the ability of the SHC014 surface protein to bind and infect human cells, validating concerns that this virus—or other coronaviruses found in bat species—may be capable of making the leap to people without first evolving in an intermediate host . . .”
Of more than passing interest is the disclosure that the project on bat-borne coronaviruses conducted in the Wuhan laboratory was a joint U.S./Chinese project, and that Ralph Baric was a key American partner in the project.
This is the undertaking about which we have reported and discussed extensively in the past! ” . . . . One of Dr Shi’s co-authors on that paper, Professor Ralph Baric from North Carolina University, said in an interview with ‘Science Daily’ at the time: ‘This virus is highly pathogenic and treatments developed against the original SARS virus in 2002 and the ZMapp drugs used to fight ebola fail to neutralise and control this particular virus.’ . . . .”
FTR #1131 Bio-Psy-Op Apocalypse Now, Part 7: Moderna Uber Alles
We begin by Introducing the topic of Moderna’s SARS Cov‑2 vaccine as a money maker for both Moderna and as a driver for the market as a whole, we note last Monday’s announcement which generated a major boost in the value of Moderna’s stock and a strong, general rally. The latter apparently stems from optimism that a sucessful vaccine will alleviate the economic damage from Covid-19.
A MarketWatch piece about the rapid fluctuation of Moderna’s stock underscores the significance of the timing of an announcement casting Moderna’s vaccine trial in overly optimistic light:
1.–Moderna’s CEO (Stephen Bancel) and CFO (Lorence Kim) both sold stock on Friday, in accordance with prearranged transactions. Bear in mind, that (as discussed in FTR #1130) Moderna’s stock was trading at $23.46 at the beginning of the year, and the company–which has never marketed a vaccine–was the beneficiary of $483 million dollars in federal funding earlier in the year.) ” . . . . On Friday, Bancel sold 11,046 shares at a weighted average price of $65.56 for about $724,200, as part of a predetermined trading plan adopted Dec. 28, 2018, according to a Form 4 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. He also disposed of 1,577 shares as part of a ‘bona fide’ gift. . . . Also, on Friday, Kim sold 20,000 shares at a weighted average price of $65.53 for about $1.31 million, as part of a predetermined trading plan. . . .”
2.–Kim also simultaneously bought and sold shares of his firm for a net profit of $16.79 million on Monday, the day of an overly optimistic announcement by Moderna. The fortuitously timed Moderna announcement made the firm’s CFO roughly $4 million: ” . . . . On Monday, he [Kim] exercised options to buy 241,000 shares at a weighted average price of $12.45 for about $3 million, also as part of a predetermined plan. At the same time, Kim executed sales of 241,000 shares, at a weighted average price of $82.12 for about $19.79 million. That means Kim netted about $16.79 million on the simultaneous buy and sale of shares. . . . with Monday’s stock price surge following the announcement of early data on its vaccine candidate potentially adding $4 million to Kim’s coffers. . . .”
3.–The above-referenced announcement by Moderna led to a dramatic increase in Moderna’s stock and boosted the market as a whole. Moderna announced that evening that it would sell $1.34 billion in stock to help its vaccine operation: ” . . . . Shares of Moderna closed at a record high of $80.00 on Monday after the company released a slice of positive interim clinical data from the first phase of its COVID-19 vaccine trial. That night it announced it would sell $1.34 billion in stock to help fund manufacturing costs associated with the experimental COVID-19 vaccine. . . .”
4.–Moderna’s stock nosedived at the end of the trading day on Tuesday, due to a critical article from Stat News: ” . . . . The stock took a nose dive on Tuesday, closing at $71.67, likely due in some degree to a Stat News story that questioned a lack of clinical clarity in the data it provided to investors. . . .”
Moderna’s announcement was critically assessed by Stat News, which pointed out that the results were incomplete at best: ” . . . . In a clinical-trial data disclosure on Monday, Moderna shared that eight out of 45 participants in its COVID-19 vaccine study developed neutralizing antibodies, a decision that Stat’s Helen Branswell described as a ‘reason for caution.’ It didn’t share information about the immune response to the experimental vaccine in the remaining 37 participants. . . .”
5.–Nonetheless, Moderna’s stock–bolstered by government investment–has been on a dramatic upward swing: ” . . . . The company’s stock was up 3.8% in trading on Wednesday. Year-to-date, it has soared 270.2%, even though the company has no approved products. . . .”
There are serious questions about the substance of Moderna’s statement:
1.–Moderna’s much touted report on its vaccine—which triggered an upsurge in the markets on Monday—appears to have been incomplete, at best, and purposefully deceptive, at worst. “ . . . . While Moderna blitzed the media, it revealed very little information — and most of what it did disclose were words, not data.. . . . If you ask scientists to read a journal article, they will scour data tables, not corporate statements. With science, numbers speak much louder than words. Even the figures the company did release don’t mean much on their own, because critical information — effectively the key to interpreting them — was withheld. . . .”
2.–Part of the reason for alarm and skepticism concerns the behavior of the NIAID—whose director is Anthony Fauci: “ . . . . The National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases has partnered with Moderna on this vaccine. Scientists at NIAID made the vaccine’s construct, or prototype, and the agency is running the Phase 1 trial. This week’s Moderna readout came from the earliest of data from the NIAID-led Phase 1. NIAID doesn’t hide its light under a bushel. The institute generally trumpets its findings, often offering director Anthony Fauci . . . or other senior personnel for interviews. But NIAID did not put out a press release Monday and declined to provide comment on Moderna’s announcement. . . .”
3.–To begin with, Moderna’s announcement was only statistically substantive for 8 of the 45 volunteer subjects: “ . . . . The company’s statement led with the fact that all 45 subjects (in this analysis) who received doses of 25 micrograms (two doses each), 100 micrograms (two doses each), or a 250 micrograms (one dose) developed binding antibodies. Later, the statement indicated that eight volunteers — four each from the 25-microgram and 100-microgram arms — developed neutralizing antibodies. Of the two types, these are the ones you’d really want to see. We don’t know results from the other 37 trial participants. . . .”
4.–It is possible that neutralizing antibodies may have been developed in the 37 test subjects whose data was not released because the testing process is exacting. Still the statement warrants caution, at the least. “ . . . . This doesn’t mean that they didn’t develop neutralizing antibodies.Testing for neutralizing antibodies is more time-consuming than other antibody tests and must be done in a biosecurity level 3 laboratory. Moderna disclosed the findings from eight subjects because that’s all it had at that point. Still, it’s a reason for caution . . . .”
5.–In addition, the age of the subjects was not released and that is relevant. “ . . . . Separately, while the Phase 1 trial included healthy volunteers ages 18 to 55 years, the exact ages of these eight people are unknown. If, by chance, they mostly clustered around the younger end of the age spectrum, you might expect a better response to the vaccine than if they were mostly from the senior end of it. And given who is at highest risk from the SARS-CoV‑2 coronavirus, protecting older adults is what Covid-19 vaccines need to do. . . .”
6.–In addition, there was no data released as to the durability of the neutralizing antibodies. If, for the sake of argument, they are not long-lasting, the utility of the vaccine is negligible. “ . . . . The report of neutralizing antibodies in subjects who were vaccinated comes from blood drawn two weeks after they received their second dose of vaccine. Two weeks. ‘That’s very early. We don’t know if those antibodies are durable,’ said Anna Durbin, a vaccine researcher at Johns Hopkins University. . . .”
7.–Still another point of contention/alarm concerns the variability in neutralizing antibodies among recovered patients: “ . . . . But studies have shown antibody levels among people who have recovered from the illness vary enormously; the range that may be influenced by the severity of a person’s disease. John ‘Jack’ Rose, a vaccine researcher from Yale University, pointed STAT to a study from China that showed that, among 175 recovered Covid-19 patients studied, 10 had no detectable neutralizing antibodies. Recovered patients at the other end of the spectrum had really high antibody levels. So though the company said the antibody levels induced by vaccine were as good as those generated by infection, there’s no real way to know what that comparison means. . . .”
8.–It is less than encouraging that Moderna disclosed that more relevant data will be disclosed in a report to be released in conjunction with NIAID: “ . . . . STAT asked Moderna for information on the antibody levels it used as a comparator. The response: That will be disclosed in an eventual journal article from NIAID, which is part of the National Institutes of Health. . . .”
9.–Ann Durbin was struck by the wording of Moderna’s release: “ . . . . Durbin was struck by the wording of the company’s statement, pointing to this sentence: ‘The levels of neutralizing antibodies at day 43 were at or above levels generally seen in convalescent sera.’ ‘I thought: Generally? What does that mean?’ Durbin said. Her question, for the time being, can’t be answered. . . .”
10.–Jack Rose commented on the opaque nature of Moderna’s release: “. . . . Rose said the company should disclose the information. ‘When a company like Moderna with such incredibly vast resources says they have generated SARS‑2 neutralizing antibodies in a human trial, I would really like to see numbers from whatever assay they are using,’ he said. . . .”
10.–To date, Moderna issues press releases, not papers that can be vetted by the scientific community: “ . . . . It doesn’t publish on its work in scientific journals. What is known has been disclosed through press releases. That’s not enough to generate confidence within the scientific community. ‘My guess is that their numbers are marginal or they would say more,’ Rose said about the company’s SARS‑2 vaccine, echoing a suspicion that others have about some of the company’s other work. ‘I do think it’s a bit of a concern that they haven’t published the results of any of their ongoing trials that they mention in their press release. They have not published any of that,’ Durbin noted. . . .”
After summarizing a highly technical article warning that of the possible consequences of introducing a SARS Cov‑2 vaccine that generates inadequately high levels of antibodies, we detail a 2016 STAT News article about Moderna highlights a number of areas of concern, given the speed and relatively opaque nature of the potential introduction of its Covid-19 vaccine.
The financing of the company by DARPA, and Moncef Slaoui’s joining with Four Star General Perna (elevated by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark A. Milley) are of additional concern.
1.–As of 2016, Moderna had the largest valuation of any private biotech firm and former employees felt that Moderna prized money over science. Note that, as will be reviewed later in the program, its stock has risen exponentially as a result of the injection of hundreds of millions of dollars. Bear in mind that Moderna has also been underwritten by DARPA. “ . . . . Moderna is worth more than any other private biotech in the US, and former employees said they felt that Bancel prized the company’s ever-increasing valuation, now approaching $5 billion, over its science. . . .”
2.–Moderna has maintained a culture of secrecy, which in 2016, applied to the first two products undergoing phase 1 trials: “ . . . . Moderna just moved its first two potential treatments — both vaccines — into human trials. In keeping with the culture of secrecy, though, executives won’t say which diseases the vaccines target, and they have not listed the studies on the public federal registry, ClinicalTrials.gov. Listing is optional for Phase 1 trials, which are meant to determine if a drug is safe, but most companies voluntarily disclose their work. . . .”
3.–Protein therapy has been a driving economic and therapeutic factor in the pharmaceutical business: “ . . . . For decades, companies have endeavored to craft better and better protein therapies, leading to new treatments for cancer, autoimmune disorders, and rare diseases. Such therapies are costly to produce and have many limitations, but they’ve given rise to a multibillion-dollar industry. The anti-inflammatory Humira, the world’s top drug at $14 billion in sales a year, is a shining example of protein therapy. . . .”
4.–Moderna aims at doing an end run around that technology with the injection of mRNA (messenger RNA) or DNA. This is a risky technology: “ . . . . Moderna’s technology promised to subvert the whole field, creating therapeutic proteins inside the body instead of in manufacturing plants. The key: harnessing messenger RNA, or mRNA. . . . . It’s highly risky. Big pharma companies had tried similar work and abandoned it because it’s exceedingly hard to get RNA into cells without triggering nasty side effects. . . . .”
5.–CEO Bancel has maintained the company’s culture of secrecy: “ . . . . Under Bancel, Moderna has been loath to publish its work in Science or Nature, but enthusiastic to herald its potential on CNBC and CNN, taking part in segments on the world’s most disruptive companiesand the potential “cure for cancer.” . . .”
6.–Moderna had draconian attitude toward employees from its inception: “ . . . . From the beginning, Bancel made clear that Moderna’s science simply had to work. And that anyone who couldn’t make it work didn’t belong. The early Moderna was a chaotic, unpredictable workplace, according to former employees. One recalls finding himself out of a job when a quick-turnaround experiment failed to pan out. Another helped train a group of new hires only to realize they were his replacements. . . .”
7.–Joe Bolen exemplified the treatment Moderna meted out: “ . . . . Most stunning to employees was the abrupt departure of Joseph Bolen, who came aboard in 2013 to lead Moderna’s R&D efforts. Bolen was a big-name hire in biotech circles, an experienced chief scientific officer who had guided Millennium Pharmaceuticals to FDA approval for a blockbuster cancer drug. . . ‘No scientist in his right mind would leave that job unless there was something wrong with the science or the personnel,” said a person close to the company at the time.’ . . .”
8.–Bolen had company: “ . . . . Bolen wasn’t alone. Chief Information Officer John Reynders joined in 2013 to make Moderna what he called the world’s “first fully digital biotech,”only to step down a year later. Michael Morin, brought in to lead Moderna’s scientific efforts in cancer in 2014, lasted less than 18 months. As did Greg Licholai, hired in 2015 to direct the company’s projects in rare diseases. The latter two key leadership positions remain unfilled. . . .”
9.–The explanation of CFO Lorence Kim is less than reassuring from the standpoint of product safety and reliability: “ . . . . ‘We force everyone to grow with the company at unprecedented speed,’ Moderna Chief Financial Officer Lorence Kim said. ‘Some people grow with the company; others don’t.’ . . .”
10.–Beginning in 2013, Moderna partnered with a series of pharmaceutical giants, including AstraZeneca, which has been selected to develop a Covid-19 vaccine: “ . . . . That’s when Moderna — which had just 25 employees — signed a staggering $240 million partnership with UK pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca. It was the most money pharma had ever spent on drugs that had not yet been tested in humans. . . .”
11.–The firm has been lavishly capitalized: “ . . . . In early 2015, Moderna disclosed a $450 million financing round, the largest ever for a private biotech company. This month, the company broke its own record, raising another $474 million. . . . Though it has yet to reveal data from a single clinical trial, Moderna is now valued at $4.7 billion, according to Pitchbook. . . .”
12.–Initially, Moderna aimed at developing products that would be administered for a period of years: “ . . . . From the start, Moderna heralded its ability to produce proteins within cells, which could open up a world of therapeutic targets unreachable by conventional drugs. The most revolutionary treatments, which could challenge the multibillion-dollar market for protein therapy, would involve repeated doses of mRNA over many years, so a patient’s body continued to produce proteins to keep disease at bay. . . .”
13.–Instead of producing treatments that would be administered over a period of years, the company focused on vaccines: “ . . . . But Moderna’s first human trials aren’t so ambitious, focusing instead on the crowded field of vaccines, where the company has only been working since 2014. . . . The choice to prioritize vaccines came as a disappointment to many in the company, according to a former manager. The plan had been to radically disrupt the biotech industry, the manager said, so ‘why would you start with a clinical program that has very limited upside and lots of competition?’” . . . .”
14.–The answer to Moderna’s focus on vaccines may be due to issues of product safety: “ . . . Delivery — actually getting RNA into cells — has long bedeviled the whole field. On their own, RNA molecules have a hard time reaching their targets. They work better if they’re wrapped up in a delivery mechanism, such as nanoparticles made of lipids. But those nanoparticles can lead to dangerous side effects, especially if a patient has to take repeated doses over months or years. . . .”
15.–Vaccines will only administer mRNA at the time of vaccination, rather than over a long period of time: “ . . . . ‘I would say that mRNA is better suited for diseases where treatment for short duration is sufficiently curative, so the toxicities caused by delivery materials are less likely to occur,’ said Katalin Karikó, a pioneer in the field who serves as a vice president at BioNTech. . . That makes vaccines the lowest hanging fruit in mRNA, said Franz-Werner Haas, CureVac’s chief corporate officer. ‘From our point of view, it’s obvious why [Moderna] started there,’ he said.’ . . .”
16.–Moderna’s explanation for its focus on vaccines is not reassuring—the speed with which it can proceed to human trials. The firm’s secrecy has generated alarm: “ . . . . Moderna said it prioritized vaccines because they presented the fastest path to human trials, not because of setbacks with other projects. ‘The notion that [Moderna] ran into difficulties isn’t borne in reality,’ said Afeyan. But this is where Moderna’s secrecy comes into play: Until there’s published data, only the company and its partners know what the data show. Everyone outside is left guessing — and, in some cases, worrying that Moderna won’t live up to its hype. . . .”
17.–Moderna applies software and a business model derived from Tesla, Amazon and Uber: “ . . . . Moderna has pioneered an automated system modeled on the software Tesla uses to manage orders, Bancel said: Scientists simply enter the protein they want a cell to express, and testable mRNA arrives within weeks. . . . That has always been part of the plan, former employees said, pointing to Bancel’s fascination with the tech industry. Uber and Amazon were not the first to come up with their respective business ideas, but they were the ones that built enough scale to ward off competition. And Moderna is positioning itself to do the same in mRNA. . . .”
Moncef Slaoui’s optimistic statement on the Friday before the Monday announcement, presents important context for Moderna’s Monday announcement. That announcement moved markets based on inadequate data. “Operation Warp Speed” (headed by Slaoui) suggests that candidate Trump is very interested in those preliminary results as well.
Elizabeth Warren scored Slaoui’s conflict of interest–a consideration that will be discussed at length: ” . . . . Following Moncef Slaoui’s Friday appointment as a co-leader of the Warp Speed program, he’s set to sell about 155,000 shares in Moderna, according to press reports. They were worth an estimated $10 million Friday, but after Monday’s stock run-up on positive early data, they’re now valued at about $12.4 million. . . . Following Slaoui’s selection, Sen. Elizabeth Warren tweeted that it’s a ‘huge conflict of interest’ for him to keep the Moderna stock as he assumes the new role. She said he should ‘divest immediately.’ In a now-deleted tweet, Slaoui responded that there ‘is no conflict of interest, and there never has been,’ Business Insider reports. . . .”
Even after agreeing to sell his Moderna stock, Slaoui’s investments raise alarming questions–note that he is a “venture capitalist” and a longtime former executive at Glaxo-Smithkline:
1.–The circumstances of his appointment will permit him to avoid scrutiny: ” . . . . In agreeing to accept the position, Dr. Slaoui did not come on board as a government employee. Instead, he is on a contract, receiving $1 for his service. That leaves him exempt from federal disclosure rules that would require him to list his outside positions, stock holdings and other potential conflicts. And the contract position is not subject to the same conflict-of-interest laws and regulations that executive branch employees must follow. . . .”
2.–He will retain a great deal of Glaxo-Smithkline stock: ” . . . . He did not say how much his GSK shares were worth. When he left the company in 2017, he held about [500,000 in Western Print Edition] 240,000 shares and share equivalents, according to the drug company’s annual report and an analysis by the executive compensation firm Equilar. . . .”
3.–Further analysis of Slaoui’s position deepens concern about the integrity of the process: ” . . . . ‘This is basically absurd,’ said Virginia Canter, who is chief ethics counsel for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. ‘It allows for no public scrutiny of his conflicts of interest.’ Ms. Canter also said federal law barred government contractors from supervising government employees. . . . Ms. Canter, a former ethics lawyer in the Obama and Clinton administrations, the Securities and Exchange Commission and other agencies, pointed out that GSK’s vaccine candidate with Sanofi could wind up competing with other manufacturers vying for government approval and support. ‘If he retains stock in companies that are investing in the development of a vaccine, and he’s involved in overseeing this process to select the safest vaccine to combat Covid-19, regardless of how wonderful a person he is, we can’t be confident of the integrity of any process in which he is involved,’ Ms. Canter said. In addition, his affiliation with Medicxi could complicate matters: Two of its investors are GSK and a division of Johnson & Johnson, which is also developing a potential vaccine. . . .”
Moderna stands to make billions of dollars if their vaccine goes to market:
1.–” . . . . What investors are betting on, for Moderna and others developing vaccines against the SARS-CoV‑2 virus, is that a third of the developed world’s population will get vaccinated every year. That could amount to a $10 billion annual business, at an estimated price of $30 per vaccination. . . .”
2.–” . . . . Morgan Stanley analysts this past weekend suggested that pricing might start at $5 to $10 a dose during this first pandemic crisis, then rise to a range of $13 to $30 for preventive doses in future years. But at BMO Capital Markets, analyst George Farmer speculated that Moderna could start charging $125 per treatment in the U.S. market and raise that price over time to $200. . . . ”
We close the program with a reminder of the extent to which federal funding drives the value of Moderna: ” . . . . ‘Instead of waiting for the data and then scaling up with manufacturing process … we can make as many doses as we can. We are doing both in parallel,’ he said. The company plans to hire up to 150 people to support the effort. Bancel said the company ‘couldn’t have done this’ without the funding commitment from the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services. . . .”
Supplement to “The Eugenic Virus”
In FTR #1127, we highlighted one of the multi-dimensional facets of the Covid-19 phenomenon–how the pandemic is fulfilling a eugenic agenda across many social strata and around the globe. Former German finance minister Wolfgang Schauble–the “Austerity Czar” of the EU–has enunciated the eugenic philosophy of Covid-19 policy. Schauble pursued a Social Darwinian policy following the 2008 financial collapse: ” . . . During the international financial crisis, when Schäuble was Germany’s Minister of Finance, his EU counterparts trembled: Schäuble wanted to force them to adapt harsh austerity measures. Because the foreseeable social consequences would cost lives, Schäuble’s tactics 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. . . .” Schauble is now one of the most important figures in German government. He has expressed socio-economic policy with regard to treating those with Covid-19: ” . . . . 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.’ Death is coming sooner or later anyway. ‘We are all going to die.’ . . . . Schäuble’s statements are exemplary and are of ‘national significance’ declared the German Ethics Council. The council is government financed and prioritizes ‘economic rights.’ They should ‘not be unconditionally subordinated’ to the protection of human life. There is a sort of rivalry of values. If the value of life would have priority, ‘freedom’ would suffer, according to the unanimous judgment of the ethics department of the German Economic Institute (IW). . . . 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.’ . . . .”
FTR #1127 Bio-Psy-Op Apocalypse Now, Part 3–The Eugenic Virus
This program examines one of the multi-layered effects of the Covid-19 “bio-psy-op.” We stress that the demarcation of these layers is for cognitive purposes–to enhance understanding. The layers are part of a unified whole.
In this broadcast, we focus on the eugenic effects of the virus. We have covered eugenics in many broadcasts over the decades. A few of those: FTR #‘s 1075, 1029, 908, 909, 32, 1013. FTR #1013 is of particular importance, as Trump has used the Covid-19 outbreak to halt immigration into the U.S.
Before delving into the eugenics manifestations of the Covid-19 outbreak, we highlight some of the recent developments in the pandemic:
1.–A recent report, based on random testing, indicated that up to one fifth of New Yorkers may have been infected by the virus. If accurate, this is an important piece of information, indicating that, from an epidemiological standpoint, the virus did NOT originate in China.
2.–We strongly suspect that New York was deliberately vectored by fascist elements associated with the Trump administration at one level, and the Underground Reich at another. This methodology would not be unprecedented: “. . . . In the summer of 1966, Special Operations men walked into three New York City subway stations and tossed lightbulbs filled with Bacillus subtilis, a benign bacteria, onto the tracks. The subway trains pushed the germs through the entire system and theoretically killed over a million passengers. . . .”
3.–We note increased finger-pointing at, scapegoating of, China for the pandemic, on the part of Britain, Germany and France, in addition to Trump and elements of the intelligence community: ” . . . .Washington is simultaneously spreading deliberate rumors that the virus could have originated in a Chinese laboratory. Whereas, scientists vehemently refute the allegations, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas declared, he ‘does not want to exclude’ that the WHO will have to deal with these issues. On Monday, Chancellor Angela Merkel called on Beijing to show ‘transparency’ on the issue. . . . At the same time deliberate rumors are being spread in the United States that the Covid-19 virus could have originated in a Chinese laboratory — possibly in bioweapons lab. The US government indicated that it does not rule out this possibility; US intelligence services are currently investigating the issue. . . Leading British and French politicians have expressed similar views. British Foreign Minister Dominic Raab has repeatedly declared that China will be held responsible for the Covid-19 pandemic. French President Emmanuel Macron has now joined the campaign. Regarding the pandemic’s alleged origin, he declared, ‘there are clearly things that have happened’ in China ‘that we don’t know about.’ . . . . ”
4.–We also note a disturbing aspect of the symptoms of a cross-vectored, genetically-engineered virus that is the precipitating event for the Nazi takover in the US in Serpent’s Walk: ” . . . . Pacov‑1 produces only a mild, flu-like infection that disappears within a day or two. Public health authorities would overlook it, never consider it a serious epidemic, and even if they did they’d have to look carefully to isolate it. Once a victim is over the ‘flu,’ Pacov‑1 becomes dormant and almost undetectable. A month or two later, you send in the second stage: Pacov‑2 is also a virus, just as contagious as the first, and just as harmless by itself. It reacts with Pacov‑1 to produce a powerful coagulant. . . . you die within three minutes. . . .”
5.–The coagulating pathology produced by Pacov‑1 and Pacov‑2 in Serpent’s Walk is unnervingly similar to one of the many symptoms of Covid-19 infection: ” . . . . Doctors in hot spots across the globe have begun to report an unexpected prevalence of blood clotting among COVID cases, in what could pose a perfect storm of potentially fatal risk factors. . . . . . . It’s growing so common with severe COVID cases, doctors are recognizing it as a new pattern of clotting called COVID-19-associated coagulopathy, or CAC, which is notably associated with high inflammatory markers in the blood, like D‑dimer and fibrinogen. . . . ‘In the beginning of the outbreak, we started only giving them medicine to prevent clots. We saw that it wasn’t enough,’ Dr. Cristina Abad, an anesthesiologist at Hospital Clínicos San Carlos in Madrid, told ABC News. ‘They started having pulmonary embolisms, so we started [full] anticoagulation on everyone.’ . . .”
Eugenics, in its practice, might best be described as a pseudo-scientific doctrine attributing features of racial, ethnic and socio-economic prejudice to empirical scientific fact. ” . . . Eugenics is a set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population,[4][5] typically by excluding people and groups judged to be inferior, and promoting those judged to be superior. . . . Many countries enacted[49] various eugenics policies, including: genetic screenings, birth control, promoting differential birth rates, marriage restrictions, segregation (both racial segregation and sequestering the mentally ill), compulsory sterilization, forced abortions or forced pregnancies, ultimately culminating in genocide. . . .”
Discussion of the eugenic aspects of the Covid-19 phenomenon include:
1.–De facto rationing of health care during the pandemic in such a way as to potentially lethally discriminate against those with disabilities.
2.–Infection and death rates disproportionately high among populations enduring the economic and physiological affliction deriving from prejudice and social darwinistic doctrine: African-Americans, people who work in low-paying jobs that require close human contact and living in conditions that do not permit social distancing.
3.–The economically degrading effect of GOP fiscal policy with regard to public transportation during the pandemic.
4.–New York City has been stigmatized during the pandemic, as has New York State. With large Jewish, African-American and Latino populations, a tradition of liberal politics, generous municipal union contracts, a free city university program, New York has long been viewed as “Jew York City” by fascist elements. Governors, as well as Trump himself, have proposed quarantining New York City and New Jersey. This further underscores the above speculation concerning the rate of infection in New York City. ” . . . . As President Trump put it in his short-lived bid to ‘QUARANTINE’ New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, ‘Some people would like to see New York quarantined because it’s a hot spot’ — the implication being that if New Yorkers could only be kept where they are, with checkpoints and guards if need be, Covid-19 could be stopped from spreading elsewhere in the country. Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida set up checkpoints to stop cars with New York or Louisiana license plates, so that state troopers can warn drivers to self-quarantine or face 60 days in jail — even as he hesitated to put any social distancing in place or close the beaches for spring break. Instead of admitting the danger of community spread in Florida, the governor framed the problem as one of outsiders bringing germs in. Governors in Maryland and other states warned anyone arriving from the New York City area to isolate themselves. On Twitter, Covid-19 has taken on a new sobriquet: the ‘Cuomovirus.’ . . .”
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.
This, too, is reflected in the Trumpian “LIBERATE MICHIGAN etc.”
Some background on Schauble’s outlook: ” . . . . Hardly a German government representative is more notorious than Wolfgang Schäuble — worldwide. During the international financial crisis, when Schäuble was Germany’s Minister of Finance, his EU counterparts trembled: Schäuble wanted to force them to adapt harsh austerity measures. Because the foreseeable social consequences would cost lives, Schäuble’s tactics 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 since climbed higher on the government ladder. Schäuble now ranks second, after the President, in the Federal Republic of Germany’s protocolary system. . . . .”
After the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, he has redoubled his “Teutonic brutality:” ” . . . . In the midst of the Corona crisis, Schäuble initiated an interview, considered to be an unofficial guideline for the German state’s life and death decisions. Its tenor deserves attention, even beyond Germany’s borders.
“Should people have to die, because they are deprived of state resources, essential for the economic cycle, such as currently during the Corona crisis? Does the protection of human life have absolute priority in state policy? In the interview, 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.’ Death is coming sooner or later anyway. ‘We are all going to die.’ (April 26, 2020)
“Schäuble’s statements are exemplary and are of ‘national significance’ declared the German Ethics Council. The council is government financed and prioritizes ‘economic rights.’ They should ‘not be unconditionally subordinated’ to the protection of human life. There is a sort of rivalry of values. If the value of life would have priority, ‘freedom’ would suffer, according to the unanimous judgment of the ethics department of the German Economic Institute (IW). From the standpoint of German constitutional law, according to a former judge on the constitutional court, ‘the state’s efficiency’ would encounter its limits, if life were given top priority, where ‘everything else must lag arbitrarily far behind.’
“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. Prominent voices from the parliamentary opposition parties are also in agreement that the protection of human life, as the primary legitimized duty of the state is a ‘question of assessment.’ From this the FDP draws the conclusion: ‘therefore, please reopen the businesses.’ ‘Enable production.’ In harmony with Germany’s export economy lobbyists and the President of the Bundestag, the chair of the Greens is also one of the relativizers. He finds himself in an alleged ‘dilemma,’ when he thinks of the protection of life during the Corona crisis, while 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.’ . . . .”
The broadcast concludes with an overview of New York Times headlines, illustrating various aspects of the socio-economic fallout of the Covid-19 outbreak, victimizing lower income people, reducing income and earning ability, educational opportunity, adversely affecting access to food and auguring catastrophe for Third World populations:
1.–“Colleges Running Out of Cash Worry Students Will Vanish, Too” by Anemona Hartocollis; The New York Times; 4/16/2020; pp. A1-A-15 [Western Edition].
2.–“Outbreak Strains States’ Finances” by Mary Williams Walsh; The New York Times; 4/16/2020; pp. B1-B6 [Western Edition].
3.–” ‘This Is Going to Kill Small-Town America’ ” by David Gelles: The New York Times; 4/16/2020; pp. B1-B5 [Western Edition].
4.–The New York Times [Western Edition] headline for 4/16/2020 said it all, as far as the fortunes of retail outlets. “Sales at U.S. Stores Hit ‘Catastrophic’ Depths” by Sapna Maheshwari and Ben Casselman; The New York Times; 4/16/2020.
5.– “Evidence of Virus Effect on Economy Grows More Ominous” [AP]; The New York Times; 4/15/2020.
6.– “135 Million Face Starvation. That Could Double” by Abdi Latif Dahir; The New York Times; 4/23/2020; pp. A1-A6; [Western Edition].
7.– “This Pandemic Is Bringing Another” by Nicholas Kristof; The New York Times; 4/23/2020; p. A23 [Op-ed–Western Edition].
8.– “Covid-19 Threatens Global Safety Net” Editorial; The New York Times; 4/23/2020; p. A22 [Western Edition].
9.–“How Government ‘Failed the Elderly’ ” Letter to the Editor; The New York Times; 4/23/2020; p. A22 [Western Edition].
10.– “A Limit on Trump’s Immigration Power” by Jennifer M. Chacon and Erwin Chermerinsky; The New York Times; 4/23/2020; p. A23 [op-ed–Western Edition].
11.– ” ‘The Food Supply Chain Is Breaking.’ Tyson Foods Warns of Meat Shortage as Plants Close Due to Covid-19” by Sanya Mansoor [Time] Yahoo News; 4/26/2020.
As noted in the program, the eugenic aspects of the pandemic and effects on the economically and socially disadvantaged inside and outside of the U.S. are inextricable with the weal-concentrating aspects of the pandemic. This will be the focus of our next program:
1.–“Banks Steered Richest Clients To Federal Aid” by Emily Flitter and Stacy Cowley; The New York Times; 4/23/2020; pp. A1-A14 [Western Edition].
2.–“Millions In Relief For Backer Of Resorts” by Jeanna Smialek, Jim Tankersley and Alan Rappeport; The New York Times; 4/23/2020; pp. B1-B5 [Western Edition].
Provocation: Covid-19 as a False Flag “Bio-Reichstag Fire” (Updated on 4/22/2020)
In FTR #1126, we examined the Trump administration and GOP’s exploitation of the Covid-19 outbreak as a campaign tactic and right-wing hints that the virus escaped from a Chinese biological warfare laboratory. Now, Germany, France and Britain are joining with the Trump administration and the GOP in hinting that the coronavirus escaped from a Chinese biological warfare laboratory. As a “German Foreign Policy” article notes, the tone of American, British, French and German rhetoric concerning Covid-19 is reminiscent of the deliberate disinformation that led to the invasion of Iraq in 2002. A) ” . . . . Last weekend, US President Donald Trump warned the People’s Republic that it should face consequences if it was ‘knowingly responsible’ for the spread of the pandemic. Washington is simultaneously spreading deliberate rumors that the virus could have originated in a Chinese laboratory. Whereas, scientists vehemently refute the allegations, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas declared, he ‘does not want to exclude’ that the WHO will have to deal with these issues. On Monday, Chancellor Angela Merkel called on Beijing to show ‘transparency’ on the issue. . . .”; B) ” . . . . At the same time deliberate rumors are being spread in the United States that the Covid-19 virus could have originated in a Chinese laboratory — possibly in bioweapons lab. The US government indicated that it does not rule out this possibility; US intelligence services are currently investigating the issue. Particularly given the lie about Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, such an allegation must be perceived as a threat to lend legitimacy to new aggressions. . . .”; C) ” . . . . Already last week, German media organs have increasingly been calling China the ‘culprit’ behind the Covid-19 pandemic outbreak. Under the headline ‘what China already owes us,’ Germany’s Springer press even called for ‘reparations.’ (german-foreign-policy.com reported.[5]) Leading British and French politicians have expressed similar views. British Foreign Minister Dominic Raab has repeatedly declared that China will be held responsible for the Covid-19 pandemic. French President Emmanuel Macron has now joined the campaign. Regarding the pandemic’s alleged origin, he declared, ‘there are clearly things that have happened’ in China ‘that we don’t know about.’[6] It is not clear how Macron can know something exists that he does not know about. It is however clear that he seeks to implicate Beijing. . . .” In fact–as we have seen, the DARPA has been doing extensive research into bat-borne coronaviruses. In addition, Fort Detrick was shut down in early August of 2019 for safety violations.
Miscellaneous Archives
Uncle Sam and The Swastika The Third Reich as historical outgrowth of multi-national corporate capitalism; the financing and arming of Nazi Germany. Read more »- Spitfire List is licensed under Creative Commons.
Recent Comments