THE REAL SCANDAL: U.S. MEDIA...WAS GREENWALD RIGHT?

 

A FEW YEARS BACK, AS A SUBSCIBER TO THE WASHINGTON POST, ONE OF ABOUT 18 U.S. RAGSHEETS I WAS STILL SUBSCRIBED TO AT THE TIME (DOWN TO 2 NOW) I TRIED TO TAKE THEM TO TASK OVER THEIR YELLOW, AND YELLOW-BELLIED, JOURNALISM, THEIR FIXATION ON BRINGING DOWN TRUMP, THEIR WRITING OF MERE OPINION PIECES INSTEAD OF THE TRUTH IN NEWS, NEWS, REALITY. 

I HAD A SCRAPBOOK OF THEIR ARTICLES DATING BACK TO 1963 AND REMINDED THEM OF SOME OF THE NON-PARTISAN REPORTING, REAL REPORTING, GOOD REPORTING THAT THEY HAD ONCE DONE. I SHAMED THEM AND TOLD THEM THEY SHOULD TRULY FEEL ASHAMED FOR FAILING TO BE A TRULY FREE PRESS, FREE OF MEDIA BIAS. 

THE COWARDS WOULDN'T PUBLISH A WORD OF IT. 

SAME WAS TRUE OF THE NEW YORK TIMES, CHICAGO TRIBUNE, SEATTLE TIMES, ALL BUT TWO OF 18, AND THOSE TWO AREN'T RANKED IN THE TOP 10 U.S, NEWS MEDIA. 

GLENN GRENWALD FOUNDED 'THE INTERCEPT', AND THEY REFUSED TO PUBLISH A RECENT PIECE HE PENNED ABOUT SLEAZY JOE BIDEN, THOUGH IT WAS A FACTUAL PIECE, NOT A HACKED LOT OF BS LIKE MOST "ARTICLES" WE'RE FED TODAY. 

GREENWALD WAS IRATE, AS HE SHOULD BE. 
HE HIKED HIS LEG AND PISSED ON HIS RUINED CREATION. 

I SALUTE HIM. 
 
IF YOU'VE BEEN BLOCKED FROM READING THAT ENTIRE BANNED WORK BY MAYBE ONE OF THE LAST REAL JOURNALISTS, TRY THIS LINK, AND MAYBE, JUST MAYBE OLD GOOGLE WILL "ALLOW" THIS BLOG, THE FEW LINES BELOW BY A MAN MORE CONCERNED WITH FREEDOM OF THE PRESS AND TRUTH THAN WITH BOWING TO THE PRESSURE FROM THE HATE-TRUMP CROWD. 

IT MAY BE THE FINAL SUCH ARTICLE YOU WILL EVER READ. 

TAKE YOUR CENSORSHIP AND SHOVE IT, INTERCEPT, UNTIL IT CHOKES. 

THE REAL SCANDAL  

"But the real scandal that has been proven is not the former Vice President’s misconduct but that of his supporters and allies in the U.S. media. As Taibbi’s headline put it: “With the Hunter Biden Exposé, Suppression is a Bigger Scandal Than the Actual Story.”

The reality is the U.S. press has been planning for this moment for four years — cooking up justifications for refusing to report on newsworthy material that might help Donald Trump get re-elected. One major factor is the undeniable truth that journalists with national outlets based in New York, Washington and West Coast cities overwhelmingly not just favor Joe Biden but are desperate to see Donald Trump defeated.

It takes an enormous amount of gullibility to believe that any humans are capable of separating such an intense partisan preference from their journalistic judgment. Many barely even bother to pretend: critiques of Joe Biden are often attacked first not by Biden campaign operatives but by political reporters at national news outlets who make little secret of their eagerness to help Biden win.

But much of this has to do with the fallout from the 2016 election. During that campaign, news outlets, including The Intercept, did their jobs as journalists by reporting on the contents of newsworthy, authentic documents: namely, the emails published by WikiLeaks from the John Podesta and DNC inboxes which, among other things, revealed corruption so severe that it forced the resignation of the top five officials of the DNC. That the materials were hacked, and that intelligence agencies were suggesting Russia was responsible, not negate the newsworthiness of the documents, which is why media outlets across the country repeatedly reported on their contents.

Nonetheless, journalists have spent four years being attacked as Trump enablers in their overwhelmingly Democratic and liberal cultural circles: the cities in which they live are overwhelmingly Democratic, and their demographic — large-city, college-educated professionals — has vanishingly little Trump support.

Wanting to avoid a repeat of feeling scorn and shunning in their own extremely pro-Democratic, anti-Trump circles, national media outlets have spent four years inventing standards for election-year reporting on hacked materials that never previously existed and that are utterly anathema to the core journalistic function. The Washington Post's Executive Editor Marty Baron, for instance, issued a memo full of cautions about how Post reporters should, or should not, discuss hacked materials even if their authenticity is not in doubt.

That a media outlet should even consider refraining from reporting on materials they know to be authentic and in the public interest because of questions about their provenance is the opposite of how journalism has been practiced. In the days before the 2016 election, for instance, the New York Times received by mail one year of Donald Trump's tax returns and -- despite having no idea who sent it to them or how that person obtained it: was is stolen or hacked by a foreign power? -- the Times reported on its contents.

When asked by NPR why they would report on documents when they do not know the source let alone the source's motives in providing them, two-time Pulitzer Prize winner David Barstow compellingly explained what had always been the core principle of journalism: namely, a journalist only cares about two questions -- (1) are documents authentic and (2) are they in the public interest? -- but does not care about what motives a source has in providing the documents or how they were obtained when deciding whether to reporting them: https://twitter.com/mikiebarb/status/783379164409847808

The U.S. media often laments that people have lost faith in its pronouncements, that they are increasingly viewed as untrustworthy and that many people view Fake News sites are more reliable than established news outlets. They are good at complaining about this, but very bad at asking whether any of their own conduct is responsible for it.

A media outlet that renounces its core function -- pursuing answers to relevant questions about powerful people -- is one that deserves to lose the public's faith and confidence. And that is exactly what the U.S. media, with some exceptions, attempted to do with this story: they took the lead not in investigating these documents but in concocting excuses for why they should be ignored.   

As my colleague Lee Fang put it on Sunday: "The partisan double standards in the media are mind boggling this year, and much of the supposedly left independent media is just as cowardly and conformist as the mainstream corporate media. Everyone is reading the room and acting out of fear." 

Discussing his story from Sunday, Taibbi summed up the most important point this way: "The whole point is that the press loses its way when it cares more about who benefits from information than whether it's true."


ON BIDEN'S MOTIVES IN UKRAINE

“Biden’s brief was to sweet-talk and jawbone Poroshenko into making reforms that Ukraine’s Western benefactors wanted to see as,” wrote the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler in what the Post calls a “fact-check.” Kessler also endorsed the key defense of Biden: that the firing of Shokhin was bad for Burima, not good for it. “The United States viewed [Shokhin] as ineffective and beholden to Poroshenko and Ukraine’s corrupt oligarchs. In particular, Shokin had failed to pursue an investigation of the founder of Burisma, Mykola Zlochevsky,” Kessler claims.

But that claim does not even pass the laugh test. The U.S. and its European allies are not opposed to corruption by their puppet regimes. They are allies with the most corrupt regimes on the planet, from Riyadh to Cairo, and always have been. Since when does the U.S. devote itself to ensuring good government in the nations it is trying to control? If anything, allowing corruption to flourish has been a key tool in enabling the U.S. to exert power in other countries and to open up their markets to U.S. companies.

Beyond that, if increasing prosecutorial independence and strengthening anti-corruption vigilance were really Biden's goal in working to demand the firing of the Ukrainian chief prosecutor, why would the successor to Shokhin, Yuriy Lutsenko, possibly be acceptable? Lutsenko, after all, had "no legal background as general prosecutor," was principally known only as a lackey of Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, was forced in 2009 to "resign as interior minister after being detained by police at Frankfurt airport for being drunk and disorderly," and "was subsequently jailed for embezzlement and abuse of office, though his defenders said the sentence was politically motivated."

Is it remotely convincing to you that Biden would have accepted someone like Lutsenko if his motive really were to fortify anti-corruption prosecutions in Ukraine? Yet that's exactly what Biden did: he personally told Poroshenko that Lutsenko was an acceptable alternative and promptly released the $1 billion after his appointment was announced. Whatever Biden's motive was in using his power as U.S. Vice President to change the prosecutor in Ukraine, his acceptance of someone like Lutsenko strongly suggests that combatting Ukrainian corruption was not it.

As for the other claim on which Biden and his media allies have heavily relied — that firing Shokhin was not a favor for Burisma because Shokhin was not pursuing any investigations against Burisma — the evidence does not justify that assertion.

It is true that no evidence, including these new emails, constitute proof that Biden's motive in demanding Shokhin's termination was to benefit Burisma. But nothing demonstrates that Shokhin was impeding investigations into Burisma. Indeed, the New York Times in 2019 published one of the most comprehensive investigations to date of the claims made in defense of Biden when it comes to Ukraine and the firing of this prosecutor, and, while noting that "no evidence has surfaced that the former vice president intentionally tried to help his son by pressing for the prosecutor general’s dismissal," this is what its reporters concluded about Shokhin and Burisma:

[Biden's] pressure campaign eventually worked. The prosecutor general, long a target of criticism from other Western nations and international lenders, was voted out months later by the Ukrainian Parliament.

Among those who had a stake in the outcome was Hunter Biden, Mr. Biden’s younger son, who at the time was on the board of an energy company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch who had been in the sights of the fired prosecutor general.

The Times added: "Mr. Shokhin’s office had oversight of investigations into [Burisma's billionaire founder] Zlochevsky and his businesses, including Burisma." By contrast, they said, Lutsenko, the replacement approved by Vice President Biden, "initially continued investigating Mr. Zlochevsky and Burisma, but cleared him of all charges within 10 months of taking office."

So whether or not it was Biden's intention to confer benefits on Burisma by demanding Shokhin's firing, it ended up quite favorable for Burisma given that the utterly inexperienced Lutesenko "cleared [Burisma's founder] of all charges within 10 months of taking office."

The new comprehensive report from journalist Taibbi on Sunday also strongly supports the view that there were clear antagonisms between Shokhin and Burisma, such that firing the Ukrainian prosecutor would have been beneficial for Burisma. Taibbi, who reported for many years while based in Russia and remains very well-sourced in the region, detailed:

For all the negative press about Shokhin, there’s no doubt that there were multiple active cases involving Zlochevsky/Burisma during his short tenure. This was even once admitted by American reporters, before it became taboo to describe such cases untethered to words like “dormant.” Here’s how Ken Vogel at the New York Times put it in May of 2019:

"When Mr. Shokhin became prosecutor general in February 2015, he inherited several investigations into the company and Mr. Zlochevsky, including for suspicion of tax evasion and money laundering. Mr. Shokin also opened an investigation into the granting of lucrative gas licenses to companies owned by Mr. Zlochevsky when he was the head of the Ukrainian Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources."

Ukrainian officials I reached this week confirmed that multiple cases were active during that time.

“There were different numbers, but from 7 to 14,” says Serhii Horbatiuk, former head of the special investigations department for the Prosecutor General’s Office, when asked how many Burisma cases there were.

“There may have been two to three episodes combined, and some have already been closed, so I don't know the exact amount." But, Horbatiuk insists, there were many cases, most of them technically started under Yarema, but at least active under Shokin.

The numbers quoted by Horbatiuk gibe with those offered by more recent General Prosecutor Rulsan Ryaboshapka, who last year said there were at one time or another “13 or 14” cases in existence involving Burisma or Zlochevsky.

Taibbi reviews real-time reporting in both Ukraine and the U.S. to document several other pending investigations against Burisma and Zlochevsky that was overseen by the prosecutor whose firing Biden demanded. He notes that Shokhin himself has repeatedly said he was pursuing several investigations against Zlochevsky at the time Biden demanded his firing. In sum, Taibbi concludes, "one can’t say there’s no evidence of active Burisma cases even during the last days of Shokin, who says that it was the February, 2016 seizure order [against Zlochevsky's assets] that got him fired."

And, Taibbi notes, "the story looks even odder when one wonders why the United States would exercise so much foreign policy muscle to get Shokin fired, only to allow in a replacement — Yuri Lutsenko — who by all accounts was a spectacularly bigger failure in the battle against corruption in general, and Zlochevsky in particular." In sum: "it’s unquestionable that the cases against Burisma were all closed by Shokin’s successor, chosen in consultation with Joe Biden, whose son remained on the board of said company for three more years, earning upwards of $50,000 per month."

ps://greenwald.substack.com/p/article-on-joe-and-hunter-biden-censored

By Glenn Greenwald:

I am posting here the most recent draft of my article about Joe and Hunter Biden — the last one seen by Intercept editors before telling me that they refuse to publish it absent major structural changes involving the removal of all sections critical of Joe Biden, leaving only a narrow article critiquing media outlets. I will also, in a separate post, publish all communications I had with Intercept editors surrounding this article so you can see the censorship in action and, given the Intercept’s denials, decide for yourselves (this is the kind of transparency responsible journalists provide, and which the Intercept refuses to this day to provide regarding their conduct in the Reality Winner story). This draft obviously would have gone through one more round of proof-reading and editing by me — to shorten it, fix typos, etc — but it’s important for the integrity of the claims to publish the draft in unchanged form that Intercept editors last saw, and announced that they would not “edit” but completely gut as a condition to publication:

THE CDC OWNS THE PATENT ON SARS-COV. NO PATENT IS GRANTED ON ANYTHING THAT EXISTS IN NATURE.

 The CDC filed a patent application on SARS-CoV in 2004; it was granted in 2007.

The specific patent of SARS-CoV is "Coronavirus isolated from humans," Patent #7,220,852 B1  and includes the "isolated coronavirus genome, isolated coronavirus proteins, and isolated nucleic acid molecules." About 20 pages of the patent describe the process of isolating the genome, including the synthesis of cDNA.

THE SYNTHESIS, MEANING SYNTHETIC, NOT FOUND IN NATURE. 

Experts also noted that other steps in the process — like stripping genetic material from its chromosome and creating copies, or the use of biotechnology in general — likely made the patent viable. 

IF IT WERE NATURAL, IF IT CAME STRICTLY FROM NATURE, A PATENT, ACCORDING TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT WOULD BE ILLEGAL AND WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED.

SEE <THIS ARTICLE> ON THE LIKELY ILLEGALITY OF PATENTING HUMAN GENES, ANY GENES, ANY PART OF NATURAL GENES OR NATURAL PROTEINS, NATURAL VIRUSES. 
YOU WILL ALSO SEE HOW DELIGHTED FAUCI'S  NHGRI AND THE U.S. NHI WERE THAT THE SUPREME COURT ALLOWED THEM PATENT OF SARS-COV. 

SARS-CoV is NOT the same as COVID-19, which is technically called SARS-CoV-2.  While the viruses are from the same family, they differ in a number of key factors — SARS-CoV-2 is only about 79% correlated to SARS-CoV.  

THE NEAREST 'MATCH' TO SARS-COV-2 IS A BAT VIRUS NAMED RaTG13, BUT ONLY 96% SIMILAR TO SARS-COV-2.

THIS VIRUS WAS DISCOVERED AND STUDIED BY A CHINESE RESEARCHER WORKING AT THAT WUHAN LAB FOR 15 YEARS. 
COINCIDENCE, SURELY? 

ARE YOU AWARE, HAS MAINSTREAM MEDIA MENTIONED LATELY, THAT SARS-1 ESCAPED FROM 6 ASIAN LABS BEFORE? 

SARS has not re-emerged naturally, but there have been six escapes from virology labs: one each in Singapore and Taiwan, and four separate escapes at the same laboratory in Beijing.

The first was in Singapore in August 2003, in a virology graduate student at the National University of Singapore. He had not worked directly with SARS, but it was present in the laboratory where he worked. He recovered and produced no secondary cases. The World Health Organization formed an expert committee to revise SARS biosafety guidelines.

The second escape was in Taiwan in December 2003, when a SARS research scientist fell ill on a return flight after attending a medical meeting in Singapore. His 74 contacts in Singapore were quarantined, but again, fortunately, none developed SARS. Investigation revealed the scientist had handled leaking biohazard waste without gloves, a mask, or a gown. Ironically, the WHO expert committee called for augmented biosafety in SARS laboratories the day after this case was reported.

In April 2004, China reported a case of SARS in a nurse who had cared for a researcher at the Chinese National Institute of Virology. While ill, the researcher had traveled twice by train from Beijing to Anhui province, where she was nursed by her mother, a physician, who fell ill and died. The nurse in turn infected five third-generation cases, causing no deaths.

Subsequent investigation uncovered three unrelated laboratory infections in different researchers at the NIV. At least two primary patients had never worked with live SARS virus. Many shortcomings in biosecurity were found at the NIV, and the specific cause of the outbreak was traced to an inadequately inactivated preparation of SARS virus that was used in general (that is, not biosecure) laboratory areas, including one where the primary cases worked. It had not been tested to confirm its safety after inactivation, as it should have been.

IN 2004, Associated Press reported, WHO Western Pacific Regional Director Shigeru Omi criticized the laboratory's safeguards and said the authorities did not know yet whether any foreigners had been carrying out medical research in the facility and had since left the country. Laboratory safety "is a serious issue that has to be addressed," he said. "We have to remain very vigilant."  

Antoine Danchin, an epidemiologist with the Hong Kong University-Pasteur Research Center, who studied the SARS epidemic in Hong Kong, told us the latest incidents were probably the result of lab accidents.   

[Lab security breach blamed in China SARS, USA Today via Associated Press, April 26, 2004. , http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-04-26-sars-security_x.htm]

IS MAINSTREAM MEDIA MENTIONING THAT THE BIG "SWINE FLU" SCARE OF 1974 WAS CAUSED BY TWO LAB ESCAPES OF HUMAN H1N1, ONE FROM CHINA, ONE FROM RUSSIA? 
NO.
Human H1N1 virus reappeared in 1977, in the Soviet Union and China. Virologists, using serologic and early genetic tests, soon began to suggest the cause of the reappearance was a laboratory escape of a 1949-50 virus, and as genomic techniques advanced, it became clear that this was true. By 2010, researchers published it as fact: “The most famous case of a released laboratory strain is the re-emergent H1N1 influenza-A virus which was first observed in China in May of 1977 and in Russia shortly thereafter.” The virus may have escaped from a lab attempting to prepare an attenuated H1N1 vaccine in response to the U.S. swine flu pandemic alert.    

BUT AN ESCAPE FROM A LAB IS TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE THIS TIME, SURELY. 
THAT'S WHAT THE MSM, CDC, WHO KEEP TELLING US. 
NOT AGAIN, RIGHT? 

THERE IS A 17-PAGE DETAILED REPORT ON THE TOO-COMMON LAB ESCAPES/LAB 'ACCIDENTS' IN THE INTERNET ARCHIVES <HERE>. IT SEEMS LABS JUST DON'T LEARN FROM PAST MISTAKES AND MAY NEVER LEARN. 
THAT, OR MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, THOSE AREN'T ALL "ACCIDENTS"? 

U.S. RESEARCH HALTED, MORATORIUM ORDERED, HELLO, WUHAN. 

In October 2014, due to "biosafety and biosecurity risks," (YES, MORE LAB "ACCIDENTS!) the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy issued a moratorium on funding for gain-of-function research on influenza, SARS and MERS, per the NIH. 

Little Anthony Fauci, who has headed the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since 1984, has played a major role in promoting and funding gain-of-function (GoF) research, both in the U.S. and China. 

Newsweek reported: “He argued that the research was worth the risk it entailed because it enables scientists to make preparations [  ] that could be useful if and when a pandemic occurred.”

• Those claims are belied by the empirical evidence
   GoF experiments have neither prevented a pandemic, nor provided useful information about safe and effective pandemic countermeasures. Numerous prominent scientists argue that these experiments deviate from morally justifiable research, and the experimentally altered pathogens have put the entire human species at risk.

However, GoF research is defended by a closed circle of scientists within government and those who are contracted by government to conduct this line of research.

WHAT DOES "GAIN-OF-FUNCTION" MEAN?
IT MEANS THE ABILITY TO CAUSE THE VIRAL AGENT (OR BACTERIAL AGENT) TO SPREAD IN NEW WAYS, TO ENHANCE THE VIRULENCE, TO BASICALLY WEAPONIZE A VIRAL AGENT IN ORDER TO CREATE RAPID SPREAD AND HIGHER INFECTION RATE. 

LET'S TALK ABOUT FAUCI AND THE CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY. 

“In order to outsource dangerous viral research from the U.S. to China during the Obama moratorium, Fauci prematurely approved the Wuhan Institute as a highest level containment facility (known as BSL-4) capable of safely working with lethal viruses,” Dr. Peter Breggin writes.

“He did this while knowing the Institute had a very poor safety record and while also knowing that all such facilities in China are overseen by the military as part of its biowarfare program. Thus, Fauci created two grave worldwide threats, the accidental release of a deadly coronavirus and/or its use as a military weapon.”

Interestingly, while the original moratorium on gain-of-function research was a direct order by then-President Obama, when the moratorium was lifted at the end of 2017, it was done so by the National Institutes of Health and the NIAID, WHICH FAUCI HAS HEADED FOR ALMOST 40 YEARS, SINCE 1984.  

Fauci also defended and promoted gain-of-function research on bird flu viruses a decade ago, saying such research was worth the risk because it allows scientists to prepare for pandemics. However, as noted by Breggin, this kind of research does not appear to have improved governments’ pandemic responses one whit.  

Fauci’s connections to and support of Director-General of the World Health Organization, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, a member of a Marxist-Leninist Ethiopian political party whose corrupt past and terrorist ties have been highlighted ever since his controversial nomination. 

 Incidentally, Tedros has also been accused of covering up cholera outbreaks in Ethiopia.

Tedros was also accused of complicity in his country’s dismal human rights record, which includes massacring protesters and jailing and torturing journalists and political opponents.

Tedros is from the Tigray tribe, which holds political power in Ethiopia; many protesters are from the rival Amhara and Oromo tribes.

“Together, they initially minimized the dangers of COVID-19. Fauci and Tedros also delayed worldwide preparations for the pandemic while allowing the Chinese to spread the virus with thousands of international passenger flights,” Breggin writes, adding:

“Fauci publicly undermined the President’s criticism of Director-General Tedros and China. Instead, Fauci reassured the world that Tedros was a trustworthy and ‘outstanding’ man — implying that Tedros’s connections in China were similarly reliable and could be trusted.”

Rumors that Iraq was preparing to use weaponized anthrax – as a “weapon of mass destruction” – provided the US government with a justification for the 2003 invasion. 

WE RUSHED TO STOP IRAQ BUT WE'RE DOING THE SAME THING HERE. 

THE U.S. HAS BEEN DEEPLY DEVOTED TO DEVELOPING BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS SINCE WW1. 
WE'RE TOLD THAT DRIVE TO BE TOP DOG IN 'GERM WARFARE' ENDED AFTER WW2, BUT IT ASSUREDLY DID NOT. ONLY THE NAME CHANGED. 

 A new Department of Defense (DoD) Biological and Chemical Defense Planning Board was created in 1960 to establish program priorities and objectives. Preventive approaches toward infections of all kinds were funded under the auspices of biological warfare. As concern increased over the biological warfare threat during the Cold War, so did the budget for the program: to $38 million by fiscal year 1966.  

The U.S. Army Chemical Corps was given the responsibility to conduct biological warfare research for all of the services. 

[ SEE Department of the Army. Special Report to Congress. US Army Activity in the US Biological Warfare Programs,1942–1977. Vols 1 and 2 ***. Washington, DC: DA. 24 Feb 1977. Unclassified. Part of Volume 1 can be read or downloaded <HERE>. 
There are 1,829 results under the topic "biological warfare" in the online Internet Archives. 
For those who'd like a more in-depth look at this, I suggest borrowing the book from that site and reading "A Higher Form of Killing : The secret history of chemical and biological warfare".] 

JUST KEEP CHANGING THE NAME 

In 1962, the responsibility for the testing of promising biological warfare agents was given to a separate Testing and Evaluation Command (TEC). Depending on the particular program, different test centers were used, such as the Deseret Test Center at Fort Douglas, Utah, the headquarters for the new biological and chemical warfare testing organization. 

In response to increasing concerns over public safety and the environment, the TEC implemented a complex system of approval of its research programs that included the U.S. Army Chief of Staff, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, and the President of the United States.

A "Select Agent Program" (SAP) was established to satisfy requirements of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 and the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002. 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention administers the SAP, which regulates the laboratories that may possess, use, or transfer Select Agents within the United States. The Project Bioshield Act was passed by Congress in 2004 calling for $5 billion for purchasing vaccines that would be used in the event of a bioterrorist attack.

This was a ten-year program to "acquire medical countermeasures to biological, chemical, radiological and nuclear agents for civilian use."  

AND DEVELOP OUR OWN "RESPONSE"...BETTER BIOWEAPONS.  


IT'S WHAT ALL SUPER-POWER NATIONS DO TO GAIN THE UPPER HAND IN BIOLOGICL WARFARE. 

THE NATION WITH THE BEST, MOST INFECTIOUS, UNSTOPPABLE VIRUSES, BACTERIA, OR CHEMICALS, WINS.

IT'S WHY AMERICA DUG UP THE SPANISH FLU FROM A GRAVE AND BROUGHT IT BACK TO LIFE, WHY WE COMB THE GLOBE, OCEANS, EVERYWHERE LOOKING FOR NEWER (OR ANCIENT) VIRUSES AND BACTERIA TO USE AS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION EVERY SINGLE DAY. IT'S WHY WE KEEP SMALLPOX ALIVE IN LABS. 
THESE ORGANISMS ARE OUR "SILENT ARSENAL", CHEAPER AND EASIER TO USE THAN NUCLEAR WEAPONS. 

THEY CAN BE QUIETLY DEPLOYED BY THE WATER WE DRINK, FOODS WE EAT, THE AIR WE BREATHE, ON SURFACES AND NO ONE IS AWARE THEY'RE THERE, UNTIL PEOPLE BEGIN TO DIE EN MASSE.

In 1992, Meryl Nass, MD, analyzed the characteristics of an anthrax epidemic in Zimbabwe, Rhodesia in 1978-1980, that was claimed to be a natural occurrence. Dr. Nass demonstrated that the pattern of the epidemic, the spread, and weather conditions, could not have occurred due to a natural event; it must, therefore, have been triggered as a bioweapon. She reported her findings in the journal Physicians for Social Responsibility Quarterly, 1992.

AS FOR WUHAN/CHINA... 
Cables leaked to the The Washington Post in April "suggested" there were safety issues at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and a 15-page dossier prepared by "Western governments" obtained by The Daily Telegraph on May 4 claimed China deliberately destroyed evidence of the outbreak in January. 

Might not this explain the "tendency to feel suspicious"? 
Given those two facts and the fact that there is no known virus that has the same makeup as 'novel coronavirus', aka, SARS-COV-2, it is all too easy to make the leap to at least questioning if it was lab-created. It could even be called a LOGICAL assumption since the nearest coronavirus ever studied, ever found is missing that 4% unique makeup, never seen in nature, that SARS-COV-2 has. 

THIS NEW VIRUS WAS NOT FOUND IN ANY OF THE 585 SAMPLES COLLECTED FROM THAT WUHAN MARKET NEAR THAT WUHAN LAB. 
ONE-THIRD OF THE FIRST HUMANS INFECTED HAD NEVER BEEN TO THAT MARKET. 
THE NEW VIRUS WAS NOT FOUND IN PANGOLINS, PALM CIVET CATS, OR BATS THAT CAME FROM AS FAR AWAY AS MALAYSIA. 

REGARDING THE PATENTED SARS-COV, THE U.S. HAD ALREADY LOOKED INTO WAYS THAT IT COULD BE SPREAD FROM BATS TO HUMANS. 
THINGS WERE GETTING A LITTLE 'DICEY' AND THERE WAS TOO MUCH ROOM FOR HUMAN ERROR, FOR "ACCIDENTAL RELEASE" INTO THE AMERICAN POPULATION. 
THE WHOLE THING WAS STARTING TO RESEMBLE STEPHEN KING'S IMAGINARY VIRUS "CAPTAIN TRIPS" IN HIS BEST NOVEL 'THE STAND'. 

NIH "RESEARCH" GOT SHUT DOWN. 
STOP THE "STUDIES", STOP LOOKING FOR WAYS TO MAKE IT GO AIRBORNE. STOP IT! 

TOO LATE. 

Our U.S. labs had already yielded 20 scientific reports on how zoonotic diseases MAY transfer from bats to humans.

The study was aiming at identifying locations to monitor for NEW coronaviruses, forming strategies, or so they vowed, to PREVENT animal-to-human transmission of the virus, and creating vaccines and treatments, according to NPR. 

AND ACCORDING TO THE NOT SO TRUSTWORTHY HOLDERS OF THAT GOLD MINE OF A PATENT.

 (BTW, there are many types of coronaviruses, seven of which are known to affect humans.)

USA TODAY previously reported that over the course of the two grants approved by the NIH for EcoHealth Alliance, AFTER THE U.S. MORATORIUM WAS DECLARED, the Wuhan Institute in communist China received about $600,000 from the NIH, according to Robert Kessler, a spokesperson for EcoHealth Alliance. The funding was a fee for the collection and analysis of viral samples.

In a grant approved in 2014, about $133,000 was sent to the institute in the first four years and about $66,000 in the past year. In a second grant approved in 2019, about $76,000 was budgeted for the Wuhan Institute, though no money was sent before the grant's termination, as previously reported by USA TODAY.

WHY FUND A CHINESE LAB, PERIOD?
WHY HELP OUR SWORN ENEMY, COMMUNIST CHINA, FIND A WAY TO BETTER WEAPONIZE A VIRUS THAT IT COULD USE AGAINST THE USA? 

The moratorium on gain-of-function research in the U.S. was lifted in December 2017, when the Department of Health and Human Services issued new guidelines for the experiments, per the NIH. 

The EcoHealth Alliance project (IN WUHAN)— which had successfully identified hundreds of coronaviruses to date — only came to a halt in April, when conspiracy theories about the origins of virus began to intensify and its funding was abruptly cut by the Trump administration.

THE "FACT-CHECKERS" AT USA TODAY WHO WROTE A LONG ARTICLE DISPELLING WHAT IT CALLED "CHERRY-PICKED FACTS" ABOUT ALL THIS, BUT FACTS THEY ARE AND FACTS ARE FACTS, HAVE A 'DISCLAIMER' AT THE BOTTOM OF EACH LITTLE FACT CHECK...THAT FACEBOOK, WHOSE CO-FOUNDER HAS DONATED MILLIONS TO DEFEAT TRUMP, FUNDS THEIR FACT-CHECKING. 
"Our fact check work is supported in part by a grant from Facebook."

INSTEAD OF ENCOURAGING AMERICANS TO VIEW ALL SIDES OF THIS 'STORY', USA TODAY, LIKE TWITTER AND YOUTUBE AND FACEBOOK, WANT ANY/ALL FACTUAL REPORTS THAT CONTRADICT THEIR CHOSEN NARRATIVE LABELED AS "CONSPIRACY THEORY", BANNED, OBLITERATED, KEPT FROM PUBLIC SIGHT. 

THEY DON'T SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT WE AMERICANS HAVE THE ABILITY TO SORT ANYTHING OUT FOR OURSELVES, THAT ONLY THEY, THE OMNISCIENT MEDIA, CAN TELL US WHAT'S TRUE, WHAT'S NOT. 


REMEMBER THAT FRENCH VIROLOGIST/RESEARCHER WHOM MAINSTREAM MEDIA MOCKED AS A QUACK FOR SAYING COVID-19 ORIGINATED IN A LAB AND "ESCAPED", WHO DARED MENTION THAT SARS-COV-2 HAS ELEMENTS OF BOTH HIV AND MALARIA? 

DID YOU KNOW HE'S A NOBEL PRIZE-WINNER FOR DISCOVERING THE HIV/AIDS VIRUS? 
HE WON THE PRIZE IN 2008.  
Luc Montagnier won the 2008 Nobel Prize in medicine, but has been mocked by so-called "scientific experts" who never won a Nobel Prize nor were ever even nominated for one, little nobody, I'm-for-hire media puppets who are trotted out to defame anyone who disagrees with the BS we're spoon-fed by media as "science" or "medicine". 

Montagnier is skeptical how the COVID-19 contains elements of HIV and malaria, he told CNews Channel.

"The Wuhan city laboratory has specialized in these coronaviruses since the early 2000s," Montagnier said, according to an Asian Times translation. "They have expertise in this area."  

The Wuhan lab in question was constructed with French assistance in a 2004 co-op on preventing and controlling infectious diseases, according to Nature.com.

"But the complexity of the project, China's lack of experience, difficulty in maintaining funding and long government approval procedures meant that construction wasn't finished until the end of 2014," according to Nature.com.

Nature's February 2017 report stated: "Some scientists outside China worry about pathogens escaping, and the addition of a biological dimension to geopolitical tensions between China and other nations. 

Montagnier also made the claim during an interview with news platform CNews.

He said: “We have arrived at the conclusion that this virus was created.” He accused “molecular biologists” of having inserted DNA sequences from HIV into a coronavirus, “probably” as part of their work to find a vaccine against AIDS.

He said that it was not clear how the virus had been able to escape the laboratory, and condemned scientists for doing “the work of a sorcerer’s apprentice”.

Professor Montagnier has said that he is not the first to suggest the connection, and added that “a group of renowned Indian researchers” had also tried to publish a study showing that the new coronavirus includes HIV DNA, but were forced to retract their claims and had been “smothered”.   

The Indian study said that there was “a strange similarity” between the new coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 and VIH-1 - the main cause of HIV - “which is unlikely to be coincidental”.  

BELOW: STRUCTURAL BIOLOGY OF SARS-COV-1   

AND BELOW IS THE STRUCTURAL BIOLOGY OF SARS-COV-2   

BTW, Montagnier has received more than 20 major awards, including the National Order of Merit (Commander, 1986) and the Légion d'honneur (Knight: 1984; Officer: 1990; Commander: 1993; Grand Officer: 2009). 

He is a recipient of the Lasker Award and the Scheele Award (1986), the Louis-Jeantet Prize for medicine (1986), the Gairdner Award (1987), the Golden Plate Award of the American Academy of Achievement (1987), King Faisal International Prize (1993) (known as the Arab Nobel Prize), and the Prince of Asturias Award (2000). He is also a member of the Académie Nationale de Médecine. 

WHAT DO OTHERS OF HIS PROFESSION HOLD AGAINST HIM? 
HE'S DISAGREED WITH MANDATORY VACCINES.

YOU KNOW....VACCINES, THE BIG MONEY-MAKERS OF MEDICINE AND BIG PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, BIG MONEY THAT THE CDC WILL SURELY CASH IN ON SINCE IT HAS THE PATENT FOR SARS-COV, NEEDED TO CREATE A VACCINE FOR SARS-COV-2. 

DAMN ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO CUT THAT SACRED COW CALLED VACCINES FROM THE MIX, RIGHT? 

HORRRRRIBLE NEW VIRUS = NEED FOR VACCINE = $$$$$$$$$$ KA-CHING! $$$$$$$

WHAT MONTAGNIER ISN'T IS A PAID MEDIA HACK WHO WILL SAY ANYTHING HE'S PAID TO SAY. 



 <HERE IS A LINK> TO A PARTIAL LIST of 56 Vaccine-Related Patents Owned by Members of the CDC.

The vaccination industry currently generates $30 billion in profit each year, some of which reaches the hands of the very people who create the vaccine schedule.

Ask yourselves, should a public health agency that is supposed to make impartial vaccine recommendations also be a private for profit company with an impressive portfolio?

UPI Investigates: The vaccine conflict

A four-month investigation by United Press International found a pattern of serious problems linked to vaccines recommended by the CDC -- and a web of close ties between the agency and the companies that make vaccines.

Critics say those ties are an unholy alliance in a war against disease where vaccine side effects have damaged, hurt or killed people, mostly children.

"The CDC is a disgrace. It is a corrupt organization," said Stephen A. Sheller, a Philadelphia attorney who has sued vaccine makers for what he says were bad vaccines. "The drug companies have them on their payroll."

The agency sets the U.S. childhood immunization schedule, or the list of shots pediatricians give children. Some states say kids can't go to public school unless they have had CDC-endorsed vaccines.

Since the mid-1980s the agency has doubled the number of vaccines children get, up to nearly 40 doses before age 2. The CDC also tracks possible side effects, along with the Food and Drug Administration. This puts the agency in the awkward position of evaluating the safety of its own recommendations.


Because of concern over vaccine side effects, Congress in 1986 passed a law setting up a database at the CDC to track reports from doctors, manufacturers and the public of possible side effects from vaccines that started in 1991.

As of the end of last year, the system contained 244,424 total reports of possible reactions to vaccines, including 99,145 emergency room visits, 5,149 life-threatening reactions, 27,925 hospitalizations, 5,775 disabilities, and 5,309 deaths, according to data compiled by Dr. Mark Geier, a vaccine researcher in Silver Spring, Md. The data represents roughly 1 billion doses of vaccines, according to Geier.

Comorbidities

ON CDC's website, theyhave a "Table 3" THAT WAS UPDATED LAST ON OCTOBER 28, which shows Comorbidities, the types of health conditions and contributing causes mentioned in conjunction with deaths involving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). 

For ONLY 6% of TOTAL deaths, COVID-19 was the ONLY cause LISTED.
SIX PERCENT... 6% OF 210,326. 

For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death. 

SO, FOR 94% OF THOSE WHO DIED, THERE WERE OTHER FACTORS INVOLVED, NOT JUST THE VIRUS.
IN MOST, THERE WERE 2.6 ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS. 

91,153 HAD INFLUENZA AND PNEUMONIA. 

HAD THEY NOT HAD MULTIPLE COMORBIDITIES, BEEN OVER THE AGE OF 55. CHANCES ARE THAT THEY COULD HAVE LIVED THROUGH IT.
IN THE UNDER-55 AGE GROUPS, EVEN WITH 2.6 ADDED CONDITIONS, FAR FEWER PATIENTS DIED. 

ADD ALL THIS UP... 1+1= 2 STYLE. 
DOES IT ADD UP LIKE THE MEDIA AND FAUCI AND TEDROS AND CHINA AND THE CDC AND WHO TELL US IT ADDS UP...OR NOT? 

“In vast laboratories in the Ministry of Peace, and in experimental stations, teams of experts are indefatigably at work searching for new and deadlier gases; or for soluble poisons capable of being produced in such quantities as to destroy the vegetation of whole continents; or for breeds of disease germs immunised against all possible antibodies.” ~ George Orwell – 1984








_______________________

END NOTES: 

-- THERE ARE SOME MOST INTERESTING DECLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS ON BIOWARFARE AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE. 

***DOCUMENT 26 IS BOTH VOLUMES I AND II OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED REPORTS TO CONGRESS. 


-- January 6, 2007
 Sunshine Project of Austin, Texas, is a nonprofit watchdog group that attempts to protect the public from the risks of biotechnology experiments. The 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), which the US signed, prohibits research on offensive biological weapons. If the work is performed in secret, however, weapons designed for offensive use could be concealed. In the 1930s, the Japanese military masked its secret germ warfare scheme as a water purification project.

As the government-funded labs engage in "dual-use research," (pathogen research having both offensive and defensive applications), Sunshine's Edward Hammond reports he "has encountered grave problems with the system." These include "risky experiments approved with dubious safety precautions and/or inadequate IBC review, dysfunctional and otherwise noncompliant committees, and other types of biosafety problems."

Francis Boyle, an international legal expert at the University of Illinois, Champaign, puts it more bluntly. He called the in-house university committees "a joke and a fraud" that provide "no protection to anyone." Boyle, who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti- Terrorism Act of 1989 enacted by Congress, states the Pentagon "is now gearing up to fight and 'win' biological warfare" pursuant to two Bush national strategy directives adopted "without public knowledge and review" in 2002.

Last November 7th, Hammond lodged a complaint with Dr. Amy Patterson, director of the Office of Biotechnology Activities at NIH, citing 113 institutions "for non-compliance with the NIH Guidelines," specifically for refusing to honor requests for IBC meeting minutes.

"Honoring these requests is not only mandatory under the NIH Guidelines that you are charged with enforcing (but) transparency is also a moral duty of institutions that conduct research, such as rDNA and select agent work that could endanger the public," Hammond added. He wrote Patterson, "Failing prompt compliance by these institutions we note that your office must do its duty under NIH Guidelines and terminate funding."

NIH's Patterson apparently had troubles of her own obtaining information from labs on the Federal payroll. On Dec. 6, 2004, she issued a "reminder" to universities engaged in research that stated "compliance with the NIH Guidelines is critical to the safe conduct of research and to the fulfillment of an institutional commitment to the protection of staff, the environment, and public health."

Since 9/11, biotech houses, military laboratories, and State and private universities across America, and others sited in Canada, Australia, and South Africa, have collectively lapped up record sums in Federal R&D dollars.

How big is this enterprise? At just one venue, the Southwest Foundation for Biomedical Research (SFBR) in San Antonio, Tex., there are 6,000 caged chimpanzees, baboons, and other primates, Sunshine reports, whose upkeep alone costs U.S. taxpayers $6-million annually. SFBR genetically engineers monkeys and harbors some of the world's most dangerous viruses such as Ebola and Lassa, authorities state.

Again, the Battelle National Biodefense Institute(BNBI) of Columbus, Ohio, has just received a $250-million, five-year award from the Department of Homeland Security to run the new biodefense analysis center under construction at Fort Detrick, Md., according to The Washington Post of December 25, 2006.

Earlier, on July 30th of last year, The Post reported much of what transpires at the center may never be publicly known as the Bush administration "intends to operate the facility largely in secret."

Battelle also does not maintain an effective IBC, Sunshine charges. "Some of the research falls within what many arms-control experts say is a legal gray zone, skirting the edges of an international treaty outlawing the production of even small amounts of biological weapons," The Post reported. "The administration dismisses these concerns, however, insisting that the work...is purely defensive and thus fully legal. It has rejected calls for oversight by independent observers outside the (Homeland Security) Department's network of government scientists and contractors."

The paper quoted Milton Leitenberg, a weapons expert at the University of Maryland stating, "If we saw others doing this kind of research, we would view it as an infringement of the bioweapons treaty. You can't go around the world yelling about Iranian and North Korean programs ---about which we know very little ---when we've got all this going on."

The Post reported the operation would encompass about 160,000 gross square feet of working area and accommodate a staff of about 120. The Post noted, "Fort Detrick's history as the incubator of germ warfare research casts a long shadow over the new lab. When the fort held the Pentagon's very highly classified and long abandoned biological warfare program, it was a magnet for antiwar protests in the Vietnam War era."

In such labs, scientists can create new strains of disease for which those attacked would have no ready defense. Such weapons, once loosed, are notoriously difficult to control, and could ignite epidemics to sicken and terrify civilian populations.

Hammond believes there are about 400 bioweapons agents labs across the U.S., some of which encounter unexpected difficulty when they try to comply with the law.

David Perlin, president of the Public Health Research Institute (PHRI) of Newark, N.J., told Sunshine the FBI requested PHRI to enter into an agreement with them to "not publicly disclose which specific select agent pathogens and/or strains are stored at our facility."

Those who tend to dismiss NIH's laxity about enforcing its own regulations have only to recall the October, 2001, anthrax attacks on Congress and the media. The deadly strain released is believed to have come from a U.S. germ warfare lab at Fort Detrick although there is no certainty as the FBI has never solved the murders. Since then, the vast proliferation of such labs by the Bush administration has educated many new employees --- in some cases undergraduate students --- in germ warfare ops. Four employees at Fort Detrick are known to have died after performing lab work.


Because of their comparative cheapness to manufacture, biological weapons have been dubbed "the poor man's nuclear bomb." Yet their potential may be even deadlier. Jeremy Rifkin, author of "The Biotech Century"(Penguin), noted a government study in 1993 found "the release of just 200 pounds of anthrax spores from a plane over Washington DC could kill as many as three-million people."

The secret operations of the labs' would be less ominous if the Bush administration hadn't led the fight to demolish the international inspection system. Jackie Cabasso, executive director of Western States Legal Foundation, Oakland, Calif., warned, "Last year (2001), the U.S. single-handedly blew apart an international system for inspections of these kinds of (biological) laboratories, a system that would have made great strides toward ensuring that biodefense labs aren't abused for offensive purposes. Having thumbed our nose at the world, the US is now massively expanding its biodefense program, mostly in secretive facilities."

According to Boyle, President Bush "sabotaged the Verification Protocol for the BWC" as it was on the verge of conclusion and success. He said the U.S. "fully intended to get back into the research, development and testing of illegal and criminal offensive biowarfare programs." Boyle is the author of "Biowarfare and Terrorism," Clarity Press.

And Elisa Harris, former arms control official under President Clinton, told The New York Times in 2003 "It (the administration's actions) will raise concerns in other capitals in part because the United States has fought tooth and nail to prevent the international community from strengthening the germ treaty."

Among pharmaceutical houses not in compliance with NIH disclosure requirements are Abbott Laboratories of Abbott Park and Worchester, Agencourt Bioscience Corp.;Antibody Science, Inc.; BASF Plant Science, Bristol-Myers Squibb and its Pharmaceutical Research Institute of Connecticut; Centocor, Inc.; Chiron; Discovery Genomics Inc.; DuPont Central Research and Development; Embrex, Inc.; Genentech, Inc., Genzyme Corp. of Cambridge and Framingham, Mass.; GlaxoSmithKline, Merck & Co., Inc. and its Rahway, N.J., research site; Integral Molecular; Introgen Therapeutics; L2 Diagnostics LLC; Merck & Co. Inc., West Point; Merck Research Laboratories, Rahway, N.J.; Meridian Bioscience Inc.; Monsanto Co. Mystic, Conn.; New Link Genetics; NovaFlora, Inc.; NovoBiotic Pharmaceuticals; OSI Pharmaceuticals; Pfizer Inc., and Pfizer Pharmaceuticals of St. Louis, Roche Bioscience, Schering-Plough Research Institute; SelectX Pharmaceuticals; Serono Research Institution; Third Wave Technologies; and Vaxin, Inc.

Federal entities involved include the Center for Disease Control, the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, VA hospitals in Stratton, Va.; the Jerry Pettis Memorial hospital and the VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System. Also, the Idaho National Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Plum Island Animal Disease Center of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Walter Reed Army Institute of Research and Navy Medical Research Center.

Other fund recipients include AERAS Global TB Vaccine Foundation, Battelle, CBR Institute for Biomedical Research, Inc.; Children's Hospital Oakland Research Institute, Children's National Medical Center, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Columbus Children's Research Institute, Hadassah Medical Organization, Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Mystic Aquarium & Institute for Exploration, and Scripps Clinic.

Among universities in non-compliance: Alabama A&M, Albany Medical College, Ball State, Brigham Young, Bucknell, Central Michigan, Drexel College of Medicine, Hackensack University Medical Center, Hunter College, Indiana State University, Purdue University, Loma Linda, Missouri State, New York Medical College, and Queens College of City University of New York.

Also, Rider, Rockefeller University, Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, South Dakota State University, St. John's University, State University of New York at Binghamton, Brockport, and Buffalo; Towson, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School(UMDNJ), and University Medical Center of Southern Nevada.

Also, the universities of Arizona, California at San Francisco, Maryland, Massachusetts, Miami, Fla.; Mississippi; Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, Southern Mississippi, Texas at Arlington and San Antonio, Tulsa, Utah State, Wake Forest, Washington University in St. Louis, Western Kentucky and Wilkes.

Foreign institutions include the University of Sydney, Australia; the University of British Columbia , and University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. This listing covers most, but not all, of the names submitted to NIH by the Sunshine Project. Three years ago, Sunshine said if it had to pick the labs with the worst biosafety record-keeping, he would choose Princeton University, the University of Texas Southwestern at Dallas; the University of Vermont at Burlington and the University of Delaware at Newark.

Sunshine's Hammond said there has yet to be any formal response to his letter of last November from NIH. He added, "I doubt I will ever get one."

The NIH was asked to respond to the charges contained in this article but has yet not done so.

In sum, the costliest, most grandiose research scheme ever attempted having germ warfare capability is going forward today under President Bush and in apparent defiance of international treaties such as the Geneva Convention of 1925 that bans biological agents. What's more, where once the use of germ warfare was an isolated happenstance -- such as when an English general in 1767 gave smallpox-laced blankets to the Indians that decimated their tribes -- research in this grim area today suggests it has been elevated to an instrument of national policy. 

And this program, involving some of the world's deadliest and most loathsome pathogens, many of which could trigger plagues and epidemics, is being conducted largely in secret without adequate oversight and in flagrant contempt of NIH's own rules. 

Why? 









//WW

SILICON VALLEY GIANTS AGAINST TRUMP. SOCIAL MEDIA TRIES TO RIG AN ELECTION, AGAIN.

Many did not think Jack looked 'well' in his Senate appearance, nose ring aside. He looks maybe a little stoned and... troubled. 

Sen. Ted Cruz to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey :“Mr. Dorsey, who the hell elected you? And put you in charge of what the media are allowed to report, and what the American people are allowed to hear... and why do you persist in behaving as a Democratic super PAC, silencing views to the contrary of your political beliefs?”

A seemingly shell-shocked Dorsey, sporting a long beard and a nose ring, was lethargic in his response.

In his remarks Wednesday, Dorsey droned on about Twitter’s unevenly enforced policies for speech, which are known for letting leftist and even radical Islamist rhetoric run wild, while throwing down a gauntlet on conservative opinions.

Cruz told Dorsey, “Let’s be clear, the New York Post isn’t just some random guy tweeting.
The New York Post has the fourth-highest circulation of any newspaper in America. The New York Post is over 200 years old. The New York Post was founded by Alexander Hamilton.

“And your position is that you can sit in Silicon Valley and demand of the media that you can tell them what stories they can publish, and you can tell the American people what reporting they can hear, is that right?” Cruz asked.

Cruz suggested Twitter was attempting to do damage control for Democrats by engaging in “rampant censorship and silencing.”

Cruz later accused Dorsey of lying under oath while testifying before the Senate Commerce Committee on Wednesday.

Dorsey claimed that the New York Post articles regarding Hunter Biden’s alleged laptop are no longer being censored on the platform.

“Anyone can tweet these articles,” Dorsey said.

 “What [Dorsey] told the Senate, under oath, is false. I just tried to tweet the [New York Post] story alleging Biden’s CCP corruption,” Cruz tweeted. “Still blocked.”
18 USC 1621 makes it a felony to lie under oath to the Senate. https://t.co/BDHRB8CEzy


FOR ANY WHO SAY, "IT'S A FREE MARKET, A CAPITALIST NATION AND HE CAN DO AS HE PLEASES WITH HIS OWN COMPANY..."
REMEMBER THAT BAKER AND THE CAKE FOR THE GAY WEDDING?
SAME THING.
BUT, BACK THEN, THE LEFT SCREAMED THAT THE BAKER HAD TO BAKE THAT CAKE. 

TWITTER AND OTHER SOCIAL MEDIA ARE MERELY PUBLISHING COMPANIES WHO PUBLISH WHAT WE FEED THEM AND THEN SELL OUR INFORMATION DAILY.

THEY RAKE IN BILLIONS A YEAR AND WE GET WHAT?

CENSORSHIP AND POLITICAL BIAS.

ONE SIDE OF EVERY 'STORY', THE SIDE THEY FAVOR AS WHORES TO THE POLITICAL LEFT. 

JUST AS HITLER WAS IN AWE OF AND MIMICKED OUR AMERICAN PROPGANDA MACHINE ("THE NEWS", TV, RADIO, PRINT) SO RUSSIA, CHINA, ET AL, MUST ADMIRE SOCIAL MEDIA AND MAINSTREAM "NEWS" FOR MANIPULATING THE COLLECTIVE AMERICAN MIND.


THE 'RIGHT' IS NOT GUILTLESS, BUT THE LEFT HAD A HEADSTART ON THEM OF ABOUT 100 YEARS...SINCE FDR. 

Considering the blatant censorship displayed by Big Tech of conservatives in recent weeks, and indeed the last several years, Cruz asked a valid question but got no valid response. The biggest threat to America's elections lies not in some distant country, but in the San Francisco Bay area of Northern California...Silicon Valley.


Silicon Valley megadonors unleash a last-minute, $100 million barrage of ads against Trump

Facebook billionaire co-founder Dustin Moskovitz has put more than $20 million into a little-known Democratic super PAC that is spending big.  

The super PAC, called Future Forward, has remained under the radar but is spending more than $100 million on television and digital in the final month of the campaign — more than any other group — on behalf of Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, outside of the Biden campaign itself. And it has been leading a separate, previously unreported $28 million proposed campaign to elect a Democrat to the US Senate from Texas, Recode has learned.

Unlike other groups such as the Lincoln Project, which have taken a more caustic approach toward Trump in their television campaigns to hammer on his flaws, Future Forward gleaned from its research that a largely positive, implicit contrast campaign tests more effectively.

Future Forward’s size and strategy is now moving more into the public view. It plans to report to the Federal Election Commission on Tuesday that it raised $66 million in just the 45 days between September 1 and October 15 — a haul powered by Silicon Valley billionaires like Twilio founder Jeff Lawson, longtime Google CEO Eric Schmidt, and Moskovitz, who has been one of the most enigmatic Democratic megadonors of the Trump era.

The group has intentionally adopted a low profile, especially relative to other pro-Biden super PACs. It maintains a bare-bones website. Despite spending more than any other outside group in the homestretch, VOX did the first detailed article about it.

• Here are the 15 Silicon Valley millionaires spending the most to beat Donald Trump

It’s not just CEOs of Big Tech that are boosting the Democrats, either. In June, the Center for Responsive Politics – which runs OpenSecrets.org – revealed that employees of Amazon, Alphabet, Amazon, Facebook and Microsoft have donated $15 million to Democrats and only $3 million to Republicans. At some companies, the ratio was far higher – 98 percent at Netflix and 77 percent at Amazon, for example.

In footage published on Monday, the conservative media watchdog Project Verutas, shared around eight minutes of an interview with a man identified as Ritesh Lakhkar, said to be a technical program manager at Google’s Cloud service, who accused the company of putting its thumb on the digital scales for the Democrats.

“The wind is blowing toward Democrats, because GOP equals Trump and Trump equals GOP. Everybody hates it, even though GOP may have good traits, no one wants to acknowledge them right now,” Lakhkar said when asked whether Google favors either political party.

Lakhkar complained of a suffocating, overly-political atmosphere at Google, where he said “your opinion matters more than your work,” recalling a dramatic response to Donald Trump’s 2016 election win at the company. Several media reports have documented employees’ appalled reactions to the victory, including internal company footage of a meeting soon after the election, where co-founder Sergey Brin is heard comparing Trump’s win to the rise of fascism in Europe.

“When Trump won the first time, people were crying in the corridors of Google. There were protests, there were marches. There were like, I guess, group therapy sessions for employees organized by HR,” he said.

THE BIDEN-HARRIS HISTORY GOES BACK FURTHER THAN MOST KNEW

California Sen. Kamala Harris, the running mate of Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, was among the high-profile liberal politicians listed as “key domestic contacts” for a business venture involving Biden’s brother Jim, his son Hunter and the now-bankrupt Chinese company CEFC China Energy Co., according to an email obtained by Fox News.

The email, which had the subject line “Phase one domestic contacts/projects,” was written by Jim Biden (JAMES, JOE'S BROTHER) and sent to James Gilliar, Hunter Biden, Rob Walker and Tony Bobulinski on May 15, 2017, Fox reported.

Attached to the email was a document titled “RE: Key domestic contacts for phase one target projects.”

Fox News did not specify how it obtained the email.

The outlet did note, though, that it isn’t related to the laptop and hard drive allegedly belonging to Hunter Biden that has made headlines in recent days.


In the document, we see Harris’ name listed under the state of California, which she represents in the Senate.

If Harris was considered a potential “key domestic contact” when it came to Jim and Hunter Biden’s business partnership with a Chinese energy company, wouldn’t it cross anyone’s mind that perhaps Harris running with Joe Biden for the Oval Office wasn’t a smart move?

And it certainly raises more questions regarding the Biden family’s business deals.

FOX most likely got what others in the media got, what Bobulinski handed over to the U.S. Senate.

 Documents that Bobulinski provided to Senators have begun appearing in public, and have been obtained by a number of media outlets including Breitbart News.

In them, text messages, emails, and other documents illustrate a larger picture of concern regarding the Biden family’s operating procedures, and deep connections that Joe Biden himself has to all of this.

“Don’t mention Joe being involved, it’s only when u are face to face,” Biden family associate James Gilliar—the head of J2cR—says in one WhatsApp text message that Bobulinski provided to the Senate committees. “I know u know that but they are paranoid.”

Bobulinski is the second longtime business associate of Hunter to publicly turn against the Biden family in recent days.

He joins Bevan Cooney, who turned over to Breitbart News senior contributor Peter Schweizer and journalist Matthew Tyrmand a total of 26,000 emails, flipping against the Bidens.

Cooney is currently serving a sentence in federal prison in Oregon for a conviction over deals he and other Hunter Biden business partners made in connection with Native American tribal investments.  

Too bad Cooney's last name wasn't BIDEN.
He'd be a FREE man if he had THAT last names. 

HOW MANY AMERICAN VOTERS ARE AWARE OF THE SOCIAL MEDIA BILLIONAIRES/MILLIONAIRES 'PACKING UP' WITH ONE ANOTHER AGAINST TRUMP? 

I READ THAT SOME WHO ALREADY VOTED FOR BIDEN WANTED TO CHANGE THEIR VOTES IN LIGHT OF THE RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AND SENATE INVESTIGATION. 

FOR SOME, IT'S NOT TOO LATE. 

'Can I change my vote' trends on Google: What you need to know

Oct 28, 2020

 More than 59 million Americans have already cast their ballots ahead of Election Day - but some might be wondering if they can change that vote, according to Google Trends.
Google searches of the phrase "can I change my vote" peaked Tuesday morning in the U.S. around 6 a.m. ET.
One of the subregions where the phrase began trending at one point was in Delaware, the state Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden represented in the Senate for 36 years.
Other subregions included battleground states such as Maine, Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina, Iowa, Wisconsin and Arizona, according to Trend data at various points throughout Tuesday morning.

While most states do not allow voters to change their early votes, there are some that do, with restrictions.

For example, in New York, if you have submitted an absentee ballot but change your mind, you can show up to your polling place during early voting or on Election Day and cast a vote, in which case the absentee ballot is set aside and not counted, according to the state Board of Elections.

In Michigan, voters who have sent in a ballot can submit a written and signed request to their voting clerk by 5 p.m. Oct. 30 requesting to have the ballot nullified, according to the Detroit Free Press.

Minnesotans who mailed in an absentee ballot had until Oct. 20 to request a new ballot from their county or city election office.

In New Hampshire, voters who submitted an absentee ballot can go to the polls on Election Day during the first hour they're open and vote in person, or before their absentee ballot is processed.

In Wisconsin, if time allows, a voter can cancel their original absentee ballot and request a new one - but they have until Oct. 29, the legal deadline for requesting absentee ballots by mail. 

As of Sunday, the nearly 60 million Americans who have voted early in the 2020 presidential election suggest a record turnout this year. In 2016, 47.2 million early votes were cast in the presidential election, according to data from the U.S. Elections Project.
President Trump tweeted about the Google trend Tuesday morning and encouraged voters to "go do it," claiming without evidence that the trend "refers to changing it to me."

While Trump suggested the Google trend started "immediately" after his debate with Biden on Thursday, data showed the search did not spike until Tuesday morning, five days later.

BELIEVE THAT OR DON'T, VOTE, OR DON'T, THE 'FIX' IS ON, JUST AS IT WAS LAST TIME.  

NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENES, WE'RE IN FOR A VERY BUMPY RIDE. 

GOOD LUCK, AMERICA! 

YOU'RE GONNA NEED IT. 







//WW