Search the Community

https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/exercises/2022-catastrophic-contagion/ " Lessons from the exercise Leaders must prepare now to make difficult, critically important decisions with limited information in the early days of the next pandemic in order to increase the chances that a dangerous outbreak can be contained at the source. In the early days of a major new contagious disease epidemic, there could be a brief window of opportunity to stop it from becoming a pandemic. To successfully contain such an outbreak, decisive and bold action would need to be taken in the face of incomplete data, high scientific uncertainty, and potential political resistance. Thinking through such challenges, preparing in advance to react effectively, and practicing through both high-level tabletop and operational exercises should start now. It may seem like all these critical policy decisions have been resolved during the COVID-19 pandemic, but they have not. In the Catastrophic Contagion simulation, even a group of some of the wisest and most experienced international public health leaders who lived through COVID-19 wrestled with opposing views on whether countries should impose travel restrictions or close schools to try to contain a serious new epidemic that was disproportionately affecting children. The exercise raised a pivotal question: If future pandemics have a much higher lethality than COVID-19, or for example, if they affect predominantly children, would or should countries take different, stronger, earlier measures to contain it, and what are those measures?    These are not purely public health and scientific decisions; they will be made by leaders in the context of political, economic, and social realities that can be anticipated and considered in advance. Through routine simulations and operational exercises, we can strategically prepare for such challenges ahead of time. The more effectively we can reach scientific and practical consensus on the best approach to very hard but foreseeable problems, the more we will be ready in the future to protect lives and national economies. Political leaders, in addition to health leaders, must be at the table during exercises to respond effectively during the next pandemic. Countries should establish a global network of professional public health leaders who can work together to improve epidemic preparedness and response and strive for consensus on scientific issues in advance of the next major outbreak. There is no existing worldwide professionalized network of public health preparedness and response leaders who can work together between and during epidemics to better prepare all countries and provide mutual aid and sharing of best practices during serious epidemics. Establishing an international network of national public health leaders, along the lines of the professionalized “Pandemic Corps” referred to in our exercise, could substantially help countries save lives and livelihoods during major epidemics and recover more quickly. Political leaders, who are entrusted with keeping their citizens safe, could benefit from consensus views offered by such a group, rather than having to make impromptu, high consequence policy decisions when lives are at stake during dangerous outbreaks. Countries should prioritize efforts to increase trust in government and public health; improve public health communication efforts; increase the resiliency of populations to misleading information; and reduce the spread of harmful misinformation. In future pandemics, we should continue to expect even more major disruptions from misinformation and disinformation. The WHO can be a globally trusted source, and it can share science and public health information widely, but we should not expect it alone to combat or put a stop to the spread of this mis- and disinformation. Countries need to collaborate to anticipate that threat and prepare to combat it with their own laws and procedures. Just as many types of economic and societal harms can be anticipated and accounted for in pandemic preparedness plans, so too can predictable false or misleading health messaging. Concertedly exploring ways to address this phenomenon on a national level in advance of the next pandemic will be crucial to saving lives. WHO member states should strengthen international systems for sharing and allocating scarce public health resources. Groundbreaking global collaborations, such as the ACT-Accelerator and COVAX, were launched during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, public health leaders still lack confidence in current approaches to fairly allocate medical countermeasures during a future pandemic. Even if there were a global commitment around equity for all countries, implementing equitable allocation will continue to be very difficult in the future, especially if there are practical challenges and special requirements like refrigeration or IV administration. Empowering all regions of the world to save lives during a pandemic would increase equitable access to life-saving treatments and vaccines. Therefore, we need to build up manufacturing, distribution, and administration capacities around the world, paying particular attention to countries with poor infrastructure. This should happen now, rather than during a growing pandemic. It is clear from Catastrophic Contagion that even after the terrible impact of COVID-19, more preparedness work needs to be done, new decisions need to be made, and additional resources committed. We need to expand the limits of our ability to respond. "

Below this is a copy/paste from bloomberg opinion, my notes below~~~ __________________________________________________________ We Must Start Planning For a Permanent Pandemic With coronavirus mutations pitted against vaccinations in a global arms race, we may never go back to normal. We Must Start Planning For a Permanent Pandemic With coronavirus mutations pitted against vaccinations in a global arms race, we may never go back to normal. By , March 24, 2021, 12:30 AM CDT The arms race of our time. Photographer: Jack Guez/AFP via Getty Images The arms race of our time. Photographer: Jack Guez/AFP via Getty Images Photographer: Jack Guez/AFP via Getty Images For the past year, an assumption — sometimes explicit, often tacit — has informed almost all our thinking about the pandemic: At some point, it will be over, and then we’ll go “back to normal.” This premise is almost certainly wrong. SARS-CoV-2, protean and elusive as it is, may become our permanent enemy, like the flu but worse. And even if it peters out eventually, our lives and routines will by then have changed irreversibly. Going “back” won’t be an option; the only way is forward. But to what exactly? Most epidemics disappear once populations achieve herd immunity and the pathogen has too few vulnerable bodies available as hosts for its self-propagation. This herd protection comes about through the combination of natural immunity in people who’ve recovered from infection and vaccination of the remaining population. In the case of SARS-CoV-2, however, recent developments suggest that we may never achieve herd immunity. Even the U.S., which leads most other countries in vaccinations and already had large outbreaks, won’t get there. That’s the upshot of an analysis by Christopher Murray at the University of Washington and Peter Piot at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. The main reason is the ongoing emergence of new variants that behave almost like new viruses. A clinical vaccine trial in South Africa showed that people in the placebo group who had previously been infected with one strain had no immunity against its mutated descendant and became reinfected. There are similar reports from parts of Brazil that had massive outbreaks and subsequently suffered renewed epidemics. That leaves only vaccination as a path toward lasting herd immunity. And admittedly, some of the shots available today are still somewhat effective against some of the new variants. But over time they will become powerless against the coming mutations. Of course, vaccine makers are already feverishly working on making new jabs. In particular, inoculations based on the revolutionary mRNA technology I’ve previously described can be updated faster than any vaccine in history. But the serum still needs to be made, shipped, distributed and jabbed. And that process can’t happen fast enough, nor cover the planet widely enough. Yes, some of us may win a regional round or two against the virus, by vaccinating one particular population — as Israel has done, for instance. But evolution doesn’t care where it does its work, and the virus replicates wherever it finds warm and unvaccinated bodies with cells that let it reproduce its RNA. As it copies itself, it makes occasional coding mistakes. And some of those chance errors turn into yet more mutations. These viral avatars are popping up wherever there’s a lot of transmission going on and somebody bothers to look closely. A British, a South African and at least one Brazilian strain have already become notorious, but I’ve also seen reports of viral cousins and nephews showing up in California, Oregon and elsewhere. If we were to sequence samples in more places, we’d probably find even more relatives. We should therefore assume that the virus is already mutating fast in the many poor countries that have so far received no jabs at all, even if their youthful populations keep mortality manageable and thus mask the severity of local outbreaks. Last month, Antonio Guterres, the Secretary General of the United Nations, reminded the world that 75% of all shots had been administered in just 10 countries, while 130 others hadn’t primed a single syringe. A pathogen’s evolution is neither surprising nor automatically worrisome. One frequent pattern is that bugs over time become more contagious but less virulent. After all, not killing your host too efficiently confers an advantage in natural selection. If SARS-CoV-2 goes this route, it’ll eventually become just another common cold. But that’s not what it’s been doing recently. The variants we know of have become more infectious, but no less lethal. From an epidemiological point of view, that’s the worst news. Consider two alternative evolutionary paths. In one, a virus becomes more severe but not more transmissible. It will cause more disease and death, but the growth is linear. In the other path, a mutating virus becomes neither more nor less virulent but more contagious. It will cause increases in disease and death that are exponential rather than linear. Adam Kucharski at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine explains the math here. If this is the evolutionary trajectory of SARS-CoV-2, we’re in for seemingly endless cycles of outbreaks and remissions, social restrictions and relaxations, lockdowns and reopenings. At least in rich countries, we will probably get vaccinated a couple of times a year, against the latest variant in circulation, but never fast or comprehensively enough to achieve herd immunity. I’m not arguing for defeatism here. In the grand sweep of history, Covid-19 is still a relatively mild pandemic. Smallpox killed nine out of 10 Native Americans after the Spanish brought it to the Americas in the 16th century. The Black Death carried off about half of the Mediterranean population when it first came to Europe in the sixth century. Worldwide, the coronavirus has killed fewer than four in 10,000 so far. And with our science and technology, we’re armed as our ancestors never were. Opinion. Data. More Data.Get the most important Bloomberg Opinion pieces in one email. Email Please enter a valid email address By submitting my information, I agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Service and to receive offers and promotions from Bloomberg. But we must also be realistic. Resilience demands that we include this new scenario into our planning. The good news is that we keep getting better at responding. In each lockdown, for example, we damage the economy less than in the previous one. And we may achieve scientific breakthroughs that will eventually make life better. Our Brave New World needn’t be dystopian. But it won’t look anything like the old world. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners. To contact the author of this story: Andreas Kluth at [email protected] To contact the editor responsible for this story: James Boxell at [email protected] ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________END ARTICLE_________________________________________________________________ Now look closely. The whole article has no grammar or punctuation errors until the last "2" sentences. "Our (1)Brave New World needn’t be dystopian.(2) But it won’t look anything like the (3) old world." 1"Brave New World" 2:this period and separation 3. old world 1: A duel reference to "Brave New World" dystopian social science fiction novel by English author Aldous Huxley, written in 1931 and published in 1932. Largely set in a futuristic World State, whose citizens are environmentally engineered into an intelligence-based social hierarchy, the novel anticipates huge scientific advancements in reproductive technology, sleep-learning, psychological manipulation and classical conditioning that are combined to make a dystopian society which is challenged by only a single individual: the story's protagonist. Huxley followed this book with a reassessment in essay form, Brave New World Revisited (1958), and with his final novel, Island (1962), the utopian counterpart. The novel is often compared to George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four (published 1949). As well as a reference to the NWO 2. There is no grammatical reason to separate this sentence. It is a statement of separation between the content. The first being above the other one, which is also a statement, this places Brave New World right above old world. It is purposeful in every psychological intent. 3. Its lower case and referring to the old world order. Its below "Brave New World" in the original article. The new world order is taking over and destroying the old world order, the soon will pretend to be the hero's. Mind you this is just "changing of the guard" They all work for the same Entity. Find me and I will reveal all.

Greetings, My name is Clint and I’m reaching out to you in dire a plea for help with exposing the fact that COVID-19 is legally classifiable as a biological weapon, and that Dr. Anthony Fauci (NIAID) along with the NIH issued US tax-payer money for the creation of this disease. In other words, the Dr. leading the public health efforts on this pandemic is the one who appropriated funding to engineer the virus, and there are statutes that can be enforced to pursue this violation of US and international law. Included below is a documentary and written summary with primary evidence detailing the origins of COVID-19 as a bio-weapon that was genetically engineered through lab mutation experiments backed with federal grants from the NIAID and NIH. In the interest of public safety, supporting medical freedom and raising the most awareness, you have my express permission to reuse or redistribute the research in any way that you see fit (and I implore you to do so). Wagging the Dog: The Story Behind the Story of COVID-19 “There is no question that there will be a challenge to the coming administration in the arena of infectious diseases, both chronic infectious diseases in the sense of already ongoing disease – and we certainly have a large burden of that – but also there will be a surprise outbreak.” – Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, Pandemic Preparedness in the Next Administration, January 10, 2017 Prerequisite: Understanding Dual-Use, Gain-of-Function Research “Dual Use Research of Concern (DURC) is life sciences research that, based on current understanding, can be reasonably anticipated to provide knowledge, information, products, or technologies that could be directly misapplied to pose a significant threat with broad potential consequences to public health and safety, agricultural crops and other plants, animals, the environment, materiel, or national security. The United States Government’s oversight of DURC is aimed at preserving the benefits of life sciences research while minimizing the risk of misuse of the knowledge, information, products, or technologies provided by such research.” – National Institutes of Health “Gain-of-function (GoF) is the euphemism for biological research aimed at increasing the virulence and lethality of pathogens and viruses. GoF research is government funded; its focus is on enhancing the pathogens’ ability to infect different species and to increase their deadly impact as airborne pathogens and viruses. Ostensibly, GoF research is conducted for biodefense purposes. These experiments, however, are extremely dangerous. Those deadly science-enhanced pathogens can, and do escape into the community where they infect and kill people. What’s more, this line of research can be used for biological warfare.” – Alliance For Human Research Protection Many potential pandemic-causing pathogens have been modified through GoF, dual-use research to give them additional properties that make them more contagious, deadly, drug-resistant, and patentable. Examples include: SARS-CoV-1, MERS-CoV, and more recently SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19). GoF research has been a controversial for at least a decade, most notably due to research conducted on highly pathogenic H5N1, which was genetically modified to give the disease airborne transmissibility in mammals by NIH NIAID-funded lab work performed by Ron Fouchier and Yoshihiro Kawaoka. Force-evolving viruses through direct mutation or reassortment to provide enhanced pathogenicity, transmissibility and host range is justified as a necessary risk to better understand the potential threat of those diseases and for the advanced production of therapeutics such as vaccines and antiviral drugs. Key points to consider regarding dual-use, gain-of-function research: Viruses modified through GoF research are engineered to have attributes that are acknowledged as being highly unlikely to ever occur in nature and only exist because of GoF research. GoF research is said to be conducted in preparation against certain potential pandemic pathogens, which again, are widely acknowledged as being unlikely to occur except by way of the fact that those pathogens now exist in laboratories due to GoF research. That pathogen is then subject to being released on the public through the misconduct of a research facility or the malicious actions of someone who obtains the resulting research. In the US, GoF research is largely tax-payer funded through the NIH, which claims to only fund projects that are not classified. However, the publication of that GoF research is then made available for anyone in the public, including agencies who may use the information for classified projects (such the DoD) or any parties with the means to pursue malicious interests. Even discounting all potential for malicious use of GoF research, there is significant historical precedent for accidental lab releases of pandemic pathogens, not least including SARS-CoV-1. Testing lab technicians for potential infection is challenging if not impossible because they are often vaccinated against strains of the pathogens they’re researching, which ensures that their blood contains antibodies of the root virus structure. Likewise, anyone who has ever been exposed to any natural or synthetic strain of the coronavirus in the past (including the common cold) will have antibodies that invalidate results from the go-to “PCR” for SARS-2 COVID-19. One of the primary benefits proposed for governmental-funding of GoF research is the for-profit production and stockpiling of novel therapeutics such as vaccines and antiviral drugs. There are conflicts of interests throughout the public oversight and advisory for GoF research as well as the sources of research funding, recipients of that funding, the eventual corporate production of therapeutics, and the inevitable patent portfolios derived from GoF research. Pandemic pathogens are altered to be drug resistant and because those pathogens do not and very likely would not occur in nature, people lack a natural immunity to those man-made diseases and consequently require the for-profit therapeutics that have been produced. Corporate parties seek to control and patent man-made viruses along with the drugs that are used to treat them as their property in the interest of maximum profitability, and the way research and development is structured eliminates most or all governmental liability. Vaccines are produced and stockpiled as a therapeutic option against one-time, mutated viral strains, but because the virus will mutate again (naturally or unnaturally), those vaccines will become useless against any newly-mutated strain. This generates profit from both the stockpiled waste as well as future unused vaccines that must be wasted when the virus mutates again. In the name of studying things that have not happened and likely will not happen in nature, and that can only be proven through artificially mutating pathogens, GoF research increases the likelihood of a pandemic occurring – if only through a laboratory accident – and ultimately jeopardizes millions or billions of lives (or possibly even the extinction of the human race). The dual-use aspect of GoF research cannot be emphasized enough as there is no fundamental difference between what is called basic “legitimate” or “peaceful” research, and biological weapons research – they are considered the same thing by government agencies and the Biological Weapons Act. Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 (BWATA) The Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 (BWATA) drafted by University of Illinois international law professor Francis Boyle was enacted into law on May 22, 1990 and defines several terms related to biological warfare: vector, toxin, biological agent and delivery system. “Biological agent” is defined by the BWATA as: “any micro-organism, virus, infectious substance, or biological product that may be engineered as a result of biotechnology, or any naturally occurring or bioengineered component of any such microorganism, virus, infectious substance, or biological product, capable of causing death, disease, or other biological malfunction in a human, an animal, a plant, or another living organism; deterioration of food, water, equipment, supplies, or material of any kind or deleterious alteration of the environment.” While the previous US interpretation of the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC – an international treaty that explicitly bans the use of biological agents) was in line with the BWATA definition, now the US maintains that Article I of the BWC does not apply to non-lethal biological agents. In other words, the most deadly of viruses can be trafficked, studied, reconstructed and genetically altered to be more contagious and deadly if the research is simply labeled as “peaceful” or “defensive,” making the provisions of the BWATA almost impossible to enforce – especially when the NIH funds a majority of that “peaceful” or “defensive” research (again, under the term “basic research”). According to the Federation of American Scientists, current US work on non-lethal agents greatly exceeds limitations set forth in the BWC. “The only impact of this work is the creation, in a lab, of a new, non-natural risk.” – Richard Ebright, molecular biologist and biodefence expert at Rutgers, via Nature “The fact of the matter is that if the H5N1 research that we’re discussing today that NIH sponsored had been sponsored by the department that I work for – the Department of Defense – for exactly the same scientific purposes, it’s likely that the United States would have been falsely accused of violating its treaty obligations and the State Department would be busy defending ourselves against charges of US continuing to maintain a illegal offensive biological weapons program… People who are intent on doing bad things with biology are drawing on the same science that all of the people in this room are drawing on. There isn’t a separate set of science that’s biological warfare.” – Dr. Seth Carus, speaking on a panel at the International Consultative Workshop on Gain-of-Function Research on Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N1 Viruses, December 17-18, 2012 SARS-2 COVID-19 Funded and Created With Aid From NIH and Fauci “There is no question that there will be a challenge to the coming administration in the arena of infectious diseases, both chronic infectious diseases in the sense of already ongoing disease – and we certainly have a large burden of that – but also there will be a surprise outbreak.” – Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, Pandemic Preparedness in the Next Administration, January 10, 2017 Dr. Anthony Fauci and the NIH have been long-standing proponents of gain-of-function research, perhaps most notably during a year-long moratorium on GoF research back in 2012 – a moratorium that resulted from GoF researchers modifying the H5N1 virus for aerosol transmissibility in mammals. Dr. Fauci and industry representatives gathered at an international workshop to discuss the risks and benefits of GoF research, and to establish guidelines for continuing that research. That moratorium began in January 2012 and concluded in January 2013 despite initially being called for 60 days. Controversy over GoF continued in the following years, including a halt of US government funding on GoF research in October 2014 due to concerns of biosafety and biosecurity risks – concerns that arose not least due to laboratory accidents that occurred at the Centers for Disease Control in July 2014. However, prior to that ban on federal funding for GoF studies in the US, the NIAID (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease – of which Dr. Fauci is the director) along with the NIH granted $3.7 million in federal funding for a five-year project that concluded in 2019 to study bat coronaviruses. In particular, that initiative financed Shi Zhengli, a virologist from a Wuhan lab, and other researchers to surveil and catalog bat coronaviruses. Shi Zhengli was part of Dr. Ralph S. Baric’s team at North Carolina University which released a paper in 2015 demonstrating potential for emergence of bat coronaviruses in humans – a study that was published shortly after their project was defunded by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). (More recently, Shi Zhengli co-authored a paper published in 2019 calling for further study into GoF-related coronavirus research.) Facing a moratorium in the US, Dr. Fauci outsourced GoF research in 2015 to China’s Wuhan lab and licensed the lab so it would keep receiving US aid for researchers in China to continue GoF project(s). Again, this R&D was at least partially funded with grants from the US despite a ban on GoF funding. In December 2017, the NIH lifted its three-year ban, resuming federal funding for GoF research and opening the door to begin the second phase of the NIAID project involving GoF coronavirus research. In 2019, coronavirus research was granted a second round of $3.7 million funding over six years from the NIH (with backing from Dr. Fauci and the NIAID) for the continuation of surveillance along with GoF research on bat coronaviruses to determine whether the pathogen could mutate and infect humans. The project proposal approved by the NIH states: “We will use S protein sequence data, infectious clone technology, in vitro and in vivo infection experiments and analysis of receptor binding to test the hypothesis that % divergence thresholds in S protein sequences predict spillover potential.” “Spillover potential” refers to the ability of a virus to jump from animals to humans, which would require the virus to have the appropriate genetic properties for attaching to receptors in human cells. Note that the exact orthologs referred to in this proposal are seen in SARS-2 or COVID-19, which uses the S protein sequence data, and through GoF research HIV spikes were added to COVID-19 for receptor binding to the human ACE-2 receptor (located in the lungs, heart and other places where COVID-19 attacks). Also that there are dozens of “similar projects” listed which are NIAID-funded. Speaking with Jason Liosatos, Francis Boyle (author of the BWATA) highlighted several points that underscore the gain-of-function-based origins of SARS-2 COVID-19, which is essentially SARS (an already weaponized version of the coronavirus that has leaked out of laboratories) with new properties that have been genetically engineered through GoF to create the new virus – hence SARS-CoV-2. The functionality added to SARS-1 through GoF research allows SARS-2 COVID-19 to be more transmissible, more virulent, and enables the ability to attach to the ACE-2 receptor in humans. A summary of Francis Boyle’s findings: Referencing a study published in Antiviral Research on February 10, 2020 (The spike glycoprotein of the new coronavirus 2019-nCoV contains a furin-like cleavage site absent in CoV of the same clade) “This furin-like cleavage site, is supposed to be cleaved during virus egress for S-protein ‘priming’ and may provide a gain-of-function to the 2019-nCoV for efficient spreading in the human population compared to other lineage b beta-coronaviruses.” Referencing a study published in the National Library of Medicine on December 21, 2015 (SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronavirus shows potential for human emergence) “Using the SARS-CoV reverse genetics system, we generated and characterized a chimeric virus expressing the spike of bat coronavirus SHC014 in a mouse-adapted SARS-CoV backbone. The results indicated that group 2b viruses encoding the SHC014 spike in a wild-type backbone can efficient use multiple orthologs of the SARS receptor in human angiotensin converting enzyme II (ACE2), replicate efficiently in primary human airway cells and achieve in vitro titers equivalent to epidemic strains of SARS-CoV. Additionally, in vivo experiments demonstrate replication of the chimeric virus in mouse lung with notable pathogenesis. Evaluation of available SARS-based immune-therapeutic and prophylactic modalities revealed poor efficacy; both monoclonal and antibody vaccine approaches failed to neutralize and protect from infection with CoVs using the novel spike protein. On the basis of these findings, we synthetically re-derived an infectious full-length SHC014 recombinant virus and demonstrate robust viral replication both in vitro and in vivo.” Referencing a study published in Virology in October 2010 (Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) proteins of different bat species confer variable susceptibility to SARS-CoV entry) “The final piece of evidence here is an archive of Virology 2010. And this is research done with the Australian Health Laboratory and again, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where they DNA genetically engineered SARS and HIV to make a weapon. And they got a grant here from the Chinese Ministry of Science, Technology etc. to do this…” Boyle notes that this research is “only useful for offensive biological warfare activity and it’s so dangerous it’s typically only conducted in either a BSL4 or BSL3 facility,” and incidentally that the only BSL4 facility in China is located in Wuhan. “…And so my reading of these three articles (the above research studies) is that they (China) took the technology from this death factory at North Carolina, they took the technology from this Australian research project, brought it back to Wuhan BSL4 and tried to genetically engineer it all together as sort of a turbo-charged biological warfare weapon that would consist of SARS – which is already a weaponized coronavirus – GoF properties, and HIV. And as you know, those Indian scientists already did an analysis of the coronavirus [SARS-2 COVID-19] … and HIV was clearly in there.” In summary: Through gain-of-function research that has been funded over the last decade at least in part from US tax payers, Dr. Fauci (NIAID) and the NIH have participated in commissioning GoF research that took SHC014-CoV of the coronavirus, brought in the backbone of the SARS coronavirus, then inserted HIV orthologs to create a more virulent pathogen – one that would otherwise have little chance of being transmissible from animals to humans, and certainly not from human to human. GoF research is conducted largely – if not entirely – through loopholes that violate the BWATA and BWC. GoF work on pandemic pathogens has been allowed to continue (even in foreign states) with aid from US tax-payer funding by merely referring to such dual-use research as “peaceful” or “defensive” biological weapons research under terms such as “basic research,” despite the fact that those pathogens (biological agents) would otherwise be recognized as bio-weapons according the BWATA and BWC. “We at NIAID being major funders of most but not all of these people (doing GoF, dual-use research), were obviously connected to that because they (the researchers) wanted to know what kind of research will you (the NIAID/NIH) fund… and the purpose from a pure research standpoint is to review the key issues related to the gain-of-function of these viruses: scientific, public health, biosafety, biosecurity – and importantly for the decisions we have to make now, is the considerations of the possible criteria for funding by HHS (i.e. NIH, CDC) of gain-of-function research on highly pathogenic avian influenza.” – Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, An International Consultative Workshop on Gain-of-Function Research on Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N1 Viruses December 17-18, 2012 According to 18 US Code 175 (prohibitions with respect to biological weapons), the following sentencing guidelines are provided for those who violate the BWATA: “Whoever knowingly develops, produces, stockpiles, transfers, acquires, retains, or possesses any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system for use as a weapon, or knowingly assists a foreign state or any organization to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both.” Further Reading: Direct Quotes & Additional Points of Interest “And it isn’t who we fund that people are concerned about but it’s the people who will then use the research from the people we funded. So the real fundamental question is, when we make a funding decision, do we have to make a decision based on funding even the most careless most unregulated [researchers] because they’re going to use the information. That sets an extraordinarily high bar for what you’re going to fund or what you’re not going to fund because essentially if people are going to use this information, they may use it with no biosafety or no biosecurity concerns.” Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, An International Consultative Workshop on Gain-of-Function Research on Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N1 Viruses, December 17-18, 2012 “As part of our research endeavors, clearly interventions in the form of diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccines were important. But on the lower part of the slide, you see basic research, and that has always been and will continue to be an important part of our mission and our activities. If you look at basic research as we’ve approached it, through the years – long anti-dating the appearance of H5N1 highly pathogenic virus – as part of that influenza basic research was intensive study host adaptation, transmissibility of influenza viruses, pathogenesis and virulence. And integral to that study has always been the issue of gain-of-function research, not only for influenza, but essentially for all infectious disease research.” Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, An International Consultative Workshop on Gain-of-Function Research on Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N1 Viruses, December 17-18, 2012 “Now there are a few ways to look at gain-of-function research: 1) there’s the naturally occurring mutations which naturally give gain-of-function and investigators study these effects on the phenotypes of interest – does this mutation make something more transmissible, more pathogenic, or adapt to hosts better; 2) or what historically investigators have done is to actually create gain-of-function by making mutations, passage adaption or other newer genetic techniques such as reverse genetics and genetic reassortment. When we do that, often some phenotypes appear and others disappear. For example it is commonly seen when you increase a transmissibility, you may see a decrease in pathogenesis or vice-versa. You may deliberately increase pathogenesis and see a decrease in transmissibility. But the bottom line is that gain- and loss-of-function research is critical to understanding disease pathogenesis anti-microbial resistance and host responses, as well to developing better techniques of surveillance, vaccines and therapeutics.” Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, An International Consultative Workshop on Gain-of-Function Research on Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N1 Viruses, December 17-18, 2012 “Specifically to gain-of-function research on HPAI H5N1, what we’re talking about now is the gain-of-function research in studies that increase predominately the transmissibility – as was the case that I’m about to get to in a moment – as well as pathogenesis and alteration of host range of the virus. Now the reason we are here today in this room with H5N1 highly pathogenic influenza and we’re not in this room discussing so many of the other gain-of-function research that we do, is because naturally occurring HPAI H5N1 cause a reported almost 60% mortality in humans, which triggered a concern – understandably, clearly – that if you give a gain-of-function of a pathogenic virus to make it more transmissible, that’s a whole different story than some of the things we face.” Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, An International Consultative Workshop on Gain-of-Function Research on Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N1 Viruses, December 17-18, 2012 “That’s the smoking gun for an offensive biological warfare agent. Gain-of-function properties are a tip off. It’s only useful for offensive biological warfare activity and it’s so dangerous it’s typically only conducted in a BSL4 or BSL3 facility, and there in Wuhan you have the only BSL4 facility in China… Gain-of-function means its DNA is genetically engineered to be more lethal and more infectious – clearly what we’re seeing now with this coronavirus (SARS-2 COVID-19). [COVID-19] is basically SARS, which is already a weaponized version of the coronavirus that has leaked out of [a] laboratory at least twice before, and then it [has been] given gain-of-function properties.” – Francis Boyle, author of the BWATA, speaking with Jason Liosatos, March, 2020 GoF research on bat coronaviruses was conducted at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, which has a biosafety lab level 3 (BSL3), “and I had previously condemned them for using gain-of-function work on MERS… [which] is like SARS only more dangerous [with] a 33% lethality rate – and they were doing GoF work there to make [MERS] even more lethal. Well it turns out if you read the article, they admit they were doing this with SARS – they were giving it a gain-of-function activity. And it turns out part of their team was a researcher from China, Zhengli-Li Shi… and they (China) gave a grant to the University of North Carolina, to get their scientist in on this extremely dangerous, Nazi-type biological warfare work. So it appears that what happened was, instead of stealing this technology, China bought it. And they bought it from the lab there at the University of Carolina. They put there person in there and they brought it back to the Wuhan lab. And it also appears that the North Carolina lab got cells from Fort Detrick, which is the US major facility for the research, development, testing and stockpiling of biological weapons… And they made it clear the work they were doing was to increase the pathogenicity of SARS by giving it this gain-of-function activity.” – Francis Boyle, author of the BWATA, speaking with Jason Liosatos, March, 2020 “So that I think is what we are dealing with here. We’ve never seen (at least released in the public) a biological warfare agent this dangerous, except the Amerithrax [after 9/11]… that was super weapons-grade anthrax [with] a hundred grams a spore. It too traveled in the air [and] seemed to be based on nano-technology… and at the time I publicly stated it came out of the US biological warfare weapons program, and probably Fort Detrick, which was later confirmed… So the Amerithrax was of course supremely dangerous but not as infectious as what we’re seeing here.” – Francis Boyle, author of the BWATA, speaking with Jason Liosatos, March, 2020 “The dual-use nature of biological weapons agents, production equipment and advances in biotechnology can make it hard to distinguish between offensive and defensive work.” – E. William Colglanizer, US Department of State, An International Consultative Workshop on Gain-of-Function Research on Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N1 Viruses, December 17-18, 2012 “We have four different strains of H5N1 that we have over the past seven years maintained.” – Robin Robinson, An International Consultative Workshop on Gain-of-Function Research on Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N1 Viruses, December 17-18, 2012 “…the breadth of misuse scenarios, which I think the term bioterrorism does not capture and may be misleading… In terms of the consequential research, it’s clear that the stakes are much higher with the research we’re discussing today than almost any other form of scientific research where the great risk is wasting money or possibly not spending money which would have higher scientific return. Here we are evaluating the risk of generating – whether accidentally or deliberately – a global pandemic, potentially putting millions of lives at risk. And weighing that against the risk that failure to do research would leave us less prepared for such a pandemic that might break out naturally. I think we have to be extremely humble in assuming we can know or understand the motives and the capabilities of those who might want to create harm on a massive scale. The concerns include those that go beyond and in fact I think have little to do with what might be called bio-terrorism, if by terrorism we mean acts to inflict harm against non-combatants or civilians for a political objective.” – Gerald Epstein, An International Consultative Workshop on Gain-of-Function Research on Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N1 Viruses, December 17-18, 2012 “In terms of what shouldn’t be done, I would look at the actual phrasing of the NIH proposal that we’re evaluating today. For example, one type of experiment that I think would be hard to defend, would be creating strains that would be extremely unlikely to arise if it were not for the fact that we were creating it. And in that case we would be accepting the risks of such a work but we would not be obtaining any benefit because we would be anticipating a problem that would be extremely likely to happen.” – Gerald Epstein, An International Consultative Workshop on Gain-of-Function Research on Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N1 Viruses, December 17-18, 2012 “In terms of gain-of-function I think as the life sciences converge with biology – but with physics, mathematics and engineering – gain-of-function is absolutely essential. The cyber-physical program at the National Science Foundation actually is premised upon that fact. That if we can actually engineer something in and predict its properties, that is gain-of-function. If the life science research and this particular field is to go forward with all the reason behind it, we have to do gain-of-function experiments, we have to put them in the context of mathematics, physics and engineering or else we will make no progress. We have been asked to survey the landscape of international agreements and how does it affect infectious diseases. Well, the capabilities are quite different but the rules and regulations and the advisory committees are legion… There’s a whole area now of biological research looking at stochastic (unintended) events. That’s why this notion of a common but differentiated capabilities as a fundamental for a global governance structure is really important, because it leads to a way to incentivizes countries to participate…” – Harvey Rubin, An International Consultative Workshop on Gain-of-Function Research on Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N1 Viruses, December 17-18, 2012 Wagging the Dog: The Story Behind the Story of COVID-19 “This is the first part of my master class revolving around the so-called ‘science,’ medical, pharmaceutical, corporate and governmental structure that promotes an industry of harm and death to the general population. We cannot fight what we do not know, and we cannot treat a disease while the very government that funded it's lab-grown creation lies to us daily about is origin. In Wagging The Dog Part 1 we look at dual-use, gain-of-function research and its devastatingly frightening implications on life and life as we know it. Herein is definitive proof of not only the man-made origin of SARS-1, MERS, and now SARS-2, but of every other viral disease known and unknown to man. Science and its methodology has been replaced by a religious cult called scientism, and their sociopathic agenda crosses over into what in my own lifetime was only imaginable in the most dystopian science fiction movies. Futurism, immortality, transhumanism, and eugenics (today called genetics) are just the surface of what is being funded by your government and its institutions, from military to health to DARPA. This is a must watch for those that seek the truth about the who, what, where, why, and when this current outbreak of COVID-19, and to prepare you for what is without a doubt coming next.” Clint Richardson – Independent researcher. Documentary filmmaker. Radio show host. Book author and blogger. Former Hollywood sound designer turned full time activist. Full documentary download: http://www.mediafire.com/file/evoh5dedwybvxrv/Wagging_the_Dog_-_The_Story_Behind_the_Story_of_COVID19.m4v/file Low-bandwidth download: http://www.mediafire.com/file/uevx7tr60140lv0/Wagging_the_Dog_-_The_Story_Behind_the_Story_of_COVID19_%28480p%29.m4v/file (All work in this film and article are 100% free to use and distribute as you see fit.)

This news item is worth looking at and SPREADING AROUND. Alan Jones speaking about the resignation of: "an economist in the Victorian Department of Finance and Treasury, Sanjeev Sabhlok, on Wednesday penned an article in the Australian Financial Review announcing his resignation from his position. Mr Sabhlok wrote he resigned "so that I would be able to speak out against the state's management of the COVID-19 infection". 'Australians must know the truth - this virus is not a pandemic': Alan Jones - YouTube