Why would the military be involved in developing heart-crippling biological weapons of mass destruction that were distributed and injected into 270 million Americans?
There is a long history of the Communist Chinese Party (CCP) employing their People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to create biowarfare weapons, and now it appears that they partnered with National Institutes of Health (NIH) to use gain-of-function research to create Covid-19, create deadly vaccines to “prevent” it and its spread. Then, the CCP colluded with NIH and pretended that the pharmaceutical industry created the jabs to “save” everyone, even though the spike protein injections are military-grade biological weapons of mass destruction, designed to kill humans and were created for that reason by the military.
Never forget the United States used small pox virus as a biological weapon to wipe out the indigenous Native Americans, so if you’re thinking this coverage of mRNA jabs as biological weapons used by the U.S. military and Big Pharma against Americans is too far-fetched, think again.
U.S. Military, NIH, CCP collaborated to create and patent biological weapons of mass destruction to wipe out billions of humans across the globe
Biological weapons are comprised of toxic materials produced from pathogenic organisms with the intention of wrecking biological processes of a host, thus incapacitating or exterminating that host, which in this case is human. There are unlimited types of microorganisms that can be used as biological weapons because they are highly toxic, inexpensive, simple to obtain, easy to transfer between humans and easy to disperse (think aerosols or vaccines here).
Typical microbes used for biological weapons include viruses, bacteria (anthrax and botulism), fungi and toxins from plants and animals. As of late, Big Pharma is using venom peptides from poisonous animals (snakes, snails, spiders, scorpions, frogs) for prescription medicines. This is widely documented.
The U.S. military is involved in distributing biological weapons of mass destruction on more fronts than just one. Yes, the Covid clot shots are like Trojan horses in that they sneak gene mutation “technology” into your cells, so they create microscopic prions that clog the vascular system like tiny weapons that destroy vital human systemic functions.
The U.S. military also is responsible for disseminating aerosol toxins into the atmosphere known as “chem-trails,” and this is certainly a biological weapon of mass destruction, as human respiratory systems and our environment (including crops) are contaminated with heavy metal toxins, hospital hazardous waste, bacteria, viruses and the list goes on.
Bookmark Vaccines.news to your favorite independent websites for updates on experimental military projects given to the populace that cause vascular clots, hypertension, myocarditis, pericarditis, heart attacks, strokes, PCVS, SPS and Long-Vax-Syndrome.
Sources for this article include:
]]>Independent journalist Paul D. Thacker, author of “The Disinformation Chronicle” on Substack, analyzed the emails, which were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by investigative reporter Jimmy Tobias.
Thacker’s report shows NIH officials discussing how to respond to congressional inquiries about the grant awarded to EcoHealth Alliance.
In a July 2020 email exchange, Adrienne Hallett, then-NIH associate director for legislative policy, outlined a strategy to evade direct answers to congressional inquiries.
“We are going to draft a response to the letter that doesn’t actually answer the questions in the letter but rather presents a narrative of what happened at a high level,” Hallett wrote. “The Committee may come back for other documents but I’m hoping to run out the clock.”
The email chain reveals that top NIH leadership, including then-Director Francis Collins and then-Principal Deputy Director Lawrence Tabak, were aware of and supportive of this approach.
Collins responded, “Sounds like a good plan.” Dr. Michael Lauer, the NIH’s deputy director for extramural research, replied, “Thanks so much Adrienne! I’ll draft something today.”
Incredible (or not)…
An NIH staffer outlines her plans to evade Congressional scrutiny to Collins & Tabak
Collins: "Sounds like a good plan"
From @JamesCTobias' latest FOIAshttps://t.co/EovAm5oxk6@randpaul @RepMGriffith pic.twitter.com/ytN05Bh3LW
— harish seshadri (@harishseshadri2) July 31, 2024
The congressional letter in question was signed by the chairs of the Energy and Commerce and the Science, Space, and Technology committees and the chairs of their respective investigative subcommittees.
EcoHealth refused to answer NIH questions
EcoHealth Alliance, a nonprofit organization focused on emerging infectious diseases, has been at the center of debates surrounding the origins of COVID-19 due to its work with bat coronaviruses and its partnership with the Wuhan lab.
In April 2020, the NIH terminated EcoHealth’s grant amid concerns about its collaborative research project in Wuhan.
Three months later, in July 2020, the NIH reinstated the grant but immediately suspended it. The agency imposed certain conditions, including requiring answers from EcoHealth Alliance on such issues as the disappearance of Wuhan lab scientist Huan Yanling and details on how the Wuhan lab determined the genetic sequence of SARS-CoV-2.
In a July 2020 email, Tabak expressed concerns over potential political blowback from the grant reinstatement.
An August 2020 email from Lauer noted that EcoHealth refused to answer the questions NIH required.
In May 2023, the NIH reinstated a reduced version of the grant. However, a year later, under pressure from lawmakers, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services suspended all funding for EcoHealth Alliance grants and initiated proceedings to block any future federal research funding.
On Wednesday, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which operated the Emerging Pandemic Threats Program and had funded numerous EcoHealth Alliance projects, announced it had suspended all funding to the organization.
The EcoHealth Alliance controversy is not an isolated incident. Further evidence from several rounds of FOIA’d documents Tobias received (not discussed in Thacker’s current article) reveals a pattern of concealment and subterfuge within the NIH and related government agencies regarding COVID-19 origins and related research.
Collins ‘pleased’ with early 2020 WaPo article dismissing lab-leak theory
In a separate incident, emails obtained through FOIA requests reveal that Collins actively supported efforts to discredit the theory that COVID-19 originated in a lab.
In February 2020, Collins endorsed a Washington Post article criticizing Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) for suggesting the possibility of a lab origin for the virus. The article, which stated the lab-leak theory was a debunked conspiracy, was later “corrected” because “then as now, there was no determination about the origins of the virus.”
Despite the correction, the article still refers to a “fringe theory” and the article URL still includes the word “conspiracy.”
Collins endorsed the Post article despite growing scientific evidence and intelligence reports suggesting the lab-leak theory deserved serious consideration.
A FOIA’d email from February 2020 strongly suggested that Collins and Dr. Anthony Fauci, then-director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, were aware of the gain-of-function research behind the emerging COVID-19 pandemic. Fauci wrote, “?? Serial passage in ACE2-transgenic mice.”
Collins conspired with Fauci to discredit the lab-leak theory through the now-infamous Proximal Origin paper.
It wasn’t until January 2024 during a closed-door interview with the U.S. House of Representatives Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic that Collins finally admitted what he knew all along: SARS-CoV-2 could have leaked from a lab and it was not a conspiracy theory.
Despite the common knowledge of the likelihood of a lab leak, disclosed documents show that people like Tabak continued to deny it:
It always has been unclear whether Tabak's non-answers and false answers have been attributable to ignorance or to willful obstruction. (He is as dumb as a rock, making ignorance a real possibility.)
— Richard H. Ebright (@R_H_Ebright) July 26, 2024
Documents also show the U.S. Department of State by 2019 had knowledge of and cleared the EcoHealth-funded experiments at the Wuhan Lab:
From the new FOIA release by @JamesCTobias. State Department approval for NIH grant by @EcoHealthNYC
Humanized mice
will be performed at the Wuhan Institute of Virology" https://t.co/anXSVlIXdY pic.twitter.com/fnudV4XaYJ— Louis R Nemzer (@BiophysicsFL) April 2, 2023
Adding to the controversy, a FOIA’d document from June 2020 (see page 164) shows that Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) was likely aware of rumors that EcoHealth’s grant-funded work was being conducted in a Biosafety Level 2 (BSL-2) lab at the Wuhan Institute, despite the risky nature of the research, which typically requires a BSL-4 facility.
NIH ‘a rogue agency’
Thacker’s investigation points to broader issues within the NIH and its evasion of public records laws.
“The National Institutes of Health is a rogue agency,” Thacker wrote. He noted that since the beginning of the pandemic, “The NIH has put up roadblocks to Freedom of Information Act requests, forcing people to sue the agency until they disclose documents, which they then heavily redact.”
U.S. Right To Know agreed:
Our investigation into #COVID_19 origins "is a test case of citizens’ access to government records. If we can’t successfully use our nation’s public records laws to investigate something as important as the cause for the deaths of nearly 1.2 million Americans, then why bother…
— U.S. Right To Know (@USRightToKnow) March 20, 2024
In May, Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, announced an investigation into “a potential conspiracy at the highest levels” of NIH to evade FOIA and avoid public transparency on issues related to the pandemic.
The revelations about the NIH’s handling of congressional inquiries come amid other controversies involving key figures in the pandemic response.
“Senator Rand Paul has sent two [criminal] referrals to the Department of Justice after catching Anthony Fauci lying under oath about funding he provided to the Wuhan Institute of Virology for dangerous gain-of-function virus research,” Thacker wrote.
Thacker highlighted May 2024 House investigations of “Fauci’s right-hand man” Dr. David Morens, who admitted to deleting communications and using private email with Fauci to hide public records related to the pandemic origins.
The departure of key figures involved in the controversies also raised eyebrows. Thacker noted that Hallett — the NIH staffer who suggested evading congressional questions — after leaving NIH joined the biotechnology company Cambrian Bio as vice president of global policy.
]]>
(DCNF)—The federal government has spent over $1 million to develop and test a web-accessible video game that aims to help LGBTQ youth stop “binge drinking,” a federal grant database shows.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has approved $1,075,660 in grant funding since 2016 to develop and test the effectiveness of a Japanese role-playing game-inspired web app in reducing binge drinking among sexual and gender minority youth, according to a federal grant database. The grant claims LGBTQ youth are “at greater risk for alcohol-related morbidity and mortality across the life-course.”
The NIH pledged to pay $343,340 for the game’s development between April 2016 and May 2019 and $732,320 for studying its effectiveness in binge drinking mitigation between July 2023 and June 2028, according to federal spending records. The agency awarded both grants to the University of Pittsburgh.
The grant defines sexual and gender minority youth as people under 18 who identify as transgender, nonbinary, gay, bisexual or lesbian, among other identities.
The game involves turn-based battles, interacting with non-player characters, exploration and reading journal entries about the harmful effects of bullying, according to a 2019 research paper associated with one of the grants. Gay youths playing the game take on the role of a “superhuman individual” who faces discrimination at school “because of their uniqueness,” according to NIH-funded researchers.
During character creation, the game prompts players to choose six different pronouns.
Researchers claim that children will be encouraged to employ “productive coping strategies” and engage in “help-seeking behaviors” after playing the game.
Another 2021 study associated with the grants tested the efficacy of the game in improving outcomes for sexual and gender minority youth across a broad range of areas and found few significant results. Researchers found little evidence that the game improved help-seeking behaviors, fomented productive coping skills or improved mental health.
The study did, however, find that playing the game was associated with “significantly reduced binge drinking frequency” and reduced “cyberbullying victimization.” Those relationships disappeared after a two-month follow-up period, however.
Authors of the study told readers to be cautious when interpreting their results, saying that their work was “a feasibility study” and that they “were not powered to find significant effects for secondary and tertiary outcomes.”
The research funded by the most recent NIH grant hypothesizes that playing the game will be associated with reduced binge drinking after three, six and 12 months.
Other grants related to queer youth paid out by the Biden administration include over $200,000 from the NIH to fund a LGBTQ mentoring program in June 2023, nearly $700,000 from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) intended to prevent transgender boys from getting pregnant in September 2023 and an up to $1.7 million from HHS for LGTTQ youth counseling in July 2023, among other programs.
The NIH did not respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].
]]>The National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded a malaria vaccine trial study that used genetically modified (GM) mosquitoes to “vaccinate” humans.
A team of researchers at the University of Washington conducted the study, which was published in the Science Translational Medicine journal.
The study involved 26 participants who received three to five “jabs” — or bites from a small box containing 200 GM mosquitoes — over a 30-day period.
Sanaria, a company funded in part by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), is closely connected to the research, and the researchers involved in the trial use a gene-editing technology heavily promoted by Bill Gates.
Genetically modified mosquitoes used as ‘flying syringes’
The trial used malaria-causing Plasmodium mosquitoes that were genetically modified to avoid causing sickness in humans to infect participants with a “minor” version of malaria — insufficient to cause severe illness, but enough to make the humans create antibodies.
Dr. Sean Murphy, lead author of the study, told NPR, “We use the mosquitoes like they’re 1,000 small flying syringes.”
Despite the publicity generated by this study, however, results appear to have been mixed.
Of the 14 trial participants exposed to malaria, seven contracted the disease. For the remaining seven, the protection conferred by the “vaccine” did not last more than a few months and eventually dissipated.
According to the study:
“Half of the individuals in each vaccine group did not develop detectable P. falciparum infection, and a subset of these individuals was subjected to a second [Controlled Human Malaria Infection] 6 months later and remained partially protected.”
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “infections caused by P. falciparum are the most likely to progress to severe, potentially fatal forms” of malaria.
Adverse reactions in trial participants reportedly were “what one would expect after getting bit by hundreds of mosquitoes and nothing more.”
For example, trial participant Carolina Reid told NPR her entire forearm “swelled and blistered.”
Despite the study’s mixed results, the researchers claimed the “results support further development of genetically attenuated sporozoites as potential malaria vaccines.”
The researchers suggested several reasons for using live mosquitoes rather than a vaccine that could be delivered via a syringe, including that the use of live insects made sense, as the P. falciparum parasite quickly matures inside the mosquito.
In addition, the process of developing a version of the parasite that could be delivered via a syringe was described as “costly and time consuming.”
Nevertheless, according to Murphy the study will not be used for the mass vaccination of humans. However, the researchers involved in the trial said they believe the approach they used can eventually result in the development of a “substantially more effective” malaria vaccine.
At present, only one malaria vaccine is in use. The RTS,S vaccine produced by GlaxoSmithKline was approved by the World Health Organization in October 2021, but reportedly has an efficacy rate of only 30-40%.
Dr. Kirsten Lyke, a vaccine researcher at the University of Maryland, described the use of a genetically modified live parasite as a vaccine as “a total game changer,” saying the team of researchers “went old school with this one.”
“All things old become new again,” Lyke told NPR.
Lyke, who was not involved in the GM mosquito malaria trial, led the Phase 1 trials for the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and also served as co-investigator for COVID-19 vaccine trials administered by Moderna and Novavax.
Stefan Kappe, a parasitologist at the University of Washington and the Seattle Children’s Research Institute — who was one of the authors of the study — said that the approach described by Lyke is already being worked on by the team, adding that the team believes “we can obviously do better.”
However, according to Kappe, “increasing production capability to scale up manufacturing will require investment.”
The research team said that the vaccine developed from this process will eventually be administered via syringes, in order to administer a “more accurate dosage.”
According to Lyke, the use of a slightly more mature version of the GM parasite used during this trial could better equip the human body to prepare an immune response.
Murphy added that his team’s approach utilizes a whole weakened parasite rather than one of the proteins the parasite produces, as with the RTS,S vaccine.
Gates-linked firm provided GM parasites used in trial
According to NPR, the University of Washington partnered with Sanaria, a “small company” that produces the modified parasites.
According to its website, Sanaria is “a biotechnology company developing vaccines protective against malaria,” and its “vaccines have proven highly protective against Plasmodium falciparum infection in humans.”
The company also said it developed “an innovative approach to malaria using Plasmodium falciparum (Pf) sporozoites (SPZ) as the platform technology for immunizing people against malaria infection.”
Two of Sanaria’s listed donors — PATH MVI and the Institute for OneWorld Health — are beneficiaries of funding from the BMGF.
PATH, which founded the Malaria Vaccine Initiative (MVI), describes itself as “an international nonprofit organization that drives transformative innovation to save lives and improve health,” working “with partners in private industry, government, and academia to develop malaria vaccines.”
PATH MVI said it advises and partners with “public institutions, businesses, grassroots groups, and investors to tackle the world’s toughest global health problems — which includes malaria, a notoriously complex parasite.”
As far back as 2008, when it received a $168 million grant, PATH MVI has received funding from the BMGF.
Aside from the BMGF, other PATH MVI donors include Chevron, the ExxonMobil Foundation, the USAID Malaria Vaccine Development Program and Open Philanthropy.
As Open Philanthropy — one of whose main funders is Dustin Moscovitz, co-founder of Facebook along with Mark Zuckerberg — funded a monkeypox tabletop simulation that “predicted” a global monkeypox pandemic in May 2022, the same month an outbreak occurred.
Open Philanthropy has, over the past decade, provided hundreds of millions of dollars in donations and grants for “global health,” “biosecurity and pandemic preparedness” and “global catastrophic risks.”
In turn, the Institute for OneWorld Health, which claims it “partner[s] with communities in developing countries to bring permanent, sustainable healthcare to the chronically underserved,” has received multiple grants from the BMGF, including a 2004 grant for the development of a malaria vaccine.
Other Sanaria donors include the NIH and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Center for Infectious Disease Research, the National Institute of Standards, the Military Infections Disease Research Program and the European Vaccine Initiative.
Gates’ enthusiasm for gene-editing technology ‘off the charts’
One of the novel aspects of the University of Washington trial was that the parasites used were “disarmed” using CRISPR — or Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats — gene editing tools.
CRISPR is described as “a component of bacterial immune systems that can cut DNA” that “has been repurposed as a gene editing tool,” acting “as a precise pair of molecular scissors that can cut a target DNA sequence, directed by a customizable guide” — a piece of RNA with a “guide” sequence that attaches to the target DNA sequence.
According to geekwire.com:
“When it comes to fighting malaria and other mosquito-borne diseases … CRISPR-Cas9 and other gene-editing tools are being used to change the insects’ genome to ensure that they can’t pass along the parasites that cause those diseases.”
Gates — an enthusiastic proponent of CRISPR — previously suggested CRISPR could be used to eliminate mosquitoes that transmit malaria.
According to a 2018 Business Insider report:
“Gates has long been supportive of using genetic editing tools. He was one of the early investors in Editas Medicine, one of the first companies to start trying to use CRISPR to eliminate human diseases.
“Gates Foundation researchers have worked for nearly a decade on ways to use genetic editing to improve crops and to wipe out malaria-carrying mosquitoes.”
In a 2018 Foreign Affairs article written by Gates, he specifically addressed CRISPR’s potential malaria-related applications:
“Scientists are also exploring other ways to use CRISPR to inhibit mosquitoes’ ability to transmit malaria — for example, by introducing genes that could eliminate the parasites as they pass through a mosquito’s gut on their way to its salivary glands, the main path through which infections are transmitted to humans.”
In a 2021 blog post addressing recent CRISPR-related developments, Gates said his “excitement about CRISPR has grown from super high to off the charts.”
And in a July tweet commemorating the 10th “birthday” of CRISPR, Gates described it as “one of the most important inventions in medicine, biology, and agriculture.”
Gates also helped fund the currently approved RTS,S malaria vaccine — as did Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance, with which the BMGF is a partner.
Some scientists, however, are less enthusiastic about CRISPR’s gene-editing applications, warning they may result in unintended, harmful consequences.
For instance, in testimony submitted to the British Parliament in 2020, scientists Claire Robinson of GMWatch and Michael Antoniou of King’s College London warned:
“GM (including gene editing) of crops, animals and foods leads to several different types of unintended genetic mutations, which unpredictably alter the function of multiple gene systems of the organism.
“Altered patterns of gene function will unpredictably change the biochemistry of the organism.”
And even Gates, in his 2018 Foreign Affairs article, could not ignore the myriad of ethical controversies associated with CRISPR.
Nevertheless, Gates and the BMGF have been proponents of GM mosquitoes even beyond CRISPR.
For instance, the BMGF provided funding to Oxitec, a firm that has conducted pilot projects in Florida and Brazil using GM mosquitoes, purportedly with the aim of reducing the spread of mosquito-borne viruses.
In Brazil, the GM mosquitoes that were released were said to lack the ability to produce offspring — but were nevertheless found to have reproduced.
The BMGF also reportedly was “heavily involved” in trials using GM mosquitoes in India — and even went as far as to propose, in 2017, alongside the Johns Hopkins Center for Communication Programs, the development of a mosquito emoji, to be “used for public health campaigns.”
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
]]>Article by Zachary Stieber cross-posted from our premium news partners at The Epoch Times.
“Retirement can’t shield Dr. Fauci from congressional oversight,” Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), the top Republican on the House Oversight Committee, said in a statement.
Fauci announced hours earlier that he will step down in December, just weeks before Republicans expect to take control of the House of Representatives.
The GOP is in the minority in the lower chamber but based on historical election patterns and President Joe Biden’s lagging approval ratings, the party is forecast to flip enough seats to gain a majority in the upcoming midterm elections.
That would make a Republican the chair of each committee, likely landing Comer the chair of the Oversight Committee.
Republicans have vowed to investigate Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; former National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Dr. Francis Collins; and other key pandemic-era government officials over the early response to the pandemic, if they take power in either congressional chamber.
Emails obtained and made public by the committee and news outlets showed that before Fauci wrote off the theory that the COVID-19 virus started in a Chinese laboratory, scientists informed him that the virus could have been engineered. Some of the same scientists, after speaking in a call with Fauci, came out against the lab theory. No animal source for the virus has been identified to date, and Chinese officials have released little information from the lab, which received funding from the agency Fauci directs.
“Fauci’s resignation will not prevent a full-throated investigation into the origins of the pandemic. He will be asked to testify under oath regarding any discussions he participated in concerning the lab leak,” Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee’s Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Spending Oversight, said in a statement.
Fauci has maintained that he did nothing wrong.
“We need to know if Dr. Fauci concealed anything from government officials in order to shield the NIH’s cozy relationship with EcoHealth Alliance, a grantee that awarded taxpayer funds to the Wuhan lab to conduct dangerous research on bat coronaviruses,” said Comer, referring to a subaward that the NIH just terminated.
“The American people deserve transparency and accountability about how government officials used their taxpayer dollars, and Oversight Committee Republicans will deliver,” he added.
Democrats Respond
Government officials praised Fauci, as did Democrats, after the resignation announcement.
“The United States of America is stronger, more resilient, and healthier because of him,” President Joe Biden said in a statement.
“Dr. Anthony Fauci is a great American. He has done so much for our country during over half a century at NIH, and his work has saved countless lives here and around the world,” added Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.).
Sen. Dick Durbin, the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, said that Fauci “is an example of American excellence and a brilliant scientific mind.”
Fauci said in his statement that he’s not retiring, but indicated that he will leave the government and join the private sector after working for the NIH since 1968.
]]>.jpg){kind=link}