You can read yesterday’s Part One of this three-part series here.
BIODEFENCE countermeasures are built on the questionable and exaggerated premise that biological weapons and bioterrorism are real threats. The US government asserted the right to conduct gain-of-function research in 2003 claiming it is necessary in order pre-emptively to develop countermeasure vaccines, but it is a violation of the Biological Weapons Convention 1972 to which the US is a signatory. Under international law, countermeasures are measures which would be illegal but for the fact that they’re taken against the illegal actions of another state.
The Operation Warp Speed (OWS) organisation chart obtained by STAT News in September 2020 suggests this project was no mere vaccine manufacturing vanity project and that the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) always intended to run a field test of its P3 program. Manager Matt Hepburn worked directly with Operation Warp Speed’s vaccine manufacturing and supply chain consultant, Carlo de Notaristefani.
On January 29, 2021, once the vaccines were in use, DARPA put out a revealing ‘vignette’ about its prevention of pandemics program, bragging that its investments to develop technologies to pre-empt and eliminate threats were ‘undergirding history’s most rapid mobility of innovation for quashing a raging pandemic’. (My italics) Describing its involvement with Operation Warp Speed the hyperbolic DARPA went on to say: ‘With that dynamic in mind, DARPA has been managing an audacious portfolio of projects designed to generate pandemic-stopping know-how and to act on that knowledge by dramatically reducing the time it takes to scale-up the means for preventing, diagnosing, and treating any infectious disease that might arise, even ones the world has never seen before.’
It is not as though they were not warned. By August a DARPA liaison officer, Marine Corps Major Joseph Murphy, was cautioning his superiors that the vaccine mandates for the military should go to ‘no-go or abort status’. He argued that the vaccines were ineffective and dangerous as they copied the spike protein from the SARS-CoV-2-like virus genetically engineered to increase its ability to infect humans that was deemed too dangerous when the EcoHealth Alliance DEFUSE bat coronavirus vaccine project was rejected. EcoHealth Alliance obtained funding from the National Institutes of Health instead and outsourced the gain-of-function experiments to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
The stated aim of DARPA’s P3 program, to support ‘military readiness and global stability’, may sound reasonable. But its approach to its P3 experiment was not, nor was it ethical. Its intentional recklessness in deploying these countermeasures on people, civilian or military, based on unproven assumptions about their transient effect (nothing was tested for more than 60 days) and their ability to ‘take pandemic threats off the table’, is breathtaking. Members of the public who were injected with DARPA’s genetic vaccines were never informed that they were participating in an elaborate DARPA experiment.
The revival of Disease X suggests that a second P3 demonstration event, to test P3 as it was originally conceived, is being prepared. The precedent now exists for the deployment of the products.
Disease X Mark 2 is more than just a retest of the P3 platform. It is an audacious business continuity plan to keep the newly minted mRNA pharma companies in business. Vast profits were generated by the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines; the development was de-risked and underwritten by governments. Pfizer-BioNTech may not have had the lavish American government funding that Moderna did, but it still received a E375million grant from the German government. Temesek, Singapore’s sovereign wealth fund advised by Sir Jeremy Farrar, invested US$250million and took a share of the profits. BioNTech’s main interest was in cancer therapeutics and it has a large portfolio of products in its development pipeline, although none have been authorised yet. The issue for Moderna in particular is that to survive as an infectious disease vaccine-focused company it must remain latched on to the government funding teat.
The problem, as a 2022 National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) evaluation of the prospects for the mRNA industry shows, is that no commercially viable business model exists naturally. The NBER analysed the economic performance of a hypothetical portfolio of 120 mRNA vaccines against 11 different infectious diseases including Disease X. Ninety-four per cent of the costs come upfront from clinical trials while manufacturing costs account for only 6 per cent of the total expenditure, giving an average annualised return on investment of this portfolio of -6.0 per cent. The portfolio would have a negative net value of -$9.5billion. Their conclusion? ‘To create a sustainable business model and robust global vaccine ecosystem, continued collaboration between government agencies and the private sector is likely to be necessary.’
In the short-to-medium term we can expect to see the authorisation of numerous mRNA vaccines for our food chain animals. Animals can’t object to being vaccinated. One reason the zoonosis-origin argument that diseases cross the ‘viral frontier’ from animals to humans) was pushed as the original origin story for SARS-CoV-2 was to create the pretext to justify a sustainable revenue stream for mRNA vaccine companies.
The OneHealth framework spawned by the Rockefeller Foundation, (at a symposium they hosted in 2004) is a charter for surveillance and vaccination of as many two- and four-legged creatures on this planet as feasible. It has already been adopted by the WHO and many governments including the US and UK governments. The WHO says it is an ‘integrated, unifying approach to balance and optimise the health of people, animals and the environment’ and particularly important to ‘prevent, predict, detect, and respond to global health threats such as the Covid-19 pandemic.’
Dr William Karesh, who came up with the OneHealth name, now works for EcoHealth Alliance and is a member of the Bipartisan Biodefense Commission. Appearing at the 2019 Manhattan Project forum, he asked the DARPA representative how much funding was needed to take pandemics off the table and who else was contributing financially given what he called the ‘incredible societal benefits’.
‘We have the possibility of vaccinating eight billion people. That’s a market! There could be thirty to forty billion through pigs, the same for chickens . . . are we really thinking about the potential?’ said Karesh.
In the name of food safety in the developing world, OneHealth calls for more factory farming to facilitate higher levels of vaccination which it is argued big businesses can afford but small subsistence farmers cannot. Ironically when the World Economic Forum (WEF) first put Disease X on the agenda in 2018 it pointed out that factory farming of food animals was the perfect incubator for diseases such as flu.
Twenty years ago mass animal culls such as during the UK foot and mouth outbreak were shocking. Now they are so commonplace that people are inured to them. The mal-intention behind them is to drive small farmers out of business and put the entire food production industry in the hands of corporations. ‘Service delivery’, by which they mean vaccination, is the Orwellian term sometimes used in OneHealth documents and will without doubt be mandated as the alternative.
The game plan is to create a fascist corporatist ‘welfare’ scheme and captive markets, human and animal.