CNN

now browsing by category

 
Posted by: | Posted on: April 5, 2022

Revealed: 7 in 10 ‘Vaccinated’ CDC Employees Got COVID


Reproduced from original article:
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/04/05/covid-infections-in-cdc-employees.aspx
The original Mercola article may not remain on the original site, but I will endeavor to keep it on this site as long as I deem it to be appropriate, and will not be bullied into removing it.

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola     Fact Checked     April 05, 2022

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) data reveal 70% of vaccinated U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention employees got breakthrough COVID infections in August 2021
  • March 3, 2022, CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky gave a presentation at Washington University, during which she admitted that she had learned about the Pfizer shot’s 95% effectiveness from CNN, which was based on a press release from Pfizer
  • Walensky claims she was unaware the shots might lose effectiveness over time. Yet scientists around the world have long known that coronaviruses are very prone to mutation, and mutations are known to affect a vaccine’s effectiveness
  • Walensky has also accused the public of believing that “science is black and white” when, in fact, “science is gray.” Meanwhile, anyone who has held an opinion that differs from the mainstream narrative has been censored to stifle scientific debate, and Walensky has never spoken out against this effort to prevent a “black and white” presentation of science
  • Walensky has also publicly discredited the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which is coadministered by the FDA and the CDC. VAERS reveals the COVID jabs are the most dangerous vaccines ever created

February 2, 2022, the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request1 with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, requesting records showing “the number of COVID-19 infections, and of those, the number of breakthrough infections” among CDC employees in August 2021.

Breakthrough infections refer to infections that occur in those who have received one or more COVID jabs. March 28, 2022, ICAN issued a legal update,2 stating they had received an official response,3 showing approximately 70% of all COVID-19 cases among CDC employees in August 2021 occurred among “vaccinated” employees.

7 in 10 ‘Vaccinated’ CDC Employees Got COVID

Following are the official numbers for June, July and August 2021, listed in the FOIA response:4

Number of Positive Reports Number of Breakthrough Cases
June 2021 4 0
July 2021 18 10
August 2021 36 25

As reported by ICAN:5

“Now, we don’t know the percent of CDC employees that were vaccinated as of August 2021, but if the CDC’s vaccination rate reflects that of adults in the United States, it was far less than 70%.

But even if more than 70% of CDC employees were vaccinated, the fact that by the end of Summer 2021, 70% of its COVID-19 positive employees were vaccinated should have been a shocking figure and should have served as a wake-up call to the CDC about the failure of these vaccines to prevent infection.”

‘CYB Excuses’

According to ICAN, the CDC’s response included “a whole bunch of caveats, meaning, ‘cover your butt’ excuses” for why the breakthrough infections rate was so high, including that many CDC employees were telecommuting at the time and not required to report their vaccination status and/or any test results.

According to U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy, who questioned CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky about the percentage of vaccinated CDC employees during a November 4, 2021, Senate hearing (above), an estimated 75% of CDC employees were working remotely during the pandemic.

Walensky claimed she did not know the true number, and the FOIA response also did not specify how many were actually working remotely. Either way, “These excuses are unpersuasive,” ICAN says, adding:6

“There is no reason to believe that CDC employees would not disclose their vaccination status. There is also no reason to believe those vaccinated would be more likely to report being COVID-19 positive. If anything, those vaccinated would have been less likely to report being COVID-19 positive given that, as the CDC itself says, ‘persons who have been vaccinated are possibly less likely to get tested.’”

Walensky Didn’t Realize COVID Jab Effectiveness Might Wane

Interestingly, March 3, 2022 — the same day the CDC replied to ICAN’s FOIA request for data on breakthrough infections among CDC employees — Walensky gave a presentation to medical students at Washington University during which she admitted that she had learned about the Pfizer shot’s effectiveness from CNN.7

CNN’s report, in turn, was based on a press release from Pfizer, which stated that the jab was 95% effective. Walensky was not told, she said, that the shots might lose effectiveness over time (and a short amount of time, at that).

These are truly shocking admissions. Writing in The Disinformation Chronicle, investigative journalist Paul Thacker discussed the timeline of events that led to Walensky believing the Pfizer vaccine was 95% effective.8

He concluded Walensky was likely referring to a November 18, 2020, CNN report9 by Maggie Fox and Amanda Sealy, who appear to have done little to augment the story after pulling information from a Pfizer press release published the same day.10

So, what we have here is a remarkable instance where a story in CNN, regurgitated from a press release, appears to have influenced Walensky’s thinking about the injections and the future guidance from the CDC. As noted by Thacker:11

“The Pfizer press release … became CDC pandemic policy … [Y]ou rarely get such direct evidence of a corporation influencing federal policy by laundering their press release through media outlets like CNN. Further, republishing press releases seems a pervasive practice in how the media covers COVID-19 vaccines — meaning, they don’t do much reporting. This has been obvious since late 2020.”

Does the CDC Rely on Science at All?

Walensky’s apparent ignorance about the potential for waning effectiveness is equally shocking. Scientists around the world have long known that coronaviruses are very prone to mutation, and mutations are known to affect a vaccine’s effectiveness.

Nearly every scientist in the world expected the virus to mutate, because that’s what viruses do. Yet Walensky did not consider this possibility,12 despite having been a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School with years of experience dealing with viruses.13

Even those with no expertise in virology suspected mutations might impact the shot’s effectiveness. For example, two days after Walensky’s speech at Washington University, former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson wrote,14 “She’s right. Nobody could possibly have known variants might be a problem.”

Underneath, he reposted a tweet dated January 20, 2021, in which he had stated, “Spoiler alert: the vaccines probably don’t work against at least one new variant and they’re going to want you to get vaccinated again next fall.”

By August, Twitter had permanently banned Berenson for “repeated violations of our COVID-19 misinformation rules.”15 Ironically, the tweet that put Twitter over the edge compared the COVID jab to a “‘therapeutic’ with a limited window of efficacy …” — a statement that I and many other experts would agree is 100% factual and true.

Gaslighting at Its Finest

During her Washington University appearance, Walensky also alluded to people in the media who “reject evidence,” saying,16 “There are a lot of people who are using their voice that may or may not be helpful for public health,” and that this “decreases public health in general.” For this reason, “we have to be clear” about our messaging, she added.

However, Walensky’s admissions during that talk really make one wonder who is making our public health decisions, and why. It’s difficult to imagine that one of the largest and most powerful health care agencies in the U.S. is led by a director who is basing her decisions on CNN reports and drug company press releases — and by doing so, is misleading the public. Consider that during this talk, she:

  • Admitted learning about the Pfizer 95% efficacy — information which was then used to formulate CDC guidelines — from a CNN report, which was nothing more than a republished press release from Big Pharma.
  • Claimed the CDC is transparently publishing data in a “pedal-to-the-metal” scenario17 even though The New York Times, only days earlier, had revealed the CDC is withholding crucial data from the public.18
  • Claimed “no one told her” that the virus might mutate and render the vaccine ineffective,19 yet during a Pfizer earnings call, held February 2, 2021, a financial analyst was astute enough to ask Pfizer how the 95% efficacy rate might change in light of mutations.20

Walensky also accused the public of believing that “science is black and white,” when in fact, “science is gray.” Meanwhile, anyone who has held an opinion that differs from the mainstream narrative has been censored and fake “fact-checked” so the debate over science would never see the light of day. Walensky has never spoken out against this effort to prevent a “black and white” presentation of science.

Her colleague, Dr. Anthony Fauci — who as director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases has been the face of COVID-19 for the White House — has even gone on record claiming that HE is the science, and that attacking his recommendations is an attack on science itself.21 Walensky, for some reason, never corrected him either.

Walensky Has Tried to Undermine Confidence in VAERS

Walensky has also publicly discredited the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which is coadministered by the FDA and her own agency, the CDC.22 During her January 11, 2022, testimony before the Senate,23 Walensky stated that any death after a vaccine could be reported to VAERS.

Specifically, she used the example of an individual who gets vaccinated and then gets hit by a car and dies. She clearly implied that such a death would be recorded in VAERS and logged as an adverse reaction to the vaccine. But this is patently false.

First of all, adverse events are not automatically reported and, certainly, obvious accidents are not entered into the system as a suspected vaccine side effect.

As reported by Health Impact News,24 there are about 18 reports in VAERS that include “road traffic accident,” but most if not all relate to an adverse event, such as a heart attack, occurring while driving. They were not hit by someone else and then entered into the system. As noted by Pam Long in a January 12, 2022, Twitter thread:25

“If anyone in public health utters ‘a person can get hit by a car & report their death to VAERS’ you need stop them, in any public meeting, and demand they explain what motive would a physician have to inflate VAERS reports with car accidents or any unrelated mortality?

Despite Walensky’s & Fauci’s cliché testimony to Congress, not one person ‘got hit by a car’ & reported their own death to VAERS as a vaccine injury. Most reports are filed by medical professionals, using diagnostic language about drug reactions.”

VAERS was designed and created as an early warning system, and it works well for that. While it’s true that anyone can file a report, it’s time-consuming, requires knowledge of medical details that a patient oftentimes won’t have, and there are penalties for filing a false report. There’s absolutely no reason to suspect, let alone assume, that people are filing false reports just to make the shots look bad.

The fact of the matter is that VAERS is showing the COVID shots are the most dangerous vaccines ever created. It’s hard to imagine why Walensky would want to undermine confidence in this system — unless she wants everyone to simply ignore the warning signals it’s giving us.

CDC Has Had a Clear Pro-Pharma Agenda

During the November 4, 2021, Senate hearing, featured in the video at the top of this article, Cassidy also highlighted another area where the CDC has acted as if it’s intentionally disregarding basic science, namely that of natural immunity.

Cassidy cited research showing 92% of those who recover from COVID have T-cells, B-cells and antibodies that provide robust immunity for at least six to eight months. Yet the CDC has refused to acknowledge natural immunity, saying those who recover still need to get a COVID shot.

Cassidy noted that the CDC has access to tens of thousands of electronic health records (EHRs) and patient identifiable data as to who tested positive and had symptomatic infection. With that data, they could easily confirm or disprove claims that natural infection confers adequate protection against reinfection. And, if confirmed, those who have had symptomatic infection could then be excluded from vaccine mandates.

So, why has the CDC not done any prospective studies when they have patient identifiable EHRs that they can use to precisely determine who gets reinfected and who doesn’t? According to Cassidy, the only reason we don’t know whether natural immunity is as good as the COVID jab is “because we decided not to look.”

Walensky’s replies to Cassidy’s questions are as telling as the admissions in her Washington University presentation. There’s an awful lot she and the CDC apparently don’t know, including core basics.

Can a virus mutate? Walensky “wasn’t told” it could and therefore didn’t think it would. Can a mutation affect the effectiveness of the jab? Walensky wasn’t aware of such a possibility and CDC recommendations have reflected that ignorance.

How many CDC personnel are working remotely? She has no idea. How many of the CDC’s employees have been jabbed? She has no clue. Why has basic research not been done to determine whether natural immunity is as adequate as the jab? She provides some circular argument about not having unbiased correlative data, even though Cassidy just told her how the data they already have could be used to find this answer.

She pats herself on the back for her agency’s transparency, while evidence is presented showing the CDC is intentionally withholding crucial vaccine data. She says science is a gray zone while simultaneously accusing people of spreading misinformation when they don’t agree with her.

She lies about the types of adverse events that are reported to VAERS in what appears to be a blatant effort to undermine this valuable safety tool, and admits to making public health decisions based on Pfizer press releases instead. The fact that 7 in 10 vaccinated CDC employees got breakthrough infections didn’t even clue Walensky in to the possibility that the COVID jab might be useless.

On a side note, more evidence of this was recently revealed by Princess Cruises, which reported an outbreak onboard the Ruby Princess in March 2022, despite a 100% vaccination rate among both crew and passengers, plus proof of a negative COVID test prior to boarding.26

Just how are we supposed to trust the CDC when they seemingly know nothing about anything that matters, don’t follow the science, and protect Big Pharma to the point of undermining confidence in their own safety tools? I’ll let you be the judge.

Posted in Censorship, CNN, Coronavirus, Corruption, Vaccinations | No Comments »

Posted by: | Posted on: March 25, 2022

Has the US Funded Bioweapons Research in Ukraine?


Reproduced from original article:
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/03/25/us-biolabs-in-ukraine.aspx
The original Mercola article may not remain on the original site, but I will endeavor to keep it on this site as long as I deem it to be appropriate, and will not be bullied into removing it.

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola     Fact Checked     March 25, 2022

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • According to Russian officials, the U.S. government has been financing and helping Ukraine develop a secret bioweapons program
  • According to the U.S. government, they’ve been working with Ukraine to “eliminate” bioweapons left over from the Soviet era. This was then changed to: The U.S. is helping “secure” former Soviet bioweapons. Other denials have stated that the labs are diagnostic and biodefense laboratories, or that they’re used for vaccine development
  • The concepts of biodefense and biowarfare are largely indistinguishable. “Biodefense” implies tacit biowarfare, as they typically create dangerous pathogens under the guise of finding a cure in case such a pathogen was to develop naturally or be created by an enemy
  • March 8, 2022, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland admitted that “biological research laboratories” in Ukraine have been funded and operated under the direction of the U.S.
  • Nuland stressed that she’s very concerned about the contents of those labs falling into the hands of the Russian military, because Russia may use the pathogens as bioweapons. But the only reason to be concerned about that is if they’re extremely dangerous and NOT former Soviet bioweapons (as Russia would already have them)

According to Russian officials, the U.S. government has been financing and helping Ukraine develop a secret bioweapons program.1 The U.S. State Department has shrugged it off as “total nonsense,”2 and fact checkers have published countless “consensus statements” emphatically denying the Russian claim over the past few weeks.

As usual, it’s difficult to discern the truth, as both sides are churning out propaganda. In the video above, Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson reviews what we’ve come to know so far.

Under Secretary of State Admits US Funding of Ukraine Labs

While the Biden administration has vehemently denied the Russian accusation, March 8, 2022, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Victoria Nuland, admitted that “biological research laboratories” in Ukraine have in fact been funded and operated under the direction of the U.S.3

She did not admit that they were biological WEAPONS labs. But is it all semantics? While the research and defense industries would like you to believe that there’s a vast difference, and a sharp dividing line, between biological research for health purposes and biological weapons research, most such research can serve dual purposes.

During Nuland’s testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., asked: “Does Ukraine have chemical or biological weapons?” Surprisingly, Nuland, after some hesitation, responded that “there are biological research facilities” in the Ukraine.

Nuland then immediately went on to say that she’s “deeply concerned” the pathogens held in those labs may now fall into the hands of the Russian military. This implies the pathogens are extremely dangerous — and could be deployed as weapons by the Russians.

As noted by investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald (whose report is also covered by Russel Brand, below):4

“Any hope to depict such ‘facilities’ as benign or banal was immediately destroyed by [her] warning …

Nuland’s bizarre admission that ‘Ukraine has biological research facilities’ that are dangerous enough to warrant concern that they could fall into Russian hands ironically constituted more decisive evidence of the existence of such programs in Ukraine than what was offered in 2002 and 2003 to corroborate U.S. allegations about Saddam’s chemical and biological programs in Iraq …

It should go without saying that the existence of a Ukrainian biological ‘research’ program does not justify an invasion by Russia … But Nuland’s confession does shed critical light on several important issues …

Any attempt to claim that Ukraine’s biological facilities are just benign and standard medical labs is negated by Nuland’s explicitly grave concern that ‘Russian forces may be seeking to gain control of’ those facilities …

Russia has its own advanced medical labs … The only reason to be ‘quite concerned’ about these ‘biological research facilities’ falling into Russian hands is if they contain sophisticated materials that Russian scientists have not yet developed on their own and which could be used for nefarious purposes — i.e., either advanced biological weapons or dual-use ‘research’ that has the potential to be weaponized …

This joint US/Ukraine biological research is, of course, described by the State Department in the most unthreatening way possible. But that again prompts the question of why the U.S. would be so gravely concerned about benign and common research falling into Russian hands.

It also seems very odd, to put it mildly, that Nuland chose to acknowledge and describe the ‘facilities’ in response to a clear, simple question from Sen. Rubio about whether Ukraine possesses chemical and biological weapons.

If these labs are merely designed to find a cure for cancer or create safety measures against pathogens, why, in Nuland’s mind, would it have anything to do with a biological and chemical weapons program in Ukraine? …

The indisputable reality is that — despite long-standing international conventions banning development of biological weapons — all large, powerful countries conduct research that, at the very least, has the capacity to be converted into biological weapons. The work conducted under the guise of ‘defensive research’ can, and sometimes is, easily converted into the banned weapons themselves.”

More Semantics

When Fox News contacted the state department for comment about Nuland’s admissions, they received the following reply:5

“The U.S. Department of Defense does not own or operate biological weapons labs in Ukraine. Under Secretary Nuland was referring to Ukrainian diagnostic and biodefense laboratories during her testimony which are not biological weapons facilities. These institutions counter biological threats throughout the country.”

Again, this seems like someone trying to split hairs and not quite succeeding. The U.S. may not “own,” or “operate” biological weapons labs in Ukraine, but does it fund them? Funding, operating and owning are not the same thing, yet they’re denying the accusation of “funding” these labs by saying they don’t “own or operate” them.

Why the obfuscation? Why not say “we don’t FUND bioweapons labs,” if that is in fact the case? And what is the difference between “biodefense” labs and a “bioweapons” lab? If you were creating a bioweapon, wouldn’t you call it biodefense? As noted in an April 2020 article by independent journalist and analyst for the Institute for Public Accuracy, Sam Husseini:6

“Governments that participate in … biological weapon research generally distinguish between ‘biowarfare’ and ‘biodefense,’ as if to paint such ‘defense’ programs as necessary.

But this is rhetorical sleight-of-hand; the two concepts are largely indistinguishable. ‘Biodefense’ implies tacit biowarfare, breeding more dangerous pathogens for the alleged purpose of finding a way to fight them.”

Bioweapons expert Francis Boyle, who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, has also pointed out that many if not most BSL-4 labs are dual use: “They first develop the offensive biological warfare agent and then they develop the supposed vaccine.”7

Were Pathogens Secured or Not?

Nuland’s statement also raises another question. If the U.S. government feared the pathogens could be used as weapons, why didn’t they secure them before the Russians went into Ukraine? Carlson asks. Clearly, they knew it was going to happen. In fact, President Biden stated February 18 that he was “convinced” Putin would invade Ukraine.8

March 11, 2022, Reuters9 reported that the World Health Organization had advised Ukraine to destroy high-threat pathogens to prevent “potential spills” were any of the facilities to be bombed.

Curiously, the WHO declined to say when it made that recommendation. It also did not specify the pathogens Ukraine labs might have. We also don’t know whether the Ukrainians complied with the request.

What Are the Labs Actually Used For?

As reported by Carlson, initially, the Biden administration told members of Congress that the labs in Ukraine were “designed to help the Ukrainians fight tuberculosis” and “various livestock diseases.”

Next, numerous news organizations published “fact checks” stating that the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has worked with Ukraine to eliminate bioweapons, some of which were allegedly left behind by the Soviet Union as far back as 2005. The labs are definitely not, however, bioweapons labs, they claim.

“That makes sense,” Carlson says. “But wait; 2005 — that was 17 years ago. How long does it take to eliminate Soviet bioweapons? Seventeen years seems like a long time. With 17 years and ample funding from Congress you can probably remove and catalogue every grain of sand on Waikiki Beach.

And yet, somehow, over that same time period, 17 years, the Pentagon has not finished removing test tubes from Soviet era freezers … When was the Pentagon planning on finishing this important job?”

Narrative No. 2

Perhaps because the first alibi didn’t make sense upon closer reflection, a small correction to the narrative was then rolled out by CNN, which claimed that the labs in Ukraine exist to “secure” — not eliminate — old Soviet bioweapons. But to Carlson, that explanation still doesn’t ring quite true. What does it mean to “secure” bioweapons, and why has it taken 17 years? Moreover, Carlson adds:

“If these are just old Soviet bioweapons, why is Victoria Nuland so worried they’ll wind up in the hands of old Soviet, which already presumably has these very same weapons? They probably don’t need more. It’s absurd, when you think about it.”

Narrative No. 3

Then, the third narrative was rolled out, again by CNN. In a live coverage, CNN showed Russian video footage from 2015, which claimed the U.S. was running biological facilities in Ukraine and Georgia, and were responsible for deadly outbreaks of disease among local livestock.

According to CNN, this story has been “a key part of Russia’s disinformation campaign” to justify its invasion of Ukraine. However, “the claims were debunked several years ago,” CNN states, “when in 2020 the U.S. issued a statement to set the record straight.”

According to that 2020 statement, the facilities were for “vaccine development” and “to report outbreaks of dangerous pathogens before they pose security or stability threats.”

Incriminating Interview

So, did the U.S. fund these labs to help Ukraine combat tuberculosis? Or was it to eliminate former Soviet bioweapons? Was it to “secure” Soviet bioweapons? Or to aid the Ukrainians with vaccine development?

Perhaps it’s all of those things. Or none of them. As reported by Carlson, the day after Russia invaded Ukraine, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists interviewed10 Dr. Robert Pope, director of the DoD’s Cooperative Threat Reduction program.11 Pope has in fact been in charge of securing former Soviet weapons of mass destruction over his 30-year career.

While Pope insisted that the Ukraine labs “conduct peaceful scientific research and disease surveillance,” he also made some interesting statements that raise questions and allow for alternative interpretation. Here’s an excerpt highlighted by Carlson:12

“The pathogens in Ukrainian labs vary by facility, Pope said, but some can be characterized as presenting a concern in the Ukrainian environment. As an example, he cited African swine fever virus, which is highly contagious in pigs and has caused hundreds of outbreaks in Ukraine since 2012.

Some labs, he said, may hold pathogen strains left over from the Soviet bioweapons program, preserved in freezers for research purposes. ‘There is no place that still has any of the sort of infrastructure for researching or producing biological weapons,’ Pope said.

‘Scientists being scientists, it wouldn’t surprise me if some of these strain collections in some of these laboratories still have pathogen strains that go all the way back to the origins of that program.’”

So, in other words, according to Pope, the Ukraine labs may still have former Soviet bioweapons in their freezers — and, “scientists being scientists,” they don’t want to destroy those bioweapons. They want to keep them and use them for research purposes.

When you put those statements together, don’t you end up with “they may be doing bioweapons research”? And if the U.S. is funding such endeavors, doesn’t that mean the U.S. is funding bioweapons research in Ukraine?

Signs of Guilt?

During a March 16, 2022, War Room interview, guest host Peter Navarro asked Dr. Robert Malone, “Why do you think we are funding biolabs in Ukraine and Wuhan?”

Malone’s hypothesis is that the “federal government of the USA, specifically NIAID/HHS and DTRA/DoD, are offshoring risk and legal liability, and trying to circumvent congressional oversight concerning activities that we know we should not be doing.”13 In a Substack article, published that same day, Malone also made the following observation:14

“U.S. politician Tulsi Gabbard (a WEF ‘young leader’ trainee whose WEF webpage was recently removed) raised concerns on Twitter regarding the ‘Biolabs’ issue and was immediately attacked by Mitt Romney (Senator, Utah, Uniparty).

Romney used Twitter to state ‘Tulsi Gabbard is parroting false Russian propaganda. Her treasonous lies may well cost lives’ … Here is the text of what constitutes “treasonous lies” according to Mitt.

‘There are 25+ US-funded biolabs in Ukraine which if breached would release & spread deadly pathogens to US/world. We must take action now to prevent disaster. US/Russia/Ukraine/NATO/UN/EU must implement a ceasefire now around these labs until they’re secured & pathogens destroyed.’

As far as I am concerned, Mitt calling Tulsi Gabbard ‘treasonous’ for pointing out undeniable facts of the well documented US-sponsored Ukrainian biolabs is a tell. If this was a nothingburger, he would have called her a ‘crazy conspiracy theorist’ or some version of that.

But instead he essentially called her a traitor to her country for stating the truth. That is the behavior of someone who is caught in a lie. The words, strategies and tactics (propaganda, gaslighting, character assassination) being used by this administration are most consistent with attempts to hide guilt.”

Why Was This Notice Deleted?

Another finding that has fueled suspicions that the U.S. government is not being transparent about the Ukraine labs include the inexplicable scrubbing of an article announcing then-Sen. Barack Obama leading an effort to build a biolab capable of handling “especially dangerous pathogens” in Ukraine, back in 2010.

It’s unclear exactly when the announcement was deleted, but as of August 26, 2017, it was gone.15 As reported by The National Pulse:16

“Originally posted on June 18th, 2010, the article ‘Biolab Opens in Ukraine’17 details how Obama, while serving as an Illinois Senator, helped negotiate a deal to build a level-3 bio-safety lab in the Ukrainian city of Odessa.

The article … also highlighted the work of former Senator Dick Lugar … ‘Lugar said plans for the facility began in 2005 when he and then-Senator Barack Obama entered a partnership with Ukrainian officials …

A 2011 report from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on Anticipating Biosecurity Challenges of the Global Expansion of High-Containment Biological Laboratories explained how the Odessa-based laboratory ‘is responsible for the identification of especially dangerous biological pathogens.’”

According to The National Pulse,18 other reports reveal the Odessa-based lab in question was constructed through a cooperative agreement between the U.S. DoD and the Health Ministry of Ukraine. The collaboration reportedly focused on “preventing the spread of technologies, pathogens, and knowledge that can be used in the development of biological weapons.”

The lab would also serve as an Interim Central Reference Laboratory and contain collections of pathogens, including bacteria and viruses of the pathogenic groups 1 and 2, which include Ebola.

The scrubbed article is very short. No more than an announcement, really. On the surface, it appears to confirm the U.S. government’s current claim that — at least this particular lab — was for the purpose of preventing the proliferation of bioweapons. When and why was it deleted? We may never know. Hopefully, we’ll have better luck getting to the bottom of what kind of research, really, the U.S. government has been funding in the Ukraine.

Posted in BIOweapons, CNN, Virus, WHO | No Comments »