Eurasia note #33 - Ukraine's Bio Labs The Next Douma?

As Russian troops appear to lose momentum, the risk of interference rises

• Biden dangles WMD scenario; warns ‘severe price’ if chemical weapons used

• WHO tells Ukraine to destroy high-threat pathogens in country's bio labs

• Russian planes bomb western Ukraine near Polish border on Day 15 of invasion

• U.S. neocons push for limited no-fly zone, knowing that would escalate

• Russian troops enter Mariupol after repeated attempts at humanitarian corridor

• Pace of incursion slows, suggesting local militias switch to guerrilla tactics

• Kyiv not encircled but under increasing assault; no news of further negotiations

• Turkish President Erdogan says attack on Russian culture ‘unacceptable’

• 3,000 words or 10 minutes of your company.

More on biolabs: Agendas Align In Ukraine (Mar 28, 2022)

More on Epstein and nanobots:
Maxwell Case: Surveilled And Silenced —Twitter censors trial coverage (Dec 10, 2021)
Lieber Case: Crossed Wires and Parallel Lines — Nanoscientist's case is quarantined, despite Maxwell-Epstein links (Dec 17, 2021)
Lieber Case: Filling In The Blanks — Double agent or compromised? Chemist finds himself in no-man's land (Dec 24, 2021)

Propaganda from Salon and Getty Images as U.S. bio labs in Ukraine are exposed as real

Tbilisi, Mar 11, 2022

Biolabs are back in the news and it’s worrying. The “call and response” that took place in the U.S. Senate on Mar 9 should cause everyone to sit up and take notice — especially when the press brays with one voice that there’s nothing to see.

If there’s one thing about politicians: they’re not creative. On Mar 11 Joe Biden summoned the spectre of a “Douma” style chemical attack. The Western press describes the 2018 incident in Syria as a decision by president Bashar al-Assad, with victory in sight, to gas his own people. Neutral observers, including members of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, believe the incident was in part faked. [1]

A fake would be a blessing in disguise. Unlike Syria or Iraq, the Ukraine may actually possess “weapons of mass destruction” thanks to U.S. biochemical research projects.

The big news on Wednesday was Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland calling attention to the safety of Ukraine’s bio labs. The worrying news was Sen Marco Rubio’s response, prompting Nuland to say that if anything happens, it would be a typical Russian provocation blamed on Ukraine.

What could they be thinking of?

Bill Gates, who is known for his predictive prowess, warned that bioterrorism could kill tens of millions of people, “using genetic engineering to create a synthetic version of the smallpox virus ... or a super contagious and deadly strain of the flu” (at the Munich Security Conference, 2017).

The World Health Organization on Mar 10 revealed it had advised Ukraine to destroy high-threat pathogens housed in the country's public health laboratories to prevent "any potential spills." It would not tell Reuters news agency exactly when the advice was given. [2]

U.S. officials say that the labs belong to Ukraine, do research into mostly crop pests and veterinary diseases, and are defensive not offensive.

What we have learned from our two-year public education in coronaviruses is that you can’t make a vaccine without the virus; there is a thin line between weaponising and “gain of function” and veterinary research is where the money is, according to Peter Daszak of Eco Health Alliance, whether you are talking bats or chimera.

The media is back-pedalling furiously: ‘“biological-research facility” is not the same as a biological-weapons-research facility”,’ says National Review.

The difference between defensive and offensive is moot. Two labs may work on different components or functions. As we saw with the Anthrax attacks in 2001, a pathogen can become a bioweapon by milling it finely and then putting the dust in an envelope.

The 2001 Anthrax was proven to come from a U.S. Army lab and had been weaponised. A lone wolf rogue scientist Dr. Bruce Ivins was blamed. His targets coincided with opponents of the Patriot Act and president George W Bush’s administration. After the Anthrax panic, the Bill passed soon enough.

The powder came from the U.S. main research facilities at Fort Detrick, Maryland. You might classify a domestic facility as defensive but when you put one on Russia’s border, that’s stretching the definition of defensive.

Pentagon funding

In 2005 the U.S. Department of Defense began its program to build secure biological laboratories in Ukraine. The first was a Bio-safety Level 3 lab in Odesa, which according to a presentation 10 years ago has a permit to work with “microorganisms of the first pathogenic group”

The “Ukrainian I. I. Mechnikov Anti-Plague Research Institute” studies especially dangerous biological pathogens. It was rebuilt to the BSL-3 by the U.S. DoD with Ukraine’s health ministry, allowing staff to work with airborne pathogen, microbes that can cause serious or deadly diseases through inhalation – like COVID-19.

The US Embassy in Ukraine acknowledged in Apr 2021 that there are biological laboratories in Ukraine that are under the control of the Pentagon.

In Jul 2011 the Pentagon’s Biosecurity Engagement Program held a conference in Istanbul attracting participants from 32 countries to discuss how to manage high-containment biological laboratories.

BSL levels build on each other. A BSL-1 lab has washing stations, policies for disposal of needles, and standard protective equipment like gloves and glasses; BSL-2 controls access and safety cabinets. BSL-3 adds airtight double doors and air filtration. Only BSL-4 is higher, with positive pressure protective suits, showers, and two-way air filtration.

The admission by Nuland that Ukraine has biological research facilities goes some way to confirm the research of Bulgarian reporter Dilyana Gaytandzhieva, which most of the press has studiously ignored sinbce 2016.

She points out that the Pentagon funds bio labs in at least 25 countries and many are on the Russian border in countries such as Georgia, Ukraine, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.

More controversially, she has documented experiments on military personnel of these nations, outbreaks of swine flu, hepatitis and even cholera between 2015 and 2017, although it would seem hard to prove that these are connected to research facilities. However she says she has evidence that some trials resulted in deaths.

Ukraine has 400 laboratories, mostly low level and routine, like hospital or forensic labs. But a particular set is funded by the U.S. Department of Defense as part of its Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DETRA).

These include laboratories Lviv (at least two), Kiev (two), Dnipro (two), Ternopil and Uzhgorod, Odesa, Vinnytsia, Kherson, Kharkiv and Lugansk, according to documents until recently displayed on the U.S. Embassy website.

Mockingbird virus

Before joining the Biden administration, Victoria Nuland worked at the Center for a New American Security, funded by Pentagon, weapons manufacturers, oil corporations — the same people who fund the Atlantic Council. Both offer fellowships through which they promote favoured journalists.

Fakt Cheka and bought-and-paid media have spent weeks “debunking” reports of biolabs in Ukraine. You can see why you should question the press if you listen to Project Veritas’ undercover interview with Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times reporter Matthew Rosenberg. [3]

The Biden administration, like other Western governments, has given billions of dollars to media companies to report on Covid, effectively locking them into the government narrative. [4]

There are two problems with the state corporatist media right now. One is the ideological blinkers of at least one generation coming out of university which tolerates a narrow spectrum of society and politics. The other is the control of media by military and intelligence which is evidenced by the unprecedented uniformity of news and interpretation.

Together they create a feedback loop or filter bubble in which everybody says the same thing in a giant game of “let’s agree.”

For a year, writers and producers working for state and corporate outlets dismissed the leak of a virus from the Wuhan lab as a conspiracy theory. In May 2021 they were suddenly confronted with intelligence agency comments that prompted a volte face. The FOIA release of emails of Antony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, suggests he had also engaged in a to-and-fro discussion on how to minimize reports from the Wuhan lab, which, incidentally, his institute had funded as recently as 2019.

See Moneycircus, Jun 2021 — Journalists! What is to be Done?: The author takes a scalpel to the trade he joined three decades ago

Scientometrics

How does this fit into the gene therapy that has been unleashed on the world over the past year? The military is one of the main funders of CRISPR genome editing.

“Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats,” or CRISPR, is a set of technologies that let researchers identify, analyse, manipulate and delete the genes of living organisms. Applications include pharmaceuticals, crop development, livestock breeding, industrial biotechnology and pest control.

By studying the funding sources and cited publications it is possible to trace the government bodies and foundations that are backing research — scientometrics. One paper seeking to identify sources of philanthropy helps us pursue them.

It reveals how publicly-funded research is privatised at the commercial stage, socializing the risks and privatising the profits.

“Critical studies on the governance of the innovation process in biotechnology, particularly the governance of CRISPR/Cas technologies, have largely overlooked the important role of US charitable and philanthropic organizations as powerful actors that can redirect the trajectory of the development and application of genomic technologies in favour of specific interests or sectors of society.” [5]

It’s vital to pay close attention to innovation that transforms society and the “philanthropic” interests that stand to benefit.

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Harvard and the Broad Institute are one network connected to the funding and publishing of papers on CRISPR. This network centers on the Fauci-dominated National Institutes of Health. It is funded by three clusters, NIH and the Department of Energy; philanthropic foundations and government organizations: and the military Industrial complex including the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the DoD, DETRA and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

In the case of University of California the co-funding network reflects its development of CRISPR-Cas as biological research, with two main clusters: US Department of Energy and the National ScienceFoundation; and the Burroughs WellcomeFund and NIH. There is a separate set of research geared to technological applications, funded by the NIH.

The former head of the Broad Institute was geneticist Eric Lander. He was appointed White House science advisor by Joe Biden, the first science advisor to sit in the Cabinet — until Feb 7, 2022 when he departed.

Lander is best known as principal leader of the international Human Genome Project, founder of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, a “genomics powerhouse” — and as an associate of Jeffrey Epstein, which delayed Lander’s confirmation hearing.

Patent nonsense

During that hearing, Lander admitted crediting Feng Zhang of MIT with inventing CRISPR, instead of the women who won Nobel Prize in 2020 for the work.

This was no oversight. The Broad-MIT-Harvard system represents 28 organizations (12 government agencies and 16 philanthropic/charitable organizations). Of its papers, a quarter credit Feng Zhang as author. On the other hand almost half the papers on CRISPR issued by University of California, credit Jennifer Doudna (who with Emmanuelle Charpentier won the Nobel prize for their work on CRISPR-Cas9.)

It almost seems that BMH was attempting to construct a rival legend that would lift the intellectual property for CRISPR out of the hands of its inventors.

It’s notable that a number of patents connected to defence research appear under pseudonyms. A 2014 patent to use drones to disperse toxic mosquitos is credited to S. Mill Calvert; and another for stroke-inducing bullets. Gaytandzhieva attempted to research this scientist and spoke to his lawyer. Eventually she concluded he does not exist but is a placeholder. [6]

“S. Mill Calvert” is more than an amusing diversion. The reason for using placeholders may be that the Pentagon is not only pursuing scientific research but surveillance, control and profit. For example, in addition to scientific exploration, the benefits of CRISPR include downstream applications, IP rights, even patentable DNA, and thus determines the beneficiaries of the technological revolution.

Harvard chemist Charles Lieber is credited for inventing a way to “grow” silicon and graphene nano transistors, though he was curiously prosecuted — just as his technology became a controversial topic of debate — for working with China.

Much of Lieber’s research was funded by the Department of Defence, its research arms DARPA, the Director of National Intelligence equivalent IARPA, and the National Institutes of Health. In other words, the government, shadow government, for-profit agencies and patent holders were all involved, or looking over each other’s shoulders.

These bio-electronics could be combined as sensors, monitoring devices and even simple computers, what Lieber called “liquid computing.”

Lieber has his detractors, writing in the Harvard Crimson that Lieber was a self-promoter who is good rather than brilliant and vastly over-estimated in the media. Either Lieber is that good or, as has also been suggested, he may be a placeholder for patents held by others in the military-industrial complex.

See Moneycircus, Dec 2021 — Lieber Case: Filling In The Blanks; Double agent or compromised? Chemist finds himself in no-man's land

Swift exit

Lander resigned after an investigation revealed “credible evidence” he had bullied members of his staff at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

During his 275 days he launched a new National Institutes of Health agency to fund high-risk medical research, the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H).

Notably the magazine Science reached out for comment to the former head of OSTP’s national security division, Chris Fall, now vice president for applied science at MITRE Corp — giving us a further piece of the puzzle. [7]

MITRE Corp is the research arm of the corporate state. It was formed by the U.S. Air Force and MIT to coordinate research, originally in the nuclear and weapons sectors — Wikispooks calls it a non-profit Skunk Works.

During Event Covid it has pursued technologies to identify and surveil the population, and driving vaccine passports, of which another major backer is Common Pass, funded in part by the Rockefeller foundations, working with the World Economic Forum.

Epstein connection

And there, in the shadows is Jeffrey Epstein, giving large sums of money to exactly this crowd.

Pledging $30 million to Harvard University and delivering at least $9 million, including more than $6 million to Martin Nowak whose Program for Evolutionary Dynamics has since been closed.

Other grantees included leader in genetics and genomics at Harvard George Church, AI researchers Joscha Bach and Ben Goertzel, celebrity physicist Lawrence Krauss, specialist in cognitive science Howard Gardner, evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers, neuroscientist Jean-François Gariépy and quantum physicist Seth Lloyd.

Not just Harvard but MIT, too, where the former director of MIT's celebrated Media Lab, Joi Ito, hid how much money he had received from Epstein. Another was geneticist Eric Lander, director of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard.

The philanthropists had their own dark web. After Epstein’s donation, Leon Black, then CEO of the private equity firm Apollo Global Management, used The Black Family Foundation (on whose board Epstein sat) to transfer $2 million to Novak and $7 million to Harvard Medical School Professor George Church.

See Moneycircus, Dec 2021 — Lieber Case: Filling In The Blanks; Double agent or compromised? Chemist finds himself in no-man's land

They’re spinning on dimes again. But where are Ukraine’s bio labs and what kind of pathogens are they testing?