by Meryl Nass, MD
Only two international treaties
have previously been negotiated
under the auspices of the WHO
in its 73-year history.
File: Christopher Black
World Health Organization/AFP.
We start with a history
of biological arms control and rapidly move to the COVID 'pandemic',
eventually arriving at plans to protect the future.
The people of the world don't want them used on us - for they are cheap ways to kill and maim large numbers of people quickly and indiscriminately.
And so international treaties were created to try to prevent their development (only in the later treaties) and use (in all the biological arms control treaties).
First was the Geneva Protocol of 1925, following the use of poison gases and limited biological weapons during World War I, which banned the use of biological and chemical weapons in war.
The US and many nations signed it, but it took 50 years for the US to ratify it, and during those 50 years the US asserted it was not bound by the treaty.
The use of napalm, white phosphorus, Agent Orange (with its dioxin excipient causing massive numbers of birth defects and other tragedies) and probably other chemical weapons like BZ (a hallucinogen/incapacitant) led to much pushback, especially since we had signed the Geneva Protocol and we were supposed to be a civilized nation.
In 1968 and 1969, two important books were published regarding our massive stockpiling and use of these agents.
They had a great influence on the American psyche.
Prof. Matthew Meselson's review of the book noted,
A Biological Weapons Convention to End Biological Warfare
Amid great pushback over US conduct in Vietnam, and seeking to burnish his presidency, President Nixon announced to the world in November 1969 that,
Following pointed reminders that Nixon had not eschewed the use of toxins, in February 1970 Nixon announced we would get rid of our toxin weapons also.
It has been claimed that Nixon's declarations resulted from careful calculations that the US was far ahead technically of most other nations in its chemical and nuclear weapons.
But biological weapons were considered the "poor man's atomic bomb" and required much less sophistication to produce.
Therefore, the US was not far ahead in the biological weapons arena. By banning this class of weapon, the US would gain strategically.
Nixon told the world that the US would initiate an international treaty to prevent the use of these weapons ever again.
And we did so:
The Biological Weapons Convention established conferences to be held every 5 years to strengthen the treaty, making it verifiable and enforceable.
The expectation was that these would add a method to call for 'challenge inspections' to prevent nations from cheating, and would add sanctions (punishments) if nations failed to comply with the treaty.
However, since 1991 the US has consistently blocked the addition of protocols that would have an impact on cheating. By now, everyone accepts that cheating occurs and is likely widespread.
A leak in an anthrax production facility in Sverdlovsk, USSR in 1979 caused the deaths of about 60 people.
While the USSR tried a sloppy cover-up, blaming consumption of contaminated black market meat, this was a clear BWC violation to all those knowledgeable about anthrax.
Meanwhile, a chemical weapons treaty did get negotiated, came into force in 1997, and it contains provisions for challenge inspections and punishments.
It has taken many years, but by 2022,
It is now 2023, and during the 48 years the Biological Weapons Convention has been in force the wall it was supposed to build against the development, production, and use of biological weapons has been steadily eroded.
Meanwhile, especially since the 2001 anthrax letters, many nations (with the US at the forefront) have been building up their "biodefense" and "'pandemic' preparedness" capacities.
Under the guise of preparing their defenses against biowarfare and 'pandemics', nations have conducted "dual-use" (both offensive and defensive) research and development, which has led to the creation of more deadly and more transmissible microorganisms.
And employing new verbiage to shield this effort from scrutiny, biological warfare research was renamed as "gain-of-function" research.
How Would You Create a Biological Warfare Agent?
Gain-of-function research is a euphemism for biological warfare research aka germ warfare research.
It is so risky that funding it was banned by the US government (but only for SARS coronaviruses and avian flu viruses) in 2014 after a public outcry from hundreds of scientists.
What does 'gain-of-function' actually mean?
The functions gained by the viruses or other microorganisms to turn them into biological warfare agents consist of two general but overlapping categories:
Funding for (Natural) 'Pandemics', including Yearly Influenza
...was Lumped Together with Biological Defense Funding
Perhaps the comingling of funding was designed to make it harder for Congress and the public to understand,
Understanding the huge sums involved might have led Americans to question why this research was being done at all, given its prohibition by the Biological Weapons Convention, and could have raised additional questions about its lack of benefit for human health.
Former CDC Director Robert Redfield, a physician and virologist, told Congress in March of 2023 that gain-of-function research had not resulted in a single beneficial drug, vaccine, or therapeutic to his knowledge.
So-called nonprofits and universities (for example, EcoHealth Alliance and its affiliation with Professor Jonna Mazet at the University of California, Davis veterinary school) were used as financial intermediaries to obscure the fact that US taxpayers were supporting scientists in dozens of foreign countries, including China, for research that included capturing dangerous viruses and performing gain-of-function work on coronaviruses.
Perhaps to keep the lucrative funding going, government agencies have fanned the fear of 'pandemics' over the past several decades.
Huge sums have been spent on alleged "'pandemic' preparedness" over the past 20 years, routing funds through many federal and state agencies.
President Biden's proposed 2024 CDC budget requested,
...while the DOD, DHS, USAID and the State Department have additional budgets for 'pandemic' preparedness, for spending on both domestic and international projects.
The current jargon for this spending is ''pandemic' prevention', 'preparedness and response or PPPR'.
While this may be a feel-good way for politicians to spend money, scientifically there is no known way to prevent 'pandemics', and the methods that governments are spending money on are actually going to make this problem a great deal worse.
The concept of a "response":
'Pandemic' preparedness is a myth, a smokescreen behind which lies a fascist approach to social management.
The Steady Drumbeat of 'Pandemic' Fear
Although the 20th century experienced only three significant 'pandemics',
...the mass media and World Health Organization (WHO) have presented us with almost non-stop 'pandemics' during the 21st century:
And we are incessantly told that more are coming, and that they are likely to be worse.
WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has declared three "public health emergencies of international concern" during his six years in office.
We have been assaulted with warnings and threats for over two decades to induce a deep fear of infectious diseases. It seems to have worked...
Continue reading HERE.