Every aspect of the Covid crisis has come with evidence of prescience and pre-planning. “Plandemic” is one of the most adequate buzzwords I’ve ever heard.
If it’s all planned, the release was planned too, which makes the current debate over the Covid origin retarded. If the cause was a virus (another oxy-moronic debate around “isolation in cultures”), then it didn’t come from animals, it didn’t escape from a lab, it was DISTRIBUTED. Whatever it was, virus, poison, psychosis, EMFs, it was DISTRIBUTED.
Better watch the water, the soil and the air!

This first video below was released April 15, 2020. About the same time Trudeau was claiming The Great Reset is a conspiracy theory.
Guess when the system was developed and read until the end to find out where it’s at now, I saved you a nice punchline!

How far back does this go?
Well, in January 2018, WEF was already spreading this brochure

Among the first to push the Bigger Brother – the Canadian Banksters Cartel, of course.

“The World Economic Forum acknowledges and is inspired by the leadership of our partners whose commitment to this project shows that this future is possible. In particular, we wish to thank Marc Garneau, Minister of Transport of Canada, and the entire team from the Government of Canada for having contributed to ensuring the research and prototype development has been grounded in pragmatic public-sector experience. Together, the World Economic Forum and Accenture, collaborating on Shaping the Future of Security in Travel, hope that this report and the prototype will gain momentum, encouraging public and private parties to pilot and scale this concept in the coming year.”

WEF – Jan, 2018

This quote above, from the aforementioned WEF brochure, shows that WEF’s collaboration with the governments of Canada and The Netherlands on this project extends way before 2018, into the research stages.

From earlier research we know the plan was launched in January 2016:

VACCINES AS GATEWAY TO DIGITAL ID, A CONCEPT LAUNCHED IN 2016, AT DAVOS, BY GATES AND PHARMAFIA

… and that’s most likely when Canada’s royal minions joined in. In March 2016 they were already featured in the earliest brochure of the project:

The Forbes picked up on it, but only in January 2019, yet who was there to care and pay attention? I, for one, was busy enjoying free travel, having nothing and being happy. But Schwab had to take all that from us and replace it with this dumb livestock management app that won’t ever stick on living humans, soulless NPCs only:

Paradigm Shift: Biometrics And The Blockchain Will Replace Paper Passports Sooner Than You Think

Forbes, Jun 28, 2019,12:07pm EDT

Known Traveller Digital Identity
Biometrics and blockchain are the keys to the future of traveler identification. GETTY

Crossing international borders without a physical passport may become a reality for some travelers in less than a year. On Wednesday, the World Economic Forum and the governments of Canada and the Netherlands launched a pilot program for paperless travel between the two countries at Montreal’s largest airport.

The new initiative, called Known Traveller Digital Identity (KTDI), is the first platform to use a traveler-managed digital identity for international paperless travel, giving travelers control over when and how their personal data is shared. The identity data normally stored on a chip on a passport is encrypted and securely stored in a digital wallet on a traveler’s mobile device. 

Whereas traditional ID systems are managed by centralized authorities, KTDI is based on the blockchain — specifically, Linux’s Hyperledger Indy, a distributed ledger purpose-built for decentralized identity. This is the secret sauce behind the paradigm shift toward a system where travelers — not government agencies or travel brands — control access to their personal data.

“We’re all wildly frustrated by data hacks, data breaches, our identities being stolen — and that’s largely a result of where our identity data is stored today,” says David Treat, a managing director and global blockchain lead at Accenture, the technology advisory partner on the KTDI project.

“The excitement around digital identity underpinned by blockchain and biometrics is that there is now a solution pattern crystallizing where users can be in control of their own data,” says Treat. “They can decide with whom they want to share it, and for how long, and revoke that access at a later point.”

Right now, our personal data is stored many siloed data structures surrounded by supposedly secure perimeters. But if hackers manage to break into them — as they frequently do — they get all the data.

Every time you book a plane ticket, pass through an airport security checkpoint, or reserve a stay at a hotel, your personal data ends up being stored somewhere. By the end of a trip, your information might wind up in dozens of different siloed data stores, where it might remain indefinitely. “Travelers have no control over it. They are essentially handing over a set of data and they have very little visibility as to what happens to it after that,” says Treat.

With KTDI, a traveler might give an airline — or, eventually, a hotel or rental car company — access to specific pieces of personal information for a finite amount of time. When the transaction is finished, the access is revoked.

“It’s very different from today’s world where an airline or hotel will accumulate data over time and hold on to it, and create this big honey pot of information,” says Treat. Instead, the philosophy behind KTDI is more transactional, where information is stored for a user-approved period of time. “When it’s no longer needed, it’s then no longer stored,” says Treat.

So what might a journey might look like for a traveler using KTDI in the future?

To get started, you would download a mobile wallet, enroll for the first time, and establish your profile. Then, in advance of an international flight, you might decide to share your personal information with border authorities and airlines. Now the airport and airline are expecting you. Once you arrive at the airport, you can go through the security checkpoint and board the plane using biometrics to confirm your identity, without any need for a physical passport. After your flight, you might decide to revoke access to your personal data from the airline.

Meanwhile, over time, a tamper-proof digital ledger would be created through the accumulation of authorized transactions by trusted partners such as border agencies and airlines. This establishes a “known traveler status,” which is a reusable digital identity that makes it possible for more streamlined future interactions with governments, airlines and other partners.

This is not just a theoretical concept. Along with the governments of Canada and the Netherlands, partners — including Air Canada, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, Montreal-Trudeau International Airport, Toronto Pearson International Airport and Amsterdam Airport Schiphol — will be testing the KTDI initiative throughout 2019, with the first end-to-end paperless journey expected to take place in early 2020.

The Forbes piece actually follows the official launch of KTDI two days earlier, as marked by this WEF press-release published from Toronto:

World Economic Forum consortium launches paperless Canada-Netherlands travel pilot

Jun 26, 2019

  • The World Economic Forum, in collaboration with the governments of Canada, The Netherlands and industry partners, launches the first ever passport-free pilot project between the two countries.
  • The Known Traveller Digital Identity (KTDI) initiative addresses rising aviation travel demand – expected to grow to 1.8 billion passengers by 2030
  • The KTDI pilot offers greater control over personal information, putting passengers in charge of when and how data is shared through a ‘traveller-managed digital identity’
  • Read more on the project here

MONTREAL, June 26, 2019 /CNW/ – The World Economic Forum and the governments of the Netherlands and Canada launch the first pilot project for paperless travel between the two countries today at Montreal Airport.

Known Traveller Digital Identity (KTDI) is the first platform to use a traveller-managed digital identity for international paperless travel. It will be integrated with partner systems and tested internally throughout 2019, with the first end-to-end paperless journey expected to take place in early 2020.

The pilot initiative is a collaboration between government and industry – border authorities, airports, technology providers and airlines – to create an interoperable system for secure and seamless travel.

“By 2030, international air travel is expected to rise to 1.8 billion passengers, up 50% from 2016. With current systems, airports cannot keep up,” says Christoph Wolff, Head of Mobility, World Economic Forum, “This project offers a solution. By using interoperable digital identities, passengers benefit from a holistic system for secure and seamless travel. It will shape the future of aviation and security.”

KTDI provides a frictionless travel experience for passengers while allowing them to have greater control over their personal data. The identity data that is usually stored on a chip on a passenger’s passport is instead securely stored and encrypted on their mobile device. Passengers can manage their identity data and consent to share it with border authorities, airlines and other pilot partners in advance. Using biometrics, the data is checked at every leg of the journey until arrival at the destination, without the need for a physical passport.

Passengers establish a ‘known traveller status’ over time through the accumulation of ‘attestations’ or claims that are proven and declared by trusted partners, such as border agencies and recognized airlines. The result is a reusable digital identity that facilitates more streamlined and tailored interactions with governments, airlines and other partners.

“Canada is pleased to collaborate with the World Economic Forum, the Government of The Netherlands and our industry partners to enhance aviation security and make international air travel safer by testing new and emerging technologies,” said the Honourable Marc Garneau, Canada’s Minister of Transport. “The Known Traveller Digital Identity pilot project will help facilitate seamless global air travel and benefit the world economy by enhancing the traveler experience, while ensuring that cross-border security is maintained.” 

This KTDI pilot project is a perfect example of the importance of public-private partnership in implementing innovations in the aviation sector and border management and I am honoured that we are engaging in this pilot from the Netherlands,” said Ankie Broekers-Knol, Minister for Migration, The Netherlands.

The governments of Canada and the Netherlands are joined by Air Canada, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, YUL Montreal-Trudeau International Airport, Toronto Pearson International Airport and Amsterdam Airport Schiphol. This pilot group is supported by technology and advisory partner Accenture, with Vision Box and Idemia as technology component service providers.

KTDI technology

KTDI is based on an interoperable digital identity, linked directly to government-issued identity documents (ePassports). It uses cryptography, distributed ledger technology and biometrics to ensure portability and to safeguard the privacy of personal data. The system’s security relies on a decentralized ledger platform that all partners can access. This ledger provides an accurate, tamper-proof record of the travellers’ identity data and authorized transactions.

Notes to Editors
Read more on the KTDI project 
Read the Forum Agenda 

From Accenture we find out that this thing was developed under the ID2020 partnership we’ve been long talking about

Strangely, it took them to March 2020 to issue a specifications guide:

Where is the project now?

When international travel resumes, Canada’s borders and airports will be very different

Airports are at capacity with just 5 per cent of pre-COVID traffic because of pandemic measures

Peter Zimonjic · CBC News · Posted: Jun 12, 2021

Once international travel resumes, self-serve check in terminals like these at Ottawa International Airport will become part of a more hands-free travel experience. (The Canadian Press/Justin Tang)

Just as the 9/11 attacks did 20 years ago, the COVID-19 pandemic will transform the way people travel internationally — with hundreds of millions of dollars in new government spending planned for modernizing border security and updating public health measures at airports.

In the recent federal budget, the federal government announced $82.5 million to fund COVID-19 testing infrastructure at Canadian airports and another $6.7 million to buy sanitization equipment for the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority.

Ottawa also has earmarked $656.1 million over five years to modernize Canada’s border security.

Daniel Gooch, president of the Canadian Airports Council, said the country’s flight hubs still have no clear idea of what is expected of them. 

At the heart of the move to touchless travel is a trial the federal government is undertaking with the World Economic Forum and The Netherlands called the “Known Traveller Digital Identity” project, or KTDI.

The project began with the publication of a white paper back in 2018 and was seen as a way to modernize air travel by moving passengers through airports faster. That white paper said that a new, touchless system was needed as the number of international air arrivals was expected to increase 50 per cent from 2016 to 2030.

With international travel almost at a standstill now, the technology is seen as a way to facilitate a return to pre-COVID levels of air traffic.

The touchless travel experience

Under the KTDI plan, a digital form of identification is created that contains the traveller’s identity, boarding passes, vaccination history and information on whether they’ve recovered from COVID-19. Travellers with KTDI documentation would still have to face a customs officer, but all other points of contact in an airport could become touchless. 

“We’re still talking about a world where you’ll need to carry your passport because it is an international border,” said a senior CBSA official, speaking on background.

“We’re not talking about replacing your passport. But the number of times you have to take out that document, or your boarding pass, to substantiate who you are and where you need to be, gets reduced.”

Passengers wear face masks as they wait to go through security at Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport in Montreal. (Ryan Remiorz/The Canadian Press)

The official said the KTDI program is still in its early stages and technological issues are still being worked out. He said that privacy protections would have to be in place before any such system could be launched.

“It’s not like the Government of Canada holds that information in a central place, or airlines hold it in a central place, or border agencies hold it in a central place,” the official said. “It’s the traveller themselves that holds their own information.”

Vaccinated vs. unvaccinated travellers

A CBSA spokesperson told CBC News that the $656.1 million federal investment in border security modernization over five years will fund other “digital self-service tools” that will “reduce touchpoints” and create more “automated interactions” at Canadian airports 

The CBSA said more information on those measures will be released to the public “in the coming weeks.”

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is attending the G7 summit in the United Kingdom this weekend, where leaders are expected to discuss international vaccination certification — a so-called “vaccine passport”.

The federal government has signaled already that Canadians who have been fully vaccinated will be allowed to re-enter the country without having to stay in a government authorized quarantine hotel. Confirming the validity of those travellers’ vaccination status will require some kind of vaccine passport like the KTDI program. Canada’s airports like that idea. 

Fully vaccinated Canadians can soon skip hotel quarantine

The federal government says it will soon ease restrictions for fully vaccinated Canadians and permanent residents returning from international travel. 2:14

“We’re really leaning on vaccinated vs. unvaccinated. That’s a place where you can have some differentiation of the travel experience to make it a little smoother, a little bit more pleasant for those who have been vaccinated. But we don’t know yet what the government’s plans are for that,” Gooch said.

Once a traveller’s vaccination can be verified, Gooch said, they can be treated differently — perhaps by giving them a single test upon arrival or before they depart, rather than the multiple tests required now. 

While the exact changes to international travel are still being worked out, Gooch said the travel experience going forward will be very different from the past.

“Maybe you don’t see an individual at all as you walk through the customs hall,” he said. “Your verification is done through your facial ID, which is connected to your Known Traveller Digital Identification, which is connected to your digital health information and your digital travel documentation.

Paperless Travel Pilot Outlines Best Practices for Digital Travel Experience

18 Oct 2021, by Madeleine Hillyer, Media Relations, World Economic Forum, mhll@weforum.org

  • World Economic Forum releases findings from its three-year Known Traveller Digital Identity pilot for paperless, cross-border travel
  • COVID-19 has heightened the need for digital travel credentials, such as vaccination or COVID test certificates, that can be verified across borders
  • The pilot indicates that a fully digital travel experience is possible but further progress is needed in the areas of governance, legal, global public-private collaboration and technology standards to drive wider adoption
  • Read more on the Known Traveller Digital Identity pilot findings here

New York, USA, 18 October 2021 – The World Economic Forum today releases findings from its digital passport pilot project which indicate that a fully digital travel experience is possible. However, further collaboration is needed to progress towards globally accepted and verifiable digital travel credentials.

The Known Traveller Digital Identity (KTDI)initiative, which was started in 2018, has worked with the governments of Canada and the Netherlands plus private-sector partners to pilot digital travel credentials for paperless travel between two countries. Lessons from this pilot are particularly relevant today as COVID-19 has underscored the need for verifiable digital credentials in cross-border travel.

A new white paper, Accelerating the Transition to Digital Credentials for Travel, is the result of collaboration between the World Economic Forum, Accenture and industry and government partners. It draws on lessons from the KTDI pilot and is intended to serve as a playbook to guide decision making and help assess important considerations in the use of verifiable digital travel credentials across borders.

“Creating digital travel credentials that work across borders is not an issue of technology but an issue of governance,” said Lauren Uppink, Head of Aviation, Travel and Tourism, World Economic Forum. “The learnings from the Forum’s KTDI consortium demonstrates that while the technology for the next stage of digital-first travel is ready, thoughtful collective action is what truly enables the design and effective implementation of global governance structures, ensuring that digital travel credentials are easy to use, trustworthy and verifiable across borders.”

“The pandemic has highlighted the urgency for trusted, widely-accepted, privacy preserving digital travel credentials,” says Christine Leong, Global Lead for Blockchain Identity & Biometrics, Accenture. “Leveraging digital travel credentials would provide a much more secure way of sharing verifiable information, leading to greater assurance for travellers, shorter airport processing time, and greater efficiency for airline and border staff. To achieve this, governments and private sector organisations must collaborate to bring about a seamless, paperless and contactless travel continuum for all. The time to work together is now.”

Lessons from the KTDI pilot

The KTDI project established that two major, often misleadingly polarized, technology approaches to verifiable digital identities can work together. Working with governments and technology partners, the consortium found that public key infrastructure (PKI) and decentralized digital identity can co-exist and address the digitalization of various parts of a travel journey.

Furthermore, the pilot project found that these technologies can and must be integrated within existing systems to accelerate adoption and scale.

Interoperability and collaboration were other key areas for progress identified during the KTDI pilot. For paper passports, interoperability already exists as all participating member states agree to follow the specifications through the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)’s governance and trust frameworks.

Such an agreement for the specifications of digital travel credentials is not as widespread yet, but the adoption of traditional passport specifications shows that the benefits of using digital credentials in travel cannot be realized through isolated or one-off approaches.

The KTDI project

The first cross-border pilot for digital travel identification, the Known Traveller Digital Identity (KTDI) project, has been piloted with government partners from Canada and the Netherlands, along with a consortium of technology, private sector and other partners. The KTDI partners have designed and built the first government-led, public-private ecosystem to test the vision of safe and seamless cross-border travel. This vision aimed to reduce touchpoints by using emerging technologies, including biometrics and decentralized identity, and inform the future development of a globally accepted decentralized identity ecosystem.

Although the COVID-19 pandemic has affected KTDI pilot efforts, it has also created an opportunity to further analyse how decentralized digital identity and PKI-based approaches could work together or work in sync. Although the initial pilot employed a decentralized identity approach to trial trusted digital credentials, KTDI could in the future expand to incorporate additional verifiable credentials such as COVID-19 vaccination certificates, as well as PKI-based digital credentials.

SOURCE

Moreover, while government officials claimed that vaccine passports only included details pertaining to whether someone has received a COVID vaccine, some claim it  functions as a tracking app, with border patrol receiving notification of one’s estimated arrival time well before a traveller gets there.
Liberals in Canada have also suggested utilizing tracking via digital IDs to hunt down the unvaccinated during future pandemics to get them their shots.

Counter Signal, April 14, 2022

Travelling from one concentration camp to another will be as joyless as the camps. You can’t escape if there’s no “outside”.

PUNCHLINE

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

The Internets got agitated recently at the news that Moderna’s CEO, Stephane Bancel, dumped $400Million in Moderna stocks and nuked his Twitter account. Here’s why this shouldn’t surprise you and you should expect the worst any moment now.

Developing story, to be updated

Have you watched the former Blackrock director that went on Bannon’s War Room and prophesied that the Covid vaccines are a bubble that’s about to pop? Everything I’ve learned lately stands to support his claim.

This is him on Twitter:

If the dumping were a sudden and unusual move, this would indicate a recent event that shook the system, possibly rats leaving a sinking ship, a near threat for the business, as in:

That’s the case only partly, due to the stock crash overlapped with the incoming financial report, but a constant behavior over the span of months and years rather indicate a strategy and it’s associated with insider trading more often than not.

Surprisingly, it’s NPR of all the fakestream media who came in support of my suspicions, with a pretty merciless analysis of Moderna’s leadership financial behavior. And you know what’s funny? The piece dates all the way back to September 2020. I recommend reading the whole piece, I added the bolding and highlights :

Whether the coronavirus vaccine developed by Moderna succeeds or not, executives at the small biotech company have already made tens of millions of dollars by cashing in their stock. An NPR examination of official company disclosures has revealed additional irregularities and potential warning signs.

“On a scale of one to 10, one being less concerned and 10 being the most concerned,” said Daniel Taylor, an associate professor of accounting at the Wharton School, “this is an 11.”

Taylor said Moderna’s stock-selling practices appear well outside the norm, and raise questions about the company’s internal controls to prevent insider trading.

Since January, CEO Stéphane Bancel has sold roughly $40 million worth of Moderna stock held by himself or associated investment funds; Chief Medical Officer Tal Zaks has sold around $60 million; and President Stephen Hoge has sold more than $10 million.

Stéphane Bancel, chief executive officer of Moderna, has sold roughly $40 million worth of stock in the company since the beginning of this year.

The stock sales first came to widespread notice after Moderna announced positive early data from a vaccine trial in May [2020 – S.m.]. At that point, the company’s share price jumped and official disclosures showed executives cashing in their shares for millions of dollars.

“As long as stocks are sold after public announcements – and not before – one might conclude that for an executive with significant net worth tied up in the company, it’s a prudent thing to do,” said Marc Fagel, a former longtime enforcement official with the Securities And Exchange Commission (SEC). “But the optics aren’t great.”

The Moderna vaccine was quick to reach a phase 3 trial, and is seen as a promising contender. But, in some ways, the executives’ stock sales have overshadowed the company’s progress.

Advocates have questioned whether it’s appropriate for executives to privately profit before bringing the vaccine to market, especially when American taxpayers have committed roughly $2.5 billion to the company’s vaccine development and manufacture.

Here’s what NPR’s examination found:

  • Stock Sales Worth Tens Of Millions: Since June 1, NPR has found, company executives have sold roughly $90 million worth of Moderna stock. Rather than put a hold on the trades after facing intense criticism in May, company executives continued to sell.
  • Questionable Modifications To Stock Sale Plans: Moderna says its executives pre-scheduled their stock sales long in advance. Those schedules – known as 10b5-1 plans – can act as a defense to charges of insider trading. But the plans have to be put in place when executives do not have confidential inside information. NPR has found multiple executives adopted or modified their plans just before key announcements about the company’s vaccine. That has raised questions about whether they were aware of nonpublic information when they planned their stock trades.
  • Selling To Zero: Generally, corporate best practices suggest that a company’s leadership should hold on to at least some stock in their company to have “skin in the game.” That way, the thinking goes, an executive has an incentive to improve the company’s performance. As Moderna has been developing its coronavirus vaccine, two executives, including the Chief Medical Officer, have sold all their stock holdings in the company. The General Counsel has sold nearly all of her holdings.

In an interview with NPR, Ray Jordan, Moderna’s Chief Corporate Affairs Officer, said the company has strict internal policies in place to prevent illegal insider trading. For example, Jordan said, the company only allows employees to make changes to their stock sale schedules when they don’t have confidential inside information that could affect the company’s share price.

NPR asked Jordan why Moderna executives modified their 10b5-1 plans just before major announcements. Initially, Jordan said by email, “I believe you must have your dates wrong.”

NPR then provided documentation of those dates from the company’s official disclosures to the government, which Jordan did not dispute.

Jordan then said that even though multiple Moderna executives changed their 10b5-1 plans within one business day of announcements, the company had determined that those executives did not have “material nonpublic information” – a key term for insider trading – when they made those changes.

A spokesperson for the SEC declined to comment for this story.

From a relative unknown, to a key player in the vaccine race

Moderna launched in 2010 with a headquarters based in Cambridge, Mass., focused on using a technology called messenger RNA (or mRNA) to develop vaccines and therapeutics. The mRNA technology has been widely considered innovative, but remains largely unproven. The company has never brought a product to market. In early January, Moderna was trading for under $20 per share, and was valued at around six billion dollars.

Then Moderna announced that it had started collaborating on a coronavirus vaccine with scientists from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which is led by Dr. Anthony Fauci.

By April, the government had committed half a billion dollars to the Moderna vaccine project as part of Operation Warp Speed.

Since then, the company’s stock price has exploded. Press releases suggesting positive news from the scientific trials, or announcing additional commitments of taxpayer funding sent the share price to a peak of around $95, before dropping to between $60-$70 in recent months. The company is now valued at around $25 billion.

As a result, shares owned by Moderna executives suddenly became much more valuable. And those executives have cashed in tens of millions of dollars worth of stock, according to filings with the SEC.

The bad press and critical comments did not deter continued sales. Since June 1, NPR found, executives sold around $90 million worth of stock.

Public money, private gain

The U.S. government is making massive financial bets on several vaccine candidates. In all likelihood, only some of those vaccine candidates will prove sufficiently safe and effective.

“If the vaccine doesn’t work, you lost a lot of money,” Fauci has said. “But we feel this is serious enough that it’s worth the financial risk.”

But even if taxpayers lose money betting on Moderna, the company’s executives have already made millions.

“The insiders are making plenty of profit and they’re mostly doing it with our money,” said Margarida Jorge, a campaign director with the group Lower Drug Prices Now. “I’m absolutely for deploying public money in the interests of public health and the public good. But we don’t have any commitment from the administration that any of this investment is ultimately going to benefit real people.”

Moderna has argued that the company was only in a position to work with the government on a coronavirus vaccine, because it had spent a decade developing its mRNA technology with the support of private investors.

“The company has been funded over the years by billions of dollars of private investment,” Zaks told the Freakonomics podcast in August. “Those billions created the opportunity for the U.S. government to come in earlier this year and say, ‘I’m going to add some money to the pot to make sure that you get the development for this vaccine right.'”

[But they locked in the Government and its funding for mRNA technology years before SARS-COV2, as shown below, so this was a deliberate lie – S.m]
Trying to resuscitate the company with some archive work?

“Set it and forget it” stock plans

Moderna has offered another defense of those stock sales: the sales, representatives and executives say, were scheduled well in advance, and were unrelated to the market-moving announcements about the coronavirus vaccine. An NPR examination of the company’s financial filings tells a more complicated story.

The schedules are known as 10b5-1 plans. If your stock trades are on autopilot, the idea goes, then you can’t be accused of insider trading. But these “set it and forget it” plans have to be adopted when executives do not have “material nonpublic information,” to use the legal term.

In an interview with CNBC in July, CEO Bancel said he and other executives set up their 10b5-1 plans “a long time ago” – in December 2018 – and “obviously, when we set up those plans, none of us had any idea what was going to happen in 2020.”

In fact, NPR has found, Moderna executives, including Bancel himself, implemented new plans or modified older plans at multiple points in 2020, and right around key announcements related to the company’s vaccine.

On Jan. 21, 2020, for example, Chief Medical Officer Dr. Tal Zaks amended his 10b5-1 plan. (It’s unclear what changes he made.)

Then, on Jan. 22, Moderna first widely confirmed that it was working with the government on a coronavirus vaccine. The following day, Jan. 23, the company announced it had received additional funding to support its coronavirus vaccine development.

NPR asked Moderna whether Zaks might have been aware of the collaboration with the government when he changed his stock trading plan.

“What was known on that particular day or not known, I couldn’t specifically talk to,” Moderna’s Jordan told NPR. But he said that the Moderna legal team only allows employees to change their 10b5-1 plans if they do not possess inside information that could affect the company’s share price.

Later, on Friday, March 13, three Moderna executives adopted new 10b5-1 plans, according to records reviewed by NPR: Zaks, Chief Technical Operations and Quality Officer Juan Andres, and then-Chief Financial Officer Lorence H. Kim. (Kim left the company in August 2020.)

On Monday, March 16 – one business day later – the company announced that it had given a participant the first dose of their vaccine as part of its phase 1 trial. The stock ended that day up 24% compared to the previous day’s close. Moderna was “bucking the trend” of the broader market, which was panicking over coronavirus fears, one CNBC host said at the time.

Timing Of Changes To Pre-Scheduled Stock Sales Raises Questions

Jan. 21 – Chief Medical Officer Dr. Tal Zaks amends his schedule of stock sales, known as a 10b5-1 plan.

Jan. 22 – Moderna widely confirms that it is working on a coronavirus vaccine with the National Institutes of Health. The company’s share price rises nearly 5% over the previous day’s close.

Jan. 23 – Moderna announces new funding from the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations.

Mar. 13 – Chief Technical Operations Officer Juan Andres, Chief Financial Officer Lorence Kim, and Zaks adopt new 10b5-1 trading plans.

Mar. 16 – Moderna announces that it provided the first dose of its coronavirus vaccine to a participant in a phase 1 trial. Moderna stock climbs 24% over the previous day’s close.

May 18 – Moderna reports early positive data from its phase 1 trial. The company’s stock ends the day up 20% over the previous day’s close.

May 21 – CEO Stéphane Bancel adopts and amends multiple 10b5-1 trading plans.

May 29 – Moderna announces another milestone in its phase 2 coronavirus vaccine trial.

June 1 – President Stephen Hoge amends his 10b5-1 plan.

Despite the close timing, Jordan told NPR, “by the judgment of the legal team, there would not have been material, nonpublic information known” when executives entered into the new plans.

“Every company and individual is entitled to the presumption of innocence. That said, from the public’s perspective, this trading behavior looks very problematic,” said Taylor of the Wharton School, who first pointed out the timing of these changes to NPR.

“If I put on my SEC enforcement hat, I would certainly be asking, ‘What caused you to change the plan on a Friday?'” said Kurt Wolfe, who works as a defense attorney in securities cases for the firm Troutman Pepper. “I don’t think it’s a good fact pattern.”

On May 21 – in between announcements of major vaccine trial milestones on May 18 and May 29 – CEO Bancel amended and adopted 10b5-1 plans. And on June 1, President Hoge amended his trading plan.

“Amending a trading plan after a positive announcement, like trading after a positive announcement, is only problematic if the executive possesses material, nonpublic information at the time,” said Fagel. “Though repeated or questionably-timed changes to a trading plan will reduce its value as a defense to insider trading.”

Selling to zero

Using these 10b5-1 plans, two Moderna executives – Zaks and Andres – have sold all of their shares in the company. General Counsel Lori Henderson has sold nearly all of her shares.

In fact, roughly every week since June, Zaks has exercised stock options (meaning, he bought stock at a price set by the company as part of his compensation), and then immediately sold all of his shares for a significant profit.

[Isn’t this a great explanation for Bancel’s sales too?! – S.m]


On Aug. 24, for example, Zaks exercised stock options and bought 25,000 shares at bargain prices of between $12 to $21. He then immediately sold all of those shares for around $65 per share. Zaks ended up with a profit of nearly $1.2 million.

SEC filings indicate these trades are made under the 10b5-1 plan he adopted in March.

Selling so much stock can also raise concerns for investors – and the public – about why company leaders would sell now if they expected their vaccine to succeed later. After all, a safe and effective vaccine could send Moderna’s stock to even greater heights.

“It perhaps draws questions about how much they believe in it,” said Wolfe.

If the company does develop a safe and effective coronavirus vaccine, and its stock keeps rising, then “these trades will be water under the bridge,” said Fagel, the former SEC enforcement official.

But, Fagel warns, if the vaccine fails, then SEC regulators and angry investors may come looking for answers. In that case, he said, “both class action litigation and an SEC investigation would seem inevitable.”

NPR revelations end here, we’re actually just starting

So what we’ve learned is that Moderna looks like a stock market operation more than a medical one. The chiefs create momentums and then trade. And they use public money to bet and make billions, but more about that shortly.

This news is actually pretext to get you to know the real history of Moderna, a crux point in modern history in the widest sense. The stock dumping is not really news, it’s been happening for quite a while, indicating a long term strategy and business model, rather than a sudden or impulse move.

The next two older reports from Pharma’s own media – STAT, will cement the certainty that Moderna turned into a stock market bubble long ago, under the helms of Stephan Bancel. They don’t mind having some science to show, but that’s just the bait.

Ego, ambition, and turmoil: Inside one of biotech’s most secretive startups

By Damian Garde for STAT, Sept. 13, 2016

At first glance, Moderna Therapeutics looks like the most enviable biotech startup in the world. It has smashed fundraising records and teamed up with pharmaceutical giants as it pursues a radical plan to revolutionize medicine by transforming human cells into drug factories.

But the reality is more complicated.

A STAT investigation found that the company’s caustic work environment has for years driven away top talent and that behind its obsession with secrecy, there are signs Moderna has run into roadblocks with its most ambitious projects.

At the center of it all is Stéphane Bancel, a first-time biotech CEO with an unwavering belief that Moderna’s science will work — and that employees who don’t “live the mission” have no place in the company. Confident and intense, Bancel told STAT that Moderna’s science is on track and, when it is finally made public, that it will meet the brash goal he himself has set: The new drugs will change the world.

But interviews with more than 20 current and former employees and associates suggest Bancel has hampered progress at Moderna because of his ego, his need to assert control and his impatience with the setbacks that are an inevitable part of scienceModerna is worth more than any other private biotech in the US, and former employees said they felt that Bancel prized the company’s ever-increasing valuation, now approaching $5 billion, over its science.

As he pursued a complex and risky strategy for drug development, Bancel built a culture of recrimination at Moderna, former employees said. Failed experiments have been met with reprimands and even on-the-spot firings. They recalled abusive emails, dressings down at company meetings, exceedingly long hours, and unexplained terminations.

At least a dozen highly placed executives have quit in the past four years, including heads of finance, technology, manufacturing, and science. In just the past 12 months, respected leaders of Moderna’s cancer and rare disease programs both resigned, even though the company’s remarkable fundraising had put ample resources at their disposal. Each had been at the company less than 18 months, and the positions have yet to be filled.

Lower-ranking employees, meanwhile, said they’ve been disappointed and confused by Moderna’s pivot to less ambitious — and less transformative — treatments. Moderna has pushed off projects meant to upend the drug industry to focus first on the less daunting (and most likely, far less lucrative) field of vaccines — though it is years behind competitors in that arena.

The company has published no data supporting its vaunted technology, and it’s so secretive that some job candidates have to sign nondisclosure agreements before they come in to interview. Outside venture capitalists said Moderna has so many investors clamoring to get in that it can afford to turn away any who ask too many questions. Some small players have been given only a peek at Moderna’s data before committing millions to the company, according to people familiar with the matter.

“It’s a case of the emperor’s new clothes,” said a former Moderna scientist. “They’re running an investment firm, and then hopefully it also develops a drug that’s successful.”

Like many employees and former employees, the scientist requested anonymity because of a nondisclosure agreement. Others would not permit their names to be published out of fear that speaking candidly about big players in the industry would hurt their job prospects down the road.

Moderna just moved its first two potential treatments — both vaccines — into human trials. In keeping with the culture of secrecy, though, executives won’t say which diseases the vaccines target, and they have not listed the studies on the public federal registry, ClinicalTrials.gov. Listing is optional for Phase 1 trials, which are meant to determine if a drug is safe, but most companies voluntarily disclose their work.

Investors say it’ll be worth the wait when the company finally lifts the veil.

“We think that when the world does get to see Moderna, they’re going to see something far larger in its scope than anybody’s seen before,” said Peter Kolchinsky, whose RA Capital Management owns a stake in the company.

Moderna
The Moderna offices in Cambridge, Mass.ARAM BOGHOSIAN FOR STAT

Bancel, meanwhile, said he is aware of the criticism of him and has taken some steps to address it. After scathing anonymous comments about Moderna’s management began showing up online, Bancel went to Silicon Valley to get tips on employee retention from the human resources departments of Facebook, Google, and Netflix. But he makes no apologies for tumult past or present, pointing to the thousands of patients who might be saved by Moderna’s technology.

“You want to be the guy who’s going to fail them? I don’t,” he said in an interview from his glassy third-floor office. “So was it an intense place? It was. And do I feel sorry about it? No.”

An ambitious CEO dreams big

Bancel, 44, had no experience running a drug development operation when one of biotech’s most successful venture capitalists tapped him to lead Moderna. He’d spent most of his career in sales and operations, not science.

But he had made no secret of his ambition.

A native of France, Bancel earned a master’s in chemical engineering from the University of Minnesota and an MBA from Harvard in 2000. As Harvard Business School classmates rushed to cash in on the dot-com boom, Bancel laid out a plan to play “chess, not checkers.”

“I was always thinking, one day, somebody will have to make a decision about me getting a CEO job,” he told an audience at his alma mater in April. “… How do I make sure I’m not the bridesmaid? How do I make sure that I’m not always the person who’s almost selected but doesn’t get the role?”

He went into sales and rose through the operational ranks at pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly, eventually leading the company’s Belgian operation. And in 2007, at just 34, he achieved his goal, stepping in as CEO of the French diagnostics firm bioMérieux, which employs roughly 6,000 people.

The company improved its margins under Bancel’s tenure, and he developed a reputation as a stern manager who got results, according to an equities analyst who covered bioMérieux at the time.

“He doesn’t suffer fools lightly,” the analyst said, speaking on condition of anonymity to comply with company policy. “I think if you’re underperforming, you’ll probably find yourself looking for another job.”

Bancel’s rise caught the eye of the biotech investment firm Flagship Ventures, based here in Cambridge. Flagship CEO Noubar Afeyan repeatedly tried to entice him to take over one of the firm’s many startups, Bancel said. But he rejected one prospect after another because the startups seemed too narrow in scope.

Moderna was different.

The company’s core idea was seductively simple: cut out the middleman in biotech.

For decades, companies have endeavored to craft better and better protein therapies, leading to new treatments for cancer, autoimmune disorders, and rare diseases. Such therapies are costly to produce and have many limitations, but they’ve given rise to a multibillion-dollar industry. The anti-inflammatory Humira, the world’s top drug at $14 billion in sales a year, is a shining example of protein therapy.

Moderna’s technology promised to subvert the whole field, creating therapeutic proteins inside the body instead of in manufacturing plants. The key: harnessing messenger RNA, or mRNA.

In nature, mRNA molecules function like recipe books, directing cellular machinery to make specific proteins. Moderna believes it can play that system to its advantage by using synthetic mRNA to compel cells to produce whichever proteins it chooses. In effect, the mRNA would turn cells into tiny drug factories.

It’s highly risky. Big pharma companies had tried similar work and abandoned it because it’s exceedingly hard to get RNA into cells without triggering nasty side effects. But if Moderna can get it to work, the process could be used to treat scores of diseases, including cancers and rare diseases that can be death sentences for children.

Bancel was intrigued. He knew it was a gamble, he told STAT, “but if I don’t do it, and it works, I’m just going to kick myself every morning.”

And so he became the company’s CEO — and soon developed an almost messianic reverence for the mRNA technology.

Despite having never worked with RNA before, Bancel said he sat around the table with his core team in the early days of the company, dreaming up experiments. As a result, he is listed as a co-inventor on more than 100 of Moderna’s early patent applications, unusual for a CEO who is not a PhD scientist.

Lavishly funded Moderna hits safety problems in bold bid to revolutionize medicine

By Damian Garde, STAT, Jan. 10, 2017

SAN FRANCISCO — Moderna Therapeutics, the most highly valued private company in biotech, has run into troubling safety problems with its most ambitious therapy, STAT has learned — and is now banking on a mysterious new technology to keep afloat its brash promise of reinventing modern medicine.

Exactly one year ago, Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel talked up his company’s “unbelievable” future before a standing-room-only crowd at the annual J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference here. He promised that Moderna’s treatment for a rare and debilitating disease known as Crigler-Najjar syndrome, developed alongside biotech giant Alexion Pharmaceuticals, would enter human trials in 2016.

It was to be the first therapy using audacious new technology that Bancel promised would yield dozens of drugs in the coming decade.

But the Crigler-Najjar treatment has been indefinitely delayed, an Alexion spokeswoman told STAT. It never proved safe enough to test in humans, according to several former Moderna employees and collaborators who worked closely on the project. Unable to press forward with that technology, Moderna has had to focus instead on developing a handful of vaccines, turning to a less lucrative field that might not justify the company’s nearly $5 billion valuation.

“It’s all vaccines right now, and vaccines are a loss-leader,” said one former Moderna manager. “Moderna right now is a multibillion-dollar vaccines company, and I don’t see how that holds up.”

Bancel made no mention of the Crigler-Najjar drug when he spoke Monday before a similarly packed room at this year’s J.P. Morgan conference.

His presentation instead focused on four vaccines that the company is moving through the first phase of clinical trials: two target strains of influenza, a third is for Zika virus, and the fourth remains a secret. Bancel clicked through graphs of data from animal studies before hurrying on to tout Moderna’s balance sheet and discuss the company’s cancer vaccines, slated for clinical testing later this year.

When STAT asked Bancel after the presentation about Crigler-Najjar, he deferred to Alexion.

In need of a Hail Mary

Founded in 2012, Moderna reached unicorn status — a $1 billion valuation — in just two years, faster than Uber, Dropbox, and Lyft, according to CB Insights. The company’s premise: Using custom-built strands of messenger RNA, known as mRNA, it aims to turn the body’s cells into ad hoc drug factories, compelling them to produce the proteins needed to treat a wide variety of diseases.

But mRNA is a tricky technology. Several major pharmaceutical companies have tried and abandoned the idea, struggling to get mRNA into cells without triggering nasty side effects.

Bancel has repeatedly promised that Moderna’s new therapies will change the world, but the company has refused to publish any data on its mRNA vehicles, sparking skepticism from some scientists and a chiding from the editors of Nature.

The indefinite delay on the Crigler-Najjar project signals persistent and troubling safety concerns for any mRNA treatment that needs to be delivered in multiple doses, covering almost everything that isn’t a vaccine, former employees and collaborators said.

The company did disclose a new technology on Monday that it says will more safely deliver mRNA. It’s called V1GL. Last month, Bancel told Forbes about another new technology, N1GL.

But in neither case has the company provided any details. And that lack of specificity has inevitably raised questions.

Three former employees and collaborators close to the process said Moderna was always toiling away on new delivery technologies in hopes of hitting on something safer than what it had. (Even Bancel has acknowledged, in an interview with Forbes, that the delivery method used in Moderna’s first vaccines “was not very good.”)

Are N1GL and V1GL better? The company has produced no data to answer that question. When STAT asked about new technologies, Bancel referred questions to the company’s patent filings.

The three former employees and collaborators said they believe N1GL and V1GL are either very recent discoveries, just in the earliest stages of testing — or else new names slapped on technologies Moderna has owned for years.

“[The technology] would have to be a miraculous, Hail Mary sort of save for them to get to where they need to be on their timelines,” one former employee said. “Either [Bancel] is extremely confident that it’s going to work, or he’s getting kind of jittery that with a lack of progress he needs to put something out there.”

Former employees and collaborators who spoke with STAT requested anonymity because they had signed nondisclosure agreements — which the highly secretive Moderna requires even some job candidates to sign.

STAT investigation last year found that Bancel had driven away top talent from Moderna with a culture of recrimination and a caustic work environment, including on-the-spot firings for failed experiments.

The company, based in Cambridge, Mass., seems to have repaired its reputation among many rank-and-file employees, winning workplace accolades from Science Magazine and the Boston Globe, but Moderna has lost more than a dozen top scientists and managers in the past four years, despite its vast financial resources.

A bug in the software

Bancel, a first-time biotech CEO, has dismissed questions about Moderna’s potential. He describes mRNA as a simple way to develop treatments for scores of ailments. As he told STAT over the summer, “mRNA is like software: You can just turn the crank and get a lot of products going into development.”

Related: SOFTWARE OF LIFE™ IS A MODERNA TRADE MARK FOR MRNA. LITERALLY. AND THEY MAKE APPS

It seems clear, however, that the software has run into bugs.

Patients with Crigler-Najjar are missing a key liver enzyme needed to break down bilirubin, a yellowish substance that crops up in the body as old red blood cells break down. Without that enzyme, bilirubin proliferates in the blood, leading to jaundice, muscle degeneration, and even brain damage.

In Moderna’s eyes, the one-in-million disease looked like an ideal candidate for mRNA therapy. The company crafted a string of mRNA that would encode for the missing enzyme, believing it had hit upon an excellent starting point to prove technology could be used to treat rare diseases.

But things gradually came apart last year.

Every drug has what’s called a therapeutic window, the scientific sweet spot where a treatment is powerful enough to have an effect on a disease but not so strong as to put patients at too much risk. For mRNA, that has proved elusive.

STAT
mRNA jabs are “rewriting the Genetic Code” we call it “information therapy” – Tal Zaks (Ted 2017)

Before COVID-19, the company’s secretive nature, and its failure to deliver a functional product, was drawing comparisons to the infamous biotech startup Theranos. Similar to Moderna, Theranos rarely published any peer-reviewed material. Like Moderna, Theranos mastered the networking game, and recruited high profile individuals to its board in order to vouch for the company’s “revolutionary technologies.” Once valued at well over $10 Billion, Theranos collapsed after it was revealed that the company was running a massive fraud scheme, in addition to its failure to implement its promised blood testing technology.

Jordan Schachtel @JordanSchachtelIn 2015, Dr John Ioannidis published a paper calling attention to Theranos & the shady biotech unicorn industry. Moderna is mentioned as a company that is following the Theranos path of zero disclosures, & publishing zero papers on their “innovative” tech. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.11…
April 15th 2021113 Retweets281 Likes

Moderna’s Mysterious Medicines

FORBES EDITORS’ PICK |Dec 14, 2016

Excerpts:

“Now an obscure lawsuit filed in British Columbia in October sheds light on one of Moderna’s key partners, and through it FORBES can reveal details on Moderna’s amazing but still untested technology.

It appears that the first two products Moderna has entered into clinical trials rely on technology from a small outfit in Vancouver, British Columbia, called Acuitas Therapeutics. (Acuitas is so small, in fact, that its worldwide headquarters are in its CEO’s single-family home.)

Almost all medicines either block proteins–the building blocks of life–or, in the case of expensive biotech drugs, are proteins themselves. But Moderna has been promising to hack an entirely different part of life’s cookbook. In order to turn genetic information encoded in DNA into the cellular machines that actually are proteins, living things use a messenger chemical called mRNA.

Creating these mRNA drugs is a big challenge on many levels. For them to work, Moderna needs to deliver mRNA to the body’s cells. By itself mRNA breaks down in the bloodstream. Tiny Acuitas specializes in one method: lipid-nanoparticle delivery systems. Its technology essentially wraps the mRNA into balls of fat that disguise the drug so that the target cells will readily ingest it.

“Although we are small,” says Thomas Madden, chief executive of Acuitas, “I believe the technology we have developed is highly effective.”

The problem for Madden and Moderna is that Acuitas doesn’t actually own the technology it has licensed to Moderna. The tech belongs to a third company, publicly traded Arbutus, which recently decided to terminate the license for the tech that it had granted to Acuitas. That’s why Acuitas filed the lawsuit in British Columbia, to protect the deal it had. Arbutus immediately countersued, claiming its deal with Acuitas didn’t cover Moderna’s medicines.

The legal mess has its roots in Moderna’s 2011 start, when Robert Langer, an MIT professor, Moderna board member and founder of dozens of biotech companies, told Bancel that Moderna was too underfunded and small to create its own delivery system. So Moderna vetted over a dozen external delivery methods for mRNA and settled on at least three. One belonged to Arbutus, but Moderna turned to tiny Acuitas to get access to it.

Acuitas was formed in 2009 by Madden after a merger eliminated his position at Arbutus’ predecessor, Tekmira Pharmaceuticals. After a contentious lawsuit Madden was able to license from his former employer the novel tech he had helped develop, and Bancel claims Moderna chose to work with Acuitas because it had “the people and the capabilities.”

But that doesn’t explain why Moderna–flush with capital–didn’t make sure that sublicensing through Acuitas would be okay with Arbutus before advancing its new drugs into human studies.

Bancel met with FORBES at a Brooklyn coffee shop on a recent Saturday to dispel the implications of the lawsuit. He is dismissive of Acuitas’ technology. “We knew it was not very good,” he says. “It was just okay.”

He further explains that Moderna is in the process of producing its own nanoparticle lipids. One such lipid, N1GEL (called “Nigel” internally), appears to cause less inflammation than Acuitas’ version. Another is being licensed from Merck. Bancel says Moderna has stopped using the Acuitas tech for new drugs.

That still leaves a somewhat messy situation for any Moderna vaccines that are being developed using Acuitas’ tech.

Data from one vaccine is expected early next year. If results are good, it could lead to a sizzling-hot initial public offering, even if the Canadian lawsuit ultimately affords Arbutus bigger royalty payments from Moderna.”

Well, the two tiny Canadian companies mentioned above bring royalties to the Canada’s treasury (should I say The British Crown?), so don’t expect Trudeau to backpedal too soon

AND IF ONLY THEY HUSSLED WITH PRIVATE FUNDS, AS THEY CLAIMED…

Moderna chief keep claiming that they started to use public funds only as a patch on infrastructure, science and funding they’ve built for years.

Wrong!

It’s known that NIH + NIAID have long been one of their main sources for the “lavish funding” mentioned earlier and when they locked in the government support, they actually started to leverage it and attract even more private funds, in an self-feeding loop that created today’s monster-bubble.

Very few people know they even got money from BARDA and DARPA. As in “military funds”.

Remember this lie from earlier?
“The company has been funded over the years by billions of dollars of private investment,” Zaks told the Freakonomics podcast in August. “Those billions created the opportunity for the U.S. government to come in earlier this year and say, ‘I’m going to add some money to the pot to make sure that you get the development for this vaccine right.'”
Watch this claim getting nuked:

Taken from:

This grid above looks familiar to you? It does to me, but it’s not blood from people who underwent Covid genetic therapies, just something similar. Taken from:

KEI asks DOD to investigate failure to disclose DARPA funding in Moderna patents

  by  Knowledge Ecology International (KEI)

Luis Gil Abinader has taken a deep dive into Moderna’s surprising practice of never declaring government funding in its 126 patents and 154 patent applications, despite having had funding from multiple federal agencies.

One outcome of his research is a 25 page report (RN-2020-3) on Moderna’s failure to report funding from DARPA, and a request by KEI to DOD and DARPA to remedy this, including by taking title to patents where disclosures should have been made. (Text of letter below, and PDF version here).

KEI will also send a letter to BARDA. The letter below was addressed to DOD and DARPA, and focuses on their funding.

Context

The obligation to disclose federal funding in patent applications has been subject to presidential executive orders, statutes, regulations and contracts, including those cited and quoted in Abinader’s report. The disclosure clarifies the public’s rights in the inventions and the obligations on the entity getting the money, on everything from the government’s worldwide royalty free license to the public’s march-in rights, obligations to make inventions available to the public on reasonable terms, and additional safeguards that can be exercised by a government inclined to do so.

Secondly, the disclosure changes the narrative about who has financed the inventive activity, often the most risky part of development.

One of the earlier norms on this was Franklin Roosevelt’s Executive Order 9424, on the Establishment of a Register of Government interests in patents.

In 2018, the regulations on disclosure were modified by NIST (see 83 FR 15954), where, among other things, the government gave itself unlimited time to remedy a failure to disclose federal funding, to eliminate one loophole that created an incentive ignore the disclosure requirement.

In the past, the US Department of Defense has taken title to patents where federal funding was not disclosed. See: Campbell Plastics v. Brownlee, 389 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

There is more on the broader issue of disclosure of government funding in patents here: https://www.keionline.org/bayh-dole/failure-to-disclose

The research on the Moderna/DARPA funding is outlined in a 25 page August 27, 2020 report by Luis Gil Abinader, titled: “Moderna failures to disclose DARPA funding in patented inventions.” RN-2020-3

Below is the text of the KEI letter to Dr. Mark T. Esper, Secretary of Defense, and Dr. Amy Jenkins, of the Pandemic Prevention Platform for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), regarding the apparent failure by Moderna to disclose DARPA funding in patent applications.
PDF copy here:

2020. September 18. DARPA letter to KEI confirming investigation of Moderna for failure to report government funding in patent applications. https://www.keionline.org/33970

2020. September 4. BARDA is investigating Moderna’s failures to disclose BARDA funding in patent applications. https://www.keionline.org/33907

2020. September 2. KEI request to BARDA concerning Moderna obligations to disclose federal funding in patent applications. https://www.keionline.org/33892

2020. August 30. DARPA announces investigation into Moderna’s apparent failures to disclose mRNA vaccine patents. https://www.keionline.org/33832

2020. August 28. KEI asks DOD to investigate failure to disclose DARPA funding in Moderna patents. https://www.keionline.org/33763

2020. August 27. 2020:3 KEI Research Note: Moderna failures to disclose DARPA funding in patented inventions. https://www.keionline.org/rn-2020-3

2020. August 5. BARDA Responds to KEI, Public Citizen Letter Asking BARDA to Enforce Moderna Contract. https://www.keionline.org/33633

2020. August 4. KEI and Public Citizen request BARDA to address Moderna’s noncompliance with COVID-19 vaccine contract term. https://www.keionline.org/33618

2020. July 1. KEI receives seven new contracts for COVID 19 research from BARDA and DOD, including five using “Other Transactions Authority” that weaken or eliminate Bayh-Dole and FAR Safeguards. https://www.keionline.org/covid19-ota-contracts

2020. May 21. Moderna and US Government Funding of its COVID-19 Vaccine Candidate. https://www.keionline.org/33150

MORE Press Coverage

Washington Post
2020. August 28. “Moderna failed to disclose federal support in vaccine patents, researchers say: The company with a leading coronavirus vaccine candidate did not adhere to a law designed to protect public investment.” Washington Post. Christopher Rowland.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/08/28/moderna-vaccine-patents-darpa-funding/

Bloomberg
2020. August 29. “Moderna’s Patents Probed by U.S. Defense Department, FT Says.” Bloomberg. Chiara Vasarri. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-29/u-s-government-s-darpa-probes-patents-filed-by-moderna-ft

Axios
2020. August 5. “Moderna skirts disclosures of coronavirus vaccine costs.” Axios. Bob Herman. https://www.axios.com/moderna-barda-coronavirus-funding-disclosure-2775a517-a775-485a-a509-b6906c8535a9.html

STAT
2020. September 4. “A second U.S. agency will review if Moderna disclosed federal funding in vaccine patents.” STAT. Ed Silverman. https://www.statnews.com/pharmalot/2020/09/04/moderna-vaccine-darpa-barda-patents-covid19/

2020. August 8. “Moderna failed to disclose federal funding for vaccine patent applications, advocates say.” STAT. Ed Silverman. https://www.statnews.com/pharmalot/2020/08/28/moderna-covid19-vaccine-coronavirus-patents-darpa/

2020. August 4. “BARDA faces pressure to force Moderna to disclose cost details from its Covid-19 contract.” Ed Silverman. https://www.statnews.com/pharmalot/2020/08/04/covid19-coronavirus-pandemic-barda-moderna-vaccine-transparency/

Financial Times
2020. August 29. “US government’s Darpa probes Moderna’s vaccine patents: Researchers accuse biotech company of failing to disclose federal grants in patents which also cover Covid-19 candidate.” Financial Times. Donato Paolo Mancini. https://www.ft.com/content/2be1f87e-9e96-4e23-9cc5-33ba35e50586

National Public Radio (NPR)
2020. August 4. “Prices For COVID-19 Vaccines Are Starting To Come Into Focus.” NPR. Sydney Lupkin. https://www.statnews.com/pharmalot/2020/08/04/covid19-coronavirus-pandemic-barda-moderna-vaccine-transparency/

Health Policy Watch
2020. September 3. “US Biomedical Advanced Research & Development Agency Reviews Moderna’s US Patents For Alleged Failure To Disclose Federal Funding.” Health Policy Watch. Grace Ren.
https://healthpolicy-watch.news/pharma-watchdog-requests-further-inquiries-into-modernas-us-patents/

2020. September 1. “US Department Of Defense Is Investigating Moderna’s Patents For Allegedly Failing To Disclose Federal Support.” Health Policy Watch. Grace Ren. https://healthpolicy-watch.news/usagency-investigating-moderna-for-allegedly/

The Pharma Letter
2020. September 4. “Non-profit says Moderna hid federal funding from patent office.” The Pharma Letter. https://www.thepharmaletter.com/article/nonprofit-says-moderna-hid-federal-funding-from-patent-office

Life Sciences Intellectual Property Review
2020. September 8. “Moderna’s COVID-19 and Zika patent applications to be investigated.” Life Sciences Intellectual Property Review. Muireann Bolger. https://www.lifesciencesipreview.com/news/moderna-s-covid-19-and-zika-patent-applications-to-be-investigated-4183

Law360
2020. September 4. “HHS Unit Probes Funding For Moderna’s Patented Vaccines.” Law360. Kevin Stawicki. https://www.law360.com/articles/1307690/hhs-unit-probes-funding-for-moderna-s-patented-vaccines

2020. August 31. “DOD Investigating Moderna’s Vaccine Patents.” Law360. Kevin Stawicki. https://www.law360.com/compliance/articles/1305849/dod-investigating-moderna-s-vaccine-patents

2020. August 28. “Activists Say Moderna Hid Gov’t Support For Vaccine Patents.” Law360. Kevin Stawicki. https://www.law360.com/articles/1305474

Moderna’s vaccine was developed with support from the NIAID, and, as covered in a past fact check, analysis from Axios found that the National Institutes of Health, of which the NIAID is part, may own intellectual property used in producing Moderna’s vaccine. Dr. Francis Collins, director of NIH, has also said that NIH has a stake in intellectual property used in the vaccine, though what exactly this means in practical terms is unclear. 

The Dispatch Fact-check

Also…

All the documents Glenn Beck is creaming about and more can be found below:

Nipah virus as in…?

READ: URGENT! DEBUNKING THE NEXT ENGINEERED PANDEMIC: HEMORRHAGIC FEVER (NIPAH, MARBURG, EBOLA)

Well, yeah, no coincidence here either, more proof to that below.

SO WE HAVE A FINACIER WHO TOOK OVER A WELL FUNDED PHARMA START-UP AND BROUGHT IN HUGE FUNDS, IGNITING THE MOTHER OF ALL ENRONS. WHO’S THIS GUY?!

Buckle up, friends, this so far was jus the prelude.

Bancel came to Moderna from the French Merieux Institute.

Merieux happens to be the French billionaire who helped China build the infamous P4 Lab in Wuhan.

Merieux also happens to be an old friend of Xi’s.

That Xi visit at the Merieux HQ in France happened in 2014, not long after this:

Obama & Xi working together on a pandemic playbook in 2012

And then, in 2018..

2017

Bancel maintained a top role in the Merieux Foundation long after leaving the BioMerieux division for Moderna.

CA Merieux Foundation

Therefore no surprise that Moderna was allegedly the first to get the SARS-COV2 genetic code and start working on the mRNA injection.

CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS: MODERNA SENT A MRNA CORONAVIRUS VACCINE CANDIDATE TO UNIVERSITIES WEEKS BEFORE EMERGENCE OF COVID-19

MORE COINCIDENCE THEORIES

In 2017, Moncef Slaoui, the brain behind GSK, also took a seat on the board of Moderna,

Trump awarded Moderna almost $0.5Billion from public money a few days before nominating Slaoui as Warp Speed co-chief. in May 2020.

Trump’s Moroccan “vaccine czar”: worked for Bill Gates, Google, GSK. Worked in China. Transhumanist. Lockdown fanatic

“Valera’s efforts (Moderna subsidiary) have resulted in the demonstration of preclinical efficacy of Moderna’s mRNA-based vaccines in multiple viral disease models, Moderna said.

In the partnership with the Gates Foundation, Valera will apply its mRNA vaccine platform as well as Moderna’s drug platform Messenger RNA Therapeutics™. Designed to produces human proteins, antibodies, and entirely novel protein constructs inside patient cells, the therapeutics are secreted or active intracellularly.” – Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News

To avoid a conflict of interest, Slaoui resigned from the board of the Massachusetts-based biotech firm Moderna, which had been developing a vaccine for the coronavirus.
He stepped down but he didn’t give up his stakes in Moderna, as the Daily Beast reports:

“Slaoui’s ownership of 156,000 Moderna stock options, disclosed in required federal financial filings, sparked concerns about a conflict of interest.
Democratic Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren called Slaoui out over the matter on Twitter: “It is a huge conflict of interest for the White House’s new vaccine czar to own $10 million of stock in a company receiving government funding to develop a COVID-19 vaccine. Dr. Slaoui should divest immediately.”
The company’s shares skyrocketed last month after news broke of the $483 million in federal funding to work on a coronavirus vaccine.
Slaoui could not immediately be reached for comment on the matter.”

Slaoui also sits on the boards of SutroVax, the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, and the PhRMA Foundation

Gates, Fauci and Slaoui have long been making and selling scandalous vaccines together. It’s a cartel

So we should add Bancel to this cover graphic
DAVOS 2022: BANCEL AND FAUCI MEET AGAIN TO WHINE ABOUT THE ANNOYANCE WE ARE TO THEM. MORE TO COME, SCUMBAGS!

LAST MINUTE:

The circle has just closed.
Unless China faked another interview to prop up another myth.

So this has never been about health, just a global scale racketeering operation that’s coming to light about about to go bust. You can speed up this process simply by spreading this expose far and wide!

UPDATE MARCH 21, 2022: VOILA!

Via our ex-BlackRock friend Edward Dowd. I rest my case, but I bet they will “unrest” it soon.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

ORDER

That Wikipedia screenshot that started to make rounds of the Internet now – it’s fake. But I have something better. “Much much better”!

OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE WEBSITE ARCHIVE LINK

Almost everything you need to know about Klaus Schwab’s Youth:

KLAUS SCHWAB’S YOUTH IS CALLED “YOUNG GLOBAL LEADERS”, READY FOR REGIME CHANGE IN UNALIGNED COUNTRIES

Ivanka Trump being a Young Global Leader at Davos 2020
Dr. Oz aka Dr. Why

WAIT, IT GETS EVEN DEEPER, BELIEVE IT OR NOT!

Trumpies stuck forks in their own eyes to avoid seeing this and I don’t speak to leftoids, so it went largely overlooked in 2020, but I think it aged smoothly. Don’t perpetuate that grave error, see:

LOOK WHO’S SPEAKING CHINESE! HOW DEEP IS THE STING?

If this makes your head spin, I have some bad news: much more where these came from – The Internet!

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

His voters will deeply regret not doing their own research.
Here are 7+1 reasons why:

#0

“I have pondered for years, how they [Carlyle Group] achieved this unbelievable performance during their private equity years. Part of the answer had to be in Carlyle’s connections. Over the years, they hired former Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci, George HW Bush, James Baker, John Major (former British Prime Minister) and numerous others. “

Bedford Bulletin

Carlyle Empire

  by Eric Leser
  Le Monde –  April 29, 2004

The biggest private investor in the world, deeply entrenched in the weapons’ sector, is a discreet group that cultivates dealings with influential men, including Bush father and son.

  One year ago, May 1, 2003, George Bush, strapped up in a fighter pilot’s suit, landed on the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham-Lincoln along the coast of California. The image became famous. Under a banner proclaiming “Mission Accomplished”, the president prematurely announced the end of military operations in Iraq and his victory. Back on dry land the next day, he made another martial speech, not far from San Diego, in a United Defense Industries’ weapons factory.

  This company is one of the Pentagon’s main suppliers. It manufactures, among other things, missiles, transport vehicles, and the light Bradley armored vehicle. Its main shareholder is the biggest private investor in the world, a discreet group, called Carlyle.

  It’s not listed on the stock market and doesn’t have to show its accounts to any but its 550 investors- billionaires or pension funds. Carlyle manages eighteen billion dollars today, invested in defense and high tech (notably biotech), space, security-linked information technology, nanotechnologies, and telecommunications. The companies it controls share the characteristic that their main customers are governments and administrations. As the company wrote in its brochure: “We invest in the opportunities created in industries strongly affected by changes in government policy.”

  Carlyle is a unique model, assembled at the planetary level on the capitalism of relationships or “capitalism of access” to use the 1993 expression of the American magazine New Republic. Today, in spite of its denials, the group incarnates the “military-industrial complex” against which Republican President Dwight Eisenhower warned the American people when he left office in 1961.

  That didn’t prevent George Bush senior from occupying a position as consultant to Carlyle for the ten years ending October 2003. It was the first time in United States’ history that a former president worked for a Pentagon supplier. His son, George W. Bush, also knows Carlyle well. The group found him a job in February 1990, while his father occupied the White House: administrator for Caterair, a Texas company specialized in aerial catering. The episode does not figure in the president’s official biography. When George W. Bush left Caterair in 1994, before becoming Governor of Texas, the company was in bad shape.

  “It’s not possible to get closer to the administration than Carlyle is,” asserts Charles Lewis, Director of the Center for Public Integrity, a non-partisan organization in Washington. “George Bush senior earned money from private interests that worked for the government of which his son was president. You could even say that the president could one day profit financially, through his father’s investments, from the political decisions he himself took,” he adds.

  The collection of influential characters who now work, have worked, or have invested in the group would make the most convinced conspiracy theorists incredulous. They include among others, John Major, former British Prime Minister; Fidel Ramos, former Philippines President; Park Tae Joon, former South Korean Prime Minister; Saudi Prince Al-Walid; Colin Powell, the present Secretary of State; James Baker III, former Secretary of State; Caspar Weinberger, former Defense Secretary; Richard Darman, former White House Budget Director; the billionaire George Soros, and even some bin Laden family members. You can add Alice Albright, daughter of Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State; Arthur Lewitt, former SEC head; William Kennard, former head of the FCC, to this list. Finally, add in the Europeans: Karl Otto Poehl, former Bundesbank president; the now-deceased Henri Martre, who was president of Aerospatiale; and Etienne Davignon, former president of the Belgian Generale Holding Company.

Le Monde –  April 29, 2004

  Carlyle isn’t only a collection of power people. It maintains holdings in close to 200 companies and, above all, provides returns on its investments that have exceeded 30 % for a decade. “Compared to the five hundred people we employ in the world, the number of former statesmen is quite small, a dozen at most,” explains Christopher Ullmann, Carlyle Vice-President for communication. “We’re accused of every wrong, but no one has ever brought proof of any kind of misappropriation. No legal proceeding has ever been brought against us. We’re a handy target for whoever wants to take shots at the American government and the president.”

  Carlyle was created in 1987 in the salons of the New York eponymous palace, with five million dollars. Its founders, four lawyers, including David Rubenstein (a former Jimmy Carter advisor), had the -limited- ambition at the time of profiting from a flaw in fiscal legislation that authorized companies owned by Eskimos in Alaska to give their losses to profitable companies that would thus pay reduced taxes. The group vegetated until January 1989 and the arrival at its helm of the man who would invent the Carlyle system, Frank Carlucci. Former Assistant Director of the CIA, National Security Advisor, then Ronald Reagan’s Defense Secretary, Mr. Carlucci counted in Washington. He is one of current Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s closest friends. They were roommates as students at Princeton together. Later, their paths crossed in several administrations and they even worked for a time at the same company, Sears Roebuck.

  Six days after officially quitting the Pentagon, January 6, 1989, Frank Carlucci became Carlyle’s Director General. He brought trusted lieutenants from the CIA, the State Department, and the Defense Department with him. Nicknamed “Mr. Clean”, Frank Carlucci has a sulfurous reputation.

  This diplomat was posted during the 1970s to countries such as South Africa, the Congo, Tanzania, and Portugal, where the United States and the CIA had played a questionable political role. He was the number two at the American embassy in the Belgian Congo in 1961 and was suspected of being implicated in the assassination of Patrice Lumumba. He has always firmly denied it. The American press has also accused him of being implicated in several cases of arms trafficking in the 1980s, but he has never been prosecuted. For a while, he directed Wackenhut, a security company with a hateful reputation, implicated in one of the biggest espionage scandals ever, the hijacking of Promise software. Frank Carlucci had the mission of cleaning up after the Iran-Contra affair in the Reagan administration and he succeeded John Pointdexter as National Security Advisor. As he took over his new position, he chose a young general to be his assistant… Colin Powell.

  Frank Carlucci’s name attracted capital to Carlyle. In October 1990, the group took over BDM International, which participated in the “Star Wars” Program and constituted a bridgehead to it. In 1992, Frank Carlucci allied himself with the French group Thomson-CSF to take over LTV’s aerospace division. The operation failed, Congress opposing the sale to a foreign group. Carlyle found other associates, Loral and Northrop, and got hold of LTV Aerospace, quickly renamed Vought Aircraft, which contributed to the manufacture of the B1 and B2 bombers.

  At the same time, the fund was multiplying its strategic acquisitions, such as Magnavox Electronic Systems, a pioneer in radar imagery, and DGE, which owns the technology for cruise missile electronic relief maps.

  Three companies specializing in nuclear, chemical, and biological decontamination (Magnetek, IT Group and EG & G Technical Services) followed. Then, through BDM International, a firm linked to the CIA, Carlyle acquired Vinnell, which was among the first companies to supply the American army and its allies with private contractors, i.e. mercenaries. Vinnell’s mercenaries train the Saudi armed forces and protect King Fahd. During the first Gulf War, they fought alongside Saudi troops. In 1997, Carlyle sold BDM and Vinnell, which had become too dangerous. The group didn’t need it any more. It had become the Pentagon’s eleventh biggest supplier by gaining control of United Defense Industries that same year.

  Carlyle emerged from the shadows in spite of itself on September 11, 2001. That day, the group had organized a meeting at Washington’s Ritz Carlton Hotel with five hundred of its largest investors. Frank Carlucci and James Baker III played masters of ceremony. George Bush senior made a lightning appearance at the beginning of the day. The presentation was quickly interrupted, but one detail escaped no one. One of the guests wore the name bin Laden on his badge. It was Shafiq bin Laden, one of Osama’s many brothers. The American media discovered Carlyle. One journalist, Dan Briody, wrote a book about the group’s hidden side, “The Iron Triangle”, and takes an interest in the close relations between the Bush clan and the Saudi leadership.

  Some ask about George Bush senior’s influence on American foreign policy.

  In January 2001, while George Bush junior was breaking off negotiations over missiles with North Korea, the dismayed South Koreans intervened with his father. Carlyle has important interests in Seoul. In June 2001, Washington resumed discussions with Pyongyang.

  Another example: in July 2001, according to the New York Times, George Bush senior telephoned Saudi Prince Abdullah who was unhappy with the positions the president took on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. George Bush senior reassured the prince that his son “is doing good things” and “has his heart in the right place.”

  Larry Klayman, Director of Judicial Watch, a resolutely conservative organization, demands that “the president’s father resign from Carlyle. The group has conflicts of interest that can create problems for American foreign policy.” Finally, in October 2003, George Bush senior leaves Carlyle, officially because he’s nearing eighty years old.

  It doesn’t matter that Carlyle put an end to all relations with the bin Laden family in October 2001; the evil was already done. The group, along with Halliburton, has become the target of Bush administration opponents.

  “Carlyle has replaced the Trilateral Commission in conspiracy theories,” David Rubenstein acknowledged in a 2003 Washington Post interview. For the first time, the group put someone in charge of communications and changed its boss. Frank Carlucci became honorary president and Lou Gerstner, a respected executive who saved IBM, officially took the reins.

  That operation seems mostly cosmetic. Mr. Gerstner doesn’t spend much time in his office; but Carlyle wants to become respectable.

  The Group has created an Internet site. It has opened certain funds to investors bringing “only” 250,000 dollars (210,000 euros). It will have reduced its holdings in United Defense Industries, and asserts that defense and aeronautics represent no more than 15 % of its investments.

  However, Carlyle continues to make intensive use of fiscal havens and it’s difficult to know the names of the companies it controls or its perimeter.

  Carlyle is also increasing its efforts in Europe. In September 2001, it took control of the Swedish weapons manufacturer Bofors through United Defense. Subsequently, it tried, unsuccessfully, to take over Thales Information Systems and, in the beginning of 2003, to acquire those parts of France Telecom that are in Eutelsat, which plays an important role in the European Positioning System by Galileo satellite – a competitor of the American GPS. From 1999 to 2002, it managed a holding in Le Figaro. In Italy, it made a breakthrough, by taking up Fiat’s aeronautics subsidiary, Fiat Avio. This company is a supplier to Arianespace and allows Carlyle to be part of the European Rocket Council. In another coup in December 2002, Carlyle bought a third of Qinetic, the private subsidiary of the British military’s Research and Development Center. Qinetic occupies a unique advisory role with the British government.

  “To anticipate the technologies of the future and the enterprises which will develop them is our first role as an investor. Pension funds bring us their money for that. You can’t blame us for trying to take strategic positions,” Mr. Ullmann stresses.

   Translation: t r u t h o u t French language correspondent Leslie Thatcher.

#1

WED, 04 DECEMBER 2002

Sale of a Stake in QinetiQ PLC to The Carlyle Group

2002-014

London – The Ministry of Defence has agreed the terms under which The Carlyle Group will become its strategic partner to assist in the future development of QinetiQ, Defence Minister Lewis Moonie announced today.

Dr Moonie said: “The strategic partnership with The Carlyle Group keeps QinetiQ on course to become a leading science and technology company that aspires to be the envy of the world. The Carlyle Group shares our vision for the future of QinetiQ and is well placed to support the management team in building a company, which we expect to flourish commercially, based on its commitment to excellence.”

“QinetiQ will remain a British company based in the UK. MOD will retain a Special Share in the business to ensure that the nation’s defence and security interests continue to be protected. There will also be robust safeguards to prevent conflicts of interest and to ensure that the integrity of the Government’s procurement process is not compromised”.

“This is good news for taxpayers, who will benefit from the immediate sale proceeds as well as from QinetiQ’s potential increase in value over time. And it is good news for QinetiQ’s employees who will have the opportunity to invest in the future of the business through a staff equity scheme and will each receive a small free allocation of share options. Today’s announcement marks a new future for science and technology in Britain.”

The sale follows MOD’s decision in March this year to seek a strategic partner to invest in QinetiQ, and the selection of The Carlyle Group as preferred bidder in September. The transaction values QinetiQ at around £500m. Following adjustments to reflect current assets and liabilities, MOD will receive between £140 and £150m from the transaction (the final amount will depend on the company’s exact financial position at completion), in addition to £50m already received from QinetiQ as part of the purchase price for its assets. Subject to the satisfactory fulfilment of a number of final conditions, formal completion of the sale process is expected early in the New Year,

Carlyle will acquire a 33.8% economic interest in QinetiQ with a further 3.7% of the shares to be made available for the employees. MOD’s retention of a 62.5% current stake in the business will ensure that the taxpayer shares in the benefits of the growth in QinetiQ, which we anticipate will follow the introduction of a strategic partner. The MOD plans to sell its entire stake in QinetiQ within 3-5 years, probably through a flotation on the stock market.

Management control and responsibility for setting future commercial strategy will now lie with QinetiQ and The Carlyle Group, allowing them to make appropriate decisions to grow the value of the business. MOD will retain those rights which are conventional for a major shareholder.

QinetiQ’s Board of Directors, chaired by Dame Pauline Neville-Jones, will be augmented by the appointment of two Carlyle nominees – Glenn Youngkin, a Managing Director of The Carlyle Group, and Sir Denys Henderson. MOD also has the right to appoint two non-executive directors.

Sir John Chisholm, QinetiQ’s Chief Executive commented: “Working together, QinetiQ and The Carlyle Group will be a strong team with complementary experience. We can now be even more confident of achieving our ultimate goal of moving from a European leader to a global technological solutions provider for our diverse range of customers. Carlyle’s investment secures a bright, long-term future for our business, our employees and our customers.”

Glenn Youngkin, The Carlyle Group’s Managing Director in London, commented: “We are impressed with the quality of the business and are looking forward to supporting such a capable and ambitious management team. We can see enormous opportunities to grow the value of the business, harnessing innovation to create profitable commercial applications.”

The Queen’s military-industrial QinetiQ Group Plc (adjacent to The Pirbright Institute) was founded in Nov. 11, 2002 by:

62%        UK Ministry of Defence (MOD) — UK

34%        The Carlyle Group — US

4%           QinetiQ employees

Note: On Nov. 08, 20023 days earlierSERCO Plc bought SI International, Inc. and changed SI International’s name to SERCO, Inc. which had already been being awards massive contracts with the U.S. Patent Office, FEMA, OMB, Navy SPAWAR, OPM, State Department, DoD, Army, Navy, FAA, FEC, etc.

SI international 1

On Dec. 09, 2002one month laterLeader Technologies’ patent attorney James P. Chandler, III, secretly merged CRYPTO.com with Markland Technologies. Markland was represented by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’ wife Jane Sullivan Roberts as director of Major, Lindsey  & Africa.

p.1

Carlyle 1
Carlyle 2
Carlyle 3

p.2

directors
chisholm

1.    Sir John Chisholm

  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Chisholm_(executive)
  • Medical Research Council, chairman
  • Qinetiz, chairman
  • Cambridge University
  • General Motors
  • British Petroleum (BP)
  • CAP Scientific
  • SEMA-METRA
  • DERA (UK Defence Evaluation and Research Agency)
  • House of Commons Public Accounts Committee, chairman
  • NESTA (National Endowment for Science Technology and the Arts), chairman
  • UK Electrical Engineering Association, president
  • QinetiQ. Director
henderson

2.  Sir Denys Henderson, Esq.

  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denys_Henderson
  • Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI), chairman
  • S.G. Warburg
  • Goldman Sachs
  • Zeneca Group (AstraZeneca), chairman
  • Rank (Xerox), chairman
  • Dalgety, chairman
  • Crown Estates, chairman
  • Barclays, director
  • Rio Tinto Zinc, director
  • Schlumberger, director
  • MORI, director
  • AZ Electronic Materials, director
  • Qinetiq, director
  • The Carlyle Group, director
kruth

3.   Hal Kruth

  • https://www.linkedin.com/in/hal-kruth-5564289/
  • Stanford Research Institute (SRI), licensing
  • QinetiQ Group plc, director, president (US subsidiary)
  • Quintel Technology, director
  • QinetiQ Nanomaterials/Intrinsiq Materials, director
  • QinetiQ Rail – UK: Onboard broadband
  • Holographic Imaging, Inc.(QinetiQ joint venture with Ford Motor Company) – US: Holographic displays
  • Factor(E) Ventures, advisor
  • 42MORE, CEO
  • Sierra Angels
  • OTHER DIRECTORSHIPS
    • Sparkmeter Inc.- Washington DC based start-up: Smart meters
    • Waste Enterprisers, LLC- Africa based start-up: Biofuels
    • Glue Networks- California-based start-up: Software defined WAN
    • Aperia Technologies- San Francisco-based start-up: Automatic tire inflation device
    • Dynamite Data, LLC- Nevada-based start-up: E-commerce data
    • Driptech, Inc.- India-based start-up: Low cost drip irrigation systems
    • pSiVida Limited – Australia/pSiMedica Ltd – UK: Drug delivery technology
    • Sarnoff Corporation (wholly-owned subsidiary of SRI International) – US
    • Polyfuel, Inc. (SRI spin-off) – US: PEM fuel cells
    • Pangene Corporation (SRI spin-off) – US: Gene therapy
    • Discern Communications(SRI spin-off) – US: Enterprise data management
love

4.  Graham Love

neville jones

5.  Dame Pauline Neville-Jones

  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Neville-Jones,_Baroness_Neville-Jones
  • BBC, governor
  • JIC (British Joint Intelligence Committee)
  • Minister of State for Security and Counter Terrorism
  • National Security Council (NSC, UK)
  • Special Representative to Business on Cyber Security
  • Oxford University
  • British Missions, Rhodesia, Singapore, Washington DC, Bonn
  • European Commission, Chef de Cabinet
  • Cabinet Office, head, Defence and Overseas Secretariat
  • Joint Intelligence Committee, chair
  • UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), political director
  • Dayton Bosnia settlement, British delegation
  • Governors’ World Service Consultative Group, chair
  • QinetiQ, chair
  • Information Assurance Advisory Council, chair
  • Minister of State for Security and Counter Terrorism
  • Privy Council (2010-present)
symonds

6. Sir Jonathan Symonds, CBE

colin balmer

7. Colin Balmer

Youngkin

8. Glenn Youngkin


Mar. 31, 2009 Qinteiq Group of companies accounts

Qinteiq 1
Qinteiq 2
qinetiq 2
qinetiq 3
NASA
global capabilities
NASA 2
us uk
George Tenet, Qinetiq and the Monarch’s Golden Share

#2

#3

Guess Who Toasted George and Barbara Bush at Their 60th Wedding Anniversary Party?

EPJ – SUNDAY, JUNE 13, 2010

Laura Bush is out with her memoir, Spoken from the Pocketbook Heart.

Fed chairman Ben Bernanke doesn’t make it into the book, neither does Treasury Secretary during the GW  years, Hank Paulson. But what’s a White House memoir without a memory of  David Rubenstein, the co-founder of the private equity firm Carlyle Group, who made George H. W. hundreds of millions after he left the White House ?

Laura tells us that not only did Rubenstein show up at the White House for a 60th wedding anniversary party for George H.W. and Barbara Bush, but he gave the toast!

Rubenstein informed the onlookers during his toast that George and Barbara are the only couple who have lived in the White House and have celebrated a 60th wedding anniversary. Nice touch by David.

Laura describes David as a “long time friend.”  Translation: Anybody that can figure out how to exploit George’s connections for more money than any of them had ever seen before can certainly be a life long friend.

Look, Rubenstein on a personal level is a nice guy. Whenever I have spoken to him, he has always been polite to me. When I have asked him a question out of left field to throw him off, he tends to really spend time to think about the question and give me a thoughtful answer, but of all the people George and Barbara have met over the years, and some probably truly long-term friends, it is remarkable that Rubenstein, who is roughly 30 years younger than George H. W., is giving a toast at at the Bush’s 60th wedding anniversary.

#4

“I see Republicans…” – Klaus Schwab at Davos (jk)

#5

The Southern Poverty Law Center Is a Hate-Based Scam that Nearly Caused Me to Be Murdered

The Southern Poverty Law Center Is in a State of Moral Collapse

Southern Poverty Law Center Faces Racism, Corruption, Sexual Harassment Claims

Twelve Ways The Southern Poverty Law Center Is A Scam To Profit From Hate-Mongering

Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center

Exaggerating Hate Pays: Scandal-Plagued SPLC Has Millions in Offshore Accounts, Half a Billion in Assets

Youngkin’s CRT campaign ad: ‘A New Direction’

#6

#7

So it’s Klaus Schwab, The UK Royal Crown and The Rothschilds who won the gubernatorial elections in Virginia, as per normal. With technical and logistic support from The Military BioTech Complex, of course.

Youngkin at Davos 2020: Carlyle is all tuned up for ‘Stakeholder Capitalism’

update november 19, 2021: lol

BONUS

<<Pop singer Taylor Swift took another swing at billionaire investor George Soros on Thursday, condemning the “shameless greed” of the financier for partnering with her ex-manager Scooter Braun to release a new album of her songs.

Swift, who has emerged as an outspoken supporter of the Democratic Party, railed against Soros, a liberal megadonor, and Braun, who helped organize the March for Our Lives gun-control protest, after learning her former label Big Machine was releasing an album of a live radio concert she performed in 2008.

“It looks to me like Scooter Braun and his financial backers, 23 Capital, Alex Soros, and the Soros family and The Carlyle Group, have seen the latest balance sheets and realized that paying $330 million for my music wasn’t exactly a wise choice and they need money,” Swift wrote on Instagram. “In my opinion, just another case of shameless greed in the time of Coronavirus. So tasteless, but very transparent.”

Swift also attacked the Soros family in December as being the financial enablers of Braun’s takeover of her former label and her old music.

“After I was denied the chance to purchase my music outright, my entire catalog was sold to Scooter Braun’s Ithaca Holdings in a deal that I’m told was funded by the Soros family, 23 Capital, and the Carlyle Group,” Swift said at Billboard’s “Women in Music” event. “Yet to this day, none of these investors have bothered to contact me or my team directly to perform their due diligence on their investment, on their investment in me.” >> – The Washington Free Beacon

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

ORDER

Wyss is the ninja institute: it’s everywhere and anywhere, but only other ninjas can detect it. Of course it’s deeply involved with Covid and the jabs too. This piece of their work is over a decade old, but you can easily see how it plays out in the 2020’s.

Wyss Institute Develops New Nanodevice Manufacturing Strategy Using Self-Assembling DNA “Building Blocks”

May 30, 2012

Novel technology could enable new tools for delivering drugs directly to disease sites in the body

Researchers at the Wyss Institute have developed a method for building complex nanostructures out of short synthetic strands of DNA. Called single-stranded tiles (SSTs), these interlocking DNA “building blocks,” akin to Legos®, can be programmed to assemble themselves into precisely designed shapes, such as letters and emoticons. Further development of the technology could enable the creation of new nanoscale devices, such as those that deliver drugs directly to disease sites.

The technology, which is described in today’s online issue of Nature, was developed by a research team led by Wyss core faculty member Peng Yin, Ph.D., who is also an Assistant Professor of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School. Other team members included Wyss Postdoctoral Fellow Bryan Wei, Ph.D., and graduate student Mingjie Dai.

DNA is best known as a keeper of genetic information. But in an emerging field of science known as DNA nanotechnology, it is being explored for use as a material with which to build tiny, programmable structures for diverse applications. To date, most research has focused on the use of a single long biological strand of DNA, which acts as a backbone along which smaller strands bind to its many different segments, to create shapes. This method, called DNA origami, is also being pursued at the Wyss Institute under the leadership of Core Faculty member William Shih, Ph.D. Shih is also an Associate Professor in the Department of Biological Chemistry and Molecular Pharmacology at Harvard Medical School and the Department of Cancer Biology at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.

Examples of self-assembled DNA building blocks
Wyss researchers have built numerals, letters, and a number of other structures using short strands of DNA as building blocks.

In focusing on the use of short strands of synthetic DNA and avoiding the long scaffold strand, Yin’s team developed an alternative building method. Each SST is a single, short strand of DNA. One tile will interlock with another tile, if it has a complementary sequence of DNA. If there are no complementary matches, the blocks do not connect. In this way, a collection of tiles can assemble itself into specific, predetermined shapes through a series of interlocking local connections.

In demonstrating the method, the researchers created just over one hundred different designs, including Chinese characters, numbers, and fonts, using hundreds of tiles for a single structure of 100 nanometers (billionths of a meter) in size. The approach is simple, robust, and versatile.

As synthetically based materials, the SSTs could have some important applications in medicine. SSTs could organize themselves into drug-delivery machines that maintain their structural integrity until they reach specific cell targets, and because they are synthetic, can be made highly biocompatible.

“Use of DNA nanotechnology to create programmable nanodevices is an important focus at the Wyss Institute, because we believe so strongly in its potential to produce a paradigm-shifting approach to development of new diagnostics and therapeutics,” said Wyss Founding Director, Donald Ingber, M.D., Ph.D.

The research was supported by the Office of Naval Research, the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the Wyss Institute at Harvard University.

Source – Wyss Institute

UPDATE DECEMBER 2, 2021

WYSS Inst. presents: Xenobots 3.0: The New Living Robots That Can Reproduce
live webinar on December 1, 2021

Also read:

WE WRITE NEW DNA USING RNA ONLY – STAR SCIENTIST FINANCED BY EPSTEIN, DARPA AND SCHWAB’S WYSS INST.

To find out how Wyss relates to Klaus Schwab, read:

PULITZER-WORTHY! KLAUS SCHWAB’S NAZI ROOTS FINALLY TRACED!

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

We gave up on our profit shares from masks, if you want to help us, please use the donation button!
We think frequent mask use, even short term use can be bad for you, but if you have no way around them, at least send a message of consciousness.
Get it here!

Yet another manifestation of the Military BioTech Complex I was telling you about, bridging Silicon Valley, Davos and China.
Their words, my research:

Immunization: an entry point for digital identity

ID2020

ID2020 Mar 28, 2018

With World Health Day around the corner on April 7th, we’d like to bring attention to the intersection of global health and digital identity, and specifically the opportunity for immunization rates to scale digital identity amongst the most hard-to-reach children.

Globally, an estimated 95% of children receive at least one dose of some vaccine. This number is staggering — no other public health intervention reaches more children and impacts more families.

Yet, despite this high initial contact rate, only 37% of children in the world’s poorest countries are fully immunized, meaning that they receive their full course of recommended vaccines. Ultimately, many children are left without comprehensive protection and vulnerable to many vaccine-preventable diseases.

Percentage of children reached with the last dose of seven vaccines recommended across all Gavi-supported countries and of three vaccines specific to certain regions (Source: Gavi 2016 Annual Progress Report http://www.gavi.org/progress-report/)

There are several reasons for low coverage rates, including the low quality of population data and reliance on outdated systems to track immunizations, but one critical challenge is the continued use of paper-based systems to record the doses that have been administered and indicate when a child needs to return for boosters. Unfortunately, the paper records kept within a clinic are often difficult to analyze and the immunization cards given to families are prone to loss and inaccuracies. Without a persistent, portable record that can be uniquely linked to the child, it’s often difficult to ascertain the care a child needs.

In November, Dr. Seth Berkley, CEO of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, wrote a piece for Nature that emphasized the pressing need to move to digital systems — specifically those to identify and track those currently missing out — to achieve 100% immunization coverage.

One of the biggest needs is for affordable, secure digital identification systems that can store a child’s medical history, and that can be accessed even in places without reliable electricity. That might seem a tall order, but it is both achievable and necessary.

This message was reinforced at this year’s World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland, where Gavi announced digital identity as the focus for its 2018 INFUSE program. INFUSE — Innovation for Uptake, Scale and Equity in Immunization — aims to identify and support innovative solutions that have the potential to modernize global health and immunization delivery. This year, Gavi is focusing its efforts on identifying opportunities for digital identity technologies to help facilitate better targeting, follow-up, and immunization service delivery for the world’s most vulnerable children.

Immunization poses a huge opportunity to scale digital identity — in many developing countries, immunization coverage greatly exceeds birth registration rates. According to best available estimates, upwards of 95% of children globally receive at least one dose of one vaccine (with 86% of children globally receiving the full three doses recommended of the diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine, which is commonly used to measure immunization coverage).

When a child receives her first vaccine, she receives a paper child health card. In many developing countries, the most common form of identification is not a birth certificate, but this card. The near ubiquity of these documents presents an enormous opportunity.

Moving from easily lost or damaged paper health cards to an accessible digital form would reduce the burden associated with tracking a child’s vaccines and eliminate redundant or unnecessary paperwork. Digital child health cards can improve coverage rates and vaccine compliance by prompting parents to bring their children in for necessary subsequent doses. For health workers, digital identity technology validates a child’s past vaccines and may streamline analytics and outreach, without adding significant complexity to a health worker’s workflow. And for Gavi and its international partners, digital ID technology provides a basis for a system of verifiable proofs and accurate aggregate data that interoperates with other identity management systems, negating the need for each organization to independently identify beneficiaries.

And because immunization is conducted in infancy, providing children with a digital child health card would give them a unique, portable digital identity early in life. And as children grow, their digital child health card can be used to access secondary services, such as primary school, or ease the process of obtaining alternative credentials. Effectively the child health card becomes the first step in establishing a legal, broadly recognized identity.

In turn, having a persistent and portable health record uniquely tied to the child will help to increase full immunization coverage rates by prompting follow-up and better targeting the most hard to reach children.

In order to enable digital identity at scale, we will need to identify and leverage many entry points. Immunization service delivery presents a tremendous opportunity to provide children with a durable, portable and secure digital identity early in life, enabling access to a wider range of social services, while also improving access to the health interventions all children need and deserve.

We’re proud to partner with Gavi and excited to see the innovations proposed as part of the INFUSE Challenge. To all innovators: the deadline to apply for the program is April 10th, so please get those applications in!

INFUSE 2018 is calling for proven digital technology innovations — adapted to low-resource environments in developing countries — to help identify and register children, especially girls, who are at risk of missing out on life-saving vaccines. 

Launched at Davos in 2016, Innovation for Uptake, Scale and Equity in Immunisation (INFUSE) helps improve vaccine delivery systems by connecting high-impact, proven innovations with the countries that need them most.
It then “infuses” them with capital and expertise to help take them to scale.

GAVI

“Since 2016, ID2020 has advocated for ethical, privacy-protecting approaches to digital ID.

For the one in seven people globally who lacks a means to prove their identity, digital ID offers access to vital social services and enables them to exercise their rights as citizens and voters and participate in the modern economy. But doing digital ID right means protecting civil liberties and putting control over personal data back where it belongs…in the hands of the individual.

Every day, we rely on a variety of forms of identification to go about our lives: our driver’s license, passport, work badge and building access cards, debit and credit cards, transit passes, and more.

But technology is evolving at a blinding pace and many of the transactions that require identification are today being conducted digitally. From e-passports to digital wallets, online banking to social media accounts, these new forms of digital ID allow us to travel, conduct business, access financial and health records, stay connected, and much more.

While the move to digital ID has had many positive effects, it has been accompanied by countless challenges and setbacks, including large-scale data breaches affecting millions of people. Most of the current tools are archaic, insecure, lack appropriate privacy protections and commoditize our data. But that’s about to change and ID2020 is leading the charge.

We are businesses, nonprofits, governments and individuals…working in collaboration to ensure that the future of digital identity is, indeed, #goodID.” – ID2020.org

Gavi and Zenysis Technologies to bring data and artificial intelligence to immunisation programmes

The partnership supported by Asia’s largest internet services company Tencent will help developing countries reach more children with life-saving vaccines

Geneva, 12 March 2019 – Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance and Zenysis Technologies, a Silicon Valley startup, have established a new strategic partnership that will help low-income countries harness the power of big data and artificial intelligence to improve childhood vaccination programs around the world.

Zenysis Technologies was identified by Gavi, through the INFUSE (Innovation for Uptake, Scale and Equity in Immunisation) yearly call for innovation. INFUSE aims to identify proven solutions which, when brought to scale, have the greatest potential to modernise global health and immunisation delivery.

What the team at Zenysis has built and accomplished to date is in a class of its own. 

David Wallerstein, Tencent’s Chief Exploration Officer

A two-year partnership will provide countries with the Zenysis’ software platform, analytical training and IT skills development. Countries will use the platform’s capabilities to integrate data from their fragmented information systems and help decision-makers see where children are not receiving vaccines. Advanced analytics will then help countries decide how to target their limited resources for maximum impact.

“Weak immunisation data leads to poor planning, often meaning that children, whether they live in urban slums or remote rural outposts, miss out on lifesaving vaccines. Digital transformation of immunisation data and analytics is key to making sure that all children are protected from vaccine-preventable diseases,” said Gavi CEO Dr Seth Berkley. “Our partnership with Zenysis has the potential to increase efficiency and reduce costs for developing countries but, most importantly, it could save lives.”

Since its inception three years ago, Zenysis has expanded into ten countries that now use its software to improve health programs serving over one billion people. The company’s software has been used to optimise nationwide vaccination campaigns allowing for reinvestment in other lifesaving health programs.

“Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance has helped over 70 countries vaccinate more than 700 million children in low income countries,” said Zenysis CEO, Jonathan Stambolis. “However, weak and fragmented information systems at the country level mean that millions of the world’s most vulnerable children have been left behind. We have assembled one of the strongest software engineering teams in Silicon Valley to build the software countries need to address this urgent global health challenge and our partnership with Gavi and Tencent will ensure that technology benefits the countries that need it most.”

We have assembled one of the strongest software engineering teams in Silicon Valley to build the software countries need to address this urgent global health challenge… 

Jonathan Stambolis, Zenysis CEO

The company expects to reach at least fifteen more countries in 2019. This will include Pakistan, where Zenysis will be working with government authorities and Gavi to improve vaccination coverage and equity as well as to accelerate the country’s progress towards a polio-free future. The project has the backing of one of Zenysis’ investors, internet services giant Tencent Holdings, Asia’s largest company. Tencent investment of US$ 4.5 million will be matched by the Gavi Matching Fund.

“We are very excited about the potential for artificial intelligence to transform child health on a global scale”, said David Wallerstein, Tencent’s Chief Exploration Officer.  “I look at hundreds of the fastest-growing startups every year. What the team at Zenysis has built and accomplished to date is in a class of its own. The company’s software will help governments become more effective and targeted at every step of the vaccination challenge, and move with the urgency and speed required to realise Gavi’s vision of a world free of vaccine-preventable illnesses”.

The official Memorandum of Understanding establishing this landmark partnership between Gavi and Zenysis Technologies was signed by Gavi’s CEO Dr Seth Berkley and the Zenysis CEO Jonathan Stambolis in Abu Dhabi during the Gavi Mid-Term Review high-level conference.

I think we’re done here.
But I’ll update this if anything worth noting comes along.

UPDATE DECEMBER 5, 2021

RT

CNN

UPDATE:

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE JANUARY 2022 FOLLOW-UP STORY

2008: Klaus Schwab presents his vision of a ” Global Corporate Citizenship”

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

ORDER

For my mother, who has just buried my father, passed away from a very suspicious heart event involving some clots. She had to bury him in my absence, because the Military BioTech Complex holds us prisoners on two different continents. I had to bury myself in work to keep it together.

Work in progress, I will keep adding pieces to the Tetris until it goes away.
Please return regularly for updates, this is a very long and fascinating story that should change the worldview for most people.

This is to request that the current retention allowance [(b)(6) redaction] for Dr. Anthony S. Fauci be converted to a permanent pay adjustment in the amount [(b)(6) redaction] over his base pay of [(b)(6) redaction] in order to appropriately compensate him for the level of responsibility in his current position of Director, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), National Institutes of Health (NIH), especially as it relates to his work on biodefense research activities.”

GW BUSH

Key points

First, in the US, Military and an emerging petrochemical industry with strong roots in agriculture but expanding into health, among others. The Rockefellers were the main force driving this expansion in the US and bridging over the ocean to Germany, the most advanced country in terms of chemical industrialization.
But it was mostly Crown-controlled and Rothschild-controlled from the City of London, through their many henchmen.

After a few good collaborative experiences, the Military and Pharmafia decided they have a future together, and they bought up the Academia to help with the labs and the brains, as both industries already had a foot in the door there.

Two world wars demonstrated there’s hardly any limit to what they can achieve together.

The Cold War is then used as an excuse to develop more surveillance and population control tools. From these efforts spring1 out Silicon Valley and the Internet.

Before the end of 20th century, Big Pharma and Big Tech are fused by all means: capital, gear, agenda.

The Great Military BioTech Complex is born to be the main Operating System of the system.

9/11 is the launch of the new control grid.

Many of the following events were just test runs.

Covid is a forced upgrade of this operating system.

Weapons trade is disguised as “defense”, bioweapons trade as “biodefense”. And the latter is booming.

Transhumanism Airlines depart from Humanism and are set to land in lifeless soulless material existence.

The Military Biotech Complex Origins

After 1865, American inventiveness turned away from war and toward commerce and industry. Development of the lands of the West did promote some agencies to investigate natural resources. The Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce and Labor, and the National Park Service appeared during this period. While government research tended toward the applied end of the research spectrum, newly-created private foundations, such as the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Institute of Washington, supported much of the nation's basic scientific research.- Daniel Else, "Origins of the Military-Industrial Complex", 2017 
This is the official history, not whistleblowing. It’s redacted by a system critter to make crimes palatable to the normies. Still a good starting point

Summary

Daniel Else explored the results of his year-long inquiry into the organizational underpinnings of that military technological revolution of the 1940s and 1950s. By mining the Library’s resources, Else traced the evolving relationship between science and the federal government leading to the creation of the Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD) in 1941. A temporary wartime agency, OSRD mobilized the nation’s academic and industrial technological resources in support of the war effort, and in so doing profoundly altered the linkages between science and engineering, industry, and government. Else explored those wartime changes and outline their impact, still seen and felt today more than seven decades after V-J Day.

Event Date September 21, 2017

Notes-  Daniel Else was a specialist in national defense in the Congressional Research Service in the Library of Congress and the 2016 Kluge Staff Fellow at the Library’s John W. Kluge Center.

Finally in 1950, the Air Force created a larger organization, the Air Research and Development Command. The House finally passed the Senate bill that had been passed the year before, and the president signed the bill, establishing the National Science Foundation. So in that five-year gap, what we saw was the creation of a number of military, Department of Defense organizations for science and scientific research, and the final NSF bill contained no mandate for military research for the National Science Foundation. 

So, what are its legacy organizations? A number of federal agencies can trace their origins back to the OSRD. National Science Foundation, of course, the Office of Naval Research, the Army Research Development and Engineering, or, and Evaluation Command, Air Force Office of Scientific Research, DTRA, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, DARPA, of course, and in the Department of Energy, the National Nuclear Security Administration, which is the custodian of atomic stockpile. - Daniel Else, "Origins of the Military-Industrial Complex", 2017 
Some of Vannevar Bush’s greatest official honors

One of Vannevar Bush’s PhD students at MIT was Frederick Terman, who was later instrumental in the development of “Silicon Valley”.

Wikipedia
CIA’s Senate Hearing on the Heart Attack Gun and the Bioweapons Developed in Fort Derrick (1975)

MEANWHILE, IN EUROPE

AND FROM THERE TO ALL THE QUEEN’S TERRITORIES

MIT is basically MBTC’s main civilian lab
Rockefeller Medicine – James Corbett
One of the most essential videos on Internet. Source

From Dark Winter to the coming winter – how biodefense drills have altered society

DR. HEIKO SCHÖNING: THE STAGE FOR THE DARK WINTER HAS BEEN SET WITH THE ANTHRAX ATTACKS FROM 2001. There was even an Event201 for the Anthrax attacks. It was called “The Dark Winter”

The Dark Winter exercise was the collaborative effort of 4 organizations. John Hamre of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) initiated and conceived of an exercise wherein senior former officials would respond to a bioterrorist induced national security crisis. Tara O’Toole and Tom Inglesby of the Johns Hopkins Center for Civilian Biodefense Studies and Randy Larsen and Mark DeMier of Analytic Services, Inc., (ANSER) were the principal designers, authors, and controllers of Dark Winter. Sue Reingold of CSIS managed administrative and logistical arrangements. General Dennis Reimer of the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism (MIPT) provided funding for Dark Winter.

DARK WINTER Official page

Deleted article, now ARCHIVED HERE

Simulations and Tabletop Exercises

Part of the: Homeland Security Archived Projects

Preparing homeland security professionals through scenario-based simulations and exercises on key issues.

Steadfast Resolve

The Steadfast Resolve exercise was planned to address the concern that poorly designed government response to the next terrorist attack could disrupt America’s economy and society as much or more than the attack itself. This concern is particularly relevant in the context of an attack that may be harmful, but not catastrophic.

In the event of a next attack, government officials will be under enormous pressure to respond swiftly, more than likely with limited information about the status of the attack or what to expect next. In today’s news cycle, the public – and the situation – will demand a swift and decisive response perhaps before exactly what is happening becomes clear. Confusion, indecision, or false starts at government’s highest levels will be magnified and may have long-lasting ramifications. Getting it wrong will be easier than getting it right. As the Hurricane Katrina experience has demonstrated, a lack of situational awareness, understanding of current plans, and an absence of effective decisionmaking tools can lead to disaster. 

Dark Winter: Bioterrorism Simulation Exercise

In the summer of 2001, a group of senior-level officials, including Gov. Frank Keating of Oklahoma, David Gergen, and James Woolsey, participated in an executive level simulation. Dark Winter simulated a U.S. National Security Council meeting at which senior officials were confronted with a smallpox attack on the United States. The exercise illustrated the issues to be addressed in the event of a bioterrorism crisis, including the challenges facing state and local governments, the role and responsiveness of the federal government, and the likely friction spots between federal- and state-level responders and responses.

Coming as it did before the September 11 terrorist attacks and the subsequent anthrax attacks, Dark Winter generated an enormous amount of interest in both the public policy community and the media. CSIS briefed Vice President Dick Cheney, then National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, then FEMA Director Joe Allbaugh, over 80 members of Congress, senior government officials and leaders, including approximately 20 ambassadors to the United States, and senior government officials from Asia, Latin America, and Europe. Besides raising public awareness of the bioterrorism threat, these briefings contributed to the Bush administration’s decision to manufacture 300 million doses of the smallpox vaccine.

Silent Vector: A Critical Energy Infrastructure Simulation Exercise

The events of September 11 and additional intelligence on al Qaeda demonstrate the potential for an attack against the infrastructure of the United States. To face this challenge, CSIS developed an executive-level simulation focusing on U.S. critical energy infrastructure. The exercise took place in October 2002 and employed a simulated National Security Council of senior policymakers with former senator Sam Nunn, now chairman of CSIS’s Board of Trustees, serving as scenario president.

Silent Vector was designed to simulate possible U.S. reaction to a credible threat of terrorist attack when there is not sufficient information for effective protection. The overall purpose of the exercise was to assist the administration and Congress in their attempts to improve the effectiveness of response during the pre-attack phase of a major terrorist incident. Silent Vector challenged current and former senior government leaders to respond to increasingly credible and specific intelligence indicating the possibility of a large-scale attack against critical energy and energy-related infrastructure on the East Coast of the United States.
 

Black Dawn: A Scenario-Based Exercise on Catastrophic Terrorism

Organized under the auspices of the Strengthening the Global Partnership project by CSIS and the Nuclear Threat Initiative, Black Dawn gathered approximately 55 current and former senior officials and experts from the European Council, the European Commission, NATO, 15 member states, and various international organizations to grapple with the challenges associated with preventing the use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by terrorists.

The exercise aimed to develop a set of actionable recommendations for the EU, NATO and individual European governments to prevent terrorists from acquiring and using WMD. The exercise was designed to energize discussion and debate as various European countries and institutions entered into their policy and budget deliberations. The central question animating the exercise was this: In hindsight, what could we have done to prevent terrorists from acquiring WMD and conducting such an attack? And what more can and should we do now?

The exercise concluded with several lessons learned: the threat of WMD terrorism is real; it could happen in Europe; prevention is the best option; we can take concrete steps to significantly reduce the risk of terrorists acquiring nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons; Europe has a leadership role to play; and we need to act now.

  • Simon Chair BlogCommentaries on U.S. relations with countries in the Western Hemisphere – focusing on international political economy, trade, investment, energy, and other current events.

A “Dark Winter” for Public Health: Meet Homeland Security’s New Bioterror Czarina

by Tom Burghardt / August 24th, 2009

In the wake of the 2001 anthrax attacks, successive U.S. administrations have pumped some $57 billion across 11 federal agencies and departments into what is euphemistically called “biodefense.” Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in January 2005, former U.S. Senate Majority Leader William Frist, a Bushist acolyte, baldly stated that “The greatest existential threat we have in the world today is biological” and predicted that “an inevitable bioterror attack” would come “at some time in the next 10 years.”

Later that year, Frist and former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) covertly inserted language into the 2006 Defense Appropriations bill (H.R. 2863) that granted legal immunity to vaccine manufacturers, even in cases of willful misconduct. It was signed into law by President Bush.

According to Public Citizen and The New York Times, Frist and Hastert benefited financially from their actions; the pair, as well as 41 other congressmen and senators owned as much as $16 million in pharmaceutical stock. revealed that “the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) is purported to be the key author of the language additions. This trade association represents virtually all major vaccine manufacturers.”

The Senate Majority Leader’s alarmist jeremiad at Davos was seconded by Dr. Tara O’Toole who added, “This [bioterrorism] is one of the most pressing problems we have on the planet today.”

Really? Not grinding poverty, global warming or the lack of access by hundreds of millions of impoverished workers and farmers to clean water, an adequate diet, health care or relief from epidemic levels of preventable diseases such as malaria, tuberculosis or diarrhea, but “bioterrorism” as narrowly defined by securocrats and their academic accomplices.

But Dr. Victor W. Sidel, a founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) and an outspoken critic of the Bioweapons-Industrial-Complex challenged O’Toole’s hysterical paradigm.

Sidel made the point that there is a fundamental conflict between the state’s national security goals and health care providers’ professional responsibilities to patients. He wrote in 2003 that “military, intelligence, and law enforcement agencies and personnel have long histories of secrecy and deception that are contrary to the fundamental health principles of transparency and truthfulness. They may therefore be unsuitable partners for public health agencies that need to justify receiving the public’s trust.”

In this context, the choice of O’Toole as the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Undersecretary of Science and Technology is troubling to say the least. As former CEO and Director of UPMC’s Center for Biosecurity, critics charge that O’Toole’s appointment will be nothing short of a disaster.

No ordinary policy wonk with an impressive résumé and years as a government insider, O’Toole is a key player advocating for the expansion of dual-use biological weapons programs rebranded as biodefense.

Subverting the Biological Weapons Convention

The resuscitation of American bioweapons programs are facilitated by their secretive and highly-classified nature. Under cover of academic freedom or intellectual property rights, the U.S. Bioweapons-Industrial-Complex has largely been outsourced by the state to private companies and contractors at top American corporations and universities.

Efforts to strengthen the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) by the inclusion of verification language into the treaty and regular inspection of suspect facilities by international experts have been shot-down since 2001 by the Bush and now, the Obama administrations. Why?

Primarily because the United States view onsite measures as a threat to the commercial proprietary information of multinational pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies as well as to America’s reputedly “defensive” biological programs; initiatives that continue to work with nature’s most dangerous and deadly pathogens.

In fact, the problem of the dual-use nature of such research is a conundrum facing critics who challenge the break-neck expansion of concealed weapons programs. Simply put, military activities can be disguised as commercial research to develop medical countermeasures without anyone, least of all the American people, being any the wiser.

Highly-trained microbiologists deployed across a spectrum of low-key companies, trained for academic, public health, or commercial employment are part of the dual-use problem. Who’s to say whether scientists who genetically-manipulate pathogens or create Frankenstein-like chimera disease organisms (say, synthesized Marburg or Ebola virus as has already been done with poliovirus in a U.S. lab) are engaged in treaty-busting weapons research or the development of life-saving measures.

And what about the accidental, or more sinisterly, the deliberate release of some horrific new plague by a scientist who’s “gone rogue”? As researcher Edward Hammond pointed out:

British researchers pled guilty in 2001 to charges that they improperly handled a genetically engineered hybrid of the viruses causing hepatitis C and dengue fever. British authorities characterized the virus as “more lethal than HIV”. ‘Dengatitis’ was deliberately created by researchers who wanted to use fewer laboratory animals in a search for a vaccine for Hepatitis C. Under unsafe laboratory conditions, the researchers created and nearly accidentally released a new hybrid human disease whose effects, fortunately, remain unknown; but which may have displayed different symptoms than its parents and thus been difficult to diagnose, and have required a new, unknown treatment regime. (Emerging Technologies: Genetic Engineering and Biological Weapons, The Sunshine Project, Background Paper No. 12, November 2003)

A new report by the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation has charged that despite restrictions under the BWC prohibiting the development, production, stockpiling and use of weaponized disease agents such as anthrax, smallpox or plague, as well as equipment and delivery systems intended for offensive use, the rapid growth of “biodefense and research programs over the last decade” has placed “new pressure” on efforts to curb the development of banned weapons listed in the treaty.

In an interview with Global Security Newswire Gerald Epstein, a senior fellow with the hawkish Center for Security and International Studies (CSIS) told the publication, “When one is doing bioresearch and biodefense, one has to be careful to not overstep the treaty itself.”

He cited the U.S biodefense effort Project Bacchus–an investigation by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency to determine whether it was possible to build a bioweapons production facility using readily available equipment–as an instance where questions were raised if the treaty had been violated.

The type of biodefense activity that is most likely to raise questions regarding treaty compliance is “threat assessment,” the process of determining what type of biological attacks are most likely to occur, he told Global Security Newswire. A dangerous biological agent could inadvertently be developed during such research, Epstein said. (Martin Matishak, “Biodefense Research Could Violate Weapons Convention, Report Warns,” Global Security Newswire, August 20, 2009)

But Pentagon bioweaponeers did more than build “a bioweapons productions facility using readily available equipment.” They built banned weapons. According to Jeanne Guillemin, author of Biological Weapons: From the Invention of State-Sponsored Programs to Contemporary Bioterrorism, the Pentagon and CIA made and tested a model of a Soviet anthrax bomb and created an antibiotic-resistant strain of anthrax.

After consulting with scientists who strongly suggested that the CIA anthrax bomb project would violate the BWC, “CIA lawyers decided the project was within the allowed realm of defensive research,” Guillemin revealed. Project Clear Vision, a joint investigation by the CIA and the Battelle Memorial Institute, under contract to the Agency, reconstructed and tested a Soviet-era anthrax bomblet in order to test its dissemination characteristics. The Agency “decided the same” for the small, fully functional bioweapons facility built under the rubric of Project Bacchus.

The third initiative, Project Jefferson, led to the development of an antibiotic-resistant strain of anthrax based on a Soviet model. After the outgoing Clinton administration hesitated to give the CIA the go-ahead for the project, the Bush regime’s National Security Council gave the Pentagon permission. “They believed” Guillemin wrote, “the Pentagon had the right to investigate genetically altered pathogens in the name of biodefense, ‘to save American lives’.”

Shortly thereafter, the Pentagon authorized the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), one of the most secretive and heavily-outsourced Defense Department branches, to re-create the deadly anthrax strain.

What the scope of these programs are today is currently unknown. We do know however, that based on available evidence the Department of Homeland Security, the Defense Department and the oxymoronic Intelligence Community, using the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) as a cover, continue to investigate the feasibility of transforming nature’s most deadly pathogens into weapons.

In close coordination, the United States government and their outsourced corporate partners are spending billions of dollars on research and simulation exercises, dubbed “disaster drills” by a compliant media, to facilitate this grisly trade.

Secrecy and Deceit

That the official bioterror narrative is a preposterous fiction and swindle as even the FBI was forced to admit during its much-maligned Amerithrax investigation, is hardly worth a second glance by corporate media beholden to the pharmaceutical industry for advertising revenue; call it business as usual here in the heimat.

As we now know, the finely-milled anthrax powder which killed five people and shut down representative government didn’t come from the Afghan-Arab database of disposable Western intelligence assets known as al Qaeda, but rather from deep within America’s own Bioweapons-Industrial-Complex, to wit, from the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) at Ft. Detrick in Maryland. But such troublesome and inconvenient truths are barely worth a mention by “respectable” media, e.g. the corporate stenographers who sold two imperialist military adventures to the American people.

Indeed, a credible case can be made that without the anthrax attacks, the fear levels gripping the country in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist events–and the subsequent clamp-down that followed, from the USA Patriot Act to the indefinite detention and torture of “terrorism” suspects, and from warrantless wiretapping to the demonization of dissent–may very well have been impossible.

It is difficult not to conclude that from the beginning of the affair, there was a clear intent on the part of the anthrax terrorist(s) to draw a straight line between 9/11 and the anthrax mailings. From there, it was but a short step to stitching-up a case for “regime change” in Iraq. The media’s role in this criminal enterprise was indispensable for what Salon’s Glenn Greenwald has called“the single greatest, unresolved media scandal of this decade.” As Greenwald points out,

During the last week of October, 2001, ABC News, led by Brian Ross, continuously trumpeted the claim as their top news story that government tests conducted on the anthrax–tests conducted at Ft. Detrick–revealed that the anthrax sent to [former Senator Tom] Daschle contained the chemical additive known as bentonite. ABC News, including Peter Jennings, repeatedly claimed that the presence of bentonite in the anthrax was compelling evidence that Iraq was responsible for the attacks, since–as ABC variously claimed–bentonite “is a trademark of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein’s biological weapons program” and “only one country, Iraq, has used bentonite to produce biological weapons.” (Glenn Greenwald, “Vital unresolved anthrax questions and ABC News,” Salon, August 1, 2008)

Despite ABC News’ claims that their information came from “four well-placed and separate sources,” they were fed information that was patently false; as Greenwald avers, “No tests ever found or even suggested the presence of bentonite. The claim was just concocted from the start. It just never happened.”

And as we will shortly explore below, the dubious “Dark Winter” and “Atlantic Storm” bioterror exercises designed by Dr. Tara O’Toole freely drew from the neocon’s sinister playbook, right down to the weaponized smallpox supplied to al Qaeda by Saddam.

Whether or not one buys the current permutation of the “lone nut” theory, this one alleges that Dr. Bruce Ivins, a vaccine specialist employed by USAMRIID, was the anthrax mailer; the fact is, when all is said and done the attacks, to use a much over-hyped phrase, were an inside job.

And like other “lone nuts” who have entered the parapolitical frame at their own peril, Ivins isn’t around to refute the charges.

The Alliance for Biosecurity: Insiders with a Mission and (Very) Deep Pockets

Before being pegged by the Obama administration to head DHS’s Science and Technology division where she will oversee the department’s billion dollar budget, with some 45 percent of it going towards chemical and bioweapons defense, O’Toole, as previously mentioned, was the CEO and Director of UPMC’s Center for Biosecurity, a satrapy which describes itself as “an independent organization dedicated to improving the country’s resilience to major biological threats.”

How “independent”? You make the call!

According to their web site The Alliance for Biosecurity is “a collaboration among the Center for Biosecurity and 13 pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies whose mission is to work in the public interest to improve prevention and treatment of severe infectious diseases–particularly those diseases that present global security challenges.”

Alliance partners include the usual suspects: Bavarian Nordic; Center for Biosecurity of UPMC; Cangene Corporation; DOR BioPharma, Inc.; DynPort Vaccine Company LLC, a CSC company; Elusys Therapeutics, Inc.; Emergent BioSolutions; Hematech, Inc., a subsidiary of Kyowa Kirin; Human Genome Sciences, Inc.; NanoViricides, Inc.; Pfizer Inc.; PharmAthene; Siga Technologies, Inc.; Unither Virology LLC, a subsidiary of United Therapeutics Corporation. Rounding out this rogues gallery are associate members, the spooky Battelle Medical Research and Evaluation Facility and the Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute.

Among the chief activities of the Alliance is lobbying Congress for increased funding for the development of new drugs deemed “countermeasures” under the Project BioShield Act of 2004, previously described by Antifascist Calling as a particularly grotesque piece of Bushist legislative flotsam.

The Alliance avers that “the United States faces unprecedented risks to national security … by the clear and growing danger of bioterrorism or a destabilizing infectious disease pandemic,” and that “our nation’s vulnerability to biothreats is so severe” due to the fact that “most of the vaccines and medicines that will be needed to protect our citizens do not now exist.” Therefore, countermeasures needed to mitigate nebulous biothreats never spelled out once in the group’s literature “will likely require several years and several hundred million dollars each to successfully develop and produce.” (emphasis added)

An Alliance report, The State of Biosecurity in 2008 and Proposals for a Public/Private Pathway Forward, charts a course for “improving and accelerating” efforts to “develop medical countermeasures (MCMs) for the nation’s Strategic National Stockpile (SNS).”

Under the Project Bioshield Act of 2004, Congress authorized $5.6 billion over ten years “to purchase MCMs for the SNS.” Funds were allocated for the procurement of the anthrax vaccine as well as for “therapeutic antibodies for inhalational anthrax, a botulism heptavalent antitoxin, a smallpox vaccine, and several products for radiological and nuclear threats, obligating a total of about $1.9 billion of the $5.6 billion BioShield fund.”

In 2006 as I noted previously, Congress created the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). BARDA was authorized to spend some $1.07 billion over three years for MCMs, “only $201 million has been provided by Congress through FY 2008″ noted the Alliance, “approximately one-fifth of the authorized level.”

According to an “independent economic analysis” carried out by (who else!) the Alliance’s academic partner, the Center for Biosecurity, “it would require $3.4 billion in FY 2009 to support one year of advanced development.”

“Similarly” according to the organization, “the original appropriation of $5.6 billion for Project BioShield is equally insufficient to ensure that once MCMs are developed there will be funds available to procure them and maintain the stockpile.” Indeed, “this level of funding would need to be sustained for many years.” You can bet however, that Alliance lobbyists are busy as proverbial bees in pressuring Congress to fork over the dough!

The report state’s that Alliance goals necessarily entail instilling “a sense of urgency … with Congress” by hyping the “bioterror threat.” But there’s much more here than a simple cynical exercise at preparing the “public diplomacy” ground through academic and industry “message force multipliers” that will enable Congress to shower Big Pharma with a veritable tsunami of cash. A “risk-tolerant culture” should be promoted within BARDA, one that “understands the realities, risks, timelines, and costs of drug development.”

The “risks” to whom and for what purpose are not enumerated, but one can be certain that a “risk-tolerant culture” crafted by industry insiders will come at the expense of the health and safety of the American people, one that pushes potential legal liability should things head south onto the taxpaying public.

The stealth nature of Alliance recommendations are clearly spelled out when they aver that “stakeholders” should “focus more on the potential biothreats and the corresponding countermeasures, rather than the price tag” and that BARDA, ostensibly a public agency, should be packed with insiders “who have drug development and manufacturing experience.” This will lead to the development of “a culture that is focused on partnering with industry and academia.”

But the bottom line as always, is the corporatist bottom line for Alliance shareholders! How else can one interpret their statement that emerging “biothreats” are all the more dire today now that “interest of the public and private capital markets in biodefense has declined over the last 2-3 years.” What better way then, to beef-up those sagging capital markets than to install an industry-friendly individual at DHS with a documented track record of overplaying the “bioterror threat.”

Dark Winter

O’Toole was the principal designer of two “tabletop” bioterror preparedness drills, the 2001 Dark Winter exercise and the 2005 Atlantic Storm run-through; both were criticized by scientific experts as fabrications of an alleged threat of a smallpox attack mounted by al Qaeda.

Reviewing Milton Leitenberg’s 2005 report, Assessing the Biological Weapons and Bioterrorism Threat, published the U.S. Army War College’s Strategic Studies Institute, protein chemist Dr. Eric Smith wrote the following:

Of note is Leitenberg’s dissection of the process of assessment as practiced through bioterrorism threat scenarios conducted by the US government and private think tanks. Exercises like Dark Winter, which modeled an “aerosolized” smallpox attack, Top Off 2 and 3, both on pneumonic plague strikes, and Atlantic Storm, an exercise that purported to show an al Qaida group manufacturing a dry powder smallpox weapon, were rigged. In the cases of Dark Winter and the Top Offs, transmission rates of disease were sexed up beyond historical averages so that “a disastrous outcome was assured” no matter any steps taken to contain outbreaks. Eight pages are reserved to pointedly condemn the Atlantic Storm exercise on a host of sins which can generally be described as a bundle of frank lies and misinformation coupled with a claimed terrorist facility for making smallpox into a weapon that even state run biological warfare operations did not possess. And once again, juiced transmission rates of disease were employed to grease theoretical calamity. The reader comes to recognize the deus ex machina–a concoction or intervention added to dictate an outcome, in these cases very bad ones–as a regular feature of the exercises. However, the results of the same assessments–the alleged lessons learned–have never been reported with much, if any, skepticism in the media. (Eric Smith, “A Vaccine for the Hype: Milton Leitenberg’s new ‘Assessing the Biological Weapons and Bioterrorism Threat,” Global Security, National Security Notes, March 31, 2006)

In criticizing “the fancy that such attacks are easy and one of the most catastrophic threats faced by the American people,” Smith denounces the alarmist scenarios of Dark Winter and Atlantic Storm’s designers–people like Dr. Tara O’Toole and the coterie of industry insiders and other well-paid “experts”–as guilty of perpetrating a massive “fraud … and a substantial one” on the American people.

While one of Atlantic Storm’s architects proclaimed “this is not science fiction” and that “the age of Bioterror is now…” Leitenberg and Smith denounce O’Toole’s spurious claims as “not the least bit plausible.”

Leitenberg wrote that “well before October-November 2001, the spectre of ‘bioterrorism’ benefitted from an extremely successful sales campaign.” Indeed, hyped-up scenarios such as Dark Winter and Atlantic Storm that place “weapons of mass destruction” in the hands of shadowy, intelligence-linked terror outfits like al Qaeda provided “inflated predictions that … were certainly not realistic. Much worse, in addition to being wrong, inflated predictions were counterproductive. They induced interest in BW in the wrong audiences.”

But the implausible nature of the scenarios deployed in national exercises hardly prohibited the Bioweapons-Industrial-Complex from concocting scarecrow-like straw men designed to sow terror amongst the American people while extracting regular infusions of cash from Congress.

Among the eight exercises analyzed by Leitenberg between 1998-2005, he found that each and every one were fraudulently designed and the threat of bioterrorism had been framed as a rationalization for “political action, the expenditure of public funds for bioterrorism prevention and response programs,” that could “not occur without it.” This is “not benign,” Leitenberg concludes.

A second consequence of sexed-up “bioterror” drills have even more ominous implications for the immediate future. Because of national security state perceptions that mitigation of catastrophic bioterrorism is of supreme importance for national survival–perceptions reinforced by academic, corporate and militarist peddlers of crisis–”the US biodefense research program appears to be drifting into violation” of the Biological Weapons Convention. This is a menacing development and has happened, I would argue precisely because the evaluation process which justifies research into biological weapons threat capabilities and scenarios, are repackaged to conceal the offensive thrust of this research as wholly defensive in nature, which it certainly is not.

How else would one explain ongoing research funded by the National Institutes of Health to study botulism toxin, “with the added qualification” Smith points out, that because the protein toxin is “unstable, therefore there will be collaboration with other researchers to stabilize it.” The NIH grant “means preparing a much more effective botulinum toxin than had been available before.”

Smith goes on to cite “another problematical breakout” offered by two scientists to study the “aerobiological” characteristics of the lethal Marburg and Ebola viruses. How this is “defensive” in nature, in keeping with research restrictions under the Biological Weapons Convention, is another instance of a backdoor move to kick-start illicit bioweapons development.

According to Smith, the study “looks to define how the organisms can be aerosolized, an instance of research into examining vulnerability in the complete absence of a verified threat.” But I would argue that showering taxpayers dollars into such dark and troubling research tributaries deploy hyped-up threats as cover for the development of illegal weapons.

When her nomination was announced in May, Rutgers University and homeland security critic Richard Ebright told Wired,

“This is a disastrous nomination. O’Toole supported every flawed decision and counterproductive policy on biodefense, biosafety, and biosecurity during the Bush Administration. O’Toole is as out of touch with reality, and as paranoiac, as former Vice President Cheney. It would be hard to think of a person less well suited for the position.”

“She was the single most extreme person, either in or out of government, advocating for a massive biodefense expansion and relaxation of provisions for safety and security,” he adds. “She makes Dr. Strangelove look sane.” (Noah Shachtman, “DHS’ New Geek Chief is a Bioterror ‘Disaster,’ Critics Charge,” Wired, May 6, 2009)

And Dr. Smith told Wired that exercises designed by O’Toole and her colleagues show her to be “the top academic/salesperson for the coming of apocalyptic bioterrorism which has never quite arrived.”

As noted above, “[She’s] most prominent for always lobbying for more money for biodefense, conducting tabletop exercises on bioterrorism for easily overawed public officials, exercises tweaked to be horrifying,” Smith told Wired.

But Smith goes even further and denounces O’Toole as an industry shill who “has never obviously appeared to examine what current terrorist capabilities have been… in favor of extrapolating how easy it would be to launch bioterror attacks if one had potentially unlimited resources and scientific know-how.” It’s a “superb appointment if you’re in the biodefense industry and interested in further opportunity and growth.”

“Alternatively” Smith avers, O’Toole’s appointment is “a disaster if threat assessment and prevention” has “some basis in reality.”

Not that any of this matters in Washington. The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee led by “independent Democrat” and arch neocon Sen. Joseph Lieberman, voted to send her nomination to the full Senate July 29.

Never mind that the deadly weaponized pathogen employed in the attacks didn’t originate in some desolate Afghan cave or secret underground bunker controlled by Saddam.

And never mind that the principal cheerleaders for expanding state-funded programs are Pentagon bioweaponeers, private corporations and a shadowy nexus of biosecurity apparatchiks who stand to make a bundle under current and future federal initiatives.

Leading the charge for increased funding is the Alliance for Biosecurity, a collaborative venture between the Center for Biosecurity of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) and Big Pharma.

Tom Burghardt is a researcher and activist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. His articles are published in many venues. He is the editor of Police State America: U.S. Military “Civil Disturbance” Planning

Bioweapon manufacturing and trading is ‘biodefense’. Guess who does the bioterrorism that sells the ‘biodefense’.
Deleted article ARCHIVED HERE

 Soviet scientists reportedly used newly developed genetic engineering techniques to create vaccine-subverting and antibiotic-resistant strains of anthrax, plague, tularemia, and smallpox for attacks against military forces and civilian populations (Bozheyeva et al. 1999Alibek and Handelman 2000)

More info: BBC / GRUNGE / THE GUARDIAN
Sure
Is that US bill ‘military’ for the same reason the Defence Force is involved in this act?
SOURCE
TRUMP: WE’RE MOBILIZING THE MILITARY TO DELIVER THE CORONAVIRUS VACCINE END OF 2020
Dr Sharad S. Chauhan is a decorated Indian Police Service (IPS) officer awarded the Prime Minister’s baton and the Home Minister’s Revolver. He is also a Gold Medallist MBBS Doctor from Delhi University with a PhD in Bioterrorism. He also authored the book Biological Weapons.
SOURCE

The market is fragmented, and the degree of fragmentation will accelerate during the forecast period. Alexeter Technologies LLC, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc., Altimmune Inc., ANP Technologies Inc., Bavarian Nordic AS, Cleveland BioLabs Inc., Elusys Therapeutics Inc., Emergent BioSolutions Inc., General Dynamics Corp., and GlaxoSmithKline Plc are some of the major market participants. Although the rising prevalence of infectious disease and rapid increase in government funding in R&D will offer immense growth opportunities, to leverage the current opportunities, market vendors must strengthen their foothold in the fast-growing segments, while maintaining their positions in the slow-growing segments.

TECHNAVIO BIODEFENSSE MARKET REPORT

GERMAN & UK DEFENSE WORK ON MASSIVE “HUMAN AUGUMENTATION” PROJECT FOR CIVILIAN POPULATION

In an exclusive interview, Dr. Boyle touches upon GreatGameIndia‘s exclusive report Coronavirus Bioweapon – where we reported in detail how Chinese Biowarfare agents working at the Canadian lab in Winnipeg were involved in the smuggling of Coronavirus to Wuhan’s lab from where it is believed to have been leaked.

In this bombshell interview (full transcript below), Boyle talks about:

  • The bioweapons origins of the coronavirus
  • How the Deep State deployed anthrax on US soil to whip up publicity about biological weapons and increase funding for bioweapons labs
  • Why the WHO and CDC are both criminal organizations which are complicit in the covert development of biological weapons
  • The “death science” industry and why the US government has spent over $100 billion developing self-replicating weapons
  • Details about the Pirbright Institute and its ties to bioweapons, depopulation, vaccines and coronavirus patents. (It’s partially funded by Bill & Melinda Gates)
  • Why all BSL-3 and BSL-4 labs in the world should be banned and shut down.

Full transcript


Geopolitics and Empire: Geopolitics & Empire is joined by Dr. Francis Boyle, who is international law professor at the University of Illinois. We’ll be discussing the Wuhan coronavirus and biological warfare. He’s served as counsel to numerous governments such as Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Palestinian authority. He’s represented numerous national international bodies in the areas of human rights, war crimes and genocide, nuclear policy, and biowarfare. He’s written numerous books, one of my favorites being “Destroying Libya and World Order”, which I assigned as mandatory reading material for my own students when I taught at the Monterrey Institute of Technology.

But most important for this interview, he’s written a book called “Biowarfare and Terrorism”, and drafted the US domestic implementing legislation for the biological weapons convention, known as the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 that was approved unanimously by both houses of the US Congress and signed into law by President Bush. Thanks for joining us, Dr. Boyle.

Dr. Francis Boyle: Wow. Thank you so much for having me on and thanks for that kind introduction.

Geopolitics and Empire:  Now let’s get to what’s been on the news recently. This coronavirus in Wuhan. There have been some reports recently, there’s a really interesting website called GreatGameIndia that has been reporting on this. They’ve been talking about China, which they say has been complying with biological weapons convention in recent years.

But then there are some people in the US and experts that have been saying that in reality, China isn’t complying with the weapons convention. And I think neither, perhaps the US as well. I’m wondering if China is developing its own biosafety level four lab in Wuhan and elsewhere, as you know, as a type of deterrence. Is it a type of a biological arms race that we have going on?

You told me in an email that you suspect China was developing the coronavirus as a dual use of biowarfare weapons agent. Also, what do you make of reports that Chinese scientists have been stealing research and viruses, including the coronavirus from a Canadian bio lab this past December?

And as well, Chinese nationals have been charged with smuggling vials of biological research to China from the US with the aid of Charles Lieber who was the chair of Harvard’s chemistry department. And he also happens to be in 2011 a strategic scientist at Wuhan University. So, can you tell us what’s going on with this recent outbreak in Wuhan?

Dr. Francis Boyle: Well, that’s a lot of questions. I guess we can take them one at a time, but if you just do a very simple Google search on “Does China have a BSL-4 laboratory?”, Wuhan comes up right away. It’s at the top of the list. That’s all with the moment this type of thing happened I began to do that. So a BSL-4 is the most serious type. And basically BSL-4 labs, we have many of them here in the United States, are used to develop offensive biological warfare weapons with DNA genetic engineering.

So it does seem to me that the Wuhan BSL-4 is the source of the coronavirus. My guess is that they were researching SARS, and they weaponize it further by giving it a gain of function properties, which means it could be more lethal.

Indeed, the latest report now is it’s a 15% fatality rate, which is more than SARS at 83% infection rate. A typical gain of function travels in the air so it could reach out maybe six feet or more from someone emitting a sneeze or a cough. Likewise, this is a specially designated WHO research lab. The WHO was in on it and they knew full well what was going on there.

Yes. It’s also been reported that Chinese scientists stole coronavirus materials from the Canadian lab at Winnipeg. Winnipeg is Canada’s formal center for research, developing, testing, biological warfare weapons. It’s along the lines of Fort Detrick here in the United States of America. I have three degrees from Harvard. It would not surprise me if something was being stolen out of Harvard to turn over to China. I read that report. I don’t know what was in those vials one way or the other.

But the bottom line is I drafted the US domestic implementing legislation for the Biological Weapons Convention that was approved unanimously by both Houses in the United States Congress signed into law by President Bush Sr. that it appears the coronavirus that we’re dealing with here is an offensive biological warfare weapon that leaped out of Wuhan BSL-4. I’m not saying it was done deliberately. But there had been previous reports of problems with that lab and things leaking out of it. I’m afraid that is what we are dealing with today.

Geopolitics and Empire: We’ll be talking about the Wuhan and the coronavirus and China, but can you give us kind of like a bigger context. I know you’ve, previously, in interviews said that since 9/11, you think that the US has spent $100 billion on biological warfare research. We know the Soviet Union, if I’m not mistaken, developed anthrax as a bioweapon. And you’ve also mentioned that UK, France, Israel and China are all involved in biological warfare weapons research.

And something interesting, I believe one or two years ago a Bulgarian journalist and the Russian government shared their concern of the discovery of a US bioweapons lab in the country of Georgia. You’ve commented how in Africa, US has set up bioweapons labs to work on Ebola, which I think is illegal under international law. But they were allowed somehow to put those in Africa. Can you give us like a bigger picture? What’s going on with these different countries and what’s the purpose of this research?

Dr. Francis Boyle: All these BSL-4 labs are by United States, Europe, Russia, China, Israel are all there to research, develop, test biological warfare agents. There’s really no legitimate scientific reason to have BSL-4 labs. That figure I gave $100 billion, that was about 2015 I believe. I had crunched the numbers and came up with that figure the United States since 9/11.

To give you an idea that’s as much in constant dollars as the US spent to develop the Manhattan Project and the atom bomb. So it’s clearly all weapons related. We have well over 13,000 alleged life science scientists involved in research developed testing biological weapons here in the United States. Actually this goes back it even precedes 9/11 2001.

I have another book, The Future of International Law and American Foreign Policy, tracing that all the way back to the Reagan administration under the influence of the neocons and they got very heavily involved in research development testing of biological weapons with DNA genetic engineers. It was because of that I issued my plea in 1985 in a Congressional briefing sponsored by the Council for Responsible Genetics, I’m a lawyer for them. They’re headquartered in Cambridge, Mass. All the MIT, Harvard people are involved in that, the principal ones. And then they asked me to draft the implementing legislation.

The implementing legislation that I drafted was originally designed to stop this type of work. “Death science work”, I call it, “by the United States government”. After 9/11, 2001, it just completely accelerated. My current figure, that last figure a 100 billion. I haven’t had a chance to re-crunch the numbers because I just started classes. But you have to add in about another 5 billion per year.

Basically, this is offensive biological weapons raised by the United States government and with its assistance in Canada and Britain. And so other States, the world have responded accordingly including Russia and China. They were going to set up a whole series of BSL-4 facilities as well. And you know Wuhan was the first. It backfired on them.

Geopolitics and Empire: Would you basically consider what happened and Wuhan and just boil it down to ineptitude or incompetence on the Chinese part?

Dr. Francis Boyle: Well, it’s criminality. It does appear they stole something there from Winnipeg. This activity that they engaged in clearly violates the Biological Weapons Convention. Research development of biological weapons these days is an international crime, the use of it would be. That was criminal.

I’m not saying they deliberately inflicted this on their own people, but it leaked out of there and all these BSL-4 facilities leak. Everyone knows that who studies this. So this was a catastrophe waiting to happen. Unfortunately, it happened. The Chinese government under Xi and his comrades there have been covering this up from the get-go. The first reported case was December 1, so they’d been sitting on this until they couldn’t anymore. And everything they’re telling you is a lie. It’s propaganda.

The WHO still refuses to declare a global health emergency. It said Tedros was over there shaking hands with Xi and smiling and yanking it up. The WHO was in on it. They’ve approved many of these BSL-4 labs., they know exactly what’s going on and that is a WHO research-approved laboratory. They know what’s going on too. You can’t really believe anything the WHO is telling you about this, either they’re up to their eyeballs in it, in my opinion.

Geopolitics and Empire: I’d probably agree with you that this outbreak in Wuhan was an accidental leak from the laboratory. But just your thoughts, it’s happening at quite an opportune time because namely we’re smack in the middle of a US-China new Cold War, which is currently characterized by economic warfare such as the trade war among other forms of hybrid and technological warfare. And it seems the Wuhan outbreak will likely hit the Chinese economy hard. The Chinese are flat out dismissing any idea that the US is involved in. Like I said, it’s probably they made the mistakes in the Wuhan lab. What are your thoughts of any seemingly, this would benefit the US…

Dr. Francis Boyle: When the outbreak occurred, of course I considered that alternative too. When you have an outbreak, you’re never quite sure who or what is behind it. It certainly isn’t bats, that’s ridiculous. They made the same argument on Ebola in West Africa. I demolished that online. You can check it out. So I kept competing theories about this.

But right now, when you originally contacted me, I said I wasn’t prepared to comment because I was weighing the evidence. I’m a law professor and a lawyer,  I try to do the best I can to weigh the evidence. But right now, the Wuhan BSL-4 in my opinion is the most likely source, apply Occam’s razor, the simplest explanation. I’m not ruling out some type of sabotage. But right now, I believe that is the source here.

Geopolitics and Empire: And you mentioned WHO. I’d like to just get your thoughts on the WHO and the Big Pharma. There’s also some analysts who are downplaying this news media hype of the coronavirus. You’ve just said that it seems to be lethal, but if we go back a decade to the 2009 swine flu, which I believe didn’t have too many casualties, but I think profited greatly the pharmaceutical companies. If I recall that back in 2009, many countries purchased great stocks of the vaccines and they ended up not using anywhere from 50 to 80% of the vaccines that they purchased.

You’ve previously stated in an interview that the World Health Organization is a front for Big Pharma if I’m not mistaken. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. also agrees and he says, you know, 50% of WHO funding comes from pharmaceutical companies. And that the CDC itself is also severely compromised. What are your thoughts on the WHO? The CDC?

Dr. Francis Boyle: Can’t trust anything the WHO says because they’re all bought and paid for by Big Pharma and when they work in cahoots with the CDC, which is the United States government, they work in cahoots with Fort Detrick, so you can’t trust any of it.

However, the swine flu and yes, I agree pharma made a lot of money, but that swine flu which I looked at it, it did seem to me to be a genetically modified biological warfare weapon. It was a chimera of three different types of genetic strains that someone put it together in a cocktail. Fortunately, it was not as lethal as all of us fear. So fine. But as I said, this figure I just gave to you was Saturday from Lancet, which is a medical publication, saying it’s a 15% fatality rate and an 83% infection rate. So it’s quite serious, I think, far more serious than the swine flu.

As for big pharma, sure they’re all trying to profit off this today as we speak. There was a big article yesterday in the Wall Street Journal, all big pharma trying to peddle whatever they can over there in China even if it’s worthless and won’t help. We do know, if you read the mainstream news media they say there isn’t a vaccine.

Well, there is, it’s by the Pirbright Institute in Britain that’s tied into their biological warfare program over there. They were behind the hoof and mouth disease outbreak over there that wiped out their cattle herd and it leaked out of there. So it’s clear they’re working on a hoof and mouth biological warfare weapon, but the vaccine is there. I have the patent for it here, I haven’t had a chance to read the patent it’s about 25 pages long and my classes just resume. So eventually, I get some free time and I’ll read the patent.

You can’t patent a vaccine with the United States patent office unless the science is there. So there is a vaccine. Everyone’s lying about that, no one’s pointing this out – there’s a vaccine but instead big pharma wants to make money and the researchers say, well, it’ll take three months and we’re racing forward, you know. Everyone’s gonna make a buck off of this, that’s for sure. But there is a vaccine, I have the patent here. It’s been patented by the United States government.

So obviously, I don’t know exactly how workable it is, but it’s a vaccine. I don’t know why it isn’t out there now? Why isn’t someone saying there is a vaccine? Perhaps political leaders have already been vaccinated for all I know, I really don’t know.  But there is a vaccine, Pirbright is well known there in Britain and it’s tied into Fort Detrick and CDC is tied into Fort Detrick too. So they all know there’s a patented vaccine.

Geopolitics and Empire:  And just to get your comment on, I mean, something to related to this, which was my next question. So I think, I’m not sure if it’s that same Institute that you just mentioned that has the patent.  I read somewhere that the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation maybe funds or has some connection to that Institute that has the patent.

Dr. Francis Boyle:  I think they do. The Bill & Melinda Gates information, they fund this type of DNA genetically engineered biological warfare work. That’s correct. So you can’t trust anything they’re telling you that somehow they’re out there trying to make the world a better place.  I mean, we have Bill Gates publicly admitting that the world be a better place if there were a lot less people. So the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation, they are wolves in sheep’s clothing and they are funding this type of stuff. Sure.

Geopolitics and Empire: And just your comment, there was also the report that I guess it was a consortium of companies which included the Gates foundation that back in just two or three months ago in October of 2019 they held a pandemic exercise simulating an outbreak. I mean, what are the chances specifically of a coronavirus and it was called events 201. People can find this online online and they gave a list of seven recommendations for governments and international organizations to take. I also find that kind of interesting how they had this simulation.

Dr. Francis Boyle:  That’s correct. It raises that question,  the origins of what happened here.  But right now, I’m just looking at the evidence I have and applying Occam’s razor and we know that Wuhan BSL-4 was research developing, testing, SARS as a biological warfare agent. So it could have been, they gave it this DNA genetic engineering enhanced properties gain of function which we do here in the West, in the United States all the time. We have  all sorts of research that is clearly a bio warfare research that has been  approved by the National Institutes of Health, it’s a joke. They know full well they are proving all kinds of biological warfare research and it gets funded by the United States government.

Geopolitics and Empire:  And you’ve also mentioned in the email to me that what happened in the biosafety lab level 4 in Wuhan calls into question the safety of all of these level 3and 4four labs around the world.

Dr. Francis Boyle:  They’re complete unsafe. BSL-3 and BSL-4 lab are only designed for research development testing of offense of biological warfare agents.  In my opinion, they serve no legitimate purpose at all. They should all be shut down, every one of them. Even assuming, they’re simply too dangerous. If you want, there’s an excellent  documentary called Anthrax Wars by Nadler and Coen and I’m in there.  Repeatedly at the end, I say with respect to these labs, three and four, this is a catastrophe waiting to happen. Well, I’m afraid the catastrophe is now happened. So there it is.

Geopolitics and Empire:  Yeah, I was just watching that documentary before we connected and I recommend the listeners go check that out. Do you see, in the future, any countries,  if we come to a conflict between US, EU, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran, China, Russia,  I mean you name it. Do you see any of these countries actually utilizing these biological weapons?  I mean, it’s illegal under international law but we know like in the past that international law isn’t followed. Do you think that there’s a real danger of this escalating?

Dr. Francis Boyle: For sure. That’s the only reason they develop these biological weapons to eventually be used, sure.  I mean, it’s like the Manhattan project, we put all that money into developing an atom bomb and even though it was not needed to end world war II they still knew Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So, yes,  I think that’s correct.  And also these can be used covertly. Anytime you see an unexplained  sudden outbreak of a disease like this anywhere in the world, both for human beings and or animals, I always suspect the bio warfare agent is at work.  I monitor the situation like I did at Wuhan until I can reach a conclusion. Yes, they can be used as the eyes for the United States government, today they are fully prepared, armed, equipped, supplied to wage a biological warfare with anthrax.

These other more exotic things I don’t know, but they have the weapons, there are stockpiles. We have to understand if you read Seymour Martin Hersh’s book published about 1968, he won the Pulitzer prize, he had the whole offensive US biological warfare industry in there back before it was illegal and criminal. Basically after 9/11, 2001, that entire industry – offensive biological warfare industry has been reconstituted here in the United States with all these BSL-4 BSL-3 labs, well over 13,000, alleged scientists sort of like Dr. Mengele working on these things. Other countries have responded in kind like Russia, like China, France is involved, Britain’s involved. Sure.

Geopolitics and Empire: I just wanted to get your thoughts on, in the last few years there was the Russian double agent spy Sergei Skripal who had been allegedly poisoned with Novichok out in Britain and  I thought it was funny. It just so happened where he was allegedly poisoned, he was right in Porton down the British bio weapons lab, I guess the world’s first bio weapons lab that was created in 1916. I mean,  I don’t know if you have thoughts on that whole incident.

Dr. Francis Boyle: Yeah, I was right down the street from Porton Down, so applying Occam’s razor who you think might’ve been behind this and it was not a nerve agent. A nerve agent would have killed him immediately. This is Novichok. It was something else like DX or something like that. So fine. But, I would just say that I don’t think that was a coincidence, but, you know, there you go. There’s the, obviously there’s a lot of speculation on that.

Geopolitics and Empire: Something else that’s kind of interesting. You’ve written in bio warfare and terrorism in your book and there’s also Graeme Macqueen, I think your colleague who wrote the anthrax deception the case for domestic conspiracy…

Dr. Francis Boyle:  Everything you said in there. That’s correct.

Geopolitics and Empire:  I’m wondering also if this new war for biotechnological dominance, whatever you want to call it, if it can also be used kind of as a pretext for the centralization of political power and the initiation of wars like I guess it did in the 2003 Iraq war. I mean, is this another danger that we get these events like now this coronavirus and then governments will call for a centralization of greater power and taking away some of our civil liberties?

Dr. Francis Boyle:  Sure. If you look at the October, 2001 anthrax attacks here in the United States, that was clearly by elements of the United States government that was behind that. That was a super weapons grade anthrax with a trillion spores per gram and it floated in the air solely a very sophisticated biological weapons lab like Fort Detrick could produce that. And they use that anthrax attack including on Congress to brand through the USA Patriot act which basically turned the United States to a police state which is what we have now. You have to understand the Pentagon, Fort Dietrich made the dugway proving ground still has a stockpile of that super weapons grade anthrax that we saw in October of 2001 that they can use the next time they want to do something like that to further develop the American police thing. Right.

Geopolitics and Empire:  Is there anything else you feel important to mention regarding this Wuhan Coronavirus outbreak or biological warfare or any other thoughts you’d like to leave us with?

Dr. Francis Boyle:  Well, you just can’t believe anything the Chinese government, the WHO,  the CDC are telling. They’re all lies because they know what’s going on here  and so you’re going to have to figure it out as fast as you can. But in my opinion, as of this time and I’m fully prepared to consider further evidence on this, it does seem to me that this was  a DNA genetically engineered biological warfare agent leaking out of Wuhan that has gain-of-function properties which can make it more lethal.  I think they are probably doing something with SARS to make it a lot more lethal and more infectious. And so for that reason,  you have to take extreme precautions and they’re now finally admitted anyone within six feet can be infected, whereas with SARS that was about two feet. Well, that’s gaining a function right there and that should be a tip off.

So, I guess you’re gonna have to protect yourself.  Laurie Garrett had a pretty good essay in a foreign policy yesterday and she was over there covering the SARS and she has very good advice in there except that she took the SARS figure out two to three feet and said  well, you gotta stay to two to three. I think you’ve got to stay at least six feet away because this is gained function. It can flow through the air and infect and it can get you in the eyes. Any orifice, the mouth, maybe the ears, we’re not sure at this point.

Geopolitics and Empire: I’m here on the border of China in Kazakhstan and I was just reading yesterday – today that they’re no longer allowing Chinese citizens into Kazakhstan without a medical paper, a medical check to get their visas to enter Kazakhstan

Dr. Francis Boyle:  Those medical checks are worthless because this is just public relations by all the governments involved because there is a 14 day incubation period where people can still be infected. So someone could walk right through a medical inspection and passing a gate into your country and then they come down with the coronavirus.  So that’s all public relations in my opinion by governments and they know it and they’re just sending people out there with temperatures and things like that. It’s not like SARS, this is more dangerous than SARS.  As I said, I think that Wuhan lab, we know they had SARS in there that they were dealing with and I think they enhanced it at and  I’m afraid that’s what we’re dealing with. But you know, I’m keeping an open mind as to what other sources that might have and I wasn’t prepared to say anything until that Wuhan lab is right there and it’s dealing with coronavirus. So again, apply Occam’s razor. It seems to me that’s the simplest explanation here.

Geopolitics and Empire: I guess my, one of my final question would be in the months ahead, apart of what you say staying six feet away from people.  I’ve read taking high doses of vitamin C and other things like this can help you. But, if they come out as the situation develops and if it gets worse and they come out with a coronavirus vaccine,  should people take it or not? What are your thoughts?

Dr. Francis Boyle:  Well, what I would say is this. Right now, if you look at the article at the Wall Street Journal, big pharma is trying to sell all sorts of – they’re taking all their drugs off the shelf and say well let’s see if it works. Which is preposterous. Okay. The scientists are saying, well, we can get you a vaccine maybe two to three months but they’re not tested.  So what we do know, however, is that Pirbright vaccine has been patented. So all I can assume is that that might work. But I don’t think I’d be taking any of these other vaccines. No, you have no idea what’s in there. You’ll be the Guinea pig for big pharma and everyone figures they’re gonna make a lot of money here. So I’ll keep my eye open on this  and how it develop but I wouldn’t trust anything they’re trying to sell right now. They’re just pulling these things off the shelf.

If they do come up with something in two to three months, even that’s not going to be tested in accordance with normal scientific protocol. So it’s going to be a crap shoot. If it’s going to help you, indeed it might not help you because they’ll be using for this vaccines (these DNA genetic engineered vaccines) they’ll be using live coronavirus probably and sticking it in there and giving you some live coronavirus on the theory you’ll develop an immunityThat’s the way a lot of these vaccines worked out, that’s what happened with the Ebola vaccine that created the Ebola pandemic there in West Africa. They were testing out a vaccine on poor black Africans, as usual, and  this vaccine had live Ebola in it so it gave them Ebola. So again, I’d be very careful even if they do come up with these vaccines two to three months from now, very careful. Why would you want to inject the live coronavirus in you?

Geopolitics and Empire: All right. I don’t believe you have a strong online presence. How can people best follow your work? I suppose to search for interviews as well as get your books.

Dr. Francis Boyle: Well, basically I’m blackballed and blacklisted off all the mainstream news media here on purpose. As far as I can figure out, the US government gave an order that I should not be interviewed by anyone, so I’m not.  I guess you could just put my name in there under Google, Google alert, and some interviews might come up. What happened was, right after the anthrax attacks of 9/11 2001, I was giving a lecture out at Harvard m Alma Mater.  I was running a panel on biological warfare for the council for responsible genetics and it was at Harvard Divinity School and as I was going in, there was a Fox camera crew there from Boston and I said it looks to me like this has come out of the US government lab. We know they do research and testing on anthrax. Then I said the same thing there at Harvard then I gave an interview to a radio station in Washington, D C then I gave an interview on that to the BBC. So the whole world saw it and at that point I was completely cut off and I’ve been cut off  ever since. So you  probably not going to hear too many  interviews from me here. As for my book. Biowarfare & Terrorism, you can just get it at amazon.com. That picks up the story pretty much from 9/11 2001 and until it went to press and then there are interviews I’d given to an investigative reporter, Sherwood Ross and a big one I just sent you and you might want to put that on your web page. That was pretty comprehensive.

Geopolitics and Empire: Yeah,  I read that as well and I’ll include the link in the description of this interview so people can go check that out. You’re not the only academic I know and have heard of others that similar things have happened and that’s just I guess the price we pay for telling the truth. Again, for listeners, if people wanted to have a broader context and deeper understanding of what’s happening today especially with biological warfare as well as us foreign policy and international affairs, I urge you to get Dr. Francis Boyle’s books and listen to his interviews as well as his colleagues book. Graeme Macqueen, The Anthrax Deception, The Case For Domestic Conspiracy. Thank you for being with us, Dr. Boyle.

Dr. Francis Boyle: Well, thank you and again, please understand these are my current opinions.  I could change my opinion here based on more evidence. So  I’m just looking at the evidence out there as I see it and you have to understand there is so much disinformation, lies and propaganda that it’s kind of very difficult to distinguish truth from fact.  I’m doing the best job I can here.

— end interview —


Originally published (greatgameindia.com)


A message from a former US Army psyops officer
VINCE JAMES DOES A GREAT JOB EXPLORING THE COMPLEX FROM THE CIA ANGLE AND ARRIVING TO THE SAME BIG PICTRE AND ALL THE GOOD CONCLUSIONS, MUST WATCH ENTIRELY!

UPDATE SEPTEMBER 23, 2022:

The Pentagon has ordered a sweeping audit of how it conducts clandestine information warfare after major social media companies identified and took offline fake accounts suspected of being run by the U.S. military in violation of the platforms’ rules.

Colin Kahl, the undersecretary of defense for policy, last weekinstructed the military commands that engage in psychological operations online to provide a full accounting of their activities by next month after the White House and somefederal agencies expressed mounting concerns over the Defense Department’s attempted manipulation of audiences overseas, according to several defense and administration officials familiar with the matter.

The takedowns in recent years by Twitter and Facebook of more than 150 bogus personas and media sites created in the United States was disclosed last month by internet researchers Graphika and the Stanford Internet Observatory. While the researchers did not attribute the sham accounts to the U.S. military, two officials familiar with the matter said that U.S. Central Command is among those whose activities are facing scrutiny. Like others interviewed for this report, they spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive military operations.

The researchers did not specify when the takedowns occurred, but those familiar with the matter said they were within the pasttwo or three years. Some were recent, they said, and involved posts from the summer that advanced anti-Russia narratives citing the Kremlin’s “imperialist” war in Ukraine and warning of the conflict’s direct impact on Central Asian countries. Significantly, they found that the pretend personas — employing tactics used by countries such as Russia and China — did not gain much traction, and that overt accounts actually attracted more followers.

Centcom, headquartered in Tampa, has purview over military operations across 21 countries in the Middle East, North Africa and Central and South Asia. A spokesman declined to comment.

Air Force Brig. Gen. Patrick Ryder, the Pentagon press secretary, said in a statement that the military’s information operations “support our national security priorities” and must be conducted in compliance with relevant laws and policies. “We are committed to enforcing those safeguards,” he said.

Spokespersons for Facebook and Twitter declined to comment.

According to the researchers’ report, the accounts taken down included a made-up Persian-language media site that shared content reposted from the U.S.-funded Voice of America Farsi and Radio Free Europe. Another, it said, was linked to a Twitter handle that in the past had claimed to operate on behalf of Centcom.

One fake account posted an inflammatory tweet claiming that relatives of deceased Afghan refugees had reported bodies being returned from Iran with missing organs, according to the report. The tweet linked to a video that was part of an article posted on a U.S.-military affiliated website.

Centcom has not commented on whether these accounts were created by its personnel or contractors. If the organ-harvesting tweet is shown to be Centcom’s, one defense official said, it would “absolutely be a violation of doctrine and training practices.”

Independent of the report, The Washington Post has learned that in 2020 Facebook disabled fictitious personas created by Centcom to counter disinformation spread by China suggesting the coronavirus responsible for covid-19 was created at a U.S. Army lab in Fort Detrick, Md., according to officials familiar with the matter. The pseudo profiles — active in Facebook groups that conversed in Arabic, Farsi and Urdu, the officials said — were used to amplify truthful information from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention about the virus’s origination in China.

The U.S. government’suse of ersatz social mediaaccounts, though authorized by law and policy, has stirred controversy inside the Biden administration, with the White House pressing the Pentagon to clarify and justify its policies. The White House, agencies such as the State Department and even some officials within the Defense Department have been concerned that the policies are too broad, allowing leeway for tactics that even if used to spread truthful information, risk eroding U.S. credibility, several U.S. officials said.

“Our adversaries are absolutely operating in the information domain,” said a second senior defense official. “There are some who think we shouldn’t do anything clandestine in that space. Ceding an entire domain to an adversary would be unwise. But we need stronger policy guardrails.”

A spokeswoman for the National Security Council, which is part of the White House, declined to comment.

Kahl disclosed his review at a virtual meeting convened by the National Security Council on Tuesday, saying he wants to know what types of operations have been carried out, who they’re targeting, what tools are being used and why military commanders have chosen those tactics, and how effective they have been, several officials said.

The message was essentially, “You have to justify to me why you’re doing these types of things,” the first defense official said.

Pentagon policy and doctrine discourage the military from peddling falsehoods, but there are no specific rules mandating the use of truthful information for psychological operations. For instance, the military sometimes employs fiction and satire for persuasion purposes, but generally the messages are supposed to stick to facts, officials said.

In 2020, officers at Facebook and Twitter contacted the Pentagon to raise concerns about the phony accounts they were having to remove, suspicious they were associated with the military. That summer, David Agranovich, Facebook’s director for global threat disruption, spoke to Christopher C. Miller, then assistant director for Special Operations/Low Intensity Conflict, which oversees influence operations policy, warning him that if Facebook could sniff them out, so could U.S. adversaries, several people familiar with the conversation said.

“His point‚” one person said, “was ‘Guys, you got caught. That’s a problem.’ ”

Before Miller could take action, he was tapped to head a different agency — the National Counterterrorism Center. Then the November election happened and time ran out for the Trump administration to address the matter, although Miller did spend the last few weeks of Donald Trump’s presidency serving as acting defense secretary.

With the rise of Russia and China as strategic competitors, military commanders have wanted to fight back, including online. And Congress supported that. Frustrated with perceived legal obstacles to the Defense Department’s ability to conduct clandestine activities in cyberspace, Congress in late 2019 passed a law affirming that the military could conduct operations in the “information environment” to defend the United States and to push back against foreign disinformation aimed at undermining its interests. The measure, known as Section 1631, allows the military to carry out clandestine psychologic operations without crossing what the CIA has claimed as its covert authority, alleviating some of the friction that had hindered such operations previously.

“Combatant commanders got really excited,” recalled the first defense official. “They were very eager to utilize these new authorities. The defense contractors were equally eager to land lucrative classified contracts to enable clandestine influence operations.”

At the same time, the official said, military leaders were not trained to oversee “technically complex operations conducted by contractors” or coordinate such activities with other stakeholders elsewhere in the U.S. government.

President Biden, right, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, left, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark A. Milley attend a Pentagon ceremony to remember the victims of 9/11. (Leigh Vogel/Bloomberg)

Last year, with a new administration in place, Facebook’s Agranovich tried again. This time he took his complaint to President Biden’s deputy national security adviser for cyber, Anne Neuberger. Agranovich, who had worked at the NSC under Trump, told Neuberger that Facebook was taking down fake accounts because they violated the company’s terms of service, according to people familiar with the exchange.

The accounts were easily detected by Facebook, which since Russia’s campaign to interfere in the 2016 presidential election has enhanced its ability to identify mock personas and sites. In some cases, the company had removed profiles, which appeared to be associated with the military, that promoted information deemed by fact-checkers to be false, said a person familiar with the matter.

Agranovich alsospoke to officials at the Pentagon. His messagewas: “We know what DOD is doing. It violates our policies. We will enforce our policies” and so “DOD should knock it off,” said aU.S. official briefed on the matter.

In response to White House concerns, Kahl ordered a review of Military Information Support Operations, or MISO, the Pentagon’s moniker for psychological operations. A draft concluded that policies, training and oversight all needed tightening, and that coordination with other agencies, such as the State Department and the CIA, needed strengthening, according to officials.

The review also found that while there were cases in which fictitious information was pushed by the military, they were the result of inadequate oversight of contractors and personnel training — not systemic problems, officials said.

Pentagon leadership did little with the review, two officials said, before Graphika and Stanford published their report on Aug. 24, which elicited a flurry of news coverage and questions for the military.

Army psyop graduates receive pins at the end of a field exercise reading “Persuade, Change, Influence.” (Cynthia McIntyre/Fort Hunter Liggett Public Affairs)

The State Department and CIA have been perturbed by the military’s use of clandestine tactics. Officers at State have admonished the Defense Department, “Hey don’t amplify our policies using fake personas, because we don’t want to be seen as creating false grass roots efforts,” the first defense official said.

One diplomat put it this way: “Generally speaking, we shouldn’t be employing the same kind of tactics that our adversaries are using because the bottom line is we have the moral high ground. We are a society that is built on a certain set of values. We promote those values around the world and when we use tactics like those, it just undermines our argument about who we are.”

Psychological operations to promote U.S. narratives overseas is nothing new in the military, but the popularity of western social media across the globehas led to an expansion of tactics, including the use of artificial personas and images — sometimes called “deep fakes.” The logic is that views expressed by what appears to be, say, an Afghan woman or an Iranian student might be more persuasive than if they were openly pushed by the U.S. government.

The majority of the military’s influence operations are overt, promoting U.S. policies in the Middle East, Asia and elsewhere under its own name, officials said. And there are valid reasons to use clandestine tactics, such as trying to infiltrate a closed terrorist chat group, they said.

A key issue for senior policymakers now is determining whether the military’s execution of clandestine influence operations is delivering results. “Is the juice worth the squeeze? Does our approach really have the potential for the return on investment we hoped or is it just causing more challenges?” one person familiar with the debate said.

The report by Graphika and Stanford suggests that the clandestine activity did not have much impact. It noted that the “vast majority of posts and tweets” reviewed received “no more than a handful of likes or retweets,” and only 19 percent of the concocted accounts had more than 1,000 followers. “Tellingly,” the report stated, “the two most-followed assets in the data provided by Twitter were overt accounts that publicly declared a connection to the U.S. military.”

Clandestine influence operations have a role in support of military operations, but it should be a narrow one with “intrusive oversight” by military and civilian leadership, said Michael Lumpkin, a former senior Pentagon official handling information operations policy and a former head of the State Department’s Global Engagement Center. “Otherwise, we risk making more enemies than friends.”

Excerpt from the article sourced above:

A LONG PATTERN OF INFILTRATION

45 years ago, legendary journalist Carl Bernstein released an investigation documenting how the CIA had managed to infiltrate U.S. and global media. The CIA had placed hundreds of agents into newsrooms and had convinced hundreds more reporters to collaborate with them. These included individuals at some of the most influential outlets, including The New York Times. The CIA needed to do this clandestinely because any attempt to do so openly would harm the effectiveness of the operation and provoke stiff public resistance. But by 2015, there was barely a murmur of disapproval when Reuters announced that it was hiring 33-year veteran CIA manager and director Dawn Scalici as a global director, even when the company announced that her primary responsibility was to “advanc[e] Thomson Reuters’ ability to meet the disparate needs of the U.S. government.”

Facebook, however, is vastly more influential than the New York Times or Reuters, reaching billions of people daily. In that sense, it stands to reason that it would be a prime target of any intelligence organization. It has become so big and ubiquitous that many consider it a de facto public commons and believe it should no longer be treated as a private company. Considering who is making many of the decisions on the platform, that distinction between public and private entities is even more blurry than many presume.

BONUS:

I’ve just brought to light insider information that confirms a very similar model has been pursued in USSR / Russia. I wonder if the two are eventually merging at the top, like Coca-Cola and Pepsi, seeing that Putin is a former Klaus Schwab disciple and a Davos regular.

Bottom line…

‘It’s warfare, not science’ – Dr. Nancy T. Banks – the legendary 2012 interview on vaccines & pharma

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

ORDER

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

We need to speed up our little awakening because we’re still light-years behind the reality.
This dwarfs Afghanistan and Covid is but a chapter in its playbook.
This connects all the trigger-words: 5G, Covid, Vaccines, Graphene, The Great Reset, Blockchain, The Fourth Industrial Revolution and beyond.

What Is the Internet of Bodies?

Source: The Rand Corporation (Download PDF)


A wide variety of internet-connected “smart”
devices now promise consumers and
businesses improved performance, convenience, efficiency, and fun. Within this
broader Internet of Things (IoT) lies a growing
industry of devices that monitor the human body,
collect health and other personal information, and
transmit that data over the internet. We refer to these
emerging technologies and the data they collect as
the Internet of Bodies (IoB) (see, for example, Neal,
2014; Lee, 2018), a term first applied to law and policy
in 2016 by law and engineering professor Andrea M.
Matwyshyn (Atlantic Council, 2017; Matwyshyn,
2016; Matwyshyn, 2018; Matawyshyn, 2019).
IoB devices come in many forms. Some are
already in wide use, such as wristwatch fitness
monitors or pacemakers that transmit data about
a patient’s heart directly to a cardiologist. Other
products that are under development or newly on the
market may be less familiar, such as ingestible products that collect and send information on a person’s
gut, microchip implants, brain stimulation devices,
and internet-connected toilets.
These devices have intimate access to the body
and collect vast quantities of personal biometric data.
IoB device makers promise to deliver substantial
health and other benefits but also pose serious risks,
including risks of hacking, privacy infringements,
or malfunction. Some devices, such as a reliable
artificial pancreas for diabetics, could revolutionize
the treatment of disease, while others could merely
inflate health-care costs with little positive effect on
outcomes. Access to huge torrents of live-streaming
biometric data might trigger breakthroughs in medical knowledge or behavioral understanding. It might increase health outcome disparities, where only
people with financial means have access to any of
these benefits. Or it might enable a surveillance state
of unprecedented intrusion and consequence.
There is no universally accepted definition of
the IoB.1
For the purposes of this report, we refer to
the IoB, or the IoB ecosystem, as IoB devices (defined
next, with further explanation in the passages that
follow) together with the software they contain and
the data they collect.

An IoB device is defined as a device that
• contains software or computing capabilities
• can communicate with an internet-connected
device or network
and satisfies one or both of the following:
• collects person-generated health or biometric
data
• can alter the human body’s function.
The software or computing capabilities in an
IoB device may be as simple as a few lines of code
used to configure a radio frequency identification (RFID) microchip implant, or as complex as a computer that processes artificial intelligence (AI)
and machine learning algorithms. A connection to
the internet through cellular or Wi-Fi networks is
required but need not be a direct connection. For
example, a device may be connected via Bluetooth to
a smartphone or USB device that communicates with
an internet-connected computer. Person-generated
health data (PGHD) refers to health, clinical, or
wellness data collected by technologies to be recorded
or analyzed by the user or another person. Biometric
or behavioral data refers to measurements of unique
physical or behavioral properties about a person.
Finally, an alteration to the body’s function refers
to an augmentation or modification of how the
user’s body performs, such as a change in cognitive
enhancement and memory improvement provided
by a brain-computer interface, or the ability to record
whatever the user sees through an intraocular lens
with a camera.
IoB devices generally, but not always, require a
physical connection to the body (e.g., they are worn,
ingested, implanted, or otherwise attached to or
embedded in the body, temporarily or permanently).
Many IoB devices are medical devices regulated by
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).3
Figure 1 depicts examples of technologies in the IoB
ecosystem that are either already available on the U.S.
market or are under development.
Devices that are not connected to the internet,
such as ordinary heart monitors or medical ID bracelets, are not included in the definition of IoB. Nor are implanted magnets (a niche consumer product used
by those in the so-called bodyhacker community
described in the next section) that are not connected
to smartphone applications (apps), because although
they change the body’s functionality by allowing the
user to sense electromagnetic vibrations, the devices
do not contain software. Trends in IoB technologies
and additional examples are further discussed in the
next section.
Some IoB devices may fall in and out of
our definition at different times. For example, a
Wi-Fi-connected smartphone on its own would
not be part of the IoB; however, once a health app
is installed that requires connection to the body to
track user information, such as heart rate or number
of steps taken, the phone would be considered IoB.
Our definition is meant to capture rapidly evolving
technologies that have the potential to bring about
the various risks and benefits that are discussed in
this report. We focused on analyzing existing and
emerging IoB technologies that appear to have the
potential to improve health and medical outcomes,
efficiency, and human function or performance, but
that could also endanger users’ legal, ethical, and
privacy rights or present personal or national security
risks.
For this research, we conducted an extensive
literature review and interviewed security experts,
technology developers, and IoB advocates to understand anticipated risks and benefits. We had valuable discussions with experts at BDYHAX 2019, an
annual convention for bodyhackers, in February
2019, and DEFCON 27, one of the world’s largest
hacker conferences, in August 2019. In this report,
we discuss trends in the technology landscape and
outline the benefits and risks to the user and other
stakeholders. We present the current state of governance that applies to IoB devices and the data they
collect and conclude by offering recommendations
for improved regulation to best balance those risks
and rewards.

Operation Warp Speed logo

Transhumanism, Bodyhacking, Biohacking,
and More


The IoB is related to several movements outside of formal health care focused on integrating human bodies
with technology. Next, we summarize some of these concepts,
though there is much overlap and interchangeability among them.
Transhumanism is a worldview and political movement advocating for the transcendence of humanity beyond current human capabilities.
Transhumanists want to use technology, such as
artificial organs and other techniques, to halt aging
and achieve “radical life extension” (Vita-Moore,
2018). Transhumanists may also seek to resist disease,
enhance their intelligence, or thwart fatigue through
diet, exercise, supplements, relaxation techniques, or
nootropics (substances that may improve cognitive
function).
Bodyhackers, biohackers, and cyborgs, who
enjoy experimenting with body enhancement, often
refer to themselves as grinders. They may or may not
identify as transhumanists. These terms are often
interchanged in common usage, but some do distinguish between them (Trammell, 2015). Bodyhacking
generally refers to modifying the body to enhance
one’s physical or cognitive abilities. Some bodyhacking is purely aesthetic. Hackers have implanted horns
in their heads and LED lights under their skin. Other
hacks, such as implanting RFID microchips in one’s
hand, are meant to enhance function, allowing users
to unlock doors, ride public transportation, store
emergency contact information, or make purchases
with the sweep of an arm (Baenen, 2017; Savage,
2018). One bodyhacker removed the RFID microchip from her car’s key fob and had it implanted
in her arm (Linder, 2019). A few bodyhackers have
implanted a device that is a combined wireless router
and hard drive that can be used as a node in a wireless mesh network (Oberhaus, 2019). Some bodyhacking is medical in nature, including 3D-printed
prosthetics and do-it-yourself artificial pancreases.
Still others use the term for any method of improving
health, including bodybuilding, diet, or exercise.
Biohacking generally denotes techniques that
modify the biological systems of humans or other
living organisms. This ranges from bodybuilding
and nootropics to developing cures for diseases via
self-experimentation to human genetic manipulation
through CRISPR-Cas9 techniques (Samuel, 2019;
Griffin, 2018).
Cyborgs, or cybernetic organisms, are people
who have used machines to enhance intelligence or
the senses.
Neil Harbisson, a colorblind man who can
“hear” color through an antenna implanted in his
head that plays a tune for different colors or wavelengths of light, is acknowledged as the first person to
be legally recognized by a government as a cyborg, by
being allowed to have his passport picture include his
implant (Donahue, 2017).
Because IoB is a wide-ranging field that
intersects with do-it-yourself body modification,
consumer products, and medical care, understanding
its benefits and risks is critical.

“People Are Hackable Animals” – Yuval Harari @ Davos 2020 – full presentation

The Internet of Bodies is here. This is how it could change our lives

04 Jun 2020, Xiao Liu Fellow at the Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution, World Economic Forum

  • We’re entering the era of the “Internet of Bodies”: collecting our physical data via a range of devices that can be implanted, swallowed or worn.
  • The result is a huge amount of health-related data that could improve human wellbeing around the world, and prove crucial in fighting the COVID-19 pandemic.
  • But a number of risks and challenges must be addressed to realize the potential of this technology, from privacy issues to practical hurdles.

In the special wards of Shanghai’s Public Health Clinical Center, nurses use smart thermometers to check the temperatures of COVID-19 patients. Each person’s temperature is recorded with a sensor, reducing the risk of infection through contact, and the data is sent to an observation dashboard. An abnormal result triggers an alert to medical staff, who can then intervene promptly. The gathered data also allows medics to analyse trends over time.

The smart thermometers are designed by VivaLNK, a Silicon-Valley based startup, and are a powerful example of the many digital products and services that are revolutionizing healthcare. After the Internet of Things, which transformed the way we live, travel and work by connecting everyday objects to the Internet, it’s now time for the Internet of Bodies. This means collecting our physical data via devices that can be implanted, swallowed or simply worn, generating huge amounts of health-related information.

Some of these solutions, such as fitness trackers, are an extension of the Internet of Things. But because the Internet of Bodies centres on the human body and health, it also raises its own specific set of opportunities and challenges, from privacy issues to legal and ethical questions.

Image: McKinsey & Company

Connecting our bodies

As futuristic as the Internet of Bodies may seem, many people are already connected to it through wearable devices. The smartwatch segment alone has grown into a $13 billion market by 2018, and is projected to increase another 32% to $18 billion by 2021. Smart toothbrushes and even hairbrushes can also let people track patterns in their personal care and behaviour.

For health professionals, the Internet of Bodies opens the gate to a new era of effective monitoring and treatment.

In 2017, the U.S. Federal Drug Administration approved the first use of digital pills in the United States. Digital pills contain tiny, ingestible sensors, as well as medicine. Once swallowed, the sensor is activated in the patient’s stomach and transmits data to their smartphone or other devices.

In 2018, Kaiser Permanente, a healthcare provider in California, started a virtual rehab program for patients recovering from heart attacks. The patients shared their data with their care providers through a smartwatch, allowing for better monitoring and a closer, more continuous relationship between patient and doctor. Thanks to this innovation, the completion rate of the rehab program rose from less than 50% to 87%, accompanied by a fall in the readmission rate and programme cost.

The deluge of data collected through such technologies is advancing our understanding of how human behaviour, lifestyle and environmental conditions affect our health. It has also expanded the notion of healthcare beyond the hospital or surgery and into everyday life. This could prove crucial in fighting the coronavirus pandemic. Keeping track of symptoms could help us stop the spread of infection, and quickly detect new cases. Researchers are investigating whether data gathered from smartwatches and similar devices can be used as viral infection alerts by tracking the user’s heart rate and breathing.

At the same time, this complex and evolving technology raises new regulatory challenges.

What counts as health information?

In most countries, strict regulations exist around personal health information such as medical records and blood or tissue samples. However, these conventional regulations often fail to cover the new kind of health data generated through the Internet of Bodies, and the entities gathering and processing this data.

In the United States, the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA), which is the major law for health data regulation, applies only to medical providers, health insurers, and their business associations. Its definition of “personal health information” covers only the data held by these entities. This definition is turning out to be inadequate for the era of the Internet of Bodies. Tech companies are now also offering health-related products and services, and gathering data. Margaret Riley, a professor of health law at the University of Virginia, pointed out to me in an interview that HIPPA does not cover the masses of data from consumer wearables, for example.

Another problem is that the current regulations only look at whether the data is sensitive in itself, not whether it can be used to generate sensitive information. For example, the result of a blood test in a hospital will generally be classified as sensitive data, because it reveals private information about your personal health. But today, all sorts of seemingly non-sensitive data can also be used to draw inferences about your health, through data analytics. Glenn Cohen, a professor at Harvard Law school, told me in an interview that even data that is not about health at all, such as grocery shopping lists, can be used for such inferences. As a result, conventional regulations may fail to cover data that is sensitive and private, simply because it did not look sensitive before it was processed.

Data risks

Identifying and protecting sensitive data matters, because it can directly affect how we are treated by institutions and other people. With big data analytics, countless day-to-day actions and decisions can ultimately feed into our health profile, which may be created and maintained not just by traditional healthcare providers, but also by tech companies or other entities. Without appropriate laws and regulations, it could also be sold. At the same time, data from the Internet of Bodies can be used to make predictions and inferences that could affect a person’s or group’s access to resources such as healthcare, insurance and employment.

James Dempsey, director of the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology, told me in an interview that this could lead to unfair treatment. He warned of potential discrimination and bias when such data is used for decisions in insurance and employment. The affected people may not even be aware of this.

One solution would be to update the regulations. Sandra Wachter and Brent Mittelstadt, two scholars at the Oxford Internet Institute, suggest that data protection law should focus more on how and why data is processed, and not just on its raw state. They argue for a so-called “right to reasonable inferences”, meaning the right to have your data used only for reasonable, socially acceptable inferences. This would involve setting standards on whether and when inferring certain information from a person’s data, including the state of their present or future health, is socially acceptable or overly invasive.

Practical problems

Apart from the concerns over privacy and sensitivity, there are also a number of practical problems in dealing with the sheer volume of data generated by the Internet of Bodies. The lack of standards around security and data processing makes it difficult to combine data from diverse sources, and use it to advance research. Different countries and institutions are trying to jointly overcome this problem. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and its Standards Association have been working with the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA), National Institutes of Health, as well as universities and businesses among other stakeholders since 2016, to address the security and interoperability issue of connected health.

As the Internet of Bodies spreads into every aspect of our existence, we are facing a range of new challenges. But we also have an unprecedented chance to improve our health and well-being, and save countless lives. During the COVID-19 crisis, using this opportunity and finding solutions to the challenges is a more urgent task than ever. This relies on government agencies and legislative bodies working with the private sector and civil society to create a robust governance framework, and to include inferences in the realm of data protection. Devising technological and regulatory standards for interoperability and security would also be crucial to unleashing the power of the newly available data. The key is to collaborate across borders and sectors to fully realize the enormous benefits of this rapidly advancing technology.

Now more from the Rand Corporation

Governance of IoB devices is managed through a patchwork of state and federal agencies, nonprofit organizations, and consumer advocacy groups

  • The primary entities responsible for governance of IoB devices are the FDA and the U.S. Department of Commerce.
  • Although the FDA is making strides in cybersecurity of medical devices, many IoB devices, especially those available for consumer use, do not fall under FDA jurisdiction.
  • Federal and state officials have begun to address cybersecurity risks associated with IoB that are beyond FDA oversight, but there are few laws that mandate cybersecurity best practices.

As with IoB devices, there is no single entity that provides oversight to IoB data

  • Protection of medical information is regulated at the federal level, in part, by HIPAA.
  • The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) helps ensure data security and consumer privacy through legal actions brought by the Bureau of Consumer Protection.
  • Data brokers are largely unregulated, but some legal experts are calling for policies to protect consumers.
  • As the United States has no federal data privacy law, states have introduced a patchwork of laws and regulations that apply to residents’ personal data, some of which includes IoB-related information.
  • The lack of consistency in IoB laws among states and between the state and federal level potentially enables regulatory gaps and enforcement challenges.

Recommendations

  • The U.S. Commerce Department can put foreign IoB companies on its “Entity List,” preventing them from doing business with Americans, if those foreign companies are implicated in human rights violations.
  • As 5G, Wi-Fi 6, and satellite internet standards are rolled out, the federal government should be prepared for issues by funding studies and working with experts to develop security regulations.
  • It will be important to consider how to incentivize quicker phase-out of the legacy medical devices with poor cybersecurity that are already in wide use.
  • IoB developers must be more attentive to cybersecurity by integrating cybersecurity and privacy considerations from the beginning of product development.
  • Device makers should test software for vulnerabilities often and devise methods for users to patch software.
  • Congress should consider establishing federal data transparency and protection standards for data that are collected from the IoB.
  • The FTC could play a larger role to ensure that marketing claims about improved well-being or specific health treatment are backed by appropriate evidence.

ALSO READ: BOMBSHELL! 5G NETWORK TO WIRELESSLY POWER DEVICES. GUESS WHAT IT CAN DO TO NANOTECH (DARPA-FINANCED)

Internet of Bodies (IoB): Future of Healthcare & Medical Technology

Kashmir Observer | March 27, 2021   

By Khalid Mustafa

JAMMU and Kashmir is almost always in the news for one reason or another.  Apart from the obvious political headlines, J&K was also in the news because of covid-19.  As the world struggled with covid-19 pandemic, J&K faced a peculiar situation due to its poor health infrastructure.  Nonetheless, all sections of society did a commendable job in keeping covid  under control and preventing the loss of life as much as possible. The doctors Association in Kashmir along with the administration did  as much as possible  through their efforts.  For that we are all thankful to them. However, it is about time that we integrate our Healthcare System by upgrading it and introducing to it new technologies from the current world.

We’ve all heard of the Internet of Things, a network of products ranging from refrigerators to cars to industrial control systems that are connected to the internet. Internet of Bodies (IoB) the outcome of the Internet of Things (IoT) is broadly helping the healthcare system and every individual to live life with ease by managing the human body in terms of technology. The Internet of Bodies connects the human body to a network of internet run devices.

The use of IoB can be independent or by the health care heroes (doctors) to monitor, report and enhance the health system of the human body.  The internet of Bodies (IoB) are broadly classified into three categories or in some cases we can say three generations – Body Internal, Body External and Body embedded. The Body Internal model of IoB is the category, in which the individual or patient is interacting with the technology environment or we can say internet or our healthcare system by having an installed device inside the human body. Body External model or generation of IoB signifies the model where the device is installed external to the body for certain usage viz. Apple watches and other smart bands from various OEM’s for tracking blood pressure, heart rate etc which can later be used for proper health tracking and monitoring purposes. Last one under this classifications are Body Embedded, in which the devices are embedded under the skin by health care professionals during a number of health situations.

The Internet of Bodies is a small part or even the offspring of the Internet of Things. Much like it, there remains the challenge of data and information breach as we have already witnessed many excessive distributed denial of service (DDos) attacks and other cyber-attacks on IoTs to exploit data and gather information. The effects are even more severe and vulnerable in the case of the Internet of Bodies as the human body is involved in this schema.

The risk of these threats has taken over the discussion about the IOBs.  Thus,  this  has become a  great concern in medical technology companies. Most of the existing IoB companies just rely on end-user license agreements and privacy policies to retain rights in software and to create rights to monitor, aggregate and share users’ body data. They just need to properly enhance the security model and implement high security measures to avoid any misfortune. For the same the Government of India is already examining the personal data protection bill 2019.

The Internet has not managed to change our lifestyles in the way the internet of things will!


Views expressed in the article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the editorial stance of Kashmir Observer

  • The author is presently Manager IT & Ops In HK Group

ALSO READ: OBAMA, DARPA, GSK AND ROCKEFELLER’S $4.5B B.R.A.I.N. INITIATIVE – BETTER SIT WHEN YOU READ

And this is some old DARPA research anticipating the hive mind:

Hierarchical Identify Verify Exploit (HIVE)

Dr. Bryan Jacobs

Hierarchical Identify Verify Exploit (HIVE)

Social media, sensor feeds, and scientific studies generate large amounts of valuable data. However, understanding the relationships among this data can be challenging. Graph analytics has emerged as an approach by which analysts can efficiently examine the structure of the large networks produced from these data sources and draw conclusions from the observed patterns. By understanding the complex relationships both within and between data sources, a more complete picture of the analysis problem can be understood. With lessons learned from innovations in the expanding realm of deep neural networks, the Hierarchical Identify Verify Exploit (HIVE) program seeks to advance the arena of graph analytics.

The HIVE program is looking to build a graph analytics processor that can process streaming graphs 1000X faster and at much lower power than current processing technology. If successful, the program will enable graph analytics techniques powerful enough to solve tough challenges in cyber security, infrastructure monitoring and other areas of national interest. Graph analytic processing that currently requires racks of servers could become practical in tactical situations to support front-line decision making. What ’s more, these advanced graph analytics servers could have the power to analyze the billion- and trillion-edge graphs that will be generated by the Internet of Things, ever-expanding social networks, and future sensor networks.

In parallel with the hardware development of a HIVE processor, DARPA is working with MIT Lincoln Laboratory and Amazon Web Services (AWS) to host the HIVE Graph Challenge with the goal of developing a trillion-edge dataset. This freely available dataset will spur innovative software and hardware solutions in the broader graph analysis community that will contribute to the HIVE program.

The overall objective is to accelerate innovation in graph analytics to open new pathways for meeting the challenge of understanding an ever-increasing torrent of data. The HIVE program features two primary challenges:

  • The first is a static graph problem focused on sub-graph Isomorphism. This task is to further the ability to search a large graph in order to identify a particular subsection of that graph.
  • The second is a dynamic graph problem focused on trying to find optimal clusters of data within the graph.

Both challenges will include a small graph problem in the billions of nodes and a large graph problem in the trillions of nodes.

Transhuman Code authors discuss digital ID’s and a centralized AI-controlled society. In 2018
More info 

ALSO READ: BEFORE MRNA AND WUHAN, DARPA FUNDED THE BIRTH OF GOOGLE, FACEBOOK AND THE INTERNET ITSELF

And then I learned that IOB is an integral plan of a ‘Cognitive Warfare’ waged by the MBTC: COGNITIVE WARFARE IS SO MUCH MORE THAN PSYOPS

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

People love graphs, but lists can be just as telling. Some speak volumes.
As the cliché goes in televisions, we’re debuting a new segment called Very Interesting Lists (#VIL). And who better to start with than the unofficial but true president of USA, king of media audiences and “father of the vaccine” (his own words), Donald Trump?!

Here’s the guest list for Trump’s dinner party in Davos 2018

CNBC, THU, JAN 25 20182:18 PM EST

  • President Trump is hosting a dinner for European business leaders in Davos, Switzerland.
  • At the start of the event, guests went around the table, describing what their companies do and complimenting the president.
  • Notably absent from the guest list were Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross.
President Donald Trump

President Donald Trump hosted a dinner for European business leaders on Thursday, his first night at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

At the start of the event, each of the guests described what his or her company does, and most of them complimented Trump on the passage of the GOP tax cut bill.

Notably absent from the list were Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuhcin and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, both of whom traveled to Davos this week as part of the U.S. delegation.

[You may remember Ross as the Rothschild plant in his house after they saved Trump from bankruptcy]

CNBC asked a White House spokesman why Mnuchin and Ross did not attend the event, and we will update this story with any response.

Here’s the guest list, according to the White House.

Trump administration Officials

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielson

National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster

Gary Cohn, director of the National Economic Council

Business leaders

Kasper Rorsted, Adidas (Apparel)—Germany

Joe Kaeser, Siemens AG (Tech)—Germany

Heinrich Hiesinger, Thyssenkrupp AG (Industrials)—Germany

Eldar Saetre, Statoil ASA (Energy)—Norway

Mark Schneider, Nestle SA (Food and Beverage)—Switzerland

Vas Narasimhan, Novartis AG (Pharmaceutical)—Switzerland

Mark Tucker, HSBC (Financial Services)—UK / China

Patrick Pouyanne, Total SA (Energy)—France

Carlos Brito, Anheuser-Busch InBev NV (Food and Beverage)—Netherlands

Rajeev Suri, Nokia Corporation (Technology)—Finland

Punit Renjen, Deloitte (Consulting)—UK

Martin Lundstedt, AB Volvo (Auto)—Sweden

Werner Baumann, Bayer AG (Pharmaceutical)—Germany

Bill McDermott, SAP SE (Technology)—Germany

Ulrich Spiesshofer, ABB Ltd (Manufacturing)—Switzerland

Shouts to my friend Plazma for digging this one out! Tremendous videos he’s putting out, very very good videos, folks!

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

ORDER