After two years of press distortions about covid, there are many reasons for continued concern and skepticism about Ukrainian biolabs.
The United Nations met this week at Russia’s request to consider Moscow’s claims related to “the military biological activities of the U.S. on the territory of Ukraine.”
The international body has concluded there is no evidence Ukraine had a biological weapons program.
Russia called the meeting of the 15-member U.N. Security Council to reassert through its envoy Vassily Nebenzia, without providing evidence, that Ukraine ran biological weapons laboratories with U.S. Defense Department support.
Member countries called the claim “a lie” and “utter nonsense” and used the session to accuse Russia of deliberately targeting and killing hundreds of civilians in Ukraine, assertions that Russia denies in a 15-day offensive it calls “a special military operation.”
Izumi Nakamitsu, the U.N. High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, told the council the United Nations is “not aware” of any biological weapons program in Ukraine, which joined an international ban on such arms, as has Russia and the United States along with 180 other countries.
The U.S. representative suggested that Russia is conducting a false-flag operation.
U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield said Russia was playing out a scenario put forth in the council last month by U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken — that President Vladimir Putin would “fabricate allegations about chemical or biological weapons to justify its own violent attacks against the Ukrainian people.”
“The intent behind these lies seems clear, and is deeply troubling,” she said. “We believe Russia could use chemical or biological agents for assassinations, as part of a staged or false-flag incident, or to support tactical military operations.”
However, I do not think that people’s fears about Ukrainian bioweapons research will be allayed. I also sense there will be a great deal of skepticism expressed by serious pundits and on social media (at least, where it slips through the notice of Big Tech minders).
To begin with, the American press and the nation’s bureaucracy has shot any and all credibility during the past two years of covid coverage. The propaganda, distortions, and public-relations lies produced through the collusion of “journalists” and bureaucrats are legion (e.g., no human transmission, herd immunity will be achieved at 70% vaccination, coronavirus came from a seafood market in Wuhan, etc.).
As if to underscore why there is so much distrust in the press, the New York Times recently printed a newsletter that went against the COVID-19 agenda that it has long promoted and concluded that social distancing, masking, and mandates did not make a significant difference in outcomes.
After analysis of chart after chart of infections in “blue” areas with heavy covid restrictions and “red” areas with little to no such policies, there is little to discern in terms of differences.
The lack of a clear pattern is itself striking. Remember, not only have Democratic voters been avoiding restaurants and wearing masks; they are also much more likely to be vaccinated and boosted (and vaccines substantially reduce the chances of infection). Combined, these factors seem as if they should have caused large differences in case rates.
They have not. And that they haven’t offers some clarity about the relative effectiveness of different Covid interventions.
Next, there is further evidence that the National Institute of Health funded the gain-of-function research in Wuhan.
The Intercept obtained over 900 pages about EcoHealth Alliance’s U.S.-funded coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China .
The documents detail two unpublished proposals funded by Dr. Anthony Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and updates to EcoHealth Alliance’s research.
Tucker Carlson recently did a detailed review the the Russian accusation. By his account, there is an internet trail that is concerning.
…[T]he National Pulse dug up 2011 report from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences that also explained that the Odessa based laboratory “is responsible for the identification of especially dangerous biological pathogens.” So, what we’re doing—this is not the first time you’ve heard this story—we are funding the creation of deadly pathogens so we can study them and prevent people from getting infected with them. Maybe? There are lots of examples of this. The U.S. Embassy in Ukraine has a handy web page explaining that American and Ukrainian scientists have worked on a whole bunch of different experiments like this.
Some of the projects include work on African swine fever virus, hemorrhagic fever virus, and various respiratory viruses. The interesting thing, the telling thing, is that the U.S. Embassy’s website also contains links to fact sheets about America’s support for biological research in Ukraine, but all those links are now dead. That’s weird. It’s our government. We pay for it. Again, they’re there in our name, in the name of American citizens, but we can no longer read their web page. How does that work, exactly? They have no right to lie to us.
The web page is archived, thankfully, and the fact sheets show Defense Department funding to laboratories in Ukraine.
Investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson has published a handy list of links to Ukraine biolab documents reportedly removed by the U.S. Embassy.
Despite this official UN pronouncement, there are many reasons for continued concern and skepticism.
Ukraine has "biological research facilities," says Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland, when asked by Sen Rubio if Ukraine has biological or chemical weapons, and says she's worried Russia may get them. But she says she's 100% sure if there's a biological attack, it's Russia. pic.twitter.com/uo3dHDMfAS
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) March 8, 2022
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.