You can't inject your bioweapon and have it too!

Documented extensive prior institutional knowledge that mRNA and DNA injections can be made into weapons and "legally" deployed on all of us as EUA Countermeasures under a faked pandemic.

I recommend watching The Kill Shot documentary or read the book “Dr. Mary’s Monkey” in conjunction with this post. This will give you a really good historical perspective to any claims of “senior scientists at CDC VRC, pharma, academia, etc were not planning to make bioweapons, did not know this was possible to do, stop this hate already…” type of statements.

The depth of the denial of evil never stops to amaze me. For evil to achieve its goals, you don’t need to commit evil acts, you just need to deny that they are possible.

This post is inspired by a transcribed exchange in Twitter Spaces. Some more relevant information can be found in another Substack post here.

There was an exchange between Dr. Richard Urso and Dr. Robert Malone in a Twitter Space about lipid nanoparticles directing spike proteins to the ovaries.

twitter.com/i/spaces/1YqKDoVRaDoxV

1:40:55. Dr. Robert Malone: “At this point, I haven’t seen anything that says to me that Pfizer or Bill Gates or Harari or Klaus Schwab or Tedros or any of the others envisioned, or the senior scientists at the vaccine research center, envisioned that this would be a lethal bioweapon and I frankly object to that language that’s often bandied about without any clear evidence to support it other than inference. I think this is very dangerous and it will be weaponized against as these things often are. So I just don’t go there. I hope I’ve answered your question.

1:41:47.  Dr. Richard Urso:  “Can I tag onto Robert?  I think the inference is a simple one.  The distribution of lipid nanoparticles is well known prior to this rollout.  They definitely go to brain, heart, bone marrow, adrenals, and, as is shown, ovaries.  Ovaries have lots of H2 receptors.  They’re going to cause inflammation.  The very thought that someone wouldn’t think that it might affect fertility is absurd. …  Over.”

(Long Pause)

Dr. Robert Malone:  1:42:42.  “To go down that road, (Urso says “UHH”) we have to dive into issues of the groupthink that happens in pharmaceutical industry development.   I know you’re well familiar with that as are many others here, and and I, I caution that uhh what we may have observed and encountered and been subjected to, uhh, umm, may well be the consequence of a form of uhh, uhh, blindness, due to self interest and and ummm silo organization within pharma, and within the government.  So that uhh, no, very few people are aware of of the full scope and and they all kind of sit within their own little silos.  And think about the things that they’re supposed to think about and not talk about other things.  Umm I think that what what has transpired personally is that it umm wasn’t until there was some folks coming in from the outside that, and perhaps you’re one of those, looking at the whole sum of what was transpiring, umm, that were able to assemble the pieces and break through the cloud of propaganda et cetera that we all are subjected to.  So good on you for having done it.  But I, I, I, umm, it is possible, that, uhh, people were so siloed, that, umm, they didn’t question, umm, what was transpiring and they didn’t really question the safety and effectiveness.  They just kind of went from day to day, umm, following orders, and thinking that they were responding effectively to a public health crisis.  That is an alternative explanation, over.” 

Richard Urso:   “Yeah, please let me address that.  I agree with you Robert, very much.  My point being that the top scientists had to know.  Umm, there may be many others did not, but the top scientists who had worked with lipid nanoparticles would be very familiar with this.  And and so there were people who had to know.  And so agree with you.   That’s why you’ve never heard me say it’s uhh some kind of population agenda thing.  I just have never gone there either, because I don’t have any facts of that record.  I mean to say that.  But I actually feel very comfortable saying that I know top scientists that are in this field that helped developed these, had to know in some sense that it might have an effect and should have potentially been carefully looked at.”      

First, thank you Dr. Urso! Yes, the inference is very simple for those who are concerned with real safety of real medicines. Poison-19 injections are designed to kill, maim and reduce fertility (great recent analysis of VAERS by Jessica Rose). The biodistribution is one of the key mechanisms of harm, and, yes - it is absurd to claim no knowledge of what damage is going to result from the LNPs hitting ovaries by EXPERTS in this technology. Dr. Urso does not want to claim this is for population control, (official US Government policy since forever) but ok. I really don’t care why psychopaths want to get rid of me and my children, it is sufficient for me to know that they are serious enough to put trillions of dollars behind this effort.

There are dozens of various mechanisms of harm designed into mRNA technology as it exists in theoretically pure (uncontaminated) form. That’s why this technology has NEVER been put to any application beneficial to health, despite decades of hype and billions poured into its development under cover of “biomedical research”. The numerous mechanisms of harm by mRNA in LNP have been documented by prominent scientists and doctors over the past 3+ years.

The first and the most impressively accurate predictions were made by

Dr Mike Yeadon

Drs. Yeadon and Wodarg on December 1, 2020 when they filed this urgent petition with EMA to stop Poison-19 from reaching the market. Note that both were non-experts in mRNA (at the time of writing) but experts in drug design. So, even without deep expertise in the specific drug class, it is very possible to determine how dangerous something might be by examining design of a product. Even as a non-scientist I determined that mRNA advertised as “vaccine” would be a hugely risky product by simply reading FDA Guidance documents from 2015. Claiming that an expert class, senior scientists at VRC could not know this or couldn’t quickly figure this out - that takes some cojones and some skillful use of the 5th generation word salad.

One of the issues raised by Drs. Yeadon and Wodarg was high potential to cause infertility post injection.

This means that it could take a relatively long time before a noticeable number of cases of postvaccination infertility could be observed.

It is now confirmed by drastic drop in birth rates all over the world in high-vaccinated countries, by analysis of vSafe data using correct math, and by the analysis of VAERS data from Dr. Rose linked above.

Dr. Yeadon’s predictions in 2020 are in fact so right on the money - is this why he is being attacked by Dr. Malone on social media?

Additional more sinister mechanisms of harm in Poison-19 shots include undisclosed components - aka lacing or spiking drugs with poisonous chemicals, a technique utilized in illicit drug trafficking, and now made fully legal for “EUA Countermeasures under Public Health Emergency” by systematically removing all regulatory consumer protection and legal liability mechanisms, as Katherine Watt and I discussed here.

It took many years to put the illegal laws in place so that mRNA-laced-with-DNA-laced-with-SV40 and other stealth components could be injected into pregnant women and children under trillion dollar campaign of fear mongering, threats and gaslighting by the US Government-Military-Pharma cartel and its accomplices in academia, “healthcare” and media. Compartmentalization, love of paycheck, just following orders or “it doesn’t say ‘making bioweapons’ on my SBIR grant proposal, see, I am a good scientist!” - does not fly as defense in the only court that matters.

Did Robert Langer at MIT know that Moderna’s technology can be made into weapons when he co-founded it in 2011? You bet! Actually not you, Steve Kirsch bets Robert Langer $10M for another debate to which Langer will of course not show up. (I promise to humbly apologize for this statement if he does show up). That’s a great idea, Steve, but a better use of $10M, may I suggest? - buy several Congresspeople (they are cheap) and get them to dismantle the illegal laws enabling EUA Countermeasures and pandemic preparedness racket, starting with the PREP Act (government license to kill).

Who knew it was a bio-chemical weapon (poison) and when did they know it?

Did any senior scientists at the Vaccine Research Center know? VRC is the CDC shop where they design these things and test them on mice and black orphan children. Don’t worry, the latter mostly happens in Africa via staged “outbreaks” of various epidemics in collaboration with the CIA, usually after the death fairy named Bill Gates visits there with his many philanthropic programs. Only evil Fauci at the NIH tests toxic drugs on foster children in the US. CDC, a totally different and unrelated part of the US Government, has moral and ethical standards, y’all! THEIR senior scientists never think that they work on bioweapons, and therefore they don’t! To think that they do - that’s hate! We need unity and the spirit of healing nowadays, not hate! But I digress.

After satisfactory testing, VRC gives their “babies” to private companies in which the VRCers personally hold financial interest. Purely for the greater good of humanity. VRC gave Moderna “covid vaccine candidates” and ran most of Moderna’s fraudulent preclinical studies, because your government loves to help private companies, and because trust the science.

I often quote this AirForce report on bioweapons. They clearly knew in 1997 that “gene therapy” as mRNA “vaccines” were called until middle of 2020 (when HHS/DOD/Pharma scrambled to re-name them into “safe and effective vaccines”) was easily WEAPONIZEABLE technology. JASON group historically included mostly nuclear physicists, but more recently includes many bio-molecular-genetic top scientists, including current head of the Salk Institute Gerald Joyce.

Were VRC senior scientists aware of this AF report (or similar numerous publications)? Did they know that mRNA and DNA biologics are easily weaponizable? It is hard to believe that they did not. In any case the institutions they belong to have a responsibility to know this as they are working on DURC (dual-use research of concern) and often with “select agents”.

In 2018, the top scientists knew the same thing that was known in 1997 in much more detail. So much more in fact that they authored an entire textbook dedicated to this topic.

Do senior scientists of CDC VRC read books like this? Do they go to scientific and defense conferences and talk to other scientists like people listed below? Of course they do. I have worked in commercializing scientific research for many years, and in each discipline of science all of them know each other and follow each other’s research. It is an absurdity to claim that Fauci is bad but VRC senior scientists are pure naive souls.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Division on Earth and Life Studies; Board on Life Sciences; Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology; Committee on Strategies for Identifying and Addressing Potential Biodefense Vulnerabilities Posed by Synthetic Biology.

Copyright 2018 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Bookshelf ID: NBK535879

Let’s look at the biographies, just to confirm that these are, indeed, some top scientists from the top academic institutions who knew that genetic injections (and many other formulations) of RNA and DNA…

…CAN BE MADE INTO WEAPONS!

Appendix D: Committee Biographies [emphasis on some very relevant knowledge is mine]

Michael Imperiale, (Chair), Ph.D., is the Arthur F. Thurnau Professor and Associate Chair of Microbiology and Immunology at the University of Michigan Medical School. Dr. Imperiale's research focuses on the molecular biology of the small DNA tumor virus BK polyomavirus and specifically on how the virus traffics through the cell [weaponization - how to transfect cells with harmful cargo] and interacts with the host intrinsic immune functions. Dr. Imperiale is a previous member of the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity and has been deeply involved in the policy discussion regarding the potential risks and benefits of gain-of-function research. In 2010, he was elected as a Fellow of the American Academy of Microbiology and was named a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 2011. He is the founding editor-in-chief of mSphere and also serves as an editor for mBio. In addition to his laboratory research, Dr. Imperiale is involved in science policy. He serves on the Committee on Science, Technology, and Law at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and previously served on the Planetary Protection Subcommittee at NASA. Dr. Imperiale received his B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. from Columbia University, all in biological sciences.

Patrick Boyle, Ph.D., is the head of design at Ginkgo Bioworks, a Boston-based synthetic biology company that makes and sells engineered organisms. Dr. Boyle's team provides design tools and synthetic biology expertise to Ginkgo's organism engineers and is an integral part of Ginkgo's Design, Build, Test, and Ferment strategy for organism engineering. Dr. Boyle has extensive hands-on experience with the day-to-day applications of synthetic biology, as well as with working within the existing regulatory structure surrounding synthetic biology. Dr. Boyle received his Ph.D. in biological and biomedical sciences from Harvard Medical School.

Peter A. Carr, Ph.D., is a senior scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Lincoln Laboratory, where he leads the synthetic biology research program. His research interests span genome engineering, rapid prototyping of both hardware and wetware, DNA synthesis and error correction, risk evaluation, and biodefense. Dr. Carr is the director of judging for the International Genetically Engineered Machine (iGEM) competition and is deeply knowledgeable about both the practice and potential implications of synthetic biology, with a special focus on the potential impacts on biodefense. Dr. Carr received his bachelor's degree in biochemistry from Harvard and his Ph.D. in biochemistry and molecular biophysics from Columbia University.

Douglas Densmore, Ph.D., is associate professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering and a Hariri Institute for Computing and Computational Science and Engineering Faculty Fellow, both at Boston University. His research focuses on the development of tools for the specification, design, and assembly of synthetic biological systems, drawing upon his experience with embedded system-level design and electronic design automation. He is the director of the Cross-disciplinary Integration of Design Automation Research group at Boston University, where his team of staff and postdoctoral researchers, undergraduate interns, and graduate students develops computational and experimental tools for synthetic biology. He is the lead investigator for the National Science Foundation Expeditions “Living Computing Project” and a senior member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and the Association for Computing Machinery. Dr. Densmore received his Ph.D. in electrical engineering from the University of California, Berkeley.

Diane DiEuliis, Ph.D., is a senior research fellow at National Defense University (NDU). Her research areas focus on emerging biological technologies, biodefense, and preparedness for biological threats. Dr. DiEuliis also studies issues related to dual-use research, disaster recovery research, and behavioral, cognitive, and social science as it relates to important aspects of deterrence and preparedness. Prior to joining NDU, Dr. DiEuliis was the deputy director for policy in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Dr. DiEuliis also previously served in the Office of Science and Technology Policy at the White House and was a program director at the National Institutes of Health. Dr. DiEuliis has broad knowledge about the policy implications of emerging technologies, as well as the intricacies that accompany instituting new policies to regulate such emerging technologies. Dr. DiEuliis received her Ph.D. in biological sciences from the University of Delaware.

Andrew Ellington, Ph.D., is the Fraser Professor of Biochemistry at the University of Texas at Austin. Dr. Ellington's research focuses on the development and evolution of artificial life, including nucleic acid operating systems that can function both in vitro and in vivo. His laboratory aims to “[reduce] synthetic biology . . . to an engineering discipline rather than a buzzword.” Dr. Ellington has received the Office of Naval Research Young Investigator Award, Cottrell Award, and Pew Scholar Award. He has advised numerous government agencies on biodefense and biotechnology issues and was recently named a National Security Science and Engineering Faculty Fellow. He was also recently named a Fellow of the American Academy of Microbiology and of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Dr. Ellington has also helped found the aptamer companies Archemix and b3 Biosciences, and has an intimate understanding of both the academic and commercial sides of synthetic biology, as well as the challenges to both. Dr. Ellington earned his Ph.D. in biochemistry and molecular biology from Harvard.

Gigi Kwik Gronvall, Ph.D., is a senior associate at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security and visiting faculty at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. An immunologist by training, Dr. Gronvall's work addresses how scientists can diminish the threat of biological weapons and how they can contribute to an effective response against a biological weapon or a natural epidemic. Dr. Gronvall is the author of the 2016 book Synthetic Biology: Safety, Security, and Promise (Health Security Press). She is a member of the Threat Reduction Advisory Committee, which provides the Secretary of Defense with independent advice and recommendations on reducing the risk to the United States, its military forces, and its allies and partners posed by nuclear, biological, chemical, and conventional threats. Dr. Gronvall has testified before Congress on topics relating to biosafety and biosecurity and is widely regarded as an expert on the role of scientists in health and national security matters. Dr. Gronvall earned her Ph.D. from Johns Hopkins University.

Charles Haas, Ph.D., is the L.D. Betz Professor of Environmental Engineering and head of the Department of Civil, Architectural, and Environmental Engineering at Drexel University. His broad research interests include the estimation of human health risks from environmental exposures to pathogens and their control using engineering interventions and drinking water treatment. Dr. Haas is broadly knowledgeable in the field of risk assessment, particularly in the context of complex and interdependent systems. Dr. Haas previously served as co-director of the Center for Advancing Microbial Risk Assessment, which was jointly funded by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Dr. Haas has served on a number of National Academies committees, including serving as chair of the Committee to Review Risk Assessment Approaches for the Medical Countermeasures Test and Evaluation Facility at Fort Detrick, Maryland. Dr. Haas received his Ph.D. in environmental engineering from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Joseph Kanabrocki, Ph.D., is the associate vice president for research safety and professor of microbiology in the Biological Sciences Division of the University of Chicago. Dr. Kanabrocki is tasked with instilling a culture that focuses on the health and well-being of all university personnel engaged in research activities. Dr. Kanabrocki is an expert in biosafety and biosecurity issues, especially practical ones arising from day-to-day laboratory work due to his appointment as biological safety officer and select agent responsible official for the University of Chicago. Dr. Kanabrocki is a member of the National Institutes of Health Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee and currently a member of the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB). Dr. Kanabrocki served as co-chair of the NSABB Working Group that produced the 2016 report Recommendations for the Evaluation and Oversight of Proposed Gain-of-Function Research. Dr. Kanabrocki received his Ph.D. in microbiology from the University of South Dakota School of Medicine.

Kara Morgan, Ph.D., is a principal at Quant Policy Strategies, LLC. Her work in public health policy analysis includes developing and evaluating data-driven decision support tools to support effective risk management decision making. She has worked extensively on risk assessment and, in particular, on how results from risk assessments can be effectively integrated into decision-making processes. Prior to founding Quant Policy Strategies, Dr. Morgan was a research leader at Battelle Memorial Institute. Prior to that position, Dr. Morgan worked at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in several advisory and leadership positions for 10 years. Through her work supporting the National Nanotechnology Initiative during her time at FDA, in 2005 she published one of the first articles to establish a framework for informing risk analysis about nanoparticles. Her research in expert elicitation, decision analysis, and risk analysis has led to numerous publications developing and applying risk frameworks to decision making about microbial food safety and the pharmaceutical manufacturing quality. She is an adjunct professor at the John Glenn College for Public Affairs at Ohio State University and serves as an appointed member of the State Board of Education in Ohio. Dr. Morgan received her Ph.D. in engineering and public policy from Carnegie Mellon University.

Kristala Jones Prather, Ph.D., is the Arthur D. Little Professor of Chemical Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Her research interests are centered on the engineering of recombinant microorganisms for the production of small molecules, especially focusing on the design and assembly of biological pathways to target compounds and the incorporation of novel control strategies for regulation of metabolism. Prior to joining MIT's faculty, Dr. Prather worked in Bioprocess Research and Development at Merck Research Laboratories. She has received numerous awards, including a position on the MIT Technology Review's TR35, a list of innovators under the age of 35; the National Science Foundation's Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) award; and the Biochemical Engineering Journal Young Investigator Award. Dr. Prather has been recognized for excellence in teaching at MIT with several awards, including the School of Engineering's Junior Bose Award for Excellence in Teaching, and through appointment as a MacVicar Faculty Fellow, the highest honor given for undergraduate teaching at MIT. Dr. Prather received her Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley.

Thomas Slezak, M.S., is an associate program leader at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Mr. Slezak is a computer scientist and manages a team of biologists and software engineers to find innovative solutions for diagnosing and characterizing dangerous pathogens. Mr. Slezak's team has developed PCR assays, pan-microbial microarrays (recently commercialized by Affymetrix), and DNA sequence analysis software to support a broad range of pathogen detection and forensic programs in biodefense and human and animal health. Mr. Slezak co-chaired a Blue Ribbon Panel on bioinformatics for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that led to new funding for the Advanced Molecular Detection program, and was a developer of the nationwide BioWatch system. Mr. Slezak has served on three National Academies' panels on biodefense topics, as well as on the National Academies' Standing Committee on Biodefense Programs to Advise the Department of Defense. Mr. Slezak received his M.S. in computer science at the University of California, Davis.

Jill Taylor, Ph.D., is the director of the New York State Department of Health Wadsworth Center and a faculty member of the Wadsworth School of Laboratory Sciences. The Wadsworth Center is the only research-intensive public health laboratory in the nation, and Dr. Taylor has served as its director, deputy director, and interim director for the past 12 years. Dr. Taylor previously served as the director of the Wadsworth Center's Clinical Virology Program, which focused on introducing molecular technologies to ensure responsiveness to the state's changing public health needs, with particular emphasis on influenza virus. She also contributes to policy discussions at the national level as a member of the Board of Scientific Counselors of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control's Office of Infectious Diseases and as a member of the Board of Regents of the National Library of Medicine. Dr. Taylor is well versed in developing future research agendas and analysis of new policy proposals and their implications. Dr. Taylor received her Ph.D. from the University of Queensland, Australia.

Art for today: Portrait of Max, charcoal, sanguine and chalk on brown paper.