Two More Coffin Nails and 100% Certainty of COVID-19 Fraud – Can Anyone Prove It Isn’t?

Care to understand how COVID-19 is a false flag political construct that was intentionally developed as a bio-WMD to facilitate the overthrow of the U.S.? Then this article is for you and it includes an abundance of links and other resources to verify positions and provide you with all of the evidence you need for a deeper and clearer understanding of what is being done to us. That’s right – done to us.

On a date conveniently saddled between Christmas and New Year’s Eve 2019, when the majority of the Western world was occupied and distracted with both holiday recovery and preparation, the world fundamentally changed on 27 Dec 19 when the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak (not yet a “pandemic”) was first announced in the mainstream media news. They eased it in and perhaps many missed it.


Curiously and by means of evidence later provided to me by an epidemiologist, we confirmed that the U.S. and other Western nations were ordering “COVID”-specific test kits and supplies by a name that technically wouldn’t exist until 11 Feb 20, when the WHO/CDC cohort would officially apply the “COVID-19” moniker to it. Moreover, the evidence demonstrates that the U.S. and those other nations were making such “COVID-19” purchases dating back to 2017 and in each and every year up to 2019. How does that happen outside of a planned event? It doesn’t – period.

I caught the breaking China viral outbreak story in real time and immediately became suspicious of it so I began paying attention and collecting evidence and data points as best I could. Those instincts were on-point and with deadly precision because the first infection and mortality data that arrived in February-March 2020 initially verified that position and placed us on an investigative track that’s still ongoing today; and like a fine wine, the complete body of work only improves as time passes; and in many critical ways not identified by anyone else. That was a year and a half and hundreds of articles and videos ago.

A day before the story broke back on 26 Dec 19 and moving forward in that general time; and in review of my pre-COVID-19 work, the focus then was diversified on topics like President Trump’s fraudulent impeachment (the first) over a completely legitimate and appropriate diplomatic phone call to Ukraine and tying that directly to the 2020 election timeline; Joe Biden and the Biden crime family’s energy corruption in Ukraine; developments, crime and corruption within the FBI; continued research into Q for vetting and establishing veracity; detailing efforts in institutional preservation relative to self-preservation (corrupt politicians); FISA abuse and especially against Lt. General Michael Flynn and President Trump; the 2015 cybersecurity bill relative to impeachment; the 2020 election; John Brennan; developments in Iran; the 25th Amendment; the coup d’etat in general; and more.

In the backdrop of most of what I’ve written and shared publicly, there has been a years-long private conversation with a cohort of informed, intelligent and fiercely patriotic people; one of whom provides me unique access to three particular sources I often cite without naming. In that dialogue, I began detailing my suspicions over the outbreak and even some of those individuals thought I was off the mark, but I continued to make my case over time. I didn’t; however, have anything beyond anecdotal and circumstantial evidence as supported by rational and logical thought and deduction that would permit me to publish and present cogent thoughts on COVID-19 being a false flag political construct and do so without looking mostly insane, which some friends and relatives already think anyways. So I withheld those thoughts until something would arrive into which I could sink my teeth.

It would end-up being the first data sets for infection and mortality that arrived in February-March 2020 that did it. My position on the “fake pandemic” was partly verified by what I found inside those data sets and now, I had to continue working to prove it, which constituted a long path forward.

The simple concept of inverse proportions on a single timeline and with hockey stick relationships (a hallmark indicator of fraud) made for some straight forward parsing out of data to confirm positions.

Notably and dating back to mid-December (pre-COVID), I was focused on this curious need for Adam Schiff (HPSCI) and Nancy Pelosi (Speaker) to ensure that President Trump were impeached before Christmas. Why? Who enforces a due date – like it’s some sort of overdue library book – rather than giving full fidelity to conducting a thorough, proper, fulsome and accurate investigation to provide full and accurate summary findings for public consumption?

No one. That’s who. No one who has a modicum of appreciation for the gravity of a presidential impeachment or fidelity for the work therein and sure as hell not Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff or Jerry Nadler (House Judiciary Committee.)

It would lead to one of the most substantial and exclusive findings that everybody else missed but I nailed down precisely – that the first impeachment was devised primarily as a deflection mechanism to usher-in COVID-19 while distracting the world from it. The COVID and impeachment timelines braided together like a rope in light of actions coming from the WHO/CDC cohort.

Everybody missed this. I didn’t and its fundamental importance can’t be overstated. What delivered it was a method of applying timeline overlays in search of overlaps. This timeline work is absolutely essential and it delivered throughout the investigation.

As impeachment dominated the news cycle, I continued to work on COVID in the backdrop; privately sharing thoughts and collecting what evidence I could. The MSM was essentially easing us along and letting the COVID pot come to a simmer on the back burner right up until the impeachment verdict was reached. Following the announced Senate trial acquittal, the COVID narrative was kicked into overdrive and that pot started towards a boil.

As best I can tell my first COVID post on social media was on or around 02 Feb 20 but really, I think I was chiming in on it as soon as days after the first news of it. I’m uncertain because my primary social media account – Twitter – is now deleted due to my banishment and I’ve not accessed the archive file.

On 05 Feb 20, the Senate acquitted President Trump in his impeachment trial and our COVID pot begins to boil. On 09 Feb 20, I had acquired enough evidence to publish my first article.

By mid-March, I had a galvanized position with substantial evidence that COVID-19 was a false flag political construct and we were set to continue making that case.

From early February moving forward, I had investigated and written about virtually every angle you could conceivably identify and using open sources to do it.

By mid-April 2020 and 28 articles into it, we were locked in for the first comprehensive article entitled Cause of Death for Sale, which delineated the broader premise and included examining financial incentives in federal dollars for medical providers complying with federally issued COVID policies (Fauci/CDC); all within the outlined construct for the criminal predicate (fraud), which I later diagrammed (below) to include a lengthy report I’ve yet to make public. That report assumes the same quality, format and detail relative to what I formerly used to submit to law firms and insurance companies as a high-value fraud investigator.

That article also contains the actual slides from the 13 Jan 17 presidential transition meetings whereby an outgoing Obama administration inserted the pandemic construct into the Trump administration by means of those same compulsory transition meetings.

Presidential transition meetings are framed in longstanding legislation that Obama augmented with an executive order on 18 Mar 16 when he included “pandemic preparedness” as a topic for the meetings. Obama’s White House also coordinated the initial leak of the Flynn/Russia lie releasing it to the MSM for publication immediately prior to the transition meetings and as a deflection or distraction.

Note this redundant pattern of tactics of using one event to detract from another.

Moving forward, note two critical elements. For one and relative to both the 2020 election and his eventual refusal in January 2021 to execute his electoral duties as President of the U.S. Senate, Mike Pence was previously assigned by President Trump as the point man for COVID-19. Then, in April 2020 during a legendary press conference, President Trump dragged Anthony Fauci to the podium and required him to correct the record that Trump had accepted all of his recommendations, mitigations and guidelines the first time they were presented to him and on each and every occasion.

This is a fundamental component that, once again, seems to have escaped everyone and it’s one I’ve hammered home in this context; alongside the use of the same tactic as identified in other contexts. With these critical maneuvers, President Trump sagely and entirely compartmentalized the culpability for COVID-19 and the accompanying genocide with the Pence/Fauci cohort. Having done so will allow Trump to walk away from a modern day holocaust with no strings attached and rightfully so. Pence and Fauci own it all.

Dating back to this general time period (spring into summer) last year, much effort was spent outlining the treasonous aspects of both former President Barack Obama’s presidency and a full slate of corrupt bureaucrats, officials and politicians.

In late August 2020, I reported that on 26 Aug 20, the most significant confirmation to-date was received relative to the underlying premise underpinning the entire COVID-19 “pandemic” – that the pandemic was nothing more than the deliberate propagation of patently fraudulent infection and mortality data harvested and curated from an average of 2.6 underlying comorbidities. Therein, they stated that 94% of the data used to justify guidelines and mitigations were unreliable and that only 6% was valid. This put the number of “COVID deaths” under 10,000 and precisely in the range of seasonal flu/pneumonia; not what the MSM is and has been reporting. Fraud. Through and through – fraud.

More recently I reported that on 12 May 21, the CDC made the same revisions but exacerbated the situation by increasing the numbers. It now stands such that for all “COVID deaths,” only 5% of the data remains valid, 95% of it has been revised away and the average number of underlying co-morbidities (primarily flu, pneumonia, heart disease, diabetes and obesity) was increased to 4.0. That’s even worse fraud.


As it stands now, there is no chance that the positions and work are in error or, in other words and as I’ve been hollering for about a year and a half and long before anybody else, the entire pandemic is one of fraudulent data. Every bit of it; except for the real virus, the real bio-weaponization of it, the real and intentional release of it and sadly, the real Americans and others who died from it. That’s all real. Very real. As in modern day holocaust real.

Let’s pause. Some of you are calling me out saying I’m contradicting myself but that would only be in absolute terms. Yes, the virus is real and it killed people and yes it’s entirely a pandemic of fraudulent data – they’re not mutually exclusive; rather, they serve one another. Look at what that nasty little bug has delivered. But here’s the data point that the CDC can’t escape.

Moving forward from October 2020 and focusing more closely on electoral politics, of which there has been and continues to be plenty, the effort continued to focus on enmeshing the established COVID-19 fraud as a known China mechanism within a broader effort from China, the CCP and the PLA; and then establishing all of the nexuses and linkages tying it all together. Again, there was no shortage of work and it can be consumed independently.

In November, I identified a particular aspect of COVID-19 respective to the stolen election and the need for President-elect Biden to enter office with momentum established to reverse course on it. Who unleashes a bio-WMD to steal an election only to let that bio-WMD continue to wreak havoc with your own presidency? No one. That’s who. That explains why Fauci began to pivot-out of COVID in late November; after the stolen election but before Biden entered office.

Keep the above in mind as I front-load the next data point. The front-load is this – the CDC/WHO cohort was using deliberately and anomalously high cycle thresholds (35-40 v. 17-25 and as an indicator of viral load) relative to PCR testing. Now, bear in mind that the virus was never isolated relative to PCR testing and moreover, the developer of the PCR test – who is now deceased circa 2019 – how convenient? – advised that the PCR test was never intended as a diagnosis tool implying that it’s being misused and delivering unreliable data relative to COVID.

Do you know what PCR tests with faulty high cycle thresholds deliver in absolute abundance? False positive test results. FALSE POSITIVE TEST RESULTS! Remember how I framed the “pandemic” as one of propagated fraudulent data? The intentionally faulty PCR tests, as determined by the CDC/WHO cohort, became the primary data driver for the pandemic.

Remember what occurred around mid-April 2020? The CDC/WHO moved away from the historical and conventional pandemic measurement of mortality data, which was in decline at the time, to the measurement of “new case data.” That’s never been done before and it allows them to leverage the faulty high CTs in the PCR test; remembering that beginning in January 2020, the Democrats were howling about expanded testing. Now you know why.

Following the mid-April shift, the PCR tests delivered the pandemic as designed and now, everywhere we see cases of expanded testing and vaccination, we see explosions in COVID “cases.” India and Seychelles are perfect examples of this dynamic and that of vaccinated people subsequently testing positive (Seychelles.)

I asked you to keep in mind the Fauci pivot out of COVID four paragraphs up and it applies to PCR testing. This is why. Knowing what you know now about PCR tests and acceptable cycle thresholds, consider this.

Do you know what the WHO/CDC did within one hour of Biden’s oddly early 20 Jan 21 inauguration? They revised the CT for PCR tests back down to a conventional range presumably at or near 17-25. WITHIN AN HOUR!

The COVID “variant” has become the 2021 version of the 2020 shift to new cases and in both instances, these deliberate spring-time maneuvers serve as bridges to drag the “pandemic” through the annual seasonal die-off of the co-morbidities (primarily flu/pneumo) being leveraged for data and taking us right back to peak flu season, which the CDC indicates as beginning every 01 Dec and running for two months. Rinse, repeat.

People not catching onto what I was shouting over a year ago was a nightmare come true – none of us are getting our lives back until someone makes these people stop.

After taking a stab at podcasting (9 volumes) followed a brief hiatus to take a needed break, I came back with several hard-hitting articles recently; saving the best for last. In the first, I provided a complete recapitulation and explanation of the pandemic while reinforcing the notion that the country seems to be oblivious to the fact that we find ourselves in an undeclared third world war and with a Chinese proxy occupying the White House in preparation for taking a likely dive.

In an another, I built on existing work to zero back in on the longstanding position that the Wuhan Institute of Virology is the genesis of the SARS-CoV-2 virus; that the virus was bio-engineered and bio-weaponized; that it was released deliberately; and that Fauci and the NIH collaborated on and funded the research.

A third article delineates how China may use their Biden proxy to legislatively apply Chinese doctrine to the U.S. with the looming infrastructure bill.

The fourth one identifies a substantial shift in the broader narrative and whereby I have identified the exit plan for Biden and China whereby a carve-out is being made for China to assume responsibility for a “leak” by sowing a fraudulent narrative around internal lab sloppiness. This apparent and odd assumption of culpability by China permits the compartmentalization with China itself and that is beyond a big deal.

China is making this compartmentalization as a means of excluding the U.S. from and completely controlling the explaining narrative. It allows China to determine the exact explanation of the origins of SARS-CoV-2 and to provide all of the requisite evidence (or not) they want (after they fabricate to meet needs.) It should a surprise to no one that Biden recently ended former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s investigation into the same rather preferring to defer to the WHO, which China (and Gates and others) own and have owned by means of funding. No sooner did I hit publish than did Joe Biden announce today that he’s opening is on inquiry. Joe can’t even find his house shoes.

What are the chances that Proxy Joe and the CCP sing the same song in their summary findings?

For deeper understanding of how and why that is important (and it is and in fundamental ways), take-in the linked above-linked article because once again, China is leveraging the strategy of compartmentalization just as the U.S. used it as outlined in the next article and relative to U.S. biosecurity.

The fifth article is the most recent and it appears to be an absolute haymaker; catching the attention of others. Lin Wood, John Here to Help and I all recommend that you consume it independently and fully for it identifies and delineates something that few if any are talking about – the 2009-2016 timeline.

The 2009-2016 timeline featured an outgoing Bush handing off another executive order to an incoming Obama and for the express purpose of remaking U.S. biosecurity writ large at U.S. biocontainment facilities. It was all predicated by a Department of Defense initiative and further, it appears that Obama leveraged a potential false flag construct created by a memo co-issued by Lisa Monaco (Department of Homeland Security) in the form of a national “security stand down” at U.S. biocontainment facilities. The security stand down permitted the capture of necessary labs to prevent further exposure in an internal whistleblower scare and may have been a mechanism to off-shore dangerous and unethical GOF research to China.

In backtracking all of the documents and reports – hundreds and hundreds of pages – I identified a specific timeline along with its components and established that the beginning of this particular effort occurred during “Phase 1” in 1999 during the Clinton presidency. I then link from Clinton through every administration right up to Biden. For the record and according to my work, you can draw all of it back to at least George H.W. Bush and prior to the time he entered the CIA in the 1960s.

Who bridges the presidencies of GHW Bush, Clinton, GW Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden? Anthony Fauci. He entered the federal apparatus un-elected in 1984 during the Reagan administration. Who was VPOTUS then? GHW Bush. Full circle and closed.

In this monster article eclipsing 8,000 words, I identify how the Obama DoD initiative served to underpin a complete rules re-write for biosecurity to install a philosophical change that featured moving away from more robust biosecurity to a system that compartmentalizes biosecurity at the individual scientist and laboratory level; just like the stolen election compartmentalized voter fraud at the individual state and voter precinct level.

Are you now coming to understand how these people operate?

Importantly, it should be understood that internal U.S. whilstleblowers came forward to report U.S. gain of function research which the Obama administration halted in 2015 before they off-shored the effort to China in 2016. Again, it was the Monaco memo and the subsequent national “security stand down” that may have been the false flag mechanism to envelop and facilitate the off-shoring of U.S. gain of function work to China.

That brings us to the present and with new coffin nails en route for bad people and entities.


Perhaps pause for a moment and let all of the above sink-in to marinate because two new story lines further validate our positions and the full body of work. They also provide for two additional nails in the coffins of Fauci, China, Biden, the fraudulent COVID-19 construct and the treasonous rest of them all.

For one, we now have two widely known and highly regarded virologists who previously and similarly provided work and evidence, which we then cited and worked from, and which identified SARS-CoV-2 as bioengineered as a bio-WMD. The evidence is derived from the existence of six artificial HIV inserts, which can not in any way be accounted for as occurring in nature. This was a primary and underpinning premise to scaffold our overarching position(s) on the COVID-19 “pandemic” and this further verification of it is of great consequence.

Consider this from Zero Hedge,

British professor Angus Dalgleish – best known for creating the world’s first ‘HIV vaccine’, and Norwegian virologist Dr. Birger Sørensen – chair of pharmaceutical company, Immunor, who has published 31 peer-reviewed papers and holds several patents, wrote that while analyzing virus samples last year, the pair discovered “unique fingerprints” in the form of “six inserts” created through gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China.

They also conclude that “SARS-Coronavirus-2 has “no credible natural ancestor” and that it is “beyond reasonable doubt” that the virus was created via “laboratory manipulation.”


For brevity’s sake and understanding that other teams of virologists and their findings were also discussed, including this quote, “If I was trying to engineer a virus strain with a higher affinity and infective potential to humans, I would do exactly that…”, we’ll exclude the balance of the article and recommend that it be consumed in full.

It should also be noted that up until now and based upon previous research, we understood the number of artificial HIV insertions to be four (4), which they now update to six (6.)

The second story line is about fully explainable from the headline alone; also sourced at Zero Hedge – Fauci In 2012: Gain-Of-Function Research ‘Worth Risk Of Lab Accident Sparking Pandemic’.

From Zero Hedge quoting Fauci,

“In an unlikely but conceivable turn of events, what if that scientist becomes infected with the virus, which leads to an outbreak and ultimately triggers a pandemic?” Fauci wrote in the American Society for Microbiology in 2012, adding “Many ask reasonable questions: given the possibility of such a scenario – however remote – should the initial experiments have been performed and/or published in the first place, and what were the processes involved in this decision?”

“Scientists working in this field might say – as indeed I have said – that the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks,” Fauci continued. “It is more likely that a pandemic would occur in nature, and the need to stay ahead of such a threat is a primary reason for performing an experiment that might appear to be risky.”


Really, Tony?

It seems to me, rather, that based upon evidence and not Fauci’s always incorrect rhetoric, it is more likely that a pandemic would occur in U.S. and Chinese laboratories and with compromised scientists and treasonous politicians serving an evil Deep State and with Fauci running point.

The intelligence community is the spine to the overarching coup d’etat effort just as Anthony Fauci is the bridge connecting every presidency from George H.W. Bush through Joe Biden’s stolen, illegitimate and fraudulent presidency.

We began this article by asking if you cared to understand how COVID-19 is a false flag political construct that was intentionally developed as a bio-WMD to facilitate the overthrow of the U.S.?

Let’s rewrite that question and make it rhetorical for our closing – Can anyone prove that it isn’t?


Dangerously Changing Inconvenient Rules

Have you ever noticed that whenever the Deep State/Democrats change inconvenient rules, which is often accompanied by a move to better and enhanced technologies, it creates a portal permitting rampant fraud?

Have you ever noticed that such rules changes are normally executed by executive order, which equates to unilateral decision making, which equates to tyranny?

What are the chances that then President Barack Obama would inherit an outgoing George W. Bush executive order (#13486) devised to overhaul U.S. biosecurity in its biocontainment facilities and by means of a hand-picked “working group?” Rhetorical question; the chances are 100%.

Is it possible that Obama changed the rules pertaining to biosecurity beginning immediately upon entering office in 2009?

Did Obama use a 2014 “security stand down” issued unilaterally by Lisa Monaco (Department of Homeland Security) to alter rules and protocols for the purpose of loosening U.S. biosecurity measures writ large and in advance of underpinning the off-shoring of gain of function research to the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China beginning on a 2014 (halted research) – 2015 (off-shored and funded) timeline?

History helps answer these questions.

The nation’s most sensitive FISA rules (laws) were deliberately broken to spy on then candidate and later President Donald J. Trump along with other critical personnel under the Trump umbrella, like Lt. General Michael Flynn.

Impeachment rules were changed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi to reassign impeachment oversight from Jerry Nadler’s House Judiciary Committee – the lawful impeachment body – to Adam Schiff’s HPSCI; serving to further compartmentalize the fraudulent action within the treasonous intelligence community, which is essentially the spine to all of this corruption, treason and potential genocide (for the record, it’s actual; not potential, and the term ‘modern day holocaust’ is appropriate.)

State election rules (laws) were changed, broken or circumvented in multiple states to permit the theft of the 2020 election.

Elections rules (laws) were changed to ensure that precincts used preferred electronic voting machines that feature enhanced and better technologies like cellular modems, which can be leveraged by things like Hammer and Scorecard.

On 18 Mar 16 and with executive order Public Law 114-136, Obama changed longstanding presidential rules (law) by augmenting them to include pandemic preparedness; later inserting a political false flag construct (the COVID-19 pandemic) into the Trump administration during those same statutorily compulsory presidential transition meetings on 13 Jan 17.

So, again, I ask – Have you ever noticed that whenever the Deep State/Democrats change inconvenient rules, which is often accompanied by a move to better and enhanced technologies, it creates a portal permitting rampant fraud? This frames the basis of our long and intense discussion today.

In the same vein of rules changes and to recapitulate our premise, it appears that right from the very beginning of his first term in early 2009, Obama leveraged a biosecurity executive order inherited from an outgoing Bush (11 days before Obama’s inauguration) to make substantial rules changes in biosecurity writ large. Those changes eventually permitted the off-shoring of gain of function research relative to the SARS-CoV-2 virus to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in China. It appears Obama then leveraged an apparent manufactured biosecurity crisis created by a DHS memo issued by Lisa Monaco in 2014 that cited three unrelated incidents as justification for issuing a national “security stand down” at U.S. biocontainment facilities, which created the entities and processes to make the rules changes. The Monaco memo coincides with internal U.S. whistleblowers who, on the same 2014 timeline, shined the light on U.S. gain of function research causing Obama’s administration to halt it and then, in 2015, off-shore it to China and fund it with Fauci’s NIH, et al.


Here is contextual backdrop information for this work that explains the emergence of the U.S. into this bio-warfare dynamic and it should be understood for the rest of our discussion. It is extracted from a May 2009 Department of Defense report that we continue to examine throughout and which overlaps Obama’s first term.

Biological Select Agents and Toxins and Bio-Safety Level Laboratories: After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 and the anthrax letters mailed later that same year, Congress recognized the threat of terrorism and enacted the USA Patriot Act in 2001. The Patriot Act makes it illegal for an individual to possess BSATs for any reason other than bona fide research. The act states: “Whoever knowingly possesses any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system of a type or in a quantity that, under the circumstances, is not reasonably justified by a prophylactic, protective, bona fide research, or other peaceful purpose.” In response to these events, DoD and the service Inspector General teams inspected DoD biological RDT&E laboratories and advocated development of a surety program for biological agents, similar to existing surety programs for nuclear and chemical programs. In 2002, Congress enacted the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act that tasked the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to prepare a list of select agents and toxins based on the criteria specified in the act; the current version of that list is found in Table 2 along with the associated bio-safety levels (BSL).

Taking it back even further, know that Phase I of this broader effort dates back to 1999 during Bill Clinton’s presidency and further, Hillary Clinton will bear down in this momentarily. The 1999 timeline abuts to the 2001 9/11 timeline, which is not coincidental or by accident.

Another important contextual backdrop item, of which there are too many to include, from the DoD report is that of all of the identified viable threats to biosecurity systems, the one posing the greatest threat is the “insider threat;” and not without a sense of irony, that is the precise threat that bears down in the fraudulent COVID-19 pandemic (emphasis mine).

There was general agreement that an insider could remove BSAT material without detection. However, there was also considerable skepticism that an insider could use a DoD laboratory to proceed with weaponization steps undetected, other than in cases where the planned legitimate work involved equipment or processes that might enable weaponization; in such cases, additional security measures and monitoring should be provided and carefully observed.

Attempting to manipulate large quantities of agents (or weaponization) with steps that require specific equipment (e.g., lyophilizers) is much more likely to arouse suspicion and be detected by an alert management. On the other hand, these further steps (weaponization and quantity) could be accomplished in a garage, basement, or a less-protected lab, such as in a school, with some risk to persons nearby. Any individual who intends to employ a pathogen as a weapon is unlikely to be inhibited from using makeshift facilities that lack the full suite of safety practices utilized by the biodefense labs.

Our focus is being narrowed to something called the “two-person rule” relative to video monitoring systems and other important safeguards. The narrow focus allows us to demonstrate what appears to be a broader fundamental and deliberate shift to move U.S. biocontainment facilities and the regulations and rules framing their handling of BSATs and their interactions with foreign facilities and individuals, in the direction of a less robust biosecurity system; not a more robust one.

Note that the report indicates that the “two-person rule,” which is expanded on below, is of higher cost relative to lower value. Throughout the reports we examined, there is a firm, consistent and detracting message representing an effort to move away from the two-person system, which makes for a second, knowledgeable and objectively impartial set of eyes in the lab at all times.


Why not move in the other direction and mandate both the 2-person system and the video system? Why not make it a 3-person system including an international representative?

Simple logic tells us that the 2-person system matched to other effective biosecurity measures enhances biosecurity but the underpinning philosophical approaches being ushered-in by Obama’s administration curiously cause for a less robust and more vulnerable biosecurity system.

Look around you and ask yourself if that was an accident?

This is from the same DoD report (emphasis mine),

Two-person Rule and Video Monitoring: The current view on thwarting an attempt to steal weaponizable BSATs is typically to apply a two-person rule for working in the lab. In addition, most labs have some degree of video monitoring with a bank of display screens at some central point (e.g., guard post). The two-person rule is considered onerous, and potentially dangerous as it requires someone other than the active scientist to be present in the lab. It is also costly in terms of dollars and personnel. The video monitor is typically thought of as a forensic tool after the fact, but in real time it is only a bank of screens occasionally observed by people who are not experts in lab techniques. Table 7 outlines some of the pros and cons of the two approaches. The task force judged neither approach to be effective as they are used today. Even as a forensic tool, the video is generally retained for short periods of time and the need for forensics may occur months or years after the theft.

Note how the 2-person rule is hammered with negative connotation and devalued relative to cost, which repeats in additional reports and documents as follows. In typical propaganda form, it’s also book-ended by a criticism of the video system they recommend and prefer; constituting the classic propaganda tactic mixing of info and disinfo.

In actuality, though, it’s more than that. I assume it’s also likely to be a specific weakness they intended to exploit in order to operate in darkness and with no one else to see – literally. It’s a simple as saying a 1-person system only has one set of real eyes in the lab.

With the backdrop in place – lets get into it.


Our discussion begins with recent work revisiting the WIV as the origin of the fraudulent data-driven COVID-19 pandemic; especially since it’s resurfacing in the broader narrative and making Trump and then Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (and the rest of us “conspiracy theorists” who have had this precisely dialed all along) appear as prognosticating geniuses (accurate intelligence helps.)

I’ve also recently summarily rehashed the COVID-19 construct to provide a succinct but thorough explanation of it; examined how China may leverage the pending U.S. infrastructure bill to apply Chinese doctrine to America; and I identified the Deep State/China/CCP exit plan from the attribution of the COVID-19 genesis to the Wuhan lab, which is manifesting as an emerging carve-out in the broader narrative.

Let’s start with James LeDuc from the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston; which is only about 55 or so miles from the now shuttered Chinese consulate in Houston that is known as a hotbed for Deep State/CCP activity and which was recently observed (last summer) burning documents on its rooftop. Notably, our reporting has previously covered how the UTMD was enmeshed in the COVID-19 pandemic in troubling ways.

It was LeDuc’s long-tenured relationships with the CDC, UTMB and Anthony Fauci; including being the recipient of substantial funding from Fauci, that when matched with his with his recommendation to examine the WIV using a pro-China narrative (that such a possibility is “less likely”) that is causing us to scrutinize him more closely.

LeDuc set us on this course and that work grew some legs; potentially long ones.

What really holds our attention with LeDuc is this – his advisement to upper echelon scientists in the area of biosecurity at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in 2008 and as an overlap to Obama’s first term beginning in 2009; and emphasizing our position that Obama has been and continues to run point on all things and whereas Biden is his (and China’s/CCP’s) proxy in an otherwise shadow government (video below).

Beyond the philosophical shift to replace or diminish the 2-person system in favor of a fallible video system and the pitfalls inherent to that, there were other significant philosophical approaches being taken that also appeared to counter a robust biosecurity system.

Specifically, the philosophy of driving a “culture of responsibility” bearing down at the individual scientist level achieves a specific tactical and strategic purpose. It compartmentalizes biosecurity system within the individuals. That is important when you come to understand that individuals can be (have been) compromised and leveraged for nefarious reasons. Just ask Mike Pence. We’ll talk more about the Deep State vernacular always used to do this sort of thing.

I was able to identify 23 prior publications from LeDuc and I looked at several of them more closely. Our attention is drawn to one in particular that was authored in 2011 and it rests on his prior positions; including his 2008 advisement to the WIV, as I previously reported and noted. The co-authored piece is entitled ‘Balancing Our Approach to the Insider Threat.’

LeDuc’s introduction to this item should be consumed alongside my established position on the status quo, which is that 9/11 is a previous and sequential step with a bridge to COVID-19 and existing on a generational timeline. That said, LeDuc’s introduction to this item is unsurprising given that he’s of Fauci’s ilk.

First, here’s that description of the status quo, which exists in what I believe may be a divided government with the military recognizing Trump as president and the Judiciary and Congress recognizing Biden (because they helped install him.)

With confidence, it can be and has been demonstrated that individuals within the U.S., some with ties back to Nazi-era Germany (Bush family, et al.), conspired with China/CCP/PLA to research, fund, develop and then deploy a bio-WMD taking the form of SARS-CoV-2, which has genetic markers indicating four artificial HIV insertions and gain of function indicators, to exploit its previous deep and broad infiltration of the U.S. to remove its sitting president, overthrow its government, install a Chinese proxy (Biden) and destroy the nation from within by dividing its people with a fraudulent systemic racism campaign and by destroying its economy with a fraudulent pandemic; and all of it leverages treasonous politicians, officials and CEOs in the United States.


Here’s LeDuc’s ominous introduction to the piece (emphasis mine),

Bioterrorism was a concern of some in government even before Al Qaida–manned planes took down the World Trade Center towers. The anthrax letters greatly heightened that concern and extended it to our citizens as well. The nation responded with billions of dollars: bio- defense research and development, medical countermea- sures, equipment, training first responders, and funding construction of numerous high-containment laboratories. A next generation of scientists began working with what had been called, just since the mid-90s, ‘‘select agents’’; these were generally ‘‘high-risk’’ pathogens, including some that had been studied in state-sponsored biological warfare programs during the Cold War.

LeDuc’s co-authored piece would be foreboding (emphasis mine),

The commission’s report raised the risk of biological terrorism above nuclear terrorism and stated that the nation should ‘‘be more concerned that scientists will become terrorists than that terrorists will become scientists.’’ About the same time, Congressional testimony and concern in the science community resulted in 4 national level studies generally addressing what we now call ‘‘the insider threat’’ in biology.

The following quote is the initial aspect that fully caught my attention and set us on this course (emphasis mine),

A Defense Science Board study, Department of Defense Biological Safety and Security Program (May 2009), acknowledged the insider threat as a very difficult problem, noted that the Department of Defense had the most stringent laboratory security regulations, recommended laboratory video cameras in labs rather than a 2-person rule (1 person to watch another scientist at work), encouraged tailoring the Personnel Reliability Programs (PRP) in bio- logical labs to avoid having a negative impact on research, and underscored the importance of public awareness regarding risk reduction.

Why is LeDuc recommending that this change be made and why did he provide the exact same recommendation to scientists at the WIV in 2008? Why did this overlap Obama’s first term?

For clarity, Obama’s presidency began following the noon inauguration on 20 Jan 09. For more clarity, understand that LeDuc is a Fauci lackey and that Fauci entered service under Reagan (George H.W. Bush was VPOTUS) in 1984. He – Fauci – bridges George H.W. Bush to Clinton to George W. Bush to Obama to Trump to Biden.

So, why does LeDuc put a robust biosecurity system in the backseat in favor of a fallible video system and why do they prefer to address ideological concerns such as “negative impact on research” or scientists being “negatively affected?” Are those appropriate priorities?

Wouldn’t a robust biosecurity system entail informing the scientists that they’re conducting arguably the world’s most sensitive and dangerous research and if they can’t handle the requisite rigors and strict protocols of an effective and robust biosecurity system because it causes them emotional, psychological or professional harm, then they are not qualified for the job.

Hire someone else. Problem solved – unless, of course, your goal is to have and leverage a problem you designed yourself.

The company line offered here by Obama’s administration is an excuse that such a robust system and its restrictive measures interfere with recruiting the best scientific talent. Does that mean that the best scientific talent prefers to work without stringent guardrails to protect against possible deliberate or otherwise but most certainly unethical catastrophes?

Or is it a measure pertaining to the “best” scientific talent being perhaps the scientific “talent” that is willing to engage in bio-weaponization and gain of function work?

Moving forward relative to the quotes that follow, study how the Deep State makes patently obvious policy decisions that equate to more lax biosecurity and then explains it all away with flowery academic language pulling on about any string that is not common sense, human nature or actual science (their favorite tactic.)

The following is a perfect example of how this Fauci cohort is using their own vernacular to compartmentalize biosecurity with individual scientists. Remember that an individual scientist can be leveraged and compromised much more effectively than an entire robust biosecurity system.

In this instance and as he makes his remarks, LeDuc is pulling from a report we’ll visit momentarily (emphasis mine) when he says, “…the importance of strong leadership and a culture of personal responsibility in laboratories.”

That small fragment is a driving force in the broader Obama biosecurity philosophy. They conveniently compartmentalize biosecurity in two specific ways: at 1) the laboratory level and 2) the level of the individual scientist. Do you see the parallel to election fraud, which similarly occurred at state and precinct levels?

This notion of compartmentalization can’t be overstated. Culpability for curating all of the COVID-19 infection and mortality data was compartmentalized with medical providers. Enforcement for COVID-19 mitigations and guidelines leveraged federalism to be compartmentalized at the state and local levels.

A great analog for compartmentalization can be found in cancer. Which is easier to remove? Cancer metastasized throughout the entire body or an individual tumor in an accessible location? Compartmentalization is critical.

Just like compartmentalization permitted the theft of the election at specific accessible locations, compartmentalizing the biosecurity system within the individual scientists and laboratory leadership, permits entities to compromise the entire U.S. system essentially undetected by leveraging specific accessible locations and individuals.

Consider the similarities with how China is now compartmentalizing the culpability for the genesis of COVID-19, which was actually a bio-WMD strike against the U.S., in a false narrative being constructed around faulty lab sloppiness.

LeDuc, Fauci, et al. are recommending policies that compartmentalize biosecurity arguably because it lends toward a more vulnerable system that is more easily (and deliberately) compromised.

Otherwise, can anyone explain the rationale behind moving off a more robust 2-person biosecurity system, which leverages an unaffiliated third-party scientist (and that scientist’s human conscience) as an objective and methodological surveillance procedure to personally monitor the activities of another scientist at any/all times when inside the lab; and especially so since they are doing the world’s most dangerous work?

Not I. There is not one iota of common sense that prevails there.

Why do teachers walk around the room and from behind, look over the shoulders of students as they take their tests? Rhetorical question.

Examine the following as to whether it is representative of robust biosecurity measures or Deep State, bureaucratic, nonsense vernacular that explains away actual biosecurity in favor of something intentionally and deliberately inadequate and vulnerable (emphasis mine)?

Finally, the National Academies of Science released a study, Responsible Research with Biological Select Agents and Toxins (September 2009), leading with the call for building a culture of trust, engaging stakeholders, requiring government inspectors to have technical and laboratory experience, and pointing out the futility of attempting to implement an overly stringent agent accountability program.

The reports from the science community, the National Academies of Science, and the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity, in particular, emphasized the importance of building a ‘‘culture of responsibility’’ and the value of leadership in making laboratories safe and the conduct of science responsible.

None of that is actual biosecurity but rather bullshit philosophical ideas about it. Once you know what to look for, finding it becomes relatively easy and here’s more (emphasis mine).

We have greatly increased security, installed cameras and stationed armed guards, and implemented PRPs at our government laboratories. We have implemented select agent rules—which have negatively affected our scientists’ ability to share microbial isolates with colleagues at collaborating facilities here and abroad—and we have required scientists to keep even more detailed records in an attempt to account for unmeasurable quantities of readily multiplying microbes. But what have we done to positively change the culture in our laboratories? We’ve done the easy part—the part that can be readily purchased or that lends itself to regulation and checklist management.

“Here and abroad?” Abroad, like China?

Does that translate to, “we are loosening up rules and protocols on sharing BSATs (SARS-CoV-2?) including sharing with overseas labs (China?).”

It even appears that they care for the reader to feel bad about it with those poor scientists being “negatively affected” and the concern for the “culture in our laboratories,” as if this is some liberal arts project on multiculturalism and race.

Here is more of the same flowery, bullshit vernacular angling for about anything other than a robust biosecurity system (emphasis mine).

We hear little of the value of ‘‘leadership’’ as a measure of safety and security in our select agent labs. Successful, enlightened leaders lead with quality science, an emphasis on safety, vision, education, responsibility, accountability, honesty, transparency, and ethics. From this, a culture of trust and accountability virtually always results. Regulatory oversight may call for varying levels of physical security, ‘‘lists’’ and pathogen controls, background checks and psychological evaluation of workers. These, without effective leadership, may only slow research progress and lead to a culture of frustration and mistrust.

“May call” for varying levels of physical security? “Individual responsibility?” It’s absolute tripe and by design. It’s garbage; bullshit as stated; talking out ones own ass; whatever you care to call it, which can be anything but effective and robust biosecurity.

Trust “always results? That is Deep State vernacular explaining away something they can’t control with an absolute – “always.” Red flag.

In this day, time and place, who in ones right mind blindly trusts the Chinese with bio-WMD proprietary knowledge and samples because of belief in ones own made-up “culture of responsibility?”

Fauci admitted he was essentially too lazy to vet his Chinese grant (think access) recipients against the CCP. He actually said that. How dumb does he think we are?

Having spared you several segments of LeDuc’s short piece, it ends with this (emphasis mine).

Our life science enterprise, ever more important to our nation’s well-being in this global economy, will never be risk free. Official biosecurity policy must include means of fostering enlightened leaders; with the leadership approach comes better science, better safety, and, we believe, even better security. Without it, the other measures be- come little more than the appearance of security. Troubled scientists have and will come to an engaged and enlightened leader for help, where openness has been built and trust is the currency. There are too little data to know if he or she will go to a ‘‘regulator’’ in a laboratory where trust is lacking.

“The appearance of security?” “Trust is lacking?

Nope. Rather, what’s lacking is the robust biosecurity system that would have prevented the FAUXVID-19 horse from ever leaving the barn.

Let’s focus more precisely and dial this down on Obama where in earlier reporting I previously remarked, “that is how Obama’s administration stopped (in 2014) and then off-shored and funded (in 2015) its gain of function research by sending it to the National Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China.”

It’s important to remember that the ONLY reason the Obama administration paused GOF research in 2014 is because several folks internally suddenly sprouted a conscience – the same human conscience that all of these recommendations are suggesting be eliminated from labs due to high cost and low value – and shined a light on it. Otherwise, they would have continued uninterrupted with GOF work in the U.S.

From our May 2009 Department of Defense Biological Safety and Security Program report, we note that it overlaps another Obama/DOD effort that was also begun in the same 2009 timeframe; and on the same treasonous political continuum. The latter Obama effort produced the U.S. landscape we see today and it was discussed in detail in a previous article, which describes Obama’s application of his counterinsurgency doctrine to America. It served to function as a blueprint framing the overthrow of a sitting president and the U.S. government, which is a practice perfected overseas by the U.S. military and intelligence communities (again, see Hammer and Scorecard.)

The DoD report begins with an ominous tone,

Based on a series of briefings and site visits, and the experience of task force members, the single overarching finding of this investigation is that a determined adversary cannot be prevented from obtaining very dangerous biological materials intended for nefarious purposes, if not from DoD laboratories, then from other sources. The nation needs to recognize this reality and be prepared to mitigate the effects of a biological attack. Today, we as a nation are not prepared.

The report contains two important pieces of information. For one,

Overseas regulations: Use Department of State background investigations for host country personnel working in BSAT labs outside the United States. Issue waiver authority so that laboratory commanders can determine appropriate security measures for shipments into these facilities.

Falling back on the apparent objective of loosening biosecurity and the tactic of compartmentalizing it individually, the compartmentalization is extended to “laboratory commanders” who have “waiver authority” relative to shipping BSATs (SARS-CoV-2?) to bio-containment facilities; including overseas facilities (China?).

Further, keep an eye out for the Department of State angles because in addition to the origins of the biosecurity shift drawing back to Bill Clinton’s presidency in 1999, at the time of this 2009 DoD report, the Secretary of State is none other than Hillary Clinton. We’ll discuss her in more detail below.

Relative to “overseas regulations,” remember that the NIH/Fauci were funding the WIV after off-shoring its gain of function research there in 2014-2015. In consideration of that, we continue to wonder if these 2009 DoD changes were devised to set the landscape to permit all of that? After all, they began in 1999 while Bill Clinton – as Commander in Chief – was steering the DoD and they were gifted to Obama by Bush’s EO with the expectation that Hillary would win in 2016.

The 2-person policy continues to bear down.

BSAT transport: Review the usefulness of the two-person rule in preventing insider threats. Use “lost in the crowd” approach for shipments into laboratories. And consider the potential use of flight safe, tamper-resistant shipping containers.

The DoD report provides more similar evidence of concern elaborating on the identified and primary “insider threat” (emphasis mine).

The insider threat dominates internal security concerns: An insider could probably transfer BSAT out of the facility or supply chain without being discovered, regardless of defensive countermeasures. One can only make it difficult and uncertain for the insider. Detection of an insider threat is difficult even with extensive monitoring of the emotional and mental state of BSAT-certified employees, including transport personnel.

Improved video monitoring of labs can be superior to the two-person rule for detecting or deterring nefarious activities in the lab and can be valuable in assuring good safety practices.

BSAT transport works well today using the “lost in the crowd” approach, and may be worse with a two-person rule.

These positions appear to be the foundation for the loosening of biosecurity rules and regulations; noting that the “lost in the crowd” approach in transporting BSATs to labs is interpreted to be that BSATs are included in shipments with other similar but different samples and whereas they are “hiding” in plain sight being “lost in the crowd” of other samples. Is that a secure manner to transport, handle and ensure the chain of custody uniquely, separately and explicitly or is that more bullshit vernacular to explain away robust biosecurity?

Is that a way to circumvent strict inventory and auditing controls that would be found in a robust biosecurity system – to just throw them in with the rest?

Interestingly, a precise definition for “in the crowd” could not be located so if the inference is wrong, I’ll happily walk that aspect back. I’m not wrong.

From the DoD report (emphasis mine),

Rather than steal BSAT from a DoD lab, other paths would appear preferable for an adversary (e.g., natural sources, non-DoD labs, non-U.S. labs, genomic synthesis) except possibly in the case of a blackmailed or disgruntled employee working from the inside. DoD should avoid those measures that are significantly detrimental to the laboratory mission, onerous, or detract from morale unless the measure significantly improves security or safety. Covert external threats are unlikely and layers of defensive measures serve to deter further. An external “attack” by a demonstration mob or explosives, coupled with inflammatory media, could panic the surrounding populace.

From the Recommendations section of the DoD report,

Monitoring Activities: Make minor changes to monitor activities in labs to improve effectiveness without introducing significantly obtrusive measures that are unwarranted by the threat.

Again, it’s the same sacrifice of robust biosecurity for vague and ambiguous descriptions proffered in Deep State vernacular.

With the Clintons deeply enmeshed and Hillary at State, consider this recommendation below permitting State to inherit the authority to conduct background investigations for foreign (China?) recipients of BSATs.

That’s the same Hillary Clinton that maintained a private and unsecured server in her personal residence to deliver SAPs and highly classified and protected intelligence to China/CCP/PLA. See the repeated pattern of tactics and specifically relative to China? Rhetorical question.

OCONUS Regulations: Issue a blanket waiver for use of Department of State background investigations (conducted by U.S. Embassy Regional Security Office), in place of National Agency Check with Local Agency Check and Credit (NACLC), among host country personnel working with BSATs in DoD labs outside the continental United States (OCONUS).

Below, the rubber begins to meet the road with the recommendation to dispatch the 2-person biosecurity system for BSAT shipments to DoD labs (smuggling could be a possible synonym.)

BSAT Transport: Review use of the two-person rule for BSAT shipments; threat is unlikely. Continue to use “lost in the crowd” approach used for the shipments involving DoD labs. As a future option, investigate potential of flight safe, tamper-resistant shipping containers.

The DoD report concludes its recommendations (emphasis mine),

In summary, the recommendations in these seven areas will enhance current bio-safety and bio-security operations at the DoD laboratories while minimizing the impact of regulatory processes on the missions of those laboratories. The cost of implementing these recommendations is believed to be modest, but should not be imposed on the research programs that affect the missions of the labs.

That gives the appearance of a fundamental redirection from the priority from operational biosecurity to operational mission objectives, does it not? In both instances above – operational biosecurity and cost – mission objectives are given the priority over biosecurity.

Would “missions” include gain of function research relative to the SARS-CoV-2 virus?

From the DoD report (emphasis mine).

With respect to monitoring lab work to detect nefarious activities, the task force concluded the following: The two-person rule for security has many disadvantages but may be effective in certain, limited circumstances, primarily for safety while working with highly pathogenic materials or laboratory animals. In the long run, costs associated with the two-person approach are excessive and the effectiveness for security is highly questionable. Surveillance with the two-person rule is not likely to be continuous over an extended period and a perpetrator can know when he is not being observed (the other person’s back is turned). (See Figure 1 for an example of a typical lab floor plan). In addition, most labs have very constrained working areas and the observer would not be in a position to continuously observe the worker. Video surveillance of the labs can be much more effective than the two-person rule if enhanced with better procedures, better tools for monitoring, longer retention of recordings, and management participation. In addition, it probably results in lower long-term cost. Video has the advantage of constant surveillance; the malefactor doesn’t know when he is being monitored or not. Data overload problem of video should be dealt with by spot checking and random supervisory audits, and with tools developed for that purpose. Video surveillance has potential cross-benefits in checking for adherence to safety procedures and should be seen by the staff as dominantly for that purpose Video recordings are usually kept for 30–45 days at most labs while others save them for up to a year. They should be kept longer.

Video monitoring of labs for security is preferred over the two-person rule and could be much more effective than it is today. The primary concern is the disgruntled or stressed employee and the combination of video monitoring and BPRP should be integrated to detect such individuals. In monitoring, whether by video or by a second person, the question is where the focus should be for detecting problems most effectively. The following are examples of possible unauthorized acts that would be indicative of malfeasance: intentional concealing of containers or vials transfer of BSAT containers through showers, locker areas, or air locks preparation of live, dried BSATs unauthorized personnel in restricted areas manipulation of unregistered or undocumented BSAT cultures or containers tampering with freezer, incubator, or pass-through window locks manipulating BSAT cultures outside of bio-safety cabinets or outside of approved labs conducting animal studies without an approved protocol manipulating BSATs without appropriate safety procedures or equipment inadequate decontamination or destruction of working BSAT cultures at study conclusion.

Is there any science backing the claims proffered in their slick vernacular? No, hence the need for slick vernacular.

More importantly, it’s the same bullshit dialogue detracting from the fact that the rules are being changed towards more lax biosecurity. Look here; not there.

The explanation is simple and about anyone can comprehend it. Given that these scientists are conducting research of the highest risk and consequences, policy should dictate that biocontainment facilities BE DOING ALL OF IT – taking all of the reasonable measures; not bickering about and selecting over the options.

Instead, though, they are using this detracting dialogue to reduce biosecurity measures and cleverly push it in the wrong direction.

Regarding individuals cleared to handle BSATs, the FBI conducts SRA background investigations on all individuals but moreover, in those security clearance considerations, the Secretary of State, who was Clinton at the time, bears down again with authority,

“…is an alien who is a national of a country as to which the Secretary of State has made a determination (that remains in effect) that such country has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism.”

Does China qualify by those terms? Factoring in Clinton’s State Department considerations, why did this report not mention China once? It mentioned countries in the Middle East but not China. It’s a small data point worth the mention.

The DoD report goes on to elaborate on the balance of the background investigations for BSAT handlers that go beyond the requisite FBI’s SRA and they can be consumed independently (linked below).


We turn our attention to the 2014-2015 time frame and the Monaco memo.

Our source here is an 29 Oct 15 memorandum issued by the Obama White House and it’s complimented by an October 2015 report entitled Fast Track Action Committee Report: Recommendations on the Select Agent Regulations Based on Broad Stakeholder Engagement.

From the 29 Oct 15 memorandum, there is an attached “Tab A,” which contains an 18 Aug 14 memorandum co-issued by Lisa Monaco (Department of Homeland Security.) This memo advises all national labs/biocontainment facilities to conduct a “security stand down” within 30 days and curiously overlaps the 2014 Obama decision to end gain of function research in the U.S., as previously discussed. This would be followed by the 2015 off-shoring and funding (NIH) of gain of function (SARs-CoV-2?) research to the WIV in China.

Recall how they care to ship BSATs with the “lost in the crowd” approach?

Well, what if suddenly there were a biosecurity crisis because internal whistleblowers delivered revelations and shined the light on U.S. bio-warfare and gain of function research?

How could one manage that crisis without drawing attention to any one particular (or more) lab (scene(s) of the crime)?

Could one use the “lost in the crowd approach” to expand the crisis to all similar biocontainment facilities and therein attribute the reason to three unrelated cited incidents while also following through with the rules rewrite that began with the Bush EO; while at the same time compartmentalizing the fallout and damage by shutting it down and off-shoring it to China?

Could one do that essentially without losing a step and falling behind in the work?

The tactic is analogous to the concept of opening a federal investigation for the express purpose of vacuuming-up evidence to cover-up a crime rather than exposing the evidence and prosecuting the crime (defendants.)

I think that’s what they may have done here with the Monaco memo.

The Monaco memo further and conveniently includes directives for international collaboration and the use of multinational venues (venues would be labs.) Like labs in China?

The obvious million dollar question is whether the Monaco memo served as the false flag event to implement final biosecurity policy changes to loosen U.S. biosecurity systems and to permit the off-shoring of U.S. gain of function research (SARS-CoV-2?) to the WIV in China; while simultaneously concealing the evidence of it.

Following the Monaco Memo, we get the October 2015 Fast Track Action Committee Report: Recommendations on the Select Agent Regulations Based on Broad Stakeholder Engagement. That report continues to identify the same persisting biosecurity recommendations (problems.)

It will be important to weigh what was recommended v. what was considered but not recommended (or not not considered at all) (emphasis mine),

Gaps in the Select Agent RegulationsSome respondents believed that the potential risks posed by novel organisms and new techniques are significant and inadequately addressed by existing regulatory approaches. The rapid pace of advances in genetic engineering and molecular biology has lowered barriers to the ability of researchers to use recombinant technologies to potentially increase an organism’s virulence or synthesize a biological select agent de novo. The ability to translate biological data into digital form and back again raises questions about regulatory oversight measures, such as the SAR, that rely on the physical presence of a pathogen. It was argued that additional consideration should therefore be given to regulatory approaches that anticipate technological challenges and are flexible enough to keep pace with them.

As we consider the report’s Recommendations, we focus on items considered but omitted: 1) creating a uniform and robust federal biosecurity system (instead preferring to create a “task force” to further explore and make recommendations), 2) a second uniform federal system to vet personnel and determine personnel reliability (background investigations and clearances) and 3) constructing a direct safety and oversight program for bio-WMD and gain of function research specifically.

As for keeping the human element in tact – otherwise known as the barrier to fraud and more specifically as the 2-person bio-security measure – the report only mentioned it once buried in a section entitled “Summary Comments from Listening Sessions” in the sub-section “Gaps in the Overarching SAR Approach or Process.” Little of value was said.


Now, take what we know and apply it to the timeline presented below. We do this remembering that on 09 Jan 09, eleven days before his exit and Obama’s entry, George W. Bush issued Executive Order 13486, which,

“…established a Working Group (WG) co-chaired by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, or their designees. Other members of the WG included designees of the Secretaries of State, Agriculture, Commerce, Transportation, Energy, and Homeland Security, the Directors of National Intelligence and the National Science Foundation, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Attorney General.”

That objective was to strengthen U.S. laboratory biosecurity.

What it really did was permit the incoming Obama administration the requisite mechanism to revamp U.S. biosecurity, which permitted the necessary and eventual 2015 off-shoring of GOF research to China.

Note a common theme occurring in statecraft where something specific will transit multiple presidential administrations. In these cases, there are tendencies for an outgoing president to function by executive order for the purpose of setting-up the incoming administration for particular vectors of work. This is a passive tactic to conceal evidence and attribution and divide the work to avoid having a single fall guy ergo it permits easier hand washing and deniability.

Building on the aforementioned executive order, consider this broader timeline relative our established fact set and U.S. biosecurity more broadly.

This timeline information is exclusively sourced with (my emphasis) added,

1996: The select agent program launched by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which prohibited the transfer of some “select” agents from one laboratory to another without registration with the CDC

2001: Anthrax letter attacks expose “a gap” in biosecurity.

2003: The Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002, along with the U.S. Patriot Act of 2001, led to a new select agent program (ushered in by 9/11?).

2003: In October 2003, the National Research Council published Biotechnology Research in an Age of Terrorism, which is known as the Fink Report. The com­mittee described an initial set of seven types of experiments of concern that, while not prohibited, would merit review and discussion before being under­taken or published in detail.

2004: The National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity was established in 2004 as a federal advisory committee and has been chartered continuously to date at two-year intervals by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The NSABB has offered guidance for handling dual-use re­search of concern (DURC), a modified form of the Fink Report’s experiments of concern, and has provided input on the publication of several papers in ad­dition to the H5N1 papers, including one on the reconstruction of the 1918 influenza virus, for which they recommended publication.

2008: World at Risk, the report of the Congressional Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism (WMD Commission), was released on December 2, 2008. In the report, the WMD Commission rec­ommended that the U.S. should “conduct a comprehensive review of the do­mestic program to secure dangerous pathogens, tighten government oversight of high-containment laboratories and promote a culture of security awareness in the life sciences community.”

2009: Working Group on Strengthening the Biosecurity of the United States report re­leased on October 23, 2009; established by Executive Order 13486, which was signed on January 9, 2009, by George W. Bush.

2009: National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) Report: Enhancing Personnel Reliability among Individuals with Access to Select Agents released April 30, 2009

2009: The Trans-Federal Task Force on Optimizing Biosafety and Biocontainment Oversight, co-chaired by HHS and USDA, released a report that examined gaps in the oversight framework for laboratories and options for improvement to biocontainment oversight. Among its recommendations: there should be training standards and core competencies for personnel at high and maxi­mum containment research laboratories, and there should be a phased-in re­quirement for credentialing of biosafety professionals at high and maximum containment laboratories.

2009: Defense Science Board task force report Biological Safety and Security Program for Research Involving Biological Select Agents and Toxins publicly released May, 2009. They identi­fied areas for action, including computer security enhancements such as video monitoring of laboratory workers, which they determined to be superior to the “two-person rule,” transporting pathogens with a “lost in the crowd” approach vs. a two-person escort; and avoiding security measures that are significantly detrimental to the mission, particularly for overseas laboratories.

2009: Government Accountability Organization (GAO) report High Containment Laboratories: Issues related to Oversight released in September 2009.

2009: National Research Council (National Academy of Sciences) report Responsible Research with Biological Select Agents and Toxins Released.

2009: National Strategy for Countering Biological Threats released November 2009. The strategy includes a series of objectives that are intended to “protect against the misuse of the life sciences to develop or use biological agents to cause harm.”

2010: Executive Order 13546, Optimizing the Security of Biological Select Agents and Toxins in the United States, was released on July 2, 2010. The EO stated that there was an “absence of clearly defined, risk-based security measures” for the select agent program, which “has raised concern about the need for optimized security and for risk management.”

2011: On June 13, 2011, the federal experts security advisory panel released Recommendations Concerning the Select Agent Program, as called for in EO 13546. It created a tier 1 of pathogens and recommended that 25 pathogens be removed from the select agent list. The panel also recommended the removal of a number of animal and human pathogens from the select agents list and recommended against the inclusion of SARS.


On 02 July 10, Obama issued EO 13546 and on 13 Jul 11, as noted in the timeline above, federal experts were responsive to it with their report entitled ‘Federal Experts Security Advisory Panel Recommendations Concerning the Select Agent Program.’

Buried at the bottom of this report are two footnotes (emphasis mine).

The first footnote reads, “Revised 1/10/11: Recommendation regarding inclusion of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) virus on the list of BSAT.”

The second footnote provides an enormous plot shift in this drama and it reads, “The FESAP does not recommend inclusion of SARS on the list of BSAT.”

That’s right. After all of the designed uncertainty and years of discourse, committees, indecisiveness, lack of clarity, bullshit vernacular and more; and all over biosecurity and the bickering over which systems and guardrails are best, rather than combining them all into one comprehensive and robust biosecurity system, Obama’s executive order took the additional step of recommending the removal of SARS from the BSAT list.

Does that equate to a deliberate maneuver to avert active surveillance on gain of function research on SARS and does that include SARS-CoV-2?

Here’s a reminder about SARS: the entire COVID-19 pandemic is a fraudulent construct resting on a platform of propagated infection and mortality from SARS-CoV-2; the same SARS Obama sought to have removed.

I believe we’ve uncovered the broader basis – and the cover-up mechanism – for the ending of gain of function research in the U.S., its off-shoring and funding to China and as attributable on a timeline extending from George H.W. Bush through Joe Biden and with Anthony Fauci as the bridge linking them all start to finish.

No wonder Joe Biden shut down the investigation into the genesis of COVID-19.

If the rules are inconvenient, just change them.



A Carve-out Is Being Made in the Broader COVID-19 Narrative

There is a carve-out being made in the broader COVID-19 narrative and it’s a slick approach that to some extent is sure to gain traction and be effective. The carve-out is a typical blend of information, misinformation and disinformation including appetizing talking points that will unfortunately appease a segment of the population seeking real answers.

Wall Street Journal

That population segment could likely be characterized as MAGA/Trump supporters who have doubts about COVID-19 but consume primarily mainstream media sources.

Wall Street Journal

Unfortunately, as satisfying and “I told you so” as the answers they receive may be and to the extent that this segment becomes effectively appeased, these folks will only be receiving just enough of the truth to get them to believe the balance of it all and wherein the sowers have enmeshed the misinfo/disinfo in the parts that taste best.

Our source linked at the bottom is the Wall Street Journal and it explores the importance and relativity of an abandoned mine (think bat feces) associated with the WIV. They almost got it right when they speculated to pin attribution for the pandemic on Chinese internal lab sloppiness.

It wasn’t Chinese sloppiness; however, rather it was Chinese bio-warfare.

That the Wuhan Institute of Virology is a CCP/PLA facility bears down fully and as I’ve asserted dating back for over a year, we’ve been in an undeclared World War III since at least Oct 2019, as previously demonstrated and relative to the existence of the November 13, 2019 FBI Tactical Intelligence report serving as the source of the time frame.

Now consider that in the broader scope of things, a carve-out is being made within the narrative to attribute the fraudulent COVID-19 pandemic directly to China, but characterized as internal lab sloppiness. This approach stands a real chance of appeasing low information consumers.

The carve-out permits China to use a fraudulent narrative to characterize as “accidental” and fully compartmentalize the culpability for an asymmetrical strike; a strike that is comprised of an act of war by means of the the release of a bio-WMD. It was an act of war designed to launch a fraudulent pandemic devised to begin the destruction of America from the inside-out.

In so doing, this carve-out will attribute China’s asymmetrical bio-warfare strike to a narrative of fraudulent lab sloppiness permitting China to further enshroud its broader construct that included leveraging a deep and broad infiltration of America’s institutions to remove a sitting U.S. president, overthrow the U.S. government and insert a Chinese proxy into the White House in Joe Biden.

This carve-out will also permit China to directly control the narrative, which answers a question some readers are sure to have – Why would China assume responsibility for the release of the bio-WMD (they won’t call it that but the FBI did)?

By assuming responsibility for the “leak” from it’s CCP/PLA WIV, China removes the U.S. from the dialogue and positions itself to take a full and commanding lead in controlling the narrative as it explains exactly how the “leak” occurred. Within this explanation, China can fabricate whatever story line and evidence it needs to serve it accordingly and it will do so with the WHO (and the CDC, NIH, NIAID) in its back pocket and with the U.S. otherwise left impotent. Those entities are sure to toe the Chinese company line.

Sure, China takes a hit but a self-imposed hit placed exactly where you want it and with full control over everything associated with it is a solid bet – just ask those Americans incriminated in the events of 9/11 and what that event has permitted them to do to the American people. Even more so for China, the feel especially emboldened since its proxy Joe Biden is already installed and positioned to drive it home.

China is betting this allows them to avoid taking WWIII hot (for the time being as Taiwan still looms) but achieving a similar result – global dominance.

From the WSJ, here’s what James LeDuc had to say about it all.

Wall Street Journal

This is James LeDuc who gives the appearance of being a bought and paid for Fauci lackey; #FalseFlagFauci, that is.

The Liberty Beacon (click to read)

Look back-up at LeDuc’s statement above and specifically the last line about following the science. Then be reminded of what I offered up the other day.

A carve-out is being made in the narrative attributing the COVID-19 outbreak to Chinese internal lab sloppiness. That’s Kool-Aid induced inebriation, folks, because what we’ve endured is an asymmetrical bio-WMD strike in an undeclared World War III.

Paging President Trump and his rebuilt military.



That Number 17…

This is not an article about Q but rather a high-brow dig into exactly how China/CCP/PLA may interface with the Biden administration as Joe Biden – the installed Chinese proxy – serves his principals accordingly as they maneuver to apply Chinese doctrine to America and as evidenced by China’s One Belt One Road and 17+1 programs; bearing similarity to it’s Thousand Talents program that entangled corrupt coronavirus smuggling Harvard University professor, Charles Lieber.

Herein, we’ll examine communications from the Council on Foreign relations as informed by a recent Zero Hedge item relative to China/CCP and its geopolitical and economic aspirations, policies and programs. Of course, it all neatly envelops our existing COVID-19/WWIII positions and the full catalog of work while also dragging Q to front and center anyways.

And of course, the launch point for this discussion begins with the number [17] and specifically, China’s program, “17+1.”

We are beginning with Q, though, and it’s for the sake of perspective.

That number seventeen [17] – it can’t be escaped in the backdrop of the past several years and specifically in the range of 28 Oct 17 to the present. Those of you who are like me and suffer from some level of Qtardation need no further explanation.

This number curiously manages to appear symbolically and cryptically all over the place and often in the most obscure and coincidental ways.

Whether it be that “Q” is the 17th letter of the alphabet or that President Trump has never appeared to disavow or debunk Q or, for that matter, acknowledge or verify Q, which makes this all very gooey to parse out.

Even gooier is that President Trump has a track history of appearing to point at Q signage/shirts and signaling Q by tracing the letter in the air as a gesture when interacting with others. Moreover, you can also mix in the fact that the MSM is still panicking over Q and most recently in the past few days; while Q hasn’t posted since 08 Dec 20.

I’m not giving you the plentifully full list of Qincidences involving the number [17] because the magic of research is finding it on your own. If you’re unfamiliar, take a dig if for no other reason then entertainment value.

For the Qtarded, the particulars of the “17+1” program may provide a different lens through which to review and interpret [17] or at least better inform the current understanding of it. Or not.

No matter because what is presented herein stands alone and is independent from anything related Q and so positions should be consumed that way because they are weighty.

For the record, my Qtardedness is best described as having found the original Q post in virtually real time while exploring alternative research vectors on 28 Oct 17; having followed and engaged in the content intensely since then; having transitioned from firm belief in Q’s veracity to leaving the door open to it and with legitimate doubts on board (but still holding on to hope); to – most importantly – using Q as a routinely reliable source for research topics that when effectively explored, often deliver reliable evidence routinely neglected by the MSM.

So, Q functions like a topic generator for research and is used accordingly as a tool; and that stands in acknowledgement of the abundance of collateral misinformation and disinformation threading through the entire Q fabric and right alongside a litany of predictive misses.

But this isn’t about Q, it’s about [17]+1 and China and the CCP and relative to the fact that since China released a bio-WMD on the United States (world) in October 2019, we’ve been in the throes of an undeclared WWIII. All of this will support these positions.

It’s the Zero Hedge item on Lithuania’s withdrawal from the program serving as our catalyst here and they define the 17+1 program as (emphasis mine),

“The Chinese regime officially launched the platform—which was initially named the “16+1” platform—in April 2012 to intensify cooperation with 11 European Union member states and five Balkan countries. The platform was renamed “17+1” after Greece signed up for the initiative in April 2019.

“The initiative calls for participating countries to cooperate with China in many fields, including finance, health, trade, and technology. Modeled after the platform, Beijing rolled out another project in 2013, which is called the “Belt and Road Initiative” (BRI, also known as “One Belt, One Road), in an effort to build up trade routes linking China and other parts of the world.”

Zero Hedge

Take note of the “One Belt, One Road” tangent because it’s a critically important one that I introduced back in October 2020 in the broader context of this extract from the article The Promise of Dark Winter,

“Recall that we maintain longstanding positions that the Bidens were exploiting global energy markets and specifically in natural gas. We tracked the Bidens’ global enterprising efforts from Ukraine – my best bet for QAnon’s KEYSTONE – which I characterized like this in an older article, “Buckle-up, this goes from the US to Ukraine, Iran, Brazil, Russia, Switzerland, Argentina and back to the US….. and Joe Biden.”

“Listen again and carefully to what Hunter Biden is saying here (visit article to linked media if you care to listen.)

“For one, he’s drawing attention to “his partner,” whom he characterizes as the richest man in the world and chairman of the CEFC, a private Chinese outfit to mysteriously appear in the Global Fortune 500 beginning in 2013. Here, it’s important to reflect back on what former Biden associate Tony Bobulinski recently stated and namely that the CCP serves as China’s political arm while the CEFC serves as its capitalist arm.

“It’s President Xi Jinping’s alignment with China’s “One Belt One Road” geopolitical and infrastructure development directive, which invests in foreign nations, that leverages the CCP political arm and CEFC economic arm.

“Here is where it’s important to acknowledge the two the primary players in the CEFC – Chairman Ye Jianming, with whom Hunter Biden entered into an agreement to serve as his “personal attorney” and who he calls his “partner” in the deal outlined below; and Patrick Ho, who was, “the fucking spy chief of China,” as Hunter described him, and the individual responsible for founding the CEFC. Curiously but not surprisingly, Biden and Ye only communicate in person. There are reasons for that.”

Political Moonshie

Now consider this from the ZH article indicating the reasons for Lithuania’s withdrawal from 17+1, which not only factors in support for Taiwan in that ongoing conflict, but it indicates significant concerns about espionage the likes of which plague the Biden crime family,

“From Lithuanian citizens, Chinese intelligence may seek to obtain sensitive or classified national or NATO and EU information,” stated Lithuania’s 2019 National Threat Assessment report, according to the Estonian newspaper The Baltic Times. “Chinese intelligence-funded trips to China are used to recruit Lithuanian citizens.”

“Chinese intelligence looks for suitable targets—decision-makers, other individuals sympathizing with China and able to exert political leverage. They seek to influence such individuals by giving gifts, paying for trips to China, covering expenses of training and courses organized there,” the report stated.”

Zero Hedge

Sound familiar?

You now likely see my point with 17+1 being entangled with One Belt One Road, which functions to leverage the CCP political arm and CEFC economic arm – and it all ties directly to Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, China and the CCP.

Examining the relative objectives and parameters provides greater clarity and we turn to the Council on Foreign Relations for some details.

We’re beginning with One Belt One Road (BRI) and with the understanding that the Council On Foreign Relations should be viewed as anti-Trump and adversarial (emphasis mine),

“China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), sometimes referred to as the New Silk Road, is one of the most ambitious infrastructure projects ever conceived. Launched in 2013 by President Xi Jinping, the vast collection of development and investment initiatives would stretch from East Asia to Europe, significantly expanding China’s economic and political influence.

“Some analysts see the project as an unsettling extension of China’s rising power, and as the costs of many of the projects have skyrocketed, opposition has grown in some countries. Meanwhile, the United States shares the concern of some in Asia that the BRI could be a Trojan horse for China-led regional development and military expansion. Under President Donald J. Trump, Washington has raised alarm over Beijing’s actions, but it has struggled to offer governments in the region a more appealing economic vision.”

Council on Foreign Relations

The 17+1 program fits within the overarching BRI as a mechanism to expand BRI to Central and Eastern European countries (CEE.) From The Diplomat,

“The spotlight of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is usually on the Asian (be they Central Asian, South Asian, or Southeast Asian) or African participants. Yet the post-communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe form an important part of the BRI. In fact, the CEE region was among the best represented regions at the 2017 Belt and Road Forum: of the 28 heads of state or government, four were from the region (representing the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, and Serbia), while Romania sent a delegation led by the country’s deputy prime minister. This reflects the very intense development of the China-CEE cooperation under the auspices of the BRI.

“This cooperation is better known as the “16+1,” referring to the 16 CEE states with which China (the “+1”) is developing ties: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, and Slovenia. The 16+1 mechanism involves quite a heterogeneous group of countries. Of the 16 participating CEE states, 11 are EU member states (five of which are also members of the single currency eurozone), four are EU candidate countries, and one is a potential candidate state. To many observers, therefore, the multiple high-level summits, business meetings, and statements by representatives of the CEE countries and China seem to be framing a new regional context in the European continent.”

The Diplomat

Here, it’s important to factor in Russia’s own political and economic (and military) objectives which overlap and possibly conflict with China’s European ambitions relative to the fact that President Trump had normalized relations with Russia and tightened positions on China and whereby the Obama/Biden/Deep State immediately pivoted away from China and back to Russia as the current and necessary deflection point boogeyman.

Surprisingly or not and for reasons perhaps not completely understood, the CFR article indicates either as propaganda or as truth that the Russians view China’s expansion into CEE favorably in light of opportunities for its own economic expansion.

Let’s also not forget that China is leveraging these programs in part to infiltrate NATO, as outlined by the Lithuanians, and that the current drive from the Obama/Biden/Deep State is rekindling trouble (a coup under Obama/Clinton/Kerry) in Ukraine and pushing it to join NATO relative to NATO’s continued encircling of and pressure campaign on Russia (previously covered in Volume 8 of The Still.)

From the CFR article, now consider this description from UE officials and apply my positions toward China relative to COVID-19/WWIII. Then ask yourself it it sounds like things here at home.

“In the past three years, EU officials have lambasted China for allegedly undermining the European integration process by turning the CEE countries into “Trojan horses” and sowing division in the continent.”

Council on Foreign Relations

Infiltration as a means to sow division across the continent (country)? Sound familiar?

It’s the same strategy here in the U.S. and with COVID-19 as the mechanism to do so by first creating the requisite landscape permitting the theft of an election followed by the subsequent removal a sitting president so as to overturn an historic electoral victory and overthrow the government. All of that is underpinned by the Antifa/BLM/manufactured and fraudulent systemic racism narrative/violence/riots/brownshirts component.

With focus back on Russia and from the the CFR article, consider the BRI objectives in more detail (emphasis mine),

“Xi’s vision included creating a vast network of railways, energy pipelines, highways, and streamlined border crossings, both westward—through the mountainous former Soviet republics—and southward, to Pakistan, India, and the rest of Southeast Asia. Such a network would expand the international use of Chinese currency, the renminbi, and “break the bottleneck in Asian connectivity,” according to Xi. (The Asian Development Bank estimated that the region faces a yearly infrastructure financing shortfall of nearly $800 billion.) In addition to physical infrastructure, China plans to build fifty special economic zones, modeled after the Shenzhen Special Economic Zone, which China launched in 1980 during its economic reforms under leader Deng Xiaoping.

“Xi subsequently announced plans for the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road at the 2013 summit of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in Indonesia. To accommodate expanding maritime trade traffic, China would invest in port development along the Indian Ocean, from Southeast Asia all the way to East Africa and parts of Europe.

“China’s overall ambition for the BRI is staggering. To date, more than sixty countries—accounting for two-thirds of the world’s population—have signed on to projects or indicated an interest in doing so. Analysts estimate the largest so far to be the estimated $60 billion* China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, a collection of projects connecting China to Pakistan’s Gwadar Port on the Arabian Sea. In total, China has already spent an estimated $200 billion on such efforts. Morgan Stanley has predicted China’s overall expenses over the life of the BRI could reach $1.2–1.3 trillion by 2027, though estimates on total investments vary.

China has both geopolitical and economic motivations behind the initiative. Xi has promoted a vision of a more assertive China, while slowing growth and rocky trade relations with the United States have pressured the country’s leadership to open new markets for its goods.

Experts see the BRI as one of the main planks of a bolder Chinese statecraft under Xi, alongside the Made in China 2025 economic development strategy. For Xi, the BRI serves as pushback against the much-touted U.S. “pivot to Asia,” as well as a way for China to develop new investment opportunities, cultivate export markets, and boost Chinese incomes and domestic consumption. “Under Xi, China now actively seeks to shape international norms and institutions and forcefully asserts its presence on the global stage,” writes CFR’s Elizabeth C. Economy.”

Council on Foreign Relations

So, how do we fully align all of this with our positions on COVID-19 and World War III? It all begins with the economy and geographic economic expansion where China takes a backseat only to the U.S. Or, in other words, Chinese hegemony.

By going down the contemporary redux of its Silk Road approach with BRI and 17+1, China’s economic expansion is obvious to see. What remains is identifying how those doctrines have been applied to the U.S.

The key there is understanding that as China’s proxy, Joe Biden’s job is to ensure that the application of Chinese doctrine to the U.S. is made to stick. That horse is long out of the barn as demonstrated by Biden’s presidency itself and this “infrastructure” project that is going to factor in relative to it all.

In order to assert itself in alignment with its own hegemonic and economic doctrines, China must accomplish two fundamental objectives: 1) China must be positioned to expand while 2) the U.S. must be reciprocally positioned to contract.

Do you think that the release of a bio-WMD against the U.S. to shutter it’s entire society and economy would be sufficient enough to position the U.S. to contract?

Would that be made easier with a full slate of U.S. individuals – politicians, officials and CEOs at all levels and in copious amounts and in all institutions and in all of the right places – compromised, infiltrated and positioned to assist?

The following quote from the CFR article depicts the technical interface for China and Biden to potentially collude in ways antithetical (treasonous) to the best interest of the U.S. and it hinges on two things that directly apply to America – the looming infrastructure bill and it’s favorite past time of being a substantial borrower of money.

“The Belt and Road Initiative has also stoked opposition. For some countries that take on large amounts of debt to fund infrastructure upgrades, BRI money is seen as a potential poisoned chalice. BRI projects are built using low-interest loans as opposed to aid grants.”

Council on Foreign Relations

The keyword here is “infrastructure” given the pending behemoth bill and China’s proxy Joe Biden appears to be messaging his principals accordingly as reported by the Wall Street Journal (emphasis mine),

Lurking just behind the domestic debate breaking out over President Biden’s $2.3 trillion infrastructure plans is a powerful foreign force: China.

“The Biden team sees the plan—and wants the Chinese to see the plan—as a sign the U.S. intends to put itself in better position to compete with Beijing economically. Thus, infrastructure marks just the latest example of how the specter of a long competition with China is beginning to color all manner of American policy moves, in both parties.

Significant pieces of the package have been constructed with the express purpose of trying to put the U.S. on a better footing to compete with China and its own giant investments in infrastructure and key industries. The administration doesn’t want this to go unnoticed in Beijing. When President Biden unveiled the plan, he mentioned China six times, including this reference: “That’s what competition between America and China and the rest of the world is all about. It’s a basic question: Can democracies still deliver for their people?””

Wall Street Journal

That sounds very much like a cryptic message to Biden’s principals (China/CCP) indicating that we’re open for business.

Do you think it’s an accident that China’s hegemonic aspirations are rooted in “infrastructure” at the same time Biden was installed by them and whereby he immediately placed such an enormous infrastructure bill on the table?

Do you think it was an accident that Hunter Biden (and Joe Biden, who delivered him on Air Force 2, and others under the Biden umbrealla) was enveloped in the energy sector (natural gas) in Ukraine and China and other nations and that corruption and crime occurred in those instances, too; and to the tune of $1.5 billion (and certainly more) with China?

Things like “infrastructure” and “energy,” in addition to serving as interfaces for collusion, are cover constructs that serve as conduits to move money within criminal fraud; just like the Paris Climate Accord launders and moves U.S. tax money that is for designated recipients and there is a long list of other similar fraudulent constructs.

For timeline considerations here relative to COVID-19, recall that in 2014, Obama shifted his relevant foreign policy as noted by the CFR article (emphasis mine),

“The United States has shared other countries’ concerns about China’s intentions. Developing the economies of South and Central Asia is a long-standing U.S. goal that intensified after the start of the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan and President Barack Obama’s pivot to Asia. The Obama administration frequently referenced the need for the Afghan economy to move past foreign assistance, and in 2014 then-Deputy Secretary of State William Burns committed the United States to returning Central and South Asia “to its historic role as a vital hub of global commerce, ideas, and culture.””

Council on Foreign Relations

Do you know what else happened at this precise time from 2014 to 2015? Obama’s federal apparatus suddenly grew a conscience over gain of function research and off-shored it to China and then funded it through Anthony Fauci and the NIH; and all of that occurred at the national lab (CCP/PLA) in Wuhan.

What happened in 2016? Obama issued an executive order on 18 Mar 16 called Public Law 114-136 that augmented longstanding presidential transition law to include “pandemic preparedness.” Obama did this before his transition team leveraged it to insert a pandemic construct into the Trump administration during transition meetings on 13 Jan 17.

Biden, Fauci and Obama all forewarned of President Trump’s unpreparedness for a pandemic or disease outbreak before the world learned of what would become “COVID-19” (as named such on 11 Feb 20) on 27 Dec 19; two days after Christmas when the world was distracted with post-impeachment (the first) and New Year’s.

With confidence, it can be and has been demonstrated that individuals within the U.S., some with ties back to Nazi-era Germany (Bush family, et al.), conspired with China/CCP/PLA to research, fund, develop and then deploy a bio-WMD taking the form of SARS-CoV-2, which has genetic markers indicating four artificial HIV insertions and gain of function indicators, to exploit its previous deep and broad infiltration of the U.S. to remove its sitting president, overthrow its government, install a Chinese proxy (Biden) and destroy the nation from within by dividing its people with a fraudulent systemic racism campaign and by destroying its economy with a fraudulent pandemic; and all of it leverages treasonous politicians, officials and CEOs in the United States.

Summarily, what we have outlined today is the exact interface for how China may (will) begin to leverage the back end of its infiltration efforts. It is shaping up to begin with the infrastructure bill as the portal for the application of Chinese hegemonic doctrine to the U.S. and by its proxy in Joe Biden. That began with China’s One Belt One Road doctrine, building off the program named after that number, [17] and specifically, 17+1.

Paging President Trump. We desperately need your return and sooner than later.


Wuhan Lab Is Conspiracy No More?

What is it or should I say, who is it, that serves as the needle to thread COVID-19 through three consecutive presidential administrations from Obama to Trump to Biden?

Who is it that’s the highest paid official in the federal government at $400,000 annually and having entered service in 1984 during the Reagan Administration? Who is it that has a questionable history of false attributions relative to disease outbreaks? Who had a history of ethically controversial recommendations with experimental drugs? Who is the “expert” claiming to know so much and be so, well, “expert” in all things but who has gotten so much so wrong and so often and sometimes in ways antithetical to his own previous positions? Who is it that altered positions on longstanding and universally accepted medical practices, policies and knowledge to adapt them for a false flag political construct driven by manufactured fraudulent data harvested from an average of 4.0 co-morbidities? Who stands to gain financially and otherwise from global vaccination?

Who is it that has contradicted himself in absurd ways from don’t worry>worry, no travel ban(s)/travel ban(s), just flatten the curve/just a few weeks> now going on two years, no masks> 1 mask, 2 masks more than two masks? Who knew that masks didn’t work because it’s one of the aforementioned universally accepted medical positions rooted in peer-reviewed and established research findings? Who even said that “homemade” masks would work?

Who….you can complete that with a long list of other questions which, like all of these, are rhetorical and we all know the answer – it’s the individual I branded #FalseFlagFauci a long, long time ago.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, who should stand trial for crimes against humanity for his role in engineering and propagating a fraudulent pandemic as a sequential step in an overthrow effort that ousted a sitting president by design and occurs within the context of an undeclared World War III, which commenced with the release of a bio-WMD against the U.S. in October of 2019, has repeatedly denied allegations of entanglements with China, the CCP, military and PLA labs relative to funding and gain of function research.

As I indicated in the previous article, wherein the section covering COVID-19 provides an excellent and comprehensive summary update to underpin what is being delivered here, Mike Pompeo has recently turned his attention to work previously covered over a year ago and mainly, the bioweaponization aspects of COVID-19 as occurring in the controversial national and military laboratory in Wuhan, China. This represents a circle back to remarks last year about China/CCP having evaluated a long list of Americans (politicians, governors, etc.) important to them.


If you’ve been drinking your Moonshine, you know that I’ve been covering the COVID-19 pandemic from its very beginning circa 27 Dec 19 and at a granular level essentially unmatched; especially with regard to some very important positions such as Impeachment 1.0 serving as the deflection point/cover mechanism for the ushering in of COVID-19. A second position is one that we’ll review again today – that President Trump fully compartmentalized the culpability for COVID-19 entirely with the Anthony Fauci/Mike Pence cohort and he did so in a legendary press conference.

Resting on that, we now have some older story lines relative to our existing work that are either rehashing or just now making their way into the broader narrative.

In April and May, the CDC took measures revising cycle threshold ranges relative to PCR testing once again stacking another empirically valid data point firmly in my camp of this entire pandemic being one of propagated fraudulent data as curated and harvested from co-morbidities and whereby intentionally flawed PCR tests utilizing anomalously high and unconventional cycle threshold ranges serve as the primary data driver. What permits the PCR tests to be the pandemic’s data driver was the mid-April (2020) moving of the goal post/measuring stick of mortality data, which was in decline, to “new case” data, which is created by abundant false positive test results caused by said faulty and high cycle thresholds.

Further complicating matters for the official CV19 narrative and the Fauci cohort (Fauci, Birx, NIAID, NIH, CDC, et al.) is yet another aspect that has been long reported by the likes of us and others, but ignored writ large in the MSM and that is how Obama’s administration stopped (2014) and then off-shored and funded (2015) its gain of function research by sending it to the National Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China. Again, it’s Senator Tom Cotton (AR) shining light on it.

Relative to the Cotton comments, it now appears as if Fauci (#FalseFlagFlipFlopFauci) is reversing course AGAIN and admitting that the SARS-CoV-2 virus originated in a lab. This is a substantial pivot for Fauci surpassing his pivot out of the pandemic back in December 2019 during peak flu. Here’s the slithery snake oil statement from which we can deduce that Fauci is essentially confirming that SARS-CoV-2 was possibly (likely) bioengineered (bio-weaponized) in collaboration with China and as funded by the US.

No actually, that’s the point that I said. And I think that the real unfortunate aspect of what Senator Paul did was he was conflating research in a collaborative way with Chinese scientists which was — you’d almost have to say that if we did not do that then we’d be almost irresponsible because SARS-COVI-1 clearly originated in China… So we really had to learn a whole lot about the viruses that were there, about whether or not people were getting infected with bad viruses. So in a very minor collaboration as part of a sub-contract as part of a grant, we had a collaboration with some Chinese scientists. And what he conflated that was that we were involved in creating the virus. Which is the most ridiculous majestic leap I’ve ever heard of.

Dr. Anthony Fauci

With Pompeo refocusing attention on COVID-19 and the national lab in Wuhan and Fauci now working hard to avoid but eventually confirming what we all knew and just outlined, it all presents with a sense that the broader narrative is beginning to bend back on them as the fake pandemic continues to fall apart. It bears asking whether or not carve-outs are being made to begin the exit away from CV19 and whereby culpability will be assigned.

Now pair these culpability considerations with the work above where Trump compartmentalized all of COVID-19’s culpability with the Fauci/Pence cohort (detailed in a comprehensive review in the last article.) Doing so allows us to see the board and how the pieces are being moved.

As for moving pieces, President Trump also recently issued a statement that referenced his personal aircraft and through a discerning lens, we can ascertain some relatively concrete timeline markers. Here’s the relative post.

Let’s wrap up with a question and a prediction.

When is the next false flag coming?

It has to be coming soon, right; with AZ bearing down hard as the first domino in a series of election dominoes positioned to fall?

Contemporary history tells us we’re due. Consider that COVID was covered by the first impeachment, Obamagate was derailed by riots, Hunter’s laptop was set off course by an explosion in COVID cases and Biden’s stolen election was covered by a fake insurrection and a second impeachment. And now we have AZ on the horizon coinciding with a failing COVID narrative.

Something is en route – it has to be unless they find an ulterior means by which to derail AZ and the series of states following suit with election audits.

I’d suggest that’s an easy prediction given what is known about the people who will thrust it upon us.


Standing on the Truth and Staring WWIII in the Face

The hiatus is over. This is the first proper article I’ve written since the 19 Dec 20 piece “CRITICAL: The Pending Pivot Back to Russia” examining the Biden administration’s (and China’s/CCP’s) objective of deflecting the building momentum focused on them during President Trump’s remaining days in office so as to resume the prior of Russian-predicated constructs that have underpinned much of their criminality and treason.

Or, in other words, they need the old boogeyman to be the new boogeyman to cause the people to look away from the REAL boogeyman – them.

Let’s get right back into it with a simple rhetorical question that everybody refuses to answer – where did the flu go?

We know where the flu went and I’ve been delivering that data copiously since very early 2020. Kicking that long dead horse and simply stated the flu, or rather its infection and mortality data, has been curated, harvested and propagated as COVID-19.

Much has happened since the last article and much of that was put forth in 9 episodes of The Still – a first attempt at a video/podcast style of content delivery. I had the graphics for episode 10 prepped and ready before hitting a wall, tapping the brakes and taking a moratorium – just a regular guy here and all of this periodically takes a toll that sometimes requires a moratorium. It’s good to be back to old school writing.

Ever try to sit down to have a complex and interesting conversation alone with your inanimate laptop while recording it to post publicly? Let’s just say it ain’t easy and kudos to those who produce this type of video content with both regularity and high production quality (MonkeyWerx, X22 Report, Tore and several others come to mind). The amount of work in the backdrop to prepare a single episode for posting is crazy – hat tip to all of them. With the groundwork in place, perhaps we’ll visit the format again soon.


So where do we stand? Where do Americans realistically and objectively find ourselves 121 days into the Biden/Harris administration?

The answer presents in two basic and plausible ways as best it can be interpreted, understood and applied:

1) As Commander-in-Chief, an outgoing President Trump fulfilled his sworn Constitutional onus to defend the Republic against all enemies foreign and domestic and therefore he took any and all necessary steps to effectively advise military leadership accordingly. This would include the delineation of a commenced and asymmetrical World War III begun by leveraging biowarfare by means of launching of a bio-WMD (as classified by the FBI) against the U.S. This would include the objectives of infiltrating the America’s institutions writ large for the purpose of removing a sitting president to overthrow the U.S. government. Logically this advisement occurred prior to the 2020 election and even possibly leveraged the newly minted U.S. Space Force in response. Therefore, we would find ourselves resting in a state with a divided government where the military recognizes President Trump while the Congress and Judiciary recognize President Biden. This division


2) We are in real trouble likely facing the end of America and the beginning of Amerika.

For the sake of the dialogue, let’s further define “real trouble” as the Biden/Harris administration being installed by China and the CCP by leveraging COVID-19 as a bio-WMD and with Biden, as a placeholder, proxy and pawn, serving both them and Obama and the Deep State/Shadow Government. Thus far, Biden has functioned largely by means of an unprecedented level of executive orders despite possessing all three requisite components to pass legislation constitutionally – the Democrats posses the Executive and both chambers of Congress. It all means that the United States has been flipped right back over to this broader and long-tenured plan that is playing out as a de facto Obama third term.

Actually, if all had gone according to plan, it would be a Hillary Clinton second term and Amerika would look much different than it does today; and not for the better. Even worse, that’s given how utterly shitty and contemptible the state of Amerika is right now. All of it has led to this, which is my new favorite mantra – “Amerika is a shit hole banana republic. All of the good banana republics are laughing at us.”

But therein we see hope in the form of a bit of light peering through a slight crack in the door.

The hope is simply this and it’s really a reminder – in order for President Trump to have secured his 2016 victory, there had to have been a preexisting military-based plan of intervention to “un-rig” a rigged election so actual could authentically stand with fidelity and deliver a legitimate and historic win. This is what gives us hope so long as military leadership hasn’t fallen alongside the rest of the traitors.

It bears this question. Who “un-rigs” an election to win only to stand in the middle of the voter fraud train tracks staring down the headlight for 4 years – never even flinching, much less moving – waiting for the election theft train to plow him over; and especially when he’s known as a savvy and highly intelligent political street-fighter the likes of which our times have never seen?

“Nobody” would be my answer while reminding folks that it doesn’t sound very Trump-like, does it?

So although it’s anecdotal and circumstantial at best, we can see that the door is cracked for some light to shine through. What remains are questions about who, what, when, where and how. But with no tangible evidence suggesting an immediate reversal of course, that is all we have for now; however, that alone encapsulates the importance of the Arizona election audit in Maricopa County in what is hoped to become the first domino in a series of audits in other states.

A long-tenured and previously covered position is that Mr. Trump must exhaust all of his means of civil redress before moving on to unconventional and by default, military ones. We’re nearing if not at the end of that rope and it stands to reason that a logical threshold in all of this is the presentation to the people of clear and irrefutable evidence of the scope of election fraud as asserted by President Trump. It is here that Arizona bears down with full might and the enemies of democracy are responding as you might expect by dispatching an army of attorneys of the Lawfare ilk and similar.

What happens at the end of the Maricopa road when the public arrives to learn generally what the military is presumed to have known with granularity for months; especially when the people respond en masse as pro Trump, pro democracy, pro America and ‘pro we’re done f______g around, fix this now!’? It’s this dynamic that appears as if it could be a logical trigger or threshold on our timeline.

It’s also important to measure against our timeline and evaluate the peculiar timing of NYC’s, NY AG Letitia James’ and Manhattan DA Cy Vance’s recent advisement of a shift to criminal charges against President Trump. This should be viewed as an extension of the Flynn, Mueller, Russia, Ukraine, impeachment I and impeachment II continuum whereby the aforementioned have been tasked. As we do this and because it informs my position here, let’s examine President Trump’s reply to this development as coupled with my reply to him, which includes a typo I’ll chalk up to eyes about to turn 50.

It stands to reason that the criminal investigation will expand into the broader Trump umbrella and into the Trump family. They’ve already and recently targeted Rudy Giulani and now this? More logically sound reasoning tells us that President likely has thresholds of his own built into any possible military-based response and they most certainly apply to the Trump children and the broader family. So, I wonder if this development is one of them? I would suggest that it is ergo we may be closer than farther away to the first actionable steps at a course reversal but only time will tell.


Turning to COVID-19, recall that the Moonshine catalog of work contains thousands of written pages, videos, graphics, articles, reports, social media posts, etc. that date back to early January 2020 and collectively represent the first and most complete catalog of original thought and work that is publicly available and which explicitly identifies COVID-19 as a false flag political construct. Moonshine was the first to claim and demonstrate this.

Now, consider that former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has recently shifted his narrative to China and the Wuhan Institute of Virology (a legitimate CCP/military laboratory.) In reference to prior work from the catalog, this development bodes well relative to the status quo meaning that it could be pretext for Pompeo (Trump) circling back on his advisement last year to governors, congressmen, senators and universities when he said that China and the CCP had evaluated each of them as friend or foe.

I’ve long contended that the most efficient and effective way to undo COVID-19 is to rip its spine out and that spine is the predication for the emergency declaration, which occurred on 11 Mar 20 and permitted the Fauci/Biden/Obama cohort to usurp President Trump’s emergency powers when Trump was legally compelled to defer to his experts by means of the Stafford Act. By destructing the emergency declaration, which is the precise component that provides the legal authority to eclipse the U.S. Constitution, authorize experimental vaccines, implement recommended guidelines and mitigation policies, etc., there would be no legal interface for federal, state, county or local authorities to intercede on Americans’ Constitutional rights. Or, in other words, the pandemic of propagated fraudulent data would disappear immediately. The point being that destructing the predication could and should begin in China and in the Wuhan lab and this is exactly where Pompeo is going.

Compound all of that with my early 2020 reporting that Anthony Fauci was entangled in conflicts of interest on many fronts including researching coronavirus strains relative to bioweaponization, funding the same research in the U.S. and then abroad in China, exporting the U.S.’s same research to China during the Obama administration, etc. All of this – all previously reported in old work – is now beginning to move into more fulsome light as the mainstream is learning what Mooonshiners have known for a very long time.

Political Moonshine was the first and (as best I can tell, only one) to identify and explain how Nancy Pelosi leveraged the first fraudulent impeachment as a precise timeline cover mechanism for the COVID-19 false flag political construct to be ushered-in while the Western world was distracted post-Christmas by two days. This is critical because it established the first direct political nexus to allow us to gain clarity in other associated areas including a forthcoming peculiar maneuver relative to PCR testing (more on that critical aspect momentarily.) Importantly, this allows for the hypothetical prosecutorial net to be further cast around a significant number of U.S. politicians with Chinese/CCP entanglements.

The COVID-19 timeline permits us to fully understand the fraud driving the “pandemic” while we fit it into the broader geopolitical landscape. It’s worth remembering that the all of the exclusive work here mostly focuses on active steps in the constructive process while omitting (for brevity’s sake) other important information.

News of the outbreak arrived on 27 Dec 19 but was later revised backwards to 17 Nov 19 and the first U.S. case was confirmed 20 Jan 20. Despite our early January position that COVID-19 was fraudulent, our work was placed in a holding pattern until the first respective U.S. data sets arrived in early February. From that point and moving forward, I identified the inverse relationship between the onset of CV19 and the disappearance of flu/pneumo. These general details underpin the effort to establish the true nature of the pandemic – a propagation of fraudulently constructed data.

In March 2016, President Obama augmented longstanding presidential transition law to specifically include pandemic preparedness and our evidence includes purchasing spreadsheets for “COVID-19” items such as “test kits” and other related items for the years of 2017, 2018 and 2019 (featured in several articles, videos and video podcasts.) It should be understood that relative to those years, the term “COVID-19” was not created and applied to this pandemic until 11 Feb 20. It’s odd they purchased them by name before they were given said name, no?


On 13 Jan 17, the outgoing Obama team then inserted the pandemic construct into the incoming Trump team’s administration during their compulsory transition meetings (those slides have been available on the website for over a year.) Not coincidentally, Obama’s administration also coordinated the release of the cooked-up Flynn/Russia story into the MSM the day before to function like impeachment I to COVID-19 – as a deflection and distraction mechanism.

In foreboding fashion, Fauci, Biden and others all previously warned that the incoming Trump administration would face a “surprise outbreak,” as Fauci put it (also previously and extensively covered and documented.)

Two days after Christmas it all arrived and Fauci, the coronavirus “expert” who has gotten it all wrong and contradicted himself the entire way, stood us down sans masks and said “don’t worry” while also leaving open international travel to the source of the outbreak in China. None of that made sense until the true ulterior agenda was understood. Now, it’s all crystal clear.

From there and going forward, the Democrats then began the push for the construct by driving the narrative for expanded testing beginning in January of 2020. Expanded testing will bear down in a fundamental fashion momentarily.

On 04 March 20, the National Vital Statistics System began by issuing a series of 6 diagnostic memos that functioned as rules to medical providers and were devised and crafted to cause the providers to harvest and curate fraudulent COVID data from an average of 4.0 (now up from 2.6 as of 12 May 21) co-morbidities (primarily flu, pneumonia, heart disease, diabetes and obesity.) The fraudulent construct also included financial incentives for COVID diagnoses over others and for respirator applications.

The Democrats’ narrative for expanded testing delivered and not by accident because the CDC/WHO did two things to ensure that it would; one of which has NEVER occurred before and that was the 2020 “mid-April “shift”, as I branded it, wherein they moved the “pandemic” measuring stick from mortality data, which is the accepted conventional measurement and which was in decline due to the annual seasonal die-off of the leveraged co-morbidities, to “NEW CASE” data. THAT HAS NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE.

Stay with me – this will make sense.

The second thing the CDC/WHO did was devised to deliver the data on demand while resting on the push for exponentially more testing. Here, they broke away from conventional standards relative to the PCR test, which measures viral load (how infectious the virus is, generally) by means of cycle threshold. Conventionally and generally, the CT is set in the range of 17-25 with it being understood that anything above 25 would deliver unreliable results.

For the COVID-19 pandemic, the CT range for PCR testing was deliberately increased to and set at an unconventional and anomalously high range of approximately 35-40. PCR testing with this high of a cycle threshold has one particular consequential result – it delivers false positive test results in abundance. Now it should make sense.

So, in April, the data driver of flu/pneumo was drying up due to typical seasonal die-off and so the pre-determined move to “new case data” occurred at the flip of a switch given how the increase in testing overlays the increase in new cases as precisely delineated on our line graph. This allowed them to drag the pandemic through spring, summer and fall and right back to peak flu of 2020-2021, which the CDC runs for 2 months beginning every 01 Dec because and as simply stated, the more you look for something, the more you find it.

More recently, India and Seychelles provide exemplars into two important dynamics in this same vein: 1) India – expanded testing and vaccination always appears to lead to more cases causing us to ask, “chicken or egg?” and 2) Seychelles – individuals previously tested and vaccinated are subsequently turning up positive for COVID-19.

Reflecting back on Biden’s inauguration and to fully hammer home the position that what we are seeing is evidenced criminal fraud, do you recall what happened within the first hour of Biden’s presidency? The WHO/CDC – WITHIN AN HOUR! – reduced the cycle threshold for PCR testing back down to the conventionally accepted level. Not even 60 minutes of Biden’s presidency had passed before the change was made. What do you think the result was?

Nothing to see here – move along, now.

Remarkably (not really because I predicted this would happen exactly as it did – the graphic above is from March and article below is from the end of April), as the PCR test revisions delivered decreased infection and mortality data so as to see the installed CCPresident off to a good start, they completely flipped the script on us in the most egregious way and by claiming that the reason the flu (pneumonia) had essentially disappeared was due to the guidelines and mitigations enforced for COVID-19! That’s right. The attributed the disappearance of the flu to their own genius rather than their own criminal fraud and it happened like everything else – as predicted. Americans are dumb, though, and they’ll slurp-up that Kool-Aid elixir like they have with the rest of it.

“New cases” bridged the pandemic from 2020 to 2021 just like I have identified and previously reported that “variants” will bridge the gap from 2021 to 2022. Unless we make good on the aforementioned Trump/military plan, I stand firm on two very long tenured positions – 1) these people will never stop until they are made to stop and 2) COVID-19 isn’t going anywhere.

Currently, we are still in the thick of it and not going anywhere even though the data continues to stack-up against the narrative (false flag political construct.) On 26 Aug 20 the CDC revised away 94% of its bulk mortality data stating that COVID diagnoses with COVID being the sole cause had actually leveraged an average of 2.6 co-morbidities. This left only 6% of their mortality data as valid.


The CDC did the exact same thing on 12 May 21 whereby the new numbers aggravate the matter with 95% being of the sole-cause data being revised away leaving only 5% of the remaining data as valid. Even worse, the number of leveraged co-morbidities increased to 4.0.

Do you know what happens if you take the CDC’s fear porn mortality data at 5% and 6%? Let me tell you. It puts the number right smack in the middle of a typical annual flu season when the pandemic has seen flu/pneumo disappear inversely to it.

More recently, the MSM has come to identify old Moonshine work as “exclusive” and “news” and importantly, the matter of culpability was raised. This is something that I addressed in detail over a year ago at the time President Trump actually made it happen. Just like everybody else missed impeachment as the cover mechanism for COVID-19, they missed President Trump fully compartmentalizing the totality of the COVID-19 pandemic squarely with Anthony Fauci (and Mike Pence) in a legendary press conference. TGP and Rand Paul discussed this on 13 May 21 while I brought it to your attention 14 Arp 20, when it happened.


The entire pandemic is one of fraudulently propagated data like the data point where the CDC has 2020 as the 12th deadliest year in the past 12 years and whereby deadlier disease outbreaks than COVID existed during the same span with obvious disparity in how it was handled for Obama.

If you’re looking for positive news in terms of a reprieve if not elimination of the COVID-19 pandemic sans a change of leadership in the White House, it’s a fruitless search in a ominous scene.

So, as it stands, the source controlling the data remains in charge (Fauci/Biden/Obama cohort) and the MSM is fully engaged in the continual propagation of it so, from a federal level, there appears to be no end in sight as noted. It will be variants that drag us through to next year’s peak flu and in between, determining who your county sheriff and state governor – either by election or moving van – becomes the priority.


We began this piece outlining my position that we are in the midst of an asymmetrical WWIII as commenced with the release of a bio-WMD against the U.S. and moreover, I would suggest that most Americans are entirely oblivious to this point. Therein, we can’t omit the importance of the Middle East and specifically Iran, upon which Pompeo recently remarked and for which we can fall back on even more existing work. The fundamental aspect here is that Iran has functioned as proxy manufacturer of a nuclear arsenal developed for the Deep State/Shadow Government to wield against Western nations to leverage them into desired geopolitical positions.

Refocusing on China, several recent developments further bolster our positions and confirm old work as accurate. For one, we had previously verified the presence of four artificial HIV inserts in the SARS-CoV-2 virus and of gain of function properties as markers indicative of bio-weaponization and moreover, we established a complex network of people and entities eventually tying it back to the lab in Wuhan; including Fauci’s previous research and NIH funding, and as a functionary of the CCP and PLA.

New evidence continues to stack upon old. The frenzied uptick is such that now, even House Republicans are taking it up with Fauci. Don’t forget this, too – Fauci is the highest paid employee in the entire federal apparatus making $400,000 annually having entered under Reagan in 1984. Who was VPOTUS then? George H.W. Bush, who has direct ties to the Nazi party via his father Prescott Bush? Yep. One and the same.

If you care to sidebar or come back to it later, that particular Bush angle is again covered in this.

Especially given the recent remarks from the CDC, there is a part of me that wonders if a carve-out is being made in the narrative for an exit away from what appears to be a growing tide of evidence and truth that is en route; including more entanglements for Fauci that draw back to 2014 and place him in the Situation Room (think of no ability to eavesdrop) of Obama’s White House relative to gain of function.

Recently, a Chinese professor with close ties to the CCP delineated the same position that I presented back in May of 2020 – that we are in a state of an undeclared third world war.

Here’s the larger extract with the more relevant aspect highlighted outlining President Trump’s handling of an undeclared WWIII as I presented it in Making the Case for Treason on 06 May 20,