Press "Enter" to skip to content

Obama, LeDuc and UTMB Dangerously Changed Inconvenient Rules in Biosecurity and Broke the Law Doing It

On May 27, 2021 I wrote an article entitled Dangerously Changing Inconvenient Rules that caught the attention of some prominent folks who reposted it in their social media feeds. It’s been read almost 36,000 times, which for Moonshine is a very healthy number beyond the norm. It’s one of the most important articles I’ve ever written and it details some exclusive findings and analysis derived from reliable evidence that factor heavily into the body of Moonshine work evidencing COVID-19 as a construct of enterprise fraud.

Here’s the summary for that article: Examining the appearance 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.

What follows will be tied directly to a new development involving The University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) and James LeDuc, director at the time for the Galveston lab, and both are deeply featured in the article respective to off-shoring gain of function work [bioweaponization] on SARS-CoV-2 to the Wuhan Institute of Virology in advance of the “pandemic”. LeDuc’s involvement was critical and here is a long extract on weakening biosecurity from the article, which should really be consumed in full, to back-fill UTMB and LeDuc:


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.

Political Moonshine

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.

End of Extract from ‘Dangerously Changing Inconvenient Rules

Think of LeDuc as an Obama biosecurity liaison to China who was responsible for contributing to the deliberate weakening U.S. biosecurity before then doing the same for the Wuhan Institute of Virology. This occurred in ways that permitted the U.S. and China to collaborate on the bioweaponization of SARS-CoV-2 as the viral agent for their enterprise fraud construct.

Now consider this development from its 06 Aug 22 headline: US University Admits It May Have Broken Law In Contract With Wuhan Lab. From the article,

A top U.S. biosecurity lab is assuming responsibility for signing “poorly drafted” agreements with three high-level biosecurity labs in China that they concede may have broken the law.

The three contracts, including one with the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), gave the Chinese labs powers to destroy “secret files” from any stage of their collaboration.

The party is entitled to ask the other to destroy and/or return the secret files, materials, and equipment without any backups,” stated the 2017 memorandum of understanding (MOU) that the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) signed with the Wuhan lab, which first came to light in April.

The broad confidentiality obligation, renewable every five years, applied to “[a]ll cooperation and exchange documents, data, details and materials,” the document said.

Located in the first city where COVID-19 began to spread, the WIV, which for years conducted coronavirus research with U.S. funding, has attracted global attention as a possible source of the virus. The confidentiality agreements, coupled with Beijing’s pattern of suppression of discussion on pandemic origin, raised questions over whether any crucial data may have been erased from the public eye.

The Texas medical university conceded recently that these confidentiality terms may have violated state laws.


James LeDuc, director at the time for the Galveston lab, signed all three contracts.

In the months after COVID-19 broke out, LeDuc reached out to prominent WIV scientists overseeing bat coronavirus projects in a bid to help them tamp down scrutiny over the facility’s role in the pandemic, according to recently released emails analyzed by The Epoch Times.

In April 2020, he wrote an email to virologist Shi Zhengli, deputy director for WIV’s P4 lab, sharing a document he prepared for the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations to discuss the lab leak hypothesis.

“Please review carefully and make any changes that you would like. I want this to be as accurate as possible and I certainly do not want to misrepresent any of your valuable contributions,” he told Shi, who later emailed back a document with her edits.

LeDuc appears to have shifted his stance on the issue. In June, he was one of roughly three dozen scientists and public health experts calling for more rigorous oversight for funding on pathogenic experiments that could start a pandemic (pdf).

By Eva Fu / Epoch Times

What part of “security” is found in “biosecurity” when it entails legal agreements with a hostile foreign nation that is our primary military, political and economic rival to permit that nation to destroy files relative to a COVID-19 [evidenced crimes]? LeDuc is a criminal. Period. His actions are about as bad as destroying the lab animals upon which the “vaccines” were tested. As reported, the impact on evidence is enormous,

It turned out that in all three studies, experimenters killed the test animals shortly after vaccination and the subsequent challenge of animals with Sars-Cov-2. They killed them so as to make it impossible to find “safety signals” that arise in vaccinated beings post-vaccination in the long run.

This means, with all test animals dead, the scientists could not find out

– whether these animals could actually reproduce

– whether these animals had shortened lifespans

– what happens to the test animals upon COVID reinfections

– whether the test animals would be more likely to have cancers or other immune-mediated diseases

– whether the test animals were more likely to suffer from other species-specific illnesses

It is very convenient to kill test animals, because this way, vaccine companies could report that “they identified no safety concerns” — and it is kind of truthful! There are no safety concerns with dead animals!

Igor Chudov

*Hat tip to Brian O’Shea for this article.

LeDuc’s revised position that he’s now for more rigorous biosecurity for pathogenic experiments is unacceptable, laughable, egregious and an outright lie. LeDuc’s current position represents a feeble attempt at throwing down an exit plan to evade severe exposure to criminal liability in the treason and enterprise fraud he wittingly and directly engaged in relative to COVID-19.

We’re not playing make believe, Jimmy – there are no re-dos.

It’s binary.

Either LeDuc was grossly incompetent, completely unqualified for his position[s] and responsibilities despite any lettered credentials and therefore he should have never been permitted to place a finger on U.S. biosecurity…

– OR –

…or he acted maliciously to deliberately weaken U.S. biosecurity and therefore LeDuc is the traitor and criminal I’ve evidenced him to be along with Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Schumer, McConnell and the rest.

Allow me to save everyone some time. LeDuc is trying to “unring a bell”. He’s the traitor and criminal I’ve evidenced him to be. So are the others; named and unnamed.

If you really care to understand what’s been done to us, which is distinctly different than what is happening to us, consider taking in the other article and using it as a springboard to search through the substantial Moonshine body of work. It’s all there to be learned.



Leave a ReplyCancel reply