The risks of U.S biological dual-use programmes
Russia keeps finding evidence of dangerous US biolabs, far, far away from America; Interesting note from this report by Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov, U.S. pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer comes to light, we can now understand the involvement of Ursula Von der Leyen in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, taking into account her relationship and open cases of corruption with this company.
Briefing by Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov, Chief of Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Protection Troops
The potential risks of American ‘dual-use programmes’, both inside and outside the country, have been repeatedly emphasised by the Russian Ministry of Defence.
It should be noted that none of the facts presented by the Russian Ministry of Defence regarding US dual-use research has been disputed or refuted. In an effort to justify itself, the Washington argues that all of the work is being done to ensure global biosecurity and is being done in the national interests of the United States.
Prior to the consultative meeting of States Parties to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC) in Geneva in September 2022, the U.S. Department of State stated that the goal of the Pentagon’s Cooperative Threat Reduction Program is to ‘…improve human and animal health and control infectious disease outbreaks’.
In light of statements by the World Health Organisation about outbreaks of Marburg fever, Lassa fever, anthrax and cholera in different regions of the world, the extremely difficult situation with economically significant animal diseases (African swine fever, pathogenic avian influenza, foot-and-mouth disease), the height of foolishness appears to be the work being done at Boston University to increase the pathogenic properties of pathogens, such as COVID-19 (so-called ‘directed evolution’, changes that may or may not take tens or hundreds of years in nature), and to create artificial viruses with a higher risk of infecting humans.
An analysis of documents, some of which were obtained during the Russian special military operation in Ukraine, shows that such research on enhancing the functions of dangerous pathogens conducted, including in the states of Central Asia and Transcaucasia, is systematic, and large U.S. pharmaceutical companies are involved in its implementation.
It is to be stressed that the Ministry of Health of one of the Central African states is studying the possibility of artificial spread of the Ebola virus in September 2022. The concern stems from the fact that the Sudan strain is completely identical to the virus that circulated in Africa during the 2012 epidemic.
One theory is the negligent handling of the pathogen by U.S. military biologists working in the region.
Note the U.S. Senate’s request to the Department of Health regarding Pfizer Corporation’s ‘directed evolution’ research. The request seeks to assess the credibility of information obtained by the U.S. non-profit organisation Project Veritas from Pfizer’s Director of Research and Development, Jordan Walker.
He stated that the company was using the opportunity of ‘directed evolution’ research to improve the effectiveness of its vaccines. Commenting on approaches to creating new vaccine drugs, Walker said the quote ‘…why don’t we mutate it ourselves, so we focus on creating, proactively developing new vaccines…’.
Thus, the Pfizer employee admits to conducting ‘directed evolution’ research aimed at gaining competitive advantage and increasing profits.
Walker’s statements are backed up by those of former Pfizer employee Karen Kingston. She explicitly stated that the U.S. pharmaceutical company’s products, quote: ‘…are, by definition, biological weapons…’. In doing so, she refers to the U.S. law, which defines a biological weapon as any biological agent, toxin or delivery device, the definition of which includes vaccines with mRNA technology.
This type of vaccine has reportedly been developed with US government funding since 2017 and by the time it became commercially available, it was understood that it could cause co-morbidities and serious complications such as meningitis, anaphylactic shock, acute myocardial infarction, and stroke.
Drugs from Pfizer and Moderna, which have previously been awarded multi-billion dollar government contracts, have also been suggested as a treatment for the adverse effects of vaccination. Such a strategy enables American pharmaceutical companies to profit from the appearance of novel infections to the fullest extent possible.
The establishment of global biological control is the primary goal of U.S. bioprogrammes, as we have frequently brought to your attention. A move to U.S. standards for the transmission and collection of biological information, the deterioration of national health systems, and the imposition of medical equipment and medicine suppliers are frequently the outcomes of ‘selective assistance’ to participating governments in the programmes.
Along with this, military research facilities are being built near the borders of geopolitical rivals. In addition, harmful microorganism strains unique to particular regions are being gathered, and dangerous medications are being tested on humans.
According to its functionality and level of biosafety, established laboratories can be divided into three categories. The purpose of the first-level laboratory is to gather microorganism strains and their vectors from endemic areas and to prepare biomaterials for subsequent transmission.
Second-level labs prepare state collections of microbial strains for export overseas in addition to conducting research on the pathogens of extremely serious infectious diseases.
Third-level labs are outfitted with maximum biological containment facilities and are entrusted with gathering data on the biological situation in certain states whose territories the Pentagon intends to employ for the deployment of its military contingents.
The BWC and other international law norms are replaced by U.S. efforts to establish global biological control with their own regulations, which are developed in the U.S.’s interests, supported by the West as a whole, and imposed for execution on third parties. As a result, the United States is allowed to carry out biological research wherever in the world. The states taking part in this study also lose their national sovereignty in terms of biosafety and become totally reliant on the US.
The Russian Ministry of Defence has repeatedly highlighted the role of the U.S. company EcoHealth Alliance in US military biological projects, following which the company’s activities have come under scrutiny in the United States itself.
The U.S. Department of Health initiated an investigation of the company and evaluated the effectiveness of oversight activities.
DHS’s Office of Inspector General Report says that ‘…NIH did not effectively monitor or take timely action to address EcoHealth’s compliance with some requirements’, ‘…anticipated to create, use, or transfer enhanced potential pandemic pathogens…’.
It was discovered that the corporation had neglected to report the nature of the study being done in a timely manner, and that the oversight body had failed to act promptly to reduce the risks associated with this kind of research.
According to the report’s findings, the regulatory body, the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), is not equipped to efficiently monitor the distribution of federal grants, comprehend the nature of the research being done, pinpoint potential problem areas, and implement the necessary corrective measures.
The inability of the U.S. administration to ensure the necessary level of control over dual-use research carried out in the country is also confirmed by other documents.
On 27 January 2023, for example, a panel of experts from the United States National Biosecurity Research Advisory Council submitted a report to assess the effectiveness of existing biosafety legislation.
The report addressed dual-use research and research into the increased potential of pandemic infections, two of the major topics of greatest concern to the BWC.
It also cites inadequate monitoring of BWC-relevant biological research as its main areas of concern. The paper calls once again for greater transparency, and for contractors – whether private or public – to be required to notify oversight bodies of their goals, objectives and potential risks (whether they are conducting experiments within or outside the United States).
Since the time that talks on a legally binding protocol to the Convention were stalled, such calls to the U.S. leadership have been heard for more than twenty years. Nevertheless, the White House is not disposed to listen, not even to the advice of its own experts.