For my mother, who has just buried my father, passed away from a very suspicious heart event involving some clots. She had to bury him in my absence, because the Military BioTech Complex holds us prisoners on two different continents. I had to bury myself in work to keep it together.

Work in progress, I will keep adding pieces to the Tetris until it goes away.
Please return regularly for updates, this is a very long and fascinating story that should change the worldview for most people.

“This is to request that the current retention allowance [(b)(6) redaction] for Dr. Anthony S. Fauci be converted to a permanent pay adjustment in the amount [(b)(6) redaction] over his base pay of [(b)(6) redaction] in order to appropriately compensate him for the level of responsibility in his current position of Director, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), National Institutes of Health (NIH), especially as it relates to his work on biodefense research activities.”

GW BUSH

Key points

For past several years, DARPA has been pioneering a powerful new type of countermeasure against infectious disease called gene-encoded antibodies. They work by providing cells with genetic instructions for producing one or more highly protective antibodies against a given threat. pic.twitter.com/h2gz8fuOXJ

— DARPA (@DARPA) February 6, 2019

Via the ADEPT program, DARPA was an early investor in Moderna's mRNA therapeutics & vaccines. The company announced today their experimental coronavirus vaccine, built in part on this groundbreaking work, is nearly 95% effective at preventing illness: https://t.co/OCi5MEQiVg

— DARPA (@DARPA) November 16, 2020

First, in the US, Military and an emerging petrochemical industry with strong roots in agriculture but expanding into health, among others. The Rockefellers were the main force driving this expansion in the US and bridging over the ocean to Germany, the most advanced country in terms of chemical industrialization.
But it was mostly Crown-controlled and Rothschild-controlled from the City of London, through their many henchmen.

After a few good collaborative experiences, the Military and Pharmafia decided they have a future together, and they bought up the Academia to help with the labs and the brains, as both industries already had a foot in the door there.

Two world wars demonstrated there’s hardly any limit to what they can achieve together.

The Cold War is then used as an excuse to develop more surveillance and population control tools. From these efforts spring1 out Silicon Valley and the Internet.

Before the end of 20th century, Big Pharma and Big Tech are fused by all means: capital, gear, agenda.

The Great Military BioTech Complex is born to be the main Operating System of the system.

9/11 is the launch of the new control grid.

Many of the following events were just test runs.

Covid is a forced upgrade of this operating system.

Weapons trade is disguised as “defense”, bioweapons trade as “biodefense”. And the latter is booming.

Transhumanism Airlines depart from Humanism and are set to land in lifeless soulless material existence.

The Military Biotech Complex Origins

After 1865, American inventiveness turned away from war and toward commerce and industry. Development of the lands of the West did promote some agencies to investigate natural resources. The Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce and Labor, and the National Park Service appeared during this period. While government research tended toward the applied end of the research spectrum, newly-created private foundations, such as the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Institute of Washington, supported much of the nation's basic scientific research.- Daniel Else, "Origins of the Military-Industrial Complex", 2017 

Summary

Daniel Else explored the results of his year-long inquiry into the organizational underpinnings of that military technological revolution of the 1940s and 1950s. By mining the Library’s resources, Else traced the evolving relationship between science and the federal government leading to the creation of the Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD) in 1941. A temporary wartime agency, OSRD mobilized the nation’s academic and industrial technological resources in support of the war effort, and in so doing profoundly altered the linkages between science and engineering, industry, and government. Else explored those wartime changes and outline their impact, still seen and felt today more than seven decades after V-J Day.

Event Date September 21, 2017

Notes-  Daniel Else was a specialist in national defense in the Congressional Research Service in the Library of Congress and the 2016 Kluge Staff Fellow at the Library’s John W. Kluge Center.

Finally in 1950, the Air Force created a larger organization, the Air Research and Development Command. The House finally passed the Senate bill that had been passed the year before, and the president signed the bill, establishing the National Science Foundation. So in that five-year gap, what we saw was the creation of a number of military, Department of Defense organizations for science and scientific research, and the final NSF bill contained no mandate for military research for the National Science Foundation. 

So, what are its legacy organizations? A number of federal agencies can trace their origins back to the OSRD. National Science Foundation, of course, the Office of Naval Research, the Army Research Development and Engineering, or, and Evaluation Command, Air Force Office of Scientific Research, DTRA, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, DARPA, of course, and in the Department of Energy, the National Nuclear Security Administration, which is the custodian of atomic stockpile. - Daniel Else, "Origins of the Military-Industrial Complex", 2017 

One of Vannevar Bush’s PhD students at MIT was Frederick Terman, who was later instrumental in the development of “Silicon Valley”.

Wikipedia

MEANWHILE, IN EUROPE

Queen Elizabeth and Her Royal Coronavirus Bioweapon Exposed

AND FROM THERE TO ALL THE QUEEN’S TERRITORIES

Trump’s Killer “Vaccine Czar” confirms us: Covid-19 vaccine receivers “tightly monitored” by Google

From Dark Winter to the coming winter – how biodefense drills have altered society

The Dark Winter exercise was the collaborative effort of 4 organizations. John Hamre of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) initiated and conceived of an exercise wherein senior former officials would respond to a bioterrorist induced national security crisis. Tara O’Toole and Tom Inglesby of the Johns Hopkins Center for Civilian Biodefense Studies and Randy Larsen and Mark DeMier of Analytic Services, Inc., (ANSER) were the principal designers, authors, and controllers of Dark Winter. Sue Reingold of CSIS managed administrative and logistical arrangements. General Dennis Reimer of the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism (MIPT) provided funding for Dark Winter.

DARK WINTER Official page

Simulations and Tabletop Exercises

Part of the: Homeland Security Archived Projects

Preparing homeland security professionals through scenario-based simulations and exercises on key issues.

Steadfast Resolve

The Steadfast Resolve exercise was planned to address the concern that poorly designed government response to the next terrorist attack could disrupt America’s economy and society as much or more than the attack itself. This concern is particularly relevant in the context of an attack that may be harmful, but not catastrophic.

In the event of a next attack, government officials will be under enormous pressure to respond swiftly, more than likely with limited information about the status of the attack or what to expect next. In today’s news cycle, the public – and the situation – will demand a swift and decisive response perhaps before exactly what is happening becomes clear. Confusion, indecision, or false starts at government’s highest levels will be magnified and may have long-lasting ramifications. Getting it wrong will be easier than getting it right. As the Hurricane Katrina experience has demonstrated, a lack of situational awareness, understanding of current plans, and an absence of effective decisionmaking tools can lead to disaster. 

Dark Winter: Bioterrorism Simulation Exercise

In the summer of 2001, a group of senior-level officials, including Gov. Frank Keating of Oklahoma, David Gergen, and James Woolsey, participated in an executive level simulation. Dark Winter simulated a U.S. National Security Council meeting at which senior officials were confronted with a smallpox attack on the United States. The exercise illustrated the issues to be addressed in the event of a bioterrorism crisis, including the challenges facing state and local governments, the role and responsiveness of the federal government, and the likely friction spots between federal- and state-level responders and responses.

Coming as it did before the September 11 terrorist attacks and the subsequent anthrax attacks, Dark Winter generated an enormous amount of interest in both the public policy community and the media. CSIS briefed Vice President Dick Cheney, then National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, then FEMA Director Joe Allbaugh, over 80 members of Congress, senior government officials and leaders, including approximately 20 ambassadors to the United States, and senior government officials from Asia, Latin America, and Europe. Besides raising public awareness of the bioterrorism threat, these briefings contributed to the Bush administration’s decision to manufacture 300 million doses of the smallpox vaccine.

Silent Vector: A Critical Energy Infrastructure Simulation Exercise

The events of September 11 and additional intelligence on al Qaeda demonstrate the potential for an attack against the infrastructure of the United States. To face this challenge, CSIS developed an executive-level simulation focusing on U.S. critical energy infrastructure. The exercise took place in October 2002 and employed a simulated National Security Council of senior policymakers with former senator Sam Nunn, now chairman of CSIS’s Board of Trustees, serving as scenario president.

Silent Vector was designed to simulate possible U.S. reaction to a credible threat of terrorist attack when there is not sufficient information for effective protection. The overall purpose of the exercise was to assist the administration and Congress in their attempts to improve the effectiveness of response during the pre-attack phase of a major terrorist incident. Silent Vector challenged current and former senior government leaders to respond to increasingly credible and specific intelligence indicating the possibility of a large-scale attack against critical energy and energy-related infrastructure on the East Coast of the United States.
 

Black Dawn: A Scenario-Based Exercise on Catastrophic Terrorism

Organized under the auspices of the Strengthening the Global Partnership project by CSIS and the Nuclear Threat Initiative, Black Dawn gathered approximately 55 current and former senior officials and experts from the European Council, the European Commission, NATO, 15 member states, and various international organizations to grapple with the challenges associated with preventing the use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by terrorists.

The exercise aimed to develop a set of actionable recommendations for the EU, NATO and individual European governments to prevent terrorists from acquiring and using WMD. The exercise was designed to energize discussion and debate as various European countries and institutions entered into their policy and budget deliberations. The central question animating the exercise was this: In hindsight, what could we have done to prevent terrorists from acquiring WMD and conducting such an attack? And what more can and should we do now?

The exercise concluded with several lessons learned: the threat of WMD terrorism is real; it could happen in Europe; prevention is the best option; we can take concrete steps to significantly reduce the risk of terrorists acquiring nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons; Europe has a leadership role to play; and we need to act now.

• Simon Chair BlogCommentaries on U.S. relations with countries in the Western Hemisphere – focusing on international political economy, trade, investment, energy, and other current events.

A “Dark Winter” for Public Health: Meet Homeland Security’s New Bioterror Czarina

by Tom Burghardt / August 24th, 2009

In the wake of the 2001 anthrax attacks, successive U.S. administrations have pumped some $57 billion across 11 federal agencies and departments into what is euphemistically called “biodefense.” Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in January 2005, former U.S. Senate Majority Leader William Frist, a Bushist acolyte, baldly stated that “The greatest existential threat we have in the world today is biological” and predicted that “an inevitable bioterror attack” would come “at some time in the next 10 years.”

Later that year, Frist and former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) covertly inserted language into the 2006 Defense Appropriations bill (H.R. 2863) that granted legal immunity to vaccine manufacturers, even in cases of willful misconduct. It was signed into law by President Bush.

According to Public Citizen and The New York Times, Frist and Hastert benefited financially from their actions; the pair, as well as 41 other congressmen and senators owned as much as $16 million in pharmaceutical stock. revealed that “the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) is purported to be the key author of the language additions. This trade association represents virtually all major vaccine manufacturers.”

The Senate Majority Leader’s alarmist jeremiad at Davos was seconded by Dr. Tara O’Toole who added, “This [bioterrorism] is one of the most pressing problems we have on the planet today.”

Really? Not grinding poverty, global warming or the lack of access by hundreds of millions of impoverished workers and farmers to clean water, an adequate diet, health care or relief from epidemic levels of preventable diseases such as malaria, tuberculosis or diarrhea, but “bioterrorism” as narrowly defined by securocrats and their academic accomplices.

But Dr. Victor W. Sidel, a founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) and an outspoken critic of the Bioweapons-Industrial-Complex challenged O’Toole’s hysterical paradigm.

Sidel made the point that there is a fundamental conflict between the state’s national security goals and health care providers’ professional responsibilities to patients. He wrote in 2003 that “military, intelligence, and law enforcement agencies and personnel have long histories of secrecy and deception that are contrary to the fundamental health principles of transparency and truthfulness. They may therefore be unsuitable partners for public health agencies that need to justify receiving the public’s trust.”

In this context, the choice of O’Toole as the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Undersecretary of Science and Technology is troubling to say the least. As former CEO and Director of UPMC’s Center for Biosecurity, critics charge that O’Toole’s appointment will be nothing short of a disaster.

No ordinary policy wonk with an impressive résumé and years as a government insider, O’Toole is a key player advocating for the expansion of dual-use biological weapons programs rebranded as biodefense.

Subverting the Biological Weapons Convention

The resuscitation of American bioweapons programs are facilitated by their secretive and highly-classified nature. Under cover of academic freedom or intellectual property rights, the U.S. Bioweapons-Industrial-Complex has largely been outsourced by the state to private companies and contractors at top American corporations and universities.

Efforts to strengthen the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) by the inclusion of verification language into the treaty and regular inspection of suspect facilities by international experts have been shot-down since 2001 by the Bush and now, the Obama administrations. Why?

Primarily because the United States view onsite measures as a threat to the commercial proprietary information of multinational pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies as well as to America’s reputedly “defensive” biological programs; initiatives that continue to work with nature’s most dangerous and deadly pathogens.

In fact, the problem of the dual-use nature of such research is a conundrum facing critics who challenge the break-neck expansion of concealed weapons programs. Simply put, military activities can be disguised as commercial research to develop medical countermeasures without anyone, least of all the American people, being any the wiser.

Highly-trained microbiologists deployed across a spectrum of low-key companies, trained for academic, public health, or commercial employment are part of the dual-use problem. Who’s to say whether scientists who genetically-manipulate pathogens or create Frankenstein-like chimera disease organisms (say, synthesized Marburg or Ebola virus as has already been done with poliovirus in a U.S. lab) are engaged in treaty-busting weapons research or the development of life-saving measures.

And what about the accidental, or more sinisterly, the deliberate release of some horrific new plague by a scientist who’s “gone rogue”? As researcher Edward Hammond pointed out:

British researchers pled guilty in 2001 to charges that they improperly handled a genetically engineered hybrid of the viruses causing hepatitis C and dengue fever. British authorities characterized the virus as “more lethal than HIV”. ‘Dengatitis’ was deliberately created by researchers who wanted to use fewer laboratory animals in a search for a vaccine for Hepatitis C. Under unsafe laboratory conditions, the researchers created and nearly accidentally released a new hybrid human disease whose effects, fortunately, remain unknown; but which may have displayed different symptoms than its parents and thus been difficult to diagnose, and have required a new, unknown treatment regime. (Emerging Technologies: Genetic Engineering and Biological Weapons, The Sunshine Project, Background Paper No. 12, November 2003)

A new report by the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation has charged that despite restrictions under the BWC prohibiting the development, production, stockpiling and use of weaponized disease agents such as anthrax, smallpox or plague, as well as equipment and delivery systems intended for offensive use, the rapid growth of “biodefense and research programs over the last decade” has placed “new pressure” on efforts to curb the development of banned weapons listed in the treaty.

In an interview with Global Security Newswire Gerald Epstein, a senior fellow with the hawkish Center for Security and International Studies (CSIS) told the publication, “When one is doing bioresearch and biodefense, one has to be careful to not overstep the treaty itself.”

He cited the U.S biodefense effort Project Bacchus–an investigation by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency to determine whether it was possible to build a bioweapons production facility using readily available equipment–as an instance where questions were raised if the treaty had been violated.

The type of biodefense activity that is most likely to raise questions regarding treaty compliance is “threat assessment,” the process of determining what type of biological attacks are most likely to occur, he told Global Security Newswire. A dangerous biological agent could inadvertently be developed during such research, Epstein said. (Martin Matishak, “Biodefense Research Could Violate Weapons Convention, Report Warns,” Global Security Newswire, August 20, 2009)

But Pentagon bioweaponeers did more than build “a bioweapons productions facility using readily available equipment.” They built banned weapons. According to Jeanne Guillemin, author of Biological Weapons: From the Invention of State-Sponsored Programs to Contemporary Bioterrorism, the Pentagon and CIA made and tested a model of a Soviet anthrax bomb and created an antibiotic-resistant strain of anthrax.

After consulting with scientists who strongly suggested that the CIA anthrax bomb project would violate the BWC, “CIA lawyers decided the project was within the allowed realm of defensive research,” Guillemin revealed. Project Clear Vision, a joint investigation by the CIA and the Battelle Memorial Institute, under contract to the Agency, reconstructed and tested a Soviet-era anthrax bomblet in order to test its dissemination characteristics. The Agency “decided the same” for the small, fully functional bioweapons facility built under the rubric of Project Bacchus.

The third initiative, Project Jefferson, led to the development of an antibiotic-resistant strain of anthrax based on a Soviet model. After the outgoing Clinton administration hesitated to give the CIA the go-ahead for the project, the Bush regime’s National Security Council gave the Pentagon permission. “They believed” Guillemin wrote, “the Pentagon had the right to investigate genetically altered pathogens in the name of biodefense, ‘to save American lives’.”

Shortly thereafter, the Pentagon authorized the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), one of the most secretive and heavily-outsourced Defense Department branches, to re-create the deadly anthrax strain.

What the scope of these programs are today is currently unknown. We do know however, that based on available evidence the Department of Homeland Security, the Defense Department and the oxymoronic Intelligence Community, using the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) as a cover, continue to investigate the feasibility of transforming nature’s most deadly pathogens into weapons.

In close coordination, the United States government and their outsourced corporate partners are spending billions of dollars on research and simulation exercises, dubbed “disaster drills” by a compliant media, to facilitate this grisly trade.

Secrecy and Deceit

That the official bioterror narrative is a preposterous fiction and swindle as even the FBI was forced to admit during its much-maligned Amerithrax investigation, is hardly worth a second glance by corporate media beholden to the pharmaceutical industry for advertising revenue; call it business as usual here in the heimat.

As we now know, the finely-milled anthrax powder which killed five people and shut down representative government didn’t come from the Afghan-Arab database of disposable Western intelligence assets known as al Qaeda, but rather from deep within America’s own Bioweapons-Industrial-Complex, to wit, from the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) at Ft. Detrick in Maryland. But such troublesome and inconvenient truths are barely worth a mention by “respectable” media, e.g. the corporate stenographers who sold two imperialist military adventures to the American people.

Indeed, a credible case can be made that without the anthrax attacks, the fear levels gripping the country in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist events–and the subsequent clamp-down that followed, from the USA Patriot Act to the indefinite detention and torture of “terrorism” suspects, and from warrantless wiretapping to the demonization of dissent–may very well have been impossible.

It is difficult not to conclude that from the beginning of the affair, there was a clear intent on the part of the anthrax terrorist(s) to draw a straight line between 9/11 and the anthrax mailings. From there, it was but a short step to stitching-up a case for “regime change” in Iraq. The media’s role in this criminal enterprise was indispensable for what Salon’s Glenn Greenwald has called“the single greatest, unresolved media scandal of this decade.” As Greenwald points out,

During the last week of October, 2001, ABC News, led by Brian Ross, continuously trumpeted the claim as their top news story that government tests conducted on the anthrax–tests conducted at Ft. Detrick–revealed that the anthrax sent to [former Senator Tom] Daschle contained the chemical additive known as bentonite. ABC News, including Peter Jennings, repeatedly claimed that the presence of bentonite in the anthrax was compelling evidence that Iraq was responsible for the attacks, since–as ABC variously claimed–bentonite “is a trademark of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein’s biological weapons program” and “only one country, Iraq, has used bentonite to produce biological weapons.” (Glenn Greenwald, “Vital unresolved anthrax questions and ABC News,” Salon, August 1, 2008)

Despite ABC News’ claims that their information came from “four well-placed and separate sources,” they were fed information that was patently false; as Greenwald avers, “No tests ever found or even suggested the presence of bentonite. The claim was just concocted from the start. It just never happened.”

And as we will shortly explore below, the dubious “Dark Winter” and “Atlantic Storm” bioterror exercises designed by Dr. Tara O’Toole freely drew from the neocon’s sinister playbook, right down to the weaponized smallpox supplied to al Qaeda by Saddam.

Whether or not one buys the current permutation of the “lone nut” theory, this one alleges that Dr. Bruce Ivins, a vaccine specialist employed by USAMRIID, was the anthrax mailer; the fact is, when all is said and done the attacks, to use a much over-hyped phrase, were an inside job.

And like other “lone nuts” who have entered the parapolitical frame at their own peril, Ivins isn’t around to refute the charges.

The Alliance for Biosecurity: Insiders with a Mission and (Very) Deep Pockets

Before being pegged by the Obama administration to head DHS’s Science and Technology division where she will oversee the department’s billion dollar budget, with some 45 percent of it going towards chemical and bioweapons defense, O’Toole, as previously mentioned, was the CEO and Director of UPMC’s Center for Biosecurity, a satrapy which describes itself as “an independent organization dedicated to improving the country’s resilience to major biological threats.”

How “independent”? You make the call!

According to their web site The Alliance for Biosecurity is “a collaboration among the Center for Biosecurity and 13 pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies whose mission is to work in the public interest to improve prevention and treatment of severe infectious diseases–particularly those diseases that present global security challenges.”

Alliance partners include the usual suspects: Bavarian Nordic; Center for Biosecurity of UPMC; Cangene Corporation; DOR BioPharma, Inc.; DynPort Vaccine Company LLC, a CSC company; Elusys Therapeutics, Inc.; Emergent BioSolutions; Hematech, Inc., a subsidiary of Kyowa Kirin; Human Genome Sciences, Inc.; NanoViricides, Inc.; Pfizer Inc.; PharmAthene; Siga Technologies, Inc.; Unither Virology LLC, a subsidiary of United Therapeutics Corporation. Rounding out this rogues gallery are associate members, the spooky Battelle Medical Research and Evaluation Facility and the Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute.

Among the chief activities of the Alliance is lobbying Congress for increased funding for the development of new drugs deemed “countermeasures” under the Project BioShield Act of 2004, previously described by Antifascist Calling as a particularly grotesque piece of Bushist legislative flotsam.

The Alliance avers that “the United States faces unprecedented risks to national security … by the clear and growing danger of bioterrorism or a destabilizing infectious disease pandemic,” and that “our nation’s vulnerability to biothreats is so severe” due to the fact that “most of the vaccines and medicines that will be needed to protect our citizens do not now exist.” Therefore, countermeasures needed to mitigate nebulous biothreats never spelled out once in the group’s literature “will likely require several years and several hundred million dollars each to successfully develop and produce.” (emphasis added)

An Alliance report, The State of Biosecurity in 2008 and Proposals for a Public/Private Pathway Forward, charts a course for “improving and accelerating” efforts to “develop medical countermeasures (MCMs) for the nation’s Strategic National Stockpile (SNS).”

Under the Project Bioshield Act of 2004, Congress authorized $5.6 billion over ten years “to purchase MCMs for the SNS.” Funds were allocated for the procurement of the anthrax vaccine as well as for “therapeutic antibodies for inhalational anthrax, a botulism heptavalent antitoxin, a smallpox vaccine, and several products for radiological and nuclear threats, obligating a total of about $1.9 billion of the $5.6 billion BioShield fund.”

In 2006 as I noted previously, Congress created the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). BARDA was authorized to spend some $1.07 billion over three years for MCMs, “only $201 million has been provided by Congress through FY 2008″ noted the Alliance, “approximately one-fifth of the authorized level.”

According to an “independent economic analysis” carried out by (who else!) the Alliance’s academic partner, the Center for Biosecurity, “it would require $3.4 billion in FY 2009 to support one year of advanced development.”

“Similarly” according to the organization, “the original appropriation of $5.6 billion for Project BioShield is equally insufficient to ensure that once MCMs are developed there will be funds available to procure them and maintain the stockpile.” Indeed, “this level of funding would need to be sustained for many years.” You can bet however, that Alliance lobbyists are busy as proverbial bees in pressuring Congress to fork over the dough!

The report state’s that Alliance goals necessarily entail instilling “a sense of urgency … with Congress” by hyping the “bioterror threat.” But there’s much more here than a simple cynical exercise at preparing the “public diplomacy” ground through academic and industry “message force multipliers” that will enable Congress to shower Big Pharma with a veritable tsunami of cash. A “risk-tolerant culture” should be promoted within BARDA, one that “understands the realities, risks, timelines, and costs of drug development.”

The “risks” to whom and for what purpose are not enumerated, but one can be certain that a “risk-tolerant culture” crafted by industry insiders will come at the expense of the health and safety of the American people, one that pushes potential legal liability should things head south onto the taxpaying public.

The stealth nature of Alliance recommendations are clearly spelled out when they aver that “stakeholders” should “focus more on the potential biothreats and the corresponding countermeasures, rather than the price tag” and that BARDA, ostensibly a public agency, should be packed with insiders “who have drug development and manufacturing experience.” This will lead to the development of “a culture that is focused on partnering with industry and academia.”

But the bottom line as always, is the corporatist bottom line for Alliance shareholders! How else can one interpret their statement that emerging “biothreats” are all the more dire today now that “interest of the public and private capital markets in biodefense has declined over the last 2-3 years.” What better way then, to beef-up those sagging capital markets than to install an industry-friendly individual at DHS with a documented track record of overplaying the “bioterror threat.”

Dark Winter

O’Toole was the principal designer of two “tabletop” bioterror preparedness drills, the 2001 Dark Winter exercise and the 2005 Atlantic Storm run-through; both were criticized by scientific experts as fabrications of an alleged threat of a smallpox attack mounted by al Qaeda.

Reviewing Milton Leitenberg’s 2005 report, Assessing the Biological Weapons and Bioterrorism Threat, published the U.S. Army War College’s Strategic Studies Institute, protein chemist Dr. Eric Smith wrote the following:

Of note is Leitenberg’s dissection of the process of assessment as practiced through bioterrorism threat scenarios conducted by the US government and private think tanks. Exercises like Dark Winter, which modeled an “aerosolized” smallpox attack, Top Off 2 and 3, both on pneumonic plague strikes, and Atlantic Storm, an exercise that purported to show an al Qaida group manufacturing a dry powder smallpox weapon, were rigged. In the cases of Dark Winter and the Top Offs, transmission rates of disease were sexed up beyond historical averages so that “a disastrous outcome was assured” no matter any steps taken to contain outbreaks. Eight pages are reserved to pointedly condemn the Atlantic Storm exercise on a host of sins which can generally be described as a bundle of frank lies and misinformation coupled with a claimed terrorist facility for making smallpox into a weapon that even state run biological warfare operations did not possess. And once again, juiced transmission rates of disease were employed to grease theoretical calamity. The reader comes to recognize the deus ex machina–a concoction or intervention added to dictate an outcome, in these cases very bad ones–as a regular feature of the exercises. However, the results of the same assessments–the alleged lessons learned–have never been reported with much, if any, skepticism in the media. (Eric Smith, “A Vaccine for the Hype: Milton Leitenberg’s new ‘Assessing the Biological Weapons and Bioterrorism Threat,” Global Security, National Security Notes, March 31, 2006)

In criticizing “the fancy that such attacks are easy and one of the most catastrophic threats faced by the American people,” Smith denounces the alarmist scenarios of Dark Winter and Atlantic Storm’s designers–people like Dr. Tara O’Toole and the coterie of industry insiders and other well-paid “experts”–as guilty of perpetrating a massive “fraud … and a substantial one” on the American people.

While one of Atlantic Storm’s architects proclaimed “this is not science fiction” and that “the age of Bioterror is now…” Leitenberg and Smith denounce O’Toole’s spurious claims as “not the least bit plausible.”

Leitenberg wrote that “well before October-November 2001, the spectre of ‘bioterrorism’ benefitted from an extremely successful sales campaign.” Indeed, hyped-up scenarios such as Dark Winter and Atlantic Storm that place “weapons of mass destruction” in the hands of shadowy, intelligence-linked terror outfits like al Qaeda provided “inflated predictions that … were certainly not realistic. Much worse, in addition to being wrong, inflated predictions were counterproductive. They induced interest in BW in the wrong audiences.”

But the implausible nature of the scenarios deployed in national exercises hardly prohibited the Bioweapons-Industrial-Complex from concocting scarecrow-like straw men designed to sow terror amongst the American people while extracting regular infusions of cash from Congress.

Among the eight exercises analyzed by Leitenberg between 1998-2005, he found that each and every one were fraudulently designed and the threat of bioterrorism had been framed as a rationalization for “political action, the expenditure of public funds for bioterrorism prevention and response programs,” that could “not occur without it.” This is “not benign,” Leitenberg concludes.

A second consequence of sexed-up “bioterror” drills have even more ominous implications for the immediate future. Because of national security state perceptions that mitigation of catastrophic bioterrorism is of supreme importance for national survival–perceptions reinforced by academic, corporate and militarist peddlers of crisis–”the US biodefense research program appears to be drifting into violation” of the Biological Weapons Convention. This is a menacing development and has happened, I would argue precisely because the evaluation process which justifies research into biological weapons threat capabilities and scenarios, are repackaged to conceal the offensive thrust of this research as wholly defensive in nature, which it certainly is not.

How else would one explain ongoing research funded by the National Institutes of Health to study botulism toxin, “with the added qualification” Smith points out, that because the protein toxin is “unstable, therefore there will be collaboration with other researchers to stabilize it.” The NIH grant “means preparing a much more effective botulinum toxin than had been available before.”

Smith goes on to cite “another problematical breakout” offered by two scientists to study the “aerobiological” characteristics of the lethal Marburg and Ebola viruses. How this is “defensive” in nature, in keeping with research restrictions under the Biological Weapons Convention, is another instance of a backdoor move to kick-start illicit bioweapons development.

According to Smith, the study “looks to define how the organisms can be aerosolized, an instance of research into examining vulnerability in the complete absence of a verified threat.” But I would argue that showering taxpayers dollars into such dark and troubling research tributaries deploy hyped-up threats as cover for the development of illegal weapons.

When her nomination was announced in May, Rutgers University and homeland security critic Richard Ebright told Wired,

“This is a disastrous nomination. O’Toole supported every flawed decision and counterproductive policy on biodefense, biosafety, and biosecurity during the Bush Administration. O’Toole is as out of touch with reality, and as paranoiac, as former Vice President Cheney. It would be hard to think of a person less well suited for the position.”

“She was the single most extreme person, either in or out of government, advocating for a massive biodefense expansion and relaxation of provisions for safety and security,” he adds. “She makes Dr. Strangelove look sane.” (Noah Shachtman, “DHS’ New Geek Chief is a Bioterror ‘Disaster,’ Critics Charge,” Wired, May 6, 2009)

And Dr. Smith told Wired that exercises designed by O’Toole and her colleagues show her to be “the top academic/salesperson for the coming of apocalyptic bioterrorism which has never quite arrived.”

As noted above, “[She’s] most prominent for always lobbying for more money for biodefense, conducting tabletop exercises on bioterrorism for easily overawed public officials, exercises tweaked to be horrifying,” Smith told Wired.

But Smith goes even further and denounces O’Toole as an industry shill who “has never obviously appeared to examine what current terrorist capabilities have been… in favor of extrapolating how easy it would be to launch bioterror attacks if one had potentially unlimited resources and scientific know-how.” It’s a “superb appointment if you’re in the biodefense industry and interested in further opportunity and growth.”

“Alternatively” Smith avers, O’Toole’s appointment is “a disaster if threat assessment and prevention” has “some basis in reality.”

Not that any of this matters in Washington. The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee led by “independent Democrat” and arch neocon Sen. Joseph Lieberman, voted to send her nomination to the full Senate July 29.

Never mind that the deadly weaponized pathogen employed in the attacks didn’t originate in some desolate Afghan cave or secret underground bunker controlled by Saddam.

And never mind that the principal cheerleaders for expanding state-funded programs are Pentagon bioweaponeers, private corporations and a shadowy nexus of biosecurity apparatchiks who stand to make a bundle under current and future federal initiatives.

Leading the charge for increased funding is the Alliance for Biosecurity, a collaborative venture between the Center for Biosecurity of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) and Big Pharma.

Tom Burghardt is a researcher and activist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. His articles are published in many venues. He is the editor of Police State America: U.S. Military “Civil Disturbance” Planning

 Soviet scientists reportedly used newly developed genetic engineering techniques to create vaccine-subverting and antibiotic-resistant strains of anthrax, plague, tularemia, and smallpox for attacks against military forces and civilian populations (Bozheyeva et al. 1999, Alibek and Handelman 2000)

Biodefense Market Revenue Predicted To Go Up by 2020 – 2027 from Jitendra

HUNDREDS DEADLY BIOLABS WITH DISASTROUS SECURITY RECORDS, RAN BY CDC AND PHARMAFIA IN YOUR BACKYARD

The market is fragmented, and the degree of fragmentation will accelerate during the forecast period. Alexeter Technologies LLC, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc., Altimmune Inc., ANP Technologies Inc., Bavarian Nordic AS, Cleveland BioLabs Inc., Elusys Therapeutics Inc., Emergent BioSolutions Inc., General Dynamics Corp., and GlaxoSmithKline Plc are some of the major market participants. Although the rising prevalence of infectious disease and rapid increase in government funding in R&D will offer immense growth opportunities, to leverage the current opportunities, market vendors must strengthen their foothold in the fast-growing segments, while maintaining their positions in the slow-growing segments.

TECHNAVIO BIODEFENSSE MARKET REPORT

In an exclusive interview, Dr. Boyle touches upon GreatGameIndia‘s exclusive report Coronavirus Bioweapon – where we reported in detail how Chinese Biowarfare agents working at the Canadian lab in Winnipeg were involved in the smuggling of Coronavirus to Wuhan’s lab from where it is believed to have been leaked.

In this bombshell interview (full transcript below), Boyle talks about:

• The bioweapons origins of the coronavirus
• How the Deep State deployed anthrax on US soil to whip up publicity about biological weapons and increase funding for bioweapons labs
• Why the WHO and CDC are both criminal organizations which are complicit in the covert development of biological weapons
• The “death science” industry and why the US government has spent over $100 billion developing self-replicating weapons
• Details about the Pirbright Institute and its ties to bioweapons, depopulation, vaccines and coronavirus patents. (It’s partially funded by Bill & Melinda Gates)
• Why all BSL-3 and BSL-4 labs in the world should be banned and shut down.

Full transcript

---

Geopolitics and Empire: Geopolitics & Empire is joined by Dr. Francis Boyle, who is international law professor at the University of Illinois. We’ll be discussing the Wuhan coronavirus and biological warfare. He’s served as counsel to numerous governments such as Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Palestinian authority. He’s represented numerous national international bodies in the areas of human rights, war crimes and genocide, nuclear policy, and biowarfare. He’s written numerous books, one of my favorites being “Destroying Libya and World Order”, which I assigned as mandatory reading material for my own students when I taught at the Monterrey Institute of Technology.

But most important for this interview, he’s written a book called “Biowarfare and Terrorism”, and drafted the US domestic implementing legislation for the biological weapons convention, known as the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 that was approved unanimously by both houses of the US Congress and signed into law by President Bush. Thanks for joining us, Dr. Boyle.

Dr. Francis Boyle: Wow. Thank you so much for having me on and thanks for that kind introduction.

Geopolitics and Empire:  Now let’s get to what’s been on the news recently. This coronavirus in Wuhan. There have been some reports recently, there’s a really interesting website called GreatGameIndia that has been reporting on this. They’ve been talking about China, which they say has been complying with biological weapons convention in recent years.

But then there are some people in the US and experts that have been saying that in reality, China isn’t complying with the weapons convention. And I think neither, perhaps the US as well. I’m wondering if China is developing its own biosafety level four lab in Wuhan and elsewhere, as you know, as a type of deterrence. Is it a type of a biological arms race that we have going on?

You told me in an email that you suspect China was developing the coronavirus as a dual use of biowarfare weapons agent. Also, what do you make of reports that Chinese scientists have been stealing research and viruses, including the coronavirus from a Canadian bio lab this past December?

And as well, Chinese nationals have been charged with smuggling vials of biological research to China from the US with the aid of Charles Lieber who was the chair of Harvard’s chemistry department. And he also happens to be in 2011 a strategic scientist at Wuhan University. So, can you tell us what’s going on with this recent outbreak in Wuhan?

Dr. Francis Boyle: Well, that’s a lot of questions. I guess we can take them one at a time, but if you just do a very simple Google search on “Does China have a BSL-4 laboratory?”, Wuhan comes up right away. It’s at the top of the list. That’s all with the moment this type of thing happened I began to do that. So a BSL-4 is the most serious type. And basically BSL-4 labs, we have many of them here in the United States, are used to develop offensive biological warfare weapons with DNA genetic engineering.

So it does seem to me that the Wuhan BSL-4 is the source of the coronavirus. My guess is that they were researching SARS, and they weaponize it further by giving it a gain of function properties, which means it could be more lethal.

Indeed, the latest report now is it’s a 15% fatality rate, which is more than SARS at 83% infection rate. A typical gain of function travels in the air so it could reach out maybe six feet or more from someone emitting a sneeze or a cough. Likewise, this is a specially designated WHO research lab. The WHO was in on it and they knew full well what was going on there.

Yes. It’s also been reported that Chinese scientists stole coronavirus materials from the Canadian lab at Winnipeg. Winnipeg is Canada’s formal center for research, developing, testing, biological warfare weapons. It’s along the lines of Fort Detrick here in the United States of America. I have three degrees from Harvard. It would not surprise me if something was being stolen out of Harvard to turn over to China. I read that report. I don’t know what was in those vials one way or the other.

But the bottom line is I drafted the US domestic implementing legislation for the Biological Weapons Convention that was approved unanimously by both Houses in the United States Congress signed into law by President Bush Sr. that it appears the coronavirus that we’re dealing with here is an offensive biological warfare weapon that leaped out of Wuhan BSL-4. I’m not saying it was done deliberately. But there had been previous reports of problems with that lab and things leaking out of it. I’m afraid that is what we are dealing with today.

Geopolitics and Empire: We’ll be talking about the Wuhan and the coronavirus and China, but can you give us kind of like a bigger context. I know you’ve, previously, in interviews said that since 9/11, you think that the US has spent $100 billion on biological warfare research. We know the Soviet Union, if I’m not mistaken, developed anthrax as a bioweapon. And you’ve also mentioned that UK, France, Israel and China are all involved in biological warfare weapons research.

And something interesting, I believe one or two years ago a Bulgarian journalist and the Russian government shared their concern of the discovery of a US bioweapons lab in the country of Georgia. You’ve commented how in Africa, US has set up bioweapons labs to work on Ebola, which I think is illegal under international law. But they were allowed somehow to put those in Africa. Can you give us like a bigger picture? What’s going on with these different countries and what’s the purpose of this research?

Dr. Francis Boyle: All these BSL-4 labs are by United States, Europe, Russia, China, Israel are all there to research, develop, test biological warfare agents. There’s really no legitimate scientific reason to have BSL-4 labs. That figure I gave $100 billion, that was about 2015 I believe. I had crunched the numbers and came up with that figure the United States since 9/11.

To give you an idea that’s as much in constant dollars as the US spent to develop the Manhattan Project and the atom bomb. So it’s clearly all weapons related. We have well over 13,000 alleged life science scientists involved in research developed testing biological weapons here in the United States. Actually this goes back it even precedes 9/11 2001.

I have another book, The Future of International Law and American Foreign Policy, tracing that all the way back to the Reagan administration under the influence of the neocons and they got very heavily involved in research development testing of biological weapons with DNA genetic engineers. It was because of that I issued my plea in 1985 in a Congressional briefing sponsored by the Council for Responsible Genetics, I’m a lawyer for them. They’re headquartered in Cambridge, Mass. All the MIT, Harvard people are involved in that, the principal ones. And then they asked me to draft the implementing legislation.

The implementing legislation that I drafted was originally designed to stop this type of work. “Death science work”, I call it, “by the United States government”. After 9/11, 2001, it just completely accelerated. My current figure, that last figure a 100 billion. I haven’t had a chance to re-crunch the numbers because I just started classes. But you have to add in about another 5 billion per year.

Basically, this is offensive biological weapons raised by the United States government and with its assistance in Canada and Britain. And so other States, the world have responded accordingly including Russia and China. They were going to set up a whole series of BSL-4 facilities as well. And you know Wuhan was the first. It backfired on them.

Geopolitics and Empire: Would you basically consider what happened and Wuhan and just boil it down to ineptitude or incompetence on the Chinese part?

Dr. Francis Boyle: Well, it’s criminality. It does appear they stole something there from Winnipeg. This activity that they engaged in clearly violates the Biological Weapons Convention. Research development of biological weapons these days is an international crime, the use of it would be. That was criminal.

I’m not saying they deliberately inflicted this on their own people, but it leaked out of there and all these BSL-4 facilities leak. Everyone knows that who studies this. So this was a catastrophe waiting to happen. Unfortunately, it happened. The Chinese government under Xi and his comrades there have been covering this up from the get-go. The first reported case was December 1, so they’d been sitting on this until they couldn’t anymore. And everything they’re telling you is a lie. It’s propaganda.

The WHO still refuses to declare a global health emergency. It said Tedros was over there shaking hands with Xi and smiling and yanking it up. The WHO was in on it. They’ve approved many of these BSL-4 labs., they know exactly what’s going on and that is a WHO research-approved laboratory. They know what’s going on too. You can’t really believe anything the WHO is telling you about this, either they’re up to their eyeballs in it, in my opinion.

Geopolitics and Empire: I’d probably agree with you that this outbreak in Wuhan was an accidental leak from the laboratory. But just your thoughts, it’s happening at quite an opportune time because namely we’re smack in the middle of a US-China new Cold War, which is currently characterized by economic warfare such as the trade war among other forms of hybrid and technological warfare. And it seems the Wuhan outbreak will likely hit the Chinese economy hard. The Chinese are flat out dismissing any idea that the US is involved in. Like I said, it’s probably they made the mistakes in the Wuhan lab. What are your thoughts of any seemingly, this would benefit the US…

Dr. Francis Boyle: When the outbreak occurred, of course I considered that alternative too. When you have an outbreak, you’re never quite sure who or what is behind it. It certainly isn’t bats, that’s ridiculous. They made the same argument on Ebola in West Africa. I demolished that online. You can check it out. So I kept competing theories about this.

But right now, when you originally contacted me, I said I wasn’t prepared to comment because I was weighing the evidence. I’m a law professor and a lawyer,  I try to do the best I can to weigh the evidence. But right now, the Wuhan BSL-4 in my opinion is the most likely source, apply Occam’s razor, the simplest explanation. I’m not ruling out some type of sabotage. But right now, I believe that is the source here.

Geopolitics and Empire: And you mentioned WHO. I’d like to just get your thoughts on the WHO and the Big Pharma. There’s also some analysts who are downplaying this news media hype of the coronavirus. You’ve just said that it seems to be lethal, but if we go back a decade to the 2009 swine flu, which I believe didn’t have too many casualties, but I think profited greatly the pharmaceutical companies. If I recall that back in 2009, many countries purchased great stocks of the vaccines and they ended up not using anywhere from 50 to 80% of the vaccines that they purchased.

You’ve previously stated in an interview that the World Health Organization is a front for Big Pharma if I’m not mistaken. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. also agrees and he says, you know, 50% of WHO funding comes from pharmaceutical companies. And that the CDC itself is also severely compromised. What are your thoughts on the WHO? The CDC?

Dr. Francis Boyle: Can’t trust anything the WHO says because they’re all bought and paid for by Big Pharma and when they work in cahoots with the CDC, which is the United States government, they work in cahoots with Fort Detrick, so you can’t trust any of it.

However, the swine flu and yes, I agree pharma made a lot of money, but that swine flu which I looked at it, it did seem to me to be a genetically modified biological warfare weapon. It was a chimera of three different types of genetic strains that someone put it together in a cocktail. Fortunately, it was not as lethal as all of us fear. So fine. But as I said, this figure I just gave to you was Saturday from Lancet, which is a medical publication, saying it’s a 15% fatality rate and an 83% infection rate. So it’s quite serious, I think, far more serious than the swine flu.

As for big pharma, sure they’re all trying to profit off this today as we speak. There was a big article yesterday in the Wall Street Journal, all big pharma trying to peddle whatever they can over there in China even if it’s worthless and won’t help. We do know, if you read the mainstream news media they say there isn’t a vaccine.

Well, there is, it’s by the Pirbright Institute in Britain that’s tied into their biological warfare program over there. They were behind the hoof and mouth disease outbreak over there that wiped out their cattle herd and it leaked out of there. So it’s clear they’re working on a hoof and mouth biological warfare weapon, but the vaccine is there. I have the patent for it here, I haven’t had a chance to read the patent it’s about 25 pages long and my classes just resume. So eventually, I get some free time and I’ll read the patent.

You can’t patent a vaccine with the United States patent office unless the science is there. So there is a vaccine. Everyone’s lying about that, no one’s pointing this out – there’s a vaccine but instead big pharma wants to make money and the researchers say, well, it’ll take three months and we’re racing forward, you know. Everyone’s gonna make a buck off of this, that’s for sure. But there is a vaccine, I have the patent here. It’s been patented by the United States government.

So obviously, I don’t know exactly how workable it is, but it’s a vaccine. I don’t know why it isn’t out there now? Why isn’t someone saying there is a vaccine? Perhaps political leaders have already been vaccinated for all I know, I really don’t know.  But there is a vaccine, Pirbright is well known there in Britain and it’s tied into Fort Detrick and CDC is tied into Fort Detrick too. So they all know there’s a patented vaccine.

Geopolitics and Empire:  And just to get your comment on, I mean, something to related to this, which was my next question. So I think, I’m not sure if it’s that same Institute that you just mentioned that has the patent.  I read somewhere that the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation maybe funds or has some connection to that Institute that has the patent.

Dr. Francis Boyle:  I think they do. The Bill & Melinda Gates information, they fund this type of DNA genetically engineered biological warfare work. That’s correct. So you can’t trust anything they’re telling you that somehow they’re out there trying to make the world a better place.  I mean, we have Bill Gates publicly admitting that the world be a better place if there were a lot less people. So the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation, they are wolves in sheep’s clothing and they are funding this type of stuff. Sure.

Geopolitics and Empire: And just your comment, there was also the report that I guess it was a consortium of companies which included the Gates foundation that back in just two or three months ago in October of 2019 they held a pandemic exercise simulating an outbreak. I mean, what are the chances specifically of a coronavirus and it was called events 201. People can find this online online and they gave a list of seven recommendations for governments and international organizations to take. I also find that kind of interesting how they had this simulation.

Dr. Francis Boyle:  That’s correct. It raises that question,  the origins of what happened here.  But right now, I’m just looking at the evidence I have and applying Occam’s razor and we know that Wuhan BSL-4 was research developing, testing, SARS as a biological warfare agent. So it could have been, they gave it this DNA genetic engineering enhanced properties gain of function which we do here in the West, in the United States all the time. We have  all sorts of research that is clearly a bio warfare research that has been  approved by the National Institutes of Health, it’s a joke. They know full well they are proving all kinds of biological warfare research and it gets funded by the United States government.

Geopolitics and Empire:  And you’ve also mentioned in the email to me that what happened in the biosafety lab level 4 in Wuhan calls into question the safety of all of these level 3and 4four labs around the world.

Dr. Francis Boyle:  They’re complete unsafe. BSL-3 and BSL-4 lab are only designed for research development testing of offense of biological warfare agents.  In my opinion, they serve no legitimate purpose at all. They should all be shut down, every one of them. Even assuming, they’re simply too dangerous. If you want, there’s an excellent  documentary called Anthrax Wars by Nadler and Coen and I’m in there.  Repeatedly at the end, I say with respect to these labs, three and four, this is a catastrophe waiting to happen. Well, I’m afraid the catastrophe is now happened. So there it is.

Geopolitics and Empire:  Yeah, I was just watching that documentary before we connected and I recommend the listeners go check that out. Do you see, in the future, any countries,  if we come to a conflict between US, EU, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran, China, Russia,  I mean you name it. Do you see any of these countries actually utilizing these biological weapons?  I mean, it’s illegal under international law but we know like in the past that international law isn’t followed. Do you think that there’s a real danger of this escalating?

Dr. Francis Boyle: For sure. That’s the only reason they develop these biological weapons to eventually be used, sure.  I mean, it’s like the Manhattan project, we put all that money into developing an atom bomb and even though it was not needed to end world war II they still knew Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So, yes,  I think that’s correct.  And also these can be used covertly. Anytime you see an unexplained  sudden outbreak of a disease like this anywhere in the world, both for human beings and or animals, I always suspect the bio warfare agent is at work.  I monitor the situation like I did at Wuhan until I can reach a conclusion. Yes, they can be used as the eyes for the United States government, today they are fully prepared, armed, equipped, supplied to wage a biological warfare with anthrax.

These other more exotic things I don’t know, but they have the weapons, there are stockpiles. We have to understand if you read Seymour Martin Hersh’s book published about 1968, he won the Pulitzer prize, he had the whole offensive US biological warfare industry in there back before it was illegal and criminal. Basically after 9/11, 2001, that entire industry – offensive biological warfare industry has been reconstituted here in the United States with all these BSL-4 BSL-3 labs, well over 13,000, alleged scientists sort of like Dr. Mengele working on these things. Other countries have responded in kind like Russia, like China, France is involved, Britain’s involved. Sure.

Geopolitics and Empire: I just wanted to get your thoughts on, in the last few years there was the Russian double agent spy Sergei Skripal who had been allegedly poisoned with Novichok out in Britain and  I thought it was funny. It just so happened where he was allegedly poisoned, he was right in Porton down the British bio weapons lab, I guess the world’s first bio weapons lab that was created in 1916. I mean,  I don’t know if you have thoughts on that whole incident.

Dr. Francis Boyle: Yeah, I was right down the street from Porton Down, so applying Occam’s razor who you think might’ve been behind this and it was not a nerve agent. A nerve agent would have killed him immediately. This is Novichok. It was something else like DX or something like that. So fine. But, I would just say that I don’t think that was a coincidence, but, you know, there you go. There’s the, obviously there’s a lot of speculation on that.

Geopolitics and Empire: Something else that’s kind of interesting. You’ve written in bio warfare and terrorism in your book and there’s also Graeme Macqueen, I think your colleague who wrote the anthrax deception the case for domestic conspiracy…

Dr. Francis Boyle:  Everything you said in there. That’s correct.

Geopolitics and Empire:  I’m wondering also if this new war for biotechnological dominance, whatever you want to call it, if it can also be used kind of as a pretext for the centralization of political power and the initiation of wars like I guess it did in the 2003 Iraq war. I mean, is this another danger that we get these events like now this coronavirus and then governments will call for a centralization of greater power and taking away some of our civil liberties?

Dr. Francis Boyle:  Sure. If you look at the October, 2001 anthrax attacks here in the United States, that was clearly by elements of the United States government that was behind that. That was a super weapons grade anthrax with a trillion spores per gram and it floated in the air solely a very sophisticated biological weapons lab like Fort Detrick could produce that. And they use that anthrax attack including on Congress to brand through the USA Patriot act which basically turned the United States to a police state which is what we have now. You have to understand the Pentagon, Fort Dietrich made the dugway proving ground still has a stockpile of that super weapons grade anthrax that we saw in October of 2001 that they can use the next time they want to do something like that to further develop the American police thing. Right.

Geopolitics and Empire:  Is there anything else you feel important to mention regarding this Wuhan Coronavirus outbreak or biological warfare or any other thoughts you’d like to leave us with?

Dr. Francis Boyle:  Well, you just can’t believe anything the Chinese government, the WHO,  the CDC are telling. They’re all lies because they know what’s going on here  and so you’re going to have to figure it out as fast as you can. But in my opinion, as of this time and I’m fully prepared to consider further evidence on this, it does seem to me that this was  a DNA genetically engineered biological warfare agent leaking out of Wuhan that has gain-of-function properties which can make it more lethal.  I think they are probably doing something with SARS to make it a lot more lethal and more infectious. And so for that reason,  you have to take extreme precautions and they’re now finally admitted anyone within six feet can be infected, whereas with SARS that was about two feet. Well, that’s gaining a function right there and that should be a tip off.

So, I guess you’re gonna have to protect yourself.  Laurie Garrett had a pretty good essay in a foreign policy yesterday and she was over there covering the SARS and she has very good advice in there except that she took the SARS figure out two to three feet and said  well, you gotta stay to two to three. I think you’ve got to stay at least six feet away because this is gained function. It can flow through the air and infect and it can get you in the eyes. Any orifice, the mouth, maybe the ears, we’re not sure at this point.

Geopolitics and Empire: I’m here on the border of China in Kazakhstan and I was just reading yesterday – today that they’re no longer allowing Chinese citizens into Kazakhstan without a medical paper, a medical check to get their visas to enter Kazakhstan

Dr. Francis Boyle:  Those medical checks are worthless because this is just public relations by all the governments involved because there is a 14 day incubation period where people can still be infected. So someone could walk right through a medical inspection and passing a gate into your country and then they come down with the coronavirus.  So that’s all public relations in my opinion by governments and they know it and they’re just sending people out there with temperatures and things like that. It’s not like SARS, this is more dangerous than SARS.  As I said, I think that Wuhan lab, we know they had SARS in there that they were dealing with and I think they enhanced it at and  I’m afraid that’s what we’re dealing with. But you know, I’m keeping an open mind as to what other sources that might have and I wasn’t prepared to say anything until that Wuhan lab is right there and it’s dealing with coronavirus. So again, apply Occam’s razor. It seems to me that’s the simplest explanation here.

Geopolitics and Empire: I guess my, one of my final question would be in the months ahead, apart of what you say staying six feet away from people.  I’ve read taking high doses of vitamin C and other things like this can help you. But, if they come out as the situation develops and if it gets worse and they come out with a coronavirus vaccine,  should people take it or not? What are your thoughts?

Dr. Francis Boyle:  Well, what I would say is this. Right now, if you look at the article at the Wall Street Journal, big pharma is trying to sell all sorts of – they’re taking all their drugs off the shelf and say well let’s see if it works. Which is preposterous. Okay. The scientists are saying, well, we can get you a vaccine maybe two to three months but they’re not tested.  So what we do know, however, is that Pirbright vaccine has been patented. So all I can assume is that that might work. But I don’t think I’d be taking any of these other vaccines. No, you have no idea what’s in there. You’ll be the Guinea pig for big pharma and everyone figures they’re gonna make a lot of money here. So I’ll keep my eye open on this  and how it develop but I wouldn’t trust anything they’re trying to sell right now. They’re just pulling these things off the shelf.

If they do come up with something in two to three months, even that’s not going to be tested in accordance with normal scientific protocol. So it’s going to be a crap shoot. If it’s going to help you, indeed it might not help you because they’ll be using for this vaccines (these DNA genetic engineered vaccines) they’ll be using live coronavirus probably and sticking it in there and giving you some live coronavirus on the theory you’ll develop an immunity. That’s the way a lot of these vaccines worked out, that’s what happened with the Ebola vaccine that created the Ebola pandemic there in West Africa. They were testing out a vaccine on poor black Africans, as usual, and  this vaccine had live Ebola in it so it gave them Ebola. So again, I’d be very careful even if they do come up with these vaccines two to three months from now, very careful. Why would you want to inject the live coronavirus in you?

Geopolitics and Empire: All right. I don’t believe you have a strong online presence. How can people best follow your work? I suppose to search for interviews as well as get your books.

Dr. Francis Boyle: Well, basically I’m blackballed and blacklisted off all the mainstream news media here on purpose. As far as I can figure out, the US government gave an order that I should not be interviewed by anyone, so I’m not.  I guess you could just put my name in there under Google, Google alert, and some interviews might come up. What happened was, right after the anthrax attacks of 9/11 2001, I was giving a lecture out at Harvard m Alma Mater.  I was running a panel on biological warfare for the council for responsible genetics and it was at Harvard Divinity School and as I was going in, there was a Fox camera crew there from Boston and I said it looks to me like this has come out of the US government lab. We know they do research and testing on anthrax. Then I said the same thing there at Harvard then I gave an interview to a radio station in Washington, D C then I gave an interview on that to the BBC. So the whole world saw it and at that point I was completely cut off and I’ve been cut off  ever since. So you  probably not going to hear too many  interviews from me here. As for my book. Biowarfare & Terrorism, you can just get it at amazon.com. That picks up the story pretty much from 9/11 2001 and until it went to press and then there are interviews I’d given to an investigative reporter, Sherwood Ross and a big one I just sent you and you might want to put that on your web page. That was pretty comprehensive.

Geopolitics and Empire: Yeah,  I read that as well and I’ll include the link in the description of this interview so people can go check that out. You’re not the only academic I know and have heard of others that similar things have happened and that’s just I guess the price we pay for telling the truth. Again, for listeners, if people wanted to have a broader context and deeper understanding of what’s happening today especially with biological warfare as well as us foreign policy and international affairs, I urge you to get Dr. Francis Boyle’s books and listen to his interviews as well as his colleagues book. Graeme Macqueen, The Anthrax Deception, The Case For Domestic Conspiracy. Thank you for being with us, Dr. Boyle.

Dr. Francis Boyle: Well, thank you and again, please understand these are my current opinions.  I could change my opinion here based on more evidence. So  I’m just looking at the evidence out there as I see it and you have to understand there is so much disinformation, lies and propaganda that it’s kind of very difficult to distinguish truth from fact.  I’m doing the best job I can here.

— end interview —

Originally published (greatgameindia.com)

---

We are being primed for The Darkest Winter

UPDATE SEPTEMBER 23, 2022:

The Pentagon has ordered a sweeping audit of how it conducts clandestine information warfare after major social media companies identified and took offline fake accounts suspected of being run by the U.S. military in violation of the platforms’ rules.

Colin Kahl, the undersecretary of defense for policy, last weekinstructed the military commands that engage in psychological operations online to provide a full accounting of their activities by next month after the White House and somefederal agencies expressed mounting concerns over the Defense Department’s attempted manipulation of audiences overseas, according to several defense and administration officials familiar with the matter.

The takedowns in recent years by Twitter and Facebook of more than 150 bogus personas and media sites created in the United States was disclosed last month by internet researchers Graphika and the Stanford Internet Observatory. While the researchers did not attribute the sham accounts to the U.S. military, two officials familiar with the matter said that U.S. Central Command is among those whose activities are facing scrutiny. Like others interviewed for this report, they spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive military operations.

The researchers did not specify when the takedowns occurred, but those familiar with the matter said they were within the pasttwo or three years. Some were recent, they said, and involved posts from the summer that advanced anti-Russia narratives citing the Kremlin’s “imperialist” war in Ukraine and warning of the conflict’s direct impact on Central Asian countries. Significantly, they found that the pretend personas — employing tactics used by countries such as Russia and China — did not gain much traction, and that overt accounts actually attracted more followers.

Centcom, headquartered in Tampa, has purview over military operations across 21 countries in the Middle East, North Africa and Central and South Asia. A spokesman declined to comment.

Air Force Brig. Gen. Patrick Ryder, the Pentagon press secretary, said in a statement that the military’s information operations “support our national security priorities” and must be conducted in compliance with relevant laws and policies. “We are committed to enforcing those safeguards,” he said.

Spokespersons for Facebook and Twitter declined to comment.

According to the researchers’ report, the accounts taken down included a made-up Persian-language media site that shared content reposted from the U.S.-funded Voice of America Farsi and Radio Free Europe. Another, it said, was linked to a Twitter handle that in the past had claimed to operate on behalf of Centcom.

One fake account posted an inflammatory tweet claiming that relatives of deceased Afghan refugees had reported bodies being returned from Iran with missing organs, according to the report. The tweet linked to a video that was part of an article posted on a U.S.-military affiliated website.

Centcom has not commented on whether these accounts were created by its personnel or contractors. If the organ-harvesting tweet is shown to be Centcom’s, one defense official said, it would “absolutely be a violation of doctrine and training practices.”

Independent of the report, The Washington Post has learned that in 2020 Facebook disabled fictitious personas created by Centcom to counter disinformation spread by China suggesting the coronavirus responsible for covid-19 was created at a U.S. Army lab in Fort Detrick, Md., according to officials familiar with the matter. The pseudo profiles — active in Facebook groups that conversed in Arabic, Farsi and Urdu, the officials said — were used to amplify truthful information from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention about the virus’s origination in China.

The U.S. government’suse of ersatz social mediaaccounts, though authorized by law and policy, has stirred controversy inside the Biden administration, with the White House pressing the Pentagon to clarify and justify its policies. The White House, agencies such as the State Department and even some officials within the Defense Department have been concerned that the policies are too broad, allowing leeway for tactics that even if used to spread truthful information, risk eroding U.S. credibility, several U.S. officials said.

“Our adversaries are absolutely operating in the information domain,” said a second senior defense official. “There are some who think we shouldn’t do anything clandestine in that space. Ceding an entire domain to an adversary would be unwise. But we need stronger policy guardrails.”

A spokeswoman for the National Security Council, which is part of the White House, declined to comment.

Kahl disclosed his review at a virtual meeting convened by the National Security Council on Tuesday, saying he wants to know what types of operations have been carried out, who they’re targeting, what tools are being used and why military commanders have chosen those tactics, and how effective they have been, several officials said.

The message was essentially, “You have to justify to me why you’re doing these types of things,” the first defense official said.

Pentagon policy and doctrine discourage the military from peddling falsehoods, but there are no specific rules mandating the use of truthful information for psychological operations. For instance, the military sometimes employs fiction and satire for persuasion purposes, but generally the messages are supposed to stick to facts, officials said.

In 2020, officers at Facebook and Twitter contacted the Pentagon to raise concerns about the phony accounts they were having to remove, suspicious they were associated with the military. That summer, David Agranovich, Facebook’s director for global threat disruption, spoke to Christopher C. Miller, then assistant director for Special Operations/Low Intensity Conflict, which oversees influence operations policy, warning him that if Facebook could sniff them out, so could U.S. adversaries, several people familiar with the conversation said.

“His point‚” one person said, “was ‘Guys, you got caught. That’s a problem.’ ”

Before Miller could take action, he was tapped to head a different agency — the National Counterterrorism Center. Then the November election happened and time ran out for the Trump administration to address the matter, although Miller did spend the last few weeks of Donald Trump’s presidency serving as acting defense secretary.

With the rise of Russia and China as strategic competitors, military commanders have wanted to fight back, including online. And Congress supported that. Frustrated with perceived legal obstacles to the Defense Department’s ability to conduct clandestine activities in cyberspace, Congress in late 2019 passed a law affirming that the military could conduct operations in the “information environment” to defend the United States and to push back against foreign disinformation aimed at undermining its interests. The measure, known as Section 1631, allows the military to carry out clandestine psychologic operations without crossing what the CIA has claimed as its covert authority, alleviating some of the friction that had hindered such operations previously.

“Combatant commanders got really excited,” recalled the first defense official. “They were very eager to utilize these new authorities. The defense contractors were equally eager to land lucrative classified contracts to enable clandestine influence operations.”

At the same time, the official said, military leaders were not trained to oversee “technically complex operations conducted by contractors” or coordinate such activities with other stakeholders elsewhere in the U.S. government.

Last year, with a new administration in place, Facebook’s Agranovich tried again. This time he took his complaint to President Biden’s deputy national security adviser for cyber, Anne Neuberger. Agranovich, who had worked at the NSC under Trump, told Neuberger that Facebook was taking down fake accounts because they violated the company’s terms of service, according to people familiar with the exchange.

The accounts were easily detected by Facebook, which since Russia’s campaign to interfere in the 2016 presidential election has enhanced its ability to identify mock personas and sites. In some cases, the company had removed profiles, which appeared to be associated with the military, that promoted information deemed by fact-checkers to be false, said a person familiar with the matter.

Agranovich alsospoke to officials at the Pentagon. His messagewas: “We know what DOD is doing. It violates our policies. We will enforce our policies” and so “DOD should knock it off,” said aU.S. official briefed on the matter.

In response to White House concerns, Kahl ordered a review of Military Information Support Operations, or MISO, the Pentagon’s moniker for psychological operations. A draft concluded that policies, training and oversight all needed tightening, and that coordination with other agencies, such as the State Department and the CIA, needed strengthening, according to officials.

The review also found that while there were cases in which fictitious information was pushed by the military, they were the result of inadequate oversight of contractors and personnel training — not systemic problems, officials said.

Pentagon leadership did little with the review, two officials said, before Graphika and Stanford published their report on Aug. 24, which elicited a flurry of news coverage and questions for the military.

The State Department and CIA have been perturbed by the military’s use of clandestine tactics. Officers at State have admonished the Defense Department, “Hey don’t amplify our policies using fake personas, because we don’t want to be seen as creating false grass roots efforts,” the first defense official said.

One diplomat put it this way: “Generally speaking, we shouldn’t be employing the same kind of tactics that our adversaries are using because the bottom line is we have the moral high ground. We are a society that is built on a certain set of values. We promote those values around the world and when we use tactics like those, it just undermines our argument about who we are.”

Psychological operations to promote U.S. narratives overseas is nothing new in the military, but the popularity of western social media across the globehas led to an expansion of tactics, including the use of artificial personas and images — sometimes called “deep fakes.” The logic is that views expressed by what appears to be, say, an Afghan woman or an Iranian student might be more persuasive than if they were openly pushed by the U.S. government.

The majority of the military’s influence operations are overt, promoting U.S. policies in the Middle East, Asia and elsewhere under its own name, officials said. And there are valid reasons to use clandestine tactics, such as trying to infiltrate a closed terrorist chat group, they said.

A key issue for senior policymakers now is determining whether the military’s execution of clandestine influence operations is delivering results. “Is the juice worth the squeeze? Does our approach really have the potential for the return on investment we hoped or is it just causing more challenges?” one person familiar with the debate said.

The report by Graphika and Stanford suggests that the clandestine activity did not have much impact. It noted that the “vast majority of posts and tweets” reviewed received “no more than a handful of likes or retweets,” and only 19 percent of the concocted accounts had more than 1,000 followers. “Tellingly,” the report stated, “the two most-followed assets in the data provided by Twitter were overt accounts that publicly declared a connection to the U.S. military.”

Clandestine influence operations have a role in support of military operations, but it should be a narrow one with “intrusive oversight” by military and civilian leadership, said Michael Lumpkin, a former senior Pentagon official handling information operations policy and a former head of the State Department’s Global Engagement Center. “Otherwise, we risk making more enemies than friends.”

Excerpt from the article sourced above:

A LONG PATTERN OF INFILTRATION

45 years ago, legendary journalist Carl Bernstein released an investigation documenting how the CIA had managed to infiltrate U.S. and global media. The CIA had placed hundreds of agents into newsrooms and had convinced hundreds more reporters to collaborate with them. These included individuals at some of the most influential outlets, including The New York Times. The CIA needed to do this clandestinely because any attempt to do so openly would harm the effectiveness of the operation and provoke stiff public resistance. But by 2015, there was barely a murmur of disapproval when Reuters announced that it was hiring 33-year veteran CIA manager and director Dawn Scalici as a global director, even when the company announced that her primary responsibility was to “advanc[e] Thomson Reuters’ ability to meet the disparate needs of the U.S. government.”

Facebook, however, is vastly more influential than the New York Times or Reuters, reaching billions of people daily. In that sense, it stands to reason that it would be a prime target of any intelligence organization. It has become so big and ubiquitous that many consider it a de facto public commons and believe it should no longer be treated as a private company. Considering who is making many of the decisions on the platform, that distinction between public and private entities is even more blurry than many presume.

• MINT PRESS

BONUS:

I’ve just brought to light insider information that confirms a very similar model has been pursued in USSR / Russia. I wonder if the two are eventually merging at the top, like Coca-Cola and Pepsi, seeing that Putin is a former Klaus Schwab disciple and a Davos regular.

Bottom line…

FOLLOW UPS

THIS SUBSTACK AND RESEARCHER DESERVE A SEPARATE POST O THEIR OWN!

Discussion with Sam Dube and Lara Logan (after 15 min) on DoD Vax Ownership and FDA Theatrics

The role of the US DoD (and their co-investors) in “covid countermeasures” enterprise.

Intelligence is never artificial.

By Sasha Latypova, Dec 28, 2022

I asked the AI Chat Bot “What was the role of the DoD in covid-countermeasures?” Here is what it wrote:

“The Department of Defense (DoD) played a significant role in the development of countermeasures against COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus. The DoD worked closely with other federal agencies, such as the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), to respond to the pandemic.

One of the main roles of the DoD in the COVID-19 response was to provide logistical support and medical resources to help healthcare workers and first responders on the front lines of the pandemic. The DoD also worked to develop and distribute personal protective equipment (PPE) and other supplies to support the response efforts.

In addition, the DoD provided funding and resources to support the development of vaccines and treatments for COVID-19. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), a research arm of the DoD, played a key role in this effort by funding and supporting the development of treatments and vaccines through its “Rapid Response Research” program.

Overall, the DoD played a vital role in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic by providing logistical support, medical resources, and funding for research and development efforts to combat the disease.”

AI Chat Bot gets a “F” – for a highly controlled narrative answer, which was fed to all MSM sources, while the “alternative” media did not examine it very much, with some exceptions. It wasn’t just logistics or even just lots of funding, and certainly nobody was “combatting disease”.

DOD contracts for “covid countermeasures” can be found here: https://www.keionline.org/covid-contracts

The frantic analysis pieces pointing harder and harder at Pfizer are being circulated to draw public anger away from the DOD-HHS complex, and steer it to expendables, Pfizer are just one of the patsy's.https://t.co/kCz7ipO8uM

— TeeJay (@TrevorJukes1) January 27, 2023

2023: two coronations

King Charles and this research.

What is really a medical tyranny if medicine is militarized?!

Linked herein is a comprehensive list of all US government COVID-19-related contracts obtained by KEI via FOIA.
NOTICE WHAT PROPORTION OF THESEC CONTRACTS ARE SIGNED BY THE DoD!
* mic drop *

• Advanced Technology International (ATI) – Underlying contract to execute MCDC and COVID-19 contracts on behalf of the federal government.
  • DoD-ATI Other Transaction Authority Agreement W15QKN1691002-P00085. April 8, 2016.
  • DoD-ATI Other Transaction Authority Agreement W15QKN1691002-P00085. April 8, 2016. (Version obtained November 30, 2020 from HHS FOIA Reading Room)
• Aerpio – respiratory condition treatment.
  • DOD-Aerpio Statement of Work W81XWH1590001.
  • DOD-Aerpio Project Approval Letter W81XWH1590001. July 28, 2020.
• Altimmune – therapeutic.
  • DoD-Altimmune Project Approval Letter W81XWH159001. June 17, 2020.
  • DoD-Altimmune Statement of Work W81XWH159001.
  • DoD-Altimmune Revised Project Approval Letter (3) W81XWH159001. February 3, 2021.
  • DoD-Altimmune Revised Project Approval Letter (2) W81XWH159001. December 15, 2020.
• America’s Blood Center – convalescent plasma.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-America’s Blood Center Contract 75A50120000094 (includes Mods 1-8). April 17, 2020.
  • DOD-America’s Blood Centers Contract W911QY2190006. October 30, 2020.
• ANP Technologies – diagnostics.
  • DoD-ANP Technologies Contract W911QY20D0019 (includes Mods 1-3). May 29, 2020.
  • DOD-ANP Technologies Supply Order W911QY20D0019 (includes Mods 1-3). June 2, 2020.
  • DOD-ANP Technologies Supply Order W911QY20P0141 (includes Mod 1). April 17, 2020.
• AstraZeneca – vaccine.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-AstraZeneca Advanced Agreement to Other Transaction Authority Agreement 75A501-20-C-00114. May 20, 2020.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-AstraZeneca Modification of OTA Agreement 75A501-20-C-00114 MODP00001. July 31, 2020.
• AstraZeneca – vaccine.
  • DoD-AstraZeneca Other Transaction Authority Agreement W15QKN2191003. October 28, 2020.
• AstraZeneca – prophylactic monoclonal antibody.
  • DOD-AstraZeneca Contract W911QY2190001 (includes Mods 1, 2, 3, and 5). October 9, 2020.
• AstraZeneca – therapeutic.
  • DoD-AstraZeneca Contract W911QY20C0119 (includes Mod 1). September 30, 2020.
  • DoD-AstraZeneca Contract W911QY20C0119 (includes Mod 1). September 30, 2020. (Version obtained by FOIA)
• Atlantic Diving Supply – no-contact thermometers.
  • DOD-Atlantic Diving Supply Contract W911QY18D0019. September 16, 2020.
• Beckman Coulter – diagnostic-related.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Beckman Coulter Contract 75A50119C00078. September 30, 2019.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Beckman Coulter Contract 75A50119C00078-P00001. May 15, 2020.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Beckman Coulter Contract 75A50120C00189. September 28, 2020.
• Biofire Defense – diagnostics.
  • DoD-Biofire Defense Supply Order W911QY13D0080 Contract W911QY20F0271. April 24, 2020.
  • DoD-Biofire Defense Supply Order W911QY13D0080 Contract W911QY20F0171 (includes Mods 1-2). May 23, 2020.
  • DOD-Biofire Defense Supply Order W911QY20F0196 and W911QY20F0165 Contract W911QY13D0080 (includes Mod 1 of W911QY20F0196). April 17, 2020.
• BCG Federal Corp – COVID-19-related support services.
  • DoD-BCG Federal Corp Contract W911QY20P0198. June 28, 2020.
• Centivax – therapeutic.
  • DOD-Centivax Statement of Work W81XWH1590001.
  • DOD-Centivax Project Approval Letter W81XWH1590001. August 19, 2020.
• Cepheid – test kits.
  • DoD-Cepheid Contract W911QY20C0046 (includes Mods 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6). April 5, 2020.
  • DoD-Cepheid Contract W911QY20P0154 (includes Mods 1-6). April 27, 2020.
  • DoD-Cepheid Contract W911QY20P0195 (includes Mod 2). June 12, 2020.
  • DoD-Cepheid Technical Direction Letter W15QKN1691002. September 14, 2020.
  • DOD-Cepheid Contract W911QY20C0124 (includes Mods 1-5, Supply Order W911QY21F0116 (January 22, 2021) + 1 Mod, and Supply Order W911QY21F0205 (March 25, 2021)). September 24, 2020.
• ChemBio Diagnostic – antigen test.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-ChemBio Diagnostic Contract 75A50120C00138. July 3, 2020.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-ChemBio Diagnostic Contract 75A50120C00138-P00001. July 20, 2020.
• Controlant – services.
  • DoD-Controlant Contract W911QX21C0010 (includes Mods 1-4). November 25, 2020.
  • DoD-Controlant Contract W911QX21C0010 Mods 5, 7, and 8. May 10, 2021.
• Corning Incorporated – vaccine manufacturing supplies.
  • DoD-Corning Contract W911NF2030004. June 5, 2020.
• Cue Health – diagnostics manufacturing supplies.
  • DoD-Cue Health Other Transaction Authority Agreement W911NF2190001. October 13, 2020.
• Cue Health – diagnostics.
  • HHS-Cue Health Contract HHSO100201800016C. June 4, 2018.
  • HHS-Cue Health Contract HHSO100201800016C-P00001. September 1, 2019.
  • HHS-Cue Health Contract HHSO100201800016C-P00002. March 21, 2020.
  • HHS-Cue Health Contract HHSO100201800016C-P00003. May 13, 2020.
  • HHS-Cue Health Contract HHSO100201800016C-P00004. September 22, 2020.
• Culmen – PPE.
  • DOD-Culmen International Contract W911QY18D0042 (includes Mods 1-8). April 22, 2020.
• Cytiva (Global Life Sciences Solutions) – vaccine manufacturing supplies.
  • DoD-Cytiva Contract W911NF2130001 (includes Mod 1). October 13, 2020.
• Cytovale – COVID-related sepsis assessment.
  • HHS-Cytovale Contract 75A50119C00072. September 28, 2019.
  • HHS-Cytovale Contract 75A50119C00072-P00001. April 7, 2020.
• Diasorin – assays.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-DiaSorin Contract 75A50120C00017. March 11, 2020.
• Diomics Corporation – diagnostics. 
  • DoD-Diomics Corporation Project Approval Letter W81XWH159001. August 17, 2020.
  • DoD-Diomics Corporation Revised Project Approval Letter W81XWH159001. February 2, 2021.
  • DoD-Diomics Corporation Statement of Work W81XWH159001.
• Eli Lilly – therapeutic.
  • DoD-Eli Lilly Contract W911QY21C0016 (includes Mods 1-5). October 27, 2020.
  • DOD-Eli Lilly Contract W911QY21D0012-P00002. April 7, 2021.
  • DOD-Eli Lilly Contract W911QY21F0167-P00003. May 27, 2021.
• Emergent Biosolutions – convalescent plasma manufacturing and clinical studies.
  • DOD-Emergent Biosolutions Canada Contract W911QY2090013 (includes Mod 1). June 24, 2020.
• Emergent Biosolutions – vaccine manufacturing.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Emergent Biosolutions Contract HHSO100201200004I. June 15, 2012. (Version obtained via SEC filing)
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Emergent Biosolutions Contract HHSO100201200004I -Task Order 75A50120F33007. May 24, 2020. (Version obtained via SEC filing)
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Emergent Biosolutions Contract HHSO100201200004I -Task Order 75A50120F33007. May 24, 2020. (Version obtained via FOIA)
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Emergent Biosolutions Contract HHSO100201200004I-75A50120F33007-P00001. August 24, 2020.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Emergent Biosolutions Contract HHSO100201200004I-75A50120F33007-P00002. May 13, 2020.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Emergent Biosolutions Contract HHSO100201200004I-75A50120F33007-P00003. October 7, 2020.
• Emory University – therapeutic.
  • DoD (via ATI)–Emory University Technical Direction Letter Other Transaction Authority W15QKN1691002. July 1, 2020.
• Empatica – diagnostics technology.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Empatica Contract 75A50120C00132. June 18, 2020.
• Empatica – diagnostics technology.
  • DoD-Empatica Project Approval Letter W81XWH159001. September 10, 2020.
  • DoD-Empatica Statement of Work W81XWH159001.
• Evidation Health – COVID-19 detection and forecasting model. 
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Evidation Health Contract 75A50120C00091. April 17, 2020.
• Federal Resources Supply – collection kits.
  • DOD-Federal Resources Supply Contract W911QY18D0060 – Order W911QY20F0215 (includes Mods 1-2). April 24, 2020.
  • DOD-Federal Resources Supply Contract W911QY18D0060 – Order W911QY20F0226 (includes Mods 1-3). May 4, 2020.
  • DOD-Federal Resources Supply Contract W911QY18D0060 – Order W911SR20F0039 (includes Mods 1-5). April 22, 2020.
• Fitbit – diagnostics technology.
  • DoD-Fitbit Project Approval Letter W81XWH1590001. September 23, 2020.
  • DoD-Fitbit Statement of Work W81XWH1590001.
• Flir – thermometers.
  • DOD-Flir Commercial Contract W911QY20P0149. April 22, 2020.
• Fujifilm – therapeutic.
  • DoD (via ATI)–Fujifilm Project Approval Letter 2009COVID19006 under Other Transaction Authority Agreement W81XWH1590001. July 9, 2020.
  • DoD (via ATI)–Fujifilm Revised Project Approval Letter 2009COVID19006 under Other Transaction Authority Agreement W81XWH1590001. December 14, 2020.
  • DoD (via ATI)–Fujifilm Statement of Work 2009COVID19006 under Other Transaction Authority Agreement W81XWH1590001. December 14, 2020.
• Genentech (Roche) -therapeutic.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Genentech Other Transaction Authority Agreement HHSO100201800036C. September 27, 2018.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Genentech Modification of OTA Agreement HHSO100201800036C. March 27, 2020.
• GenMark Diagnostics – diagnostic.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-GenMark Diagnostics Contract 75A50120C00022. March 20, 2020.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-GenMark Diagnostics Contract 75A50120C00022-P00001. May 28, 2020.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-GenMark Diagnostics Contract 75A50120C00022-P00002. July 20, 2020.
• GlaxoSmithKline – vaccines.
  • DoD/ASPR/BARDA-GlaxoSmithKline Contract W15QKN20C0048. July 30, 2020.
    • DoD/ASPR/BARDA-GlaxoSmithKline Contract W15QKN20C0048-P00001. July 30, 2020.
    • DoD/ASPR/BARDA-GlaxoSmithKline Contract W15QKN20C0048-P00002. September 16, 2020
• Global Life Sciences – vaccine supply manufacturing.
  • DOD-Global Life Sciences Solution Contract W911NF2130001 P00003. July 29, 2021.
• Golden Max – infusion pump kits.
  • DoD-Golden Max Contract W81XWH20D0057 (includes Mod 1). April 17, 2020.
• Grifols Therapeutics – convalescent plasma.
  • DoD (via ATI)-Grifols Therapeutics Technical Direction Letter Other Transaction Authority Agreement W15QKN1691002. September 1, 2020.
• Grand River Aseptic Manufacturing (GRAM) – vaccine and therapeutic manufacturing.
  • DoD-Grand River Aseptic Manufacturing (GRAM) Contract W3110Y2OCC086-P00003. August 4, 2020.
  • DoD-Grand River Aseptic Manufacturing (GRAM) Contract W3110Y2OCC086 – Mods 3 and 1-5. August 4, 2020. (Version obtained via FOIA)
  • DoD-Grand River Aseptic Manufacturing (GRAM) Contract W3110Y2OCC086 Mods 1-5. September 1, 2020.
• Hologic – testing assays. 
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Hologic Contract 75A50120P00069. April 29, 2020.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Hologic Contract 75A50120P00100. August 7, 2020.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Hologic Contract 75A50120P00100-P00001. October 29, 2020.
• Icon – clinical trials.
  • DoD-Icon Other Transaction Authority Agreement W911QY2090007 (includes Mods 1 and 4). April 27, 2020.
• IIT Research Institute – tech transfer for virus neutralization assay.
  • DOD-IIT Research Institute Contract W911QY21C0014. November 30, 2020.
• Immunome – antibody-related (redactions).
  • DOD-Immunome Contract W911QY2090019. July 3, 2020.
• Inbios International – diagnostics. 
  • DoD-Inbios International Contract W81XWH20F0253 (includes Mod 1). June 15, 2020.
• Inbios – antibody diagnostic.
  • HHS-InBios Contract 75A50120C00090. April 26, 2020.
• Inhalon Biopharma – inhaled prevention/therapeutic.
  • DoD-Inhalon Biopharma Project Approval Letter W81XWH1590001. September 11, 2020.
  • DoD-Inhalon Biopharma Statement of Work W81XWH1590001.
• Inovio Pharmaceuticals – vaccine delivery.
  • DoD-Inovio Pharmaceuticals Contract W911QY20C0084. June 18, 2020. (Version obtained from SEC filings)
  • DoD-Inovio Pharmaceuticals Contract W911QY20C0084. June 18, 2020. (Version obtained via FOIA request)
  • DoD-Inovio Pharmaceuticals Other Transaction Authority Agreement W911QY2090016. June 22, 2020. (Version obtained from SEC filings)
  • DOD-Inovio Pharmaceutical Other Transaction Authority Agreement W911QY2090016. June 22, 2020. (Version obtained via FOIA request)
• Johns Hopkins University – clinical trials of convalescent plasma.
  • DOD-Johns Hopkins University Other Transactions Authority Agreement W911QY2090012 (includes Mod 5). June 8, 2020.
• Johnson&Johnson (Janssen) – vaccine.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Janssen Other Transaction Authority Agreement HHSO100201700018C. August 15, 2017. (Version obtained by FOIA March 31, 2021).
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Janssen Amendment to OTA Agreement HHSO100201700018C-Amendment 6. February 11, 2020.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Janssen Amendment to OTA Agreement HHSO100201700018C-Amendment 6. February 11, 2020. (Version obtained by FOIA March 31, 2021).
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Janssen Amendment to OTA Agreement HHSO100201700018C-Amendment 7. March 20, 2020.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Janssen Amendment to OTA Agreement HHSO100201700018C-Amendment 8. March 27, 2020.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Janssen Amendment to OTA Agreement HHSO100201700018C-Amendment 8. February 11, 2020. (Version obtained by FOIA March 31, 2021).
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Janssen Amendment to OTA Agreement HHSO100201700018C-Amendments 1, 2, 3 (dates redacted) 4 (date not listed), 5 (December 19, 2019), 9 (date not listed), 10 (August 21, 2020). (Version obtained by FOIA June 2021)
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Janssen Amendment to OTA Agreement HHSO100201700018C-Amendment 6. February 11, 2020. (Version obtained by FOIA June 2021)
• Johnson&Johnson (Janssen) – therapeutic.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Janssen Other Transaction Authority Agreement HHSO100201800012C. September 21, 2018.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Janssen Amendment to OTA Agreement HHSO100201800012C-Amendment 1. April 4, 2019.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Janssen Amendment to OTA Agreement HHSO100201800012C-Amendment 2. August 1, 2019.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Janssen Amendment to OTA Agreement HHSO100201800012C-Amendment 3. January 31, 2020.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Janssen Amendment to OTA Agreement HHSO100201800012C-Amendment 4. February 14, 2020.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Janssen Other Transaction Authority Agreement HHSO100201800012C. September 21, 2018. (Version obtained via FOIA June 2021)
• Johnson&Johnson (Janssen) – vaccine.
  • DoD (via ATI)-Janssen Other Transaction Authority Agreement W15QKN1691002-P00081. August 5, 2020.
  • DoD (via ATI)-Janssen Other Transaction Authority Agreement W15QKN1691002-P00081-Mod00001. September 21, 2020. (Version obtained by FOIA)
• Just Evotec – therapeutic manufacturing.
  • DOD-Just Evotec Contract W911QY2090015 (includes Mods 1-3). July 7, 2020.
• Kalman – labor support services. 
  • DOD-Kalman W911QY19F0147-P00042. March 1, 2021.
• KPMG – prototype process for mAb infusion capacity.
  • DOD-KPMG W912CG2190001-P00001. June 16, 2021.
• Lumen Bioscience – therapeutic. 
  • DoD-Lumen Bioscience Project Approval Letter W81XWH1590001. July 24, 2020.
  • DoD-Lumen Bioscience Revised Project Approval Letter (2) W81XWH1590001. August 11, 2020.
  • DoD-Lumen Bioscience Revised Project Approval Letter (3) W81XWH1590001. December 9, 2020.
  • DoD-Lumen Bioscience Revised Project Approval Letter (4) W81XWH1590001. February 4, 2021.
  • DoD-Lumen Bioscience Statement of Work W81XWH1590001.
• Luminex – antibody assay.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Luminex Contract 75A50120C00179. September 23, 2020.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Luminex Contract 75A5012C00037. March 26, 2020.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Luminex Contract 75A50120C00043. March 27, 2020.
• Maxim – diagnostics.
  • DoD-Maxim Contract W911QY20D0018 (includes Mods 1-4). May 11, 2020.
• MBio – antibody diagnostic.
  • HHS-MBio Diagnostics Contract 75A50120C00130. June 17, 2020.
• Merck Sharp & Dohme – vaccine.
  • (Note: HHSO100201600031C began as a contract to Bioprotection Systems for an Ebola vaccine, Merck entered into a collaboration agreement with BPS in 2014)
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA–Bioprotection Systems Corporation Contract HHSO100201600031C. September 29, 2016.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA–Bioprotection Systems Corporation Contract HHSO100201600031C-Attachment 2-Milestones. May 19, 2017.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA–Bioprotection Systems Corporation Contract HHSO100201600031C-Attachment 1-Statement of Work. May 19, 2017.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA–Bioprotection Systems Corporation Contract HHSO100201600031C-P00001. April 27, 2017.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA–Bioprotection Systems Corporation Contract HHSO100201600031C-P00002. September 6, 2017.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA–Bioprotection Systems Corporation Contract HHSO100201600031C-P00003. May 23, 2018.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Merck Sharp & Dohme Contract Amendment HHSO100201600031C-P00004. May 9, 2019.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Merck Sharp & Dohme Contract Amendment HHSO100201600031C-P00005. April 14, 2020. (Version obtained March 2021 via FOIA lawsuit)
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Merck Sharp & Dohme Contract Amendment HHSO100201600031C-P00005. April 14, 2020.
• Merck Sharp & Dohme – therapeutic.
  • DoD-Merck Sharp & Dohme Other Transaction Authority Agreement W911QY2190001. December 2, 2020.
• Merck Sharp & Dohme – therapeutic.
  • DOD-Merck Sharp & Dohme Contract W911QY21C0031. June 7, 2021.
• Microbiologics – tech transfer for virus neutralization assay.
  • DOD-Microbiologics Contract W911QY21C0012 (includes Mod 1). November 9, 2020.
• Minnesota Medical Warehouse – hand sanitizer.
  • DOD-Minnesota Medical Warehouse Contract W911SR20P0010 (includes Mods 1-3). April 30, 2020.
• Moderna – vaccine.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Moderna Contract 75A50120C00034. April 16, 2020.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Moderna Contract 75A50120C00034. April 16, 2020. (Less redacted version obtained via FOIA lawsuit on February 8, 2021)
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Moderna Contract 75A50120C00034-P00003. July 25, 2020.
• Moderna – vaccine manufacturing.
  • DoD/ASPR/BARDA-Moderna Contract W911QY20C0100. August 9, 2020. (Version obtained from Moderna SEC filings)
  • DoD/ASPR/BARDA-Moderna Contract W911QY20C0100. August 9, 2020. (Version obtained October 29, 2020 from HHS FOIA Reading Room)
  • DoD/ASPR/BARDA-Moderna Contract W911QY20C0100. August 9, 2020. (Version obtained November 9, 2020 from HHS FOIA Reading Room)
  • DoD/ASPR/BARDA-Moderna Contract W911QY20C0100-P00001. August 9, 2020.
  • DoD/ASPR/BARDA-Moderna Contract W911QY20C0100-P00002. September 11, 2020.
  • DoD/ASPR/BARDA-Moderna Contract W911QY20C0100-P00003. December 11, 2020.
  • DoD/ASPR/BARDA-Moderna Contract W911QY20C0100-P00004. February 11, 2021. (Obtained via FOIA)
  • DoD/ASPR/BARDA-Moderna Contract W911QY20C0100 – Mods 7-10. June 15, 2021.
• MRI Global – mobile medical laboratories.
  • DOD-MRI Global Contract W911SR20F0054 – Mods 1-2. May 27, 2020.
• Murtech – diagnostics.
  • DoD-Murtech Contract W911QY20D0017 (includes Mods 1-2). May 11, 2020.
• Nanomix – antibody diagnostics.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Nanomix Contract 75A50120C00060. April 2, 2020.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Nanomix Contract 75A50120C00060-P00001. June 19, 2020.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Nanomix Contract 75A50120C00060-P00002. July 24, 2020.
• New Horizons Diagnostics Corp. – diagnostic.
  • DOD (via ATI)-New Horizons Diagnostics Technical Direction Letter Other Transaction Authority Agreement W15QKN1691002 (includes updated TDL). May 26, 2020.
• Novavax – vaccine.
  • DoD-Novavax Contract W911QY20C0077 (includes Mod 1). June 4, 2020.
  • DoD-Novavax Contract W911QY20C0077 – Mods 1-4. June 4, 2020.
• Novavax – vaccine.
  • DoD (via ATI)-Novavax Other Transaction Authority Agreement W15QKN1691002. June 25, 2020. (Version obtained via SEC filing)
  • DoD (via ATI)-Novavax Technical Direction Letter W15QKN1691002. July 6, 2020. (Version obtained November 30, 2020 from HHS FOIA Reading Room)
  • DoD (via ATI)–Novavax Statement of Work W15QKN1691002. (Version obtained via FOIA lawsuit)
  • DoD (via ATI)–Novavax Technical Direction Letters and Statements of Work W15QKN1691002. July 6, 2020 and December 21, 2020. (Version obtained via FOIA lawsuit)
• NOWDiagnostics – diagnostics.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-NOWDiagnostics Contract 75A50120C00156. August 27, 2020.
• Ology Bioservices (previously called Nanotherapeutics, Inc.) – vaccine manufacturing.
  • DoD-Ology Bioservices Other Transaction Authority Agreement-W911QY2090003 Contract and Mods 1-5,8-10,12,14,15,17,23-25 . February 21, 2020
  • DoD-Ology Bioservices Other Transaction Authority Agreement OTA-W911QY2090003. February 21, 2020.
  • DoD-Ology Bioservices Other Transaction Authority Agreement Appendix OTA-W911QY2090003-Appendix-A-4. March 20, 2020.
  • DoD-Ology Bioservices Contract W911QY2090003-MOD-P00005. March 22, 2020.
• Ology Bioservices (previously called Nanotherapeutics, Inc.) – vaccine manufacturing.
  • DoD-Ology Bioservices Contract W911QY20C0101 (includes Mod 1). August 17, 2020.
• Ophirex – therapeutic.
  • DoD-Ophirex Contract W81XWH20C0066 (includes Mods 1-3). June 19, 2020.
• Orasure – rapid antigen test.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Orasure Contract 75A50120C00061. Date not listed.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Orasure Contract 75A50120C00122. May 27, 2020.
• Ortho Clinical – antibody assays.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Ortho Clinical Contract 75A50120C00123. June 12, 2020.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Ortho Clinical Contract 75A50120C00123-P00001. August 28, 2020.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Ortho Clinical Contract 75A50120P00103. September 18, 2020.
• Oxford Nanopore Technologies – DNA sequencing.
  • DoD-Oxford Nanopore Technologies Contract W911QX20P0073 (includes Mod 1). April 22, 2020.
• Partner Therapeutics, Inc. – therapeutic.
  • DOD (via ATI)-Partner Therapeutics Technical Direction Letter OTA W15QKN1691002. August 13, 2020.
• Patricio Enterprises – COVID-19 mobile lab staffing.
  • DoD-Patricio Enterprises Supply Order W911QY2OF0270-P00001 Contract W911QY18D0251. June 3, 2020.
  • DOD-Patricio Enterprises Contract W911QY19F0133-P00037. December 7, 2020.
• Pfizer – vaccine.
  • DoD (via ATI)-Pfizer Technical Direction Letter OTA W15QKN1691002. July 21, 2020.
• Pfizer – vaccines. 
  • DoD-Pfizer Contract W15QKN21C0012 (includes Mod 310). December 22, 2020.
• Pfizer – manufacturing.
  • DVA-Pfizer Contract V797D40269-P00376. June 1, 2021.
• Pfizer – vaccine donation. 
  • DoD-Pfizer Contract W58P0521C0002. July 30, 2021.
  • DOD-Pfizer Contract W58P0521C0002 Contract and P00376. July 30, 2021.
• Pharm Olam – therapeutic clinical trial.
  • DOD-Pharm Olam Contract W911QY2190014. December 31, 2020.
• Philips North America – diagnostics technology.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Philips North America Contract 75A50120C00097. May 7, 2020.
  • DoD-Philips North America Project Approval Letter W81XWH1590001. August 27, 2020.
  • DoD-Philips North America Revised Project Approval Letter (2) W81XWH1590001. September 23, 2020.
  • DoD-Philips North America Revised Project Approval Letter (3) W81XWH1590001. October 13, 2020.
  • DoD-Philips North America Statement of Work W81XWH1590001.
• Phlow Corporation – therapeutic.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Phlow Corporation Contract 75A50120000092. May 18, 2020.
• Plasma Technologies – immune globulin hyperimmune manufacturing.
  • DOD-Plasma Technologies Contract W911QY2020004. August 14, 2020.
• Protein Sciences Corporation (Sanofi) – vaccine.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Protein Sciences Corp Contract HHSO100201600005I. February 14, 2020.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Protein Sciences Corp Contract HHSO100201600005I. August 16, 2016.
• Qiagen – diagnostic R&D.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Qiagen Contract 75A50120C00014. March 11, 2020.
• Quidel – antigen assay R&D.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Quidel Contract 75A50120C00110. May 29, 2020.
• Regeneron Pharmaceuticals – therapeutic.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Regeneron Other Transaction Authority Agreement HHSO100201700020C. September 21, 2017.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Regeneron Other Transaction Authority Agreement HHSO100201700020C-MOD0006. January 31, 2020.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Regeneron Other Transaction Authority Agreement HHSO100201700020C-MOD0006. (Date redacted).
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Regeneron Contract HHSO100201700020C-MOD0002. April 22, 2019.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Regeneron Contract HHSO100201700020C-MOD0003. May 18, 2019.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Regeneron Contract HHSO100201700020C-MOD0001. September 28, 2018.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Regeneron Contract HHSO100201700020C-MOD0005. February 12, 2020.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Regeneron Contract HHSO100201700020C MOD0008. June 15, 2020.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Regeneron Contract HHSO100201700020C MOD0009. June 19, 2020.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Regeneron Contract HHSO100201700020C MOD0007. April 29, 2020.
• Regeneron – therapeutic manufacturing.
  • DoD (via ATI)-Regeneron Other Transaction Authority Agreement W15QKN1691002 (contract and Technical Direction Letter). July 6, 2020.
  • DoD (via ATI–Regeneron Technical Direction Letter W15QKN1691002. July 6, 2020. (Version obtained November 30, 2020 from HHS FOIA Reading Room)
• Regeneron – prophylactic monoclonal antibody.
  • DOD-Regeneron Pharmaceutical Contract W15QKN21C0014. January 12, 2021.
  • DOD-Regeneron Pharmaceutical Contract W15QKN21C0014-P00004. July 26, 2021.
• Rigel Pharmaceuticals – therapeutic.
  • DOD-Rigel Pharmaceuticals Other Transaction Authority Agreement W911QY2190018. January 29, 2021.
  • DOD-Rigel Pharmaceuticals Other Transaction Authority Agreement W911QY2190018. January 29, 2021. (Version obtained via FOIA)
• SAB Biotherapeutics – antibody diagnostic.
  • DOD (via ATI)-SAB Biotherapeutics Technical Direction Letter and Statement of Work – W15QKN1691002. April 18, 2020.
• Sanofi – vaccine. 
  • DOD (via ATI)-Sanofi Technical Direction Letter W15QKN1691002. July 30, 2020. (Version obtained November 30, 2020 from HHS FOIA Reading Room)
  • DOD (via ATI)-Sanofi Technical Direction Letter and Statement of Work RPP20-11 MCDC2011-005. December 18, 2020.
• Sempulse – diagnostics technology. 
  • DoD-Sempulse Project Approval Letter W81XWH1590001. September 23, 2020.
  • DoD-Sempulse Statement of Work W81XWH1590001.
• Sepsis Alliance – sepsis training.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Sepsis Alliance Contract HHSO100201900021C. January 19, 2019.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Sepsis Alliance Contract HHSO100201900021C-P00001. June 6, 2019.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Sepsis Alliance Contract HHSO100201900021C-P00002. May 7, 2020.
• Sibel – diagnostics technology.
  • DoD-Sibel Project Approval Letter W81XWH1590001. August 27, 2020.
  • DoD-Sibel Statement of Work W81XWH1590001.
• Siemens – immunoassay R&D.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Siemens Contract 75A50120C00111. May 28, 2020.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Siemens Contract 75A50120C00111-P00001. August 20, 2020.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Siemens Contract 75A50120P00102. September 17, 2020.
• SIO2 – domestic pharmaceutical vials.
  • DOD-SIO2 Medical Contract W911NF2030003 (includes Mods 1-3). June 5, 2020.
• Sonica – diagnostics.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Sonica Contract 75A50119C00043. August 1, 2019.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Sonica Contract 75A50119C00043-P00001. February 3, 2020.
• SourceAmerica – face coverings.
  • DoD-SourceAmerica Contract W911QY20C0047 (includes Mods 1-5). April 17, 2020.
  • DoD-SourceAmerica Contract W911QY20C0047-P00006. November 10, 2020.
• Tangen – assay.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Tangen Biosciences Contract 75A50120C00085. April 15, 2020.
• Tasso – antibody test kits.
  • DoD-Tasso Serology Contract W911QY20P0158 (includes Mods 1-4). May 1, 2020. (Version obtained November 30, 2020 from HHS FOIA Reading Room)
  • DoD-Tasso Serology Contract W911QY20P0158-P00005 and P00006. December 3, 2020. (Version obtained via FOIA)
• Texas A&M University System – expansion of manufacturing capacity (CIADM related).
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Texas A&M University System Contract HHSO100201200002I-75A50120F33002. July 23, 2020.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Texas A&M University System Contract HHSO100201200002I-75A50120F33002-P0001. August 27, 2020.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Texas A&M University System Contract HHSO100201200002I-75A50120F33002-P0002. October 9, 2020.
• Ultran Group – treatment device.
  • DOD (via ATI)–Ultran Group Technical Direction Letter Other Transaction Authority Agreement W15QKN1691002. September 16, 2020.
  • DOD (via ATI)–Ultran Group Technical Direction Letter Other Transaction Authority Agreement W15QKN1691002. September 16, 2020. (Version obtained via FOIA)
• University of California at San Francisco – diagnostics technology.
  • DoD-UC San Francisco Project Approval Letter W81XWH1590001. August 5, 2020.
  • DoD-UC-San Francisco Statement of Work and Milestone Payment Schedule W81XWH1590001.
• University of Connecticut – vaccination technology.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-University of Connecticut Contract 75A50120C00162. August 16, 2020.
• Vaxess – spike protein vaccine manufacturing.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Vaxess Technologies Contract 75A50120C00160. August 6, 2020.
• Vectrus-safety glasses.
  • DOD-Vectrus Mission Solutions Contract W911QY18D0140 (includes Mod 1). April 22, 2020.
• VelocityDX – diagnostics.
  • DoD-VelocityDX Contract W911QY20D0031. August 12, 2020.
  • DoD-VelocityDX Contract W911QY20D0031. August 12, 2020. (Version obtained via FOIA)
• Visby – diagnostics.
  • DoD-Visby Medical Contract W911QY20C0110 (includes Mod 1). September 20, 2020.
  • DoD-Visby Medical Contract W911QY20C0110 (includes Mod 1). September 20, 2020. (Version obtained via FOIA)
• VitalConnect – vital sign threshold settings for COVID-19 patients.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-VitalConnect Contract 75A50120C00108. May 20, 2020.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-VitalConnect Contract 75A50120C00108-P00001. May 20, 2020.
• VxBiosciences – therapeutic.
  • DoD-VxBiosciences Project Approval Letter W81XWH1590001. July 9, 2020.
  • DoD-VxBiosciences Statement of Work W81XWH1590001.
• Vyaire Medical, Inc. – ventilators.
  • HHS/ASPR/SNS-Vyaire Medical Contract 75A50120000049 (includes Mod 1). March 31, 2020.
• Waukesha Foundry – testing swabs. 
  • DOD-Waukesha Foundry Contract W911SR20P0009 (includes Mods 1-4). April 17, 2020.
• World Enterprises – volatile organic compound detection.
  • DOD-World Enterprises W911SR21C0008 (includes Mods 1-3). November 13, 2020.
• 98Point6 – COVID-related Smartphone technology.
  • HHS-98Point6 Contract 75A50120C001519. October 9, 2020.

US agreements not concerning COVID-19 research, but tied to related vaccine technologies:

• Moderna – Zika vaccine.
  • HHS/ASPR/BARDA-Moderna Contract HHS0100201600029C. September 1, 2016.

US Government licenses related to COVID-19:

• NIH/NIAID-Geo Vax – vaccine primes/boosters.
  • NIAID-Geo Vax Nonexclusive Patent License Agreement and Biological Materials License. October 22, 2020.
• NIH/NIAID-AbCellera Biologics – vaccines and therapeutics.
  • NIAID-AbCellera Patent License Agreement. May 4, 2020.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them