Paperclip PANDA-monium
The CDC sent biological weapons to Iraq in 1989 to create a heinous war on a staged pretext. Somebody doesn't want us to talk about it - so we need to talk about it.
Credit: so many people. See footnotes1
Those of you paying attention to twitter and substack over the last few weeks should have noticed a few strange things happening. Rather than going into the detail there is a common theme, which is that people in the “medical freedom movement” seem to be all fighting each other. It’s not organic of course, but simply reflects the reality that the intelligence community and its tentacle agencies run chaos agents to break up any groups gaining traction in highlighting corruption, criminal activity and war crimes committed in the biological sciences.
[Yes, war crimes. Don’t worry we’ll come to that.]
And if you think the idea that the intelligence agencies want to break up dissident groups is some sort of “conspiracy theory” look no further than these two authoritative articles:
If you have time it is worth reading the Daily Beagle’s short article on recognising “ConOps” or controlled opposition agents. But as the article above will tell you there are plenty of other acronyms used by the intelligence agencies in this area - OSINT, HUMINT, COINTELPRO, OPSEC and a whole host of other terms2.
So now we’ve established that this is happening (because you can see it playing out) the question is - Who is doing it and Why are they doing it?
This is the why:
The development of Biological weapons, or those that could be used as biological weapons, was made illegal under the Bioweapons Convention (BWC) ratified by the USA and USSR (Soviet Block) in 1972
The USA and Soviet block continued to develop biological weapons beyond 1972 in programs that were run under the fraudulent guise of "dual use" and were therefore war crimes.
What is dual use research you ask?
Essentially it is research into pathogens that is masquerading as “public safety” (usually in the realm of “vaccine development”) - yet results in the creation of pathogens that can then be used as biological weapons (or their mere existence can be used to threaten harm). Per the WHO:
Dual-use research of concern (DURC) describes research that is intended to provide a clear benefit, but which could easily be misapplied to do harm. It usually refers to work in the life sciences, but the principles are also applicable to other fields including engineering and information technology. It encompasses everything from information to specific products that have the potential to create negative consequences for health and safety, agriculture, the environment or national security.
Operation Paperclip
It’s essential to understand the rest of this article to understand what happened to the Nazi scientists after World War 2.
If you haven’t heard of Operation Paperclip it was the US government’s program to rehabilitate the very Nazi scientists - including those that had experimented on children - into the National Institutes of Health (the NIH, NIAID and CDC).
The scientists recruited from Operation Paperclip were then corralled into ARPA-H which was integrated into DARPA according to Annie Jacobsen’s investigation:
DARPA of course was the body that funded (or ahem, “we didn’t actually fund it”) the production of the SARS-Cov-2 virus at the Wuhan Institute of Virology - explained in detail with proof in this article from 2022 (if you haven’t read this you should):
And no, Operation Paperclip is not a “conspiracy theory” - German Scientists were recruited to all areas of government science, including NASA.
One important aspect of the Nazi scientist recruitment program that is often overlooked however is that it had its own “Cold War” - because the USSR also wanted those scientists to make their own rockets, spaceships and of course biological weapons in the less catchily named “Operation Osoaviakhim”
Of course the soviets had spies in the US side of Paperclip but that just made the US rebrand their operation and the Nazi operation eventually became DARPA. No I’m not kidding. From RFK Jr’s book “The Wuhan cover up” quoting Jacobsen:
in 1963, the FBI learned that the JIAO director, Lieutenant Colonel Henry Whalen, was a Soviet spy. The Pentagon officially disbanded the JIOA (the official Paperclip agency), tried and sentenced Whalen in secret, and rebranded operation Paperclip as the cutting-edge science agency, the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), later renamed DARPA
So, now that we have established that the US science agencies have no qualms about who they recruit let’s now turn to look at just one thing that they did that will shock you.
The CDC’s Iraq Bioweapons Program
There are so many shocking things I have learnt about the NIH-CDC and their corrupt activities but none is probably as shocking as this:
In 1989 the CDC sent biological weapons to Iraq. The following year, the Gulf war was started which eventually spawned the Iraq war. The pretext for the Iraq war was the claim that Iraq had biological weapons, which the CDC had sent to them.
The US CDC had therefore set up the Iraq war 14 years earlier. Over a million people are estimated to have died as a result of the Iraq war in 2003-2011Yes of course I have the references for this amazing claim but first please take 20 seconds to read it again. The CDC provided the biological weapons that were used to start the Iraq war. Those old enough should remember this picture, which should shame every member of the US and UK military.
The picture shows the disgusting Colin Powell, who KNOWINGLY falsely claimed that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons including anthrax in order to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and as a direct consequence of the Gulf War in 1990. The vial pictured of course contained nothing pathogenic. It was just for dramatic effect like OJ Simpson’s glove.
Yet how did Colin Powell know that Saddam Hussein had “weapons of mass destruction”?
Because the USA’s CDC had supplied them, that’s how.
And it wasn’t just anthrax - as if that wasn’t bad enough.
The biological weapons supplied to Iraq by the US included Aflatoxin and Mycoplasma Incognitus.
The mycoplasma incognitus strains that were supplied to Iraq were eventually recognised as at least one of the underlying causes of Gulf War syndrome.
But of course Mycoplasma Incognitus didn’t just “appear naturally”. Because it was patented - by Shyh-Ching Lo at the US military who then went to work for the FDA in the cell biology division (CBER).
And it wasn’t just mycoplasma and anthrax that went to Iraq as “samples” so the Iraqis could develop their own biological weapons program. Per wikipedia referencing the US AMRIID handbook
After 1995, it was learned that, in all, Iraq had produced 19,000 liters of concentrated botulinum toxin (nearly 10,000 liters filled into munitions), 8,500 liters of concentrated anthrax (6,500 liters filled into munitions) and 2,200 liters of aflatoxin (1,580 liters filled into munitions).[9]
And what is Aflatoxin? A very nasty toxin created from Aspergillus which is a kind of mould and likely what eventually killed Samantha Willis
But Aflatoxin is a known biological warfare agent which was already identified by UNSCOM in Iraq in 1995, after the CDC sent “samples” to Iraq.
Now let me just summarise before we take a slight detour before the finale, because it’s important.
The CDC sent biological weapons to Iraq in 1989-90 before the first Gulf War. In order to create a pretext for the second Gulf War the US claimed that Iraq had biological weapons yet failed to tell the world they knew this because they had furnished Iraq with them.
The biological weapons armamentarium, well documented, included mycoplasma patented by US military researchers (leading to Gulf War Syndrome) and aflatoxins, which are derived from aspergillus.
It should be realised from this that the production of aflatoxin required Aspergillus and therefore the CDC needed an Aspergillus expert.
And now we need to take a short detour in order to join some dots, because those pesky twitter and substack researchers talking about biological weapons research were really getting on the nerves of the biological weapons researchers. And therefore chaos was needed to break them up.
That’s where PANDA comes in.
PANDA, Chaos and Norman Pieniazek
Now we come back to the bizarre events happening on twitter with PANDA and its affiliates discussed in a great 3 hour discussion between Kevin McCairn, Charles Rixey and Iggy Semz here:
PANDA is an organisation that came out early in COVID to criticise the lockdowns and excessive (fascistic) and draconian measures being taken to lock people up to “slow the spread”. Yet all of a sudden it - via its lead Nick Hudson - has taken a path preferring to criticise anybody that recognises biological weapons research (dual use research) as a threat to the global population.
To be clear - this does not mean that they (we) consider the biological warfare programs (aka Gain of Function research or Dual Use Research) as threats in themselves. It is more about the use of scare tactics based on the existence of biological weapons (sold as pandemic potential viruses), which then underpin a biofascistic power grab by the state, that is the concern.
Of course this should align with PANDA’s view but it doesn’t matter what nuance of your beliefs are relevant here, Nick thinks you are part of the problem. Note the reference to “rats and mice” meaning those who identify as being part of the #mousearmy striving for truth in medical science on twitter.
This was just one of a string of posts attacking anyone who was discussing gain of function research even so far as suggesting that the pandemic wasn’t real and if you talked about a “pandemic” you were the enemy.
And then Norman came along.
Then it became clear. Or not, depending on how much chaos you saw.
You see Norman is now the poster boy for PANDA and was interviewed (twice) by PANDA people Jessica Hockett and Jonathan Engler relayed in their substack with Martin Neil here and here:
The interview is transcribed in the substack but the relevant claim in relation to today’s article is this one:
Norman (P) thinks SARS-COV-2 is simply a beta coronavirus (a cold), one of the many thousands of cold viruses that had remained undiscovered until 2020, but which have always been ever present in nature.
SARS-COV-2 cannot be a novel virus created in a lab or by natural zoonotic mutation. It is simply novel to detection4. As soon as the EUA approved PCR tests started to be used the virus was simultaneously discovered in a number of disparate geographical regions. There was no evidence of sudden spread.
The first part is false because the nucleotide sequences underpinning SARS-COV-2 were not published prior to 2020 as explained here.
The second part is false because the GP-120 sequences do not exist in any similar viruses and could not have been transferred by recombination as explained here.
So two of Norman’s claims are false yet the overriding claim is essentially “Gain of Function research does not exist”.
Sound familiar? Who would say such a thing when we know from the Gulf War that biological warfare not only exists but has destroyed lives of US servicemen.
And it wasn’t just those two interviews giving Norman such airtime.
Nick Hudson himself did another interview to really drive the point home.
Norman admits that he is a geneticist “which turned into.. genetic engineering” [03:45]. And “it [the existence of biological weapons] works for the public who believes that biological weapons can be made - and they cannot” [12:15].
Cozy.
But why, you might ask, am I so interested in Norman Pieniazek’s interviews?
Well, because Norman knows some things that he’s not telling us. You see Norman has a very impressive CV. His PhD was in genetic engineering of Aspergillus. Yes, a true Aspergillus expert. And that was in Warsaw under the soviet block at the time, who were running their own bioweapons program3 (most likely without the need for the Nazi scientists that they had recruited, as Russia’s scientific programs were already well advanced).
At the end of the Cold War Norman was then recruited directly to the CDC - almost a mirror of the Paperclip program of the 1940s - and took up his eminent role as Head of the newly created Laboratory for Molecular Reference and Developmental Diagnostics at the CDC. In 1989. The very time that biological weapons samples were sent to Iraq.
He won the competition announced by the CDC for the creation of the Laboratory of Molecular Reference and Developmental Diagnostics at the National Center for Infectious Diseases CDC, after the creation of which he served as its boss for 24 years[3].
So Norman, despite his vast experience of genetic engineering of Aspergillus, the Soviet bioweapons program and the terrible dangers of aflatoxins, is now denying that bioweapons are a thing. And Nick and Norman want you to stop talking about it, because it’s ridiculous you see?
Which in itself is so ridiculous that it has spawned memes of ridicule on twitter:
So now that we have established that “biological weapons don’t exist” according to Norman (with real CDC-level authority don’t ya know) we need to ask a very pertinent question.
You see, biological weapons transfers as documented by the UCLA and independent media and as noted in the congressional record DO exist.
And in order for that transfer to have happened a person or persons must have both decided that the weapons should be sent to Iraq, and signed off on the transfer.
So the pertinent question is this
Who sent those biological weapons to Iraq?
That is, who was at the CDC when it was decided that biological warfare agents - including US Army patented mycoplasma and Aspergillus aflatoxin - should be sent to Iraq, providing later cover for a war that should never happened and killed over a million people?
If I had to guess, this is the kind of information that would have been kept from Norman and most other people at the CDC. But the idea that “there are no biological weapons” is ludicrous.
And the only people that want us to stop talking about them must be assumed the very people who are somehow involved in or protecting the trillion dollar industry that has been running since 1972 in contravention of the Biological Weapons Convention the text of which is
“never in any circumstances to develop, produce, stockpile or otherwise acquire or retain:
microbial or other biological agents, or toxins whatever their origin or method of production, of types and in quantities that have no justification for prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes;
weapons, equipment or means of delivery designed to use such agents or toxins for hostile purposes or in armed conflict.”
And if biological weapons don’t exist there would have been no need for articles like this one.
Nor the convention itself4 of course. Which means that international governments have been chasing their tails for nothing, because Nick and Norman are saying they don’t exist.
So we should ask ourselves, is it more likely that PANDA is exposing a scandal of “the nonexistence of biological weapons” or that PANDA is causing chaos to avoid us asking whether war crimes were committed in 1989 - and therefore also in 2019.
Because as far as I am concerned what the CDC did by transferring biological agents to Iraq in 1989 was a war crime under the BWC article 3.
But maybe I can’t read. And maybe I’m misunderstanding the whole thing. And maybe PANDA is nothing to do with DARPA. Or ARPA. Or any other derivative of Operation Paperclip.
And maybe I should just be a good comrade and be quiet.
Instead, I’ll let you have your say in the poll below.
In the meantime, aside from the war crimes question, if you take anything from this article please let it be this:
Please do not let self appointed authorities gaslight you that the last 4 years, and the decades of preparation leading up to it, were make believe.
And don't let them divide you by pointing fingers at people you trusted with ludicrous claims based only on handwaving and chaos and bereft of evidence. And please remember to to back over previous articles if you have the time, as these two are very much related:
So many people have contributed to the information underpinning this article that I might have forgotten some and others may not wish to be named. Thanks to Aquarius Elect, Fee, Jurassic Carl, The Daily Beagle, Seiji, Bio Anon, Champagne Joshi… and others.
The whole glossary of CIA terms is contained in a document from their website. Copied here for your convenience.
Great article! The 'PANDATA' crew have become increasingly hostile and obnoxious in their rhetoric; one tried to insist there was no way for a virus to transfer from 'humanized mice' to humans. The mechanism is literally in the name of the type of genetically modified mouse.
It isn't possible to refer to evidence given such evidently partisan hostilities (The Daily Beagle compiled numerous examples of vaccine research labs causing outbreaks: https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/vaccine-manufacturers-are-behind).
If the gain-of-function (GoF) research didn't exist, why did Ralph Baric have to fight with the White House to get the 'pause' on GoF overturned? Answer: Ralph Baric was engaging in gain-of-function.
"He [Ralph Baric] recalls that when he came back to work that Monday, he opened his email and was stunned to learn about the moratorium. He thought of all his lab's research projects. "It took me 10 seconds to realize that most of them were going to be affected," he says."
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2014/11/07/361219361/how-a-tilt-toward-safety-stopped-a-scientists-virus-research
If GoF doesn't exist, what was the White House trying to ban?
If GoF doesn't exist and Ralph Baric wasn't doing it, why was Ralph Baric trying to overturn the law?
If GoF doesn't exist, why was Baric serializing SARS-WIV-1 through humanized mice, and not just using normal mice? Why was he trying to put a human virus into humanized mice if the virus wasn't intended for humans?
If GoF doesn't exist, why are so many countries trying to establish as many BSL-2, 3 and 4 labs as possible? Why was China trying to build a lab if it wasn't engaging in GoF research?
The evidence gain-of-function research is occurring is overwhelming. The sad part is they're still doing it.
Here's a real play: if PANDA think GoF does not exist, then call their bluff and have them endorse legislation banning it. As it supposedly doesn't exist they're not going to run afoul of the law and should have zero objections to it being outright banned.
So yes, this all seems rather definitive. I trusted and admired PANDA and Nick Hudson during the Covid debacle. Then when they suddenly pivoted to this 'GOF doesn't exist' narrative, which itself provided a hobby horse for the irritating 'viruses don't exist' crowd to jump aboard, I became bemused. I challenged Nick online but he seemed curiously reluctant to engage directly with the facts, so I then began to suspect that he might be the victim of an ideological obsession. The question which now arises is: did this ideological obsession result in Nick Hudson interviewing Norman Piezianek, simply as an exercise in reinforcing that ideology or was the motivation for interviewing Piezianek rather darker? Was it in fact, as hinted here, a case of Nick/PANDA knowingly assisting an attempt by an establishment bioweapons researcher to divert attention away from the nefarious and illegal activities of the bioweapons industry by inviting discord and division in the 'medical freedom community'? These are uncomfortable questions, but they must be answered, and more importantly they must be answered in a manner which does not invite more discord, disharmony and division and does not invite hordes of radical dissenters on either side hysterically screaming abuse at one another and accusing one another of being controlled opposition. Because that's a win-win situation for the powers that be. They first seed narrative confusion, which seeds division, then when their motives and methods become clearer, and the accusations start flying about who said what and why, they sit back and watch further vicious infighting, among those who are tempted to 'take sides' without calmly assessing the facts and the evidence beforehand. We can't let this happen. The stakes are too high.