Glenn Greenwald heeft een artikel geschreven waarin hij eerst aandacht besteedt aan de antrax aanvallen in de VS na de aanslagen van 9/11 (2001). Hij beschrijft hoe de FBI en anderen zochten naar de dader, waarbij men eerst de schuld in de schoenen van Saddam Hoessein probeerde te schuiven. Toen bleek dat de gevonden antrax, uit het VS militair laboratorium van Fort Detrick kwam, begon men een paar wetenschappers te beschuldigen, waarvan er één werkzaam was in dat laboratorium, met die beschuldiging werd de reputatie van deze mensen ernstig beschadigd, zoals die van dr. Steven Hatfill, een voormalig wetenschapper van de overheid, aan wie de VS overheid later 6 miljoen euro schadevergoeding moest betalen vanwege die valse beschuldiging…… 

Daarna werd microbioloog Bruce Ivins beschuldigd, deze wetenschapper was werkzaam in Fort Detrick, echter voor men hem kon aanklagen zou deze wetenschapper zich het leven hebben benomen…… Wat mij betreft discutabel, daar dit de FBI wel erg goed uitkwam: immers waarom zou Ivins zich het leven benemen als hij onschuldig was? Anders gezegd de kans is groot dat Ivins werd vermoord , waarbij men het op een suïcide liet lijken, dit om hem blijvend als schuldige aan te kunnen wijzen >> dergelijke ‘suïcides’ zijn een specialiteit van zowel de FBI als de CIA……. Overigens is het overgrote deel van de betrokkenen ervan overtuigd dat Ivins niets met de verspreiding van antrax te maken had: het zou zelfs onmogelijk zijn dat hij dit alleen zou hebben kunnen doen……..

De militaire laboratoria van Fort Detrick

Greenwald vindt e.e.a. belangrijk gezien de vraag waar het Coronavirus vandaan kwam, onlangs door Joe Biden nog eens aangewezen als belangrijk onderzoeksproject. Uit onderzoek naar de antrax uit 2001 bleek dat deze was aangepast in het militaire laboratorium in Fort Detrick, zogenaamd om uit te zoeken of er een vaccin tegen deze vorm van antrax was te fabriceren…… Geheel terecht merkt Greenwald op dat de VS weliswaar verdragen tegen het fabriceren van biologische wapens heeft getekend, maar in feite nog steeds bezig is met het fabriceren van dodelijke virussen en bacteriestammen in het bewuste militaire laboratorium……. 

Jammer dat Greenwald niet het met spoed sluiten noemt van Fort Detrick in de zomer van 2019, dit daar er een gevaarlijk virus was ontsnapt……. Het zou overigens zeker zijn dat ook het Coronavirus in dat laboratorium onderwerp van onderzoek was, niet zo vreemd als je bedenkt dat dit virus al lang rondwaart, echter zonder de ernstige gevolgen zoals we die het laatste jaar hebben gezien >> alleen dat laatste is al verdacht en zou kunnen aangeven dat er inderdaad is ‘gedokterd’ aan dit virus (hoewel het Coronavirus nog steeds géén dodelijk virus mag worden genoemd zoals bijvoorbeeld Ebola….)….. Eén theorie is dat het militaire laboratorium van Fort Detrick samenwerkte met een laboratorium in Wuhan, de stad die onterecht werd aangewezen als plek waar het virus voor het eerst zou zijn gevonden, immers uit nader onderzoek vorig voorjaar van stalen bloed, afgenomen in november 2019 in Frankrijk, blijkt dat twee mensen in die maand al waren besmet met het Coronavirus dat intussen zoveel ellende heeft veroorzaakt…. Nader onderzoek heeft overigens uitgewezen dat al voor de ontdekking van de eerste Coronabesmettingen in China er in de VS al mensen waren besmet met het virus*.

Vergeet bij dit alles niet dat gezonde mensen amper last hebben van het virus en militairen zijn over het algemeen in goede conditie, dus de kans dat die ernstig ziek worden van het virus is zeer klein….. Tel daarbij op dat in oktober 2019 de militaire wereldspelen plaatsvonden in Wuhan, waar ook militairen uit de VS aan deel hebben genomen, ofwel het is heel goed mogelijk dat één of meer militairen dit virus onbedoeld hebben overgebracht naar Wuhan……. 

besmettelijk

Het is zonder meer een schande dat er ondanks de Coronacrisis nog steeds biologische wapens worden gemaakt, die duidelijk worden gefabriceerd om als wapen in te zetten…. Vorig jaar werd Fort Detrick weer geopend en ging men daar ondanks de ‘pandemie’ door met onderzoek naar biologische wapens als virussen om die in te zetten tegen een toekomstig vijandig land……. (en de bevolking van zo’n land…..)

Lees het schrijven van Greenwald en vorm je eigen mening over deze zaak….

The FBI’s Strange Anthrax Investigation Sheds Light on COVID Lab-Leak Theory and Fauci’s Emails

Mainstream
institutions doubted the FBI had solved the 2001 anthrax case. Either
way, revelations that emerged about U.S. Government bio-labs have
newfound relevance.

One of the most significant events
of the last two decades has been largely memory-holed: the October,
2001 anthrax attacks in the U.S. Beginning just one week after 9/11 and
extending for another three weeks, a highly weaponized and sophisticated
strain of anthrax had been sent around the country through the U.S.
Postal Service addressed to some of the country’s most prominent
political and media figures. As Americans were still reeling from the
devastation of 9/11, the anthrax killed five Americans and sickened
another seventeen.

As part of the extensive reporting I did on the subsequent FBI investigation to find the perpetrator(s), I documented how significant these attacks were in the public consciousness. ABC News,
led by investigative reporter Brian Ross, spent a full week claiming
that unnamed government sources told them that government tests
demonstrated a high likelihood that the anthrax came from Saddam
Hussein’s biological weapons program. The Washington Post, in November, 2001, also raised
“the possibility that [this weaponized strain of anthrax] may have
slipped through an informal network of scientists to Iraq.” Sen. John
McCain (R-AZ) appeared on The David Letterman Show on October
18, 2001, and said: “There is some indication, and I don’t have the
conclusions, but some of this anthrax may — and I emphasize may — have
come from Iraq.” Three days later, McCain appeared on Meet the Press
with Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) and said of the anthrax perpetrators:
“perhaps this is an international organization and not one within the
United States of America,” while Lieberman said the anthrax was so
finely weaponized that “there’s either a significant amount of money
behind this, or this is state-sponsored, or this is stuff that was
stolen from the former Soviet program” (Lieberman added: “Dr. Fauci can
tell you more detail on that”).

In
many ways, the prospect of a lethal, engineered biological agent
randomly showing up in one’s mailbox or contaminating local communities
was more terrifying than the extraordinary 9/11 attack itself. All sorts
of oddities shrouded the anthrax mailings, including this bizarre admission in 2008 by long-time Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen: “I had been told soon after Sept. 11 to secure
Cipro, the antidote to anthrax. The tip had come in a roundabout way
from a high government official. I was carrying Cipro way before most
people had ever heard of it.” At the very least, those anthrax attacks
played a vital role in heightening fear levels and a foundational sense
of uncertainty that shaped U.S. discourse and politics for years to
come. It meant that not just Americans living near key power centers
such as Manhattan and Washington were endangered, but all Americans
everywhere were: even from their own mailboxes.

Letter sent to NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw, along with weaponized anthrax, in September, 2001

The
FBI first falsely cast suspicion on a former government scientist, Dr.
Steven Hatfill, who had conducted research on mailing deadly anthrax
strains. Following the FBI’s accusations, media outlets began dutifully
implying that Hatfill was the culprit. A January, 2002, New York Times column
by Nicholas Kristof began by declaring: “I think I know who sent out
the anthrax last fall,” then, without naming him, proceeded to perfectly
describe Hatfill in a way that made him easily identifiable to everyone
in that research community. Hatfill sued the U.S. Government, which
eventually ended up paying him close to $6 million in damages before
officially and explicitly exonerating him and apologizing. His lawsuit
against the NYT and Kristof were dismissed since he was never named by the paper, but the columnist also apologized to him six years later.

A
full eight years after the attack, the FBI once again claimed that it
had found the perpetrator: this time, it was the microbiologist Bruce
Ivins, a long-time “biodefense” researcher at the U.S. Army’s infectious
disease research lab in Fort Detrick, Maryland. Yet before he could be
indicted, Ivins died, apparently by suicide,
to avoid prosecution. As a result, the FBI was never required to prove
its case in court. The agency insisted, however, that there was no doubt
that Ivins was the anthrax killer, citing genetic analysis of the
anthrax strain that they said conclusively matched the anthrax found in
Ivins’ U.S. Army lab, along with circumstantial evidence pointing to
him.

Subscribe now

But virtually every mainstream institution other than the FBI harbored doubts. The New York Times quoted
Ivins’ co-workers as calling into question the FBI’s claims (“The
investigators looked around, they decided they had to find somebody”),
and the paper also cited “vocal skepticism from key members of
Congress.” Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), one of the targets of the anthrax
letters, said explicitly
he did not believe Ivins could have carried out the attacks alone. Sen.
Charles Grassley (R-IA) and then-Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ), a physicist,
said the same to me in interviews. The nation’s three largest newspapers
— The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal
— all editorially called for independent investigations on the grounds
that the FBI’s evidence was inconclusive if not outright unconvincing.
One of the country’s most prestigious science journals, Nature, published an editorial under the headline “Case Not Closed,” arguing, about the FBI’s key claims, that “the jury is still out on those questions.”

When
an independent investigation was finally conducted in 2011 into the
FBI’s scientific claims against Ivins, much of that doubt converted into
full-blown skepticism. As The New York Times put it —
in a 2008 article headlined “Expert Panel Is Critical of F.B.I. Work in
Investigating Anthrax Letters” —  the review “concludes that the bureau overstated the strength of genetic analysis linking the mailed anthrax to a supply kept by Bruce E. Ivins.” A Washington Post article —
headlined: “Anthrax report casts doubt on scientific evidence in FBI
case against Bruce Ivins” — announced that “the report reignited a
debate that has simmered among some scientists and others who have
questioned the strength of the FBI’s evidence against Ivins.”

An in-depth joint investigation by ProPublica, PBS and McClatchy — published under the headline “New Evidence Adds Doubt to FBI’s Case Against Anthrax Suspect” — concluded
that “newly available documents and the accounts of Ivins’ former
colleagues shed fresh light on the evidence and, while they don’t
exonerate Ivins, are at odds with some of the science and circumstantial
evidence that the government said would have convicted him of capital
crimes.” It added: “even some of the government’s science consultants
wonder whether the real killer is still at large.” The report itself,
issued by the National Research Council, concluded that while the
components of the anthrax in Ivins’ lab were “consistent” with the
weaponized anthrax that had been sent, “the scientific link between the
letter material and flask number RMR-1029 [found in Ivins’ lab] is not
as conclusive as stated in the DOJ Investigative Summary.”

In
short, these were serious and widespread mainstream doubts about the
FBI’s case against Ivins, and those have never been resolved. U.S.
institutions seemingly agreed to simply move on without ever addressing
lingering scientific and other evidentiary questions regarding whether
Ivins was really involved in the anthrax attacks and, if so, how it was
possible that he could have carried out this sophisticated attack within
a top-secret U.S. Army lab acting alone. So whitewashed is this history
that doubts about whether the FBI found the real perpetrator are now
mocked by smug Smart People as a fringe conspiracy theory rather than
what they had been: the consensus of mainstream institutions.

But what we do know for certain
from this anthrax investigation is quite serious. And because it is
quite relevant to the current debates over the origins of COVID-19, it
is well-worth reviewing. A trove of emails
from Dr. Anthony Fauci — who was the government’s top infectious
disease specialist during the AIDS pandemic, the anthrax attacks, and
the COVID pandemic — was published on Monday by BuzzFeed after
they were produced pursuant to a FOIA request. Among other things, they
reveal that in February and March of last year — at the time that Fauci
and others were dismissing any real possibility that the coronavirus
inadvertently escaped from a lab, to the point that the Silicon Valley
monopolies Facebook and Google banned any discussion of that theory —
Fauci and his associates and colleagues were privately discussing the possibility that the virus had escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, possibly as part of a U.S.-funded joint program with the scientists at that lab.

Last week, BBC reported
that “in recent weeks the controversial claim that the pandemic might
have leaked from a Chinese laboratory — once dismissed by many as a
fringe conspiracy theory — has been gaining traction.” President Biden ordered
an investigation into this lab-leak possibility. And with Democrats now
open to this possibility, “Facebook reversed course Thursday and said
that it would no longer remove posts that claim the virus is man-made,” reported The Washington Post. Nobody can rationally claim to know the origins of COVID, and that is exactly why — as I explained in an interview on the Rising
program this morning — it should be so disturbing that Silicon Valley
monopolies and the WHO/Fauci-led scientific community spent a full year
pretending to have certainty about that “debunked” theory that they
plainly did not possess, to the point where discussions of it were prohibited on social media.

What
we know — but have largely forgotten — from the anthrax case is now
vital to recall. What made the anthrax attacks of 2001 particularly
frightening was how sophisticated and deadly the strain was. It was not
naturally occurring anthrax. Scientists quickly identified it as the
notorious Ames strain, which researchers at the U.S. Army lab in Fort
Detrick had essentially invented. As PBS’ Frontline program put it
in 2011: “in October 2001, Northern Arizona University microbiologist
Dr. Paul Keim identified that the anthrax used in the attack letters was
the Ames strain, a development he described as ‘chilling’ because that
particular strain was developed in U.S. government laboratories.” As Dr.
Keim recalled in that Frontline interview about his 2001 analysis of the anthrax strain:

We
were surprised it was the Ames strain. And it was chilling at the same
time, because the Ames strain is a laboratory strain that had been
developed by the U.S. Army as a vaccine-challenge strain. We knew that
it was highly virulent. In fact, that’s why the Army used it, because it
represented a more potent challenge to vaccines that were being
developed by the U.S. Army. It wasn’t just some random type of anthrax
that you find in nature; it was a laboratory strain, and that was very
significant to us, because that was the first hint that this might
really be a bioterrorism event.

Why
was the U.S. government creating exotic and extraordinarily deadly
infectious bacterial strains and viruses that, even in small quantities,
could kill large numbers of people? The official position of the U.S.
Government is that it does not engage in offensive bioweapons
research: meaning research designed to create weaponized viruses as
weapons of war. The U.S. has signed treaties barring such research. But
in the wake of the anthrax attacks — especially once the FBI’s own
theory was that the anthrax was sent by a U.S. Army scientist from his
stash at Fort Detrick — U.S. officials were forced to acknowledge that
they do engage in defensive bioweapons research: meaning
research designed to allow the development of vaccines and other
defenses in the event that another country unleashes a biological
attack.

But
ultimately, that distinction barely matters. For both offensive and
defensive bioweapons research, scientists must create, cultivate,
manipulate and store non-natural viruses in their labs, whether to study
them for weaponization or for vaccines. A fascinating-in-retrospect New Yorker article
from March, 2002, featured the suspicions of molecular biologist
Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, who had “strongly implied that the F.B.I. was
moving much more slowly in its anthrax investigation than it had any
reason to.” Like The New York Times, the magazine (without
naming him) detailed her speculation that Dr. Hatfill was the
perpetrator (though her theory about his motive — that he wanted to
scare people about anthrax in order to increase funding for research —
was virtually identical to the FBI’s ultimate accusations about Dr.
Ivins’ motives).

But
the key point that is particularly relevant now is what all of this
said about the kind of very dangerous research the U.S. Government,
along with other large governments, conducts in bioweapons research
labs. Namely, they manufacture and store extremely lethal biological
agents that, if they escape from the lab either deliberately or
inadvertently, can jeopardize the human species. As the article put it:

The
United States officially forswore biological-weapons development in
1969, and signed the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention, along with many
other nations. But Rosenberg believes that the American bioweapons
program, which won’t allow itself to be monitored, may not be in strict
compliance with the convention. If the perpetrator of the anthrax
attacks is who she thinks it is, that would put the American program in a
bad light, and it would prove that she was right to demand that the
program be monitored.

If
the government is saying that the perpetrator was probably an American,
it’s hard to imagine how it couldn’t have been an American who worked
in a government-supported bioweapons lab. Think back to the panicky
month of October [2001]: would knowing that have made you less nervous,
or more?

Having
extensively reported on the FBI’s investigation into the anthrax case
and ultimate claim to have solved it, I continue to share all the doubts
that were so widely expressed at the time about whether any of that was
true. But what we know for certain is that the U.S. government and
other governments do conduct research which requires the manufacture of
deadly viruses. Dr. Fauci has acknowledged that the U.S. government indirectly funded
research by the Wuhan Institute of Virology into coronaviruses, though
he denies that this was for so-called “gain of function” research, whereby naturally occurring viruses are manipulated to make them more transmissible and/or more harmful to humans.

We
do not know for sure if the COVID-19 virus escaped from the Wuhan lab,
another lab, or jumped from animals to humans. But what we do know for
certain — from the anthrax investigation — is that governments most
definitely conduct the sort of research that could produce novel
coronaviruses. Dr. Rosenberg, the subject of the 2002 New Yorker article,
was suggesting that the F.B.I. was purposely impeding its own
investigation because they knew that the anthrax actually came from the
U.S. government’s own lab and wanted to prevent exposure of the real
bio-research that is done there. We should again ponder why the
pervasive mainstream doubts about the F.B.I.’s case against Ivins have
been memory-holed. We should also reflect on what we learned about
government research into highly lethal viruses from that still-strange
episode.

To support the independent journalism we are doing here, please subscribe and/or purchase a gift subscription for others:

Subscribe now

Give a gift subscription

Share

========================================

* Zie : ‘Study Suggests Covid-19 Was In The U.S. Weeks Earlier Than
Thought, Before First Public Cases In China‘ (dit artikel van 1
december 2020 stelt wel dat het virus al weken eerder in de VS werd
gevonden, vóór de eerste melding in China, eind december 2020….)

Zie ook: ‘VS universiteiten stellen na onderzoek dat het Coronavirus al 2 maanden vóór december 2019 rondging‘

‘Coronavirus: China door het slijk halen‘

‘Coronavirus: alles wijst erop dat dit virus uit een militair laboratorium van de VS komt‘

‘Coronavirus hysterie: de nieuwe anti-Chinese campagne in de VS bestaat (alweer) uit leugens‘

‘Coronavirus: hysterische en belachelijke beschuldigingen aan adres China‘ 

‘Coronavirus: militaire laboratoria werken aan biologische wapens als virussen >> waarom heeft niemand daar commentaar op?‘ (en zie de links in dat bericht!!)

‘VS
loopt achter de ‘Coronafeiten’ aan en geeft nu zelfs Rusland de schuld
van het manipuleren van de verkiezingen door haar humanitaire hulp‘
(humanitaire hulp aan de VS wel te verstaan, een beschuldiging van
uiterst onbeschofte proporties., maar ja het gaat dan ook om de VS, de
grootste terreurentiteit ter wereld……)

‘Coronavirus tragedie misbruikt voor racisme en het zaaien van haat”

‘Coronavirus? De intensieve veehouderij is een bron van gevaarlijke besmettelijke ziekten en antibioticaresistentie‘

‘Antrax ‘aanvallen’ na 911, de antrax kwam uit VS overheidsvoorraad, verspreid door………‘