What Do I Think About the Term 'Bioweapon' & Whether the U.S. Activated Counter-Measures in Response to SARS-CoV-2?
From twitter threads in December 2023
In this post, I transfer two Twitter threads with my layperson’s opinion on use of the term ‘bioweapon’ in the COVID discussion and the question of whether the U.S. government activated ‘vaccine’ countermeasures in response to SARS-CoV-2. (I made some adjustments for readability and added some content here and there.)
Taken from 6 December 2023 thread1
On the matter of the terms bioweapon and poison that have become so popular in COVID discussion, I humbly submit these are terms the U.S. government, borderless agencies, and public/private individuals & entities want you to use - which is precisely why Internet platforms are proliferating their use.
Why?
Because they aid & abet chaos and confusion.
Both terms can mean anything, everything, or nothing much at all. Consider: Many substances that can be taken in by the body are "biological" or "poisonous" in the general sense of the term and under the right conditions or given enough time. This is certainly true of many drugs, whether legal or illegal, injected or ingested. The "weapon" aspect is more difficult to prove, but can also be said of many things that I believe were or could have been involved in Operation COVID-19 besides *The* Shot.
Some examples:
the 2019 - 2023 flu shots
high doses of injected sedatives (in hospitals, care homes, & ambulances)
vaping agents
opioids (legal and illegal)
oxygen
substances used in COVID tests
So when people like Robert Malone or David Martin (for example) go on and on about bioweapons, I say to myself, "Pay attention, Self, to how imprecise their bioweapon references are."
A big reason for this imprecision, in my opinion, is plausible deniability. There is a concerted effort by various Actors - government and otherwise - to uphold core claims of The Narrative involving 1) sudden spread of a novel deadly coronavirus, and 2) the validity of WHO pandemic declaration.
It's truly fascinating to observe from a social-psychological perspective, but I don't love seeing good Anti-Mandate analysts falling for (what I believe is) yet another Language Game - the objective of which is to distort, deny, and deflect attention away from what actually occurred.
David Martin’s 4 December 2023 speech to UK Parliament is good example of what I'm talking about [click for post and video]:
This and other David Martin talks like this one have been hugely elevated on social and ‘alternative’ media and the ‘bioweapons’ plotline heavily promoted since late 2022/early 2023.2 We should be suspicious of that. The Overlords have NOT lost control of their Core Narrative. Thinking they have is a mistake.
We have widely-repeated characterizations of "it" (SARS-CoV-2) as a bioweapon wrought in a lab which then leaked.
I disagree with Tom (above) that if a pathogen was made in a lab and never existed before it’s a bioweapon.3 The existence of a thing does not render it a weapon. It’s the use or mis-use of it.4 A pencil, for example, can be used to write a story, drum away the time, or stab someone in the throat.5
Some might argue it is the intent of use which matters, irrespective of whether the thing is used or used successfully in accordance with the intent.
I would be more inclined toward that argument if the Government, Their Storytellers, and numerous Private Interests weren’t the beneficiaries of the ‘bioweapon’ and Lab Leak Global Pandemic narratives.
Consider this July 2023 post from Robert Malone (and my reaction):
Do you see what I see?
If the public believes a lab created a pathogen that leaked, jumped, was released, or whatever — and triggered mass casualty events around the globe — then the average member of public thinks, "OF COURSE the Pandemic Declaration was legit!" and "NOW I understand why the government broke the law and shut everything down and built those Field Hospitals that were never used! Because they knew a dangerous bioweapon out of a lab was on the loose!"
See how that works for Them? (Pretty darn well.)6
Don’t misunderstand: I am not challenging or talking about whether the U.S. government/military industrial complex has bioweapons programs. Of course they do.
And they want taxpayers to both a) support the idea of those efforts as necessary & critical to defending Americans against "bioterrorism threats" from other countries, and b) believe that such programs here or in other countries have been successful in creating agents that can or have escaped to suddenly kill thousands of people, simply by floating around, being transmitted by animals, between humans, etc.7
What I'm calling attention to is a cacophonous polysemy that's served to
reinforce the government narrative,
let elected officials, state actors, & others off the hook,
fuel a limited-hangout loop, &
cover up the truth about what actually occurred in early 2020.
I’m not the boss or police of anyone’s speech; use whatever terms you want to use, always anticipating pushback.
Just remember that Operation COVID involved a War on Words and Their Meaning. The field of biology was very much weaponized, in myriad ways, for a Human Rights Heist, as were other fields. It is the semantic weaponry that created and sustains The Spreading Novel Pandemic Virus Narrative.
I agree with the follower who said if governing authorities can “make everybody think that a leaked bioweapon caused this past ‘emergency,’ the next one(s) will be easier for them to manage from a crowd-control perspective. Divide & conquer.”
Follower David Ross put it simply: the advantage of ‘bioweapon’ being applied in various and sundry ways is ambiguity:
If 'bioweapon' becomes the preferred term, it advances ambiguity. The same word then refers to the 'virus', and the 'vaccine'. Thus to say died from the 'bioweapon' potentially exculpates the innoculant. It may be argued, albeit disingenuously, the was a weapon of defense.
Some will say that legal definitions of ‘bioweapon’ exist, but that’s beside my point, which is about the influence of the term on public discourse & perception.
‘Bioweapon’ begets pearl-clutching — if not hide-under-the-bed fear — in the populace. As a characterization for a substance or thing, people automatically think of bioweapon as inherently and necessarily dangerous.8
But what’s more dangerous:
SARS-CoV-2, an unremarkable pathogen that hasn’t been shown as risk-additive? or
Midazolam injections given under order?
I’m going with ‘Midazolam injections given under order’ - if only because it has precedent and there’s a good amount of evidence it and other weapons that don’t involve a coronavirus were wielded to help create the appearance of a spreading bioweapon pathogen.
As long as the public keeps the focus and questions of off things like the flu shot program, high doses of sedatives used in hospitals/care homes/ambulances, tainting of the illicit drug supply, the NYC 2020 death spike, etc., the government is more than okay with - if not loving - the bioweapons talk.
Taken from 22 December 2023 post9
Question: "Did the U.S. government activate legal bioterrorism countermeasures because they believed SARS-CoV-2 constituted a bioterrorism attack?"
In my opinion, NO.
This is not to dispute that the U.S. activated such measures under established legal frameworks. I believe they did.
I also believe that - in New York City/metro at least - they activated disaster medicine plans for chemical warfare attack or a similar scenario, for as-yet undisclosed reasons.
However, I don't think U.S. officials at the highest levels - or U.S. Intelligence - are/is either as stupid or as trigger-happy, so to speak, as some contend.
Where I stand today is that the U.S. and other nations activated certain plans & measures in response to an "emergency" for government(s). My best guess is that some things were creating high levels of death among one or more age groups that governments (and Pharma and others) had an interest in hiding:
1) the annual flu shot
2) illicit drugs
3) e-cigarettes/vaping agents
4) (possibly, I could be wrong) legalized cannabis.
Deaths linked to one or more of these things would absolutely provide a justification -- and plausible deniability - in the eyes of government, Pharma, borderless entities, and other vested parties - for countermeasures.
Unlike other people in the COVID discussion "space", I do not assume that the all-cause mortality numbers we've been presented with are unassailable. Indeed, I see signals and evidence that 2020 ACM was manipulated in at least some cities worldwide, in a concerted effort to hide what was happening/had already happened.
As always, I reserve the right to change my mind when evidence compels me to do so.
This article was initially titled “Opinions on the Use of 'Bioweapon' & Whether the U.S. Activated Counter-Measures in Response to SARS-CoV-2” Change made on 26 December 2024.
Related
I’m highlighting David Martin because I did in the original thread but he isn’t the only person who has contributed to the cacophony.
Maybe I’m being pedantic but it seems like, technically, creating ‘new’ biological agents isn’t possible since matter can be neither created nor destroyed….
Along the same lines, Colleen Huber said, “The most important principle in pharmacology is that every substance is tonic (to some) or toxic, depending on the dose.”
Variation on Howard Gardner in The Development and Education of the Mind
Jonathan Engler made a similar point much earlier in an August 2022 article: Imagine that I was heavily involved in the "pandemic preparedness industry" - an industry siphoning billions out of the pockets of taxpayers into my chosen commercial interests. I wouldn’t be bothered about the origin story. Lab or natural - I can make a fortune either way. What I would be bothered about though would be the idea that this was in fact nowhere near as harmful as the "authorities" told people it was. Because then people might question the need for my new highly profitable industry at all. I could even tolerate people thinking it was a lab leak. If it was, people will be afraid that it could surely happen again. Because regardless of whatever controls are put in place, some rogue operators could always carelessly carry on doing GoF research. So natural or lab-leak, as long as we keep the fear going, we surely need to be better "prepared". That's great for business. And great for justifying centralised control.
This part is key to what I was saying and not saying in the thread. I don’t disagree with analysts who say that (for example) U.S. law/legal frameworks have allowed - if not intended - for vaccines/shots to act as bioweapons deployed against the populace. My observation has been that many people do not distinguish between shots as bioweapons and the notion of pathogens (whether natural, adulterated, co-opted from what’s already out there) being released into the air or hitching a ride on a lab worker. As I said here, I'm not saying the COVID shot can't or shouldn't be considered a bioweapon or poisonous. Flu shot and other injections, same.
Listen to this recent panel discussion at Stanford where most of the panelists seem to hold that view:
Getting people to understand your point is key to creating the resistance to the next psyop. I'm this regard, I believe it is necessary for people to look at the 9/11 operation. The powers that be will do anything, tell any lie, kill any people, to create a climate of fear, their most reliable ally. I suggest starting with Peace, War, and 9/11, which is on you tube. FDR was not quite right that "The only thing to fear is fear itself." I'm more inclined towards " the only thing to refuse to give in to is fear itself"
One of my theories, is that in their elevated opinion of themselves, members of the GofF community thought they actually created a bio weapon, and thus panicked when they realized it could have leaked. When they found out it wasn’t lethal, they did everything they could to sustain the panic and thus their future livelihoods.