By Janet Phelan
The head of Disarmament Affairs with the United Nations has denied knowledge of any offensive biological weapons programmes.
This declaration was made several years after I met with the then head of Disarmament Affairs, Jarma Sareva, and several of his underlings for the stated purpose of turning over documentation concerning the offensive bioweapons program maintained by the US.
Sareva was very nervous about our meeting. He made a point of closing the door to his office, over my objections. Apparently he did not wish others to hear what we were discussing. In addition, he voiced disinclination to address the information I was attempting to give him. “Countries could use this for political purposes,” he said, his voice trailing off.
Given the clamor to climb on board with the recent and frankly suspect pandemic, one might wonder what countries he was referring to. Tanzania, where the president mocked the official narrative, demonstrating PCR results showing Covid infection in a goat and a papaya, then keeled over dead? Mexico, where the president kept the borders open and refused to shut down the economy, while still courting US dollars and support?
Certainly not the age-old enemies of the American way, Russia, China or Iran. These countries rushed to endorse the official pandemic narrative and to order lockdowns and other draconian measures.
Apparently the short memory of the Disarmament Affairs office at the United Nations serves them well. Disarmament Affairs has partnered with the WHO in establishing a Biorisk Working Group, which is mandated with “strengthening the international community’s response and in improving prevention.” It would be pivotal to the success of such a working group to admit the clear danger posed by a covert pandemic delivery system, such as documented in my recent book, At the Breaking Point of History. Anything less than acknowledgement of this system casts grave doubts on the raison d’ etre and intentionality of such a working group.
Furthering a false perception, President Biden recently attempted to reassure us that the US has no chemical or biological weapons. Let’s tackle the assertion about chemical weapons, first.
The US is a party to the Chemical Weapons Convention, which came in to force in 1997. A major caveat in the CWC is that the member states pledge to destroy their chemical weapons. To date, the US has applied for several extensions and now states it will complete the destruction of its chemical weapons stockpile next year.
So Biden gave us a false assurance when he said the US has no chemical weapons.
Let’s look now at his equally false statement that the US has no biological weapons.
One of the problems with the Biological Weapons Convention is that it allows for the maintenance of biological weapons stockpiles for “peaceful, prophylactic purposes.” This is widely interpreted as meaning that the member states can maintain certain stockpiles for the purposes of developing countermeasures. However, when the US was caught red-handed several years ago, sending live anthrax through the mail to over 90 labs worldwide, was there anybody to verify that this large amount of anthrax was being maintained for “peaceful purposes”? As the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) has no verification mechanism, no way to check on the activities of member states, this question is unanswerable.
When anthrax was previously put into letters and mailed out to various congressmen and media, back in 2001, it was eventually admitted by the FBI that the anthrax came from a government lab. Yet no one was home, so to speak, to invoke the prohibitions contained in the BWC and question the existence of the anthrax at Fort Detrick and Dugway Proving Grounds. In fact, domestic legislation, passed into law following the events of September 2001, removes the criminal aspect of the US’s entire bioweapons program, in stating “the prohibitions contained in this section shall not apply to any duly authorized US governmental activity.” (Section 817, USA PATRIOT Act.) In other words, the US can maintain any level of bioweapons without culpability.
Since these two prior events, we now have lifted the restrictions on gain-of-function research, which make it much easier for labs to create horrifically effective and transmissible diseases.
With no one checking on the actual activities of members of the BWC, and with the President of the United States lying to us as to the status of our own weapons systems, a pandemic treaty might be seen as an acceptable idea, right? After all, we desperately do need reliable parties to check on the existence of lab-created viruses, right?
Unfortunately, putting this power into a centralized agency, the WHO, which already denies the existence of biological weapons programs, even in the face of having been so informed, is a perfectly dreadful scenario. It’s like giving the power of life and death to a dedicated liar. Or possibly even worse than a liar.
James Roguski has provided us with an excellent breakdown of the proposed pandemic treaty and how it will affect national sovereignty in health issues. In evaluating the proposed treaty, Roguski reveals that “… of note is what is missing from the working draft: there is no evaluation of what went wrong over the past 2.5 years; there is no ban on gain of function research; there is very little focus on health treatments and therapies; there is no patient bill of rights; and there is no support for enabling doctors and patients to make their own decisions.”
The second round of public input on the proposed pandemic treaty will take place on September 29 and 30. Interested parties are urged to check this link on a regular basis to find out how to participate.
Janet Phelan has been on the trail of the biological weapons agenda since the new millennium. Her book on the pandemic, At the Breaking Point of History: How Decades of US Duplicity Enabled the Pandemic, has been published in 2021 by Trine Day and is available on Amazon and elsewhere. Her articles on this issue have appeared in Activist Post, New Eastern Outlook, Infowars and elsewhere. Educated at Grinnell College, UC Berkeley and the University of Missouri Graduate School of Journalism, Janet “jumped ship” and since 2004 has been writing exclusively for independent media. Her articles previously appeared in the Los Angeles Times, Oui Magazine, Orange Coast Magazine, the Long Beach Press Telegram, the Santa Monica Daily Press and other publications. She is the author of the groundbreaking expose, EXILE and two books of poetry. She resides abroad. You may follow Janet on Parler here @JanetPhelan. To support her work, please go to JanetPhelan.
Image credit: Spiro Skouras
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.