THERE ARE BIOLABS IN UKRAINE FUNDED BY THE DOD.
We have already established in one of my earliest fact checks that there are biolabs in Ukraine that are funded by the US Department of Defense. This claim by Deborah G Rosenbaum that there are no offensive bioweapons leaves open the question of whether there are bioweapons whose ostensible purpose is defensive.
DEBORAH G ROSENBAUM ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE SAYS NO, THERE ARE NO OFFENSIVE BIOWEAPONS.
US Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological defense programs (ASD(NCB)), Deborah G Rosenbaum, testified to the House subcommittee on Intelligence and Special Operations on April 1, 2022, that “I can say to you unequivocally there are no offensive biologic weapons in the Ukraine laboratories that the United States has been involved with.” We see here what certainly looks like it could well be the self-qualifying statement of a liar. If there were actually no biological weapons in the Ukraine, surely she would say simply “there are no biological weapons in Ukraine”, instead of qualifying it with the word ‘offensive’? Since the Department of Defense was funding the biolabs, perhaps they were defensive bioweapons, at least in their funding descriptions, not offensive.
Robert Malone, who worked in the bioweapons industry, in his interesting substack post points out that the convention on the prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction (BWC) has a loophole so big that you could drive a bus full of bioweapons through it (my term).
While Article 1 of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction (BWC) outlaws offensive bioweapons, it actually seems that the wording allows them for defensive purposes when not in an armed conflict:
Article I. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes never in any circum stances to develop, produce, stockpile or otherwise acquire or retain: (1) 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; (2) weapons, equipment or means of delivery designed to use such agents or toxins for hostile purposes or in armed conflict.
It seems that this article allows them to be stockpiled and used when it’s not for hostile purposes (i.e. defensive purposes) as Robert Malone’s article points out. There is also another qualification too: or not in armed conflict i.e. when you are not in an open, declared war with the nation you are using them against. This might mean a nation could use it against its own citizens or against a nation they are not presently at war with. Hopefully no nation does this, or has done, who has signed this treaty.
This kind of sneaky wordplay is becoming so common with politicians and bureaucrats in the West and was exactly the kind of hypocrisy condemned by Jesus in the New Testament - it is the breaking of the spirit of an agreement whilst keeping to the letter of it. This is very similar to Fauci saying that gain of function from animal-human is not gain of function. I think that this habit of politicians and bureaucrats has gotten so bad that many of us immediately suspect something is up when anyone modifies any statement with a qualifier (no offensive bioweapons). I remember reading somewhere about the Jesuits in South America who said it’s not a lie if you say something, knowing that you mean one thing and your hearer thinks you mean another - of course it is a lie. We need truthful hearts first of all, all of us including me.
The purpose of modifying bat viruses in Wuhan by adding the Spike protein that infects humans was supposedly so that the scientists might better understand how these viruses can infect humans; a supposedly benign purpose, much like building a gun to better understand how guns might accidentally go off and kill people; see the abstracts for this 2015 Wuhan study and this one in 2017. Both studies were funded in part by Fauci’s NIH including the latter (conducted during Obama’s supposed ban on gain of function; see the abstracts.
Robert Malone, who himself has worked in the biodefense industry, did not really meditate about these contradictions apparently until he was no longer working in the industry.
Malone points out that Deborah Rosenbaum herself clearly has experience in the bioweapons industry: at the NTI (Nuclear Threat Initiative) she led the creation of the “Connecting Organizations for Regional Disease Surveillance (CORDS) - an independent, self-sustaining global network of regional disease surveillance groups”, an organisation that might well be worth looking into, if we want to have a good idea of where all the biolabs are.
Malone also lists fact checking sites that have failed to report on the fact that there certainly are bioweapons in the Ukraine that were for defensive purposes, or for use in peacetime. I have added them to the Uncorrected Hall of Fame in my original post on this subject.
I will add this new information to the existing fact check on biolabs in the Ukraine.
CHANGE LOG
24 April 7:52 softened the statement saying Deborah Rosenbaum’s statement was the self-qualifying statement of a liar - I don’t know that for certain - so I changed it to, what looks like the self-qualifying statement of a liar.