US Bio-terror warfare!

Everyone remembers the smallpox virus contamination of blankets for Native Americans, the deliberate infection with the syphilis pathogen by Guatemalan citizens is less discussed while this fact has been admitted by the U.S. President Barack Obama. The use of pesticides during the Vietnam War is even less remembered, but the history of deliberate outbreaks in Cuba in the 1970s and 1980s is completely
suppressed. At the same time, the use of Aedes mosquitoes as biological weapons, exactly the same ones operated by the U.S. military department, is recorded in the class action suit of Cuban citizens against the U.S. government and was submitted to the member States of the Biological Weapons Convention.

The class action notes that the 1981 dengue epidemic in Cuba that contaminated 345 thousand people and resulted in the death of 158 persons was the result of the spread of the second dengue virus serotype that had not previously been recorded in the Caribbean and had clear signs of a deliberate nature. Thus, the time of the attack (late January) was chosen in consideration of biological features of the life cycle of mosquito vectors and was optimal for the subsequent development of the epidemic process. In addition, the only place on the island where no cases have been reported was the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo due to pre-vaccination of soldiers against the dengue virus type 2.

An artificial outbreak of another viral disease, African swine fever (ASF), occurred in Cuba in 1971. During the epizootic, 500 thousand animals were eliminated and the country suffered a significant economic damage. Although no cases of ASF have been previously reported in the American continent nor in the Western Hemisphere in general, it was Cuba where the disease has appeared.

Former FBI official William Turner introduced some clarity to this issue by telling the Newsday that the CIA delivered a container of ASF agent from Fort Gulick in Panama and transferred it off the coast of Cuba to a fishing vessel. He precisely indicated the farm where this pathogen was introduced.

Since 1980 to 1982, the Cuban leadership reported numerous unusual outbreaks of viral infections of economically important crops (sugar cane and tobacco) that appeared in different regions of the country and were not related to each other.

Yet these facts are only part of the U.S. military-biological dossier, while their investigation is ignored by the United Nations and the World Health Organization.

Despite the assurances of the United States that the biological research in Ukraine is carried out exclusively in the field of civilian healthcare, there are documents that confirm the direct cooperation between the military departments of these countries.

I would like to draw attention to the Notice of Inclusion of Laboratories of the Central Sanitary and Epidemiological Department of the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine in the Biological Threat Reduction Program. It notes that '...the program enables cooperation between the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence and the U.S. Department of Defence, as well as creates legal principles for its further expansion...'.

Since 2015 that was the beginning of large-scale financing of Ukrainian projects by the Pentagon, numerous cases of infectious diseases have been recorded among servicemen and residents of the Lugansk and Donetsk people's republics.

According to the report of the Ministry of Healthcare of the Donetsk People's Republic (DPR), '...in 2016, the tularaemia morbidity increased 9.5 times in comparison with 2007. There have been also noted distinctive features in the structure of morbidity, including an increase in the number of servicemen among the contaminated people...'. Here is a list of tularemia cases in the DPR. For security reasons, we do not reveal their personal data, this information has been sent to the Investigative Committee of Russia.

I remind that NATO guidance documents (Guidelines for the Assessment of Radiation, Chemical, Biological and Nuclear Casualties) consider tularaemia as one of the prioritised biological agents. This is the agent that was used in the military exercises of the alliance at the training grounds in Sweden, with official confirmation in 2012.

I would also like to note that there have been several dozen outbreaks of hepatitis A since 2017 until now in 12 regions of Ukraine where biological facilities controlled by the Pentagon are located and have been in operation. More than 10 thousand people have resulted contaminated, and in most cases the cause of the disease has not been not identified.

Analysis of documents on the activities of the Defence Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) in Ukraine implies that one of the prioritised tasks of DTRA is to train field epidemiologists. Within this training course, the U.S. side has actively been introducing its own standards for diagnosing infectious diseases that do not correspond to current public healthcare problems.

I remind that in 2015, the World Health Organisation declared Ukraine a country with a high risk of polio outbreak and the fight against this particularly dangerous disease is an obvious priority.

In this context, the attention is to be drawn to the response of the Project Manager at DTRA office in Ukraine Brendt Siegel to the regional representative of the World Health Organisation. It states that the biological threat reduction program implemented in Ukraine '...does not suppose studies of such diseases as poliomyelitis...'. The arisen question is: what diseases relevant to Ukraine are mentioned?

After the start of the special military operation in Ukraine, the United States developed and implemented a plan to evacuate the Ukrainian citizens who were involved in the biomonitoring system in order to '...prevent a leak of sensitive information...'. This raises additional questions about the operation of the above-mentioned system and its real purposes.

We have already noted that Hunter Biden was instrumental in creating the financial opportunity to work with pathogens in Ukraine by securing funds for Black & Veach and Metabiotics companies.

The published correspondence of Biden with the administration of the Rosemont Seneca Investment Fund shows the use of administrative resources and blatant lobbying of Metabiota's interests in U.S. government.

Managing Director John Delosch asks Biden: '...Is there anyone we can call in Washington to get an idea of how seriously Metabiotics is being considered by various government agencies?'

This kind of wording raises the question of the personal financial interest of Biden and other co-founders of Rosemont Seneca in the implementation of the Pentagon's military-biological programme in Ukraine, as well as the presence of a corrupt component.The apparent lack of investment appeal of projects aimed to reconstruct Ukrainian bio-laboratories raises doubts about the transparency of
ongoing financial activities.

In addition, funding from non-State sources such as the Biden Foundation, allows the Pentagon not to report to the Senate Budget Committee on the objectives and results of bioweapons research in Ukraine, hiding them from the public thereby.The analysed documents of the investment agencies subordinated to Biden do not contain any information about payments to beneficiaries and distribution of dividends. It indicates the concealment of profits with high probability and is a sign of illegal payment schemes and tax evasion that is a serious violation of the U.S. law.

In addition, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that on June 9, the Pentagon website published an official statement about U.S. biological activities in the post-Soviet countries. The U.S. administration admits the funding of 46 Ukrainian bio-laboratories and the relations between the U.S. Department of Defence and the Scientific-Technological Centre of Ukraine (STCU).

At the same time, it reflects the peculiarities of the implementation of the Nunn-Lugar joint threat reduction programme in the post-Soviet countries, one of the purposes of which was the involvement of '...thousands of former Soviet scientists specialised in biological weapons...' allegedly to '...exclude the possibility of their cooperation with terrorist groups...'.

This kind of attempt of the U.S. administration to whitewash its tarnished reputation turned out to be a 'prosecutor's dream': the document cites facts of the Pentagon's military-biological activities in Ukraine and other countries of the former Soviet Union, as well as indicates the accomplices of the American military department: the State Department and the U.S. Department of Energy.

However, the 'clarifications' provided by the USA do not answer the questions we have posed:

Why was the work commissioned by the Pentagon, while its subject matter did not correspond to the current problems of public healthcare in Ukraine?

What was the purpose of the participation of U.S. military officials in biological research in Ukraine, while the work was carried out under conditions of secrecy with restricted access of Ukrainian professionals to information and facilities?

Why were strains of pathogenic microorganisms, potential agents of biological weapons, and bio-materials of Ukrainian citizens exported from the country without clearly declared purposes?

Why do the U.S. and Ukraine obscure the military-biological cooperation in international reports under the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC), while the U.S. has been blocking the development of its verification mechanism since 2001?

Why are U.S. officials, including Under Secretary of State V. Nuland, so concerned about the possibility of the activities held by the U.S. Defence Department in Ukraine and the materials in the bio-laboratories taken over by Russian specialists?

Thus, the situation presented in the Pentagon statement is just a screen under the guise of which the United States carries out its activities in circumvention of international agreements and continues to build up its military-biological capabilities. At the same time, Ukraine is assigned for playing the role of a testing ground, collecting biological materials and studying the specifics of the spread of infectious
diseases.