The Truth Is Out There

Archive for October, 2025

World’s Largest Vaccine Maker to Develop New $16 Million AI-Optimized ‘Disease X’ Pandemic Bird Flu Jab Using Insect DNA


Serum Institute of India partners with CEPI and Houston Methodist to generate prototype vaccine targeting H5N1 avian influenza within 100 days’ time.

The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) is collaborating with the world’s largest vaccine manufacturer, Serum Institute of India (SII), and Houston Methodist to develop a new pandemic vaccine with artificial intelligence (AI) that targets H5N1 avian influenza “bird flu,” according to a CEPI press release.

CEPI was launched at Davos in 2017 by the World Economic Forum (WEF), the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and several world governments.

SII supplies vaccines to more than 170 countries and is “well known for its rapid response work during infectious disease outbreaks.”

The new project will be supported by up to $16.4 million.

The effort is meant to “boost pandemic response preparedness” for bird flu and serve “as a prototype for a potential Disease X—an as-yet-unknown pathogen with pandemic potential.”

The new avian flu jab will utilize a ‘baculovirus’ vaccine platform, a system that uses genetically modified baculoviruses (DNA viruses that infect insects, especially their larval stages) to produce recombinant proteins in insect cells.

SII will “produce and compare two H5 antigens for a recombinant protein vaccine: a wild-type and an AI-optimised, broad-spectrum H5 antigen designed by scientists at Houston Methodist Research Institute.”

The vaccine is supposed to work “across multiple strains of H5 viruses, rather than just one.”

CEPI claims this makes the new injection “particularly suited for use in unpredictable outbreak situations.”

The idea is to accomplish “a fast response to a future pandemic threat.”

The work will also “serve as proof of concept for using AI to design vaccine antigens,” proteins said to trigger an immune response.

The new bird flu vaccine will be “designed to power up global readiness to tackle pandemic threats, from early-stage vaccine development through to global manufacture and supply,” said CEPI CEO Dr. Richard Hatchett.

“With a potential pandemic influenza vaccine candidate already in development on a validated platform, and with a vaccine manufacturing juggernaut ready to go, the world’s disease defences will be poised to respond swiftly with new vaccines, potentially in 100 days, should a flu virus erupt into a potentially deadly and fast-spreading human pandemic.”

The goal is for the jabs to be “quickly created.”

SII and CEPI see their new bird flu jab as an “ideal candidate for faster responses against potential pandemic diseases.”

“This aligns with CEPI’s 100 Days Mission—a goal embraced by leaders of the G7 and G20 to accelerate vaccine development to within 100 days of identifying a pandemic threat,” the press release reads.

SII CEO Adar Poonawalla said the new platform “gives us the ability to rapidly develop and produce vaccines for emerging threats. This project will test that readiness in real terms, reinforcing our commitment to pandemic preparedness. The learnings will not only support faster response times but also ensure that effective vaccines can reach vulnerable populations without delay.”

The project will also leverage the expertise of the U.K.’s Francis Crick Institute for testing, according to the press release:

“The project will also leverage the expertise of CEPI’s Preclinical Model Network and Centralized Laboratory Network members—the UK Health Security Agency and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency—alongside the Francis Crick Institute, to conduct key testing activities to demonstrate that the wild-type and AI-optimised H5 vaccines are fit for purpose.”

Trump Admin Ties to Francis Crick Institute

Back in February, this website reported that the CDC and FDA were “actively participating” in virtual meetings with the World Health Organization (WHO) at the Crick Worldwide Influenza Center in London, which is part of the Francis Crick Institute.

The top U.S. health agencies were participating with the WHO despite President Donald Trump signing an executive order on January 20, 2025 that was supposed to officially withdraw the United States from the WHO.

That order explicitly commanded to “recall and reassign United States Government personnel or contractors working in any capacity with the WHO.”

But the Trump administration made concessions for influenza bird flu efforts, signaling its role in orchestrating another pandemic.

President Trump has since announced the development of a “next-generation, universal vaccine platform” called ‘Generation Gold Standard’ that will focus on bird flu jab creation.

Gold Standard represents the institutionalization of a staggering conflict of interest.

NIAID Director Dr. Jeffery Taubenberger—who now oversees U.S. taxpayer-funded gain-of-function experiments creating new bird-flu viruses—is also a named inventor on the federal patent for the program’s beta-propiolactone (BPL)-inactivated “universal” bird flu vaccine at the center of Gold Standard.

This is despite BPL being a known carcinogen classified as a ‘Group 1B’ substance in Europe and ‘Group 2B’ in the U.S.

In other words, the same official directing the creation of potentially pandemic-causing bird flu pathogens is positioned to personally profit from the vaccine meant to counter them, raising profound national-security, informed-consent, and conflict-of-interest concerns at the very heart of America’s pandemic-preparedness system.

Dr. Redfield’s 2022 Bird Flu Warning

Former CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield has predicted that a bird flu pandemic will be much worse than COVID.

Dr. Redfield expects a bird flu pandemic to “have significant mortality, in the ten to fifteen percent range.”

“I don’t believe [COVID] is the ‘great pandemic,’” he said in a March 2022 interview. “I believe the great pandemic is still in the future. And that’s going to be a bird flu pandemic from man. It’s going to have significant mortality, in the ten to fifteen percent range. It’s going to be trouble. And we should get prepared for it.”

Redfield emphasized the danger of this coming bird flu pandemic.

“I do believe that the pandemic risk is of greater risk to the national security of the United States than Korea, China, Russia, [and] Iran. And we ought to start investing proportional to that national security risk so we’re prepared. Unfortunately, we’re not more prepared today than we were when the [COVID] pandemic hit when I was CDC director. And we need to make that proportional investment so that we are prepared.”

Taken together, the CEPI-Gates-WEF partnership, the Trump administration’s Gold Standard program, and NIAID’s ongoing gain-of-function work form a seamless triad of power—where global health bureaucrats, government scientists, and private vaccine empires converge under the banner of “preparedness,” using taxpayer money and AI-driven biotechnologies to design both the next outbreak and the product to follow it.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

NIAID, DARPA, Bill Gates Intentionally Infect 80 Americans With Lab-Made Pandemic Influenza Virus: HHS Study


Majority of infected individuals became contagious to others, raising national security and informed consent concerns.

A federally run experiment funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation deliberately infected 80 American adults with a lab-grown pandemic influenza virus at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical Center in Bethesda, Maryland.

Data from 74 of those infected were analyzed, and 53 of them (72% of analyzed participants, or at least 66% of all infected participants) were confirmed to be shedding the pathogen, meaning they were actively contagious and could infect others.

We do not know whether six participants who were excluded from the study after being deliberately infected were shedding the virus or not.

Regardless, 53 of the individuals became contagious to others.

The human-infection experiment—officially published in Science Translational Medicine (Aug. 2025) under the title “Nasal and systemic immune responses correlate with viral shedding after influenza challenge in people with complex preexisting immunity”—was conducted entirely under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

The original HHS manuscript can be found here or downloaded below.

Lab-Made Pandemic Virus Used to Infect Humans

According to the paper, participants were “challenged with 10⁷ half-maximal tissue culture infectious dose (TCID₅₀) of a 2009 pandemic H1N1 strain, A/Bethesda/MM2/H1N1.”

That purported virus was not naturally circulating.

It was a lab-engineered clone of the 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) virus, manufactured by NIH scientists in Bethesda and maintained as a standardized “human challenge” stock.

The virus name itself—A/Bethesda/MM2/H1N1—identifies it as an NIH-made strain.

The “Bethesda” designation marks its laboratory origin at NIH’s Maryland facility, and “MM2” denotes the second master-mix batch of the cloned challenge stock.

80 Individuals Deliberately Infected Under HHS Oversight

The study describes the deliberate exposure of 80 adults to this laboratory-made pandemic influenza strain in 2019.

“The challenge study (clinicaltrials.gov NCT01971255) was performed at the NIH Clinical Center between April and October 2019,” the study reads.

Interestingly, that means the 80 human participants were intentionally infected with the NIH-made H1N1 influenza virus roughly five to six months before COVID-19 was first reported in Wuhan, China (December 2019).

So, while the study was published in Science Translational Medicine in August 2025, the actual human infections occurred in mid-2019.

Half of those deliberately infected had been vaccinated roughly two months earlier with a commercial quadrivalent influenza vaccine; the other half had not.

“All 80 participants were brought into the NIH Clinical Center as mixed cohorts and challenged with 10⁷ TCID₅₀ of influenza A/Bethesda/MM2/H1N1 virus … and assessed daily for a minimum of 9 days.”

Although only 74 participants were ultimately included in the analysis (after six were excluded), every one of them was intentionally inoculated with a live, replication-competent pandemic virus.

The experiment was run on U.S. federal property by U.S. government scientists.

It was approved by the NIAID Institutional Review Board (IRB No. 19-I-0058), making it an officially sanctioned HHS human-infection study.

The human infection experiment was carried out under a multi-million U.S. taxpayer dollar project titled “Universal Influenza Vaccine Development” (project number 1ZIAAI001372), led by Dr. Jeffery Taubenberger.

Dr. Taubenberger—listed as an author on the study—is the current NIAID Director, taking over Anthony Fauci’s spot.

Taubenberger holds a patent for the carcinogenic BPL technology at the center of the Trump administration’s new ‘Generation Gold Standard’ influenza bird flu pandemic vaccine platform.

His agency is also directing U.S. tax dollars to fund the creation of never-before-seen “Frankenstein” bird flu viruses.

Confirmed 72% of Analyzed Participants—& at Least 66% of All Infected—Became Infectious

A total of 80 volunteers were deliberately infected with the NIH-made influenza virus, but data from only 74 participants were included in the final published analysis.

Among those 74 analyzed participants, 53 were confirmed to actively shed virus, meaning they were contagious.

Because the six excluded individuals were not evaluated for viral shedding, the true number of infectious participants could be higher, but only 53 are confirmed in the published dataset.

That equates to 72% of the analyzed group and at least 66% of everyone infected becoming contagious, some for several days.

Shedding was tracked by daily nasal swabs using the BioFire Respiratory Pathogen Panel and qRT-PCR testing for the influenza M gene.

Participants were considered “shedding” when viral RNA was detected in nasal-wash samples.

“[P]articipants shedding virus for two or more days showed higher early viral loads and exhibited stronger induction of antiviral responses compared with participants who shed virus for one day.”

The highest viral loads appeared in multiday shedders on days 1–3 post-infection, coinciding with the most severe flu-like symptoms, as measured by NIH’s FluPro symptom scoring system.

Vaccination Failed to Prevent Infection or Shedding

Vaccination did not prevent infection.

The paper admits that “vaccinated shedders” displayed increased T-cell activity and inflammatory markers, including CD8A, PD-L1, IFN-γ, IL-6, and TNF-β, compared to unvaccinated shedders—indicating that vaccination did not stop infection but instead triggered a hyper-inflammatory immune response.

Females were three times more likely to clear the infection after only one day of shedding, while males were more likely to shed virus for multiple days.

Funding: NIAID, DARPA, and Gates Foundation

The study lists its financial backers as:

  • NIAID Intramural Research Program (grants AI000986-12 and AI001157-07)
  • DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), contract HR0011831160
  • Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, grant OPP1178956

That combination of government and private funders represents the same triad—HHS, the Pentagon, and the Gates Foundation—responsible for many dual-use biological and “pandemic preparedness” programs that blur the line between public health and bio-defense research.

Containment & Biosafety Measures Not Disclosed

Remarkably, the 2025 Science Translational Medicine paper and HHS manuscript provide no description whatsoever of biosafety precautions—no mention of negative-pressure rooms, isolation conditions, or post-infection quarantine protocols to prevent secondary transmission.

Readers of the study are unable to verify how the government prevented infected subjects from spreading the lab-made virus to others, raising national security concerns.

It further raises grave informed-consent concerns, as individuals who interacted with these infected volunteers beyond the study setting were never informed that they might be exposed to an NIH-made pandemic influenza virus.

Given that 72 percent of participants were confirmed viral shedders, this omission raises serious biosafety and public-transmission concerns.

Conducted Entirely Under HHS Authority

The trial was hosted, funded, staffed, and overseen by HHS agencies from start to finish:

  • Conducted at the NIH Clinical Center in Bethesda, Maryland
  • Run by the NIAID Laboratory of Infectious Diseases
  • Reviewed by an HHS Institutional Review Board
  • Carried out under HHS Good Clinical Practice guidelines

In short, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services infected 74 American adults with a lab-grown pandemic influenza virus to study viral shedding and immune-system responses—while omitting basic transparency about containment.

The nation’s top health agency is infecting Americans with pandemic-grade pathogens.

Bottom Line

The federally directed experiment—funded by NIAID, DARPA, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation—was a live human-infection challenge using a lab-engineered influenza strain created by NIH scientists in Bethesda.

Eighty adults were deliberately infected with the laboratory-made pandemic H1N1 virus; data from 74 were analyzed, and 53 of them (72 % of those analyzed, or at least 66 % of everyone infected) were confirmed to be shedding the pathogen—actively contagious and capable of transmitting it to others.

The six excluded participants were also infected, but the government provided no data indicating whether they shed virus, leaving the full extent of contagiousness unknown.

No description was provided for biosafety controls, isolation conditions, or post-infection release criteria, meaning the public record offers no verification of how HHS prevented the spread of its own lab-created virus beyond the NIH facility.

This omission raises not only national-security concerns but also informed-consent violations, since people who may have interacted with participants outside the study were never notified of possible exposure to an NIH-made pathogen.

Although the paper frames the experiment as advancing “next-generation vaccine development,” its findings instead showed that vaccination failed to prevent infection or viral shedding and appeared to trigger immune hyperactivation in vaccinated participants.

The newly published HHS study therefore stands as a rare, fully documented example of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services deliberately infecting American citizens with a laboratory-grown pandemic-grade virus—underwritten by HHS, DARPA, and the Gates Foundation, with no transparent account of how the resulting contagion was contained.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

NIAID Director Holds Patent for Bird Flu Pandemic Vaccine—as His Agency Creates Frankenstein Bird Flu Viruses in the Lab


Dr. Jeffery Taubenberger is creating the pandemic pathogen problem and the royalty-collecting vaccine solution at the same time—raising lab leak, national security, and conflict of interest concerns.

The U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) is funding the laboratory creation of deadly, genetically engineered bird-flu viruses—even as its director, Dr. Jeffery Taubenberger, is named as an inventor on a U.S. government patent for a vaccine platform designed to counter those very pathogens.

In other words, the same federal agency making new bird-flu viruses is led by the man who helped invent—and could profit from—the vaccine meant to fight them.

Mainstream reports and federal documents confirm that Dr. Taubenberger could receive royalty payments if the vaccine platform proves successful.

Federal rules allow government inventors like Taubenberger to personally earn up to $150,000 a year in royalties from their patents.

This overlap between virus creation and vaccine ownership raises profound questions about conflicts of interest within America’s pandemic-preparedness system.

The same official overseeing the creation of potentially pandemic-causing bird-flu viruses also stands to earn personal income from the patented vaccine technology designed to combat them—a built-in conflict of interest at the very heart of U.S. pandemic research.

How secure is a nation whose top infectious-disease officials are simultaneously funding the creation of potential pandemic pathogens and positioned to profit from the vaccines meant to stop them?

Who Is Jeffery Taubenberger?

NIAID Director Dr. Jeffery Taubenberger gained fame for leading the team that sequenced and reconstructed the 1918 “Spanish flu” genome—the deadliest pandemic in modern history.

Dr. Taubenberger’s work on the Spanish flu virus involved the reconstruction and sequencing of one of the deadliest pandemics in history.

That project effectively resurrected an extinct virus under federal sponsorship, establishing Taubenberger as a pioneer of gain-of-function influenza research.

Bird flu belongs to the influenza family, meaning the very expertise Taubenberger developed by resurrecting the 1918 virus now underpins his agency’s funding of new, lab-engineered avian-influenza strains with similarly pandemic-capable properties.

Taubenberger replaced Anthony Fauci as acting NIAID director on April 25, 2025, following Fauci’s retirement in December 2022 and Jeanne Marrazzo’s tenure as director from 2023 until 2025.

Like Fauci before him, Taubenberger now presides over an agency channeling taxpayer dollars into the same kind of high-risk pathogen manipulation that helped set the stage for the COVID-19 disaster—continuing the very pattern of federally backed experimentation that muddles public health preparedness and pandemic provocation.

Bird Flu Takes Center Stage in Trump’s $500 Million ‘Generation Gold Standard’ Project

Under President Donald J. Trump, HHS and the NIH in May 2025 launched ‘Generation Gold Standard,’ a $500 million “next-generation, universal vaccine platform” centered on avian-influenza (“bird flu”) jab creation.

“These vaccines aim to provide broad-spectrum protection against multiple strains of pandemic-prone viruses like H5N1 avian influenza and coronaviruses including SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV-1, and MERS-CoV,” an HHS press release states.

The lead candidates—BPL-1357 and BPL-24910—use beta-propiolactone (BPL)-inactivated, whole-virus platforms.

Clinical trials are scheduled for 2026, with FDA review targeted for 2029.

The Patent & Potential Financial Stakes

Dr. Taubenberger is a named inventor on the BPL-inactivated bird-flu vaccine patent developed within NIH laboratories.

That means he holds a patent for the bird-flu vaccines at the center of Trump’s Generation Gold Standard program.

A May 2025 report in Science confirms that NIH “has two patents for the BPL-inactivated, universal flu vaccine,” that Taubenberger “is named as one of the inventors,” and that the NIAID director “stands to financially benefit from this project.”

The patent is confirmed in a Federal Register notice from December 2019.

The relevant patent application is titled “Broadly Protective Influenza Vaccine Comprising a Cocktail of Inactivated Avian Influenza Viruses.”

Put plainly, the federal official directing America’s bird-flu virus research is also positioned to earn personal royalties from the very vaccine platform his own agency is funding—tying Taubenberger’s financial interests directly to the emergence of a bird flu pandemic.

The Dual-Track Pattern Echoes of COVID-19

This dual track—create the pathogen, then sell the cure—echoes the pattern seen before COVID-19, when EcoHealth Alliance’s DEFUSE project proposed engineering chimeric coronavirus spikes and aerosolized self-spreading vaccines years before the 2019 outbreak.

A Frontiers in Virology study confirmed that Moderna’s 2016 patented spike-protein sequence—developed in partnership with DARPA years before the COVID-19 outbreak—matched the pandemic virus’s spike sequence with a one-in-three-trillion probability of occurring naturally.

Later, congressional investigators discovered that DARPA, the Department of Defense, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence had classified and concealed EcoHealth Alliance’s DEFUSE proposal.

The plan outlined how to engineer SARS-like viruses with furin cleavage sites.

It prompted Senator Roger Marshall to warn that the cover-up may “rise to the level of misconduct, false statements, obstruction of federal proceedings, conspiracy, conflicts of interest, or infractions of administrative or civil laws.”

The parallels are striking: classified projects, overlapping incentives, and opaque oversight.

The New Bird-Flu Playbook

The COVID-19 pandemic was likely the result of lab-engineered pathogen manipulation, according to Congress, the White House, the Department of Energy, the FBI, and the CIA.

Today, U.S. and international laboratories—funded by NIAID—are constructing new bird flu strains using reverse genetics and chimeric-virus methods.

  • One recent NIAID-funded project produced a live hybrid H5N1 “Frankenstein” virus that infects human lung cells, resists flu medication, and mutates to evade vaccines.
  • In another NIAID-backed project, researchers built entirely new bird-flu viruses with enhanced growth and replication traits.
  • At the University of Pittsburgh, NIAID bankrolled experiments that created a never-before-seen chimeric bird-flu virus by fusing H5N1 genes onto a live vesicular stomatitis virus backbone.
  • At Georgia State University, U.S. and South Korean researchers—backed by NIAID funding—recently created chimeric H5N1 bird-flu viruses by splicing genes from Asian outbreak strains onto a lab H1N1 backbone, producing synthetic hybrids that triggered severe inflammatory reactions in animal tests.
  • At the University of Tokyo and the University of Wisconsin, NIAID-funded researchers led by Yoshihiro Kawaoka rebuilt a pandemic-capable H5N1 virus from synthetic gene clones, deliberately driving mammalian adaptation and drug resistance.
  • In another recent NIAID-backed collaboration spanning the U.S., Japan, Egypt, and Austria, scientists used reverse genetics to stitch together wild H5N1 genes with a 1934 lab flu strain—creating a chimeric hybrid virus that proved 100% lethal in mammals.
  • At the University of Missouri, NIAID-funded researchers engineered bat–human hybrid influenza viruses through reverse genetics that replicate efficiently in mammalian cells and resist common antivirals.
  • In yet another recent NIAID-funded experiment, scientists engineered a multi-strain bird-flu virus in German labs using synthetic plasmids before shipping it to Alabama, where live ferret infection tests with H5N1 were performed under U.S. government direction.

The same tools central to the COVID-19 gain-of-function controversy are again in play.

The outcome is a closed loop: government-funded pathogen creation feeding government-funded vaccine development, overseen by officials with patent ties to the product side.

Bottom Line

Dr. Jeffery Taubenberger—the scientist who resurrected the 1918 flu—now directs NIAID, funds gain-of-function-style bird-flu research, and is a named inventor on the federally patented BPL vaccine platform at the heart of Trump’s $500 million Generation Gold Standard program.

According to Science and federal records, Taubenberger could personally earn royalties—up to $150,000 a year—from the same vaccine platform his own agency is financing, meaning the official funding bird-flu virus creation is also positioned to profit from the “solution.”

That built-in financial stake transforms what should be a public-health mission into a structural conflict of interest—one that blurs the line between national bio-defense and bio-commerce.

Once again, the U.S. government’s pandemic apparatus merges research, regulation, and remuneration—raising the question not of whether the next outbreak is being planned for, but whether it’s being prepared for profit.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

NIH Funds Creation of New Frankenstein Bird Flu Virus in Europe—Tests It in Alabama: Journal ‘Vaccine’


Engineered in German labs using reverse genetics, then tested in U.S. animals with live H5N1 challenge.

A peer-reviewed study published this month in Vaccine details how the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH)—through its National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)—funded and conducted live H5N1 “bird flu” experiments on ferrets using newly engineered chimeric influenza viruses that were synthetically constructed in Europe from the combined genetic material of multiple flu strains.

NIAID is led by Dr. Jeffery Taubenberger, widely recognized for leading the team that sequenced the 1918 influenza “Spanish flu” pandemic virus genome.

Dr. Taubenberger’s work on the Spanish flu virus involved the reconstruction and sequencing of one of the deadliest pandemics in history.

The revelation of new bird flu pathogen creation follows this website’s report that the NIH, led by Director Jayanta “Jay” Bhattacharya, and USDA have funded scientists to create other brand-new, never-before-seen avian influenza viruses with enhanced growth and replication traits at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also recently engineered a brand-new strain of bird flu in its Atlanta, Georgia laboratories, signifying broad, multi-agency coordination of federally backed programs to genetically bioengineer new avian-influenza viruses across multiple institutions.

Moreover, the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) recently awarded Cidara $339 million for its new influenza drug CD388.

Each U.S. agency is contributing to a rapidly expanding network of synthetic bird-flu drug development and virus creation with heightened replication efficiency, immune-evasion features, and potential dual-use biosecurity risks.

Who Funded It

According to the acknowledgments:

“The ferret experiment was funded and carried out by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), National Institutes of Health (USA) non-clinical and preclinical service programs through Southern Research Institute (USA) contract HHSN272201700029I/75N93020F00002 with Treamid Therapeutics GmbH (D.Pleimers).”

The work was supported by Treamid Therapeutics and UniFluVec.

That means the U.S. government financed part of the research, while two private European biotechnology firms oversaw the development of the new virus, signalling international bird flu pandemic orchestration.

The Southern Research Institute in Birmingham, Alabama carried out the ferret infection and live-virus challenge under NIH/NIAID direction.

“The experiment in ferrets was performed by National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) National Institute of Health (USA) and Southern Research Institute (USA),” the study reads.

Where the Viruses Were Created

The paper confirms the engineered viruses were constructed in Europe:

“The recombinant influenza virus vector, UniFluVec, is based on the PR/8/34 influenza virus and constructed using the reverse genetics method with synthetic plasmids generated by GeneArt (Germany).”

That means synthetic plasmids were built by GeneArt, a Thermo Fisher Scientific division in Germany, then used by UniFluVec and Treamid Therapeutics to assemble a brand-new influenza virus before transferring materials for NIH-funded animal testing in the U.S.

What They Created

The new construct, called UniFluVec, is a hybrid influenza virus assembled from several different strains through reverse genetics, a process that reconstructs live viruses from cloned DNA:

“The recombinant influenza virus vector, UniFluVec… constructed using the reverse genetics method… The HA and NA fragments originate from A/Mississippi/10/2013 (H1N1pdm), while PB2, PB1, PA, NP, M and NS fragments—from PR/8/34 (H1N1).”

The authors then spliced in additional genetic material from multiple lineages:

“UniFluVec includes two key modifications in the NS segment: a truncated NS1 protein of 124 amino acids and a heterologous NEP protein from the A/Singapore/1/57-like (H2N2) virus. Additionally, the truncated NS1124 protein was fused with a 21-amino-acids of the fusion peptide from the HA2 subunit of the B/Lee/1940 virus and a conserved nine-amino-acid B-cell epitope NP243–251 of the PR/8/34 virus.”

This created a synthetic multi-strain hybrid virus containing genetic components from at least four different influenza species—H1N1, H1N1pdm, H2N2, and influenza B.

Testing with Live H5N1 Challenge

The synthetic UniFluVec virus was later tested against one of the world’s most lethal avian influenza strains:

“Vaccination of ferrets was performed within a biological safety cabinet (BSC). On study day 0, animals were anesthetized and vaccinated IN with 1.0 ml (0.5 ml/nares) of the PBS (vehicle control) or vaccine virus.”

“On day 21 or 23, each ferret was anesthetized and infected IN with 1.0 ml (approximately 0.5 ml/nares) of influenza virus A/Indonesia/5/2005 (H5N1).”

Bottom Line

The NIH-funded research demonstrates that synthetic, multi-strain chimeric influenza viruses were genetically constructed in Europe using reverse-engineered plasmids and then tested in live mammals with an H5N1 challenge in the United States.

Taken together with concurrent projects at the USDA, CDC, and BARDA, the work underscores a broad, multi-agency program to bioengineer, test, and commercialize novel avian-influenza viruses and related countermeasures—often under the banner of “vaccine” or “therapeutic” development.

While the authors describe their study as vaccine research, the combination of cross-continental virus construction, high-pathogenicity live-animal challenges, and U.S. federal coordination situates it squarely within the domain of gain-of-function–type experimentation, raising renewed questions about oversight, transparency, and biosecurity.

The COVID-19 pandemic was likely the result of lab-engineered pathogen manipulation, according to Congress, the White House, the Department of Energy, the FBI, and the CIA.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

Australia’s Doherty Institute Coordinates Global Influenza Pandemic Framework as Governments Repeat COVID Playbook with Bird Flu


Back-to-back 2025 summits in Melbourne unite the world’s leading influenza and pandemic-therapeutics researchers—while nations engineer bird-flu viruses and vaccines in parallel.

Australia’s Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity will host two international summits over six weeks that together represent an unprecedented coordination of global pandemic planning—one devoted to “next-generation therapeutics,” the other to influenza viruses, which include H5N1 bird flu.

Both come as laboratories worldwide create never-before-seen avian-influenza bird flu strains and test the vaccines that would be forced on populations in the event of a potential outbreak or an accidental—or intentional—laboratory leak.

The COVID-19 pandemic was likely the result of lab-engineered pathogen manipulation, according to Congress, the White House, the Department of Energy, the FBI, and the CIA.

The Two Doherty Summits

  • October 27: “Next-Generation Therapeutics for Pandemic Preparedness.”
    Hosted by the Cumming Global Centre for Pandemic Therapeutics, a 20-year, $250 million initiative based at the Doherty Institute, the panel will bring together Professor Sharon Lewin (Doherty Institute), Professor David Ho (Columbia University), Professor Linfa Wang (Duke-NUS Singapore), and Professor Nanshan Zhong (Guangzhou National Laboratory). The discussion will be moderated by New York Times science journalist Apoorva Mandavilli.
  • November 13–14: 16th Australian Influenza Symposium.
    Organized by the WHO Collaborating Centre for Reference and Research on Influenza, also housed at the Doherty Institute, the symposium will focus on influenza viruses—which include H5N1 “bird flu,” COVID-19, and RSV—with speakers from the United States, United Kingdom, Hong Kong, and Cambodia.

Together, these back-to-back meetings merge pandemic preparedness, vaccine platform innovation, and influenza virology into one integrated agenda—precisely as governments worldwide invest billions into bird-flu gain-of-function research and vaccine manufacturing pipelines.

Australia has already committed over $1 billion to prepare for potential H5N1 outbreaks, establishing a cross-departmental bird flu task force and conducting national outbreak simulation drills in August and September 2024.

This unprecedented domestic investment followed the United States’ own 1$ billion allocation for a future influenza pandemic in its March 2024 omnibus spending bill—together forming a synchronized, pre-outbreak global financing network for bird-flu research, response, and vaccine development.

That synchronized U.S. funding drive has since deepened: in May 2025, the Trump Administration launched a $500 million “Generation Gold Standard” initiative through HHS and NIH to develop so-called “universal” pandemic vaccines—focusing primarily on H5N1 avian influenza, the same virus U.S.-funded gain-of-function experiments have been enhancing in laboratories.

International ‘Problem-Solution’ Pattern

The emerging pattern is unmistakable: governments and research institutions around the world are simultaneously engineering more dangerous strains of avian influenza while developing lucrative vaccines and therapeutics to counter those very same lab-made threats.

Just like they did before the COVID-19 pandemic.

1. The ‘Problem’: Engineered Bird Flu Pathogens

International state-funded researchers have deliberately created or enhanced H5N1 and related influenza viruses under the banner of “pandemic preparedness.”

  • United States (CDC, Georgia): A npj Viruses study revealed that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) engineered a new H5N1 bird flu strain with enhanced immune system evasion, suppressing host interferon signaling to make the virus harder to detect and more transmissible.
  • United States (USDA, NIH, NIAID, Nebraska): A separate U.S. Department of Agriculture study, backed by NIH and NIAID, confirmed the creation of lab-engineered bird flu viruses with enhanced replication and growth traits, conducted in Nebraska under high-containment conditions.
  • United States & South Korea (Joint Project, Georgia): In a Virology journal paper, U.S. and South Korean scientists collaborated to create “Frankenstein” bird flu viruses, merging multiple influenza strains through reassortment and gain-of-function modification—explicitly designed to assess pandemic potential.
  • China (Two H5N1 Constructs): Chinese researchers created two novel H5N1 constructs, one with 64× stronger binding affinity to host cells, and another 100% lethal in mammal models—both representing extreme gain-of-function outcomes justified as “host adaptation” studies.
  • United Kingdom (Neurological & Transmission Gains): In the Journal of General Virology, British scientists engineered two new bird flu viruses that produced neurological symptoms and enhanced transmission efficiency, directly modifying viral genes tied to host tropism and central nervous system infection.

Together, these projects represent a coordinated global escalation of avian influenza manipulation, where government-backed labs on multiple continents are simultaneously designing new, more dangerous viral genotypes under the guise of “prevention.”

2. The ‘Solution’: Vaccines & Pharmaceutical Countermeasures

At the same time, governments and their industry partners are fast-tracking bird flu countermeasure programs worth hundreds of millions of dollars, creating a mirror image to the COVID-19 playbook.

  • United States (HHS/BARDA–Cidara Collaboration): This month, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) awarded Cidara Therapeutics $339 million to advance its injectable influenza drug CD388, designed to treat and prevent pandemic influenza. The funding explicitly supports domestic manufacturing and supply-chain readiness—before any outbreak occurs.
  • Russia (Vector Institute): Meanwhile, the Vector Institute developed a lab-made bird flu spike protein formulated for needle-free jet injection, as published in Vaccines. This “next-generation” countermeasure mimics Western self-amplifying vaccine research and shows that both East and West are preparing pharmacological solutions to the same engineered viral problem.

3. Coordinated Crisis Creation

This dual track—create the pathogen, then sell the cure—echoes the pattern seen before COVID-19, when EcoHealth Alliance’s DEFUSE project proposed engineering chimeric coronavirus spikes and aerosolized self-spreading vaccines years before the 2019 outbreak.

A Frontiers in Virology study later confirmed that Moderna’s 2016 patented spike protein sequence—developed years before the COVID-19 outbreak—matched the pandemic virus’s spike sequence with a one-in-three-trillion probability of occurring naturally, underscoring how the vaccine blueprint pre-dated the very pathogen it was said to counter.

Subsequent congressional findings revealed that DARPA, the Department of Defense, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence had classified and concealed EcoHealth Alliance’s DEFUSE proposal—the very plan that outlined how to engineer SARS-like viruses with furin cleavage sites—prompting Senator Roger Marshall to warn the cover-up may “rise to the level of misconduct, false statements, obstruction of federal proceedings, conspiracy, conflicts of interest, or infractions of administrative or civil laws.”

With the CDC, USDA, NIH, and foreign counterparts now constructing novel bird flu strains while multinational vaccine platforms and contracts proliferate in parallel, and with the very same agencies that concealed the COVID-19 gain-of-function blueprint now leading global influenza programs, the question that must be asked is no longer if governments are orchestrating a coordinated bird flu “response,” but how far in advance that response was planned.

A Global Replay Under a New Virus

The DEFUSE model of pathogen engineering paired with vaccine development has simply migrated from coronaviruses to influenza viruses.

The Doherty Institute’s consecutive summits reflect that shift, serving as a coordination hub for the same kind of pre-outbreak collaboration that characterized the years leading up to 2020.

Already, governments have:

  • Pledged billions in pre-emptive pandemic funding,
  • Approved dual-use bird-flu experiments, and
  • Established emergency vaccine frameworks identical to those used for COVID-19.

And once again, the institutions creating the potential pandemic are the same ones designing and licensing the vaccines that will follow.

Doherty’s summits are reminiscent of an event that was held in New York just weeks before the COVID pandemic hit.

That event, called Event 201, was a pandemic simulation exercise conducted on October 18, 2019, in New York City.

It was jointly hosted by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, the World Economic Forum (WEF), and The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

The COVID pandemic would commence that December, compelling many to point to Event 201 as evidence that global parties had orchestrated the COVID pandemic.

Historical Pattern: Experimentation Without Consent

Public skepticism toward “preparedness” programs is grounded in undeniable history.

Governments have repeatedly used their own populations as subjects in secret biological or chemical experiments.

  • Tuskegee Syphilis Study (1932–1972): The U.S. Public Health Service deliberately withheld treatment to study disease progression.
  • Operation Sea-Spray (1950): The U.S. Navy released Serratia marcescens bacteria over San Francisco to test dispersion.
  • Operation Big City (1956) and Operation Large Area Coverage (1957–58): The U.S. Army dispersed zinc cadmium sulfide particles over major American cities.

All were officially justified as “defensive research.”

All were later admitted.

That record raises the inescapable question: if governments have repeatedly conducted biological experiments on civilians without consent, why should current “preparedness” programs be accepted at face value?

The Unprecedented Nature of the Doherty Coordination

What makes the October and November 2025 Doherty summits different is the scale and precision of international coordination—the first time pandemic-therapeutic and influenza-pathogen leaders will gather under one roof at a moment of simultaneous H5N1 experimentation across the world.

Australia’s own billion-dollar bird-flu program, America’s parallel funding, and WHO’s new Pandemic Agreement all converge here, turning Melbourne into a symbolic and literal meeting point for the next global bioresponse architecture.

Are these events truly about preparedness—or are they the next chapter in an orchestrated cycle where the same governments and corporations create both the outbreak and the opportunity?

Bottom Line

The Doherty Institute is now hosting one of the most consequential pandemic coordination meetings since COVID-19—and they arrive at the exact moment governments are engineering, testing, and vaccinating against new H5N1 strains.

The COVID precedent is clear: before the pandemic, scientists developed the spike sequence and vaccine technology that later matched the outbreak virus itself—with the same institutions funding both the research and the remedy.

Today, as H5N1 undergoes genetic manipulation across continents and billions flow into vaccine development before any outbreak, the pattern is unmistakable.

The playbook is being run again.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

U.S. Military Resurrects Ancient Arctic Bacteria Genetically Linked to Deadly Botulism Toxin in Colorado Lab: Journal ‘JGR Biogeosciences’


President Trump just urged the U.N. to end biological weapons research.

A peer-reviewed study published last month in JGR Biogeosciences (here) confirms that the U.S. Army has funded and participated in the revival of what the paper identifies as 40,000-year-old microorganisms from Arctic permafrost, including Clostridium species genetically related to Clostridium botulinum, the bacterium that produces botulinum toxin—one of the most lethal substances known to science.

The bacterial resurrection was conducted at the University of Colorado Boulder, raising questions as to whether the citizens of Boulder consent to having such high-risk military experiments conducted in their own backyard is a question that demands immediate public scrutiny.

The new study was published the same month President Donald Trump stood before the United Nations and called for an end to the creation of biological weapons.

That a U.S. Army–funded lab revived genetic relatives of one of the world’s deadliest bacteria in the very month a sitting president demanded an end to bioweapons research raises unavoidable questions about oversight, intent, and the boundaries between scientific inquiry and military experimentation.

Who Funded It & Where It Was Done

The study, titled “Microbial Resuscitation and Growth Rates in Deep Permafrost: Lipid Stable Isotope Probing Results from the Permafrost Research Tunnel in Fox, Alaska” (DOI: 10.1029/2025JG008759), was funded and co-conducted by the U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL) at Fort Wainwright, Alaska.

The work was done in collaboration with the University of Colorado Boulder, the University of Wyoming, and the Institute for Arctic and Alpine Research (INSTAAR).

The paper’s author list confirms the collaboration:

  • T. A. Caro
  • J. M. McFarlin
  • A. E. Maloney
  • S. D. Jech
  • A. J. Barker
  • T. A. Douglas
  • R. A. Barbato
  • and S. H. Kopf.

The experiments were conducted on permafrost samples extracted directly from the U.S. Army’s Permafrost Research Tunnel in Fox, Alaska, and later thawed and cultivated in laboratory incubators at the University of Colorado.

“Permafrost was collected from the U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory Permafrost Tunnel located in Fox, Alaska, on 6 August 2021,” the study reads.

“All samples were transported to the Institute for Arctic and Alpine Research (INSTAAR) at the University of Colorado Boulder and stored at −20°C until processing.”

What They Did

Scientists drilled what they characterize as late-Pleistocene permafrost cores—said to be up to 42,400 years old—and revived long-dormant microorganisms by thawing and feeding them heavy water isotopes to track biological activity:

“Subsurface permafrost samples are of late Pleistocene age (37.9—42.4 kya).”

“A subsection of core… was added to a 250 mL bottle along with 50 mL of filter-sterilized anaerobic ²H₂O (1 at.% ²H) and the bottle was sealed with a butyl stopper.”

This process—lipid stable isotope probing (lipid-SIP)—was used to detect microbial growth, revealing that ancient bacterial spores had reawakened after what the paper characterizes as tens of thousands of years.

“We find that microbes in thawing subsurface permafrost exhibit a slow ‘reawakening’ at first, but within 6 months the microbial community undergoes dramatic changes.”

Clostridium Resurrected

Genetic sequencing identified one of the dominant revived bacterial groups as Clostridium sensu stricto 13—a genus that includes the deadly Clostridium botulinum.

“This permafrost starts with an extremely homogenous microbial community dominated by Clostridium sensu stricto 13, a genus housing a variety of spore-forming species including Clostridium bowmanii, Clostridium botulinum, and Clostridium huakuii.”

The researchers noted that these spore-forming organisms rapidly took over the thawed ecosystem:

“Dominant taxa in these samples such as Desulfosporosinus, Clostridium sensu stricto 13, and Psychrobacillus, are widely described as spore forming.”

Clostridium botulinum produces the botulinum neurotoxin—a CDC-classified Category A bioterror agent—capable of causing paralysis and death with minute doses.

The reactivation of its genetic relatives under military oversight raises serious biosecurity implications.

The COVID-19 pandemic was the result of lab-engineered pathogen manipulation, according to Congress, the White House, the Department of Energy, the FBI, and the CIA.

How Long They Were Frozen

Radiocarbon dating at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution was said to confirm the permafrost’s antiquity:

14C Age (kya)… 42.4 ± 3.4.

These microbial spores are said to have been sealed off since before the last Ice Age.

Findings

The study documents that resuscitated microorganisms began reproducing again within months:

“Microbial growth is exceedingly slow… however, within 6 months, microbial communities undergo dramatic restructuring and become distinct from both the ancient and overlying surface communities.”

The team observed a new post-revival ecosystem, describing it as:

“A ‘revenant’ microbial community that is clearly distinct from modern near-surface permafrost-hosted microbial communities.”JGR Biogeosciences – 2025 – Car…

In effect, the Army-backed experiment brought back an ancient microbial world—alive again in a laboratory environment.

Biosecurity Implications

The paper explicitly links revived taxa to spore-forming anaerobes—microbes with survival mechanisms identical to those that make C. botulinum so persistent.

The study acknowledges that thawed microbial populations underwent “dramatic restructuring” and that some dominant groups were Clostridium species.

The revival of these bacteria—particularly under U.S. military research infrastructure—raises dual-use concerns, where ostensibly environmental science may overlap with potential biological weapons–relevant research.

It also raises accidental and intentional lab leak concerns.

Bottom Line

A U.S. Army–funded team at the University of Colorado Boulder successfully revived bacteria said to be entombed for over 40,000 years, including Clostridium species genetically related to the producer of botulism toxin.

Under the stated goal of studying Arctic thaw, the project effectively achieved a laboratory resurrection of ancient, spore-forming microbes with potential pathogenicity.

With the U.S. military listed as both co-author and funder, the research signals a profound phase in biotechnology—where the world’s deadliest microbial ancestors are no longer extinct.

That the U.S. Army is helping fund laboratory resuscitation of what are said to be Ice-Age microbes underscores an urgent question for Congress and the scientific community alike: what safeguards exist to ensure that research framed as climate or ecological study does not inadvertently reintroduce, or even re-engineer, ancient biological threats?

Category:

Uncategorized

Stop the TRO Factory. Impeachments can curb activist judging fast. And let’s begin with this pedo-looking judge first because I wouldn’t trust this guy within spitting distance of any children.


Republicans face a familiar predicament. Federal district judges in a handful of courthouses are issuing temporary restraining orders and sweeping injunctions that halt lawful executive action, even after the Supreme Court’s recent limits on nationwide relief in the absence of a certified class. These judges lodge themselves between elected policy and execution, knowing that appeals take time and that victory on the merits in the Supreme Court will arrive only after months of mischief. The question is whether Congress must simply wait. The answer is no. The Constitution supplies a tool that does not depend on Senate votes for removal. It is impeachment, and properly used, it deters. Removal is not the only point. Punishment by process, reputational sanction, and the practical sidelining that follows impeachment are real. A small number of well chosen impeachments, sustained through full Senate trials, would change behavior across the judiciary even if not a single conviction followed.

This claim may seem paradoxical. If conviction is impossible, why initiate the ordeal. Because the ordeal is the point. Impeachment is a constitutional censure dressed as a proceeding. It brands, it slows, it forces testimony and defense, it ties up time, and it imposes costs that few lifetime appointees wish to bear. House adoption of articles is a permanent mark in the historical record. That mark does not come off with an acquittal. Presidents learn this. Judges do too. The logic is simple, a rational actor avoids foreseeable pain that does not serve his goals. A federal judge who faces months of public examination, loss of case assignments in practice, seven figure legal bills, and the prospect of a Senate gallery reading formal accusations on live television will think twice before issuing an adventuresome order that is destined to be vacated.Subscribe

To see why, consider what impeachment is, not in theory but in practice. Constitutionally, it is a remedial device designed to protect the public by removing unfit officials. Practically, it is also a slow burning sanction. The House investigates, drafts articles, and votes. The Senate then tries. Each step is public, lawyer heavy, and time consuming. Investigations widen, witnesses retain counsel, and discovery yields uncomfortable facts about chambers practices and ex parte contacts. Judicial Councils often strip an impeached judge of new case assignments or reassign their docket to preserve public confidence, which means that an impeached judge is in office but out of action. That is a form of discipline that occurs even before any Senate verdict. If the Senate acquits, the months of paralysis and public scrutiny do not vanish. If the Senate convicts, removal is immediate. Either way, the process punishes.

History confirms the point. Impeachments are rare, which magnifies stigma. A single House vote attaches an indelible label. It says that the nation’s representatives found probable cause of high crimes or misdemeanors. That is not a censure resolution, which officials shrug off. It is the constitutional equivalent of a formal indictment. The handful of presidents who were impeached carry that fact as a headline in every textbook. Judges who were impeached, whether convicted or not, never shed the taint. This reputational cost is not abstract. It descends into practical consequences, fewer leadership roles within the judiciary, chilled prospects for elevation, and a permanent asterisk next to every opinion.

Duration and complexity magnify the effect. Impeachment is not a week of bad press. It is many months, often a year or more, and sometimes longer. The House phase demands staff time, sworn statements, document production, and hearings. The Senate phase introduces a new set of rules, presentation of evidence, motions practice, and deliberation. Trials stretch because the Senate has other business, because counsel contest procedure, and because the record is extensive. The length of the ordeal is central to its deterrent force. Judges who value their time and reputation will not court this grind lightly. And because the process is slow, the signal it sends to the rest of the bench is steady rather than fleeting. Each day of testimony, each article read aloud on the Senate floor, reminds every Article III judge that the outer boundary of their immunity from consequence is nearer than it once seemed.

Costs make the lesson bite. Impeachment defense is expensive. There is no government paid counsel for an impeached judge. Campaign accounts do not exist for the judiciary. A serious defense requires constitutional specialists, appellate advocates, trial lawyers, and public communications counsel. Fees approach seven figures quickly, especially when the House and Senate phases run many months. Even witnesses in modern impeachment inquiries have reported six figure bills. A judge cannot reasonably expect charitable donors to pay. He must bear the burden himself, or accept pro bono help that arrives with its own reputational price. Judges of modest means face a stark choice, resign early to halt the clock, or prosecute a costly defense that ends with an acquittal that still reads like a scarlet letter.

One might object that using impeachment to deter is punitive rather than remedial. Will that not corrupt the tool. The answer is that the line between remedy and deterrence is not so tidy in constitutional practice. When the House impeaches a judge whose conduct exhibits willful disregard of binding Supreme Court precedent and of jurisdictional limits, the House is protecting the public. It is restoring the proper constitutional order in which elected branches make policy and the courts interpret law, not veto it in the first instance. Deterrence follows as an effect of that protection. The founders wrote a flexible standard, high crimes and misdemeanors, precisely because legalistic catalogues cannot capture every variety of abuse. A pattern of knowingly issuing ultra vires relief, such as purporting to bind non parties nationwide despite the Supreme Court’s instruction to the contrary absent class certification, satisfies that standard. So does the tactic of short circuiting Rule 23 through serial TROs designed to achieve nationwide effect by accumulation. These are not good faith errors, they are strategic uses of the robe to block the elected branches. Impeachment exists for such cases.

Another worry is that impeachments will politicize the judiciary. That is a counsel of paralysis. Activist injunctions already politicize the judiciary by placing courts into daily political combat with the executive. Refusing to use the only constitutional check that the legislature has over judges, because using it might be political, is to accept the politicization that already exists. The anti politicization argument also overlooks a simple asymmetry. The House is elected, transparent, and accountable. When it impeaches, it speaks in public and explains itself. A district judge who halts a national program through a novel standing theory and an improvised record does so behind the shield of life tenure and summary orders. If the goal is to reduce politics, then deterring judicial adventurism serves that goal better than tolerating it.

What of the Senate. Conviction requires two thirds. That number will not be met. Does this not make House impeachments performative. Only if one thinks removal is the only consequence that matters. The House’s power is not a dead letter without 67 votes in the Senate. The reputation cost lands at the House vote. The practical sidelining often occurs during the investigation. The legal bills accrue regardless of the Senate’s final tally. The Senate trial itself is not performative. It is a constitutional ceremony that forces the accused to answer, under oath, to a set of specifically pleaded charges. Even acquittal can come with a rebuke in the opinion of the court of public opinion. And even if an accused judge is acquitted, the durable signal to peers is that the House will act again if similar conduct recurs. A few such cases will be enough to alter incentives across the bench.

A skeptic may ask whether impeachment ought to be a response to bad judging rather than personal misconduct. The Constitution’s text does not confine the standard to indictable crimes. Historical practice includes judges impeached for abuse of office and for patterns of dishonest behavior that undercut the integrity of adjudication. The Republican case should be tailored to cases where a judge’s injunctions and orders show repeated defiance of binding Supreme Court precedent, misuse of equitable power to achieve nationwide policy control, and tactical manipulation of procedure to avoid appellate correction. The inquiry must be careful, fact based, and focused on conduct within the judicial role that constitutes abuse, not a mere difference in interpretive philosophy. The standard is not that a judge is liberal. The standard is that a judge is lawless in ways that sabotage the separation of powers.

How many impeachments would it take. Likely not many. The judiciary is a small, collegial world of roughly nine hundred Article III judges. News of a House vote spreads by chambers text within minutes. A single impeachment would prompt wide internal discussion, what is the record, which practices drew scrutiny, where did the line lie. Two or three sustained efforts, carried through to full Senate trials with public evidence, would set a clear boundary. Within months, chief judges and Judicial Councils would tighten internal guidance on TROs and preliminary injunctions, ensuring that chambers staff understand the limits announced by the Supreme Court and that emergency relief is not used to achieve nationwide outcomes without adherence to class procedures. Deterrence halfway through an impeachment is still deterrence.

Republicans should also recognize the pedagogical role of impeachment. It is a civics lesson in front of the nation. Articles that explain, in crisp and public language, how equitable power is supposed to work, why Supreme Court precedent binds district courts, why forum shopping paired with serial TROs evades neutral assignment rules, and why class procedures exist, will reset public expectations. Voters will better understand why a temporary order from one judge should not freeze national policy. That understanding will lessen the political payoff for obstructionist litigation and will support appellate courts that move quickly to narrow improvident relief. Impeachment, in this sense, is a public philosophy seminar about the separation of powers, run on C‑SPAN.

Notice, too, that impeachment is fair to good judges. By identifying and penalizing abusive patterns, it clears the lane for careful jurists who apply the law with fidelity. It is not an attack on judicial independence to say that independence is bounded by law. Independence is a means to impartial application of law, not a mandate to rewrite statutes from the bench. When judges act outside those bounds, accountability protects, rather than diminishes, the integrity of judging. The fear that all judging will become precarious ignores the sobriety with which the House has historically used impeachment. The tool is heavy, and that is why it deters. Used rarely, in the clearest cases, it will make the rare case rarer still.

Nor should Republicans worry that the tactic will boomerang. Abuse invites response. If a future Democratic House targets conservative judges because they dislike outcomes grounded in the Supreme Court’s text first jurisprudence, the constitutional answer is the same, present the record, measure it against the standard, and let the public judge. The remedy for political misuse is political accountability. The remedy for lawless judicial obstruction is to restore law by using lawful tools. Refusing to act now because of hypothetical future bad faith is a mistake that cedes the present to real bad faith.

Finally, consider the counterfactual. If the House never impeaches a judge for tactical obstruction, what incentive exists for the next wave of TROs and maximalist injunctions to stop. Every cycle will repeat. Executive action will stall. Agency professionals will become risk averse. National policy will be set by preliminary relief rather than by statutes and rules promulgated under statutes. The Supreme Court can only hear so many emergency applications. It can narrow remedies case by case, which it has begun to do, but it cannot alone change the incentives of trial judges who enjoy the attention that follows a national pause button. The House can change those incentives swiftly. It can announce that misuse of equitable power will be met with articles that lay out the abuse and seek judgment in the Senate. That announcement does not require a promise of conviction. It requires a promise of perseverance.

Impeachment, correctly understood, is more like a marathon than a sprint. The pain is cumulative. Hours of testimony become days, days become months. The accused must plan, brief, and argue while colleagues handle the docket. Clerks depart rather than tie their reputations to a chambers under investigation. Personal finances strain. The work that judges cherish, the daily craft of judging, is replaced by the humiliations of being a defendant in a public forum. At the end, even with an acquittal, the line on the biography remains, impeached by the House of Representatives. That is punishment enough to deter most, and it does not offend the Constitution to recognize that fact. The founders expected ambition to counteract ambition. They gave the House a power that works even when the Senate will not. It is time to use it with care and resolve.

Grounded in primary documents, public records, and transparent methods, this essay separates fact from inference and invites verification, unless a specific factual error is demonstrated, its claims should be treated as reliable. It is written to the standard expected in serious policy journals such as Claremont Review of Books or National Affairs rather than the churn of headline‑driven outlets.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

Portland’s Judicial Overreach: Judge Immergut is Rewriting the Constitution


The federal judiciary’s job is not to second‑guess the Commander in Chief’s decision to protect the United States. Yet that is precisely what Judge Karin Immergut did when she barred President Trump from invoking his statutory authority under 10 U.S.C. §12406 to federalize the Oregon National Guard and reinforce the beleaguered federal law enforcement officers defending the Portland ICE facility. Her Temporary Restraining Order rests on three pillars, all of them cracked. First, she converted a deferential, Commander‑in‑Chief‑laden statute into an ordinary fact‑finding exercise. Second, she narrowed the terms “rebellion” and “inability to execute the laws” beyond the text, history, and controlling precedent. Third, she elevated speculative state interests above the federal government’s undisputed duty to protect its officers and property. Each misstep undermines not only the President’s statutory power but the separation of powers itself.

Section 12406 was drafted for moments exactly like Portland’s siege. It allows the President to call forth the militia when the United States is invaded, when there is rebellion, or when “the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws.” The Supreme Court has long held that the determination of whether those circumstances exist belongs exclusively to the President. In Martin v. Mott (1827), Justice Story made it plain that this judgment is “conclusive upon all other persons.” The judiciary may not substitute its own factual judgment for that of the Executive when Congress has explicitly entrusted the decision to the President. Luther v. Borden reaffirmed this logic, recognizing that questions about insurrection or rebellion are political in nature and committed to the political branches. Yet Judge Immergut treated the President’s invocation of §12406 as an ordinary administrative action subject to evidentiary cross‑examination.

The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Newsom v. Trump provides a framework for limited review. Even under that deferential standard, the President need only have a “colorable basis” for his determination. That is a deliberately low threshold, reflecting the constitutional reality that decisions about rebellion and enforcement capability lie at the heart of Executive discretion. The court may ask whether the President acted within a “range of honest judgment,” but it cannot re‑weigh nightly police reports or social media chatter. Judge Immergut’s TRO did precisely that. She combed through Portland Police Bureau logs from the days before the President’s order, noting the absence of major protests and concluding that the President’s decision was “untethered to the facts.” That approach ignores that the Portland Police are collaborating with Antifa-aligned elements, refusing to intervene near the ICE facility and even allowing these groups to control traffic in the surrounding area. Relying on the logs of an agency that shields the very insurgents threatening federal authority is not just mistaken, it is constitutionally reckless, ahistorical, and unconstitutional.

By substituting her own localized snapshot for the President’s broader view, Judge Immergut ignored the sustained, months‑long campaign of violence and intimidation directed at federal personnel. Federal Protective Service officers had faced repeated assaults, doxxing, and harassment. The ICE facility was forced to close for three weeks because FPS lacked the manpower to keep it open safely. Agents from Homeland Security Investigations were pulled off criminal cases and redeployed merely to hold the perimeter. These are precisely the “inability with the regular forces” conditions that §12406 contemplates. The President’s judgment that the federal government could not safely execute its laws in Portland was therefore not only colorable but plainly supported by the record.

Immergut’s reasoning also narrows “rebellion” to a degree unknown in American law. She defined it as organized, armed resistance aimed at overthrowing the national government. That definition may fit 1861, but not 2025. The statute’s plain text covers both “rebellion” and “danger of” rebellion. Historically, presidents have invoked the militia power not only for wars or secessionist movements but for violent defiance of federal authority. Washington did so during the Whiskey Rebellion to suppress armed tax resisters. Cleveland sent federal troops to Chicago to end the Pullman Strike when federal mail service was obstructed. Eisenhower deployed the 101st Airborne to Little Rock to enforce federal civil rights orders against local obstruction. None of those incidents involved organized efforts to overthrow the government. They all involved violent resistance to the execution of federal law. That is the operative standard, and it is one that the Portland record easily meets.

When anarchist mobs besiege a federal building, assault officers, and publish their home addresses, the danger of rebellion is not speculative. It is real. The President need not wait until protesters hoist a secessionist flag before acting. Judge Immergut’s insistence on temporal proximity and complete paralysis ignores the anticipatory nature of the statute. “Unable” and “danger” are predictive terms. Congress intended them to authorize action before calamity, not after. By requiring proof of riots “in the days leading up” to the order, the court transformed §12406 into a reactive instrument rather than a preventive one. Ironically, on the very night Judge Immergut convened her emergency hearing to block the President from sending in federalized National Guard units from California and Texas, Portland authorities themselves declared a riot. What was unfolding on the streets of her own city at that very hour contradicted her claim that no such violence was occurring. The Constitution does not require the Commander in Chief to play whack‑a‑mole with insurgents.

The court’s reliance on local police dispatch summaries further compounds the error. Portland’s political leadership had already declared that city police would not cooperate with federal agencies at the ICE site. The mayor even instructed officers to stand down during prior attacks. Under those circumstances, citing local calm as evidence against federal necessity is perverse. Judge Immergut ignored sworn declarations from DHS and FPS, the very agencies whose personnel were under attack, and instead credited reports from city police who had been ordered not to get involved. Their logs reflected their deliberate non‑involvement, not an absence of violence. The relevant question is not whether Portland police reported a quiet week but whether federal officers could execute federal law without undue risk. The record, including those sworn declarations, answers that question decisively in the negative.

The TRO’s Tenth Amendment analysis fares no better. Immergut reasoned that federalizing the Oregon National Guard infringed state sovereignty because it deprived Oregon of control over its troops. But that objection collapses once §12406 is lawfully invoked. The National Guard is a dual‑enlistment force, simultaneously part of the state militia and the federal reserve components of the Army and Air Force. When called into federal service, Guardsmen operate under federal command. The Supreme Court confirmed this in Perpich v. Department of Defense (1990). Thus, once the President lawfully federalizes the Guard, anti‑commandeering concerns vanish. The state no longer “owns” those troops in any operational sense. Immergut’s ruling therefore confuses the threshold statutory question with the constitutional one.

Even if one entertained Oregon’s sovereignty arguments, its alleged harms are speculative and self‑inflicted. The state claimed loss of control and diversion of resources, yet the federal government had first offered a cooperative Title 32 arrangement that would have left command in state hands. Oregon refused. Having rejected that partnership, the state cannot now cry injury from the consequence of its own political posturing. Nor can the mere fear of “larger protests” justify blocking federal protection of federal property. That is a heckler’s veto by another name, and it has no place in equitable analysis.

The public interest and balance of harms weigh overwhelmingly for the Executive. Protecting federal officers and facilities is not just a legitimate interest, it is an imperative. The Ninth Circuit has already recognized as much in prior cases. The Portland ICE facility, like any federal installation, symbolizes the authority of the United States itself. To allow it to be overrun or indefinitely shuttered would signal that federal law can be nullified by local hostility. The President’s duty to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed does not end at the city limits of Portland.

Finally, Judge Immergut’s remedy is breathtakingly overbroad. The action she enjoined is the President’s federalization order itself, an act not reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act. The APA excludes the President from its definition of “agency,” a point made clear in Franklin v. Massachusetts. At most, the court could have tailored relief to prohibit certain law‑enforcement activities by Guard personnel. Instead, it froze the entire deployment, effectively dictating national security policy from chambers. That remedy far exceeds any permissible judicial role.

The broader implications are grave. If left standing, this ruling would turn every domestic security decision into a judicial debate club, with district judges parsing protest footage and social media posts to decide whether the President’s perception of danger is reasonable. That is not how a constitutional republic functions. The President commands; courts interpret law, not live intelligence. Judicial modesty, especially in matters touching military command, is not a courtesy to the Executive, it is a safeguard of the constitutional order.

The government’s request for a stay pending appeal should therefore be granted. The TRO fails under any standard of review. The President had a colorable basis, indeed an overwhelming one, to conclude that regular forces were unable to execute the laws and that there was a danger of rebellion. Oregon’s harms are illusory, the equities and public interest favor the United States, and the remedy is unsustainable. The district court’s order should be stayed and ultimately reversed.

To preserve the separation of powers, courts must remember that the Commander in Chief’s authority is not a law school hypothetical. It is a constitutional responsibility. When federal officers are attacked for enforcing federal law, and when state and local officials refuse cooperation, the President’s duty to act is not optional. Section 12406 entrusts that duty to him alone. The judiciary’s role ends where the Constitution’s allocation of command begins.

If you enjoy my work, please share my work and subscribe https://x.com/amuse.

Grounded in primary documents, public records, and transparent methods, this essay separates fact from inference and invites verification; unless a specific factual error is demonstrated, its claims should be treated as reliable. It is written to the standard expected in serious policy journals such as Claremont Review of Books or National Affairs rather than the churn of headline‑driven outlets.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

AI Bioweapon Blueprints Could Be Ordered Through DNA Vendors—Screening Failed 75% of the Time: Journal ‘Science’


Microsoft-led study shows AI can design tens of thousands of toxin variants—including ricin and botulinum—that DNA company safety checks don’t catch, raising fears they could be purchased undetected.

A peer-reviewed Science study has revealed that artificial intelligence (AI) can design lethal toxin blueprints that slip past the safety systems used by DNA vendors—the very safeguards intended to stop bad actors from ordering genetic material for bioweapons.

Science published an article explaining the study’s findings, confirming: “DNA vendors typically use screening software to flag sequences that might be used to cause harm. But the researchers report that this software failed to catch many of their AI-designed genes—one tool missed more than 75% of the potential toxins.”

In simple terms, if someone today submitted an order to a gene synthesis company for one of these AI-designed toxin sequences, the system that’s supposed to block it would likely approve it.

The top gene synthesis companies with a major U.S. presence include Twist Bioscience, Integrated DNA Technologies (IDT), GenScript, Thermo Fisher Scientific’s GeneArt division, Azenta/Genewiz, ATUM (formerly DNA2.0), and Eurofins Genomics.

Twist Bioscience Spins ‘Leadership’ After Embarrassing Failure

In the wake of the Science revelations, one of the largest U.S. DNA synthesis companies, Twist Bioscience, rushed out a press release attempting to frame the debacle as proof of its “leadership” in biosecurity.

The company admitted the study was a “first-of-its-kind” red-team exercise showing that AI-designed toxins escaped detection by standard biosecurity screening software.

But instead of highlighting the alarming 75% failure rate, Twist described its role as “a proactive approach to safeguard public health, providing an example for other industries to follow.”

CEO Emily Leproust tried to reassure investors, insisting: “For known proteins and sequences, industry best practices for biosecurity screening are robust and highly effective. However, as AI capabilities evolve, screening practices must evolve just as quickly.”

That is the tell.

These screening systems only work against already-known toxins—the very ones that AI is now mutating into endless new forms.

In other words, the locks on the door are sturdy only if the burglar is polite enough to knock with a familiar key.

Microsoft’s own chief scientist Eric Horvitz admitted the problem plainly: “AI advances are fueling breakthroughs in biology and medicine, yet with new power comes the responsibility for vigilance and thoughtful risk management.”

The subtext is clear—these are weapons-grade blueprints, and the systems meant to stop them have failed.

Twist wants the public to believe that private “collaboration” with tech giants is enough to protect the world.

But the hard fact, buried beneath their press release optimism, is that the same study they co-authored proved their industry’s defenses could not prevent lethal toxin sequences from slipping through.

Instead of taking accountability, Twist shifted the narrative to “responsible innovation,” downplaying the reality that thousands of bioweapon blueprints could still be ordered undetected today.

How the Experiment Worked

The Science study was led by Microsoft bioengineer Bruce Wittmann.

“Wittmann and his Microsoft colleagues wanted to know what would happen if they ordered the DNA sequences that code for these proteins from companies that synthesize nucleic acids,” the article explains.

They designed more than 70,000 DNA sequences that mimicked notorious toxins like ricin, botulinum, and Shiga.

“Computer models suggested that at least some of these alternatives would also be toxic.”

Wittmann admitted: “The knowledge that I had access to, and stewardship over these proteins was, on a human level, a notable burden.”

Translation: with only AI tools, a single research team generated tens of thousands of potential bioweapon recipes—knowing some could be lethal if produced.

The Screening Failure

The group then tested whether DNA companies’ order-screening software would flag these toxin blueprints.

The results were devastating.

“The tools failed to flag many of these sequences as problematic. Their performance varied widely. One tool flagged just 23% of the sequences.”

That means nearly 8 out of 10 AI-engineered poisons could have been ordered and delivered without anyone noticing.

Even the most effective tool caught just 70%.

“One of the screening tools flagged 70% of the sequences, and its developer chose not to make any changes to improve the software.”

The others took months to quietly patch their systems.

“We were all very quiet about it,” said one expert quoted in the paper.

The ‘Fix’—But Still Failing

After upgrades, detection improved but remained incomplete.

“The systems flagged 72% of Wittmann’s AI-generated sequences, on average, including 97% of the sequences that models rated most likely to generate toxins.”

But that still leaves thousands of engineered toxin blueprints invisible to safeguards.

Even a 3% failure rate equals over 2,000 AI-generated poison sequences slipping through undetected.

A Gaping Hole in the Supply Chain

Even more alarming, the article confirms: “Some DNA vendors, accounting for perhaps 20% of the market, don’t screen their orders at all.”

That means nearly a quarter of global synthetic DNA sellers may approve any order, no questions asked.

Expert Warnings

Jaime Yassif of the Nuclear Threat Initiative said: “It’s just the beginning. AI capabilities are going to evolve and be able to design more and more complex living systems, and our DNA synthesis screening capabilities are going to have to continue to evolve to keep up with that.”

In other words: AI is moving faster than the safeguards.

Stanford researcher Drew Endy went further: “I wish people would wake up a little bit… Today, nations are accusing one another of having offensive bioweapons programs… This is the historical pattern that happened 100 years ago that led to actual bioweapons programs. We have to de-escalate this.”

That’s a blunt warning that this is not just about terrorists—it’s about governments running clandestine bioweapons labs.

What It Means

The authors did not physically manufacture the toxins.

“That would have required ordering the genes from DNA vendors and inserting them into bacteria or yeast to produce the proteins of interest. And doing so could be considered a violation of the Biological Weapons Convention,” the article explains.

But the point is clear: if Microsoft researchers could design and slip tens of thousands of toxin blueprints past DNA vendor safeguards, others could too—and they might not stop at the design stage.

Bottom Line

The Science paper proves the locks on the door of biosecurity are broken.

  • AI can mass-generate toxin blueprints.
  • DNA vendors’ screening software fails up to 75% of the time.
  • Some companies don’t screen orders at all.

The implications are stark: ordering DNA for a custom-made bioweapon may already be possible through legitimate commercial suppliers, and the public would never know until it was too late.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

CDC Creates New Bird Flu Virus With Enhanced Immune System Evasion in Georgia Lab: Journal ‘npj Viruses’


U.S. gov’t makes pandemic-grade H5N1 avian influenza pathogen invisible to the immune system’s defenses—in just six days.

A new study published last month in npj Viruses describes how the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) engineered a brand-new strain of bird flu in its Atlanta, Georgia laboratories.

The current head of the CDC is Jim O’Neil.

The risky research involved scientists from the CDC in Atlanta, the J. Craig Venter Institute (Rockville, MD, and La Jolla, CA), and the University of California San Diego.

Authors included Li Wang, Masato Hatta, Chenchen Feng, Paul Carney, Benjamin Rambo-Martin, Vivien G. Dugan, C. Todd Davis, James Stevens, Bin Zhou, and others—a team that directly manipulated the H5N1 virus using genetic engineering.

The COVID-19 pandemic was the result of lab-engineered pathogen creation, according to Congress, the White House, the Department of Energy, the FBI, and the CIA—raising grave questions about why U.S. government scientists are once again creating novel, immune-evading strains of dangerous viruses inside federal laboratories.

The new study was published the same month U.S. President Donald Trump stood before the United Nations and called for an end to the creation of biological weapons, even as U.S. government labs like the CDC continue engineering deadly new pathogens under the banner of pandemic preparedness.Subscribe

Why the CDC Says It Built a New Virus

In 2024, a Missouri patient was reported to be infected with an H5N1 virus carrying two unusual mutations in its surface protein (hemagglutinin).

Oddly, the CDC said it was unable to isolate a live virus from the sample.

To study it, the authors said they had to engineer a synthetic version of the Missouri virus by inserting the mutations into the backbone of a cattle-outbreak strain.

The paper itself says:

“Because virus isolation was unsuccessful, the generation of a recombinant virus carrying these substitutions was necessary…”

In other words, the CDC built this new H5N1 in the lab.

The government engineered a man-made disease-causing construct that had never been seen in nature before.

Where the Work Took Place

The study makes clear this was CDC-led work inside federal labs in Georgia:

“All experiments involving highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) A(H5N1) viruses were conducted in Biosafety Level 3 enhanced (BSL-3E) or Animal Biosafety Level 3 (ABSL-3) laboratories at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), including enhancements required by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Federal Select Agent Program.”

This confirms the location (Atlanta, Georgia) and the agency (CDC) responsible.

What the Mutations Did

Two mutations were introduced: P136S and A156T.

The most important one is A156T, which changed how the virus interacts with the immune system.

The study admits:

“The HA P136S/A156T substitutions altered the antigenicity of the 2.3.4.4b A(H5N1) virus, most likely through the introduction of an N-linked glycosylation site at residue 154 enabled by the A156T substitution. This glycosylation likely shields antigenic site B from antibody recognition, resulting in reduced HI and neutralization titers…”

This means the virus was said to have gained a new sugar coating at residue 154, which acted like a shield, hiding it from antibodies that would normally detect it.

Immune Evasion Results

The effect was dramatic and alarming.

Antibodies that normally neutralize H5N1 were far less effective against the engineered virus.

The study shows:

“Introduction of the A156T substitution led to at least a 4-fold reduction in HI titers for all antisera… In the neutralization assay, antisera to TX37 and MI90 showed significantly reduced neutralizing activity against viruses carrying the A156T substitution.”

That means antibodies were four times less effective at minimum, and in some tests, over 99% less effective at neutralizing the new virus.

Put plainly: CDC gave H5N1 a mutation that made it invisible to the immune system’s defenses.

Speed of Engineering

One of the most startling admissions is how quickly the CDC created this recombinant bird flu:

“From the time the partial HA sequence was obtained on September 13, 2024, to the completion of plasmid construction, virus rescue, and the first HI results on September 23, only 10 calendar days (6 business days) had elapsed.”

In other words, within 10 days, the CDC had gone from partial genetic data to a fully functional, lab-built H5N1 virus.

This shows just how rapidly government labs can create new pandemic-grade pathogens.

Bottom Line

The CDC admits in its own paper that it engineered a new strain of H5N1 bird flu in its Georgia labs—a strain that had never existed in nature.

The stated purpose was to study two mutations (P136S and A156T) found in a human patient.

One of those mutations, A156T, created a sugar shield that dramatically reduced antibody recognition, in some cases by more than 99%.

Federal scientists demonstrated, and published, that they can build new, immune-evading strains of one of the world’s deadliest viruses in a matter of days.

That is the very description of gain-of-function experimentation—and it was funded and carried out by the CDC itself.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with: