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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And ask yourself, and Secretary Kennedy, why he’s approving more and more of them. Safe for whom? Effective at what?
On September 22, President Trump and HHS Secretary Kennedy announce made the long-awaited announcement on autism that was the bold departure from previous failures to look squarely at the issue and speak boldly and honestly about it. And these two publicly funded officials boldly managed to ignore the entire herd of elephants in the room with them. Every. Single. One.
We have three bold new initiatives that sidestep the real issue as a means to “restore trust” and help families. ‘wanna buy a bridge?
But reality is rolling out, whether Kennedy and Trump want it to or not. Science is pumping out important, often very large-scale studies showing that mRNA vaccines are perhaps the greatest threat to humanity that we have ever faced.
There is good science emerging, but there is little good news in the remarkable document that follows here. The news, although mostly not good, is information nonetheless that you urgently need. CMN News, the Credible Medical News Network, provides a compendium and compilation of peer reviewed studies and authoritative opinion pieces which is, taken together, extremely worthwhile.
But the bad news is that the mRNA news is very, very bad. Not hopeless, but bad. Turbo cancer bad. VAIDS bad. Post injection DNA modification bad. Neurodegenerative and cardiovascular and immune function bad.
If you know people who are beginning to take in data to counter their blind faith in “safe and effective” magic words, there is a good deal here for them. Read on.
In case you needed something else to cement your conviction that mRNA vaccines are not good for living things (are any vaccines good for living things?), please take a look at this very large South Korean study.
What it underscores, yet again, is that no sane person will willingly accept an mRNA vaccine in their body, or that of their child/pet/loved one.
But isn’t Secretary Kennedy, our man on the Hill, protecting us from mRNA and other vaccines?
Among the “vaccines” approved since Secretary Kennedy took office on February 13, 2025, are more mRNA jabs, including a replicon one. And that is, indeed, very, very bad.
Here’s the list of approvals since then (mRNA jabs are in BOLD)
Penmenvy (GSK) was Approved on February 14, 2025. Nuvaxovid (Novavax) was approved May 19, 2025 mNexSpike (Moderna) was approved on May 30, 2025.2 This is a self-amplifying mRNA (replicon) vaccine which uses a self-replicating RNA platform that amplifies antigen expression inside cells. mResvia (Moderna) was approved June 12, 2025 Imovax (Sanofi) was approved on July 24, 2025 Ixchiq (Valneva Austria GmbH) was approved on August 6, 2025 Updated 2025-21026 COVID-19 formulations (Comirnaty by Prizer, Spikevax by Moderna and nNexSpike by Moderna) were approved August 27, 2025
Frankly, when you look at the other vaccines in this list, their lack of safety and dangerous profiles are appalling as well, but mRNA vaccines, especially the horrifying replicon platform ones, are an especial threat to the continued existence of humanity. Which makes sense, after all, since they are, in fact, bioweapons.
They are absolutely safe and effective,just not the way you think: safe for the people who developed them and hide behind the clever cover story of the weapons as vaccines and effective in incapacitating and killing people (that is what weapons are supposed to do, after all).
Not safe as in harmless and effective in preventing disease. Nope. Safe from prosecution and effective as destroying the population.
But, c’mon! We don’t have nearly enough of these Safe and Effective biological Molotov cocktails. We need more, lots more! We are in luck! Coming right up!
Here is a chart showing the jabs currently in the pipeline for FDA approval or recently approved. Note that we now have both “Conventional” mRNA and “Replicon mRNA” “vaccines” coming at us:
Secretary Kennedy and President Trump chose to focus on Tylenol (acetaminophen) as the convenient autism boogey man of the moment. Aside from a few dropped hints by the NOT Secretary of Health and Human Services, vaccines pretty much got a free pass despite Secretary Kennedy’s prior research, campaigns, statements, documentaries, law suites and speeches. Poof! Just like that!
It’s Tylenol! Secretary Kennedy’s research, campaigns, statements, documentaries, law suites and speeches, like the morning mist, seem to have vanished into our fondest memories of yesteryear.
Here is a question for Secretary Kennedy: now that we’ve got autism out of the way by just avoiding a simple OTC drug in pregnancy (which hardly explains the normally developing child who gets an MMR shot at 18 months and develops regressive autism over the next 24 hours, especially if they did not get Tylenol, but, never mind – we’re sticking to the Tylenol story), could we turn to the excess deaths, myocarditis, turbo cancers, the fertility cataclysm, clotting disorders (in life and in death), autoimmune diseases, neurodegenerative disorders and the host of other horrifying consequences of “Conventional” mRNA, the disastrous “Replicon” mRNA and the ordinary disaster that “ordinary” vaccines are and have been? Or do we get to focus on another major candidate making America unhealthy, like FDA Red Dye #3 or Tylenol?
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH)—specifically its National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)—have funded scientists at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln to create brand-new, never-before-seen influenza viruses through laboratory engineering, according to a September 21 preprint posted on bioRxiv.
The authors claim their aim was vaccine development, but the methods reveal the deliberate construction of novel pathogens with enhanced laboratory growth traits.
The revelation of this federally funded creation of novel pathogens on American soil comes just days after President Donald Trump stood before the United Nations calling for (here) a global end to bioweapons research, raising profound questions about whether “vaccine development” is now serving as the cover for the very gain-of-function experiments he condemned.
Stated Aim: A New Vaccine for Cattle
The paper frames its purpose around the 2024 detection of H5N1 bird flu in U.S. dairy herds and the lack of licensed cattle vaccines.
The authors present their work as an effort to design a “centralized consensus H5 vaccine” delivered with adenovirus vectors, hoping to elicit both systemic and mucosal immunity in calves.
They argue that such a vaccine would reduce agricultural losses and “remove cattle as a newly established reservoir for zoonotic spread” of bird flu.
Yet beneath the stated goal of protecting cattle lies the undeniable reality that U.S. tax dollars are being used to build entirely new influenza strains in the lab—dangerous, pandemic-causing pathogens created under the banner of “vaccine development.”
What They Actually Did: Built New Viruses That Never Existed in Nature
Instead of working with purportedly circulating H5N1 isolates, the team engineered new pathogens using reverse genetics:
Six internal gene segments (PB1, PB2, PA, NP, M, and NS) were pulled from the PR8 H1N1 laboratory strain, which is optimized for high replication in mammalian cells and chicken eggs.
These were combined with synthetic H5 and N genes stripped of their natural multibasic cleavage site.
The result: novel reassortant influenza viruses with enhanced lab replication efficiency compared to wild-type H5N1.
The viruses were generated in HEK293 and MDCK cells, then amplified in embryonated chicken eggs, all under BSL-2 laboratory conditions at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln.
Genetic engineering, reverse genetics virus creation, and animal studies were all performed at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln, under IBC and IACUC approvals.
Work was conducted in BSL-2+ labs, required only for moderate-risk agents, despite the fact that the study involved the creation of novel influenza viruses capable of causing pandemics.
Who Paid for It
USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (Grant Nos. 2020-06448, 2024-08723).
Replication-Competent Vectors: The study used replication-competent adenovirus vaccine platforms (Ad28 and Ad48) that can spread within the host, unlike safer replication-deficient types.
Failed Protection Against the Actual Threat: Despite claims of vaccine promise, the engineered vaccine produced no protective neutralization against the circulating bovine H5N1 strain (Bovine/24)—the virus causing real outbreaks in U.S. cattle.
No Cattle Challenge Studies: The vaccine was never tested against live infection in cattle, only in mice.
Sex Bias: Only male calves were tested, ignoring potential sex differences in immune response. By testing only male calves, the study ignored well-established sex differences in immunity—females typically mount stronger antibody and T-cell responses but also suffer higher rates of adverse reactions—leaving half the population unaccounted for and casting doubt on the safety and applicability of the findings.
Bottom Line
While the University of Nebraska team presented their work as vaccine development, the methods show they constructed brand-new bird flu viruses through reverse genetics, engineered with a PR8 laboratory backbone to enhance replication traits.
These pathogens, created with federal funding, were built and amplified under BSL-2 conditions—labs designed for moderate-risk microbes, not novel influenza strains with pandemic potential.
The authors claim their goal was to stop the spread of H5N1 in cattle, but the vaccine failed to neutralize the very strain now circulating in U.S. herds, was never tested in cattle challenges, and excluded females altogether.
Coming just days after President Trump’s UN call to end bioweapons creation, this project exemplifies the dangerous reality that pandemic-capable pathogens are being created under the guise of “vaccine development.”
Trump shares encounter with employee whose son was severely vaccine-injured, and condemns how children are “pumped” with 80 different vaccines so early in life.
As part of its new Autism Data Science Initiative (ADSI), the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) will investigate whether medical exposures—including vaccines—are linked to the rising prevalence of autism spectrum disorder (ASD).
Reviews of 91 human studies up to 2016 show that approximately 74% of studies suggest mercury exposure—including through vaccines—as a risk factor or contributor to ASD, showing both direct and indirect effects on brain development.
The new announcement came during a White House press conference in the Roosevelt Room, where President Trump and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. outlined what they described as “progress in uncovering the root causes of autism.”
The fact sheet released by HHS details three primary initiatives: a renewed look at leucovorin (folinic acid) as a treatment for autism-related symptoms, guidance to physicians on acetaminophen use in pregnancy, and the NIH’s launch of the Autism Data Science Initiative.
Although vaccines were not listed among the three headline goals, they were nevertheless singled out later in the announcement under the NIH initiative’s “medical and perinatal influences” heading.
Data from CDC VAERS show 2,682,925 adverse events linked to vaccines since 1990—yet, as the Harvard Pilgrim study commissioned by HHS confirmed, fewer than 1% of vaccine injuries are ever reported, meaning the true number is likely in the hundreds of millions.
NIH Autism Data Science Initiative
The new NIH initiative involves more than $50 million in new awards, funding 13 projects that will focus on autism prevalence, etiology, treatment, services, and replication studies.
According to HHS, the projects will use “large-scale, integrated data resources” spanning genetics, epigenetics, proteomics, metabolomics, and behavioral data.
A defining feature is the “exposomics” (the study of all environmental exposures over a lifetime and their impact on health) approach, which NIH says will comprehensively study environmental, medical, and lifestyle factors that may contribute to autism.
The list of exposures includes:
Environmental contaminants such as chemicals and other hazardous substances found in everyday life
Nutrition and maternal diet factors like folate intake, fish consumption, and ultra-processed foods
Medical and perinatal influences, explicitly naming medications and vaccinations alongside obstetric complications and neonatal intensive care exposures
Psychosocial stressors, infections, and immune responses during pregnancy and early development
By directly including vaccinations in its research portfolio, NIH is, for the first time, publicly committing to probe potential links between vaccines and autism within a large-scale government-backed initiative.
Autism Rates Continue to Climb
The announcement comes amid sobering new numbers from the CDC: 1 in 31 U.S. children born in 2014 has been diagnosed with autism—nearly a fivefold increase from when the CDC first began tracking autism rates in 2000.
The prevalence is higher among boys (1 in 20) and highest in California, where nearly 1 in 12.5 children are affected.
Trump & Kennedy Single Out Vaccines
During the announcement, Trump shared his encounter with an employee whose son was apparently severely injured by vaccines:
The U.S. president also encouraged parents to space out vaccinations in their children:
Secretary Kennedy also emphasized the new focus on vaccines, pointing out how 40 to 70% of mothers who have children with autism believe that a vaccine injured their child:
Bottom Line
While leucovorin therapy and acetaminophen exposure in pregnancy formed part of the HHS briefing, it is the NIH Autism Data Science Initiative that is likely to draw the most scrutiny.
For decades, the possibility of a vaccine-autism connection has been dismissed by government health agencies, and officials have repeatedly emphasized that “vaccines are safe and effective.”
The fact that NIH’s own research portfolio will now explicitly include vaccinations as one of the risk factors under study marks a major shift—and one that could carry significant implications for both public health policy and parental trust in government vaccine programs.
Oh, brother, if there’s one thing that screams “we never learn” louder than a lab leak cover-up, it’s the mad scientists firing up AI to cook up brand-new viruses designed to hunt bacteria like microscopic terminators – phages so novel they’ve never existed in nature, promising to zap superbugs but risking a rogue evolution that could spell doom for humanity. We’re talking September 2025 breakthroughs where bioengineers used generative AI to dream up synthetic bacteriophage genomes, slapped them into bacteria, and watched the critters replicate and kill E. coli in lab dishes like it’s no big deal. This isn’t sci-fi; it’s happening now, with revelations warning of “extreme caution” as these AI-born killers could mutate beyond control, turning a “cure” into a curse. America First means slapping the brakes on this hubris before it bites us – because labs are “secure” until they’re not, and playing God with viruses is a gamble we can’t afford.
The AI Phage Revolution: From Code to Killer
It all kicked off with advancements in 2023-2024, but the real bombshell dropped in September 2025 when researchers announced the world’s first fully AI-designed bacteriophages – viruses that infect and destroy bacteria – capable of replicating and slaying resistant strains like E. coli in tests. These aren’t tweaks to existing phages; they’re entirely new creations, with AI proposing genetic codes that scientists synthesized and inserted into host cells, watching the viruses assemble, burst out, and infect targets.
How does it work? AI analyzes massive datasets of phage genomes – like the 10,000 sequenced by 2024 – to predict sequences that bind to specific bacteria, then generates novel ones that nature never made. Once designed, labs synthesize the DNA, insert it into bacteria, and let the phages self-assemble, replicating to form armies that latch onto targets, inject their code, and burst the cells open – a precision kill without antibiotics’ broad wipeout. Effectiveness? Lab tests from September 2025 showed these AI phages wiping out resistant E. coli strains in hours, with success rates over 90% in controlled settings.
The Dark Side: Evolution Risks and Unintended Mayhem
But here’s the nightmare fuel – these designer viruses are uncharted territory, and we have zero clue how they’ll evolve once unleashed. Revelations from genome pioneers in September 2025 warn of “extreme caution,” noting that AI phages could mutate in the wild, jumping hosts or turning virulent like a bad sci-fi plague. Unlike natural phages that co-evolved with bacteria over eons, these lab-born beasts lack those checks – a single tweak could let them infect humans or animals, sparking outbreaks we can’t predict. Think COVID’s origins: Man-made viruses don’t play by nature’s rules, and with phages replicating in minutes, evolution could spin out of control faster than you can say “gain-of-function.
“Worse, they’re being touted as “precision medicine” for superbugs, but revelations from a November 25, 2024, study show AI tools already predicting phage efficacy for E. coli with 85% accuracy, paving the way for widespread use. By May 22, 2025, startups were deploying AI-designed lysins – proteins from phages that punch holes in bacterial walls – to kill multidrug-resistant infections, but full phages amp the risk – they could spread unchecked, mutating to target beneficial bacteria or worse.
Lab Safety: “Secure” Until It’s Not
Sure, these labs are “as safe as possible” – BSL-3 or 4 levels with airlocks, suits, and protocols – but revelations from a January 6, 2025, real-world study on adverse events remind us accidents happen, like the 2023 Wuhan whispers or U.S. lab mishaps in 2022 that released engineered bugs. No containment is foolproof – human error, earthquakes, or sabotage could release these AI phages, and once out, they’re self-replicating time bombs. A 2020 commentary warned of “postantibiotic era” risks, but AI speeds it up, with no way to “recall” a rogue virus. The left’s “trust the science” mantra rings hollow here – we never learn from past lab leaks, and these viruses put all humanity on the line.
America First rejects this hubris – why risk humanity for “designer” fixes when natural phages already exist? Polls from August 2025 show 58% of Americans distrust AI in biotech, with 65% fearing lab leaks. We never learn – from COVID to this – and it’s time to pull the plug before the monsters escape.
The reverse transcription debate is a decoy, while the real risk is DNA fragments built to integrate into your genome.
At the recent ACIP meeting, Dr. Evelyn Griffin rightly raised the alarm about mRNA reverse transcription—pointing to published studies showing nucleic acids in Pfizer’s mRNA COVID-19 shot can be integrated into human DNA, namely human liver cells under lab settings.
But Pfizer’s Dr. Kayvon Modjarrad quickly dismissed the concern:
“RNA cannot reverse transcribe to DNA [because that] requires a set of molecules and enzymes that don’t exist in humans and are largely reserved for retroviruses.”
Moderna chimed in, citing FDA reviews of “hundreds of millions” of doses and claiming “no indication of genotoxicity.”
The public was left thinking: case closed.
But this article will show that the real risk isn’t rare reverse transcription at all—it’s the integration of plasmid DNA contaminants into the human genome, a pathway every cell in the body is equipped to carry out.
Pfizer and Moderna are technically wrong that reverse transcription “can’t happen,” but they also know it’s rare—so they lean on that half-truth to keep the spotlight off plasmid DNA integration, which is far more likely and far more dangerous.
It’s a sleight of hand—a bait-and-switch.
Emergency room director Dr. Richard Bartlett told this website that the real scandal isn’t reverse transcription at all, but the hidden plasmid DNA contamination that provides the mechanism for Pfizer’s genetic code to be incorporated into human DNA and causes disease.
“Pfizer and Moderna are distracting from the smoking gun of plasmid DNA contamination in their COVID-19 mRNA shots,” Dr. Bartlett said. “In 2022, investigators worked with the information they had, but that information was not complete. The fact that Pfizer’s genetic code was incorporated into human host DNA is irrefutable. And the most likely mechanism that it got there is plasmid DNA, not mRNA reverse transcription. Pfizer knows this. Moderna knows this. They hid the damning information from investigators and doctors in 2022. That is why investigators misinterpreted DNA integration as reverse transcription. I am convinced that Pfizer’s genetic code found in human cells did not come from the mRNA, but from plasmid DNA contamination. This is catastrophic.”
You can watch a clip of the exchange, posted by Dr. Mary Talley Bowden, below:
The Bait-and-Switch
This is the inside baseball play: Pfizer and Moderna want the debate stuck on reverse transcription.
Why?
Because they can plausibly argue it’s rare.
The enzyme required for reverse transcription—LINE-1—is typically absent from the vast majority of human cells, with only modest expression detected in specialized cell types like epithelial cells, and higher activity mainly in tumors and with aging.
That makes reverse transcription possible, but not systemic.
They know this, and they exploit it.
But focusing there keeps eyes off the much bigger danger.
The study Dr. Griffin cited made the best assumption it could with the cherry-picked information the manufacturers released—but what it could not account for, because Pfizer and Moderna hid the evidence and still refuse to admit it, is the smoking gun: plasmid DNA contamination, the very mechanism by which foreign DNA can be incorporated into the human genome after injection, kept from researchers and the public and denying true informed consent.
Plasmids are routinely used in the industry to incorporate foreign DNA into host DNA.
The Bigger Threat: Plasmid DNA Integration
The COVID-19 mRNA shots are manufactured using DNA plasmids—the very genetic engineering tools designed to insert code into genomes.
By definition, plasmids are integration-competent.
They can stitch themselves into human DNA.
Independent labs have confirmed that Pfizer’s vials contain toxic levels of plasmid DNA.
A French government-funded study led by Didier Raoult (Nov 2024) found 5,160 ng of plasmid DNA per dose—516 times higher than the FDA/EMA safety limit.
A December 2024 peer-reviewed paper in Science, Public Health Policy & the Law found 227–334% more DNA contamination than WHO limits, including the cancer-linked SV40 promoter/enhancer.
A September 2025 peer-reviewed study in Autoimmunityconfirmed both Pfizer and Moderna’s shots are contaminated with billions to hundreds of billions of DNA fragments per dose—up to 627 times higher than FDA/WHO limits—with Pfizer uniquely carrying the SV40 promoter-enhancer, a cancer-linked sequence designed to drive foreign DNA into human cell nuclei.
This isn’t speculation.
The contamination is proven.
What’s Inside Pfizer’s Plasmid
Pfizer’s plasmid doesn’t just contain bacterial DNA and the SV40 cancer-promoting gene sequence.
α-globin (blood/cardiovascular): regulates red blood cell gene expression.
AES/TLE5 (immune): regulates transcriptional control in immune pathways.
MT-RNR1 (neurological/mitochondrial): tied to mitochondrial function and neurological disorders.
An October 2023 Nature npj Vaccines paper confirmed these sequences are part of Pfizer’s design:
“Pfizer-BioNTech’s 5’ UTR sequence is derived from the human hemoglobin α-globin (HBA1) gene… For the 3’ UTR, the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine combines one segment from a human mRNA encoding amino-terminal enhancer of split (AES) and another from mitochondrial 12 S rRNA (mtRNR1).”
These are not inert.
They are regulatory DNA codes.
Alignment With the Injury Signal
Here’s where it gets damning.
Two independent safety reviews (2022, 2024) found that serious adverse events after Pfizer’s mRNA shot cluster into three categories:
Pfizer’s own 5.3.6 safety reportconfirms the same triad:
25,957 neurological events
1,050 immune/autoimmune cases
932 blood/hematological disorders
Now line it up:
Plasmid fragment: α-globin → blood
Plasmid fragment: AES/TLE5 → immune
Plasmid fragment: MT-RNR1 → neurological
The plasmid blueprint and the injury clusters align perfectly—making the case plain without muddying the waters with debates over mRNA reverse transcription.
In other words, the match between Pfizer’s plasmid design and the injury clusters is exact, and it stands on its own—no need to get lost in the reverse transcription smokescreen.
Every Cell Has the Machinery
Unlike reverse transcription, which relies on rare LINE-1 enzymes, plasmid DNA doesn’t need anything special.
Every human cell carriesDNA repair systems—like Non-Homologous End Joining (NHEJ)—that can integrate foreign DNA into chromosomes.
These pathways are active everywhere because they’re required for basic genome maintenance.
That means plasmid integration is not rare.
It’s possible in virtually every cell.
The Silence Is Deafening
Pfizer and Moderna keep ACIP fixated on reverse transcription—a long shot they can safely dismiss—while saying nothing about plasmid DNA contamination, which is systemic and inescapable.
And yet their own blueprint, their own fragments, and their own safety data all point to the same conclusion: integration risk matches the injury signal.
Bottom Line
Reverse transcription is real but rare.
Plasmid DNA integration is universal—all cells have the machinery.
Pfizer’s plasmid carries human DNA fragments regulating blood, immune, and neurological systems.
Those are the exact systems showing up in serious vaccine injuries, confirmed by independent reviews and Pfizer’s own report.
This is not coincidence—it’s alignment.
The unavoidable question is whether Pfizer’s plasmid design itself is driving the blood, immune, and neurological injuries dominating the safety signal.
Until regulators investigate, the only responsible course is to pull these shots from the market.
That’s why the focus must shift off the apparently rare possibility of mRNA reverse transcription and onto the far greater danger—plasmid DNA integration—a risk built into every cell and written into Pfizer’s own blueprint.
Pentagon-funded study confirms scientists deliberately created airborne hantavirus particles and carried out stabilization trials to prolong their survival.
The U.S. military has funded research, published in July in the journal Pathogens, in which scientists deliberately aerosolized Sin Nombre virus (SNV)—the hantavirus that kills roughly 30% of those infected—in order to study how long the virus can survive in the air and under what conditions it remains infectious.
Why is the Pentagon commissioning experiments that turn a rodent-borne virus with a 30% kill rate into an airborne particle?
Why are U.S. defense labs probing how to stabilize lethal aerosols?
The study would say it aerosolized hantavirus because “gaining insight into the SNV bioaerosol decay profile is fundamental to the prevention of SNV infections,” but the deeper concern is whether such work risks accidental release or could be harnessed intentionally for pandemic potential.
This new study fits the same disturbing pattern: taxpayer-funded projects that blur the line between “biodefense” and the step-by-step recipe for a future bioweapon.
Dr. Richard Bartlett didn’t mince words as he raised alarm over Pentagon-backed hantavirus aerosol experiments:
“How much longer will We the People tolerate our government using our tax dollars to do deadly experiments in our homeland? Has anyone heard that the COVID pandemic might have been caused by a lab leak? We have no guarantee that another lab leak might happen on our own soil. Remember: Dr. Anthony Fauci and a 2016 NIH-led biosecurity report identified insider leaks as the “most probable” risk in gain-of-function research.”
A Lethal Virus
The authors admit the severity of the pathogen upfront:
“Later symptoms involve respiratory distress that requires immediate medical attention and has a 30% fatality rate.”
In other words, this is not a mild virus.
If contracted, nearly one in three patients will die, and there is no approved treatment or vaccine.
The Pentagon’s Involvement
This wasn’t purely academic work.
The study declares its sponsor:
“This research was funded by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), under grant number DTRA/CBS-NSRI CB1099.”
That means the Pentagon’s weapons division paid for scientists to aerosolize and study the airborne stability of a lethal hantavirus—a clear overlap with bioweapons research.
Aerosolizing a Killer
The researchers describe how they turned the virus into an aerosol:
“Suspensions were aerosolized via a 120 kHz ultrasonic nozzle… with 3 lpm of carrier air.”
Put plainly, they deliberately converted liquid hantavirus into airborne particles small enough to reach deep into human lungs.
This step—aerosolization—is the foundation of making a respiratory bioweapon.
Measuring Airborne Survival
They then tracked how long these particles remained infectious under different conditions:
“At 49.1 ± 0.8% RH, the addition of 1.0 ppm ozone caused a significant increase in the amount of SNV decay at 2.6 ± 0.1 log/min.”
In other words, in normal humidity, the virus survives in the air unless destroyed by ozone.
Sunlight weakened it but did not fully eliminate infectivity.
This proves SNV is stable enough to persist airborne indoors—such as in barns, sheds, or attics—precisely where human infections are known to occur.
Comparison to Other Pandemic Viruses
The researchers themselves compared SNV to avian influenza and Lassa virus:
“This transmission route is similar to other viruses that have an environmental transmission route, such as avian influenza (e.g., H5N1) and Lassa virus.”
This places hantavirus in the same category as pathogens with known pandemic potential.
The implication is clear: if SNV ever adapted to spread person-to-person, as Andes virus already does, the results would be catastrophic.
Particle Sizes Optimized for Lung Infection
The team also measured the size of the particles they created:
“The results indicated a bimodal distribution… with a peak at under a micron in size and a second peak under two microns.”
Translated, these are exactly the particle sizes most dangerous to humans, capable of bypassing upper airways and embedding deep inside the lungs.
This is a specialized flow-through system designed to expose bioaerosols to controlled conditions such as simulated sunlight, ozone, and humidity.
Institutional Affiliations
The authors are affiliated with the following institutions:
Department of Pathology, Microbiology, and Immunology, University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC), Omaha, NE
The Global Center for Health Security, University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC), Omaha, NE
National Strategic Research Institute (NSRI), Omaha, NE
Center for Global Health, Department of Internal Medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM
Full List of Scientists
Elizabeth A. Klug
Danielle N. Rivera
Vicki L. Herrera
Ashley R. Ravnholdt
Daniel N. Ackerman
Yangsheng Yu
Chunyan Ye
Steven B. Bradfute
St. Patrick Reid
Joshua L. Santarpia
Bottom Line
The Pentagon has funded scientists to take a hantavirus with a 30% fatality rate, aerosolize it into tiny lung-penetrating particles, and measure how long it stays infectious in the air.
This kind of research, while framed as biodefense, is indistinguishable from steps needed to weaponize a virus.
With no vaccine or treatment available, the knowledge produced here doesn’t just help “protect”—it creates a blueprint for how to turn hantavirus into a bioweapon.
A number of nations have failed to meet their Constitutional requirements to formally accept the 2024 amendments to the IHR so they have “rejected” the amendments to the IHR (for the time being).
Today (September 19, 2025), the amendments to the International Health Regulations that were adopted on June 1, 2024 came into legally binding effect for most, but not all nations.
A total of 11 nations have “rejected” the amendments, 2 more have filed “reservations” and “declarations”, an additional 8 nations have submitted “declarations” and one nation has submitted a “statement.
The 2022 amendments that shortened the time for entry into force from 24 to 12 months has obviously made it difficult for many nations to abide by their internal rules, so many nations have requested extensions to the time allowed for them to complete the proper procedures in order to come into compliance with the 2024 amendments.
PLEASE NOTE: Under Article 63 of the International Health Regulations, nations may change their position and withdraw their rejections or reservations and decide to accept the amendments at any time in the future.
APPENDIX 4 (pages 82-95)
REJECTIONS, RESERVATIONS, DECLARATIONS AND STATEMENTS BY STATES PARTIES IN CONNECTION WITH THE AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL HEALTH REGULATIONS (2005) ADOPTED THROUGH RESOLUTION WHA77.17 (2024) (1),(2)
(1) As at 19 September 2025. The process relating to reservations expressed is ongoing. The deadlines for submitting objections to reservations expressed are 8 November 2025 for States Parties to which the amendments adopted through resolution WHA75.12 (2022) apply, and 8 February 2026 for States Parties to which those amendments do not apply.
(2) This Appendix reproduces the relevant parts of the communications submitted by States Parties in connection with the amendments adopted through resolution WHA77.17 (2024).
I. REJECTIONS
PLEASE NOTE: Under Article 63 of the International Health Regulations, nations may withdraw their rejections or reservations and decide to accept the amendments at any time in the future.
If you live in any of the 11 nations listed below, YOU STILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY AND A RESPONSIBILITY to oppose the amendments to the International Health Regulations, but you must also realize that officials from these nations can change their position and withdraw their rejection of the amendments at any time.
1. ARGENTINA
Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of the Argentine Republic to the international organizations in Geneva, received on 18 July 2025
The Permanent Mission of the Argentine Republic to the international organizations in Geneva presents its compliments to the World Health Organization and has the honor to refer to resolution WHA77.17 of 1 June 2024 whereby the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly adopted the amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR).
Following a thorough review of the legal, institutional and budgetary implications, the Argentine Republic hereby rejects the amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) 2024 under the terms stipulated in article 61 of the said Regulations.
The Permanent Mission of the Argentine Republic to the international organizations in Geneva conveys to the World Health Organization the renewed assurances of its highest consideration. (3)
(3) Translated from Spanish.
2. AUSTRIA
Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of Austria to the United Nations and other International Organizations in Geneva, received on 17 July 2025
The Permanent Mission of Austria to the United Nations and other International Organizations in Geneva presents its compliments to the Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO), and has the honor to refer to the Circular Letter dated 19 September 2024, no. C.L.40.2024, concerning the amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) adopted by the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly.
In accordance with Article 22 of the Constitution of the World Health Organization as well as Article 59, paragraph ibis, and Article 61 of the International Health Regulations (2005) (hereinafter referred to as “IHR”), the Republic of Austria rejects the amendments to the IHR adopted by the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly through Resolution WHA77.17 of 1 June 2024 (hereinafter referred to as “2024 amendments”), as notified by the Director-General of the World Health Organization on 19 September 2024.
The rejection is of preliminary nature and will be withdrawn once the Parliament of Austria has approved the 2024 amendments to the IHR.
The Permanent Mission of Austria to the United Nations and other International Organizations in Geneva avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Director-General of the World Health Organization the assurances of its highest consideration.
3. BRAZIL
Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of Brazil to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Geneva, received on 19 July 2025
The Permanent Mission of Brazil to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Geneva presents its compliments to the World Health Organization and wishes to make the following considerations:
Brazil has consistently supported and will continue to support the process of reviewing and updating the legal framework underpinning WHO’s response to public health emergencies, including the acceptance of the package of amendments to the IHR.
Taking into account the adoption of Resolution WHA77.17 by the World Health Assembly – which confers a recommendatory status to the amendments – Brazil has already initiated internal discussions within the competent national bodies aimed at institutional and operational adjustments to implement the changes that reflect the best practices embodied in the amended IHR, in areas under the purview of the Executive Branch and Regulatory Agencies.
Nevertheless, pursuant to Brazil ‘s constitutional framework, the International Health Regulations must be submitted to Congress for approval, in accordance with the principle of separation of powers and institutional harmony.
In this context, with reference to Article 61 of the International Health Regulations (2005), Brazil notifies the rejection of the amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) adopted by the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly through Resolution WHA77.17.
The Government of Brazil intends to make every effort to secure the prompt approval of the amended text by the National Congress, so that the rejection may be reversed pursuant to Article 63 of the IHR, once the legislative procedures are concluded.
The Permanent Mission of Brazil avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the World Health Organization the assurances of its highest consideration.
4. CANADA
Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of Canada to the United Nations and the World Trade Organization at Geneva, received on 8 July 2025
The Permanent Mission of Canada to the United Nations and the World Trade Organization at Geneva presents its compliments to the Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO) and has the honor to refer to the Director-General ‘s notification Ref.: C.L.40.2024 of 19 September 2024, by which the Director-General notified States Parties to the International Health Regulation (2005), adopted by the Fifty-eighth World Health Assembly in Geneva on 23 May 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the “IHR”), of the amendments to the IHR adopted by the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly in Geneva on I June 2024 (hereinafter referred to as the “2024 Amendments”).
Canada supports the IHR as a cornerstone of the global health security architecture and the work done to strengthen the IHR through the 2024 Amendments. Canada also reiterates its full support for the role of the WHO as the directing and coordinating authority on global health and in supporting Member States in strengthening health systems.
The Permanent Mission notes that, per the above-mentioned notification and pursuant to paragraph 3 of Article 55 and paragraph 2 of Article 59 of the IHR, the 2024 Amendments are scheduled to enter into force on 19 September 2025 for States Parties that did not reject the amendments to the IHR adopted by the Seventy-fifth World Health Assembly in Geneva on 28 May 2022.
The Permanent Mission wishes to inform the Director-General that Canada must avail itself, through the present note, of the option of submitting a notification of rejection of the 2024 Amendments in accordance with paragraphs I bis and 2 of Article 59 and Article 61 of the IHR to allow sufficient time to complete the remaining steps of its internal treaty adoption process. Indeed, the said process is not expected to be finalized prior to the entry into force of the 2024 Amendments. Canada has started and is progressing through its domestic procedures and will inform the Director-General of their completion in a subsequent note.
The Permanent Mission of Canada to the United Nations and the World Trade Organization at Geneva avails itself of the opportunity to renew to the Director-General of World health Organization the assurances of its highest consideration.
5. CZECH REPUBLIC
Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of the Czech Republic to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations at Geneva, received on 14 July 2025
The Permanent Mission of the Czech Republic to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations at Geneva presents its compliments to the Director General of the World Health Organization and with reference to the Director General’s notification dated 19 September 2024, ref. C.L.40.2024, regarding the amendments of the International Health Regulations (2005) adopted by the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly on 1 June 2024, has the honor to inform the Director General as follows.
The Permanent Representation wishes to inform the Director General that in the Czech Republic, the constitutional requirements for the entry into force of the said amendments will not have been met before 19 September 2025.
Therefore, in accordance with Article 61 of the International Health Regulations (2005), the Czech Republic hereby notifies the Director-General of its rejection of the amendments of the international Health Regulations (2005) adopted by the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly on 1 June 2024.
In accordance with Article 63, paragraph 1, of the International Health Regulations (2005), once the constitutional requirements for the entry into force of said amendments have been met, the Czech Republic may notify the Director-General of its withdrawal of this rejection.
The Permanent Mission of the Czech Republic to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations at Geneva avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Director General of the World Health Organization the assurances of its highest consideration.
6. GERMANY
Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of the Federal Republic of Germany to the Office of the United Nations and to the other International Organizations, received on 14 July 2025
The Permanent Mission of the Federal Republic of Germany to the Office of the United Nations and to the other International Organizations presents its compliments to the Director-General of the World Health Organization and has the honor to communicate the following:
On 1 June 2024, the final day of the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly, the States Parties adopted the amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) annexed to Resolution WHA77.17.
On 19 September 2024, the Director-General notified the adoption by the Health Assembly of the amended International Health Regulations (ref. C.L.40.2024).
In view of the imminent end of the period for rejection on 19 July 2025, the Federal Republic of Germany greatly regrets that it must declare that the requirements of the national constitution for the implementation of the amendments will not be achieved before 19 September 2025. The requisite legislative process is still ongoing.
Accordingly, in compliance with Article 22 of the Constitution of the World Health Organization and Article 61 of the International Health Regulations, the Federal Republic of Germany hereby notifies the Director-General of its rejection of the aforementioned amendments to the International Health Regulations.
In accordance with Article 63 (1) of the International Health Regulations, the Federal Republic of Germany will notify the Director-General of the withdrawal of the rejection as soon as the national requirements for the implementation of the amendments have been achieved.
The Permanent Mission of the Federal Republic of Germany to the Office of the United Nations and to the other International Organizations avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Director General of the World Health Organization the assurance of its high consideration. (4)
(4) English translation from German provided by the Government.
7. ISRAEL
Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of Israel to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Geneva, received on 4 July 2025
The Permanent Mission of Israel to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Geneva presents its compliments to the Director General of the World Health Organization in Geneva, and has the honor to inform his office of the following:
Due to the continuation of the current circumstances, the State of Israel finds it necessary to reject the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations.
Therefore, in accordance with Article 61 of the International Health Regulations, we hereby notify the Director-General of Israel’s rejection of all of the amendments to the International Health Regulations adopted in decision 77.17 by the World Health Assembly in its 77th session in May 2024.
Please note that Israel maintains its right under Article 63 of the IHR to withdraw its rejection to the IHR amendments in the future with or without reservations.
The Permanent Mission of Israel to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Geneva avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Director General of the World Health Organization the assurances of its highest consideration.
8. ITALY
Letter of the Minister of Health of Italy, received on 18 July 2025
I am writing to you with reference to your notification dated 19 September 2024, regarding the amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) adopted by the Seventy-Seventh World Health Assembly with Resolution WHA77.17 (2024).
In accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 55 and paragraph 2 of Article 59 of the International Health Regulations ( 2005 ), the above-mentioned amendments shall enter into force 12 months after the date of the above mentioned notification, i.e. on 19 September 2025, except for those Parties that have notified the WHO’s Director-General of their rejection or reservations in respect of the said amendments.
In accordance with Article 61 of the International Health Regulations ( 2005 ), I hereby notify Your Excellency of Italy’s rejection of all the amendments adopted by the Seventy Seventh World Health Assembly with Resolution WHA77.17 (2024).
Please accept, Director-General, the assurance of my highest consideration. (5)
(5) English translation from Italian provided by the Government.
9. NETHERLANDS (KINGDOM OF THE)
Note Verbale from the Permanent Representation of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Geneva, received on 21 February 2025
The Permanent Representation of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Geneva presents its compliments to the Director-General of the World Health Organization and with reference to the Director-General’s notification dated 19 September 2024, ref. C.L.40.2024, regarding amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) (hereinafter referred to as the “IHR”) adopted by the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly on 1 June 2024 (hereinafter referred to as “2024 amendments”), has the honor to inform the Director-General as follows.
Since the Kingdom of the Netherlands rejected the amendments to the IHR adopted by the Seventy-fifth World Health Assembly through resolution WHA75.12 (hereinafter referred to as “2022 amendments”), the articles of the IHR as they were worded prior to the 2022 amendments apply to the Kingdom of the Netherlands. in accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 55 and paragraph 2 of Article 59 of the IHR (prior to the 2022 amendments), the 2024 amendments shall enter into force for the Kingdom of the Netherlands 24 months after the date of the Director-General’s notification, i.e. on 19 September 2026, except if the Kingdom has notified the Director-General on or before 19 March 2026 of its rejection of, or reservations in respect of, the 2024 amendments.
The Permanent Representation wishes to inform the Director-General that in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the constitutional requirements for the entry into force of the 2024 amendments will not have been met before 19 March 2026.
Therefore, in accordance with Article 61 of the IHR (prior to the 2022 amendments), the Kingdom of the Netherlands hereby notifies the Director-General of its rejection of the 2024 amendments pending the parliamentary approval procedure.
If the constitutional requirements for the acceptance of the 2024 amendments in the Kingdom of the Netherlands are met, the Kingdom of the Netherlands will notify the Director-General of its withdrawal of this rejection in accordance with Article 63, paragraph 1, of the IHR (prior to the 2022 amendments).
The Permanent Representation of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Geneva kindly asks WHO for confirmation of receipt of this Note Verbale and avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Director-General of the World Health Organization the assurances of its highest consideration.
10. PHILIPPINES
Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of the Republic of the Philippines to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Geneva, received on 15 July 2025
The Permanent Mission of the Republic of the Philippines to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Geneva presents its compliments to the Director-General of the World Health Organization and, with reference to the notification C.L.40.2024 dated 19 September 2024 on the amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) adopted by the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly on 1 June 2024, has the honor to inform the Director-General as follows:
The Philippines welcomes the 2024 amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) and is undertaking steps to implement the same.
In accordance with domestic legal requirements, international instruments and changes thereto may not enter into force for the Philippines before such requirements are met. Therefore, the Philippines formally registers its rejection of the 2024 amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) as conveyed via C.L.40.2024 in accordance with Article 61.
The Philippines will notify the Director-General of the withdrawal of this rejection upon completion of domestic requirements in accordance with Article 63 of the International Health Regulations (2005).
The Permanent Mission of the Republic of the Philippines to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Geneva avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Director-General of the World Health Organization the assurances of its highest consideration
11. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of the United States of America to the United Nations Office and Other International Organizations in Geneva, received on 17 July 2025
The Permanent Mission of the United States of America to the United Nations Office and Other International Organizations in Geneva (“The Mission”) presents its compliments to the World Health Organization and refers to the International Health Regulations (IHR) (2005) and the amendments thereto adopted in Geneva on June 1, 2024 (the 2024 amendments) in resolution WHA77.17 and set forth in the notification of the 2024 amendments by the Director-General on September 19, 2024 (C.L.40.2024).
The Mission, by means of this note and pursuant to IHR Articles 59.lbis and 61, informs the Director-General of the World Health Organization that the Government of the United States of America rejects the 2024 amendments.
The Permanent Mission of the United States of America avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the World Health Organization the assurances of its highest consideration.
II. RESERVATIONS AND DECLARATIONS
1. HOLY SEE
Letter of the Secretary of State of the Holy See, received on 11 July 2025
The undersigned Secretary of State of the Holy See has the honor to certify hereby that the Holy See, acting in the name and on behalf of the Vatican City State, accepts the Amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) adopted by the Seventy-Seven World Health Assembly through its Resolution WHA 77.17 of 1 June 2024. Enclosed are the text of 4 declarations and 2 reservations, which are an integral part of this Instrument of Accession. In witness whereof the undersigned Secretary of State of the Holy See has signed this document and has affixed thereto the seal of the Secretariat of State.
Reservations and Declarations
annexed to the Instrument of Accession Declarations
In light of the territorial nature of the provisions contained in the Amended International Health Regulations, the Holy See declares, for the avoidance of doubt, that in acceding to the Amended Regulations only in the name and on behalf of the Vatican City State, it intends to apply their provisions exclusively within the Territory of the Vatican City State as circumscribed by the Leonine Walls.
The Holy See, acting in the name and on behalf of the Vatican City State, declares that it will apply the Amended International Health Regulations in a manner compatible with the particular nature of the Vatican City State, the Sources of its Law (Law LXXI of 1 October 2008) and Catholic moral doctrine.
The Holy See, in conformity with its particular mission, underlines, acting in the name and on behalf of the Vatican City State, that any reference to “gender” in the Amended International Health Regulations and in any document that has been or that will be adopted in relation to those Regulations is to be understood as grounded on the biological sexual identity that is male and female.
The Holy See declares, acting in the name and on behalf of the Vatican City State, that the terms “health services”, “relevant health products” and “cell- and gene-based therapies and other health technologies” may not be construed as to include abortion nor access to abortion, abortifacients, contraceptives, assisted reproductive technologies, human cloning or to other technologies and therapies contrary to Catholic moral doctrine.
Reservations
Since neither the Holy See or the Vatican City State are members of the World Health Organization, the Holy See, acting in the name and on behalf of the Vatican City State, makes a reservation to article 44 bis of the Amended International Health Regulations, thus reserving the right to decide on a case- by-case basis whether to implement the decisions and recommendations of the Coordinating Financial Mechanism.
Since neither the Holy See nor the Vatican City State are members of the World Health Organization, the Holy See, acting in the name and on behalf of the Vatican City State, makes a reservation to article 56.5 of the Amended International Health Regulations so that any disputes that may arise between itself and the World Health Organization concerning the interpretation or application of the 2024 amendments should not be submitted to the Health Assembly.
2. SWITZERLAND
Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of Switzerland to the Office of the United Nations and other international organizations in Geneva, received on 10 July 2025
The Permanent Mission of Switzerland to the Office of the United Nations and other international organizations in Geneva presents its compliments to the World Health Organization (WHO) and with reference to the decision of the Federal Council dated 20 June 2025, has the honor to notify it that Switzerland accepts the amendments made in 2024 to the International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR), with the following reservation and declarations, in accordance with Article 62, paragraph 2, of the said Regulations:
Reservation concerning Annex 1, Part A, paragraph 2 (c), ch. vi and paragraph 3 (i)
Switzerland makes a reservation with regard to the question of managing misinformation and disinformation in core capacities for risk communication. It intends to pursue its objective and evidence based activities regarding risks, as specified under its legislation (Epidemics Act of 28 September 2012, art. 9, para. 1) and with strict regard for freedom of expression, the media and science as guaranteed under articles 16, 17 and 20 of the Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation of 18 April 1999.
Interpretative declaration on Annex 1, Part A, paragraph 2 (c), ch. v and paragraph 3 (h)
With regard to the obligations concerning the implementation, maintenance and strengthening of core capacities in respect of access to health services and health products needed for action, as referred to in Annex 1, the Swiss Confederation or its cantons will apply the Regulations in accordance with the division of jurisdiction specified by the Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation of 18 April 1999 in the areas of health (art. 117 et seq.), federalism (art. 3 and 42 et seq.) and according to the principle of subsidiarity (art. 5 (a)).
Declaration under Article 4, paragraph 4
The competent National IHR Authority is the Federal Office of Public Health (OFSP), Schwartzenburgerstrasse 157, 3003 Berne, Switzerland, tel. +41 58 462 21 11, info@bag.admin.ch
The Permanent Mission of Switzerland to the Office of the United Nations and the other international organizations in Geneva takes this opportunity to convey to the World Health Organization (WHO) the renewed assurances of its highest consideration. (6)
(6) Translated from French.
III. DECLARATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 59, PARAGRAPH 3, OF THE INTERNATIONAL HEALTH REGULATIONS (2005)
1. CROATIA
Letter of the Minister of Health of the Republic of Croatia, received on 10 July 2025
The Ministry of Health of the Republic of Croatia presents its compliments to the Director-General of the World Health Organization and has the honor to refer to the Notification to State Parties concerning amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) (Ref.: C.L.40.2024), specifically page 2, paragraph 3 under section ADA.
In accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 59 of the IHR (2005), which provides that any State Party unable to fully implement the necessary domestic legislative and administrative arrangements may submit a declaration to the Director-General within ten months from the date of notification – i.e. no later than 19 July 2025 – the Republic of Croatia hereby submits its declaration to postpone the application of the said amendments, including the obligation to designate or establish a National IHR Authority (NIA).
This declaration is based on the following considerations:
– Full implementation of the amended IHR obligations requires amendments to the current Law on the Protection of the Population from Infectious Diseases;
– The process of establishing or appointing the NIA involves:
– Adoption of a formal decision on the establishment or designation of the NIA;
– Enactment or revision of the relevant legal framework to provide a solid basis for such designation or establishment;
– Preparation of official documentation clearly defining the responsibilities, scope of authority, and mandate of the NIA.
Given the complexity of the legislative process, including the stages of legal drafting, public consultation, inter-institutional coordination, and parliamentary adoption, it is not feasible to finalize all necessary changes by the stipulated deadline of 19 September 2025.
Accordingly, the Republic of Croatia respectfully requests the postponement of the application of the above-mentioned amendments, with the relevant legislative activities planned within the scope of the 2026 National Legislative Programme.
The Ministry of Health avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Director-General the assurances of its highest consideration
2. CYPRUS
Letter of the Minister of Health of the Republic of Cyprus, received on 13 June 2025
I refer to your letter dated 19 September, 2024 regarding the National Adoption of Amendments to the International Health Regulations as per the provisions of the resolution WHA77.17 and note the following:
On behalf of the Republic of Cyprus I acknowledge receipt of your written notification regarding the amendments to the International Health Regulations as adopted through resolution·WHA77.17 on 1 June 2024 at the Seventy-Seventh World Health Assembly.
I appreciate the commitment of the World Health Organization to strengthening global health security and recognize the importance of timely implementation of the updated International Health Regulations provisions. However, due to the complexity of our national procedures, as this includes a legislative·process, l respectfully request a 12-month extension to the deadline for national adoption of these amendments beyond the current deadline of 19 September 2025. This of additional time will allow us to align our national legislative frameworks and procedures with the revised regulations.
I thank you in advance for your consideration of this request.
3. FRANCE
Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of France to the Office of the United Nations and the international organizations in Switzerland, received on 17 July 2025
The Permanent Mission of France to the Office of the United Nations and other international organizations in Switzerland presents its compliments to the World Health Organization at Geneva and has the honor to refer to its circular letter C.L.40.2024 notifying States Parties of amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005).
In accordance with Article 59, paragraph 3, of the International Health Regulations (2005), this Mission hereby informs Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the World Health Organization, that France requires an extension of the period to effect the legal and administrative adjustments necessary for the full implementation of the amendments to the International Health Regulations. In accordance with the Article referred to above, the necessary legal and administrative arrangements will be in place to facilitate the implementation of the amendments by 19 September 2026 at the latest.
The Permanent Mission of France to the Office of the United Nations and other international organizations in Switzerland takes this opportunity to convey to the World Health Organization at Geneva the renewed assurances of its highest consideration.
(7) Translated from French.
4. HUNGARY
Letter of the Minister of Interior of Hungary, received on 18 July 2025
Following the adoption of amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) (hereinafter referred to as the “2024 amendments to the IHR”) by the World Health Assembly on 1 June 2024, pursuant to paragraph 3 of Article 55 and paragraph 2 of Article 59, the 2024 amendments to the IHR will enter into force on 19 September 2025.
The Government of Hungary reaffirms its strong commitment to the IHR (2005) as a cornerstone of global health security and international cooperation. We recognize the critical role that the IHR (2005) play in strengthening countries’ capacities to detect, assess, report, and respond to public health events, thereby ensuring collective preparedness and safeguarding populations worldwide. Its effective implementation is essential for promoting transparency, coordination, and rapid response to health threats across borders. Hungary remains dedicated to supporting the continuous improvement of the IHR and its implementation, both nationally and through collaborative efforts at the regional and global levels.
With this in mind, Hungary has taken a number of steps to prepare for the entry into force of the 2024 amendments to the IHR. However, the incorporation of necessary amendments in our national legislation is a complex legislative process requiring longer time beyond 19 September 2025 in order to ensure the desirable legal consistency with the purpose of ensuring smooth applicability of relevant provisions.
Due to the sharing of competences between the EU and its Member States, the Council Decision “inviting Member States to accept, in the interest of the European Union, the amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) contained in the Annex to Resolution WHA77.17 and adopted on 1 June 2024” was adopted by the Council of the European Union on 26 May 2025. Taking the rules of procedures into account, the remaining time until 19 September 2025 does not permit Hungary to conduct the necessary legislative procedure.
On behalf of the Government of Hungary, and in accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 59 of the IHR 2005, I hereby declare that the amendments of the relevant Hungarian laws will not be completed by 19 September 2025.
The outstanding adjustments are to complete the review of EU and Hungarian legislation to ensure legislative consistency with the 2024 amendments to the IHR.
Along with this declaration it’s my pleasure to confirm that the Government of Hungary is truly committed to bring the national legislation into full conformity with the 2024 amendments to the IHR by 19 September 2026.
Please accept, Director-General, the assurances of my highest consideration
(8) English translation from Hungarian provided by the Government
5. IRELAND
Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of Ireland to the United Nations and other International Organizations in Geneva, received on 11 July 2025
The Permanent Mission of Ireland to the United Nations and other International Organizations in Geneva presents its compliments to the World Health Organization and refers document C.L.40.2024 received on l 9th September 2024, through which States Parties to the International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR) received notification from the Director-General of amendments thereto.
Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Article 59 of the IHR, the Permanent Mission of Ireland to the United Nations and other International Organizations wishes to formally submit a declaration notifying the Director-General of Ireland’s intent to avail of the permissible 12-month period to adjust its domestic legislative and administrative arrangements to accommodate the 2024 amendments to the IHR.
The Permanent Mission of Ireland to the United Nations and other International Organizations in Geneva avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the World Health Organization the assurances of its highest consideration.
6. LATVIA
Letter of the Minister of Health of the Republic of Latvia, received on 16 July 2025
On behalf of the Republic of Latvia, I would like to reaffirm our full support for the International Health Regulations (IHR) and express our commitment to implementing the recent amendments adopted by the World Health Assembly (resolution WHA77.17 (2024)). Latvia has initiated the necessary administrative and legislative procedures to align national laws and regulations with the updated IHR. However, due to the requirement for parliamentary approval of legislative changes, it will not be feasible to complete all necessary adjustments by the deadline of 19 September 2025. Therefore, in accordance with Article 59, paragraph 3 of the IHR, I hereby formally notify the World Health Organization that the following actions may not be finalized by the above-mentioned deadline:
1. An inter-institutional l discussion process is currently underway to identify and appoint the National IHR Authority in Latvia.
2. Following the designation of the relevant Authority, amendments will be required to several national laws and regulatory acts, including:
– Cabinet of Ministers Regulations No. 1050 “Procedure for Implementing Public Health Protection Measures”;
– Cabinet of Ministers Regulations No. 417 “On the International Health Regulations”;
– The Epidemiological Safety Law.
Until the official designation of the National IRR Authority is completed, the State Emergency Medical Service (NMPD) – currently serving as the National IHR Focal Point – will perform the responsibilities of the National IHR Authority.
Once a formal decision is made at the national level, the nomination will be updated accordingly, and the World Health Organization will be promptly informed.
Latvia remains fully committed to the principles and obligations of the IHR and will continue contributing to global effort to safeguard public health and uphold international cooperation. It is our intention to complete all outstanding adjustments by 19 September 2026.
7. MALTA
Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Malta to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Geneva, received on 18 July 2025
The Permanent Mission of the Republic of Malta to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Geneva presents its compliments to the Director-General of the World Health Organization and, with reference to circular letter C.L.40.2024, has the honor to kindly request that Malta be granted an extension under Article 59(3) of the International Health Regulations (2005), as amended in 2024.
This request is submitted in accordance with the provisions of the International Health Regulations, as Government of the Republic of Malta is presently not in a position to fully align its domestic legislative and administrative framework with the requirements set out in the 2024 amendments, within the twelve-month period following their formal notification, which ends on 19 September 2025.
The Government of the Republic of Malta reiterates its strong commitment to the objectives of the Regulations and appreciates the continued support of WHO during the transitional phase.
The Permanent Mission of the Republic of Malta to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Geneva avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Director-General of the World Health Organization the assurances of its highest consideration.
8.SOUTH AFRICA
Letter of the Minister of Health of the Republic of South Africa, received on 19 July 2025
I have the honor to refer to the amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005), adopted by the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly through resolution WHA77.17 (2024) (“the 2024 amendments”) and notified to States Parties via circular letter C.L. 40.2024 of 19 September 2024.
South Africa welcomes the 2024 amendments and, pursuant to paragraph 3 of Article 59 of the International Health Regulations (2005), submits its declaration to the Director-General, noting the need for outstanding adjustments regarding its domestic legislative and administrative arrangements.
Accordingly, South Africa shall enjoy twelve additional months from the entry into force of the 2024 amendments, that is, until 19 September 2026, to adjust the above-referenced arrangements with the 2024 amendments.
South Africa looks forward to a well-considered and sustainable approach to the implementation of the amended International Health Regulations (2005) in order to advance global public health.
IV. STATEMENTS
1. TÜRKIYE
Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Türkiye to the United Nations Office in Geneva and other International Organizations in Switzerland, received on 14 July 2025
The Permanent Mission of the Republic of Türkiye to the United Nations Office in Geneva and other International Organizations in Switzerland presents its compliments to the Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO) and with reference to the Latter’s Note dated 19 September 2024 (Ref.: C.L.40.2024) has the honor to notify the Director-General of the following:
“Türkiye will implement the provisions of the International Health Regulations in accordance with the Convention regarding the regime of the Turkish Straits, signed at Montreux on 20 July 1936, as well as by taking into account Turkish 2019 Maritime Traffic Regulations for the Turkish Straits and any future revisions to be made thereto.”
The Permanent Mission of the Republic of Türkiye to the United Nations Office in Geneva and other International Organizations in Switzerland avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Director-General of the World Health Organization the assurances of its highest consideration.
fox files 
Recent Comments