Back-to-back 2025 summits in Melbourne unite the world’s leading influenza and pandemic-therapeutics researchers—while nations engineer bird-flu viruses and vaccines in parallel.
Australia’s Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity will host two international summits over six weeks that together represent an unprecedented coordination of global pandemic planning—one devoted to “next-generation therapeutics,” the other to influenza viruses, which include H5N1 bird flu.
Both come as laboratories worldwide create never-before-seen avian-influenza bird flu strains and test the vaccines that would be forced on populations in the event of a potential outbreak or an accidental—or intentional—laboratory leak.
October 27: “Next-Generation Therapeutics for Pandemic Preparedness.” Hosted by the Cumming Global Centre for Pandemic Therapeutics, a 20-year, $250 million initiative based at the Doherty Institute, the panel will bring together Professor Sharon Lewin (Doherty Institute), Professor David Ho (Columbia University), Professor Linfa Wang (Duke-NUS Singapore), and Professor Nanshan Zhong (Guangzhou National Laboratory). The discussion will be moderated by New York Times science journalist Apoorva Mandavilli.
November 13–14: 16th Australian Influenza Symposium. Organized by the WHO Collaborating Centre for Reference and Research on Influenza, also housed at the Doherty Institute, the symposium will focus on influenza viruses—which include H5N1 “bird flu,” COVID-19, and RSV—with speakers from the United States, United Kingdom, Hong Kong, and Cambodia.
Together, these back-to-back meetings merge pandemic preparedness, vaccine platform innovation, and influenza virology into one integrated agenda—precisely as governments worldwide invest billions into bird-flu gain-of-function research and vaccine manufacturing pipelines.
This unprecedented domestic investment followed the United States’ own 1$ billion allocation for a future influenza pandemic in its March 2024 omnibus spending bill—together forming a synchronized, pre-outbreak global financing network for bird-flu research, response, and vaccine development.
That synchronized U.S. funding drive has since deepened: in May 2025, the Trump Administration launched a $500 million “Generation Gold Standard” initiative through HHS and NIH to develop so-called “universal” pandemic vaccines—focusing primarily on H5N1 avian influenza, the same virus U.S.-funded gain-of-function experiments have been enhancing in laboratories.
International ‘Problem-Solution’ Pattern
The emerging pattern is unmistakable: governments and research institutions around the world are simultaneously engineering more dangerous strains of avian influenza while developing lucrative vaccines and therapeutics to counter those very same lab-made threats.
Just like they did before the COVID-19 pandemic.
1. The ‘Problem’: Engineered Bird Flu Pathogens
International state-funded researchers have deliberately created or enhanced H5N1 and related influenza viruses under the banner of “pandemic preparedness.”
United States (CDC, Georgia): A npj Viruses study revealed that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) engineered a new H5N1 bird flu strain with enhanced immune system evasion, suppressing host interferon signaling to make the virus harder to detect and more transmissible.
United States (USDA, NIH, NIAID, Nebraska): A separate U.S. Department of Agriculture study, backed by NIH and NIAID, confirmed the creation of lab-engineered bird flu viruses with enhanced replication and growth traits, conducted in Nebraska under high-containment conditions.
United States & South Korea (Joint Project, Georgia): In a Virology journal paper, U.S. and South Korean scientists collaborated to create “Frankenstein” bird flu viruses, merging multiple influenza strains through reassortment and gain-of-function modification—explicitly designed to assess pandemic potential.
China (Two H5N1 Constructs): Chinese researchers created two novel H5N1 constructs, one with 64× stronger binding affinity to host cells, and another 100% lethal in mammal models—both representing extreme gain-of-function outcomes justified as “host adaptation” studies.
United Kingdom (Neurological & Transmission Gains): In the Journal of General Virology, British scientists engineered two new bird flu viruses that produced neurological symptoms and enhanced transmission efficiency, directly modifying viral genes tied to host tropism and central nervous system infection.
Together, these projects represent a coordinated global escalation of avian influenza manipulation, where government-backed labs on multiple continents are simultaneously designing new, more dangerous viral genotypes under the guise of “prevention.”
2. The ‘Solution’: Vaccines & Pharmaceutical Countermeasures
At the same time, governments and their industry partners are fast-tracking bird flu countermeasure programs worth hundreds of millions of dollars, creating a mirror image to the COVID-19 playbook.
United States (HHS/BARDA–Cidara Collaboration): This month, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) awarded Cidara Therapeutics $339 million to advance its injectable influenza drug CD388, designed to treat and prevent pandemic influenza. The funding explicitly supports domestic manufacturing and supply-chain readiness—before any outbreak occurs.
Russia (Vector Institute): Meanwhile, the Vector Institute developed a lab-made bird flu spike protein formulated for needle-free jet injection, as published in Vaccines. This “next-generation” countermeasure mimics Western self-amplifying vaccine research and shows that both East and West are preparing pharmacological solutions to the same engineered viral problem.
3. Coordinated Crisis Creation
This dual track—create the pathogen, then sell the cure—echoes the pattern seen before COVID-19, when EcoHealth Alliance’s DEFUSE project proposed engineering chimeric coronavirus spikes and aerosolized self-spreading vaccines years before the 2019 outbreak.
A Frontiers in Virology study later confirmed that Moderna’s 2016 patented spike protein sequence—developed years before the COVID-19 outbreak—matched the pandemic virus’s spike sequence with a one-in-three-trillion probability of occurring naturally, underscoring how the vaccine blueprint pre-dated the very pathogen it was said to counter.
Subsequent congressional findings revealed that DARPA, the Department of Defense, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence had classified and concealed EcoHealth Alliance’s DEFUSE proposal—the very plan that outlined how to engineer SARS-like viruses with furin cleavage sites—prompting Senator Roger Marshall to warn the cover-up may “rise to the level of misconduct, false statements, obstruction of federal proceedings, conspiracy, conflicts of interest, or infractions of administrative or civil laws.”
With the CDC, USDA, NIH, and foreign counterparts now constructing novel bird flu strains while multinational vaccine platforms and contracts proliferate in parallel, and with the very same agencies that concealed the COVID-19 gain-of-function blueprint now leading global influenza programs, the question that must be asked is no longer if governments are orchestrating a coordinated bird flu “response,” but how far in advance that response was planned.
A Global Replay Under a New Virus
The DEFUSE model of pathogen engineering paired with vaccine development has simply migrated from coronaviruses to influenza viruses.
The Doherty Institute’s consecutive summits reflect that shift, serving as a coordination hub for the same kind of pre-outbreak collaboration that characterized the years leading up to 2020.
Already, governments have:
Pledged billions in pre-emptive pandemic funding,
Approved dual-use bird-flu experiments, and
Established emergency vaccine frameworks identical to those used for COVID-19.
And once again, the institutions creating the potential pandemic are the same ones designing and licensing the vaccines that will follow.
Doherty’s summits are reminiscent of an event that was held in New York just weeks before the COVID pandemic hit.
That event, called Event 201, was a pandemic simulation exercise conducted on October 18, 2019, in New York City.
It was jointly hosted by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, the World Economic Forum (WEF), and The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
The COVID pandemic would commence that December, compelling many to point to Event 201 as evidence that global parties had orchestrated the COVID pandemic.
Historical Pattern: Experimentation Without Consent
Public skepticism toward “preparedness” programs is grounded in undeniable history.
Tuskegee Syphilis Study (1932–1972): The U.S. Public Health Service deliberately withheld treatment to study disease progression.
Operation Sea-Spray (1950): The U.S. Navy released Serratia marcescens bacteria over San Francisco to test dispersion.
Operation Big City (1956) and Operation Large Area Coverage (1957–58): The U.S. Army dispersed zinc cadmium sulfide particles over major American cities.
All were officially justified as “defensive research.”
All were later admitted.
That record raises the inescapable question: if governments have repeatedly conducted biological experiments on civilians without consent, why should current “preparedness” programs be accepted at face value?
The Unprecedented Nature of the Doherty Coordination
What makes the October and November 2025 Doherty summits different is the scale and precision of international coordination—the first time pandemic-therapeutic and influenza-pathogen leaders will gather under one roof at a moment of simultaneous H5N1 experimentation across the world.
Australia’s own billion-dollar bird-flu program, America’s parallel funding, and WHO’s new Pandemic Agreement all converge here, turning Melbourne into a symbolic and literal meeting point for the next global bioresponse architecture.
Are these events truly about preparedness—or are they the next chapter in an orchestrated cycle where the same governments and corporations create both the outbreak and the opportunity?
Bottom Line
The Doherty Institute is now hosting one of the most consequential pandemic coordination meetings since COVID-19—and they arrive at the exact moment governments are engineering, testing, and vaccinating against new H5N1 strains.
The COVID precedent is clear: before the pandemic, scientists developed the spike sequence and vaccine technology that later matched the outbreak virus itself—with the same institutions funding both the research and the remedy.
Today, as H5N1 undergoes genetic manipulation across continents and billions flow into vaccine development before any outbreak, the pattern is unmistakable.
The 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.
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.
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.
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.
Public discourse about political violence in the US is now driven by a single claim, that right‑wing actors commit the lion’s share of attacks. That thesis has migrated from activist reports into journalism and then into official talking points. Yet its footing is weaker than advertised. The proposition depends on datasets with moving definitions and selective scopes. It also depends on a habit of turning non‑political crime into political intent when the offender happens to have the wrong affiliations, while discounting ideologically charged offenses when they flow from left‑wing or pro‑Palestinian causes. When we examine how the numbers are built, we see a pattern. Definitions, inclusion criteria, and coding choices are doing more work than the underlying events.
Begin with first principles. A fair account of political violence must track two simple ideas. First, political motive, not the identity of the offender, is what makes an act political. Second, comparable acts must be counted on comparable terms. If a right‑wing offender’s ordinary bar fight is listed as political because he once shared extremist memes, then a left‑wing offender’s riot‑linked arson must be counted as political when it was plainly undertaken for an ideological purpose. If a database counts propaganda stickers as violent extremism on the right, it must also count left‑wing vandalism of memorials and offices as violent extremism on the left. If a study focuses only on fatal attacks, it must explain why non‑fatal bombings, arsons, beatings, and attempted assassinations, many of them left‑coded, do not count. These are not partisan demands, they flow from basic standards of inference. Like cases should be treated alike.
The most aggressive inflation starts with what gets labeled right‑wing by theme rather than by motive. Some compilers treat any identity‑biased crime as quintessentially right‑wing, even when the offender’s own rhetoric and associates place him in pro‑Palestinian or left‑wing circles. In that frame, antisemitic offenses are assigned to the right by definitional fiat, because the target is a protected group and because the right is said to be the natural home of bigotry. That approach reverses the direction of explanation. We are supposed to infer political ideology from the identity of the victim. The method equates theme with motive and then motive with right‑wing identity. Such reasoning would be rejected in any other empirical domain. It lets preconception fix the labels in advance and it protects the labels from correction when the facts of a case cut the other way.
Next, there is the tactic of counting everything around the right while counting only a narrow set of events on the left. One widely cited stream of reports counts every homicide committed by a person with white‑supremacist interest, including domestic disputes and intra‑gang murders with no political purpose. In the same breath, it excludes left‑wing violence that does not produce a corpse. The result is a double filter, add ordinary crime to one side and subtract ideologically driven, non‑fatal violence from the other. Add enough of the former and subtract enough of the latter and the headline becomes inevitable. The data will perform as designed.
A third move is the curated time window or the one‑off outlier exclusion. In some tallies, a single Islamist megattack that reshaped modern history is removed as exceptional. Removing it reduces the non‑right body count by thousands, which predictably enlarges the relative share of right‑wing violence. The rationale is presented as methodological prudence, but the consequence is political arithmetic. The new denominator makes right‑wing violence look like the dominant fraction by construction. If the goal is to measure danger and reality, there is no justification for erasing the single most consequential terrorist attack in US history. If the goal is to win a talking point, exclusion makes sense.
To see how these three moves work in practice, look closely at a few studies that shape the public conversation. Some academic‑adjacent databases operationalize political violence by category rather than by motive. Identity‑focused offenses are called right‑wing regardless of the offender’s own statements. Trivial or non‑violent acts, such as flyers or stickers, are counted alongside serious violent crimes. Meanwhile, ideologically driven left‑wing violence is discounted when it occurs during riots or in anarchist zones that officialdom preferred to frame as spontaneous unrest or mutual aid. The effect is a spectacular asymmetry. The right swallows even apolitical crime by offenders with the wrong associations. The left sheds political motive in cases where violence was plainly part of a cause. Inferences about national danger are then built on this misaligned scaffolding.
A second cluster of reports focuses on murders by extremists and then treats all killings by a person with extremist ties as extremist killings. Consider what that means. If a white‑supremacist gang member murders his girlfriend in a domestic dispute, the death is credited to right‑wing political violence. The political story gets a data point, but there was no political motive, there was only a crime that would have occurred regardless of ideology. Multiply this across a year and you can generate a lopsided pie chart. Then look at the inverse. Left‑wing attacks that injure, burn, intimidate, and terrorize but that do not result in death are omitted because no one died. The chart does not budge. The public sees the chart. The chart says the right is the problem. The construction of the chart does the work.
A third tranche of analysis focuses on the narrow category of terrorist murders. In one prominent version, only events with at least one fatality are counted. Plots are excluded, foiled attacks are excluded, attempts are excluded, arsons are excluded unless someone dies, riots are excluded unless a specific homicide is tied to political motive defined in a narrow way, and the September 11 attacks are placed in a separate box. In addition, the classification of several offenders as right‑wing is made on loose criteria, sometimes on the presence of racist postings or confused manifestos that do not articulate a political plan. When critics scratched the surface and re‑coded ambiguous cases, the large gap between right and left nearly vanished. Correct a few design choices and the headline dissolves into parity or into a more complex distribution that resists sloganeering.
In any rational inquiry the cure for definitional bias is casework. We must test the rules against particular incidents that the public has been taught to treat as examples of right‑wing political violence. When we do, many do not fit. They are either left‑coded, mixed, or non‑political. They often show untreated mental illness rather than doctrine. They often show radical milieus that have little to do with conservatives. They often show offenders who never voted in a Republican primary, who never donated to Republican candidates, and who told friends they had progressive or anti‑establishment views.
Consider the case of Vance Luther Boelter. He was appointed by a Democratic governor to a state workforce development board. He moved in Democratic circles. When he erupted in murderous violence, he targeted Democratic officials who had voted with Republicans on a specific immigration measure. He did not hunt Republicans. He hunted Democrats who in his view had betrayed a cause. The material recovered from his car included anti‑Trump flyers tied to a coordinated protest theme and other standard progressive paraphernalia. Sympathetic reporting later attempted to rebrand him as a Republican or a marginal Trump voter based on contested claims by acquaintances with obvious motives to sanitize the politics of the incident. The uncontested facts tell a simpler story. This was a politically motivated attack, but it was intra‑Democratic retribution over immigration policy. In any balanced dataset, the incident would count as left‑coded or at least as non‑right. It has instead been recycled as an instance of right‑wing violence because the victims were Democrats. This is definition by target again, not by motive.
Now take David DePape, the attacker in the Paul Pelosi case. The public was assured that he was a specimen of right‑wing rage. That claim folded fast when his history emerged. He was a Canadian national who was living and voting in the United States illegally. He lived for years in a progressive enclave with a left‑coded partner known for street protests and for far‑out radicalism. His home displayed a BLM flag and LGBTQ imagery. He had registered to vote with the Green Party and once cast a Green vote for a socialist candidate. He drifted into conspiracism and apparent psychosis, telling people he thought he was Jesus. None of this suggests a coherent right‑wing identity. It suggests a volatile mixture of mental illness and fringe ideology with leftist antecedents, followed by a paranoid fixation that eventually incorporated anti‑Pelosi fantasies. It is not hard to see why a media ecosystem primed to find a MAGA archetype fastened on that angle. It is harder to explain why serious compilers continue to code this event as right‑wing. If motive and milieu matter, the classification should be mixed or indeterminate at best. If the presence of a partisan target is enough to fix the label, then we are back to definition by victim rather than by motive.
Turn to Cody Allen Balmer, the arsonist who attacked the Pennsylvania governor’s residence. In real time, several commentators and officeholders offered the ritual line, another example of far‑right political violence. The details contradict the script. Balmer described himself as a Marxist. He expressed pro‑Palestinian themes and targeted the governor because he believed that the governor would harm Palestinians. His record shows serious mental illness, including bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, and he had a trail of domestic violence and criminal charges. He never registered as a Republican, never voted in a Republican primary, and there is no record of Republican donations. When precise facts are inconvenient, the narrative retreats to ambiguity. Maybe he had some right‑wing sympathies. Maybe he saw posts on 𝕏. Maybe he was disturbed by current events in a way that aligned with conservative anger. The facts remain. Marxist self‑description, pro‑Palestinian motive, mental illness, and no partisan ties to the GOP. A fair coder would place this event on the left or mark it as non‑right. Yet the incident continues to be invoked in public as evidence for the thesis that right‑wing violence predominates. That is not data, it is branding.
Finally consider Anderson Lee Aldrich, the Club Q shooter. The instant narrative labeled the attack anti‑LGBTQ political violence from the right. The emerging record will not cooperate. Aldrich identified as non‑binary and asked to be addressed as Mx. Aldrich. He frequented Club Q and other gay venues. He never voted Republican, never participated in a GOP primary, and was never a donor to Republican candidates. His life showed serious dysfunction and suicidality, an arrest following threats involving a homemade bomb, and a trail of psychiatric treatment. In the courtroom, the picture was of a disturbed young person with violent fantasies and a warped relationship to identity, not a doctrinaire activist from any organized right‑wing scene. No fair reading of his history yields the conclusion that he was a conservative extremist. The rush to brand him as such flowed from the theme of the attack and the identity of the victims. The method is the same as before. Reverse engineer motive from target, then paint the act with the broadest possible brush.
These four cases are not cherry‑picked. They are prominent illustrations of a wider tendency. Where the facts point left or toward non‑political pathology, coders and commentators still push right. Where left‑wing or pro‑Palestinian attacks are unambiguous, the event is reframed as criminal violence with no ideology or it disappears into the gray spaces of data design. In the aggregate the skew compounds. Trivial propaganda acts inflate counts on the right. Non‑fatal left‑wing attacks are excluded. Ambiguous lone offenders are labeled right‑wing by default. Islamist and eco‑extremist events are minimized by time slicing or by outlier exclusions. Once the machinery is assembled, the conclusion is guaranteed. The right will look like the predominant source of political violence even if the underlying reality is mixed or if the greater share of routinized street violence has flowed from the left.
What would a sound methodology look like. Begin by coding motive, not identity, and require clear evidence for political intent. If the offender cannot articulate a political goal and there is no credible public record of one, do not count the act as political. Next, treat like cases alike. If domestic homicides by extremist affiliates count on one side, count them on both sides, or better, exclude them on both sides unless there is evidence the killing was carried out for political reasons. Third, include serious non‑fatal political violence, including arson, bombings, beatings, and attempted assassinations, and then weight incidents by severity. The public cares about danger, not only about death statistics. Fourth, avoid definitional shortcuts that infer ideology from target identity. Fifth, publish full incident lists with coding rationales so that outside reviewers can audit classifications. If your conclusions depend on hidden spreadsheets and shifting labels, they are not conclusions, they are talking points.
One might object that the exact labels do not matter because the trend is the same no matter how you count. That is false. Labeling shapes resource allocation and legal focus. When the data tell the public that right‑wing violence dwarfs left‑wing or Islamist violence, agencies are pressured to divert attention and funds accordingly. That may be wise in some periods. It is reckless if the numbers were built to sell a narrative rather than to inform about risk. It also warps civic understanding. Citizens begin to see ordinary conservatives as adjacent to violent fringe actors. Speech is chilled. Political engagement is stigmatized. The result is a brittle public square in which statistical fog is used to distress one side of the aisle.
Another objection says that it is unfair to distinguish between violent neo‑Nazis and conservatives because the former draw on a right‑coded tradition. The answer is simple. Fringe racists reject the central principles of modern conservatism and are expelled from mainstream conservative institutions. They are not part of the Republican coalition. They are enemies of it. Counting their apolitical crimes as right‑wing political violence smears millions of citizens by association. It is intellectually lazy and morally corrosive.
A third objection says that Islamist violence and left‑wing violence are red herrings, because the object of current concern is domestic extremism by whites. This reply repeats the selection problem at a higher level. The question is not whether we should ignore white offenders, the question is whether we should ignore other offenders, other ideologies, and other patterns of violence in order to uphold a single storyline. A government that can only see one danger is a government that will miss the next danger.
A final objection is rhetorical rather than empirical. It says that scrutinizing the numbers is an attempt to excuse violence on the right. The response is closure. No one is excusing anything. Violence for political ends is wrong. It should be punished. The claim under review is narrower. We are asking whether the claim of a dominant right‑wing share is supported by neutral counting. When we track motive, when we code like with like, and when we stop converting ordinary crimes into political statements, the dramatic right‑dominance story collapses. What remains is a complex landscape in which left‑wing and Islamist offenders, along with non‑political violent actors, account for a great deal of harm and pressure. The conservative point is not special pleading. It is a request for sobriety and standards.
Returning to the four cases. A Democratic appointee murders Democrats for voting with Republicans on immigration, a left‑coded conspiracist with visible progressive markers attacks the husband of a Democratic leader, a Marxist arsonist targets a Democratic governor over a pro‑Palestinian grievance, and a non‑binary club regular with a history of mental illness commits a mass shooting at a gay venue. None of these fit the template of organized right‑wing political violence. All four have been placed into that template anyway. If that is how the corner cases are handled in public view, imagine how less visible cases are coded. Imagine how many times the label is fixed by target, not by motive. Imagine how many times non‑fatal left‑wing violence is thrown out of scope. The dataset is not a mirror of reality, it is a machine for producing a preferred answer.
The remedy is not to flip the sign and declare that most political violence comes from the left. The remedy is to build an honest ledger. If we do, two conclusions will follow. First, much of what is today labeled right‑wing political violence is either non‑political crime by people with ugly affiliations or it is ambiguous lone‑offender pathology. Second, a large share of ideologically motivated street‑level aggression, from riots to arson to targeted intimidation, has been left‑coded or aligned with left‑wing and pro‑Palestinian causes in recent years, and it has been discounted by the very studies that purport to measure the phenomenon. Those conclusions do not vindicate anyone. They force us to see the shape of the problem without partisan blinders.
This is not an attempt to shock the conscience with graphic anecdotes or to turn data into propaganda. The aim has been clarity. Will stricter definitions and transparent coding erase right‑wing political violence. Not at all. They will do something better. They will put it in its proper proportion alongside left‑wing and Islamist violence and alongside non‑political violent crime. Only then can citizens and officials’ reason about risk without falling for the rhetoric of the spreadsheet. Only then can we protect the republic without sacrificing the truth to the fashion of the moment.
Georgia State University is creating pandemic-capable mutant avian influenza pathogens with NIH funding.
This month, the journal Virology published a study confirming that U.S. researchers at Georgia State University and South Korean collaborators from Jeju National University and Sungshin Women’s University are using reverse genetics to create chimeric H5N1 “Frankenstein” bird flu viruses.
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) grant AI154656.
Researchers combined purported highly pathogenic avian influenza genes with a laboratory H1N1 backbone.
This is not happening in isolation.
It’s unfolding amid international “pandemic preparedness” efforts, where the creation of dangerous bird flu pathogens goes hand-in-hand with the rollout of vaccines as the supposed solution, which no mainstream or non-mainstream sources are warning about—except this website.
It follows the same playbook as COVID-19, which multiple U.S. agencies have said most likely came from a lab incident.
The new bird flu pathogen creation comes as the United Nations has staged its first-ever global bird flu summit, mobilizing 500 officials and scientists to coordinate “control strategies,” surveillance, and vaccination campaigns—confirming that the very governments engineering these Frankenstein viruses are simultaneously organizing the policies and vaccines that will follow.Subscribe
Building Hybrid Pathogens
The paper openly admits to constructing synthetic flu viruses:
“Reverse genetically engineered reassortant H5N1 influenza viruses were generated using hemagglutinin (HA) and neuraminidase genes derived from either A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (Vietnam rgH5N1) or A/Indonesia/05/2005 (Indonesia rgH5N1), with the remaining seven gene segments derived from A/PR/8/34 (H1N1).”
In plain terms: they spliced bird flu proteins from Asian outbreaks onto a lab H1N1 backbone.
That’s a lab-born hybrid that doesn’t exist in nature.
The very definition of engineered pathogen creation.
Inflammatory Collapse
The experiments revealed catastrophic immune reactions:
“Vaccinated AG129 mice demonstrated significantly higher levels of IL-6, IL-1β, the regulatory cytokine IL-10, and the neutrophil-attracting chemokine KC (CXCL-1) compared to vaccinated A129 mice.”
This translates to runaway lung inflammation—a cytokine storm–like collapse that mirrors the reportedly lethal immune overactivation seen in severe flu and COVID cases.
The Authors
Here are all of the authors, some also holding affiliations in South Korea:
Ki-Hye Kim
Hye Suk Hwang
Youri Lee
Yu-Jin Jung
Eun-Ju Ko
Jae Min Song
Sang-Moo Kang.
But all of them are affiliated with Georgia State University in Atlanta, which you can contact here.
Bottom Line
The paper proves two damning facts:
Engineered bird flu hybrids were built in a U.S. lab with help from South Korea, using reverse genetics.
These constructs triggered lethal inflammatory outcomes when combined with vaccination.
This is not preparation, but orchestration.
It’s the same pattern we saw before the COVID-19 pandemic, now being repeated with bird flu.
This isn’t isolated “basic science.”
It’s a pipeline: build dangerous pathogens, then promote vaccines as the “solution.”
The COVID-19 pandemic was said to have been caused by this very thing.
The criminalization of free speech and support for cancel culture for everyone–from President Trump down to his voters–related to Jan 6 established new rules. Now, it’s time to follow them.
Let’s just simply call them the “January 6 Rules.”
Apparently, in some attempted “gotcha” effort, social media influencers on the Left are calling out MAGA’s purported ideological pivot following the vile response by many on their side to the assassination of Charlie Kirk last week. Kirk’s legion of admirers is publicly identifying individuals—many of whom unsurprisingly work in the education system—cheering Kirk’s murder online. Several have been fired including perpetual head case Matthew Dowd at MSNBC.
But it is MAGA’s crusade to “cancel” those haters and not the expression of hate itself necessarily, causing performative pearl-clutching on the Left. What happened to the conservatives’ defense of unfettered free speech and rejection of ‘cancel culture’, professional posters such as Michael Tracey that ask online below?
Well, to Tracey and his ilk, allow me to answer: January 6, 2021.
Immediately following the media’s crowning of Joe Biden as president, the Left insisted any talk of voting fraud in the 2020 presidential election represented “the Big Lie,” a term first used by Adolf Hitler; subsequently, everyone including President Trump who openly doubted the outcome of the election was branded a nazi.
After a four-hour protest on January 6, the Left claimed President Donald Trump’s speech at the Ellipse that morning had “incited” a mob that attempted to overthrow democracy—while of course conveniently omitting the “peacefully and patriotically” part of the address. The Democratic-led House of Representatives impeached the president a week later for “incitement of insurrection” despite the fact that absolutely no “insurrection” nor “incitement” occurred.
Trump, along with hundreds of thousands of his supporters, were deplatformed by social media titans. Amazon Web Services also shuttered Parler, at the time considered the conservative alternative to Twitter.
When Joe Biden took power, his Department of Justice immediately opened a criminal investigation into the president based not just on his words and actions but also those of his aides and voters. Every Trump associate from his closest advisors to former Vice President Michael Pence were hauled before a grand jury in Washington and forced to disclose details of private conversations with the president. Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro went to jail for refusing to cooperate with the Biden DOJ’s counterpart in Congress, the January 6 Select Committee.
Top DOJ official Jeffrey Clark was named a co-conspirator in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s J6-related indictment for writing a letter that was perfectly legal and never sent. (The attempted cancellation of Clark is still underway at the D.C. Bar.) Well-funded nonprofits working with Democratic officials sought to disbar attorneys who had worked on election-related lawsuits for the president.
Dozens of Trump advisors were indicted in other states for organizing and sending alternate slates of electors for January 6, a common act of political protest that a top National Archives official later confirmed happens every four years.
An Arrest Per Day for Political Speech
During the biggest criminal investigation in U.S. history—a factoid Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray often bragged about—the feds arrested an average of at least one Jan 6 protester per day. Investigators, with the voluntary help of Big Tech, retrieved deleted social media accounts including private messages to look for anything that could be considered evidence of incriminating behavior. In many cases, memes mocking Democrats or questioning the 2020 election were included in arrest warrants even for nonviolent misdemeanants.
At trial, J6 prosecutors claimed that any reference to the Founding Fathers, the American Revolution, and the Declaration of Independence in private group chats was proof of wrongdoing. Even repeating or posting the words of Thomas Jefferson—”the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants”—meant that the particular J6er wanted war and was entitled to imprisonment, according to the Biden DOJ.
Government witnesses including Capitol police officers routinely explained to Trump-hating D.C. jurors that the simple act of carrying an American flag inside of what used to be considered the “People’s House” and chanting “USA, USA!” was a crime.
The list goes on and on. But there is no question that the J6 prosecution of President Trump, his allies, and his voters represented the government’s gravest attack on free speech in U.S. history.
And that was only part of the torment endured by J6ers. Branded as “domestic terrorists” and “insurrectionists” by everyone from Joe Biden down to the local yokel newspaper reporter in every town while J6ers were cancelled en masse by society. Most were immediately fired. Private companies stripped J6ers of their service; DoorDash, AirBnB, Lyft, and Uber were just a few that cancelled the accounts of J6ers, even those charged with petty offenses. Major financial institutions cancelled mortgages, credit cards, and banking accounts.
Those impacts continue to this day while many J6ers still struggle to find employment and put their lives back together.
So yes, Michael Tracey, things have changed. For four years, your side promoted the criminalization of free speech and endorsed cancel culture all in the name of the “Big Lie” and the “insurrection.” The Biden regime and the media used January 6 to try to cancel President Trump and the entire MAGA movement.
It didn’t work—and neither will the guilt-tripping about so-called abandoned principles, so go crawl back into your hole, sit down on the high stool facing the corner walls with your tall dunce cap on and just shut the hell up now already Michael Tracey.
Prioritizing “control strategies” for backyard poultry systems, early warning systems, vaccination strategies, and biosecurity measures.
In another unprecedented instance of worldwide bird flu pandemic coordination, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has mobilized “around 500 experts and decision-makers to galvanize multisectoral collaboration and investment” at a three-day meeting in Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil.
The FAO’s latest move comes as scientists in Brazil’s Butantan Institute recently engineered never-before-seen H5 bird flu pathogens using reverse genetics—chimeric lab-built viruses that never existed in nature, created under the banner of “pandemic vaccine preparedness.”
Led by Secretary-General António Guterres of Portugal, the United Nations is a highly influential body that can shape international laws, economies, and policies, as many critics view its push for centralized global governance as a dangerous step toward eroding national sovereignty.
The U.N. exploited its unprecedented power during the COVID-19 pandemic by endorsing harsh emergency measures that led to widespread human rights abuses, including repression, censorship, and excessive force against vulnerable populations under the guise of crisis control.
As this website has exclusively been reporting, Brazil, the United States, Japan, South Korea, Egypt, and several countries in Europe are all coordinating bird flu gain-of-function research, reverse-genetics experiments, and vaccine development.
Together, these developments show a coordinated global apparatus in which the same governments engineering new bird flu pathogens are simultaneously assembling under the U.N. to dictate the vaccines and policies that will follow.
Unprecedented International Bird Flu Mobilization
For the first time in history, the United Nations has staged a worldwide bird flu summit, bringing together hundreds of handpicked government officials, scientists, corporate executives, and bureaucrats in one room to coordinate pandemic policy.
Just like they did before the COVID-19 outbreak with the infamous “Event 201” exercise, conducted by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
This is unprecedented.
The U.N. has never before convened this level of global multisectoral coordination on avian influenza.
But it confirms my warning that governments and global institutions aren’t just preparing for pandemics—they’re actively building the infrastructure for them.
While the U.S. is telling the public that it’s about “protecting food security” and “backyard poultry systems,” the deeper reality is clear: the very same governments funding bird flu gain-of-function, reverse genetics, and Frankenstein chimera experiments are now organizing the response framework—and pre-positioning vaccines as the solution.
‘Surveillance, Biosecurity, and Vaccination’
This is pandemic planning.
Beth Bechdol, FAO Deputy Director-General, declared: “Failure is not an option.”
What she did not say is that many of the “solutions” already on the table are vaccine campaigns waiting to be rolled out, designed in lockstep with the engineered crisis itself.
The official agenda is revealing:
Targeting backyard poultry systems in low-income countries
Building global early warning systems for outbreak detection
Expanding vaccination strategies as central to control
Hardening biosecurity measures across poultry operations
Integrating animal and human health policy under the U.N.’s “One Health” framework
Locking in surveillance tools for rapid outbreak response.
Brazil’s Agriculture Minister Carlos Favaro praised his country’s “swift and effective response” to bird flu detection earlier this year, framing it as proof of a “credible sanitary system.”
FAO’s Chief Veterinarian Thanawat Tiensin doubled down on the vaccine-surveillance model, saying: “Improved surveillance, biosecurity, and vaccination when appropriate… are keys to controlling this disease.”
Bottom Line
This was not just another conference.
The U.N. has openly staged a first-of-its-kind global command center for bird flu, aligning governments, corporations, and scientists under one pandemic framework.
While labs around the world continue to manufacture the threat through reckless genetic engineering, the U.N. is setting the stage for mass-coordinated countermeasures—vaccines and surveillance systems—before the next intentional or accidental outbreak even begins.
The fall of Nepal’s government this month was not the sudden consequence of youthful anger alone. It was the inevitable result of years of corruption funded and facilitated by US tax dollars, laundered through USAID, and carried out by its chosen consultants like Deloitte and its NGO partners such as the Soros-backed Niti Foundation. What was marketed to the Nepali people as democratic strengthening was in reality a hollow project of manipulation, siphoning money into the hands of politically connected elites while corroding every institution it claimed to support. The irony is inescapable. The very programs meant to build democracy hastened its collapse.
President Donald Trump put it bluntly when he called the USAID deals “completely corrupt and a fraud.” His instincts were correct. USAID promised tens of millions to implement federalism and biodiversity projects, yet much of this aid was hidden from oversight and funneled through channels designed to avoid accountability. Deloitte and Niti Foundation embedded themselves in the machinery of government, not to strengthen transparency but to bend it toward their own designs. Instead of robust institutions, Nepal received shadow agreements, compromised officials, and a rising tide of cynicism. When the money dried up, and when CIA-linked influence waned, the hollow edifice collapsed. The result was the youth-driven “Nepo Kids” uprising.
The immediate spark came from social media. Videos on TikTok and posts on 𝕏 exposed the lavish lifestyles of Nepal’s political elite, particularly their children. These “Nepo Kids” flaunted luxury cars and foreign vacations in a country where per capita income is barely $1,400. The contrast was explosive. Ordinary Nepalis, already aware of corruption, now saw it mocked before their eyes in real time. Hashtags amplified their outrage. For a generation raised on smartphones, this became not only political evidence but also a call to arms.Subscribe
The government responded with the arrogance of authoritarians. In a move that reeked of desperation, it ordered social media platforms to register under new censorship rules and, when they refused, it shut them down entirely. Facebook, 𝕏, YouTube, TikTok, WhatsApp, even LinkedIn went dark. Rather than suppress anger, the blackout ignited it. Students poured into the streets. The so-called “Gen Z protests” quickly transformed from rallies against censorship into an all-out uprising against an entire political order. Once police violence escalated, the protests turned into revolution.
Yet to understand why the protests had such force, one must look deeper at the corruption exposed months earlier. Investigative reporting revealed that USAID had secretly funneled $33 million into federalism projects through irregular agreements signed by the Finance Ministry without constitutional approval. USAID’s chosen partner was the Niti Foundation, an NGO seeded with money from George Soros’s Open Society Foundations. Niti operatives, presented as “consultants,” were embedded in government offices, quietly shaping policy with foreign influence. Officials who should have resisted these intrusions were compromised by conflicts of interest, as in the case of Balananda Poudel, who both chaired a constitutional commission and had ties to Niti.
When whistleblowers revealed these entanglements, the government tried to deny everything. The Ministry of Finance claimed no USAID money had gone to federalism. That lie was exposed by its own officials, who showed that hundreds of municipalities had already received US-funded support. Documents surfaced proving the secret agreements, the involvement of Deloitte as contractor, and the bypassing of Nepal’s constitutional bodies. The scandal was devastating. To young Nepalis, it confirmed what the “Nepo Kids” images dramatized: their leaders were liars who treated the nation as spoils for themselves and their foreign patrons.
The ruling coalition led by Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli presented itself as Marxist-Leninist, committed to equality. In practice, it was a corrupt patronage machine. This is why the uprising was not merely a flash in the pan. It was the reaction of a generation that had been told socialism would bring justice, only to watch foreign aid turn into a vehicle for nepotism. The “people’s government” became the face of hypocrisy, living in palaces, silencing dissent, and taking secret checks from abroad.
The violence of September 2025 was the climax. Protesters torched parliament, stormed party headquarters, and burned the homes of senior officials. Police gunfire killed nearly 20 demonstrators. The army imposed curfews, but the state had already lost legitimacy. Oli resigned. His ministers fled. The old order fell apart in smoke and flames.
The truth is that this outcome was set in motion long before. When USAID, Deloitte, and Niti Foundation decided that bypassing democratic oversight was acceptable, they planted the seeds of collapse. When US tax dollars were diverted to corrupt officials under the guise of “federalism,” they undermined the very democracy they claimed to promote. And when Soros-linked NGOs embedded themselves inside Nepal’s institutions, they guaranteed that Nepal’s people would one day rise against both their own leaders and the foreign patrons who enabled them.
This is the great irony. USAID and its allies claimed to be building democracy. Instead, they built resentment. They claimed to empower institutions. Instead, they hollowed them out. They claimed to promote transparency. Instead, they trafficked in secrecy. And when the reckoning came, it was not just the communist regime that fell. It was the credibility of the entire development model pushed by Washington and Brussels for decades.
In the digital age, the people do not need permission to see corruption. They only need a smartphone and the courage to share what they see. The Nepo Kids campaign was not orchestrated by a think tank or funded by a donor. It was organic outrage. The more the state tried to censor it, the more it spread. When US aid was revealed to be part of the rot, the protests gained moral clarity. This was not simply about ending censorship or bringing down one government. It was about rejecting a system where elites and foreign agents treat an entire country as their playground.
Critics may ask, is this not simply another chaotic uprising in a troubled country? No. What made this revolt unique was the convergence of corruption, censorship, and foreign interference, all exposed simultaneously. Without the USAID scandal, the Nepo Kids campaign might have been a passing viral story. Without the censorship, protests might have remained online. But with all three aligned, the outcome was revolution.
The lesson for the US is sobering. When our aid is co-opted by globalist contractors and NGOs, it ceases to be help and becomes poison. When we lecture others about democracy while hiding the strings we pull, we destroy our credibility. And when we fund corruption abroad, we betray not only foreign citizens but also American taxpayers who never consented to bankroll foreign elites.
The lesson for Nepal is equally stark. Foreign-funded democracy projects do not guarantee liberty. They can erode sovereignty. Real reform comes not from secret deals but from the will of the people. In September 2025, that will was made manifest in the flames of parliament and in the resignation of a prime minister who thought censorship could save him.
The Nepo Kids revolution was a rejection of corruption, nepotism, and foreign manipulation disguised as aid. It was also a warning. Other nations facing similar entanglements should take heed. When democracy is hollowed out by those claiming to build it, the eventual backlash will not be polite. It will be revolutionary.
fox files 
Recent Comments