The Shots Heard 'Round the World
How the DoD and Consortia Partners Manipulate Public Health
The COVID-19 pandemic didn’t just “happen”—it was the climax of decades of groundwork laid by powerful entities like the Department of Defense (DoD), intelligence agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), many governmental organizations, and global organizations like the League of Nations (now the United Nations), World Bank, NATO, and many others. What we witnessed over the past four years was not just a health crisis but a massive, coordinated assault on society—one backed by carefully spun narratives and psychological manipulation refined since at least the 1930s and 40s.
These groups have long used fear of threats like “terrorists” "viruses" and "bioweapons" to justify ever-growing control, power grabs, and population management. For years, they seeded these ideas into public consciousness, reinforcing them until they became nearly unshakable. The pandemic narrative wasn’t just convenient; it was an engineered story so deeply rooted that people worldwide have accepted it without question. Now, challenging these narratives meets the same blind resistance, proof of the far-reaching effectiveness of their decades-long psychological conditioning.
Is it really a coincidence that the narrative of a global “pandemic” fixated on a bat? In covert circles, bats symbolize secrecy, darkness, and transformation—qualities disturbingly fitting for a massive psychological operation designed to instill fear, confusion, and compliance worldwide. By using a bat as the core of their story, those orchestrating this operation tapped into the archetype of hidden power, subtly embedding it into the public psyche. This wasn’t just a story of an outbreak but a deliberately crafted event, its symbolism woven into the fabric of the narrative to reinforce control over a world pushed to the edge.
The U.S. Mint unveiled the "National Park of American Samoa" quarter featuring a mother and baby bat in early 2020, just as the narrative linking bats to the COVID-19 pandemic began to unfold. Whose bright idea was it to choose a bat as the symbol of the pandemic, especially when it seemed like a bizarre coincidence given the timing?
The Formation of the Department of Defense and Its Global Network of Influence
The National Military Establishment, the precursor to the Department of Defense, emerged from the National Security Act of 1947, a pivotal moment that unified the War and Navy departments into a single entity amid the escalating tensions of the Cold War.
Initially, this act provided the secretary of defense with limited authority and staff to oversee military operations. However, a series of amendments in 1949, 1953, and 1958 dramatically expanded the secretary’s power, transforming the role into a commanding force capable of shaping defense policy. The 1949 amendment was particularly crucial, marking the official birth of the modern Department of Defense and setting the stage for a new era of military strategy and global influence. This shift aligned with the rise of major post-war institutions like the United Nations, the World Bank, and NATO—each wielding overlapping spheres of influence to shape a U.S.-led global order.
Key figures such as John McCloy and Robert McNamara exemplified elite transnationalism in these circles.
The Banking Cabal
McCloy, known as the “Chairman of the American Establishment,” held powerful roles, including the Assistant Secretary of War, U.S. High Commissioner for Germany and World Bank President, chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank, chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, a member of the Warren Commission, and a prominent United States adviser to all presidents from Franklin D. Roosevelt to Ronald Reagan. Under his influence, Nazi war criminals received pardons and many of these criminals were brought over as “scientists” to the United States to help carry out untold experiments under Operation Paperclip, fueling suspicions that his leniency served Cold War interests over ethical justice, amongst many other scandals. His participation in the Warren Commission during the investigation of JFK's assassination fueled suspicions about his commitment to transparency and ethics, collectively painting a portrait of a man whose relentless pursuit of power and control exacted a devastating toll on countless lives. He was instrumental in the formation of defense and intelligence agencies.
Robert McNamara, another central figure, led the DoD during the Vietnam War, escalating a conflict that seemed to lack clear purpose, devastating both Vietnam and U.S. troops in the process. As Secretary of Defense under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, Robert McNamara was a controversial figure whose actions often revealed a cold, calculating mindset that can be described as somewhat psychopathic. He played a pivotal role in escalating the Vietnam War, endorsing brutal tactics such as the widespread use of napalm and Agent Orange, causing immense suffering and long-lasting devastation to both the environment, military and civilian populations.
Despite recognizing the war's futility, he relentlessly pursued policies that prioritized military escalation over human life. As President of the World Bank, McNamara became a staunch advocate for population control, viewing it as essential for global stability and framing poverty reduction as a means to limit growth. His harsh policies disproportionately affected vulnerable communities, imposing austerity measures on developing nations that favored Western corporate interests and further entrenched systemic inequalities.
Notably, he can also be connected to the Mectizan Program, which promoted mass ivermectin use among impoverished populations after pesticides were sprayed on their water sources causing illness purported to be the Germ Theory based “river blindness” (onchocerciasis) and “lymphatic filariasis” (LF or elephantiasis), raising serious ethical concerns about health effects and global health partnerships.
McNamara’s oversight of unethical experiments on U.S. soldiers and civilians—including testing toxic agents without consent—emphasizes his ruthless disregard for human life.
Both McCloy and McNamara in collaboration with the DoD and intelligence agencies, engaged in covert operations that expanded U.S. influence globally. These agencies’ goals often appeared less about public welfare than about consolidating power, leading to dark and ethically troubling actions.
A few of MANY Notable Experiments and Controversies:
The DoD’s history reveals a disturbing legacy of secret experiments on unsuspecting subjects, frequently conducted in collaboration with the CIA. Under Operation Paperclip, the DoD recruited former Nazi scientists and shielded them from prosecution, bringing them into U.S. intelligence and weapons programs. Many of these individuals contributed to morally questionable experiments on human subjects, often civilians.
MK-Naomi – This covert DoD-CIA program focused on developing toxic chemicals and supposed biological pathogens, intending to use them for clandestine operations. Testing frequently exposed civilians and military personnel to harmful biological agents without their consent.
Operation Big Itch, Operation Drop Kick, and Operation May Day – Overseeing these experiments, the U.S. Army explored the use of supposed disease-carrying insects as bioweapons, deploying infected fleas and mosquitoes to assess their effectiveness in spreading disease among target populations.
Project 112 and Project SHAD (Shipboard Hazard and Defense) – These programs in the 1960s tested chemical and biological agents on unwitting U.S. troops to study their effects. The exposure to nerve agents and other dangerous chemicals led to serious health issues among military personnel.
Edgewood Arsenal Experiments – Conducted over two decades, these experiments subjected soldiers to various mind-altering chemicals, including LSD, BZ, and sarin gas. The lasting psychological and physical harm on the participants highlight the brutal disregard for human rights within these projects.
Operation Top Hat: Conducted in the 1950s, Operation Top Hat was a covert U.S. Air Force project that involved aerial reconnaissance and biological testing. The operation aimed to assess the impact of chemical agents on crops and agricultural productivity, highlighting the military's interest in using biological methods for potential warfare applications.
Operation Green Run (the Hanford Project) and Other Radioactive Iodine Experiments: Launched in 1966, Operation Green Run was a U.S. government experiment in which radioactive materials were released into the atmosphere from the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington State. The goal was to study the dispersion of radioactive particles and their effects on the environment and human health, raising significant ethical concerns over the health risks posed to nearby populations and the broader implications of such experiments.
Image from https://hanfordproject.com/ Dr. Lester Middlesworth of the University of Tennessee conducted a troubling experiment in which he injected seven newborns with radioactive iodine, funded by the Atomic Energy Commission, at a hospital serving low-income patients; notably, six of the infants were African American. Alarmingly, there were no follow-up records kept, resulting in a complete loss of tracking for these vulnerable infants, despite known risks that exposure to low-level radiation can increase the likelihood of cancer. In addition to the experiments involving newborns, there were instances where mothers were also injected with radioactive iodine or exposed to radioactive materials to study the effects on both the mothers and their infants.
Dr. Lester Middlesworth. Image from https://www.uthsc.edu/endocrinology/news/documents/van-middlesworth-memorial.pdf Similar unethical experiments occurred in cities like Detroit, Omaha, Little Rock, and Iowa City, with published reports in medical journals such as Pediatrics, American Journal of Diseases of Children, and Journal of Nuclear Medicine documenting that numerous premature and full-term infants—some just minutes or hours old—were subjected to injections or ingestion of radioactive iodine. These unethical practices raised significant ethical concerns, as both mothers and infants were subjected to risks associated with radiation exposure without informed consent or adequate monitoring.
The majority of these experiments breached U.S. law, even at the time they were conducted, and in some instances, they were directly funded by government agencies or rogue factions within them, including the Centers for Disease Control, Department of Defense agencies, and the Central Intelligence Agency.
In other cases, private corporations involved in military activities sponsored these experiments. The “human research programs” which seem to closely align to eugenics and population control agendas were often shrouded in secrecy, carried out without Congressional knowledge or approval, and details about them typically remained undisclosed for many years after the studies were completed.
Such covert programs illuminate an agenda driven by an insatiable desire for tactical superiority and control, often at the cost of human well-being and ethical boundaries. These powerful institutions and figures aligned themselves with globalist interests, prioritizing profit, power, and influence above all else—sacrificing ethics and countless lives to solidify their dominance on the world stage.
But were these covert and dangerous operations on unsuspecting populations ever truly halted? Definitely not! However, the methods used to carry them out have evolved, often strategically employing public-private partnerships that obscure accountability and make it challenging to identify the perpetrators.
Operation Dormouse: The Massive 1975 Cover-Up That Seemed to Have Helped Shape Contemporary Defense Consortia
Operation Dormouse, launched in 1975, was a CIA-led effort to stage a massive cover-up amid the mounting investigations into MKULTRA. As the public became aware of MKULTRA’s extreme experiments with mind control and psychological manipulation, Dormouse was crafted to divert attention from the CIA’s darker and more severe programs, like Artichoke and MK Naomi, both of which fell within the broader scope of MKULTRA’s 149 subprojects.
Artichoke and Naomi explored dangerous and ethically questionable methods, including chemical and biological warfare, with tactics such as “terminal interrogations” overseas. By offering up MKULTRA as a target for public outrage, the CIA ensured the worst abuses would stay hidden. Authors like H.P. Albarelli and Jeffrey Kaye have argued that powerful figures like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld played key roles in concealing Project Artichoke’s details, with Dormouse serving as the critical instrument of deflection.
Clandestine Cabaret
This calculated secrecy seems to have laid the foundation for today’s Department of Defense (DoD) consortia, where public-private partnerships make it nearly impossible to track covert operations. Through these complex webs, intelligence and defense agencies can operate in ways that bypass public scrutiny, continuing ethically dubious projects under the guise of national security, with little oversight, transparency, or accountability to the public. The relentless focus on blaming Anthony Fauci or the Wuhan lab for the pandemic seems to echo a modern version of the Dormouse Operation, a tactic of misdirection. There is far more to the story than what is being publicly revealed, hinting at a complex web of factors at play that remain largely hidden from scrutiny.
The Evolution of DoD Consortiums: A Gateway to Public-Private Power Plays
A consortium is a collaborative arrangement involving multiple entities—typically from industry, academia, and government—aimed at pooling resources and expertise to achieve common objectives, particularly in research and development. The U.S. defense sector began to formalize these collaborative models in the 1980s, supposedly driven by the government's growing interest in leveraging private sector innovation for “national security” and fields like microelectronics. Military leaders and policymakers recognized that rapid technological advancements required a more “agile” approach to research and development.
In 1986, the Goldwater-Nichols Act laid the groundwork for a more “coordinated” approach to defense research, enabling the creation of several early consortiums designed to enhance military readiness and technological superiority.
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is an annual legislation that outlines the budget and expenditures for the United States Department of Defense and provides guidelines for military operations and policies.The first NDAA was passed in 1961. The U.S. Congress oversees the defense budget primarily through two yearly bills: the National Defense Authorization Act and defense appropriations bills It typically includes provisions for various defense-related activities, including the authorization of military personnel, programs, and funding levels. Over the years, NDAAs have strengthened the DoD's consortia capabilities by facilitating flexible contracting mechanisms that promote innovation and collaboration with a wide range of stakeholders.
Overview of NDAAs Related to Other Transactions (OT) Agreements and Consortia
Several National Defense Authorization Acts (NDAAs) have included provisions related to Other Transactions (OT) agreements and consortia.
Here’s a summary of the key legislation:
NDAA for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160):
Section 845: This was the first significant provision allowing the Department of Defense (DoD) to enter into OT agreements for research and development. It aimed to facilitate partnerships with non-traditional defense contractors and academic institutions by providing more flexible contracting mechanisms.
NDAA for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106):
Expanded the OT authority established in 1994, emphasizing the need for the DoD to enhance its engagement with innovative technologies and non-traditional vendors. This further established the framework for using OT agreements to foster collaboration with various entities.
NDAA for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328):
Section 804: This act expanded the OT authority to include the ability to enter into OT agreements with consortia, which can consist of multiple organizations, including private companies, universities, and non-profits. The provision aimed to streamline the acquisition process, reduce bureaucratic hurdles, and encourage innovation in defense technology development.
NDAA for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91):
This act continued to support OT agreements and encouraged the DoD to utilize them for rapid prototyping and operational assessment, reinforcing the previous year's initiatives. It sought to enhance collaboration between the DoD and the private sector while promoting technological advancements.
NDAA for Fiscal Year 2020 (Public Law 116-92):
Included provisions that reaffirmed and expanded the use of OT agreements. The act encouraged the establishment of consortia to facilitate collaboration between government and industry partners, enabling rapid development and deployment of innovative solutions.
NDAA for Fiscal Year 2021 (Public Law 116-283):
This act expanded the authority for OT agreements to support additional areas such as cybersecurity and critical technology development. It reinforced the importance of engaging with consortia to address emerging threats and technological challenges.
NDAA for Fiscal Year 2022 (Public Law 117-81):
Further encouraged the use of OT agreements and consortia to drive innovation in defense capabilities. It aimed to streamline processes and increase participation from non-traditional contractors and startups.
NDAA for Fiscal Year 2023 (Public Law 117-263):
Continued the trend of enhancing OT authority, encouraging greater collaboration between the DoD and various industry stakeholders, including consortia, for developing cutting-edge technologies and solutions.
Overall, these NDAAs collectively shaped the framework for using OT agreements within the DoD, promoting “innovation” and “collaboration” with a diverse range of entities while enabling a more agile and responsive acquisition process.
Overview of Other Transaction (OT) Consortia in Government Contracting
Other Transactions (OTs) are alternative government contracting methods that provide flexibility in procuring research and development or prototypes outside the standard federal contract structure. Unlike traditional contracts subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and other procurement laws, OTs allow agencies to engage non-traditional contractors, promote innovation, and streamline the development of advanced technology solutions. While OTs fall under fewer regulatory constraints, competitive practices and the Procurement Integrity Act still apply. Agencies with OT authority, including the Department of Defense and Department of Health & Human Services, leverage this tool for agile, outcome-focused partnerships with a wide range of entities, from small businesses to large contractors and academic institutions.
The consortia model, a subset of the OT approach, facilitates collaboration between government sponsors, private companies, non-profits, and academia to drive solutions in specialized technology domains, such as cybersecurity and aerospace. Managed by a central consortium manager, these groups operate under flexible membership structures that encourage innovation and expedite project awards. Members can propose research or prototype solutions tailored to government needs and can negotiate specific terms, including intellectual property and cost-sharing arrangements.
Here’s a breakdown of the participants involved in Other Transaction (OT) consortia:
Government Sponsor (Agency or Contracting Office)
Awards the base OT agreement to a consortium manager.
Defines consortia objectives, guidelines, and project selection criteria.
Selects projects and approves final awards based on the consortia’s technology area focus.
Consortia Manager (External or In-House Entity)
Administers the consortia and manages processes for member recruitment, agreements, and project oversight.
Collaborates with the government to develop project scopes, requests for proposals, and evaluation criteria.
Coordinates project phases, including white papers, demos, and final awards for selected consortium members.
Collects membership fees or a percentage fee from each project OT award under the base agreement.
Consortia Members (Participants in the Consortia)
Non-Traditional Contractors: Businesses that haven't held major government contracts within the past year, bringing new technologies or solutions.
Traditional Contractors: Established government contractors, typically required to meet cost-sharing requirements.
Non-Profit Organizations: Engage in consortium projects aligned with their mission, including technology R&D and public service.
Academic Institutions: Participate to advance research and provide innovative solutions, often in collaboration with other members.
Other Qualified Entities: In some consortia, international members and specialized entities may also participate under defined conditions.
Consortia’s Partnering Opportunities
Members can team up with other participants to develop collaborative solutions.
Consortia managers may facilitate partnerships among members to enhance project proposals and expand capabilities.
Additional Stakeholders (in some consortia)
Financial Advisors: Assist with budgeting, cost analyses, and ensuring compliance with funding guidelines.
Legal Advisors: Help navigate IP rights, regulatory compliance, and contract negotiations.
The agencies involved in Other Transaction (OT) consortia are typically those that need rapid innovation and flexible contracting processes to meet their technology and mission requirements. Here are some of the key government agencies frequently using OT consortia:
Department of Defense (DoD)
The largest user of OT consortia, with various branches including the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).
Uses OT consortia to develop technologies in areas like cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, unmanned systems, and advanced weaponry.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Employs OT consortia for developing security technologies, such as surveillance systems, border security tools, and disaster response solutions.
The Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) within DHS often oversees these initiatives.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
Uses OT consortia to advance biomedical research, vaccine development, and pandemic response strategies.
Agencies under HHS like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) leverage consortia for research and technology related to public health emergencies.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
Engages in OT consortia for space exploration technologies, propulsion systems, and other advanced aerospace innovations.
NASA uses these consortia to collaborate with private companies and research institutions on space missions and technology development.
Department of Energy (DOE)
Utilizes OT consortia to develop advanced energy technologies, including renewable energy, nuclear technology, and grid resilience.
The DOE's National Labs often collaborate through OT consortia to address energy security and innovation goals.
General Services Administration (GSA)
Works through OT consortia to streamline procurement processes and enhance government-wide technology systems.
GSA leverages these agreements to modernize government IT infrastructure and improve service delivery across federal agencies.
These agencies use OT consortia as a strategic approach to access emerging technologies, reduce bureaucratic obstacles, and foster collaboration with non-traditional contractors, academia, and industry experts.
Understanding Consortia
A consortium represents a collaborative effort among various entities—government, private companies, and academic institutions—designed to address specific projects, especially in areas requiring “innovation”. In the context of the Department of Defense (DoD), these collective consortia have become pivotal mechanisms for research and development. As of now, there are approximately 40+ active DoD consortiums, each focused on different sectors and technologies.
Key examples include:
Medical Technology Enterprise Consortium (MTEC): Focused on enhancing military medicine and developing technologies to support warfighters.
Image from https://mtec-sc.org/ DoD Ordnance Technology Consortium (DOTC): Consortium Focus/Mission: Enhance our Warfighter’s lethality, survivability and combat effectiveness by facilitating the industrial and academic research, development, and technology demonstrations needed to advance and expand our military technological superiority.
National Spectrum Consortium (NSC): Consortium Focus/Mission: Foster collaboration between Government, Industry, and Academia to identify, develop, and demonstrate the enabling technologies necessary to broaden the military and commercial access to and use of the electromagnetic spectrum for 5G and beyond.
Medical CBRN Defense Consortium (MCDC): Consortium Focus/Mission: Advanced development efforts to support the DoD’s medical pharmaceutical and diagnostic requirements as related to enhancing the mission effectiveness of military personnel.
Rapid Response Partnership Vehicle (RRPV) Consortium: Consortium Focus/Mission: Accelerate Medical Countermeasure (MCM) product and technology development to address evolving needs including pandemic influenza, emerging infectious diseases, and other biological threats.
Strategic & Spectrum Missions Advanced Resilient Trusted Systems (S2MARTS): Consortium Focus/Mission: Refine strategies, management planning activities, and implement integrated, complementary solutions that enable broader DoD access to commercial state-of-the-art EMS technologies, advanced microelectronics, radiation-hardened (RAD-HARD) and strategic missions hardware.
These consortiums operate under Other Transaction (OT) agreements, which provide a legal framework allowing the DoD to circumvent traditional contracting regulations, thereby fostering environments where accountability and transparency are often neglected. OT agreements enable consortiums to sidestep the stringent requirements imposed by Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), raising significant ethical concerns about the management of taxpayer dollars. These arrangements allow substantial government funding to flow through private channels, making it challenging for the public to track how funds are allocated and what outcomes are realized. The lack of oversight and transparency fosters a culture of obscurity regarding the true operations and intentions behind these partnerships.
The Evolution of DoD Consortia: A Gateway to Power Plays
The DoD’s reliance on consortia has escalated dramatically since the 1994 National Defense Authorization Act, which authorized OT agreements. Initially designed to facilitate technology transfer, the focus has shifted toward rapid prototyping in crucial sectors, such as cybersecurity, medical technology, and artificial intelligence. This shift has enabled consortiums to prioritize speed over regulatory compliance, leading to allegations of mismanagement and potential fraud.
As a result, consortiums have become conduits for moving “critical national security research” into the hands of semi-private entities.
By the 2000s, the focus of consortia shifted from technology transfer to rapid prototyping in critical sectors such as cybersecurity, medical technology, and artificial intelligence. Consortia like the Medical Technology Enterprise Consortium (MTEC) and the National Spectrum Consortium (NSC) emerged, often managed by organizations like Advanced Technology International (ATI). These entities acted as intermediaries between government needs and private sector interests, enabling substantial taxpayer funds to flow to private companies with limited scrutiny.
Collaboration with Health Agencies: A Mask for Secrecy
The collaboration of DoD consortia with federal health agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and National Institutes of Health (NIH) often prioritizes military objectives over public health needs or the overall safety of the population. This trend has significant implications for transparency and accountability in healthcare initiatives. For instance, the Medical CBRN Defense Consortium (MCDC), which focuses on developing countermeasures against chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear threats, has been criticized for fostering an environment where corporate public-private interests can overshadow public health priorities.
Strategic Contracting for COVID-19 Vaccine Development: Implicit Readiness and Execution
The Department of Defense (DoD) and Health and Human Services (HHS) seemed to have majorly leveraged pre-existing contracts and agreements to facilitate the rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines from major pharmaceutical companies. Notable companies included Pfizer, whose vaccine development was supported by its partner BioNTech; Moderna; Johnson & Johnson, managed through its subsidiary Janssen Pharmaceuticals; AstraZeneca; Novavax; and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). Prior to the pandemic, these companies had contracts focusing on platform technologies, infectious disease research, and general pandemic preparedness, which did not explicitly mention COVID-19 but provided a crucial framework for quick adaptation when the “crisis” emerged.
DoD Consortia and Other Transaction Agreements Related to the COVID-19 Vaccines
Pfizer and BioNTech: Prior to the pandemic, Pfizer had multiple OT agreements related to various vaccine candidates and infectious disease research, some of which included language about “emerging infectious diseases” and “rapid response capabilities.” Under Operation Warp Speed, Pfizer received an OTA in July 2020 totaling approximately $1.95 billion for the delivery of 100 million doses of the BNT162 mRNA vaccine, developed in collaboration with BioNTech.
Moderna: Before COVID-19, Moderna had received OT contracts for other vaccine development projects, including a significant OTA in 2016 worth $25 million to develop mRNA vaccines for Zika virus. The language in these contracts emphasized the potential for adaptation to “other emerging infectious diseases.” In April 2020, Moderna received an additional OTA from BARDA worth $483 million to support the development of its mRNA vaccine candidate, which later evolved into the widely used Spikevax. Moderna has received substantial funding from the Department of Defense (DoD) and related agencies for its mRNA vaccine development. In total, the company has secured approximately $4.94 billion through various contracts under Operation Warp Speed, aimed at accelerating the development and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines (and who knows how much in total Moderna has been given by these entities because it seems they are trying to hide, scrub, or make it difficult if not impossible to find the data).
Johnson & Johnson (Janssen Pharmaceuticals): Janssen had contracts prior to the pandemic with DoD connected entities for its Ebola and influenza vaccine efforts, which included references to “pandemic threats” and “emerging viral infections,” allowing for a flexible response. In August 2020, it was awarded an OTA worth approximately $456 million for its Ad26.COV2.S vaccine, providing a single-dose solution that can be traced back through the consortia to yet another heavily redacted 44-page contract in 2017. Gotta love that “governmental” transparency.
AstraZeneca: AstraZeneca had a prior OT contract for its work on a viral vector vaccine for Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), with language indicating readiness for “viral outbreaks” and “emerging infectious threats.” In May 2020, it received an OTA worth $1.2 billion for the development and manufacturing of its viral vector vaccine, ChAdOx1-S.
Novavax: Prior to the pandemic, Novavax had been involved in vaccine development for various respiratory viruses and received BARDA funding for their RSV vaccine, which included provisions for “rapid vaccine development for emerging pathogens.” In July 2020, Novavax secured a contract worth $1.6 billion to develop its protein subunit vaccine, NVX-CoV2373, structured as an OTA.
GlaxoSmithKline (GSK): GSK played a key role in the COVID-19 vaccine landscape by partnering with Sanofi to develop an adjuvanted recombinant protein vaccine. GSK collaboration with Sanofi leveraged existing capabilities in adjuvant technology, which enhances immune responses. In July 2020, GSK and Sanofi received an OTA from the U.S. government worth $2.1 billion to support the development and manufacturing of their vaccine candidate.
These contracts utilized Other Transaction (OT) authority, allowing for flexible language that emphasized broad goals like "pandemic preparedness" rather than targeting a specific virus. This strategy enabled the government to ensure rapid mobilization without the constraints of traditional procurement processes. By establishing agreements that prioritized rapid response capabilities, the DoD and HHS created a system that could be activated swiftly as soon as COVID-19 was recognized as a global threat. For instance, Moderna's mRNA technology and Janssen's viral vector platform were already in place, allowing for immediate pivoting to vaccine production.
Additionally, working through consortia allowed for resource sharing among multiple companies, reinforcing a broad network of readiness. This setup suggested that the government had pre-planned frameworks for pandemic response embedded within OT agreements and consortia contracts, facilitating seamless execution during the “COVID-19 outbreak”. The strategic use of such agreements reflects an implicit preparedness model that allowed for an agile and comprehensive response to an unprecedented health crisis while circumventing traditional procurement limitations and fostering collaboration across the pharmaceutical sector.
The Complex Ties of Robert Malone and Nanotherapeutics in the Defense Consortium
Robert Malone, often labeled the "father of mRNA," contributed to mRNA technology's early development but did not single-handedly invent it. His 2016 publication on Zika virus countermeasures, which included Nanotherapeutics and the NANO-ADM Center in Florida, highlights the urgency of advancing countermeasures for infectious diseases. Nanotherapeutics, now Ology Bioservices, a member of the Alliance for Biosecurity and Medical CBRN Defense Consortium, received significant Department of Defense funding for such initiatives, which situates Malone at the intersection of government-backed research and private sector health strategies.
In early 2020, Malone's collaboration with the Defense Threat Reduction Agency’s (DTRA) DOMANE program and the Walter Reed Army Institute focused on a COVID-19 treatment trial using famotidine, funded by a $20.7 million BARDA contract. His work with Alchem Laboratories connects directly with the Medical CBRN Defense Consortium, through which Alchem has multiple NIH and DOD contracts to develop therapeutic countermeasures.
These connections highlight a network of consortia and government projects, blending public and private interests to expedite solutions for public health crises, such as COVID-19. For an in-depth analysis of Malone’s role and the broader implications, you can explore the Substack coverage here and the White Rose Wiki here.
Geneva Foundation: Beneath the Surface of Military Medical Research
One DoD related consortia member that really stood out was the Geneva Foundation. Jane Taylor, a former critical care nurse, is the founder and president of the Geneva Foundation, established in 1993. This organization claims to support military medical research, but its operations raise serious questions about the true motives behind its creation. The name "Geneva" suggests a connection to international diplomacy and humanitarianism, yet it evokes concerns about globalist agendas, profit motives, and potential interests in population control. Rather than a genuine public health initiative, the foundation operates more like a vehicle for military and corporate interests.
The Geneva Foundation was initially connected to the Madigan Army Medical Center located on Joint Base Lewis-McChord just outside of Lakewood, Washington. This facility provided a significant partnership for the foundation as it sought to support military medical research. The relationship with Madigan Army Medical Center allowed the Geneva Foundation to secure early funding and establish its presence within the military medical research community.
The foundation has since expanded its reach through collaborations with various other military institutions and research organizations, further embedding itself in the military healthcare ecosystem
Taylor's rapid transition from nursing to founding the Geneva Foundation, along with her subsequent ventures, hints at a calculated strategy rather than an organic career path. Jane Taylor earned her nursing baccalaureate from the University of Washington Medical Center in 1979.
After gaining experience as a Critical Care nurse at Harborview Medical Center, she transitioned into pharmaceutical research. In 1988, she established PC3Inc, a site management organization, which was sold to Americas Doctor in 1996. In 1993, Taylor founded The Geneva Foundation, a nonprofit organization that promotes medical research across more than 55 military treatment facilities and federal laboratories globally. Additionally, in 1995, she launched Northwest Kinetics, Inc., a Phase 1 pharmacokinetic clinical research unit, which was sold to Charles River Laboratories in 2006 for $29.5 million dollars. Pretty impressive for a Registered Nurse! The establishment of the Geneva Foundation allowed her to tap into military funding, especially through partnerships with institutions like the Madigan Army Medical Center, indicating a deliberate effort to align with U.S. Department of Defense priorities.
The funding sources for the Geneva Foundation are particularly troubling. Initially supported by her earlier companies, it has increasingly relied on government grants and defense contracts, raising questions about whether its mission genuinely reflects a commitment to advancing military medicine or is primarily a facade for corporate profit. Its participation in various DoD consortia, such as the Defense Health Agency’s Consortium for Operational Medicine, enables it to secure lucrative contracts, reinforcing its position within the military-industrial complex.
The Geneva Foundation’s involvement in mRNA and vaccine research and development prior to and during the supposed COVID-19 pandemic also seems to be quite significant. The Geneva Foundation was engaged in vaccine and infectious disease studies long before the pandemic, positioning itself to pivot to mRNA technology as the crisis unfolded.
Its collaboration with Pharm-Olam (now Allucent), which secured a substantial contract from BARDA to support COVID-19 clinical trials, exemplifies how Taylor leveraged military and corporate connections to exert influence during a public health emergency, highlighting a troubling overlap between profit-driven motives and public health needs. Pharm-Olam itself has ties to the military, specializing in managing clinical trials with connections to the Department of Defense.
The Geneva Foundation is involved in a range of unsettling research projects far beyond infectious disease and pharmaceuticals, including its participation in the AREVA project.
They’re diving into ethically ambiguous areas like "autonomous reanimation," aiming to restart biological systems without human oversight, and "ex-vivo" studies, which manipulate organs and cells outside the body for unnervingly prolonged periods.
While these efforts are advertised as medical advancements, the heavy military involvement suggests a far more disturbing agenda—one that may not be about saving lives but instead hints at a future where life itself is engineered, reanimated, and controlled at will. These projects, combined with a creeping transhumanist agenda, raise profound concerns. Is the ultimate aim truly to advance healthcare, or is it to reshape the boundaries of human autonomy, privacy, and even mortality? This work is veiled in promises of progress, but it seems to march toward a future where humanity is altered, monitored, and perhaps controlled in ways we’re only beginning to imagine. What exactly are they building behind classified and closed doors?
Jane Taylor serves as the Board Director and Governance Committee Chairperson for Revalesio Corporation, a biopharmaceutical firm focused on neurological therapies, where she oversees compliance with governance standards and ensures operational transparency. However, the ambiguous nature of her role raises concerns about the balance between advancing therapeutic solutions and corporate profitability, suggesting her career straddles healthcare and military contracting. Potential connections to the Department of Defense may involve initiatives that intersect healthcare advancements and military applications, especially regarding veterans' health, further complicating her narrative.
While there is some scant information about Jane Taylor, it raises significant questions about her true motivations and affiliations, making her narrative sound like a fabricated plot from a military operation. The Geneva Foundation’s close ties to the military suggest it functions as more than a charitable organization; it appears to be deeply involved in military contracting and biomedical innovation research and development. With its role in pandemic-related initiatives, this organization deserves rigorous scrutiny, especially as it mirrors historical military deceptions and controversies that have eroded public trust. The whole situation feels like a cleverly constructed narrative, leaving us to wonder: is any of this for real?
Adding to the intrigue, the Geneva Foundation's location is in Washington state—where the first confirmed U.S. COVID-19 case occurred. The first confirmed U.S. COVID-19 case appeared in Snohomish, Washington, roughly 70 miles north of Tacoma, where the Geneva Foundation and Joint Base Lewis-McChord are located. This proximity raises questions about the overlapping spheres of military, biomedical research, and public health responses to the emerging pandemic.
Given that the first reported U.S. COVID patient was in Washington—the very state where Geneva operates—it raises questions: could this organization, or others with military influence, have played a role in shaping the narrative around this “first case”? Such proximity suggests that Geneva and its allies may have been positioned to exploit the health crisis from the outset, framing their involvement as response rather than orchestration.
Washington was, after all, the state where the military conducted the covert Green Run experiment at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in 1949, involving the release of radioactive iodine-131 into the atmosphere to study fallout patterns. This military operation resulted in serious health issues, including increased thyroid disease, cancers, and reproductive problems among residents, particularly impacting vulnerable populations like children and pregnant women. Given the history of secretive government experiments on civilians, it is reasonable to question whether similar operations might still be conducted today, as past actions have contributed to public distrust regarding government transparency
In-Q-Tel and the Pandemic: Unraveling the CIA's Influence in Health Security
In-Q-Tel (IQT), the Central Intelligence Agencies's (CIA) venture capital arm established in 1999, is ostensibly tasked with funding cutting-edge technologies that “bolster national security”.
The CIA’s involvement during the COVID-19 pandemic raises some serious concerns about the intersection of intelligence operations and public health initiatives. Let's be honest—they have a terrible track record of engaging in unethical and illegal activities that frequently get swept under the rug. Whoops, they lost all the documents to all the crimes against humanity, I mean experiments they helped conduct. Suuuuure! Their participation in anything related to health and well-being is, at the very least, frightening!
The CIA's participation suggests a more insidious motive, leveraging health crises to advance its overarching goals, which often appear to align with global agendas and corporate interests rather than public welfare.
IQT is the most trusted leader in accelerating the transition of groundbreaking technologies from the private to the public sector to advance the national security and economic prosperity of America and its allies. Set up in 1999 by the CIA as an independent, not-for-profit strategic investment firm, we’ve spent a quarter century building unparalleled expertise that we draw on to help startups adapt their highly innovative products in ways that both maximize mission impact for our government partners and enhance the companies' commercial success.
From our origins as a U.S.-centric organization focused on information technology, we’ve grown into a global investment platform that spans a wide range of frontier technologies, from biotechnology to microchips, and from AI to space systems. We’ve also developed many enduring strategic relationships and now work with over a dozen different U.S. government partners, as well as with the United Kingdom and Australia. We share our deep global insights into the venture capital-backed technology ecosystem with these partners and are constantly evolving our operations to ensure we are at the leading edge of tech-driven innovation.
Who are IQT’s government partners?
IQT’s unique approach pairing high-tech problem solvers with government challenges has produced countless impactful solutions for the CIA; DIA; FBI; NGA; NRO; NSA; DHS (including CBP and other DHS components); U.S. Cyber Command; the Office of Strategic Capital (OSC); and the U.K. and Australian national intelligence communities. We recently welcomed the Office of Naval Research (ONR), U.S. Central Command, and U.S. Space Force as new government partners and look forward to supporting their missions too.
What types of investments does IQT make?
After identifying a promising company, IQT has two primary tools for building a relationship: a work program transaction or an equity-only investment, both of which where IQT receives a small equity stake and status as a board observer.
Work programs typically involve an investment between $500,000 and $3 million, and are structured as development and licensing agreements aimed at addressing the needs of the U.S. national security community. Equity-only investments typically range between $250,000 and $500,000. These investments serve as a critical window into new technologies and as an on-ramp towards future technology transfer opportunities leveraging IQT’s unique and powerful model.
Shady Partnerships and Ethical Dilemmas
CIA In-Q-Tel’s involvement during the COVID-19 pandemic raises chilling questions about their shadowy operations and connections to national security, particularly concerning agendas that align with globalist goals of population control and a one-world order. This CIA venture capital firm has a notorious track record for its controversial investments in technology and innovation, and their recent announcement of the COVID-19 Diagnostic Accuracy Tool only adds to the unease.
This interactive web application is designed to help individuals understand and interpret the accuracy of “diagnostic tests” for the novel coronavirus. However, the very nature of such tools could be leveraged nefariously; by controlling the narrative around diagnostic accuracy, In-Q-Tel could potentially manipulate public perception and responses to health initiatives kinda like an Operation Mockingbird 2.0 scenario but with fake viruses and fraudulent testing.
Are these efforts and this organization’s involvement in the pandemic concealing a much darker agenda (again)?
B.Next and Its Dubious Mission
At the forefront of these efforts is B.Next, led by Dr. Tara O’Toole, an Executive Vice President and Senior Fellow at In-Q-Tel since 2014. B.Next claims to identify and accelerate biotechnologies capable of detecting, managing, and responding to infectious disease epidemics—whether they arise naturally or are deliberately unleashed. This program's ambition to create an "ecosystem of innovation" that intertwines government, private industry, and academia raises significant concerns about the motives behind it, particularly as it relates to national security and population management.
In-Q-Tel's close ties to the Department of Defense (DoD) further complicate this landscape, as the firm collaborates with various consortia that integrate defense, intelligence, and health sectors. This alignment enhances their capacity to influence public health initiatives and military responses, making their operations increasingly opaque and suspect.
The Alliance for Biosecurity: Insiders with a Mission and (Very) Deep Pockets
Before being pegged by the Obama administration to head DHS's Science and Technology division where she will oversee the department's billion dollar budget, with some 45 percent of it going towards chemical and bioweapons defense, O'Toole, as previously mentioned, was the CEO and Director of UPMC's Center for Biosecurity, a satrapy which describes itself as "an independent organization dedicated to improving the country's resilience to major biological threats."
How "independent"? You make the call!
According to their web site, The Alliance for Biosecurity is "a collaboration among the Center for Biosecurity and 13 pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies whose mission is to work in the public interest to improve prevention and treatment of severe infectious diseases--particularly those diseases that present global security challenges."
Alliance partners include the usual suspects: Bavarian Nordic; Center for Biosecurity of UPMC; Cangene Corporation; DOR BioPharma, Inc.; DynPort Vaccine Company LLC, a CSC company; Elusys Therapeutics, Inc.; Emergent BioSolutions; Hematech, Inc., a subsidiary of Kyowa Kirin; Human Genome Sciences, Inc.; NanoViricides, Inc.; Pfizer Inc.; PharmAthene; Siga Technologies, Inc.; Unither Virology LLC, a subsidiary of United Therapeutics Corporation. Rounding out this rogues gallery are associate members, the spooky Battelle Medical Research and Evaluation Facility and the Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute.
Among the chief activities of the Alliance is lobbying Congress for increased funding for the development of new drugs deemed "countermeasures" under the Project BioShield Act of 2004, previously described by Antifascist Calling as a particularly grotesque piece of Bushist legislative flotsam.
The Alliance avers that "the United States faces unprecedented risks to national security ... by the clear and growing danger of bioterrorism or a destabilizing infectious disease pandemic," and that "our nation's vulnerability to biothreats is so severe" due to the fact that "most of the vaccines and medicines that will be needed to protect our citizens do not now exist." Therefore, countermeasures needed to mitigate nebulous biothreats never spelled out once in the group's literature "will likely require several years and several hundred million dollars each to successfully develop and produce." (emphasis added)
An Alliance report, The State of Biosecurity in 2008 and Proposals for a Public/Private Pathway Forward, charts a course for "improving and accelerating" efforts to "develop medical countermeasures (MCMs) for the nation's Strategic National Stockpile (SNS)."
Under the Project Bioshield Act of 2004, Congress authorized $5.6 billion over ten years "to purchase MCMs for the SNS." Funds were allocated for the procurement of the anthrax vaccine as well as for "therapeutic antibodies for inhalational anthrax, a botulism heptavalent antitoxin, a smallpox vaccine, and several products for radiological and nuclear threats, obligating a total of about $1.9 billion of the $5.6 billion BioShield fund."
In 2006 as I noted previously, Congress created the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). BARDA was authorized to spend some $1.07 billion over three years for MCMs, "only $201 million has been provided by Congress through FY 2008" noted the Alliance, "approximately one-fifth of the authorized level."
According to an "independent economic analysis" carried out by (who else!) the Alliance's academic partner, the Center for Biosecurity, "it would require $3.4 billion in FY 2009 to support one year of advanced development."
"Similarly" according to the organization, "the original appropriation of $5.6 billion for Project BioShield is equally insufficient to ensure that once MCMs are developed there will be funds available to procure them and maintain the stockpile." Indeed, "this level of funding would need to be sustained for many years." You can bet however, that Alliance lobbyists are busy as proverbial bees in pressuring Congress to fork over the dough!
The report state's that Alliance goals necessarily entail instilling "a sense of urgency ... with Congress" by hyping the "bioterror threat." But there's much more here than a simple cynical exercise at preparing the "public diplomacy" ground through academic and industry "message force multipliers" that will enable Congress to shower Big Pharma with a veritable tsunami of cash. A "risk-tolerant culture" should be promoted within BARDA, one that "understands the realities, risks, timelines, and costs of drug development."
The "risks" to whom and for what purpose are not enumerated, but one can be certain that a "risk-tolerant culture" crafted by industry insiders will come at the expense of the health and safety of the American people, one that pushes potential legal liability should things head south onto the taxpaying public.
The stealth nature of Alliance recommendations are clearly spelled out when they aver that "stakeholders" should "focus more on the potential biothreats and the corresponding countermeasures, rather than the price tag" and that BARDA, ostensibly a public agency, should be packed with insiders "who have drug development and manufacturing experience." This will lead to the development of "a culture that is focused on partnering with industry and academia."
But the bottom line as always, is the corporatist bottom line for Alliance shareholders! How else can one interpret their statement that emerging "biothreats" are all the more dire today now that "interest of the public and private capital markets in biodefense has declined over the last 2-3 years." What better way then, to beef-up those sagging capital markets than to install an industry-friendly individual at DHS with a documented track record of overplaying the "bioterror threat."
Dark Winter
O'Toole was the principal designer of two "tabletop" bioterror preparedness drills, the 2001 Dark Winter exercise and the 2005 Atlantic Storm run-through; both were criticized by scientific experts as fabrications of an alleged threat of a smallpox attack mounted by al Qaeda.
Reviewing Milton Leitenberg's 2005 report, Assessing the Biological Weapons and Bioterrorism Threat, published the U.S. Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute, protein chemist Dr. Eric Smith wrote the following:Of note is Leitenberg's dissection of the process of assessment as practiced through bioterrorism threat scenarios conducted by the US government and private think tanks. Exercises like Dark Winter, which modeled an "aerosolized" smallpox attack, Top Off 2 and 3, both on pneumonic plague strikes, and Atlantic Storm, an exercise that purported to show an al Qaida group manufacturing a dry powder smallpox weapon, were rigged. In the cases of Dark Winter and the Top Offs, transmission rates of disease were sexed up beyond historical averages so that "a disastrous outcome was assured" no matter any steps taken to contain outbreaks. Eight pages are reserved to pointedly condemn the Atlantic Storm exercise on a host of sins which can generally be described as a bundle of frank lies and misinformation coupled with a claimed terrorist facility for making smallpox into a weapon that even state run biological warfare operations did not possess. And once again, juiced transmission rates of disease were employed to grease theoretical calamity. The reader comes to recognize the deus ex machina--a concoction or intervention added to dictate an outcome, in these cases very bad ones--as a regular feature of the exercises. However, the results of the same assessments--the alleged lessons learned--have never been reported with much, if any, skepticism in the media. (Eric Smith, "A Vaccine for the Hype: Milton Leitenberg's new 'Assessing the Biological Weapons and Bioterrorism Threat," Global Security, National Security Notes, March 31, 2006)
In criticizing "the fancy that such attacks are easy and one of the most catastrophic threats faced by the American people," Smith denounces the alarmist scenarios of Dark Winter and Atlantic Storm's designers--people like Dr. Tara O'Toole and the coterie of industry insiders and other well-paid "experts"--as guilty of perpetrating a massive "fraud ... and a substantial one" on the American people.
While one of Atlantic Storm's architects proclaimed "this is not science fiction" and that "the age of Bioterror is now..." Leitenberg and Smith denounce O'Toole's spurious claims as "not the least bit plausible."
Leitenberg wrote that "well before October-November 2001, the spectre of 'bioterrorism' benefitted from an extremely successful sales campaign." Indeed, hyped-up scenarios such as Dark Winter and Atlantic Storm that place "weapons of mass destruction" in the hands of shadowy, intelligence-linked terror outfits like al Qaeda provided "inflated predictions that ... were certainly not realistic. Much worse, in addition to being wrong, inflated predictions were counterproductive. They induced interest in BW in the wrong audiences."
But the implausible nature of the scenarios deployed in national exercises hardly prohibited the Bioweapons-Industrial-Complex from concocting scarecrow-like straw men designed to sow terror amongst the American people while extracting regular infusions of cash from Congress.
Among the eight exercises analyzed by Leitenberg between 1998-2005, he found that each and every one were fraudulently designed and the threat of bioterrorism had been framed as a rationalization for "political action, the expenditure of public funds for bioterrorism prevention and response programs," that could "not occur without it." This is "not benign," Leitenberg concludes.
A second consequence of sexed-up "bioterror" drills have even more ominous implications for the immediate future. Because of national security state perceptions that mitigation of catastrophic bioterrorism is of supreme importance for national survival--perceptions reinforced by academic, corporate and militarist peddlers of crisis--"the US biodefense research program appears to be drifting into violation" of the Biological Weapons Convention. This is a menacing development and has happened, I would argue precisely because the evaluation process which justifies research into biological weapons threat capabilities and scenarios, are repackaged to conceal the offensive thrust of this research as wholly defensive in nature, which it certainly is not.
How else would one explain ongoing research funded by the National Institutes of Health to study botulism toxin, "with the added qualification" Smith points out, that because the protein toxin is "unstable, therefore there will be collaboration with other researchers to stabilize it." The NIH grant "means preparing a much more effective botulinum toxin than had been available before."
Smith goes on to cite "another problematical breakout" offered by two scientists to study the "aerobiological" characteristics of the lethal Marburg and Ebola viruses. How this is "defensive" in nature, in keeping with research restrictions under the Biological Weapons Convention, is another instance of a backdoor move to kick-start illicit bioweapons development.
According to Smith, the study "looks to define how the organisms can be aerosolized, an instance of research into examining vulnerability in the complete absence of a verified threat." But I would argue that showering taxpayers dollars into such dark and troubling research tributaries deploy hyped-up threats as cover for the development of illegal weapons.
When her nomination was announced in May, Rutgers University and homeland security critic Richard Ebright told Wired,"This is a disastrous nomination. O'Toole supported every flawed decision and counterproductive policy on biodefense, biosafety, and biosecurity during the Bush Administration. O'Toole is as out of touch with reality, and as paranoiac, as former Vice President Cheney. It would be hard to think of a person less well suited for the position."
"She was the single most extreme person, either in or out of government, advocating for a massive biodefense expansion and relaxation of provisions for safety and security," he adds. "She makes Dr. Strangelove look sane." (Noah Shachtman, "DHS' New Geek Chief is a Bioterror 'Disaster,' Critics Charge," Wired, May 6, 2009)And Dr. Smith told Wired that exercises designed by O'Toole and her colleagues show her to be "the top academic/salesperson for the coming of apocalyptic bioterrorism which has never quite arrived."
As noted above, "[She's] most prominent for always lobbying for more money for biodefense, conducting tabletop exercises on bioterrorism for easily overawed public officials, exercises tweaked to be horrifying," Smith told Wired.
But Smith goes even further and denounces O'Toole as an industry shill who "has never obviously appeared to examine what current terrorist capabilities have been... in favor of extrapolating how easy it would be to launch bioterror attacks if one had potentially unlimited resources and scientific know-how." It's a "superb appointment if you're in the biodefense industry and interested in further opportunity and growth."
"Alternatively" Smith avers, O'Toole's appointment is "a disaster if threat assessment and prevention" has "some basis in reality."
Not that any of this matters in Washington. The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee led by "independent Democrat" and arch neocon Sen. Joseph Lieberman, voted to send her nomination to the full Senate July 29 (of 2009).
Key Personnel and Their Influence
Dr. O’Toole’s extensive background adds to the troubling nature of In-Q-Tel's operations. Before her current role, she served as the Under Secretary for Science and Technology at the Department of Homeland Security, where she was involved in developing technologies aimed at bolstering national security. This position likely placed her at the intersection of public health and surveillance, focusing on creating systems that could control populations under the guise of protection.
Dr. O’Toole holds a bachelor’s degree from Vassar College, an M.D. from George Washington University, and a Master of Public Health degree from Johns Hopkins University. She completed her internal medicine residency at Yale University and a fellowship in Occupational and Environmental Medicine at Johns Hopkins. Notably, she serves as a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, an organization that has long been open about discussing strategies for controlling and decreasing the population—a topic they have addressed for decades. This role further cements her position within a network of influential individuals whose interests often align with these controversial population control agendas.
Actions That Helped Usher in the Pandemic
In-Q-Tel and its initiatives, like B.Next, were positioned not just to react but to shape the narrative and responses to COVID-19. While the COVID-19 Diagnostic Accuracy Tool presents itself as a means to provide clarity regarding diagnostic tests, the push for such tools and technologies raises concerns about their potential nefarious purposes. The vaccines developed during this period appear to serve as instruments for implementing population control measures, as they have been forced upon many individuals. The widespread drive for tyrannical COVID-19 policies and vaccinations has created an environment where such measures could be justified and enacted under the guise of public health.
Furthermore, uncovering the full scope of In-Q-Tel's activities before and during the pandemic is no easy task. Information about their projects is often obscured or difficult to locate (good luck trying to get the links on their sites to open when they are clicked on about any of this info), fueling speculation about what might be hidden beneath the surface. The lack of transparency raises alarm bells, suggesting that there may be much more at play than what is publicly acknowledged.
The combination of In-Q-Tel's focus on biotechnologies, Dr. O’Toole’s influential background, and the apparent obfuscation of their pandemic-related activities paint a disturbing picture. These agencies operate in the shadows, engaging in actions that are not only immoral but also unethical and illegal. Their history includes notorious operations like MK Ultra and its numerous subprojects, for which no one has ever been held accountable. This legacy raises critical questions about the motivations driving global health initiatives and the extent to which they serve the interests of a powerful class rather than the public good. In-Q-Tel and its affiliations represent a deeply troubling intersection of technology, control, and questionable ethics, making their influence profoundly concerning.
COVID-19 and the Consortia Model: A Troubling Legacy of Experimentation and Hidden Agendas
The COVID-19 pandemic unveiled the unsettling implications of the Department of Defense (DoD) consortia model, raising alarming questions about its role in advancing long-standing agendas linked to population control and systemic genocide. The pandemic response leveraged public-private consortia, including entities such as the McKinsey and Company, Gates Foundation, major pharmaceutical companies and many MANY more. This partnership model enabled the “rapid development” of mRNA vaccines—technology that had been under development by the DoD and consortium members for years, if not decades, despite previously being deemed too risky or controversial.
The swift deployment of mRNA vaccines during the pandemic suggests that these consortia were the culmination of years of covert experimentation, operating under a veil of diminished transparency and oversight.
Programs like COVAX, framed as initiatives to ensure widespread vaccine access, instead exemplify a troubling descent into authoritarianism. Who voted for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to become our overlords?
These organizations have aggressively pushed for global compliance with their vaccination agendas, often resorting to coercive measures that infringe upon personal freedoms and bodily autonomy.
The emphasis on mass vaccination campaigns has raised alarm bells, as the promotion of these injections has been characterized by a lack of transparency regarding their safety and efficacy. This approach reflects a broader strategy to enforce compliance and control populations under the pretense of public health, raising serious ethical questions about the true motivations of these consortia. Their actions suggest a calculated effort to maintain power and influence while suppressing dissent, effectively operating as a façade for nefarious agendas rooted in manipulation and control.
Ethical Concerns and the Transparency Void
The growing reliance on consortiums by agencies such as the DoD reveals a troubling trend where public interests increasingly align with private outcomes. While consortiums promise innovation and efficiency, they often do so at the expense of transparency and accountability. The flexibility afforded by OT agreements allows these partnerships to operate without the scrutiny typically associated with federal contracts, enabling significant taxpayer funds to be directed towards initiatives with limited public oversight.
The potential for conflicts of interest within these consortiums raises serious ethical dilemmas, as the focus on innovation can overshadow critical public health needs. Taxpayer dollars are funneled into projects that, while appearing beneficial, may ultimately serve private interests more than the public good.
A Call for Accountability and Ethical Governance
The ongoing use of consortia by the DoD and other government agencies necessitates rigorous scrutiny and ethical governance. The potential for private interests to dominate public health priorities illuminates the urgent need for greater transparency and accountability in these partnerships. To ensure that public health outcomes are prioritized over corporate profits, it is essential to critically evaluate the role of consortia in shaping national defense and intelligence agendas and public health policies.
As the landscape of public-private partnerships continues to evolve, a closer examination of these entities is crucial to ensure that taxpayer dollars are used responsibly and that the outcomes genuinely benefit society, rather than simply enriching powerful private interests and their agendas.
Wow, this is awesome!
By the way, about John J. McCloy:
I saw a video years ago, don't remember where, hopefully not scrubbed from the internet now, of an interview with Lyndon Johnson's former mistress, who remembered a small party that Johnson attended and who was there. The party was a few weeks before the JFK assassination. John J McCloy was there, probably representing the Rockefellers. LBJ came back from the party and told his mistress that he "wouldn't have to worry about Kennedy anymore".
WOW! Excellent work!
Now, literally every fart they want to control is deemed a "threat to national security" which means literally ANYTHING goes in their attempt to "contain" it. FEMA lines up the camps for them.