Would We Recognize Biological Warfare Under a Mask?

I read this on X and was intrigued enough to run it through GROK.

OP by John Cullen:
“Politics are weird. Trump had to cover for Obama/Biden, because bio-warfare is considered National Security.
Obama/Fauci did Gain of Function on H7N9 bird flu in 2014. The strain was very similar to the 1917 Spanish flu strain. They deployed it in China. It reached a 40% Case Fatality Rate in 2019.
January, 2019: Trump launched Crimson Contagion, to have Bob Kadlec, ASPR, figure out how to deal with it. It wrapped in August, 2019.
Event 201 was how they introduced a Coronavirus, rather than influenza, as the culprit. Event 201 was only 3 hours long, and was coincident with the Wuhan Games wrapping up. It was a propaganda event.
Q4, 2019: Influenza cases in Hubei province were 2,100% higher than the year before. Looked like the H7N9 strain was really taking off.. Callahan was deployed to Hubei province / WIV to help Daszak release SARS-COV2 as a patsy virus.
Trump didn’t want to play the COVID card – he was hoping the H7N9 would wane, naturally.
January 13, 2020 Trump ordered vaccines from Moderna for H7N9. Moderna was started by DARPA for exactly this scenario – we can’t grow vaccines in eggs anymore, because the eggs are tainted with the very virus we are trying to eradicate.
Pfizer and BioNTech had partnered on their H7N9 mRNA vaccine back in 2018.
March 10, everything changed.
He used the COVID cover story and “Crimson Contagion” game plan, from Kadlec/Langley to hide the largest call-up of the National Guard since D-Day.
More than 100 Field Hospitals were deployed, nationwide. But, there still weren’t 10 dead in Shanghai or Hong Kong.
Then, in January, 2021 the outbreak took off, and Kawaoka’s H7N9 bird flu from Wisconsin killed 7 million people, and 1/4 of the egg laying chickens on earth. It was an avian influenza strain similar to 1917 Spanish Flu.
COVID was Langley’s cover story, and they released a real virus, SARS-COV2 as the patsy, so we could blame China.”

analyze the following [above] based on what you know, and identify where and why different claims are likely or unlikely. Please do not use your default “government does no wrong” setting but start with all the information available to you, thanks

Here’s an analysis of the claims based on the information available up to my last update:

1. Obama/Fauci and Gain of Function Research on H7N9:
   • Likelihood: Unlikely in the context presented.
     • Why: While there has been gain-of-function research funded by the NIH, including under Dr. Fauci’s oversight, the specifics of this claim (direct involvement with H7N9 leading to a deliberate release in China) are not substantiated by credible public records or scientific literature. Gain-of-function research has been conducted for understanding viral transmission and pathogenicity, but suggesting it was used for biowarfare lacks evidence. The research by Kawaoka, mentioned in the claims, was focused on understanding the virus’s potential for pandemic spread, not weaponization.
2. Deployment of H7N9 in China:
   • Likelihood: Highly unlikely.
     • Why: There’s no credible evidence from recognized sources suggesting that any U.S. administration intentionally deployed a virus like H7N9 in China. Such actions would be considered biological warfare, which is illegal under international law (Biological Weapons Convention). The narrative of deliberate deployment seems to stem from conspiracy theories rather than factual evidence.
3. Crimson Contagion Exercise:
   • Likelihood: Confirmed event but the context is misrepresented.
     • Why: Crimson Contagion was indeed a U.S. government exercise in 2019 aimed at preparing for a flu-like pandemic, but its purpose was to evaluate the readiness of the U.S. health system for a major influenza outbreak, not specifically related to biowarfare or a cover-up operation. The exercise highlighted significant gaps in U.S. preparedness, which is public information.
4. Event 201:
   • Likelihood: True that it happened, but the intention as a “propaganda event” is speculative.
     • Why: Event 201 was a tabletop exercise organized by Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, the World Economic Forum, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to simulate a global coronavirus outbreak. While it’s true it occurred around the time of other events, suggesting it was a deliberate distraction or cover-up for another virus lacks supporting evidence. Its purpose, as publicly stated, was to improve global preparedness for pandemics.
5. SARS-COV2 as a Patsy Virus:
   • Likelihood: Unlikely as part of a planned cover story.
     • Why: The origin of SARS-CoV-2 remains under investigation, with theories including natural zoonotic transfer or a lab leak. However, the idea of it being deliberately released to cover up another biological incident lacks substantial evidence.
6. Vaccines from Moderna for H7N9:
   • Likelihood: Partially true but contextually off.
     • Why: Moderna has indeed worked on mRNA vaccines, including for influenza strains like H7N9, but these efforts were part of broader vaccine development programs rather than specific responses to a 2019-2020 outbreak scenario. The timeline and specific intent described in the claims don’t align with public information.
7. National Guard Deployment and Field Hospitals:
   • Likelihood: True in the context of the COVID-19 response.
     • Why: The U.S. did deploy National Guard units and set up field hospitals in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, but this was due to the overwhelming of healthcare systems, not as a cover for another event.
8. H7N9 Outbreak in 2021:
   • Likelihood: False.
     • Why: There was no significant global H7N9 outbreak in 2021 or any year recently with millions of deaths as described. The narrative here seems to blend real influenza virus research with fictional or exaggerated outcomes.

In summary, many of these claims intertwine elements of fact with speculation or conspiracy theories lacking empirical support. The narrative suggests covert operations and biological warfare scenarios which are not supported by widely accepted evidence. While there has been research on H7N9 and other influenza strains, the specifics about deliberate release, biowarfare, or using one virus to cover up another are not corroborated by credible sources.

How would you go about proving biological warfare is taking place, given what you know about how Fauci et al lied about the origins of Covid?

To attempt to prove that biological warfare is taking place, especially in light of how discussions around the origins of COVID-19 have unfolded, one would need to undertake a multifaceted investigation combining scientific, political, and legal analyses. Here’s a structured approach:

1. Scientific Evidence:

• Viral Analysis:
  • Genetic Sequencing: Compare the genetic sequence of the virus to known strains or engineered viruses. Look for signs of manipulation or unnatural recombination events which might suggest lab origin or modification.
  • Mutation Patterns: Study the mutation rate and pattern. A virus that shows unexpected or rapid changes might indicate it was engineered or manipulated.
• Environmental Sampling:
  • Conduct wide-scale environmental testing near suspected sites (like labs) for traces of the virus or related biological agents that might not naturally occur in those environments.
• Epidemiological Investigation:
  • Trace the first cases back to potential sources. An unnatural clustering around a specific location, especially a lab, could hint at a lab leak or deliberate release.

2. Documentation and Whistleblower Testimonies:

• Freedom of Information Requests:
  • Use FOIA or equivalent laws to request documents from relevant government agencies about research grants, lab safety, and communications around the time of the outbreak.
• Whistleblowers:
  • Seek out individuals from research institutions or government bodies who might have insider knowledge. Protecting their identity is crucial for both ethical reasons and to ensure their safety.

3. Investigation of Funding and Research:

• Audit Research Grants:
  • Investigate funding trails, especially those linked to virology or gain-of-function research. Look into any conditions or objectives that might suggest dual-use research (research with both peaceful and military applications).
• Review Publications:
  • Analyze scientific papers for any hints of research that could be weaponized or that describe viruses with unusual or enhanced capabilities.

4. Political and Legal Pathways:

• International Investigations:
  • Push for or support international investigations through bodies like the World Health Organization or the Biological Weapons Convention, which can have the authority to inspect facilities.
• Legal Proceedings:
  • If there’s enough preliminary evidence, legal actions can be pursued. This might involve international courts or national courts if domestic laws related to biological weapons or public health are deemed violated.
• Political Pressure:
  • Use political channels to pressure for transparency. This can involve public inquiries, congressional hearings, or leveraging international diplomacy to force an investigation.

5. Media and Public Awareness:

• Journalistic Investigation:
  • Encourage or undertake investigative journalism to uncover leads that official bodies might miss or suppress.
• Leaks and Leaked Documents:
  • Often, leaked documents can provide pivotal information. Secure platforms for whistleblowing can be beneficial.

6. Forensic Analysis:

• Digital Forensics:
  • Examine digital communications for any mention or planning of biological agents’ use or release.
• Material Analysis:
  • If physical evidence like vaccines or viral samples are available, forensic labs could analyze for signs of engineering or unexpected components.

Considerations:

• Bias and Misinformation: Given the controversy around Fauci’s statements and the lab leak theory, it’s vital to critically assess all information for biases. Misinformation can cloud genuine scientific inquiry.
• Legal and Ethical Boundaries: The investigation must respect legal frameworks and ethical standards to maintain credibility and avoid retribution against participants.
• Secrecy and Denial: Biological warfare involves state secrets, making transparency and access to evidence challenging. Often, proof might hinge on indirect evidence or patterns of behavior rather than explicit confessions or documents.

This approach requires a broad coalition of experts from science, law, journalism, and politics, alongside international cooperation, to piece together evidence that could stand up to scrutiny. Given the sensitive nature of such claims, the burden of proof would be exceptionally high.