NATO’s Trojan Horse Behind Europe’s COVID-19 Response

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Did the US Department of Defense, NATO, and the EU coordinate a military response, employing tactics like 5th Generation Warfare and military-grade tools to hide the truth behind the release of a US DoD synthetic bioweapon into the European member states under the banner of “COVID-19 vaccines”?

Operation Warp Speed was a centralized military-controlled response to the COVID-19 pandemic, so why think for one moment that the EU response to this very questionable public health emergency wasn’t treated as a trans-border CBRN defense/security threat to the EU?

By looking into the regulatory processes that have applied for the Conditional Marketing Approval (CMA) which was necessary for the deployment of the so-called COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ on European soil, we hope to detect anomalies and perhaps even wilful misconduct carried out by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the European Commission (EC).

The aim of this two parts series is to identify patterns within the EU COVID-19 pandemic response that match those observed during Operation Warp Speed in the US. 

We will establish if the European Commission (EC) and European Medicines Agency (EMA), the European regulator had pre-knowledge of the US DOD plan to unleash an experimental biodefense countermeasure, with the help of NATO, into the European population with perhaps as researcher Sasha Latypova would have said, “an intent to harm“.

Was the EU and NATO’s answer to the COVID-19 pandemic a military response, and if so, what does it look like? We need to ask:

• What was France’s military response to COVID-19?
• What was Germany’s military response to COVID-19?
• What was Italy’s military response to COVID-19?
• What was Spain’s military response to COVID-19?
• What was NATO military response to the COVID-19
• What was The EU Military response to the COVID-19

The technology known as Synthetic Biology has been at the forefront of the US Department of Defense R&D’s investment with agencies such as DARPA’s Biological Technologies Office and InQTel at the helm amongst many other actors from the academic world.

We have already identified Moderna and Pfizer as the US government’s (USG) biodefense (biowarfare) top partners, so the question is: what were they working on since 2013, and is it possible these so-called mRNA COVID-19 vaccines came out of the same program?

Following our investigation and the disturbing information we were able to gather regarding the development of unsafe medical countermeasures by the US Department of Defense (thanks to Sasha Latypova’s work), we decided in 2022 to launch an investigation in Europe to see how much the European Commission and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) actually knew about the history behind the development and manufacturing of the COVID-19 vaccines.

With the help of Big Pharma, military biodefense countermeasures were developed, marketed, and deployed around the world under the pretext of a highly debatable ‘public health emergency of international concern’ declared by the WHO at the end of Jan 2020.

After more than two and half years of tracking this operation, we began to see a much clearer picture emerge from behind the fog of 5^th Generation Warfare (5GW) and the domination of the global information space and public perception (previously falling under the heading of propaganda operations). What has emerged is a joint government-media-military effort that has relentlessly censured scientists and true journalists around the world, whilst shielding the public from the truth. The recent revelations from the Twitter Files by journalist Matt Taibbi and others, clearly show the US government-led component of controlling speech and information across major social media platforms. But there is more.

What do we know so far in a nutshell?

Read the document here.

What has been reported so far about the Covid-19 injections?

• mRNA ‘vaccine’ material does not stay at the injection site, but instead can travel throughout the body and accumulate in various organs,
• If the Pharma industry’s claims about the mRNA technology are correct, then the COVID vaccines may induce long-lasting expression of the “SARS-CoV-2 spike protein” in many organs,
• mRNA vaccine-induced expression of the toxic ‘spike protein’ could induce autoimmune-like inflammation,
• and vaccine-induced inflammation triggered by injection contents, including Lipid Nanoparticles (LNP), cause grave organ damage, especially in vessels, sometimes with deadly outcomes.

Vascular and organ damage are clearly induced by mRNA vaccines, and here is additional scientific proof of causality.

Why were studies such as immuno-histochemistry never conducted nor requested by government regulators to detect either the widespread expression of ‘spike protein’ or reactions to LNPs in animal trials during preclinical development?

This question burdens the minds of people like Prof. Arne Burkhardt, a very experienced pathologist from Reutlingen, Germany, who heavily contributed to this August 2022 article published on the Doctors for COVID Ethics website.  With the help of his colleague Prof. Walter Lang, Prof. Burkhardt has studied numerous cases of death which occurred within days to several months after vaccination. In each of these cases, the cause of death had been certified as “natural” or “unknown.” Burkhardt became involved only because the bereaved families doubted these verdicts and sought a second opinion.

It is remarkable, therefore, that Burkhardt found not just a few, but the majority of these deaths to be due to vaccination. Clearly, something has gone terribly wrong here, and so it forces us to reflect on the central question:

“If these mRNA Covid-19 vaccines were not safe, not efficacious, not prophylactic, and were harming people (which is what a Bioweapon does) why would regulators such as FDA, MHRA, EMA, Health Canada, etc….would  grant vaccine companies marketing approval?”

Burkhardt Group Conclusions can be found here.

With this basic knowledge in hand, it has become clear that the people of Europe need to start questioning the true nature of the COVID-19 pandemic and also investigate the biodefense programs that have flourished over the years in countries like US, Georgia, Germany, Ukraine, and China just to name  a few.

The need to increase the debate regarding the safety and efficacy of these Biodefense COVID-19 ‘countermeasures’ (pandemic policy measures and ‘vaccines’) is being felt more than ever, and so part of our recent discussions with various parties was to establish the level of awareness regarding the European Commission and its regulator, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the control they actually had over these US military bio-defense countermeasures which were granted “Conditional Marketing Approval” (CMA) characterised as “mRNA COVID-19 vaccines” by these two institutions.

Research in Genome Editing

While the Soviet Union stumbled and lesser nations mixed radical ideology with a commitment to counterbalance the West’s conventional advantage, the revolution in biotechnology accelerated.

The human genome project, genetic engineering, synthetic biology, and recombinant technologies were carrying the promise of a better life, but at the same time reminded us all that, historically, beneficial technological advancements are sometimes exploited by unscrupulous people, often driven by profits ( like big pharma). Non-biological terrorist incidents close to home have raised our awareness and concern that a new generation of corporate biological terrorists might use bacteria, viruses, toxins, or even designer agents against populations to justify the deployment of expensive covered countermeasures known to us as vaccines.

Throughout the cold war, proliferators had independently selected nearly the same list of weapons agents for tactical use on the battlefield or strategic use to be delivered by intercontinental ballistic missiles. It was a relatively small group (10-20) of agents drawn from hundreds available in nature that had physical and biological characteristics such as pathogenicity, toxicity, ease of production and stability qualifying them for aerosol dissemination.

The following quote comes from a book written by Dr. David R. Franz titled Medical Countermeasures to Biological Warfare Agents. This book is part of NATO Sciences Book series (ASDT, volume 34). Dr. Franz is a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine and a former Commander United States Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) and this is what he wrote:

“To produce a true mass casualty attack the terrorist will likely have to use agents from that threat list developed and tested for biological warfare application. However, because a small non-lethal attack, or even a biological hoax, is adequate to cause panic and lead to coveted national television coverage, the modern bioterrorist probably has a much wider spectrum of agents from which to choose. However, the terrorist spectrum, while much broader, is not necessarily more lethal.”

Although the concept and stories surrounding the use of biological weapons are as old as King Herod, modern technology brings many new possibilities, especially with the field of synthetic biology, recent advances in gene editing technology, and so much more – it seems that the sky is no longer the limit. A US Intelligence Community report published in 2016 provided a Worldwide Threat Assessment. It was written by James Clapper, former director of National Intelligence, and technologies such as “Genome Editing” were listed in the “weapons of mass destruction” and proliferation section:

“Research in genome editing conducted by countries with different regulatory or ethical standards than those of Western countries probably increases the risk of the creation of potentially harmful biological agents or products. Given the broad distribution, low cost, and accelerated pace of development of this dual-use technology, its deliberate or unintentional misuse might lead to far-reaching economic and national security implications”.

Article by 21st Century Wire: Click here to continue reading…

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from 21CW

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page.