Transkript der Sitzung 129: Weggabelung

Verweis

Hier finden Sie Transkripte der Sitzung 129: Weggabelung.

Allgemeines

Wenn diese Seite ein Ergebnis Ihrer Begriffssuche ist wissen Sie, dass der gesuchte Begriff mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit in der zugehörigen Sitzung verwendet wurde, deren Sitzungsübersicht oben unter „Verweis“ verlinkt ist.

Wenn Sie nun eine genauere Angabe benötigen, wann genau der Begriff in der zugehörigen Sitzung verwendet wurde, nutzen Sie bitte die Browser-Funktion Auf dieser Seite suchen, die Sie folgendermaßen aufrufen können:

• Windows-Rechner: Drücken Sie gleichzeitig die Tasten [Strg] und [F] und geben Sie den Begriff ein, den Sie in den Transkripten suchen möchten.
• Mac-Rechner: Drücken Sie gleichzeitig die Tasten [CMD] und [F] und geben Sie den Begriff ein, den Sie in den Transkripten suchen möchten.
• Mobilgeräte: Wie Sie die Suchfunktion auf einem Mobilgerät aufrufen, ist stark abhängig von dem Browser, den Sie verwenden. Bitte informieren Sie sich im Internet, wie Sie die „Auf dieser Seite suchen“ Funktion mit Ihrem Smartphone-Browser aufrufen können.

So finden Sie den Begriff in seinem Kontext und können über einen nahegelegenen Zeitstempel ermitteln, wann der Begriff ungefähr in der Sitzungsaufzeichnung zu finden ist.

Transkript

Im Optimalfall finden Sie nachfolgend ein „Überarbeitetes Transkript“. Das bedeutet, dass das Transkript durch einen Menschen geprüft, korrigiert und vervollständigt wurde. Dies ist ein äußerst zeitintensiver Prozess und wir können leider zum aktuellen Zeitpunkt nicht zu vielen Sitzungen sorgsam überarbeitete Transkripte zur Verfügung stellen. Selbst, wenn Sie ein überarbeitetes Transkript vorfinden, übernehmen wir keine Gewähr für dessen Korrektheit. Bitte prüfen Sie die jeweilige Aussage in einem weiteren Schritt in der Videoaufzeichnung der Sitzung, die über die Sitzungsseite verlinkt wurde. Sie finden die Sitzungsseite oben unter „Verweis“ verlinkt und dort wiederum die Links zu den Video-Aufzeichnungen der Sitzungen.

Mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit finden Sie nachfolgend zumindest ein „Automatisches Transkript“. Automatische Transkripte wurden von einer speziellen Software, die Audiospuren auswerten und zu Text umwandeln kann, automatisch generiert. Solche Transkripte sind relativ leicht zu erstellen, bedürfen aber meist noch intensiver Überarbeitung, weil sie viele Fehler enthalten.

Solche Programme wandeln das gesprochene Wort meist auch nicht korrekt in Text um, wenn während der Sitzung zwischen zwei Sprachen gewechselt wird (was in beinahe jeder Sitzung vom Corona-Ausschuss mehrmals geschieht) und können das gesprochene Wort nicht immer den richtigen Personen zuordnen. Auch im unvollkommenen Rohzustand dienen automatische Transkripte aber bereits als Quelltext einer Archiv-Suche zur Ermittlung von Ausschuss-Inhalten über bestimmte Stichworte, wie wir sie mit diesem Ausschuss-Archiv ermöglichen - zumindest für alle Begriffe, die das Programm korrekt identifiziert hat. Außerdem bieten wir sie hiermit als Grundlage einer manuellen Überarbeitung an:

Wenn Sie dabei helfen wollen, das Transkript zu dieser Sitzung zu überarbeiten oder bereits über ein sorgfältig geprüftes Transkript zur Sitzung verfügen, kontaktieren Sie uns bitte per Mail mit dem Betreff: Unterstützung Transkription.

Überarbeitetes Transkript

Es liegt zurzeit nicht von jedem Gastbeitrag der Sitzung ein überarbeitetes Transkript vor.

Dr. Andrew G. Huff (Englisch)

Viviane Fischer: [01:15:11] We have the next guest now, and I will switch to English now. it’s Andrew G. Huff. Can you hear us?

Andrew Huff: Yes, good morning.

Viviane Fischer: Hello. Great to see you. Yeah, so you are a former Eco Health Alliance vice president, and also a whistleblower. You an army combat veteran and a scientist. So do you have some exciting information for us today? I think … could you maybe give us a little bit–

Andrew Huff: I’m quite the atypical scientist, by American standards.

Viviane Fischer: OK. Maybe can you give us a little bit more information about your background, so people can have an– I think you have quite a broad background.

Andrew Huff:

Andrew Huff PhD

Yes. I… view myself as a generalist. I didn’t become a scientist or infectious disease doctor by choice. Initially I went down the path of opportunity. So I started off my career as a product of 9-11. I served in the infantry in the US Army, served Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom. My degrees are in psychology; my master’s degree is in engineering, from a security technology perspective. My PhD is environmental health science, emerging infectious disease epidemiology.

So that’s my specialty through school. I know, I understand the difference though between the German education system, the US, a little bit different. But after completing my PhD, which was heavily national security focused, on biosecurity, biowarfare, bioterrorism, I went to work at Sandia National Laboratories as an expert in a pandemic preparedness, emerging infectious diseases, biowarfare, bioterrorism, both in a classified environment, things I can’t talk about, but also much of the work I did what was not classified.

I got sick of working in the classified environment. Big shock. My work was increasingly being stamped classified. And when you’re a scientist, if you can’t talk about the things you’re doing you’re trapped at that place of employment. So I went on to look for other… opportunities. And I was hired as a senior scientist at Eco Health Alliance, which at the time I believed was the complete opposite of the environment that I was working at.

[1:17:24] So I thought I was going to this crunchy, kind of granola, environmentally friendly organization. I was quite successful there, received about six to seven million dollars of funding within my first year, year and a half. And I was promoted to executive as vice president. And, you know, when I left Eco Health Alliance, I thought it was… one that happiest days of my life. I thought my… boss was crazy. and didn’t really know what he was doing. But I just thought it was a bad work experience. I went on to be a professor at Michigan State University, and then later an executive at Jewel Laboratories before the pandemic hit.

And once the the pandemic hits, a number of my… experiences from the Eco Health Alliance, and what I knew in the context of what was going on, I really came to conclusions real quick about what haf really happened.

Viviane Fischer: Um-hm. So what was going on in China?

Andrew Huff: China as a country, or do you mean…

Viviane Fischer: No, I mean with regards to the– let’s look at first your broader take on… the… whole pandemic, plandemic, or whatever we might call it, situation. How do you view that?

Andrew Huff: Well, so first of all, I don’t view it as the plandemic as some conspiracy theorists have painted it out to be. So in my book, The Truth About Wuhan, I really get down to the– I do some scenario analysis around the objectives of state actors and… why they might behave in a certain way. And I firmly believe that the pandemic was a laboratory accident. I don’t see any indication that… it was intentional, based on the behavior the Chinese and the people that were involved in the coverup. It looks like a complete coverup. If it were an intentional event, they did everything the wrong way. In from an attack and perspective. You wouldn’t set off something like this in your home country. The Chinese actually lost billions of dollars, or and maybe trillions, in terms of their GDP, so the Chinese actually lost a lot. A lot of their own people were harmed and died. It’s hard to believe that you would release something like this, in the manner that they did, intentionally, on their own soil, unless it was a false-flag attack. But even then, that would cause World War Three, so I don’t really believes that to be the case. I think every, all the evidence strongly indicates an accidental release.

Now in the context of what… I knew was going on… so when I was hired at Eco Alliance, in 2014 in the fall, I was actually ased to review the gain-of-function proposal, understanding the risk of bat coronavirus emergence which was funded by NIH, NIAID. that’s Dr. Anthony Fauci’s division, my division, of public health. And I didn’t really think anything of it. I mean, typically when you’re hired into… a scientific or academic organization, you review each other’s proposals to make them stronger. What I wasn’t aware [of] was that the proposal had already likely been approved.

Just this past, you know, few months, I actually went back and finally looked at the meta data of the original proposal. And it looks like it was edited after it was submitted to NIH, which is highly irregular. And all, all this in context, I had this information in the back of my mind, I become aware of the pandemic in mid-December of 2019. So I actually developed and designed the bio-surveillance tools for the three-letter agencies of the US government.

So I built the tools to detect emerging infectious diseases and pandemics. And I know how well they work. I know how the system works. And because of the military– the Department of Defense has actually one of the best bio-surveillance systems in the world, if not the best. And I’m just, all this is in the back my mind as this is happening. I become, like I said, I become aware of the pandemic in mid-December 2019. That’s before most people know about it. It’s before the governments are talking about it. And I started asking questions immediately, of my peers, of my colleagues.

Why are we talking about this? Why… isn’t there messaging? Why aren’t we doing things to restrict travel, to get a better understanding what, what’s going on? Because lockdowns and… quarantines and restrictions do work for a period of time, for a very specific, narrow objective. The problem is, you know, from a policy response perspective, lockdowns internationally and nationally were used a beyond their useful… scope, or the useful intent of what they’re supposed to do. So that’s a whole different issue.

[01:21:37] But I start asking questions. The more questions I start asking and the… more hypotheses I generate early in… 2020, it appears that the US government’s lying to us about everything. I’m asking my peers about this. And that that makes me untrusting of the other US government officials and scientists that I’ve worked with in the past. Because I don’t understand why they’re lying, I don’t understand whether they would come clean if this were a lab leak. And the one thing that I didn’t realize at first was to the extent how much are the United States Government’s fingerprints were all over the intellectual property and information transfer their happened the Chinese. I mean, I knew to some extent.

But then what happens between 2019 through 2022, is that other… scientists and… journalists and other people are investigating this. And that serves to plug the knowledge gaps of questions that I had. So my… opinions and my ideas become more cemented, as those knowledge gaps get filled, naturally.

Viviane Fischer: So then you– okay, so it’s a… it was– so we have… a lab accident. And then China is trying to cover this up. And the other… the other states, America may be involved in the gain-of-function research. They have this information but do not shared it with the public. Is that what you say?

Andrew Huff: Oh absolutely. And that can all be proven beyond a doubt. So a little bit more about my background. I’m also trained as a Federal Bureau of Investigations criminal epidemiologic investigator. So I’m… trained to investigate foul play with infectious diseases. So epidemiology doesn’t lie. So what happens over the course of 2021 and 2022, several different scientists internationally start asking the question: when did the first cases of SARS-CoV-2 emerge?

And if you go back and look at all the data there’s cases in Italy as early as potentiaally late August or early September 2019. There’s some other weird things that happen in my life during the fall of 2019. I’m actually contacted by Dr. Amy Jenkins. She’s a program manager, program officer, in what’s called the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. And they offer me a position to be a program officer or program manager over biologics epidemiology infectious disease intelligence division, of this laboratory. And this is in the international security community or, like I say, the defence research community, this would be a scientist’s dream position, is the pinnacle of secret technology, spy-movie kind of work.

So they… basically call me up and offer to me what would be my dream job. In october of 2019. Well here are the strange facts surrounding that. They called me, this woman reached me at a phone number which was brand new, which none of my national security contacts have had access to. So… I… don’t understand how this woman got a hold of my new personal cell phone number. So that’s really strange.

The timing then also aligns with when the US Department of Defense likely– or the intelligence community at large– learned about something happening in China. So the… tools that I used to develop… they monitor different things, social media platforms, using machine learning and artificial intelligence, natural language processing, looking for different types of signals, or corollaries, with emerging infectious disease events. And they work tremendously well, actually.

In statistics xxxx xxxx R-squared or F scores, very high-precision work, very… accurate. And in the right kind of problem space, or right kind of context. So I know all these different things. This woman contacts mean and offers me a job. I refuse, because like I said before, I wanted to get away from working in the national security research field. I didn’t think anything of it. I’m like, well this woman just is being persistent she wants me to work in this job. I was working in Jewel Labs. I was making three to four times the money that has government position offered me. I didn’t want the security clearance again.

[01:25:50] Well then, when I reflect back in 2020, 2021 about what had happened. And then I’m learning about the cases of the orig– so the later-identified cases in… September and late August OF 2021. iT only make sense if US… government had this figured out by probably early October at the latest. And if you look at the series of actions and e-mail communications which have either been FOIAed released by the US government or other documents related to intellectual transfer– intellectual property transfer agreements between Moderna Dr. Ralph Barik, the University of North Carolina, NIH– all these documents support what I’m saying. Because these all happened before the official timeline of events, according to the US government and according to the Chinese, as it’s been communicated to the world population.

[01:26:42] And in my book, I have roughly four hundred and sixty citations which are all from other scientists, peer review… sources or government documents, where I can point to this and I can prove that this is a fact. We’ve also filed a billion-dollar lawsuit in the United States in the state of New York against the covid co-conspirators, do Dr Peter Dasik, Dr. Ralph Baric, Dr. Ian Lipkin from Columbia University and their institutions. And we… actually expect this lawsuit to expand. And a number of private attorneys have looked at this case and said it’s rock-solid. We have whistleblowers from inside the Chinese laboratory system, myself, and… all the documents to prove everything we’re saying.

Viviane Fischer: Well that’s amazing. It would be great if you could provide us with these documents of the lawsuit. That sounds as very, very interesting. So and… but did the… this coverup– it’s going on because of the involvement, of the kind of negligence, or like intent, I mean being involved in the… process of… creating these viruses? Or, and then the coverup. That’s what you say. And the coverup is for what reason? Because… of the involvement in– I mean, why do they want to cover– I mean, couldn’t they have also just pointed the finger at… you know, at the Chinese, saying, “Hey, you did this. It’s your lab leak. How are… we involved in this?”

Andrew Huff: [01:28:08] Yes, because the– what happened– so this is… hypothesis on my part. I haven’t yet proven this. But I asked a fundamental question, when I worked at Eco Health Alliance, at executive meeting. I brought up the question: are we the slightest bit concerned, in this relationship with China, that they’re going to… rip us off, or they’re going to steal from us, mainly intellectual property from the samples they’re collecting. Because these biological samples that they’re collecting for… viruses are worth a lot of money. I mean, that, that’s what I don’t think most people realize.

This sample collection effort to collect genetic material is– can be commercialized into vaccines, into treatments, to make new… Franken bugs like SARS-CoV-2. These things are worth money, OK? And the way that we were framing the bio-surveillance work that we were doing when I worked at Eco Health Alliance, and I actually helped my boss, Dr. Peter Dasik develop the, an investment presentation, or investment pitch deck, we call them in the United States, to… try getting money for things. We actually approached the, what’s called Incutel, which is the venture capital firm for the Central Intelligence Agency, and presented the bio-surveillance work that we were doing with the mouse gain-of-function work that we were doing to humanize the bug, and then to develop medical countermeasures, that would be the mRNA platform. All these things actually happened, OK? So even though that… Eco Health doesn’t receive the money, MetaBiota, one of its partner laboratories, does receive an Incutel investment. Eco Health Alliance does not, but we actually execute all the work that, that’s in this pitch deck, even though they don’t receive funding.

And that if you look at all the different funding sources, from the Department Defense, Department of Homeland Security, you know the reason why this coverup happens is because it looks like… mismanagement by the US government at the grandest scale. Or… intentional fraud in some cases. It’s hard to really… it’s really hard to to piece out which is it. Is it fraud, is it mismanagement? It’s probably– this is so complex, it’s… probably a mixture of all these things. And nobody really wants to fall on the sword for this. I mean, think about it. We got over six million people dead, trillions of dollars wasted globally. Nobody wants to be the fall guy for this.

And politically speaking, in the United States why this is such a difficult issue, and they wonder why there hasn’t been a proper investigation. Well, Republicans have their fingerprints on it. You know, we have the two-party, the uni-party system here, which it seems like. And both Democrats and Republicans have their fingerprints on this politically. So it. it’s not a winner for anybody. And, you know, I wish that politicians and bureaucrats and United States would grow up, and realize that if we don’t address this issue, domestically first and then internationally, this kind of thing will happen again. And people who have been against gain-of-function research, which I have been since my, you know, I became up a PhD or doctor in this field, once I really understood it, this will keep happening again. I was actually just speaking with a senior executive from the Department of Homeland Security on the phone last night, a person that I used to work with, and he agrees. You know, unless we get some some reins on this gain-of-function work, this kind of thing will happen again, because we didn’t have the adequate control measures in place to monitor was happening at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

And this is back to an earlier point: so why were we doing this work with the they Wuhan Institute of Virology? And this is my idea. Well, I ask a simple question to people. Do you believe that the Chinese government needs 500,000 dollars, two million dollars, heck, even five million dollars of US funding to do research? It’s laughable. In the Department of Defense, that’s like a nickel, you know, or five cents or ten cents. And to the Chinese department of defense, it’s the same. They didn’t really need our money, so what did the Chinese need? The Chinese needed our intellectual property.

You know, the United States, Dr. Ralph Baric’s laboratory is the leading laboratory in this gain-of-function work. And what did the United States want from the Chinese? We wanted access to what was known as their bioweapons laboratory. The only problem is, as explains to people– so I used to work at that secret… laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories. it’s where nuclear weapons are made, among other things, and engineered.

So when we receive or have foreign visitors, we keep them on what’s called the special tour. And everywhere they go, they’re monitored, and we bug-sweep everything that they… touch. Because we’re so concerned about the espionage risk that foreigners, especially the Chinese, would… present in this laboratory.

[01:32:30] Now, do you think the Chinese these are… stupid? I mean, do people really believe that? Do you believe, think, that they took people like Dr. Peter Dasik on a full tour of the laboratory, or other US officials? No, they took them on the special tour, just like we would take them on the special tour at one of our laboratories.

And this is the cloak-and-dagger game of… advanced technology research, whether it’s in nuclear weapons, bio weapons. It’s the same in that regard. They’re not going to really show you what, what’s really going on underneath the skin. They’re all going to show you what they want you to see, and I believe it was a bad exchange. You know, bad trade.

So some policy maker in the United States said, this is a good way for us to figure out what’s going on at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The Wuhan Institute of Virology said, well they’re gaining biotechnology. And for this reason, this is why I believe the coverup continues.

Viviane Fischer: [01:33:18] And is this Wuhan lab, do you know, at the center of what’s going on with regards to gain-of-function? Is that the… biggest hub? I think there also like, a lot of other laboratories that, in that, do you know, that there’s Fort Detrick, and then there’s places in… Georgia, I believe. I mean, it’s kind of not clear what’s really going on in all these laboratories. But is there like, a ranking? Is this top notch, the Wuhan place?

Andrew Huff: Well now, I mean, thanks to the United States, the Wuhan Institute of Virology is probably one of the premier gain-of-function research laboratories. I mean, so think about it, how they are tested. So they receive foreign assistance from the French, from the United States and then some other international folks, to help stand up this lab, get ready to get going. So then they… experience a lab leak. So their scientists and engineers and their policy makers in China experience this lab-leak problem. And then they have to work their way through it. So they have to plug the leak. They have to stop it and control the outbreak.

So in terms of how far their… bioweapons, gain of function, biological technology knowledge has increased — it’s dramatically increased, just from the nature of going through one of these events. That, that’s what happens. You know, human, from a human behavioral perspective, they now have experience dealing with one of the worst possible scenarios on their own soil. So the, they’re probably one of the premier facilities. Fort Detrick in Maryland, you know, who knows what’s going on there. There’s probably other laboratories in the private sector in the United States where this is going on. We don’t really know.

You could go find this out by FOIAing contract proposals with the Department of Defense or other agencies. Or look at all the things have been funded by NIH. But then there’s what happens independent of government funding as well. And, you know, one of the… concerns that they’ve talked about in national security circles we jokingly call people– well there’s the hobbyist gene jockey, that can go buy CRISPR kiTs on line, and then spLice genes in the garage on the weekend. And you can do this with… minimal training. Not maybe… not the kinds of things that we’ve… seen with SARS-CoV-2, not that level of sophistication, but these technologies are becoming more accessible to the lay person by the day, as computing technology improves. and also the packaging of these kind of splicing kits.

Viviane Fischer: [01:35:37] And like, when you look at the outbreak, the images or videos that we could see in, from the outbreak in China in the beginning. There were a lot of people like, just dropping dead on the street. It, was that, is… that, was that real? Is, was that maybe like a specially toxic reaction the people had from the… virus, or was that something fabricated? I don’t know. I mean, it seemed a little bit– do you know, it’s really hard to tell from the, from far away. What’s your take on that?

Andrew Huff: Yeah, I have the same question. So since I find out about the outbreak in mid-December before… the mainstream narratives are being pushed by the government. It’s the United States government basically telling you not to worry, in late December and then the first couple weeks of January. I saw these same videos, and it created a reaction in me like, “Holy crap, why aren’t we… doing anything?” And the people dropping dead in the streets, or collapsing in the streets, when it… appears that could have been one or two things. It could have been propaganda to get people scared, and if so, it was effective, I think.

Or two, you they could have had, you know, hypothesizing here, they could have had some early kind of mitigation strategy chemical, drug, something that they were testing, which caused an adverse reaction in people. I don’t believe it was the bug that was… causing this. But it’s… certainly possible. I mean, you’d… have to, you’d have to have a proper investigation, you’d have to go look at these individuals. You’d have to look at their medical record and see what their exposures were, and see what their co-morbidity conditions were. Because it’s hard to say. You know, it’s hard to say what… the facts were surrounding those videos. I mean, any video on line, it’s hard to tell.

Wolfgang Wodarg MD: [01:37:20] May I have a question, too?

Viviane Fischer: Um-hm. Welcome back.

Wolfgang Wodarg MD: Yes, hello. My name is Wolfgang Wodarg. Hello. I have a question, because as an epidemiologist, I think you… have observed what was going on in China, and you told us about this scenes around Wuhan. When it started in February, in beginning of February, I started to look at the numbers of Chinese CDC. They have a CDC too. And they have all those data about cases, about… people dying and so on. And it was funny that only in the region of Wuhan something happened, and that this dangerous virus didn’t spread all over China. It was… so, it was… very funny, because there’s lots of traffic every day all over China, and it didn’t stop all traffic….

[sound breakups cause loss of words] So, and then suddenly on the first of March or the beginning of March, no more cases were observed in China. What a pandemic. Suddenly no more cases, and a big China with all those cramped people everywhere, traveling, working and so on. [Not] possible. it’s impossible. It’s just possible when you stop testing. It’s not possible that the virus is, says, “Yes, we… don’t infect the people any more, because we obey the xxxxxxxx China.” It’s not possible, so I did not understand what I could observe in China, when I see just the numbers of… cases, of what, and suddenly

the… seizing numbers of… cases … March seven xxxxx in a, per week were registered in… the middle of March, and only case is coming from abroad. This is … told us. It’s not possible. … you have explanations for that?

Andrew Huff: No. Well, I agree with everything you are saying. So the… simple… question I’ve always put forward to people is: since when do we trust data or information which is being released to the west, the United Sates, our allies, Europe… when the Chinese release information, since when do we trust that, without questioning it? Since when do we not take a skeptical approach? A simple analogy that I like to make for people. so that they understand this, is that: this as a lot of similarities to Chernobyl. So when the Chernobyl disaster happens, the Soviets go into coverup mode. There’s no nothing wrong, even to their own people. “We got control of this. It’s a fire. We’re going to put it out.” And then a week or two later, when they obviously don’t have control of this, the west becomes alerted to this by detecting the radioactive isotopes in the atmosphere. And then the west starts going to the Soviet Union and saying, “You have a problem. We know that you have a problem. We’ve identified it.”

“Well, we have this under control. We have this.” That’s the Soviet response. And then quietly, then they start accepting assistance from NATO, western… nations to help… alleviate the… disaster, remediate the disaster.

So what we see happen in Wuhan is sort of right out of the communist playbook. I mean, so if they have a leak, they want to have, maintain the perception that they have control of the situation, that the Communist Party is taking care of things for the people. And then it becomes: they’re controlling of the appearance of things. I mean, it’s the– my… take, my impression on communist societies is that they’re always compare– they always care more about the appearance of issues than the actual substance of those issues.

[01:41:13] And I think that’s exactly what we witness happen in the aftermath of this lab… leak in China. They have to put forward this… attitude that they have control, for their own people and for the world.

Wolfgang Wodarg MD: [01:41:26] I have another question on this. Wouldn’t it have been much easier for the propaganda of China, in China, just to be silent about those forty cases in Wuhan in hospitals? You know Wuhan hospital– Wuhan is a city with nine million, ten million inhabitants, with many people with pneumonia in old, in many, many hospitals. So what about those forty more cases with SARS-CoV-2? they couldn’t just be quiet about it. This would be much… easier. So why did they make this propaganda, they make such a fuss about it? What was the motive?

Andrew Huff: Well probably to delay, to distract.

Wolfgang Wodarg MD: So to speak about, you speak about China. Well the Soviet Union didn’t tell us that something bad happened. The Chinese [Communist] Party could have just been silent. Nobody would have ever recognized any SARS-CoV-2 case in the world.

Andrew Huff: Well that’s not–

Wolfgang Wodarg MD: … if they wouldn’t have told us.

Andrew Huff: That’s not completely true, because there were actually westerners in, by their own admission, that had connections to the intelligence community and the Department of Defense, present in China when this happened. So if you go look up a man by the name of Dr. Michael Callahan, who’s very well connected to the biomedical industrial base in the United States, he claims that he was present in Wuhan, collecting intelligence for the US government, when this– they call it an outbreak. But when he’s there is actually much later after the fact. So the US government Is aware, keenly aware of what’s going on. My guess, this is speculation, is that at some point in the fall of 2019, the Chinese government, the US government, start communicating about how they can cover this up together. And if there’s westerners and other people outside the sphere that already know that something happened, and from the… world military games in Wuhan, a number of countries’ athletes become ill in November, 2019. There–

So other governments are already aware of this. So they can’t just say that there’s nothing happening. Everyone is going to be, start looking for a reason or cause. it’s probably easier to say that something happened, and “We have control of it.” Or try to make it not look as severe. You turn it into a political football. Because one problem with scenario that you’re suggesting is that it– the assumption is that no westerners know what’s happening. And that couldn’t be further from the truth. Many westerners, including myself– look, I became aware in December, 2019. So if I figured it out, and I wasn’t even looking for it, the people like me who were still working in the government probably had it figured out in October, or maybe even earlier, you know, September.

So there are probably a number of important intelligence services that were aware.

Viviane Fischer: I have–

Wolfgang Wodarg MD: I saw the numbers from, the… international numbers. You can, you could compare it, that the numbers of pneumonia. And you could compare and you could guess how many pneumonias and how many people dying from pneumonia in China in… one million inhabitants somewhere in a big Chinese town. And what happened in Wuhan didn’t change those numbers. They did not have excessive deaths, cases of death, and they had pneumonia. It’s so easy to hide. You’d… normally you don’t look for the virus people die from. They could have just died from a virus pneumonia, and there was not a big epidemic happening with many more excessive deaths. It was not.

So it was, would have been so easy just to hide the whole thing. Why did they make such a fuss out of it?

Andrew Huff: That’s a good question. I mean, probably to– I don’t have an answer for that. I mean, everything that I would say in response to that would be speculation. One: to drive fear and uncertainty; two: to probably demonstrate control from China’s prospective; maybe three: to help… the United States or other western nations avoid blame. You could go, this is a big conspiracy from the World Economic Forum. I believe that… you know, the global elite– and this a problem I think that the… planet’s dealing with now– is that… ultra-wealthy people, corporations, could have been taking advantage of the situation. I think that there are opportunists, and any astute business person would probably do the same thing, because that’s the nature of capitalism and business, unfortunately.

[01:45:48] So there, there’s a lot of different strange bedfellows that probably become aware of what’s going on. Plus they’re being conditioned by these tabletop exercises. So I’ve actually been conducted tabletop exercises for different pandemic or epidemic scenarios, both intentional or unintentional. Meaning bio warfare, bio terrorism vs. naturally emerging. So I had conducted these tabletop exercises. And the problem is, when you, you know, in retrospect doing some of this: is that if you condition everybody, all these powerful people, to act in a certain way if you’re the intelligence community or you’re… in a position of power, it becomes, you know, how, which strings to pull and how to manipulate the situation to your advantage.

And I think that, that’s exactly what happened. Another interesting, you know, point of reflection came to me this past week was that: because of the information age that we live in today, and how connected people are, and the different types of information that they have access to, which are not the local newspaper, it’s probably the only reason why you and I, or the three of us are having this conversation today. The nature of how we exchange information has changed, and if this would have been in the 1970s, nobody probably would have been the wiser to what would have happened. There are a number of an international global you know sort of scandals, so to speak, which have taken place regarding very serious issues, from the Vietnam War or the Cuba in our case, which were… distorted by the intelligence community or the government, and nobody was the wiser until many years later.

[01:47:22] So I think what happened, the interesting point in our history that we’ve hit, is that we’ve got to a point where governments and the intelligence communities can no longer effectively control or censor the narrative in ways that they used to, which used to be quite effective. And you think about how many people– you know, I sort of fall victim to it myself, right? So after 9-11, we go to invade Iraq, I fight in this war. I was actually against the war at that point in my life, but that doesn’t matter, because in the military you have to follow orders.

But many Americans and… western nations believe that Iraq has functional weapons of mass destruction. Well, we find after a year that this is just some big… story, a big lie, to get this… conflict going in Iraq. Well I think– if you were to take that same series of events and put it into 2022, 2023, there would be too many voices of skepticism too many questioning based on that, the.. nature [of the way] that we share information. So thankfully, I guess, we’re at this turning point in history where we have more access to information; we can communicate more effectively with each other.

Viviane Fischer: [01:48:28] I have a question.

Wolfgang Wodarg MD: Yes, I think it’s very– oh sorry.

Viviane Fischer: I don’t know. A little bit of a different topic. So, but if you have a question like, really relating to that… OK. I have a question. So we had with us Sasha Latipova, a pharma industry insider. And she pointed out to us that, do you know, there was a lot of contracts or like, contractual activities going on a long time before the… crisis. Like in 2012 I… think it started, that these, do you know, that defense contractors in America seem to have been preparing for some major thing, like building up production capacities, like for instance also for these vials, do you know, the glass vials, and… these kind of things. And also the, do you know, the raw materials. I mean, how would that, was this just a– do you think that can have, could have just been like a general preparedness, or like building up preparedness, pandemic preparedness capacities? Or could they have been also some sort of, I don’t know. This seems to point into a direction of that it was more… like a concerted effort, like beforehand. I don’t know, have you heard of the work of… Sasha Latipova?

Andrew Huff: [01:49:51] Yes. Well, and I’m actually quite familiar with the National Pandemic Preparedness Plan. There have been different versions of it, and actually different agencies, US government agencies had different versions of it. I actually assisted with some of those. So I don’t view the stockpiling of what we call dual-use technologies as necessarily being some indicator that there’s something bad was happening, the US government was up to something nefarious. From the US government’s perspective, or our perspective, we want to be able to protect the population and also the fighting force from any kind of biological threat, whether that be a pandemic, whether that be a bioterror event.

What happens after 9-11 is that the US government [stands up] the Department of Homeland Security a big… section of that, along with the Department of Defense and NIH is bio warfare bioterrorism prevention or mitigation. And I’m a product of that. That’s where my… education funding came from, I worked in it for number years. So the only difference between what, you know, a bio warfare event versus a pandemic event sometimes could be why the agent is used. So if or how… it is, how it emerges. And that’s really the only difference between the two. How you respond to it, it at least from a public health perspective, doesn’t really change. If you need to vaccinate people, you need to vaccinate people.

So what happens in the… late 2000s is that the US government’s looking for a new platform for vaccine technology. So this is a global problem, and the flu vaccine is a perfect example of this. So the flu vaccine is what’s called a quadrivalent vaccine. It’s made from eggs, typically. And quadrivalent simply means four different strains in the vaccine. So every year, there’s a problem where if there are, you know, not an infinite number, but there are many different strains of the flu– and I forget how many off the top of my head, but for argument’s sake let’s say there’s thirty. There’s thirty different types of variants of the flu, and the effectiveness of the vaccine is based on how, or is a function of how well they match the strains.

And if there’s not a perfect match, you only get partial efficacy or effectiveness of… the vaccine. Say they play this guessing game every year. And if the response– and sometimes it’s, they get it… right, they match the strains, just by these experts using theit best judgement. Sometimes they are way far off and they don’t get it right at all, and you have a bad flu season. So this is a problem. And so if it takes six to nine months to make flu vaccines with this egg-based technology, we can only get four different strains into it. It’s really not as– it’s an– it’s not a perfect system. It’s a very flawed type of technology, but when it works it works. When it works, it works; when it doesn’t, it doesn’t. So the US government starts in the late 2000s exploring new technologies. So one of those technologies is the mRNA platform, because it can be rapidly edited and manufactured, as you see what happens with the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine platform.

There’s things that we learned about this platform after it was put into use… in 2020. But at the time, this seems to be the next big… potential game changer, game-changing technology for pandemic response and mitigation. Also a new technology that’s emerging is monoclonal antibodies are coming on the market, or that new technology is been tested. So when the US governments are spending money… on vials and all these things, actually what they’re trying to do, they’re trying to build their capacity because… So after 9-11, there’s not enough PPE [Personal Protective Equipment] vaccines to cover all the different kind of bio terror, bio threat agents to protect the world’s population. There’s not enough PPE. So the US governments are buying the stuff up and they’re building the… manufacturing base behind it from a… national security perspective.

They start funding all these different companies and the actual technology and purchasing the stuff and stockpiling it. And the other thing that happens, too, is that when you manufacture a… vaccine, sometimes they have to be cold-stored. Sometimes they have a shelf life, they expire. So then you have to set up a production process to keep on refilling your stockpiles, because it expires, becomes old.

So there’s nothing really nefarious about that. And this gets ramped up in the 2000s. And then when Obama comes into office, they actually spend some more money on these programs, to actually improve their efficiency and their impact, if they ever had to be used. And this is a consequence of the H1N1 pandemic.

Viviane Fischer: [01:54:19] And some people consider these [mRNA] jabs the… real bio weapons, because, I mean, it’s kind of not really– I mean we can see some of the effects seem to be coming to light now, what it does in the body, which is like, you know, not really… fortunate. But do you think it’s– it seems to be very strange that they’re not stopping or like, you know, at least holding, halting, the… you know, application of the… vaccines for now to do some further investigation. But that they continue, you know, applying them, or like, even recommending the application, although we see more and more damages coming to light. What’s your take on that? Are they so deep in that route that they cannot, you know, turn around?

Andrew Huff: There’s a number of, unknown number of different factors. And the first thing I have to say is that western-trained American scientists, we have always looked to Scandinavian countries, or I have personally, for guidance in terms of public health, because they have typically been the world leaders in actually public health policy. I was also an early signatory of the Great Barrington Declaration. I signed it a month after it was created, because I realized that the policies that we were enacting were not being effective at mitigating the spread of the disease.

The mRNA platform — I was… one of the first groups in the United States to receive, be eligible for the vaccine. I actually waited a little bit. I received two doses of Moderna, and I fell violently ill with the worst vaccine reaction, or second-worst vaccine reaction I ever had in my life. Because of the military and I work in this field, I’ve probably been vaccinated against 40 different things. And all sorts, you know, some real nasty vaccines [were] adverse reactions.

So I’m not… an anti-vaxer by any means, even though some people might accuse me of that. We learn some disturbing things about the mRNA platform. So one: it doesn’t… prevent transmission. So the US… government andother governments are out lieing, everyone telling you that this prevents transmission. Well I can tell you for a fact, going back is… going back to the late 2000s and early 2000 teens, the scientific and… public health policy community, the people who are experts in this, we know that this vaccine does not prevent transmission. That was not the goal of it. The goal of the mRNA platform was to reduce symptom severity, to reduce the burden on the public health system.

So the idea was that: well, maybe we can’t prevent transmission, but if we can get something out rapidly, it won’t collapse the healthcare system. Meaning that people, they get the injection, their disease won’t be so severe that they go to the doctor, they don’t go to the emergency room. So that was the goal of the mRNA platform. For some reason, the US government and the international community lies about whatt this technology is, how it works. Or, you know, maybe they receive bad information from their advisers. We know from communications from both Moderna and Pfizer and Baxter over the past three… or four months that one: you know, in the European Union they… testified; one executive, she said that, you know, this, we didn’t test this for transmission. Well people like me were being censored because we’re screaming, you know, since the… clinical trial documents were published, we read those documents and it was clear that these were not tested for transmission. But we were labeled heretics or censored, all this kind of stuff, just for being good at our jobs and reading government documents or reports filed with the government and communicating those back to the population about what was really going on.

The Moderna CEO… recently came out in the United States and he said, “Well, we should only be giving this mRNA platform injection to at-risk adults.” So that’s totally contrary to official US government policy. And what’s happening is, I think that the, you know, the policymakers in the United States keep doubling down on the failed policy because they don’t want to accept accountability. Because you have the same people who are responsible for causing the pandemic are also the same people that brought a fraudulent drug to market, essentially, or countermeasure. And then, you know, you could say that well, maybe they didn’t know that this was going to have all the adverse events or reactions to it.

But there’s two things that happened. So one: they stoke the fear about the actual severity of SARS-CoV-2. They stoke the fear. Then they lie about the effectiveness of existing treatments to get the Emergency Use Authorization in the United States. So Ivermectin, hydrochloroquin, Pepcid AC, I’m probably forgetting a couple others. So there are a number of drugs that are tested by epidemiologists and infectious disease doctors that I’ve worked with. They had early papers published about this, peer-reviewed journals, about the effectiveness of these drugs and when they should be used.

And then because this whole thing is politicized in the United States and the, you know, they affiliate these treatments with conservatives, with the Trump administration. The mRNA thing is great for liberals. It’s the strangest thing ever how this happens, how this plays out. But the fact of the matter is: they get the Emergency Use… Authorization by lying, by stating that there are no other drugs to treat this.

OK, so this thing comes out onto the market. They… put all the incentive in the world for people to go get jabbed with this thing. Then the data starts coming in about… different vaccine-associated injuries, from all sorts of different sources. Then they… determine that it doesn’t prevent transmission. OK– you know, how many things, how many more lies, and they keep doubling down on it. And the reason why they keep doubling down on this is because it’s, I believe, it’s their only way that they… see that they’re going to get out of this unscathed. The reality is: my book’s coming out, I’m talking on your show in Europe. I’m doing more interviews. People like me who are knowledgeable and informed and also have been a part the system are increasingly speaking out.

There need to be trials for this in the United States, maybe an international tribunal. I think these things are going to happen. We just really need to keep up, keep ramping up the… pressure on these people internationally, because these are… crimes against humanity. I mean, that’s really what… this is. And you’re going to hear this from people in the United States, which is the biggest irony, is that, you know, I’m having this conversation with Germans right now, is that during the Nuremberg trials, we didn’t allow people to say, “Well, I was just following orders.”

OK, that was no excuse. And there are people in the United States now who are starting to say, “Well, I was just following orders.” In this, you know, bs that they’re saying we should have pandemic amnesty for these people. No, people need to have morals and values and stand up for what’s right. And sometimes those things are difficult. And whether these people were policymakers, bureaucrats, you know, corporate officials, we have to hold these people accountable. Because if we don’t, I can guarantee you that this is going to happen again. And… people like me, we’re concerned that if this does happen again– with SARS-CoV-2, we got off pretty easy. It wasn’t that, so severe of a disease. If they keep on engineering these things, to… make medical countermeasures or drugs for things that don’t exist– we’re going to be– we could be– this could have been much worse than it was. We could have had really high case fatality ratios. We could have had more of a drain on the system. I mean, in terms of what this bug was, versus how it’s presented, we’re all lucky.

Viviane Fischer: [02:01:29] Yeah, I mean, definitely. I think, you know, maybe in the beginning when it all started, there could have been– or maybe you can allow the government to have some sort of, you know, that they can, they think, “Oh, it’s going to be much worse, so we have to take like, maybe strict measures.” And so, for like a certain amount of time, you can see it still in there, you know, digression how to react. But then we can see that now, I mean, since it has continued all the time and, you know, the… vaccination pressure, you know, pressuring people into the vaccination has continued. So– and I think that’s… just not, do you know, that’s not OK. I mean, clearly that they would have needed at least like, say like a few months to so reconsider what are the, what’s the collateral damage. How dangerous is the virus really, and so on, so…

And that’s… clearly, so this, they can be held responsible for that, at least after a certain a short period of time. Maybe where, you can have maybe gone overboard with the measures, because you didn’t really know what was coming at you. I have one more, like a few more questions. Like… in– do you think this monkey pox, is it also like a lab accident, or what, what’s that, you know, because it’s kind of unusual, so that you have the next kind of pandemic rolling toward us, or maybe could have been, I don’t know what the status of the monkey pox is right now, but–

Andrew Huff: Well I haven’t went to look at the genetic markers yet, to see if there is, or if there’s hard evidence, to see whether or not that’s from a laboratory leak. And I wasn’t involved with any monkey pox work when I worked at Eco Health Alliance. So it’s possible that it’s the result of a laboratory leak. The… facts of monkey pox are this: it… typically, it’s typically impacting homosexual males who are in the nightclub scene. And this is, these are the facts and the epidemiology of the disease. It’s not a… pandemic. It has a very much– a pandemic at least in terms of of magnitude, you could say. So the typical definition of… a pandemic is that it has to be global. It spread everywhere, and you have increasing incidents or expanding range.

[02:03:42] So by that definition, it does fit the definition of a pandemic. But it, you know, in my… perspective, I would contextually talk about it as an epidemic. Even though it is globally spread, it is only a small pockets within urban areas. And it is a skin-contact kind of disease. You have to have direct contact with it or very close contact with these people. It’s very unfortunate. I don’t think that this is going to be something that persists too long into the future. We do have a… countermeasure that works, so the smallpox vaccine which exists and is highly effective also against monkey pox exists.

So I don’t think that this is going to… be the next big thing. I think this is another fear-mongering tactic from public health officials to… distract everyone from what happened with SARS-CoV-2. There’s actually, there’s other professional messaging boards, communication platforms which I’m a part of, which are used by epidemiologists and infectious disease detectives, essentially, to communicate what’s going on around the globe. And it, it’s… I’d say it’s of concern. We should pay attention to it; we should try to stop the spread of it. But it’s not nearly the concern of… other infectious diseases which could be spreading, or are spreading.

Viviane Fischer: [02:04:58] Um-hm, OK. I have one last question–

Wolfgang Wodarg MD: What is… spreading now?

Andrew Huff: Well, there’s always, there’s actually, I received an update of a listeria outbreak associated with sausage in Germany. I didn’t read too much… detail. But there’s the… kind of detail updates that get. There are… infectious disease outbreaks happening all the time. The question is: what has pandemic potential, what should we be concerned about? And there’s nothing that I’ve seen in any of the reports which… have me alarmed at this point.

Viviane Fischer: Yeah.

Wolfgang Wodarg MD: No, what we experience now in Germany is the so-called long covid. And it’s mostly with people who have… got the shot. And they just try to hide the side effects of the shot under this label. This is what is getting more and more obvious now. And this is a very bad thing, because it postpones the possibility to really help those people who are victims of those shots. I think this is very important now.

Andrew Huff: [02:05:59] Yes, I think you bring up an interesting point. You know, one way that you could confuse the epidemiology of the vaccine injured is by forcing everyone to receive the jab. So if everyone received the jab, it makes the epidemiological investigation of any association of injuries tied to the vaccine more difficult. Because did the person get SARS-CoV-2 first, did they get the jab first? So that actually really confuses the problem, and that can be one of the strategies I fear taking place. I certainly hope not, I want to wish, you know, hope the best of our leaders. But we don’t really have much– I don’t have much faith in many them at this point, at least in terms of public health.

Wolfgang Wodarg MD: [02:06:35] Is it such an interest? It’s a very interesting research you could do. It’s that to find out all those spot publications now appearing about long covid and all those varieties of long covid, so-called long covid. You just have a look where they tried to find out whether those victims have got the shot or not. And you will find that most of those works, they didn’t even mention the problem that there could be side effects of those shots. They are not, they are just… out of the, of out of view. They don’t… look at it, and they do it– I cannot understand it. It must be explicitly. It’s so, it would be so stupid, those researchers would be so stupid, because it’s about spike protein. It’s… spike protein which is it the shot. So it’s… in– if they don’t even ask, “Have you been, have you got the shot?” But you say, “Oh, you got long covid”, and then they make make a big research on it. And they don’t even mention whether they ask those people whether they have got the shot. This is horrible. And I saw many side– I saw many such… but been mentioned …

Andrew Huff: … my in the commu– the… feed cut out for a second, so I missed the last, your last sentence.

Wolfgang Wodarg MD: Oh, sorry.

Andrew Huff: No, it could have been my end. Maybe they … a little bit.

Wolfgang Wodarg MD: [2:08:15] I was just astonished that … it is that people are not aware that the shot might be a responsible for several xxxxxx subsumed under the diagnosis of long covid now. I think there has to be… they have to have it in mind, and they don’t have it in mind when they [publish] such long covid studies.

Andrew Huff: Yes, absolutely. One–

Wolfgang Wodarg MD: Do you understand?

Andrew Huff: Yes, I do. And at least in the… United States, we have a problem with the funding, the funding model of public health or medical research. So we, we have the… Rockefeller model and the American… Medical Association for medical doctors. They go into the system, where they’re trained, they have to produce drugs, There’s big… money in clinical trials, and I’ve worked on clinical trials as a scientist for pharmaceuticals or and antimicrobials.

And they’re incentivized to… test to see whether or not the drug works better against other drugs, but not incentivized to necessarily use negatively-controlled or placebo-controlled trials which are well designed. And the reason why that they’re not incentivized to do that is because they just want to show that a drug works better than another drug, because the assumption is that the drug is necessary.

And I hate to admit it, but I participated in that kind of research myself. But that’s because wh, in the United States at least, researchers and scientists, at academic institutions, operate on what we call “soft money”. They’re no longer paid by the university to do research; they’re expecting outside entities to pay them to do research. And until we fix that problem in the academic health center system in the United States, this flaw in the model, it’s going to keep on pushing drugs and… new drug technology over actually finding out the epidemiology, what’s the best solution to this problem.

[02:10:15] And in my book, the last chapter, I talk about this. Medical technology– and one of my… PhD advisors who’s… noteworthy, his name is Dr. Michael Osterholm, he said something in one of his classes, he wanted everyone to understand that– medical technology currently advances, you know, a person’s life, is focused on advancing a person’s life from eighty-six years to eighty- nine years. You know, only a few percent of that person’s lifespan. Where solutions focusing on health, diet, increasing a person’s immunity by improving the overall health of the person can change a person’s lifespan from the age of fifteen, of dying some of some disease, to… sixty. So there’s… more gains to be made in… those type of health policies, or public health policies. The problem is they’re… not profitable. So getting people to… change their lifestyle, their habits, their environment and how they live their lives, is not profitable. It would save taxpayers a ton of money, but it’s not profitable to industry. Until we figure out how to adjust this or address this fundings problem in the academic health system in the United States, I think we’re just going to see more… push for technology. And, you know, if that does happen, at least I hope we have adequate clinical trials and testing of things. Because it isn’t– This Emergency Use Authorization that we have for the mRNA platform we’re facing a real… challenge in the near future.

So the if the Emergency Use Authorization expires for this platform, they’re going to have to start getting informed consent of the patients about all the different mRNA-associated injuries. And on top of it, they’re going to have to go through the standard clinical trial process. And I think if that happens, this whole… market for this platform is going to blow up, because it’s going to be obvious what happened. And then they’ll also have liability. So with that, their… immunity will end in the United States and they’ll also have liability. So the Emergency Use Authorization ending is a good thing; it was fraudulent to begin with.

[02:12:20] Now the next question is what happens next, and you know, it’s… going to be hard to say, but there’s… it’s difficult to… actually determine, you know, who’s to blame for this, at least in the United States. It’s not just one person, and you don’t want to go putting huge pharmaceutical companies out of business. But on the other hand, there has to be some liability or some reckoning on… their part as well. So I am not sure what the solution is. It’s going to be difficult, I think, for us to figure out within the United States and globally. But there’s going to have to be some reckoning that occurs.

Viviane Fischer: Definitely, yeah. I have one– Wolfgang, you’re not audible. I have– Because we have the next guest waiting, I have one last question. Do you know– and which actually came from the audience– do you know anything about these laboratories in… the Ukraine? Do you know anything, what’s going on there, or what the status is?

Andrew Huff: I do. So many of those laboratories were… being funded through what’s called their Cooperative Biological Engagement Program, which is a sub-agency– which is operated by a sub-agency of the Department of Defense, called the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. It’s one of the agencies that I’ve worked closely with over the years. I think most of these programs are typically harmless in terms of what they’re trying accomplish. So during the Soviet– during the… end of the Cold War, the United States identified a problem. So with all these Soviet, former Soviet blocs falling apart and becoming independent, they were worried about nuclear weapons falling into the hands of radical scientists or dictators or other governments which weren’t stable.

And the United States [said]: “Well how can we form relationships with the scientists who worked in these laboratories to make sure that they’re not going to work on rogue things?” So they… created this program for western scientists to form relationships with Sov– former Soviet scientists, so they don’t start doing bad things.

So cold war ends, this program is a success. And then the threat landscape, from the United States’ and western allies’ perspective, changes. And Ukraine is one of these places where there could be a potential for, you know, nefarious– scientists who work on nefarious things. They have access to the advanced technology. We want Ukrainian scientists and their government to be on our side. OK, this is– I’m greatly over-simplifying this, OK? So the shift isn’t in the context of biologicals. They have been, they have, scientists are working on things. So you actually go look at some of their published reports, the diseases that they were working on, they’re actually, were conducting surveillance on infectious diseases, for tick-borne diseases. There is nothing nefarious about that. I mean, so from a biological threat-reduction perspective, of the United States and our western allies– to understand what the diseases are in any environment which our militaries may operate, we have to have people on the ground collecting samples, a fundamental part of biology.

They have to collect samples, we have to bring those samples into a laboratory, they have to be analyzed, and then we have to look at the results. That’s… bio-surveillance, and it… keeps us safe. Bio-surveillance is a good thing. Now with these Ukrainian laboratories, if you look at all the documents of the published research, most of it looks… above-board to me. There’s some that looks questionable, like it could be gain-of-function work.

Now– and there’s also a fine line. So the US government or western allies are funding these laboratories. OK. And they’re doing this work. They’re doing this bio-surveillance work. Well maybe it’s a profitable laboratory. So maybe their profits, they spend on medical countermeasure development or gain-of-function work. It’s gray area. And this is why we need stronger international conventions against bio weapons or dual-use research concern or gain-of-function work. Because unless the international community starts to have checks and inspections and… are aware of what different laboratories are going, working on, this kind of thing will continue to take place.

[02:16:21] So that’s what I’m… a proponent of. I don’t necessarily look at these laboratories as all being up to something nefarious. When I would look at the actual studies that they’re performing, it seem to be normal infectious disease surveillance work. And the United States funds that all over the planet, through contractors, okay?– because the government itself, the government themselves or itself does not do that work– through partner countries, because that’s the most efficient way to do it, from a taxpayer perspective. It’s much easier to fund a laboratory in a foreign country to conduct the surveillance and give you back the information, than it is for the US government to move a team of scientists overseas, set up a laboratory, language barriers, all these different things, they don’t understand the environment.

So you know, the very nature of efficiency, of how the government wants to conduct these programs, is why you see these, you know, the bio labs in Ukraine. Maybe they were up to other things. That’s, it’s fully possible. I just haven’t seen the evidence.

Viviane Fischer: OK. Well, such a huge amount of information. I think I have to take a closer look at your book, because it’s like, I mean, you have a such a broad approach to it. Like with your intelligence, basically intelligence and… medical, or like biological background. So I think it’s– and also industry knowledge. So I think it’s… yeah, it’s a very interesting approach on these things. Thanks so much for your statement here. And we definitely have to look at that. And I think Corbin maybe will be in touch with you about maybe some… documents that you might share with us, so we can– and especially on that lawsuit, so we can share it with the audience.

Andrew Huff: Absolutely. And I would like the audience to know that there’s actually a… report that we put together for the US Congress. And I’ll send you both documents. So one actually specifies everything that happened. It’s basically a summary of what’s in my book, of fifty pages. And then the lawsuit names all the actors and the evidence that we have to support what we’re saying.

Viviane Fischer: [02:18:15] Super. Thanks so much. I’m looking forward to that.

Andrew Huff: Bis dann. [See you then.]

Viviane Fischer: Bis dann, yeah. Yeah. That’s Andrew Huff. And a whistleblower from a broad range of areas, I have to say. Industry and– how do you call it?– biowarfare, intelligence, information gathering area, whatever.

---

Vielen Dank für die Überarbeitung des Transkripts an das Team von corona-ausschuss-info + Ed.

Automatisches Transkript

Es liegt zurzeit kein automatisches Transkript zur Sitzung vor. Wir bitten um Geduld, dieses Archiv befindet sich noch im Aufbau und wir werden bald ein automatisches Transkript einstellen.