1. Home
  2. Information
  3. US-American biolabs in Ukraine

US-American biolabs in Ukraine

Politically explosive – scientifically irrelevant

Since the first public reports on this topic, we have once more received a number of letters asking us to comment on it. At first, we saw no need in raising the issue of biological weapons again, as we had actually already published a video explaining all the essential scientific and medical aspects. But when the inevitable rumours and theories started doing the rounds – a predictable response in such cases – it became clear that although the whole thing was not scientifically significant, it is nevertheless has a social significance, carrying with it a great deal of fear. We therefore decided to address the topic of biological weapons once again.

At this point, we draw your attention to our video “01: bioweapons – the myth of man-made pathogens”, which can be found in both on our video channels on Odysee, Gegenstimme and Bitchute. In that video we have already dealt with the theory of biological weapons and also explained why the modern concepts of man-made or modified pathogens cannot possibly be realised and therefore pose no danger. In this article, we will therefore not address these points in detail, but mention a few scientific aspects that have not yet been explained in our video, and also shed light on important social aspects. With that, nothing more needs to be said on the subject of biological weapons and so-called man-made pathogens. What remain are political or insignificant theoretical questions, which are not our topics.

 

A brief summary of the events
What exactly is this all about and what has happened so far? In order to be able to go into the details of this whole topic, we will first summarise all the political aspects of the events in this section, whereby, as we would like to emphasise at this point, we do not want to evaluate the political implications, but simply explain what the situation is and the individual positions of the parties involved.

First of all, we would like to point out that we primarily refer to alternative media portals and independent journalists as sources when summarising the events. Most of our information comes from the German journalists Thomas Röper and Alina Lipp, as both have reported extensively on the topic and translated official documents, statements and declarations from Russian into German. Thomas Röper lives in St. Petersburg and runs the news website “Anti-Spiegel”, Alina Lipp currently lives in the Donbass, from where she reports on current events in Ukraine on her Telegram channel “News from Russia” (“Neues aus Russland“). Since the Russian point of view is particularly important in this matter and we ourselves speak neither Russian nor Ukrainian, we are dependent on translations in this case.
Should anyone be bothered by our sources, for example because they see them as one-sided or have other sources that report something different, let us say once again that this statement is not about the political aspects and the question of who is right. We only want to briefly describe in this section what is being discussed and what kind of information has reached the public so far.

There is a long history regarding the issues of bioweapons research in Ukraine. Before we get to the current events, here are three important points about what happened before and what one should be aware of:
1.) Russia is said to have been monitoring US bio-laboratories in Georgia and Ukraine for years and to have warned about them publicly time and again. Apart from a possible entry of Ukraine into NATO, which, as Russia repeatedly emphasised, was a red line that would not be accepted, these bio-labs in particular were said to be regarded by Russia as a serious threat. The expansion and financing of biolabs by the US Pentagon had not been kept secret or denied by the USA. However, the USA had always strictly refused an independent international control of the laboratories and at some point, the information on these laboratories, which was until then, publicly accessible on the internet, was for unexplained reasons, removed from the net. Officially, the laboratories belonged to the Ukrainian health authorities and were said to have been used for research into the prevention of dangerous infectious diseases and ‘biohazards.’ However, from the Russian point of view, the question is why the purely military US Pentagon has been backing health authorities in Ukraine and refusing independent checks.

2) The war did not just start in Ukraine in February 2022. The Donbass (the easternmost part of Ukraine, where mainly the Russian part of the Ukrainian population lives) has already been shelled by the Ukrainian army for 8 years, and is said to have caused the deaths of 13,000 to 15,000 people, including a large number of civilians, before February 2022. Western mainstream media always claim that the Ukrainian army is fighting ‘pro-Russian separatists’ in the Donbass area, but people on the ground and independent journalists speak of a war against the civilian population as well as an attempted genocide in which Ukrainian Nazis are trying to wipe out the Russian part of the Ukrainian population. For this reason, we will refer to it as a ‘Russian military operation’ in this article. We do not wish to trivialise matters nor are we trying to avoid using the word ‘war’, but no matter what one’s views are about the whole matter, whether one condemns Putin, thinks the Russian intervention was correct or whether one is neutral about it all, the fact is that Russia did not start a war, but intervened in an already existing conflict.

And 3.) the Ukrainian government is said to have attempted to equip drones originating from Turkey with specialised containers that could be used to spray aerosols. As September 2021 the Ukrainian army is said to have attacked fuel depots in Donetsk using these drones. These containers which are said to be aerosol dispensers used exclusively for chemical and biological weapons, which is why their use for e.g., agricultural purposes can be ruled out.

So much for the background, let’s look at the current events.
At the beginning of March, Igor Konashenkov, a spokesman for the Russian Ministry of Defence, is reported to have said that there was evidence of the USA operating various laboratories in Ukraine where research into biological weapons was being carried out. He said that employees of the laboratories had leaked documents to the Russian ministry ordering the immediate destruction of highly dangerous pathogens. These were alleged pathogens for cholera, anthrax, plague and tularemia (an alleged bacterial disease in rodents that is assumed to be transmittable to humans). After the launch of the Russian military operation, Kiev is said to have tried to cover up the evidence of research into such bioweapons as quickly as possible, since this would put the USA and Ukraine in breach of Article 1 of the UN’s “Biological Weapons Convention” (BWC). The Russian Ministry of Defence published the documents with the order for destruction measures in the laboratories in Poltava and Kharkov on the same day (see the linked article at the very bottom). On the 7th March, the Russian Ministry of Defence announced in a press conference that there were more than 30 biolabs in Ukraine within which research had been carried out by the Defence Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) on behalf of the US Department of Defence. Among other things, the work in these laboratories is said to include, “research into potential region-specific biological warfare agents that have natural foci [naturally occurring pathogens as opposed to man-made pathogens] and can be transmitted to humans.” The report goes on to say, “the activities of the biological laboratories whose activities we have been observing since 2014 […] have led to an uncontrollable increase in the incidence of particularly dangerous and economically significant infections. The number of rubella, diphtheria and tuberculosis cases has increased in Ukraine. The incidence of measles has increased more than a hundredfold.” (translation from Russian by Thomas Röper in the article “Russia publishes more details about US bioweapons research in Ukraine” of 07 March 2022).
After the analysis of the Ukrainian documents that came from the laboratories, it was said to be clear to Russia that the research there must have been attempts to increase the pathogenic properties (i.e., the ability to cause a disease in an organism) of dangerous pathogens. This is said to be the only explanation for the tremendous haste with which the Ukrainian Ministry of Health wanted to destroy the pathogenic strains in the laboratories shortly after the start of the Russian military operation.

The Russian Ministry of Defence continued its investigation into the matter and soon more details were released. It was announced that there had been a project called UP-4, dated in 2020 to investigate how well migratory birds (flying through Russia) could be used to spread particularly dangerous pathogens. The focus is said to have been on the alleged H5N1 virus (the notorious ‘bird flu’), which is said to be particularly pathogenic and said to have a very high mortality rate in humans. One of the laboratories allegedly involved in this project is said to be in Kiev.
Russia described this project as probably the most inhumane and irresponsible thing the United States had ever come up with in this regard. If only because there would have been no way to control the epidemiological situation if it had been created.
Another very similar project called R-781 is said to have studied bats for the same purpose. These experiments were said to have been conducted with alleged coronaviruses, among others, to see how well they could be spread with the help of bats. What was said to be very striking was not only an obvious connection to the Corona crisis, but also that this research was carried out close to the Russian border. In Georgia and Wuhan in China, the USA is also said to have been conducting such research on coronaviruses for years, which again is said to represent a suspicious connection to the Corona crisis and gives new impetus to the Wuhan virus theory.
Documents on a project called UP-8, in which, among other things, research was said to have been carried out with the alleged hantavirus, are also said to prove that not only Ukrainian but also American scientists were directly involved in the research.
There are said to have been a number of other suspicious projects. In some of them, hundreds of blood serum samples from Slavic people were said to have been sent abroad (including to Germany) under the pretext of determining antibody titres.

In conclusion, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov is reported to have said that the laboratories in Ukraine are only a small fraction of the more than 300 worldwide laboratories with US involvement, about which documents will be published soon.

In summary, one can say that the Russian Ministry of Defence considered it likely that the USA and its allies had the intention to develop genetically modified pathogens in the Ukrainian biolabs that would target certain ethnic population groups and that they wanted to spread these not only in the Russian part of Ukraine but also in Russia itself. The USA effectively would have been trying to develop a pathogen that would only be dangerous for Russians. To top it all, according to all the information so far, it would appear that the Ukrainian government had been planning to launch an attack on the Donbass and perhaps even on Russia itself, either with biological weapons or with chemical weapons from Ukrainian laboratories.

On the 8th March, US diplomat and Under-Secretary of State Victoria ‘Fuck the EU’ Nuland admitted at a hearing in the US Senate that there were indeed biolabs in Ukraine where biosecurity research was being conducted. When asked at the hearing whether Ukraine had chemical and biological weapons, she didn’t deny this. She evasively replied that ‘biological research facilities’ existed and she immediately highlighted the concern that the labs, databases and ‘research materials’ could fall into the hands of the Russians, so the US was working closely with Ukraine to prevent that. When asked the leading question as to whether she thought the Russians could be behind a potential biological weapons attack in Ukraine – after all, they had been busy spreading propaganda – Ms Nuland replied that there was no question in her mind that in the event of a biological or chemical weapons attack, only the Russians could be responsible. “There is no doubt in my mind, Senator, and it is a classic Russian modus operandi to blame the other for something they themselves are planning to do,” Nuland said at the the US Senate hearing. The hearing and Nuland’s statements made such waves that even the mainstream media could not avoid reporting on it.

On the 11th March, Reuters reported that the WHO had recommended Kiev destroy its ‘highly dangerous pathogens’ so that a possible destruction of the biolabs during the war would not lead to a release of ‘pathogens’ and an outbreak of dangerous diseases. This report confirmed for many the Russian view of the whole affair, and those who had been critical of the Americans’ statements in the first place now saw this report as final confirmation that the US had lied and had indeed been researching biological weapons in Ukraine. Firstly, the USA does not allow an audit of its bio labs in Ukraine (which in itself violates the BWC), secondly, the US Pentagon took its information on the biolabs in Ukraine off the net without explanation, thirdly, the evasive answer of Ms Nuland before the US Senate and fourthly, the WHO’s demand that Kiev destroy its highly dangerous pathogens.’ Who is going to deny that this seems highly suspicious?

The very same day, the UN Security Council reportedly held an emergency meeting at Russia’s request to discuss Russian allegations that the US had operated bioweapons labs in Ukraine.

Two more things should be noted. One is that critics of the US sometimes claim that the US actively denied that there were dangerous pathogens in the bio labs in Ukraine. We could not confirm this in our research. The bioweapons aspect is dismissed, but we have not read or heard anywhere that the work on dangerous pathogens was denied per se. This seems to us to be more of a conclusion from the points described in the previous paragraph, but we also cannot rule out the possibility that we may have overlooked the relevant US statement somewhere.

The other point is that Nuland’s statements and the seemingly hypocritical behaviour of the US government are also being criticised in the USA. The American broadcaster FOX News commented: “Nuland was one of the people who got us into the Iraq war, who never apologised for it and who was constantly promoted, because that’s how [Washington] DC works. Victoria Nuland is now Joe Biden’s undersecretary of state in charge of Ukraine. And she knows Ukraine very well. […] Under oath, Victoria Nuland has now confirmed in a public committee hearing that the Russian disinformation, which we were previously told was all lies, conspiracy theories, madness and immoral to even think about, is in fact true in every respect. Wow! They don’t hear things like that every day in Washington.” So, in any case, the whole affair (as well as the whole war in Ukraine itself) should not be seen as a struggle between two or more countries whose populations would each unanimously hold a certain opinion! Even within all countries there are divided opinions. One should therefore always distinguish between the government (with all its possible backers and its economic-military interests) and the population of a country! These two rarely have much to do with each other.

In the meantime, many people are already asking themselves whether these US biolabs and a potential planned attack with biological or chemical weapons on the Russian population in the Donbass could perhaps have been the decisive reason that Russia felt compelled to take military action in Ukraine.

This is the information and political background we have on the topic at the present time (15.03.2022) and which we have researched.

Let us now look at it all from a scientific point of view while always keeping in mind the following: the whole affair is far less about what was actually researched in these laboratories, which side will ultimately be proven right, or even whether there is any danger in relation to such biolabs – there isn’t. Rather, it’s about what those who are in power in Russia and the USA believe and what they are afraid of. Fear is the crucial driving force and is the actual danger, because fear not only leads to irrational behaviour, it can also quickly turn into aggression and make people ill in the long run. Therefore, people’s fear should be taken into account. No matter whether fear seems justified or irrational, it is real for the person concerned.

 

Biolabs in general
Biological laboratories exist all over the world, and the USA is by no means the only country that operates them. Such facilities by no means automatically have anything to do with the development of biological weapons – which in any case would be illegal in the vast majority of countries due to the BWC agreements mentioned earlier – but they are officially used to conduct various kinds of ‘health’ and ‘prevention’ research ostensibly to protect the population from alleged pathogens of all kinds.
For this official purpose, all kinds of ‘pathogens’ (or whatever is considered to be pathogenic) are purchased and stored in the laboratories for research purposes. Among other things, the attempts are: to investigate how likely it is that a supposed pathogen could trigger an epidemic or pandemic, to be able to predict new ‘infectious diseases’ and how ‘pathogens’ might overcome a ‘species barrier.’ The actual ‘research’ consists, as is so often the case, of handling cell cultures, torturing animals and searching for some protein to which a certain significance is attributed within the framework of the virus theory, without ever having properly verified this.
Most people will imagine research in such biolabs to be much more complex and complicated than it actually is. Many of the so-called ‘outcomes’ of such research also sound far more fascinating and definitive than they actually are. What actually happens is they mix stuff together or extract stuff and then inject or otherwise introduce stuff into an individual or a cell culture. After this they measure certain values in the blood and try to prove the presence of certain ‘genetic’ components with PCR – which PCR cannot do – or they draw conclusions from simply looking at some processes in a manipulated cell culture under the microscope.

They then draw conclusions without first carrying out proper control experiments and then announce that they have succeeded, for example, in equipping a mouse with a human ‘immune system’ – a process they refer to as ‘humanising’ – and that they can now transfer the observed physical processes in the mouse to humans. Sounds absurd, and it is.

Another thing that is being worked on in such biolabs, and which has often caused controversy, is the attempt to ‘genetically modify’ alleged pathogens in order to accelerate the assumed ‘mutation’ processes and to be able to better observe and understand them. The idea behind this is to make ‘pathogens’ more infectious, pathogenic or even more specialised in their ability to attack the human organism and its ‘immune system.’ This type of research, which is believed to artificially create or accelerate supposed mutations and make ‘pathogens’ more dangerous by means of genetic modification, is called gain-of-function research (GoF). And, of course, this also involves the production of vaccines. The aim of GoF research is to develop ‘better’ vaccines more quickly and in advance to protect the population from potential biological weapon attacks.
Allegedly, GoF research has already yielded a number of advances over the years and certain types of pathogens are claimed to have been successfully modified or new strains and mutants created. These supposedly include modified influenza and coronaviruses. All these claims are inconsequential and groundless since they are based on the same superficial eyeballing and misinterpretations as the virus evidence itself.

In Germany (and probably in all countries that operate such laboratories), there is a whole series of legally prescribed safety precautions that must be fulfilled in order to be allowed to work with supposed ‘pathogens.’ Depending on what is being handled and what is being worked on, laboratories must meet the requirements of a defined safety level, whereby there are a total of 4 such safety levels, 4 being the highest level.
These safety precautions include labelling of hazardous materials, specific disinfection procedures, protective clothing, access restrictions, security gates, emergency power supply, incinerators for animal carcasses and much more. Clearly, when working with what is generally considered to be a dangerous, contagious “pathogen”, the highest safety precautions must be taken to ensure that no “pathogens” could escape unintentionally. One version of the Wuhan virus theory is precisely that the SARS-CoV-2 was the result of such gain-of-function research, which then escaped through a leak or sloppiness in a Chinese biolab.

Here is the most important question regarding biolabs:
Does gain-of-function research or anything done in these labs in relation to “pathogens” work?
No. Just as genetic research has never been able to present anything useful, gain-of-function and all other theories of preventive “health research” from the field of orthodox medicine have never been able to achieve actual success.
As late as the year 2000, it was firmly assumed that with the help of genetic research, many if not all known diseases of mankind would have been conquered within a few years. But nothing happened. And even today from time to time one reads and hears about supposedly unbelievable progress in this or that area and the associated revolutionary medical possibilities that will soon be available to us all. In the end, however, nothing ever comes of it.

Regarding biological research in the laboratory, it must be said that it generally has little or nothing to do with reality. You cannot study living nature, which is in a cycle and in constant change, in a sterile laboratory. Just as you cannot study the natural behaviour of animals in an unnatural zoo. What happens in the test tube has absolutely nothing to do with reality.
The researchers who work specifically in such laboratories always have certain unquestioned, fixed ideas in mind and everything they observe in their test tubes and under the microscope is evaluated within the framework of these concepts – just like with the virologists and the supposed detection of viruses. This automatically blinds them to all the contradictions that inevitably arise due to biological realities. As a result, a lot of time and money is invested in trying to answer the question of why some individuals sharing the same external conditions, fall ill less often than others. Do they possibly have a certain natural resistance in their body that should be isolated and extracted in order to produce a better vaccine? However, the observation itself can be seen as an indication that the basic idea of contagion as imagined – but never proven – may not work at all.

The same tangled thinking occurred with the alleged ‘asymptomatic disease course’ which was derived from the observation that even perfectly healthy people tested positive for corona, instead of seeing it for what it actually is: a clear indication that the PCR test simply does not work.

 

Bioweapons, laboratories and man-made pathogens
Gain-of-function research is repeatedly criticised despite its propagated ‘noble’ intentions. It is argued that despite all safety precautions, artificially improving or rather aggravating “pathogens” always poses a high risk to the general public. A mistake in the safety system, human error or something unforeseen leading to a leak in the lab, and countless human lives would, according to the theory, be at risk. It’s a fear one can certainly understand when viewed in the context of the prevailing pathogen theory. The greatest fear is that some madman, some unscrupulous government or some ideologically blinded group could exploit this kind of research for sinister purposes to create the perfect killer microbe that could depopulate the entire world. This may sound exaggerated, but at bottom, this is the fear. Here, too, one can say that this fear is understandable within the framework of the pathogen theory.
Even if the USA can defend its actions and prove that research on supposedly “dangerous pathogens” in the biolabs in Ukraine was only carried out in the context of “health research”, this research can still only be described as politically irresponsible and stupid. Anyone could have foreseen that any form of GoF research (especially by the USA) near Russian borders would be seen as a threat from the Russian side.

On the subject of biological weapons, there is one more important thing to say from a social point of view. Although biological weapons are also considered to be weapons of mass destruction, which if they worked, would always involve predominantly civilian casualties, there are very big differences between (the theoretical idea of) biological weapons and nuclear weapons.
In the case of nuclear weapons, the main purpose for many years has been not to actually use them but to possess them and to use the associated threat of their deployment. Biological weapons, however, if they actually worked, would undoubtedly be used. Imagine the scenario: one sends a new “plague” into a country, lets the “pathogen” kill thousands and thousands of people, one denies the use of biological weapons and claims that it was either the appearance of a natural “pathogen” or the attack of some enemy country, whereby one naturally dismisses any form of criticism and contrary opinion as a nonsensical conspiracy theory. Furthermore, in front of the press, one feigns deepest sympathy for “the poor people over there” and perhaps even takes the opportunity to sell vaccines to one’s own population as a ‘preventive measure.’ That would be the theoretical use of bioweapons, and luckily for all of us, the whole concept of “pathogen as weapon” does not work.
While nuclear weapons can cause a terrible catastrophe, for most people the idea of using biological weapons is many times worse and above all more perfidious, because the idea of pathogens is always associated with long suffering and a slow, agonising death. Therefore, unlike with nuclear weapons, governments would never admit that they had biological weapons themselves or were even trying to develop them. Only the enemy would do something so inhumane. Exactly this dispute and accusation can now be observed between the USA (or actually the entire West) and Russia. And if the Russian accusations that Ukraine had been developing biological weapons with the help of the USA was confirmed and if it was confirmed that they had possibly already planned their use, one could certainly understand that this would be perceived as a serious threat and aggression on the Russian side. As long as the whole world is convinced of the pathogen concept, the fear associated with it must be taken seriously.

A physical use of artificial pathogens is definitely out of the question because the whole scientific basis on which the idea is based is wrong. What always works very effectively, however, is the use of fear, i.e., psychological warfare, and this has been used successfully for years. One simply claims that someone else possesses biological weapons which they wouldn’t hesitate to use against all of us, and in this way legitimise an attack on them. This is what happened with the US attack on Iraq in 2003, when it was claimed that the then dictator Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction at his disposal (although it was more a matter of chemical than biological weapons), which subsequently turned out to be a “mistake”. The alleged anthrax attack shortly after the 9/11 attacks also falls into this category. An incident that is always presented as something real and supposedly proven, but on closer examination there are only claims by some “experts”, secret service agents or other questionable persons, but no solid, scientific facts that would stand up to scrutiny. And, of course, it is easy to portray an apparently epidemic or pandemic outbreak as a supposed bioweapons attack or accident. In this way, one can defame the government of another country and portray certain individuals as monsters who contradict our “Western values”, our own do-gooderisms and our model democracy in every possible way.
We are now seeing something like this in the case of Corona, although in the case of Corona it is actually the critics’ scene more than any government that is clinging with all its might to the Wuhan biolab gain-of-function virus theory, using it to legitimise its war cry and fight against ‘those in power’. The alleged ‘delta variant wave’ in 2021 was also claimed by some critics to be a disguised bioweapons attack. They claim that the first ‘Corona waves’ were in fact only a natural flu, but that it is the ‘Delta variant’ that is the really dangerous virus hailing from a bioweapon´s laboratory and that it´s with this that the ‘powers’ were pursuing a very perfidious plan. With this alleged bioweapon, they claim, finally the predicted, anticipated deaths and overcrowded hospitals could at last be generated, since the previous virus hadn’t delivered the desired effect.
Critics also claimed that this bioweapon would then be used in a targeted way at demonstrations in order for authorities to finally have justification to mark the demonstrations out as super-spreader events, and thus, finally destroy the critics’ scene.
This claim had no more substance than any statements made by the new German Health Minister Karl Lauterbach, but as we know, the entire critical scene works oh-so-evidence-based! But let’s be fair, Bill Gates is also using the fear of an alleged bioweapons attack and an accompanying ‘much worse pandemic’ prediction to publicly justify his global vaccination strategy and keep people stuck in the new normal of the state of emergency.
So, the best use that can be made of bioweapons, or rather the idea of them, is to create fear, as is abundantly clear at the present time. It can be used to create unrest, generate enemy images, make the previously immoral suddenly justifiable and justify all kinds of state harassment and violent behaviour.

Viruses have never been proven and, just like the ideas of ‘cancer genes’ and the ‘immune system’, are ultimately nothing more than a result of the inability to explain diseases in a credible, logical and comprehensible way without relying on the idea of a material pathogen, an enemy in the body. Or to put it another way, since at some point in the history of medicine countless diseases could no longer be blamed on bacteria, the cause was assumed to be a virus. A structure that is allegedly much smaller than bacteria and that hides in the cells of the body. This, to some extent still justifies the fact that viruses cannot be found.
Bacteria and certain fungi, on the other hand, are organisms that can be involved in bodily processes that, among other things, are perceived as bad, painful complaints and that in some cases, can even lead to the death of the organism. However, this does not make them enemies that invade the body from the outside, they are present in the body all the time (just not in such large numbers in the normal state). Their function in the body is misinterpreted and the swelling, pain and other discomfort that they cause is perceived as something evil that must be fought.
Laboratory-made pathogens cannot be produced for the simple reason that viruses are still only a phantom and bacteria do not function as conventional medicine imagines. Just as you could not make a fawn become a carnivorous wolf, you cannot make bacteria that are not pathogens become pathogens. How do I create a man-made killer virus when I can’t even find a natural one?
The idea of pathogens that could be genetically programmed to be dangerous only for a certain ethnic group is so particularly inhumane that any pursuer of this idea must be completely insane (it is the intention that counts), but from a scientific-medical point of view, it is and remains complete nonsense. This is not science fiction; this is fantasy without basis in reality.

But what about patents for bioweapons and genetically modified pathogens?
Patents have no scientific value. It may well be that there are patents on some ‘super anthrax’, ‘genetically modified smallpox virus’, an artificial ‘cholera 2.0’ or other crackpot ideas. A patent does not mean that something already exists and actually works. It is first and foremost an idea that is protected. A patent office will hardly check whether this idea is completely absurd from a scientific and medical point of view.

 

Suspicious accumulation of diseases
How can the accumulation of suspicious cases of disease in Ukraine be explained without a ‘pathogen’?
With the war! That is why it is so important to know and understand that, among other things, the war in Ukraine has not only been going on since the end of February, but has been going on since 2014! And according to the better understanding of biology presented by New Medicine which describes a complex form of psychosomatics, the illnesses occurring in Ukraine are easily understandable.

In our video on the subject of bioweapons, Dr Lanka has already explained, using Israel as an example, how a highly stressful permanent state in a society, caused by constant violent conflicts and permanent fear, can massively endanger public health.

According to statements by the Russian Ministry of Defence, there have been suspiciously frequent cases of rubella, measles, diphtheria and tuberculosis in Ukraine since 2014. Although this report is entirely plausible, the increased incidence of certain ailments is neither proof that something has escaped from some laboratory nor that the Ukrainian population has been experimented on with bioweapons. One would probably find a number of other increased complaints in the population (e.g. various types of cancer), which, however, do not fit the theory of infectious diseases and are therefore ignored.
The fact that there has been an accumulation of certain physical complaints in Ukraine for years is credible; it is the orthodox medical definitions of the ailments that occur with which we disagree. In order to be able to make an accurate assertion about the processes in the body, one has to look at the individual symptoms of each person.

We will not go into the symptoms, their development and the exact physical processes in this article, since we would have to go much deeper into the whole subject of New Medicine and psychosomatics. We will do that in separate articles. In this article we will primarily deal with the content of conflicts, perceived fears and distress that can ultimately lead to physical complaints.

Rubella and measles have the same cause and basically the same symptoms and can therefore be summarised as one thing. They are simply defined as two separate diseases by conventional medicine. The conflict is about being separated from another person and about direct skin contact. Either one loses physical contact that is wanted or one resists physical contact and wants to get away from someone. Losing a beloved person or animal is about feeling abandoned, or metaphorically, not being able to feel a danger (in time). Unwanted contact is about someone coming too close for comfort or wanting to ward someone off and keep them away. Depending on the case, different parts of the body and areas are affected.
Seemingly ‘epidemic-like’ outbreaks of skin rashes (measles) occur as a result of collective conflicts that are felt in the same way by all those affected. Quite typically this will occur in the case of siblings in a family or children in a school class. Due to the individualisation, lack of community and basic loneliness of individuals in modern society, collective conflicts manifest less and less often. This may sound like a positive development, however, the lack of a sense of community and social behaviour bring new problems and in any case, the isolated occurrences of measles has remained more or less unchanged. In crises and war zones, such collective conflict situations are actually quite typical, especially among the civilian population which is usually entirely helpless in the face of the events. It is surely comprehensible to everyone how it comes to severe separation conflicts when, for example, a family member is killed by an attack, or the father/son is drafted and thus torn away from the family.

Medical labels such as diphtheria, however, are not useful, because this disease definition, like COVID, influenza and a whole series of other diseases, is a meaningless conglomeration of different symptoms in different tissues. This symptom complex only exists as an independent, coherent disease on paper. In reality, all the symptoms that occur in each person must be considered individually in order to be able to make a useful diagnosis. And in many cases, this will show that the person in question is not only suffering from one conflict, but from several.
Diphtheria is associated with inflammation in the larynx, throat, nose and tonsils, as well as swelling of the lymph nodes. Considered individually, all these symptoms paint a clear picture and can easily be linked to the conditions in Ukraine since 2014, which explains the frequent occurrence of the symptoms in the population. Here we will take a look at two examples that show what is actually behind certain symptoms that are associated with diphtheria.
The larynx reacts to a fright shock, feeling speechless or experiencing a territorial fear, whereby the fright shock represents the female-passive reaction and territorial fear the male-aggressive reaction. Sudden, acute danger or thunderous noise (impacting bombs or artillery fire, which people in the Donbass have been confronted with almost every day since 2014); fear of losing one’s territory, which can be one’s home or workplace – but also one’s personal role/status or even one’s partner (for example, fear that the partner will not come home in the evening because he might be killed by an attack or because he is drafted and forced to fight against his will); not being allowed to speak, being prevented from voicing one’s displeasure (for example, the proposal of unifying the whole of Ukraine and Russian being banned as a language).
The throat reacts to separations, in the sense of not wanting to swallow something and wanting to spit it out again. This can be understood literally, e.g., when children are forced to eat something, they don’t like, or in a figurative sense – ‘this is hard to swallow’, ‘swallow your anger’ etc. (there are very many physical connections embedded in the languages of the world) – when children are forced and pressured at school, for example, to learn material that does not interest them. This separation conflict can be about hostility, accusations, threats and insults against which one cannot properly defend oneself (this is now also what many Russian people in Western countries are confronted with, suddenly exposed to a despicable Russophobia).

Frequent occurrence of tuberculosis (TB) is a typical crisis and war phenomenon that was observed en masse in many countries after the Second World War. It is by no means a matter of a weakened immune system and aggressive pathogens, but of a long-lasting fear of death.
Fear of death is a special programme of nature that is intended for a very short period of time and only for absolute emergency situations in which physical maximum performance is required in order to overcome an actual physical danger. Fight or flight. In nature, fear of death only lasts for a few seconds on average, whereas in the denatured world of civilised man, states of fear can be maintained for years, and in the vast majority of cases the dangers are not of a real, physical nature. In our cultures, the most common triggers for long-lasting fear of death, which over time can lead to illness and even death, are serious (but false) diagnoses of illness and scaremongering about supposed pathogens and infections. People who are diagnosed with ‘cancer’ or ‘AIDS’, for example, which for many is tantamount to a death sentence, live in constant fear of the evil in their own bodies that they cannot escape from the time of the diagnosis. And the Corona crisis has impressively shown how susceptible people are to nonsensical scaremongering and fear of the invisible enemy. The evil killer virus lurks everywhere and can infiltrate you and make you deathly ill at any time. If you are trapped in this narrative, you cannot possibly continue to live healthily in the long run.
It is precisely because prolonged fear of death can lead not only to irrational behaviour and aggression but also to serious physical ailments (including death), that the scaremongering of politics and the media is so monstrous and irresponsible. The Chinese ophthalmologist Li Wenliang, the “Corona whistle-blower” from China, also perished, among other things, from his own fear of the supposed new killer virus. This is the reason why Dr Lanka and our team keep emphasising how dangerous it is to scare other people, and why we so sharply criticise not only politics but also the critics’ scene with their irresponsible theories, rumours and claims of genocide through vaccination, the ‘immune system running amok’ through the genetic injections, shedding and other nonsense.
The fear of death in crisis and war zones, on the other hand, is real, although every organism also has certain protective mechanisms that help it to cope better with persistent extreme situations. For example, a certain ‘dulling’ to the noise of war (gunshots and explosions) or the sight of death and destruction is quite normal and even important for survival.
Tuberculosis can occur in war zones as a collective one-off phenomenon or as frequent, independent individual cases. If, for example, the war is officially declared over and all the people affected collectively lose their fear of death, they all go into ‘conflict solution’ relatively simultaneously, i.e., the body lifts the permanent state of alarm and initiates the change in the function increase of the lungs back to normal, which gives rise to the symptoms that orthodox medicine calls tuberculosis. If the state of war or crisis and the uncertain, unsettled time remain, the individual circumstances of the people will determine whether they go into conflict solution.

Important note! Especially people who have not yet heard of the New Medicine will certainly have countless questions after this section and many things will not yet make sense to them. We will deal with the New Medicine in detail in later articles and explain the whole system in detail. For those who do not want to wait that long and would like to inform themselves about the subject in advance, we recommend the book, ‘Thanks, Dr Hamer’ by Claudio Trupiano, which is available through any bookstore and is a very good introduction to the subject.
To prevent a flood of emails: we are neither doctors nor alternative practitioners, we may NOT and will NOT give medical advice (this includes recommending therapists). We will NOT make personal diagnoses or answer any medical wish lists! We will only answer questions about our project via our contact details. We ask for your understanding, but we do not have the time and capacity to respond to individual questions in detail.

 

Conclusion
All the political aspects of this matter are definitely debatable, there is no question about that. It remains to be seen as to who will produce irrefutable evidence about which intentions and actions against whom. Above all, two things are important:
1.) No matter what is being researched in any bio lab and what theoretical atrocities anyone is planning with man-made or modified pathogens, fortunately absolutely none of it will ever work. Chemical weapons are another matter altogether, but with regard to biological weapons, everyone can rest easy.
2.) What makes the issue relevant on a societal level is the fears associated with it. Convincing people that some enemy could or would like to use biological agents against them can lead to fear of death, hatred, despair and horrifying aggression. If those in positions of responsibility really wanted to protect the population in earnest, such action as we see on the part of politicians or oligarchs like Bill Gates can only be considered counterproductive and irresponsible, even within the framework of the pathogen theory.
A government that discovers or even has a reasonable suspicion that someone else’s biolabs are developing allegedly man-made pathogens that they intend to use as weapons may well feel compelled to take military preventive action. Another possibility is that such an accusation and alleged suspicion is used as a pretext for an attack. Of course, this is also possible at any time, and the only thing one can do is to hope that real weapons are not immediately deployed.

The matter once again makes it abundantly clear how crucial both the viral evidence issue and a need for a paradigm shift in medicine have become. How much fear, aggression, abuse of power, greed, political nonsense and social harassment would automatically fall away if we could finally leave behind the warlike good-evil thinking and the mechanical medical system and enter the world of real biology and a humane medicine?
The worst thing that can happen to us if we continue on this track is that we meet our own demise. And this doesn’t even have to come through war. Modern civilisation has already distanced itself so far from nature and, with gender ideology, for example, it is falling more and more into complete absurdity on a socio-political level. Instinctual consciousness and feeling and natural behaviour will soon be almost impossible. Such a society would provide the ideal conducive environment for all kinds of biological shock induced symptoms that certainly cannot be treated with toxic substances such as vaccines, antibiotics or chemotherapy!
The worst thing that can happen when we leave behind our mechanical, dead view of the world is the exertion of some effort in the process of discarding something old and replacing it with something new – in case anyone seriously perceives this as negative. There is no need for vaccines, for the WHO or for the pharmaceutical industry – just in case anyone seriously perceives that as negative.

Your Immanuel Project team

Share this post

Related posts

Menu