Colorado's Fight to Stop a Risky and Inhumane Biolab

A group dedicated to stopping animal cruelty recently exposed what actually happens inside America's biolabs.

In a recent series, I discussed the unscrupulous “biodefense” industry which regularly cultivates bioweapons in labs so it can protect us from them. Prior to COVID-19, this industry had been under a great deal of scrutiny as many within the scientific community were worried its actions could lead to a catastrophic lab leak. However, once SARS-CoV-2 leaked, the entire scientific established chose to double down on this research and label any insinuation lab leaks could occur “a conspiracy theory” and “a danger to science.”

For example, in 2012 the notorious Peter Hotez secured a 6.1 million grant from the NIH to develop a SARS vaccine with the stated aim of responding to any “accidental release from a laboratory,” some of which was then used to fund GoF research conducted by the leader of the Wuhan lab in 2017 (a link to paper can be found here). Once the Wuhan lab leak happened however, Hotez made a 180° pivot and since then has repeatedly condemned anyone suggesting a connection between COVID-19 and the Wuhan lab’s bat research.

However, while the bioweapons industry (with the slavish support of the mainstream media) has done everything it can to defend its public image, COVID woke too many people up to what was going on and there is now major pushback against bioweapons research and the lucrative (but consistently ineffective) countermeasures the industry uses to protect us from pandemics.

Because of this, the WHO in concert with the major globalist organizations has been covertly working to enact a global treaty which enshrines the abhorrent policies we saw throughout COVID-19 (e.g., requiring each nation to remove “administrative barriers” to bioweapons research and to bring liability free experimental vaccines to market that will be mandated upon the population).

Fortunately, one country doctor (Meryl Nass) along with a robust network of dedicated activists (e.g., James Roguski) have been able to create a major pushback which is beginning to halt this treaty. The fact that a grass roots effort has so far been able to stand against this monolith is both remarkable and in my eyes a testament to how upset the public is becoming with this unscrupulous industry.

Note: the abhorrent bioweapons industry is discussed in more detail here, while the WHO’s totalitarian pandemic treaty is discussed in more detail here. The treaty will be the focus of the WHO’s 77th assembly in May (where it may be voted on), so we are at an absolutely crucial moment to become involved in helping to stop it (which for example is why the subscriptions I received from the previous article about the treaty were donated to her organization).

Biolab Leaks

In my eyes, the most important thing to recognize about the bioweapons industry is that lab leaks are routine and inevitable. Sadly, the 2019 Wuhan lab leak is not the first time this reckless research has been catastrophic. For example:

• In 1950, the US Navy covertly sprayed harmful bacteria in the San Francisco Bay Area, causing infections and fatalities. Those bacteria then became endemic in the area.

• Fatal lab leaks involving smallpox and anthrax occurred in the US, UK, and Soviet Union.

• Lyme disease emerged near a US government facility that was weaponizing the same bacteria.

• The 1977 H1N1 influenza pandemic was traced back to a lab leak.

• The 2001 Anthrax attacks in the US were linked to a weaponized strain found only in bioweapons labs.

• Numerous SARS lab leaks have occurred since 2002, contributing to broader outbreaks.

• A strong case can be made that Ebola and monkeypox outbreaks originated from lab leaks.

• The SV-40 virus which was known to have links to kidney disease and cancer contaminated the polio vaccines (likewise evidence suggests that this happened with HIV).

• Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) emerged from chimpanzee research activities. 

Meryl Nass aptly summarizes the consequences of this in the following slide:

Note: prior to COVID-19, the scientific community was well aware of how dangerous Gain of Function research was, and after a few prominent (and admitted) lab leaks happened over a short period of time, the scientific community petitioned President Obama imploring him to stop this research. Obama listened and in 2014 paused all federal funding on GoF research (and further highlighted the danger of GoF on the SARS virus). Fauci (who was likely profiting from performing the research for the DoD) got around this issue by outsourcing the research to Wuhan through the Ecohealth Alliance. This grant was so egregious that the HHS’s Office of the Inspector General actually investigated it and concluded both the NIH and the Ecohealth Alliance did not act appropriately with overseeing the grant.

Furthermore, while disastrous lab leaks periodically happen, safety breaches are far more common (but rarely reported). For example, a recent Lancet paper looked at papers in a few languages published between 2000-2021 and from that was able identify 309 documented lab infections, 16 lab escapes and several deaths).

Similarly, the Cambridge Working Group estimated in 2014 that potentially dangerous lab leaks occur, on average, two times each week in the US alone and by 2018 this number had risen to an average of four times per week.

In short, contrary to the industry’s repeated claims their research is safe and devoid of risk, the existing data demonstrates otherwise.

Note: while these figures are horrifying, it is important to recognize that the majority of lab leaks and biosafety events go unreported and that in recent years (e.g., due to the fallout from COVID-19), the scientific literature has become much more reluctant to report on these events. This is akin to the situation in the vaccine industry, where in the early 1900s there were hundreds of disasters (which often killed or permanently disabled the recipients) reported throughout the medical literature, but by the mid-1900s, those reports dried up and very few could be found. Furthermore, as insiders from the vaccine industry shared, the reports that entered the medical literature in the early 1900s were only the tip of the iceberg as the vast majority went unreported. Later this month I will release an article compiling all those forgotten vaccine disasters (which is taking a while since there are so many of them).

The Risky Business of Bioweapons Research

Given the frequency of lab leaks, I believe it is fair to argue those leaks are inevitable. This in turn I believe is a product of the following:

•There is a lot of money to be made from studying (and creating) dangerous microbes. Because the current corporate system consistently prioritizes profits over everything else and penalties for gross corporate misconduct are almost non-existent (e.g., no one at Pfizer or Moderna has yet been held accountable for their vaccines), the fact that the bioweapons industry has guaranteed funding regardless of what happens (e.g., leaking COVID-19) means the industry has no real incentive to clean up its research practices.

•Some of the technicians who work in the labs conducting these experiments are not appropriately trained or paid for the work they do (as this saves money). Because of this, you can find numerous reports where one of those technicians had a biosafety incident which could have been prevented with adequate training. Likewise, since many of them aren’t being paid, this necessitates working other jobs to help make ends meet, and you also will find reports of biosafety incidents that essentially seemed to be a product of the technician being tired and hence skipping over some of the existing safety procedures.
Note: incidents also exist where inadequate safety equipment or environmental controls (e.g., appropriate ventilation) was provided by the lab (e.g., a Congressional report found that prior to COVID, the Wuhan lab had defective ventilation systems).

•Unless you have worked in these facilities, it is difficult to appreciate just how many things can go wrong, especially when live animals (which will unexpectedly move, claw and bite you) are involved.

•The unconditional funding this industry receives frequently results in quite sketchy activity occurring. For example, it was recently discovered (completely by accident) that an illegal Chinese lab was operating in the middle of California’s farm belt. This lab in turn lacked almost all of the basic safety precautions labs were expected to follow (e.g. biological fluids were being stored in Gatorade bottles) and it contained a variety of harmful pathogens.

Note: A Congressional committee which later investigated this lab found:
•The illegal biolab was run by a Chinese citizen who was a wanted fugitive in Canada.
•The illegal biolab contained thousands of samples of labeled, unlabeled, and encoded potential pathogens, including HIV, malaria, tuberculosis, and Covid.
•The illegal biolab also contained a freezer labeled “Ebola,” which contained unlabeled, sealed silver bags consistent with how the lab stored high risk biological materials. Ebola is a Select Agent with a lethality rate between 25-90%.
•The biolab contained nearly a thousand transgenic mice, genetically engineered to mimic the human immune system. Lab workers said that the mice were designed “to catch and carry the COVID-19 virus.”
•After local officials who discovered the lab sought help from the CDC and others, the CDC refused to test any of the samples.

I hence believe that unless this research is shifted to only being conducted on islands (which is unlikely to happen), it should be assumed that these biolabs will inevitably leak harmful diseases into their communities. I thus would argue that one should avoid living in the vicinity of one, although as the California example shows, one does not always get the option to chose.

Note: the island idea is not necessarily a solution either. For example, the research that created Lyme disease was conducted at an isolated government facility housed on an island off Massachusetts’s coast. Unfortunately, its quarantine was broken by deer swimming to the island from the coast who then brought the weaponized ticks back to the mainland.

Colorado Politics

Colorado is the quintessential “purple” state. Predominantly composed of a rugged mountainous geography, much of its population lives in rural conservative communities, some live in incredibly expensive resort towns, and the majority live in a few major cities east of the Rockies which includes a one (Colorado Springs) built around one of the most important military installations in the country, a densely populated capital (Denver) and what has long been considered to be one of the most liberal areas in the country (Boulder).

Originally, this balance very much tilted towards the right, but during Obama’s presidency, it swung towards the left. To illustrate, consider how the state voted in 20 years ago, paying particular attention to the most populous regions (e.g., Colorado Springs is in the #1 most populated county).

Note: this shift was in part due to four ideologically aligned and very wealthy people (most of whom made hundreds of millions from Tech) investing their fortunes in getting Democrat candidates elected. One of those four, Jared Polis, used his fortune to become governor in 2018 and 2022 by massively outspending his opponents and has since been a major DEI proponent.

I really got that something was amiss with Colorado in 2019. For context, a 2015 measles outbreak was used by California to pass a series of draconian laws which took away student’s ability to exempt themselves from vaccination. Similar bills were pushed through in a variety of other states (MD, ME, NC, OK, OR, PA, RI, TX, VT and WA), but there was so much pushback those bills failed to pass.

In 2019, a renewed push across the nation occurred, which was likely inspired by California’s success in taking away a doctor’s ability to medically exempt children from vaccination (as any doctor who did quickly faced severe consequences for doing so). Those childhood vaccine mandates met significant protest and ultimately only passed in Washington, Maine and New York.

Note: I (as discussed in this article) am now relatively certain all of these laws were part of a coordinated push by Bill Gates, the WHO, and the WEF (amongst others) to launch a “decade of vaccines” as much of what we saw later throughout COVID-19 was laid out in their documents. This I believe was why California later passed an even more extreme bill (which forbid a doctor from airing concerns about the vaccine with their patient) that fortunately was later struck down in court.

What I found remarkable about each of these bills (at least the ones I followed) was that each time, there was a massive public protest against the measure (e.g., from parents of vaccine injured children) that many legislators said was unlike anything they had seen for any other bill. In turn, the public testimonies before legislators were typically almost entirely composed of very eloquent professionals sensibly arguing against the mandates and mothers of vaccine injured children sharing their experience with the testimony, whereas testimonies in favor of the mandates were rare, and marginal at best (e.g., someone simply asserting vaccines were safe and effective and essential for humanity).

Yet, despite many of these protestors being lifelong liberals, the only ones who listened to them were the Republican representatives, and in each case, the bills ended up being voted down party lines (leading to them only passing in the liberal states). This was quite striking to me since (as discussed further here) prior to Obama, the Democrat party was not known for being in bed with the pharmaceutical industry, or that this corruption extended down to every local legislator.

In the case of Colorado, the 2019, the Democratic Majority legislature (41-24) voted to advance a childhood vaccine mandate, with all Republicans and only 1 Democrat voting against it before the bill died in the senate (where the Democrats had a much narrower majority). I followed this bill intensely because of how many activists I knew that were involved in protesting it, and heard numerous concerning stories from them, such as this one:

"I finally moved up to the CO hearing room around 11 pm. The guard shows you where to sit so you don't really get a choice. Turns out I was sitting next to the main lobbyist for the bill. As parents who had stayed there until 1 and 2 am to tell their vaccine injury stories, she was typing long winded messages on her laptop right next to me. One of them was a formal email to Mullica [the “author” of the bill] as if she was writing a speech (I thought maybe it was talking points for him or perhaps for an interview later).

It said things like "We've heard a lot about parental rights tonight, but what about the right for children to attend school free of harm from disease?" or something like that. She didn't seem at all to be hearing the mothers and fathers literally crying in front of the panel, just tictacked away on her computer, cold as ice, sending emails to all the panel members. Then she would jump up and be gone for 20-30 minutes, meeting with Mullica in the hallway and her other lobbyists. Mullica said a few times that he "clarified with the author of the bill" so admitted he didn't write it. Perhaps she did? And what do you know, Mullica began his closing remarks and it was word for word what that woman had written. Made me sick to my stomach. He's a total puppet. Bought and paid for. No original idea in his fat head [I later learned that despite being a nurse, Mullica also lacked a basic knowledge of vaccination].

—A side note, one of the sassy AV activists put a pamphlet in her open computer when she was out in the hall. She asked me if it was mine and I said, no. She put it on the floor and then, no joke, pulled out her hand sanitizer to clean her hands after touching it! OMG "

Note: according to one reader, that lobbyist was Sundari Kraft and she was paid by GlaxoSmithKline to start the “nonprofit” Colorado Parents for Vaccinated Communities. While I was able to confirm her involvement with that non-profit, and that she was a registered lobbyist for a variety of atrocious chemical and pharmaceutical companies, I was not able to confirm her link to GSK.

Sadly, the 2019 incident was only one representation of how the corporate Democrats have taken over the state. For example, people I know in Colorado have repeatedly shared their concerns that the current governor has worked to pass a variety of state laws preempting local laws (e.g., relating to building codes or the use of wood burning stoves) and to steal the water from the more rural counties so it can be diverted to Colorado’s central population centers. Furthermore, the one person I know who has directly worked with the governor Polis had serious misgivings about what they saw.

Hence, as you might expect, during COVID-19, Colorado had some of the more draconian pandemic policies. These included mask mandates and vaccine mandates for almost all workers in some of the municipalities (e.g., in Denver 99% of the city’s workers vaccinated once they were forced to) and to most healthcare workers in the state (which raised their vaccination rate from 70% to 94%).
Note: the Boulder school district vas one of the many districts which relentlessly enforced mask mandates and distanced learning despite widespread protest from the parents. Many believe this was in part done because of the 41.4 millions dollars in “aid” it received from the Federal government during COVID-19.

Much of this was facilitated by the governor passing hundreds of executive orders (something which was quite unprecedented, especially since many of them appeared to violate Colorado’s state constitution). Remarkably, when FOIAs were filed, it was discovered that Colorado’s health department had deleted many of the emails they sent during the pandemic, something quite unusual as official records are not supposed to deleted (and rarely are). Sadly, the legislature appears to be “addressing” this problem with pending legislation which effectively gives the government the ability to deny any FOIA request it does not want to respond to.

In parallel there was quite a bit of protest against these measures (e.g., here are a group of protesters in front of the governor’s Boulder home), a complete lack of support for those injured by them (e.g., I read some pretty sad stories from Denver’s city workers) and a generally mindless support of the mandates by the wealthier Democrats living there.

Presently, the people I know who are involved in Colorado politics believe they live in one of the most corrupt states in the country and that a lot of this is coming from pharmaceutical and tech money slithering into the state. In turn, like the activists protesting the 2019 law, throughout the pandemic, my contacts felt everything they did to communicate their concerns or ideas to the state and protest its pandemic overreach was futile as nothing they said was ever listened to. Sadly, as we will now show, this behavior has continued despite the COVID-19 “emergency” being long in the past.

Note: the vaccine mandates are not the only issue being created by Colorado’s new political rulership. For example, the city of Denver is currently buckling under the influx of 40,000 illegal immigrants and friends in certain parts of the state have shared they’ve started to notice the health food stores now typically have private security guards at the front doors.

The Fort Collins Biolabs

Being home to the CDC’s only major research infectious disease laboratory outside of Atlanta, Georgia, Fort Collins has been a magnet for scientists interested in researching dangerous pathogens (and not surprisingly there have been quite a few “accidents” at that lab).

As Colorado State University (CSU) was right next to this lab, CSU has gradually become a leading research center for the “biodefense” industry (e.g., the university is well-known for bioweapons research). Curiously, chronic wasting disease (a disease similar to mad cow disease) that has gradually spread throughout the deer, elk, reindeer, sika and moose populations of America (and parts of Canada) originated in Fort Collins.

Note: CSU has a main campus (which includes a complex for its veterinary school), a research focused branch campus in Fort Collins along with a branch campus in another part of Colorado.

As you might expect, Fort Collins zealously promoted the COVID-19 narrative (e.g., the city tried to enact vaccine passports). CSU for instance was ranked as one of top the universities in the country for everything it did to stop the pandemic, and like Boulder’s School District, received a lot of money for its compliance (e.g., 43 million from the largest COVID relief bill and 50 million from the second largest one).

In October of 2021, CSU (which has received 393 million dollars from the NIH since 2014) received a 6.7 million dollar grant to use in tandem with 5.1 million of state funds to build a facility at the Fort Collin’s branch campus for conducting bat research, much of which focused on coronaviruses. In turn, the justification for this facility was it could be the indoor bat colony that the US lacked and was needed for a lot of research in this field.

Note: Anthony Fauci, in addition to being a strong proponent of GoF research, is well known for the immense control he wields over the federal grant system which he has used to end the careers of his critics and fund a variety of risky projects.

As it so happens, the CSU facility is partnering with the Ecohealth Alliance (the group Fauci used to covertly fund the Wuhan lab’s research), and as FOIAs reveal, CSU had extensive plans to partner with individuals directly responsible for the Wuhan lab long before COVID-19 (where they worked on projects like releasing self-spreading vaccines into wild bat populations—a dangerous practice many scientists had warned against).

Because of all the money at stake, CSU went ahead with the project, choosing to create a facility at its branch campus in Fort Collins (which is in the northernmost part of the state above Boulder and in its 7th most populated county). Given the eerie similarities between this facility and what happened in Wuhan (poorly conducted bat research leaking COVID-19 into the city), the public was understandably concerned about this facility.

CSU in turn has repeatedly argued their research is “safe” and “necessary:”

Note: the above text was sourced from official statements provided here, here, here and here. I am providing it so you can compare it to what FOIAs actually revealed about the facility.

Local Colorado residents in turn formed a grass roots movement (CBRMC) to raise awareness on this issue and petitioned their elected officials to do something about it. Unfortunately, like those before them in 2019, these pleas fell on deaf ears. To quote the leader of CBRMC:

The community has been sending this information to our elected officials, who have also stonewalled us. I got no response from Sen. Hickenlooper [D-Colo.].

Note: Hickenlooper chose not to answer any questions or concern over the Fort Collins lab during a March 15 Town Hall Meeting.

The response I got from Sen. Michael Bennet [D-Colo.] spoke about diversity, equity and inclusion and did not address the subject of bat research at all. The mayor of Fort Collins says that it is not in her jurisdiction and was uninterested.

Note: half of the front page of the CSU facility which studies extremely dangerous pathogens is devoted to espousing their commitment to DEI.

To quote CBRMC’s website:

CSU “gave citizens short notice on Nov. 30, 2022” about the public hearing, which was “held on the inconvenient date of Dec. 21, 2022 — snuck into holiday break.”

Since then, CSU has “not conducted any informational meetings with the public regarding their proposed research lab.”

All of this hence suggests CSU may not be being completely truthful in their claims. As it turns out, what an animal rights group ultimately discovered at CSU was much worse than what many had ever imagined.

Animal Consciousness

One of the enduring debates that exists within human society is if animals have a consciousness or experience emotions. I personally believe that they do (e.g., I’m very attuned to the emotional states of my pets), although at the same time, I also recognize from the thousands of animals I’ve spent time with that their exact level of consciousness varies.

Presently, I believe the primary reason why human societies typically deny the consciousness of animals is because the cognitive dissonance that results from recognizing the cruelty that is often inflicted upon them would be too much for many to be able to function. Tragically, that apathy is also what has again and again throughout history given birth to many of the worst horrors imaginable (as humans will frequently close their hearts and minds down to something atrocious happening to another human being) and I have hence lived my life by doing everything I can to avoid to doing that, regardless of how difficult it may be.

Note: the best proof I have ever seen that animals can exhibit human consciousness and emotions was this story of an orangutan [which can be watched here] who was raised as a human until the researchers got nervous over what was he was showing and stripped him away from his adopted mother with both of them suffering a heartbreak that lasted for decades. The second best “proof” I’ve found that animals experience human emotions comes from the fact the same approach we often use to treat human emotional issues through releasing trapped emotions also works on animals (demonstrated by it frequently correcting behavioral problems pets have).

Simultaneously, I am also a pragmatist and recognize that some degree of suffering is unavoidable (e.g., some people need to eat meat, animals will always die in nature, some animal research is necessary). That said, I believe that a great deal of the suffering they experience is both avoidable and excessively cruel, so stopping that is where one’s focus should lie. For example, the factory farming process is horrifically cruel (to the point many people who see it firsthand will never eat meat again) and my position has always been to simply encourage people to eat humanely produced meat because I believe that does a huge amount for animal welfare (and is great for your health).
Note: when I was 10 years old, I drew my class into a theatrical stunt that woke them up to this issue and made some of them never eat factory farmed meat again. Given how unique it was and the reach of this publication I’m hesitant to state exactly what I did as someone might recognize it, but I wanted to share this story to illustrate my personal conviction on the matter.

One of the major sources of extreme and unnecessary animal cruelty is the animal research industry. In turn, I have seen more experiments than I can count be inflicted upon mammals that are so horrifically cruel that despite all the work I’ve done in this area, it strains my soul to be present to what they each of those animals goes through. Worse still, many of those experiments (which consume over 100 million animals a year) are completely unnecessary and do not yield any information that has any practical value.

There are a lot of things that could be taken from everything I just shared. Of them, I believe that the spiritual perspective is probably the most important. Karma—a concept I ascribe to—asserts that each action that is conducted will inevitably result in a reciprocal backlash to it occurring at some point in the future.

In this publication, I’ve tried to show the callous disregard human beings frequently experience at the hands of the medical system as they are transformed from living beings to inanimate organisms that are run through the cogs of the medical apparatus. At this point, I believe a great deal of that ultimately originates from the fact our system of medicine originated from a system of science which became disconnected from the human spirit and adopted a materialistic paradigm that eschewed the soul from its equations.

This for example is the mindset Matthias Desmet argues gave rise to the worst horrors in human history (the 21st century totalitarian states) as the rapid proliferation of technology in the 21st century that emerged without a cultural wisdom to guide it quickly made it possible for someone at a distance to inflict unimaginable cruelty upon millions of people.

I, in turn, would argue this is also what has happened to both livestock and research animals and that we as human beings also suffer from that cruelty (e.g., a case can be made that there are physical and emotional consequences of eating factory farmed meat). In my eyes, the clearest link can be seen in how animal experimentation influences the practice of medicine as that experimentation gives rise to the mentality which makes it justifiable to inflict its harsh toolbox upon the body rather than working in harmony with it and healing it.

Note: in this section, I attempted to present a few of the key points that underlie an incredibly complex and vast subject. This approach was taken so that the space could be created for those wishing to could begin to wrap their hearts and minds around the subject without forcing everyone to read a book about it (which for those interested, can be found here).

Vivisection

While we have become largely desensitized to animal experimentation, as the anti-vivisectionists showed, it didn’t actually used to be that way. Vivisection (first used in 1707) for reference meant:

Vivisection (from Latin vivus 'alive', and sectio 'cutting') is surgery conducted for experimental purposes on a living organism, typically animals with a central nervous system, to view living internal structure. The word is, more broadly, used as a pejorative catch-all term for experimentation on live animals by organizations opposed to animal experimentation, but the term is rarely used by practising scientists.

As anatomy and dissections are so fundamental to modern medicine, its pioneering scientists inevitably sought out animal dissections. As many aspects of physiology can only be observed when something is alive, those pioneers in turn shifted to dissecting live animals. One of the earliest vivisections was the Greek Erasistratus who documented his work approximately 2300 years ago, while the most infamous early vivisectionists was Galen 1800 years ago, commonly known as “the father of vivisection” due to both how frequently he did it and the fact this his work was the authority in Western medicine for the next 1500 years.

The history of vivisection is inseparable from that of medical science…Since the nineteenth century, laboratory experimentation has become the gold standard of academic medicine, shaping not only its approach to solving problems, but also the moral conduct and education of doctors. To experimentalists, it was axiomatic that medical science must be objective, rational, and dispassionate: if its advancement required the infliction of pain on laboratory animals, then it was unprofessional, even unethical, to allow squeamishness or sentiment to get in the way. Thus there arose a tension in medicine between the scientific spirit of cool indifference to suffering and the clinical tradition of compassion and caring. When the Continental fashion for vivisection first touched Britain in the 1820s, many doctors chose to distance themselves from it for the sake of their reputation, and the few who did undertake it felt the need to defend a choice that seemed at odds with the ethos of their profession.

Note: it’s beyond the scope of this article, but documented examples of human vivisection throughout history do also exist.

As vivisection gradually come into vogue, the French physiologist François Magendie (1783-1855) brought the issue to the forefront and engaged in a variety of vivisections he believed were justified on the basis of the benefit and knowledge they gained would ultimately bring to humanity. Many at the time viewed his work as cruel and unnecessarily torturous (e.g., once anesthesia was discovered he refused to use it in his classes), and records exist of him being seen by his colleagues as a sadist who frequently conducted experiments devoid of value. François’s actions were so abhorrent they led to one member of parliament labeling him a “disgrace to society” and numerous laws against animal cruelty being passed.

As animal testing become more popular (e.g., America’s animal testing centers opened in the 1860s and 1870s) many at the time could see that what was happening was wrong and a few organizations formed to protest it that have persisted to this day (e.g., England’s in 1875 and America’s in 1883).

Note: one of the things I find remarkable looking back upon this was how quickly the antivivisectionist idea went viral, which speaks to how strongly people resonated with it (as things like the mass media which typically are what facilitate ideas to rapidly spread through the society did not yet exist). Similarly, society at that time had a dramatically higher acceptance of cruel things being done to human beings (e.g., slavery was still legal), but despite that they could still recognize vivisection went far beyond what was ever acceptable.

The antivivisectionists quickly clashed with vivisectionists, and a series of political battles ensued that over the decades gradually resulted in a variety of animal rights laws being passed that reduced but by no means eliminated the practice.

One of the things I find the most noteworthy about this period was the disdain with which many of the leading medical professionals addressed the vivisectionists in the journals of the time. This, in turn, I believe went hand in hand with the fact those individuals would frequently proudly publish unethical human experiments they’d performed on living subjects who typically lacked the ability to refuse to participate in them (e.g., orphaned children, developmentally disabled adults or prisoners) and complain about the activists who were trying to stop their human experimentation.

Note: a list of some of the unethical human experiments that have been performed throughout the history of American medicine can be found in this Wikipedia article (e.g., the “founder of gynecology” developed many of his surgeries by practicing them on conscious slaves—some of whom he operated on 30 times).

While antivivisectionist groups still exist, the concept has largely faded from memory and become another forgotten side of medicine, something I consider remarkable and view as a testament to how effectively the medical system and mass media has conditioned us to compartmentalize these actions and view them as “normal.” This I believe goes hand and hand with the increasing disconnection from our world and those around us that is being facilitated by modern technology.

Note: much more is said about vivisection here.

White Coat Waste Project

While we rarely hear about them now, there are still animal rights dedicated to opposing cruel and unnecessary animal experimentation. While they are generally unable to stop the scientific juggernaut, one newcomer, the White Coat Waste Project (WCW) has been very savvy with identifying politically persuasive tactics to shut down animal testing. For example:

As much of the United States entered COVID lockdowns in April 2020, a tiny group that campaigns against federal funding for animal experiments spotted an opportunity. WCW sprung into action, persuading DailyMail to run a story saying the US government had funded the [Wuhan] lab. Then all hell broke loose.

WCW in turn has focused on the fact we waste approximately 20 billion dollars a year conducting cruel and unnecessary (and often dangerous) experiments on animals, a very clever message that appeals to both Liberals and Conservatives alike. As Fauci’s NIH funds many grotesque experiments (e.g., one where baby piglets were infected at a leaky lab with Ebola and then monitored without anesthesia to see how they suffered as they died), WCW has become a huge thorn in their side. WCW, in turn, will frequently dig up grants being used for cruel experiments the public will object to (e.g., one where beagles were eaten alive by sandflies), which in turn forces those programs (and other acts of gross cruelty within the Federal government) to be shut down. WCW in turn has gained notoriety for being one of the most successful animal rights groups in recent history.
Note: as detailed within the Real Anthony Fauci, Fauci also has a long history of conducting unethical experiments on human beings.

Six months ago, WCW exposed one of Fauci’s more scandalous stories (importing a novel coronavirus into the USA from the Wuhan Lab a year before COVID-19, stealing bats from a Maryland Zoo, shipping them to a NIH bat lab in Montana that was notorious for the animals escaping and then infecting them with the novel coronavirus). Given the insanity of it, it quickly went viral and ended up on national television:

WCW, being aware of the immense cruelty CSU’s research would require and the public’s likely opposition to a Wuhan in their backyard then decided to direct their efforts towards shutting the Fort Collins facility.

The CSU Investigation

From the WCWs initial November 2023 investigation, they discovered a 1.7 million grant to capture wild horseshoe bats and Indian flying foxes (a type of bat) from Bangladesh, breed them at CSU, and then infect them either the Nipah virus, SARS-CoV-2 or a SARS-related coronaviruses (RaTG13) and then study the tissues and serum of the bats. This project was justified under the fact its difficult to study these viruses in wild bats so it would be beneficial to establish a captive colony where they could be studied. There in turn were a few issues with this:

•First, numerous scientists were concerned that bringing foreign bats into CO would inevitably lead to infected ones being introduced, infecting the facility’s colony and then likely, some escaping and spreading into the community (which was a known problem at the even more “secure” lab in Montana).

•The Nipah virus kills between 40-75% of humans who catch it. So contrary to their previous assurances, CSU was indeed studying this organism.

Note: WCW also uncovered evidence that ebola would be tested on bats at its sister Montana lab.

Two groups (the US Right to Know and then the WCW), in turn, were able to get ahold of the minutes from CSU’s biosafety committee monthly meetings that occurred between June 2017 to January 2024. These painted a concerning pattern of safety lapses, lab accidents and researchers being exposed to a variety of different pathogens (e.g., the WCW’s FOIA had instances of potential exposures to tuberculosis, plague, brucella, Chronic Wasting Disease, chikungunya, Valley Fever, Q Fever, rabies, Zika, and COVID), most of which remarkably concluded with “no outside reporting required” and were rationalized with lines such as “most likely this [Zika infection] was a mosquito bite that went undetected during a chaotic time due to COVID-19 shut downs and changes.”
Note: as best as I can tell from reading through these documents, events were only reported if someone had a direct exposure to a genetically modified disease (e.g., by being bit an animal which the lab had previously infected with a GoF virus).

I was quite intrigued by these FOIAs as they represented a unique opportunity to see what actually occurs behind the scenes of a biolab (something I had always wondered about). After reading through all the reports, one in particular stood out to me:

Animal scratch/bite – there have been a number of bites or scratches from cats in the rabies studies. The cats are wanting to play. They are looking at adding mesh or wire to the cages so the cats cannot reach out. Also, getting properly fitting leather gloves will help. Occ Health is following up with individuals. No outside reporting required.

If you take a step back and think about it, this helps to encapsulate the mentality behind these experiments. Sweet cats that want a human connection are instead being given rabies (and then, like the rest of the test subjects, are eventually disposed of).

The CSU FOIAs

From reading through the CSU FOIAs (which can be viewed here and here) it appeared some type of lab accident occurred at one of the CSU’s 1-3 times a month. In many cases, (as mentioned previously), these involved the exposure of researchers to potentially dangerous pathogens such as tuberculosis, plague, brucella, Chronic Wasting Disease, chikungunya, Valley Fever, Q Fever, rabies, Zika, and SARS-CoV-2, which in a few cases caused the researcher to become ill (e.g., there was one instance from the chikungunya and one from Zika).

Those incidents typically occurred from a bat or mouse biting a researcher, or a contaminated needle or scalpel (used for dissections) slipping and cutting the researcher. Additionally, there were also cases where the agent contacted their eyes, the labworker received an airborne exposure to it, or the exposure happening because the substance was improperly stored (e.g., mislabeled).

•A huge range of pathogens were being studied there, including numerous ones that were quite dangerous and quite a few I’d never heard of. These included animals being infected with things like MERS (a more dangerous form of SARS) and mouse tests to determine “efficacy evaluation of novel therapeutics against biodefense pathogens.”
Note: one of the only harmful pathogen I did not see mentioned in the CSU meeting minutes was ebola.

•It was clear this facility served a vital role for the NIH as it performed a lot of early animal research that later made it possible to bring lucrative pharmaceutical drugs to market (e.g., a lot of experimental vaccines were being tested in animals). This in turn I believe is likely why the facility frequently received so much NIH money.

Note: in his book the Real Anthony Fauci, RFK Jr. explains how Fauci transformed the NIH into a pharmaceutical development pipeline which many NIH employees were paid off to support.

•I saw numerous instances of what was essentially GoF research being done at CSU. This included creating synthetic viruses (with parts of multiple viruses put together) which was meant to act as a live influenza vaccine, changing a flu virus to see if it became more likely to infect the intestine rather than lungs, conducting 15 passages of a virus (which was related to a few fairly dangerous viral species) to “determine if infection becomes more robust,” modifying anthrax to make it more resistant to certain antibiotics, and creating a modified listeria virus (which contained a protein seen in cancers) in the hope it would create an immune response that eliminated the cancer.

•Gene drive technology (e.g., using this approach to genetically modifying mosquitos so they would alter a wild population they bred with) was being research at CSU. In a recent article, I discussed how a similar approach is being deployed in Maui why this gene drive technology is extremely controversial (to the point our topic scientific bodies advised against it).

•There were multiple cases where humanized mice were the test subjects. Genetically modifying mice so that they become susceptible to the same diseases as humans is appealing to researchers (as it allows them to conduct human testing without needing human subjects) but is risky since it increases the likelihood of a disease (e.g., a virus) being developed which can accidentally spread into the human population.

•There were periodic incidents of animals being introduced to the facility which were later discovered to be harboring problematic infectious diseases.

•There were a lot of infrastructure problems in the aging facilities which resulted in repeated biosafety incidents (e.g., multiple incidents of pipe breaking and leaking into the lab, including one where a BSL3 lab was flooded or a facility that was built in 2000 needing repairs to the floors and HVAC system but researchers there not wanting those repairs to be done as they would interrupt multiyear animal studies). This in turn is corroborated by one of CSU’s funding proposals:

•There were many cases reported of individuals not following existing procedures (e.g., wearing headphones in BSL3 labs, chewing gum in a secure area, not taking off potentially contaminated clothing, workers the facility without signing in at the gate or people who had not be cleared to enter a BSL3 area being brought into it). Likewise, there were cases where the lead researchers did not cooperate with the lab’s policies (e.g., by starting an experiment before it had been approved by the safety committee or not cooperating with required lab audits).

•There were cases where an existing procedure (e.g., the proper use of airlocks) was not followed because the employee was not aware of the need to follow it (e.g., they didn’t see a sign telling them not to be there) or to cut corners (e.g., dangerous samples in the autoclaving areas weren’t labeled or incorrect inoculation dates were documented for some of the mice). Of those incidents, the WCW understandably chose to highlight this one:

An individual was poorly trained and left a BSL messy of animal feces and urine, this individual has now been trained properly.

•There were multiple instances of PPE being worn incorrectly or slipping and exposing the researcher to a potentially dangerous pathogen. This seemed to be the greatest problem during COVID-19, where due to the national PPE shortage, they appeared to be reusing their limited supply.

•In the midst of all these dangerous and inhumane animal experiments, I noticed one very different study also be discussed by the biosafety committee (which reviews and approves the research conducted in these labs):

Improving Couples’ Conflict Resolution Strategies via Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction: A Randomized Controlled Trial; HUMAN SAMPLES.

I wanted to share this because it encapsulates the strange mix of leftism behind many of these facilities (which likewise also continually espouse their commitment to DEI).

Finally, as the FOIAs total 412 pages, it is unlikely most of us will have time to read through them. However, for those interested in seeing exactly what happened, I condensed them into a 9,478 word companion article which lists each accident that happened (and not much else).

Outside Concerns

After being hired in September 2020 as the new Biosafety Office Director, Rebecca Mortiz began coming to most of the monthly remote Institutional Biosafety Committee meetings (I only counted 7 that she missed up to January 2024).

In parallel to her hiring, I noticed a few signs there were outside concerns about the facility.

These included:

•A Jan 2021 discussion about being contacted by an outside consulting organization which was trying to quantify how safe their lab was which stated the biosafety committee “had some concerns and requested more information from the Biosafety Office.”

•A March 11 2020 reference to an anonymous complaint about how the research animals were being treated:

Anonymous report letter: The committee was presented with a summative letter following the conclusion of a RICRO investigation into an anonymous concern. Most of the concerns were IACUC related, however some of the concerns and findings were relevant to the IBC. The PI involved has been responsive in working with the IBC chair, coordinator, and BSO to investigate and address the concerns. No additional corrective action or reporting required.

•A July 2021 reference to receiving multiple FOIAs requesting their incident reports and biosafety committee meetings.

•A January 2023 reference to being contacted by a local community group (presumably CBRMC) about the new bat lab.

A local community group has expressed fears surrounding the construction of the new bat facility on . They are concerned the facility could be used for research with high-risk group organisms (RG3&4) and worry that a containment failure would be catastrophic to the community and potentially the world. OVPR communications and biosafety are working together to address these concerns and reiterate the purpose of this facility, which is to house current and future research bat breeding colonies and provide ABSL-2 level space. It will not be used for any research involving risk group 3 or 4 organisms.

In turn, shortly after the FOIAs were discussed in July 2021, the candor of the incidents reported in the meetings changed. This appeared to begin in October 2021, where it was mentioned “only…the important incidents monthly (such as exposures or those requiring outside reporting)” would be discussed at the meetings and placing most of their reports they received into “a quarterly report for all incidents which would put everything into context.” This new reporting began in January 2022 (with the first report presented in March) and not surprisingly correlated with a decrease in the frequency of concerning events mentioned in those notes.

I would now like to quote the preamble given to each of those quarterly reports:

There is no such thing as zero risk when conducting life science research. However, good biosafety and biosecurity practices help minimize the risks. There are over 175 principal investigators running laboratories that work with biological materials and/or recombinant or synthetic nucleic acids at Colorado State University (CSU). These laboratories range from Biosafety Level 1 (BSL-1) to BSL-3 with enhancement, as well as Animal Biosafety Level 1-3 (ABSL-1, ABSL-2, ABSL-3), Arthropod Containment Level 1-3 (ACL-1, ACL-2, ACL-3), and plant containment (BSL-1P and BSL-2P). Each laboratory has multiple researchers working, frequently over 40 hours a week, with many of these hours spent directly handling biological materials, recombinant or synthetic nucleic acids, and/or plants or animals containing the previous materials. The total number of researcher hours handling these materials annually is unknown. However, it can be assumed that the denominator is substantial.

This preamble effectively argues that it’s impossible to make biolabs completely risk free (something I agree with) and that this lab should be lauded for the relatively low rate of incidents which occur given how much research is done there, often by researchers who spend a lot of time each day in the lab.

On the surface this seems reasonable (e.g., having read through the reports, I am relatively certain if I was a full time lab technician at a CSU lab it’s quite likely I would have eventually made some type of biosafety mistake similar to one of those that was reported). However, on a deeper reading of their rationale, it also raises a few red flags.

First, I am relatively sure (based on what occurred there and what was mentioned) that many incidents which occurred at the CSU labs never made it being reported in the meeting notes (e.g., because the worker didn’t tell anyone). Despite this, 1-2 were known to have occurred each month and almost none of them were ever formally reported.

Second, I believe that given all the unique resources it has access to (e.g., a leading expert directing biosafety, a University specifically catered to this research, a lot of federal money, and the CDC being next door), the CSU lab represents the pinnacle of biosafety. This in turn argues many other labs (e.g., the one in Wuhan) could be expected to do much worse.

Third, CSU represents only a tiny fraction of the BSL labs around the world. For example, there are over 200 BSL3 or 4 laboratories in the United States, over 1,300 registered ones around the world, and even more more BSL1 or 2 facilities. This for instance is why I believe the 2014 estimate that 4 biosafety events occurred each week in the United States was likely a gross underestimate.

Finally, you only need to have a single leak for it to prove catastrophic. The inevitability of this happening is why Obama had listened to the scientific community’s concerns about GoF research and specifically warned against what was later done in Wuhan.

In short, I would say the repeated assertions this Biolab research is “safe and necessary” is nothing more than a marketing slogan no different from all vaccines being “safe and effective.”

Furthermore, it’s highly debatable if this research is even necessary as it consistently fails to find effective treatments or countermeasures for upcoming pandemics,. Conversely, independent clinicians (operating under a budget that is a tiny fraction of what is allotted to the biodefense industry each year) are consistently able to identify affordable, safe and effective treatments for emerging diseases without exposing us to the huge risks these lucrative biolabs create. Unfortunately however, while our government spends a lot to prop up the biodefense industry, it simultaneously targets and suppresses anyone promoting an off-patent therapy which compete with this industry.

I believe until these funding priorities are reversed, this unscrupulous research will continue to have the wholehearted support of the scientific community.

Conclusion

One of the point’s WCW work really drives home is that if we had listened to the concerns of the anti-vivisectionists about how the bats in Wuhan (and other labs) were being treated, COVID-19 would have never happened.

Sadly, like many other areas in medicine, as the industrialists realized how much money could be made from the modern practice of medicine, many of its critical facets were lost (e.g., “vivisection” is now a largely forgotten word). I in turn would argue that Fauci is effectively following in the footsteps of the notorious vivisectionists from the past, and sadly has been largely successful in normalizing that conduct to the point few rarely question it.

I sincerely thank you for taking the time to ponder this more controversial subject. For those wishing to support the WCW’s work, please consider visiting their website. Likewise, for those of you wishing to support the citizens trying to stop Fort Collins bat lab, they can be contacted here.

Finally, on an unrelated note, when you become a supporter of this Substack, it gives you the option to send a message of support (and recently, a box to select for it to be shareable on social media). I recently located where those notes were compiled, and as I read through them, realized that based on what they covered, the community would benefit from some of them being shared. I’m presently cleaning them up so that nothing someone might not want to be shared (i.e., anything which could be personally identifying) is not shared. Since I am doing this, I would like to request that if you sent one of those message and you do not want it shared, to let me know in the next week.

Note: A complete index of the articles published here on the Forgotten Side of Medicine can be found here.