The Security State Set-up
Medical Countermeasures for 'National Security'
[Please read the abstract of the 2015 journal article which is the focus of this post as it is crucial to understanding both the Origins of the Covid Response and the inevitability of the ‘Next Pandemic’ as predicted by various experts and 'stakeholders’. The paper - linked below - is “Medical countermeasures for national security: A new government role in the pharmaceuticalization of society” by Stefan Elbe et al. in “Social Science and Medicine”.]
“The National Security State and the Inversion of Democracy”
During his recent interview on “Tucker Carlson Uncensored” Mike Benz forensically dissected details of the vast online censorship regime of the U.S. Security State.
“What I’m describing here [in 2024] is military rule. It’s the inversion of democracy.”
Mike Benz on “Tucker Carlson Uncensored” - 16 February 2024
Source: https://tuckercarlson.com/
The main focus of Benz’s analysis was cyber election interference by the State and the operational side of escalating state-sponsored censorship of online political speech over the last decade, and its historical origins in the U.S. War Department (circa WWII).
The assessment of modern day “military rule” can be extrapolated to the Pentagon’s “Countermeasures Coup”:
And more broadly, Benz’s reference to the State leveraging “whole of society” assets in the cause of furthering ‘National Security’ objectives can be applied to the U.S. military-led “Biodefense Boondoggle" in action:
“Military Medical Leaders Discuss Vaccine Development Against Coronavirus”
On 5 March 2020, the U.S. Army’s Brigadier General Michael J. Talley announced at a press briefing that the DoD would lead a “whole of government approach” as part of its medical countermeasures response to protect “the citizens of the world”.
Source: https://www.defense.gov/
In essence, the Covid Response used the pretext of a possible ‘biological attack’ to justify pre-planned “rapid response partnerships” between government and biodefense contractors in industry and academia to facilitate the international deployment of emergency medical countermeasures (MCMs) - allegedly to protect American civilians and “the citizens of the world”.
Source : https://www.politico.com/
[For further background read our “Biodefense Boondoggle” post from 6 January 2024.]
Specifically, recall that DARPA’s pre-Covid “Pandemic Prevention Platform” (or P3) was a 60 Day R&D timeline for “rapid response” medical countermeasures to stop “Pandemic X”.
With a stated objective of “advancing national security” this “Manhattan Project for Vaccines” was a ‘biodefense’ solution in search of a ‘biothreat’ emergency.
Source: https://www.darpa.mil/
As Sasha Latypova recently revealed (via a leaked audio recording from a meeting of Astra Zeneca executives), on 4 February 2020 the U.S. DoD notified pharmaceutical companies within the international biodefense MCM consortium that Covid-19 constituted a biothreat of “national security” significance. This was the official trigger for the “P3” plan.
“Medical countermeasures for National Security”: A policy analysis
With this in mind, it is well worth reviewing a key 2015 journal article by Stefan Elbe et al. which examines the policy implications of “a new government role in the pharmaceuticalization of society” with reference to medical countermeasures for national security.
Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/
In the abstract, the authors note (bold added):
Governments are becoming more deeply invested in pharmaceuticals because their national security strategies now aspire to defend populations against health-based threats like bioterrorism and pandemics.
The paper refers to the “twin infectious disease threats” of bioterrorism and naturally emerging pathogens, but highlights the former:
The threat of a deliberate release of a disease-causing agent thus marks one key driver for increased national security concerns about acute infectious diseases.
Elbe et al. assert:
When it comes to protecting their populations against health security threats, governments are turning towards pharmaceuticals as their preferred ‘weapon’ of choice. Nothing reflects this pharmaceutical turn in security policy more poignantly than the new category of ‘medical countermeasures’.
Furthermore:
… governments are actively incentivizing the development of many new medical countermeasures – principally by marshaling the state's unique powers to introduce exceptional measures in the name of protecting national security.
The authors emphasize that:
In the name of national security, several governments are now actively incentivizing the commercial development of new pharmaceuticals through a broad array of extraordinary policy levers.
Those combined efforts… are spawning a new, government-led and quite exceptional medical countermeasure regime operating beyond the conventional boundaries of pharmaceutical development and regulation.
The one thing that is already becoming quite clear, however, is that in the twenty-first century our futures will not only be secured militarily – but also pharmaceutically.
“Almost nothing requires corruption here: They made it all legal"
In a recent interview Sasha Latypova summed up the pre-determined framework for the mass deployment of EUA countermeasures during Covid as follows:
"The whole genius of this plan and how they pulled it off is that almost nothing requires corruption here. They made it all legal." - SL
The detailed U.S. regulatory-legal analysis by Latypova and Watt in the wake of the “live exercise” Covid Response has reinforced the findings of Elbe et al:
At least five extraordinary policy interventions have been introduced by governments with the aim of stimulating the commercial development of novel medical countermeasures:
(1) allocating earmarked public funds [Project Bioshield Act]
(2) granting comprehensive legal protections to pharmaceutical companies against injury compensation claims [PREP Act]
(3) introducing bespoke pathways for regulatory approval [Animal Rule]
(4) instantiating extraordinary emergency use procedures allowing for the use of unapproved medicines [EUA]
(5) designing innovative logistical distribution systems for mass drug administration outside of clinical settings [eg. mass-distribution of MCMs by the military]
Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/
This post has reviewed the regulatory-legal aspect of “MCMs for National Security”. A subsequent post will look at the prioritization of Public Private Partnerships in the context of “MCMs for National Security”.
Postscript:
We are the animals
… but some animals are more equal than others.
From the FDA webpage on “The Animal Rule”:
Under the Animal Rule, efficacy is established based on adequate and well-controlled studies in animal models of the human disease or condition of interest, and safety is evaluated under the preexisting requirements for drugs and biological products. Products approved under the Animal Rule are critical for the protection of public health and national security.
