Covid Whistleblower: Predicting Pandemics & Exposing the CIA and Peter Daszak’s Alliance With China

The second half of the basketball season is here, and the race to the playoffs continues on PrizePicks, the best daily fantasy sports app to cash in on your favorite sports.

The app is simple: pick more or less on at least two players for a shot to win up to a thousand times your cash.

Download the PrizePicks app today and use code FIELD and get $50 instantly when you play $5.

That's code FIELD on PrizePicks.

They get $50 instantly when you play $5.

Win or lose, you'll get $50 for just playing.

Guaranteed.

PrizePicks.

Run your game.

Must be present in certain states.

Visit PrizePicks.com for restrictions and details.

So

I think most people have concluded that the creation of COVID was probably not what they told us.

It probably didn't evolve naturally out of a pangolin in a seafood market, and that the Wuhan Institute of Virology probably played a role.

The U.S.

government played a role.

But it is impossible to find anyone, or it has been for us anyway, to find anyone who has kind of like direct connection to any of the main players here.

And none of them will do an interview.

you were the vice president of the eco health alliance um your former military guy ties to the intel world you worked at a federal nuclear lab in new mexico for years and then you wind up at your your scientist phd uh and then you wind up working for eco health alliance in new york city you think it's like this world wildlife fund operation designed to like track diseases among wildlife globally and protect the wildlife, protect the people.

It's like kind of a crunchy outfit.

It's do-gooders, basically.

You show up there, you help them raise a bunch of money from the feds, and you become the vice president.

And then you discover it's not what you thought.

So that's the story that you told me at breakfast, which is an amazing story.

Thank you again for coming.

I'm going to bow out now.

and let you continue the story from there, assuming I've been faithful in my rendition of it so far.

Perfectly accurate.

And thank you for having me.

This is

sort of like like a dream of mine.

Oh, well, I'm so excited you're here.

And because this has been gnawing at me,

you know, where did COVID come from?

And how is the U.S.

government implicated?

It clearly was, but you never meet anyone who can say that they know the players, but you do.

So, with that, you show up there, you become VP of EcoHealth Alliance, the now famous EcoHealth Alliance.

And when did you start to realize this wasn't the World Wildlife Fund?

Shortly after I was working there, so I was hired as a senior scientist to take over a, well, I learned after the fact I sort of lied to, but it was a failing department

that was doing predictive forecasting and analytics.

And after I brought in all that money from the Department of Defense, I actually sort of saved Eco Health Alliance.

It was financially on the rocks.

That $4 million really transformed the organization.

And with that and my expertise in technology, I was actually improving the systems and technology company-wide.

Peter Dasick, who is the president or CEO of Eco Health Alliance, liked everything that I was doing.

He was very impressed.

Peter Dasig is like a figure out of history now.

I mean, Peter Dasig is like at the very center of COVID.

Oh, absolutely.

And we'll get to that.

So, so Peter promotes me to vice president.

And then I start attending executive meetings and I get involved in all the different other aspects of the company or at least visibility to what's going on.

The main driver of funding of EcoAth Alliance was from this program called Predict.

And PREDICT was funded by USAID to go out and conduct global surveillance of infectious diseases to predict and forecast emerging pandemics.

At least that's what they were telling everyone they were going to do.

That seems like a virtuous thing to do, by the way.

No, and it seemed completely virtuous.

And I had actually been doing that type of research my entire career, at least as a scientist and engineer.

And I was doing that type of work at the National Laboratory.

I continued that work funded by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency when I was at Equathalians.

That's where the first big check comes from for $4.6 million.

And

once I'm promoted and I'm looking at this USAID program, I decided to go dig into the literature and all the technical reports to see what this is and how it actually works.

And

I read through this phone book of material and I assess that it's a giant boondoggle.

There's no way that they're going to be able to predict or forecast infectious diseases.

They weren't collecting enough samples globally or in the countries where they were collecting them.

They weren't collecting the data on a systematic and routine basis, which is one of the fundamental core concepts in biosurveillance.

And you start to ask the question, well, what...

So this is your area.

I should just say, like, you've done a lot of research into

how do you model this out?

Like, how do you collect the data?

How do you analyze it?

I make the bold claim that I'm probably one of the world's leading experts in the area.

I'm one of the few people to actually predict and forecast infectious diseases before they've occurred.

And I've done it in peer-reviewed literature.

And I was actually so bold when I built my models and tested them.

I actually had this published in, I think it was the Guardian newspaper, the New York Post, before the outbreak hit.

And this was the Zika, you remember Zika virus?

Very well, yeah.

I was working at EcoAth Alliance and one of the models that I developed actually forecasted the amount of Zika virus that we'd receive in the United States and where specifically.

And I published that before it happened.

So you were very familiar with the technical details of a study of this kind, monitoring of this kind.

Like how big is the sample have to be in order to do this?

Well,

so the devil's always in the details.

It depends on the characteristics of the infectious disease agent.

They're talking about the population, where that population is located, the type of infrastructure.

There's a lot of technical nuance because it's how healthy is the population, what is the probability that they'll be exposed to something, right?

And then, uh, what will be what were the

what are the likely transmission dynamics within that population?

And does it have the ability to go from a small isolated outbreak to an epidemic to a pandemic?

So, but because this is your specific area, you look at the details of what EcoHealth Alliance, your new employer, is now doing, and it's immediately obvious to you, like instantly obvious that this is not real.

It wasn't real.

And the real crazy aspect here is that once I'm promoted, I'm going to all these different meetings with the funders of the program.

So Dr.

Dennis Carroll, who is the program manager, program director at USAID, who had a very close relationship with Dr.

Peter Dasick.

And these fundraising events we're doing where we're telling everyone that we're going to go,

we're going to forecast and predict these emerging infectious diseases that can cause pandemics.

And I'm sitting in the audience and I'm watching my boss and these other people telling everyone that they're doing this.

And like I mentioned, if you look at the technical reports, it's just very clear that this is not technically possible.

So

it begs the question, you know, as me being an ethical person and a good scientist and engineer.

What are we doing here?

Because we're not doing the thing we said we were doing.

Exactly.

And, you know, it gets sort of darker than that real quick.

So once I'm sitting in these executive meetings, one of the first meetings that I sit in is a budget, a

budget, a budget and forecasting meeting.

Budget, though.

That's what I'm saying.

Yeah, it is

a good frog slip.

A budget and forecasting meeting for the company.

And each vice president in charge of the area is going around talking about our budget, how our employees are doing operations types of things, typical corporate stuff.

And

I asked the question because I'm new, well, how much money are we spending on wildlife conservation?

And because when I interviewed at the company and all our branding and marketing and messaging was that we're doing infectious disease research to protect wildlife and engage in conservation activities or something to that effect.

And the room goes quiet.

And I'm looking at everyone.

And why is everyone sort of staring into space or staring at me?

And eventually, Peter Dasick looks at me and with sort of a maniacal laugh says, We're not doing, we're not doing any conservation work.

This is like a nightmare.

Yeah.

And

I'm just, I'm just shocked.

And, you know, I came directly from the national laboratory system, San Diego National Laboratories.

And I was trying to get away from that type of work.

I was actually excited to go work at a crunchy granola non-profit organization where I was protecting wildlife because the Autobahn Society.

Yeah.

And as we, as we were discussing, we're both avid outdoorsmen.

We love nature, that kind of thing.

And I thought I was going to get into more of that.

I was excited to be like, hey, maybe I'll get a chance to have a trip out to the woods or the jungle and go protect some wildlife.

And I hear this and I'm like, okay.

And,

you know, I digest it.

Of course, I don't say anything.

It's my boss, my other, the other executives.

And then it drives more questions.

You know,

what are we doing here?

And so I sat and sat in more executive meetings.

I learned more.

And I quickly, you know, learned that we were sort of functioning as a beltway bandit type of operation, meaning that we're trying to get large contracts and grants in our area which is in theory predicting and forecasting um infectious diseases but really what we were doing was um the simplest way of explaining is that we were running around the planet collecting infectious disease samples to build a bank or a library of infectious diseases which was

odd

and

it's i'm sorry to keep laughing it's so this is so dark i don't it's a i can't help it well it was odd from the standpoint i was still looking at this as a scientist trying to figure out what we were doing.

And there's not a ton of publication value in

cataloging infectious diseases.

You can get one simple publication from identifying a new or novel pathogen in a species, but it's sort of a one and done thing.

It doesn't really drive future research.

Right.

So if you finally discover something, it's great.

You found it.

It's a publication, but that's not going to drive your next cycle of funding because typically you want to be very strategic about this.

Well, then if you start to look at the other portfolio of research EcoAth Alliance and what some of my peers, other vice presidents and their areas of research, what they're up to, and the places where our employees had joint employment or co-employment with in the work that they were doing, it became apparently obvious.

We are engaging in gain of function research and viral discovery to make new novel pathogens.

And I wanted nothing to do with it.

Well, Grand Canyon University is not like most American colleges.

It focuses focuses on the things that actually matter.

It is not a ripoff.

It is the real thing.

It's a private, affordable, Christian university located in the heart of Phoenix, one of the largest universities in the country, actually.

At Grand Canyon University, education is more than academics.

It is about opportunity, the chance for every student to live out the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Rights are not given by the government.

They were bestowed at birth, at conception, by God.

That's just a fact.

And Grand Canyon University is not going to lie to your kids and claim otherwise.

It tells the truth.

So you know you're thinking a quality education is rare so this probably costs a fortune.

Colleges constantly jack up their costs.

They probably do the same.

Well they don't actually.

GCU has maintained the same tuition for 17 straight years.

They're not in education to get rich at the expense of students.

The whole thing is actually about learning.

How refreshing.

With flexible online classes, hybrid learning options, GCU offers 340 academic programs.

Students benefit from a collaborative learning environment, dedicated faculty, personalized support to help them achieve their goals.

The pursuit to serve is yours.

Let it flourish.

Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University, private, Christian, affordable.

GCU.ed.

A incredible nutritional supplement called Immuno 150 is now available to the public.

It contains 13 vitamins, 17 herbs, 18 amino acids, 17 antioxidants, 9 exotic fruits, COQ10, turmeric, and 70 plant-derived colloidal minerals.

It may be the best health supplement in the world because of its 70 minerals.

There's nothing like this amazing product.

It supports the body with everything it needs to become healthy and stay healthy.

Immuno 150 contains seven times more minerals and many more vitamins and enzymes than found in foods and most nutritional supplements.

Immuno150 can be ordered from Amazon or Walmart.

Or call 844-519-3400.

That's 844-519-3400 or visit the website Immuno150.com.

That's IMMUNO150.com.

Listen, we're all looking for a way to make more money.

But let's be honest, the idea of learning something new, taking on more risk, or working harder, nobody wants that these days.

That's where TrueTrade comes in.

Their AI-driven technology enables you to generate income passively without risking your own capital, wasting your time, or needing years of experience.

TrueTrade has created institutional-grade software, the same type hedge funds and big banks use.

But now it's available to everyday people like you and me.

And here's the best part.

They'll even guarantee your trading capital.

We're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars you can trade with.

And I don't know about you, but that kind of funding could be life-changing.

Looking for a smarter way to make money?

Download their mobile app on Android or iOS or go to true Trade.io right now.

That's T-R-U-T-R-A-D-E dot IO.

Funded accounts are limited, so don't wait.

Reserve your funding today and let technology earn for you.

See terms.

So you're rather than like predicting the threat to human and wildlife populations, you're actually just creating new deadly viruses.

Exactly.

And this is.

This is not what they advertised on LinkedIn.

No, this is, well, it wasn't even LinkedIn.

It was actually off their website, but you get it.

The funny part is, if you look at the gain of function work and how they were even spinning it, was that they were trying to even make the argument scientifically in the peer-reviewed literature that this gain of function work that they were doing, and this was through Dr.

Ralph Barrick's laboratory at the University of North Carolina, that they could model and simulate pandemic potential from the ganta function work.

And that in itself is a scientific fraud, in my opinion.

It's not really possible to predict how a disease will spread in the community, either of animals, humans, wildlife, from looking at the genetics and doing GANA function work.

But that's what the argument that they were effectively making back to the U.S.

government and other sponsors of our research portfolio.

In my book, I discussed this, but Dr.

Anthony Fauci gets a lot of the blame for this GAN of function work.

And I wrote numerous whistleblower complaints.

I think I wrote

whistleblower complaints to every U.S.

agency involved, DOD, DHS, USDA, Fish and Wildlife.

It's a long list, the CIA, which we can get to in a little bit.

So it's very clear that the research that we're doing had an earlier origin than Dr.

Anthony Fauci.

And that's really USAID

and maybe the State Department formulating a relationship with the Chinese at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

And if you follow the proposals or scientific proposals and technical proposals, which were submitted to the U.S.

government and trace that back, and I have all the original documents to prove this, it looks like the path for developing the gain of function partnership with the Chinese Chinese bioweapons lab

began around 2010 or 11.

What was the purpose of that relationship?

Well, at the time, I had no idea.

And this is specifically, I'm talking like 2015, 2016.

Right.

Fast forward to today, I have much more information where I can sort of, you know, I thought about this in great detail and had a number of of other interviews.

And I came to the conclusion that the real purpose actually of EcoEath Alliance doing this Ganofunction research with the Wuhan Institute of Virology was for us to collect intelligence on the Chinese bioweapons lab.

And, you know, I had this very interesting moment when I worked at EcoEath Alliance where

it was, it was around the holidays.

I think it was in late 2015.

I was working late to finish our project and Dr.

Dasik was working late on our project.

And actually,

as a coworker,

working with Dr.

Peter Dasik was fantastic.

He was extremely hard worker, very diligent.

He knew the publication game.

He knew how to woo the people, the program sponsors that were funding our work.

So professionally, I loved working with him in that aspect.

Smart.

Very, well,

I would say cunning.

Yeah.

I don't think he was much of a scientist.

Actually, I think he's very weak as a scientist and engineer.

But in terms of a project manager and a program manager, he was very, very strong.

Yes.

So we're leaving.

We're locking up the office.

We're in the vestibule up on the 15th floor of our building in New York City.

And he goes, Andrew, do you mind if I ask you a question?

It's my boss.

Sure, Peter, go ahead.

Well, somebody from the CIA approached me.

And they're interested in the places we're working, the people we're working with, and the data that we're collecting.

Do you think it's a good idea that

I speak with them?

And he just said a lot of things, which just set off all my alarms because I came from the, you know, I'm a product of, you know, the so-called deep state of the national security complex.

I held a top secret clearance.

And here's my boss telling me that he had a side conversation at the CIA.

And I have all these immediate thoughts.

Was he really talking to someone from the CIA?

Was it someone pretending to be from the CIA?

CIA?

Exactly.

Because I'm like, does this guy know what he's dealing with?

And,

you know, I had, had to say something.

I said, Peter, it never hurts to speak with him.

There could be money in it.

And it was, I think, a very honest, direct assessment of what he had just told me.

We made small talk.

We went down

the elevator and we went our separate ways.

I walked home to my place up on the 40, 45th street, and that was the end of it.

Well, Over the next, you know, several weeks in between meetings at the coffee cooler, I had asked Peter, I'm like, Hey, how's that thing with the CIA going?

And you know, you know, he wouldn't say much, but you know, the you know, sort of indicated that it was progressing.

And about the third time I asked him, he was mum about it.

He didn't want to, he didn't want to talk about it anymore.

And so, I don't know if he was trying to tell me what he was actually up to because I was from that world, or if he just really wanted my honest opinion.

I have no idea.

But now,

fast forward to SARS-CoV-2, COVID,

and everything that's happened, it's very clear to me that Peter Dasick was probably used as a CIA asset to

obtain access to that laboratory.

And the way that we obtained access to that laboratory, because mind you, it was well known in my circles going all the way back to when I was a PhD student that this laboratory in Wuhan was essentially the Chinese military's bioweapons laboratory.

So how would you get access to it, right?

They're not going to to allow Westerners to just come in.

And where Senator Rand Paul and a number of other congressmen have been completely wrong about this in opinion, and I've told them so in writing, is that

this wasn't

the U.S.

government giving the Chinese $400,000 to conduct gain a function research.

I mean, just think about how preposterous this is.

Yeah, they don't need the money.

They don't need the money.

So, what do they need?

What do you think?

Technical expertise, I would think.

And what else?

The actual technology.

So the technical expertise and the technology.

So the trade that was made is that we were actually transferring advanced biotechnology from Dr.

Ralph Barracks' laboratory to the Chinese for access to the laboratory so we could collect intelligence on it.

And some of that might fall under the umbrella of scientific diplomacy, which I'm actually a huge proponent of, but not with the Chinese.

And that's where I...

So I don't know.

I have no, you know, I have no way to evaluate what you're saying, but except against things I've seen in other areas.

And that is exactly how the world works, what you just said.

That is,

that's how things really are, right?

Is the U.S.

government makes deals with people that they not really on their, you know, whoever it is, Qaddafi, Maduro.

I mean, there's longstanding and ongoing relationships with a lot of people, I think the public would be shocked to know we're in relationship with, but the motive is always the same.

The closer I get, the more intel i can gather

i think you're your

your assessment of the the global scheme of which how the u.s government operates and formulates relationships is accurate oh i've seen it and i think a lot of that is doctrine you know they want to try to obtain close relationships with the highest ranking government officials possible and sometimes the the methods and how they do that are questionable But it's always the same.

I mean, you'll be, this literally happened to me the other day.

You're talking to, you know, well-informed person and they're like, oh, yeah, yeah, I knew so-and-so.

It's like, what?

What?

How in the world were you connected to that person who's bad?

Kind of the human equivalent of the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

And it's like, well, because like that person is someone who has a lot of information that we want.

Oh, absolutely.

And I've met

a number of Intel agents from various agencies that showed me pictures of the very high-profile evil people

that were working with.

Of course.

And

I actually have no problem.

with that.

Omar Gaddafi was working with Mossad and CIA.

Yeah.

Right.

So, of course.

And I'm not even attacking anybody at all.

I'm just saying that is the actual truth of the world that I have seen personally.

And

I agree with your truth.

And I think the more questionable part here is why are we giving advanced technology to our enemies?

And where this really gets strange is that back when I did work at EcoHeath Alliance, I did object to working with the Chinese.

So

the next phase of Predict funding is coming along, Predict 2.

Okay.

Okay.

So Predict is the program that you described earlier that supposedly monitors global wildlife populations to get a head start on preparing for a pandemic.

Well, it's to predict and forecast it.

Predict and forecast.

So maybe get a head start could be a more accurate framing or at least have an assessment of what's circulating in the area.

That's probably a fair characterization.

Predict two, they're basically going to continue this boondoggle operation and expand the portfolio of research with China.

And once I was promoted to vice president, they put me onto the Predict program at my own request because it was sort of the sexy thing that Equal Health Alliance was doing.

And I wanted to be a part of it because you get my name on more publications, more notoriety.

And they wanted to make me a country coordinator.

And I ended up being the one of the country coordinators for Sudan and then also Jordan.

And then Peter Dasik floated that I

help him with China.

And when that came up in the meeting, I said, I want nothing to do do with this.

I'm, you know, still my top secret clearance is a good standing.

I object to us doing the work with China.

And I actually said in the meeting, I'm like, aren't you the slightest bit concerned that the Chinese are going to do something nefarious?

Like they're going to steal our intellectual property.

The Chinese have a pattern of lie, cheat, and steal.

So why do we want to do this work with China?

And I said that in the executive meeting, and I was trying to protect the company.

more so even just the national security risk side of it.

I was trying to protect the company.

And, you know, Peter gave a very political response that, you know, the work with China is very important and

this relationship that we have with the Chinese is very important.

And really, I think the only thing that was important to Peter was the fact that this Chinese, at least cut out of the bigger contract, was a lot of money.

Exactly.

And, you know, he had already been sort of flipped as a Intel asset to collect the Chinese in the lab.

And this wasn't going away.

And this was all the window dressing to make it look legitimate.

We're sorry to say it, but this is not a very safe country.

Walk through Oakland or Philadelphia.

Yeah, good luck.

So most people, when they think about this, want to carry a firearm and a lot of us do.

The problem is there can be massive consequences for that.

Ask Kyle Rittenhouse.

Kyle Rittenhouse got off in the end, but he was innocent from the first moment.

It was obvious on video and he was facing life in prison anyway.

That's what the anti-gun movement will do.

They'll throw you in prison for defending yourself with a firearm.

And that's why a lot of Americans are turning to Burna.

It's a proudly American company.

Burna makes self-defense launchers that hundreds of law enforcement departments trust.

They've sold over 600,000 pistols, mostly to private citizens who refuse to be empty-handed.

These pistols, and I have one, fire rock-hard kinetic rounds or tear gas rounds and pepper projectiles, and they stop a threat from up to 60 feet away.

There are no background checks, there are no waiting periods.

Burna can ship it directly to your door.

You can't be arrested for defending yourself with a Burna pistol.

Visit burna BYRNA.com or your local sportsman's warehouse to get your stay.

Burna.com.

You may have noticed this is a great country with bad food.

Our food supply is rotten.

It didn't used to be this way.

Take chips, for example.

You may recall a time when crushing a bag of chips didn't make you feel hungover, like you couldn't get out of bed the next day.

And the change, of course, is chemicals.

There's all kinds of crap they're putting in this food that should not not be in your body.

Seed oils, for example.

Now, even one serving of your standard American chip brand can make you feel bloated, fat,

totally passive and out of it.

But there is a better way.

It's called masa chips.

They're delicious.

I've got a whole garage full of them.

They're healthy, they taste great, and they have three simple ingredients, corn, salt, and 100% grass-fed beef tallow.

No garbage, no seed oils.

What a relief.

And you feel the difference when you eat them, as we often do.

Snacking on masa chips is not like eating the garbage that you buy at convenience stores.

You feel satisfied, light, energetic, not sluggish.

Tens of thousands of happy people eat masa chips.

It's endorsed by people who understand health.

It's well worth a try.

Go to masa, m-as-a-chips.com slash tucker.

Use the code tucker for 25% off your first order.

That's masachips.com

tucker.

Code Tucker for 25% off your first order.

Highly recommended.

Discover Uncruise Adventures all-inclusive small ship journeys, hosting just 22 to 86 guests and exploring Alaska, Baja, Costa Rica, Hawaii, and Galápagos.

Experience epic wildlife encounters, remote shores, farm-to-table dining, and authentic connections with nature.

Adventure without the crowds.

Unrushed, unplugged, unbelievable.

Uncruise.

Visit uncruise.com or call call 1-888-862-8881.

Yeah, again, I don't have any background information, so like you could tell me anything, but

everything you're saying sounds right to me, just based on what I have seen.

Can I just back up a tiny bit and ask some practical questions about what EcoHealth Alliance was doing?

So you said

before you got to the portion where they were acting as an Intel asset, which sounds right,

you said they were compiling, collecting a library of viruses from around the world.

How does that work?

Exactly.

Like, how do you collect a virus in a Sudan, for example, any country?

How do you do that?

Sure.

So it's a,

I guess in my mind, it's very straightforward, but typically first you form a relationship with the diplomatic mission.

So the embassy, the consul from the United States.

They might refer you to either hospitals, professors, other academics or company in-country, or maybe you already have those relationships from past work that you've done.

You then go on a trip to that country and you go sort of do an assessment of their laboratories.

Um, you collect sort of information, try to gauge, do these people have the capability?

Do you know what they're doing?

Are they going to spend our money wisely?

So, it's a business trip, and it's very business-focused, and you're assessing their capabilities.

Then, once you have a good feeling with their capabilities, you begin the contracting process with that foreign entity.

And if you're doing everything by the book, you run these people through U.S.

government systems to make sure they're not terrorists or evil people.

Right.

So we're not giving money to terrorists.

That didn't happen at Equal Health Allen.

It did not happen.

I found out about that after the fact as well.

But we try to figure out who these people are.

And then if they're capable, oftentimes it's universities, either the Ag School or at a foreign university, the veterinary school or human medical center.

Then we formulate the contract, we send them the cash, and then they would either go out and collect the samples or we would travel or have our personnel travel to go collect the samples.

So if we're talking about bats, it depends what species you're dealing with.

Right.

But if you said to deal with bats, you set nets or traps in a bat cave, for example.

You catch the bat in the net and then you go out there in your personal protective equipment and you take fecal swabs,

blood, saliva from the animal.

And then you then package that so that the DNA will not be degrade and transport back to the laboratory.

And then depending.

Where's the laboratory?

Well, it depends on what country you're working in.

So, every country had we had different agreements with contractually about who owned the samples, who would store the samples.

And the other thing that's happening in the background here is that technology is advancing.

Okay.

So, at one time in this type of research, you actually had to have the physical sample.

Today, we're at a point, you no longer have to have the physical sample.

You can actually send

the DNA or RNA code digitally to somebody else and they can recreate it.

So this field has advanced tremendously over 10 years.

And this is taking place, this advancement while we're doing this work.

Oftentimes, the samples then were physically transported back to the United States or mailed or shipped.

You can mail a deadly bat virus from a third world country to the U.S.?

Well, there's a manual from the CDC and USDA

and HHS of how to transport samples.

So yes, there are rules and process of how you can.

So, almost all of that

mail goes on commercial airliners.

Typically, and there's really not a whole lot of risk from a collected sample.

First of all, you don't even know at this point whether there's a new deadly virus present in the sample.

In the bat shit, or in the bat shit, the saliva.

You have no clue.

Once it gets back to the United States, and then it goes to, at least at Equal Enth Alliance, it would go to Ian Lipkin's laboratory at Columbia University, where he was a specialist in, he's a pretty well-known viral epidemiologist with really good lab chops.

And another doctor who worked with us named Simon Anthony would work with him to isolate and well, at first identify and isolate new viruses or novel novel viruses.

So that's where it typically took place.

Then the mechanics of this or operations of this, that information or sample would be sent to another laboratory like Ralph Barracks laboratory, where he would continue the work.

Down at Chapel Hill.

Chapel Hill and do the gain of function work.

It's just, just, can I just approach this from an autistic perspective?

So what you're saying is there are like

people around the world in bat caves in some faraway country sending potentially novel and dangerous viruses to New York City.

Like all the time, and people are not even aware of this.

There's a huge.

I wouldn't say huge, but I mean a non-trivial, trivial amount of these types of samples being shipped around the world globally.

And if they're properly contained and packaged, it's really that much, not that, not that much of a risk.

And actually, Dr.

Ralph Barrick developed some of these methods of how to send what's called a chimeric virus on a sheet of paper in an envelope, which is low risk.

The bigger risk becomes when you start to clone or replicate that agent at scale.

you know, human medicine, public health, epidemiology, transmission risk, now you look at this, you have to have a substantial quantity of a virus, which is a substance mixed in the air, or be exposed to it to become infected with it.

Because you have an immune system that works.

Okay.

And sometimes you get exposed to these things and you don't even know it because your immune system fights it off.

So

I think sometimes the risk is overblown and the fear around transporting samples.

I think most of the time that's actually pretty low risk.

There's been a series of transporting accidents, which occurred

from 2008 to 2012 or 14, I want to say, which actually led to the ban or partial ban on gain of function research.

What kind of accidents?

One of the high-profile ones was that

I think it was Bacillus anthraasis was being shipped from one of our U.S.

government BSL four laboratories under CDC control to another laboratory and it went missing and they found it

sitting in the corner of some.

Porch pirate stole it.

No, it wasn't a porch pirate, but they found it someplace and it wasn't properly secured or in completely off the.

Yeah, I mean, we live in a world with like Chernobyl and misdiagnoses.

And I mean, I believe in science.

I think there are a lot of,

you know, rigorous, responsible scientists, but, you know, people make mistakes.

I mean, over, and over time and with scale, like mistakes will happen, right?

Well, and we actually dealt with this type of

low probability, high consequence threat risk analysis all the time at San Diego National Laboratories.

And the big issue is what you just brought up, the human and the malupa.

Usually the engineered systems, you can engineer those precisely to account for whatever probability or consequence or risk, but it's always the human making a decision or behavior action involved in the system that makes a mistake, which causes some kind of catastrophic failure.

Well, yeah.

I mean, yeah.

So, okay, I just was just interested.

So then

you say that they, EcoHealth Alliance was compiling a library of these viruses.

They'd be stored in one place.

Well, yes, they had a digital library at EcoHealth Alliance.

And then there's other systems that they,

the U.S., or I should say, not only the United States, but the global virologist community maintain of genetic information on viruses.

But the actual viruses, the living organisms, were they stored anywhere?

Typically, we were buying negative ADC centigrade freezers as fast as we could, or as many as we could afford, and storing those at Columbia University and other laboratories where these things go in the freezer and they sit.

And the one nice thing is if the freezer does fail, it usually destroys all the sample in the inside because they do have to be maintained cold.

We thought this through when we started this podcast a year ago and we decided we're never advertising anything that we or people on our staff don't use.

Period.

We're only partnering with companies that we agree with and endorse actually in our personal lives.

So we want to announce a new partnership with a survival company we trust most.

Last Country Supply is the name of our collaboration.

Last Country Supply.

I have a big surplus of survival food from that great company.

If you get a bucket of food with a 25-year shelf life, 2,000 calories a day, potatoes, rice, bread, drinks, you feel a lot better.

Let's say there's an EMP attack or civil disturbance.

I mean, you don't know what could happen in the future.

You are prepared and you are protecting your family with Last Country Supply products.

So head to lastcountrysupply.com to shop for our new collection, bulk up now.

There is no scenario where you will regret being prepared.

This episode is brought to you by Life Lock.

It's Cybersecurity Awareness Month, and LifeLock has tips to protect your identity.

Use strong passwords, set up multi-factor authentication, report phishing, and update the software on your devices.

And for comprehensive identity protection, let LifeLock alert you to suspicious uses of your personal information.

Lifelock also fixes identity theft, guaranteed or your money back.

Stay smart, safe, and protected with a 30-day free trial at lifelock.com/slash podcast.

Terms apply.

You don't want to be passive and tired and dependent, do you?

Of course you don't.

You want to be strong and self-sufficient.

That's the goal.

And our friends at Beam can help you.

They understand that real strength does not come from drugs.

It comes from inside you, internal motivation, internal strength, health.

That's the key.

Bigger.

So we partner with Beam because they have the same values that we have, that Americans have, hard work, accountability, free will, independence.

Be strong, don't be dependent.

Not until you're really old, anyway.

Beam can help you achieve that.

This great U.S.

company is offering our listeners a new bundle, the American Strength Bundle, and it comes with top-selling creatine and protein powder that delivers what your body needs to perform, to recover, and to stay strong.

No junk at all.

All natural ingredients that actually taste good.

You will love it.

You can get 30% off this bundle at shopbeam.com/slash Tucker.

This is not in stores, just on that page for people who listen to this podcast only.

They're encouraging you to be weak.

Don't let them.

Go to shopbeam.com/slash Tucker for 30% off.

What's the security like at a lab like that?

I, in my opinion, I tend to think that it's laughable.

And I've actually

laughable at most university laboratories.

If you were to do a red team or penetration test and me coming out of the national security and be a biosecurity, biosafety expert,

you could get into most university laboratories.

they would i heard arguments from other scientists who worked in these laboratories well you know we have good physical security we have card scanners we have this good physical i'd love to know what that actually what those guys actually look like who the the scientists good physical security oh it i mean if you are a motivated attacker and you're well trained you can get into one of these laboratories it would it would not be overly difficult now

has this improved and has this changed are all the laboratories the same i mean I think many of the BSL three or four, which are the higher level or highest level laboratories in the United States, now have pretty good or strong physical security.

But when you look at what's actually happened in terms of accidents and lab leaks

throughout history in recent history, I mean, speaking of this, you know, Ralph Barrick and his laboratory, he's had a series of leaks at his laboratory over years, you know, where people, their employees have gotten sick.

And typically it's one of the people working in the laboratory is accidentally exposed because it's a virus that you can't see.

And the way that disease

incubates inside a person and how the bioevent timeline is, we call it the amount of time it takes for a person to become sick, they leave the lab and then they become sick at home.

And then that's when the disease becomes a transmission risk to the community.

So that's just the very nature of how.

people behave, how people work in the laboratory, how human biology and physiology works.

I mean, this is the nature of the beast.

And it's very difficult to prevent those types of

risks, I guess, to the community and the greater population.

Oh, this is where we have Lyme disease.

Yeah.

Which I got.

So, yes, no, I'm very aware of that.

And I think everyone's aware of that.

So with that in mind, gain of function is inherently dangerous, correct?

I've always been against it.

It actually divides the scientific community, or it used to pre-COVID.

I think there's probably more scientists and experts against gain of function.

It seems like certainly the general population is against it.

Not all gain of function technology is bad.

For example, insulin is made from a form of gain of function, and there are many diabetic people and they require insulin.

Now, if we're talking about gain of function research on

pathogens which have pandemic potential,

it's a no-brainer.

It's a stupid idea.

And this is why it splits the scientific community.

So one camp says, There's no use to this.

I don't understand why we're doing it in the first place.

Therefore, we shouldn't do it.

The other camp argues, well, if we can predict how these viruses will mutate,

then we can develop countermeasures, vaccines, or drugs to counter the threat before it emerges.

And that opinion, and I've always held this belief, that the people who have that opinion are wrong.

And the reason why they're wrong is that you have to be like God.

And you have to know and be able to predict how something will genetically evolve over time.

And if you look back through human history, it's always humans trying to correct nature, which have failed.

The introduction of the brown snake in Guam.

I mean, there's all these things where they've, that was a hitchhiker scenario, but where they tried to introduce some kind of predator to eliminate some kind of bad pest.

You see this repeatedly throughout history that we can correct a complex system, which is nature.

Of course, that's what geoengineering is.

And that's why it's like destroying our forests because they're spraying.

you know, particulate matter into the air to counteract global warming.

And they're not God, so they're not doing it right.

And it's well, that's interesting that you bring that up.

So, I used to work with the geoengineers, and I wonder how much scale

it's actually occurring.

So, it

and you know, people talk about uh contrails and you know, that's that being geoengineering.

It's not, and most of these, these stations are ground-based, but it's very expensive

from a scientific and engineering perspective.

If you were going to launch a large-scale geoengineering project that was um

earth-based it takes a lot of material and that the material costs a lot of money so i i don't think it's happening at a large a scale that people believe the more effective geoengineering technology exists are actually satellite deployed systems which act as solar shades and i don't think any of that exists but we are putting more things into space all the time and it a lot of this is either not classified or secret but It's not exactly visible either.

So, you know, who knows what people are shooting at?

Exactly.

And there's a massive disinformation campaign campaign against anyone who asks questions about it, which tells you it is real.

Yes.

Like QAPs.

But anyway, without getting into all of that stuff.

So

you

are asked, like, hey, Dr.

Huff, would you like to go to China?

And you say no.

I say no.

And two reasons.

One, to protect the company, and also because I wanted to maintain my security clearance and good standing.

And when

It's not that you can't have foreign relationships, but it becomes more complicated for your reinvestigation in the future if you have relationships with a country like China.

And I've, you know, from a national security perspective, I've always been against what the Chinese have been doing.

And that's lying, cheating, and stealing from us.

And we never get anything out of the relationship, it seems.

It's been a very abusive, one-way relationship from the Chinese.

And I knew this going back to my military days.

And I had actually been invited to do other collaborative work with the Chinese at other institutions and places I've worked, sort of tied to national security.

And I always stayed away from it because I never saw any benefit to it.

And well, if the government wants to, the US government wants to fund this or this entity wants to fund, that's fine.

I can protest by just not being a part of it.

So

you leave EcoHealth Alliance after a few years, then COVID happens.

Yes.

And

when it happens, everyone thinks I'm sort of the crazy one.

And

how this actually transpires is I was working at Jewel Labs e-cigarette company as the senior director of population health living in the Bay Area.

And because of what I did for a living and my expertise, you know, I catch wind of this virus spreading around the planet.

It was very obvious that

people on the West Coast were becoming sick in, I want to say, late November, December 2019.

You know, another really weird thing happens.

So I'm making more money than I've ever made in my life at this company.

And I was very grateful for that.

I was able to pay off all my debt.

But I received a phone call from a woman by the name of Dr.

Amy Jenkins, who works at ARPA-H now.

I think she's the assistant director there, for deputy director.

I can't remember what her title is, but I know Amy from years back.

I actually met her while I was a PhD student at the University of Minnesota at a DH Department of Homeland Security Center of Excellence.

She had shown up to a few meetings of ours.

She was working with the Department of Defense at that time and the intelligence services.

And

she's a great, you know scientist and um

very friendly relationship with her and she contacts me and she informs me that she's uh now working uh with darpa

and offers me a position as a program manager in the biological programs directorate and

you know i thought it was sort of odd that she had contacted me on my brand new san francisco area phone uh cell phone so i had a new phone number because i relocated and i wanted san francisco area code

I didn't think too much of it.

And I couldn't figure out why she wanted me to come be the director of this biological program.

I had been trying to get away from national security intelligence type work for several years and I kept on keep on getting dragged back into it, it seemed.

And I said, you know, thanks, Amy.

I'm not really interested in this right now.

I'm making a lot of money.

This pays far more than what, you know, DARPA can pay me.

I want to keep what I'm doing.

She's like, well, you know, go home and speak with your wife, Emily.

If you change your mind, we'd like to both bring you on.

We'll find a home for Emily too, because she's a scientist.

And that's very, you know, common in the scientific community, the two-body problem.

And go home, talk, speak with Emily about it.

And, you know, give me a call back tomorrow and let me know what you think.

I said, okay, Amy, I'll do that.

So went home and had a conversation with my wife.

Hey, do you want to move back to the Beltway or move to DC to have

Fed jobs and go work in that environment?

And

my wife had previously worked at USDA and she didn't want to go back to it.

And like, I call up Amy the next day, you know, thank you, you know, for contacting me.

At one point, this was in my career.

This was actually my dream job to be running a,

have a blank check from the Department of Defense to go develop all the coolest biotechnology in the world.

I mean, seriously, I had dreamed of that job at one point in my life.

I didn't want it.

Yeah.

And so I told her no.

And she's like, well, you know, if you change your mind in the next few weeks, we'd really like to have you.

You call me anytime.

And that was it.

Well, okay, that phone call took place

late September, early October 2019.

Fast forward today with what we know is that

DARPA had held

a contest, or I want to say not so much a contest, but put out a RFP, a request for proposals related to something called Preempt, which was preventing emerging infectious disease threats.

And one of the proposals was something called Diffuse from my former employer called EcoHealth Alliance,

which was basically the recipe for SARS-CoV-2, which was done in partnership with the Wuhan Institute Virology.

So,

you know, I'm sort of hopping around here, but the reason why this is important is.

Now I believe that DARPA was actually trying to recruit me back into the program.

So I wouldn't have done any of the things that I've done over the last four years, essentially.

And

which is tell the truth in public.

Tell the truth in public about what the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is.

But going back on your timeline here, so I had limited information back then, and I knew a pandemic was coming.

So I told my wife, we need to get the heck out of the Bay Area as fast as possible.

This kid go off the rails.

I actually believed the information I

was seeing, which I think was a psychopath.

potentially targeted at me, that this disease would be much more severe than it was.

I'm not saying that it wasn't a a severe disease.

I mean, it wasn't as bad as they're making it seem easy.

Oh, I believed it too.

Oh, absolutely.

Well, they have portrayed it, though, that something that an epidemiology.

You mean in like January, February of 2020?

Correct.

Oh, yeah.

So they're painting a portrayal.

And scientifically, in epidemiology, we have something called the case fatality rate.

So of how many people get sick, how many die.

Like this thing is going to kill everyone.

Like 80, 90% of the population could die from this disease.

That's how they were portraying this.

It turns out that that number was much lower.

and

somewhere in the, you know, in the percentage category, not the 70, 80, or 90%.

So I went real quick from thinking that this was going to be the thing that could, you know, cripple society to being,

I'm not wearing a mask in public.

Right.

But my behavior and action in earlier, early 2020, the first weeks, I started looking for a place in a remote area.

So I'm considering Alaska, Maine, northern Maine, western Wyoming, or the UP of Michigan.

My search criteria, based on what I knew as an expert, you want to have access to an airport, transportation, high-speed internet,

an hour drive from a major city center that's not too populated.

Because if it's going to end the planet and it's going to kill everyone, you want distance from other people to break transmission cycles.

At least you can isolate yourself.

So

I bought a year's supply worth of MREs.

I started stockpiling other things, you know, some ammunition, make a plan.

And my wife and I land in the UP of Michigan.

Everyone, you know, sort of thought it was crazy for doing this.

And next thing you know, everybody wants to come visit me during the lockdowns.

They said, they said you were right about everything.

I know.

And, you know, I live this too.

Yes.

And in the back of my mind, though,

I'm thinking about constantly that,

and I know that Eco Health Alliance had been engaged in this gain of function work at EcoHealth, or excuse me, at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

And I'm like, a bad coronavirus emerging in Wuhan.

And, you know, I'm watching this, these, watching the news and the TV at, you know, through 2020.

And they're like, oh, it was a, you know, a pangolin, or it was the wet market.

And I'm arguing on social media that that's just not possible.

That doesn't make sense from an emerging infectious disease standpoint.

Because a wet market and the specific wet market in China is a seafood market.

That's why it's called a wet market.

Yes.

But, you know, Western Americans are.

It's not for mammals.

It's for creatures from the sea.

Yeah.

People in the United States have a very myopic view of the world typically.

And

I'm sitting here arguing.

I'm like, this is a fish market.

And in fact, I'm looking at the pictures of it.

And my assessment is like, this is the kind of place I'd go buy groceries.

You know, another New York City, a very nice,

very nice place.

So I'm like, none of this is adding up.

And, you know, you're watching the story evolve.

And next thing you know, my former boss, Dr.

Peter Dasick, is put on the committee that's sent over by the World Health Organization to go investigate the origin of the disease.

And this is getting weirder and weirder and weirder.

And I know all the players involved.

I mean, I had met and worked with not Dr.

Anthony Fauci himself, but his deputy, Dr.

Morris.

I hadn't been out to dinner with him.

I mean, I knew all the players in this big thing.

I mean, I had been groomed since I was a PhD student to be a Dr.

Anthony Fauci replacement or that type of person.

So, I mean, I knew all the people

in the system and working on these things and the program managers, the officers, the different branches of the government.

So I'm watching this all play out.

And I just can't believe it.

And it's the kind of thing where I'm yelling at my computer screen in private.

Like they put, you know, they put fucking Dr.

Dasic in charge of like investigating the origin.

He's probably the one that caused it.

And little did I know that

this was all part of the psychological operation and cover-up.

And I just started becoming more callous and trenched about really, really going on.

Can you explain that a little bit?

What does that mean?

Well, why would putting the guy who had a hand in the creation of the virus in charge of investigating the origin of the virus be part of a psyop?

To give the perception that it's an independent person that's well trusted within the wildlife community and the scientific community that we know what you're doing and can trust what we're saying.

Because if you look at how the

psychological operation was waged in,

I'm not just saying the U.S.

government, but multiple entities, the pharmaceutical industry, the big companies that back all these different things, special interests, just generally.

You take the guy who's responsible, you put him in charge of the investigation.

You certainly, you know, that he's not going to tie it back to himself, but he's already been branding himself for years and decades as being a person that cares, you know, a crunchy NGO person.

And he has the relationships in wealthy communities on the West Coast and East Coast, the elite to convince them that this is, you know, a naturally emerging disease from the wet market.

So, you know, he's already the point man.

He's already sold everyone all this bullshit related to we're going to go and forecast pandemics.

And really, he's the guy who caused one.

It's really,

yeah.

Thank you for saying, I just wanted you to explain that a little more fully.

I've, again, lived this, seen it, and it is effective because it's so shocking that someone would do that.

It's so brazen, the huts, but required to do something like that.

You take not just.

like some random guy, but the guy who's responsible and you start telling everyone he's the savior.

wow man that the human brain a normal person can't is bewildered by that is thrown off balance by that well at least in in my life and we were discussing this a little bit at breakfast the more of that you see of this trickery uh the more that you're exposed and then they actually talk about this in in the psychological research the more oftentimes the the more aware you become of a phenomenon the more you see it and then once you start seeing it you can't stop seeing it oh i know and that's how they say you know people become conspiracy theorists because they see see the conspiracy theorists and well that's why very few young people i think this is changing fast, but my whole life, like young people always bought the story.

And then you meet guys in their 70s, particularly people who'd work for the government.

And I've known a lot of those who would get more conspiracy-minded as they aged.

Have you ever noticed this?

Oh, absolutely.

Yeah.

And that's just.

So why is that?

Well, experience.

Experience and living life.

And I do that now.

I'm 43 and you see someone in their 20s or 19.

They have a very idealistic view of the world.

And I used to be one of those people.

Oh, yeah.

Oh, tell me about it.

I made it to my late 30s with that, you know, but mid-30s.

But anyway,

wow, that's wild.

So you're sitting up at the UP with your scientist wife watching this stuff on CNN, going, you must be like going bonkers watching this.

Well, internally, and I was working on a startup company and I was distracted by other things.

And, you know, because I was in the UP, this was only via social media or the news.

So I'm pretty detached from it.

What happens is in late 2021,

the operation trends focused towards me because now I'm being, I think, viewed as a threat based on some of the things I put on LinkedIn at the time and other social media posts that

I could, I needed to be contained in some way.

And what sort of things were you saying?

So it was really Dr.

Malone and I and a few other people who were trying to remain anonymous.

I know who they are.

We're just telling the truth.

So first of all,

around the disease, that this was not a naturally emerging pathogen.

And I could tell that it was not based on a number of facts: basically how this disease was spreading, the type of agent it was, the coincidence that we had been funding this exact type of work.

And I had the original documents at this laboratory.

It was just that their story and how the people involved were

saying

things about the disease just which weren't true.

And

specifically how this type of disease would emerge.

I mean, that's what my PhD is in.

I mean, I've worked in this field.

And I knew that these people knew that they were lying because these people were qualified experts as well.

So why are these people lying about how this disease would emerge?

Great question.

And so they, you, it, it drives more questions, right?

Every time you have something that's weird or doesn't fit the pattern or isn't the thing that it's supposed to be, you ask more questions.

And as this, you know, the timeline of COVID is

happening or occurring, you know, so we're going through the lockdowns, they're trying to get the vaccine operation warp speed, they're trying to do all these things.

That's all distracting everyone from the origin question.

And the people involved in the origin discussions and the psychological operation of it was that

in my opinion, is that they were actually trying to get society bogged down in the technical details of very sophisticated scientific jargon, which very few people were qualified to understand or argue or debate, and then label it as those people were the only people who were qualified experts to be able to debate.

So therefore, there was no debate allowed.

And I wasn't buying, I wasn't, I wasn't fucking having it.

It was driving me nuts.

Because you were a qualified expert, so you didn't have to buy it.

Well, and I'm highly competitive.

And those so-called qualified experts, I thought I was better than them.

Yeah.

And I look at it where we're sitting today.

I'm sitting here in this chair speaking with you telling you the truth and i think my argument the psychological operation i wage back against um the population via social media and other channels and how i did has been completely successful i was the i mean from day one i had been saying that this was a laboratory leak and

you look at most of the population today everyone i think globally believes that it came out of the laboratory.

I think the people are tied to it, you know, are still trying to make the penguin or a natural emergency.

It's funny, eco, how I went on the eco health.

I think EcoHealth Alliance is gone or sort of gone now.

It's defunct.

Yeah.

Defunct.

Yeah.

But on their website, which still exists, I looked at it last night.

They have an attack on you, of course, lacking all specifics.

You're familiar with all this.

But on it, they say, you know, Dr.

Huff makes the totally unsubstantiated claim that this virus escaped from a lab when we know, and the scientific consensus states, that it emerged naturally out of an animal population.

Well,

when they wrote that, they knew that wasn't true.

Oh, absolutely.

And they put out other weird smear tactics, and they had worked with the media to smear me.

The best, my favorite smear.

So the day that my publication came out, there was a story, I think that ran in the New York Post, and it claimed that

I was wrong that I had never worked in the Wuhan lab.

Well, that was attribution error.

I never had claimed that I worked.

No, in fact, you just explained that you didn't want to work in China.

Correct.

But

that's how they were trying to scope the argument that I was a liar.

The New York Post.

That would not surprise me.

And I just want to say for the record, the New York Post is one of the most dishonest publications in the world and is very often used by the Intel agencies and other bad actors to lie to the public.

It's also hilarious.

It's a great newspaper in certain ways.

And same with Daily Mail, exactly the same.

And they sort of lull you into believing them because they've got a sense of humor and they cover great stories and they're sort of vaguely right-wing, but actually,

it's a vector for disinformation and for lying on behalf of the intel agencies.

That's just what it is.

That's most mainstream media, I think.

It is.

It is.

But I think the New York Post and Daily Mail are Wall Street Journal, also Fox News for sure, but they're more sinister because people believe them.

Because, hey, it's Fox News.

It's the Daily Mail.

It's the New York Post, especially the New York Post.

Everyone, headless body and topless bar, man.

It's the coolest paper in the world.

They wouldn't do that.

Oh, they do it constantly.

I agree.

I mean, what do you do about it when you're the idle man?

I mean, that's you tell the truth about it.

That's all you can do.

But, and they'll, I mean, they'll, all those companies are failing and they'll all be gone soon.

And I won't lament their passing.

But anyway, so tell me what they did to contain, control, and punish you once you started telling the truth.

So in late, well, the timeline's starting to get a little foggy.

This has been ongoing saga.

I think it was in late 2021 or mid to late 2021.

I was contacted by some journalists.

So, journalists start trying to contact me and ask me questions because they figure they're probably wondering, who's this huff guy?

Doesn't he know what he's talking about?

They're probably trying to frame me as a crazy.

Miranda Devine contacts me, a pretty prominent journalist, and asks me on the telephone

where she should look for more records related to the scandal function research.

And because I had worked in this field for a year and knew all the players, I'm like, I don't know.

You know, my gut tells me I'd go look at DARPA.

And I believe that conversation was being listened into.

I think I believe they were already watching me, obviously, going back

into October of 2019.

That's when it triggers something within the Intel community where I had found out now secondhand that there was a false allegation that someone had leaked classified information to me.

Nobody's ever leaked.

classified information to me because one, they don't typically target the person that was leaked to.

They target the leaker.

Okay.

And I would be arrested and be in jail if that were true.

And when I told that to Miranda Devine, this is based on my expert opinion.

I knew the people who were funding the work

preempt all these different things.

I knew the players.

So you go look at the funding sources to identify proposals or things that have been submitted.

And I don't know if this is related or not, but a week or two after I have that conversation,

Major Murphy from the U.S.

Marine Corps puts out a whistleblower disclosure that

there's this thing called the diffuse proposal, which is basically the recipe of how to make SARS-CoV-2.

And it was done in partnership with the Chinese and a number of scientists in the U.S.

And the primary sponsor,

the primary company engaging in this work was Eco Health Alliance.

So every name on the diffuse proposal,

I know those people or I know of them and what work they were doing.

And everyone discredited this diffuse proposal because this is not a real proposal.

This looks like a joke.

It's two pages.

It looks very haphazard.

And

I started making the argument to people: no, this is very real.

DARPA does business differently than other government agencies.

They use this thing called Heim Myers Catechism.

You have to answer a series of questions, proposals.

They only want a page or two.

They don't want a big NIH proposal, which is very technical, could be full length, 100, 200 pages of material.

They only typically want a one or two page proposal.

And I tell people, I think this is how DARPA does business.

But since nobody in the real world knows how the business works in these areas.

Not a lot of people you run into at Starbucks have done business with DARPA.

Exactly.

And that's how they then start the psychological operation around the diffuse proposal.

For those who aren't familiar, we just tell viewers what DARPA is.

Yeah, so DARPA is the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

It used to be ARPA before they added the D before.

It's an advanced research projects agency.

It's actually made most of the coolest technology that we have, or one of the companies or entities that's federally funded that has the internet.

So everything on the internet was developed by ARPA then, or ARPANET.

And if you are a tech nerd like me and you start digging down the DNS queries of how you search for information, you dig down, you start pulling up the tables of information, eventually you get to something that says ARPANET in every communication that we do.

So they make the most sophisticated stuff in the world.

So it's a Pentagon-funded research lab, basically.

Yes.

Well, not necessarily just a research lab.

I'd call it more of it, it covers a program area or series of program areas where some of the research is done by private contractors, FFRDCs, basically anybody who can do the work.

And they fund high risk, high, high value

scientific R ⁇ D on short timelines.

So you don't receive 10 years of funding.

The Department of Defense, rightfully, so what capability will this give us within a year or two?

Yeah.

Three years.

They have a short, short horizon.

It's no nonsense.

And they want results.

And they achieve them.

Interesting.

That's a great description from someone who's worked with them.

So anyway, you have this conversation with Miranda Devine,

and you now believe that conversation was monitored.

And what happens next?

Well, then I start because my profile is increasing and I'm starting to be actually followed by people out in the UP when I go to the grocery store.

Very, very strange, right?

The UP is the upper peninsula of Michigan.

It's not actually near the state of Michigan, really.

It's very, it's a geographic anomaly, but it is very lightly populated and extremely rural.

It's one of the most rural places east of the Mississippi, if this is a fair description.

Yes, it's actually the most rural place in the lower 48 by

48.

Yes.

By population density.

So when you're getting followed in the UP, you know it.

Oh, absolutely.

I mean, so

the house, the pandemic, you know, prepper house that we, that we purchased, it's 180 acres.

It's off, completely off-grid.

Our driveway is a mile long, and it's basically like a moat.

There's a natural dense swamp on all four sides because the driveway is an old railroad grade.

So yeah, so it's very isolated.

I joke, I could throw a hand grenade off my step and nobody would notice.

And because there are mines in there, there's blasting and stuff going on.

Nobody would care.

So that's that's where I live.

So when you go to the gas station or you go into town, you know, a 40, 40 minute drive and you have someone follow you, have a couple of vehicles follow you, it's very strange.

And

I get on, it was Twitter then before X and

my profile becoming elevated.

So one of the first people to get in contact me was Brett Weinstein, Dr.

Brett Weinstein, another Jan Yaklik.

They start reaching out to me.

So the people who were outspoken and skeptics around around all that things start contacting me.

And I have a four-hour conversation with Brett Weinstein and I walk him through the whole, whole thing, even through the vaccine technology.

And I think how it'll cause cancer.

And look today where we are, it's these mRNA vaccines are causing cancer.

So anyways, I have this great conversation.

And all of a sudden, all the, I feel the, I can sense the pressure.

you know, being applied and mounting, you know, from being followed, you know, as weird as that is.

And because I'm a former top secret clearance holder, I decided to go report this to the FBI.

So I go to my local FBI field office and I say, you know, I'm Dr.

Andrew Huff.

I'm a former top secret clearance holder that worked at this environment.

I'm being tailed because you're supposed to.

You sign documents saying that, you know, if you report any, if you have any strange behavior the rest of your life of being tailed or, you know, hacking surveillance, report it to the FBI.

So I did.

My wife and I go in there.

They seem like they're taking it very seriously.

And

I then actually hire a private investigator to then um cross check what the fbi is doing and there's a vehicle that's following me and i report it uh to the fbi the fbi tells me it's nothing the private eye tells me um that vehicle is registered to the secretary of state in michigan and that's how they have undercover vehicles

what yes

so that's how the fbi has undercover vehicles that or any other undercover entity so some federal entity government agency government agency could be there the state police, the sheriff's department.

I now know for a fact that it was the state police, my sheriff's department, Marquette County,

and the FBI all working together in hindsight and probably also with the Department of Defense and the CIA, which is more difficult to prove, but you can sort of see ties and tendrils into that.

So that aside,

so I'm being followed.

They're listening to my communications.

All of this is sort of easy to detect.

If you're a person who worked in intelligence and defense, you know how they operate.

And so I just started collecting evidence of all the terrible crap.

And my devices were getting hacked weekly.

I mean, I'd have to wipe the operating systems reinstall.

And it's this cat and mouse game as technology is evolving.

And I'm an engineer.

So I just start increasing my security all the time.

And

the sad reality is with

consumer-grade electronics that you buy.

from

Amazon or wherever you get them these days.

It's difficult to defend against

the advanced persistent threat.

So you're basically I spend a lot of time doing network engineering and restoring programs and software because once I get to the point where I'm writing my book, the hacks intensify.

And it's definitely coming from the government, probably the pharmaceutical industry or other

entities and organizations.

And I try to investigate myself the source of those hacks.

And I actually know you follow the IP addresses of their VPN that they backdoor into your system.

You can find out who the attacker is.

So I do this and I sit on it.

And it's gotten to the point where I'm ready to file a large federal lawsuit against the federal government, Cash Patel, who's supposedly my ally for $50 million because I've identified the FBI agents and everyone involved

all the way to the top.

I basically ran a counterintelligence operation back against the U.S.

government with my training and collected the evidence to prove it.

I even have fingerprints that I obtained in my house

of people who broke into my house.

They tased my dog.

What?

Yeah, they tased my dog during one of the break-ins.

What else did they do?

Actually, yeah.

How do you know that?

I mean, it leaves a big mark and a burn on the dog's neck.

It was hiding, cowering in the counter.

It changed one of my bird dogs.

So this dog was actually one of the most German shorthair pointer.

Yes, a large female, about 70 pounds, large for that breed.

They attacked your dog.

Okay, that's when

he was.

Yeah, they tased the dog and it changed her behavior.

If she became more timid, she actually used to be sort of aggressive for a GSP.

And

so, anyways, yeah, they tased chased my dog.

They tampered with my vehicles on numerous occasions.

And this just didn't happen in the UP.

This would happen when I go to other places.

So if I travel for work, say I'd go to, you know, Wisconsin-Gree Bay, California, they'd tamper with my vehicles there and do, you know, really silly stuff, like psychologically.

So they might just like buckle your seatbelts before you, so you leave the car and then you come back to your car and everything's all skewed and they mess with stuff in it.

So, I mean, it was more of a psychological operation, not like trying to kill me, you know, but they're, they were trying to apply all the pressure that they could to make my life miserable.

I have times, uh, periods where my credit cards might not work.

Uh, you show up to a gas station, try to run at the pump, um, it won't be work.

So is that the bank screwing with me, the payment system?

Um, I had the controls on my vehicle on, um,

I don't want to say what type of car I have on your show, but um,

a newer vehicle that has like automated driving, like assisted driving capabilities

that had been taken over at low speed where I couldn't couldn't control it.

And now I'm sort of in of the mindset like, oh, gee, should we have self-driving cars?

And they would actually, it always let me answer that question.

No.

Yeah.

It's the end of human autonomy.

Right.

And so you should have 1987 Chevrolet Silverados with the five-speed manual transmission.

You'll have to take me for a ride.

That's what I drive.

Okay.

Sorry.

No, and I've thought about that.

And so it's always this battle whether or not we should have these technologies.

And here's the thing I want to point out.

They didn't do these things when I was driving at high speed.

It happened at the same place in my driveway systematically where they were doing it to mess with me at a low speed.

And I actually brought one of the vehicles into the manufacturer to have it looked at.

And they took a look at it.

Their corporate mechanic came in.

And corporate mechanics are special mechanics that look for,

I guess, manufacturing errors.

in the production of the vehicle so that the corporation can correct the either software or physical problem with the vehicle.

And they gave me free repairs

based on what they found.

And they went telling me exactly what they found.

So, well, this is all pretty distressing.

And to think that you're a patriotic American, serve your country, fought, and was wounded in Iraq, you know, and for your government to be doing this to you because you're telling the truth

is

really kind of like the end.

I mean, that that could happen.

Yeah.

Well, I took the attitude of, um, I can beat these guys and I'm, I'm better than they are, and I'm smarter than they are.

So it just became a game to me.

And I just went, played the game, and I played the game, and I outsmarted them every step of the way because their ultimate goal was to prevent me from this story getting out to the global audience.

And I knew that's what their objective was.

And their other objective was to skew me as a crazy, right?

So we're either going to paint this person as a crazy and we're going to prevent them them so that at least my word or my voice has no impact.

And they failed on both accounts because the main thing is I had documented everything that was happening, the license plates, the people following me, the fingerprints in my house.

They're not my fingerprints.

And the best part is I brought those fingerprints to the Marquette County Sheriff's Department,

brought them to the FBI.

And I even had a referral from Sandia National Laboratories Counterintelligence eventually to the FBI telling them to investigate this.

And they refuse to run the Prince.

Have they ever run the Prince?

No.

And this is where it gets really interesting.

So

to this day?

To this day.

And I still have them.

Why?

I mean, I guess it's probably someone from law enforcement.

That's, that's what

it's probably a sheriff's department employee.

It could be

someone politically that they used in the operation.

I mean, if you look at how

when they want to target someone or individual, and I'm not the first U.S.

government scientist to go through this, it's well documented that the person they blamed for the bacillus anthraasis attacks after 9-11.

So you remember the anthrax mailings?

Do I remember?

Yeah.

Yeah.

So they pinned that to a guy by the name of Dr.

Bruce Ivans.

Well, first it was Dr.

Stephen Hadfill.

Yes.

Yeah.

And then it was Dr.

Bruce Ivans.

And

they ran a

operation on him, which was like COINTEL PRO to make him crack.

And eventually he kills himself.

He can't handle the pressure.

Well, they ran the same type of operation on me.

I didn't crack.

I hate to go far afield because this is an amazing story, but you brought it up.

So I'm going to have to ask you, give me the

Cliff Notes version of what those anthrax attacks actually were, which for people who are not around then killed a number of people, media employees, anthrax-packed envelopes were sent to

the newsrooms of a bunch of media organizations.

I actually got one at my house.

Um, so it was a, it was a big deal.

This was right after that.

Yes.

So someone, someone who had access to Yesamrid laboratory.

Um, which laboratory?

Yesamrid.

Uh, I forget what the acronym stands for.

It's the bioweapons laboratory or biodefense laboratory in Maryland.

Correct.

Yeah.

And

so Dr.

Bruce Ivid worked in that laboratory.

He worked on vaccine technology and the spores, which are weaponized, to be dispersed.

And the anthrax spores.

Correct.

And what's unique about these spores is that when they're weaponized, they go through a process called tinning.

And what that tinning does is it makes them so that they stay aerosolized.

Because if you have bacillus anthracis, it's too big of an agent.

It just, it falls to the ground and sits.

So to weaponize it, you want to make it so it stays dispersed and

fluffy.

Exactly.

And so Dr.

Bruce Ivans was a specialist in that, okay, making these things stay aerosolized and then also developing the countermeasures to it.

So if you're a real conspiracy theorist, you'd say that someone engaged in the false flagging of the

anthrax attacks to promote the anthrax vaccine, potentially.

I mean, that's what's one theory that's out there.

I personally believe from analyzing all the different evidence that Dr.

Bruce Ivins is not the person that did it.

From my professional network, I know several person who worked directly, people that worked directly with him.

He was very much a very soft, loving kind of person.

I don't see this person all of a sudden taking the spores out of his laboratory and then

mailing them to people.

This could have been done to continue the biodefense program around bacillus anthracis as one possible scenario.

So anyways, I mean, we're sort of off track here.

So there is no,

because no one was ever charged with it.

And he,

as I remember, or was he charged?

I think they were in the process of charging him.

Well, certainly no one was convicted of it.

Yes.

Right.

And he killed himself.

Well, they say he killed himself.

He's dead in any case.

But has any other

meaningful suspect ever emerged that you're aware of?

Well,

I have my opinions of who was likely involved, and I don't want to defame those people.

So I'll tell you.

And I hope you won't use names, but can you just give it, can you characterize who these people were and what their motive might have been in your view?

In my opinion, they're likely

associated with the biodefense complex,

and their motive could have been to create more fear or hostility after 9-11 in the population.

It could have been financial.

Those are probably the two leading motives as to why that happened.

My expert opinion.

And then actually, you know, in private afterwards, I'll tell you, you know, who I think probably is involved.

But

but these me being an expert in biodefense i mean this is something of one of the first things i did deep dives on even in fact in my phd coursework it was uh talked by uh taught by dr mike osterholmund who and i he and i do not see eye to eye in a lot of things um he taught this in his course this was a case study around biodefense

there's a yeah there are a lot of bio labs outside this country i've noticed run by the us government or well they're not really run by the us government so there's this thing called the cooperative biological engagement program cbap and there's a few other programs.

And the idea is we engage in scientific diplomacy with foreign laboratories so our enemies do not become allied with them.

So for example, the Ukraine labs.

I actually was involved in writing some of the proposals for those laboratories.

And I can't say with who I'm under NDA, but

here's the issue.

If we don't engage in those cooperative biological engagement programs with a laboratory like in Ukraine, there's a very real possibility that the Chinese will or the Russians will.

I get it.

I get it.

So it's better that we're working with them.

I understand.

No, I don't, but that's not crazy.

Yeah.

I don't think it's certainly I understand how people talk themselves into that.

And I don't, it's not prima facie insane or evil.

What I find obviously insane and evil is the lying about it.

And so, you know, the Under Secretary of State said in a Senate hearing a few years ago after the Ukraine war broke out on camera, under oath, this is Victoria Newland,

architect of the current disaster in Ukraine, that she was worried about the biolabs there.

So she said that on camera.

So okay, all right, you said it, honey.

And I played the tape and was immediately attacked by everybody, all the other, you know, CNN and all the other

Intel community controlled news outlets as like a conspiracy wacko.

There are no biolabs in Ukraine.

What are you talking about?

Same.

What is that?

I don't understand how the Biden administration handled the messaging and the communications around that.

So I don't know why Miss Newynd actually said the things or said the things the way that she did.

She's stupid.

That's one of her deepest secrets.

She's an idiot.

It would have been so much easier to come out and tell the truth.

We have this thing called the Chemical Biological Engagement Program, and we had a relationship with these laboratories in Ukraine.

And actually, this is published in information by the Department of Defense and other State Department and other agencies involved.

And you can go look at CBEP maps and see where we have these

information.

Or you can play the game where you go look at awarded proposals, which are not classified.

So there's ways to find this information.

It's not secret.

And they're using private companies

and universities to have these relationships with these different laboratories.

And that's what scientific diplomacy is about.

Why would you lie about it?

And why would news organizations collaborate in those lies?

Like to me, as a non-scientist, but a student of human nature, that's a tell that something's bad going on.

Like, why would you lie about that?

Well, I think the Biden administration was completely incompetent in all these areas.

And I think it was looking at Ms.

Newland specifically.

I believe that she didn't know what she didn't know.

It was a case of that.

That is one of the huge problems with being dumb.

Yeah.

Is you don't know what you don't know.

Right.

And so she probably couldn't articulate anything other than that would be the truth without putting herself in risks of risk of being

perjuring herself.

So I think she gave the answer to not perjure herself, not knowing what she didn't know.

Stupidity is often

often the real explanation for a lot of things.

Well, the truthful answer could have been, well, Senator so-and-so, I don't know.

My office will look into that and we'll give you a written response within a week.

And that's how they trained us.

Yeah, of course.

Well, that's what honest people do is just tell the truth.

But I just thought it was interesting that the media cooperated with the cover-up in that and many, a million others, of course.

But like, why?

What is that?

Well, that was all part of the psychological operation because remember, this didn't happen in a vacuum.

They probably didn't want to undermine the public perception of the government related to the COVID origin story.

So more of these conspiracy theories that turn out to be true, it undermines the credibility of the main narrative that they're trying to set, which was COVID emerged from

the slave market.

Like an even bigger and dumber question, which is like, why would the U.S.

government have an interest in lying about that?

Why not?

China is our rival on many levels, economic and military primarily.

And we're often told that, you know, we're in a war against China, a fight with China, a race against China.

Why would the same people telling us that go out of their way to cover up the fact that the virus came from a Chinese bioweapons lab?

Well, the government's people, first of all, you know, we always refer to it as the government, but you work in Washington, D.C.

and in this space and any program area that a person could be affiliated with has people running it.

Those people don't want to be held accountable.

No, that's right.

And they obviously are living in a state of fear of what could happen if

they were held accountable.

So they make decisions to protect themselves out of their self-interest and they happen to hold some power or leverage or have the relationships to execute on that operation plan.

Totally right.

Yeah.

I mean, clearly true.

So you start telling the truth.

They start tailing you, tased your dog, trying to drive you insane.

All of that is very, very familiar to me.

You don't feel like they're going to want to kill you, but they want you to shut up or at least become a fringe figure that nobody pays attention to.

Yes, absolutely.

And here's just a quick story.

And maybe I'll cut this in differently, but one of the funny things that they did was that

it had been a sort of really stressful summer of working on my book, writing it,

because of the hacks and I had deadlines and I'm not able to meet the deadlines because of the hacking

being tailed, all these different things.

Well, my wife and I decided to go to a music festival in Chicago.

And it's a decent drive, you know, six, seven hours down to Chicago.

And while we're staying at the hotel, someone is hovering a drone outside the window of our hotel room.

Yeah.

And

the funny thing is, you know, I hope you flashed them.

Um,

I walk around probably naked all the time

because I'm, you know, former army infantryman.

I don't care who sees me naked.

So, and I live out in the middle of nowhere, so I'll just go outside naked sometimes.

But

anyways, we're in Chicago.

And, you know, the thing is the FBI or these federal agents or maybe state agents operating illegally weren't very smart.

So Our room faced an alley in Chicago and there was a tall glass building next to us.

So I look at the glass building across from us and I can see the people operating the drone in the room above us.

No way.

Yes.

So what I do, I actually put on my pants, go upstairs and I pound on the door and come out of this fucking room.

I caught you.

And I'm screaming this in the hotel room in Chicago.

And I'm excited, you know, because this is the first time where I've actually been able to, you know, confront these people.

And the room goes dead silent.

So what do I do?

I go over to the

fire door, which is right next to this hotel room, up against the stairwell.

And we're on the third floor.

They're on the fourth.

And I make a quick

decision to sort of trick these guys.

So I open up this door, this heavy fire door, and I allow it to slam.

And I make the noise with my feet that I'm going down the stairs.

Actually, I went upstairs quietly and above the room to the fifth floor.

And I'm standing there listening to the floor.

And I hear cases closing, things snapping.

And, you know, which way are they going to exit?

They're obviously not going to go go down the fire escape or at the end of the building.

The only other way they go is they're going to go down the hallway to the next stairway or elevator.

So I start running down the fifth floor ahead of these guys.

And I hear footsteps and cases and things.

Well, I heard the cases closing.

I hear the footsteps coming down the hallway.

And I get to the next stairway and I open up the door and they pop out right in front of me.

So I said, no way.

But I'm up on the fifth floor.

And they're coming out on the fourth.

And I'm looking down at them.

And they go running down the stairs

to the to the first floor.

and I'm laughing.

So I go over the elevator, I go down the elevator casually, I come on the lobby like there's nothing wrong.

And the two guys are sitting in chairs and I walk over to them and say, hey guys, did you see two guys come running down the stairs?

And

they have

like wristbands on from drinking at the music festival or bars, wherever they were, following us around all day.

And they said, no, we haven't seen anyone.

They're, you know, the looks are like they're sweating.

Then I go over to the, I start laughing.

I go over to the desk in the lobby and say, hey, what's your name?

I can't get your phone number.

I'm going to have my attorneys call you.

We're going to get a copy of the surveillance footage of these guys.

And I'm like, I'm going to come back and I'm going to buy you dinner next year.

And she said, okay, she gave me my information.

She's like, why?

I'm like, oh, it's not a big deal.

So, anyways, that happens.

Then a week goes by.

The next week, we're back at home.

And I had trespassers on my property.

And

sometimes the state police and federal agents would come onto my property and just like run around the bushes around my house, you know, to like, you know, freak me out.

And or thinking that they were freaking me out, I laughed at most of this.

So I call 911 to report the trespassers.

And I'm working in my garage on some, you know, project.

And

they're playing music.

and sounds from their phones like trying to like get me to come out and like run after them or something.

So anyways,

45 minutes go by, the the police haven't arrived.

And sometimes that's not uncommon probably for a trespassing claim in the UP of Michigan.

So I call back and the dispatcher or the 911 operator gives me the phone number of the state police officer that is responding to the call.

And I'm supposed to call him on the cell phone.

Well, I go call the phone number on my cell phone.

And the phone rings in the bushes.

No way.

I'm not kidding.

And I start laughing.

And they know because you could hear it.

Like it gets shut off real quick and and i'm just like i just caught these guys like this is concrete evidence you can obtain from the location of the person's cell phone when the phone calls made i mean i know any of these people ever punished the drone operators the state cop no uh so these people have haven't been uh published the the state cop his name is deputy bray i know who he is and he has actually a family in uh iron mountain michigan

So I don't know how to what extent.

There was another person.

I actually witnessed one of the state police officers uh in my house um

through a black through a plate glass window i was out working on the property uh he was on my computer trying to destroy evidence i think um he lives in the town on the rest of much of this came from the state police which is uh the governor governor whitmer administration totally corrupt history of working with the fbi to hurt

yes person yes and so I don't know if they they've ever uh been held accountable.

I know for a fact that the FBI office in the state of Michigan had been spreading rumors with state and local law enforcement, excuse me, county and local law enforcement that I was dangerous.

That's, I mean, this is.

And no one was ever held accountable.

What about your former coworkers at Eco Health Alliance?

Where are they now?

I haven't checked in a while.

So

Dr.

Billy Karashi, who I actually really liked,

he was the executive vice president.

He was second to Peter.

He wound up at the Aspen Institute.

Good.

That's the most perfect thing I've ever heard.

Okay.

It was either that of the Atlantic Council or Georgetown University.

I knew it was one of the three.

Okay.

Funny.

So the other vice presidents, Dr.

Epstein or Dr.

Olival, I'm not sure where they are.

I know Dr.

Dasik's trying to get something new going, which is basically...

It sounds like sort of the same thing.

And, you know, I understand why there have been a series.

Has Dr.

Dasik ever faced any penalty at all for participating in this?

No, and the best part is that what's crazy about all of this, I should say, is that I attended a number of the hearings in the COVID Select Committee in person, and I was there for Dr.

Dasik's grilling.

And they have the part where they go through, basically he's denying that any of this is a gain of function, his involvement, and he's fighting back.

And then, you know, it gets to the end of the congressional hearings where counsel for both the Democrats and the Republicans get the chance to examine the witness.

And during that

questioning, they actually asked Dr.

Dasik whether or or not he is working with the intelligence community.

And at first, he lies.

He says, no, that he wasn't.

And then they had actually obtained records that he was, which was apparent.

I didn't know that at the time.

And they pushed him on it.

And then he came clean that he was.

So it's not, it's on the official record that he was working with the intelligence.

That's craziness.

And nobody talks about that.

You know, this is, that wasn't in the news, but that came out at the end of the hearing.

I guess you would have no way to know whether the CIA ever gathered meaningful intelligence from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

In my opinion, probably not.

Probably not.

So

often, and I get this question.

It's like when I worked at the National Laboratory, if we had anyone who was foreign to the lab, and I mean anyone external to Sandia come to the laboratory,

we would give them what I call the special tour.

So they would have their Sandia minder and we'd take them to an area which we had bug swept before.

And then, you know, we'd show them whenever we wanted to show the dog and pony show.

And the second we left, that area would be bug checked before or after they left.

So

if that's what we do in the United States, and that's our standard protocol for top secret, secret environments,

we don't think the Chinese are doing the same thing.

So

you have all these U.S.

government officials and Dr.

Dasik visiting that laboratory.

They, you know, would just take them around and show them like, oh, this is our microbiology laboratory.

This is our,

you know, this is our ventilation hood where we do sample work.

I mean, just looking at the equipment in a laboratory sometimes doesn't actually tell you what they're working on.

Either because

you're dealing with viruses, you can't see these things or bacteria or pathogens.

Right.

I can see someone's kitchen stove.

I don't know what they're making for dinner.

Exactly.

So you've told a remarkable story, and you know, it's remarkable because of the lengths they went to keep you from telling it.

But with the benefit of several years, five years really of hindsight and thinking about this, what do you think

this was?

Was this an accidental leak from the Wuhan lab?

And then they sort of backfilled after that?

Was this something else?

Like, what, what's your view?

So the way that I'm trained and the way that I've worked in this type of intelligence aspect of the science is you look at scenarios.

So you come up with every possible scenario and then you use hypothesis testing evidence to eliminate hypothesis or scenarios.

So we're now at the stage where this could be a few different things.

One, it could have been a pure

accidental release from the Wuhan laboratory.

And if it's that scenario, it looks like it was a laboratory employee, potentially a graduate student who had been working in that laboratory.

It could have been...

Who became infected and then spread it unknowingly

to the world.

So that is, I think, the scenario which has the most favor publicly and among experts who are now committed to the fact that this is a laboratory leak.

It could have been an intentional release that still hasn't been eliminated.

One or multiple groups could have intentionally released the agent.

There's one troubling aspect of this is that

there are types of studies or scientific studies which we could have ran to conclusively identify the origin of the disease.

in space and time.

And this is a classic epidemiological method.

There are blood banks and historical records of disease through blood donation programs globally.

So what we do is we go to those blood banks, look at old samples, or we look at other tissues or samples that have been collected.

And then you look through, okay, is it in this location here?

What time, when?

And then now with modern technology, you can actually use more genetic applications to look at the.

So because SARS-CoV-2 evolves so rapidly, you can actually look at the phylogenetic tree to see, you know, where in time was this sample.

And you'd follow that back.

Then with the location information you're obtaining of positive hits where the sample, positive samples were found to eventually trace you back to the origin.

And that study has never been done at scale.

And I don't know why.

It's another one of those questions.

Like, why haven't we done this?

And there's a number of

organizations

and the U.S.

military that could look at their own genetic blood bank samples to sort of figure out where this came from.

And when maybe they've already done that, right?

Because that would happen behind closed doors, and the Department of Defense or the Defense Medical Agencies would do that.

So

these are questions that could be answered, and they haven't been answered.

And

I have

more thoughts and opinions to what has

transpired related to the origin origin of this disease.

And I'm now at the position

of that

if this investigation were to take place, because the world is in such a tenuous position in terms of the potential for World War III, that should happen in a classified setting.

And that investigation should be in the form of

using the UCMJ process through the Department of Defense because Dr.

Anthony Fauci,

Dr.

Dasick,

Ralph Barrick, all these people were essentially working on a defense program.

They're working with DOD.

It falls under UCMJ authority legally.

Not many people know that.

It's not just people.

Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Yes.

So people who are working with the DOD, whether they're a civilian or government employee on a project, Project Diffuse, are subject to UCMJ.

That's where the investigation should happen.

It shouldn't happen at the Department of Justice.

I believe that Secretary Hegseth has the leadership to execute this properly.

And if the investigation warrants, then criminal charges could be brought under UCMGA in a classified setting.

So basically a classified trial, which exists,

then set a time period of five to 10 years to release the results of that criminal trial publicly.

Obviously, if someone's found guilty and they're imprisoned, you'll know that there are some wrongdoing.

But I don't think that we're...

My greatest concern is that if there were more nefarious

components of this, now is not the time to really release that information publicly.

Because the world sits on the cusp of a global war.

Exactly.

And I'm actually sort of

following our leaders here.

There have been a series of...

That is a very balanced view.

Let me just say

for those who would dismiss you as a wacko.

I don't know what I think of that.

I haven't thought of it until you said it, but that I think that's kind of a window into the way that you think, which is in a restrained and responsible way.

Well, thank you.

And

the, that opinion or that belief and that process

sort of just came to me in the last week.

And that's from looking at

the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, in her office declining some FOIA requests from several groups related to the origin of COVID and the story.

And I firmly believe that Director Gabbard is on the right side of humanity and history.

I'm a huge fan of hers, and I've had some conversation with her back and forth on social media, direct conversation, direct messages.

And we have some friends that are

friends of a friend kind of thing.

So

I believe her heart's in the right place.

I can verify that

through a decade of knowing her well.

And she's one of the only famous people I've ever met, maybe the only famous person I've ever met who not only didn't get reached or doesn't own a home because she's never made any money at all, because that's the last thing on her mind.

so who else can you say that about

not many people that's right and so looking at her leadership right now and her office's leadership uh office's leadership and their response to these foia requests and their

the nature of these foia requests would actually

get at some of these root issues and they're they're objecting to them and they're not releasing the information she's in the position now where she knows a lot more about what happened or what really happened than she did before president trump was elected and she was was nominated into that position and eventually became the director.

So,

looking at that,

I think they're making the same kind of assessment that I am.

Yeah.

That

of course it was a lab bleak.

I mean, I don't really, when you said that the portion of the scientific community, so-called, that ascribes to the lab bleak theory, that suggests that there are people who are still pushing the pangolin lie.

Absolutely.

Are there?

Yes.

Well, if you go over over to the other Twitter blue, whatever it's called, Blue Sky, or I think I can't remember the name of it, but on social media, there are other groups of

scientists in publicly saying that this was still a laboratory leak.

In fact, they haven't retracted.

That was not a laboratory leak.

That was not a laboratory leak.

They still haven't retracted the proximal origins paper, which is a complete fraud.

Are you serious?

No.

And

Dr.

Ebright from Rutgers University, who I admire and respect, he's fighting this, the good fight every day on social media as an old, old seasoned professor should.

So the whole complex of either the pharmaceutical industry, the scientific community that works tightly with

the pharmaceutical industry or are funded by the agencies involved in this

are all opposing the natural or excuse me the lab they're all opposing the lab leak

the vaccine manufacturers are opposed

i i would believe so well not them directly because they're not making public statements on this but if you look at you know you follow the money so if you look at the scientists okay and where they get their money from many of the people who are involved in mRNA technology development associated

with SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are in the camp of this was a naturally emerging disease

and I'm using air quotes around the word doctor but Dr.

Peter Hotez

for example a vax pusher of longstanding, is he, just to name one name,

is he pushing the penguin lie still?

I don't know if he's pushing it still, but I mean, he was.

He was pushing the natural emergency theory quite profoundly

everywhere he went for a period of time.

Why would

that's such an interesting nexus?

Why would people who are promoting vaccines want to lie about the origin of COVID?

Well, Dr.

Hotez is actually a more interesting specific person person that you named because he actually has connections to the Wuhan Institute of Virology as well.

So he's more directly linked back to

the origin story than other scientists in the vaccine.

Actually, yes.

In what way?

I forget that he has some kind of either publication record with scientists there or

collaboration or research, I believe.

Yeah.

Well, he's he, yeah.

It's interesting.

You really feel like you don't know your country very well.

When, I mean, I knew people who believed Dr.

Peter Hotez,

and I thought to myself, how could this, I mean, this is so clearly, you know, not true.

I don't know how you could believe that.

It was really a divisive time in the country or a revealing time.

And those, the truth led to division, I guess maybe it's a better way to put it.

But anyway, but why in general, leaving Hotez out of it?

Why would a vax pusher not want to tell the truth about the origin of the virus?

Simply that Gana function technology is used for virology and

vaccine development and mRNA is a huge portfolio of new vaccine technology development

and thank you okay that's the answer and there's the funny thing is if you look at mRNA technology and its future a lot of corporations have banked in the pharmaceutical or biotech industry on mRNA being the future vaccine technology and I think if you look at the rise in cancers associated with mRNA technology and the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and there's a new study a recent study that came out in Korea which is a massive cohort study with a large,

large, has much, it has a lot of statistical power,

found five or six cancers that were

associated with the vaccine.

Okay.

And then many of these other studies looked at one type of cancer.

For example, lymphoma in Sweden, they didn't find an association.

But this Korean study looked at all types of cancers and they're now finding these associations.

So the writings on the wall for mRNA technology, I don't, do not think that it's going to be the future vaccine technology.

And frankly, I'm not so concerned anymore with

the old way of thinking that the emerging

infectious disease threat that we should be concerned about are

old world diseases.

So bacillus anthraces being weaponized, for example.

a coronavirus being weaponized.

Gain of function technology has evolved within the last two to three years at such a rapid pace.

The future threat we need to be mitigating against and protecting against is actually synthetic pathogens and synthetic life.

And I don't think, and I know for a fact that most of the world isn't aware that we've actually already created single-cell life,

it exists.

The paper, the seminal paper on it, came out three years ago.

So we now have fully functioning synthetic cells, which are created with nanotechnology and some of those.

And I could get in the weeds on what that nanotechnology is, which I can self-replicate.

And so, what this means, if you sit back and what this means.

Wait, so man has created life?

Technically synthetic, yes.

And by synthetic, what is it?

So, but if it's,

if it behaves independently and it's self-replicating, then aren't those the criteria for life?

Well, that's a whole philosophical debate.

And

yeah, I don't want to believe it.

So I'm happy to have the definition readjusted, but that would be the obvious definition of it, right?

And there's also synthetic cloning now.

So you can have an agent if you know exactly a pathogen or a cell.

And some of this

isn't advanced.

So if it's a more complicated cell type, for example, you might not be able to replicate that.

But you can now synthetically generate

a virus to match the virus.

And so what that means is you don't have to have the actual virus.

You don't have to collect a sample anymore.

You can just have the code and you can generate it.

That's where we are now.

Right.

And that's, that's for viruses.

Now, if we're talking about text-weight code, and I can make the the virus.

And I believe we'll be there in the near future with bacteria.

And with synthetic life, though, you can generate very radical things because what this means is we can make

what it would be defined as a single cell synthetic organism, which does different things that don't exist.

And it has massive potential good uses.

and bad uses.

The good uses, you could use this, and I could see this being popular,

popular among scientists funded by the Borlag program at USDA, where they use this for pest control.

And

you could target, make it so it was very specific,

the synthetic cell or organism or bacteria to target something like a pest, like a grasshopper, for example.

Or white people.

Well, we're going to get to the other side of this.

That would only target a specific species defined to a geographic region.

So you might not worry of it spilling over into some other insect population in theory.

Okay.

This is, this is, this is sort of on the, what I'm talking about here is the, the emerging future trend of this.

Now, on the

nefarious side of this, how is it going to be used?

We're no longer talking about living things.

So you can engineer a synthetic pathogen to attack equipment.

So you can have it, have that synthetic organism produce an acid that would eat metal.

You could have it produce a biofilm, which would attack metal underwater, like a submarine.

This technology is being developed right now at a handful of places.

Some of it's in the United States, much of it is, some of it is not.

Most of the places it's being developed are friendly to the United States or our allies.

But this synthetic threat is rapidly emerging.

That,

so that's the biotechnology side.

Now, if you take a look at it, and I know I've been watching your show recent episodes, AI has been a big hot topic, and there's tons of investment going into it.

We're going to see a fusion between

this

synthetic biology technology and AI.

And it's probably on the

four to five-year horizon.

And

the AI will be programmed into the microcircuits systems of the nanotechnology.

It's a fact.

I mean, like, you're going to use the best software, the best programs you can get onto a basically a nano computer within that cell, which does the programming.

This might sound like crazy science fiction to a lot of people.

People are going to say that's not possible.

I don't think anyone would say that's not possible.

I can point to a peer-reviewed publication where they're doing all the components of this, and it's just a matter of time before someone gets wise and assembles it.

And there's going to be plenty of financial motive to do this.

So there's no stopping it.

And that's what I'm saying here.

There's no stopping where this is headed.

And the reason why I say that,

the Trump administration

did some great work with Russia trying to negotiate a new biological treaty.

I just want to apologize in public for every moment I've defended our economic system because any system that allows something like this is a bad system.

Well, I don't think so.

All technology is dual use, right?

It's like firearms is the classic example.

A firearm in a good person's hand is a tool to defend and protect yourself, your family against tyranny.

An evil person's hand, yeah,

nuclear power, nuclear bombs, I get it.

But

you know, you just have to assess the downside risk

realistically as compared to the upside benefit.

And I think with the technology, well, nuclear technology, I believe this, and certainly true with everything you're describing.

Downside risk way far outweighs any potential gain you live to 110 okay

so i'd argue this i can completely agree with with the upside and downside risk of this

but what i'm saying is there's no stopping it no i'm

and

this is why the

what i was going to say related to to president trump and the trump administration negotiating a new uh biological treaty with with the international community.

Well, one, looking at history back to the 70s, I don't think it's going to be effective.

So, the existing biological weapons convention we have is outdated.

It

focuses on select agents, basically, that which can be weaponized through gain of function technology.

They baked a loophole into it to develop countermeasures.

That's vaccine technologies and other prophylactics.

And you can engage in the gain of function technology, bioweapon development, if you're developing the countermeasure.

And they couldn't get anyone to go further past that with having inspections.

And I don't see that posture, especially today in today's climate,

changing.

If you blew up the Nord Stream pipeline, there's no, I mean, the basis of international treaty, of course, is trust,

and there's none.

So like no more international treaties.

Well, I hope

I'm not,

but I just don't see it right now.

Well, I think that there's a path forward.

And the path forward to...

Before we get to the path forward, can we just get to a broader description, more precise description of what the marriage of nanotechnology to ai means like what does that mean sure so the marriage of of nanotechnology to ai means that the ai or excuse me the nanotechnology uh will have swarm-like capabilities so people or the the general world is probably more familiar with swarm technology around drones they're using this and and they're testing this and they're trying to fill these rapid swarm technologies and you watch these large displays of drone shows that you see commonly in china that's really them just openly testing uh drone drone swarm technology yep and that's the civilian you know this is cool tech application but there's actually a much more sinister application of that same technology for defense dual-use technology so imagine that these these pathogens are like these drones and you see them operate AI will control the swarm technology around the synthetic pathogens so that it can control their behavior.

And then also that the machine inside the synthetic cell can adapt to its environment without any human construction or code or decision-making.

So what would that look like?

In terms of...

Well, I don't know.

I can imagine a drone swarm.

I've seen one.

What would that mean?

So you have synthetic cells that are controlled by a computer and then they do what?

Well, they would

use cases always help define what that is.

So in a weaponization scenario,

you could use this to deploy

a container.

Maybe it looks like a bomb into an ocean where you know where a submarine is.

The synthetic,

the synthetic life could be magnetic and attract to the hull of a submarine.

It would attach itself and then it would make decisions about where it should collect.

on the surface of the submarine independently to create a biofilm and self-replicate to basically basically cause the sensors or to disable the submarine in some way.

In space,

use a similar type of maybe,

I'm not so sure what the delivery vehicle is, but say that you were to get this onto a satellite.

You could use it then to eat and corrode the silicon and magnesium and the structure of that.

You could use it to basically disable the

systems on board of the physical structure of

the vessel

or the satellite.

And that's just, I mean, what's really so striking about this is this technology will be able to use to attack objects, but it's a synthetic living

thing.

There's also the life.

So there's a new fork here.

You can use it to attack objects, or you can use it to attack life itself.

And that's more what people would be

familiar with.

You could use it to

attack specific genetic populations, for example.

So, if a certain population had a genetic trait, you can make the synthetic pathogen specifically target,

name your

niche of race or population of genetically related, closer.

How about the ones who were given fentanyl and denied jobs

in the United States?

So, no, I'm just being super

more difficult, probably.

Well, unless they had some kind of specific monarch, uh, half kidding, sort of, but

you so I remember Bobby Kennedy got into a great deal of trouble because he said at some event, of course, the New York Post led the charge against him, of course, uh, but that COVID could be tailored to infect what, for whatever reason, COVID had disparate effects on populations.

That's absolutely true.

I mean, that's scientifically true.

And I was quite familiar with that literature when he made that.

What does that mean?

Which populations suffered the most from COVID?

There was a finding in a scientific publication that two different populations of,

well, two different populations of people of Jewish ancestry, depending which line they're from,

one was more heavily impacted than the other.

And that was

Sephardic Ashkenazi.

Yes.

And that was the finding.

And I think the point that he was trying to make, or maybe didn't articulate well, is that the agent can be tailored to have that effect.

And that's absolutely true.

And that's through old game of function technology.

And with synthetic, full synthetics, what I'm saying is you can make this so specific is that I could, if I get your DNA, like off of, you know, say that you threw a cup, I can

tailor an agent just to you.

And this is how it's changing.

And if you're using AI behind that, I could then, and I say that I got a DNA sample from two of your, a couple of your relatives, so I knew what your family tree partially looked like.

Machine learning is very good at actually random forest and tree decision making.

You could do a lot of complex AI behind this to figure out and make predictions that AI could about what your family tree looked like and have the disease travel through your family line.

And this is now this is nobody has ever asked me that question.

I just generated that answer based on what I know, but I think that that is a very real possibility use or application of this type of technology.

It also could be used on the flip side of it, you could use it to target specific and rare cancers.

And it could be used to eliminate those

cancers cleanly and self-deactivate and decompose in a way that didn't harm your body.

So, this technology is going to go,

could go two different ways, but it's coming because the medical applications and healthcare applications of it are there and they're going to be, they will be extremely profitable.

Imagine that you said, like, I, you know, you have cancer.

I don't have to give you a drug.

I have to inject you with this synthetic, which will seek out the

cancer, the tumor in your body, and

contain it, kill it with no other harmful effects to your body in theory.

And like I say, in theory, because things always have side effects,

of course.

And I just say in general, I would much rather live in a world where I risked dying of tetanus and the common cold than live in a world with this technology.

It's not even close.

I have a million more questions to ask you, but that's what you just said is so upsetting that I think you've broken my spirit, Dr.

Huff.

Oh, I think there's a better solution.

Let me give you the upside of this, though.

So the solution to these problems

is typically better

biosurveillance.

And this is what EcoHealth was trying to do.

And the part of it that actually works is you can't really understand what's circulating in the world in terms of pathogens, life, unless scientists and engineers are measuring it or trying to identify it and look at it.

You can't find what you're not looking for.

And

it would be great to see an international team of scientists working on the technology to detect synthetic life when it emerges.

Because if we all think it's a threat,

we don't have to

put our head in the sand in an ostrich.

If we're out just looking for it and we can identify it, early warnings of threats save lives, livestocks, livestock, animals, the early warning signal is the most important aspect of defending against future emerging threats.

And if we develop that technology, we'll be safer.

Yeah.

What you really need, though, to be safe is good people,

ethical people.

And that's a huge problem in science.

I mean,

I could talk forever about that.

They're not teaching ethics to people.

I haven't been to the doctor in five years as a result.

I mean, there's

as corrupt as every other institution.

Wow,

what a heavy conversation that was.

Thank you.

Where can people, if people are interested in finding out more, people with a stronger stomach and stouter heart than I have want to know more about the last 10 minutes of our conversation?

Where do you write about this?

Well, I've started to, and I'm not sure how it's been received.

I published it on Substack.

I've done it, published a little bit on X and then also on LinkedIn.

And it's not very,

I don't, I don't think people are catching on.

Actually, I just solicited proposals to DARPA and a few other places saying, hey, we should be looking at this.

And I already know for a fact that they've been thinking at it and they've been dabbling and they put a little money into it.

So I'm working, I'm actively working on this.

If you want to, for the little, the limited time that I, or the, the few things that I do publish about this, I put it on X and AG Huff is my, my Twitter account.

But other than that, this is all very much evolving and it's a work in progress.

It's amazing when you said

gain of function research has changed so much in the, and I'm thinking, what timeframe is he going to lay out here?

Because I think most normal people would assume after COVID, there would be a dramatic reduction in gain of function research, considering that's what gave us COVID and wrecked our country.

But you said in the last two or three years.

It's now the building.

So if you're in

biomedical research in microbiology or virology or bioengineering, it's...

It's something that you get trained on and you learn to now advance to, it's a building block to learn about about synthetic biology.

So

there's going to be more research professors at leading universities within the next five years teaching this to PA.

And it's a trickle down.

I always knew science was bad.

I just want to brag.

I just want to lay my marker down.

I just want to say I've always been opposed to science.

I've always been opposed to technology.

I'm not stupid, but I am convinced of that and have been my whole life.

So I think I'm being vindicated in real time.

Well, maybe I can cheer you up a bit.

It's not all evil.

And to your point earlier, it's the people behind it.

Well, that's it.

And maybe we need to do a better job.

My community, the scientific community, needs to do a better job of training our students not to be evil.

And that comes through how we select our students, how we mentor them, and

how we show them or teach them what the ultimate goals in life are.

And that comes through mentorship.

And that has really fallen off, at least during my academic and scientific career, where everything is money-driven, financially driven.

I've have noticed.

And then on top of it, you have a lot of predatory professors and academics and scientists preying on their students.

And it's a, it's a, it's a vicious cycle.

And I mean, what do I mean by preying on them?

Well, yeah, not just sexually.

Not sexually, but in terms of

the PhD world, it's very common that

research professors basically steal their students' work and have them take credit for their work.

And

the students aren't taught about ethics in science and research on top of it.

I mean, it's not like it's required coursework.

Most scientists don't train their students in ethics.

So how do we

become better as a community of creating

better people as scientists?

So they're not just out chasing money.

And it's mentorship.

And we have to break the cycle.

I mean, we have to break the cycle.

It's going to take a radical religious revival to do that.

Nothing short of that is going to work.

That's my view.

That's what I'm hoping for, because I feel like we we are on the cusp of like true darkness.

I agree.

Uh,

and I, I, I think about these things a lot.

And you know, scientists, we have people ask me what I do.

I'm sitting there staring out the window, and I'm like, I'm working, and they're like, you know, I'm thinking through problems.

And people often wonder, well, what do PhDs do?

And we sit there and we think about these things.

And we try to come up with answers, and we try not to waste any of our brain power on things that don't matter.

And

I don't know if it's

with a full religious,

if it's a fully religious aspect, at least within the scientific community.

Because I'm being real here that I know that many of these scientists are atheists.

And I know that many of these scientists who are atheists are, some of them I should say, are great and fantastic people,

at least at a minimum.

for them to view themselves in the greater context of what it all means and try to have positive,

I guess, a positive force on the world through what they're doing.

But there's no positive or negative for an atheist.

I mean, it doesn't, there's no hierarchy of value that rooted anything other than preference.

So none of that's real.

How can you say something's bad if you don't believe that there's a power higher than you?

It's a great question.

You can't is the answer.

So you should never allow atheists to have this kind of power.

Not because they're evil.

A lot of them are great people.

I really like a lot of atheists.

It's nothing personal.

It's just that there's no check at all on the power if you think that you're God.

You know, so that can't be allowed.

Dr.

Uf, thank you.

Amazing conversation.

It's going to affect my sleep.

Thank you.

We've got a new website we hope you will visit.

It's called newcommissionnow.com and it refers to a new 9-11 commission.

So we spent months putting together our 9-11 9-11 documentary series.

And if there's one thing we learned, it's that in fact, there was foreknowledge of the attacks.

People knew.

The American public deserves to know.

We're shocked actually to learn that, to have that confirmed, but it's true.

The evidence is overwhelming.

The CIA, for example, knew the hijackers were here in the United States.

They knew they were planning an act of terror.

In his passport is a visa to go to the United States of America.

A foreign national was caught celebrating as the World Trade Center fell and later said he was in New York, quote, to document the event.

How do you know there would be an event to document in the first place?

Because he had foreknowledge.

And maybe most amazingly, somebody, an unknown investor, shorted American Airlines and United Airlines, the companies whose planes the attackers used on 9-11, as well as the banks that were inside the Twin Towers just before the attacks.

They made money on the 9-11 attacks because they knew they were coming.

Who did that?

You have to look at the evidence.

The U.S.

government learned the name of that investor, but never released it.

Maybe there's an instant explanation for all this, but there isn't, actually.

And by the way, it doesn't matter whether there is or not.

The public deserves to know what the hell that was.

How did people know ahead of time?

And why was no one ever punished for it?

9-11 Commission, the original one, was a fraud.

It was fake.

Its conclusions were written before the investigation.

That's true, and it's outrageous.

This country needs a new 9-11 commission, one that actually tells the truth and tries to get to the bottom of the story.

We can't just move on like nothing happened.

9-11 Commission is a cover.

Something did happen.

We need to force a new investigation into 9-11 almost 25 years later.

Sorry, justice demands it.

And if you want that, go to newcomow.com to add your name to our petition.

We're not getting paid for this.

We're doing this because we really mean mean it.

NewcomissionNow.com.