DOD Told Pharma Exec the Virus ‘Posed a National Security Threat’ on Feb. 4, 2020

New Africa/Shutterstock

Commentary

A leaked recording obtained by investigator and writer Sasha Latypova features an executive at the pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca stating the following:

“It wasn’t a surprise to me when I got a call on February 4th from the Defense Department here in the US saying that the newly discovered Sars-2 virus posed a national security threat.”

This is an astonishing, major-newspaper headline-worthy revelation.

Here’s what was happening on Feb. 4, 2020:

Virus Activity in the US

• According to CNN, on Feb. 4 there were 11 “confirmed cases of the novel coronavirus” in the United States.
• There were zero reported deaths from the virus in the United States.
• As documented in my recently launched Covid Timeline Wiki Project, the New York Times had two headlines about the virus focused on China and travelers from Wuhan. There were no op-eds on the virus.

Virus Activity Internationally

• Approximately 490 reported deaths.
• The disease caused by the virus had not even been named “COVID-19” yet.
• The World Health Organization (WHO) said the outbreak “was not yet a pandemic.”

Behind-the-Scenes Virus-Related Activity

EUA & PREP Act

Crucially, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) declared the first emergency basis for issuance of Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for COVID on Feb. 4.

EUA is an authority that was granted to the FDA “to strengthen public health protections against biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological agents.”

As explained in a previous article, EUA powers were granted to the FDA to be used in situations of grave, immediate emergencies involving weapons of mass destruction. They were intended to allow the use of countermeasures against biological, chemical, nuclear, or radiological (CBRN) agents without going through all the usual steps of ensuring safety and efficacy, because the immediate threat of the CBRN attack would be so much greater than any potential risks caused by the countermeasure.

In conjunction with EUA, PREP Act protection was also granted retroactively to Feb. 4th (announced March 17). The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, as noted in a previous article, legally indemnifies from all liability anyone who does anything related to a product that receives Emergency Use Authorization. Again, this was intended for very extreme emergency situations involving CBRN agents, so that if a countermeasure caused harm while being used during the attack, no one would get sued.

Origins Cover-Up

Anthony Fauci, Jeremy Farrar, Francis Collins, Eddie Holmes, and others in the international group of gain-of-function funders and researchers were conspiring to publish multiple documents denying the possibility that the virus could have emerged from the bioweapons lab they were funding/working with in Wuhan, China.

Emily Kopp at U.S. Right to Know compiled a detailed timeline of these activities, many of which occurred on the days just before and just after Feb. 4, 2020.

Conclusion

If the Department of Defense was telling pharmaceutical executives that the “novel coronavirus” was “a national security threat” on February 4, 2020—when it had killed no one and infected 11 people in the country—there must have been a reason other than public health.

If EUA and PREP Act emergency declarations—reserved for dire situations involving attacks with CBRN agents—were issued on that same day, there must have been a reason other than public health.

If the heads of the U.S. public health agencies, including Anthony Fauci (NIAID) and Francis Collins (NIH), were spending a large portion of their time on that day frantically trying to come up with ways to claim the virus was not manufactured in a bioweapons lab—there must have been a reason other than public health.

The reason is becoming increasingly undeniable: The COVID crisis was a military/national security operation, not a public health event.

Originally published on the author’s Substack, reposted from the Brownstone Institute

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.