Conspiracy Chronicle

For the first time in history, a presumptive presidential nominee from one of the two major U.S. political parties is a convicted felon. Donald Trump’s conviction in the Manhattan hush money case does not prevent him from running for — and potentially serving — as president. The requirements for federal office, as outlined in the U.S. Constitution, are straightforward: the president must be at least 35 years old, be a natural-born U.S. citizen, and have lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years. Criminal convictions are not mentioned. Trump, the leading contender for the 2024 presidential nomination, faces potential prison time, which could create practical complications if he wins the presidency. Running the country from a cell is implausible, and some legal experts suggest that a constitutional crisis might ensue, potentially leading to his sentence being suspended to allow him to fulfill his duties as president. The judge in the hush money case has yet to deliver Trump’s sentence, which could range from no jail time to up to four years behind bars. While Trump is the first felon candidate with a feasible chance of winning the presidency, he is not the first criminal to run for the office. In 1920, Eugene V. Debs, the Socialist Party nominee, campaigned while serving a 10-year federal sentence for urging resistance to the World War I draft. Debs received 3% of the popular vote, a respectable number but not enough to force the nation to address the improbable constitutional question of an imprisoned candidate winning the presidency. A Trump victory from behind bars would present significant constitutional challenges. Legal scholars generally believe that the necessity for a duly elected president to fulfill the duties of office would override a criminal conviction, likely requiring the sentence to be put on hold. If Trump were convicted of a federal crime, he could even attempt to pardon himself immediately upon taking office, a maneuver Debs also promised if he had won. Seton Hall law professor Eugene Mazo remarked, “Then we’re just going to get into uncharted waters. I don’t think we have an answer to this.” Debs’ case, much like Trump’s situation now, raises the question: Can a person run for president, or be elected president, after being convicted of a crime or even while in jail? The answer, both then and now, appears to be yes. “There’s nothing barring Trump from running. Even a federal conviction doesn’t prevent that,” explained a legal scholar. “The Supreme Court has said what’s in the Constitution are the only requirements you need to run for federal office.”

In a covert move reported by Politico, U.S. President Joe Biden has authorized Ukraine to conduct strikes inside Russia near the Kharkiv region using American weapons. This decision, confirmed by a U.S. official and two others familiar with the plan, permits Ukraine to use U.S. weapons for counter-fire purposes, allowing them to retaliate against Russian forces targeting or preparing to target them. Despite this, the policy on long-range strikes inside Russia remains unchanged, with no clear indication of when this permission was granted. Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned that such actions could lead to a global conflict, especially if Western allies enable Ukraine to use supplied weapons to strike inside Russia—a stance Ukraine's government is advocating for. Although the United States officially does not support using its weapons for direct attacks on Russia, Secretary of State Antony Blinken recently stated that Washington’s stance could "adjust and adapt." This revelation raises critical questions about the balance of power and the potential for escalation in an already tense conflict. As the U.S. navigates its support for Ukraine, the distinction between defensive aid and offensive capability becomes increasingly blurred. Will this calculated risk empower Ukraine to defend its sovereignty more aggressively, or could it provoke a retaliatory response from Russia, potentially leading to a broader conflict? The global community watches with bated breath, aware that each strategic decision could either bring us closer to peace or edge us further into the abyss of war.

Donald Trump’s historic conviction in his New York hush money case on Thursday may put the former president in prison, but it hasn’t dampened the enthusiasm for his campaign. Surge in Support Shortly after the verdict was announced, the official GOP fundraising site connected to his 2024 effort crashed. "The American people see through Crooked Joe Biden’s rigged show trial," the campaign posted on X. "So many Americans were moved to donate to President Trump’s campaign that the WinRed pages went down. We are working on getting the website back online as quickly as possible." Energized Base Major Trump supporters were undeterred by the conviction; instead, they appeared energized. "All of the charges are contrived," said Robert Bigelow, who has donated over $9 million to an outside group supporting Trump, in an interview with Reuters. Within minutes of Trump being convicted, his campaign sent out a fundraising email claiming the former president was a "political prisoner." "I was just convicted in a RIGGED political Witch Hunt trial: I DID NOTHING WRONG!" the email read. The message also declared that Joe Biden’s "chances of a 2nd term END TODAY!" Public Opinion and Fundraising Tactics Seventeen percent of voters in a new poll said a guilty verdict would make them less likely to vote for Trump, while 67 percent said a guilty verdict would make no difference in their choice in November. Trump has previously fundraised off his legal troubles. Last year, following the publication of his mugshot in his ongoing 2020 election conspiracy case in Georgia, the Trump campaign used the image to raise millions in donations. Trump later gave away pieces of the suit worn in the photo alongside trading cards as part of his fundraising efforts. Moving Forward Trump may be the first president in U.S. history to be convicted of a crime, but his campaign continues to steamroll ahead, maintaining a slight lead over Joe Biden in national poll averages.

Elon Musk’s Neuralink Receives FDA Approval for Mind-Blowing Second Brain Chip Trial Elon Musk's Neuralink, a pioneering brain-chip startup, has received FDA approval to implant its experimental brain chip, Telepathy, in a second patient. This approval follows complications with the first trial participant, leading to modifications in the device's implantation approach. Addressing Initial Trial Challenges In response to issues faced by the first participant, Neuralink has made significant adjustments, including embedding some of the device's ultrathin wires deeper into the brain. These changes aim to enhance the stability and functionality of the device, as reported by sources familiar with the company and a document reviewed by the Wall Street Journal. Expanding Clinical Trials Neuralink plans to expand its clinical trials to include 10 participants this year. The primary goal of this project, known as the PRIME Study, is to develop a "fully implantable, wireless brain-computer interface" that allows users to control a computer cursor or keyboard with their thoughts. Potential Transformative Treatments This groundbreaking technology holds promise for transformative treatments for various physical disabilities, such as blindness and paralysis, and conditions like autism, depression, obesity, and schizophrenia. Neuralink’s ambition is to unlock new possibilities for individuals with these conditions, offering them a new lease on life. First Implantation and its Aftermath The first Telepathy implant was performed in late January on Noland Arbaugh, a 30-year-old quadriplegic. The chip initially allowed Arbaugh to control a computer mouse using his thoughts without any adverse effects. The procedure involved a specially designed robot implanting the coin-sized chip, which has ultra-thin flexible threads, into the brain's movement intention region. This chip records and wirelessly transmits brain signals to an app that decodes movement intentions. Setbacks and Recovery However, about a month post-surgery, Arbaugh experienced a significant setback when most of the implanted threads came loose, impairing the device's functionality. This issue highlighted the unpredictability of brain movement within the skull, which exceeded Neuralink’s expectations. Arbaugh described the emotional rollercoaster of gaining newfound abilities only to lose them shortly after. “I was on such a high and then to be brought down that low. It was very, very hard. I cried,” he shared. Technical Adjustments and Future Plans Neuralink has since implemented software updates to restore much of the device’s capabilities, and Arbaugh has demonstrated these improvements in live streams. To prevent similar issues in future trials, the company has received FDA approval to implant the threads deeper into the brain of the second patient, targeting eight millimeters into the motor cortex compared to the three-to-five millimeters used for Arbaugh. The next procedure is scheduled for June, with eight more participants lined up for trials by year-end. Over 1,000 quadriplegics have registered interest in participating in Neuralink’s trials, reflecting the significant demand and hope surrounding this innovative technology. For ongoing updates on Elon Musk and Neuralink, visit ElonMuskWatch.com.

Denver, Colorado, is set to deploy aerial drones for certain situations instead of dispatching officers, as announced by the city's police department. This innovative initiative will be funded by a $100,000 grant from the Denver Police Foundation. The department plans to purchase several drones and launch the program within six to 12 months. In response to an $8.4 million budget cut by Democrats, the Denver Police Department (DPD) will use drones as first responders. These drones will assess incidents before deciding if a physical police response is necessary. "The DPD would respond to any call for service where someone is physically requesting a police officer on the scene. But if there was a fight at Colfax and Cherokee, and we put a drone in the air and there is no fight and nothing causing traffic issues, then we would reroute our police officers to other emergent calls," explained Phil Gonshak, director of Denver PD’s Strategic Initiatives Bureau. He emphasized that the program is just beginning to "lift off" and assured that drones would not replace police officers entirely. Sgt. Jeremiah Gates, leader of Arapahoe County’s drone unit, described drones as "the future of law enforcement at some point, whether we like it or not." He illustrated their practical use: "I could fly the drone over a reported suspicious vehicle and say, 'Hey, that vehicle is not out of place,' and I never had to send an officer over to bother them, and I can clear it with that. It’s saving resources." He added that drones could identify if a reported weapon was not a gun before officers approach a suspect, potentially diffusing dangerous situations. However, civil liberties advocates express concerns over privacy and the potential for misuse. Laura Moraff, an attorney with ACLU Colorado, warned of the implications of widespread drone surveillance. "We’re worried about what it would mean if drones were really just all over the skies in Colorado," she said. "We are worried about what that would mean for First Amendment activities, for speech and organizing and protesting — because being surveilled by law enforcement, including by drones, can change the way people speak and protest." Moraff also highlighted the risk of "over-policing" in black communities, where many 911 calls originate. "We know there is a problem with people reporting Black people doing normal everyday things as if there is something suspicious going on," she said. "So sending out a drone anytime there is a 911 call could be dangerous and lead to more over-policing of communities of color." Moraff added that the normalization of drones in the skies could impact public behavior significantly, as constant surveillance may cause people to alter their actions and interactions. While police claim they will use drones responsibly, the potential for abuse and the establishment of a surveillance state remain significant concerns.

Moderna’s Covid vaccine was manufactured by a government contractor with close connections to the CIA, FDA, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, according to a bombshell report. In 2021, Moderna hired National Resilience (Resilience), a supposedly new pharmaceutical manufacturing company, to produce all of their Covid-19 mRNA vaccines. This company, also known by several names including Nanotherapeutics, Nanosphere Inc, Ology Bioservices, and Government Resilience Services, was first brought to light by independent journalist Destiny Rezendes last year. Resilience’s investors included Google, Lux Capital, Magnetic Ventures, and 8VC. According to Crunchbase, the company’s COO also served as a senior adviser to Pfizer. Rezendes revealed that Resilience’s board members and investors are tied to significant entities such as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, CIA affiliates, Merrill Lynch, and the Rockefeller University. Former FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb also served on Resilience’s board. Rezendes noted that Resilience, previously known as Nanosphere and Nanotherapeutics, holds numerous government contracts related to biological warfare and gene-specific sensors for the Department of Defense. Adding to the intrigue, Resilience was selected by the World Economic Forum to lead the Davos panel on cybersecurity. Journalist Whitney Webb detailed more of Resilience’s ties to the CIA in 2022, noting that the concept of starting Resilience came from Luciana Borio, founder of In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s venture capital firm. Additionally, several agency whistleblowers revealed that the CIA bribed its own COVID-19 origin team to reject the lab-leak theory. The involvement of the CIA in creating pharmaceuticals raises significant questions about transparency and the motivations behind the push for widespread Covid vaccine adoption. The CIA's primary role is intelligence and national security, not public health. This overlap between intelligence agencies and pharmaceutical development could lead to conflicts of interest and erode public trust. The push for everyone to take the Covid vaccine, coupled with the CIA's involvement, underscores the need for clear boundaries and accountability in public health initiatives. The CIA should focus on its core mission, leaving pharmaceutical development to specialized, transparent, and accountable entities dedicated to public health.

Warning: WHO Global Coup in May! As the World Health Organization (WHO) prepares for a crucial vote on the Pandemic Treaty and changes to the International Health Regulations (IHR), concerns about global governance and national sovereignty are reaching a fever pitch. The assembly will take place in Geneva from May 27 to June 1. If approved, these changes would transition the WHO from an advisory body to an authoritative entity capable of enforcing its directives globally, effectively establishing a world government run by unelected bureaucrats. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the first WHO Director General without a medical degree, has previously served on the board of GAVI, a Bill Gates organization. Given that Bill Gates' organizations are the second-largest funders of the WHO, Gates has significant influence over global health policies, a fact underscored during the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite his lack of medical credentials, Gates advocated for widespread vaccination, asserting that life couldn't return to normal until nearly all 7.5 billion people received the COVID-19 vaccine. Gates has since acknowledged that these vaccines do not prevent infection and has remained silent on their safety concerns, despite widespread assurances of their safety and efficacy. Dr. Meryl Nass, founder of Door to Freedom, will provide live coverage of the WHO meetings starting May 27 at 2 PM EST. According to the site, 24 US governors and 22 state attorneys general have signed letters opposing the WHO treaties. Dr. Nass also highlights that eleven countries, including Belarus, Cuba, North Korea, and others, have informed the UN General Assembly of their refusal to support the WHO's Pandemic Preparedness initiatives. In Europe, the Netherlands' lower house of Parliament has instructed its government to delay or vote against the WHO proposals. Slovakia has declared it will not sign the current drafts of either document, and Croatia's new majority party is against the WHO’s Pandemic Preparedness Plan. Italy’s Senator Borghi has stated that Italy will vote “No” on the treaty, and there are ten more months to reject the IHR amendments. The WHO’s Relentless Power Grab The world is closely watching as delegates gather for the 77th World Health Assembly in Geneva to discuss global health governance. However, there is significant opposition from various countries, including Japan, Germany, Slovakia, and the United States. Meryl Nass and James Corbett, co-hosts of 'Good Morning CHD,' will return to CHD.TV to present a final warning about the implications of the May 2024 meeting. They will discuss the critical points related to the WHO's proposals and their potential impact on global governance and individual freedoms. Assassinations and Suspicious Deaths Dr. Nass explains that on May 10, Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico publicly opposed the WHO Pandemic Treaty. Just ten days later, Tedros visited Slovakia, urging Fico not to break the consensus. Five days after that visit, Fico was shot in the abdomen and is now in critical condition, marking the first assassination attempt on a European leader in two decades. The new government led by populist Robert Fico won a mandatory confidence vote amid this turmoil. Similarly, the President and Foreign Minister of Iran, a country that opposed the WHO Pandemic Treaty, died in a helicopter crash on May 20. Iranians believe the deaths were orchestrated. Additionally, Tanzanian President John Magufuli, who exposed fraudulent PCR tests, died of a heart attack at age 61. Debunking the Claims Reuters previously addressed claims that five leaders who died in office were killed for opposing COVID-19 vaccines. The unfounded assertion includes the deaths of Jovenel Moise of Haiti, John Magufuli of Tanzania, Hamed Bakayoko of Ivory Coast, Ambrose Dlamini of eSwatini, and Pierre Nkurunziza of Burundi. Despite widespread speculation, there is no evidence linking their deaths to their stance on COVID-19 policies. Conclusion The upcoming vote on the WHO's Pandemic Treaty and IHR changes raises critical questions about transparency, global health governance, and the preservation of national sovereignty. The involvement of influential figures like Bill Gates and organizations like the CIA in global health initiatives underscores the need for accountability and clear boundaries. The WHO's shift from advisory to authoritative status could have profound implications, making it imperative for specialized, transparent, and accountable entities to manage public health.

**Ashley Biden’s Diary: Alarming Revelations and a Media Silence** The confirmation is in: Ashley Biden's diary, much like Hunter Biden's laptop, is real, and its contents are deeply troubling. Yet, the media remains largely silent on this explosive story. In 2019, Ashley Biden, the then 37-year-old daughter of President Joe Biden and his wife Jill, penned journal entries revealing disturbing details about her childhood. She wrote about showering with her father at an inappropriate age and expressed fears that she had been sexually abused. These revelations are undeniably significant. However, a near-complete media blackout has kept this story under wraps for years. After receiving treatment in rehab, Ashley moved to a halfway house in Florida, where she left the diary under a mattress. The diary, which also chronicled her drug use, was discovered in 2020 by a Florida woman who subsequently stole it, leaked its contents online, and sold it for $40,000. During this period, the Biden campaign allowed the left-leaning media to question the diary's authenticity or dismiss it as a right-wing fabrication akin to a Russia hoax. This dismissal echoed the initial treatment of Hunter Biden's laptop. However, both the laptop and the diary have now been confirmed as real. Ashley Biden herself has verified the authenticity of the diary in a court document made public last month. The contents of Ashley's diary raise serious concerns and demand scrutiny. In a July 2019 entry, she wrote, "Hyper-sexualized @ a young age. What is this due to? Was I molested. I think so —" The use of a period rather than a question mark suggests a level of certainty. Ashley continued, "I can’t remember specifics but I do remember trauma… I remember somewhat being sexualized with [her first cousin] Caroline; I remember having sex with friends @ a young age; showers w/ my dad (probably not appropriate); being turned on when I wasn’t supposed [sic] to be." The mention of showers with her father stands out starkly. Ashley also noted in her diary that she was undergoing treatment for "sexual trauma." Let’s consider this: If these revelations were about a Trump daughter, the media would be in an uproar. It would dominate headlines, with special investigative editions on Rachel Maddow, exhaustive primetime coverage on MSNBC and CNN, and a relentless focus in op-eds and Sunday shows, with the press demanding answers. Yet, the majority of the media, which has not hesitated to label Donald Trump with various severe accusations, has largely ignored similar allegations against Joe Biden. This discrepancy in coverage is striking. Last month, the New York Times reported that the woman who stole Ashley’s diary was sentenced to prison. However, the Times did not delve into the diary's actual contents. There was no mention of the alarming entries. Instead, the focus was on the "brazen scheme to steal the diary of President Biden’s daughter and sell it to a right-wing group in the hope of disrupting the 2020 election." Within this coverage, a letter from Ashley was linked, in which she has never denied the diary’s authenticity, unlike the initial reactions to Hunter's laptop. It is time to address these revelations with the seriousness they deserve. Ashley Biden has confirmed the diary is real, and its contents raise important questions. What is the truth, Joe? The American public deserves transparency and answers.

Admiral Daryl Caudle, Commander of the U.S. Fleet Forces Command, has issued a stark warning about the increasing attempts by foreign nationals, particularly from Russia and China, to breach U.S. military bases. During an appearance on Fox News Channel’s “America’s Newsroom,” Caudle revealed that incidents of unauthorized individuals attempting to penetrate military installations are happening with alarming frequency—up to two or three times a week. He emphasized that while many of these individuals carry passports and other identification, they are not permitted to be on the bases, and their true motives remain unclear. This troubling trend includes reports of Chechen nationals found near a special forces officer’s residence close to a North Carolina military base, armed with a camera and telephoto lens. Additionally, two Jordanian nationals in a box truck were intercepted while trying to ram through the security gate at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia. While neither Jordanian has a criminal record in the U.S., the FBI has not confirmed if they are on a terrorist watchlist. Moreover, approximately 100 incidents involving Chinese nationals attempting to access American military bases have been recorded in recent years. One notable case involved Chinese citizens detained at Fort Wainwright in Fairbanks, Alaska, after bypassing a checkpoint and being found with a drone in their vehicle. Despite these security breaches, the U.S. border remains open, allowing thousands of unvetted illegal aliens to enter the country daily, a situation that some find surprisingly easy. The rise in attempted infiltrations by foreign nationals highlights significant security concerns that require immediate attention and action.

The Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the US Department of Health and Human Services has announced a plan to produce 4.8 million doses of the H5N1 avian flu vaccine as part of pandemic preparedness efforts. Dawn O'Connell, JD, explained that health officials have secured a manufacturing line with one of their partners for the fill-and-finish steps, ensuring this process will not disrupt the production of the seasonal flu vaccine. The H5N1 vaccine is currently in bulk form and will be prepared in multidose vials, with the fill-and-finish process taking a couple of months to expedite vaccine availability if needed. O'Connell mentioned ongoing active discussions across federal agencies to determine the key triggers for deploying H5N1 vaccine doses. Talks with mRNA vaccine manufacturers Pfizer and Moderna are also in progress, with an announcement about their involvement expected soon. Nirav Shah, MD, JD, principal deputy director at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, highlighted potential triggers for vaccine deployment. These include changes in transmission patterns, such as human-to-human spread in addition to animal-to-human transmission, and signs of increased illness severity. Shah also noted that detecting H5N1 infections in people without epidemiologic links to affected dairy farms could be a trigger. "We are always monitoring for mutations," Shah said, emphasizing thorough discussions across federal agencies. As the 2024 election approaches, the early development of a bird flu vaccine raises questions that echo the anxieties of the last pandemic. With memories of the COVID-19 vaccine rollout—its urgency, controversy, and perceived efficacy—still fresh, many are skeptical about the timing and intent behind this new vaccine push. Is the government being extra cautious, or is there a more strategic plan in play? The overlap of pandemic preparedness with the election season invites speculation. Some view it as a prudent step to safeguard public health, learning from past experiences to stay ahead of potential crises. However, others see it as a troubling pattern, wondering if this is another instance where political and health agendas intertwine, potentially forcing the public into compliance once again. The COVID-19 vaccine's mixed reception has left a mark, with many feeling coerced into taking a shot they did not want, only to later question its effectiveness. This experience has fueled distrust and resistance, raising the stakes for how any new vaccine campaign, such as for H5N1, will be received. Will people be forced to take another shot, or will there be a more transparent and voluntary approach this time around? Ultimately, the key lies in communication and trust. Authorities must address public concerns openly, ensuring that health measures are genuinely aimed at protecting the population rather than serving hidden agendas. As we move forward, the challenge will be to balance preparedness with respect for individual choice, learning from the past to create a future where public health efforts are seen as supportive, not coercive.

Ominous Warnings About H5N1 Pandemic Amid WHO Pandemic Treaty Vote Health officials are issuing dire warnings about the potential for an H5N1 bird flu pandemic among humans. These alerts come as the World Health Organization (WHO) prepares to vote on the global pandemic treaty at the 77th World Health Assembly at the end of this month. The treaty, if passed, will grant the WHO significantly more authority than it had during the last pandemic, raising concerns about how this power might be used in future health crises. Growing Concerns Over Bird Flu Recently, two more human cases of bird flu have been confirmed. If the H5N1 virus mutates into a form that spreads easily from human to human, it could cause widespread panic and a potentially catastrophic death toll. This possibility raises critical questions about what extreme measures the WHO might institute. Finalizing the Global Pandemic Treaty Negotiators have been working intensely to finalize the global pandemic treaty. According to the official WHO website, governments have agreed to continue working on a proposed pandemic agreement and to further refine the draft ahead of the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly starting on May 27, 2024. Governments meeting at the WHO headquarters in Geneva have agreed to resume hybrid and in-person discussions over the coming weeks to advance work on critical issues, including a new global system for pathogen access and benefits sharing, pandemic prevention, One Health, and the financial coordination needed to scale up countries’ capacities to prepare for and respond to pandemics. Lack of Media Coverage in the U.S. In the United States, mainstream media has been unusually quiet about this treaty, despite its significant implications. Negotiations have been ongoing for the past two years, and the plan is to submit the final draft for a vote at the World Health Assembly at the end of this month. The Member State-led Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB), established over two years ago, is guiding this process and will submit its outcome for consideration at the Assembly. Expert Opinions and Historical Context INB Bureau Co-Chair Dr. Precious Matsoso of South Africa noted the progress made during the latest discussions on a wide range of issues in the draft agreement. “We are witnessing history play out before our eyes during this process, with the coming together of all countries to decide a binding pact to protect all citizens of the world,” said Matsoso. “This is not a simple exercise. This is the first-ever process to develop a proposed agreement on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response. Getting this done means getting it right, and the INB Bureau is committed to helping finalize a meaningful, lasting agreement.” Upcoming Vote and Implications The 77th World Health Assembly will be held in Geneva, Switzerland from May 27 to June 1. Member nations will cast their votes on the final draft of the global pandemic treaty, which is expected to pass. Although there are claims that the treaty has been "watered down," the reality is that the language has merely been made more vague. If the treaty is approved, the WHO will take the lead in managing the next pandemic, a fact that many people are unaware of. Recent Bird Flu Cases and Potential Threats The potential threat of an H5N1 pandemic is growing. On Wednesday, the CDC announced another confirmed human case of bird flu in the United States. The case involved a Michigan dairy farm worker, marking the second instance of bird flu in a dairy worker this year. The virus appears to have developed under similar circumstances to an earlier case in Texas. Despite these cases, many dairy workers are reluctant to get tested due to fears over job loss, immigration status, language barriers, and general distrust in public health systems. Additionally, four more cats in the U.S. have died from H5N1, including two pets in South Dakota with no links to poultry or dairy cows. This troubling development suggests that the virus could spread more widely among animals, potentially increasing the risk to humans. Global Impact and Future Pandemics If cats are dying from H5N1, it is likely only a matter of time before humans start experiencing similar outcomes. Reports indicate that cats that died from H5N1 in Texas suffered from brain hemorrhaging and blindness. The question remains whether H5N1 could cause similar damage in humans. In Australia, a child has been confirmed as the first case of H5N1 bird flu. The child contracted the virus in India and fell ill in March. This case, along with the detection of bird flu on a farm in Victoria, Australia, raises further concerns. Since 2003, more than 50 percent of humans who tested positive for H5N1 have died. The potential for widespread fear and chaos if millions of people become infected is immense. Conclusion Global pestilences will likely play a significant role in the chaotic era ahead. The panic witnessed during the COVID-19 pandemic could pale in comparison to the fear generated by a pandemic with a higher death rate. The implications of the global pandemic treaty and the growing threat of H5N1 underscore the urgent need for preparedness and vigilant monitoring.

DOJ Authorized Deadly Force for FBI’s Raid on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago, Court Documents Reveal Newly unsealed court documents reveal that the Department of Justice (DOJ) authorized the use of deadly force during the FBI’s raid on former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in August 2022. The raid aimed to seize classified information, national defense information (NDI), and U.S. government records specified in the search warrant, according to an "Operations Order" disclosed in discovery. Judge Aileen Cannon released the operations order, which included a "Policy Statement" on the use of deadly force, stating that "Law enforcement officers of the Department of Justice may use deadly force when necessary." This provision indicated that armed FBI agents were prepared to confront Trump and his Secret Service detail if they interfered with the operation. The documents outline the FBI’s contingency plans, including engaging with Trump and his Secret Service team if needed. The order also mentioned that FBI agents were prepared to go door-to-door at Mar-a-Lago, potentially terrorizing guests and picking locks if necessary. On-site FBI medical support was authorized, with a local trauma center identified for any injuries during the raid. Political Implications and Reactions Reporter Julie Kelly highlighted the aggressive nature of the raid, describing the FBI's actions as "Gestapo-like" and noting the anti-Trump political figures behind the order, such as former FBI Washington Field Office head Steven D’Antuono and Attorney General Merrick Garland. Kelly criticized the raid as a publicity stunt that risked the lives of Trump, his family, and Mar-a-Lago guests. "This is grounds for impeachment of Wray and Garland. Trump and team were cooperating the entire time with the FBI. Was deadly force authorized against Biden for his docs? Were they going to shoot Secret Service then Pres Trump, Melania, and Barron too???" Greene posted on X. Other GOP lawmakers, including Reps. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) and Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.), also condemned the Biden administration for what they perceive as an abuse of power, comparing the U.S. to a "banana republic." "President Biden’s FBI authorized the use of deadly force during the raid of his political opponent’s private residence. The Left has turned America into a banana republic," Clyde posted on X. Brian Harrison echoed these sentiments, emphasizing the unprecedented nature of authorizing deadly force against a former president and current political rival. Congressional Admissions and Judicial Orders D’Antuono admitted to Congress last year that the FBI violated protocols in multiple ways during the Mar-a-Lago raid. This admission adds to the controversy surrounding the operation and raises questions about the FBI's conduct. Judge Cannon recently ordered an indefinite hold on scheduling a trial date for the classified documents case, citing significant issues around Special Counsel Jack Smith’s handling of the classified evidence. This pause underscores the ongoing complexities and legal battles surrounding the raid and the broader investigation into Trump's handling of classified materials. Conclusion The authorization of deadly force during the FBI's Mar-a-Lago raid and the subsequent political fallout highlight deep divisions and contentious legal battles in the current political climate. As the 2024 election approaches, these revelations are likely to fuel further debates and scrutiny over the actions of the DOJ and the FBI.

Here is the link for the viral music video: https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/112457819513934380 Supporters of President Joe Biden appear to be taking steps to remove a viral parody music video that highlights Biden's cognitive decline. The video, a parody of Tom Petty’s hit song “Free Fallin’,” was posted by former President Donald Trump on Truth Social last Friday. Titled "Keeps Falling," the parody mocks Biden's numerous gaffes, showing him stumbling up the steps of Air Force One, wandering aimlessly, and awkwardly sniffing women and children. By Sunday, the video had been taken down across the X platform (formerly Twitter), with a disclaimer stating, "This media has been disabled in response to a report by the copyright owner." The viral video was created by comedian and Fox News Saturday Night host Jimmy Failla as part of his album “The More You Joe,” produced by “C’Mon Man Records.” Given Failla's enthusiasm for sharing the video, it is unlikely that he initiated the copyright complaint. This raises the question: who ordered the takedown of the politically damaging video against Biden? It remains unclear whether the Democratic Party or perhaps representatives of Tom Petty were behind the copyright strike. The claim is particularly interesting because parody videos typically fall under fair use exceptions, allowing copyrighted materials to be used without permission for purposes of commentary or criticism. The “Keeps Falling” song features humorous lyrics that take aim at Biden’s perceived shortcomings: "He’s an old guy has dementia, can’t lead us. And the country is screwed. Tells some big lies, barely speaks English, sniffs children, and their mom’s hair, too, Goes the wrong way. When he leaves his speeches, Gets lost each day. In the White House yard, All the Dems say that we should reelect him. How can he win? When walking is hard? And Joe Keeps, (keeps falling yeah he keeps falling) Keeps falling (keeps falling yeah he keeps falling) And Joe keeps (keeps falling yeah he keeps falling) Keeps falling (keeps falling yeah he keeps falling)" Despite efforts to remove the video, its viral nature ensures it won't be completely censored, as some versions can still be viewed on X and Truth Social. This controversy comes amid recent polls showing Biden losing support among young people, Black voters, and Hispanics across all age groups. Trump is currently leading the 81-year-old president in five of six swing states, underscoring the contentious nature of the upcoming election.

**Israeli Officials Dismiss Involvement in Helicopter Crash Involving Iranian President** As reports emerge from Iran about a helicopter crash involving President Ebrahim Raisi and Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, speculation is rampant regarding Raisi's fate, with many suspecting that the notorious "Butcher of Tehran" may not have survived the incident. Despite the swirling rumors, Israeli officials have remained tight-lipped, offering no official comments. Unofficial sources, however, have emphatically denied any Israeli involvement in the crash, which is believed to have been caused by severe weather conditions near Jolfa, a city close to the Azerbaijani border, about 600 kilometers (375 miles) northwest of Tehran. Senior Israeli officials have stated that the potential deaths of Raisi and Amir-Abdollahian are unlikely to affect Israel or its policies toward Iran. They emphasized that the crucial decisions concerning Israel are made by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who directs Iran's nuclear program and anti-Israel activities. As such, Raisi's demise is not expected to alter this dynamic. The officials noted that any significant repercussions would depend on Raisi's successor. One possible successor is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's former president (2005-2013), known for his vehement hostility toward Israel. While the incident is not anticipated to change Israel's strategic posture, it may have internal ramifications for Iran. The deaths of such high-profile officials could embolden opposition groups, potentially leading to increased instability during the leadership transition. The news of the helicopter crash reached U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan while he was in Israel for a series of meetings. Reports suggest that President Biden cut his vacation short following the developments from Iran. Israeli officials expect that some factions within Iran might propagate conspiracy theories implicating Israel in the crash. The Cyber Army of the Revolutionary Guards, a website linked to Iran's powerful military faction, has already suggested the possibility of assassination and sabotage, citing a recent meeting between Azerbaijani and Israeli officials as a potential precursor to the crash and calling on Imam Reza for hope. Despite these allegations, Israeli sources stand firm, denying any involvement and reiterating that the crash was a tragic accident likely caused by adverse weather conditions.

Federal agencies have until October 20th to submit every document, audio, and video they possess about UFOs to the US government for public distribution. This directive was issued by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) this month, implementing the UFO disclosure amendment to the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), signed into law last December. The guidelines represent a new strategy to compel resistant segments of the US military and intelligence community to reveal all they know about the mysterious airborne events now referred to as Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP). This initiative follows a controversial report from the Pentagon’s UFO office to Congress two months ago, which claimed it ‘found no verifiable evidence that the US government or private industry has ever had access to extraterrestrial technology.’ NARA has mandated that all UFO or UAP documents be submitted in electronic formats with detailed metadata for inclusion in a new searchable database, which will be accessible to the public. This database will also contain classified material that NARA will store independently until it can be declassified. According to NARA’s guidelines, all government agencies must label their records with each file’s ‘official security status’ and any ‘special controls,’ such as ‘special compartmented information’ (SCI) and ‘special access programs’ (SAP). Additionally, every federal agency, including branches of the US military and the intelligence community like the CIA, must justify why certain UFO documents qualify as ‘exempt’ from disclosure under the new law. "If Released in Part or Withheld in Full," the NARA guideline advisory stated, agencies must "cite the specific grounds for postponement in section 1843 of the NDAA." The archives also emphasized that these agencies must comply with either the provisions in the new UFO disclosure amendment of the 2024 NDAA or those outlined in Executive Order 13526. This order, enacted by President Barack Obama in 2009, mandates that all classified material over 25 years old will be subject to ‘automatic declassification.’

The implementation of digital identification systems is progressing swiftly across numerous nations, spearheaded by influential organizations such as the World Economic Forum, World Health Organization, United Nations, and European Union. These groups have long envisioned the introduction of digital IDs, with the COVID-19 pandemic accelerating their adoption. Recently, the Australian Parliament passed digital ID legislation, while the American Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) added digital IDs to its list of acceptable identification forms. Additionally, new EU digital ID regulations are set to be enforced starting Monday. A user on X highlighted, "Digital ID Has Officially Been Passed In Australia. This was their ultimate goal with COVID-19. 15-minute cities coming soon." Earlier this month, the Digital ID and Authentication Council of Canada (DIACC) certified its first digital ID verification platform. The Biden Administration has updated its National Cybersecurity Strategy Implementation Plan to include digital identification via facial recognition biometrics. At least eleven U.S. states now permit digital driver’s licenses, with others, like New Mexico, considering similar measures. Australian Minister of Finance Katy Gallagher assured citizens on News Breakfast that the new digital IDs will not be mandatory and will not be used for tracking purposes. However, Wide Awake Media expressed skepticism on X, stating, “The EXACT same people who assured you the mRNA injections would be voluntary (and were ‘safe and effective’), are now assuring you digital ID will be voluntary, and won’t be used for any sinister purposes by the government. They are lying to you again.” Despite these assurances, there is a growing belief that governments may eventually mandate these IDs. India has been a significant testing ground for biometric surveillance, with figures like Bill Gates praising the country for its digital public infrastructure monitored by the World Bank. The United Nations Development Program's (UNDP) “50-in-5” campaign, launched last year, has been using 50 developing countries to test digital IDs. This approach often sees new measures trialed in the developing world before being implemented more broadly. Australian Senator Malcolm Roberts has vocally criticized the digital ID rollout, warning of its implications and the potential for government overreach. As these systems continue to develop, concerns about privacy and control remain central to public debate.

In a tumultuous turn of events, Wednesday bore witness to a harrowing episode in the life of Malachy Steenson, an Irish Republican candidate vying for a seat in the European Parliament. The day unfolded with alarming synchronicity, as an assailant unleashed a brazen shooting spree targeting Slovakia's Prime Minister, Robert Fico, mere hours before a chilling attempt on Steenson's own life. Recounting the ordeal with palpable intensity, Steenson disclosed how an unidentified individual aggressively attempted to breach the sanctity of his office, wielding threats of violence against both himself and his family. "A guy arrived at my office banging on the door, threatening my young nephew, threatening to kill me," Steenson recounted in a video statement, underscoring the gravity of the situation. Thankfully, vigilant law enforcement authorities intervened before tragedy could fully manifest. Acting swiftly upon receiving alarming reports of the assailant's intentions, police intercepted him en route to Steenson's office, promptly apprehending him upon his arrival. Steenson, in reflecting on the incident, staunchly asserted that such threats are an inevitable consequence for those who dare to challenge entrenched power dynamics. Drawing parallels to the recent attack on Prime Minister Fico, Steenson underscored the inherent dangers faced by dissenters to prevailing political agendas. In a resolute call to action, Steenson urged for solidarity in the face of adversity, emphasizing the importance of unity and collective action. "Just like the Prime Minister in Slovakia was shot today because he opposed the European Union agenda. We are going to pay a heavy price in this country for what’s happened. This is the beginning. You have a chance to change it on June 7 by voting nationalist across the country," Steenson warned, rallying support for a cause greater than individual ambition. The timing of the assassination attempt, occurring mere days after Steenson's participation in a rally opposing illegal immigration alongside Rebel News journalist Ezra Levant, further underscores the broader pattern of intimidation and violence directed at populist leaders challenging globalist ideologies. Levant himself noted the chilling effect such leaders have on the entrenched elite, suggesting a coordinated effort to suppress dissenting voices. In the aftermath of this perilous encounter, Steenson's experience serves as a poignant reminder of the inherent risks involved in advocating for change and resisting entrenched power structures. Yet, amidst the chaos and uncertainty, it also stands as a testament to the resilience and unwavering commitment of individuals who refuse to be silenced in the face of adversity.

When you think of Smart Cities and 15-Minute Cities, you might envision futuristic landscapes where technology seamlessly blends with sustainability, offering efficient, eco-friendly urban environments. Imagine strolling down streets lined with greenery, with every essential amenity just a short walk or bike ride away. It’s a vision of urban life that promises convenience, connectivity, and environmental consciousness. But as with any vision of the future, there are complexities and challenges beneath the surface. Dive into the world of Smart Cities, and you'll encounter a realm where 5G and artificial intelligence converge to create a network of interconnected devices and sensors. This network aims to enhance efficiency and quality of life, yet it sparks debates about privacy and surveillance concerns due to the vast collection of data. Consider the ambitious Neom project in Saudi Arabia, which aims to build a sustainable, high-tech city with innovative green transportation solutions like flying taxis. While Neom showcases advanced infrastructure and a commitment to data-driven decision-making, it's also drawn criticism for the country's continued reliance on fossil fuel exports, highlighting a tension between environmental goals and economic interests. Meanwhile, 15-Minute Cities advocate for a more human-centric approach to urban planning, emphasizing accessibility and reducing reliance on long commutes. However, critics worry about potential limitations on freedom of movement and privacy implications, raising questions about the balance between convenience and personal liberties. Intriguingly, the concept of 15-Minute Cities has even sparked conspiracy theories, such as claims that wildfires in Maui were ignited by directed energy weapons as part of a government scheme to transform the island into a smart enclave. While these theories remain speculative, they underscore the significance of public perception and skepticism surrounding urban development initiatives. As we navigate the discourse around Smart Cities and 15-Minute Cities, it's essential to recognize that these concepts are fluid and subject to revision. Some cities are reevaluating their plans, maintaining a focus on walkability while imposing restrictions on private vehicles in response to community feedback. In conclusion, the journey towards realizing Smart Cities and 15-Minute Cities is multifaceted, marked by both promise and pitfalls. While these concepts offer potential for enhancing urban life, they also demand careful consideration of ethical, social, and environmental implications. Ultimately, striking a balance between innovation and individual freedoms will be crucial as we shape the cities of tomorrow.

At a highly anticipated unveiling event, the public was introduced to a captivating portrait that diverged sharply from tradition. Created by artist Jonathan Yeo, the portrayal of King Charles III was saturated with dark and infernal imagery, evoking a myriad of reactions from spectators. Yeo clarified that his intent was to capture the monarch's evolving public persona and inherent humanity, suggesting a nod to Charles' ancestral claims of descent from Vlad the Impaler, also known as Dracula. While some embraced Yeo's avant-garde interpretation of modern monarchy, others found the portrait unsettling, sparking fervent discussions across social media platforms. Speculation ran rife, with interpretations of the painting's symbolism ranging from demonic to eerie, fueled by claims that elements such as the red hues, monarch butterfly, and black eyes hinted at sinister associations. The controversy deepened as observers noted hidden complexities within the artwork; when mirrored, flipped, and juxtaposed, distorted images revealed unsettling shapes reminiscent of occult iconography, including what appeared to be a satanic baphomet. Amidst the fervor, the burning question remains: is this fiery portrait a bold reflection of the monarchy's evolution, or does it conceal darker truths? As debates rage on, one fact remains undeniable: the artwork has ignited a profound discourse surrounding art, royalty, and the enigmatic depths of symbolism, leaving viewers to navigate the flames of controversy and form their own interpretations of King Charles III's essence.

ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos has ignited a firestorm of debate with his recent assertion that the "Deep State is packed with patriots" who prioritize national service over political allegiance. In a surprising revelation made during a segment on The View, Stephanopoulos shared insights gleaned from his latest book, which delves into interviews with numerous bureaucrats from intelligence agencies and the military. Stephanopoulos's statement challenges prevailing narratives surrounding the Deep State, a term often dismissed as a conspiracy theory by the media and Democrats. However, his assertion underscores a shift in perspective, particularly in light of former President Donald Trump's rhetoric about purging "rogue bureaucrats" from the Deep State. This assertion comes amidst heightened scrutiny of the Deep State's role in government, with President Biden recently enacting measures aimed at protecting unelected government employees from dismissal. The New York Times has also published articles suggesting that the Deep State, or Administrative State, plays a crucial role in governance. Nevertheless, Trump and his supporters have consistently characterized the Deep State as comprising partisan operatives who prioritize political agendas over national interests. This viewpoint is reinforced by documentaries such as "Chasing Trump," which expose politically motivated actions against Trump by anti-Trump Democrats. Moreover, revelations such as a recent undercover video featuring a CIA cyber operations project manager admitting to withholding information from Trump have fueled concerns about government accountability. House Republicans have responded by forming the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of Government, which aims to address perceived biases and censorship of conservative voices by federal agencies and Big Tech companies. Former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss has echoed these concerns, warning of the Deep State's potential obstructionism in Trump's second term. Truss emphasizes the importance of confronting entrenched bureaucracy to uphold democratic principles and ensure transparency in government operations. Stephanopoulos's remarks have reignited discussions about the role of the Deep State in shaping national policy and governance.

Delve into the riveting narrative surrounding Robert Kennedy Jr.'s relentless pursuit of Secret Service protection amidst his presidential campaign. Despite facing explicit assassination threats and a harrowing intrusion into his home by an armed intruder, Kennedy's appeals for government security have been rebuffed not once, but five times. With a staggering two million dollars expended on private security measures, his campaign's plea for protection remains unheeded by Homeland Security Director Alejandro Mayorkas, who provided no rationale for the denial. Speculation abounds, with theories positing political agendas behind the refusals, particularly concerning the Biden Administration's alleged perception of Kennedy as a potential threat to their electoral prospects. Uncover the intricacies of Secret Service protocols as we explore the stringent criteria governing the provision of protection to presidential candidates. Despite meeting the requisite polling benchmarks, Kennedy's candidacy hangs in limbo as the decision-makers deliberate over his eligibility. Against a backdrop of familial legacy and contentious policy positions, Kennedy's campaign presses on, urging reconsideration based on a comprehensive risk assessment. Embark on a gripping journey through the tumultuous landscape of presidential security measures, where each denial of protection raises fundamental questions about the integrity of the electoral process. As the saga unfolds, ponder the overarching question: Is Robert Kennedy Jr. being denied Secret Service protection due to political maneuvering? Join us as we navigate the labyrinthine corridors of power and intrigue, shedding light on the enigmatic world of presidential candidates' security. Stay informed, stay vigilant, and above all, stay safe.

The inaugural session of the WHO Alliance for Food Safety culminated on Wednesday, signifying a pivotal moment in the rollout of the ‘WHO Global Strategy for Food Safety 2030’. This collaborative endeavor united WHO collaborating centers, UN agencies, and generous donors with the aim of fortifying food safety protocols on a global scale. Despite its noble intentions, this alliance has drawn scrutiny from groups such as Liberty Counsel Action, who perceive it as a potential instrument for exerting global governance over food production and distribution. They argue that the alliance's purported objectives to regulate food production, inspection, and distribution may encroach upon individual freedoms and lead to unintended consequences. Central to this initiative is the adoption of the One Health approach, which has sparked debate among critics like David Bell. Some assert that this strategy, rooted in instilling fear to justify stringent controls, could have adverse effects, including exacerbating socioeconomic disparities and posing risks to public health. Led by the World Health Organization, a prominent agency within the United Nations system, this initiative has sparked apprehension among skeptics who view the UN as a harbinger of a potential global government. Collaborating closely with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the WHO Nutrition and Food Safety Department orchestrated the inaugural meeting from 6 to 8 May 2024. The primary objective of this gathering was to lay the groundwork for implementing the ambitious ‘WHO Global Strategy for Food Safety 2030’, endorsed during the 75th Session of the World Health Assembly in May 2022. With a keen awareness of the absence of a unified global mechanism in this domain, the WHO convened this alliance to craft terms of reference and a comprehensive work plan spanning from 2023 to 2030. These concerted efforts aim to foster international cooperation, spur innovation, and provide vital support to nations in achieving the WHO's ambitious food safety objectives within the designated timeframe.

In a bold initiative aimed at tackling addiction within the homeless community, San Francisco has rolled out a controversial program allocating $5 million annually to provide alcoholic beverages to those struggling with alcoholism. Referred to as the "managed alcohol program," this effort is overseen by nurses who administer controlled amounts of alcohol, equivalent to 1-2 drinks, up to four times daily after patient assessments. Expanded since its launch in 2020, the program now offers 20 beds in a vacant hotel situated in San Francisco's Tenderloin District. Here, individuals grappling with alcohol addiction receive housing, meals, activities, and access to their preferred alcoholic beverages, all funded by taxpayers. Despite its altruistic objectives, the program has ignited a fervent debate, particularly on social media platforms. Critics express concerns about its substantial cost and the absence of clear benchmarks for participants to curtail alcohol consumption and achieve sobriety. Renowned attorney Laura Powell shared her reservations on Twitter, highlighting that the program caters to the "need and desire" of homeless alcoholics without any expectation of reduced consumption. Critics also question the allocation of funds, contemplating whether the $5 million budget could be utilized more efficiently to support individuals through alternative means, such as all-inclusive resorts. While the managed alcohol program presents an innovative approach to addressing addiction and homelessness, its effectiveness and long-term implications remain contentious issues. As San Francisco grapples with the challenges of substance abuse and homelessness, the future of this program hinges on continued scrutiny and evaluation.

Amidst intense partisan divide, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Equal Representation Act in a narrow vote on Wednesday, aiming to restrict the counting of only U.S. citizens in the national census. The bill, receiving 206 yea votes from Republicans and 202 nay votes from Democrats, now faces anticipated resistance in the Senate, where Democrats currently hold the majority. Notably, every House Democrat opposed the measure. Stephen Miller, an advisor to former President Donald Trump, sounded alarm bells, alleging that House Democrats unanimously supported granting illegal immigrants representation in Congress and the Electoral College. Miller warned of potential consequences, asserting that House seats and Electoral College votes could be allocated based on areas with the highest number of illegal immigrants unless the bill is passed by the Senate. Primary sponsor of the bill, Republican Chuck Edwards, stressed the importance of excluding non-U.S. citizens from congressional seat and electoral vote calculations to maintain the true representation of Americans in the federal government. Edwards argued that the bill's passage sheds light on a primary motivation behind the federal government's lax stance on illegal immigration. Arizona GOP Republican Andy Biggs passionately defended the bill on the House floor, emphasizing its significance in ensuring that only American citizens impact congressional and electoral college apportionment, safeguarding the integrity of the Constitution. However, with the likelihood of Senate Democrats blocking the bill, concerns mount that illegal immigrants could be counted and represented in Congress and the Electoral College, potentially fueling suspicions of a preconceived plan by the Biden Administration to undermine border security.

In a recent eye-opening interview with News Nation, former Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Robert Redfield, delivered a stark warning about the potential emergence of Bird Flu as the next global pandemic. Drawing from his access to classified information, Dr. Redfield urged the federal government to declassify its COVID-19 documents, stressing the urgent need for transparency. Expressing deep concern, he highlighted the alarming capabilities of Bird Flu in a laboratory setting, emphasizing its potential to become highly infectious to humans within a matter of months. Dr. Redfield also raised serious apprehensions about gain-of-function research, suggesting that COVID-19 may have been engineered through such practices, posing a significant biosecurity threat. His chilling revelations shed light on the imperative for immediate action and call upon citizens to advocate for the cessation of risky research endeavors.