“The unregulated advancement of biotech is creating a new arms race and threatening our personal autonomy.” – Spartacus
A document posted online under the name “Spartacus” went viral in 2021. The ‘Covid letter’ summed up the state of the ‘pandemic’ at the time, calling out the so-called ‘science’ attributed to Covid-19 and the vaccines. Since then, Spartacus has written several documents including ‘Covid-19: A Web of Corruption’ and a four-part series ‘Covid-19: Deep Dive’
Below is the latest article published by Spartacus, ‘The Weaponization of Biotech’:
“After our previous article on this topic, I was asked by someone off-site to cite specific examples of biotechnology that could be misused for nefarious purposes, or could have utility as clandestine military or intelligence tools. It was a fair criticism. I listed off a number of technologies that could have such uses, but did not cite any specific articles to make my case. This article will address that deficiency.”
We are publishing Spartacus’ this document in sections for those who struggle to find the time to read the paper in full in one sitting. This is the first in our series.
The key thing to keep in mind is that cutting-edge biotech poses a tremendous risk both to human dignity, precisely because the products of today’s biotechnology are not like old-school biowarfare agents like smallpox, for which treaties already exist that ban their usage in warfare. There are technologies being investigated, right now, that could form the basis of novel biological agents for which no treaty exists that restricts their use. This creates a new, unaddressed arms race and proliferation risk.
Article I of the Biological Weapons Convention reads as follows:
Each State Party to this Convention undertakes never in any circumstances to develop, produce, stockpile or otherwise acquire or retain:
(1) microbial or other biological agents, or toxins whatever their origin or method of production, of types and in quantities that have no justification for prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes;
(2) weapons, equipment or means of delivery designed to use such agents or toxins for hostile purposes or in armed conflict.
This is extremely vague, but is generally taken to mean a prohibition on the usage of things like smallpox, Ebola, anthrax, botulinum toxin, and similar agents in warfare.
Dr. Robert Malone had a rather insightful article recently where he pointed out, correctly, that the stipulation “for hostile purposes” essentially creates a loophole, where biological weapons can be legally researched for defensive purposes.
Consider this: what qualifies as a microbial or biological agent, or toxin? What qualifies as hostile purposes? What if the agent does not kill, injure, or disfigure, but manipulates human behavior? What if the agent is so subtle, it cannot be readily detected or attributed to a hostile actor?
There are many recent breakthroughs in biotech that have beneficial therapeutic effects if used in medicine, and therefore plenty of “justification for prophylactic, protective, or other peaceful purposes”. However, they are also a double-edged sword. The same gene therapy tools that could cure one person’s cancer could give cancer to someone else.
Now, let’s take a look at the Chemical Weapons Convention (note, Substack mangles the subparagraphs designated by letters, converting them into strictly numbered lists; please see the source site for an accurate reference):
1.Each State Party to this Convention undertakes never under any circumstances:
1.1 To develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile or retain chemical weapons, or transfer, directly or indirectly, chemical weapons to anyone;
1.2 To use chemical weapons;
1.3 To engage in any military preparations to use chemical weapons;
1.4 To assist, encourage or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Convention.
2.Each State Party undertakes to destroy chemical weapons it owns or possesses, or that are located in any place under its jurisdiction or control, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention.
3.Each State Party undertakes to destroy all chemical weapons it abandoned on the territory of another State Party, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention.
4.Each State Party undertakes to destroy any chemical weapons production facilities it owns or possesses, or that are located in any place under its jurisdiction or control, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention.
5.Each State Party undertakes not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare.
All right. Now, what do they consider to be a chemical weapon?
For the purposes of this Convention:
1. “Chemical Weapons” means the following, together or separately:
1.1 Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes;
1.2 Munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified in subparagraph (a), which would be released as a result of the employment of such munitions and devices;
1.3 Any equipment specifically designed for use directly in connection with the employment of munitions and devices specified in subparagraph (b).
2.“Toxic Chemical” means:
Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. This includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere. (For the purpose of implementing this Convention, toxic chemicals which have been identified for the application of verification measures are listed in Schedules contained in the Annex on Chemicals.)
Death, temporary incapacitation, or permanent harm to humans or animals sounds reasonably definitive, at first glance.
However, there are so many possible modalities of attack with modern weaponized biotech, one may conceive of the possibility of certain agents being developed that bioethicists will all too eagerly sign off on as being neither incapacitating nor harmful.
Let’s go over a few ways we can use modern biotech to skirt both the BWC and CWC and produce novel agents with profound, devastating effects.