News
Featured Image
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia.bear_productions/Shutterstock

ANALYSIS

(LifeSiteNews) – An “epidemic intelligence” program of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) was amended months before COVID-19 in a way that gave legal cover to covert public health “drills and exercises” – suggesting yet another tip-off of at least a partially falsified COVID pandemic. The same law, enacted in June 2019, also approved the inclusion of “genome editing” and “related technologies” “as a part of preparedness and response activities to advance national health security.”

Several previous articles provided information suggesting that COVID-19 may be some sort of national and international hoax, ruse, ploy, operational exercise, national security exercise, or something similar enacted by the U.S. government and international governments. This article provides more significant information to support that claim. While the large amount of significant information provided in previous articles cannot be mentioned here, it is necessary to provide a brief summary of a few of those articles, with new references, as support for the new information discussed in this article.

Obama-Biden admin. ordered FBI to link public health with law enforcement

Previous articles described that the Obama-Biden administration’s executive order in 2016, only a few days before Democrats lost the Presidential Office to the Trump administration, ordered the FBI and the Department of Justice to be leaders in “linking public health with law enforcement” and to “facilitate implementation and coordination of FBI programs to further the GHSA [Global Health Security Agenda], as well as provide technical expertise to measure and evaluate progress in countries the United States has made a commitment to assist.”

The same Obama-Biden executive order was then cited in the 2019 “United States Government Global Health Security Strategy” as one of the main documents which “guides the Federal Government in protecting the United States and its partners abroad from infectious disease threats by working with other nations, international organizations, and nongovernmental stakeholders.” (Page 5)

This significant information suggests that the Obama-Biden administration’s executive order, with the directive for the FBI to link public health with law enforcement, was still being used as a major U.S. government public health guide only a few months before the reported outbreak of COVID-19.

Law enforcement, intel agencies exempt from ban on false information

There are multiple reasons why the Obama-Biden administration’s executive order requiring the FBI to link public health with law enforcement, facilitate implementation and coordination of FBI programs to further the Global Health Security Agenda, and coordinate with the International Criminal Police Organization (which includes countries like China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, etc.) on the successful implementation of the Global Health Security Agenda is significant.

One reason is because U.S. law on “false information and hoaxes” has an exemption for “law enforcement agencies” (which not only provides support for the COVID-19-is-a-hoax hypothesis but may also describe the oddities of several other seemingly perfectly timed public and political events over the years). The law prohibits engaging in

any conduct with intent to convey false or misleading information under circumstances where such information may reasonably be believed and where such information indicates that an activity has taken, is taking, or will take place [etc.].

But the section of the law then provides the following exemption:

ACTIVITIES OF LAW ENFORCEMENT.—This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of a law enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or political subdivision of a State, or of an intelligence agency of the United States. (emphasis added)

The law uses very similar language to the language which the FBI and the Department of Justice used to describe a “law enforcement exemption.” (Pages 1158-1160)

In other words, the wording of the law appears to mean what the non-lawyer would think that it implies: “law enforcement” agencies (the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, local and state police, etc.) or “an intelligence agency of the United States” may possibly enact or engage in “hoaxes” or “conduct with the intent to convey false or misleading information under circumstances where such information may reasonably be believed and where such information indicates that an activity has taken, is taking, or will take place.”

‘Reasonable doubt’ and exemptions for false information, hoaxes

Here it is necessary to briefly elaborate on some points not directly related to the main topic of this article due to the duty to defend the innocent. The law enforcement exemption from the prohibition of false information and hoaxes could seemingly be interpreted to mean that the U.S. government law enforcement or intelligence community may falsely accuse one or more persons under the guise of “investigative, protective, or intelligence” reasons. That exemption, along with the additional known fact that covert methods and potentially advanced remote technologies of entities like the FBI are kept secret, would seem to make “reasonable doubt” exist in many accusations.

For example, non-criminal accusations were made against a Catholic individual likely responsible for the conversion or “re-conversion” of a large number of Catholics. This individual regularly denounced abortion, contraception, euthanasia, homosexuality, socialism, voting for liberal candidates, and even publicly and zealously opposed the Obama-Biden administration and their political party on several occasions.

During the Obama-Biden administration, this particular Catholic was silenced, or chose to be silent, as a result of the accusations followed by publicized information from a somewhat odd “fact-finding team.” The accused individual maintained their innocence throughout.

Due to the potential use of the aforementioned law enforcement and intelligence agency exemption from the prohibition of false information and hoaxes, reasonable doubt should be automatically in existence in this particular person’s scenario. There are multiple other similar instances where reasonable doubt should exist if law enforcement and intelligence agencies are exempt from laws prohibiting false information and hoaxes.

Other ‘law enforcement exemptions’ and COVID-19

So the apparent “law enforcement exemption” from prohibition of hoaxes is one reason why the Obama/Biden administration’s executive order which ordered the FBI to link “public health with law enforcement” is such a big deal – because by linking the two, the executive order appears to provide what may be a legal way for the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, the intelligence community, and others to collaborate with the CDC and other public health entities to potentially enact a public health emergency hoax, a hoax pandemic/epidemic, or continually “convey false or misleading information under circumstances where such information may reasonably be believed and where such information indicates that an activity has taken, is taking, or will take place.”

Another U.S. federal law with an exemption may be relevant to determining whether COVID-19 is a hoax. The exemption is found in a section of U.S. federal law prohibiting making “any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation” or making or using “any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry” “in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States.” (18 U.S. Code §1001)

An exemption to that law states that the law “does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.” (18 U.S. Code §1001(b))

Now, the non-lawyer may wonder what such wording in the exemption means. But the exemption matches similar language used to describe the FBI potentially swearing falsely or providing false documents. A guideline published by the Department of Justice appears to imply that the FBI may “supply falsely sworn testimony or false documentation in any legal or administrative proceeding,” language which is similar to the aforementioned exemption. In other words, the exemption in 18 U.S. Code §1001(b) appears to be a codified version of the FBI’s guideline permitting itself to potentially supply falsely sworn testimony or false documentation.

Could such falsifications play a part in COVID-19 “judicial proceedings” including those “judicial proceedings” regarding mRNA COVID-19 injections purported to be vaccines? And what about the government mandates forcing mRNA COVID-19 injections into Americans? Does the U.S. federal government – and some of the corrupt human beings which the words “U.S. federal government” signifies – allow themselves to falsify documents or statements during judicial proceedings on such forced injections?

National security exercises for ‘emerging’ threats lawfully authorized before COVID

But as previous articles explained, by researching U.S. federal laws enacted leading up to COVID-19, one may be able to deduce whether U.S. government officials were attempting to “lawfully authorize” a falsified epidemic or pandemic for “investigative, protective, or intelligence” reasons.

One of the most significant amendments made to U.S. federal law leading up to COVID-19 which suggests the possibility that the U.S. federal government was preparing for a falsified pandemic national exercise was an amendment made to a law governing the U.S. “National Exercise Program.” The amendment made sure to have written in law (that is, the amendment made sure to attempt to “lawfully authorize”) that the U.S. government could perform national security exercises for “emerging” threats. (133 STAT. 1123)

Coronaviruses, epidemics, and pandemics are often referred to as “emerging threats” or “emerging infectious disease threats” in government documents.

The reasonable person might conclude, then, that the 2019 amendment attempting to lawfully authorize national exercises for “emerging” threats is a tip-off that the U.S. federal government was preparing for a national exercise of an “emerging” threat or an emerging infectious disease threat. The amendment was made in October of 2019, only a few months before the reported outbreak of COVID-19, an “emerging infectious disease threat.”

2019 amendment to CDC program another tip-off of falsified pandemic?

Several other U.S. federal laws, strategies, plans, and other documents provide information suggesting that COVID-19 may be some sort of a hoax, ruse, ploy, operational exercise, or national security exercise.

One such U.S. law which provides a large amount of information suggesting the possibility that COVID-19 may be a national security exercise is the “Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act of 2019” (Pandemic Preparedness Act of 2019). It was signed into law on June 24, 2019.

The potentially significant amendment in the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act of 2019 is discovered in a section entitled “Strengthening the Epidemic Intelligence Service.”

Background information may be helpful. A complete discussion of the “epidemic intelligence service” at the U.S. CDC cannot be provided here. However, a description, apparently last updated in 2018, is provided by the CDC:

EIS [epidemic intelligence service] officers serve on the front lines of public health, protecting Americans and the global community, while training under the guidance of seasoned mentors. When disease outbreaks or other public health threats emerge, EIS officers investigate, identify the cause, rapidly implement control measures, and collect evidence to recommend preventive actions.

Interestingly, the existence of such CDC “epidemic intelligence service” officers as “investigators” of “public health threats” which “emerge” suggests the possibility that the FBI’s role in public health preparedness is not investigating animals, or humans for that matter, after a new or “emerging” infectious disease is discovered.

Instead, the FBI’s expertise in implementing the Global Health Security Agenda and use in public health preparedness, as ordered in the Obama-Biden executive order mentioned above, may be large numbers of non-uniformed FBI personnel for “ruses or ploys” (or, as the U.S. federal law above appears to describe them, “false information and hoaxes”) which were at one time said to be, and may still be, used “often” by the FBI. (Page 133)

It is also not immediately clear whether the CDC’s “epidemic intelligence service” is considered an “intelligence agency of the United States.” This is relevant due to the exemption for “intelligence agencies of the United States” from the prohibition of false information and hoaxes law mentioned above.

But the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act of 2019 makes what may be a revealing amendment to a law governing the epidemic intelligence service which may provide more information to support the claim that the U.S. federal government may have been preparing for a falsified pandemic exercise.

Before the amendment in the Pandemic Preparedness Act of 2019, the relevant part of the section was written as follows:

the Secretary may carry out a program of entering into contracts with appropriately qualified health professionals under which such health professionals agree to conduct prevention activities, as employees of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, in consideration of the Federal Government agreeing to repay, for each year of such service, not more than $35,000 of the principal and interest of the educational loans of such health professionals.  (42 USC §247b–7) before 2019 amendment, emphasis added)

The emphasis is on the activities that the law authorizes for the CDC’s epidemic intelligence service – “prevention activities.”

But in 2019, only a few months before the reported outbreak of COVID-19, the same law was amended. The amendment is titled the “Strengthening the Epidemic Intelligence Service.” (133 STAT. 932-933) The specific wording of the amendment, which may be difficult to understand, is provided in the previous citation. After the 2019 amendment, the relevant part of the U.S. law reads as follows:

the Secretary may carry out a program of entering into contracts with appropriately qualified health professionals under which such health professionals agree to conduct prevention activities or preparedness and response activities, including rapid response to public health emergencies and significant public health threats, as employees of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, in consideration of the Federal Government agreeing to repay, for each year of such service, not more than $50,000 of the principal and interest of the educational loans of such health professionals. (42 U.S. Code § 247b–7(a)(1), emphasis added)

Again, the use of the CDC’s epidemic intelligence service was previously authorized for “prevention activities.” Notice that the 2019 amendment attempted to lawfully authorize, or lawfully require, the use of the CDC’s epidemic intelligence service for “preparedness and response activities, including rapid response to public health emergencies and significant public health threats.”

In other words, in 2019, the U.S. federal government was preparing to hire employees for the “epidemic intelligence service,” within the CDC, for “preparedness and response activities” and “public health emergencies and significant public health threats.”

Now, why would the U.S. federal government see it necessary to lawfully authorize, or attempt to lawfully require, the CDC’s epidemic intelligence service to “agree to conduct…preparedness and response activities?” What is the big deal? The answer may be in the way the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act of 2019 defines “preparedness and response activities.”

Preparedness and response activities may include ‘drills and exercises’

Elsewhere in the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act of 2019, a more specific definition of “preparedness and response activities” includes “drills and exercises.”

At 133 STAT. 938, the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act of 2019 writes that “emergency preparedness and response activities” could include “drills and exercises.”

At 133 STAT. 940, the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act of 2019 describes “State emergency preparedness and response activities, including related drills and exercises pursuant to the preparedness goals under section 2802(b).” Section 2802(b) is the U.S. federal law requiring the National Health Security Strategy, in part, to include provisions in furtherance of

the periodic evaluation of Federal, State, local, and tribal preparedness and response capabilities through drills and exercises, including drills and exercises to ensure medical surge capacity for events without notice (42 U.S. Code § 300hh–1(b)(1)(A), emphasis added)

In other words, the amendment to the Pandemic Preparedness Act of 2019 governing the CDC’s “epidemic intelligence service” to include “agree to conduct…preparedness and response activities” might reasonably be interpreted to suggest that the CDC was planning to use such “epidemic intelligence” employees for preparedness and response “drills and exercises.”

And here is another significant point: specifically amending U.S. federal law to “lawfully authorize,” or lawfully require, the use of the CDC’s epidemic intelligence service in “preparedness and response activities including rapid response to public health emergencies and significant public health threats” could also be interpreted to suggest that future large-scale “preparedness and response activities” may have been foreseen to be dangerous enough to result in legal action against the U.S. federal government and/or U.S. federal government employees. The 2019 could be an attempt at legal coverage. Of course, maybe for an unknown and unimportant bureaucratic reason amending the law was necessary. But, at minimum, the timing and the wording of the amendment may suggest otherwise.

Thus, only a few months before the reported outbreak of COVID-19, the CDC may have been attempting to lawfully authorize the use of the epidemic intelligence service for “drills and exercises;” and the amendment even specifies: “public health emergencies and significant public health threats.”

Soon after the amendment lawfully authorizing the use of the CDC’s epidemic intelligence service for “preparedness and response activities” including “public health emergencies,” COVID-19 reportedly began and the U.S. government, of course, designated it as a public health emergency. What is reported as the COVID-19 pandemic public health emergency would fit the description of such a public health emergency national exercise.

2019 law indicates ‘preparedness and response activities’ include genome editing

It is worth mentioning a paragraph from the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act of 2019 which may be relevant to the discussion of the mRNA COVID-19 injections. This probably should be discussed more in depth in a separate article, but due to the significance of the find and potential impact it may have on deciding to receive or reject COVID-19 injections, it is being summarized in this article.

As mentioned above, the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act of 2019 may include “drills and exercises” in the phrase “preparedness and response activities.” Within the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act of 2019 one finds a potentially eye-opening mention of “preparedness and response activities” in this paragraph:

(b) REPORT.—Not later than 270 days after the meeting described in subsection (a) is held, the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response shall issue a report to the congressional committees of jurisdiction on the topics discussed at such meeting, and provide recommendations, as applicable, to utilize innovations in genomic engineering (including genome editing) and related technologies as a part of preparedness and response activities to advance national health security. Such report shall be issued in a manner that does not compromise national security. (133 STAT. 959, emphasis added)

It is probably self-explanatory: “utilize innovations in genomic engineering (including genome editing) and related technologies as a part of preparedness and response activities to advance national health security” apparently implies that such “innovations in genomic engineering (including genome editing) and related technologies” could be “utilized,” apparently meaning “used,” in “preparedness and response activities;” and again, according to the same Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act of 2019, “preparedness and response activities” may include “drills and exercises.”

It may also be significant that the paragraph reads, “provide recommendations…to utilize innovations in genomic engineering [etc.]” It does not say “recommend whether” or “if” innovations in genomic engineering might be used in preparedness and response exercises. The paragraph appears to mean “provide recommendations” on how to utilize or how innovations in genomic engineering are going to be utilized as a part of preparedness and response activities.”

The law appears to be written to mean that the plan was to include genomic engineering (including genome editing) and related technologies as a part of preparedness and response activities, and the “recommendations” would merely be how to include those as a part of the activities.

The paragraph appears to imply, then, that it was already decided that “innovations in genomic engineering (including genome editing) and related technologies” are going to be used in “drills and exercises” to “advance national health security.” Does this imply potentially attempting national genomic engineering and national genome editing “and related technologies” “as a part of,” that is, included in, “preparedness and response activities,” which apparently may include national drills and exercises?

Think of it this way: how many Americans would knowingly and voluntarily be, or knowingly and voluntarily allow others to be, genomic engineered or genome edited “to advance national health security?” In other words, the idea itself of genomic engineering or genome editing to “advance national health security” may imply the use of covert, secretive, or hoax “preparedness and response activities” or “drills and exercises” at the national level.

This is in U.S. federal public health and national security law; there is not much conspiracy theory there. And there is still more information to support the suggestion that the COVID-19 pandemic may be falsified, but that information will not be provided here.

Comments

Commenting Guidelines

LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.