THis looks suspiciously like a false claim that was made back in 2020 that the government had paid for Covid19 stuff before the so-called virus was even officially and publicly declared to exist.
The error was made because it appeared in US legislation that was tabled before 2020. However, the mistake was that legislation that is tabled can and often does go through a re-vetting, re-writing process so that something tabled in 2019 is actually filled with content that has been added in 20202, 2021 and 2022, even though the legislation name and table date remains as 2019.
I'd have to look closer to verify if this current report is grounded on such a mistaken apprehension of legislation, but the similarity in the assertions rings a bell....
EDIT: Lots of good content in that article providing a jumping off point for further research.
A read through their content shows the contract and the date alright.
My question at this juncture would be: by WHAT instrument is the contract created, signed and executed? (What determines what the "action date" is?)
Yes, the info in the listing reads as reported, but what determines those dates? If it is executed via a piece of legislation, that would be an important piece of the puzzle.
It provides some promising starting points, I would say.
Looking legit and being legit, however, are completely different things, right? How long did so much of our world look ..... legit?
Over the last 5 years, I've seen more than one occasion where something was presented as a massive smoking gun, only to turn out to be all smoke and no gun, once you dig and scratch the surface.
Thus, I tend to err on the side of scepticism when something that looks too good to be true (from a conspiracy theorist's perspective) comes out.
Until it is proven, I tend to think: it's not proven. A curious paradox, perhaps, because there are certainly numerous convictions and beliefs I certain hold to be true, even though they aren't 'proven'.
Guess I just think, if more of us were a lot more skeptical with info, we'd have a LOT more solid evidence and less noise to our collective voices.
THis looks suspiciously like a false claim that was made back in 2020 that the government had paid for Covid19 stuff before the so-called virus was even officially and publicly declared to exist.
The error was made because it appeared in US legislation that was tabled before 2020. However, the mistake was that legislation that is tabled can and often does go through a re-vetting, re-writing process so that something tabled in 2019 is actually filled with content that has been added in 20202, 2021 and 2022, even though the legislation name and table date remains as 2019.
I'd have to look closer to verify if this current report is grounded on such a mistaken apprehension of legislation, but the similarity in the assertions rings a bell....
EDIT: Lots of good content in that article providing a jumping off point for further research.
You do that.
A read through their content shows the contract and the date alright.
My question at this juncture would be: by WHAT instrument is the contract created, signed and executed? (What determines what the "action date" is?)
Yes, the info in the listing reads as reported, but what determines those dates? If it is executed via a piece of legislation, that would be an important piece of the puzzle.
The biological threat reduction contract >>> Ukraine (2018) looks pretty interesting, tho.
I thought it looks legit.
It provides some promising starting points, I would say.
Looking legit and being legit, however, are completely different things, right? How long did so much of our world look ..... legit?
Over the last 5 years, I've seen more than one occasion where something was presented as a massive smoking gun, only to turn out to be all smoke and no gun, once you dig and scratch the surface.
Thus, I tend to err on the side of scepticism when something that looks too good to be true (from a conspiracy theorist's perspective) comes out.
Until it is proven, I tend to think: it's not proven. A curious paradox, perhaps, because there are certainly numerous convictions and beliefs I certain hold to be true, even though they aren't 'proven'.
Guess I just think, if more of us were a lot more skeptical with info, we'd have a LOT more solid evidence and less noise to our collective voices.
But, I'm rambling on.
Good post.