Classification, Location and Security of Bio-Safety Labs (BSL’s) – Wuhan was a BSL 4 - lots of those in eastern US in a city near you!
Here’s a couple of conspiracy hypotheses to get us going.
1. No deadly viral pathogen has emerged without human help in the last 100 years.
2. BSL labs around the world have been working on gain of function research for years.
3. BSL researchers freely exchange research findings and results globally.
4. The French government paid for the upgrade of the WIV lab to BSL-4 with the involvement of destined to become Moderna CEO, Bancel – who patented the spike protein in 2019.
Enquiring minds want to know how many high risk labs there are, why there have to be so many and be sited near major population centres, how they are certified and monitored and if there are global standards.
I haven’t yet tracked down any statements from the UN high commissioner for disarmament, Izumi Nakamitsu, (who recently stated that the UN was not aware of any biological weapons programmes in Ukraine).
The sort of stuff you would think would be the first thing a World Health Organization might be concerned with – sort of like UN Weapons Inspectors during the lead up to the Iraq war. After all, the deaths from C19 disease have been reported globally at over 6.7 million from a BSL-4 facility.
You can get some idea of the global “woke” tilt towards preparedness, rather than prevention, in the language used here:
No mention of shutting down BSL-4’s or inspecting them, developing consistent standards or such stuff and nonsense. The research must continue and we must be ready to inject ourselves with whatever toxin is developed as per IHR and pandemic treat instructions dreamt up by quacks and climate cultists.
Let’s start with the different BSL ratings. From here:
“At the lowest level of the biosafety classification, level 1 is basically the least dangerous. Lab personnel are handling specimens with little risk of infecting healthy human beings. One example of a microbe with a level 1 rating (BSL-1) is E. coli.”
“Biosafety level 2 (BSL-2) describes laboratories that work with pathogenic or infectious organisms that pose a moderate health hazard. Some examples of BSL-2 agents are the HIV virus and Staphylococcus aureus (staph infections).”
“Laboratories that operate with a BSL-3 classification often handle organisms that can be fatal if inhaled. Some BSL-3 microbes include yellow fever, West Nile virus, and tuberculosis-causing bacteria.”
One might assume that the labs used for C19 clinical trials are at least up to BSL-3 standard, since they were dealing with the deadly spike protein. (We have only seen Brook Jackson’s testimony on the chaotic and sloppy labs used in one leg of the Phase 3 clinical trial. Lord knows what the standards were in Phases 1 and 2).
“Biosafety level 4 (BSL-4) labs are uncommon. While they’re rare, that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. BSL-4 is the very highest level of biological safety a facility can attain, and consequently, they handle the most exotic and deadly microbes.”
I guess 60 counts as “uncommon” - see below.
Hmm. Maybe the clinical trials should have been conducted in BSL-4 settings. As it is, participants were released into the general population over months – meaning that immune forcing of new variants was not even considered.
Right, so how many BSL-4’s are there?
From a Government of Canada website here
We can get to this:
Which has these 5 key messages.
“Key message 1: BSL4 labs are booming Today, there are nearly 60 maximum containment facilities that are planned, under construction, or in operation around the world.”
“Key message 2: More public health than biodefence 60 percent (36/59) of global BSL4 labs are government-run public health institutions.”
That fills you full of confidence right? Government run! Let the swamp begin!
“Key message 3: More small labs than large labs BSL4 labs range in size from 28 m2 to 4084 m2 . Of the 44 labs where BSL4 lab size data is available, half (22/44) are under 200 m2 . One quarter (11/44) of the labs are in the 200-1000 m2 range, and a quarter (11/44) of the labs are above 1000 m2 .”
“Key message 4: Sound biosafety and biosecurity practices exist but are not widely adopted. Only one-quarter of countries with BSL4 labs score well on best practice indicators for biosafety and biosecurity. Moreover, few have dual-use policies, and none have yet signed up to a new international biorisk management standard.”
Not widely adopted? New international biorisk standard? Must be part of the revisions to the IHR,
From a sample of 22 countries (presumably the developed country ones) “Only one-quarter of countries with maximum containment facilities score highly on indicators of biosafety and biosecurity preparedness.”
Gee, I wouldn’t want to live next door to one of those “maximum containment facilities”.
“Key message 5: Risk assessments for dual-use are lacking Only three out of the 23 countries have national policies on dual-use biological research and development activities with significant potential to be repurposed by state or non-state actors to cause harm.”
Ok so that’s not good.
So where are these potentially extinction level event facilities located?
Hard for me to find up to date data, but there is this from over 15 years ago.
“According to the United State Government Accountability Office (GAO) report published on October 4, 2007, a total of 1356 CDC/USDA registered BSL-3 facilities were identified throughout the United States (GAO-08-108T ). This represents a very conservative estimate of the number of facilities in the US in 2007. Approximately 36% of these laboratories are located in academia. Only 15 BSL-4 facilities were identified at the time, including 9 at federal labs.”
I don’t think there have been many shutdowns of BSL-4 labs anywhere in the world.
This means that tens of millions of people are living within a mile or two of BSL-4 facilities that have the same or lower containment standards as the BSL-4 facilities in the WIV.
The locations of 52 BSL-4 labs is listed on that 2010 website compares to the 59 in Key Message 2 above from May 2021.
Four BSL-4 labs in Australia, just one in Canada and Russia, one in Minsk, four in Germany, 3 in India, none in Ukraine!! The UK has 6 and the US … drum roll… 15. Multiple labs I single sites like Fort Detrick.
Let’s not forget these:
Which are a clear and present danger to Russia with the capacity to kill many more Russians than nuclear warheads over Russia’s vast land mass. I doubt any airborne pathogens would be accidentally released when the wind was blowing towards Europe and away from Russia. Who knows, maybe this is Zelensky’s leverage over the West!
So let’s turn to the US.
“The National Biocontainment Laboratories (NBLs) and Regional Biocontainment Laboratories (RBLs) provide BSL4/3/2 and BSL3/2 biocontainment facilities, respectively, for research on biodefense and emerging infectious disease agents.
Investigators in academia, not-for-profit organizations, industry, and government studying biodefense and emerging infectious diseases may request the use of biocontainment laboratories. “
So, just ask and you shall receive - if you can produce a sort of academic passport?
Here’s a map. Looks like its an entirely central to east coast “thing”.
And a list with links to each.
Regional Biocontainment Laboratories
Please upgrade to paid, or donate a coffee (I drink a lot of coffee) - “God Bless You!” if you can’t or don’t want to contribute. Coffee donations here: https://ko-fi.com/peterhalligan - Buying just one Ko-Fi a week for $3 is 50 bucks more than an annual $100 subscription!