Imagine a world where secret laboratories exist, hidden away, conducting experiments that sound like they’re straight out of a horror movie. Now, what if I told you that these labs are real and they’re scattered across the globe, including Africa? You might think it’s just a wild conspiracy, but hold on because what we discovered will leave you speechless. In this video, we’re diving deep into the claims of US secret bioweapons in Africa. It’s a topic that’s been brushed off as mere rumors but we’ve got information that could change your perspective forever.

From hidden facilities to the dark experiments they’re rumored to conduct, we’re uncovering it all. By the end of this video, you’ll see exclusive insights, hear from experts who dare to speak out, and witness evidence that challenges everything you’ve been told. So, stick around because what you’re about to see will redefine the boundaries between fiction and reality.

The United States is a global powerhouse with a network of over 400 biological laboratories worldwide, including over 30 in Africa alone. You might be wondering why a country like the US needs such a vast network of labs far beyond its borders. Think about it – in our backyards, we’re used to labs conducting research for the betterment of humanity, but the story changes when these labs are thousands of miles away, in different countries, operating under a veil of secrecy. It raises a big question mark.

We all remember the COVID-19 pandemic and have heard of diseases like HIV. There’s a chilling theory that these could be the results of experiments from such biolabs. Initially, the US set up these labs in Africa in the late 1990s, supposedly to fight HIV and malaria, but fast forward to today and their numbers have exploded to over 400. Officially, the US says these labs are researching global biological threats and finding solutions, but could there be more to this story?

This brings us to a startling claim by the Russian Defense Ministry during the buildup to the Russia-Ukraine war. They accused the US of using Ukrainian labs to develop biological weapons, allegedly planning to spread them using migratory birds and bats. Sounds like something out of a sci-fi novel, right? The US initially called these claims misinformation, but here’s where it gets fascinating.

Documents surfaced, thanks to Robert Kennedy Jr., an American politician, that shed light on these US-funded labs in Ukraine. They were not just any labs; they were allegedly creating components for biological weapons and testing them on the local population. In 2023, Kennedy Jr. himself confirmed this shocking revelation. The US, after a period of denial, had to come clean about running these biolabs in Ukraine.

Fast forward to October 2023, the plot thickens as the Russian Defense Ministry raises the alarm again. This time, they’re pointing fingers at the US for shifting its dual-use biological research to Africa. ‘Dual-use,’ a term that suggests these labs could be used for both peaceful research and developing bioweapons. And where is this happening? In African nations far from the prying eyes of the international community. The US keeps denying these allegations, but we can’t help but wonder: if Russia was right about the Ukrainian labs, could they be on the mark again?

This is where Dr. Ntsikelelo Benjamin, a senior lecturer at Nelson Mandela University, comes into the picture. He’s got an interesting take on this whole situation. Dr. Benjamin suggests that the US might be shifting its biological research to Africa not just for scientific purposes but to increase its geopolitical influence. Remember, Africa is a treasure trove of resources and a key player in global politics.

Dr. Benjamin points out something even more intriguing: with US military bases in Africa, these biolabs could be part of a larger military infrastructure. This insight leads us to a pressing question: should there be a push to dismantle foreign military bases in Africa, especially if they’re intertwined with secretive biolabs?

Let’s pivot and look at this from another angle. The recent report by Russia about US labs in Africa sheds light on a deeply troubling aspect – the alleged ease of conducting experiments on the local African population. It’s a grim suggestion that these experiments are not only more cost-effective in Africa but also carry fewer risks of damaging the US reputation. The facade is that these labs are set up to combat deadly diseases, but what if the reality is far more sinister?

Imagine the catastrophic consequences if deadly diseases, whether viruses or pathogens, were to escape from these labs. Africa, a region already battling healthcare challenges, might not have the resources to contain such outbreaks.

The story takes another turn with recent revelations exposing a covert American laboratory, allegedly backed financially by the George Soros and Bill and Melinda Gates foundations. Despite US assurances denying bioweapon experiments in their labs, reports suggesting otherwise have surfaced. These facilities, wrapped in high security and secrecy, become even more suspicious during disease outbreaks, making it challenging to trace the origins of these epidemics.

Let’s focus on the Ebola virus outbreak, which adds another layer to this complex narrative. The crisis saw an influx of specialists, predominantly Europeans and Americans. Over 250,000 blood samples were collected from African patients without their consent, an ethically dubious practice. These samples weren’t just kept in Africa; they were transported to Europe and the US for research. This move provided European and American pharmaceutical companies with unauthorized genetic data from African populations, a breach of ethics on multiple levels.

The financial aspect – it saved these companies billions in vaccine development costs, but the ethical cost? Immeasurable. An alarming case emerged with a Guinean woman, identified only by the code C15. Her blood, containing the Ebola virus, is now commercially available on the website of the European Virus Archive, housed at Germany’s Bernhard Nocht Institute for Tropical Medicine. The price tag? A staggering €3,637, making it 170 times more valuable than gold.

This is more than just a breach of ethics; it’s a glaring example of how bio-research in Africa can be not only cost-effective but also highly lucrative for Western interests. What we’re seeing here is a troubling scenario where the West seems willing to commodify anything, even the genetic material of individuals who never consented to their participation. This raises many ethical questions. What rights do these individuals have, and what does it say about the value placed on African lives and their genetic material?

Shifting our focus to a new aspect of this complex saga, we encounter yet another layer of secrecy and controversy. The exact number of blood samples collected in Africa by American and European medics remains a closely guarded secret, justified under the banner of national security. This response naturally leads us to question how withholding such information serves national security interests.

Adding to the puzzle, African scientists from Sierra Leon, Liberia, and Guinea find themselves barred from accessing these samples for their research. This exclusion is particularly troubling, considering the samples are from their fellow citizens. If US bio-research initiatives are genuinely altruistic, aimed at benefiting Africa and the global community, why deny African scientists the opportunity to contribute and learn?

Recent reports have highlighted Uganda as a key interest point for the United States in its network of biolabs. These labs, including those within prisons, are said to be researching hazardous viral respiratory infections. Alarmingly, it’s reported that tuberculosis rates among Ugandan prisoners are three times higher than in the general population. While the official stance of these US labs is to prevent and counter biohazards, their direct subordination to the Pentagon raises red flags.

Activities like collecting materials and DNA from local populations don’t align with the stated mission of protecting these communities. Moreover, the United States’ intention to expand its network of biological laboratories across Africa adds another layer of concern. This expansion could introduce new biothreats to a continent grappling with various health challenges. The strategic allure of Africa, with its vulnerable populations, seems to be a significant factor in these plans.

Organizations like the World Health Organization, which might typically hold such operations accountable, face a conflict of interest. A significant portion of WHO’s funding comes from the United States, potentially impacting its ability to assess and respond to these issues objectively.

To understand the roots of these contemporary concerns, we need to look back to the spring of 1943. That’s when the US officially initiated its biological weapons program as directed by President Franklin Roosevelt. This covert program amassed a significant arsenal of bioagents and weapons for over 27 years, including Bacillus anthracis and Francisella tularensis. The program focused on deterring and retaliating against bioweapon threats but not without ethical breaches, such as non-consensual testing on individuals.

Shifting to a historical perspective, let’s delve into the US involvement in biological warfare and its aftermath. In 1969, President Richard Nixon officially ended all offensive aspects of the US bioweapons program. By 1975, the United States had ratified key international treaties, including the 1925 Geneva Protocol and the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention, which expressly outlawed biological warfare. However, despite these public commitments, allegations persist that the US continued experiments in biolabs aimed at developing biological weapons.

This interest in biological warfare can be traced back to the end of World War I, with tests involving ricin, a toxin derived from the castor plant, in the early 1920s. Proposals for a US biological weapons program were considered by the Chemical Warfare Service but initially dismissed as unprofitable. World War II marked a turning point; initially, the US Army viewed biological weapons as impractical, a stance contrasting with nations like France, Japan, and the United Kingdom. However, heightened interest led to the creation of the War Bureau of Consultants in 1941, which, along with British influence, persuaded President Franklin Roosevelt to sanction the American biological weapons program in November 1942. The War Research Service was established to oversee this program.

The US Army Biological Warfare Laboratories began in 1943 at Fort Detrick in Maryland, initially involving subcontracted universities. The program quickly expanded under the Chemical Warfare Service control, establishing facilities in Indiana, Mississippi, and Utah. The public remained largely unaware of this covert biological weapons research until 1946, thanks to adequate security measures at Camp Detrick.

During the Cold War, from 1947 to 1969, the US’s biological warfare initiative underwent significant changes. Emerging from World War II, the program transitioned from factory-level operations to a more covert military-driven approach to research and production. This historical context raises questions about the extent of the US commitment to the treaties it ratified and the ongoing concerns about its biological research activities globally.

In 1950, the US solidified its primary bioweapons facility at Camp Detrick in Maryland under the US Army Chemical Corps’ Research and Engineering Division. While Camp Detrick led research and development, production and testing were conducted in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, and Utah. By 1954, Pine Bluff Arsenal was producing weapons-grade agents. During the Cold War, the US Army and Air Force expanded their biological warfare research, especially in the field of delivery systems. The US and Soviet Union amassed a significant quantity of biological weapons, posing a global threat.

Legal proceedings, such as the trial of John W. Powell for sedition related to the Korean War, revealed the US Army’s capability in offensive and defensive biological and chemical weapons. Notable expansion occurred during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, marked by Project 112 in 1961. Covert field testing included operations like Sea-Spray, which released bacteria in San Francisco in 1950.

Theodore Roseberry and Harvard biologist Matthew Meselson raised concerns about the security risks of biological weapons programs. The Vietnam War brought heightened public awareness and international criticism, particularly regarding the use of chemicals like Agent Orange. In response to growing negative perceptions and the potential of biological weapons as a form of asymmetric warfare, in 1972, President Nixon renounced the US biological warfare program, leading to the signing of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention.

But recent revelations about US-covered biolabs around the globe, combined with the US admission that it had a biolab in Ukraine, disprove Russia’s claim that the US never terminated its biological weapons development program. President Nixon terminated it, but it was only formal. The Pentagon continued to carry out the program with only one difference, which was to keep the program secret.

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the impact of viruses on global stability. Shifting focus to American facilities working on vaccines, however, transparency issues arise with the US maintaining secrecy, contrasting with more open operations in other countries. In Africa, the first US labs appeared in the late 90s, initially to combat AIDS and malaria. Over time their numbers surged, with concerns about their proliferation and correlations with epidemic outbreaks.

Africa’s network of medical research centers, many linked to US government structures, presents a complex picture. Uganda, in particular, has emerged as a key focus, with numerous labs, some situated within prisons, raising ethical concerns about the use of prisoners in potentially hazardous research. The Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) of the US operates labs in various countries, often in collaboration with private contractors beyond congressional scrutiny.

Despite the Biological Weapons Convention’s mandate for transparency, these activities remain shrouded in secrecy, raising questions about the true nature and intent of these labs. The web of US biological laboratories across the globe, particularly in Africa, remains shrouded in mystery and controversy. These facilities have sparked significant ethical, security, and geopolitical concerns. From historical roots in World War II to the present, allegations of covert operations, exploitation of vulnerable populations, and the potential for creating biothreats have raised alarms.

As we continue to peel back the layers of this complex narrative, one thing becomes clear: the need for transparency, ethical conduct, and international oversight in biological research is more crucial than ever. How should the international community address the ethical and security concerns surrounding these secretive biolabs? Drop your thoughts and opinions in the comments below; we’re eager to hear your perspective on this pressing issue.

Do not forget to like this video, share, and subscribe to The News Tourist channel for more insightful content. Turn on notifications too, so you get notified whenever we upload videos like this. Thanks for watching, and see you in our next video.