🚨Ultra-critical:
— Sense Receptor (@SenseReceptor) June 2, 2025
The National Security Council devised COVID policy *based on weapons of mass destruction* even though *there was no evidence of a bioweapons or chemical weapons attack.*
The NSC reacted as if we'd been attacked with ZERO EVIDENCE of any kind of attack.… pic.twitter.com/W14abLF0rZ
Ultra-critical:
The National Security Council devised COVID policy *based on weapons of mass destruction* even though *there was no evidence of a bioweapons or chemical weapons attack.* The NSC reacted as if we'd been attacked with ZERO EVIDENCE of any kind of attack. Retired pharma R&D executive Sasha Latypova () and Debbie Lerman, a 2023 Brownstone () Fellow and retired science writer, describe during a Flashlights podcast () posted to Rumble on June 2, 2025 how the National Security Council—a key U.S. government body that advises the President on matters of national security, foreign policy, and military strategy and consists of members like the Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense—was behind COVID policy in the U.S.—**NOT FAUCI or anyone else at HHS.** Critically, Lerman and Latypova describe the ultra-bizarre nature of the NSC's response: "Why is the policy for COVID-19 or the novel coronavirus, which came from bats and pangolins and raccoon dogs, why does that require policy based on weapons of mass destruction?" Lerman asks rhetorically. "The nature of the response was, from the start, as if there was a bioweapons or chemical weapons attack," Latypova says. "Now, whether there was one or wasn't one remains to be investigated. However, we know for sure as of January or early February, there was no evidence that there was one, of any kind. We had more problems with traffic accidents and smoking...." PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT Lerman: "This is the first thing when I looked at this document. So I was going through and reading all the government documents from the beginning of time, actually maybe from the beginning of the 20th, and 21st century. So like starting in 2000, for pandemics. I was just reading all the documents and I, I found this one and I saw this chart. And as you can see, there's two things that are not green and blue. So, so in all the other ones everything is green and blue, which is the, it refers to FEMA, it refers to HHS. "But all of a sudden you have this new thing here which is National Security Council. And that's the policy. So the policy of the task force. And the task force as we just read is in charge of policy. Right? The White House Task Force, which is housed in OVP office of the Vice President. It's headed by Deborah Birx, or coordinated by Deborah Birx. And it says three things. It says WMD, weapons of mass destruction. Why is the policy for COVID-19 or the novel coronavirus, which came from bats and pangolins and raccoon dogs, why does that require policy based on weapons of mass destruction? "That floored me when I just. The WMD, I just, I kind of, you know, that was a long time ago when people weren't talking about the fact that the policy was a military intelligence, you know, biodefense policy. So weapons of mass destruction, BATS is a, is, the travel security. I forget what BAT. It's something about travel security and then resilience is resilience. We just talked about it. So this whole policy block is about military intelligence response to a supposedly naturally occurring virus to which we have plenty of public health plans that can help us deal with a naturally occurring virus in a very normal and non hysterical, way. Latypova: "This, speaks to the response, as, you know, Deb initially started characterizing this. And I. I totally agree with. So the response itself tells us about the nature of the thing that was being responded to. And the response is to the CBRN attacks. CBRN is chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons of mass destruction. And so, of course, no surprise, we have this, WMD sub box there. "And so the nature of the response was from the start, as if there was a bioweapons or chemical weapons attack. Now, whether there was one or wasn't one remains to be, you know, investigated. However, we know for sure as of January or early February, there was no evidence that there was one, any kind. You know, we had more problems with traffic accidents and smoking, related deaths and, you know, other. Many, many, many other issues. And this was probably, you know, item one, number one million and one on the list of things to worry about...Yet our government creates this massive, massive issue out of nothing. Responding as if we were nuked." https://rumble.com/embed/v6s0hfl/?pub=4
