The 'New Eugenics' Is Bringing Genocide To The World As The Globalists Create A 'Death Machine' Carrying Out Mass Murder And 'Human Experimentation' Tied Directly To US Intelligence

Biological Warfare: Deadlier alternative to nuclear warfare

By Alan Barton - All News PipeLine

As often happens while researching for a new column I stumble upon something that really peaks my interest.  Normally I will jot down a note on it and move on; sometimes I will pursue it a bit further and save some results and ideas; and then there are the times when the whole search regime gets hijacked which derails the original search targets.  This column is the result of the latter.   But to be fair, it started out as the first type, then shifted to the second for a slight moment then crashed head-on with the third type calling out for maximum attention.  Yes, I know, it shows a possible lack of determination and focus that the professional writer must be a master of in order to hit deadlines and assigned tasks, but I am not being paid with anything more than self satisfaction and a few slaps on the back, so please allow me my flexibility.

With that admission out of the way and without disclosing what the original research was about, I will confess that the article that drew my attention was a recent one by AFLDS more commonly known as Americas Frontline News which is associated with America’s Frontline Doctors.   In an article titled “Startup with significant ties to US intelligence and regulatory agencies to manufacture new mRNA vaccines” they discuss this new startup as “a new company called National Resilience is making it even easier to get new mRNA vaccines to market more quickly. Resilience bills itself as a biomanufacturing company.  If you have a new mRNA vaccine you want manufactured, Resilience will do it for you…. Resilience seemingly sprang out of nowhere.  Founded in November 2020 with $800 million in funding, the company just announced a deal with Moderna to produce its newest mRNA vaccine that combines the original with new mRNA focused on the latest Omicron variant.“  Consider that in a deeper perspective and ask how in the world a new startup can come up with that amount of money that quickly and with such powerful attributes to boot.  The headline they used is the answer to that question and is the hook that grabbed my attention with further searching for resources being the final clinch that set the hook.

That funding came from the “venture capital arm of the CIA that has been used since its creation in the early 2000s to found a number of companies, many of which act as Agency fronts” and if your thoughts capture the ideas of the Russian claims that the Ukrainian invasion was to shut down CIA bio-weapons labs then we are working from the same toolbox.  Their CEO is Chris Darby who “recently a member of the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (NSCAI), where members of the military, intelligence community and Silicon Valley’s top firms argued for the need to reduce the use of ‘legacy systems’ in favor of AI-focused alternatives as a national security imperative. Among those ‘legacy systems’ identified by the NSCAI were in-person doctor visits and even receiving medical care from a human doctor, as opposed to an AI ‘doctor’. The NSCAI also argued for the removal of ‘regulatory barriers’ that prevent these new technologies from replacing ‘legacy systems’.”  Please note the miniate (those items marked in red to highlight them) in the above quote; they are of great importance to understand.

“In addition to these intelligence-linked individuals, the rest of Resilience’s board includes the former CEO of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Susan Desmond-Hellmann, former FDA Commissioner and Pfizer board member Scott Gottlieb, two former executives at Johnson & Johnson, former president and CEO of Teva Pharmaceuticals North American branch, George Barrett, CalTech professor and board member of Alphabet (i.e. Google) and Illumina Frances Arnold, former executive at Genentech and Merck, Patrick Yang,and Resilience CEO Rahul Singhvi.”

Moshe Tookayer (the author of the Americas Frontline News article quoted above) mentions that virus production was originally one of the main claims on the Resilience website but has since been removed as a claimed production option.  They do claim that they offer “a broad mix of customized manufacturing and development capabilities” and the production of gene edited viruses for unspecified purposes.  Do you see any conflicting claims there, any at all?  Do you see any linkages in these associates and the provable aims of the massive death machine that has been uncovered regarding the New World Order and Georgia Guide Stones claims?

ANP FUNDRAISER: Due to the google ad services just dropping ANP articles, we're running an fundraising drive this very moment and into the near future. We also want to thank everybody who has donated to ANP over the years. 

With donations and ad revenue all that keep ANP online, if you're able, please consider donating to ANP to help keep us in this fight for America's future at this absolutely critical time in US history. During a time of systematic, 'big tech' censorship and widespread institutional corruption, truth-seeking media and alternative views are crucial, and EVERY little bit helps more than you could know!)

The Journal of the American Medical Association (also known as JAMA) was founded in 1883 as a platform for the publishing of original research, reviews, and editorials covering all aspects of biomedicine.  In it, the only sitting President of the USA to ever have an academic paper published in that journal was one advocating for the Marxist insanity of the misnamed Affordable Care Act which had a lot to do with the destruction of our then existing medical systems.  While mandating that everyone be covered and at the same time making it all but impossible for those most in need to afford any medical care or insurance, JAMA printed this propaganda without even any peer-review let alone blind peer-review.  This farce resulted in the loss of any respect by many physicians and researchers across the nation for JAMA.  At that time, Inside Higher Ed published a bootlicker of an article praising Barry for expanding health care to more than 20,000,000 people that did not actually obtain any and claimed that the “article was published as a "special communication"”.  In my view that means a propaganda piece under the cover of medicine and further articles leaves JAMA with soiled panties especially with their history of supporting, even mandating, the C19 vaccination for everybody.  I bring this up only to contrast with what follows, even though this is bad enough.

JAMA published a paper that the World Medical Association on November 27, 2013 called the Declaration of Helsinki which provided “Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects” and states very clearly that “Medical research is subject to ethical standards that promote and ensure respect for all human subjects and protect their health and rights.”  They back this up with this statement, “Physicians must consider the ethical, legal and regulatory norms and standards for research involving human subjects in their own countries as well as applicable international norms and standards. No national or international ethical, legal or regulatory requirement should reduce or eliminate any of the protections for research subjects set forth in this Declaration.”  Although this was intended primarily for doctors, they also claim that it must also be followed by researchers, medical scientists and “others who are involved in medical research involving human subjects to adopt these principles” as well.  They bring up as one of their general principles that “the primary purpose of medical research is to generate new knowledge; this goal can never take precedence over the rights and interests of individual research subjects.”  I wonder if the employees and principles of Resilience understand this mandate.  Perhaps, but I think not. Or at least they refuse to follow it.  In 2017 they issued a revised Declaration of Geneva that is “contemporary successor to the 2500-year-old Hippocratic Oath” and even with the reduced strictness they claim it is still ethical.  It is the adherence that is the failure, not the public visions.  “The most notable difference between the Declaration of Geneva and other key ethical documents, such as the WMA’s Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects2 and the Declaration of Taipei on Ethical Considerations Regarding Health Databases and Biobanks, was determined to be the lack of overt recognition of patient autonomy” and list many other differences as well.

The Declaration of Geneva is primarily the code for physicians while the Declaration of Helsinki is primarily geared towards medical researchers, but the overlap is considerable.  The one that makes the most importance today is the Nuremberg Code, and that is where we will go next.  Twenty five years ago the fiftieth anniversary of the Nuremberg Code was celebrated, and I will use the New England Journal of Medicine as an example of what was being said.  They note that the “Nuremberg Code is the most important document in the history of the ethics of medical research…. It served as a blueprint for today's principles that ensure the rights of subjects in medical research” and go on to examine some of the doctors testimony and other findings.  “For the United States and its chief prosecutor, Telford Taylor, the trial was a murder trial (and murder had been identified by the International Military Tribunal as a crime against humanity).”

They then point out that “this was “no mere murder trial,” because the defendants were physicians who had sworn to “do no harm” and to abide by the Hippocratic Oath. He told the judges that the people of the world needed to know “with conspicuous clarity” the ideas and motives that moved these doctors “to treat their fellow human beings as less than beasts,” and that “brought about such savageries” so that they could be “cut out and exposed before they become a spreading cancer in the breast of humanity.””   There is much good discussion of doctor’s testimonies and AMA input and so forth, but what caught my eye was under a sub-heading called Medical Ethics and Human Rights.

The judges “articulated a sophisticated set of 10 research principles centered not on the physician but on the research subject. These principles, which we know as the Nuremberg Code, included a new, comprehensive, and absolute requirement of informed consent (principle 1), and a new right of the subject to withdraw from participation in an experiment (principle 9). The judges adopted much of the language proposed by Alexander and Ivy but were more emphatic about the necessity and attributes of the subject's consent and explicitly added the subject's right to withdraw.”  Again, please note the miniate as it plays directly on today’s topic.  “(O)nce patients agree to be treated, they trust that the physician will act in their interest, or at least will do no harm…. Informed consent, the core of the Nuremberg Code, has rightly been viewed as the protection of subjects' human rights. The key contribution of Nuremberg was to merge Hippocratic ethics and the protection of human rights into a single code….. in Hippocratic ethics the subject relies on the physician to determine when it is in the subject's best interest to end his or her participation in an experiment. In the Nuremberg Code, the judges gave the subject as much authority as the physician-researcher to end the experiment before its conclusion.”

They then go on to note what had happened in the fifty years since its inception with this thought, “The World Medical Association, established during World War II, has been accused of purposely trying to undermine Nuremberg in order to distance physicians from Nazi medical crimes. The election of a former Nazi physician and SS member, Hans-Joachim Sewering, to the presidency of that organization in 1992 added credibility to that accusation. (Because of public criticism, Sewering later withdrew.) Nonetheless, the various versions of the Declaration of Helsinki promulgated by the World Medical Association since 1964, although attempting to have peer review supplement informed consent and even supplant it as their central principle in the context of “therapeutic research,” all implicitly acknowledge Nuremberg's authority. Both the Nuremberg Code and the Declaration of Helsinki served as models for the current U.S. federal research regulations, which require not only the informed consent of the research subject (with proxy consent sometimes acceptable, as for young children) but also prior peer review of research protocols by a committee”.

Let us now jump forward about another twenty four years when it was beginning to be noted that the C19 vaccination mandates might be a violation of the Nuremberg Code.  Various opinions have been written on that aspect including this one from a Dr. Julian Shearer with the British Medical Association, “It’s terrible bad faith, to be honest with you. Because the Nuremberg trials were investigations into the most brutal forms of medical violation of human beings in the name of some form of research. These research subjects were tested to death and destruction….Drawing a link between this final roll out of these vaccines and what the Nazi doctors were doing is morally grotesque.”  NO SIR!  I say it is IDENTICLE to the Nazi experiments when the actual effects of these murderous Bio-Weapons are taken into account and that indeed is “morally grotesque”.  One year after this article we hit upon the Seventy Fifth anniversary of the Nuremberg Code, which was on Friday, August the nineteenth, just a few days ago.

In 2005 UNESCO filed the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights where the Nuremberg Code was used as the basis for their declarations, and among the aims of this declaration they state “to promote respect for human dignity and protect human rights, by ensuring respect for the life of human beings, and fundamental freedoms, consistent with international human rights law”.  That is from the United Nations which is in major conflict with their own declarations.  Not to be left out another UN group known as the WHO generated their own International Ethical Guidelines for Health Related Research Involving Humans in 1982 and in the 2016 revision the first item is Guideline One where they state “Although scientific and social value are the fundamental justification for undertaking research, researchers, sponsors, research ethics committees and health authorities have a moral obligation to ensure that all research is carried out in ways that uphold human rights, and respect, protect, and are fair to study participants and the communities in which the research is conducted. Scientific and social value cannot legitimate subjecting study participants or host communities to mistreatment, or injustice.”

That is all very nice and looks great on paper, but they do not actually follow their flaunted Higher Morals, rather, they make them void with their actions.  One most obvious hypocrisy is associated with the US HHS in their Directives for Human Experimentation where they claim “The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury….No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur.”   Please let me quote (using Google Translate) from an article by a German by the name of Axel Krauss; “The Nuremberg Codex has just died after a long illness. The official cause of death was given as Covid, but experts claim the codex had actually been battling an incurable disease for three years before the Wuhan virus made its debut…. After years of systematic abuse and gang rape by the WHO, CDC and world governments, the Nuremberg Code finally succumbed to its wounds and was pronounced dead on June 30, 2022 when the Supreme Court refused to take action on vaccine regulations, who could have revived the code. The court contended that a living will (DNR – do not resuscitate) had been imposed on the late Nuremberg Code and that only palliative treatment would have been allowed.”  He then makes a great comment on how the white house celebrated the death of the Nuremberg Code; “Biden also spoke up on this important occasion. The White House declared June 30, the death anniversary of the Nuremberg Code, a new national holiday. It will be called "Vaccination Day USA". Each year, the anniversary of the Code's death is celebrated by introducing a new booster shot.”  While there is some humor in that comment, it is too close to the truth to be funny.

Children’s Health

This is the New Eugenics.

It is embraced by the most powerful global billionaire technocrats who gather at Davos: Big Tech, Big Pharma, the financial oligarchs, academics, government leaders & the military industrial complex. These megalomaniacs have paved the road to another Holocaust.”

They ended this very well done piece with this truth;

“This time, the threat of genocide is Global in scale.

This time instead of Zyklon B gas, the weapons of mass destruction are genetically engineered injectable bioweapons masquerading as vaccines.

This time, there will be no rescuers. Unless All of Us Resist, Never Again is Now.”

There have been many celebrations on the 75^th anniversary of the Nuremberg Code, and Amazon even lists a book on it, plus a variety of news shows covering just briefly this historic proclamation of Human Rights.  In the World Freedom Alliance story on that day gave a brief wrap-up that I would like to end this column with –

“Sadly, every one of the Nuremberg Code’s principles have been broken in the last almost three years of the Covid crisis. In particular, the highest basic principle of prior voluntary and fully informed consent.

Many governments have implemented vaccine mandates that forced people to be unwilling participants in what is still an experimental trial. People around the world have also received misleading information on the safety of these genetic injections, including the fallacy that they are ‘safe and effective’. 

It is clear that governments and all those promoting, distributing, and administering these experimental injections have forgotten about the Nuremberg Code and its essential role as a check to prevent abuse and violation of the most fundamental law to do no harm. 

The Nuremberg Code is not a relic of history, though those in power treat it as such. It is as relevant today as it was 75 years ago. On this most significant day, the World Council for Health remembers those victims of unethical human experimentation, and honours those who created the Nuremberg Code.

We call for a renewed commitment from all governments, medical professionals, pharmaceutical companies, and research institutions – all those involved in human experimentation – to respect and uphold the principles of the Nuremberg Code. They were created to protect and uplift humanity and we need them now more than ever.” 

May God Bless -

All donations are greatly appreciated and will absolutely be used to keep us in this fight for the future of America.

Thank you and God Bless. Susan and Stefan.

PLEASE HELP KEEP ANP ALIVE BY DONATING USING ONE OF THE FOLLOWING METHODS.

One time donations or monthly, via Paypal or Credit Card:



Or https://www.paypal.me/AllNewsPipeLine

OR Donate With SUBSCRIBESTAR



Donate Via Snail Mail

Checks or money orders made payable to Stefan Stanford or Susan Duclos can be sent to:

P.O. Box 575McHenry, MD. 21541