Fauci/Gates/Wuhan bio-weapons are bigger threat than nukes.

[Big Chudungus]

But as we see, there is basically zero regulation, and our Govt, and I'm assuming EU/NATO governments, are actively promoting random people to create bio-weapons in various problematic locations.

Someone tell why nukes are such a big stinking deal when guys like Bill Gates and Fauci are running around loose, to this day, still hard at work trying to make bio-weapons and clearly not really knowing WTF they are doing, but likely know enough, or can hire those that do know.

At least with nukes, even if a false flag, you will know it came from someone with the extensive industry required to obtain the "material". Plus nukes don't self replicate in the wild. If some group uses a nuke and you take out that group, at least their nuke attacks will stop. If someone uses a bio-weapon they will be saying "yeah, YOU say it was my fault, but at this point what does it matter, putting me in prison wont change anything. lol"

If there was a reason for a UN type group to have international authority and use of force, it would be to prevent the CREATION of bio-weapons, mostly due to the "can't put the genie back in the bottle" aspect of bio-weapons.

How about starting a Go Fund Me with the goal of funding rogue bio-weapons labs (pretty cheap compared to just about anything else, probably cheaper than opening a new restaurant in NYC) to spur legislation against such activity? Play it "straight" and imitate Fauci. Yeah, we are messing with germs to POSSIBLY make them more deadly to humans, but that isn't gain of function, we use a different term, and we are doing that because it might happen naturally so we want to study it. Sure it might leak out, and we have leaks all the time, but thats a risk we are willing to take, we are moving at the Speed Of Science.

I know without checking that Fauci and Gates are 110% against non-bio-weapons, AKA guns, and demand complete government control and regulation.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

...If there was a reason for a UN type group to have international authority and use of force, it would be to prevent the CREATION of bio-weapons, mostly due to the "can't put the genie back in the bottle" aspect of bio-weapons...

But... But... But... We have a treaty. C'mon, man...

Compliance and Enforcement in the Biological Weapons Regime

...The Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC) entered into force in 1975 and prohibits the development, production, acquisition, transfer, stockpiling and, indirectly, the use of biological and toxin weapons. The treaty is a product of its time, with early drafts conceived by the United Kingdom but negotiated primarily by the two Cold War superpowers. This triad - the Soviet Union/Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United Sates - continue their stewardship of the treaty by acting as the depository States...

As with 'verification', the term 'enforcement' does not feature in the BWC. The one place where it can be found, as a concept not a word, is in the 'prevent' obligation in article IV - a much more stringent criterion than 'prohibit'. Yet, this refers to domestic enforcement by each State Party applied against actors within its jurisdiction or control. Enforcement measures applied against a State Party are not covered. Logically, enforcement against a State Party could only follow an investigation through article VI, because only after such an investigation could the Security Council find a State Party to be in violation of the BWC. And only the Security Council has the authority, under the Charter of the United Nations, to enforce anything at all; but it is a tenuous chain of authority and far from automatic. Instead of enforcement, the BWC relies on action under article VII to limit the impact of a BWC violation by a State Party through humanitarian assistance to the State Party requesting it after a Security Council determination. Article VII was also intended to demonstrate solidarity among States Parties and to deter any State Party contemplating a breach of the treaty. These actions stop well short, however, of the 'harder' enforcement measures outlined in Dunworth's primer on compliance and enforcement in this series of papers...

Biological Weapons Convention Signatories and States-Parties

The Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) currently has 183 states-parties, including Palestine, and four signatories (Egypt, Haiti, Somalia, and Syria). Ten states have neither signed nor ratified the BWC (Chad, Comoros, Djibouti, Eritrea, Israel, Kiribati, Micronesia, Namibia, South Sudan, and Tuvalu). The BWC opened for signature on April 10, 1972, and entered into force on March 26, 1975. A country that did not ratify the BWC before it entered into force may accede to it at any time.

See? There is such a group and a treaty (which China has never signed, but appears to have given 'accession' on 11/15/84 as 'ratification' requires a treaty signature). Don't you feel safer now?

[Paul_R]

Bio-weapon/pandemic propaganda is used to terrorize people into accepting the real bio-weapons; vaccines.