I hugely appreciate your insightful and informed in depth analysis of this need and your timely bringing this to our attention. The August 2022 date is of definite concern, IMO. I suspect that with our current political cabal, a strong and principled effort by the next review committee will take some heavy lifting.
I hugely appreciate your insightful and informed in depth analysis of this need and your timely bringing this to our attention. The August 2022 date is of definite concern, IMO. I suspect that with our current political cabal, a strong and principled effort by the next review committee will take some heavy lifting.
‘I believe that all of us have a role to ensure the safety of the world in regards to biological weapons research.’
I agree. The first question is how to get, at least the thinking public, to recognize the topic and the need. You’re on the money that the Covid pandemic is a stark example of why there is a need. Your suggestions of avenues to pursue are on the money. Framing the issues to help the public recognize their need to get involved followed by the details of the issues involved should help.
“Changes must be made to Wikipedia” While I can’t speak for others, suspect there are many who also rarely look to Wikipedia as a knowledgeable and honest source of information. At this point (in addition to your efforts) I am beginning to look to the Epoch Times articles as a start point. Then I go other places for additional insights. My point is the engaged public needs someplace better than Wikipedia to learn the truths of the matters asserted.
“ The propaganda and censorship surrounding the BWC must be stopped.” “Transparency is key to good governance” I fully agree, but as a former government employee (among other things) I appreciate how hard they and their compliant sources work to keep anything vaguely questionable well camouflaged at least or better yet hidden. This would take a dedicated effort in itself.
“Pressure and legislation to stop Google and other search engines from removing content that the “deep state” or three letter agencies don’t like must be applied.” I agree that something should be done to keep relevant information available! I am concerned that such an effort could lead to squelching publication at all or in the alternative charging sources themselves to time limit availability. Perhaps an alternative would be independent sources timely archiving materials by topic.
“The BWC has neither penalties for non-compliance nor mechanisms for inspection and verification of compliance. This should be immediately addressed at the next review committee.” There should be an adequately budgeted standing committee that systematically inspects signer’s facilities for biological weapons development and stockpiling. Agree. Now how to assure the next review committee has assured support and to pursue these needed efforts.
I hugely appreciate your insightful and informed in depth analysis of this need and your timely bringing this to our attention. The August 2022 date is of definite concern, IMO. I suspect that with our current political cabal, a strong and principled effort by the next review committee will take some heavy lifting.
‘I believe that all of us have a role to ensure the safety of the world in regards to biological weapons research.’
I agree. The first question is how to get, at least the thinking public, to recognize the topic and the need. You’re on the money that the Covid pandemic is a stark example of why there is a need. Your suggestions of avenues to pursue are on the money. Framing the issues to help the public recognize their need to get involved followed by the details of the issues involved should help.
“Changes must be made to Wikipedia” While I can’t speak for others, suspect there are many who also rarely look to Wikipedia as a knowledgeable and honest source of information. At this point (in addition to your efforts) I am beginning to look to the Epoch Times articles as a start point. Then I go other places for additional insights. My point is the engaged public needs someplace better than Wikipedia to learn the truths of the matters asserted.
“ The propaganda and censorship surrounding the BWC must be stopped.” “Transparency is key to good governance” I fully agree, but as a former government employee (among other things) I appreciate how hard they and their compliant sources work to keep anything vaguely questionable well camouflaged at least or better yet hidden. This would take a dedicated effort in itself.
“Pressure and legislation to stop Google and other search engines from removing content that the “deep state” or three letter agencies don’t like must be applied.” I agree that something should be done to keep relevant information available! I am concerned that such an effort could lead to squelching publication at all or in the alternative charging sources themselves to time limit availability. Perhaps an alternative would be independent sources timely archiving materials by topic.
“The BWC has neither penalties for non-compliance nor mechanisms for inspection and verification of compliance. This should be immediately addressed at the next review committee.” There should be an adequately budgeted standing committee that systematically inspects signer’s facilities for biological weapons development and stockpiling. Agree. Now how to assure the next review committee has assured support and to pursue these needed efforts.