Why RFK Jr.’s New Book Is Required Reading for those Seeking the Truth about State-Funded Bioweapons

By Adam Garrie, The Kennedy Beacon

In 2005, New Orleans was devastated by Hurricane Katrina, the worst hurricane to hit the continental US in nearly a century. At the time, the Bush administration faced scrutiny for its response, which many Americans found inadequate, callous and racist. This scrutiny did not take decades; it began as New Orleans residents’ lives were still submerged beneath the flood waters. When government departments have a duty to care for Americans during times of natural disasters, it is not only ethical, but responsible to scrutinize their response. 

In 2020, the world was struck by a devastating pandemic, yet no public official has been held accountable, let alone liable for the devastating effects of the government’s actions relating to the phenomenon of Covid-19. Attorney, activist and independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is changing that.

In his new book, The Wuhan Cover-Up: And the Terrifying Bioweapons Arms Race, Kennedy outlines a wide reaching would-be indictment of the individuals, government departments, “private” companies and academic institutions that ought to face public scrutiny and legal accountability for what can only be described as a crime against the American people and indeed the people of the entire world.

The Wuhan Cover-Up will be published by Skyhorse Publishing on December 5. Its president and publisher, Tony Lyons, also serves as co-chair of American Values 2024, a super PAC supporting Kennedy. American Values publishes The Kennedy Beacon.

The book copiously details the origin of modern biological warfare, the rise of a process known as ‘gain of function research’ and the sequential details of how deeply sinister steps taken by those supposedly in charge of protecting public health led to the viral outbreak that changed the world for the worse. 

There are three primary conclusions the reader is left with upon reading The Wuhan Cover-Up. The first is that the nation’s public health apparatus does not behave like the military-industrial complex, but instead, the nation’s public health apparatus is an implicit part of the military-industrial complex. 

The second alarming conclusion one reaches is that both historically and presently, the bioweapons of the military-industrial complex are not merely designed to harm the citizens of adversarial nations, something which in and of itself violates international law. Instead, top leaders of intelligence agencies and public health regulators have no scruples when it comes to compromising the health of the American people they are supposedly charged with protecting from harm. The book is filled with evidence backing these claims, some of which dates back to the post-Second World War period, while other evidence cites events occurring as recently as last year.  

The third conclusion one reaches involves the desire to explore questions regarding public apathy to the frightening reality that those meant to protect us are actively causing us harm. Although the book itself focuses on the historical events and scientific developments which lead to the Covid-19 outbreak, it seems impossible for an open-minded reader to come away from a first reading without asking questions that are both philosophical and psychological in origin and scope.  

Reasonable adults are necessarily aware that seemingly ordinary people are capable of criminal acts that can only be described as evil. But even such reasonable men and women still become shocked when a police officer murders an innocent person or a teacher sexually assaults a child. People rightly view such crimes as particularly sinister because they involve a breach of public trust which makes such crimes easier to perpetrate from the perspective of the criminals who commit them. Kennedy’s book allows one to independently reach a conclusion that it would not be unreasonable to view a number of our public health officials, members of the intelligence community and members of the political class as criminals of the same variety. 

At a rational level, people understand that the majority of teachers want to educate children and that the majority of police officers join a local force because they wish to dedicate their professional lives to protecting the public. Yet real events have conditioned the public to be prepared for the worst of acts to be promulgated by individuals from which we would normally expect the best. 

When the balance between rational fears and the rational understanding that most individuals neither want to nor are capable of committing devastating crimes becomes skewed, paranoia develops.

The book explains that the biosecurity apparatus of the military-industrial complex exploited public and political paranoia to expand the research and development of horrific bioweapons under the guise of public health. The weight of public and political paranoia was predictably invoked by the biosecurity state both during the Cold War and even more devastatingly after 9/11, in order to seek and almost always attain further funds and approval for increasingly risky experiments involving the development of harmful pathogens. 

Kennedy further explains that after rare instances when political and regulatory forces pushed back against the biosecurity apparatus, this apparatus remained undeterred in its mission to toy with nature. They did so by changing the names of scientific processes and altering the supposed purpose of these experiments. When the production of bioweapons became restricted, the biosecurity apparatus simply claimed that these weapons had a “dual use.” This meant that the development of bioweapons could aid the production of future vaccines, a justification that the book exposes as a canard in painstaking detail. 

When the term “dual use” became unpalatable, the same process was simply renamed “gain-of-function.” This vague term means that pathogens are engineered to gain lethality, a process that US public health officials, including Dr. Anthony Fauci were all too happy to outsource to biolabs overseas, including the infamous Wuhan lab from which the virus causing Covid-19 almost certainly derived. 

This leads back to the burning philosophical question hanging over the reader: is it rational or paranoid to seek scrutiny of public officials and their collaborators in the private sector who unambiguously engage in the promulgation of bioweapons? Let us first turn to democracy to investigate this answer. 

According to Gallup polls cited by NBC news, in the immediate aftermath of the assassination of President Kennedy, 52% of Americans disbelieved the official theory that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone on that fateful day in Dallas. This figure rose to 81% according to a Gallup poll from 1976, a figure that remained largely consistent going into the early 21st century. 

A 2016 survey from Chapman University found that a majority of Americans believe that the government has concealed information relating to 9/11. A Pew Research poll found that between 2019 and 2023, trust in the scientific community declined 14%. This decline in trust for scientists is shared by both Democrats and Republicans. 

When it comes to the major crises that continue to haunt Americans, belief in authority figures and their official explanations of events indicates a major trust deficit between citizens and social elites. 

If the people who govern the United States want to be trusted rather than feared, they ought to subject the individuals and institutions named in The Wuhan Cover-Up to full public scrutiny and in many cases, to judicial scrutiny. But while the mass media ought to advocate on behalf of people seeking truth and demanding justice, the opposite is the case. 

Kennedy’s book describes how the same bioweapons apparatus that captured public health regulators and elected officials, also captured legacy media outlets and social media companies, both through willful collaboration and through coercion. The coercion was ruled unconstitutional by District Judge Terry A. Doughty earlier this year. Appeals from the Biden administration will see the matter of Missouri v. Biden go to the Supreme Court in the coming months. Notably, the book explains how Kennedy became attached as a plaintiff in the lawsuit which aims to safeguard freedom of speech and expression on major social media platforms. 

While social media has the power to expose corruption and malfeasance from the bottom up, the phenomenon of the media siding with secrecy over the free flow of truthful information is not new. Almost twenty years ago, a New York Times editorial proclaimed, “In the three years since 9/11, we've begun to understand that it's possible to know what happened without knowing what happened.” Is it any wonder that such Orwellian language from America’s supposedly most prestigious newspaper foretold an era when the public has lost trust in almost every major public institution? 

The answer therefore to the philosophical question posed by The Wuhan Cover-Up is that whether or not one agrees with the scope of the scientific and political conclusions self-evidently drawn by Kennedy, it is both reasonable and responsible to call for open and transparent scrutiny into the decades of bioweapon development that the taxpayer has unwittingly funded. 

Trust cannot be won by telling the public that they have no right to the truth. Public health cannot be secured when public health regulators operate covert international operations that can and by all accounts have led to innocent civilians being injured or killed. Medical safety cannot be assured when vaccine research and bioweapon production is bound up under the guise of “dual use” or “gain of function research”—the historically favored government euphemisms for lab engineered bioweapons.

Kennedy’s book makes it clear that without scrutiny of the forces behind the biosecurity apparatus, there can be no justice for those harmed by the actions of the biosecurity apparatus and without justice there can be no meaningful reform.   

The Wuhan Cover-Up is not easy reading for those who wish to believe that people charged with an ethical duty of care to the public are living up to the standards implicit in that duty. Inversely, it is not an easy read for those looking for simplistic explanations aimed at validating unfocused paranoia. Instead, the book is a necessary read for those seeking to learn the history of an industry shrouded in secrecy, but whose actions have negative effects on the world that are increasingly difficult for anyone to deny.