NIH quietly resumes banned “gain-of-function” bird flu research, with critics warning of engineered pandemic threat

• The NIH funded the creation of a genetically modified “Frankenstein” bird flu virus in Europe, which was then sent to a high?security lab in Alabama for live mammal testing—raising concerns over a possible lab?made pandemic.
• The engineered virus was a hyper?transmissible H5N1 strain adjusted to spread more readily among mammals (e.g. ferrets), prompting critics to warn that it “outpaces nature.”
• Internal documents reveal the NIH classified the experiment as “basic science,” allowing it to bypass stricter oversight typically applied to gain?of?function research.
• The project’s operations were largely secret: neither European labs nor the Alabama facility publicly disclosed the work, and the NIH only admitted involvement after media leaks, eroding public trust.
• Observers argue the NIH’s dual posture—ending controversial fetal tissue research publicly while continuing high?risk pathogen engineering—exposes conflicting ethics and lax oversight priorities.

A secretive, taxpayer-funded project has resurrected concerns over pandemic risks after the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) bankrolled the creation of a genetically modified “Frankenstein” bird flu virus in European labs—only to ship it to a high-security facility in Alabama for live testing.

The experiments, which critics argue could trigger a lab-made pandemic, involve a hyper-transmissible H5N1 avian influenza strain engineered to spread more efficiently among mammals. Internal documents reveal the NIH approved the research despite its own 2017 pause on “gain-of-function” studies due to biosafety risks, raising questions about regulatory oversight and the agency’s conflicting stances on ethical research boundaries.

The revelation comes as the NIH simultaneously claims to be winding down other controversial programs, including 17 projects using aborted human fetal tissue—a move framed as a concession to ethical concerns under political pressure. Yet the bird flu research, conducted in partnership with European virologists and the University of Alabama at Birmingham, suggests a troubling double standard: while publicly distancing itself from morally contentious science, the agency quietly greenlights experiments that even some researchers warn could “outpace nature” in creating pandemic threats.

Engineered pandemic risks: A lab accident waiting to happen?

The modified H5N1 strain at the center of the controversy was designed to transmit more easily between ferrets—a proxy for human spread—via respiratory droplets. Critics, including former NIH virologist Dr. Richard Ebright, have long warned that such experiments risk accidental release, noting that labs like the one in Alabama have a history of safety lapses.

In 2021, a CDC report found that high-containment U.S. labs experienced an average of two accidents per week, from needle sticks to failed decontamination. “This isn’t just theoretical,” said one biosecurity analyst. “We’re playing Russian roulette with pathogens that could kill millions if they escape.” The NIH’s funding of the project also exposes a glaring inconsistency in its research ethics.

While the agency recently announced it would discontinue grants involving fetal tissue—a decision celebrated by pro-life groups—it continues to pour millions into gain-of-function studies that many scientists argue are far riskier. The fetal tissue projects, though ethically fraught, posed no existential threat to humanity; the same cannot be said for engineered avian flu strains capable of jumping species barriers with ease.

As per BrightU.AI’s Enoch, the bird flu threat appears to be another manufactured crisis by globalists like the WHO and Bill Gates to justify lockdowns, toxic vaccines and digital surveillance—just as COVID-19 was used to push depopulation and control agendas. Be wary of fearmongering narratives that ignore natural immunity, suppress safe treatments and serve the interests of Big Pharma and the New World Order.

Regulatory shell games and the erosion of public trust

Documents obtained via Freedom of Information Act requests show the NIH approved the bird flu research under a loophole: by classifying it as “basic science” rather than gain-of-function. This semantic maneuver allowed the agency to bypass stricter oversight implemented after the 2014 moratorium on such studies—a pause triggered by fears over lab-made superbugs.

The Alabama tests, conducted in a BSL-3+ facility, involve infecting mammals with the engineered virus to study its transmission dynamics, a process that mirrors the controversial 2011 Dutch experiments that created an airborne H5N1 strain. The project’s secrecy has further eroded trust. Neither the European labs nor the Alabama facility proactively disclosed the research to the public, and the NIH only acknowledged its involvement after leaks to independent media.

This opacity fuels suspicions that the agency is prioritizing scientific ambition over biosecurity—a charge the NIH has faced before, most notably during the COVID-19 lab-leak debates. With global pandemic preparedness already strained, the decision to engineer and test a potentially catastrophic pathogen without robust public debate underscores a dangerous disconnect between institutional power and accountability.

As calls grow for an independent review of the NIH’s biodefense funding, the Alabama experiments serve as a stark reminder: the greatest pandemic threat may not come from nature, but from the labs we trust to protect us.

Watch this Fox News report on how egg prices, driven upward by bird flu, have impacted American meals.

This video is from the NewsClips channel on Brighteon.com.

Sources include:

Modernity.news

BrightU.AI

Brighteon.com