Site has no Description

As the United States stood on the brink of World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt recognized the urgent need for innovative military strategies to effectively confront the impending global conflict. Observing the unfolding events in Europe, he realized that defeating the Axis powers would require pioneering approaches to warfare. Roosevelt turned to William J. Donovan, a trusted advisor and former informal emissary, to develop a visionary plan for a global intelligence collection agency. Donovan, a WWI veteran, drafted the “Establishment of Service of Strategic Information,” a detailed document outlining a groundbreaking framework for a centralized intelligence organization to coordinate the entire government and gather essential data for strategic planning. In his plan, Donovan emphasized that “strategy, without reliable information, is helpless. Likewise, information is useless unless intelligently directed toward strategic purposes.” Impressed by Donovan’s insight, President Roosevelt established the Coordinator of Information (COI)—the nation’s first national intelligence agency. This marked a pivotal moment in US history, as Roosevelt’s foresight and Donovan’s strategic acumen laid the groundwork for creating an entity that would revolutionize how the United States managed conflict during peacetime and war. Operating under the President’s Executive Office, the COI collected and analyzed information crucial to national security. Breaking Boundaries: The Transition from COI to OSS A year later, Donovan presented a transformative proposal to restructure the COI into an organization that included covert and clandestine operations in addition to intelligence gathering. He envisioned a new hybrid organization that would shift warfighting from traditional military tactics to unconventional approaches using sabotage, espionage, guerrilla warfare, and psychological operations. Believing in Donovan’s strategic expertise, President Roosevelt approved the proposal, thus creating the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) on June 13th, 1942. The OSS would operate under the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a committee of senior military leaders formed during World War II to advise the President and coordinate military efforts. Under Donovan’s leadership, the OSS bridged the realms of diplomacy, intelligence, and the military. He recruited technology, economics, psychology, and finance experts to provide specialized knowledge to military operations. Donovan firmly believed in a two-pronged strategy: physically attacking the enemy’s military forces and targeting their morale and spirit. The OSS quickly became a hotbed of innovation, employing diverse specialists, including intelligence analysts, linguists, and field operatives. Inspired by the British Special Operations Executive (SOE), Donovan developed a unique training methodology. He prioritized specialized training for recruits to operate behind enemy lines and carry out sabotage missions. They underwent rigorous training in organizing and supporting guerrilla and partisan resistance forces. At the core of the OSS were the Strategic Services Operations (SSO), consisting of six units, each with its specialized areas of expertise and responsibilities. Notably, units like the Special Operations (SO) and the Operational Group (OG) eventually led to the formation of the twelve-person Operational Detachment-Alpha, commonly known today as the Green Berets. From the Shadows to the Waterfront During Operation Torch, the Allied invasion of French North Africa, the OSS demonstrated its strategic prowess. OSS members infiltrated Vichy French Northwest African territory, gathering vital information about enemy forces and defenses, directly influencing the invasion’s planning. The OSS also established and maintained robust contacts with local resistance groups and the Free French forces, significantly undermining the Axis stronghold in the region. Further, through unconventional warfare, the OSS successfully disrupted enemy activities and diverted resources, hindering Axis forces from mounting an effective defense against the main invasion. However, Operation Torch also exposed some of the OSS’s shortcomings. They underestimated the resistance from the Vichy French forces, resulting in two days of intense, unexpected fighting. Additionally, they overestimated the disruptive potential of the French resistance against the Axis forces, leading to strategic missteps. Some intelligence provided by the OSS also proved to be incorrect or unreliable, causing further complications in the operation’s planning and execution. Despite these setbacks, the experiences from Operation Torch provided invaluable lessons for future operations, including Operation Jedburgh. During Operation Jedburgh, a covert operation involving clandestine activities, the OSS provided personnel, equipment, and training to three-man teams. These teams were airdropped into occupied Europe, primarily focusing on France, to disrupt German military operations, gather intelligence, and support the larger Allied campaign. Consisting of a commander, an executive officer, and a radio operator, they played a pivotal role in leading local resistance movements against the Germans and carrying out acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare. Notably, one team member always possessed fluency in the local language, ensuring effective communication and coordination with regional allies. In addition to providing personnel and training, the OSS handled logistics, the deployment of the teams, and the ongoing supply drops. Much like in Operation Torch, the effectiveness of the teams in Operation Jedburgh varied. They successfully disrupted German communications and logistics in some regions, significantly undermining the German response to the Allied invasion. However, German countermeasures, geography, and local conditions made their efforts less effective in other areas. Nevertheless, Operation Jedburgh showcased the potential of unconventional warfare and marked a successful collaboration between the OSS, the SOE, and the Free French. The adaptability of OSS allowed them to operate in vastly different terrains. During Operation Greenup, OSS agents undertook a perilous mission to infiltrate enemy lines in the dangerous terrain of the Austrian Alps. Operatives navigated treacherous mountain passes and evaded enemy detection to gather intelligence on a secret Nazi Alpine fortress. This daring operation showcased the OSS agents’ courage and resilience as they operated deep within enemy territory, collecting critical information to support the Allies. Similarly, in the dense jungles of Burma, OSS’s Detachment 101 waged a relentless guerrilla war against the Japanese occupation. Working closely with local resistance groups, they disrupted enemy supply lines and executed devastating hit-and-run attacks. Simultaneously, they gathered vital intelligence that furthered the Allied cause. Inspiring Psyops and FSSF in World War II Beyond the operational successes, the OSS was an inspiration and model for various special units during World War II. In March 1942, General George Marshall, the US Army Chief of Staff, approved Project Plough, an operation to drop commandos by parachute into Nazi-occupied Norway to carry out covert operations. Subsequently, on July 9th, 1942, the First Special Serves Forces (FSSF) was officially established, bringing together units from the US and Canada. Their training and operations were similar to those of the OSS, employing similar skills and tactics. After careful evaluation, military leaders determined that the anticipated benefits of the mission were outweighed by the potential dangers, leading to its cancellation. Instead, the FSSF deployed to the Aleutian Islands campaign, fighting against the Japanese forces occupying the islands. Following their involvement in the Aleutian Islands campaign, the FSSF deployed to Italy, actively participating in several military campaigns crucial to the Allies’ efforts. Their courage and combat effectiveness earned them the nickname ‘The Devil’s Brigade.’ The FSSF made significant contributions to the liberation of Southern France, showcasing their ability to undertake complex operations and support the overall Allied efforts. General Dwight D. Eisenhower recognized the pivotal role of psychological warfare in the European campaign and appointed Brigadier General Robert Alexis McClure to lead the Information and Censorship Section (INC) within the Allied Forces headquarters as the war reached a critical phase. The INC’s role aligned more with the analytical and strategic planning branches of the OSS, which compiled and processed intelligence to support strategic decision-making. McClure used military personnel and civilians from the OSS and the British Political Warfare Executive to employ propaganda, misinformation, and other psychological techniques to manipulate enemy combatants’ and civilian populations’ perceptions and attitudes. In 1944, Eisenhower tasked McClure with establishing the Psychological Warfare Division of the Supreme Headquarters, Allied Expeditionary Force (PWD/SHAEF), to meet the evolving needs of theater commands in the dynamic and volatile landscape of the war. The Disbandment of the OSS and FSSF in Post-War Reorganization In January 1945, during the Battle of the Bulge and as Allied forces gained ground on the Eastern flank, Senior officials decided to disband the FSSF in Southern France. The FSSF played a commendable role across various theaters, but leaders no longer deemed their specialized services necessary as the war neared its final stages. The surrender of Nazi Germany on May 7th, 1945, marked the end of World War II in the European theater. Throughout the conflict, the OSS adapted remarkably to meet the evolving demands of theater commands. After the war, the OSS disbanded to streamline and optimize intelligence operations in the post-war era, splitting to form the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Department of State’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research. In the subsequent years, McClure advocated for creating the Office of the Chief of Psychological Warfare (OCPW) to continue unconventional warfare as a potential European invasion by the Soviets loomed. He appointed Colonel Aaron Bank, a former OSS member, as the Operations Branch Chief of the Pentagon’s OCPW. Bank, following in the footsteps of Donovan, went on to create Special Forces. He recruited veterans from the Philippine guerrillas, the FSSF, and the OGs of the OSS. Individuals such as former Philippine guerrilla commanders Colonel Wendell Fertig and Lieutenant Colonel Russell W. Volkmann played pivotal roles in developing the doctrine of unconventional warfare, which became the cornerstone of US Special Forces. Donovan’s OSS has left a lasting legacy in the special operations and intelligence communities. Today, entities such as Psyops, the Green Berets, and CIA operatives can all trace their roots back to the OSS. The OSS’s innovative approaches to psychological warfare, intelligence gathering, and unorthodox tactics during WWII laid the foundational framework of modern US Special Operations.   Major Nicholas Dockery is an active-duty Special Forces officer, a researcher fellow for the Modern War Institute at West Point, and a Downing scholar. He holds an MPP from the Yale Jackson School of Global Affairs graduate and is an alumnus of the United States Military Academy. The views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the United States Military Academy, Department of the Army, or Department of Defense.

Wikipedia's Anti-Conservative Bias Is Infecting AI Models

RIP Washington Post?

Cheese is a wonderful thing. Recently linked to healthy aging, it dates back to at least the Ancient Egyptians, has been a symbol of socioeconomic status, and flavoring human lives for thousands of years, in which time we’ve come up with all sort of curious curdled creations, from rainbow colors to 3D sculptures.Where we’ve been arguably less explorative is in our species selection when it comes to cheese production, which is mostly limited to cows, goats, sheep, and buffalo. Could we not, at least theoretically, branch out among the milk-producing mammals? What we’re really trying to ask is…Can we make whale cheese?We approached chemist Dr James Reynolds of Loughborough University with the big question, who explained that – in theory – it should be possible to produce cheese from any mammalian milk. The key obstacles we face largely center around ethics, safety, and practicality, as few would deny that lassoing a 150,000 kilogram (330,700 pound) cetacean for its milk is not moral, wise, or the foundation of a profitable cheese venture.“However,” said Reynolds, “the internet has been speculating about different mammalian milk, so let's fly a kite and see what it would be like in theory.”What might whale cheese taste like?With this much fat present in the sample, it would suggest that whale cheese would have a rich creamy texture.Dr James Reynolds“Whale milk – if you could obtain it by some means – would be able to produce cheese,” said Reynolds. “However, research conducted on the milk of blue and fin whales that was published in Nature back in 1953 showed that the fat and protein content of whale milk is much higher than it is in cows’ milk, with the fat content being approximately 40 percent and protein content being between 10-12 percent in whale milk versus 4 percent and 3.3 percent respectively in Jersey Dairy cow milk. The amount of lactose was observed to be lower.”Cheese can be made in many ways, and the approach and ingredients you use can have a big impact on flavor.Image credit: Maurizio Milanesio / Shutterstock.comSo, what does that mean for our crackers and whale cheese evening?“With this much fat present in the sample, it would suggest that whale cheese would have a rich creamy texture.”It's possible it would carry a slightly fishy flavor, too. As the brave few to have tried boiled penguin egg can attest to, marine diets can have a big impact on flavor.What influences the taste and texture of cheese?If you’ve made it as far as milking your mammal of choice, there are several different ways in which you can turn it into cheese, and the approach you take – be that a certain milk source or bacterial culture – can have a big influence on the final product.“According to a US study, milk consists of 87.7 percent water, 4.7 percent lactose sugar, 3.6 percent fats, 3.2 percent protein, and 0.7 percent minerals,” said Reynolds. “The lactose sugar and a group of milk proteins called caseins (which make up approximately 80 percent of the total milk protein) play important roles in the process of converting milk to cheese.”For the majority of cheese, it begins with heating to 70°C (158°F) to pasteurize the milk and kill off pathogens (like the bird flu that recently infected some farm cats). Two important components are then added: a bacterial culture (called a starter culture), and an enzyme preparation called rennet which contains the chymosin enzyme, and is the reason why parmesan isn’t vegetarian.Whale cheese would probably be creamy, rich, and possibly taste a bit fishy.Image credit: Sergey Bogdanov / Shutterstock.comThat mixture gets fermented and as the bacteria grow and divide, the lactose sugar in the milk becomes their energy source. The metabolism of lactose lowers the pH until the mixture is acidic enough for the chymosin enzyme to become active, triggering the casein protein to coagulate and curdle the milk. This process forms a solid curd that can be skimmed, sliced up, and pressed into a mold for ripening.“Cheese can then be ripened for various periods of time, and in general, the longer its ripened for the stronger the flavour (e.g. mature cheddar vs regular cheddar),” said Reynolds. “The cheese can also have fungi added at this stage which will grow as the cheese ripens, blue cheeses like Roquefort and Stilton are inoculated with Penicillium roqueforti which forms the characteristic veins which give them their flavour.”“Making a change to any of the ingredients, or how a step is performed, will cause the cheese produced to have different properties. The composition of the milk in terms of the amount of lactose, fat, and protein present will influence the taste and texture. The higher the fat content, the smoother and creamier the cheese will be,” Reynolds added.Pule cheese, which is made from a blend of goat and Balkan donkey milk, [...] is one of the world’s most expensive cheeses.Dr James Reynolds“Likewise, using a different type of bacteria for the starter culture will change the flavour of the cheese produced. Cheddar, for example, is produced using Lactobacillus species which are fermented at around 30°C [86°F],  while many Italian cheeses like Parmesan use thermophilic bacteria like Streptococcus thermophilus which are fermented at higher temperatures of greater than 40°C [104°F].”Rare cheesesDairy cow milk is a common choice for cheese making, both for its comparative ease in terms of access, and the composition of proteins, lactose, and fats, that enables cheesemakers to create a range of products spanning different flavors and textures. There are, however, some rare and artisanal cheeses that may surprise you.“Pule cheese, which is made from a blend of goat and Balkan donkey milk, for example, is one of the world’s most expensive cheeses,” explained Reynolds. “[And] the holes in Swiss cheese are formed by carbon dioxide gas bubbles generated by the Propionibacterium freudenreichii bacteria used as a starter culture in making Emmental cheese.”And if none of that takes your fancy, there’s always the stomach-churning casu martzu.

Like it or not, COVID-19 is still with us. Masks are among our best lines of defence against airborne pathogens – not just SARS-CoV-2 – and, though many of us would prefer to consign them to the past along with all that sourdough we baked during lockdown, it’s important we keep learning the best ways to use these interventions to help protect us. A new study has confirmed that one type of COVID-19 mask outperforms the rest, while reiterating that wearing any mask is a positive choice for health.“The research shows that any mask is much better than no mask, and an N95 is significantly better than the other options. That’s the number one message,” said senior study author and airborne disease expert Dr Donald Milton of the University of Maryland, in a statement.Beginning way back in the toilet-paper-hoarding days of May 2020, Milton’s team began looking at the impact that face coverings could have on the spread of the infection. They consistently found that four common types of masks could significantly prevent an infected person from contaminating the air around them, even when they hadn’t received training on how to fit the mask correctly.Their investigations were aided by a steampunk-esque contraption called the Gesundheit II Machine. Participants with mild COVID-19 stick their faces inside a conical device that resembles an old-fashioned loudspeaker or phonograph for 30 minutes at a time, both with and without a mask. While they breathe, speak, sing Happy Birthday, and shout, the machine allows the researchers to measure how many virus particles they are exhaling.The Gesundheit II, in all its glory.Image credit: University of Maryland School of Public HealthOver a period of almost two years, from June 2020 to May 2022, the team collected breath samples from 44 people. They focused on four different types of masks: cloth masks, surgical masks, KN95 masks, and “duckbill”-shaped N95 respirators.“Data from our study suggests that a mildly symptomatic person with COVID-19 who is not wearing a mask exhales a little over two infectious doses per hour,” explained first author Dr Jianyu Lai. “But when wearing an N95 mask, the risk goes down exponentially.”In fact, the duckbill N95 blocked 99 percent of large particles and 98 of small particles from escaping, making it the clear choice. Milton puts it down to the design of the mask, with a tight seal, powerful filter, and large airspace inside thanks to its trapezoid shape, which sticks out from the face like, well, a duck's beak.That’s not to say, however, that you should throw out all your cloth masks. They outperformed both surgical and KN95 masks – a surprising result, given that KN95 masks have become a popular choice largely because they’re perceived as higher performance than other options.Milton suggests that cloth masks tend to have better coverage around the face, and the lower flow resistance means less air is forced out of the sides of the mask than with either surgical or KN95s.“Duckbill N95 masks should be the standard of care in high-risk situations, such as nursing homes and health care settings,” said Lai. “Now, when the next outbreak of a severe respiratory virus occurs, we know exactly how to help control the spread, with this simple and inexpensive solution.”But for people going about their everyday lives, it’s heartening to know that if you can’t get hold of a duckbill mask, a simple cloth mask can still be very effective. We don’t know where the next pandemic is coming from, but one candidate that’s on everyone’s radar is H5N1 avian flu – as an airborne virus, masks will no doubt play a key role in any public health response that may become necessary.“Our research shows definitively why it’s so important to have non-pharmaceutical responses like wearing masks, and why we need studies like this to illuminate which masks are most effective,” Milton said.The study is published in eBioMedicine.

A heatwave is expected to grip most of the East Coast, with higher than seasonal temperatures from Florida to Massachusetts and into the interior of the Eastern United States. The heat index in Florida is looking concerning – but in 10 days, the State will enforce a ban on heat protection for workers.The extremely controversial law was signed by Governor Ron DeSantis in April and prohibits any cities and counties in Florida from passing heat protections for workers, like the ones that Miami-Dade County considered last year. The failed Republican Presidential nominee (DeSantis only got 1.6 percent of the primary votes) distanced himself from the bill after signing it, saying that it did not come from him.The law, known as HB 433, becomes effective on July 1 and blocks the local government from requiring that employers provide basic heat safety protection: shade, water breaks, employee monitoring, and “appropriate first-aid measures.” As reported by Orlando Weekly, business lobbying groups made this bill a priority in the legislature. It is considered an extremely short-sighted policy that will cost lives and will damage the economy.A report from Public Citizen last year showed that heat stress kills up to 2,000 people and also causes 170,000 injuries on job sites every year in the United States. It disproportionately affects lower-income workers as well as Black and Brown people. The report shows that failure to implement heat safety measures costs the US economy $100 billion per year, and the brunt of that is paid by employers.“It’s incomprehensible that people who live in Florida, and are supposed to represent the people of Florida, can vote against the health and safety of the workers that make this economy run, who were considered essential workers just a couple years ago and given PPE, are now treated like this, and not giving protection from extreme heat,” Jeannie Economos, an organizer with the Farmworker Association of Florida, told The Miami Herald. “That makes no sense and it’s unconscionable.”For each 1°C of warming, the number of workplace injuries goes up by 1 percent. As summer gets into full swing, with even more sweltering temperatures on the horizon, workers across Florida will have even less protection. Record temperatures were registered across many cities and counties of the state last year. Back in August 2023, the city of Orlando got to a temperature of 37.7°C (100°F), breaking a record set in 1938. 

A new study from the University of Texas at San Antonio has debunked the liberal canard that men who own guns do so to compensate for their insecurity over the size of their penis. This result did not sit well with CBS’s host of The Late Show, Stephen Colbert, who, on Thursday, could only offer up “men lie” in an attempt to keep the canard alive. Reading from Newsweek’s report on the study, Colbert reported that, “Meanwhile, a new study has found that men who are happy with their penis size are more likely to own a gun, and that ‘the long-standing assumption linking insecurity over penis size to gun ownership may be inaccurate.’"     Whose assumption was that? Regardless, Colbert did his best to preserve the idea, “Or, and this is just a theory, men lie.” Colbert then began a mock conversation between a researcher and a gun owner, ‘“As a gun owner, how do you feel about your penis?’ ‘Good. Great. I love my big penis. So big. So strong. Never cries. Good strong penis. There's nothing wrong with my penis. And if there was something wrong with it, that doesn't have anything to do with my gun. Are you saying it has something to do with me that has to do with my gun? Because I will shoot you with my tiny, rump penis. I mean my gun.’” The “long-standing assumption” was always garbage. It was just a juvenile and intellectually unsophisticated personal attack meant to advance gun control that completely ignored normal reasons why someone might own a gun, such as self-defense or simply enjoying going to the range. It also ignored the existence of female gun owners, but now that science has debunked one of his cheapest jokes, Colbert doesn’t know how to cope. Here is a transcript for the June 20 show: CBS The Late Show with Stephen Colbert 6/20/2021 11:57 PM ET STEPHEN COLBERT: Meanwhile, a new study has found that men who are happy with their penis size are more likely to own a gun, and that "the long-standing assumption linking insecurity over penis size to gun ownership may be inaccurate." Or, and this is just a theory, men lie.  "As a gun owner, how do you feel about your penis?" "Good. Great. I love my big penis. So big. So strong. Never cries. Good strong penis. There's nothing wrong with my penis. And if there was something wrong with it, that doesn't have anything to do with my gun. Are you saying it has something to do with me that has to do with my gun? Because I will shoot you with my tiny, rump penis. I mean my gun."

Is it possible for someone to be proficient, or even expert, at more than one pursuit? Can someone be a soldier and also be a dentist? The post Being a Generalist vs. a Specialist appeared first on Survivopedia.

The year millions of people were killed worldwide by a virus likely engineered in the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Chinese scientists in Beijing began toying with a more deadly coronavirus variant called GX_P2V that killed humanized mice 100% of the time, largely with late-stage brain infections. While not formally linked, the study referenced parallel work executed by Wuhan Institute of Virology scientist Dr. Shi Zhengli. In March, Chinese researchers at the Hebei Medical University revealed they had created a mutant version of the virus vesicular stomaitis, known to infect cattle, by giving it a protein from the Ebola virus. The hamster test subjects infected with the recombinant virus suffered weight loss, ulcerated eyes, inflammation, multi-organ failure, and then all died. Apparently, the Pentagon has no idea to what extent it has bankrolled these kinds of potentially ruinous experiments in communist China. The Department of Defense Office of Inspector General released a partially redacted report Tuesday detailing the results of its efforts to track down the money the Pentagon has invested helping the communist Chinese enhance deadly pathogens. The report made clear it was referring to gain-of-function experiments, referencing a definition published in the journal Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, which states, "The term 'gain-of-function' means 'to enhance a function by genetic manipulation' or 'to add a new function' and applies to much research involving genetic recombination and genetic manipulation." The DOD Office of Inspector General sought specifically to track the amount of federal funds given either directly or indirectly by the Pentagon to: the communist regime itself; the Wuhan Institute of Virology and other organizations administered by the Chinese Academy of Sciences; Peter Daszak's scandal-plagued and debarred EcoHealth Alliance, whose gain-of-function subcontractor was among the likely patients zero; the Chinese Academy of Military Medical Sciences; and any other related lab in the Asian nation. Of special concern was whether and where funds were spent on "research or experiments that could have reasonably resulted in the enhancement of any coronavirus, influenza, Nipah, Ebola, or other pathogen of pandemic potential or chimeric versions of such a virus or pathogen." The conclusions of the report were damning. The Pentagon has admitted that it has no idea to what extent it has funded the creation of deadly viruses in an adversarial nation it has identified as its "top pacing challenge" — a country whose overall biorisk management score is less than stellar. The report noted at the outset that Army officials had identified 12 relevant research programs and that for "seven awards, a prime awardee provided funds to a subawardee or contracting research organization in China or other foreign countries for research related to potential enhancement of pathogens of pandemic potential." The Inspector General's Office could also account for over $54 million given to EcoHealth Alliance for 13 projects executed from 2014 through 2023 but suggested that none of this funding went to China or its affiliates for gain-of-function research. After accounting for the top of the Pentagon funding iceberg, the report indicated what lies below the surface is wholly "unknown." Why is the answer to this question not 'zero dollars'? Citing "significant challenges in searching for awards" due to "limitations in the DOD's systems used to track contracts and grants," the Inspector General's Office concluded, "The full extent of DOD funds provided to Chinese research laboratories or other foreign countries for research related to enhancement of pathogens of pandemic potential is unknown." The report noted that when it came to funding Chinese gain-of-function experiments, the DOD neither used "a budget line item or any other consistent indicator, such as assistant listing codes, that makes databases of grants, contracts, and other transaction agreements easily searchable or reviewable" nor tracked "funding at the level of detail necessary" to make accurate determinations. Apparently, the Government Accountability Office reached a comparable conclusion in a 2022 report. Similarly troubling was the Office of the Inspector General's admission that found it impossible "to identify a single source that encompasses all pathogens of pandemic potential." In other words, the Pentagon does not appear to have an accessible authoritative list detailing just how many deadly diseases it has funded the creation of in China. Despite the acknowledgement the Pentagon hasn't tracked its spending on the manufacture of killer viruses in China, DOD officials reassured the Inspector General's Office that "DOD organizations did not actively participate in or knowingly fund research or experiments that could have reasonably resulted in the enhancement of pathogens of pandemic potential from 2014 through 2023." The report was not well received. Molecular biologist Dr. Richard H. Ebright of Rutgers University wrote, "Your tax dollars on fire." Stanford University epidemiologist Dr. Jay Bhattacharya tweeted, "The Biden DOD has lost track of how much money it has given to Chinese laboratories for 'enhancing' pathogens. Why is the answer to this question not 'zero dollars'?" "Deadly coverup. Deadly incompetence," wrote Blaze News editor in chief Matthew Peterson. "What's the difference? But this 'I dunno' may as well translate as: we (YOU) paid for the creation of covid." Blaze News columnist Auron MacIntyre responded, "US agencies can track and censor your social media posts about the pandemic but can't track how much they spent to manufacture it." "It wasn't the Pangolin," wrote Mike Benz, executive director of the Foundation for Freedom Online. "It was the Pentagon." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!