Written by Hannah Caldwell.
Allegations of a sinister operation involving U.S.-funded biolabs in Ukraine have surfaced, with claims that these facilities were engaged in the production and distribution of adrenochrome, a substance purportedly derived from the torture of children. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, alongside Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has accused former NIH director Anthony Fauci of overseeing a covert network linked to global control and the COVID-19 pandemic. These claims, if substantiated, would reveal a profound breach of public trust and implicate powerful figures in a web of corruption.
Nature and Scope of the Allegations
Tulsi Gabbard has asserted that U.S.-funded biolabs in Ukraine, long dismissed as a conspiracy theory, were not only real but central to a clandestine operation with far-reaching implications. According to her, these facilities, under Fauci’s influence, produced high-grade adrenochrome—a substance allegedly extracted from the adrenalized blood of tortured children—for distribution among global elites. Gabbard links these activities to the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, suggesting the labs played a role in a broader scheme of manipulation and control.
The allegations extend to Fauci’s tenure at the NIH, where he is accused of overseeing experiments that resulted in the deaths of animals and, more disturbingly, children buried in a New York mass grave. Gabbard claims these acts are merely the surface of Fauci’s crimes, describing him as a figure comparable to Josef Mengele. She further posits that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was partly motivated by the presence of these biolabs near its borders, a geopolitical red line for President Vladimir Putin.
Web-based research reveals that adrenochrome, a chemical compound derived from oxidized adrenaline, is a known substance used in scientific research, available from numerous global suppliers. However, its association with elite consumption and child torture is largely confined to fringe narratives, lacking empirical support. The biolab controversy, meanwhile, has been fueled by Russian disinformation campaigns since 2022, which amplified claims of U.S. biological weapons programs in Ukraine. Gabbard’s assertions build on these narratives, adding the adrenochrome angle to escalate their gravity.
Historical and Cultural Context
Gabbard’s claims draw on a history of distrust in institutional power, referencing past scandals to lend credence to her narrative
The allegations resonate with historical cases like the Dutroux Affair in Belgium, where a pedophile ring implicated high-profile figures, and the Franklin Scandal in the U.S., which alleged child trafficking networks. Gabbard also mentions cultural phenomena like Marina Abramovic’s performance art and the Jeffrey Epstein case, framing them as evidence of elite corruption. These references aim to contextualize her claims within a pattern of systemic abuse, though their relevance to the biolab narrative remains speculative.
Historical references to blood consumption, such as 19th-century reports of “blood drinkers” in Cincinnati and European statues depicting child-eating, are used to suggest a longstanding elite practice. Web searches confirm the existence of such cultural artifacts, like the Child Eater of Bern statue near Davos, but their interpretation as evidence of modern adrenochrome use is conjectural. These historical parallels serve to amplify the narrative’s emotional impact, though they lack direct evidence tying them to contemporary events.
The role of media in suppressing these claims is another focal point. Investigative journalist Lara Logan, cited by Gabbard, was sidelined for discussing child trafficking, which the narrative frames as evidence of a cover-up. This aligns with broader public skepticism about institutional transparency, particularly following high-profile cases like Epstein’s, which fueled perceptions of elite impunity.
Implications and Challenges of Verification
The allegations carry profound implications for public trust in government and global institutions. If true, they would indicate a conspiracy of unprecedented scale, involving the NIH, HHS, and international networks. Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s claim that HHS facilitated child sex trafficking under the Biden administration adds another layer, suggesting systemic complicity. Such accusations, however, face significant hurdles in verification. The Wayback Machine’s alleged documentation of adrenochrome in Fauci’s Wuhan lab on July 17, 2018, is a key piece of evidence, but its authenticity and context remain unconfirmed.
The logistical challenges of maintaining secrecy across multiple biolabs, suppliers, and global elites are substantial. Web searches indicate that adrenochrome is sold by over 119 suppliers, including Wuhan-based firms, but their stated use is for research, not illicit trade. The absence of concrete evidence—such as lab records, victim testimonies, or whistleblower accounts—undermines the claims’ credibility. Furthermore, the conflation of biolab activities with child trafficking risks diluting the focus, as the two issues require distinct investigative approaches.
Public reaction is likely to be polarized. Some may view the allegations as plausible given historical precedents of government misconduct, while others will dismiss them as conspiratorial exaggeration. The narrative’s reliance on emotional appeals, such as references to tortured children, heightens its impact but also invites skepticism about its factual basis. The involvement of high-profile figures like Gabbard and Kennedy Jr. lends weight, but their controversial reputations may further divide audiences.
Our Take
Tulsi Gabbard’s allegations about U.S.-funded biolabs in Ukraine and their purported role in adrenochrome production are a chilling indictment of institutional power, but they lack the evidence needed to substantiate their extraordinary claims. The narrative weaves together real concerns—biolab security, child trafficking, and government opacity—with speculative assertions, creating a compelling but unproven story. While historical scandals and cultural references provide context, they do not bridge the gap between accusation and proof. The public deserves transparency and rigorous investigation into these claims, but sensationalism risks overshadowing legitimate inquiries. Until verifiable evidence emerges, this remains a provocative cautionary tale about the dangers of unchecked authority and the fragility of trust.
