reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0: It is based on the sworn statement of the late professor Doctor Francis Boyle, who has determined and concluded. Professor Boyle is the greatest authority in the field of bioweapons legislation. He is the author of it. So he knows what is legally meant by it. He knew. Like no other that the COVID-19 mRNA injection is a bioweapon. He has also made that loud and clear to the world known. After which despite being in good health, he passed away shortly after he had declared himself willing to give testimony under oath about this in court. The core of Professor Boyle's argument is that the COVID-19 mRNA injections contain derivatives of illegal military gene function research. As a result, the COVID-19 injections qualify by definition as a military biological weapon system, a bioweapon in other words. This bioweapon consists of two integrated components. The pathogenic load and the delivery mechanism. It is beyond doubt that the pathogenic load is the product of illegal gene or function research. Boyle refers to an article in the scientific journal Nature Medicine, of which I have included the link in this plea note. If you open that link, you will immediately read the warning that true scientists believe that an animal is the most likely source of the coronavirus. You will also immediately know that what is called the new normal, true scientists, are not scientists but faith fanatics. These are the scientists behind whom the respondents hide. The article in Nature Medicine that Boyle reports on was published in 2015. And the title reads translated, a cluster of circulating coronaviruses in bats similar to SARS shows potential for human infection. I present to you. What the summary of this research included in the article reveals. It states based on these findings, we have synthetically created an infectious fully SHC zero fourteen recombinant virus developed and demonstrated robust viral replication. Both in vitro and in vivo. So it states, we researchers have created a SARS like coronavirus with a spike protein optimized for human infection. I cannot provide a better example of illegal gain of function research. And who wrote that article from 2015? Among others, researchers affiliated with UNC Chapel Hill and the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Wuhan. Yes, Wuhan. You know, where according to the official narrative, people suddenly dropped dead on the street when COVID-19 broke out because there was a bat mutated. The spike protein, the pathogenic payload of the bioweapon is the result of this research. So it's not about a natural spike protein, but an illegally developed synthetically made pathogen that has been optimized for human infection. The spike protein mRNA with the instructions to human cells to produce this very pathogenic spike protein is one of the two crucial building blocks of the COVID-19 bioweapon. Now the delivery system, the NLPs, you know, the nanolipid particles that encapsulate the mRNA payload and deliver it into the interior of the cells. The propaganda term for this is fat globules. What did Boyle declare about it? Boyle declared that it is actually about a nanotechnology enhanced delivery platform. This technology is, as Boyle declared, paid for, developed, financed and conceived by the Pentagon and its research institute DARPA. This technology platform nanotechnology platform was not an afterthought. Doctor Boyle points out that the virus itself was aerosolized and engineered with nanotechnology from the very beginning. This indicates a long term program aimed at the application of advanced delivery systems. And this technology has been used in the COVID-19 injections. Boyle determined that the NLP delivery system in the injections is the result of a specific teacher sponsored program for nanotechnological biological weapons. In the presentation by Samsung you can read further about the legal implications of this. It is also argued that Gates and Borla qualify as suspects of crimes against humanity as defined in the Rome statute concerning the international criminal court.

We need to be proactive in searching for emerging diseases before they become a global threat. Peter Daszak, who collaborated with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, discovered 50 previously unknown Coronaviruses in bats. These Coronaviruses have the potential to jump from wildlife to humans. Our organization works with labs worldwide, subcontracting the work and ensuring we have a country program officer in each location to manage our projects.

In 1965, coronavirus was identified as a pathogen that could be modified for various purposes. The first human manipulation experiment took place in 1966, followed by transatlantic data sharing in 1967. In the 1970s, coronavirus was modified in animals like pigs and dogs. By 1990, it was discovered that coronavirus caused gastrointestinal issues in dogs and pigs, leading to Pfizer filing the first spike protein vaccine patent. The spike protein was not a new problem, as it was known since 1990. Vaccines for coronavirus have been ineffective due to its ability to mutate quickly, as stated in numerous independent scientific publications. In 2002, the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill patented an infectious replication defective clone of coronavirus, funded by Anthony Fauci. This suggests that SARS was engineered and not a naturally occurring phenomenon.

We isolated coronaviruses from animals in the past to understand their threat to other species by culturing them on different cell types. This process, known as gain of function, involves enriching mutants that can infect new species. The speaker emphasizes that mass vaccination in humans is a significant gain of function experiment, leading to virus evolution. This real-world experiment involves constant virus changes due to human-to-human transmission under vaccine pressure.

Concerning research from China was published last week. Researchers took a virus from pangolins and cultured it in a lab. They then infected mice with this virus, which killed all of them through brain infection. These mice were transgenic, meaning they had human ACE receptor genes. The virus, a coronavirus from pangolins, killed all the infected mice. This kind of experimentation is dangerous and should be banned immediately.

Research on potential pandemic pathogens, known as gain of function studies, has led to valuable public health insights. Previous NSABB reports support this. While I won't argue for the necessity of this research, there are many freely available studies showing how mutations identified through these studies have helped us prepare for epidemics and pandemics.

Gain of function research, which involves making viruses deadlier or more infectious, has sparked controversy amid debates about the origin of the coronavirus pandemic. The research aims to predict and prepare for future pandemics, but it has not yet resulted in any preemptive vaccines or prevented any pandemics. The methods used include genetically modifying pathogens and conducting experiments on animals. Concerns arise from the potential for accidents and the risk of manmade viruses falling into the wrong hands. The Wuhan Institute of Virology has been at the center of scrutiny, with allegations of inadequate safety protocols. The debate highlights the need for international investigation and community involvement in determining the risks and benefits of high-risk research.

The speaker discusses the global wildlife trade and its connection to the emergence of new diseases. They focus on SARS and how it originated from a wildlife market. Through surveillance of bats in Southern China, they have discovered over 100 new SARS-related coronaviruses that pose a threat to humans. Some of these coronaviruses can infect human cells and cause SARS-like disease. The speaker emphasizes the need for continued surveillance and understanding of these spillover events, as any one of them could potentially lead to a pandemic. They also mention the challenges in developing vaccines and antivirals for these diverse coronaviruses.

We created coronaviruses by assembling a synthetic bat genome with the SARS clone. The genome was split into 5 kilobyte pieces with unique restriction sites to allow directional assembly. Initially, the virus couldn't replicate due to an entry defect, so we replaced the receptor binding domain with one from the human epidemic strain. This modification resulted in a virus that replicated efficiently. The growth curve data supported this success.

A new coronavirus, HKU5-CoV2, has been discovered in bats in China by researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, sparking fears of another potential pandemic. This strain is similar to the original pandemic virus and closely related to MERS. The research suggests the virus can efficiently use human cells, indicating a zoonotic risk. Although HKU5-CoV viruses were first detected in 2006, this new strain has a higher potential for interspecies infection. The market is showing anxiety and fear mongering is at our doorstep. Concerns arise as these discoveries seem to defy the Biological Weapons Convention. It's insane that biolabs are allowed to continue operations. To instill fear next time, there will have to be a very real and visibly harmful illness with people dying on the street. We'll continue to keep you informed with the unfiltered truth.

During the early stages of the pandemic, a group of virologists were consulted by the NIH. Some believed that the virus could not have occurred naturally, while others thought it was a 50/50 chance between a lab or natural origin. However, only one narrative was publicly discussed. Later, a paper titled "Proximal Origins of the SARS CoV-two Virus" was released, claiming that the virus was natural. This paper referenced a 2014 article about a 2020 outbreak, which seemed odd considering the years in between. Additionally, a grant proposal called the "diffuse grant proposal" was discovered, stating that experiments were being conducted to test the infectivity of similar viruses and even insert a furin cleavage site, which is present in the virus causing the pandemic. These findings raise concerns about the origins of the virus.

Speaker 0 presents the statement of Joseph Sanson, based on the sworn statement of the late professor doctor Francis Boyle, described as the greatest authority in bioweapons legislation and the author of it. Boyle is asserted to have concluded that the COVID-19 mRNA injection is a bioweapon, and that he knew this “like no other” before his death, which occurred shortly after he declared willingness to testify under oath in court. The core of Boyle’s argument, as presented, is that the COVID-19 mRNA injections contain derivatives of illegal military gene function research, and therefore qualify by definition as a military biological weapon system—a bioweapon. This bioweapon is said to consist of two integrated components: a pathogenic load and a delivery mechanism. It is asserted that the pathogenic load results from illegal gene or function research. Boyle is described as referring to an article in Nature Medicine, with a link included in the plea note. If opened, the article is claimed to warn that true scientists believe an animal is the most likely source of the coronavirus, and that what is called the “new normal” are not scientists but faith fanatics. The 2015 Nature Medicine article is summarized as reporting that, based on findings, researchers synthetically created an infectious fully SHC014 recombinant virus with robust viral replication in vitro and in vivo, a SARS-like coronavirus with a spike protein optimized for human infection. The article is attributed to researchers including those affiliated with UNC Chapel Hill and the Wuhan Institute of Virology, implying that the spike protein and pathogenic payload were the result of illegal gain-of-function research. The spike protein mRNA is described as providing instructions to human cells to produce this pathogenic spike protein, emphasized as not being a natural spike protein but an illegally developed, synthetically made pathogen optimized for human infection. The delivery system is identified as nanolipid particles (NLPs) that encapsulate the mRNA payload and deliver it into cells. The rhetoric labels these as fat globules, and Boyle is said to declare that this is actually a nanotechnology-enhanced delivery platform. This technology is described as being paid for, developed, financed, and conceived by the Pentagon and its research institute DARPA, with the claim that the virus was aerosolized and engineered with nanotechnology from the beginning, indicating a long-term program for advanced delivery systems. The claim is made that this technology has been used in the COVID-19 injections, with the NLP delivery system described as the result of a specific teacher-sponsored program for nanotechnological biological weapons. The presentation by Samsung is cited for further legal implications, and it is argued that Gates and Borla qualify as suspects of crimes against humanity under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

DARPA rejected a risky grant proposal to create a bat vaccine by spraying a live coronavirus in a cave. The plan involved infecting bats with the virus on sticky particles for self-vaccination. The potential consequences of releasing a live virus in a cave with millions of bats were concerning.

Chinese researchers have created a super virus by combining a protein from bats with the SARS virus found in mice. This virus could potentially infect humans, although it is currently only being studied in laboratories. The debate over the risks of this research is not new, with some scientists arguing that the benefits outweigh the potential dangers. However, others are concerned about the possibility of the virus directly infecting humans without an intermediate species. The US government had previously suspended funding for research aiming to make viruses more contagious, but this did not stop the Chinese research on SARS. Some experts believe the chances of the virus spreading to humans are minimal compared to the potential benefits, while others disagree.

Research on bird flu in laboratories has raised significant concerns. At the Scripps Institute in California, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and NIH, scientists identified mutations that could enhance the virus's ability to infect humans, sharing their findings in the journal Science. Similarly, Yoshihiro Kawaoka at the University of Wisconsin has conducted gain-of-function research on bird flu for decades, experiencing multiple lab accidents with modified strains. In the Netherlands, Ron Fouchier at Erasmus Medical Center has been working on making bird flu airborne using ferrets. This ongoing research poses substantial risks, and there are calls to halt gain-of-function studies to prevent potential leaks and misuse of information.

Scientists sequence the virus and compare it to known pathogens like SARS. They discovered similar coronaviruses in bats and focused on the spike protein that attaches to cells. Chinese researchers created pseudoparticles with spike proteins from these viruses to test their binding to human cells. Each step of this process helps determine if the virus can become pathogenic in humans. Manipulating the spike protein in the lab is crucial for understanding the zoonotic risk. By obtaining the sequence, scientists can predict the virus's behavior more accurately.

Gain of function research involves modifying a pathogen to increase its transmissibility or pathogenicity. This definition includes making a nonpathogen pathogenic. Regarding the Wuhan Institute, there are questions about whether they conducted gain of function research on coronaviruses. Proponents argue it could lead to vaccines or prevent pandemics, but there is skepticism. To date, gain of function research has not produced any life-saving vaccines or therapeutics, nor has it stopped a pandemic. In fact, it may have contributed to the current pandemic. While supporters of this research are well-intentioned, I personally see no tangible benefits from it.

Evolutionary virologists analyzed viral sequences from the current outbreak and in bats. They determined that the mutations required for the virus to jump from an animal to a human are entirely consistent with its evolutionary path. A paper detailing this research will be made available, although the authors are not currently named.

In South America and Southeast Asia, there are many bat species carrying unknown viruses, making them potential sources of future pandemics. The USAID EPT predict program and NIAID funding allowed researchers to predict and prepare for emergencies like the SARS outbreak. They discovered that SARS-like viruses originate from bats in China, with some being almost identical to SARS. Surveillance of bat hunters and nearby residents revealed the potential for spillover into human populations. While there are no vaccines or antivirals for these diverse coronaviruses, scientists can manipulate them in the lab by studying their spike proteins. This knowledge can aid in the development of better vaccines and therapeutics. However, predicting and anticipating pandemics does not guarantee prevention.

Researchers have discovered various coronaviruses in bats, including ones similar to SARS. They focused on the spike protein, which attaches to cells, and conducted experiments in China. By inserting spike proteins from these viruses into pseudoparticles, they tested their ability to bind to human cells. This process allowed them to understand the potential pathogenicity of the virus in humans.

Scientists can learn how to teach the flu virus how to infect human tissue, and some are already doing this. The scientific community isn't trying to cause a pandemic, but they are arrogant about their ability to contain a respiratory pathogen. COVID evolved from scientific experiments in a laboratory that was trying to do good things, like make a vaccine vector, but it escaped, and over 20,000,000 people died. Nature will continue to try to change, but the species barrier for amino acids is pretty high. Some scientists believe gain of function research is needed to protect humanity against emerging pathogens, but they don't consider the fact that they may be emerging them like with COVID.

In 1965, coronavirus was identified as a pathogen that could be modified for various purposes. In 1966, the first transatlantic biological experiment using a coronavirus model was conducted. In 1967, human trials were conducted on modified coronavirus. In 1990, Pfizer filed the first patent for a spike protein vaccine for coronavirus. It was found that coronavirus mutates too quickly for vaccines to be effective. In 2002, the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill patented an infectious replication defective clone of coronavirus. The CDC filed a patent on SARS coronavirus isolated from humans in 2003. The RT PCR test for coronavirus was identified as a bioterrorism threat in 2002. Gain of function research on coronavirus was exempted from a moratorium in 2014. In 2016, a journal article stated that SARS coronavirus was poised for human emergence. In 2019, Moderna modified patent applications to include the term "accidental or intentional release of a respiratory pathogen." The goal was to create a universal vaccine template. The intent was to use coronavirus to achieve this. The speaker concludes by calling for an end to gain of function research and corporate patronage of science without assuming product liability.

In the lab, it's easy to manipulate spike proteins, which play a significant role in the zoonotic risk of coronaviruses. By obtaining the sequence and constructing the protein, we collaborated with Ralph Barrick at UNC to insert it into another virus. This allows us to conduct experiments and enhance our ability to predict outcomes based on specific sequences.

We focus on viral families that have transmitted from animals to humans. When we find a virus that resembles a known dangerous pathogen, like SARS, we examine its spike protein, which attaches to cells. Chinese researchers create pseudo particles with these spike proteins to test if they bind to human cells. This process helps us identify viruses that could potentially be harmful to humans. By narrowing down the field and reducing costs, we end up with a small number of viruses that appear to be dangerous. We then investigate if people living in the same region as the animals carrying these viruses have developed antibodies.

Researchers have been working on making bird flu more contagious for humans through gain of function research. The virus mainly infects chickens and sometimes cattle. Chinese vaccination efforts in the 90s may have worsened the situation. The current strain, H5N1 avian influenza, has caused around 800-900 human cases with a high mortality rate in Southeast Asia. Recent US cases were easily treated. The virus is not a significant threat unless it starts spreading human to human. The recent strain may have originated from experiments on mallard ducks in Georgia, leading to its spread across states. The media has not questioned this spread caused by migratory waterfowl.