TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Vince agrees that flu is a major pathogen with high virulence and transmissibility. Other pathogens may have one but not the other. The panel focuses on flu proposals, which is a common sentiment among those outside the field as well.

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.

Dr. Barnard emphasized the importance of public perception. While satisfied with the PC30 framework, the concern lies in how future studies will be portrayed in the media. It is crucial to provide context to avoid sensationalistic headlines that may cause unnecessary alarm and hinder understanding of the responsible research being conducted.

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.

The widely used PCR tests for COVID-19 are too sensitive, meaning they can detect not only live virus but also dead virus and other materials. The problem is that the results sent to doctors and patients don't specify whether the virus is live or dead. Recent data from Massachusetts, New York, and Nevada showed that 90% of positive cases carried very little virus. If this trend applies nationwide, only a small fraction of positive cases would actually need to isolate and undergo contact tracing. To prevent unnecessary disruptions, it's important to test in a smarter way, focusing on the contagiousness of individuals. This approach would help schools reopen faster and make more sense overall.

The US should take the lead in setting international standards for research on dangerous pathogens like coronaviruses. Without clear guidelines, other countries may conduct risky research. Standards should include biosafety records, experience with pathogens, training, awareness, facilities, and a national policy framework.

The existence of the virus is questioned due to the initial PCR test methodology being based on a computer model virus, not a purified isolate from real patients. China did not have a pure isolate, so they used elements of a genetic code to create a computer model sequence. This sequence became the basis for the PCR test. The WHO document states that the diagnosis of SARS CoV-2 should not rely on isolating the virus. The virus has never been purified, and the disease is based on generic symptoms that could be anything.

The situation has been horrific, leading to a shift in research and development budgets. Current vaccines primarily focus on improving individual health but only slightly reduce transmission. There is a need for a new approach to vaccine development that effectively blocks transmission.

Many journal policies were created during a time of biosecurity focus, neglecting population-level biosafety concerns. Transparency in the approval process is important, with the public having a right to know. If openness leads to disapproval, it raises questions about why approval was granted in secret.

The speaker discusses the lack of necessary controls in scientific research on SARS-CoV-2. They mention that very few examples of implemented controls exist, but the results are alarming. Scientists from Switzerland were able to extract the whole genome of SARS-CoV-2 without the presence of the virus itself. Similarly, scientists from China obtained numerous SARS-CoV-2 sequences without any virus in cell cultures. The speaker suggests contacting the Chinese scientists for more information. They also mention that using raw reads, it is possible to assemble other viruses like measles and HIV. The speaker finds these findings shocking and believes it is important to discuss the implications with doctors, scientists, and anyone interested in the topic.

We are addressing real and critical threats related to a novel coronavirus called CAPS, which is similar to the viruses that caused the SARS epidemic and MERS outbreaks. We need to be prepared for a fast-moving and highly lethal pandemic of a respiratory pathogen. This disease is more transmissible than SARS or MERS and as contagious as influenza. The virus can be easily transmitted through the air, making everyone susceptible. Asymptomatic individuals can also spread the virus, leading to a severe pandemic that affects people worldwide. Many countries will be affected simultaneously.

The speakers discuss the potential dangers of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning in creating deadly viruses. They mention that AI has already been used to identify chemical combinations more lethal than nerve agents and explosive nanoparticles. They express concern that in a few years, it may be possible for individuals to create their own deadly viruses, leading to a mass casualty event. However, one speaker argues that the accuracy of such predictions is limited due to the quality of data and the complex dynamics of disease transmission. They suggest that a low-grade infection with long-term disability could be more catastrophic than a highly lethal virus.

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.

The data hasn't been shared because the virus wasn't isolated. Testing live animal samples doesn't provide useful information if they only show positive results. I don't believe the virus originated from what we initially thought.

COVID world 10/09/2022 reports estimated extra deaths of 31 million and estimated serious adverse effects of 1.9 billion for three years of SARS CoV-two virus and vaccine bioweapons. The two main differences with the previous estimates on 10/01/2022 are: First, 11 countries, for about 600,000,000 people, were added to the estimate base data. As such, the current estimate base data consists of 47 countries for about 2,300,000,000 people, making the current estimates more representative for the whole world. Second, for estimating the serious adverse effects the extra deaths of 2021 and 2022 are taken fully into account as input instead of half in the previous estimates. The extra deaths estimates for 2020, 2021, and 2022 are based on officially reported and factual deaths in the countries mentioned in the table below. For the source of all the used data see the Our World and Data links in the appendix. Extra deaths (see columns twenty twenty ED, twenty twenty one ED, and twenty twenty two ED in the table below) are calculated as the difference of the factual number of total deaths in the concerned year. The missing months of the incomplete 2022 year are estimated by extrapolation of the monthly average of all known months from January 2021 on. The for yearly evolution corrected average of the five preceding years 2015 to 2019. The yearly correction factor used is 0.75% and was calculated based on the evolution of the sum of deaths of all countries below in 2015 to 2019. For the 2020 ED estimate the correction factor 0.75 was three times (reference year twenty seventeen) applied on the five year average, for 2021 ED four times and for 2022 ED five times. In other words, the extra deaths estimates are in fact the excess deaths after correction for an expected yearly evolution and expected yearly without the mass vaccination and COVID bioweapons. Then to calculate the 2020 ED estimate for the world, first the column ED100 ks extra deaths per 100 ks people of the country is calculated. Then this column is aggregated which results in 112 extra deaths per 100 ks people. The latter value is applied on the world population which results into nine million extra deaths in 2020, the first year with the COVID bioweapon deployed. To calculate the 2021 ED estimate for the world, first the column ED21M doses, extra deaths per million doses given in the country, is calculated. This column is aggregated which results in nine sixty one extra deaths per million doses. The latter value is applied on the world doses which results into twelve point one million extra deaths in 2021, the first year with the vaccine bioweapon and second year with the COVID bioweapon deployed. To calculate the 2022 ED estimate for the world, first the column ED22M doses, extra deaths per million doses given in the country, is calculated. This column is aggregated which results in seven sixty three extra deaths per million doses. The latter value is applied on the world doses which results into nine point six million extra deaths in 2022, the second year with the vaccine bioweapon and third year with the COVID bioweapon deployed. Press CTRL plus four more image detail below. The estimate for people with serious adverse effects is calculated by multiplying the estimated extra deaths in 2021 and 2022 by an estimated ratio reported adverse effects/reported deaths after COVID vaccination. The ratio used is 87.6 and was calculated from the table Estimated probabilities after COVID vaccination for all ages in the article below. This results in an estimated one point one billion serious adverse effects for 2021 and zero point eight billion for 2022. Considering the estimated thirty one million extra deaths and estimated one point nine billion serious adverse effects for three years of deployed SARS CoV-two virus and vaccine bioweapons the words bioweaponized, propagandized, lured, coerced and mandated depopulation and genocide should not be taboo. Furthermore, there are about ten million extra deaths yearly worldwide since 2020. If these extra deaths are continued this will result in one hundred and ten million extra deaths by the end of 2030 from these bioweapons since 2020. For the sake of estimating, certain assumptions about the domain were introduced. If one or some of those assumptions would be far off target, for example as more data becomes available and is integrated in the estimation or some data appears faulty, the current estimates and trends could be seriously unvalidated. Because of the mass propaganda, corrupted science, lack of truthful science and censorship in the mainstream media and on tech platforms, thus the elites, many people still think SARS CoV-two is a naturally evolved virus. Truthful science though proves beyond any doubt SARS CoV-two is designed and made by humans in a biolab. After all and first of all, science shows the genetic code of SARS CoV-two contains several lab made inserts, not natural mutations or recombinations of natural viruses. Because these inserted codes PRRA (HIVGP120) are much too large and too many, and because these genetic codes only appear in other natural viruses that are genetically much too different from SARS CoV-two, the probability that SARS CoV-two has naturally mutated or recombined from other natural viruses is quasi zero. Furthermore, there exists a substantial trail of documents and testimonies, years before and after the release of SARS CoV-two about these genetic codes and the existing biochemical technology needed to insert them, financing of the research, scientific documents, patents. See the links below for sources and science. Doctor. Richard M. Fleming, MD, sworn testimony that COVID-nineteen is a bioweapon. Doctor. Richard Fleming on Montanier's discovery of HIV and spiked protein. The virus comes from a lab, appears from the Veritas Revelation Project. Are our scientists lying to us? SARS CoV-two is likely a lab construct. The origin of SARS CoV-two. Since the Genentech COVID vaccines make the human body cells produced during months up to years huge amounts than the average, dominantly only mucosal, infection with SARS CoV-two itself which for the majority of healthy unvaccinated people causes hardly any illness, just cold like symptoms, these Genentech COVID vaccines are of course themselves bioweapons and much worse than the virus itself. Furthermore, not only the produced toxic spike protein but also other components and contaminations of these vaccines are cause of serious health damage. See the links below for information about the devastating effects of the COVID vaccine bioweapons. Images, press CTRL plus for more image detail. The article COVID World 10/09/2022, estimated extra deaths thirty one million and estimated serious adverse effects 1,900,000,000 for three years of SARS CoV-two virus and vaccine bioweapons was written by Pak Osmol, 10/09/2022. Appendix A Data Source. Our World in Data Excess Mortality Raw Death Count. Click the Download tab below the graph on the displayed page. Downloaded CSV September 2022 from Our World in Data Excess Mortality Raw Death Count. Right click the link and then Save Link As.

Virologists are using pseudo scientific methods and changing the meaning of words to support their anti scientific practices. The COVID-19 fraud is centered around virology's claims. It is important to expose virology's fallacies to prevent future viral pandemics.

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.

In this video, the speaker discusses how certain strains of influenza are not included in PCR tests, such as the BSL 4 strain, h7n9, and h5n1. They question the effectiveness of testing millions of people without being able to detect these specific strains. The speaker also mentions Kristin Drosten and refers to this situation as an "evil genius" move.

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.

The panel discusses replication (replicon) vaccines and their potential dangers, focusing on how they differ from conventional messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines and what new risks might emerge as this technology develops. Key points and concerns raised - Replicon vaccines concept and fundamental differences - Replicon vaccines use replication-capable genetic material, so the embedded genetic information not only makes antigen proteins but also multiplies inside the cell. They are described as having both constitutive function (the ability to make proteins) and, crucially, the capacity to replicate, which distinguishes them from traditional, non-replicating mRNA vaccines. - It is explained that replication introduces additional mutation and recombination opportunities, because the RNA genome is copied more than once, and the process can produce variants that differ from the original design. - Central dogma exceptions and viral biology - The speakers explain that while the central dogma (DNA → RNA → protein) generally governs biology, some viruses violate this, with RNA viruses that replicate via RNA-dependent replication and even some reverse-transcribing retroviruses that convert RNA to DNA and integrate into genomes. This context is used to frame why replicon vaccines could behave unpredictably. - Potential risks of replication and spread - A core concern is that the replicon approach might allow the vaccine genome to spread beyond the initial target cells, potentially reaching other cells and tissues, or even spreading to other people via exosomes or other means. Exosomes can transport DNA, RNA, and proteins between cells; thus, the replicon genome could in theory be disseminated. - The possibility of homologous or heterologous recombination between replicon genomes and wild-type viruses could yield new variants. The panel emphasizes the difficulty of controlling such recombination in a living system. - Specific material and design considerations - The use of viral components like spike protein genes in replicon vaccines raises concerns about how these proteins might mutate or recombine during replication, potentially altering antigen presentation or safety. - A concern is raised about the lack of repair mechanisms in RNA replication (as opposed to DNA replication), which could make error rates higher and lead to unpredictable changes. - The panel notes that current replicon vaccine designs (including those using alphavirus backbones) inherently carry high mutation and recombination risk, and that the replicating systems may encounter unpredictable evolutionary dynamics inside the human body. - Safety signals and clinical anecdotes - The speakers cite cases of adverse events temporally associated with vaccines, including vascular inflammation and thrombosis, stroke-like events, and myocarditis, to illustrate that immune responses to vaccines can be complex and occasionally severe. They emphasize that such observations do not establish causality, but argue they warrant careful scrutiny. - There are references to cases of acute vascular and neural complications following repeated vaccination, and to broader immune dysregulation phenomena, including IGG4-related disease and immune dysregulation syndromes that can involve multiple organs. - One example concerns a patient who developed sudden limb problems after the third dose, requiring surgery; another describes myocardial involvement after multiple doses and subsequent inflammatory sequelae. - DNA contamination and analytical findings - Kevin McKernan’s analysis of certain Japanese CoronaVac vaccines is cited: both DNA contamination and the presence of SV40 promoter elements were detected in some vaccine lots, with DNA amounts exceeding some regulatory benchmarks in at least one case. The concern is that DNA contamination, or the presence of promoter sequences, could influence integration or expression in unintended ways. - It is noted that vaccines using lipid nanoparticles can potentially deliver nucleic acids into cells; in the presence of exons or promoter sequences, there could be unintended cellular uptake and expression. - Implications for public health and policy - The panel underscores the need for caution, thorough investigation, and long-term observation of any replication-based vaccine platform before broad deployment. There is a call to evaluate risks, monitor long-term outcomes, and consider the possibility that replication-competent constructs could drive unforeseen evolutionary dynamics within hosts or communities. - There is contention about how information is communicated to the public, with particular emphasis on avoiding misinformation while ensuring that scientific uncertainties are transparently discussed. - Broader scientific context and forward-looking stance - The speakers discuss how the field’s approach to gene-based vaccines is evolving rapidly, and they stress that the compatibility of replicon systems with human biology is not yet fully understood. - They frame their discussion as not merely about current vaccines but about the trajectory of vaccine platforms: if replication-based or self-dispersing systems prove too risky or unpredictable, the prudent path might be to favor conventional, non-replicating strategies until safety, efficacy, and containment of unintended spread are more firmly established. Closing and takeaways - The session closes with emphasis on careful evaluation of replicon vaccines, awareness that viral genetics can behave differently in humans than in theory, and a call for continued discussion, independent verification, and transparent communication as the technology develops. - Throughout, speakers acknowledge the complexity of immune responses to vaccines, the potential for unexpected adverse events, and the importance of safeguarding public health while advancing vaccine science.

NIH funded research at Wuhan Institute of Virology through ECHO Health, including gain of function research. This type of research is common in labs nationwide and is not regulated because it is deemed harmless.

Some committee members were concerned about making the list too broad, fearing a difficult review process and unnecessary restrictions on research. Transparency was a key issue, with a desire for a transparent review process while maintaining some level of confidentiality. There were discussions about potential oversight by different organizations, but concerns were raised about the balance between transparency and secrecy. Maintaining transparency is important, but opinions on what constitutes transparency can vary.

We struggled with risk assessment due to lack of factual data on accidents or deliberate releases. There is no reporting structure for accidents in labs, hindering transparency. People are hesitant to report accidents, like with TB, leading to risks and inhibiting data collection.

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.

This process only applies to federally funded research, not university funded research. Vulnerabilities in university research may be outside our scope, but they are a reality.