TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The government funded gain of function research from 2014 to '16, but it continued in Wuhan without approval from the committee. In 2017, the funding was resumed, but the Wuhan research was not reviewed by the committee. When questioned, Fauci claimed that his experts said it wasn't gain of function, but there was no discussion or paperwork. The person in charge of the safety committee only reviewed three studies in four years, and this research was exempted from their scrutiny. It could only have been done with Fauci's permission. We haven't found the paperwork yet, but it's likely that Fauci allowed the research in Wuhan without the safety committee's oversight.

The U.S. funded risky coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which involved creating new viruses. Intelligence agencies are investigating whether a virus leak from this lab caused the global pandemic. Anthony Fauci, the top medical adviser to the president, did not mention gain of function research during the pandemic's onset, leaving others to uncover its significance. Gain of function research increases the transmissibility or virulence of pathogens, and despite a U.S. ban in 2014, funding continued to flow to China. Fauci oversaw the NIH when the ban was lifted in 2017. Additionally, NIH funds supported research by Chinese military scientists to genetically manipulate coronaviruses, involving both the Wuhan lab and two American institutions. The Wuhan lab is still authorized for funding, with 26 other labs listed on the NIH's website.

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 discussion centers on gain-of-function (GoF) research, its regulation, and the motivations behind it. The first speaker notes the administration’s goal to end GoF research and asks where that stands. The second speaker says progress has been made, and the White House is working on a formal policy. He then defines the issue in stages: what GoF research is, why someone would do it, and how to regulate it to prevent dangerous projects that could catastrophically harm human populations. He clarifies that GoF research is not inherently bad, but dangerous GoF research is. He gives an insulin example: creating bacteria to produce insulin is a legitimate GoF that benefits diabetics. In contrast, taking a virus from bat caves, bringing it to a lab in a densely populated city with weak biosafety, and manipulating it to be more transmissible among humans is a dangerous GoF that should not be supported. The administration’s policy aims to prevent such dangerous work entirely, and the President signed an executive order in April or May endorsing this policy. Next, he discusses implementation: how to create incentives to ensure this research does not recur. He explains that the utopian idea behind such research was to prevent all pandemics by collecting viruses from wild places, testing their potential to infect humans by increasing their pathogenicity, and then preparing countermeasures in advance (vaccines, antivirals) and stockpiling them, even though those countermeasures would not have been tested against humans yet. If a virus did leap to humans, the foreseen countermeasures might prove ineffective because evolution is unpredictable. This “triage” approach—identifying pathogens most likely to leap and preemptively preparing against them—was the rationale for dangerous GoF work, a rationale he characterizes as flawed. He notes that many scientists considered this an effort to do bioweapons research under the guise of safety and defense. The work is dual-use. The U.S. is a signatory to the Biological Weapons Convention and does not conduct offensive bio-weapons research, but other countries might. The discussion highlights that the GoF research discussed during the pandemic can backfire and may not align with true biodefense, since countermeasures might not match whatever pathogen actually emerges. The speaker concludes that this agenda—pursuing GoF to prevent pandemics—has drawn substantial support from parts of the Western world and other countries for about two and a half decades, but he implies it is not deserving of continuation.

The perception, not reality, leads to the killing of bio-threat defense projects. 50% of allies believe the US has an offensive bioweapons program, which is false. Since Nixon, there has been no such program. Developing countermeasures against bio-threats can be mistaken for an offensive program, causing public and political concerns. The information will be published in Science and Nature soon.

Gain-of-function research involves making a virus more pathogenic, virulent, and deadly, then developing a vaccine for it. The rationale for this research is to develop bioweapons and defenses against them. Anthony Fauci received a 68% raise from the military due to new military responsibilities related to this research.

Gain of function research involves making a wild virus more deadly and developing a vaccine for it. Anthony Fauci received a raise for his involvement in this research. In 2014, three deadly bugs escaped from different labs in the US, leading 300 scientists to urge President Obama to shut down Fauci's gain of function research. Although Obama issued a moratorium, Fauci moved the research offshore to avoid oversight. Some projects were moved to Ukraine, Georgia, and a Chinese lab run by the military.

The speaker states that gain-of-function research, which aims to make pathogens more virulent and transmissible, is believed by many scientists to be responsible for the COVID pandemic. They claim this research doesn't protect against pandemics or other nations, but risks accidental leaks that could cause a pandemic. According to the speaker, any nation engaging in this research endangers its population and the world. They say the proclamation will not affect most science, but will address the fraction of research that risks causing a pandemic. The executive order establishes a framework to ensure the public has a say and can reject such risks, preventing scientists alone from making these decisions. The speaker expresses pride in President Trump for signing the order to end this research and establish a regulatory framework to eliminate it.

In 1966, a transatlantic experiment on coronavirus manipulation began. Human trials with modified coronavirus started in 1967. Pfizer patented the first spike protein vaccine in 1990. Research showed vaccines were ineffective against mutating coronaviruses from 1990 to 2018. The University of North Carolina patented an infectious replication-defective clone of coronavirus in 2002, funded by Anthony Fauci. SARS 1.0 was engineered in a lab, not a natural occurrence. The CDC patented SARS coronavirus in 2003, violating biological and chemical weapons treaties. The RT PCR test was flagged as a bioterrorism threat in 2003 and labeled a biowarfare enabling agent from 2005 onwards. Over $10 billion was funneled through black operations involving Anthony Fauci.

The speaker discusses the development of vaccines and raises concerns about a specific type of research called gain-of-function. They suggest that this research involves making viruses more dangerous and could potentially be used to create bio weapons. They mention that Anthony Fauci, a prominent figure in the field, received a raise for his involvement in this research. In 2014, three dangerous viruses escaped from labs in the US, leading 300 scientists to urge President Obama to shut down Fauci's gain-of-function research. Although a moratorium was issued, the research was moved offshore, including to a Chinese lab in Wuhan.

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.

In 2014, a gain of function moratorium was implemented in the US due to lab accidents. Despite this, gain of function research continued in China with funding from Dr. Fauci. The NIH lifted the moratorium in 2017 without proper consultation. There are concerns that US-funded research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology may have led to the COVID-19 pandemic. Dr. Ebright believes that lapses in oversight of this research could have caused the pandemic and may lead to future ones.

The speaker discusses gain-of-function research, claiming that the purpose of taking a wild virus and making it more pathogenic is to develop a vaccine for those enhanced viruses, and that the real rationale is to develop bioweapons and then a defense to those bioweapons. They assert that Anthony Fauci received a 68% raise by the military because of these new military responsibilities and continued the work through 2014. The speaker states that in 2014 three of the bugs escaped in high-profile incidents from three different U.S. labs, describing these as really deadly bugs that escaped or were found in unsafe circumstances. They claim that 300 scientists sent a letter to President Obama asking him to shut down Fauci’s gain-of-function research, arguing that it was highly likely to start a global pandemic with this dangerous research. According to the speaker, Obama issued a moratorium and shut down 18 of Fauci’s worst projects, but ultimately did not fully shut them down. Instead, the research was moved offshore to avoid White House scrutiny and the Cambridge Working Group, a group of scientists, as well as other officials. The speaker alleges that the major offshore location for this research included a Chinese lab run by the Chinese military, specifically naming the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China, as part of the moved research, with other work relocated to Ukraine and the former Soviet state of Georgia.

The 552-page records reveal that the United States government, particularly the Fauci Agency and the National Institutes for Health, funded gain of function research on mutants. This information is significant as it serves as evidence of their knowledge and involvement in such research.

According to Speaker 1, Dr. Fauci was informed via email on January 27, 2020, that NIAID had a financial connection to the Wuhan Institute through EcoHealth Alliance. Speaker 1 believes NIH was funding gain of function research. Speaker 1 also claims American tax dollars likely funded gain of function research that created the virus, not only from NIH, but also from the State Department, USAID, and DOD.

Evolution is random, but when a virus evolves naturally, it's through random mutation. However, when a virus is created in a lab, it's not random but man-made. Creating a virus in the lab to discover what could happen in nature is unlikely to result in a vaccine that helps. This controversy started in 2010 with the avian flu, which is deadly but not very contagious. A scientist in the Netherlands aerosolized it, causing a debate on whether the knowledge should be published due to potential misuse. Anthony Fauci supported publishing the knowledge, despite the risks. Government funding of gain of function research, which involves making viruses more dangerous, continued despite a pause from 2014 to '16. The culpability extends beyond Fauci to the government.

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.

I want to collaborate with Congress to ensure appropriate regulation of any risky research. The NIH should not engage in research that could potentially cause a pandemic, and I am committed to working with Congress to prevent such occurrences. Transparency is crucial for building trust. If confirmed, I pledge to lead the NIH as a scientific organization committed to openness. As a citizen, I've noticed that Freedom of Information Act requests from the NIH were often heavily redacted during the pandemic. To foster trust, we must be transparent. If confirmed as the NIH leader, I fully commit to ensuring that the American people have access to all NIH activities with limited obfuscation, which has unfortunately characterized the NIH's interactions with the public.

I believe that it is possible that scientific research sponsored in part by the NIH but also lots of other entities including the Chinese government may have been the cause of the pandemic. There's a lot of people who just have fights over this. But I will say is that the kinds of biological exercises people did in order to try to prevent a pandemic, go find viruses in weird bat caves, bring them into city centers, and then augment their capacity to infect humans, The reason why they did that was I think they were arguing that we needed to do that in order to prepare just in case a pandemic happens. But think no matter what you believe about whether the cause of the pandemic was this kind of research, I think everyone can agree that that kind of research is potentially very dangerous.

The executive order addresses gain of function research, a type of biomedical research where pathogens are altered to enhance their potency or change their function. Many believe gain of function research was a key cause of the COVID pandemic. The order provides new tools to enforce federal funding regulations for gain of function research abroad, strengthens oversight mechanisms, and creates a broad strategy to ensure biomedical research is conducted safely to protect human health. It is suggested that implementing these measures earlier could have prevented the problems associated with the pandemic.

Project Veritas has obtained military documents revealing information about the origins of COVID-19, gain of function research, vaccines, and potential treatments. These documents contradict Dr. Anthony Fauci's claims that the US government was not involved in gain of function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The documents include a report from DARPA, a US Department of Defense agency, which states that EcoHealth Alliance approached DARPA in 2018 seeking funding for dangerous gain of function research. DARPA rejected the proposal, but the NIAID, under Dr. Fauci's direction, proceeded with the research in Wuhan and other US sites. The question arises as to why the NIH, NIAID, and EcoHealth Alliance disregarded the risks when even the Department of Defense deemed the research too dangerous.

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.

The executive order provides tools to enforce the ban on federal funding for gain of function research abroad. Gain of function research is a type of biomedical research where pathogens are adulterated to make them more potent or to change the way that they function. Many people believe gain of function research was one of the key causes of the COVID pandemic. The order also strengthens oversight mechanisms and creates a strategy to ensure biomedical research is conducted safely to protect human health. Some people believe that if this had been done earlier, the COVID-19 pandemic may have been avoided.

The speaker believes there hasn't been an open-minded investigation into the etiology of autism because it's dangerous for scientists to ask the question. They risk being incorrectly labeled as "anti-vaxxers," which could end their careers. This suppression of scientific curiosity prevents finding answers. The speaker has organized an initiative within the NIH to address the question of autism's etiology in a wide-ranging manner, not limited to vaccines.

Gain of function research involves creating dangerous viruses to develop protections against them, but it is inherently risky. In 2015, a meeting in London identified the Wuhan lab as most likely to have problems with this research. Anthony Fauci was allegedly a major supporter of gain of function research for 30 years. Gain of function research involves making viruses more pathogenic and deadly, purportedly to develop vaccines, but it could also be for bioweapons and defenses. Fauci allegedly received a raise for new military responsibilities related to this. In 2014, deadly bugs escaped from multiple US labs, prompting 300 scientists to petition President Obama to halt Fauci's research, warning it could cause a pandemic. Obama issued a moratorium, shutting down some projects, but allegedly moved the research offshore to avoid oversight, including to labs in Ukraine, Georgia, and the Wuhan Institute of Virology, run by the Chinese military.