TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

A congressional committee member questioned a USAID representative about whether the agency funded gain-of-function research, presenting a 2015 paper co-authored by the Wuhan Institute of Virology and Dr. Barrick, funded by USAID's PREDICT program through EcoHealth Alliance, as evidence. The paper described creating a novel virus by combining the SARS virus backbone with an s protein from another virus. The committee member cited expert opinions stating this research created a novel virus that grows well in human cells and poses a new risk to humanity. He also mentioned the 2018 DIFUSE project, presented to DARPA and attended by USAID, which proposed creating a coronavirus with a furin cleavage site. He requested the name of the USAID attendee to understand why this project wasn't revealed to the public, especially after COVID-19 emerged. The USAID representative stated the agency had not authorized gain-of-function research and would look into the specific claims and the DARPA meeting. She acknowledged the importance of understanding the past to prevent future risks and assured cooperation with the committee.

First speaker: Implant aborted baby parts into lab animals. You heard of that sort of research? Second speaker: We did an analysis a few years ago showing that over ninety percent of experiments with using human fetal tissue and putting them involved animals were funded by Fauci's NIAID. First speaker: Do you know where they're getting the aborted human fetal tissue? Second speaker: A lot of it is happening at colleges and universities that have affiliated hospitals that perform that procedure. First speaker: Madam Chair, I think Second speaker: we First speaker: need to look into that as well.

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.

We focus on research not related to Department of Defense or UsamGrid. Our committee includes diverse disciplines, not just HHS employees, to ensure a thorough review. Proposals are primarily from NIH, sometimes NSF.

Speaker 0 asks how much USAID money went to the Wuhan Institute of Virology and Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina to create weaponized coronaviruses. Speaker 1 rejects the implicit accusation and says they don't have the specific details of USAID funding at their fingertips. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 is stating for certain that no USAID money went to the Wuhan Institute. Speaker 1 says they are happy to take questions from those in the audience who treat every person respectfully, and calls on someone else. Speaker 0 asks what Speaker 1 is denying. Speaker 0 says it's a non-denial denial.

Speaker 0 asks if USAID funded coronavirus research in Wuhan, China. Speaker 1 denies funding gain of function research but acknowledges the PREDICT program, which ended in China in 2019. Speaker 0 mentions that the GAO found that some grants from the $200 million program went to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where the lab leak suspicion originated. Speaker 1 is unsure about funding the Academy of Military Medical Sciences but acknowledges the lack of records. Speaker 0 states that they have been requesting records for months but received no documents from USAID. Speaker 1 reiterates that the PREDICT program ended in 2019. Speaker 0 asks who ran the PREDICT program, and Speaker 1 responds with UC Davis.

The speaker was asked about USAID funding for research in Wuhan and at the University of North Carolina. They denied the accusation and did not have specific details. The speaker avoided directly answering if USAID money was used in Wuhan. They preferred respectful questions and moved on without giving a clear denial.

Speaker 0 asks if the speaker knew about stopping humanization before it entered the market and if they are willing to share the data with the committee. Speaker 1 responds that they did not know about it before it entered the market and had to move at the speed of science to understand what was happening.

Speaker 0 pressed whether federal agents or assets were present on January 5 and 6, whether they agitated to enter the Capitol, and whether any did. Speaker 1 refused to comment on an ongoing investigation, saying, 'I'm not gonna violate this norm of the rule of law. I'm not gonna comment on an investigation that's ongoing.' He later said, 'I don't know the answer to that question' when asked how many agents or assets were involved or if any entered the Capitol. The discussion moved to confidential human sources (CHS). Speaker 2 said, 'Our report will include the information in that regard,' but noted it is 'in draft form' and not yet through classification review. On release timing, he said it would be 'in the next couple of months' but may not come before the election. He stated CHS protocols should be followed, and four years into the process, delays.

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.

Speaker 0 asks if anyone on the vaccine committee has received money from vaccine manufacturers. Speaker 1 responds by saying that according to regulations, individuals who receive royalties are not obligated to disclose them, even on their financial statements, as per the Bayh Dole Act.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss government funding for scientific and medical research, focusing on a grant referred to as a Doge grant and a series of other NSF-funded projects. The exchange opens with Speaker 0 asking, “What is a birthing person?” and presses Speaker 1 to identify who birthing people are, including whether it is another word for a woman. Speaker 1 says he is not familiar with the Doge grant and notes that he takes a position that “all kinds of government research, medical, pharmacy” should be considered, but does not clarify the term further. Speaker 0 labels the term as erasure language and asks again whether a conference titled “gender equity in the mathematical study of commutative algebra” is a valid form of government spending. Speaker 1 replies that mathematical research of all types is deserving of government support. Speaker 0 asks about “women and non binary mathematicians” as described on the National Science Foundation’s website. Speaker 1 again supports government investment in mathematics broadly, stating, “I think all kinds of government investment should be dedicated toward mathematics.” When Speaker 0 questions whether there should be any limit on spending, Speaker 1 reiterates that he is talking about Doge, and notes he is not familiar with the particular grant but supports government investment in mathematical biology. Speaker 0 introduces another grant, “TranscendentHealth, adapting an LGB plus inclusive teen pregnancy prevention program for transgender boys,” and asks whether that is a useful form of tax spending. Speaker 1 says he is not familiar with that grant but emphasizes that bench research and government investment in scientific and pharmacotherapy are important, though he does not describe the grant’s specifics. Speaker 0 then asks about “the racialized basis of trait judgments from faces,” stating it is a $500,000 NSF grant, and asks for Speaker 1’s view. Speaker 1 confirms unfamiliarity with the subject matter but again asserts that government investment in all kinds of scientific research is of utmost importance. The conversation moves to “prostate steroid therapy and cardiovascular risk in the transgender female,” with Speaker 0 pressing on the usefulness of funding. Speaker 1 maintains that government investment in scientific research is important, without further qualification. The exchange ends with Speaker 0 thanking Speaker 1 for his testimony, and Speaker 1 acknowledging appreciation for the opportunity to testify.

Speaker 1 and Speaker 0 discuss the implications of AI in military use. They consider whether consumer AI is being bypassed with a secure, military-specific platform that would be sealed—essentially one-way in and no information out—for the Pentagon and military services. The key questions raised are: who controls the AI, who informs its algorithms, and who gives it its orders on how to answer questions, highlighting concerns about privatization and outsourcing of war. Speaker 1 argues that the future of war with AI hinges on two issues: ownership of AI platforms and the sources of their programming. They note that AI can deflect or defer to institutional structures rather than empirical accuracy, raising concerns about the reliability of information provided to military personnel. They also reference the myth that advancing technology automatically reduces civilian harm, citing that precision-guided munitions were designed for efficiency, not necessarily to prevent civilian casualties, noting that the intent was to reduce the number of bombs needed to achieve targets. The conversation shifts to the concept of precision in weapons. Speaker 1 points out that laser- and GPS-guided bombs were not primarily invented to minimize civilian casualties but to increase efficiency. They mention the small diameter bomb as an example, explaining that its use increases the number of bombs that can be deployed rather than primarily limiting collateral damage. The discussion then moves to real-world AI systems used in conflict zones. Speaker 1 cites Israeli programs—Lavender, Gospel, and Where’s Daddy?—as examples of nefarious and insidious AI in war. Lavender supposedly scans the Internet and other databases to identify targets, for example flagging someone as a Hamas supporter based on years of activity. Where’s Daddy? allegedly guides Israeli drones to strike fighters when they are with their families, not away from them. This reporting is linked to coverage from Israeli media and Nine Seven Two magazine, and Speaker 2 references Tucker Carlson’s coverage of these issues. Speaker 2 amplifies the point by noting the emotional impact of such capabilities, arguing that targeting men when they are with their children is particularly disturbing. They also discuss broader political reactions, including a remark attributed to Ambassador Huckabee about Israel not attacking Qatar but “sending a missile there” that injured nearby people. Speaker 1 concludes by invoking Orwell’s reflection on the Spanish Civil War, suggesting that those who cheer for war may be confronted by the consequences when modern aircraft enable distant bombing. They emphasize the need to make the costs of war felt by the ruling classes who benefit from it, not just the people on the ground.

The speakers discuss the framing of risk and benefit in scientific research, emphasizing the need for more clarity in defining these terms. They also touch on the issue of self-censorship among scientists due to funding uncertainties. The conversation highlights the importance of foundational research despite potential lack of immediate benefits. Additionally, they address the need for more transparency in discussions surrounding risk and benefit in research proposals.

Our research is increasingly limited to PPI and US government-funded projects, which are now a smaller portion of biotech funding. The biotech landscape is more complex now. The private sector may not follow our oversight recommendations if they don't receive US government funding.

The speaker questions whether anyone on the vaccine committee has received money from vaccine manufacturers. They ask if this information can be disclosed. The other speaker responds by stating that according to regulations, individuals who receive royalties are not obligated to disclose them, as per the Bayh Dole Act.

Speaker 0 asks if anyone on the vaccine committee has received money from vaccine manufacturers. Speaker 1 tries to answer but is interrupted. Speaker 1 explains that according to regulations, people who receive royalties are not required to disclose them, even under the Bayh Dole Act.

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.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the politicization of science and changes at the NIH. Over the last fifteen to twenty years, the NIH incorporated what Speaker 1 characterizes as political agendas rather than scientific agendas into its portfolio, with DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) being the most prominent example. A chunk of NIH funding went to projects focused on achieving social objectives rather than the health mission. Every NIH employee allegedly had to write a loyalty oath to DEI principles and was evaluated on devotion to the cause. Researchers inside and outside the NIH could access funds, with outside researchers more easily securing money if they promised to conduct DEI research, according to Speaker 1. Much of that research allegedly lacked a real scientific basis and was not science. Speaker 1 provides an example of projects they worked to deprioritize: a project asking whether structural racism is the root reason why African Americans have worse hypertension outcomes. The problem, they say, is that there is no way to test the hypothesis because, if structural racism is the cause, there is no workable control group to test the idea as true. They assert that such research did not translate into better health for anybody, including minority populations. They describe these projects as political agendas that do not belong in a science agency. The stated mission is to improve the health of everybody, including minority populations, but only if projects are clearly scientific, well defined, and have a real chance of improving health. Speaker 0 asks for clarification, summarizing that there were ideological or political projects receiving NIH funding. Speaker 1 confirms and adds another practice: when a good science project ended the year with leftover funds, program officers would approach researchers with leftover money and offer a “diversity supplement”—an add-on tied to DEI that was not actual science—to obtain extra funding. This, they claim, was a waste of taxpayer money with no real health benefit. They say they have since gotten rid of all of that.

The speaker claims research funding has not been cut, but indirect funding to institutions has been targeted. According to the speaker, the administration wants to cut indirect funding, meaning more money goes to researchers. The speaker says the guidance from Bobby Kennedy and the Trump administration empowers frontline researchers and disempowers government bureaucrats. The speaker states that more money will flow to researchers, not university or government bureaucrats, and no services have been cut. The speaker says there's an attack on bureaucracy, citing Harvard getting $0.70 on the dollar for bureaucracy, not research. Cutting indirect costs gets more money to researchers. The speaker claims the administration is focused on empowering researchers, getting money to scientists, and asking them to do bold research on why people are getting sick.

President Trump asked Speaker 1 to investigate the cause of something. Speaker 1 is approaching the investigation agnostically, looking at everything, and will be transparent in the study designs. The studies will be contracted out to 15 premier research groups from all over the country. They will examine mold, parental age, food and food additives, pesticides, toxic exposures, medicines, and vaccines. Speaker 1 believes they will have preliminary answers in six months, but definitive answers will take about a year after that.

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.

Speaker 0 asks if anyone at the FBI has read the Durham report, but no specific names are mentioned. The speaker intends to read it themselves but is unsure if the FBI will make any changes to their counterintelligence operations based on the report.

Speaker 0 introduces a provocative claim, warning the video might be removed and urging viewers to watch and download it while possible, saying the content sounds like a horror movie. Speaker 1 raises a question about research involving implanting aborted baby parts into a lab animal, asking if such research exists. Speaker 2 confirms a prior analysis indicating that over ninety percent of experiments using human fetal tissue involving animals were funded by Fauci's NIAID. They add that much of the tissue comes from colleges and universities that have affiliate hospitals performing the procedures. Speaker 1 suggests the need to investigate where the aborted human fetal tissue is sourced and asserts the issue should be looked into, addressing the Madam Chair. Speaker 0 clarifies that the video is for entertainment purposes, but describes a certain person’s claim that aborted fetal parts are being used and combined with other animals, implying a practice beyond ordinary science. The speaker acknowledges skepticism but says the rumor should be investigated regardless of political alignment, arguing that it would be understandable to be unsettled by such alleged activities. The speaker shares a personal stance: they will take the claim with a grain of salt because it originates from a random person on X, yet reiterates the claim that people are “playing god” and that humanity is unprepared for the extent of these actions, suggesting that the truth is being concealed to avoid public outcry. The speaker adds a conspiratorial thread: “these USOs under the sea” are related to the topic, and mentions a family acquaintance who allegedly knows an ex-military person who had to deal with a creature created in a lab that merged with AI. If the claims are true, the speakers imply this would constitute a true horror story, indicating that humanity is not in control of the government globally. They urge the audience to remember this when they see references to the USA. A broader existential claim follows: humanity is making decisions and following orders from ancient “gods” such as the Anunnaki, an alien race. The people at the top are portrayed as having sold their souls, believing they have no chance of going to heaven, and having been traumatized from birth. The speakers emphasize that these powerful individuals fear humanity—our soul, love, kindness, strength, fierceness, and capabilities—and urge listeners not to be manipulated any longer, concluding with a call for awakening and healing the world through collective awareness.

Speaker 0 asks if the speaker knew about stopping humanization before it entered the market and if they are willing to share the data with the committee. Speaker 1 responds that they did not know about it before it entered the market and had to move at the speed of science to understand what was happening.