TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

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.

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.

Gain of function research funded by the NIH in a lab in Wuhan is under scrutiny. Senator Rand Paul accused Dr. Anthony Fauci of funding the lab, which was initially criticized by the media. However, the NIH now admits to funding risky research in Wuhan. The theory that COVID-19 originated from a lab leak gains traction as evidence suggests it came from the lab, not animals. Lab leaks have happened before, and the FBI and Department of Energy support the lab leak theory. Gain of function research involves making viruses stronger, but its effectiveness in creating vaccines is questionable. The media's lack of curiosity about the origins of COVID-19 is concerning. The NIH continues to fund gain of function research, posing a potential risk to humanity.

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.

I've lost faith in the journals. When we first identified the virus with six insertions, we thought it was crucial information for vaccine development. We submitted our findings, but they were ignored by various journals, including Nature and The Lancet, which claimed it wasn't in the public interest to publish our paper. Despite the scientific validity, they didn't engage with us for evidence. Molecular biologists suggested it could be random mutation, but that wasn't the case. Eventually, a biophysics journal published our work, recognizing that the alterations in charge and infectivity wouldn't occur through normal evolution. We presented our findings, but there was no willingness for further discussion.

It is nearly impossible to publish data that goes against the national public health narrative, preventing doctors from finding solutions. The speaker has conducted clinical trials for pharmaceutical companies, including vaccine studies, and has brought vaccines and other drugs to market. Some drugs never made it to market because they killed people. Clinical trial guidelines ensure safe drugs, but these guidelines were not followed during the pandemic, affecting everyone. COVID should have been a time for doctors to unite, but interference with research occurred. Science evolves through experiments, skepticism, and an open mind. Challenging current knowledge must be allowed to move science forward, but what the speaker witnessed during the pandemic was not science.

Scientists are working with dangerous pathogens to find cures, but accidents are common. Incidents like holes in protective gear, escaped infected animals, and missing pathogens have occurred. Even top labs are not immune to safety breaches. Lab accidents can lead to outbreaks, like SARS and foot and mouth disease. Despite safety measures, accidents happen regularly, mostly affecting lab workers. While rare, lab accidents can have public health consequences. Outbreaks linked to labs, like a reemerging flu strain, highlight the importance of lab safety.

A US health official working for Dr. Fauci expressed safety concerns about a lab in Wuhan, China, six years ago. The lab was planning to reverse engineer the Ebola virus, but the official was ordered to delete any mention of Ebola in her report. The lab, which is believed by some to be the source of COVID-19, was visited by the official just before it opened. During the tour, a technician at the lab mentioned the illegal importation of Ebola for study. The official expressed shock and worry about the potential consequences if this information became public. Two days later, she was instructed to delete her comment.

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 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.

Scientists are reportedly combining viral and bacterial genetic material, creating something that wouldn't happen in nature. This could lead to the creation of superbugs. While some people might survive due to a resilient microbiome, many could die from these experiments. The justification for these experiments is to see what happens in case it occurs in nature later. However, the experiments are creating the very scenario they are trying to prepare for. The speaker argues that some scientific endeavors, like reproducing a dinosaur, should not be pursued because of potential catastrophic consequences like the dinosaur killing humanity. There is a need for better supervision of scientists and their labs.

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.

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.

I conducted a study on police use of force, finding bias in low-level incidents but not in shootings. The results caused controversy, with some calling it nonsense. Colleagues advised against publishing to protect my career. I stood by my findings, even under police protection. The experience was intense, especially with a newborn daughter needing diapers.

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.

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.

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.

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 speaker argues that an irrational, unbridled enthusiasm for new possibilities leads to a sacrifice of safety. This enthusiasm, in their view, has adversely affected precautionary considerations and risk assessment. They reference presenting autopsy findings related to deaths following COVID-19 vaccination at the American Society of Microbiology, an event attended by thousands of microbiologists, vaccinologists, and immunologists. In conversations with attendees, the speaker was surprised by what they describe as a scientific seduction surrounding messenger RNA technology. The core concern expressed is that this eagerness to embrace mRNA platforms is accompanied by a neglect of safety considerations. The speaker asserts that there will be a cataclysmic recognition that messenger RNA technology represents an unsafe platform. They emphasize that, as they understand it, there is no way to break down certain aspects of the technology they refer to as “pseudourogenated messenger RNA,” noting this within the context of their work in research laboratories. The statement implies a belief that the degradation or metabolic processing of this form of RNA poses unresolved issues. A central, striking claim presented is that circulating messenger RNA from Pfizer or Moderna has been found in their patients’ bloodstream three years after vaccination, and that this RNA is intact. The speaker underscores this as evidence tied to their observations and research experiences, asserting the persistence of the RNA in the circulatory system over an extended period. Overall, the message conveys a perspective that rapid adoption and optimism around mRNA vaccines and technologies have overshadowed safety considerations, and it anticipates a future realization of safety concerns associated with these platforms. The speaker ties their warnings to concrete experiences at a major scientific conference and to specific, long-term biomarkers observed in patients, presenting a narrative of ongoing research findings and anticipated paradigm shifts in how the safety of mRNA vaccines is perceived.

"So 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." "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."

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.

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.

I mean, it's become a joke. These papers that are winning awards at the American College of Gastro, and they're not getting published. So and what I do is I do what I do best, which is basically stir up shit, and I call all my friends. And I go, by the way, my paper has been retracted. That paper of the finding COVID in the stools Yeah. Was considered to be retracted. So, I called Trial Site News, and I said, by the way, you may wanna investigate. That's how they found out about the publishing house, private publishing house that is retracting these papers. So somebody must be paying them. And then I called all my colleagues, Mayo Clinic, Harvard, Yale, and I go, by the way, remember that paper that I found COVID? Well, it got retracted. And they're like, what? But it it passed peer review. Well, your peer review means nothing. And here's the thing. So guess what? You're not getting paid to do these peer reviews. Maybe you should start charging the journals now because clearly, they're going about wasting your time reviewing a paper, and they're going behind your back to retract the paper because it doesn't fit the narrative. So, that's what I do. So, and then the other thing that I did is I called the National Institute of Standards, Scott Jackson. And I basically said, remember my paper that we found COVID in the stools, and you also found COVID in the septic tanks? Well, my paper was retracted. And, you know, they couldn't believe it. They could this is at the government level. People are waking up to see we have a problem. Yeah. This is like the burning of the books.