reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Scientists analyzed the genetic code of viruses to trace their origins. By studying the molecular clock, they found that SARS-CoV-2 had no posterior diversity, indicating a single source in Wuhan. Research showed hospitals in Wuhan were clustered along a subway line connecting the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the wet market, and the international airport, suggesting a potential route of transmission. The speaker collaborated with the State Department in 2020 to investigate these findings.

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.

This virus likely did not originate naturally; it stems from scientific arrogance. In the early pandemic days, there were claims about a wet market origin, but evidence soon emerged showing many cases unrelated to it. By early January, I informed the National Security Council and Anthony Fauci that the virus was highly infectious in humans, suggesting a lab origin. The Wuhan Institute of Virology is well-known for coronavirus research, making the lab leak theory plausible. Despite discussions, Fauci maintained a focus on the wet market hypothesis, disregarding other possibilities. I believed a broader scientific investigation was necessary, but only a single hypothesis was considered.

Recent computer modeling from early 2020 suggested that the virus might be man-made. Initially, the goal was to design a vaccine, but the modeling revealed that the virus was surprisingly well-adapted to humans, raising questions about its origin. Instead of identifying an exotic animal, the research pointed to humans as the closest match for the virus's ACE2 receptor binding. This unexpected finding led to speculation about whether the virus had adapted in a lab setting or was an accidental release. The research faced challenges in publication due to its divergence from the prevailing narrative. Additionally, the presence of a furin cleavage site in the virus raised further concerns, as it appeared unnatural in the context of viral evolution.

Three years ago, anyone suggesting that COVID-19 originated from a lab was dismissed and censored. Doctor Redfield faced backlash for suggesting it came from a Wuhan lab. Doctor Fauci received emails from doctors Anderson and Gary stating that the virus appeared engineered and not consistent with evolutionary theory. However, he did not share these emails with Redfield or the CDC. Three days later, Anderson and Gary changed their stance, and the only intervening event was a conference call with Fauci. It is worth noting that Anderson and Gary later received a $9 million grant from Fauci. This raises questions about their sudden change in position.

The issue at hand is that funding was provided to a lab in China, which is now embarrassing. The lab is located near the epicenter of the pandemic and has been involved in suspicious activities. The doctors were arrested and forced to sign nondisclosure agreements, lab reports were destroyed, and sequences from the lab were deleted from the NIH database. Two top virologists initially believed the virus likely originated from the lab, but later changed their stance in the media. It is worth noting that both scientists received a significant amount of money for further research, suggesting a potential conflict of interest.

According to the speaker, including himself and Secretary Pompeo, the most likely origin of COVID-19 was a lab leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. They claim that this is not just a possibility, but a probability and possibly a certainty. The FBI has been cultivating a crucial witness, Dr. Zhou Yousen, a close relative of a Chinese military scientist who worked at the institute. Dr. Zhou published a patent for a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, suggesting he started working on it no later than October 2019. However, he was found dead shortly after. While it is possible that he was killed by the People's Liberation Army for accidentally starting COVID-19, there is no evidence to support this claim. The Proximal Origins authors have been approached for comment.

Republicans on the subcommittee recount two years of work aimed at linking the COVID-19 origin to a Wuhan lab, arguing that Democrats hindered the pursuit of truth by blocking hearings. They contend mounting evidence supports a lab-origin, and they frame the hearing as a step toward uncovering the truth for Americans who have suffered from COVID-19. Dr. Redfield is cited as having pointed to the lab-leak hypothesis as early as 2020, urging Fauci, Jeremy Farrar, and Tedros to take the lab-leak possibility seriously and to investigate both lab-origin and natural-origin hypotheses. Farrar convened an 11-scientist meeting across five time zones on February 1, inviting Fauci to join, with a note to treat the matter in total confidence. Redfield notes he was excluded from that call despite being included in prior discussions, and asks why he was left out. Emails following the February 1 conference show the four scientists who had attended later told Fauci that they found the genetic sequence inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory. Yet, just three days later, these four scientists drafted the proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2 paper, arguing the opposite. The subcommittee asks for the likelihood that these scientists, after making that earlier statement, could conclude with such certainty that COVID-19 came from nature instead of a lab leak, and suggests Fauci prompted the paper to discredit the lab-leak theory. Speaker 0 characterizes the February 2020 approach as antithetical to science, saying science requires debate and that this process squashed debate. They ask whether Fauci used the proximal-origin paper to hide gain-of-function research that created the virus. Speaker 1 responds that they cannot speak to Fauci’s motivation but asserts the paper is inaccurate and part of a narrative to support a natural-origin story. They state the pandemic did not start in January at the seafood market, noting infections as early as September, and allege a narrative was decided to claim a wet market origin and to negate discussion about a laboratory origin. With twenty seconds left, Speaker 0 raises a point that Fauci was told in January 2020 about NIH’s monetary relationship with the Wuhan Institute through EcoHealth Alliance and asks whether Fauci intentionally lied under oath when denying NIH funding of gain-of-function research. Speaker 1 asserts there is no doubt NIH funded gain-of-function research and adds that American tax dollars funded gain-of-function research from NIH, the State Department, USAID, and DOD. The exchange ends with Speaker 0 noting time and recognizing Ms. Dink.

It was unlikely. The presence of a lab working on corona viruses in the same area did not make me associate it with the virus.

This virus likely did not originate naturally; it stems from scientific arrogance. In the early pandemic, there were claims about a wet market being the source, but evidence soon showed many cases unrelated to it. By early January, it was clear the wet market narrative was misleading. I informed the National Security Council and Anthony Fauci that the virus was highly infectious, suggesting it had been engineered in a lab. The Wuhan Institute of Virology is well-known for coronavirus research, making the lab leak theory plausible. Despite discussions, Fauci maintained a focus on the wet market hypothesis, dismissing the need for broader scientific investigation.

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.

In a recorded conversation on February 1, Ron Foucier, who conducted dangerous experiments at Erasmus University, discussed with Fauci the differences between the natural SARS coronavirus and the vaccine. Foucier later released a redacted email memo, which was fully disclosed a few months ago. In the email, he identified six parts of the genome that appeared unnatural and provided explanations for each. This suggests that the virus was lab-grown. Fauci, Jeremy Farrar, and Francis Collins were all aware of this by February 1, 2020. The full email can be found on my blog for those interested in understanding it.

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.

I did not try to downplay the lab leak theory. I have kept an open mind and looked at the facts. Many people find it surprising. That's all I have to say. Thank you.

Source tomia.org April 2024. Why deflate the parasitic system? Because the parasitic destructiveness oversized states and corporations always leads to decay, corruption, injustice to the destruction of its many hosts, the people, the working and creative people, the maimed and dying slaves of the elites. See examples below. Tanks for Kidneys RT Documentary, Organ Harvesting, Black Market Transplants, Crimes Against Humanity. If I extrapolate my estimate for 2022 to 2023 plus half of 2024 I get in total thirty six million excess deaths since the Covid Vax rollout. Adding the nine million from the Covid killing protocols in 2020 gives a total of forty five million for four point five years of Covid killing protocols. SARS CoV-two virus and vaccine bio weapons Considering the estimated forty five million extra deaths and estimated one point nine billion serious adverse effects for four point five years of Covid killing protocols and deployed SARS CoV-two virus and vaccine bio weapons the words bio weaponized, propagandized, lured, coerced and mandated depopulation and genocide should not be taboo 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 bio lab. 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. Since the GenTech covid vaccines make the human body cells produce during months up to years huge amounts of the toxic spike protein of SARS CoV-two. In fact in all organs and tissues much greater 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 Gentech covid vaccines are of course themselves bio weapons 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. Source2mia.org, please like and follow.

When the virus emerged, scientists were alarmed and held secret calls questioning its origin. Despite privately suspecting a lab origin, they published a paper claiming it was natural. This cover-up at Nature Medicine has not been retracted. The government has not been transparent, with information coming from whistleblowers and Freedom of Information Act requests.

The lines were drawn early on regarding the virus's origins. I believed it came from a lab, but others disagreed. After being sidelined from the CDC, I was informed it was the White House's decision. I find that hard to believe; it feels like a cover-up. Why would we share advanced biotechnology with China? I doubt this situation will be foolproof; issues will arise. There have been repeated lies throughout this process.

Dr. Fauci was asked about concerns that the virus was man-made. Some virologists believe that the virus does not look natural and may have escaped from a lab. However, Dr. Fauci believes it is more likely that the virus originated in nature. He acknowledges that discussing a lab leak would be detrimental to science's reputation. He emphasizes that COVID-19's origin is consistent with the scientific process, where the virus jumped from an animal to a human.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the origins of COVID-19, focusing on claims that the virus originated in a Wuhan lab and the handling of scientific debate around the lab-leak hypothesis. - Speaker 0 states that for two years Republicans connected the dots and exposed evidence supporting the belief that COVID-19 was developed and leaked from the Wuhan lab, while Democrats hindered hearings and blocked truth-seeking. He asserts mounting evidence supports a lab-origin theory and frames the hearing as a pursuit of truth for Americans who suffered from the pandemic. He notes Doctor Redfield pointed to the lab-leak hypothesis early on and urged Fauci to investigate both the lab and natural hypotheses. - Speaker 0 recalls a February 1 meeting convened by Jeremy Farrar with 11 top scientists across five time zones, inviting Fauci to join, with a preference for a tight, confidential group. He says Redfield was excluded from the call, and asks why he was excluded. - Speaker 1 confirms that in January and February 2020 he spoke with Fauci, Farrar, and Tedros about pursuing both hypotheses, and as a clinical virologist argued it was not scientifically plausible that the virus jumped bat-to-human and became highly infectious; he notes that coronaviruses differ from Ebola and that intermediate hosts are involved for SARS and MERS, and that they never learned to go human-to-human in those contexts. - Speaker 0 asks why Redfield was excluded from the calls. Speaker 1 responds that he was told there was a desire for a single narrative and that his viewpoint differed. - Speaker 0 references emails after the conference call in which four of the 11 scientists said the genetic sequence was inconsistent with evolutionary expectations, but three days later those scientists drafted the paper Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2 arguing the opposite. He asks how those scientists could conclude certainty about a natural origin after three days. - Speaker 1 describes the process as unfortunate and says the approach in January–February 2020 was antithetical to science, noting that science involves debate, which he claims was squashed. - Speaker 0 asks if Fauci used the Proximal Origin paper to hide gain-of-function research and to what extent the paper hides the truth. Speaker 1 declines to discuss Fauci’s motivations but calls the paper inaccurate and part of a narrative intended to negate the possibility that COVID-19 came from a laboratory. He emphasizes that the pandemic did not start in January at the seafood market and that infections date back to September. - Speaker 0 notes an email from 01/27/2020 stating NIH had a monetary relationship with the Wuhan Institute via EcoHealth Alliance, and asks if Fauci intentionally lied under oath about NIH funding of gain-of-function research. Speaker 1 asserts there is no doubt NIH funded gain-of-function research and says American tax dollars funded such research not only through NIH but also via the State Department, USAID, and the DOD. - The exchange ends with Speaker 0 signaling time and introducing Ms. Dink.

The speakers discuss the possibility of the Sarscov 2 virus being a laboratory-made chimera. They mention that it is possible to create a virus in the lab that is indistinguishable from a natural one. They also mention a database created by Professor Shi, containing information on over 20,000 bat and rodent viruses. The database included details such as GPS coordinates, virus type, and whether the virus was sequenced or isolated. However, the webpage containing this information was removed from the web in June 2020.

Joseph Sanson presents the statement based on the sworn statement of the late Professor Doctor Francis Boyle, who he says is the greatest authority in bioweapons legislation and the author of it. Sanson claims Boyle knew that the covert nineteen mRNA injection is a bio weapon and that Boyle declared this to the world before his death, which Sanson says occurred despite Boyle being in good health and willing to testify under oath in court. The core of Boyle’s argument, as Sanson relays, is that the COVID-19 mRNA injections contain derivatives of illegal military gene function research, and as a result, the injections qualify by definition as a military biological weapon system, a bioweapon. This bioweapon is said to have two integrated components: the pathogenic load and the delivery mechanism. Sanson asserts it is beyond doubt that the pathogenic load is the product of illegal gene or function research. He references an article in Nature Medicine cited by Boyle, noting that the article’s warning indicates true scientists believe that an animal is the most likely source of the coronavirus, and that what is called the “new normal” are not scientists but faith fanatics behind whom the respondents hide. The Nature Medicine article, published in 2015, is described as stating that a cluster of circulating coronaviruses in bats similar to SARS shows potential for human infection, and that the researchers synthetic created an infectious fully SHC zero fourteen recombinant virus with robust viral replication in vitro and in vivo, with a SARS-like coronavirus having a spike protein optimized for human infection. Sanson names researchers affiliated with UNC Chapel Hill and the Wuhan Institute of Virology as authors of that article. According to Boyle, the spike protein mRNA, with instructions to human cells to produce the pathogenic spike protein, is one of the two crucial building blocks of the COVID-19 bioweapon. The other building block is the delivery system, the nanolipid particles (NLPs) that encapsulate the mRNA payload and deliver it into cells, referred to in propaganda as fat globules. Boyle is said to have declared that this delivery system is a nanotechnology enhanced platform paid for, developed, financed, and conceived by the Pentagon and its research institute DARPA. The technology platform is described as not an afterthought, with Boyle stating that the virus itself was aerosolized and engineered with nanotechnology from the beginning, indicating a long-term program applying advanced delivery systems, and that this technology has been used in the COVID-19 injections. Boyle’s presentation is also presented as arguing that Gates and Borla qualify as suspects of crimes against humanity as defined in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

A member of the World Health Organization team reveals that some researchers at a Wuhan lab studying coronaviruses got sick with flu-like symptoms in the fall of 2019. However, there were only 1 or 2 cases, which is not significant. China claims that the lab researchers tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 in March-April 2020, and there is no credible evidence of a lab leak. A 300-page joint report between the WHO and China will be published soon, but concerns have been raised about the WHO team's lack of proper access and the need to clear their report with Chinese scientists. China insists it has been transparent, while the Biden administration questions its transparency.

In a written exchange between Christian Andersen and Andrew Rambaut, they discuss the lack of evidence for a specifically engineered virus and the difficulty in distinguishing between natural evolution and escape. They agree that it is reasonable to attribute the origins of COVID to natural processes. However, politics inevitably influences science, which is unfortunate. It is interesting to note that Andersen had a grant proposal for NIH at the same time. Another speaker suggests that the issue was more about the business of science and money, with large sums being exchanged to downplay the possibility of a lab leak. Private emails reveal that many believed the virus could have come from a lab, but in public, they denied it to protect the business of science and relations with China. The involvement of money and grants from NIH is also highlighted. Anthony Fauci's contradictory statements and potential lies to Congress are mentioned, with the speaker referring him for prosecution. However, they express doubt about the Attorney General's willingness to act. The conversation ends with a brief exchange about the timing of the interview and the speaker's appreciation for the new time slot.