TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

We collaborated with Tony's team for years, working on various vaccine candidates. After analyzing different antigens for MERS, we found that the full-length spike protein with mRNA was the most effective. When we received the SARS CoV 2 sequence on January 13, both teams independently recommended the same vaccine design. We immediately ordered production, leading to the start of phase 1 trials on March 16.

On January 8, 2020, the speaker was asked why they didn't release the genome earlier. They explained that they received the sequence on January 5 and released it on January 11. Initially, they tried to convince Professor Zhang to release it, but there was pressure in China to withhold data. However, as other groups also had the sequence and the pressure to release it grew, they reached a breaking point. Eventually, they persuaded Zhang to give them the sequence, and they released it. The speaker acknowledged the complexity of the situation in China and mentioned that it would have been different if it were a Western issue.

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.

A year ago, the speaker requested data from Emma, including all clinical trials done by medical companies before they requested marketing authorization for the green certificate. Regarding Pfizer, the speaker notes the company submitted a clinical trial that started on January 14, 2020. The speaker questioned a Pfizer representative about how tests for the vaccine began so soon after the December 2019 emergence of COVID-19, but the representative declined to answer. The speaker also asked the CEO of Moderna how they submitted trials since 2017, years before the virus was discovered in the winter of 2019. The speaker states that the CEO of Moderna did not answer how this was possible. The speaker says these are legitimate questions that people are asking, but unfortunately, the companies are declining to answer.

In just 26 days, a new virus was identified in China, leading to rapid development of tests, protocols, and research. The process from patient identification to test kit production was suspiciously fast, suggesting premeditation.

The speaker states the virus was not isolated. Live animal samples are irrelevant. The speaker suspects the origin is different than originally thought. China's government is presenting the city where the virus emerged as the city that defeated it in a new patriotic film.

The virus sequence was posted to GenBank on January 9, 2020, supposedly from a Chinese patient. By January 30th, the CDC claimed a first US case in Washington state. On February 4th, Colonel Matt Hepburn from DARPA told pharmaceutical companies to switch to COVID models because it was a national security threat. Despite only a few reported cases in the US, the DOD was already growing stocks of the virus. This was announced at a press conference in early March. Afterward, we saw an explosion of cases. This wasn't a pandemic; it was a military attack deploying a chemical weapon. The deaths were caused by hospital protocols like remdesivir, ventilators, dehydration, and isolation. The main point was to deploy biological weapons: the shots.

In China, a doctor discovers a case of atypical pneumonia, which is unusual. Within 11 days, the first PCR test kits are shipped and gene sequences are published. The World Health Organization accepts a PCR protocol as the gold standard for testing. Clinical symptoms and asymptomatic transmission are also studied and published. However, the speaker believes that all these steps were premeditated and false.

In Davos, in January 2020, we had a conversation about a vaccine for COVID-19. At that time, COVID-19 wasn't a major concern, and we were focused on developing the vaccine.

We discussed the idea of testing outbreak readiness with mRNA technology. We proposed a simulation to create a vaccine in less than 60 days, which was initially met with skepticism but later considered seriously. The conversation shifted to the challenges of transitioning from traditional egg-based vaccine production to newer methods. There was also mention of the potential for a novel avian virus outbreak in China. The need for disruptive and iterative approaches to address influenza perception was highlighted. The conversation ended with a request to investigate a possible motive for certain actions.

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.

On January 8, 2020, the speaker was asked why they didn't release the genome earlier. They explained that they received the sequence on January 5 and released it on January 11. Initially, they tried to convince Professor Zhang to release it, but there was pressure in China to withhold data. However, as other groups also had the sequence and the pressure to release it grew, they reached a breaking point. Eventually, they persuaded Zhang to give them the sequence, and they released it. The speaker acknowledged that the situation was complex due to the politics involved, especially when dealing with China.

The speaker discusses the development of a COVID-19 vaccine in collaboration with Moderna. While some companies see it as a moneymaker, the CEO of Moderna suggests that the virus may have been manipulated in a lab. The speaker also mentions funding for gain-of-function research and the possibility of a deliberate bioterror attack. There is a dispute over whether gain-of-function research was funded, with accusations of lying to Congress. The speaker addresses conspiracy theories and emphasizes the positive impact of vaccines. They also highlight the need to be prepared for future pandemics, whether natural or intentional.

The Pfizer COVID vaccine was not tested for its ability to stop the transmission of the virus before it entered the market. The speaker acknowledges that they had to work quickly to understand the situation and move at the speed of science.

We discussed pandemic readiness with Tony, proposing a mock outbreak to test fast vaccine production. Despite skepticism, we aimed to deliver a GMP dose within 60 days. When news of a new coronavirus emerged, we quickly recognized the need for action. Transitioning from traditional egg-based vaccine production to new methods requires disruptive innovation. The urgency for a faster, disruptive approach to address outbreaks is evident. The potential for rapid response to novel viruses by sharing RNA sequences globally is crucial. Investigation into motives for outbreaks is essential.

We discussed pandemic readiness and the speed of mRNA technology. I proposed a simulation to create a vaccine within 60 days, which was initially met with skepticism. However, due to our work on personalized cancer vaccines, we were prepared. When news of a new coronavirus emerged, we quickly got the sequence and began working on a vaccine. The conversation shifted to the need for disruptive entities to accelerate vaccine development, moving away from traditional methods like egg-based production. The urgency for innovative solutions to address outbreaks was emphasized.

In China, a strange case of atypical pneumonia is reported by an eye doctor. Within 11 days, the first PCR kits to test for the virus are shipped. The World Health Organization accepts a PCR protocol as the gold standard for testing. A study on clinical symptoms related to COVID is published, followed by a study on asymptomatic transmission. All of these developments occur within a compressed timeframe of just 26 days. The speaker argues that each step was premeditated and false.

- Speaker 0 describes a doctrine where an agent or pathogen works best as a binary weapon if followed by mass exposure with vaccines, noting the insistence on gene transfection technologies to create a peptide with a prion-catalyzing epitope and pointing out that lipid nanoparticles are highly labile and inflammatory, constituting a combination of chemical and biological warfare. - Speaker 0 adds that if this was a weapon release, it may be done and now data will reveal its effects, and expresses doubt about how much trust can be placed in normal scientific methods and institutions to relay data to the public, inviting Speaker 1’s thoughts. - Speaker 1 (Stephanie) says the discussion has been an incredible and difficult ride since things began unfolding, with questions about natural versus lab-based origins, vaccine development versus biowarfare, and concerns about funding by China for bioweapons, acknowledging the impossibility of definitively answering many questions. - Speaker 0 agrees that ambiguity is the point and calls it the strength of the weapon. - Speaker 1 asks why someone would inject something to inflict a bioweapon on the entire population, suggesting population control as a possible motivation. - Speaker 0 notes the need to consider literature from top transnational power structures and corporations, asserting that it is not hidden. - Speaker 1 recalls prior concerns about population-control vaccines, referencing reports about vaccines used in Argentina and Africa that allegedly caused infertility, describing an example where a vaccine given to teenage girls could lead to antibody development to a fetus, making infertility less detectable over time. She mentions a memory of a “benign disease” vaccination program in Argentina that led people to suspect infertility, and notes that it could be a stealth method. - Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the idea that vaccines may have had effects on fertility and reference terms like human chorionic something, with Speaker 1 acknowledging possible occurrences in India as well as Africa and Argentina. - Speaker 0 refers to bioaccumulation seen in reproductive organs and cites pharmacokinetic studies beginning in Japan, noting the vaccine’s presence in the placenta and testes and recalling reports of harmful effects on male reproductive organs. - Speaker 0 mentions Anna Burkhart’s data as dark regarding spike protein expression in reproductive organs found in autopsies, while acknowledging uncertainty about how much weight to attribute to that data, but maintaining that biowarfare cannot be dismissed. - The discussion returns to the mechanism of biowarfare being distinct from a pathogen, describing a scenario where exposure leads to effects years later due to the disease mechanism being induced, rather than immediate pathogen-driven illness.

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.

Big companies said it wasn't possible, but Trump gave Moderna's COO $1 billion to develop a vaccine quickly. They started human trials after testing on mice. Many were skeptical, but the vaccine was ready in 6 months. Some experts raised concerns about the rushed development process.

A year ago, the speaker requested data from Emma, including clinical trials from medical companies before they sought marketing authorization for their products. Regarding Pfizer, the speaker notes that the company submitted a clinical trial that started on January 14, 2020. The speaker questioned a Pfizer representative about how Pfizer started testing a vaccine in January 2020, just days after the Chinese government released DNA data about the virus in December 2019, but the representative declined to answer. The speaker also mentions that Moderna submitted trials dating back to 2017. The speaker asked the CEO of Moderna how it was possible to submit vaccine tests years before the virus was discovered in December 2019. The speaker states that these are legitimate questions that people are asking, but unfortunately, the companies are declining to answer.

In late 2019, I first heard about a new virus in China. Initially, I thought it would be like SARS or MERS, but after attending Davos 2020, I realized it could be a pandemic. We are partnering with CP to develop a vaccine quickly, with the US government's help. SEPI is funding the project, and we aim to produce clinical-grade material for testing. This endeavor is unprecedented, and we are working together to achieve it. When the pandemic hit, we shifted focus to producing a billion doses. It's a challenging but necessary task.

Moderna and BioNTech used the first sequence of the SARS CoV-2 genome, published on January 10th, to develop their vaccines. Moderna relied solely on the published data and never had the live virus on their site. This highlights the significance of digitizing biology, as Moderna, a leading company in biology, faced a software problem rather than a biological one.

We discussed pandemic readiness with Tony, proposing a rapid response simulation. Despite skepticism, we aimed to produce a GMP dose within 60 days. In December, upon learning of the new coronavirus, we swiftly obtained its sequence. Transitioning from egg-based vaccine production to a more efficient method requires extensive testing and could take a decade. An innovative, disruptive approach may be necessary to address future outbreaks effectively. The potential for a quick response to novel viruses, like avian strains in China, highlights the need for agile solutions.

Scientists are investigating claims that COVID-19 was manipulated in a lab. They are analyzing data to determine the accuracy of these claims. The possibility of a lab accident cannot be ruled out, as humans make mistakes. It is being examined whether the Wuhan lab in China was conducting virus enhancement or gene modification, leading to an accidental infection. The team is carefully examining a genetic sequence that matches one patented by Moderna for cancer research. This analysis takes time.