TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Public health officials during the pandemic acted more like dictators than scientists, suppressing credible dissent. Early on, they dismissed the lab leak hypothesis as conspiracy, only recently acknowledging its plausibility. Martin Kulldorff from Harvard, Sunita Gupta from Oxford, and I proposed a focused protection strategy in October 2020, which was labeled fringe by then NIH director Francis Collins, despite support from thousands of professionals. Government agencies collaborated with social media to control the narrative around COVID science, creating a false sense of consensus. The public deserves answers about the basis for school closures, whether the harms of policies were adequately considered, and why natural immunity and vaccine transmission failures were overlooked in mandates.

In 1965, coronavirus was identified as a pathogen that could be modified for various purposes. The first human manipulation experiment took place in 1966, followed by transatlantic data sharing in 1967. In the 1970s, coronavirus was modified in animals like pigs and dogs. By 1990, it was discovered that coronavirus caused gastrointestinal issues in dogs and pigs, leading to Pfizer filing the first spike protein vaccine patent. The spike protein was not a new problem, as it was known since 1990. Vaccines for coronavirus have been ineffective due to its ability to mutate quickly, as stated in numerous independent scientific publications. In 2002, the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill patented an infectious replication defective clone of coronavirus, funded by Anthony Fauci. This suggests that SARS was engineered and not a naturally occurring phenomenon.

I contracted SARS in South Korea during the outbreak. It caused neurological symptoms and was different from the flu or norovirus. I couldn't get a proper diagnosis, but I realized it was serious when I saw what was happening in Wuhan. There was an effort to suppress information beyond the official narrative. I believed it came from a lab and published a paper on it. I've been trying to inform people about the role of viruses in chronic neurodegenerative diseases. The spike protein in the virus can misfold and cause amyloidosis. There are safety concerns with gene transfection, and we're seeing excess deaths, especially in dementia cases. Synthetic peptides may be a contributing factor.

Every day, just the 1% of the cells of your DNA that gets replicated stretches from here to the sun four times. If you're to line it up end by end, that's very hard to conceptualize. But it should give you a little bit of humility before you go and start monkeying with it with these vaccines that can actually alter your DNA. And that's what I'm gonna show you. Is that the vaccines had a DNA contamination in them that didn't tell you about that could in fact alter your genome. Alright? These people are vibe coding your genome. And this is a major attack surface to the human gene pool because if this thing starts to alter the lifespan of people, it's going to part you with your Bitcoin. You're gonna end up spending money in a fiat system that has no controls, has no liability, and ends up oftentimes inducing mandates to get what it wants done. Many people had have peer have gone and replicated this work. It happened on Twitter. It did not happen very quickly in the peer review system. The peer review system kinda kicked it out. Some of these papers have now been peer reviewed, but it took years for them to come to this conclusion. Now, the FDA, the EMA and the TGA have all admitted that this mistake has happened. How did it happen? There's a big bait and switch. Pfizer actually ran the trial of 22,000 people on the process on the left and after they got to the trial, they then switched to the process on the right and didn't retrial the drug. And in doing so, they left a tremendous amount of excess DNA behind in the product. So all of the vaccine efficiency numbers you've heard in the news are flawed. They're not real because that's not what actually went into the trial. What went to the public was actually something that came out of this process too. It's published now in the BMJ that this fraud happened and no one has yet been prosecuted for it. So what did they leave in there? What they left in there was something we know from the polio scandal. If you're not familiar with the polio scandal, that polio vaccines were also contaminated with something known as SV40 and it created a massive cancer wave. Now the whole virus isn't in these vaccines, but there is a very curious part of this called the SV40 region that Pfizer intentionally removed from the disclosure that they gave to the FDA. So the FDA has admitted that this SV40 material is in there. They did not spell this out to the regulators. The regulators did not find them and they're actually running cover for them saying this DNA is too little consequence to matter, it's too small, and it's not functional. But we know it's functional because Dean et al has published that this piece of DNA drives DNA straight to the nucleus. It gets used in gene therapy vectors.

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.

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.

The speaker discusses the ideology of scientists who have questioned the origins of viruses like AIDS, hepatitis, and Ebola. They mention Dr. Duisburg from the University of California at Berkeley as one of these scientists. The speaker also mentions that the COVID vaccines contained varying percentages of bioweapon material, with the booster having the highest concentration. They note that over 13 billion COVID vaccines were administered to around 5 billion people, but not all individuals received the vaccines. The speaker suggests that the PCR swab was another method of inoculating people with nanotechnology, specifically Graphene Ferric Oxide. They mention facing pushback when trying to publish their research on this topic, but eventually succeeded. However, they were subsequently attacked.

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.

From the start, the lines were drawn regarding the virus's origins. I believed it came from a lab, while others disagreed. My position as head of the CDC was undermined, and I was told it was a White House decision. I find that hard to believe; it seems like a cover-up. Why would we share advanced biotechnology with China? I doubt the measures in place will be foolproof; issues will arise. There have been multiple lies throughout this situation.

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.

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.

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.

We decided to write a summary statement, and the next day, my colleague at the University of Hong Kong, Tommy Lam, sent me a sequence from a pangolin that was closely related to SARS-CoV-2. The receptor binding domain of SARS-CoV-2 appeared unique, but the same sequence was found in the pangolin, suggesting a natural origin. Initially, I believed there was a 60-40 chance of a lab leak, which later shifted to 80-20 for a brief period. However, I quickly changed my mind based on new evidence.

Viruses have never been isolated, which is a major fraud against humanity. There is no measles virus, and each year a new virus with similar symptoms emerges. This started with the Third Reich and Doctor Enders. In my book, "A Second Thought about Viruses, Vaccines, and the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis," I discuss this issue. Even Professor Peter Guisberg lost his funding at Berkeley University for writing "Inventing the AIDS Virus" and questioning the existence of a virus. The situation is dire.

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.

For 20 years, I've seen people overlook the obvious evidence. The creation of the virus was not a secret. It was publicly announced in 2016 that the Wuhan variant was chosen for human emergence. This wasn't a random event involving bats and pangolins. The Wuhan Institute of Virology Virus One model was intentionally selected as a weapon. They admitted their goal was to use fear to promote a drug. They openly discussed biohacking synthetic coronaviruses and biological warfare enabling technologies. This is not a mistake or accident, but a deliberate act of war against humanity. The evidence is clear and undeniable.

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.

I was accused of being part of a propaganda effort to censor those questioning the origin of the virus. I stand by my assertion that the virus is not a lab construct, which aligns with the intelligence community's conclusion. I cannot control how my work is used. It is wrong to censor and lie to the public, and I should have done better.

The speaker believes COVID vaccine programs should be stopped. They are astounded by the number of papers critical of the vaccine or showing negative effects. The speaker claims a group of researchers funded by Pfizer and the NIH bullies editors to retract papers with negative findings about the vaccine. They assert the number of retractions is appalling. According to the speaker, in one instance where an editor resisted, Nature Springer bought the journal and retracted the paper. The speaker states that this is what they have been dealing with.