reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0: It is based on the sworn statement of the late professor Doctor Francis Boyle, who has determined and concluded. Professor Boyle is the greatest authority in the field of bioweapons legislation. He is the author of it. So he knows what is legally meant by it. He knew. Like no other that the COVID-19 mRNA injection is a bioweapon. He has also made that loud and clear to the world known. After which despite being in good health, he passed away shortly after he had declared himself willing to give testimony under oath about this in court. The core of Professor Boyle's argument is that the COVID-19 mRNA injections contain derivatives of illegal military gene function research. As a result, the COVID-19 injections qualify by definition as a military biological weapon system, a bioweapon in other words. This bioweapon consists of two integrated components. The pathogenic load and the delivery mechanism. It is beyond doubt that the pathogenic load is the product of illegal gene or function research. Boyle refers to an article in the scientific journal Nature Medicine, of which I have included the link in this plea note. If you open that link, you will immediately read the warning that true scientists believe that an animal is the most likely source of the coronavirus. You will also immediately know that what is called the new normal, true scientists, are not scientists but faith fanatics. These are the scientists behind whom the respondents hide. The article in Nature Medicine that Boyle reports on was published in 2015. And the title reads translated, a cluster of circulating coronaviruses in bats similar to SARS shows potential for human infection. I present to you. What the summary of this research included in the article reveals. It states based on these findings, we have synthetically created an infectious fully SHC zero fourteen recombinant virus developed and demonstrated robust viral replication. Both in vitro and in vivo. So it states, we researchers have created a SARS like coronavirus with a spike protein optimized for human infection. I cannot provide a better example of illegal gain of function research. And who wrote that article from 2015? Among others, researchers affiliated with UNC Chapel Hill and the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Wuhan. Yes, Wuhan. You know, where according to the official narrative, people suddenly dropped dead on the street when COVID-19 broke out because there was a bat mutated. The spike protein, the pathogenic payload of the bioweapon is the result of this research. So it's not about a natural spike protein, but an illegally developed synthetically made pathogen that has been optimized for human infection. The spike protein mRNA with the instructions to human cells to produce this very pathogenic spike protein is one of the two crucial building blocks of the COVID-19 bioweapon. Now the delivery system, the NLPs, you know, the nanolipid particles that encapsulate the mRNA payload and deliver it into the interior of the cells. The propaganda term for this is fat globules. What did Boyle declare about it? Boyle declared that it is actually about a nanotechnology enhanced delivery platform. This technology is, as Boyle declared, paid for, developed, financed and conceived by the Pentagon and its research institute DARPA. This technology platform nanotechnology platform was not an afterthought. Doctor Boyle points out that the virus itself was aerosolized and engineered with nanotechnology from the very beginning. This indicates a long term program aimed at the application of advanced delivery systems. And this technology has been used in the COVID-19 injections. Boyle determined that the NLP delivery system in the injections is the result of a specific teacher sponsored program for nanotechnological biological weapons. In the presentation by Samsung you can read further about the legal implications of this. It is also argued that Gates and Borla qualify as suspects of crimes against humanity as defined in the Rome statute concerning the international criminal court.

Scientists are investigating claims that COVID-19 was manipulated in a lab after a tiny DNA fragment matching a sequence patented by Moderna was found in the virus. The possibility of an accidental lab escape is being considered, as human error is always a factor. The Wuhan lab in China may have been conducting research on virus enhancement or gene modification, leading to an infection that spread to others. The scientists are currently analyzing the data to determine the validity of these claims. It will take time to thoroughly examine the genetic evidence.

Many viruses use a 2-step authentication process to enter cells, involving binding to a receptor and spike protein cleavage. Virologists have been adding furin cleavage sites to viruses since 1992, increasing their virulence. SARS-CoV-2, which likely originated from nature, contains unique furin cleavage site codons not typical in coronaviruses. This suggests a low probability of natural origin.

We isolated coronaviruses from animals in the past to understand their threat to other species by culturing them on different cell types. This process, known as gain of function, involves enriching mutants that can infect new species. The speaker emphasizes that mass vaccination in humans is a significant gain of function experiment, leading to virus evolution. This real-world experiment involves constant virus changes due to human-to-human transmission under vaccine pressure.

Animal viruses that jump to humans often struggle to infect effectively due to their evolution in animals. The first SARS virus in 2003 had a 10% mortality rate but only infected 8,000 people because it didn't adapt well to humans. In contrast, COVID-19 attached perfectly to humans, suggesting possible lab manipulation. Researchers used a supercomputer to find that the virus did not attach well to other animals, indicating it was pre-adapted for humans. Evidence points to a 2018 research project that aimed to create a virus similar to COVID-19. Despite this, obtaining records from the Biden administration has been challenging, even with bipartisan support for transparency. The situation remains frustrating, highlighting the need for further investigation.

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.

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.

We created coronaviruses by assembling a synthetic bat genome with the SARS clone. The genome was split into 5 kilobyte pieces with unique restriction sites to allow directional assembly. Initially, the virus couldn't replicate due to an entry defect, so we replaced the receptor binding domain with one from the human epidemic strain. This modification resulted in a virus that replicated efficiently. The growth curve data supported this success.

In the conversation, Speaker 0 discusses conclusions about a potential manipulation of the SARS-like virus. He states that there is a model based on the classic virus, but with modifications: the model is mainly derived from a bat coronavirus, to which sequences from HIV have been added. He clarifies that he does not know who added these HIV sequences, and he emphasizes that it is not natural, describing the work as done by a professional molecular biologist, a precise and meticulous process akin to an horologist working at the level of genetic sequences. Speaker 0 further explains that the purpose of such modifications is not clear to him. His goal is to present the facts without accusing anyone or identifying who did it or why. He posits a possibility that the aim could have been to develop a vaccine against AIDS, suggesting that small HIV sequences were inserted into the larger coronavirus sequence. He elaborates that in this virus, HIV genetic material is present as a long RNA strand, and at a certain position, small HIV sequences have been fixed into it. He stresses that these small sequences are meaningful, not trivial, because they could modify, for example, antigenic sites, thereby altering the protein exposed to a vaccine through a small sequence derived from another virus. Speaker 1 interjects, noting that there has been talk of a human origin for the virus, which has been refuted by most scientific authorities. Speaker 1 highlights that despite such refutations, there is still a perceived attempt to silence the research. He mentions that another group of highly regarded Indian researchers published something similar and were forced to retract their work. Overall, the dialogue centers on the possibility of engineered modifications to a coronavirus by inserting HIV sequences into its genome, the potential purpose behind such modifications (including the idea of vaccine development against AIDS), and the broader discussion about alleged suppression or censorship of related research, alongside mentions of scientific authorities denying a human-origin claim and the retraction of parallel work by Indian researchers.

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.

Chinese researchers have created a super virus by combining a protein from bats with the SARS virus found in mice. This virus could potentially infect humans, although it is currently only being studied in laboratories. The debate over the risks of this research is not new, with some scientists arguing that the benefits outweigh the potential dangers. However, others are concerned about the possibility of the virus directly infecting humans without an intermediate species. The US government had previously suspended funding for research aiming to make viruses more contagious, but this did not stop the Chinese research on SARS. Some experts believe the chances of the virus spreading to humans are minimal compared to the potential benefits, while others disagree.

Scientists sequence the virus and compare it to known pathogens like SARS. They discovered similar coronaviruses in bats and focused on the spike protein that attaches to cells. Chinese researchers created pseudoparticles with spike proteins from these viruses to test their binding to human cells. Each step of this process helps determine if the virus can become pathogenic in humans. Manipulating the spike protein in the lab is crucial for understanding the zoonotic risk. By obtaining the sequence, scientists can predict the virus's behavior more accurately.

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.

Scientists are investigating the possibility of the COVID-19 virus originating from a lab in Wuhan. They are analyzing data to determine the accuracy of claims that the virus matches a genetic sequence patented by Moderna for cancer research. The hypothesis of a lab escape is being considered, as human error is possible. It is speculated that the Wuhan lab may have been working on virus enhancement or gene modification, leading to an accidental infection. The analysis of genetic sequences is a time-consuming process, but the scientists are diligently examining the evidence. The work being done by the scientists is crucial in understanding the origins of the virus.

In 2015, the National Library of Medicine published a study by 15 virologists and medical experts warning that SARS-like bat coronaviruses pose a potential threat to humans. The scientists, with decades of experience in studying coronaviruses, examined how SARS and MERS transmitted among humans. They modified a strain of coronavirus from Chinese horseshoe bats using gain of function technology and injected it into mice spinal cords. This study not only highlights the dangers of coronaviruses in bats but also demonstrates efforts to amplify the virus's contagion ability to better understand and prepare for future outbreaks.

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.

In South America and Southeast Asia, there are many bat species carrying unknown viruses, making them potential sources of future pandemics. The USAID EPT predict program and NIAID funding allowed researchers to predict and prepare for emergencies like the SARS outbreak. They discovered that SARS-like viruses originate from bats in China, with some being almost identical to SARS. Surveillance of bat hunters and nearby residents revealed the potential for spillover into human populations. While there are no vaccines or antivirals for these diverse coronaviruses, scientists can manipulate them in the lab by studying their spike proteins. This knowledge can aid in the development of better vaccines and therapeutics. However, predicting and anticipating pandemics does not guarantee prevention.

Scientists are investigating claims that COVID-19 was manipulated in a lab after a tiny DNA fragment matching a sequence patented by Moderna was found in the virus. The possibility of an accidental lab escape is being considered, as humans make mistakes. It is being analyzed to determine its authenticity. The team is examining whether the genetic sequence is genuine, which will take some time.

This video discusses the coronavirus and the ongoing research programs to develop vaccines against similar viruses that have previously crossed over from animals to humans. The question is raised whether these viruses can be modified or adapted to combat the current virus. This research is being conducted globally, including in China.

Researchers have discovered various coronaviruses in bats, including ones similar to SARS. They focused on the spike protein, which attaches to cells, and conducted experiments in China. By inserting spike proteins from these viruses into pseudoparticles, they tested their ability to bind to human cells. This process allowed them to understand the potential pathogenicity of the virus in humans.

Scientists can learn how to teach the flu virus how to infect human tissue, and some are already doing this. The scientific community isn't trying to cause a pandemic, but they are arrogant about their ability to contain a respiratory pathogen. COVID evolved from scientific experiments in a laboratory that was trying to do good things, like make a vaccine vector, but it escaped, and over 20,000,000 people died. Nature will continue to try to change, but the species barrier for amino acids is pretty high. Some scientists believe gain of function research is needed to protect humanity against emerging pathogens, but they don't consider the fact that they may be emerging them like with COVID.

The discussion focuses on viral “families” that include viruses transmitted from animals to humans, narrowing the search immediately. When a newly sequenced virus resembles a relative of a known “nasty pathogen” (as was done with SARS), researchers find related viruses in bats, including many coronaviruses, some of which look very similar to SARS. To evaluate which viruses might be capable of infecting people, the spike protein—described as the protein that attaches to cells—is sequenced. Colleagues in China then create pseudoparticles and insert the spike proteins from these bat viruses into the pseudoparticles to test whether they bind to human cells. The process is described as stepwise: each experimental step moves closer to determining whether a virus could become pathogenic in people, narrowing the field, reducing costs, and leaving a small number of viruses that “really do look like killers.” The final step is to assess exposure in humans by looking for specific antibodies. Researchers check people living in the region where the animal host lives and who are exposed to the virus, asking whether they have antibodies specifically against it.

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.

We focus on viral families that have transmitted from animals to humans. When we find a virus that resembles a known dangerous pathogen, like SARS, we examine its spike protein, which attaches to cells. Chinese researchers create pseudo particles with these spike proteins to test if they bind to human cells. This process helps us identify viruses that could potentially be harmful to humans. By narrowing down the field and reducing costs, we end up with a small number of viruses that appear to be dangerous. We then investigate if people living in the same region as the animals carrying these viruses have developed antibodies.

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.