reSee.it - 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.

The speaker asked if the Pfizer COVID vaccine was tested for stopping virus transmission before it was released. They wanted a clear yes or no answer and requested the data to be shared with the committee. In response, it was stated that no, they did not have knowledge about stopping transmission before the vaccine entered the market. They had to act quickly.

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.

Speaker 0 believes all COVID documents under seal in the United States should be unclassified. Speaker 1 agrees and states they are complying with congressional subpoenas for all NIH documents related to COVID-19. This will reveal what the U.S. government knew and discussed leading up to the pandemic. However, the Chinese government is not providing the same level of transparency. For example, the NIH requested lab notebooks from the Wuhan experimenters, but they were not shared.

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.

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.

The data hasn't been shared because the virus wasn't isolated. Live animal samples testing positive don't provide useful information. It seems the source of the virus is not what we initially believed.

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.

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.

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.

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.

On January 10th, the speaker received the genetic sequence of the virus from Chinese authorities. They immediately designed and manufactured a vaccine, using a computer algorithm to generate the vaccine design in just a few hours. The code for the vaccine was downloaded from a Chinese website, and the speaker expresses gratitude to the Chinese authorities for sharing it. However, there are concerns about the Chinese government not sharing data and not isolating the virus. The speaker questions the reliability of positive results from live animal samples. Overall, the situation is not what was initially expected.

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 believes all COVID documents under seal in the United States should be unclassified. Speaker 1 agrees and states they are complying with congressional subpoenas for all NIH documents related to COVID-19. This will reveal what the U.S. government knew and discussed leading up to the pandemic. However, the Chinese government is not providing the same level of transparency. For example, the NIH requested lab notebooks from the Wuhan experimenters, but they were not shared.

- 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.

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.

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.