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.

The Wuhan Institute of Virology is under investigation for a possible accidental leak that started the global pandemic. New footage and interviews reveal intense clashes during the lab's construction. The lab had no prior experience in biosafety but was genetically manipulating bat coronaviruses. The French government, who helped build the lab, was immediately kicked out, raising concerns. The lab's virus databases were wiped and never made available to investigating agencies. Footage shows live bats in cages at the lab, contradicting previous claims. The lab conducted gain-of-function experiments on humanized mice to make viruses more infectious. The involvement of Peter Daszak, who denied the presence of bats, raises conflicts of interest. The World Health Organization's investigation and The Lancet's own investigation may be compromised. Accidents in labs are common, but security footage was not examined. China's cover-up and the failure to investigate the lab's role in the pandemic are deeply concerning.

A new investigative piece by Katherine Eban in Vanity Fair raises questions about the lab leak theory of COVID-19's origin. The analysis highlights how a group called DRASTIC, made up of scientists and researchers, examined the theory that was initially dismissed by those in charge. Conflicts of interest and political motivations hindered the investigation into the Wuhan Institute of Virology's gain of function research. The State Department received classified information about three researchers falling ill in November 2019, sparking renewed interest in the lab leak theory. The investigation also discovered that the lab's virus sample database was taken offline months before the pandemic officially started. The lab leak theory is plausible, but politics and bureaucratic obstacles have hindered a full explanation. This could further erode public confidence in institutions and impact democracy. The media's lack of independent investigation may also lead to a loss of credibility.

There are four coconspirators in creating the virus: Dr. Fauci, Dr. Barrick, Dr. Daszek, and Dr. Sheng Li. Fauci was involved in covering up the virus's origin, Barrick engineered the virus, Daszek carried plans to China, and Sheng Li harvested the virus from bats. Papers published in 2015 and 2016 hinted at the virus's creation.

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.

A US health official working for Dr. Fauci expressed safety concerns about a lab in Wuhan, China, six years ago. The lab was planning to reverse engineer the Ebola virus, but the official was ordered to delete any mention of Ebola in her report. The lab, which is believed by some to be the source of COVID-19, was visited by the official just before it opened. During the tour, a technician at the lab mentioned the illegal importation of Ebola for study. The official expressed shock and worry about the potential consequences if this information became public. Two days later, she was instructed to delete her comment.

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.

The COVID-19 pandemic likely originated from a lab accident at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, rather than a natural zoonotic spillover. Evidence suggests that the virus was genetically manipulated through gain of function research. Investigations have shown no pre-pandemic infections in Wuhan, and extensive testing of animals and environmental samples yielded no evidence of the virus in markets. The unique genetic features of the virus, including a furin cleavage site, further support a lab origin. There is a consensus among experts that understanding the origins of COVID-19 is crucial for preventing future pandemics and ensuring transparency in research practices. Additionally, concerns about the transfer of American genetic information to China highlight potential national security risks.

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 virus hunters were captured on video by CCTV in December 2019, around the time Wuhan patients showed pneumonia symptoms. The footage shows a scientist exploring a cave with bats. Speculation arises if this is connected to the pandemic, but China's lack of transparency leaves unanswered questions about the researchers' activities.

The leaked DEFUSE proposal from the Wuhan Institute of Virology and their American partners reveals their risky research on the parts of COVID-19 that make it highly infectious to humans. Scientists believe this proposal provides a step-by-step guide to creating SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19. The proposal's specificity in constructing a virus with all the key hallmarks of SARS-CoV-2 is seen as more than just a coincidence. Researchers, including Shizeng Li and Ben Hu, who is considered a potential patient zero, were involved in this research. Hu's work on genetically engineering coronaviruses from bats and his early COVID-like symptoms further support the possibility of him being patient zero.

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.

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.

There is no evidence that biological materials from Winnipeg were used for bat coronavirus research. However, Dr. Chu was involved in a gain of function research project on bat coronaviruses through China's Thousand Talents Plan. Dr. Xi and a Wuhan senior technician were also part of the project. In October 2018, the technician was caught trying to remove 10 vials from Dr. Chu's lab in Winnipeg.

Warnings about the Wuhan lab and a possible cover-up before the COVID pandemic have raised questions about China's role. A US health official working for Dr. Fauci expressed safety concerns in 2017 after visiting the lab. The lab was considering reverse engineering the Ebola virus, but the official was ordered to delete any mention of it. The lab is believed by some to be the source of COVID-19. Former US officials say there are many concerns about the lab, and it is unclear what is really happening there. The NIH has been asked to comment on why these details were omitted from the final report.

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.

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.

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.

The speaker claims a CIA whistleblower will testify before a Senate committee that the intelligence community has covered up the origin of COVID for years. The speaker asserts evidence shows the U.S. government funded research in Wuhan and that the virus likely escaped from a lab, adding that CIA scientists concluded it came from a lab leak and that someone later “scribbled out” their conclusion at 2AM and changed the report. The speaker frames CIA involvement as part of a larger effort involving military-related covert operations, stating the CIA has two reasons to live: covert support for the State Department or for the military. The speaker argues that over time, long-term CIA covert actions become USAID programs for logistical reasons, especially when scaling beyond a small “need to know” group and security-clearance constrained operations. The speaker says covert action requires secrecy, skiffs, close-hold communications, and a small number of people, so a public-facing program is needed to broaden participation. In that model, the speaker says USAID or state department programs can engage the private sector, nonprofits, universities, researchers, activists, and media, with public messaging and political support to help scale the underlying aims while keeping the core plan secret. The speaker links this asserted COVID narrative to historical biological warfare and “gain of function” research, citing declassified documents from the 1950s and Operation Northwoods-era plans involving Cuba. The speaker claims Cold War U.S. military and CIA planning included “gain of function” research and the dropping of disease-infected ticks and insects over Cuban agricultural areas to induce crop failures and economically destabilize Cuba without a conventional military invasion. The speaker further claims the plans involved making biological agents appear to be of natural origin and avoiding traceable external attribution, describing discussion of using “nonlethal insect borne biological warfare agents” and coordinating planning information with specific people and labs. The speaker states that, according to their account, biological warfare planning involved references to Fort Detrick and the Rocky Mountain lab in Montana, which they say also played a key role in both COVID-19 and Lyme disease. They claim the same lab used for Lyme was connected to plans for accidental releases intended to look natural. From there, the speaker argues that COVID-origin research ties into personnel and timelines. They claim that in 2015 the CIA and ODNI reached out to Ralph Baric to discuss coronavirus evolution and adapting coronaviruses to humans, and that shortly afterward Baric collaborated with Zheng Li Shi (“the bat lady”) on research funded through USAID’s PREDICT program. The speaker also claims that in 2018 Baric and Zheng Li Shi were listed as collaborators on a DARPA proposal involving a furin cleavage site, and that in January 2020 Baric was summoned by ODNI biological sciences experts to brief officials on coronavirus origins, discussing a possible accidental lab release at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The speaker asserts Avril Haines, then deputy head of the CIA, later became head of ODNI and played a key role in the Event 201 simulator. The speaker concludes by tying these threads back to the alleged CIA-to-USAID scaling mechanism and to CIA contractors and censorship efforts, claiming that the CIA’s role explains why CIA-walked scientists concluded a lab leak and why the conclusion was allegedly altered. They also discuss NIE/DOD/USAID/NED linkages, asserting that NED is suited for the role of supporting covert objectives with indirect public-facing infrastructure.