TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

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.

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.

The U.S. funded risky coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which involved creating new viruses. Intelligence agencies are investigating whether a virus leak from this lab caused the global pandemic. Anthony Fauci, the top medical adviser to the president, did not mention gain of function research during the pandemic's onset, leaving others to uncover its significance. Gain of function research increases the transmissibility or virulence of pathogens, and despite a U.S. ban in 2014, funding continued to flow to China. Fauci oversaw the NIH when the ban was lifted in 2017. Additionally, NIH funds supported research by Chinese military scientists to genetically manipulate coronaviruses, involving both the Wuhan lab and two American institutions. The Wuhan lab is still authorized for funding, with 26 other labs listed on the NIH's website.

Research on potential pandemic pathogens, known as gain of function studies, has led to valuable public health insights. Previous NSABB reports support this. While I won't argue for the necessity of this research, there are many freely available studies showing how mutations identified through these studies have helped us prepare for epidemics and pandemics.

The discussion centers on gain-of-function (GoF) research, its regulation, and the motivations behind it. The first speaker notes the administration’s goal to end GoF research and asks where that stands. The second speaker says progress has been made, and the White House is working on a formal policy. He then defines the issue in stages: what GoF research is, why someone would do it, and how to regulate it to prevent dangerous projects that could catastrophically harm human populations. He clarifies that GoF research is not inherently bad, but dangerous GoF research is. He gives an insulin example: creating bacteria to produce insulin is a legitimate GoF that benefits diabetics. In contrast, taking a virus from bat caves, bringing it to a lab in a densely populated city with weak biosafety, and manipulating it to be more transmissible among humans is a dangerous GoF that should not be supported. The administration’s policy aims to prevent such dangerous work entirely, and the President signed an executive order in April or May endorsing this policy. Next, he discusses implementation: how to create incentives to ensure this research does not recur. He explains that the utopian idea behind such research was to prevent all pandemics by collecting viruses from wild places, testing their potential to infect humans by increasing their pathogenicity, and then preparing countermeasures in advance (vaccines, antivirals) and stockpiling them, even though those countermeasures would not have been tested against humans yet. If a virus did leap to humans, the foreseen countermeasures might prove ineffective because evolution is unpredictable. This “triage” approach—identifying pathogens most likely to leap and preemptively preparing against them—was the rationale for dangerous GoF work, a rationale he characterizes as flawed. He notes that many scientists considered this an effort to do bioweapons research under the guise of safety and defense. The work is dual-use. The U.S. is a signatory to the Biological Weapons Convention and does not conduct offensive bio-weapons research, but other countries might. The discussion highlights that the GoF research discussed during the pandemic can backfire and may not align with true biodefense, since countermeasures might not match whatever pathogen actually emerges. The speaker concludes that this agenda—pursuing GoF to prevent pandemics—has drawn substantial support from parts of the Western world and other countries for about two and a half decades, but he implies it is not deserving of continuation.

In 1965, coronavirus was identified as a pathogen that could be modified for various purposes. The first transatlantic coronavirus experiment took place in 1966, followed by human trials in 1967. In the 1970s, coronavirus was manipulated in animals, and by 1990, it was recognized as a problem for dogs and pigs. Pfizer filed the first spike protein vaccine patent in 1990. It was known since then 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, funded by Anthony Fauci. SARS 1.0 was engineered and not a naturally occurring phenomenon.

Gain of function research, which involves making viruses deadlier or more infectious, has sparked controversy amid debates about the origin of the coronavirus pandemic. The research aims to predict and prepare for future pandemics, but it has not yet resulted in any preemptive vaccines or prevented any pandemics. The methods used include genetically modifying pathogens and conducting experiments on animals. Concerns arise from the potential for accidents and the risk of manmade viruses falling into the wrong hands. The Wuhan Institute of Virology has been at the center of scrutiny, with allegations of inadequate safety protocols. The debate highlights the need for international investigation and community involvement in determining the risks and benefits of high-risk research.

Gain-of-function research involves making a virus more pathogenic, virulent, and deadly, then developing a vaccine for it. The rationale for this research is to develop bioweapons and defenses against them. Anthony Fauci received a 68% raise from the military due to new military responsibilities related to this research.

Scientists are working with dangerous pathogens to find cures, but accidents are common. Incidents like holes in protective gear, escaped infected animals, and missing pathogens have occurred. Even top labs are not immune to safety breaches. Lab accidents can lead to outbreaks, like SARS and foot and mouth disease. Despite safety measures, accidents happen regularly, mostly affecting lab workers. While rare, lab accidents can have public health consequences. Outbreaks linked to labs, like a reemerging flu strain, highlight the importance of lab safety.

Gain of function research involves making a wild virus more deadly and developing a vaccine for it. Anthony Fauci received a raise for his involvement in this research. In 2014, three deadly bugs escaped from different labs in the US, leading 300 scientists to urge President Obama to shut down Fauci's gain of function research. Although Obama issued a moratorium, Fauci moved the research offshore to avoid oversight. Some projects were moved to Ukraine, Georgia, and a Chinese lab run by the military.

There are US bio labs in Ukraine that are involved in developing bio weapons using synthetic biology, CRISPR technology, and genetic engineering. The responsibility for bioweapons development was transferred to the National Institute for Infectious Allergic Diseases, run by Anthony Fauci, who received a 68% raise from the Pentagon for this work. Bioweapons development requires the development of vaccines as well. Gain function science is used to amplify the infectivity of infectious microbes and make them immune to antibiotics and therapies. In 2014, three dangerous microbes escaped from different labs in the US, leading to a moratorium on Anthony Fauci's experiments. However, he shifted operations offshore, including to the Wuhan lab in China and labs in Ukraine. Funding for this research comes from various government agencies, with USAID being the largest funder.

Dr. Fleming presents on how SARS-CoV-2 gain-of-function research violated international law. He discusses topics such as the US funding for this bioweapon, the nature of the bioweapon as a prion with SARS-CoV-2 as the delivery system, identifying the virus, vaccine effectiveness, treatments, and the accountability of those responsible. He traces the research back to 1999 when funding was provided for infectious diseases of coronaviruses. Various grants and developments in the US and China are mentioned, including the synthetic alteration of coronaviruses. The presentation also highlights a 2007 research project recommending the immediate shutdown of international travel during a pandemic. Gain-of-function research gained attention in 2011 with the release of a highly infectious H5N1 avian influenza virus.

The speaker discusses the development of vaccines and raises concerns about a specific type of research called gain-of-function. They suggest that this research involves making viruses more dangerous and could potentially be used to create bio weapons. They mention that Anthony Fauci, a prominent figure in the field, received a raise for his involvement in this research. In 2014, three dangerous viruses escaped from labs in the US, leading 300 scientists to urge President Obama to shut down Fauci's gain-of-function research. Although a moratorium was issued, the research was moved offshore, including to a Chinese lab in Wuhan.

A wild virus was engineered to be more pathogenic and deadly, with the intention of developing a vaccine as a defense against potential bioweapons. Anthony Fauci received a significant raise for his military-related responsibilities. In 2014, three dangerous pathogens escaped from U.S. labs, prompting 300 scientists to urge President Obama to halt Fauci's gain-of-function research, fearing it could lead to a global pandemic. Obama imposed a moratorium on 18 projects, but the research was largely moved offshore to evade oversight, including to a Chinese military-run lab in Wuhan.

In 2014, a gain of function moratorium was implemented in the US due to lab accidents. Despite this, gain of function research continued in China with funding from Dr. Fauci. The NIH lifted the moratorium in 2017 without proper consultation. There are concerns that US-funded research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology may have led to the COVID-19 pandemic. Dr. Ebright believes that lapses in oversight of this research could have caused the pandemic and may lead to future ones.

The speaker discusses gain-of-function research, claiming that the purpose of taking a wild virus and making it more pathogenic is to develop a vaccine for those enhanced viruses, and that the real rationale is to develop bioweapons and then a defense to those bioweapons. They assert that Anthony Fauci received a 68% raise by the military because of these new military responsibilities and continued the work through 2014. The speaker states that in 2014 three of the bugs escaped in high-profile incidents from three different U.S. labs, describing these as really deadly bugs that escaped or were found in unsafe circumstances. They claim that 300 scientists sent a letter to President Obama asking him to shut down Fauci’s gain-of-function research, arguing that it was highly likely to start a global pandemic with this dangerous research. According to the speaker, Obama issued a moratorium and shut down 18 of Fauci’s worst projects, but ultimately did not fully shut them down. Instead, the research was moved offshore to avoid White House scrutiny and the Cambridge Working Group, a group of scientists, as well as other officials. The speaker alleges that the major offshore location for this research included a Chinese lab run by the Chinese military, specifically naming the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China, as part of the moved research, with other work relocated to Ukraine and the former Soviet state of Georgia.

Evolution is random, but when a virus evolves naturally, it's through random mutation. However, when a virus is created in a lab, it's not random but man-made. Creating a virus in the lab to discover what could happen in nature is unlikely to result in a vaccine that helps. This controversy started in 2010 with the avian flu, which is deadly but not very contagious. A scientist in the Netherlands aerosolized it, causing a debate on whether the knowledge should be published due to potential misuse. Anthony Fauci supported publishing the knowledge, despite the risks. Government funding of gain of function research, which involves making viruses more dangerous, continued despite a pause from 2014 to '16. The culpability extends beyond Fauci to the government.

Research on bird flu in laboratories has raised significant concerns. At the Scripps Institute in California, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and NIH, scientists identified mutations that could enhance the virus's ability to infect humans, sharing their findings in the journal Science. Similarly, Yoshihiro Kawaoka at the University of Wisconsin has conducted gain-of-function research on bird flu for decades, experiencing multiple lab accidents with modified strains. In the Netherlands, Ron Fouchier at Erasmus Medical Center has been working on making bird flu airborne using ferrets. This ongoing research poses substantial risks, and there are calls to halt gain-of-function studies to prevent potential leaks and misuse of information.

Speaker 0 argues that the world has been lied to for 110 years by a small group of criminal industrial conspirators who aim to subjugate humanity to enrich themselves, impoverish and kill others, and that the words “acceptable death rate” have become an industrial norm. They claim this is not just a political disagreement but a crime, asserting that the World Health Organization (WHO) and pharmaceutical companies authorized to begin the process of killing human beings in the interest of advancing their goals. The speaker declares this is a criminal cartel and states they will show documents proving it, insisting this is not an allegation but something that is provable by their own words. The four-step process alleged for executing nefarious plans is: 1) they begin by planning an exercise, 2) they fund that exercise, 3) they create the rationale for what they will do, and 4) they deploy and profit from it. They claim this violates 15 U.S. code section 19 (and connect it to the Clayton Act and the early formation of WHO in 1947), and they claim violation of the TFEU (the treaty for the functioning of the European Union), asserting Article 101 sets out that this was never public health but racketeering to instill terror to adapt population behavior. Data from Zurich is used to argue there was no pandemic: the speaker notes that during the death pandemic of the globe, life insurance claims fell by $30,000,000,000, stating that the data is unambiguous and that there was genocide rather than a pandemic. They pivot to the 2011 WHO, Welcome Trust, PATH, and Gates Foundation malaria vaccine program for children under six months, highlighting that 66 children in the vaccine group were murdered and 28 in the control group were murdered, with the control described as a cocktail of pathogenic injections rather than saline. The speaker references Article five, section 13, claiming immunity from arrest or legal process was designed as permanent immunity for a criminal organization formed in 1947; they connect the first WHO director general, Renee Sand (sic) from the Dachau-era milieu, to Brock Chisholm, who allegedly advocated population control as a primary objective. The claim extends to funding and influence: Gates Foundation allegedly provides 88% of WHO’s foundation donations, which the speaker says constitutes a tax and competition law violation in Europe and the United States. The four-step process is illustrated again with sourcing: to sustain funding beyond the crisis, to increase public understanding for medical countermeasures like pan-influenza or pan-coronavirus vaccines, and to use media hype to attract investors who see profit at the end of the process, as documented by the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board and Peter Daszak’s partnerships. The 2014 Rand Paul–Anthony Fauci correspondence is cited, showing a letter from NIAID to UNC Chapel Hill stating that gain-of-function research would continue during a moratorium with a budget funded by DARPA and NIH. The speaker quotes that the Wuhan virus was anticipated, citing a 2016 publication stating SARS-like Wuhan Institute of Virology virus one is poised for human emergence, implying foreknowledge and manipulation of the virus in Wuhan and UNC Chapel Hill. The talk shifts to the characterization of the work as biological warfare enabling technologies, referencing Ralph Baric’s 2005 DARPA/MITRE presentation and subsequent NIAID and DARPA funding, concluding that the project was to produce biological warfare enabling technologies rather than public health measures. They highlight substantial profits for Pfizer and Moderna from public funds and accuse the WHO of laundering money via a budget expansion request of 11%. In closing, the speaker maintains this is not a public health crime or constitutional crime, but a criminal conspiracy of criminal racketeers. They call for ending the criminal organization itself and urge everyone to destroy the WHO.

Gain of function research involves modifying a pathogen to increase its transmissibility or pathogenicity. This definition includes making a nonpathogen pathogenic. Regarding the Wuhan Institute, there are questions about whether they conducted gain of function research on coronaviruses. Proponents argue it could lead to vaccines or prevent pandemics, but there is skepticism. To date, gain of function research has not produced any life-saving vaccines or therapeutics, nor has it stopped a pandemic. In fact, it may have contributed to the current pandemic. While supporters of this research are well-intentioned, I personally see no tangible benefits from it.

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.

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.

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.

The speakers claim gain of function research creates dangerous viruses to develop protections against them. They allege that in 2015, a London meeting identified the Wuhan lab as likely to have problems with this research, and that Anthony Fauci was a major supporter of gain of function research for 30 years. One speaker claims gain of function research takes a wild virus and makes it more pathogenic, virulent, and deadly to develop a vaccine, suggesting the rationale is to develop bioweapons and defenses. They allege Fauci received a 68% raise from the military for these responsibilities. They claim that after three lab escapes in 2014, 300 scientists asked President Obama to shut down Fauci's gain of function research, warning it could start a global pandemic. Obama issued a moratorium, but instead of shutting down the research, it was allegedly moved offshore to places like Ukraine, Georgia, and the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which is run by the Chinese military.

Gain of function research involves creating dangerous viruses to develop protections against them, but it is inherently risky. In 2015, a meeting in London identified the Wuhan lab as most likely to have problems with this research. Anthony Fauci was allegedly a major supporter of gain of function research for 30 years. Gain of function research involves making viruses more pathogenic and deadly, purportedly to develop vaccines, but it could also be for bioweapons and defenses. Fauci allegedly received a raise for new military responsibilities related to this. In 2014, deadly bugs escaped from multiple US labs, prompting 300 scientists to petition President Obama to halt Fauci's research, warning it could cause a pandemic. Obama issued a moratorium, shutting down some projects, but allegedly moved the research offshore to avoid oversight, including to labs in Ukraine, Georgia, and the Wuhan Institute of Virology, run by the Chinese military.