TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The discussion centers on U.S. involvement in biological research in Ukraine amidst accusations from Russia. A U.S. official claimed that any biological or chemical weapon incidents would be attributed to Russia, which has been accused of using disinformation tactics. The conversation reveals that the U.S. has funded biological laboratories in Ukraine, which study dangerous pathogens. Despite denials from U.S. officials about developing biological weapons, there are concerns about the security of these materials in a conflict zone. The Chinese government has called for inspections of these facilities, highlighting international concerns about biological safety. The need for transparency and accountability regarding U.S. actions in Ukraine is emphasized, as the situation remains precarious.

Speaker 0 argues that anyone can file a complaint with a law enforcement authority for murder conspiracy and demand arrests and prosecutions. He points to a 2013 press release claiming that DARPA awarded Moderna Therapeutics up to $25,000,000 to develop messenger RNA therapeutics, noting that DARPA is the Pentagon and claiming the Pentagon bought, paid for, and envisioned these mRNA shots. He contends Fort Detrick was involved in developing COVID-19 at the UNC BSL-3 and asserts the Pentagon is on both sides of the argument, developing the weapon and the alleged vaccines. Speaker 1 asks whether there is any liability shield for deploying a biowarfare weapon and whether the narrative about congressional liability for Pfizer is a SIOP. Speaker 0 agrees that civil liability is separate from criminal liability, stating in his book Resisting Medical Tyranny that executives at companies developing these mRNA shots are guilty of murder and conspiracy to commit murder. He cites a Portugal report claiming that upwards of 300,000 Americans had been murdered by the mRNA Franken shots and invokes the JAB resolution, describing it as a Nuremberg crime against humanity and a violation of the Nuremberg Code. He defines a Nuremberg crime against humanity as murder, extermination, and other inhumane acts committed against civilians. Speaker 1 asks about liability for government officials who approved the vaccines. Speaker 0 says FDA officials who approved the shots could be indicted for murder and conspiracy to commit murder, noting the FDA’s involvement in developing COVID-19 as an offensive biological warfare weapon at UNC BSL-3, including a cited contract listing National Center for Toxicological Research and FDA as contributors. He claims the FDA, which approves the vaccines, was involved in this development. Speaker 1 questions the CDC and media accountability, noting the CDC’s recommendation of the vaccines and media promotion of boosters. Speaker 0 says the CDC, including Director Milensky (appointed by Biden, from Harvard Medical School), is complicit, and claims the CDC has a history dating back to the Reagan administration of handling offensive biological warfare projects, including shipping weaponized agents to Saddam Hussein with implications for U.S. troops after Gulf War I. Speaker 1 asks whether there are lawmakers with intel on gain-of-function biowarfare. Speaker 0 mentions Senator Rand Paul as having a strong understanding, but asserts that some lawmakers were threatened and obstructed after consulting him, recounting an experience with Walter Jones of the House Armed Services Committee who briefly engaged but then did not follow up, implying threats prevented action. Speaker 1 asks how citizens should respond, and Speaker 0 advocates reporting to sheriffs, district attorneys, and state attorneys, noting progress with a Collier County health freedom declaration. They discuss enforcement mechanisms, seizure, and incineration of stockpiles, and trial and sentencing for those responsible. Speaker 0 condemns China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology as a bioweapons lab, alleging it was a Chinese counterpart to Fort Detrick, with the Chinese president seeking his own BSL-4 program and an offensive biowarfare arsenal. Speaker 1 notes U.S. funding and international bioweapons labs, including Ukraine and Taiwan, and ends by referencing Lindsey Graham and a speaker labeled as a professor Boyle.

The speakers discuss concerns about unwanted attention on the relationships between Western virologists and the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Speaker 1 claims that money was sent to a Chinese lab that was not following proper protocols and was conducting gain of function research, suggesting that this is where the virus originated. Speaker 0 agrees with this statement.

I used to work for the FBI's foreign counterintelligence unit and did surveillance on various intelligence groups. One interesting topic is the Wuhan virus, which I believe is a bioweapon developed by the Chinese military. Many countries, including the US and Russia, have bioweapons. The FBI confirmed it was a bioweapon within 48 hours and traced its origin using specialized equipment. China's goal is not to destroy the US but to colonize it gradually, starting with media and schools. They have been spying since the 1970s, attending trade and science shows, and now they are deeply involved in universities, gathering data for new weapons.

The speaker discusses the lack of transparency in government actions, mentioning secretive partnerships and asymmetry of information. They question collaborations with China on sensitive research and criticize institutions like universities and newspapers for failing to provide accurate information to the public. The conversation highlights concerns about hidden agendas and power dynamics at play behind the scenes.

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 asks how much USAID money went to the Wuhan Institute of Virology and Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina to create weaponized coronaviruses. Speaker 1 rejects the implicit accusation and says they don't have the specific details of USAID funding at their fingertips. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 is stating for certain that no USAID money went to the Wuhan Institute. Speaker 1 says they are happy to take questions from those in the audience who treat every person respectfully, and calls on someone else. Speaker 0 asks what Speaker 1 is denying. Speaker 0 says it's a non-denial denial.

The speakers discuss the possibility of the COVID-19 virus originating from a lab leak rather than bats. Speaker 1 brings up American labs in Ukraine and questions their purpose. Speaker 2 mentions that Ukraine has biological research facilities, which they are concerned about falling into the hands of Russian forces. Speaker 1 suggests that the existence of these labs was buried and wonders if they were involved in creating anthrax or other unknown substances. Speaker 0 admits to not having knowledge about this topic.

Speaker 0 asks if USAID funded coronavirus research in Wuhan, China. Speaker 1 denies funding gain of function research but acknowledges the PREDICT program, which ended in China in 2019. Speaker 0 mentions that the GAO found that some grants from the $200 million program went to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where the lab leak suspicion originated. Speaker 1 is unsure about funding the Academy of Military Medical Sciences but acknowledges the lack of records. Speaker 0 states that they have been requesting records for months but received no documents from USAID. Speaker 1 reiterates that the PREDICT program ended in 2019. Speaker 0 asks who ran the PREDICT program, and Speaker 1 responds with UC Davis.

Speaker 0 denies funding gain of function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Speaker 1 reveals that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded research on a bat coronavirus at the Wuhan lab, making it more contagious. Speaker 2 questions Dr. Fauci about his previous statement, but he stands by it. Speaker 3 mentions a letter raising concerns about experiments in the Wuhan lab. Speaker 0 interrupts and accuses Senator Paul of lying. Speaker 2 argues that if the virus originated from the lab, those who funded it should be held responsible. Speaker 4 states that the NIH admitted funding gain of function research at the Wuhan lab, contradicting Dr. Fauci's claims. Speaker 0 maintains that he has never lied before Congress.

Speaker 1 asks the Secretary of State if he is aware that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) announced collaboration on chimeric viruses and declared coronaviruses as genetic weapons. The Secretary of State says he cannot speak to the specifics but expresses ongoing concerns about compliance. Speaker 1 questions whether American taxpayers should fund research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Academy of Military Medical Sciences, considering reports of double billing by the CCP and their alleged bioweapons program. The Secretary of State clarifies that the US is not currently funding such research, but mentions past programs that aimed to gain better understanding and ensure safety and security. Speaker 1 concludes by thanking the Secretary of State.

Dr. Michael Pillsbury, a Chinese expert, discusses the role of "Batwoman" in the virology lab and the origins of the virus. He mentions that Batwoman, who is proud of her work, claims to have seen the virus in Wuhan after it had already been circulating for a month. However, many doubt the truthfulness of her statement. The United States has not been allowed to investigate the Wuhan lab. Dr. Pillsbury also highlights China's interest in biological warfare, which has been discussed in Chinese military books and textbooks. President Obama had asked China about their biological weapons program, but they denied any violation of the treaty. The outrage in the US stems from the belief that China could have prevented the virus from spreading globally.

The speaker was asked about USAID funding for research in Wuhan and at the University of North Carolina. They denied the accusation and did not have specific details. The speaker avoided directly answering if USAID money was used in Wuhan. They preferred respectful questions and moved on without giving a clear denial.

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.

The speaker was asked about USAID funding for work in Wuhan and creating weaponized coronaviruses. They denied the accusation and stated they did not have specific details. When pressed if USAID money went to Wuhan, they avoided a direct answer and requested respectful questions. The conversation ended with the speaker being accused of giving a non-denial denial.

Speaker 0 asks if the WHO would consider Taiwan's membership, but Speaker 1 couldn't hear the question. Speaker 0 repeats the question, but Speaker 1 suggests moving on. Speaker 0 insists on discussing Taiwan's handling of the virus. Speaker 1 mentions that they have already discussed China's efforts and thanks the host for the invitation.

Speaker 0 argues that parasites have become a problem because they have been weaponized. They reference a Nobel Prize-winning finding showing that a certain parasite could produce stomach cancer in rats, and that a different parasite produced this effect in Japan. They note these results only worked in animals that ate a high-sugar diet or were vaccinated, not in healthy animals. They then connect this to twentieth-century American policy: vaccination began with troops during World War I and continued in the military, then expanded to schoolchildren after World War II. The speaker predicts that vaccines at school would eventually affect broader segments of the population, not just children, and claims that vaccines have the effect of making people more susceptible to parasites, including those that cause cancer, not just toxoplasmosis. Regarding diet, the speaker mentions the food pyramid of the twentieth century, pointing out that the bottom consisted of carbohydrates, implying a link to susceptibility. The speaker then discusses bioweapons policy: in 1971, Nixon declared an end to the United States bioweapons offensive program and signed a treaty (they mention a 1978 figure, implying a multinational agreement). They claim that, despite this treaty, the Soviet Union and others violated it, and that perhaps everyone violated it. They assert that, at the same time the treaty was signed, Fort Detrick was converted from a bioweapons lab to be part of the National Cancer Institute. They compare this to Nazi Germany, stating that they hid bioweapons under cancer research, and claim that the United States did something similar. The transcription ends with emphatic agreement.

The speaker questions the amount of money that went from USAID to the Wuhan Institute of Virology and their collaborator at the University of North Carolina. The other speaker rejects the accusation and doesn't have the specific details about USAID funding. The first speaker asks if they are certain that no USAID money went to Wuhan, but the second speaker avoids answering and asks for respectful questions. The first speaker insists on a denial, but the second speaker dismisses it as a non-denial denial.

The Wuhan Institute of Virology is believed by some, including the speakers, to be a bioweapons lab with Chinese Communist Party officials. The speakers suggest that the US government may have been collecting intelligence on the lab through a scientist named Peter Daszak, who had a relationship with the CIA. They propose that the US government traded advanced biotech for access to the lab. The second speaker agrees with this theory and mentions that he received leaked documents related to the lab. The Department of Defense is also mentioned.

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.

The speakers discuss concerns about unwanted attention on the relationships between Western virologists and the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Speaker 1 suggests that money was sent to a Chinese lab that was not following proper protocols and was conducting gain of function research, which is believed to be the origin of the current situation. Speaker 0 agrees with this statement.

Speaker 0 asks about the amount of money from USAID that went to Wuhan and their collaborator at the University of North Carolina to create weaponized coronaviruses. Speaker 1 rejects the accusation and admits to not having the specific details of USAID funding. Speaker 0 presses for a clear answer, but Speaker 1 deflects and requests respectful questions from the audience. Speaker 0 insists on a denial, calling Speaker 1's response a nondenial denial.

- 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.

Ralph Barrick's collaboration with Ecohealth Alliance raises concerns about the transfer of advanced biotechnology to a lab controlled by the CCP, known for its interest in using bioweapons against the US. The involvement of Dr. Anthony Fauci and the CDC in bioweapons defense, tied to the Department of Defense (DoD), is a topic that remains unaddressed. Despite facing increased censorship and attacks for discussing this issue, the speaker vows to continue speaking out. While the speaker suspects a flawed intelligence operation, they lack evidence to support this claim at present.