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.

Coronavirus, as a pathogen model, was identified in 1965 and seen as modifiable for various purposes. In 1966, it was used in a transatlantic biological experiment. By 1967, human trials began, inoculating people with modified versions. The common cold was turned into a chimera in the 1970s. By 1990, coronavirus was an industrial problem for dog and pig breeders, leading to Pfizer's first spike protein vaccine patent. However, from 1990 to 2018, research indicated coronavirus mutated 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 NIAID's Anthony Fauci, preceding SARS 1.0. SARS is engineered, not naturally occurring like the common cold.

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.

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.

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.

Ralph Barrick from the University of North Carolina discusses synthetic genomics of SARS. He explains the structure and genome organization of the SARS coronavirus and its various proteins. Barrick then discusses the use of synthetic genomics as a platform to control emerging infectious diseases, particularly focusing on SARS. He explains the process of synthesizing a portfolio of spike glycoprotein genes to capture the heterogeneity of the virus. Barrick also discusses the use of synthetic deoptimization schemes to attenuate SARS pathogenesis and the rewiring of SARS coronavirus transcription circuits to further attenuate viral pathogenesis. He concludes by highlighting the potential of synthetic genomics and universal attenuation schemes for developing rapid response platforms and vaccines against emerging coronaviruses.

The speaker discusses the global wildlife trade and its connection to the emergence of new diseases. They focus on SARS and how it originated from a wildlife market. Through surveillance of bats in Southern China, they have discovered over 100 new SARS-related coronaviruses that pose a threat to humans. Some of these coronaviruses can infect human cells and cause SARS-like disease. The speaker emphasizes the need for continued surveillance and understanding of these spillover events, as any one of them could potentially lead to a pandemic. They also mention the challenges in developing vaccines and antivirals for these diverse coronaviruses.

Coronavirus was isolated in 1965 and quickly identified as a pathogen for experimentation. In 1966, the first COV model was used in human manipulation experiments. By 1990, Pfizer patented a spike protein vaccine for coronavirus. Research showed vaccines were ineffective due to the virus mutating rapidly. In 2002, the University of North Carolina patented an infectious replication defective clone of coronavirus, funded by Anthony Fauci. This work preceded SARS 1.0 by a year, suggesting engineered origins.

Coronavirus was isolated in 1965 as one of the first infectious replicatable viral models, associated with the common cold. In 1966, the very first COV coronavirus model was used as a transatlantic biological experiment in human manipulation. In 1967, the first human trials on inoculating people with modified coronavirus were conducted. Between 1975 and 1977, we started modifying coronavirus by putting it into different animals, pigs and dogs. By 1990, Pfizer's first spike protein vaccine patent for coronavirus was filed. From 1990 to 02/2018, every publication on coronavirus vaccines concluded that coronavirus escapes the vaccine impulse because it mutates too quickly. In 02/2002, UNC Chapel Hill patented ‘an infectious replication defective clone of coronavirus’ funded by NIAID's Anthony Fauci from 1999 to 02/2002. That work allegedly preceded SARS-1; SARS is the research developed by humans weaponizing a life system model to attack human beings, patented in 02/2002.

The transcript argues that deflating a “parasitic system” is necessary because oversized states and corporations cause decay, corruption, and injustice to the people, including workers, creatives, and the maimed and dying under elite rule. It cites examples such as Tanks for Kidneys RT Documentary, Organ Harvesting, Black Market Transplants, and Crimes Against Humanity to illustrate this destruction. On the mortality and harm claims related to Covid-19, the speaker estimates thirty-six million excess deaths from 2022 to 2023 plus half of 2024, totaling forty-five million excess deaths for four point five years of Covid killing protocols. They add nine million deaths from Covid killing protocols in 2020, arguing these figures reflect the impact of what they term “SARS CoV-two virus and vaccine bio weapons.” The speaker contends that terms like bio weaponized, propagandized, lured, coerced, and mandated depopulation and genocide should not be taboo because of mass propaganda, corrupted science, lack of truthful science, and censorship in mainstream media and on tech platforms. They claim that elites and many people still think SARS CoV-two is a naturally evolved virus, while “Truthful science” supposedly proves beyond any doubt that SARS CoV-two is designed and made by humans in a bio lab, pointing to the genetic code of SARS CoV-two as containing several lab-made inserts (PRRA, HIVGP120) that are described as too large and numerous and only appearing in other natural viruses that are genetically very different, making natural mutation or recombination “quasi zero.” They assert a substantial trail of documents and testimonies before and after the release of SARS CoV-two about these genetic codes, the existing biochemical technology to insert them, financing of the research, scientific documents, and patents. The speaker claims that GenTech Covid vaccines cause human cells to produce during months up to years huge amounts of the toxic spike protein of SARS CoV-two in all organs and tissues, implying greater production than typical mucosal infection in unvaccinated people, which they say would cause only cold-like illness. They describe these vaccines as “GenTech covid vaccines” and label them as bio weapons, allegedly worse than the virus itself. Finally, they claim that not only the produced toxic spike protein but also other components and contaminations of these vaccines cause serious health damage. The source is cited as Source2mia.org, with a request to like and follow.

The transcript argues that deflating the parasitic system is necessary because oversized states and corporations cause decay, corruption, and injustice, harming the people, workers, creators, and those harmed by elite interests. It cites examples such as Tanks for Kidney’s RT Documentary, Organ Harvesting, Black Market Transplants, and Crimes Against Humanity. It presents a quantified claim: extrapolating estimates for 2022 to 2023 plus half of 2024 yields total excess deaths of thirty-six million since the Covid Vax rollout, and adding nine million from Covid “killing protocols” in 2020 brings the total to forty-five million for four and a half years of Covid killing protocols. It describes SARS-CoV-2, the virus and vaccine bioweapons, as part of a narrative that depopulation and genocide are not taboo due to mass propaganda, corrupted science, lack of truthful science, and censorship in mainstream media and on tech platforms. It asserts that elites and many people still think SARS-CoV-2 is naturally evolved, but truthful science allegedly proves beyond doubt that SARS-CoV-2 was designed and made by humans in a bio lab. The transcript claims the genetic code of SARS-CoV-2 contains several lab-made inserts, such as PRRA and HIVGP120, which are described as too large and too numerous and only appearing in other natural viruses that are genetically very different from SARS-CoV-2, making natural mutation or recombination quasi zero. It also references a substantial trail of documents and testimonies years before and after the release of SARS-CoV-2 about these genetic codes, the existing biochemical technology to insert them, financing of the research, scientific documents, and patents. It then asserts that GenTech Covid vaccines cause human cells to produce, for months up to years, huge amounts of the toxic spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 in all organs and tissues, much greater than the mucosal infection from the virus itself in healthy unvaccinated people, which supposedly causes mild illness. The claim continues that these GenTech Covid vaccines are, in fact, bioweapons and much worse than the virus itself. It adds that not only the produced toxic spike protein but also other components and contaminations of these vaccines cause serious health damage. The source cited for these claims is Source2mia.org, with a request to like and follow.

Speaker 0: I read the sequence and it's high-resolution. Speaker 1: It may seem low at first, but it's understandable. Speaker 0: This is written in a loop. Speaker 1: This is the genetic sequence of the spike protein. The issue is that the model RNA has a sequence that surprised me. We need to design it a bit. It contains part of the sequence SB4T, which is necessary for gene expression. The problem is that it is found in a virus that has negative effects. Also, there is another problem with this sequence. The DNA that has been transferred so far becomes more susceptible to mutation. It's a problematic point. Speaker 1: So, this SB4T sequence is also included in the promoter of this SB method, which allows it to migrate to the nucleus. Speaker 0: This is quite famous. Speaker 1: Yes, it is. The issue is that it has no relation to the process of synthesizing the messenger RNA. Speaker 0: Why did they keep the promoter sequence in the SB4T that has nothing to do with the camera's perspective in the messenger RNA synthesis process?

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.

The NIH is developing a universal vaccine that addresses the entire phylum of viruses. This vaccine mimics natural immunity and is effective against any kind of mutation. It doesn't drive the virus to mutate. The researchers believe it could be effective not only against coronaviruses but also against influenza. The vaccine is described as much safer and much more effective. The exchange then notes that Mark, did you take your question again? and Mark is prompted to ask his question.

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.

Ralph Barrick from the University of North Carolina discusses synthetic genomics of SARS in this video. He explains the structure of the SARS coronavirus particle and its important glycoprotein spikes. Barrick also discusses the synthetic resurrection and reconstruction of various zoonotic SARS viruses and their applications in therapeutics and vaccine design. He touches on codon deoptimization as a way to attenuate SARS pathogenesis and rewiring SARS coronavirus transcription circuits as a universal strategy to attenuate viral pathogenesis. Barrick concludes by discussing the potential of synthetic genomics and transcription circuit redesign as a platform to control emerging infectious diseases and develop rapid response platforms for future epidemics.

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. The common cold was turned into a chimera in the 1970s, and by 1990, Pfizer filed the first spike protein vaccine patent for coronavirus. It was known since 1990 that coronavirus mutates too quickly for vaccines to be effective. In 2002, the University of North Carolina patented an infectious replication defective clone of coronavirus, funded by Anthony Fauci. This preceded SARS 1.0, suggesting it was not a naturally occurring phenomenon. SARS was engineered as a weapon against humans.

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.

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 panel discusses replication (replicon) vaccines and their potential dangers, focusing on how they differ from conventional messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines and what new risks might emerge as this technology develops. Key points and concerns raised - Replicon vaccines concept and fundamental differences - Replicon vaccines use replication-capable genetic material, so the embedded genetic information not only makes antigen proteins but also multiplies inside the cell. They are described as having both constitutive function (the ability to make proteins) and, crucially, the capacity to replicate, which distinguishes them from traditional, non-replicating mRNA vaccines. - It is explained that replication introduces additional mutation and recombination opportunities, because the RNA genome is copied more than once, and the process can produce variants that differ from the original design. - Central dogma exceptions and viral biology - The speakers explain that while the central dogma (DNA → RNA → protein) generally governs biology, some viruses violate this, with RNA viruses that replicate via RNA-dependent replication and even some reverse-transcribing retroviruses that convert RNA to DNA and integrate into genomes. This context is used to frame why replicon vaccines could behave unpredictably. - Potential risks of replication and spread - A core concern is that the replicon approach might allow the vaccine genome to spread beyond the initial target cells, potentially reaching other cells and tissues, or even spreading to other people via exosomes or other means. Exosomes can transport DNA, RNA, and proteins between cells; thus, the replicon genome could in theory be disseminated. - The possibility of homologous or heterologous recombination between replicon genomes and wild-type viruses could yield new variants. The panel emphasizes the difficulty of controlling such recombination in a living system. - Specific material and design considerations - The use of viral components like spike protein genes in replicon vaccines raises concerns about how these proteins might mutate or recombine during replication, potentially altering antigen presentation or safety. - A concern is raised about the lack of repair mechanisms in RNA replication (as opposed to DNA replication), which could make error rates higher and lead to unpredictable changes. - The panel notes that current replicon vaccine designs (including those using alphavirus backbones) inherently carry high mutation and recombination risk, and that the replicating systems may encounter unpredictable evolutionary dynamics inside the human body. - Safety signals and clinical anecdotes - The speakers cite cases of adverse events temporally associated with vaccines, including vascular inflammation and thrombosis, stroke-like events, and myocarditis, to illustrate that immune responses to vaccines can be complex and occasionally severe. They emphasize that such observations do not establish causality, but argue they warrant careful scrutiny. - There are references to cases of acute vascular and neural complications following repeated vaccination, and to broader immune dysregulation phenomena, including IGG4-related disease and immune dysregulation syndromes that can involve multiple organs. - One example concerns a patient who developed sudden limb problems after the third dose, requiring surgery; another describes myocardial involvement after multiple doses and subsequent inflammatory sequelae. - DNA contamination and analytical findings - Kevin McKernan’s analysis of certain Japanese CoronaVac vaccines is cited: both DNA contamination and the presence of SV40 promoter elements were detected in some vaccine lots, with DNA amounts exceeding some regulatory benchmarks in at least one case. The concern is that DNA contamination, or the presence of promoter sequences, could influence integration or expression in unintended ways. - It is noted that vaccines using lipid nanoparticles can potentially deliver nucleic acids into cells; in the presence of exons or promoter sequences, there could be unintended cellular uptake and expression. - Implications for public health and policy - The panel underscores the need for caution, thorough investigation, and long-term observation of any replication-based vaccine platform before broad deployment. There is a call to evaluate risks, monitor long-term outcomes, and consider the possibility that replication-competent constructs could drive unforeseen evolutionary dynamics within hosts or communities. - There is contention about how information is communicated to the public, with particular emphasis on avoiding misinformation while ensuring that scientific uncertainties are transparently discussed. - Broader scientific context and forward-looking stance - The speakers discuss how the field’s approach to gene-based vaccines is evolving rapidly, and they stress that the compatibility of replicon systems with human biology is not yet fully understood. - They frame their discussion as not merely about current vaccines but about the trajectory of vaccine platforms: if replication-based or self-dispersing systems prove too risky or unpredictable, the prudent path might be to favor conventional, non-replicating strategies until safety, efficacy, and containment of unintended spread are more firmly established. Closing and takeaways - The session closes with emphasis on careful evaluation of replicon vaccines, awareness that viral genetics can behave differently in humans than in theory, and a call for continued discussion, independent verification, and transparent communication as the technology develops. - Throughout, speakers acknowledge the complexity of immune responses to vaccines, the potential for unexpected adverse events, and the importance of safeguarding public health while advancing vaccine science.

In the lab, it's easy to manipulate spike proteins, which play a significant role in the zoonotic risk of coronaviruses. By obtaining the sequence and constructing the protein, we collaborated with Ralph Barrick at UNC to insert it into another virus. This allows us to conduct experiments and enhance our ability to predict outcomes based on specific sequences.