TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The government funded gain of function research from 2014 to '16, but it continued in Wuhan without approval from the committee. In 2017, the funding was resumed, but the Wuhan research was not reviewed by the committee. When questioned, Fauci claimed that his experts said it wasn't gain of function, but there was no discussion or paperwork. The person in charge of the safety committee only reviewed three studies in four years, and this research was exempted from their scrutiny. It could only have been done with Fauci's permission. We haven't found the paperwork yet, but it's likely that Fauci allowed the research in Wuhan without the safety committee's oversight.

American scientists lied to DARPA in order to secure funding for high-risk coronavirus research in Wuhan, China, according to documents obtained by US Right to Know. The scientists concealed their intentions and claimed the research was being done in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, due to national security concerns and lax safety measures at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The documents raise doubts about the scientists' credibility and their claims that the pandemic could not have originated from their collaboration. The proposal involved engineering coronaviruses with spike proteins and furin cleavage sites, similar to SARS-CoV-2. The experiments were planned to occur in Wuhan with fewer safety precautions to save costs. This revelation is considered a smoking gun in the lab leak controversy.

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.

The speaker is working with Jay Bhattacharya and Secretary Kennedy to investigate US-funded gain of function research, including at the Wuhan lab, which they believe may have led to the COVID-19 pandemic. They aim to provide evidence linking this research to the pandemic. The speaker claims Anthony Fauci denied this research under oath and may have sought a preemptive pardon. They argue that gain of function research continues in biolabs worldwide, posing a risk of future pandemics. The speaker faced criticism for warning about US-funded biolabs in Ukraine. The speaker questions why the intelligence community was reluctant to conclude that COVID-19 originated in a lab, contrasting this with instances where they quickly make assumptions without conclusive evidence. They attribute this to the politicization of intelligence, citing the Iraq War as an example of intelligence being used to influence policy.

The speakers discuss whether the NIH funded gain of function research and its potential role in the pandemic. There is a heated exchange between a senator and a speaker who denies responsibility for any deaths. The possibility of Dr. Fauci lying under oath is raised, and it is suggested that American tax dollars funded the research. The Luban Institute is mentioned as conducting gain of function research. Dr. Redfield expresses concern that the virus may have been engineered. Gain of function research is defined as increasing a pathogen's transmissibility or pathogenicity. It is concluded that gain of function research did not stop the pandemic, but rather caused it.

Did USAID fund coronavirus research in Wuhan? We did not fund gain of function research. The PREDICT program, which ended in 2019, did involve funding that may have gone to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. There are concerns about funding to the Academy of Military Medical Sciences in China, but records are not accessible. Despite requests for documents related to the PREDICT program, USAID has not provided them, raising suspicions about transparency. The agency claims to have shared documents with relevant committees, but there is frustration over the lack of information available to senators. There is a demand for clarity on grants related to coronaviruses, as the ongoing lack of response leads to concerns about potential hidden information regarding the origins of COVID-19.

The Chinese State Council Information Office claims COVID originated in the U.S. A special team is investigating COVID's origins, with findings on covid.gov. Work is being done with Jay Bhattacharya and Secretary Kennedy, looking at U.S. funded gain of function research at the Wuhan lab and other biolabs, which has led to health crises. The goal is to find the specific link between gain of function research and COVID-19. If Peter Daszak's research with the Wuhan lab caused the pandemic, then the U.S. funded it, and Anthony Fauci denied it under oath. Gain of function research is ongoing in biolabs worldwide, like in Ukraine. Warning against U.S. funded biolabs in Ukraine led to accusations of being a Russian asset. The intelligence community was reluctant to say COVID came from a lab, possibly due to the politicization of intelligence. This politicization dates back to intelligence used to justify the Iraq regime change war.

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.

They planned to create a virus in Southern China to infect humans, possibly adding a furin cleavage site. DARPA considered funding it but had safety concerns. Despite claiming to work in safe labs in North Carolina, they discussed using lower safety level labs for cost efficiency and speed.

Republicans on the subcommittee recount two years of work aimed at linking the COVID-19 origin to a Wuhan lab, arguing that Democrats hindered the pursuit of truth by blocking hearings. They contend mounting evidence supports a lab-origin, and they frame the hearing as a step toward uncovering the truth for Americans who have suffered from COVID-19. Dr. Redfield is cited as having pointed to the lab-leak hypothesis as early as 2020, urging Fauci, Jeremy Farrar, and Tedros to take the lab-leak possibility seriously and to investigate both lab-origin and natural-origin hypotheses. Farrar convened an 11-scientist meeting across five time zones on February 1, inviting Fauci to join, with a note to treat the matter in total confidence. Redfield notes he was excluded from that call despite being included in prior discussions, and asks why he was left out. Emails following the February 1 conference show the four scientists who had attended later told Fauci that they found the genetic sequence inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory. Yet, just three days later, these four scientists drafted the proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2 paper, arguing the opposite. The subcommittee asks for the likelihood that these scientists, after making that earlier statement, could conclude with such certainty that COVID-19 came from nature instead of a lab leak, and suggests Fauci prompted the paper to discredit the lab-leak theory. Speaker 0 characterizes the February 2020 approach as antithetical to science, saying science requires debate and that this process squashed debate. They ask whether Fauci used the proximal-origin paper to hide gain-of-function research that created the virus. Speaker 1 responds that they cannot speak to Fauci’s motivation but asserts the paper is inaccurate and part of a narrative to support a natural-origin story. They state the pandemic did not start in January at the seafood market, noting infections as early as September, and allege a narrative was decided to claim a wet market origin and to negate discussion about a laboratory origin. With twenty seconds left, Speaker 0 raises a point that Fauci was told in January 2020 about NIH’s monetary relationship with the Wuhan Institute through EcoHealth Alliance and asks whether Fauci intentionally lied under oath when denying NIH funding of gain-of-function research. Speaker 1 asserts there is no doubt NIH funded gain-of-function research and adds that American tax dollars funded gain-of-function research from NIH, the State Department, USAID, and DOD. The exchange ends with Speaker 0 noting time and recognizing Ms. Dink.

Did USAID fund coronavirus research in Wuhan, China? We did not fund gain of function research. However, the PREDICT program, which ended in 2019, did involve funding that may have reached the Wuhan Institute of Virology. There are concerns about transparency regarding grants and funding, especially related to the Academy of Military Medical Sciences in China. Despite requests for records on the PREDICT program, USAID has not provided the necessary documents. The lack of information raises suspicions about what research was conducted, particularly proposals related to creating viruses similar to COVID-19. There is frustration over the perceived stonewalling by the agency, as senators seek clarity on funding and research proposals linked to coronaviruses in China.

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.

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.

We did not fund gain of function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The NIH has acknowledged funding research on a bat coronavirus that was enhanced in a lab, making it more contagious. Senator Paul questioned whether I wish to retract my statement from May 11, asserting that the NIH never funded gain of function research in Wuhan. I stand by my statement and have never lied before Congress. The NIH provided grants to the EcoHealth Alliance for experiments with bat coronaviruses in Wuhan. If anyone is lying, it is you, Senator. Evidence suggests the virus may have originated from the lab, and those who funded it will be held responsible. The NIH admitted to funding controversial gain of function research, contradicting my earlier claims. I maintain that I have not lied before Congress. Case closed.

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.

According to Speaker 1, Dr. Fauci was informed via email on January 27, 2020, that NIAID had a financial connection to the Wuhan Institute through EcoHealth Alliance. Speaker 1 believes NIH was funding gain of function research. Speaker 1 also claims American tax dollars likely funded gain of function research that created the virus, not only from NIH, but also from the State Department, USAID, and DOD.

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.

Did USAID fund coronavirus research in Wuhan, China? We did not fund gain of function research. The PREDICT program, which ended in 2019, did have grants that may have gone to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. I have requested records from the PREDICT program to understand the funding and research conducted, but USAID has not provided these documents. Despite multiple requests and a letter from 25 senators, we have received no information. We want to know about any grants related to coronaviruses, especially those that could have led to COVID-19. The lack of transparency raises suspicions about what information is being withheld. We seek clarity on all research proposals related to coronaviruses funded by the U.S. government.

USAID denies funding gain of function research despite evidence showing otherwise. Questions raised about lack of transparency regarding dangerous research projects. Request made to interview USAID personnel present at briefing about risky virus creation. USAID emphasizes cooperation and commitment to avoiding risky research in the future.

If COVID-19 originated from risky experiments at the Wuhan lab, it's important to note that the lab received funding from America. During a congressional hearing, Senator Paul questioned Dr. Fauci about the NIH's funding of gain-of-function research in Wuhan, to which Fauci denied lying. However, a scientific paper from 2012 written by Fauci supports the benefits of gain-of-function research despite the risk of a pandemic. The decision to lift the ban on gain-of-function research during the Trump administration remains unclear. Former President Trump mentioned that Fauci did not inform him about the Wuhan Institute of Virology's activities, and emails later revealed Fauci's discussions about the possibility of genetic manipulation. Trump stopped the payments to the Chinese lab upon discovering them. Despite the controversy, Trump believes his administration did a great job with the vaccine and Operation Warp Speed.

Project Veritas has obtained military documents revealing information about the origins of COVID-19, gain of function research, vaccines, and potential treatments. These documents contradict Dr. Anthony Fauci's claims that the US government was not involved in gain of function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The documents include a report from DARPA, a US Department of Defense agency, which states that EcoHealth Alliance approached DARPA in 2018 seeking funding for dangerous gain of function research. DARPA rejected the proposal, but the NIAID, under Dr. Fauci's direction, proceeded with the research in Wuhan and other US sites. The question arises as to why the NIH, NIAID, and EcoHealth Alliance disregarded the risks when even the Department of Defense deemed the research too dangerous.

We did not fund gain of function research in Wuhan. A bat coronavirus was enhanced in a lab. NIH funded research at Wuhan Institute, making a virus more contagious. Fauci denies lying to congress. Questions raised about experiments in Wuhan lab. NIH funded EcoHealth Alliance for bat coronavirus experiments. Fauci denies lying, blames Senator Paul. NIH admitted funding gain of function research in Wuhan lab. Fauci insists he did not lie.

The speaker is working with Jay Bhattacharya and Secretary Kennedy to investigate US-funded gain of function research, including at the Wuhan lab, and its potential link to the COVID-19 pandemic. They aim to provide evidence showing why ending this research is in the American people's best interest. The speaker claims that Anthony Fauci funded the pandemic and then denied it under oath to Senator Rand Paul. They also suggest Fauci sought a preemptive pardon from President Biden. The speaker was attacked for warning against US-funded biolabs in Ukraine, fearing potential pathogen releases. The speaker questions why the intelligence community was reluctant to conclude that COVID-19 originated in a lab, suggesting politicization of intelligence to meet objectives or influence policy. They draw a parallel to the intelligence used to justify the Iraq regime change war and its consequences. The speaker emphasizes the need to address these issues within the intelligence community and highlights the importance of leadership.

Project Veritas says it has obtained never-before-seen military documents about the origins of COVID-19, gain-of-function research, vaccines, potential treatments, and government concealment. Fauci testified the US government was never involved in gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Major Murphy’s report claims EcoHealth Alliance approached DARPA in March 2018 to fund gain-of-function research on bat-borne coronaviruses. DARPA rejected the proposal as too dangerous and potentially violative of the gain-of-function moratorium. Documents allegedly show NIH/NIAID did not reject it and continued research at Wuhan and elsewhere. Fauci has maintained NIH/NIAID were not involved. Murphy’s report cites concerns about the gain-of-function program, concealment of documents, and suppression of potential curatives like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, and the mRNA vaccines. Veritas sought comment from DARPA; questions remain about how and why risks were disregarded and who buried the report that could have prevented the pandemic.

American tax dollars likely funded gain-of-function research that created the virus, according to the speakers. They mention funding from various government agencies, including NIH, the State Department, USAID, and DOD. They argue that Dr. Fauci, under whose direction the research was conducted, is responsible for teaching Chinese military scientists how to build weapons of mass destruction. They also claim that Fauci funded a technique called seamless ligation, which hides human tampering on the virus. The speakers question the justification for funding such research and highlight the involvement of USAID, the Department of Defense, and the CIA. They suggest a cover-up and raise concerns about the origins of the virus.