reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Concerning research from China was published last week. Researchers took a virus from pangolins and cultured it in a lab. They then infected mice with this virus, which killed all of them through brain infection. These mice were transgenic, meaning they had human ACE receptor genes. The virus, a coronavirus from pangolins, killed all the infected mice. This kind of experimentation is dangerous and should be banned immediately.

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.

H5N1 bird flu poses a significant threat, yet there's pressure to take an experimental vaccine for a virus that hasn't mutated to infect humans. Experts warn that administering such vaccines during a pandemic can accelerate mutations, potentially allowing viruses to jump to humans. Historical data shows that vaccines often fail to predict mutations accurately, leading to increased health issues for those who receive them. There are concerns about the origins of these viruses, with suggestions that they may have been weaponized in labs. The narrative seems aimed at creating fear and confusion, relying on public ignorance. It's crucial for experts to speak out on these matters.

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.

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.

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.

Scientists are reportedly combining viral and bacterial genetic material, creating something that wouldn't happen in nature. This could lead to the creation of superbugs. While some people might survive due to a resilient microbiome, many could die from these experiments. The justification for these experiments is to see what happens in case it occurs in nature later. However, the experiments are creating the very scenario they are trying to prepare for. The speaker argues that some scientific endeavors, like reproducing a dinosaur, should not be pursued because of potential catastrophic consequences like the dinosaur killing humanity. There is a need for better supervision of scientists and their labs.

Speaker 0 presents the statement of Joseph Sanson, based on the sworn statement of the late professor doctor Francis Boyle, described as the greatest authority in bioweapons legislation and the author of it. Boyle is asserted to have concluded that the COVID-19 mRNA injection is a bioweapon, and that he knew this “like no other” before his death, which occurred shortly after he declared willingness to testify under oath in court. The core of Boyle’s argument, as presented, is that the COVID-19 mRNA injections contain derivatives of illegal military gene function research, and therefore qualify by definition as a military biological weapon system—a bioweapon. This bioweapon is said to consist of two integrated components: a pathogenic load and a delivery mechanism. It is asserted that the pathogenic load results from illegal gene or function research. Boyle is described as referring to an article in Nature Medicine, with a link included in the plea note. If opened, the article is claimed to warn that true scientists believe an animal is the most likely source of the coronavirus, and that what is called the “new normal” are not scientists but faith fanatics. The 2015 Nature Medicine article is summarized as reporting that, based on findings, researchers synthetically created an infectious fully SHC014 recombinant virus with robust viral replication in vitro and in vivo, a SARS-like coronavirus with a spike protein optimized for human infection. The article is attributed to researchers including those affiliated with UNC Chapel Hill and the Wuhan Institute of Virology, implying that the spike protein and pathogenic payload were the result of illegal gain-of-function research. The spike protein mRNA is described as providing instructions to human cells to produce this pathogenic spike protein, emphasized as not being a natural spike protein but an illegally developed, synthetically made pathogen optimized for human infection. The delivery system is identified as nanolipid particles (NLPs) that encapsulate the mRNA payload and deliver it into cells. The rhetoric labels these as fat globules, and Boyle is said to declare that this is actually a nanotechnology-enhanced delivery platform. This technology is described as being paid for, developed, financed, and conceived by the Pentagon and its research institute DARPA, with the claim that the virus was aerosolized and engineered with nanotechnology from the beginning, indicating a long-term program for advanced delivery systems. The claim is made that this technology has been used in the COVID-19 injections, with the NLP delivery system described as the result of a specific teacher-sponsored program for nanotechnological biological weapons. The presentation by Samsung is cited for further legal implications, and it is argued that Gates and Borla qualify as suspects of crimes against humanity under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

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.

DARPA rejected a risky grant proposal to create a bat vaccine by spraying a live coronavirus in a cave. The plan involved infecting bats with the virus on sticky particles for self-vaccination. The potential consequences of releasing a live virus in a cave with millions of bats were concerning.

The Pentagon was concerned about starting a bioweapons arms race, so they funneled money through the NIH and Anthony Fauci. Fauci received a significant raise and began conducting gain-of-function research. In 2014, three bugs escaped from different labs, causing public outcry and congressional hearings. 300 scientists sent letters to Obama, urging him to shut down Fauci's experiments. Obama ordered a moratorium, but Fauci moved his operations to Wuhan, China, to evade scrutiny. He continued his work with Ralph Barrick and Peter Dazsak.

Chinese researchers have created a super virus by combining a protein from bats with the SARS virus found in mice. This virus could potentially infect humans, although it is currently only being studied in laboratories. The debate over the risks of this research is not new, with some scientists arguing that the benefits outweigh the potential dangers. However, others are concerned about the possibility of the virus directly infecting humans without an intermediate species. The US government had previously suspended funding for research aiming to make viruses more contagious, but this did not stop the Chinese research on SARS. Some experts believe the chances of the virus spreading to humans are minimal compared to the potential benefits, while others disagree.

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.

I believe that it is possible that scientific research sponsored in part by the NIH but also lots of other entities including the Chinese government may have been the cause of the pandemic. There's a lot of people who just have fights over this. But I will say is that the kinds of biological exercises people did in order to try to prevent a pandemic, go find viruses in weird bat caves, bring them into city centers, and then augment their capacity to infect humans, The reason why they did that was I think they were arguing that we needed to do that in order to prepare just in case a pandemic happens. But think no matter what you believe about whether the cause of the pandemic was this kind of research, I think everyone can agree that that kind of research is potentially very dangerous.

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.

Vaccinating birds with a leaky vaccine, one that doesn't provide sterilizing immunity, turns the flocks into mutation factories, teaching the organism how to mutate. This destabilizes the organism and makes it more likely to jump to animals. The speaker claims that all agency heads from NIH, CDC, and FDA advised against bird vaccination because it is dangerous for human beings.

Researchers have been working on making bird flu more contagious for humans through gain of function research. The virus mainly infects chickens and sometimes cattle. Chinese vaccination efforts in the 90s may have worsened the situation. The current strain, H5N1 avian influenza, has caused around 800-900 human cases with a high mortality rate in Southeast Asia. Recent US cases were easily treated. The virus is not a significant threat unless it starts spreading human to human. The recent strain may have originated from experiments on mallard ducks in Georgia, leading to its spread across states. The media has not questioned this spread caused by migratory waterfowl.

If we ignore the problem of felons in the US, we'll face more issues like H5N2 bird flu. The alleged H5N, avian influenza, is available for sale on the BEI Resources website since 2016. The concern lies in gain of function research in labs, where the recipe to make bird flu highly infectious for humans is already known.

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.