Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Greetings,

 

My name is Clint and I’m reaching out to you in dire a plea for help with exposing the fact that COVID-19 is legally classifiable as a biological weapon, and that Dr. Anthony Fauci (NIAID) along with the NIH issued US tax-payer money for the creation of this disease. 

 

In other words, the Dr. leading the public health efforts on this pandemic is the one who appropriated funding to engineer the virus, and there are statutes that can be enforced to pursue this violation of US and international law.

 

Included below is a documentary and written summary with primary evidence detailing the origins of COVID-19 as a bio-weapon that was genetically engineered through lab mutation experiments backed with federal grants from the NIAID and NIH.

 

In the interest of public safety, supporting medical freedom and raising the most awareness, you have my express permission to reuse or redistribute the research in any way that you see fit (and I implore you to do so). 

 

Wagging the Dog: The Story Behind the Story of COVID-19

There is no question that there will be a challenge to the coming administration in the arena of infectious diseases, both chronic infectious diseases in the sense of already ongoing disease – and we certainly have a large burden of that – but also there will be a surprise outbreak.” – Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, Pandemic Preparedness in the Next Administration, January 10, 2017

Anthony-Fauci-Pandemic-Preparedness-in-t

 

Prerequisite: Understanding Dual-Use, Gain-of-Function Research

 

Dual Use Research of Concern (DURC) is life sciences research that, based on current understanding, can be reasonably anticipated to provide knowledge, information, products, or technologies that could be directly misapplied to pose a significant threat with broad potential consequences to public health and safety, agricultural crops and other plants, animals, the environment, materiel, or national security. The United States Government’s oversight of DURC is aimed at preserving the benefits of life sciences research while minimizing the risk of misuse of the knowledge, information, products, or technologies provided by such research.” – National Institutes of Health

 

Gain-of-function (GoF) is the euphemism for biological research aimed at increasing the virulence and lethality of pathogens and viruses. GoF research is government funded; its focus is on enhancing the pathogens’ ability to infect different species and to increase their deadly impact as airborne pathogens and viruses. Ostensibly, GoF research is conducted for biodefense purposes. These experiments, however, are extremely dangerous. Those deadly science-enhanced pathogens can, and do escape into the community where they infect and kill people. What’s more, this line of research can be used for biological warfare.” – Alliance For Human Research Protection

 

Many potential pandemic-causing pathogens have been modified through GoF, dual-use research to give them additional properties that make them more contagious, deadly, drug-resistant, and patentable. Examples include: SARS-CoV-1, MERS-CoV, and more recently SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19).

 

GoF research has been a controversial for at least a decade, most notably due to research conducted on highly pathogenic H5N1, which was genetically modified to give the disease airborne transmissibility in mammals by NIH NIAID-funded lab work performed by Ron Fouchier and Yoshihiro Kawaoka.

 

Yoshihiro-Kawaoka-and-Ron-Fouchier.jpg

 

Force-evolving viruses through direct mutation or reassortment to provide enhanced pathogenicity, transmissibility and host range is justified as a necessary risk to better understand the potential threat of those diseases and for the advanced production of therapeutics such as vaccines and antiviral drugs.

 

Key points to consider regarding dual-use, gain-of-function research:
 

  • Viruses modified through GoF research are engineered to have attributes that are acknowledged as being highly unlikely to ever occur in nature and only exist because of GoF research.

  • GoF research is said to be conducted in preparation against certain potential pandemic pathogens, which again, are widely acknowledged as being unlikely to occur except by way of the fact that those pathogens now exist in laboratories due to GoF research.

  • That pathogen is then subject to being released on the public through the misconduct of a research facility or the malicious actions of someone who obtains the resulting research.

  • In the US, GoF research is largely tax-payer funded through the NIH, which claims to only fund projects that are not classified. However, the publication of that GoF research is then made available for anyone in the public, including agencies who may use the information for classified projects (such the DoD) or any parties with the means to pursue malicious interests.
     

NIH-Research-Portfolio-Project-Number-2-
 

  • Even discounting all potential for malicious use of GoF research, there is significant historical precedent for accidental lab releases of pandemic pathogens, not least including SARS-CoV-1.

  • Testing lab technicians for potential infection is challenging if not impossible because they are often vaccinated against strains of the pathogens they’re researching, which ensures that their blood contains antibodies of the root virus structure. Likewise, anyone who has ever been exposed to any natural or synthetic strain of the coronavirus in the past (including the common cold) will have antibodies that invalidate results from the go-to “PCR” for SARS-2 COVID-19.

  • One of the primary benefits proposed for governmental-funding of GoF research is the for-profit production and stockpiling of novel therapeutics such as vaccines and antiviral drugs.

  • There are conflicts of interests throughout the public oversight and advisory for GoF research as well as the sources of research funding, recipients of that funding, the eventual corporate production of therapeutics, and the inevitable patent portfolios derived from GoF research.

  • Pandemic pathogens are altered to be drug resistant and because those pathogens do not and very likely would not occur in nature, people lack a natural immunity to those man-made diseases and consequently require the for-profit therapeutics that have been produced.

  • Corporate parties seek to control and patent man-made viruses along with the drugs that are used to treat them as their property in the interest of maximum profitability, and the way research and development is structured eliminates most or all governmental liability.

  • Vaccines are produced and stockpiled as a therapeutic option against one-time, mutated viral strains, but because the virus will mutate again (naturally or unnaturally), those vaccines will become useless against any newly-mutated strain. This generates profit from both the stockpiled waste as well as future unused vaccines that must be wasted when the virus mutates again.

  • In the name of studying things that have not happened and likely will not happen in nature, and that can only be proven through artificially mutating pathogens, GoF research increases the likelihood of a pandemic occurringif only through a laboratory accident – and ultimately jeopardizes millions or billions of lives (or possibly even the extinction of the human race).

 

The dual-use aspect of GoF research cannot be emphasized enough as there is no fundamental difference between what is called basic “legitimate” or “peaceful” research, and biological weapons research – they are considered the same thing by government agencies and the Biological Weapons Act.

 

Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 (BWATA)

 

The Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 (BWATA) drafted by University of Illinois international law professor Francis Boyle was enacted into law on May 22, 1990 and defines several terms related to biological warfare: vector, toxin, biological agent and delivery system.

 

“Biological agent” is defined by the BWATA as: “any micro-organism, virus, infectious substance, or biological product that may be engineered as a result of biotechnology, or any naturally occurring or bioengineered component of any such microorganism, virus, infectious substance, or biological product, capable of causing death, disease, or other biological malfunction in a human, an animal, a plant, or another living organism; deterioration of food, water, equipment, supplies, or material of any kind or deleterious alteration of the environment.”

While the previous US interpretation of the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC – an international treaty that explicitly bans the use of biological agents) was in line with the BWATA definition, now the US maintains that Article I of the BWC does not apply to non-lethal biological agents.

In other words, the most deadly of viruses can be trafficked, studied, reconstructed and genetically altered to be more contagious and deadly if the research is simply labeled as “peaceful” or “defensive,” making the provisions of the BWATA almost impossible to enforce – especially when the NIH funds a majority of that “peaceful” or “defensive” research (again, under the term “basic research”).

 

New-NIH-Acronym-To-Know-BESH-Basic-Exper

 

According to the Federation of American Scientists, current US work on non-lethal agents greatly exceeds limitations set forth in the BWC.

The only impact of this work is the creation, in a lab, of a new, non-natural risk.” – Richard Ebright, molecular biologist and biodefence expert at Rutgers, via Nature
The fact of the matter is that if the H5N1 research that we’re discussing today that NIH sponsored had been sponsored by the department that I work for – the Department of Defense – for exactly the same scientific purposes, it’s likely that the United States would have been falsely accused of violating its treaty obligations and the State Department would be busy defending ourselves against charges of US continuing to maintain a illegal offensive biological weapons program… People who are intent on doing bad things with biology are drawing on the same science that all of the people in this room are drawing on. There isn’t a separate set of science that’s biological warfare.” – Dr. Seth Carus, speaking on a panel at the International Consultative Workshop on Gain-of-Function Research on Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N1 Viruses, December 17-18, 2012

SARS-2 COVID-19 Funded and Created With Aid From NIH and Fauci

 

There is no question that there will be a challenge to the coming administration in the arena of infectious diseases, both chronic infectious diseases in the sense of already ongoing disease – and we certainly have a large burden of that – but also there will be a surprise outbreak.” – Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, Pandemic Preparedness in the Next Administration, January 10, 2017

 

Dr. Anthony Fauci and the NIH have been long-standing proponents of gain-of-function research, perhaps most notably during a year-long moratorium on GoF research back in 2012 – a moratorium that resulted from GoF researchers modifying the H5N1 virus for aerosol transmissibility in mammals.

 

Dr. Fauci and industry representatives gathered at an international workshop to discuss the risks and benefits of GoF research, and to establish guidelines for continuing that research. That moratorium began in January 2012 and concluded in January 2013 despite initially being called for 60 days.

 

Controversy over GoF continued in the following years, including a halt of US government funding on GoF research in October 2014 due to concerns of biosafety and biosecurity risks – concerns that arose not least due to laboratory accidents that occurred at the Centers for Disease Control in July 2014.

 

However, prior to that ban on federal funding for GoF studies in the US, the NIAID (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease – of which Dr. Fauci is the director) along with the NIH granted $3.7 million in federal funding for a five-year project that concluded in 2019 to study bat coronaviruses.

 

NIH-Research-Portfolio-Project-Number-2-

 

In particular, that initiative financed Shi Zhengli, a virologist from a Wuhan lab, and other researchers to surveil and catalog bat coronaviruses. Shi Zhengli was part of Dr. Ralph S. Baric’s team at North Carolina University which released a paper in 2015 demonstrating potential for emergence of bat coronaviruses in humans – a study that was published shortly after their project was defunded by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). (More recently, Shi Zhengli co-authored a paper published in 2019 calling for further study into GoF-related coronavirus research.)

 

Facing a moratorium in the US, Dr. Fauci outsourced GoF research in 2015 to China’s Wuhan lab and licensed the lab so it would keep receiving US aid for researchers in China to continue GoF project(s). Again, this R&D was at least partially funded with grants from the US despite a ban on GoF funding.

 

In December 2017, the NIH lifted its three-year ban, resuming federal funding for GoF research and opening the door to begin the second phase of the NIAID project involving GoF coronavirus research.

 

In 2019, coronavirus research was granted a second round of $3.7 million funding over six years from the NIH (with backing from Dr. Fauci and the NIAID) for the continuation of surveillance along with GoF research on bat coronaviruses to determine whether the pathogen could mutate and infect humans.

 

The project proposal approved by the NIH states: “We will use S protein sequence data, infectious clone technology, in vitro and in vivo infection experiments and analysis of receptor binding to test the hypothesis that % divergence thresholds in S protein sequences predict spillover potential.”


“Spillover potential” refers to the ability of a virus to jump from animals to humans, which would require the virus to have the appropriate genetic properties for attaching to receptors in human cells.

 

NIH-Research-Portfolio-Project-Number-2-

 

Note that the exact orthologs referred to in this proposal are seen in SARS-2 or COVID-19, which uses the S protein sequence data, and through GoF research HIV spikes were added to COVID-19 for receptor binding to the human ACE-2 receptor (located in the lungs, heart and other places where COVID-19 attacks). Also that there are dozens of “similar projects” listed which are NIAID-funded.

 

Speaking with Jason Liosatos, Francis Boyle (author of the BWATA) highlighted several points that underscore the gain-of-function-based origins of SARS-2 COVID-19, which is essentially SARS (an already weaponized version of the coronavirus that has leaked out of laboratories) with new properties that have been genetically engineered through GoF to create the new virus – hence SARS-CoV-2.

 

The functionality added to SARS-1 through GoF research allows SARS-2 COVID-19 to be more transmissible, more virulent, and enables the ability to attach to the ACE-2 receptor in humans.

 

A summary of Francis Boyle’s findings:

 

  • Referencing a study published in Antiviral Research on February 10, 2020 (The spike glycoprotein of the new coronavirus 2019-nCoV contains a furin-like cleavage site absent in CoV of the same clade) “This furin-like cleavage site, is supposed to be cleaved during virus egress for S-protein ‘priming’ and may provide a gain-of-function to the 2019-nCoV for efficient spreading in the human population compared to other lineage b beta-coronaviruses.”
     

  • Referencing a study published in the National Library of Medicine on December 21, 2015 (SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronavirus shows potential for human emergence) Using the SARS-CoV reverse genetics system, we generated and characterized a chimeric virus expressing the spike of bat coronavirus SHC014 in a mouse-adapted SARS-CoV backbone. The results indicated that group 2b viruses encoding the SHC014 spike in a wild-type backbone can efficient use multiple orthologs of the SARS receptor in human angiotensin converting enzyme II (ACE2), replicate efficiently in primary human airway cells and achieve in vitro titers equivalent to epidemic strains of SARS-CoV. Additionally, in vivo experiments demonstrate replication of the chimeric virus in mouse lung with notable pathogenesis. Evaluation of available SARS-based immune-therapeutic and prophylactic modalities revealed poor efficacy; both monoclonal and antibody vaccine approaches failed to neutralize and protect from infection with CoVs using the novel spike protein. On the basis of these findings, we synthetically re-derived an infectious full-length SHC014 recombinant virus and demonstrate robust viral replication both in vitro and in vivo.

     

A-SARS-like-cluster-of-circulating-bat-c

 

Boyle notes that this research is “only useful for offensive biological warfare activity and it’s so dangerous it’s typically only conducted in either a BSL4 or BSL3 facility,” and incidentally that the only BSL4 facility in China is located in Wuhan.

 

“…And so my reading of these three articles (the above research studies) is that they (China) took the technology from this death factory at North Carolina, they took the technology from this Australian research project, brought it back to Wuhan BSL4 and tried to genetically engineer it all together as sort of a turbo-charged biological warfare weapon that would consist of SARS – which is already a weaponized coronavirus – GoF properties, and HIV. And as you know, those Indian scientists already did an analysis of the coronavirus [SARS-2 COVID-19] … and HIV was clearly in there.”
 

Uncanny-similarity-of-unique-inserts-in-


In summary: Through gain-of-function research that has been funded over the last decade at least in part from US tax payers, Dr. Fauci (NIAID) and the NIH have participated in commissioning GoF research that took SHC014-CoV of the coronavirus, brought in the backbone of the SARS coronavirus, then inserted HIV orthologs to create a more virulent pathogen – one that would otherwise have little chance of being transmissible from animals to humans, and certainly not from human to human.

 

GoF research is conducted largely – if not entirely through loopholes that violate the BWATA and BWC. GoF work on pandemic pathogens has been allowed to continue (even in foreign states) with aid from US tax-payer funding by merely referring to such dual-use research as “peaceful” or “defensive” biological weapons research under terms such as “basic research,” despite the fact that those pathogens (biological agents) would otherwise be recognized as bio-weapons according the BWATA and BWC.

 

We at NIAID being major funders of most but not all of these people (doing GoF, dual-use research), were obviously connected to that because they (the researchers) wanted to know what kind of research will you (the NIAID/NIH) fund… and the purpose from a pure research standpoint is to review the key issues related to the gain-of-function of these viruses: scientific, public health, biosafety, biosecurity – and importantly for the decisions we have to make now, is the considerations of the possible criteria for funding by HHS (i.e. NIH, CDC) of gain-of-function research on highly pathogenic avian influenza.” – Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, An International Consultative Workshop on Gain-of-Function Research on Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N1 Viruses December 17-18, 2012

Anthony-Fauci-Pandemic-Preparedness-in-t

“There is no question that there will be a challenge to the coming administration in the arena of infectious diseases, both chronic infectious diseases in the sense of already ongoing disease – and we certainly have a large burden of that – but also there will be a surprise outbreak.” – Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, Pandemic Preparedness in the Next Administration, January 10, 2017

According to 18 US Code 175 (prohibitions with respect to biological weapons), the following sentencing guidelines are provided for those who violate the BWATA: Whoever knowingly develops, produces, stockpiles, transfers, acquires, retains, or possesses any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system for use as a weapon, or knowingly assists a foreign state or any organization to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both.”

 

Further Reading: Direct Quotes & Additional Points of Interest

 

And it isn’t who we fund that people are concerned about but it’s the people who will then use the research from the people we funded. So the real fundamental question is, when we make a funding decision, do we have to make a decision based on funding even the most careless most unregulated [researchers] because they’re going to use the information. That sets an extraordinarily high bar for what you’re going to fund or what you’re not going to fund because essentially if people are going to use this information, they may use it with no biosafety or no biosecurity concerns.” Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, An International Consultative Workshop on Gain-of-Function Research on Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N1 Viruses, December 17-18, 2012

 

As part of our research endeavors, clearly interventions in the form of diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccines were important. But on the lower part of the slide, you see basic research, and that has always been and will continue to be an important part of our mission and our activities. If you look at basic research as we’ve approached it, through the years – long anti-dating the appearance of H5N1 highly pathogenic virus – as part of that influenza basic research was intensive study host adaptation, transmissibility of influenza viruses, pathogenesis and virulence. And integral to that study has always been the issue of gain-of-function research, not only for influenza, but essentially for all infectious disease research.Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, An International Consultative Workshop on Gain-of-Function Research on Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N1 Viruses, December 17-18, 2012

 

Now there are a few ways to look at gain-of-function research: 1) there’s the naturally occurring mutations which naturally give gain-of-function and investigators study these effects on the phenotypes of interest – does this mutation make something more transmissible, more pathogenic, or adapt to hosts better; 2) or what historically investigators have done is to actually create gain-of-function by making mutations, passage adaption or other newer genetic techniques such as reverse genetics and genetic reassortment. When we do that, often some phenotypes appear and others disappear. For example it is commonly seen when you increase a transmissibility, you may see a decrease in pathogenesis or vice-versa. You may deliberately increase pathogenesis and see a decrease in transmissibility. But the bottom line is that gain- and loss-of-function research is critical to understanding disease pathogenesis anti-microbial resistance and host responses, as well to developing better techniques of surveillance, vaccines and therapeutics.” Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, An International Consultative Workshop on Gain-of-Function Research on Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N1 Viruses, December 17-18, 2012

 

Specifically to gain-of-function research on HPAI H5N1, what we’re talking about now is the gain-of-function research in studies that increase predominately the transmissibility – as was the case that I’m about to get to in a moment – as well as pathogenesis and alteration of host range of the virus. Now the reason we are here today in this room with H5N1 highly pathogenic influenza and we’re not in this room discussing so many of the other gain-of-function research that we do, is because naturally occurring HPAI H5N1 cause a reported almost 60% mortality in humans, which triggered a concern – understandably, clearly – that if you give a gain-of-function of a pathogenic virus to make it more transmissible, that’s a whole different story than some of the things we face.” Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, An International Consultative Workshop on Gain-of-Function Research on Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N1 Viruses, December 17-18, 2012

 

That’s the smoking gun for an offensive biological warfare agent. Gain-of-function properties are a tip off. It’s only useful for offensive biological warfare activity and it’s so dangerous it’s typically only conducted in a BSL4 or BSL3 facility, and there in Wuhan you have the only BSL4 facility in China… Gain-of-function means its DNA is genetically engineered to be more lethal and more infectious – clearly what we’re seeing now with this coronavirus (SARS-2 COVID-19). [COVID-19] is basically SARS, which is already a weaponized version of the coronavirus that has leaked out of [a] laboratory at least twice before, and then it [has been] given gain-of-function properties.” – Francis Boyle, author of the BWATA, speaking with Jason Liosatos, March, 2020

 

GoF research on bat coronaviruses was conducted at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, which has a biosafety lab level 3 (BSL3), “and I had previously condemned them for using gain-of-function work on MERS… [which] is like SARS only more dangerous [with] a 33% lethality rate – and they were doing GoF work there to make [MERS] even more lethal. Well it turns out if you read the article, they admit they were doing this with SARS – they were giving it a gain-of-function activity. And it turns out part of their team was a researcher from China, Zhengli-Li Shi… and they (China) gave a grant to the University of North Carolina, to get their scientist in on this extremely dangerous, Nazi-type biological warfare work. So it appears that what happened was, instead of stealing this technology, China bought it. And they bought it from the lab there at the University of Carolina. They put there person in there and they brought it back to the Wuhan lab. And it also appears that the North Carolina lab got cells from Fort Detrick, which is the US major facility for the research, development, testing and stockpiling of biological weapons… And they made it clear the work they were doing was to increase the pathogenicity of SARS by giving it this gain-of-function activity.” – Francis Boyle, author of the BWATA, speaking with Jason Liosatos, March, 2020

 

“So that I think is what we are dealing with here. We’ve never seen (at least released in the public) a biological warfare agent this dangerous, except the Amerithrax [after 9/11]… that was super weapons-grade anthrax [with] a hundred grams a spore. It too traveled in the air [and] seemed to be based on nano-technology… and at the time I publicly stated it came out of the US biological warfare weapons program, and probably Fort Detrick, which was later confirmed… So the Amerithrax was of course supremely dangerous but not as infectious as what we’re seeing here.” Francis Boyle, author of the BWATA, speaking with Jason Liosatos, March, 2020

 

The dual-use nature of biological weapons agents, production equipment and advances in biotechnology can make it hard to distinguish between offensive and defensive work.” – E. William Colglanizer, US Department of State, An International Consultative Workshop on Gain-of-Function Research on Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N1 Viruses, December 17-18, 2012

 

We have four different strains of H5N1 that we have over the past seven years maintained.” – Robin Robinson, An International Consultative Workshop on Gain-of-Function Research on Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N1 Viruses, December 17-18, 2012

 

“…the breadth of misuse scenarios, which I think the term bioterrorism does not capture and may be misleading… In terms of the consequential research, it’s clear that the stakes are much higher with the research we’re discussing today than almost any other form of scientific research where the great risk is wasting money or possibly not spending money which would have higher scientific return. Here we are evaluating the risk of generating – whether accidentally or deliberately – a global pandemic, potentially putting millions of lives at risk. And weighing that against the risk that failure to do research would leave us less prepared for such a pandemic that might break out naturally. I think we have to be extremely humble in assuming we can know or understand the motives and the capabilities of those who might want to create harm on a massive scale. The concerns include those that go beyond and in fact I think have little to do with what might be called bio-terrorism, if by terrorism we mean acts to inflict harm against non-combatants or civilians for a political objective.” – Gerald Epstein, An International Consultative Workshop on Gain-of-Function Research on Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N1 Viruses, December 17-18, 2012

 

In terms of what shouldn’t be done, I would look at the actual phrasing of the NIH proposal that we’re evaluating today. For example, one type of experiment that I think would be hard to defend, would be creating strains that would be extremely unlikely to arise if it were not for the fact that we were creating it. And in that case we would be accepting the risks of such a work but we would not be obtaining any benefit because we would be anticipating a problem that would be extremely likely to happen.” – Gerald Epstein, An International Consultative Workshop on Gain-of-Function Research on Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N1 Viruses, December 17-18, 2012

 

In terms of gain-of-function I think as the life sciences converge with biology – but with physics, mathematics and engineering – gain-of-function is absolutely essential. The cyber-physical program at the National Science Foundation actually is premised upon that fact. That if we can actually engineer something in and predict its properties, that is gain-of-function. If the life science research and this particular field is to go forward with all the reason behind it, we have to do gain-of-function experiments, we have to put them in the context of mathematics, physics and engineering or else we will make no progress. We have been asked to survey the landscape of international agreements and how does it affect infectious diseases. Well, the capabilities are quite different but the rules and regulations and the advisory committees are legion… There’s a whole area now of biological research looking at stochastic (unintended) events. That’s why this notion of a common but differentiated capabilities as a fundamental for a global governance structure is really important, because it leads to a way to incentivizes countries to participate…– Harvey Rubin, An International Consultative Workshop on Gain-of-Function Research on Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N1 Viruses, December 17-18, 2012

Wagging the Dog: The Story Behind the Story of COVID-19

 

Robin-Robinson.png

 

“This is the first part of my master class revolving around the so-called ‘science,’ medical, pharmaceutical, corporate and governmental structure that promotes an industry of harm and death to the general population. We cannot fight what we do not know, and we cannot treat a disease while the very government that funded it's lab-grown creation lies to us daily about is origin.

 

In Wagging The Dog Part 1 we look at dual-use, gain-of-function research and its devastatingly frightening implications on life and life as we know it. Herein is definitive proof of not only the man-made origin of SARS-1, MERS, and now SARS-2, but of every other viral disease known and unknown to man.

 

Science and its methodology has been replaced by a religious cult called scientism, and their sociopathic agenda crosses over into what in my own lifetime was only imaginable in the most dystopian science fiction movies. Futurism, immortality, transhumanism, and eugenics (today called genetics) are just the surface of what is being funded by your government and its institutions, from military to health to DARPA.

 

This is a must watch for those that seek the truth about the who, what, where, why, and when this current outbreak of COVID-19, and to prepare you for what is without a doubt coming next.”

Clint Richardson – Independent researcher. Documentary filmmaker. Radio show host. Book author and blogger. Former Hollywood sound designer turned full time activist.

Full documentary download: http://www.mediafire.com/file/evoh5dedwybvxrv/Wagging_the_Dog_-_The_Story_Behind_the_Story_of_COVID19.m4v/file
 

Low-bandwidth download: http://www.mediafire.com/file/uevx7tr60140lv0/Wagging_the_Dog_-_The_Story_Behind_the_Story_of_COVID19_%28480p%29.m4v/file

 

 

 

(All work in this film and article are 100% free to use and distribute as you see fit.)

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am making a one-time bump of this thread in hopes of receiving some discussion on this issue. I do not see any rules against bumping a thread and I will not repeatedly bump this if no discussion occurs, though I am surprised at the lack of interest in what is primary source evidence surrounding the creation and funding of COVID-19, which this forum category is dedicated to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, mynameisclint said:

I am making a one-time bump of this thread in hopes of receiving some discussion on this issue. I do not see any rules against bumping a thread and I will not repeatedly bump this if no discussion occurs, though I am surprised at the lack of interest in what is primary source evidence surrounding the creation and funding of COVID-19, which this forum category is dedicated to.

Hiya.
Continual / repeated bumping is frowned upon, however this is cool  :O)


This is an impressive post and very big. A lot to try and take in at once.
You might have to be patient for members to return and read it in parts before they form an opinion.
BC  :O)
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly a lot to take in and ultimately, what can be said except "oh"? The thing is, GoF research is controversial even among the mainstream science community and there is some potential to have the research stopped -- funding has been halted before in the US, disregarding whatever may be occurring in classified projects. Furthermore, it's absurd that Fauci via the NIAID is the one who issued US tax-payer funding for the creation of COVID-19 among other synthetic pathogens, while at the same time serving as the public health lead on this pandemic. 

 

I most certainly will not bump this thread again if no discussion transpires.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, mynameisclint said:

Certainly a lot to take in and ultimately, what can be said except "oh"? The thing is, GoF research is controversial even among the mainstream science community and there is some potential to have the research stopped -- funding has been halted before in the US, disregarding whatever may be occurring in classified projects. Furthermore, it's absurd that Fauci via the NIAID is the one who issued US tax-payer funding for the creation of COVID-19 among other synthetic pathogens, while at the same time serving as the public health lead on this pandemic. 

 

I most certainly will not bump this thread again if no discussion transpires.

 

 

but if the virus is harmless, then why bother going to all this trouble to make a virus?

 

many people are saying it doesn't even exist!

 

 

I think it does exist and they can somehow make it deadly or harmless depending on the environment and 5g waves and other things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, mynameisclint said:

I am surprised at the lack of interest in what is primary source evidence


l think the Mega Thread slowly built up the big picture slowly in bite size pieces.
l remember reading Obama had refused Fauci funding for a lab working on this on American soil, but he still got funding (as above) and set up a joint Lab in China ?
Fauci is recorded on video in 2017 predicting a 'pandemic' during Trumps Presidency.

l think most people here accept that Fauci is a dangerous lying fraud, along with Gates and the W.H.O. and don't need the 'bones' of these facts ?
The virus is a new Corona / Flu type virus which while having unusual symptoms sometimes and is more contagious than 'normal' is no more deadly than 'normal' Corona / Flu viruses.
That there are connections between USA and China (and every other countries government) is not News.
The Conspiracies run BIG and Deep.
Thank you for the exact details.
l am sure you will get responses, but as l said, be patient  :O)
(l'll 'pin it' for a while..)
BC
 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks Basket Case. And yeah, the thing is, the information is highly scattered and there is an incredible amount of confusion on this subject when the history of GoF research speaks for itself. The documentary delves into a broad look at the history of H5N1 and other pathogens, as well as many clips from the scientific community discussing the controversy surrounding GoF research regarding previous pandemic pathogens, and furthermore covers the wider-reaching implications of this agenda (transhumanism etc.). The summary above is really just a snapshot of the full work but that is sufficient for providing someone with sea legs on the subject.

 

Thanks again for your understanding about the bump and for pinning the post.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Basket Case said:

 

lt's not harmless is it ?
Vulnerable and old people die with it..
Just like Flu, yes, which also kills.
But more contagious.
BC
 

Jesus H christ you are naive. THERE IS NO virus. Period. Hospitals have been empty. People are no more sick than usual. All a scam. No evidence of any virus.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

They're mad-scientists, they're all wacked. Witch doctors. Frankenstein.

What they make in a lab is a "virus", it doesn't exist any other way. The only way to get a "virus" is to get it via their vaccine.

 

"...the deceptions we're taught..." "... and when the wrong antidote is like a bomb down the throat..."

Look at what he found under the microscope, from the 80s:

 

 

ps; "germ theory" is a fraud

 

Edited by novymir
ps; "germ theory" is a fraud
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know where to begin addressing comments about the virus not being real when you can find endless examples of discussion within the scientific community about GoF research going back a decade or more and you can visit many NIH project proposal pages for the creation of COVID-19 along with the resulting studies from that research: https://projectreporter.nih.gov/project_info_description.cfm?aid=9819304&icde=49645421

 

The death numbers probably are greatly inflated and this disease is likely hyped to the level of resembling a "hoax." It's easier for system managers to propagandize and overhype the impact from a pathogen like this than to actually deal with that degree of impact. This manufactures maximum chaos and provides a smokescreen/fog of war for various agendas to be advanced amidst the confusion.

 

In the event that anyone has the capacity and willingness to retweet this message, I would appreciate any help getting the word out on this issue: 

 

 

FWIW, please note that the YouTube account where this video is hosted is not monetized and the work is entirely not-for-profit/public domain.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would be very easy to release a mild pathogen into the population, people shouldn't 100% dismiss the possibility because it could be a real thing, just highly exaggerated and over inflated to justify global governance.

 

Gonna go off topic a bit but it's related to Wuhan, very interesting place...

 

Weird little bit of info for anyone who cares. Didn't know where to post it but it is interesting. Wuhan university is on the cutting edge of Chinese big data and AI. Here's something I found:

 

Beyond the learning curve

 
Computer scientists at Wuhan University are making breakthroughs in AI theories and methods, leading to innovations in healthcare, unmanned systems, and more.
 

Intelligent diagnosis systems for health services, video retrieval technology for security monitoring, intelligent navigation for unmanned systems are all applications for artificial intelligence (AI) technologies developed at the School of Computer Science, Wuhan University (WHU).

 

A pioneer in AI research, WHU is among the first in China to offer an immersive programme in AI, including machine learning, programming, and evolutionary computation. With broad strengths in computer vision, graphics, image and natural language processing, data science and engineering, media computing and analysis, as well as intelligent software, WHU’s School of Computer Science is a leader in China.

 

The school houses research institutes and centres on data science, big data engineering, multimedia software engineering, dedicated to advancing research on AI-related theories and technologies.

 

The team has also studied robots and other unmanned systems, tackling core technologies for perception in complex dynamic scenes, precise location using multi-source sensors, and intelligent navigation in complex environments. It has won several robotics and autonomous-driving competitions. Currently, the WHU team leads a project that sets national standards for digital maps to be used in high-precision navigation, supporting the industrial development of automatic driving, service or specialised robots, and other unmanned systems.

 

There's alot more but much of it is just tech jargon to me.

 

I definitely know what unmanned systems are, they are developing autonomous robots and drones to police the population. They are building these robots so that the west can justify building them too via the dialectic of war. Worldwide robocops... lovely

 

Wonder how many Israeli's and soviets are in that bio lab and WHU AI labs...

 

I need to watch robocop just to get a taste of the future...

Edited by FVCK BILLY G4TES
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

I listened to the interview with Professor Francis Boyle on the Alex Jones show. His assertion that this is a man-made virus and especially that it contains genes from HIV may be vital in understanding what is going on here and the motivation of those behind this pandemic.

 

Everyone seems hung-up on the idea that this virus isn't deadly, that the mortality rate of those who catch it is low. That might be the point if it's a slow kill virus.

 

A massively deadly virus presents significant problems for those wanting to use it as a depopulation tool. Computer modelling has shown that critical infrastructure breaking down, especially meltdowns at nuclear plants when workers die or can't work due to illness, would could be very dangerous. No point in killing off a significant percentage of the world population if you inherit a toxic/radioactive wasteland.

 

I have my doubts about HIV/AIDS but, assuming the science behind that virus is correct, if you could modify HIV by aerosolizing it to infect a significant percentage of the world such an immune system destroying virus would be an effective long-term slow kill option. A small section of the population, the elderly or vulnerable, would be at risk from the virus short-term (acute respiratory problems), but the rest of those infected would basically now have HIV. The symptoms might not show for years, but for most will eventually develop into an AIDS-like condition putting them at risk from other viral as well as bacterial infections and it will ultimately be fatal. Like HIV/AIDS it might also be transmitted mother to child.

 

Keeping the actual nature of the virus nebulous and ill-defined (it's not been isolated! it's not actually real!) while censoring anyone who stumbles onto the truth would be a part of this plan. Disinformation to protect the perpetrators for as long as possible.

 

If true this could take years to play out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...