The deadly virus experiment Dr. Fauci has been pushing for YEARS:

The deadly virus experiment Dr. Fauci has been pushing for YEARS:

Show Video

The COVID-19 Pandemic can easily be considered one of the greatest health crisis of modern times, and beyond the threat to our well being, it has also sparked a huge polarization between two factions at a worldwide scale. But no matter what you think, or how you react to this situation, I'm sure we all want to know who are ultimately responsible. And when people ponder about this, the name of Dr. Anthony Fauci usually pops up. - As not being Gain-of-Function - What was... let me finish

- You take an animal virus - Ok, you take one person (unintelligible) - This is your definition that you guys wrote - That's what you are getting. Let me finish. - We don't know. - We don't know if it did come from the lab but all the evidence is pointing that it came from the lab... You might wonder, how come a single person has attracted so much attention in regards to his responsibility on this crisis? And the answer is related to the scientific term, gain of function research. A topic that was somewhat obscure outside epidemiology circles until a few months ago.

To analyze Fauci's exchanges, we will dissect this term and its relationship with the Wuhan Institute of Virology; the theories of the original outbreak of this pandemic and all the statements that just don't fit. I strongly encourage you to watch this video with an open mind, and armed with your common sense. I'm not here to attack anyone, but to understand why sometimes it's so difficult to trust so many figures who claim to be invested in our wellbeing.

Welcome back, my Body Language Buddies! my name is Jesús Enrique Rosas, I'm the Body Language Guy, and it would be great if you join us... by just liking this video, subscribing and hitting that bell. Let's get down to it! US Senator Rand Paul has had quite a few heated exchanges with Fauci where they argued about the possibility that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was man made inside a lab, and was not a natural mutation that occurred in the wild. Just to be clear about the terms, SARS-CoV-2 is the name of the virus itself, and COVID-19 is the name of the disease associated to it.

So, Senator Paul was pushing him to be clear about any Gain-Of-Function research done at the Wuhan Institute that could lead to the artificial creation of Sars-CoV-2, which Fauci vehemently denied. Why is this statementt so critical? Because in 2014, the US-based organisation EcoHealth Alliance was awarded a grant to look into possible coronaviruses from bats. EcoHealth received 3.7 million dollars from the National Institute of Health, the NIH, $600,000 of which was awarded to the Wuhan Institute of Virology to be spent over five years.

There are some documents that claim this amount was higher, but for our purposes, we can be good with the 600k amount. Dr. Fauci has been the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIAID, at the NIH since 1984, so he is the main actor in supervising these grants. He already stated in a Senate hearing that yes, the Wuhan lab in China was given this amount. This is important. He does NOT deny the financing of the Wuhan Lab to do bat coronavirus studies.

What he denies is that there was no Gain-Of-Function research. But again, what exactly is Gain of Function? and this is why it's so important to define what is the term that Fauci is outright denying. In simple terms, Gain Of Function is altering an organism so that it acquires abilities or characteristics that it doesn't originally have, like a plant becoming pest resistant, or Drake being able to sing. In the case of a virus, Gain of Function research aims to add abilities, like being more contagious, or being more lethal, or breaking the zoonotic barrier between species. For example, the avian H5N1 influenza virus can be transmitted from birds to humans, but there is no human to human transmission.

YET. And that bastard has a 60 percent fatality rate. In 2011, Yoshihiro Kawaoka and Ron Fouchier revealed that they carried a Gain-Of-Function experiment and managed to MODIFY this virus so that it spread BY AIR between ferrets. Between MAMMALS. Just like US. When I first found out about these gain of function shenanigans, playing God with something as dangerous as a virus, I thought... this is the worst idea in the history of bad ideas.

And we are the species that invented dangling baby cages, so we've got quite a reputation in that regard. Advocates of such gain of function studies claim that they can help public health experts better understand how viruses might spread, so we can plan and prepare for pandemics. But by enabling the bird virus, for example, to spread among mammals by air, these kind of experiments also raise fears that it could jump to humans. And critics of the work have been worried for years that such a juiced virus could spark a pandemic if it escaped from a lab or was intentionally released by a bioterrorist. Again.

Baby cages. Now you're beginning to see the whole picture. If it's proven that SARS-Cov-2 originated at the Wuhan Lab, thanks to gain of function research on bat coronaviruses FINANCED by the US government, well, guess who's the first name that will pop up in the most wanted list. The Chinese government has denied that SARS-Cov-2 was at any time present at the Wuhan lab. But again, we have to remember that in the early two thousands, Chinese government officials supressed crucial public health data of the SARS epidemic, and the same happened at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, so it's no wonder that we just cannot trust them. Especially because they haven't allowed a deep, international investigation of Wuhan lab records.

The "official" narrative is that Sars-Cov-2 originated in the Huanan Seafood Market, that is a 40 minute drive from the Wuhan lab, and they say that proximity is the reason why people think it was a lab leak. What a coincidence! So, that "official" narrative implies that a bat coronavirus mutated, found an intermediate animal host and then jumped to humans when it became their lunch. Right? That COULD be possible, but there's a problem with that.

Back in 2003, with the original SARS, scientists discovered that civets were the intermediate animals that allowed Sars-CoV-1 to jump from bats to humans. Do you know how long did it take them to discover it almost 20 years ago? 42 days. Today, in 2021 we are more than one year an a half into the COVID-19 pandemic. Do you know how many animals or species have been identified as the link between bats and humans? zero.

In fact, Sars-CoV-2 has NOT been found in any bat colony after all this time. There's no trace of it in the wild, or any virus that could be its ancestor. So, the Chinese government claims that it originated spontaneously in nature, but noone has yet found any evidence of any kind of any animal carrying it.

That's why the lab leak theory has gained traction, the gain of function topic has exploded and Fauci has been called on it more than once. Well, this is your last chance to grab popcorn, because you won't believe what Fauci said nine years ago. In December 2012, the NIH hosted a very interesting workshop in which the main topic was Gain-of-Function research on H5N1 viruses. The 60 percent fatality bastard. Of course, you already know who was the main attraction of the event. Listen to this: - As part of that influenza basic research, was intense study of host adaptation, transmissibility of influenza viruses and 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 diseases research.

So according to his words, Gain-of-Function research is integral to the study of not only influeza, but any infectious disease. He's just mentioning it, right? but no, he wants to be absolutely clear about what he means, and even gives some ideas about it: - Does this mutation makes something more transmissible, more pathogenic, or adapt to host better. Or, what historically investigators have done, is to actually create Gain-of-Function by making mutations passage adaptation or other newer genetic techniques such as reverse genetics and genetic reassortment. So, basically you want to create a super virus that spreads, infects and kills faster than anything known to man. That... could be the script of a Roland Emmerich movie.

And he means business: - But the bottom line is, that gain and loss of function research is critical to understanding disease pathogenesis, antimicrobial resistance and host responses, as well as developing better techniques of surveillance, vaccines and therapeutics. Specifically, the Gain-of-Function research on HPAI-H5N1 "Specifically, the Gain-of-Function research on H5N1." He was outright pushing to put the 60-percent-fatality bastard on steroids. But now he's going full Multi Level Marketing on this: - Now, just to put it in perspective, are we talking about a major chunk of what we do? No! as a matter of fact, this is relatively small. It's part of four flu research projects that contain this, it's around ten percent of the entire H5N1 portfolio and less than one percent of the total NIAID flu research funding.

These are the kind of arguments that should set off your natural alarms. First you tell me that this Gain-Of-Function research is really critical, right? And now you tell me that it's no big deal in terms of budget. That it's almost cheap.

"Yeah, let's make these virus mutations wholesale" But then I understood why Fauci was so hellbent on pushing this agenda, so to speak: - There was an explosion of reactions sometimes bordering on the very extreme as shown by this editorial from the New York Times, "An engineered doomsday". This is just one, but as some of you may recall, there was a lot of activity talking about worst case scenarios with the world might be destroyed. This was the real intention of Fauci's conference. He was complaining about the media reaction to the H5N1 ferret study. He was concerned not with the possible risks of these kind of experiments, but with the media reaction to them. And he really wanted to silence that: - But I believe the people that feel that they shouldn't be conducted are in the minority.

Because even the most concerned members of NSABB felt that the experiments should be done, but the distribution of the knowledge should be restricted. "The distribution of the knowledge should be restricted." In other words, no one should know shit about this.

I understand that research is published so that the scientific community can know what's going on and of course, if you're interested in that line of research, be able to reproduce the results. If we are talking about monster mutant viruses it makes all the sense in the world to NOT share the step by step instructions to level them up. But what Fauci was talking about was complete obscurity, so no one would know which Gain-of-Function experiments would be financed. Or where.

Or by whom. That's why he included various examples of the media going on a frenzy about this topic because, you know, creating a potential humanity-killing virus is nothing to worry about. Two years later, in October 2014, the US government made a full stop in any funding for research of this kind. By the way, do you remember the 600k grant approved for the Wuhan lab? well, it was conveniently three months before this moratorium came into effect. Coincidences, you know. The moratorium was lifted in 2017, so the goverment financing for Gain-of-function research could be resumed.

In that same year, the NIH issued a brand-new framework for reviewing these funding decisions. But that new framework kept a huge amount of information secret. Everything from who reviews these proposals, what evidence is considered, how competing claims are evaluated, whether there are potential conflicts of interest or which entities receive funding... there's no disclosure. It became a blackbox. Everything would happen behind closed doors. The distribution of knowledge was finally restricted.

That's how in 2018, the U.S. government quietly greenlighted funding for two groups of reSEARchers, one in the United States and the other in the Netherlands, to conduct transmission-enhancing experiments on the bird flu virus as they were originally proposed before the moratorium. The government confirmed everything only when a reporter learned about them through a whistleblower. Makes you wonder, if there was so much secrecy surrounding this research, and we know it was Fauci's idea to push that secrecy since 2012, how many other Gain-Of-Function studies are being carried as we speak? Tom Inglesby, Director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, had already written an opinion on the Washington Post about the dangers of keeping these studies secret: "As researchers, we understand the usual logic for keeping scientific grant reviews confidential (...) But creating potentially pandemic pathogens creates a risk (...) of infecting millions of people with a highly dangerous virus. For this kind of research, there is NO justification for keeping risk-benefit deliberations secret."

The same secrecy that Fauci wanted. Fauci pushed the Gain-of-function research on a really dangerous virus. He created the narrative that the public should not be 'scared' about these kind of experiments, so it's better to keep them secret; before the moratorium there were already grants on these experiments, but at least we knew what was going on. Now we are in the dark.

Senator Rand Paul mentioned a 2017 publication by Dr. Zheng-Li Shi, at the Wuhan Institute, "Discovery of a rich gene pool of bat SARS-related coronaviruses". - Gain-Of-Function research was done entirely in the Wuhan Institute by Dr. Shi, and was funded by the NIH.

I'd like to ask unanimous consent insert into the record the Wuhan virology paper entitled "Discovery of a rich gene pool of bat SARS-related coronaviruses" Now, Senator Paul's argument is that this study is actually Gain-Of-Function. And Fauci was adamant in his stance that it's not: - This paper that you're referring to, was judged by qualified staff up and down the chain as not being Gain-of-Function. Senator Paul, you do not know what you're talking about, quite frankly. And I wanna say that officially.

You do not know what you are talking about. I found the study and took a good look at it, and some terms just caught my attention, specially the one where it said "reverse genetic system" Where have I heard that term before...? Oh, of course! it was in Fauci's lecture: - to actually create Gain-of-Function by making mutations passage adaptation or other newer genetic techniques such as reverse genetics Maybe we are onto something here...

So I dug deeper and I found this paper about Gain-Of-Function characteristics. "Potential Risks and Benefits of Gain-of-Function Research: Summary of a Workshop." a summary of a lecture by Dr. Kanta SubbaRAO, which for the sake of confirming that she's a fair source, she works with Dr. Fauci at the NIAID. And Subbarao mentions as a clear example of Gain-Of-Function research, "reverse genetics which allow them to produce recombinant viruses".

Recombinant viruses can happen in nature when two different strains infect the same cell, they have a one night stand and produce a baby virus with a blend of the genes of both parents. Essentially, you have a new strain. In this case, we're talking about doing it artificially in a lab, picking specific parts from two or more viruses and building your custom made, cute frankestein baby virus. But "reverse genetics which allow them to produce recombinant viruses" sounds really similar to the implementation of Dr. Shi's work at the Wuhan Institute, which included testing those recombinant viruses in human cell cultures.

And that word "Construction", is really hard to misinterpret. Just to be clear, I'm an absolute rookie to this topic. I'm just mentioning what Fauci said about reverse genetics and gain-of-function, what Dr. Shi did at the Wuhan Institute and published in her paper, and how another publication from a Fauci collaborator connects everything together.

Even if you find all this information overwhelming, you'll agree with me that there are just too many coincidences happening over so many years, and the feeling of this underlying narrative that hasn't come to light yet. Now. The Paul and Fauci arguments. It's interesting to notice that in his denials, Fauci shows absolute conviction of what he's saying. He shows very few emotional markers. Of course, that it depends on who's making the questions, and when it's Senator Paul's turn, the exchange becomes quite heated.

- As not being Gain-of-Function - What was... let me finish - You take an animal virus - Ok, you take one person (unintelligible) - This is your definition that you guys wrote - That's what you are getting. Let me finish. - We don't know. - We don't know if it did come from the lab but all the evidence is pointing that it came from the lab... The problem with Paul is that Fauci is about to answer the question, and then he interrupts him.

And the Senator does this more than twice. I understand that there's a limited time and Paul wants to play bad cop here, but he's shooting himself in the foot. You cannot expect to know if a person is contradicting themselves, or try to evade a question, or give a non answer if you don't let them answer in the first place. But maybe it's because they have already clashed a handful of times and Paul is already fed up with this situation. But again, it's not the right way to carry a questioning. Well, unless what you want to produce in the person is an axiety attack, and as you can see, Fauci's hand fiddling with the rubber band, well... the Senator got what he wanted.

I guess. - I want everyone to understand that if you look at those viruses, and that's judged by qualified virologists and evolutionary biologists, those viruses are molecularly impossible... - No one is saying they are! no one is saying they caused the pandemic. By the way, if you want to refine your observation skills, don't forget to download my 100 body language tips in the description of this video. I think most people missed that last sentence from the Senator. "No one is saying they caused the pandemic".

If you ask Rand Paul if he cares about finding out if Sars-cov-2 came out from the Wuhan lab, he will answer that he really doesn't care. What he wants to prove, and that's why he asks it over and over again, is that Fauci lied about not funding Gain-Of-Function research at the Wuhan lab. He even gives him the opportunity to come clean: - Dr. Fauci, knowing that it's a crime to lie to Congress, do you wish to retract your

statement of May 11th where you claim that the NIH never funded gain of function research in Wuhan? - Senator Paul, I have never lied before the Congress and I do not retract that statement. Rand Paul is absolutely focused on that question because he doesn't trust Fauci and he knows that the doctor's credibility depends on that answer. This is not the last time we're going to see these arguments between them.

But beyond Senator Paul, there are other figures that have tried to press on Fauci's statements. Here's an exchange with Senator Roger Marshall that it's a very good example of the general problem with Fauci's answers: - The NIH and NIAID did not fund Gain-of-Function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. - Could some of the funding, indirectly, interact to the contribution of this COVID-19? - I don't know exactly where that question is going... so if you wanna trap me into saying yes or no, I'm not gonna play that game. First, he categorically denies, again, about any funding for this kind of research at Wuhan. Marshall reformulates the question, as if he thinks that there could be any possibility of linking that funding to COVID-19 at least indirectly.

It's a yes or no question. When someone avoids answering yes or no to a closed question, it might be because they don't have the full picture, don't have all the information or do not want to be compromised by their answer. But mere SECONDS before that question, Fauci had already stated that there was no connection, because they never funded any Gain-of-Function in the first place. The answer that we all wanted to hear is "No, there is no way directly or indirectly that our funding could be linked to COVID-19" And why do I say that this is the answer that WE wanted to hear? because it would mean that Fauci is at the very least standing by the NIAID process of funding that oversees and supervises everything the labs do with that money, down to every dollar.

But he doesn't give that answer. So we are left with two options. He is either not sure about the supervising efficiency at his own institute, or he doesn't really trust Chinese scientists. And... here you have two contradicting clips about that: - I do not have any accounting of what the Chinese may have done and I'm fully in favor of any further investigation - ...highly respected Chinese scientists,

so it isn't what it was made out to be about dealing with really, really bad people. That's why listening to him at those hearings feels so weird at times. You don't know exactly why, but you feel like there's something off in his narrative and... once you really begin to think about his answers, or more precisely, his non answers, you feel that there's something missing. Sometimes, really crazy contradictions. - Right now people should not, there's no reason to be walking around with a mask.

- Everybody should be wearing a mask when they're outside and they should be trying to distance. - People should not be walking around with masks - Let me just state for the record that masks are not theater - If in fact you're vaccinated, fully vaccinated, you're protected and you don't need to wear a mask, outdoors or indoors. - Even if you're vaccinated you should wear a mask - You do not need to wear a mask indoors if in fact, you've been vaccinated - When the children go out into the community, you want them to continue to wear masks - I know, we gotta make that transition, if you're vaccinated you don't have to wear a mask - Masks are protective - But it's not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is.

- The pediatric, the academy pediatric actually makes that recommendation that children should be wearing masks from two years old onwards. Now, to recap, these are all the items we got this far: - Fauci sold the idea of Gain of Function experiments as a cornerstone in virus research, at least since 2012 - Also, publicly pushed to use it in respiratory diseases research - Also vouched for keeping this research behind closed doors - Oversaw a grant to the Wuhan Institute of Virology in 2014 - The Wuhan Lab was studying, yes, a respiratory disease - Dr. Shi publishes a paper in 2017 which, well... sounds A LOT like Gain of Function research, according to Fauci's own peers,

- Chinese public health authorities, that cannot be trusted, claim that the origin of Sars-CoV-2 was a food market, but... - If SARS-Cov-2 originated in nature, there's no trace of it, or its ancestor, in any animal, more than one year and a half into the pandemic. This is quite a lot to think about. One more thing: - That's the reason why we worry that we might yet again have another pandemic, and it's almost inevitable that we will have another pandemic. I've got more videos that you can check now to keep improving your skills reading human behavior to detect hidden intentions.

And don't forget to like, subscribe and hit that bell if you don't want to miss any of my body language analysis and tips. Take care, my Body Language Buddies!

2021-09-10 15:35

Show Video

Other news