HERD GENOCIDE VII! THE DEPOPULATION AGENDA! CHILDREN'S HEALTH DEFENSE AND INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT CONCLUDE FAUCI'S "GAIN OF FUNCTION" STUDIES LIKELY SOURCE OF COVID! PFIZER VACCINE KILLED 40 TIMES MORE THAN DISEASE ITSELF!

3/5/21 WATCH THE DEMOCRACY NOW VIDEO BELOW ON BRAZIL! CONSIDER THE VACCINE PRODUCER’S - AGGRESSIVE MANDATES - THAT THE VACCINE PRODUCERS REQUIRE. NO LEGAL LIABILITY FROM VACCINES, EVEN FROM INTENTIONAL FRAUD! NOW READ THE ARTICLE BELOW FROM RFK JR’S CHILDREN’S DEFENSE NETWORK ON THE RISKS OF THE PFIZER VACCINE! . . . THERE ARE CERTAINLY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN VACCINES!

THE CHILDREN’S HEALTH DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND THE INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT ARE PLACING THEIR BETS ON A LEAK FROM LABS IN WUHAN, FINANCED AND DIRECTED BY “DR DEATH!” DR ANTHONY FAUCI - HITLER’S DR DEATH DOESN’T HAVE ANYTHING OVER YOUR PURE EVIL! ACCIDENTAL OR INTENTIONAL? . . . .

. . I REST MY CASE! . . THIS IS . . . 

. . “THE GLOBAL DEPOPULATION AND GLOBAL POLICE STATE AGENDA!” 

SEE MY PRIOR POSTS FOR MY EXTENSIVE RESEARCH WHICH CONCLUDED THE SAME AS THE INTERNATIONAL CENTER OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT!

HERD GENOCIDE VI! NEW 70% MORE CONTAGIOUS STRAIN OF “DR DEATH’S KILLER COVID!” MORE CONTAGIOUS & DEADLY STRAINS FROM BRAZIL AFRICA INDIA & SATAN’S MAFIA SOON! THE DEPOPULATION AND POLICE STATE AGENDA! THE WORLD IS ON FIRE! “It Is THE END!”

“HERD GENOCIDE V” - “mRNA - THE ASYMPTOMATIC SUPER SPREADER VACCINE!” LESS THAN 80% VACCINATED MASKS & DISTANCING MANDATORY FOREVER! ADD SHORT LIFE OF VACCINE, PLUS ANIMAL AND EMERGING MARKET NEW STRAINS = THE GLOBAL DEPOPULATION AGENDA!

“HERD GENOCIDE IV!” VACCINE ANIMAL AND EMERGING MARKET MUTATION ISSUES! “SIBERIAN METHANE” IS EXPLODING! HOW CATASTROPHIC ONLY QUESTION! “ICE FREE ARCTIC” “LATENT HEAT EFFECT” EXPLODES METHANE RELEASE? 2-3C=60’ SEA LEVEL RISE! THE END!

“HERD GENOCIDE III” COVID LONG-HAULERS! ACCELERATES “GLOBAL DIMMING!” CAUSING “ICE FREE ARCTIC!” 9/2022 UNLEASHING “HOT STUFF!” MELTING ANTARCTICA! GMAT 2-3C RISE = 60’ SEA LEVEL RISE 2025-30! BLOWING UP 440 NUCLEAR REACTORS! “It is THE END!”

“HERD GENOCIDE!” NOT “HERD IMMUNITY!” PART II - Americans Are Dying In The Pandemic At Rates Far Higher Than In Other Countries! MAKE - “MONEY GOD!” IN GOD’S NAME! RESULTS IN “PANDEMIC & ABRUPT CLIMATE CHANGE HELL OF HELLS!” . . . . . “It Is THE END!” - - “MY PRAYER!”

“HERD GENOCIDE!” PART I! NOT IMMUNITY! DEPOPULATION AGENDA! BY 2025 “It Is THE END” OF GULF & FLORIDA! EXIT NOW! LAURA LUCK & WARNING! INCREASING HOT WATER TEMPS RULE! “THE GULF” BEST “MONSTER SUPER STORMS” CREATOR! “It Is THE END” . . OF . . “PLANET EVIL GREED” . . BY . . 2030-2040!

UPDATED 03/02/21
BIG PHARMA › NEWS

New Analysis: Pfizer Vaccine Killed ‘About 40 Times More Elderly Than the Disease Itself Would Have Killed’

A re-analysis of data from the Israeli Health Ministry concluded Pfizer’s COVID vaccine killed about 40 times more (elderly) people than the disease itself would have killed” during a recent five-week vaccination period, and 260 times more younger people than would have died from the virus.

By
Patrick Delaney

While in January a group of independent doctors concluded that experimental COVID-19 vaccines are “not safer” than the virus itself, a new analysis of vaccine-related death rates in Israel demonstrates that this may indeed be the case to dramatic levels.

A re-analysis of published data from the Israeli Health Ministry by Dr. Hervé Seligmann, a member of the faculty of Medicine Emerging Infectious and Tropical Diseases at Aix-Marseille University, and engineer Haim Yativ reveal, in short, that the mRNA experimental vaccine from Pfizer killed “about 40 times more (elderly) people than the disease itself would have killed” during a recent five-week vaccination period. Among the younger class, these numbers are compounded to death rates at 260 times what the COVID-19 virus would have claimed in the given time frame.

While the full mathematical analysis may be found in the article itself, the authors demonstrate how among “those vaccinated and above 65, 0.2% … died during the three-week period between doses, hence about 200 among 100,000 vaccinated. This is to be compared to the 4.91 dead among 100,000 dying from COVID-19 without vaccination.”

“This scary picture also extends to those below 65,” the researchers continued. During the five-week vaccination process “0.05%, meaning 50 among 100,000, died. This is to be compared to the 0.19 per 100,000 dying from COVID-19 (who) are not vaccinated … Hence the death rate of this age group increased by 260 (times) during this five-week period of the vaccination process, as compared to their natural COVID-19 death rate.”

As reported by Israel National News (INN), Seligmann is of Israeli-Luxembourg nationality, has a biology degree from Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and has written more than 100 scientific publications. INN reports the researchers “have no conflicts or interests other than having children in Israel.”

Yativ and Seligmann stipulate that even these “estimated numbers of deaths from the vaccine are probably much lower than actual numbers as it accounts only for those defined as COVID-19 deaths for that short time period and does not include AVC and cardiac (and other) events resulting from the inflammatory reactions.”

Nor do these numbers “account for long-term complications,” they write.

In addition, within several months they expect “mid- and long-term adverse effects of the vaccination as ADE (Antibody-dependent Enhancement)” begins to become manifest in those who have received the experimental Pfizer vaccine.

As explained by America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS), ADE “is when anti-COVID antibodies, created by a vaccine, instead of protecting the person, cause a more severe or lethal disease when the person is later exposed to SARS-CoV-2 in the wild. The vaccine amplifies the infection rather than preventing damage.”

AFLDS provides an example of a vaccine produced to fight the Dengue fever, which resulted in deaths of 600 children in the Philippines due to ADE, and the filing of criminal charges against the decision-makers in 2019.

For these reasons and more, AFLDS and many other doctors strongly discourage the use of these experimental vaccines for most people while only acknowledging that it may be plausible for those over 70 years of age, yet acknowledging that such injections are “a higher risk than early or prophylactic treatment with established medications.” 

Given these death rates, Yativ and Seligmann also have harsh criticism for the severe pressure being imposed upon the population by Israeli authorities to receive these shots. According to INN, the researchers call these draconian efforts “a new Holocaust.”

In the past weeks, Israel’s government made headlines when they adopted a “green pass” system, allowing people who have been injected to receive a green code, which then grants them entry into places such as entertainment and leisure facilities.

As the country reopens after a two-month lockdown, the green pass would be given only to those who had been injected, not to people who tested negative for the virus. The proposed benefits include access to “non-essential” businesses as well as not being required to self-isolate if identified as a close contact of a confirmed case of COVID-19, and not having to self-isolate after a return from what the government calls a “red location.”

Despite there being no proof that these experimental vaccines actually prevent transmission of the virus, Israel’s minister for health, Yuli Edelstein, said upon the release of the vaccine “passport” that “(g)etting vaccinated is a moral duty. It is part of our mutual responsibility.” He went further, declaring, “Whoever does not get vaccinated will be left behind.”

The green pass needs renewing every six months, and despite holding one, an individual must still abide by masking and physical distancing rules. The Jerusalem Post also reported that legislation is being considered to grant employers the right to refuse unvaccinated people entry into the workplace.

Such measures prompted Business Insider to describe the country as “waging a war on the unvaccinated.” Meanwhile, Dr. Anthony Fauci, chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden, has styled Israel’s vaccination response as “extraordinarily good.”
Originally published by LifeSite News.

03/02/21

Investigation Links Fauci to Controversial Experiments That May Have Led to Pandemic

Fox News investigation says there’s “reasonable grounds to suspect” that SARS-CoV-2, which may have leaked accidentally from a lab in Wuhan, China, was the product of taxpayer-funded gain-of-function experiments commissioned by the U.S. government and overseen by Fauci.

WATCH THE VIDEO AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS ARTICLE. CLICK FOR LINK TO VIDEO.

By Children's Health Defense Team
​
At the outset of the COVID-19 outbreak, anyone who dared question the mainstream government and media narrative that SARS-CoV-2 evolved in the wild did so at the risk of being labeled a conspiracy theorist.

But as months passed, organizations like Children’s Health Defense (CHD), U.S. Right to Know and others began asking questions and calling for investigations. 

The Washington Post eventually went out on a limb to print an op-ed suggesting that the virus might have leaked from a lab. And more recently, the Wall Street Journal waded into the controversy with its article, “China’s Reckless Labs Put the World at Risk.”

On Feb. 28, Fox News tackled the COVID origins story, not to point blame, reporter Steve Hilton said, but to make sure “we learn lessons, to prevent the next pandemic.” 

The Fox News investigation reveals the connection between Dr. Anthony Fauci and the Wuhan Institute of Virology, in Wuhan, China, where some scientists believe the virus originated.

“Fox News reporter Steve Hilton persuasively linked — for the first time on national TV — Dr. Anthony Fauci to the creation of COVID 19,” said Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., CHD chairman and chief legal counsel. “Hilton explains how Fauci — despite protests from leaders of the scientific community who warned that he was playing with fire — funded the specific gain-of-function study that almost certainly created the COVID-19 virus.”

Kennedy added: “The irony of Fauci leading the global response to a pandemic that he may have created becomes starker by the day.”

In October 2020, Kennedy, on behalf of CHD, wrote to Rep. Bill Posey (R-Fla.) asking the Congressman to investigate the causes leading up to and contributing to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Earlier this month, Posey introduced H.R. 834, a bill calling for an independent, bipartisan national commission on the COVID-19 pandemic.

As The Defender reported last week, 28 members of Congress sent a letter on Feb. 23 to the principal deputy director of the Department of Health and Human Services demanding an investigation into the National Institutes of Health’s response to biosafety concerns raised about the taxpayer-funded coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology  in Wuhan, China.
​
Watch the video at the bottom of this article link.

China’s Reckless Labs Put the World at Risk
Beijing is obsessed with viruses, but not biosafety. We are paying a high price for its lapses.By Mike Pompeo and Miles Yu

Feb. 23, 2021 12:53 pm ET, Wall Street Journal Opinion

The Chinese Communist Party is obsessed with viruses. Its army of scientists claim to have discovered almost 2,000 new viruses in a little over a decade. It took the past 200 years for the rest of the world to discover that many. More troubling is the party’s negligence on biosafety. The costs and the risk to world health are enormous, as evidenced by a novel coronavirus that escaped Wuhan. This situation can’t continue. The world must hold the Chinese Communist Party accountable and punish Beijing if it fails to uphold global biosafety standards, including basic transparency requirements.

The most recent example of this malfeasance is playing out around us. The evidence that the virus came from Wuhan is enormous, though largely circumstantial, and most signs point to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, or WIV, as the source of Covid-19. In America, concern about the site is now broad and bipartisan. The Biden administration stated that it has “deep concerns” about the World Health Organization’s investigation into the early days of the pandemic, particularly Beijing’s interference with the investigators’ work.

The world has known for a long time that WIV poses a huge risk to global health. Two 2018 State Department cables warned of its biosafety problems. They even predicted that SARS-CoV-2’s ACE2 receptor, identified by WIV scientists, would enable human-to-human transmission. Yuan Zhiming, then director of WIV’s biosafety level 4 lab, warned, “The biosafety laboratory is a double-edge sword: It can be used for the benefit of humanity, but can also lead to a disaster.” He listed the shortfalls prevalent among China’s biology labs, including a lack of “operational technical support, professional instructions” and “feasible standards for the safety requirements of different protection zones and for the inoculation of microbiological animals and equipment.”

The Chinese public took note, with several bloggers alleging that WIV’s virus-carrying animals are sold as pets. They may even show up at local wet markets. After the Wuhan outbreak, one since-disappeared blogger asked a WIV researcher to debate the lab’s biosafety practices in public. The offer was ignored.

Beijing has a moral and legal obligation to take biosafety seriously, especially given the kind of research going on at WIV. In 2015, WIV’s Dr. Shi Zhengli co-wrote an article titled “A SARS-like Cluster of Circulating Bat Coronaviruses Shows Potential for Human Emergence” in which she admitted that her team had engineered “chimeric” and “hybrid” viruses from horseshoe bats. In a 2019 article titled “Bat Coronavirus in China,” Ms. Shi and her co-authors warned, “It is highly likely that future SARS- or MERS-like coronavirus outbreaks will originate from bats, and there is an increased probability that this will occur in China.” At the time, WIV housed tens of thousands of bat virus samples and experiment animals.

. . . Click to read article, Wall Street Journal subscription needed.

​International Center for Technology Assessment

STATEMENT ON THE ORIGIN OF THE COVID 19 VIRUS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTION STEPS TO HALT DANGEROUS RESEARCH ON POTENTIAL PANDEMIC VIRUSES

http://www.icta.org/files/2020/07/ICTA-STATEMENT-On-COVID-and-GOFGOT003.pdf

ICTA'S SOURCES FOR COVID-19 SOURCE RESEARCH: http://www.icta.org/

“I don’t think it’s a conspiracy theory. I think it’s a legitimate question that needs to be investigated and answered. To understand exactly how this originated is critical knowledge for preventing this from happening in the future.” Xiao Qiang, a research scientist at the School of Information at the University of California at Berkeley.

It is the mission of the International Center for Technology Assessment to assess the impacts of technology and technological systems on society. As such we have undertaken to better understand the possible role of genetic engineering and other laboratory techniques in the creation of the COVID-19 virus. After considerable research, including a thorough review of the selected research materials included below and the citations thereto, and discussions with experts did not evolve naturally but rather is the product of one of the high-security bio-medical laboratories in Wuhan, China.

We believe that there is a preponderance of circumstantial and scientific evidence demonstrating that the “laboratory virus” hypothesis is not only possible but probable.

By contrast, recent refutation of the hypothesis that the virus originated at a Wuhan “wet market” and new findings that the virus has not been found in nature despite significant effort to do so, makes the view that the virus evolved naturally unlikely. (ICTA will be publishing a full Report on its Findings and Conclusion on the origin of the COVID-19 virus in September 2020.

No dispositive finding on the virus’ origin can be made without a full review of the records and logs of the Wuhan high security laboratories involved, which the current stance of the government of China makes improbable. Nevertheless, in coming to a conclusion as to the probability of its laboratory origin, ICTA understands that it is critical that any analysis of the origin of this catastrophic contagion be apolitical and constructive. ICTA’s work in this area is not intended to blame individual scientists or any country, but rather to help provide the insight, and encourage the action needed to spare humanity from a series of future man-made pandemics that could surpass the current one in transmissibility and lethality.

It may seem that engaging in exploration of the origins of the COVID-19 virus should wait until the current pandemic has been addressed and mass suffering alleviated. However, consideration of the “laboratory virus” theory matters because it highlights the most important preventive strategy that humanity can take to avoid repeats of the tragic pandemic we are all living through. This involves halting dangerous ongoing biomedical research on potential pandemic viruses. This important and necessary strategy has been completely absent in media coverage of COVID-19s origin. As a result its importance remains opaque to the general public, even though ignoring this issue threatens our individual and collective health security every minute, every hour, and every day.

Moreover, with billions earmarked for coronavirus research in the aftermath of the pandemic, there is the real possibility that a significant portion of these funds will be spent on this dangerous research which would increase the risk of future pandemics rather than lessen that threat.

Reinstate the US government moratorium on funding “Gain of Function/Gain of Threat” research on potential pandemic viruses.

The major international bio-security threat made more apparent by the probable origin of the current pandemic goes under the innocuous term “gain of function” research, often shortened to GoF. This term refers to research that uses and combines laboratory techniques including, but not limited to, genetic engineering, animal experimentation and cell and tissue culture research to increase the transmissibility and/or lethality of pathogens, including the most dangerous pandemic viruses in the world. ICTA believes that a more apt term for this research is “Gain of Threat (GoT)” rather than “Gain of Function (GoF).” To make that point we will refer to them together.

Some researchers insist that there are benefits to taking potential pandemic viruses and engineering them to create novel viruses even more catastrophically transmissible and deadly. We have not seen any evidence of such benefits in our research. We agree with Thomas Inglesby, director of Center for Health Security at Johns Hopkins, that this gain of function/gain of threat (GoF/GoT) research has little or no value for vaccine development or other intervention strategies and that there is no evidence “that the information people are pursuing could be put into widespread use in the field.”
 
We also agree with Rutgers University molecular biologist Richard H. Ebright that this research threatens our health security and deflects funds from vaccine or anti-viral drug research. He notes that “after the SARS virus, US funding agencies spent hundreds of millions of on global virome and gain-of function research that increases the risk of outbreaks and provided no information-absolutely no information-useful for preventing of combating outbreaks.”

While the benefits of GoF/GoT research are debatable, the risk of this research is well established. Concerns about this research came to a head almost a decade ago when two research teams, one in the United States and the other in the Netherlands were funded by the NIH to do GoF/GoT research on the avian flu virus H5N1. This virus causes a 60% mortality rate among those infected. Fortunately it is not easily transmissible so it has never reached pandemic proportions. To increase the transmissibility of the virus these two research teams genetically engineered it and used animal research to allow airborne transmission of this deadly flu. If accidentally released or stolen from one of these laboratories, this novel and enhanced virus could lead to a pandemic killing 1.6 billion people.

The publication of this research resulted in hundreds of eminent scientists PUBLICALLY urging that this research be halted.In 2014, in response to this unique the Obama Administration wisely declared a moratorium on this research. The moratorium announced by the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) stated that:

The U.S. Government will institute a pause on funding for any new studies that include certain gain-of-function experiments involving influenza, SARS, and MERS viruses. Specifically, the funding pause will apply to gain-of-function research projects that may be reasonably anticipated to confer attributes to influenza, MERS, or SARS viruses such that the virus would have enhanced pathogenicity and/or transmissibility in mammals via the respiratory route.

Unfortunately, under pressure from a group of powerful scientists- many in leadership positions at the NIH- this moratorium was lifted in December 2017. Soon after, both of the H5N1 experiments were refunded without public disclosure, and are ongoing, subjecting the world’s population to the continuing threat of accidental release of this novel virus or its theft and use in bioterrorism.

Gain of Function/Gain of Threat research to create novel pandemic viruses is now being practiced in laboratories around the globe mostly in secret, and no doubt, some of this research involves bioweapons research. This research now includes synthetic biology, synthetic virology, gene editing and other cutting edge technologies. It is difficult to fully and accurately assess the risk to public health from this research. It is well established that accidental releases of pathogens from high security laboratories are all too common. It is also well established that biosecurity in labs around the world is weak. Given these variables, Mark Lipsitch, Professor of epidemiology at Harvard University, has attempted to come up with a numerical assessment of that risk. He posits that for every year that a researcher works on increasing the transmissibility and/or lethality of a potential pandemic virus, there is a 1/1000 to 1/10,000 chance of an accidental release.

Hundreds of researchers are now doing such work which increases the risk significantly.

ICTA’s upcoming Report on the origins of the COVID-19 virus will discuss in-depth the GoF/GoT research most relevant to the origins of the current pandemic. This involves grants from the US National Institutes of Health and USAID over the last 5 years to researchers at the Wuhan Institute for Virology (WIV). This funding was closest to the COVID-19 virus to make them more easily transmissible and lethal.

However, and we believe this is of key importance, the urgent need to reinstate the moratorium on GoF/GoT research does not rest on proving that it was definitely the cause of COVID-19 but only that it was a possible cause. In other words the burden on those who want to continue this highly hazardous research in the wake of the pandemic is to demonstrate that it could not have created the pandemic. This they cannot do. The WIV’s own publication of its research and the testimony of well-respected scientists and observers have made it evident that virus research conducted at one or both of the Wuhan high security labs was apossible source of the virus. This includes Shi Zhengli the controversial Chinese researcher at the head of GoF/GoT research with bat coronaviruses at the WIV who admitted having many sleepless nights worrying that the COVID-19 virus could have originated from her laboratory.

To ensure against future pandemics, there needs to be an urgent public education campaign so the American people, who have been kept in the dark about this research, can better understand its profound potential impacts on their lives. This needs to be accompanied by a renewed call by hundreds of responsible members of the scientific research community, similar to that which occurred in 2014, urging the reinstitution of the moratorium on all federal funding of GoF/GoT research, and a strong recommendation that private laboratories do the same or lose potential future government funding. This moratorium should be for a minimum of 10 years or longer until the scientific community better understands the origins of the current pandemic, there is a robust public debate about the threat of such research to US health security and significant, measurable improvement in the biosecurity at US and international high security laboratories.

ACTION STEPS:
A) ICTA will be working to achieve bipartisan support in Congress for a halt of all appropriations to the NIH or any other government entity for GoF/GoT research.

 B) ICTA will work to help organize an open letter to the White House in support of reinstating the 2014 moratorium on GoF/GoT research which will include provisions mandating no exceptions and a minimum 10 year period.​

Dr. Fauci Backed Controversial Wuhan Lab with U.S. Dollars for Risky Coronavirus Research
BY FRED GUTERL ON 4/28/20 AT 2:57 PM EDT

NEWSWEEK ARTICLE ON “GAIN OF FUNCTION” STUDIES SUPPORTED BY DR. FAUCI ON CORONAVIRUS. CLICK FOR THIS ARTICLE THAT DISCLOSED THIS LIKELY SOURSE OF “DR DEATH’S, SATAN TRUMP’S & PENCE THE ANTICHRIST’S KILLER COVID-19!”
​
Andrew Kimbrell on the Origins of COVID-19

By Editor Filed in Uncategorized August 11th, 2020 @ 4:36 pm

https://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/news/200/andrew-kimbrell-on-the-origins-of-covid-19/

What are the origins of the COVID-19 virus?

Andrew Kimbrell, Did it come from nature?

Or did it leak from a lab in Wuhan, China?

The International Center for Technology Assessment is placing its bets on a leak from a lab in Wuhan.

“After considerable research, including a thorough review of the selected research materials and discussions with experts in the field, we have come to agree with the view that the virus causing COVID-19 did not evolve naturally but rather is the product of one of the high-security bio-medical laboratories in Wuhan, China,” the group said in a statement issued last month.  “We believe that there is a preponderance of circumstantial and scientific evidence demonstrating that the ‘laboratory virus’ hypothesis is not only possible but probable. By contrast, recent refutation of the hypothesis that the virus originated at a Wuhan wet market and new findings that the virus has not been found in nature despite significant effort to do so, makes the view that the virus evolved naturally unlikely.” 

“No dispositive finding on the virus’ origin can be made without a full review of the records and logs of the Wuhan high security laboratories involved, which the current stance of the government of China makes improbable. Nevertheless, in coming to a conclusion as to the probability of its laboratory origin, ICTA understands that it is critical that any analysis of the origin of this catastrophic contagion be apolitical and constructive. ICTA’s work in this area is not intended to blame individual scientists or any country,  but rather to help provide the insight, and encourage the action needed to spare humanity from a series of future man-made pandemics that could surpass the current one in transmissibility and lethality.”

Andrew Kimbrell is executive director of the International Center for Technology Assessment. 

“Let’s start with the probability – more likely than not – that the COVID-19 virus is a lab created virus – from one of the two labs in Wuhan China,” Kimbrell told Corporate Crime Reporter in an interview last month. 

“Let’s take a look at the virus itself.” 

“Is there anything about the virus that would indicate one way or another? The other four categories are more circumstantial. Circumstantial evidence is fine in a court of law.” 

“One is – location. Where did it happen?”

“Two – precedent. Has anything like this ever happened before?”

“Three – warnings. Did anybody warn that this might happen?”

“And four – cover-up. Did the labs and the Chinese government try to cover it up?”

“Those are the five categories that I would ask your friends and skeptics to go through carefully before they use words like conspiracy or baloney. And later on I will go through why some of them are using those terms. We will get into the corporate support for these people and why you are getting this misinformation.”

“Let’s go through it. It is undisputed that this is a chimeric virus that has never been seen before. It’s a hybrid virus “

“The bat coronaviruses that are closest to COVID-19 are lacking two incredibly important things that COVID-19 has that make it so dangerous. One is the proteins that spike the cell – the spike proteins. The spike proteins that are on COVID-19 are completely different than those on the bat coronaviruses that are closest to it otherwise. Then there is the furin cleavage site. This is something that allows the virus to get inside the cell and have the cell mechanism reproduce it. That does not exist in this group of bat coronaviruses.” 

“You have a basic bat coronavirus and you have two things that have been added to it. The spike protein is closest to an animal called the pangolin. We do know that somehow this bat virus was infected by at least two other animals and then went into a human host. And for that virus to be the way it is, it had to happen simultaneously.”

“We have a hybrid virus never seen before in nature, it had to have been infected simultaneously with these other elements that make it more dangerous – make it more infective and more transmissible.”

“There is no theory about how they got in there. They used to think it was the wet market. That has been completely debunked, including by the Chinese government. No one believes that anymore. That explanation was a smoke screen put up by the Chinese and Americans who want to support that idea.”

What are the chances it happened naturally?

“Someone will have to come up with a scenario. It sounds almost like a joke. A horseshoe bat, a pangolin and some other creature met in a bar in Wuhan and somehow simultaneously infected them.”  

“I haven’t seen any scenario of how that happened or where that happened. But we know that had to happen. It happened somewhere. It either happened in nature or it happened in the Wuhan Institute of Virology or it happened at the CDC lab in Wuhan.” 

“That is undisputed. Then at the end of May, Nickolai Petrovsky and his team in Australia said – let’s see if we can find a creature that might have an affinity for this. That way we might find the animals that might have come together to create this virus. Their conclusion was that they could not find it anywhere else in nature. These are objective researchers. They are not Trump supporters. That study made it even more difficult to accept the natural theory.”

“Meanwhile, we know that this was exactly the kind of work that was going on at one or both of the Wuhan labs. They call it gain of function research. I call it gain of threat research. They were taking NIH money, through the EcoHealth Alliance to do exactly this. And they did exactly this. They added different kinds of protein spikes. They mixed and matched various viruses. They genetically engineered them. They infected a number of animals. They put them into human cell cultures to increase the threat.”

Why were they doing this research?

“The point of the research was to collect all of these bat viruses from 1,000 miles away from Wuhan and bring them back into their labs. The bat coronavirus was also the basis for the first SARS outbreak. They collected the bat viruses and brought them back to the labs. And then we are going to see what it would take for them to become really dangerous. What would it take? The idea was – if we can show what it takes in a laboratory for them to become incredibly dangerous then maybe we can predict that happening in nature. And then maybe we could have vaccines or interventions and be ready for the next pandemic.”

It was a way to develop vaccines?

“No. It was a way to develop a potential pandemic virus that might have occurred in nature at some point in the future. By having it, they would be able to think about what intervention strategies might work against this virus, which is now only in the lab, not in nature.”

“They would say – we’re trying to not have the next pandemic. And there are a couple of problems with that argument. I sent you an article by Marc Lipsitch at Harvard and Tom Inglesby at Johns Hopkins. They pretty much demolished this argument. They say – there are hundreds of combinations of coronaviruses that could happen in nature. The idea that you can pick one or two and that is going to be the one that nature comes up with is like winning the lottery. And then to create a vaccine for a non existent virus – except in your laboratory – no one is going to do that. They are going to wait to see what happens in nature.” 

“This whole gain of threat research, there are many reputable scientists now saying – it gives you no information, it’s not useful for vaccines, it’s not useful for anything except for the curiosity and interest of this small group of scientists who do this research.”

“Meanwhile they are creating novel pandemic viruses.”

“Let’s get back to the list.”

“Location. Why did this happen in Wuhan? Of all the cities in China. Of all the areas where bats are – and they are nowhere near Wuhan, they are 1,000 miles away. Of all of the cities it could have happened in, of all the small towns it could have happened in, why did it happen in Wuhan? What are the odds of this happening in Wuhan naturally versus happening in Wuhan because researchers there were doing exactly the kind of research that would create it? What are the odds of that? If I was in court, I would say that’s a very strong indicator that it happened in the labs. And in the interview with Shi Zhengli, she was so surprised. Why would this happen in Wuhan? And that’s why she got so nervous. Check that in favor of the lab theory.”

“Two is precedent. Was there any precedent? Yes. In 2003 and 2004, the original SARS virus was leaked four times from Chinese laboratories. It was reported in Science magazine. So, we’ve already had a leak of SARS 1. And a couple of people who worked in that laboratory died in 2004. We have a precedent with the SARS virus.” 

“What about warnings? There were numerous warnings. UPMC Center for Health Security looked at ten nations including China. In 2016, they found inadequate training and inadequate safety personnel in China to secure biosecurity.”

“In 2017, there is an article in Nature where scientists say they are very concerned about a biosafety level 4 laboratory in China doing all of this controversial research. We don’t feel they have the experience or the expertise to do that.”

“In 2018, we have the cables from the U.S. State Department saying – we are in this lab in China and we are very concerned that they are not taking appropriate precautions. And we are hoping that the United States government is coming to help them because this could be a very bad result. That was reported on by Josh Rogin in the Washington Post. You can read these cables.”

“In 2019, the Global Health Security Index for the very first time looks at biosecurity for 195 nations. No one has ever done anything that comprehensive. They found that China was not even in the top fifty of the most biosecure countries.” 

“NBC reported that in October 2019 there was cell phone silence at the Wuhan lab. They were concerned that might have had something to do with an accident.”

“You had all of these warnings. You had precedent. Then you have a massive cover-up. Milton Leitenberg in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists goes over that cover-up in great detail in an article in June titled “Did the SARS-CoV-2 virus arise from a bat coronavirus research program in a Chinese laboratory? Very possibly.” 
​
“Leitenberg goes over the cover-up in detail. China orders the virus destroyed. They punish those who were publishing stories about it. They refused to make any records from the labs available. They put out disinformation that it came from a U.S. military lab.” 

What about the so called batwoman?

“The Chinese virologist Shi Zhengli. She works at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. She says she didn’t sleep a wink for days, fearful that the virus came from her lab. But now she assures us that it didn’t come from her lab. She may be right or she may be wrong. I don’t know. It may have come from the other lab or from someone else working there. But she herself was so frightened about the possibility that her research had created this pandemic that she didn’t sleep a wink for days. That’s enough to say to me – that research should never happen.”

What you call gain of threat research was banned for a while, correct?

“That’s correct. Gain of function research is used for different kinds of research. If you were to be working with a plant and were trying to get the plant to fixate nitrogen better, that would be gain of function for that plant. There is nothing wrong with gain of function research. But to use the term as they do is dishonest. The term gain of function sounds innocuous. Gain of function – that doesn’t sound bad.”

You don’t want to ban gain of function research.

“I don’t want to ban gain of function research. I’m going to take away the double speak and call it what it is – gain of threat research on potential pandemic viruses. That’s what I want to ban. No one in the world should be doing gain of threat research on potentially pandemic viruses. It’s the definition of insanity.”

“In 2014, the Obama administration declared a moratorium on any federal funding of gain of threat research. The reason they did this was because two researchers – Ron Fouchier in the Netherlands and Yoshihiro Kawaoka in Wisconsin – were working on the H5N1 bird flu, which had a 60 percent mortality rate, but was not transmissible through the air. It killed a few hundred people, but because it was not transmissible, it didn’t go very far. But they decided they were going to try and turn it into a transmissible virus and publish their results.”

“With a 60 percent mortality rate, if that virus escaped, you have a potential 1.6 billion casualties.” 

Did they actually turn it into a transmissible virus?

“According to them, they did yes.”

What are the ethics of turning that into a transmissible virus?

“Marc Lipsitch, professor of epidemiology and director of the Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics at the Harvard School of Public Health said this ‘We have accepted principles, embodied in the Nuremberg Code, that say that biomedical experiments posing a risk to human subjects should only be undertaken if they provide benefits that sufficiently offset the risks – and if there are no other means of obtaining those benefits. Although these experiments don’t involve people directly, they do put human life and well-being at risk.’” 

[For the complete q/a format Interview with Andrew Kimbrell, see 34 Corporate Crime Reporter 30(10), Monday June 27, 2020, print edition only.]​

International Center for Technology Assessment
​
CRITICAL PAGE OF COVID REFERENCES:

What’s New: Current Update: Saturday – 07-18-2020

ICTA STATEMENT On COVID and GOFGOT(003)

Covid references for ICTA website

GOFGOT materials for ICTA website