Oct. 19, 2022 - Epoch Times
13:25
| 
| Time | Text |
|---|---|
| Just yesterday, in an almost unbelievable development, researchers over at Boston University published this scientific paper right here detailing how they were able to develop within their laboratory a new strain of COVID which was so deadly that it killed 80% of the humanized mice that they were experimenting with. | |
| But what's really striking here are the details of how they were able to do this. | |
| However, before we break down exactly what these researchers did, as well as why they did it, let me back up and set the stage free properly in order to put this experiment into proper context. | |
| To start with, this right here is a close-up of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. | |
| And as you're likely well aware, there's been a debate raging across the entire world about whether or not the original virus just naturally manifested in the world, or if it originally leaked out of a lab in Wuhan, China. | |
| However, let's set that debate aside, at least for the moment. | |
| Because regardless of how it came about, this virus, after emerging out of Wuhan, has been circling the globe for the past three years now. | |
| And in that process of circumnavigation, it has been mutating over and over and over again. | |
| And each new mutation of this virus has been given a different name according to the Greek alphabet. | |
| And so it started with the original Wuhan strain, which was called the Alpha strain, and then it mutated along various branching pathways into the Beta strain, the Gamma strain, the Delta strain, and then later it became the Epsilon strain, the Zeta strain, the Eta strain, the Theta strain, the Iota strain, the Eta strain, the Theta strain, the Iota strain, the Kappa strain, the Lambda strain, as well as the Mu strain. | |
| And this is where the naming got a little bit, you can say, interesting. | |
| Because after mu, well, the next letter should have been nu. | |
| However, the WHO decided to skip nu because it sounded too much like the word nu. | |
| And so they thought that people would just assume it's a nu variant. | |
| That makes sense. | |
| Then the subsequent letter should have been xi, spelled X-I. However, the WHO decided to skip this letter as well in order to not offend anybody named Xi. | |
| And so then, the subsequent variant, the one that came out of South Africa, was therefore named the Omicron variant, which is the next Greek letter after Xi. | |
| And therefore, the current prevalent strain of the virus right now in this world is called Omicron. | |
| Now, the Omicron variant has, you can say, a unique characteristic, which is that while it's much more infectious than the original virus, it's at the same time significantly less severe, meaning that the Omicron strain can infect a lot more people more easily, but the symptoms that those people experience are generally milder, which a lot of scientists concluded is actually a good thing. | |
| Since this new strain can infect a lot of people and therefore give them natural antibodies, While at the same time, not making those people too sick, at least on average. | |
| And in fact, along that line, when speaking about the Omicron variant, everyone's favorite scientist, Mr. | |
| Bill Gates, Sorry, not scientist. | |
| Everyone's favorite tech billionaire, Mr. | |
| Bill Gates, well, he actually referred to Omicron as an effective type of vaccine. | |
| Here's specifically what he said just earlier this year at the Munich Security Conference over in Germany. | |
| Well, the, uh... | |
| You know, sadly, the virus itself, particularly the... | |
| The variant called Omicron is a type of vaccine. | |
| That is, it creates both B-cell and T-cell immunity. | |
| And it's done a better job of getting out to the world population than we have with vaccines. | |
| If you do surveys in African countries, you get well over 80% of people have been exposed either to the vaccine or To various variants. | |
| And so, you know, what that does is it means the chance of severe disease, which is mainly associated with being elderly and having obesity or diabetes, those risks are now dramatically reduced because of that infection exposure. | |
| You know, it's sad. | |
| We didn't do a great job on therapeutics. | |
| You know, only here, two years in, do we have a good therapeutic. | |
| Vaccines, it took us two years to be in oversupply. | |
| Today, there are more vaccines than there is demand for vaccines. | |
| And, you know, that wasn't true. | |
| And next time we should try and make it, instead of two years, we should make it more like six months. | |
| Which certainly... | |
| Some of the standardized platform approaches, including mRNA, would allow us to do that. | |
| So, you know, it took us a lot longer this time than it should have. | |
| However, I know exactly what you're thinking. | |
| What if we can take the spike protein from the Omicron strain, which allows it to be transmitted so easily, and we attach that spike protein to the original Wuhan strain of the virus, which was much more severe in terms of the disease? | |
| That way, you can get the worst of both worlds. | |
| Well, that's exactly what scientists over at Boston University decided to do. | |
| According to a new paper, which was just made public, the researchers at Boston University were able to combine the spike protein from Omicron with the original strain of the virus that came out of Wuhan in order to create a new chimera strain, which was so deadly that it killed 80% of the humanized mice that they were testing on. | |
| You heard that right. | |
| Using grant funding from both the NIH as well as the NIAID, which is the sub-agency led by Dr. | |
| Fauci, these scientists were able to cobble together a new strain of COVID. Specifically, as you can see from the illustration up on your screen, that illustration, by the way, comes from their study, these researchers were able to extract the Omicron variant's spike protein, which they noted had an unusually large number of mutations, and attach that spike protein to the original Wuhan strain of the virus, the one that emerged back in 2019. | |
| They dubbed their new creation Omicron S. And in terms of the effect of this new strain, well, here is specifically what they wrote. | |
| We generated chimeric recombinant SARS-CoV-2 encoding the S gene of Omicron in the backbone of an ancestral SARS-CoV-2 isolate and compared this virus with the naturally circulating Omicron variant. | |
| In humanized mice, while Omicron causes mild, non-fatal infection, the Omicron S-carrying virus inflicts severe disease with a mortality rate of 80%. | |
| Furthermore, the researchers noted that their chimera creation was good at not only evading the immune system, but then also establishing and replicating itself within the lung cells of mice. | |
| Here's specifically what they wrote. | |
| The Omicron S-bearing virus robustly escapes vaccine-induced humoral immunity, mainly due to mutations in the receptor-binding motif, RBM, yet unlike naturally occurring Omicron, efficiently replicates in cell lines and primary-like distal lung cells. | |
| But fear not, because these researchers also noted that, for one, the immune systems of mice differ tremendously from that of humans, and that secondly, the types of mice that they used in these experiments were more susceptible to getting COVID than average. | |
| And therefore, if the Omicron-S hybrid strain were to infect humans, well, the researchers say that it would likely not be as deadly, which is very reassuring. | |
| However, when these researchers actually tested this new COVID strain on human lung cells, which they were growing in the lab, they found that their modified Omicron S strain produced five times more viral particles than the original Omicron strain. | |
| So take that for what it's worth. | |
| Regardless, let's circle back to an obvious question which you're probably asking yourself, which is, why? | |
| Why are these scientists conducting this research at all? | |
| Well, according to their paper, at least, what they're trying to figure out is what exactly makes Omicron so transmissible. | |
| Here's specifically what they wrote about the intentions of these particular experiments. | |
| This study provides important insight into Omicron pathogenicity. | |
| We show that spike, the single most mutated protein in Omicron, has an incomplete role in Omicron attenuation. | |
| In petri dish infection essays, The Omicron S variant exhibits much higher replication efficiency compared with Omicron. | |
| Similarly, in humanized mice, Omicron S variant contrasts with non-fatal Omicron and causes a severe disease leading to around 80% mortality. | |
| This suggests that mutations outside of the spike are major determinants of the attenuated pathogenicity of Omicron in humanized mice. | |
| Further studies are needed to identify those mutations and decipher their mechanisms of action. | |
| But it gets even deeper than that, which I'll explain to you right after I show you this beautiful coin. | |
| This right here is an American Walking Liberty one ounce gold coin. | |
| And typically, I order at least one of these from our sponsor, American Heart for Gold, every single month. | |
| The reason I do so is because, I mean, as you likely know, the inflation rate in this country is the highest that it's been in, what, the last 40 years now. | |
| Everything like the price of food, the price of housing, the price of gas is Absolutely going through the roof. | |
| And in fact, market experts like the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, he's not only predicting a recession, but he's even using words like unprecedented economic hurricane. | |
| And so listen, I absolutely do not give you any financial advice, but I would recommend that you do what I do, which is pick up the phone and call American Hartford Gold. | |
| Their super friendly staff can help you diversify your portfolio by either getting physical gold and physical silver delivered directly to your doorstep like I do, or deposited directly into your IRA and your 401k accounts that make the entire process super simple. | |
| And actually, besides me, they have an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau with quite literally thousands of satisfied clients around the country. | |
| And best of all, to our viewers, to the viewers of Facts Matter, they are currently throwing in $2,500 worth of free silver on your first qualifying order. | |
| So giving them a call is an absolute no-brainer. | |
| So pick up the phone and call 866-242-2352. | |
| That's 866-242-2352. | |
| Or text Roman to 65532. | |
| The link will also be down in the description box below. | |
| And then let's head on back to the studio. | |
| Meaning in plain English that their conclusion here is that these mice are not dying because of the Omicron spike protein, but rather due to something within the original strain of the virus. | |
| Which is an interesting scientific finding, but the question is, is it worth it? | |
| Is it worth mutating and recombining the COVID virus in order to do these tests, especially given in what was happening in Wuhan prior to the outbreak? | |
| Well, Senator Roger Marshall from Kansas, he didn't seem to think so. | |
| That's because shortly after the study came to light, well, he published a statement expressing outrage at this experimentation as well as calling into question its actual purpose. | |
| Here's what he said in a statement, quote, It is unconscionable that the National Institutes of Health sponsors this lethal, gain-of-function virus research through Boston University and EcoHealth Alliance in densely populated areas, creating potential to kill more people than any singular nuclear weapon. | |
| History has taught us that viruses have managed to escape even the most secure labs. | |
| This is not a risk that scientists alone should be able to take without concurrence from the American public. | |
| This research must stop immediately while the risks and benefits can be investigated. | |
| The National Institutes of Health continues to fund this dangerous research while it obstructs congressional investigations into the COVID origins, despite admissions from the U.S. intelligence community, the WHO, the Lancet Medical Journal, and countless others that it is possible the COVID-19 pandemic arose from a lab accident in Wuhan. | |
| Likewise, Dr. | |
| Richard Ebright, a chemist at Rutgers University, he gave a statement to the Daily Mail newspaper saying that these experiments are indeed a clear example of gain-of-function research. | |
| Here's what he said, quote, The research is a clear example of gain-of-function research of concern and enhanced potential pandemic pathogen, otherwise known as EPPP research. | |
| It is especially concerning that this new U.S. government EPPP research, like the previous U.S. government EPPP research on chimeric SARS-related coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology that may have caused the pandemic, appears not to have undergone the prior risk-benefit review mandated under U.S. government policies. | |
| If we are to avoid a next lab-generated pandemic, it is imperative that oversight of EPP research be strengthened. | |
| On the flip side, however, the University of Boston came out with a statement of their own denying that these experiments had gained a function and adding that the research was reviewed and approved by the proper authorities. | |
| Here's what they said in their statement. | |
| Quote, This research mirrors and reinforces the findings of other similar research performed by other organizations. | |
| Ultimately, this research will provide a public benefit by leading to better targeted therapeutic interventions to help fight against future pandemics. | |
| And so, I'd love to know your thoughts on this matter. | |
| Does the supposed benefit outweigh the very obvious risks? | |
| Or are these chimeric viral experiments something like a Pandora's box, which should just be left alone? | |
| And furthermore, do you believe that it's exactly these types of experiments which led to the initial pandemic in the first place? | |
| Or do you believe the official narrative that the virus naturally emerged from a wet market over in Wuhan? | |
| Please leave your thoughts in the comments section below. | |
| I'll be reading them through later tonight as well as tomorrow. | |
| Furthermore, if you'd like to read the actual study that came out of these researchers at Boston University, I'll throw a link to the PDF version. | |
| It'll be down in the description box below. | |
| And of course, as you're making your way down there to the comments section as well as the description box, I do hope you take a super quick detour to smash, smash, smash that like button for the YouTube algorithm. | |
| And also consider subscribing to this YouTube channel as well, that we can get this type of honest news content delivered directly into your YouTube feed every time we publish it. | |
| And then lastly, since we're generally on the topic of mice, I wanted to mention that over on Epic TV, our awesome no-centership video platform, just yesterday I published an awesome episode detailing how the most recent formulation of the Pfizer booster shot, the one that was approved by the FDA last month, well, it actually underwent no human testing, and instead it was only tested on mice, and not even a lot of mice. | |
| This new Pfizer formulation, the formulation that was actually approved, was tested on only eight mice. | |
| Eight, like the number eight. | |
| If you want to check out that full episode, there's a lot more details that go into it. | |
| I'll throw the link to it. | |
| It'll be right there at the very top of the description box. | |
| I hope you check it out. | |
| And then, until next time, I'm your host, Roman, from The Epoch Times. | |
| Stay informed. |
Export Selection