Nov. 1, 2023 - Jim Fetzer
18:22
| 
| Time | Text |
|---|---|
| In 2020, Mark and I honestly thought COVID would be over by the end of that year. | |
| The story was preposterous and clearly nothing was happening in most places around the world apart from constant fear propaganda and a casedemic brought about by the fraudulent application of the PCR. | |
| Even if people couldn't see there was no virus, the responses, mantras and flip-flopping narratives still meant that some of the viewers were getting suspicious. | |
| Queue 2021 and it became apparent to us that the Lab Leak Gain of Function narrative was working overtime to keep stragglers on the plantation. | |
| I released Gain of Function Gas Lighting and then in 2022 released Gain of Function Garbage and Bioweapon BS. | |
| We also made a response to Project Veritas earlier this year after they promoted a quote virus directed evolution tale. | |
| Let's have a look at some of the latest stories ramping up the lab leak narrative and why no one can find a virus in nature. | |
| Music by Ben Thede | |
| Music by Ben Thede Whenever you see a story about lab leaks or engineered viruses, there might be some reference to an alleged smoking gun, whether it be in the form of a patent, an NIH grant, a Fauci email or a photo of a top secret biolab facility. | |
| We've been over such things many times and point out to the promoters that these are not evidence of viruses or pathogens. | |
| Some go a step further and cite a scientific study with a dramatic headline. | |
| And yes, we are aware of these papers and have broken down the methodologies to show how farcical they are. | |
| No viruses and no contagion demonstrate it. | |
| From what we can see, The promoters of any lab leak theory are either distracted by peripheral phenomena, unable to analyse virology papers, or are being disingenuous as they, or the organisation they work for, have a vested interest in the virus model. | |
| However, assigning motive involves speculation, and we don't need to do that to blow the story apart one more time. | |
| On the 20th of October, Children's Health Defence were at it again with fear-based narratives about lab-engineered viruses. | |
| They reported that, in his new book, Deception, the great COVID cover-up, Senator Rand Paul details the catastrophic failures of the public health emergency during the pandemic. | |
| Addressing the gain-of-function research funded in part by the US government, Paul claims Dr. Anthony Fauci and his scientific yes-men not only knew the SARS-CoV-2 virus originated at China's Wuhan Institute of Virology, but worked to cover it up and attack anyone threatening to reveal the truth. | |
| You may get the feeling that many people have been deeply asleep during the past four years. | |
| Mention two weeks to flatten the curve and you'll get a blank look, even from those that dutifully repeated the foolish mantra back in 2020. | |
| Those espousing the lab-like cover-up story also seem to be missing things. | |
| Or they have forgotten that in early 2020 it was one of THE narratives being promulgated by the mainstream media. | |
| For example, The Sun published a story in April that year that stated, It was revealed earlier this month ministers fear the deadly pandemic could have started after a leak from a lab. | |
| US and British intelligence officials suspect bungling scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology accidentally spread the killer during risky coronavirus tests on bats. | |
| The story included a map showing the proximity of the institute to the Huanan Seafood Market, and photographs said to be from inside the facility that were openly published by China Daily, the state-run media platform. | |
| But shhh! | |
| It's all top secret, folks! | |
| Then in 2021, we had the United States Senate chiming in as though there was a lab leak cover-up going on, and apparently caught red-handed. | |
| Big tech platforms were now reversing the censorship. | |
| We know that Facebook recently reversed their decision on taking down any kind of information that said it came from the lab in Wuhan. | |
| So the overt product placement has been done since 2020 through the mainstream media, politicians and big tech, but the lab leak proponents think that this is something that the public is not supposed to know about. | |
| Lab leak nonsense has continued to be splashed across corporate media headlines in 2023, and yet somehow the likes of Rand Paul are portraying this as a high-level cover-up. | |
| One thing that has been consistent during the COVID era is the blanket censorship and suppression of the no-virus arguments. | |
| I am unable to post COVID-related content on my YouTube channel, and even my video on polio was banned after just six minutes. | |
| For the past four years, my viewers have informed me that simply posting a link to one of my videos can result in a suspension of their Facebook account. | |
| Meanwhile, the proponents of the gain-of-function narratives can post links to the New York Times now. | |
| Rand Paul's entire analysis has a fatal flaw, and that is taking the virologist's claims at face value. | |
| He does not examine the methodologies being employed in virology, so he runs with words like isolation and gain of function to sustain the narrative that an infectious, disease-causing particle has been physically isolated and then modified to make it even more dangerous. | |
| In reality, nothing of the sort has ever been demonstrated. | |
| As well as covering the work of Ron Fouchier, Ralph Baric and Peter Daszak in videos, my husband Mark also discussed the lab leak fallacy in A Farewell to Virology, his formal refutation of the virus model. | |
| We have broken down these papers numerous times to expose their pseudoscientific nature that pervades the entire field of virology. | |
| In their promotional piece on Rand Paul, when they stated the gain-of-function research funded in part by the US government, CHD provide a link to an article by Dr. Joseph McCullough they posted on their website in April 2022. | |
| This was titled, 100,000 plus documents reveal disturbing details about high-risk gain-of-function experiments. | |
| But what exactly was it referring to? | |
| An investigative report by Vanity Fair! | |
| I kid you not, McCullough and the CHD think that Vanity Fair are going to reveal the truth about COVID-19 to the public. | |
| This wasn't the first time Vanity Fair had presented this narrative. | |
| In fact, they published a huge feature article in July 2021. | |
| If you read this article, you will see it contains nothing more than talk about people who talk about viruses. | |
| These peripheral stories about politics, grants and government documents may be fascinating for the naive, but it is all fluff when you are looking for scientific evidence. | |
| Where is the virus? | |
| The second Vanity Fair expose, the one referred to in the McCullough CHD article, suffers from the same problem. | |
| Amongst the 100,000 plus documents, where do we find any evidence for a virus? | |
| Halfway through the article we do see a citation. | |
| The author states that she, Zengli, and a preeminent coronavirus researcher at the University of North Carolina, Ralph Baric, mixed components of SARS-like viruses from different species and created a novel chimera that was able to directly infect human cells. | |
| And the paper they link to is this one that appeared in Nature Medicine in 2015. | |
| in 2015. A SARS-like cluster of circulating back coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence. | |
| So this is the evidence they are presenting for virus existence and laboratory engineering of such claimed viruses. | |
| Let the dissection begin. | |
| As with any virology paper, you don't get distracted by the title or the abstract, which contain fanciful claims. | |
| You need to focus on the ticklish spot, which is the method section. | |
| Here we find it opens by stating, Mouse-adapted SARS-CoV-MA15 and chimeric SARS-like CoVs were cultured on Vero E6 cells obtained from United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases. | |
| So right here, the whole thing falls apart. | |
| They are claiming that they already know they have viruses in the starting samples. | |
| Without establishing anything of the sort, they can then state that the cultured cells were quote, inoculated with virus. | |
| In reality, they have a mixture of culture cells, proteins and genetic sequences, along with fetal serum, some antibiotic and antifungal agents. | |
| The nonsense then gets on stilts with the section, construction of SARS-like chimeric viruses. | |
| Here they claim to be making a quote, infectious clone, by using spike sequences from their samples, along with quote, six contiguous complementary DNAs, using published sequences. | |
| Don't take your eye off the ball here. | |
| These sequences have never been shown to come from a virus. | |
| They have simply been fraudulently classified as viral on genetic data banks from processes that never physically isolated any viruses. | |
| These complementary DNA sequences were then transcribed into RNA and mixed with varro monkey kidney cells to supposedly make viruses. | |
| So the statement that chimeric and full-length viruses were confirmed by sequence analysis before use in these studies as a case of circular reasoning. | |
| They had already declared in advance that these sequences were viral. | |
| It doesn't matter whether they were in the form of cDNA or RNA. | |
| Unfortunately, this quote, infectious clone business, has fooled a number of people who continue to ignore the provenance issue. | |
| If there is no physical isolation of any particle shown to be viral, how can it be claimed that these sequences come from inside one? | |
| So at this point, all they have are viro-cell mixtures, including various proteins and genetic sequences. | |
| To clarify, a virus is said to be a replication-competent particle consisting of a genome and a protonaceous coat. | |
| It is supposed to be an intracellular parasite that causes disease. | |
| Anyone thinking that this has been established at this point is seeing things. | |
| The methodology is clearly insufficient to make such a claim. | |
| Their case rests on starting with samples from the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases. | |
| And you would have to be pretty new to this game to believe that they have ever physically isolated any viruses. | |
| Such a sweet kid. | |
| We then move to the next section of the Barak Study, Mice and In Vivo Infection, where they exposed mice to their mixture that contained the imaginary viruses. | |
| Not just any mice, but highly inbred albino BALB mice. | |
| They anesthetized the mice and then squirted 50 microliters into the nose of each mouse. | |
| This may not sound like much fluid, but by weight, it is equivalent to injecting half a cup, or 4 fluid ounces, into a human's nose. | |
| While they are asleep! | |
| The tomfoolery continued when they stated, no blinding was used in any animal experiments and animals were not randomized. | |
| They presented this chart showing weight loss and lethality after injecting the two mixtures into the mice. | |
| Because it was not a scientific study, there was no control group, and the actual lethality was apparent mostly caused by sacrifice due to the study protocols. | |
| But however they abused these animals, it was all pointless from the start, as they have not shown an infectious particle. | |
| Thus all of their results are built on a false premise. | |
| For example, this does not represent a quote, viral titer or infection, but levels of selected nucleic acid sequences in their in vitro cell culture experiments. | |
| The study also features some histological slides and antibody assays, without valid controls again. | |
| But aside from that, they are all indirect measures that do not require the existence of viruses. | |
| So here it is, a colorful depiction. | |
| It was certainly created in a lab, but it's not a virus. | |
| Vanity Fair did not bother to analyze this paper in any way and reported that this gain-of-function experiment, which had begun prior to the moratorium, was so fraught that the authors flagged the dangers themselves, writing, scientific review panels may deem similar studies too risky to pursue. | |
| The only risk they are running is that more people start waking up to the fraud of virology. | |
| Instead of lab leaks that look like something out of Outbreak, they will understand that like the film, it is pure fiction. | |
| Sadly though, the headlines are being promulgated by Dr. McCullough, Rand Paul and the CHD, without any of them discussing the actual science in these papers. | |
| If they are unable to understand these so-called gain-of-function experiments, then shouldn't they say, I don't know, and leave it at that? | |
| On that front, we are often asked to talk to prominent health freedom individuals who have called fraud on various COVID responses but are still subscribing to the virus model. | |
| Almost universally, they do not want to discuss the methodologies of the virologists and start discussing peripheral phenomena. | |
| As Tom Cowan has publicly announced several times, The offer is open to walk through a virological paper step by step. | |
| At each step we would like them to state whether they think it is following the scientific method and whether there are valid controls. | |
| We would also like them to look at a paper like the Barak one I have just presented and indicate which part they think demonstrates the existence of a virus as defined by the virologists. | |
| Ironically, they say Fauci is lying when it comes to vaccines, drugs and public policy. | |
| But when it comes to Fauci's basic virology, everything is spot on. | |
| Because I represent science. | |
| As we have explained in Virus Mania, Fauci has been one of the major drivers of establishment virology for the past four decades, and was probably the most powerful AIDS official in the United States. | |
| Public belief in the virus model is the single most important factor, keeping the whole show together. | |
| Coming back to the title of the video, it means that there is no evidence that viruses exist in nature. | |
| Trying to find and isolate such particles directly from humans, animals or plants failed long ago. | |
| Christine Massey has tirelessly requested this evidence from hundreds of institutions around the world, and they have all turned up a blank. | |
| Not only for SARS-CoV-2, but for any alleged viruses. | |
| This point is crucial for people to understand. | |
| Viruses have never been seen in nature. | |
| They are created in laboratories, but only as fictional constructs in the imaginations of the virologists. | |
| This can be through calling particles in cell breakdown experiments viral and then blaming the breakdown on the particles. | |
| Or it could be through silly experiments where mixtures are injected into animals and then the responses are attributed to imagined viruses. | |
| Or it could be through creating a quote genome, even though the provenance of the genetic material was not established. | |
| This latter technique is increasingly favoured by virologists as it largely takes place in the dry lab, that is, on their computer simulations. | |
| None of this translates to infectious replicating and disease-causing particles as biological entities. | |
| Because there is no evidence that they exist, there is no evidence that there is anything contagious to leak from a lab. | |
| So what goes on in top secret facilities is nothing to do with actual viruses. | |
| If they really had evidence for such a thing, they would have showcased it to the public long ago. | |
| Those who have studied the history of virology can see that despite their best efforts, they have a fatal problem of the missing virus. | |
| The lab leak sleuths who are mining the genetic databases and looking at government reports are not finding breadcrumbs accidentally left behind by stealthy virologists. | |
| They are finding giant loaves of bread that are designed to go along with the circus. | |
| If they looked upstream, they might notice that they are dealing with pseudoscientific constructs. | |
| Perhaps they should consider why the virologists have not done the blinded and controlled experiments that we proposed to them in the Settling the Virus debate statement. | |
| As always, I encourage everyone not to get swept up in fear narratives. | |
| The virus model has been one of the greatest tools of manipulation and its influence has been catastrophic, particularly in the last four years. | |
| Many of us have learned to ignore the model in our own lives and the health of our families is all the better for it. |
Export Selection