1.
This study was received for review onSept. 4, 2015:
When you’re doing research, you go through a process where you file a grant
application. The grant application process which includes the process of
writing it, submitting it, getting it approved and getting it funded takes
about 12-18 months to go through. Then you do the research, whatever that
research is. That research could take a couple weeks, it could take a couple
months. In many places, like Ralph Baric’s lab at the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, there is kind of a continuous stream of research
going on. We cannot say that the research happened on a particular day and
the reason why we can’t say that is because we just don’t know. What we do
know is that this research had to happen before an exceptionally important
date and the date this research took place was before September 4, 2015. [Fig. 1]
2.
The article gets submitted, and it goes through a peer review process. All
that means is that an editor of a journal sends the article out. The article
gets reviewed by a number of people who critique it and say, ‘You should
edit this or change this’ or ‘Hey, I ran your stats, and your stats don’t
quite add up’—whatever they do—they send their critique back and it goes
back and forth. That’s the reason why in most instances, you’ll see that while this paper
was in fact submitted for review on September 4, 2015, it wasn’t approved until January 6, 2016.[Fig. 1]
3.January 6, 2016, is an
important date too because the subject of this particular research was
done at the: 1) Department of Epidemiology,
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,
2) Department of Microbiology and Immunology,
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,
3) Department of Cell Biology and Physiology and Marsico Lung
Institute/Cystic Fibrosis Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
We see UNC Chapel Hill all over
this paper. [Fig. 1]
4. We know this was edited by Peter Palese, Icahn School of
Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, and approved for publication
January 6, 2016. [Fig. 1]
5.In October 2014, The
U.S. Government issued a moratorium on gain of function (GoF)
research.1
WHAT IS THIS PARTICULAR PAPER ABOUT?
6.
Looking at the first paragraph shown in the above, this paper actually shows
that there is a thing called a: WIV1-coronavirus (Cov) cluster that has the ability to directly infect
and may undergo limited transmission in human populations.
[NOTE: WIV=Wuhan Institute of Virology] [Fig. 2]
7.
Now here’s where we have a tiny little problem. The tiny little problem was
that theWuhanInstitute of Virology Virus 1 is in fact something that in2015was shown to be not only capable of going into a human population into lung
tissue but it also has this sentence at the bottom of page one shown in the
figure above: Importantly, monoclonal antibody strategies against SARS were effective against WIV1-CoV spike
unlike available vaccine approaches. Together, the results highlight the
utility of developing platforms to evaluate circulating zoonotic viruses as
threats for future emergence and epidemic potential. [Fig. 2, 3]
8. Construction of Chimeric SARS-Like Viruses.
Both wild-type and chimeric WIVCoV infectious clones were designed using
published sequences and based on the SARS-CoV infectious clone (10).
Synthetic construction of chimeric mutant and full-length WIV1-CoV were
approved by the UNC Institutional Biosafety Committee and the Dual Use
Research of Concern Committee. [Fig. 4]
9.
So far from reading, we see that we’ve got a particular virus that came from
the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and we actually have anin vivo. What does in vivo mean? This is a very important fact and that’s part of the reason why Anthony Fauci lied.
An in vivo analysis is that you have the thing, the actual pathogen and in
vivo means in a living system, that living system may be a model, it may be
a culture, it may be a bunch of other things, but at the end of the day,
what we know is thatwe actually have a Wuhan Institute of Virology spike protein
that came from the Wuhan Institute of Virology sitting in a lab in North
Carolina according to this particular article.[Point 8 is further explained in Points 19 and 20 of this report.] [Fig.
1-4]
10. Conclusion from Points 1-9: When Anthony Fauci was examined by
Senator Rand Paul on May 11, 2021,
Fauci very specifically said, “Dr. Baric does not do gain of function
research, and if it is, it’s according to the guidelines and it is being conducted in North
Carolina, not in China.”2This is a FALSE STATEMENT.
11. IMPORTANT! Let’s look at the Biosafety and Biosecurity Section: Reported studies were initiated after theUniversity of North Carolina Institutional Biosafety Committee
approved
the experimental protocol: project title: Generating infectious clones of Bat SARS-like CoVs; lab safety plan ID: 20145741; schedule G ID: 12279.
These studies were initiatedbefore the US Government Deliberative Process Research Funding Pause on Selected Gain of Function Research Involving Influenza, MERS, and SARS Viruses (www.phe.gov/s3/dualuse/Documents/gain-of-function.pdf),and the current paper has been reviewed by the funding agency, the National
Institutes of Health (NIH). Continuation of these studies has been requested and approved by the
NIH.[Fig. 5]
12. These studies were initiated before the US Government
Deliberative Process Research Funding Pause on Selected
Gain of Function Research
Involving Influenza: This IS the
Gain of Function reference. [Fig. 5]
13. The current paper has been reviewed by the funding agency, the National
Institutes of Health (NIH): Meaning that
NIH and
NIAID read and reviewed the
protocol and reviewed this paper and specifically said that this was
getting an exemption from what they knew to be an official pause on gain
of function research. [Fig. 5]
14. Anthony Fauci lied to Congress when he said this did not
happen.3
15. Here is the smoking gun! ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Section: We thank Dr. Zhengli-Li Shi of the Wuhan Institute of Virology for access to bat CoV sequences and plasmid of WIV1-CoV spike protein. Research was supported by theNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease
and the National Institute of Aging of the NIH under Awards U19AI109761 and U19AI107810 (to R.S.B.), AI1085524 (to W.A.M.), and F32AI102561 and K99AG049092 (to V.D.M.). Human
airway epithelial cell cultures were supported by the National Institute of
Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Disease under Award NIH DK065988 (to
S.H.R.). Support for the generation of the mice expressing human ACE2 was
provided by NIH AI076159 and AI079521 (to A.C.S.): [NOTE: R.S.B.=Ralph S.
Baric] [Point 14 is further explained in Points 19 and 20 of this report.]
[Fig.6]
16.
This graphic shows the details of the research that was supported by NIAID under grants U19AI109761 and U19AI107810 totaling $41.7 million.4,5Over 40 million U.S. taxpayer dollars went into the amplification of making the Wuhan Virus more pathogenic to
humans.
That doesn't even include the BioDefense series that Fauci administered to DARPA and this included more than $21 million
for additional gain of function research.6,7 [Fig. 7]
17.Here is a timeline of Grant U19AI109761
that we saw referenced in this particular gain of function study.8 In the previous graphic, we saw that this grant was funded by NIAID and awarded on Mar 7, 2014. This means that the paper’s authors lied when they said the researched commenced PRIOR to the gain-of-function moratorium because it actually happened DURING the gain-of-function moratorium and the amount of the contract is $31.2 million for Grant U19AI109761. This is one of 4 grants
that were part of the research that was going on. [Fig. 8]
18.You cannot, if you are Anthony Fauci, deny that you lied. $60
million went through the hands of Anthony Fauci. This is not
a—’it might have been’, ‘kind of maybe’, ‘it was a subgroup inside of
NIAID’ that Anthony Fauci didn’t know about—This was Anthony Fauci.
[Fig. 7, 8]
THE BOMBSHELL SUMMARY
19. When Rand Paul specifically asked Anthony Fauci about Ralph
Baric and University of North Carolina, not only did Anthony Fauci lie,
Fauci, in fact did something
MORE ILLEGAL. IT IS ILLEGAL TO BRING A BIOLOGICAL WEAPON FROM ANOTHER COUNTRY INTO
THIS COUNTRY.
20. Wuhan Institute of Virology Virus 1 was harvested from bat
Guano miners in 2013 who evidenced all of the symptoms that we now call
COVD-19. So,
we actually brought a foreign pathogen into this country—that’s a violation of so many laws, you can’t even count. We cloned
and we manipulated it to enhance its’ spike protein and its’ ACE2
receptor interactions so that it became more infectious to human lung
tissue. We did that in THIS country. [Fig. 5 references
cloning: project title: Generating infectious clones]
21. And now we find out, the World Health Organization, in its
self-critique, has decided that we need to have MORE viral expertise at
the World Health Organization so that that they can in fact control the
narrative more closely.9The World Health Organization is aiding and abetting
the weaponization biologics. Anthony Fauci has used the World Health
Organization as his cover to shift the blame away from actions that he took, actions he
funded.
♥ My deepest gratitude and
heartfelt thank you to both David Martin and Ben Swann for your
dedication and courage by speaking out and helping us understand the
details and ramifications of this study. This report is a slightly
edited transcript of their videos:
Please consider Promissory Estoppel as an avenue toward legal remedies:
We the People had been and still are being told that these vaccines are "safe & effective". Clearly, the vast advertising & pushing of this lie onto the population can be considered a promise!
quick Google Search: Promissory estoppel is the legal principle that a promise is enforceable by law, even if made without formal consideration when a promisor has made a promise to a promisee who then relies on that promise to his subsequent detriment. The three main components needed for promissory estoppel are the promisor, the promisee, and the promise that wasn't honored.
What are the four conditions of promissory estoppel?
The elements of a promissory estoppel claim are “(1) a promise clear and unambiguous in its terms; (2) reliance by the party to whom the promise is made; (3) [the] reliance must be both reasonable and foreseeable; and (4) the party asserting the estoppel must be injured by his reliance.” (US Ecology, Inc.
2 comments:
Please consider Promissory Estoppel as an avenue toward legal remedies:
We the People had been and still are being told that these vaccines are "safe & effective". Clearly, the vast advertising & pushing of this lie onto the population can be considered a promise!
quick Google Search: Promissory estoppel is the legal principle that a promise is enforceable by law, even if made without formal consideration when a promisor has made a promise to a promisee who then relies on that promise to his subsequent detriment.
The three main components needed for promissory estoppel are the promisor, the promisee, and the promise that wasn't honored.
What are the four conditions of promissory estoppel?
The elements of a promissory estoppel claim are “(1) a promise clear and unambiguous in its terms; (2) reliance by the party to whom the promise is made; (3) [the] reliance must be both reasonable and foreseeable; and (4) the party asserting the estoppel must be injured by his reliance.” (US Ecology, Inc.
Thanks,
Vicki Carlson
lynncarl55@gmail.com
Thank you for that information. I will pass it along.
Sincerely,
Lynn Clevenger
Post a Comment