Prof.Jeffrey Sachs: Coronavirus was Created by DARPA Involving University of North Carolina for military goals of the USA in Asia. Our one human family needs a global government to be able to survive!

Jeffrey Sachs Claims Coronavirus Created by DARPA Involving University of North Carolina

#jeffreysachs #coronavirus #china  About Jeffrey Sachs: Jeffrey Sachs is an American economist and public policy expert, currently a professor at Columbia University. He previously served as the director of The Earth Institute at the university. His work focuses on sustainable development and economic growth, making him a prominent figure in these fields. Welcome to Financial Wise! Financial Wise provides news and educational content on tech, market & geopolitics, feature tech, market, and political celebrities. Make sure to subscribe!    / @officialfinancialwise   This channel focuses on individual's philosophies, principles, insights, and the driving forces behind their impact in tech, finance, and politics. If you have a busy schedule and can’t keep up with in-depth analysis from experts and professionals, my channel is the perfect solution. FW delivers reliable, concise, and trustworthy updates on the latest in tech, finance, and politics, giving you the essential information without the extra noise. Copyright Disclaimer: This video and channel content are for educational purposes and use copyrighted material (clips) under the Fair Use Doctrine (Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107). All content is used for commentary, criticism, news reporting, or educational purposes, and falls within the guidelines of fair use. No copyright infringement is intended. All rights to the original content belong to the respective copyright holders. If you wish to have your content removed, please email us through your channel's email address. Recorded: Fidias Podcast    • The World Order in Transition - Prof....  

Transcript

isit site

Transcript

i'll tell you a sad

truth also a little

surprising and I have to admit what I'm

about to tell you is only 99%

sure but my view based on very extensive

work over the last four and a half years

is that

COVID came from the University of North

Carolina which is the leading researcher

on beta corona viruses working with the

US government on a set of grant

proposals that

identified putting in the viral change

that created SARS cove 2 it's a grim

truth it's ugly it's been hidden from

view the reason I mention it in this

context is we don't have any global

governance that is effective right now

to control the manipulation of dangerous

pathogens like the manipulation that

created the pandemic and when it

happened and officially it took 7

million deaths but probably if you count

all of the deaths associated with COVID

it was probably closer to 20 million

deaths even when that happens it's never

properly investigated it's covered up

it's hidden from view this is a big

claim it's the first time that I hear it

can you tell us a bit more about this

how and why and

yeah and I didn't want to divert except

to say we need global government to keep

us

alive don't underestimate how much

things can get screwed up by dangerous

technologies that are not under proper

control just a word about this because

honestly I've spent I don't know how

much time over the last four and a half

years with other learning from others

because I'm not a scientist i'm a pretty

assiduous researcher but I depend on

what the scientists have helped me to

understand but

basically COVID is caused by a virus the

virus is called SARS cove 2 sars was the

original disease and SARS COVID 2 is the

name scientific name of the virus that

causes COVID 19

disease when you look at the virus

there's something very odd about it

for two major reasons it looks like it's

manipulated in the

laboratory of course that's not

absolutely

uh ironclad to prove ironclad would be

to get the emails and the lab

experiments and the lab notebooks and so

forth which we don't have because they

remain hidden from view but you can tell

from the genetic signature a lot and

there

are two main parts of the virus that

show my god someone was tampering with

this kind of

virus one of them

is four amino acids and for those of you

who remember your biochemistry that

means 12

nucleotides each three codes for one

amino acid there are four amino acids

that are inserted in this virus that

don't appear anywhere else in nature in

this kind this family of viruses which

is a bat family and in the research

proposals for many

years scientists at University of North

Carolina and some other places had the

idea of putting in that sequence to do

certain experiments because they knew

that if that sequence is put in it's

called a furine cleavage site it makes

the virus most likely much more

transmissible and dangerous to people so

they were studying that it was never

seen in nature but the idea was ah maybe

if we put it in it becomes very

dangerous and you can find the documents

explaining that's the experiment we want

to do now there's a lot more that can be

said but the point

is because of people who leaked

information because of freedom of

information act because of people who

talked we now have a very good

record of what most likely happened not

for sure but most likely and what most

likely happened is that our government

the US government funded research to put

this furine cleavage site into this

virus with the strange idea ladies and

gentlemen of creating a vaccine for bats

huh

what they wanted to do was to have

something that could be put into the air

in

caves in Southeast Asia that the bats

would

inhale and then make the bats immune to

new infections by these beta corona

viruses it sounds wild and it is but the

idea was that American soldiers fight in

Southeast Asia and they could get sick

from these viruses transmitted by the

bats so we should create vaccines

against bats honestly only the US

Department of Defense could come up with

this honestly I'm telling you but it's

not atypical it's really how the

government of the United States

operates so they did these experiments

most likely again I'm putting it at

99% and then they tested it on the bats

that the US has in

captivity in the government laboratory

in

Montana and the virus worked

it was transmitted in the

bats but there was only one problem

ladies and gentlemen the kind of bat

that the US has in

captivity isn't the kind of bat in

Southeast

Asia in Montana they're called Egyptian

fruit

bats but the bats

in Southeast Asia are called horseshoe

bats or rhoplus synicus bats in

particular in Eunan province China who

has those

bats who do you think has those bats in

captivity

the Wuhan Institute of Viology

so how about taking this test virus and

testing it in the bats in Wuhan

Institute of Viology you just send it by

mail oops what happened oh did I stick

myself did I breathe something I

shouldn't have breathed there was a lab

accident in

Wuhan and the next thing we

know several years later 20 million dead

so you think the United States did it to

harm China no the United States did it

most likely for the very reason it says

in a proposal you can find online by the

way if you're really interested in this

it's called the

diffuse proposal d E F U S E submitted

to something called DARPA which is the

defense department advanced research

program and you can find it online and

it explains what did they want to do

they wanted to make it safe for American

fighters in Southeast Asia not by

harming China but by protecting bats

from infection okay honestly pretty

weird but when you're rich you can do a

lot of weird things and that's one of

the weird things the United States did

and

incidentally

when the virus

appeared the scientists said "Oh

this looks not natural

something bad probably

happened and they said that on February

1st 2020 in a private phone call of the

top scientists that was then released by

a Freedom of Information Act and you

know what four days later those same

scientists wrote the first draft of a

paper saying this came from

nature that's called a coverup

so this was the next step of

this you

know we got diverted

stupidity is the answer out of stupidity

this happened out of stupidity this oh

my god the world's ruled by stupidity

okay so but by the way in a very

fascinating way the science is genius

brilliant the scientists who most likely

made this is the world's greatest

scientist on beta corona viruses he's a

genius you know what he can do you know

that a virus is is a sequence of DNA or

RNA

material so it's like letters A a G C A

G A C C and so forth 30,000 of those

base pairs this guy is so smart he

figured out if you give him the list of

30,000 letters he'll turn the letters

into a live virus that's genius so in

this sense the rule the world is ruled

by genius except not genius in what you

do with this genius

idiocy with what you do with it and the

same is true with nuclear weapons by the

way to come up with the nuclear

armaments

required the greatest scientific

genius of our time the Los

Alamos invention of the atomic bomb was

12 of the was led by 12 main but

hundreds of the leading physicists in

the world brilliant complete genius but

then it went to the US Army

a little

different to a general who said "Well

why don't we bomb the

Soviets?" Because that's a different

matter that's not

genius and so we have a big problem in

this world the science is way ahead of

us a way ahead of our

governance the AI is genius

and it took

basically from the 1950s till now it

took about 70 years to bring

about where we are right now in so many

breakthroughs of science but who's

governing this stuff donald J trump

good luck

English (auto-generated)

Did US Biotechnology Help to Create COVID-19?

Project Syndicate

May 27, 2022

Neil Harrison

Jeffrey D. Sachs

NEW YORK – When US President Joe Biden asked the United States Intelligence Community to determine the origin of COVID-19, its conclusion was remarkably understated but nonetheless shocking. In a one-page summary, the IC made clear that it could not rule out the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) emerged from a laboratory. 

But even more shocking for Americans and the world is an additional point on which the IC remained mum: If the virus did indeed result from laboratory research and experimentation, it was almost certainly created with US biotechnology and know-how that had been made available to researchers in China. 

To learn the complete truth about the origins of COVID-19, we need a full, independent investigation not only into the outbreak in Wuhan, China, but also into the relevant US scientific research, international outreach, and technology licensing in the lead-up to the pandemic. 

We recently called for such an investigation in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Some might dismiss our reasons for doing so as a “conspiracy theory.” But let us be crystal clear: If the virus did emerge from a laboratory, it almost surely did so accidentally in the normal course of research, possibly going undetected via asymptomatic infection. 

It is of course also still possible that the virus had a natural origin. The bottom line is that nobody knows. That is why it is so important to investigate all the relevant information contained in databases available in the US.

MISSED OPPORTUNITIES

Since the start of the pandemic in early 2020, the US government has pointed an accusatory finger at China. But while it is true that the first observed COVID-19 cases were in Wuhan, the full story of the outbreak could involve America’s role in researching coronaviruses and in sharing its biotechnology with others around the world, including China. 

US scientists who work with SARS-like coronaviruses regularly create and test dangerous novel variants with the aim of developing drugs and vaccines against them. Such “gain-of-function” research has been conducted for decades, but it has always been controversial, owing to concerns that it could result in an accidental outbreak, or that the techniques and technologies for creating new viruses could end up in the wrong hands. It is reasonable to ask whether SARS-CoV-2 owes its remarkable infectivity to this broader research effort. 

Unfortunately, US authorities have sought to suppress this very question. Early in the epidemic, a small group of virologists queried by the US National Institutes of Health told the NIH leadership that SARS-CoV-2 might have arisen from laboratory research, noting that the virus has unusual features that virologists in the US have been using in experiments for years – often with support from the NIH. 

How do we know what NIH officials were told, and when? Because we now have publicly available information released by the NIH in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. We know that on February 1, 2020, the NIH held a conference call with a group of top virologists to discuss the possible origin of the virus. On that call, several of the researchers pointed out that laboratory manipulation of the virus was not only possible, but according to some, even likely. At that point, the NIH should have called for an urgent independent investigation. Instead, the NIH has sought to dismiss and discredit this line of inquiry.

HEADS IN THE SAND 

Within days of the February 1 call, a group of virologists, including some who were on it, prepared the first draft of a paper on the “Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2.” The final draft was published a month later, in March 2020. Despite the initial observations on February 1 that the virus showed signs of possible laboratory manipulation, the March paper concluded that there was overwhelming evidence that it had emerged from nature. 

The authors claimed that the virus could not possibly have come from a laboratory because “the genetic data irrefutably show that SARS-CoV-2 is not derived from any previously used virus backbone.” Yet the single footnote (number 20) backing up that key claim refers to a paper from 2014, which means that the authors’ supposedly “irrefutable evidence” was at least five years out of date. 

Owing to their refusal to support an independent investigation of the lab-leak hypothesis, the NIH and other US federal government agencies have been subjected to a wave of FOIA requests from a range of organizations, including US Right to Know and The Intercept. These FOIA disclosures, as well as internet searches and “whistleblower” leaks, have revealed some startling information.

Consider, for example, a March 2018 grant proposal submitted to the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) by EcoHealth Alliance (EHA) and researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) and the University of North Carolina (UNC). On page 11, the applicants explain in detail how they intend to alter the genetic code of bat coronaviruses to insert precisely the feature that is the most unusual part of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. 

Although DARPA did not approve this grant, the work may have proceeded anyway. We just don’t know. But, thanks to another FOIA request, we do know that this group carried out similar gain-of-function experiments on another coronavirus, the one that causes Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). 

In yet other cases, FOIA disclosures have been heavily redacted, including a remarkable effort to obscure 290 pages of documents going back to February 2020, including the Strategic Plan for COVID-19 Research drafted that April by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Such extensive redactions deeply undermine public trust in science, and have only served to invite additional urgent questions from researchers and independent investigators.

THE FACTS OF THE CASE

Here are ten things that we do know. 

First, the SARS-CoV-2 genome is distinguished by a particular 12-nucleotide sequence (the genetic code) that serves to increase its infectivity. The specific amino acid sequence directed by this insertion has been much discussed and is known as a furin cleavage site (FCS).

Second, the FCS has been a target of cutting-edge research since 2006, following the original SARS outbreak of 2003-04. Scientists have long understood that the FCS holds the key to these viruses’ infectivity and pathophysiology. 

Third, SARS-CoV-2 is the only virus in the family of SARS-like viruses (sarbecoviruses) known to have an FCS. Interestingly, the specific form of the FCS that is present in SARS-CoV-2 (eight amino acids encoded by 24 nucleotides) is shared with a human sodium channel that has been studied in US labs. 

Fourth, the FCS was already so well known as a driver of transmissibility and virulence that a group of US scientists submitted a proposal to the US government in 2018 to study the effect of inserting an FCS into SARS-like viruses found in bats. Although the dangers of this kind of work have been highlighted for some time, these bat viruses were somehow considered to be in a lower-risk category. This exempted them from NIH gain-of-function guidelines, thereby enabling NIH-funded experiments to be carried out at the inadequate BSL-2 safety level.

Fifth, the NIH was a strong supporter of such gain-of-function research, much of which was performed using US-developed biotechnology and executed within an NIH-funded three-way partnership between the EHA, the WIV, and UNC.

Sixth, in 2018, a leading US scientist pursuing this research argued that laboratory manipulation was vital for drug and vaccine discovery, but that increased regulation could stymie progress. Many within the virology community continue to resist sensible calls for enhanced regulation of the most high-risk virus manipulation, including the establishment of a national regulatory body independent of the NIH.

Seventh, the virus was very likely circulating a lot earlier than the standard narrative that dates awareness of the outbreak to late December 2019. We still do not know when parts of the US government became aware of the outbreak, but some scientists were aware of the outbreak as of mid-December. 

Eighth, the NIH knew as early as February 1, 2020, that the virus could have emerged as a consequence of NIH-funded laboratory research, but it did not disclose that fundamental fact to the public or to the US Congress. 

Ninth, extensive sampling by Chinese authorities of animals in Wuhan wet markets and in the wild has found not a single wild animal harboring the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Despite this, there is no indication that the NIH has requested the laboratory records of US agencies, academic centers, and biotech companies involved in researching and manipulating SARS-like coronaviruses.

Tenth, the IC has not explained why at least some of the US intelligence agencies do in fact believe that a laboratory release was either the most likely or at least a possible origin of the virus. 

TIME FOR TRANSPARENCY

Given the questions that remain unanswered, we are calling on the US government to conduct a bipartisan investigation. We may never understand the origin of SARS-CoV-2 without opening the books of the relevant federal agencies (including the NIH and the Department of Defense), the laboratories they support, academic institutions that store and archive viral sequence data, and biotechnology companies.

A key objective of the investigation would be to shed light on a basic question: Did US researchers undertake research or help their Chinese counterparts to undertake research to insert an FCS into a SARS-like virus, thereby playing a possible role in the creation of novel pathogens like the one that led to the current pandemic? 

Investigations into COVID-19’s origins should no longer be secretive ventures led by the IC. The process must be transparent, with all relevant information being released publicly for use by independent scientific researchers. It seems clear to us that there has been a concerted effort to suppress information regarding the earliest events in the outbreak, and to hinder the search for additional evidence that is clearly available within the US. We suggest that a panel of independent researchers in relevant disciplines be created and granted access to all pertinent data in order to advise the US Congress and the public.

There is a good chance that we can learn more about the origins of this virus without waiting on China or any other country, simply by looking in the US. We believe such an inquiry is long overdue.

Neil L. Harrison is a professor at Columbia University. 

Jeffrey D. Sachs is University Professor at Columbia University, Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University and President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network.  

 https://www.project-syndicate.org/onpoint/did-us-technology-help-create-covid-19-in-china-by-neil-l-harrison-and-jeffrey-d-sachs-2022-05

Did US Biotechnology Help to Create COVID-19? — Jeffrey D. Sachs