Craig Venter of the NIH and Human Genome: Creating Synthetic Life | ” – trying to design what we want biology to do”

Agenda of the Human Genome Project: ” – for manufacturing and operating a complete human being.”

Playing God in Frankenstein’s Footsteps: Synthetic Biology and the Meaning of Life
– [ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2837218/ ]

Thanks to a pingback post by the following site: There Is No Pandemic, it led me to a very interesting video featuring a Mr. Craig Venter, delving into an incredibly topical subject – even though the video was made in 2010.

Don’t think synthetic life-forms are possible in vaccines? Or that there’s even an agenda to do this?

Craig Venter, genetic researcher for the NIH and the Human Genome Project, would tell you otherwise…

“operating system”

“all the characteristics of the first species disappear”

“new species emerges from this software”

“making the flu vaccine each year by using these new synthetic techniques”

Click image for archived video. Original source can be found here: [ https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-synthetic-life-form ]
“Craig Venter creates synthetic life form”
Full transcript. Some embellishment has been added for emphasis.

Craig Venter: “Well this has been about a 15 year process. It started back in 1995, when we sequenced the first two genomes in history. Including the smallest genome, that of mycoplasma genitalium. And we set out a goal to try and understand what the smallest genome you can have as an operating system, to try and understand the basic components of life. It’s taken us through this long journey. Much longer than we ever anticipated. But that’s what happens when you enter into areas that nobody’s ever been before.

So at first we had to learn how to write the genetic code to synthesize pieces. Because the largest piece that ever has been synthesized other than our work has been only 30,000 letters. The first chromosome we were trying to make was over 500,000. And the one that we ultimately made and report in this paper is over 1,000,000 letters of genetic code. And we start with 4 bottles of chemicals, and the computer code in the computer, the digital code in the computer from DNA sequence. So, just learning how to do the synthesis was mastering a lot of chemistry that has never been done before. And we learned sequentially over the years how to build larger and larger molecules.

In 2003 we reported making a 5,000 letter bacterial virus, 5X174, and how to error correct the pieces. So, we start with pieces of DNA coming off DNA synthesizers; they’re only about 50-80 letters long. That’s pretty much the limit of what you can make with a chemical synthesizer. So everything we make from that has to be putting these little pieces together. Much like having a box of legos and having to assemble them back in the right order to get what you started with. So it’s been progressive over this entire time period. We thought we would have this almost 3 years ago. But we kept running into very significant biological roadblocks.”

Interviewer: “All right. And what do you ultimately hope to do with a method like this?

Craig Venter: “Well, this is an important step, we think, both scientifically and philosophically. It certainly changed my views of definitions of life and how life works. It’s pretty stunning when you just replace the DNA software in the cell, and the cell instantly starts reading that new software, starts making a whole different set of proteins. And within a short while, all the characteristics of the first species disappear. And a new species emerges from this software that controls that cell going forward.

When we look at life forms we see them as sort of fixed entities. But this shows, in fact how dynamic they are. That they change from second to second. And that life is basically a result of an information process, a software process. Our genetic code is our software. And our cells are dynamically constantly reading that genetic code, making new proteins, the proteins make the other cellular components, and that’s what we see. But it’s hard to imagine how dynamic it is until we found, simply by replacing the software, it started making a whole new cell, whatever is defined by that software. So that’s, that’s a pretty important change in how we approach and think about life.

Also this is now the first time where we’ve started with information in the computer, built that software molecule, now over a million letters of genetic code, put that into a recipient cell, and have this process start where that information converted that cell into a new species. So this becomes a very powerful tool for trying to design what we want biology to do.

As leaders of competing genome projects, Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, and J. Craig Venter, president of Celera Genomics, were recognized, correctly, as the two most important players in the worldwide effort to spell out the 3 billion “letters” of the human genome–the biochemical recipe, encoded in our DNA, for manufacturing and operating a complete human being.

[ https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,998842,00.html ]

We have a wide range of applications, so at the biotech company that funded the synthetic genomics that Ham Smith and I started a few years back, we have a major deal with ExxonMobil to try and use algae to capture carbon dioxide and make new hydrocarbons that can go into the Exxon refineries. To try and replace taking the oil out of the ground.

There’s no natural algaes that we know that can do this at the scale it’s needed. So we’re going to have to use our synthetic genomic techniques to either heavily modify existing algaes or develop whole new ones from scratch that have all the parameters that we want. These same tools, these same processes can be used for making chemicals, for making food substances, we hope for cleaning up water.

But perhaps the most important immediate application is we’re already working at the Venter Institute and working with Novartis to try and make new vaccines very quickly; we think we can shorten the process by 99% for making the flu vaccine each year by using these new synthetic techniques. But I think it’s going to be one of those situations I tell audiences I talk to that ‘we’re entering a new era we’re limited mostly by our imaginations’.”

Interviewer: “Could you ever use a method like this with a higher organism? Something more complex than bacteria?

Craig Venter: “Well, it’s certainly not in the immediate future. Bacteria have much more simplified genetic systems. They don’t have the same complex regulation that higher organisms have. But there are a number of single cell eukaryotes.

So we’re eukaryotes because we have a nucleus, I think one of the key things we mastered with our studies, particularly since 2003, and we reported the latest results a few months ago in Science at the end of last year, is we can move chromosomes across the branches of life. So we can move from bacteria into eukaryotes, we use yeast for all these processes. We can take the chromosomes out of yeast and move them back into bacteria to create new life forms.

So a next step would be try to make a simplified eukaryote. Yeast is very key for bio-manufacturing, for ethanol production, etc. And if we can have even a more efficient yeast cell, and at the same time, try and understand all its components, I think we’ll be able to make synthetic eukaryotes. Higher animals, multi-cellular systems are, I think, projects for the much more distant future.”

Interviewer: “Actually I have a couple more questions. Just about how we distinguish between any sort of synthetically – organisms with synthetic genomes versus the natural ones? One question I guess would be about containment.”

[Interview cuts out a section]

Craig Venter: ” – we were when we first started down this process, what could be an artifact that could fool us into thinking we had created synthetic life, when in fact it was just a contaminate of the native chromosome? And, where would even a single molecule of native chromosome could fool us into thinking we had created a new cell?

So early on we started designing a process of putting watermarks in the genetic code. We did this in the first chromosome we reported two years ago, basically all of us that helped build the genetic code signed the DNA, coded our names into the chromosome.

With this genome we’ve gone a little bit further; we’ve put 4 major watermarks in. We’ve developed a new code for writing English language, other languages, with punctuation and numbers into the genetic code. In the first watermark we actually have this code that needs to be decoded for people to read the rest. We even have a website built into the genetic code that if people solve it they can let us know that they’ve been able to read it.

“- and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.”Revelation 13:17

All the authors of this study over the… certainly the last decade, our names are all encoded in this first genome. And we have three quotations built in there of adding a little philosophy to the genetic code at the same time. Which I think the chance of finding any of these in a naturally occurring genome is about as close to zero as you can get. So we can absolutely prove from the genetic changes, that we’ve been built in to the design of the chromosomes that it’s unquestionably the synthetic DNA that we made, not some natural contaminant.

A containment, that’s a really critical issue, and it’s one of the most important issues to us, and one of the number one questions I get asked in all my litera- all my lectures around the globe. And when we look at molecular biology for the last several decades, we all use e. coli in the laboratory, that genes from multiple species have been put in it over the years – probably tens of millions of experiments. And there’s not been a single accident. And the reason for that is that e. coli has a chemical dependency for growing in the laboratory.

So these are things we can start to build in to the design of synthetic genomes, we can build in suicide genes so they can’t escape. And so we can use artificial amino acids. There’s a number of approaches that we’re developing and other labs are developing to guarantee absolute containment.

And this first proof of principle, we’ve largely copied the mycoides genome, because as a control, if we couldn’t boot up something that was already known, we could never get to the design phase. We deleted 14 genes from this genome, and made all these other genetic modifications. This cell only grows on extremely rich [media(sp?)] on the laboratory.

The only other place it goes, the mycoides genome is a minor goat pathogen that causes mastitis in goats. We think we’ve eliminated the genes associated with that, but it will not grow outside of the laboratory unless it’s deliberately injected or sprayed into a goat. So, we don’t work with goats, so we think we have pretty good containment systems in the lab.

There’s selectable markers that’s dependent on a specific antibiotic. So these are early attempts, I think. These containment approaches would get far more sophisticated with the next versions of what we and others do.”

Interviewer: “All right. Well, are there any final points you’d like to make before we close?”

Craig Venter: “Well, this is the first synthetic cell that’s been made and we call it synthetic because the cell is totally derived from a synthetic chromosome made from 4 bottles of chemicals on a chemical synthesizer. Starting with information in the computer.

Before we did these experiments starting back in the late 90’s, we asked for a complete bioethical review, knowing we were going into uncharted territory, trying to create new species. The review group at the University of Pennsylvania published the results in Science in 1999. Since then there’s been lots of different review processes around the world. The Sloan Foundation funded my institute, the Venter Institute, along with MIT, and a Washington think tank, to look at the security issues concerning this. That report was published and can be downloaded from JCVI.org.

There’s been ongoing discussions in the U.S. government, in the E.U., the National Academy of Sciences has done reports on this. So I think this is the first incidence in science where the extensive bioethical review took place before the experiments were done. And it’s part of an ongoing process that we’ve been driving, trying to make sure that the science proceeds in an ethical fashion, that we’re being thoughtful about what we do, and looking forward to the implications to the future.”

End of transcript.

So here is undeniable proof, that the folks at the NIH and Human Genome Project have been trying to synthesize organisms for the sole purpose of creating new species/life forms, and using these techniques for vaccines, AND states that these synthetic substances WILL CHANGE DNA.

It all ties back to the NIH and the HUMAN GENOME PROJECT. The theory that the COVID vaccines are an attempt at a worldwide genome experiment project is becoming clearer every single day, backed up with all of the data that has come forward, backed up with all of the studies pointing to this very agenda, backed up with countless interviews, positions and documentations of the likes of Anthony Fauci, Christine Grady, Bill Gates, Craig Venter, Eric Lander, Klaus Schwab, Francis Collins, their institutes and cohorts GAVI, WEF, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, NIH, Human Genome Project, World Health Organization, United Nations, MIT, Harvard, etc., etc., etc.

“Venter and colleagues published their paper about creating a bacterial cell controlled by a chemically synthesized genome in the journal Science in May 2010.

“Some of you are asking, why do this? It’s great basic science, but there are some more compelling reasons,” he said, noting that synthetic DNA can be used to develop genomics-based vaccines.

“The National Institutes of Health has funded my institute to create synthetic pieces of every known flu virus, so anytime we need a new vaccine, we can just take these pieces off the shelf, and go through the assembly and have flu vaccine stocks in a very short time,” he said. “In the next year or two, you might get the first synthetic DNA vaccines.”

Web archive version: Synthetic life forms can produce vaccines, gobble up CO2 and more, says expert

Although the below excerpt specifies “intranasal”, there are also endeavors of injectable live attenuated vaccines as well:

“The company’s breakthrough Synthetic Attenuated Virus Engineering (SAVE) platform utilizes a computer algorithm to recode the genomes of viruses and construct live-attenuated vaccines to prevent viral infections or treat solid tumors.”

Web archive version: Codagenix and Serum Institute of India Announce Commencement of First-in-Human Trial of COVI-VAC, A Single Dose, Intranasal Live Attenuated Vaccine for COVID-19

[ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16778323/ ] “Genetically modified live attenuated parasites as vaccines for leishmaniasis” (2006)

[ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28620583/ ] “Engineering of Genetically Arrested Parasites (GAPs) For a Precision Malaria Vaccine” (2017)

[ https://www.niaid.nih.gov/news-events/investigational-malaria-vaccine-gives-strong-lasting-protection ] “Investigational Malaria Vaccine Gives Strong, Lasting Protection” (2021)“The vaccine combines live parasites with either of two widely used antimalarial drugs—an approach termed chemoprophylaxis vaccination.”

Now, with all of that being said, and with this outright admission by Craig Venter about their agenda, I have to bring up one of Richard Fleming’s latest criticism of ALL the doctors that have claimed to find what seems to be graphene oxide, nanobots, and/or parasitic-like organisms in the vaccines.

Firstly, this should have been approached in a more scientific approach to researching the vaccine’s contents.

While the other doctors are investigating these vaccines and are questioning its contents, even inviting other scientists and researchers to help them identify what these substances are, Dr. Fleming is undermining their research and dismissing their conclusions. Even implying, at one point, the mention of “credentials” as to whether or not to take one seriously.

Secondly… isn’t that precisely why we’re in the mess we’re in right now? Because SO many people decided to trust the likes of Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins? Does it matter how many so-called credentials one has to determine their sincerity and integrity or even professionalism? Doesn’t look like it to me. As long as a researcher is honest and looking for the truth, I will take their word over an overpaid “expert” any day. Especially ones who conduct inhumane, atrocious experiments on other living beings.

Then, of course, when addressing anything in a scientific approach, and certainly before reaching concrete conclusions and dismissing any other research (like the fraudulent Lancet paper did, for example…) one must consider ALL variables. Take the following for consideration:

how many vials total did Richard Fleming test?

were they from the same batch, or all different batches? Different brands, or all the same brand?

were all these vials from the same country? – it is becoming more and more apparent that different countries are getting different doses/batches

at what magnification did Fleming conduct his tests compared to all of the other doctors/scientists?

are we considering that some batches/doses will contain certain substances while others consist of saline solutions only – as what has already been theorized?

if different countries are getting different batches, there is a chance that there will be different substances for each country – to perhaps test a wider set of material/organisms and/or to target certain people’s DNA/ethnicity/etc.?

what is the “garbage” and “debris” that Fleming is referencing? “Garbage” has to be something. Was there an attempt to identify these compositions? Or just label them all with the term “debris” and “garbage”?

Fleming also mentions the term “crystalline” on more than one occasion… does he realize that there are indeed nanocrystal-graphene hybrid material that has been synthesized? Does he know every possible thing that can be synthesized or genetically modified using either Venter’s DNA genetic modification technique or the CRISPR technology?

“Nanocrystal-graphene have been proposed as a new kind of promising hybrid for a wide range of application areas including catalysts, electronics, sensors, biomedicine, and energy storage, etc. Although a variety of methods have been developed for the preparation of hybrids, a facile and general synthetic approach is still highly required.”

“A rich library of highly crystalline nanocrystals, with types including noble metal, metal oxide, magnetic material and semiconductor were successfully grown on chemically converted graphene (CCG), which is simultaneously reduced from GO during the synthesis.”

[ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22699842/ ] “Generalized syntheses of nanocrystal-graphene hybrids in high-boiling-point organic solvents”

Is Mr. Fleming aware of all the technological and biological advancements and agendas in the arena of nanotechnology in combination with virus-based particles?

“Genetically modified viruses offer a general route for the production of materials with complex nanoscale detail, for use either directly or as templates. It appears likely that modified viruses will feature prominently in the nanotechnology of the immediate future. The possible commercial exploitation of virus-templated materials includes nanowires, high surface area materials for battery electrodes, detectors, catalytic material, light harvesting devices, quantum dots, and tunable photonic devices.”

[ https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9783527671403.hlc094 ] “7 Virus Particle-Based Liquid Crystals”

Will Mr. Fleming attempt to identify these so-called “garbage” and “debris” and conduct further studies with a higher magnification, or continue to shoot down other’s legitimate attempts at trying to figure out exactly what these particles are? Notice he never tries to identify what ANYTHING in the vaccine is, other than mentioning “lipid nanoparticles”. Only giving his opinion of what it’s not.

And with all of the evidence showing that genetically modified organisms is not only highly probable but also incredibly likely, considering the NIH’s many, many, MANY horrific experiments and crimes against humanity (and animal life), and Craig Venter’s ventures, not to mention Bill Gates’ very own admission and extensive funding in this matter, I am ultimately left questioning Fleming’s motives.

Bill Gates: “You know, is there something to worry about with medicines, that is might – some of them might have side effects? Do we need safety testing? I mean and we’re taking things that are… you know, genetically modified organisms and we’re injecting them in little kids arms. We just shoot them right into the vein.”

Bottom line: yes, these vaccines are extremely dangerous. And if the ones in control of pushing these worldwide vaccines are also in control of the Human Genome Project and attempts at re-writing our DNA, our best bet would be to avoid these at all costs and address these as the crimes they are.

Fact checking is extremely important. I want to reiterate not to take everything at face value; no matter what you read, where you read it from, or who you hear it from. And to be clear, do not rely on “fact checking” websites to give you accurate information either. These are just as likely, (if not even more likely…), to feed false information and false debunking accounts to manipulate the reader. Please take everything into consideration before adhering to a certain narrative – and always keep your mind open to other possibilities.

Fair use disclaimer: Some of the links from this article are provided from different sources/sites to give the reader extra information and cite the sources, but does not necessarily mean that I endorse the contents of the site itself. Additionally, I have tried to provide links to the contents that I used from other sites as an educational and/or entertainment means only; if you feel that any information deserves further citation or request to be clarified, please let me know through the contact page.

Featured image by PublicDomainPictures from Pixabay

FLASHBACK | COVER-UP: ‘Scientific Reductivism’, The Talented Mr. Fauci

A look into Anthony Fauci’s involvement into medical/health corruption.

In light of recent revelations, with the now admission from Fauci himself, that the coronavirus may have originated (been created) in the Wuhan lab instead of occurring naturally, and that it would be worth it to take a closer look –

(although last year every mainstream news media and “fact-checker” on the planet was insisting that this assertion was “debunked” and a “baseless conspiracy theory”)

– not to mention the gain of function controversy and the $600,000 funding (at least) that Fauci sent to the Wuhan Institute specifically for bat-to-human transmission viruses – and Fauci’s OWN admission in May 2020 that “The best evidence shows the virus behind the pandemic was not made in a lab in China”,

I felt it would be prudent to bring up the following article as a flashback to the corruption that Fauci and his cohorts have been engaged in with other viruses that have haunted humankind.

Before I get into that, I also want to highlight this particular section as another opportunity to present how many times the lead talking head of directing the coronavirus response has flip-flopped on his OPINION (NOT FACT) – on what should be founded on scientific basis and actual research, not just based on assumptions, “leanings”, and “indications”:

“If you look at the evolution of the virus in bats, and what’s out there now it’s very, very strongly leaning toward this [virus] could not have been artificially or deliberately manipulated—the way the mutations have naturally evolved,” he responded.

“A number of very qualified evolutionary biologists have said that everything about the stepwise evolution over time strongly indicates that it evolved in nature and then jumped species,” Fauci added.

In May 2021, PolitiFact’s Kate Sanders asked Fauci if he was “still confident” that COVID-19 developed in nature.

“No, actually … I am not convinced about that,” Dr. Fauci said. “I think we should continue to investigate what went on in China until we continue to find out to the best of our ability what happened.”

“Certainly, the people who investigated it say it likely was the emergence from an animal reservoir that then infected individuals,” he continued, “but it could have been something else, and we need to find that out. So, you know, that’s the reason why I said I’m perfectly in favor of any investigation that looks into the origin of the virus.”

– Source: Dr. Fauci Keeps Changing His Wuhan Lab Funding Story, Jay Battacharya Tells Laura Ingraham

Uh huh… And why has his sudden inclination to actually investigate the origins of the coronavirus instead of dismissing it as most likely from a natural biological transmission now such a huge agenda for Mr. Fauci? After A WHOLE YEAR of repeated insinuations that it was naturally occurring?

It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with Rand Paul’s testimony that he has proof that the gain-of-function research for this SPECIFIC virus came under the direction of Fauci and his institution, right? Exposing the relationship that Dr. Shi Zhengli (who perhaps unwittingly made mention of her collaboration) has with the NIH institution, thanking Fauci personally for funding the research at the end of her paper?

VIDEO: Rand Paul Says Fauci ‘Absolutely’ Committed Perjury When Denying Wuhan Gain-of-Function Research

Methinks the WHO is obviously complicit in this whole ordeal as well…

“A joint report into the origins of COVID by the World Health Organization (WHO) and China has found it is “extremely unlikely” that the virus escaped from a lab, according to a draft version seen by AP News.”
‘Extremely Unlikely’ COVID Came From Lab Draft WHO Report Says, As Ex-CDC Head Touts Claim

I don’t know if I have to mention it, but Mr. Fauci is not the only one who should be under the radar… We already know about Bill and Melinda Gates’ involvement in all of this as well, but what about Mrs. Fauci? What does she do, again?

“Christine Grady is an American nurse, bioethicist, and a senior investigator. She currently serves as the Chief of the Department of Bioethics at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center. She also serves as Head of the Department’s Section on Human Subjects Research.”
Christine Grady Wiki Bio

“Head of the Department’s Section on Human Subjects Research

…Hmm… make of that what you will.

FLASHBACK: The original article was first published on April 05, 2020.

The following information has been reblogged from rielpolitick.com
(original post can be found at journal-neo.org | The Remarkable Doctor A. Fauci)

COVER-UP: ‘Scientific Reductivism’, The Talented Mr. Fauci

Source – journal-neo.org

“…Fauci, Birx and Redfield, all incestuously complicit in the HIV/AIDS frauds and malpractice, today hold the future of not only American public health, but also of the entire world economy in their hands. Not a good situation. As their work on the proved HIV=IDS fraud shows, the coronavirus tests do not at all prove presence of a deadly virus in any patient. If this is so, it is perhaps the greatest criminal fraud in medical history”

The Remarkable Doctor A. Fauci – By F. William Engdahl

Dramatic political and social decisions are being made across the United States and around the world on what emergency quarantine measures and other steps must be taken. In many cases the radical and severe measures, such as shutting down the world economy, are being justified by COVID-19 case projections of morbidity into the future. If there is one person who is the face of the current strategy of dealing with the coronavirus in Washington it is the Director of the US National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) of the NIH, Dr. Tony Fauci. What major media conveniently leave out in discussing Fauci’s role is his highly controversial and conflicted history since he first joined NIAID in 1984 during the beginnings of the AIDS panic. His role then sheds valuable light on his remarkable and highly controversial actions today.

Tony Fauci, a leading member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, is being promoted by major US media such as CNN, MSNBC or the New York Times as the great expert on all related to the Covid19 outbreak. He had dismissed the President’s efforts to promote a known malaria medication as treatment for severe corona patients as “anecdotal,” even though seven years before he backed the same drug. He has publicly taken projections from an institute created in Washington State by the Gates Foundation, the same foundation that virtually owns the WHO and owns major stakes in the leading vaccine makers, to claim that up to 200,000 Americans could die from COVID19. Fauci stated that COVID19 is “probably about 10 times more lethal than the seasonal flu,” which would mean 300-600,000 coronavirus deaths this year, at the same time in a respected medical journal he compared Covid-19 as similar to seasonal flu in morbidity. When questioned how long the shutdown of much of the US economy must last, Fauci replied only when there is zero new covid19 positive tested cases, something impossible given the defective testing. He has also backed direct human tests of novel vaccines with no prior animal tests, including with radical non-tested mRNA gene-edited vaccines.

Fauci has more influence over US national policy on the unprecedented Covid-19 pandemic than anyone, including the President.

Much of media treats him with awe as an unimpeachable scientist, one of the world’s finest. A closer look at Anthony Fauci’s career gives a starkly different picture, a very alarming one in fact.

America’s AIDS Czar

Tony Fauci has held the top post at the NIAID in Washington for an astonishing 36 years. Today he is well past retirement age at 79, and holds the funds to determine which drug companies or university researchers will get precious government funds or not from NIAID’s annual $5 billion budget.

Let’s go back to 1984 when Fauci was named head of NIAID during the Reagan era. That year an AIDS researcher, Robert Gallo, working under Fauci, held a press conference to announce that he had “discovered” the AIDS virus. He said it was HIV– human immunodeficiency virus. The shocking announcement which went around the world, was in complete disregard of scientific procedures of prior peer-reviewed published scientific evidence, including the required electron microscope analyses. It was a case of “science by press conference” as a critical scientist, Prof. Peter H. Duesberg described it. Duesberg was an award-winning researcher at Berkeley who isolated the first cancer gene through his work on retroviruses in 1970, and mapped the genetic structure of these viruses.

For Gallo and Fauci, that was unimportant as millions in research funds flowed into NIAID to research the new virus, HIV. Fauci and Gallo claimed that AIDS was highly contagious, also by sexual transmission, especially among homosexual men. Notably, before the Gallo claim to have found the HIV AIDS virus, NIAID had been doing research on the role of drugs, poppers or nitrites, proven immune-suppressants, in the deaths of the earliest AIDS patients. That was quickly dropped in favor of researching a “cure” for AIDS. Media was told that AIDS was the “public health threat of the Century.” Gallo went on to make millions on his patented blood test for HIV, despite the fact that the test was often giving false positives and did not test directly for the alleged virus but for active antibodies, something immunology practice said was not valid, as antibodies merely suggested a past infection response and not necessarily presence of AHIV. At this time in the 1980’S Fauci was responsible for AIDS research at NIAID, a post he still holds.

False Tests?

The issue of HIV/AIDS tests is central. While a frightened world was clamoring for a test, Gallo and Fauci promoted their deeply flawed tests of antibodies. In 2006 Gallo claimed, “HIV tests were highly accurate from the time they were developed in 1984 and have become much more accurate over time…” Highly accurate in 1984 but more accurate than highly over time? Gallo added in response to criticism, “A PCR test for the presence of the virus itself can accurately determine a child’s HIV status.”

In a sharp rebuttal of the Gallo claims, claims endorsed by Fauci and the NIAID as well as CDC, Roberto A. Giraldo, MD and Etienne de Harven, MD, the scientist who produced the first electron micrograph of a retrovirus, pointed out that both the ELISA and Western blot, and a genetic test, the PCR or ‘Viral Load’ test,” the two major tests used to determine if one has AIDS, are invalid. “None of these tests detect the HIV virus itself, nor do they detect HIV particles.” They add that there are “more than 70 different documented conditions that can cause the antibody tests to react positive without an HIV infection.” Among the false positive cases are influenza, the common cold, leprosy or the existence of pregnancy. The same tests are used today to determine SARS-CoV-2-positive.

They concluded, “The fact that after 25 years of intense research HIV has been neither isolated nor purified in terms of classical virology indicates to us that the infectious view of AIDS as a contagious viral disease is based on an apparently non-existent microbe!”

Giraldo and de Harven declared, “The alleged existence of HIV was asserted from the study of proteins, reverse transcriptase activity (RT), and RNA fragments that were found in culture supernatants, not from the direct analysis of purified viral particles.” The CDC requires a positive antibody test for HIV to determine AIDS in the USA. Yet in Africa since 1985 the WHO requires no HIV test or any other laboratory test. Merely the patient’s symptoms that can include weight loss, chronic diarrhea, prolonged fever, persistent cough and such, symptoms endemic to chronic poverty, malnutrition and lack of sanitation.

Yet this fraud has shaped the career of Tony Fauci for more than 35 years. Fauci as head of NIAID has taken millions from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation as well as the Clinton Foundation along with tens of billions from US taxpayers for this bogus research. Suspiciously, the 2006 article by Giraldo and de Harven was suddenly retracted by the journal in 2019 just before the coronavirus Wuhan outbreak.

Despite the fact that he knew the established rules of virology, Fauci, as head of NIAID, recommended the Burroughs Wellcome chemotherapy drug, AZT as a “preventive drug” for HIV diagnosed patients even without symptoms! Burroughs Wellcome gave NIAID the study that was deliberately biased for AZT. Fauci even backed AZT for pregnant women despite the grave risk to the fetus.

One mark of pregnancy in all women is a higher level of antigens as the natural immune system fights any infection to protect the fetus. AZT or Retrovir, a failed leukemia drug, has been proven to be a highly toxic drug. It was approved for AIDS testing in a record 5 days by Fauci and the US Government in 1987. Today despite more than thirty years funded research and billions of dollars, no effective vaccine for HIV/AIDS exists.

Fauci and Gilead

According to people who have studied the role of Tony Fauci as head of NIAID, his focus has been what is called scientific reductivism, described as “a 19 Century-style, single-germ theory for a complex web of factors that collapsed the immune systems of a subset of gay men in the early 1980s.” He has refused to explore the documentation that a variety of lethal drugs and other toxins such as nitrites could play a role. As a result he has wasted tens of billions of taxpayer dollars since 1984 on dead end experiments.

One of his most nefarious was his collaboration with Gilead Sciences.

Not satisfied with having developed a false positive test for AIDS and having gained FDA fast-track approval for AZT to treat HIV-positive patients with serious illness symptoms, Fauci decided to collaborate with Gilead (as in the Biblical “balm of Gilead”) on what came to be called PrEP experiments.

Fauci in 2007 began to finance clinical trials of the AZT drugs in HIV “negatives,” on the theory the chemotherapy would “protect” them from becoming “positive.” That is, testing toxic HIV drugs on otherwise healthy persons to “insure” they never got AIDS. If it sounds mad, it was. Gilead supplied the drug, Truvada, to NIAID between 2007-2012 for Phase III human tests on HIV negative subjects. Four tests of at least 2,000 and up to 5,000 test subjects each, were done. The project was called “pre-exposure prophylaxis” or “PrEP.” Healthy subjects were given doses of chemotherapy drug Truvada on the thesis it could prevent them from one day getting HIV-positive. CDC, in its May 2014 recommendation urged physicians to prescribe Truvada for negatives in the so-called “risk groups,” an official government imprimatur for an extremely profitable drug.

The FDA ignored two of the four Truvada tests that had failed and been halted. Despite that and owing to data manipulation by Fauci’s NIAID and Gilead, the FDA approved the dangerous Truvada for PrEP. Today Gilead lists the side effects of Truvada: Kidney problems, including kidney failure; worsening Hepatitis B; too much lactic acid in your blood (lactic acidosis), which can lead to death; severe liver problems, which can lead to death; bone problems. They state that Truvada “can help reduce the risk of getting HIV-1 through sex, when taken every day and used together with safer sex practices.”

The Fauci-Gilead scam of promoting Truvada for healthy people to “reduce risk” of HIV is a marker for the level of medical malpractice and in some cases evident criminal abuse of human health that the current White House coronavirus guru, A. Fauci, represents.

Fauci and COVID-19

In October, 2019 Fauci and his NIAID got $100 million from the Gates Foundation to develop “gene-based” therapies for HIV and sickle cell disease. That means Fauci still to the time of the first claims of novel coronavirus in Wuhan China, Fauci was still promoting a 35-year fraud around HIV. Fauci is also part of the Gates Foundation cabal. In 2012 Fauci was named one of the five Leadership Council of the Gates Foundation-created Global Vaccine Action Plan.

This is highly relevant to his role today as the Trump Administration coronavirus “pope.” Has his NIAID or any other laboratory in the world rigorously, with electron microscopy, isolated and purified samples of patients tested SARS-CoV-2 positive for Covid-19? Or are the virus proofs as faulty as Fauci and the AIDS clique have made for HIV?

In addition NIAID is working with Gilead to conduct Phase II human trials on Gilead’s drug, remdesivir, as a potential treatment for hospitalized adult patients diagnosed with COVID-19.

A coincidence?

Relevant also is the fact that all top scientific advisers to the US President’s Task Force on COVID-19 are tied since decades to the bogus and destructive HIV/AIDS research and propagation of false theories. Alongside Tony Fauci of NIAID stands Deborah L. Birx, M.D., Obama appointee as US Global AIDS Coordinator who worked under Tony Fauci at NIAID from 1983-1986.

Robert Redfield is the current Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, center of the recent coronavirus testing scandal. Redfield cofounded with the discredited Robert Gallo, former Fauci colleague in the AIDS scandals of the early 1980’s at NIH, the Institute of Human Virology based at University of Maryland. Redfield and Birx also coauthored numerous scientific articles on purported HIV vaccines, none of which have been effective.

Fauci, Birx and Redfield, all incestuously complicit in the HIV/AIDS frauds and malpractice, today hold the future of not only American public health, but also of the entire world economy in their hands. Not a good situation. As their work on the proved HIV=IDS fraud shows, the coronavirus tests do not at all prove presence of a deadly virus in any patient. If this is so, it is perhaps the greatest criminal fraud in medical history.

_____________________

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

https://journal-neo.org/2020/04/15/the-remarkable-doctor-a-fauci/

ONE LAST NOTE FROM E.A.R. (excerpt below taken from the post “Anthony Fauci Caught ‘Lying’ – Several Times”)

An interesting piece from 1994 on Kary Mullis and his views on a couple of questionable individuals:

In the end, “Nightline” ran a two-part series, the first on Kary Mullis, the second on the HIV debate. Mullis was hired by ABC for a two-week period, to act as their scientific consultant and direct them to sources.

The show was superb, and represented a historic turning point, possibly even the end of the seven-year media blackout on the HIV debate. But it still didn’t fulfill Mullis’ ultimate fantasy. “What ABC needs to do,” says Mullis, “is talk to [Chairman of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Dr. Anthony] Fauci and [Dr. Robert] Gallo [one of the discoverers of HIV] and show that they’re assholes, which I could do in ten minutes.

But I point out, Gallo will refuse to discuss the HIV debate, just as he’s always done.

“I know he will,” Mullis shoots back, anger rising in his voice. “But you know what? I would be willing to chase the little bastard from his car to his office and say, ‘This is Kary Mullis trying to ask you a goddamn simple question,’ and let the cameras follow. If people think I’m a crazy person, that’s okay. But here’s a Nobel Prize-winner trying to ask a simple question from those who spent $22 billion and killed 100,000 people. It has to be on TV. It’s a visual thing. I’m not unwilling to do something like that.”

He pauses, then continues. “And I don’t care about making an ass of myself because most people realize I am one.”

(Kary Mullis)
The Corona Simulation Machine: Why the Inventor of The “Corona Test” Would Have Warned Us Not To Use It To Detect A Virus

It seems as if this self-described “ass” actually has a heart of gold and was trying to expose possible corruption as early as the 1990’s.

As Celia Farber, the interviewer, mentions: “One time, in 1994, when I called to talk to him about how PCR was being weaponized to “prove,” almost a decade after it was asserted, that HIV caused AIDS, he actually came to tears.

Sadly Kary Mullis passed away on August 17, 2019, allegedly from pneumonia. Just weeks away from when Event 201 took place in October 2019, and a few more weeks from when an actual “surprise outbreak” erupted, allegedly as early as November 2019. And just a couple of months after that, we have the PCR tests that Mr. Kary Mullis himself invented and was against using for viral detection, being used (and abused) for viral detection en masse – at the behest of the “expert scientists”.

Fact checking is extremely important. I want to reiterate not to take everything at face value; no matter what you read, where you read it from, or who you hear it from. And to be clear, do not rely on “fact checking” websites to give you accurate information either. These are just as likely, (if not even more likely…), to feed false information and false debunking accounts to manipulate the reader. Please take everything into consideration before adhering to a certain narrative – and always keep your mind open to other possibilities.

Fair use disclaimer: Some of the links from this article are provided from different sources/sites to give the reader extra information and cite the sources, but does not necessarily mean that I endorse the contents of the site itself. Additionally, I have tried to provide links to the contents that I used from other sites as an educational and/or entertainment means only; if you feel that any information deserves further citation or request to be clarified, please let me know through the contact page.

Get an Earful

The 5G Roll Out: EMF Radiation, Devastating Health Impacts, Social and Economic Implications. Crimes Against Humanity? - What are the real effects of 5G radiation? & "Why is 5G Important for the Fourth Industrial Revolution?"
Is This Post Legitimately Detailing a Global Government Plan Using COVID as the Catalyst? | If So, It May be Related to a Previous Genocide Experiment - "THE PLAN is essentially to turn every citizen of every country, violently against their own government."
The Real Reason They Want to Give COVID Jabs to Kids. “Vaccine Makers Want Zero Liability” - "The reason they did 16 is because 16- and 17-year-olds are still on the children’s vaccination schedule. And then the manufacturer gets full liability protection."
Could an Illusion be SO Real – That it Tricks Our Very Senses? | Technology/Studies Shows it’s Possible - While virtual reality could be a dangerous enterprise - our own minds pose even more important concerns.
Sofia Smallstorm Warned of DNA Genetic Altering and the Transhumanist Agenda Back in 2011 - "- self-replicating nanotechnology will infuse everything around us with itself."
Dr. Ricardo Delgado of La Quinta Columna Connects the “Vaccine” Graphene Oxide Nanotechnology to the Great Reset/Transhumanism Agenda - Graphene oxide can map our brain, and "collect information such as memories, local thoughts, sensations, emotions, or feelings."