Analysis by Dr. Joseph
Mercola Fact Checked July 10, 2022
Video Link:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/BGW232tvrj1H/
PDF: https://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/Public/2022/July/PDF/is-coronavirus-a-biological-weapon-pdf.pdf
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
·
Francis Boyle, who drafted the Biological Weapons
Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, believes COVID-19 is a weaponized pathogen that
escaped from Wuhan City’s Biosafety Level (BSL) 4 facility
·
A Lancet paper published by physicians who treated
some of the first COVID-19 patients in China showed that patient zero, the one
believed to have started the transmission, was nowhere near the Wuhan seafood
market. What’s more, there were no bats sold in or even close to the market
·
SARS-CoV-2 appears to be a benign bat coronavirus
modified to integrate spike proteins that allows the virus to enter human cells
by attaching to ACE-2 receptors
·
The virus also appears to have been modified to
integrate an envelope protein from HIV called GP141, which tends to impair the
immune system. A third modification appears to involve nanotechnology, which
allows the virus to remain airborne longer
This article was previously published April 26, 2020,
and has been updated with new information.
Francis Boyle,
a former advisory board member for the Council for Responsible Genetics, is a
professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law.
His educational
background1 includes an
undergraduate degree from the University of Chicago, a juris doctor (lawyer)
degree from Harvard and a Ph.D. in political science. For decades, he's
advocated against the development and use of bioweapons, which he suspects
COVID-19 is.
In fact, Boyle
was the one who called for biowarfare legislation at the Biological Weapons
Convention of 1972, and the one who drafted the Biological Weapons
Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, which was passed unanimously by both houses of
Congress and signed into law by George Bush Sr.
In our first,
March 8, 2020, interview, Boyle shared his views on the origins of the novel
coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. Here, we continue our discussion, as more details have
emerged about this virus. One of the criticisms raised since our last interview
is that Boyle has no formal training in virology. When asked what makes him
qualified to speak about this particular virus, he says:
"I went to
the University of Chicago, which is one of the top five universities in the
country, if not the world. There I took their bio pre-med sequence, which was
biochemistry, population biology and genetics, and got straight A's.
I was in there
competing with all the University of Chicago bio pre-med students for grades
and my biochem lab partner went to Harvard Medical School.
I won the
University of Chicago's Sigma Zi award and prize in biology for my graduating
year. They gave out one per year and it usually went to seniors, but in my
case, they had to make a special exception because I was a graduating junior.
So, yes, I'm
not a scientist, but one of the reasons the Council for Responsible Genetics
asked me to get involved was that my knowledge in this field was well-known to
my life science friends there on the Harvard faculty, and that's how I got
involved here.
I had basic
rudimentary training, actually very good training, at the University of
Chicago, and my professors there, professor friends at Harvard in the life
sciences, I guess they vouched for me. So, when I was asked to join shortly
after CRG was founded in 1983, I agreed to do so and they asked me to handle
their biological warfare work."
SARS-CoV-2 — A Biological
Warfare Weapon
"Novel
coronavirus" means it is a new virus not previously known to previously
infect humans. The currently held conventional view is that SARS-CoV-2 was
transmitted through animals (zoonotic transmission), specifically bats. Boyle
dismissed this notion in our initial interview, and still refutes the idea.
While a
widely-cited paper,2 published in the Nature journal on February
3, 2020, claims to establish that SARS-CoV-2 is a coronavirus of bat origin
that then jumped species, the work of one of the authors of that paper, Shi
Zhengli, actually involved the weaponization of the SARS virus. (Another Nature
paper3 published that same
day reiterates the idea that the COVID-19 pandemic is zoonotically
transmitted.)
However,
according to Boyle, other scientific literature establishes that this is indeed
an engineered synthetic virus that was not transmitted from animals to humans without
human intervention.
For starters, a
Lancet paper4 published
February 15, 2020, by physicians who treated some of the first COVID-19
patients in China showed that patient zero, the one believed to have started
the transmission, was nowhere near the Wuhan seafood market.
What's more,
there were no bats sold in or even close to the market. At least one-third of
the patients reviewed also had no exposure or links to that market. This data
supports the counter-hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 was not zoonotically
transmitted but is in fact an engineered virus.
By mid-2020
even U.S. politicians and intelligence agencies were starting to say they
believed the virus leaked from the Wuhan BSL4 lab5,6 In our first
interview, Boyle discussed published research establishing that the novel
coronavirus is SARS, which is a weaponized version of the coronavirus to begin
with Wuhan BSL 4 lab, with added gain-of-function capabilities that increases
its virulence (makes it spread easier and faster).
"I also
went through the scientific article where the Australian health board working
with Wuhan … genetically engineered HIV into SARS," Boyle says. "So,
that is all verified in scientific papers. In addition, it seems to me that
they took that back to the [Wuhan] BSL4 and applied nanotechnology to it.
The size of the
molecules are maybe 120 microns, which indicates to me we are dealing with
nanotechnology. That's [something] you need to do in a BSL4. Biological weapons
nanotechnology is so dangerous, people working with it have to wear a moon suit
with portable air …
We also know
that one of the cooperating institutions [to Wuhan BSL4] was Harvard, and that
the chairman of the Harvard chemistry department, [Dr. Charles Lieber], a
specialist in nanotechnology, set up an entire laboratory in Wuhan where
[according to reports] he specialized in applying nanotechnology to chemistry
and biology.
My guess is,
based on what I've read in the literature, that they tried to weaponize all
that together. And that is SARS-CoV-2 that we are dealing with now.
So, it's SARS,
which is genetically engineered biowarfare agent to begin with. Second, it has
gain-of-function properties, which makes it more lethal, more infectious. It
has HIV in there. That was confirmed by an Indian scientist … and it looks like
nanotechnology [has been used] … An MIT scientist who did a study found that it
traveled 27 feet through the air. And that, I guess, was in lab conditions.
That, I think,
is why it's so infectious, and that is what I believe we are dealing with here
… [This is] why the 6-foot [social distancing recommendation] by the CDC … is
preposterous. Even doubling that will do you no good. If there is
nanotechnology, it floats in the air …
I am not saying
that China deliberately released this, shooting itself in the foot. But it was
clear they were developing an extremely dangerous unknown biological weapon
that had never been seen before, and it leaked out of the lab.
And as you see
in the Washington Post,7 U.S.
State Department officials … [reported] back to Washington that there were
inadequate safety precautions and procedures in that lab to begin with. We also
know that SARS has leaked out of other Chinese biological warfare labs. So
right now, I believe that is what happened here …
I personally
believe that until our political leaders come clean with the American people,
both at the White House and in Congress and our state government, and publicly
admit that this is an extremely dangerous offensive biological warfare weapon
that we are dealing with, I do not see that we will be able to confront it and
to stop it, let alone defeat it."
The Origin of SARS-CoV-2
While Boyle
made the origin of SARS-CoV-2 clear in our initial conversation, as I started
reading some of the literature it really was shocking because one of the
primary investigators on the 2015 paper8 from the University
of North Carolina — "A SARS-like Cluster of Circulating Bat Coronaviruses
Shows Potential for Human Emergence" — was Dr. Shi Zhengli, a virologist
who in 2010 had published a paper9 discussing the weaponization of the SARS
virus.
Normally, while
the coronavirus found in bats may be SARS,10 it typically does not
infect humans as it does not target the ACE-2 receptor. The infectious agent
causing the current pandemic is called SARS-CoV-2 — SARS standing for
"serious acute respiratory infection" and CoV-2 indicating that it's
a second type of SARS coronavirus known to infect humans.
SARS-CoV-2, of
course, contains the genetic modification to attach to ACE2 receptors in human
cells, which allows it to infect them. Zhengli's publications show that she
engineered this bat coronavirus into one that crosses species and infects
humans. She was in fact working on this for more than 10 years.
"That is
why I said SARS was a bioengineered warfare weapon to begin with," Boyle says. "And that
is what … [the University of] North Carolina and … the Australian lab were
trying to make even more dangerous with the gain-of-function and the HIV. So …
SARS was a biological warfare [agent] to begin with, it leaked, and that is the
origin of the [COVID-19] epidemic."
In addition, an
Indian paper11,12 that ended up being withdrawn due to intense political pressure,
shows a specific envelope protein from the HIV virus called GP41 was integrated
in the RNA sequences of SARS-CoV-2. In other words, the implication is that the
HIV virus was genetically engineered into SARS.
So, in summary,
SARS-CoV-2 appears to be a bioengineered bat coronavirus13 — which was initially
benign and nontransmittable to humans. Zhengli then genetically modified the
virus to integrate spike proteins that allows the virus to enter human cells by
attaching to ACE-2 receptors. That was the first modification.
The second
modification was to integrate an envelope protein from HIV called GP141, which
tends to impair the immune system. A third modification appears to involve
nanotechnology to make the virus light enough to remain airborne for a long
time, apparently giving it a range of up to 27 feet.14
Nanotech Expert With Wuhan
Connection Arrested
While the BSL4
lab in Wuhan may have leaked the virus, its creation does not appear to be
limited to the Chinese. As noted by Boyle in his comment above, the chairman of
the Harvard department of chemistry, nanoscience expert Dr. Charles Lieber, was
arrested in 2020 by federal agencies, suspected of illegal dealings with China.15 Lieber denied the
allegations, but was convicted in December 2021 of lying about his China ties.16
In total, he
was found guilty of six felonies, including falsely-reported tax returns. In
February 2022, Lieber's attorneys filed for the conviction to be overturned and
for Lieber to either be acquitted or granted a new trial.17 After hearing
arguments, a Boston judge said he would make a determination on the petition at
a later, undisclosed date.
The
government's case against Liber showed that Wuhan University of Technology
(WUT) allegedly paid him $50,000 a month from 2012 to 2017 to help establish
and oversee the WUT-Harvard Joint Nano Key Laboratory. He also received another
$150,000 a month in living expenses from China's Thousand Talents program. The
problem was, Harvard officials claim they had not approved the lab and didn't
know about it until 2015. Boyle comments:
"The cover
story here — that Harvard didn't know what was going on — is preposterous. I
spent seven years at Harvard. I have three degrees from Harvard. I spent two
years teaching at Harvard.
Of course
Harvard knew that its chair of the chemistry department had this lab in Wuhan,
China, where he was working on nanotechnology with respect to chemical and
biological materials. That's been reported. They didn't say what the materials
were. In addition, it has now been reported that Harvard was a cooperating
institution with the Wuhan BSL4."
Researchers Working on Gain-of-Function
to Spanish Flu
If you think
SARS-CoV-2 is bad, be glad it's not the weaponized version of Spanish flu,
which has also been in the works, according to Boyle. He says:
"[The
University of North Carolina's] work was existentially dangerous and they knew
it at the time. If you read the UNC scientific article18 [cowritten
by] the Wuhan BSL4 scientist [Shi Zhengli] … it says, 'Experiments with the
full-length and chimeric SHC014 recombinant viruses were initiated and
performed before the GOF research funding pause and have since been reviewed
and approved for continued study by the NIH.'
It says
recombinant … So, they admit it was gain-of-function [research]. [The research]
was paused by NIH19 [National
Institutes of Health]. Why was it paused by NIH? Because there was a letter put
out by large numbers of life scientists at the time saying this type of
gain-of-function work … could be existentially dangerous if it got out in the
public. Therefore, it had to be terminated … [But] the NIH was funding this in
the beginning …
A footnote
here: I read the NIH's pause letter to the University of North Carolina, and
UNC was doing two gain-of-function research projects. The other one was with
Dr. [Yoshihiro] Kawaoka from the University of Wisconsin, who had resurrected
the Spanish flu virus20 for the
Pentagon.
He, according
to the pause letter, was also there doing gain-of-function work on the flu
virus — one could only conclude it was the Spanish flu virus. It did not say
the Spanish flu, but they also put a gain-of-function pause on that type of
deadly research …
I mean, the
Spanish flu, we all know what that is, so imagine giving the Spanish flu
gain-of-function properties, making it even more lethal and more infectious.
That's exactly what was going on there at that UNC lab …"
Disturbingly,
while the NIH halted funding of this kind of gain-of-function research on
lethal pathogens in 2014, it reauthorized it in December 2017,21 and Boyle suspects
Kawaoka's work may have been restarted as well, although he's not found proof
of it yet.
"So, this
was existentially dangerous work that was going on at that UNC lab. Everyone
knew it, NIH funded it, NIAID under Dr. Fauci funded it as well. They knew
exactly how dangerous this was. They paused it and then they resumed it," Boyle says.
Can Violations of
Biowarfare Treaty Be Enforced?
As mentioned,
Boyle is a professor of international law and drafted an international treaty
on biowarfare agents and weapons. That law is still in force, and would provide
life imprisonment for everyone involved in the creation and release of
SARS-CoV-2, were it officially concluded to be a biowarfare agent.
"If you
read that UNC article,22 it says
exactly it was dealing with synthetic molecules … And in my biological weapons
anti-terrorism act of 1989, I specifically criminalized — by that name —
synthetic molecules.
That is why, at
first, the whole synthetic biology movement … was set up by the Pentagons DARPA.
They funded the whole thing. And it's DARPA money that is behind synthetic
biology, gene drive and all the rest of it.
And that is why
at the first convention of synthetic biologists, in their final report, one of
their key recommendations was the repeal of my biological weapons
anti-terrorism act, because they fully intended to use synthetic biology to
manufacture biological weapons …
The law still
applies. It provides for life imprisonment for everyone who has done this … all
the scientists involved at the University of North Carolina and everyone who
funded this project, knowing that it was existentially dangerous — and that
includes Fauci and [people at] the NIH … UNC, Food and Drug Administration …
the Dana Harvard Cancer Institute at Harvard … the World Health Organization
…"
So, just how
would we get that process of justice going? Boyle explains:
"There are two ways. First, you're going to
have to pressure the Department of Justice to prosecute these people. That
might be very difficult to do. Federal statutes require indictments to be
brought by U.S. attorneys. However, just with respect to North Carolina, state
law applies there too. I haven't researched North Carolina law; however, I was
originally hired here to teach criminal law and I taught it for seven or eight
years …
To have criminal intent, one of the variants of
criminal intent is the demonstration of grave indifference to human life. And
that is the criminal intent necessary for homicide.
So in my
opinion, and my advice would be, if we can't get [attorney general William
Pelham] Barr to sign off on prosecuting these people, that the district
attorney, state's attorney, attorney general out there in North Carolina,
institute and indict everyone involved in this North Carolina work for homicide.
And that could
include up to and including murder, malice of forethought. Again, one of the
elements can be manifestation of grave indifference to human life. And it's
clear from this article [the 2015 UNC paper23], they knew it
was gain-of-function, they paused it because it was existentially dangerous, it
was then reapproved and they continued it.
So, I think a
good case could be made, certainly, for indicting these people under North
Carolina law by North Carolina legal authorities, if the federal government is
not going to do it for us, under my law [the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism
Act of 1989]. But again, I want to make it clear, I haven't research North
Carolina law."
Time to Shutter All BSL4
Laboratories?
Boyle is
adamant that all BSL3 and BSL4 laboratories must be closed down and all
biowarfare work with lethal pathogens ceased. "They are all existentially
dangerous," he says. "This is a catastrophe waiting to happen. And it
is now happened. Here we are. It's staring us in the face."
Certainly,
COVID-19 is nowhere near as devastating as the Black Death or the Spanish flu
of 1918, both of which exacted a shocking death toll, all without the aid of
synthetic molecules and nanotechnology.
The very idea that any of
these horrific illnesses might be brought back in turbo-charged form should be
terrifying enough for the world to unite in saying "No thanks; we don't
want or need that kind of research going on." What value have these
dangerous laboratories provided to date compared to the risk they are exposing
all of us to?
Sources and References
·
1 Law.Illinois.edu Francis Boyle
·
2 Nature February 3, 2020; 579: 270-273
·
3 Nature February 3, 2020; 579(7798): 265–269
·
4 Lancet February 15, 2020; 395(10223):
497-506
·
5 Fox News April 15, 2020
·
6 Twitter Matt Gaetz April 14, 2020
·
7 Washington Post April 14, 2020
·
8 Nat Med. 2015; 21(12): 1508–1513
·
9 Archives of Virology 2010; 155:
1563–1569
·
10 Journal of Virology DOI: 10.1128/JVI.03079-15
·
11 Biorxiv
Preprints February 2, 2020 DOI: 10.1101/2020.01.30.927871 (Withdrawn)
·
12 Biorxiv
Preprints February 2, 2020 DOI: 10.1101/2020.01.30.927871 (PDF, withdrawn full
article)
·
13 Nature 2020; 579: 270-273
·
14 JAMA Insights March 26, 2020.
doi:10.1001/jama.2020.4756
·
15 The Economist February 1, 2020
·
16 The Harvard Crimson December 21, 2021
·
17 The Harvard Crimson April 1, 2022
·
18, 22, 23 Nature Medicine 2015; 21(12): 1508–1513
·
19 NIH.gov October 16, 2014
·
20 News.wisc.edu December 29, 2008
·
21 NIH.gov December 19, 2017
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/07/10/is-coronavirus-a-biological-weapon.aspx?ui=07ba04847d3da606336f089f0969627d79f1e004acb37b25456d0c6b44805309&sd=20210406&cid_source=wnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art6HL&cid=20220711Z2&mid=DM1204421&rid=1544578878
