Claims About COVID-19, Coronavirus Research and Civil Liberties

My job here is not to convince you of a thing.

My job here is to merely present the context that says that there is no question that the entirety of what we've been through over the last four years has been merely an orchestration to assault the liberties of people here in this country and around the world.

Pretending that this is some sort of public health emergency, pretending this is a justification for the inconceivable threat to liberties and the violation of human rights is actually nothing more than to give lip service to tyrants.

And the fact of the matter is the evidence starts here in the UK in nineteen sixty-six. Your own Wellcome Trust was the one who decided to fund the coronavirus as the preferred form of human manipulation in nineteen sixty-six.

It was one year later that the United States and the UK got into an agreement that said that we were going to modify and manipulate coronavirus to see what could be done to infect, quote, a healthy population, end quote. That was nineteen sixty-seven, the year of my birth.

So this slow-moving train wreck that we call Operation Warp Speed only took fifty-six short, short years to come into being.

And in two thousand and eleven, in the document that is imaged on the left, which unfortunately, given the size of the screen is pretty much illegible, but you can go find it.

A antitrust collusion, and I'm using that term quite literally, between the Wellcome Trust, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Gates Foundation, NIAID, and the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, got together and established a mandate that said that by twenty twenty the world would accept, and I

quote, a universal vaccine, end quote, by the end of twenty twenty.

Now, these folks apparently had a divining rod or some sort of mysterious bubble that they could look into to, to see the future with such accuracy that they actually identified back then that coronavirus might be the thing that would be just what nature needed to order for that to happen.

And by twenty fifteen we had the public statement, and I need to read this into the record. "To sustain the funding base beyond the crisis, we need to increase the public understanding of the need for medical countermeasures such as a pan-influenza or pan-coronavirus vaccine." Let me pause for a moment.

When this statement was made, the World Health Organization had officially declared coronavirus a eradicated disease.

In what world do we need a vaccine for a disease that the World Health Organization, in its own infinite wisdom, has declared eradicated?

Question. Just sit on that for a moment.

But let's go on. A key driver is the media, and the economics will follow the hype.

We need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the real issues.

Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of the process.

Does that sound like a public health emergency to you?

Or does that sound like a statement of treason?

That is an act of domestic and international terrorism, and that's the admission of that act.

And just in a few short days we will have the author of that statement, one Peter Daszak, testifying in Congress that this thing probably still came out of a, a, a random event that took place in Wuhan, China, where a bat and a pangolin got together and voila,

in December we were there. That's a quote from twenty fifteen in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

That's the conspiracy level language I'm using.

Now, by the way, I'm using the term conspiracy in the legal definition of the term.

This is the admission of conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism.

And one year later, the last image you see on this screen, one year later was the announcement, and I'm quoting, that the Wuhan Institute of Virology virus one was, and I quote, poised for human emergence, end quote.

That was two thousand and sixteen. That's the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.

That's the conspiracy that I'm apparently representing.

Next slide. Now, the evidence for all of you who doubt the merits of the argument that I'm making is right in front of you.

In two thousand and two, the upper left, you see the first patent in two thousand and two filed on the synthetic chimeric coronavirus, which, as I've said in many instances, was actually patented to be infectious and replication competent.

What that means is it's actually weaponized.

That's not an allegation, that's a statement of fact, because in two thousand and five, you see at the bottom of the curriculum vitae of one Ralph Baric, line fifty-seven, I believe that is, of his bio says, "Synthetic coronaviruses, biohacking,

biological warfare enabling technology."

Does anyone actually want to just muse for a moment what he could have potentially meant when he said biological warfare enabling technology?

Does that sound like a public health response?

Does that sound like a P3 program where we're trying to figure out how to treat this thing? Is that what it sounds like?

Or is there an outside chance that the reason why he unleashed ten million dollars that year and every other year in non-competitive grants from all of the above-referenced agencies, is there any chance that the reason why is because they were actually building, are you ready for this? Biological weapons.

Now, I happen to have the credential in the United States since two thousand and two of being a biological weapons inspector.

I know of what I speak. And the fact of the matter is I briefed this matter first in two thousand and two. I consistently briefed this ever since.

And when in two thousand and nineteen, September eighteenth, two thousand and nineteen, we actually had the World Health Organization's Global Preparedness Monitoring Board announce that there was going to be, in the time between September nineteenth, twenty nineteen and September of twenty twenty, there was going to be,

are you ready for this, an accidental or intentional release of a respiratory pathogen. There's an operative word in that statement that's quite alarming, isn't there?

Released. That's not a leak. That's not an accidental escape.

They used the word release. They didn't use there might be an accident.

Let's go-