It’s Gain of Fiction Story Time with RFK Jr. and Friends!

Post 9/11, bioweapons became a major concern with frightening stories about the potential for samples of smallpox to be aerosolized against US citizens necessitating the Bush administration to stockpile vaccines. There were terrifying tales of researchers successfully recreating the Spanish flu genome through reverse engineering which was considered a certainty to accidentally fall into the wrong hands. Secret memos were unveiled of scientists researching the possibility of al-Qaida or ISIS somehow utilizing Ebola for bioterrorism. Reports of labs tinkering with and genetically altering certain “viruses” in order to make them more lethal started to fill the airwaves throughout the mainstream media. People were conditioned to cower at the thought of the hellbent terrorist somehow securing a “viral” bioweapon and unleashing a contagious plague upon the world. Mini-epidemics have been a nearly every other year occurrence since the introduction of SARS in 2003, strategically priming the masses for the event of the century with “SARS-COV-2.” Theories were brandied about that the invisible culprits implicated in these outbreaks were lab-concocted creations unleashed upon the unsuspecting populace. Thus, with the uncertainty surrounding the animal origin for “SARS-COV-2,” it was only a matter of time before the idea was floated that this was not the work of a naturally occurring “virus” jumping from animal to man and wreaking havoc across the world with a mild flu. This “virus,” associated with no new symptoms of disease, had to have been fiendishly created by mad scientists in the labs in Wuhan.

Of course, it’s a scenario that makes perfect sense to the uninformed as the Wuhan Institute of Virology is smack dab in the center of Wuhan and they have a storied history of experimenting with “coronaviruses” and bats. It doesn’t matter that the evidence for “SARS-COV-2” is non-existent as, in this scenario, the virologists in Wuhan genetically engineered a brand new “virus” from the scraps of other “viruses,” thus leading to the very “pandemic” that originated there. This “virus,” created through secretive gain of function research, must have either accidentally leaked from the lab or was deliberately released for nefarious purposes. This made-for-the-movies science fiction plotline is being championed by those who have never questioned the lack of scientific evidence for the existence of “viruses.” However, for those who have studied this topic thoroughly, it is absolutely clear that the gain of function/bioweapon/lab leak narrative is the fear-based bait utilized to keep those questioning the official pharmaceutical storyline hooked back into the lies of the medical-industrial complex.

This gain of fiction storyline is picking up steam and is unfortunately being heavily promoted by influential people within the health freedom community. These people regularly preach about the dangers of the vaccines and the toxic pharmaceutical treatments as well as the trampling of our rights and freedoms by way of draconian measures. Yet in spite of this, they still push the idea that there are invisible invaders floating about that can cause disease necessitating these very same measures. They continue to subscribe to this narrative in spite of the overwhelming evidence that this is not the case. There are no “viruses” and thus no need for any of the various protocols forced upon the public in order to contain the “deadly” pathogens. However, if one were to challenge these “leaders” of the movement on the fact that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of any “virus,” one of the ways in which they attempt to defend their belief in these entities is by defiantly pointing to genetic engineering and gain of function studies. They use the claims from the virology institutions that this kind of experimental research takes place as proof that “viruses” do indeed exist and that this is how “SARS-COV-2” was created; not from nature but by man. They sell this fear-based man-made bioweapon storyline to their audience upon the flimsiest of evidence, none of which is scientifically valid.

For those who may be unfamiliar, gain of function studies are those that are said to genetically engineer a “virus” or other microorganism in order to increase its supposed pathogenicity in some way. The researchers claim to be manipulating or combining “viruses” to make them deadlier and more infectious. However, there is a slight problem as in order to manipulate any “virus,” the “virus” in question must be scientifically proven to exist first. This has never once been done in over 100 years of virology. In reality, what this research involves is creating the same toxic cell-cultured concoctions used in regular virology studies just with the added caveat that they use more synthetic additives and ingredients thus making them more lethal to the lab animals that are unnaturally injected with the poisonous soups. No “virus” is ever properly purified, isolated, and scientifically shown to exist in these experiments by adherence to the scientific method. These entities are merely assumed to exist within the sample by way of fraudulent PCR results. However this has not stopped a certain group of individuals from claiming that these studies prove the existence of pathogenic “viruses” and that this research led to the creation of “SARS-COV-2.” They have jumped at the chance to promote this fear-based fiction without a scant of credible scientific validation backing it up. Here are but a few examples of the statements made by those in a position of influence pushing this bioweapon/lab leak narrative to their audience:

Their conclusion: SARS-CoV-2 came out of nature

My conclusion: it definitely was a lab leak.

-Steve Kirsch https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/the-wet-market-theory-re-emerges

The totality of evidence available today is indeed best explained by the lab origin hypothesis.

-Jeremy Hammond https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2021/06/18/interview-origin-of-sars-cov-2-lockdowns-covid-19-vaccines/

This gave cover for Dr. Fauci, the NIAID, DTRA and the NIH to ignore the ban on gain-of-function research and continue with this research. As we now know, that is how SARS-CoV-2 was created and then accidentally released on the Chinese people. At least we hope it was accident.

-Robert Malone https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/ebola-this-is-not-over

The willingness of U.S. authorities to cover up the origin of SARS-CoV-2 means that countries can now assault us with bioweapons indefinitely, with full impunity.

-Dr. Joseph Mercola https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/fauci-collins-evidence-covid-lab-leak/

I am now under the belief that this is a man-made virus.

-Del Bigtree https://www.podchaser.com/podcasts/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree-519460/episodes/is-covid-19-a-bio-weapon-91383003

The world now has proof positive that SARS-CoV2 is an engineered laboratory creation generated with technology developed by Ralph Baric with U.S. government funding.

-Robert Kennedy Jr. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/covid-pandemic-nih-unc-fauci-baric/

As can be seen, from Kirsch to Kennedy, the gain of function science fiction stories are the most “logical” conclusion as to how people came down with the same symptoms of disease that we see every year. In this narrative, Anthony Fauci ignored the government ban on gain of function research and was secretely working with labs in China to turn the rather harmless “coronavirus,” associated with the common cold, into a case of the mild flu with a 99% survival rate. This “beefed up” entity was either deliberately released by Fauci and Co. or it accidentally escaped the Wuhan lab in China. In either scenario, we are to believe that Fauci is a rogue agent funding mad science experiments creating and combining “viruses” in order to turn them into bioweapons. Often cited as proof of this narrative are the “leaked” Fauci gain of function emails. Remember those from June 2021?

Here is an example of one of the emails obtained that some took as proof for the lab-leak/bioweapon origin of “SARS-COV-2:”

Interestingly, the information listed above on how the bioweapon “virus” was created came from a study published in August of 2005 which looked at the theoretical entry process for the “SARS-CoV S protein” never proven to exist and the inhibitors of this process:

Inhibitors of cathepsin L prevent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus entry

“Intervirion Fusion. HIV-luc(ACE2) (500 ng of p24) was mixed with 1,000 ng of p24 of HIV-gfp particles incorporating ASLV-A envelope, SARS-CoV S protein, or both envelopes in PBS at 4°C for 30 min to allow binding. Samples were raised to 37°C for 15 min to allow for conformational rearrangements. Virions were adjusted to the desired pH with 0.1 M citric acid. PBS, TPCK-trypsin (final concentration 10 μg/ml), CTSL, cathepsin B (CTSB) (final concentrations 2 μg/ml) or CTSL buffer alone was then added. Recombinant CTSL (R & D Systems) was preactivated by incubation for 15 min at 10 μg/ml in 50 mM Mes, pH 6.0, on ice. Recombinant CTSB (R & D Systems) was preactivated in 25 mM Mes, 5 mM DTT, pH 5.0, for 30 min at 25°C. After a 10-min incubation at 25°C, proteolysis was halted by the addition of 300 μl of DMEM10 containing leupeptin (25 μg/ml) and STI (75 μg/ml). Virions were then incubated at 37°C for 30 min to allow membrane fusion. 100 μl of the virion mixture was added in quadruplicate to HeLa-Tva cells pretreated for 1 h with leupeptin (20 μg/ml). The cells were spin-infected and incubated at 37°C for 5 h. The medium was replaced with fresh DMEM10 and the cells were assayed for luciferase activity 40 h later.”

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0505577102

Fauci needing someone to supply the methods section from a 2005 study containing the “origin” of “SARS-COV-2” thus leaving an email trail with the heading “Coronavirus bioweapon production method” when he could have just as easily viewed the study himself, doesn’t make much logical sense. Discovering this copy/paste from the methods section of a 2005 study actually made me believe that these emails were doctored and/or fake when I originally looked into this story. However, this particular email can be found amongst the treasure trove of strategically “leaked” (they were actually released due to an FOIA request by both ICAN and Buzzfeed) Fauci emails seen on page 2286 in this link. What is even more interesting is that this email was sent to Fauci by someone named Adam Gaertner, a person completely unrelated to the 2005 study who appears to be an independent researcher pushing for Ivermectin as a treatment for “Covid-19.” Somehow, the people advancing this bioweapon narrative always seem to have alternative pharmaceutical therapies they are promoting as a cure. At one point, Gaertner had a Twitter account called “veryvirology” which now appears to be suspended. He also had a website known as covidcandy.net which seems to no longer be in use, with the last entry found at the Wayback Machine listed as May 19th, 2022. It appears as if this person reached out to Fauci unsolicited with the methods section taken from an old study claiming that this was how “SARS-COV-2” was created. In other words, it is not very credible evidence for a lab-leak/bioweapon angle.

Another example that is used as evidence of a lab-leak/bioweapon origin for “SARS-COV-2” is an unpublished grant proposal that EcoHealth Alliance filed with Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease:

Apparently, getting funding for research is now considered as proof that the research is valid, that the researchers can do what they claim, and that the research was in fact carried out. The problem? Beyond emails and grants, there are no scientific publications showing that any GOF experiments ever occurred nor resulted in “SARS-COV-2.” The published studies which came about from this grant, titled “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence,” do not meet the definition for what is considered as GOF research. In fact, there was a letter submitted by the NIH to Congress members investigating this matter that was eventually used as an admission that EcoHealth Alliance had performed and carried out GOF studies in Wuhan. However, Principal Deputy Director Lawrence Tabak specifically stated within the letter that the research conducted did not meet the definition of GOF nor could the experiments have resulted in a “SARS-COV-2” due to the unrelated genomes of the “viruses” in question.

If one is submitting this as the proof of a lab-leak origin, the conclusion would have to be that “SARS-COV-2” was not created in a lab unless those who claim this are able to present the actual study described within the letter detailing the methods and showing the data taken from the study. However, as far as I can uncover, there is no such publication. Ultimately, all we have to go on, as far as the evidence is concerned, is this letter claiming that certain experiments were performed and that an unexpected result occurred. That is not scientific evidence. If the letter is all we have to go on, we must then conclude that the experiments, if they were performed, did not meet the definition of GOF and did not result in a laboratory-created “SARS-COV-2.” Thus, anyone using this as evidence for a gain of function origin for “SARS-COV-2” is doing so despite what the information provided in the letter states and they are basing their hypothesis not on any actual scientific evidence but on nothing but pure speculation. Even if the evidence had pointed in the direction that “SARS-COV-2” was created in GOF experiments, it still would not supercede the fact that, in order for these GOF experiments to have any legitimacy, the “viruses” studied and supposedly manipulated must have been scientifically proven to exist first. This has never been shown for “SARS-COV-2” nor for any other “virus” which is just one of the many issues related to the studies that are considered GOF. Those that actually do fit the GOF definition which eventually see the light of day are extremely faulty, as will be shown with the latest publication said to be GOF a little later in this article. In any case, “leaked” Fauci emails, unpublished grant proposals, and letters to Congress all fail to meet the basic scientific evidence required in order to prove the existence of a lab-created “SARS-COV-2.”

Now this is not to say Fauci is clean in any way. Of course, there is no denying that Fauci is a monster who is heavily involved in the scam that is “SARS-COV-2.” He was a key player in the HIV/AIDS hoax as well. Thus it is easy to just go along with this gain of function narrative and turn away from any questions as to whether “viruses” exist or not. If “viruses” do not exist, how could Fauci have been able to Frankenstein his mild flu “virus?” What goes on in these labs if not the manufacturing of more deadly “viruses?” What do all of our hard-earned tax dollars go to if not for the sole purpose of tinkering with these invisible entities? This is what the people at the top of the health freedom movement apparently want you to believe in if you find yourself questioning the prevalent “viral” paradigm. If you don’t believe me, let’s take a gander at arguably the most well-known leader of the health freedom movement, Robert Kennedy Jr., and his latest science fiction novel to see what it entails:

“The Wuhan Cover-Up pulls back the curtain on how the US government’s increase in biosecurity spending after the 2001 terror attacks—facilitated by Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)—set in motion a plan to transform the NIAID into a de facto Defense Department agency.
 
While Dr. Fauci zealously funded and pursued gain-of-function research, concern grew among some scientists and government officials about the potential for accidental or deliberate release of weaponized viruses from labs that might trigger worldwide pandemics. A moratorium was placed on this research, but true to form, Dr. Fauci found ways to continue unperturbed—outsourcing some of the most controversial experiments offshore to China and providing federal funding to Wuhan Institute of Virology’s (WIV’s) leading researchers for gain-of-function studies in partnership with the Chinese military and the Chinese Communist Party.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose meticulously researched and rigorously sourced analysis, leads readers on a staggering journey to learn about:

• the key enablers and henchmen pushing for gain-of-function research
• the economic motives behind gain-of-function research
• successfully engineered “chimeric viruses” that can infect and kill humans
• the coordinated effort to silence speculation of COVID-19’s laboratory genesis
• the complicity of scientific journals to hide the origins of COVID-19
• the role of the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China’s biowarfare/biodefense program
• the relationships between US health, military, and intelligence bureaucracies and scientists and their Chinese counterparts
• the roles of Bill Gates and Sir Jeremy Farrar in helping to orchestrate China’s global cover-up

The Wuhan Cover-Up unveils a global conspiracy of epic proportion and lethal consequence.”

https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Wuhan-Cover-Up/Robert-F-Kennedy/Children-s-Health-Defense/9781510773998

Acoording to Kennedy’s investigation, Anthony Fauci spearheaded the transition of the NIH into a de facto DOD after 9/11. Fauci “zealously” danced around financing the gain of function mad science experiments left and right until he was shut down by the government. However, Fauci had other plans and found ways to subvert the system continuing his escapade into crazytown, somehow unbeknownst to the US government. Who knew world-renowned investigative journalist Robert Kennedy Jr. was able to uncover a vast global conspiracy entailing Anthony Fauci and the engineering of “SARS-COV-2” in Wuhan? Of course, it would be easy to believe RFK Jr. as he has been on the right side of this debate by consistently calling out the dangers of vaccines. Well…as long as you disregard the fact that he considers himself not to be anti-vax and actually advocates for “safer” vaccines rather than eliminating vaccination as a practice altogether:

We want safe vaccines, robust transparent science and an honest and independent regulatory agency focused narrowly on public health rather than industry profit.

-Robert Kennedy Jr. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/about-us/mercury-vaccines-cdcs-worst-nightmare/

To his credit, Kennedy has regularly lambasted Anthony Fauci and recently laid the evil deeds of this man out there for all to see in his November 2021 best seller The Real Anthony Fauci:

As director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Dr. Anthony Fauci dispenses $6.1 billion in annual taxpayer-provided funding for rigged scientific research, allowing him to dictate the subject, content, and outcome of scientific health research across the globe—truly a dark agenda. Fauci uses the financial clout at his disposal in a back handed manner to wield extraordinary influence over hospitals, universities, journals, and thousands of influential doctors and scientists—whose careers and institutions he has the power to ruin, advance, or reward in an authoritarian manner.

During more than a year of painstaking and meticulous research on his laptop and through interviews, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. unearthed a shocking story that obliterates media spin on Dr. Fauci . . . and that will alarm every American—Democrat or Republican—who cares about democracy, our Constitution, and the future of our children’s health.

The Real Anthony Fauci reveals how “America’s Doctor” launched his career during the early AIDS crisis by partnering with pharmaceutical companies to sabotage safe and effective off-patent therapeutic treatments for AIDS. Fauci orchestrated fraudulent do-nothing studies, and then pressured US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulators into approving a deadly chemotherapy treatment he had good reason to know was worthless against AIDS. Fauci did the unthinkable and repeatedly violated federal laws to allow his Pharma partners to use impoverished and dark-skinned children as lab rats in beyond order, deadly experiments with toxic AIDS and cancer chemotherapies.

In early 2000, Fauci shook hands with Bill Gates in the library of Gates’ $147 million Seattle mansion, cementing a partnership that would aim to control an increasingly profitable $60 billion global vaccine enterprise with unlimited growth potential. Through funding leverage and carefully cultivated personal relationships with heads of state and leading media and social media institutions, the Pharma-Fauci-Gates alliance exercises dominion over global health policy and our beautiful country.

https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Real-Anthony-Fauci/Robert-F-Kennedy/Children-s-Health-Defense/9781510766808

It is rather odd that Kennedy Jr. uncovered Fauci funding “fraudulent do-nothing studies” in regards to HIV in the 1980’s yet he is advancing the narrative that Fauci is currently funding GOF studies that are supposedly not fraudulent do-nothing studies. If we are going by Fauci’s past to judge his actions in the present, it would be much more logical to conclude that he has a pattern of funding fraudulent do-nothing studies and that the GOF trail is nothing more than an offshoot of this behavior. This premise is easy to see when one understands the entire history of the studies under the virology umbrella are built upon a century old fraudulent foundation. Money trails, “leaked” emails, unpublished grants, and letters to Congress are nothing more than pointless indirect distractions taking away from the deeper underlying lack of scientific validation for virology. The GOF/bioweapon narrative is a red herring designed to keep people in a chronic state of fear of a potential biological terrorist attack in the same vein as the Russians with nukes during the Cold War or Sadam Hussein and his “weapons of mass destruction.” It is a smokescreen for the uninformed to keep them from digging even deeper.

Regarding Kennedy Jr.’s continual pursuit of someone he has shown has a history of proven fraud, it is entirely clear that there is no love lost between these two influential men. Much of the information Kennedy “uncovered” in his book about Anthony Fauci was already well-known by anyone who had paid close attention to the HIV/AIDS hoax. In fact, it is easy to see that much of the “Covid” scam follows the exact same playbook set up by Fauci and Co. in the 1980’s. Kennedy is spot on with a lot of the information about Fauci’s nefarious activities. However, he ignores the most important question at the heart of Fauci’s fraudulent schemes: do the “viruses” even exist in the first place? Could these scams be successfully committed based upon nothing but effective fear-propaganda and inaccurate testing alone? Sadly, it seems that Kennedy Jr. is not willing to even seriously entertain such thoughts as seen in his exchange with real investigative journalist Eric Coppolino back in April of 2022:

“Yeah, I really am not qualified to comment but I…my inclination if there are people who say the viruses don’t exist that there is no virus… I don’t, you know, my inclination is that, um, that simply is not, you know, that’s not true.”

“And I am kind of amused reading the exchanges and my inclination is that the viruses do exist and they do make people sick. I could be wrong. It could all be a big  hoax, but to me, it all seems  like, you know, viruses are real, and um so, look, I should have just shut up from the beginning and say I’m not gonna answer that question.”

“Again, I am not a good a good per— I am not a scientist. I don’t pretend to be. I find those arguments
interesting.”

-Robert Kennedy Jr. https://chironreturn.org/rfk-jr-acknowledges-controversy-over-existence-of-sars-cov-2-and-of-all-viruses/

Kennedy Jr. claimed that he was unqualified to speak on the existence of “viruses” as he was not a scientist. Yet, he still concluded that these fictional entities exist as sold without doing any independent investigation of his own. Somehow, he has deemed himself qualified enough to understand the “science” behind gain of function studies in order to sell the narrative of the megalomaniac Fauci cranking out enhanced “viruses” in Wuhan. However, do not question him about whether or not these entities actually exist as that is a bit too far above his pay grade. Makes perfect sense, right?

I want to be clear that this article is not intended as an attack on RFK Jr. He and the others listed here have provided information that has helped many to see the dangers of the measures used against us during this “pandemic.” However, it is very clear that there is a concentrated effort by those in positions of influence to get anyone questioning the “viral” paradigm to do a detour into this bioweapon/gain of function narrative in spite of the lack of any credible scientific evidence supporting it. There is major pushback on those of us who challenge the lack of scientific evidence for the existence of “viruses.” We need to ask ourselves why these genuinely smart people are willing to challenge the natural origin of a “virus” yet are unwilling to question the foundational evidence backing up the existence of this fictional concept in the first place. Why are they willing to push a fear-based bioweapon narrative when the only evidence supporting it comes from “leaked” emails, unpublished grants, and letters to Congress with zero credible scientific evidence backing it up?

Could it be due to vested interests?

Steve Kirsh

“Steve is a Silicon Valley entrepreneur and philanthropist who founded the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund (CETF) at the beginning of the pandemic. Steve and CETF funded the research that showed promising results of fluvoxamine as an early treatment of COVID-19.”

https://www.vacsafety.org/about

“The COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund team is comprised of experts from a wide range of fields including medicine, technology, philanthropy, and business. Together, we have quickly become the world’s leading fund focused on early treatments for COVID-19 that leverage repurposed drugs.”

https://www.treatearly.org/our-team

Robert Malone

“Dr. Malone holds numerous fundamental domestic and foreign patents in the fields of gene delivery, delivery formulations, DNA vaccines, and mRNA vaccines.”

“Since January 2020, Dr. Malone has been leading a large team focused on clinical research design, drug development, computer modeling, and mechanisms of action of repurposed drugs for the treatment of COVID-19.”

https://www.vacsafety.org/about

Maybe they are selling supplements which have been claimed to treat the disease?

Jeremy Hammond

Dr. Joseph Mercola

Or perhaps they have powerful financial partners who they must report to:

Del Bigtree

“According to the Washington Post, the Selz Foundation provides approximately 75% of the funding for the Informed Consent Action Network, a charity for which Lisa Selz serves as president, whose mission is described as “promoting drug and vaccine safety and parental choice in vaccine decisions.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/06/bernard-selz-lisa-selz-vaccines/amp

Whatever the case may be, questioning the lack of the scientific evidence for the existence of “viruses” is either met with angry hit-pieces as seen by Kirsch and Hammond, excuses such as the public not being ready to go there as offered by Del Bigtree, attempts to convince readers that questioning the existence of “viruses” will hamper the “truth” movement as suggested by Mercola, or feigned ignorance and the lack of necessary credentials as seen in the case of Kennedy Jr.’s response to Eric Coppolino. Somehow, the people with the largest reach and the loudest voices, have jumped to the conclusion, based on “leaked” Fauci emails, that “SARS-COV-2” was created in a lab. They are completely sold on the threat of a “viral” bioweapon without any credible scientific evidence that a “viral” bioweapon has ever been made. They will write articles and books to alert the public to the threat of these gain of function studies yet they will not examine the foundational evidence as to whether these “viruses” have ever been scientifically proven to exist. In fact, they are so sure that the GOF studies are legitimate scientific experiments taking place that they will promote the findings of a pre-print non-peer-reviewed study from October 2022 to their audience as if the paper contained actual scientific evidence backing up their bioweapon position:

BU creates new SARS-CoV-2 strain that is 80% fatal

“Presumably there is some benefit to creating a new strain of SARS-CoV-2 that has a case fatality rate (CFR) of 80% (up from the average 0.2% CFR for the current variants) and is highly contagious.

I’m baffled as to what it is.”

“The work was supported by a grant from NIH, specifically from NIAID which is the organization that Anthony Fauci heads.”

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/bu-creates-new-sars-cov-2-strain

‘Insane’: Boston Researchers Create ‘More Lethal’ Strain of COVID, Prompting Calls to Shut Down Risky Gain-of-Function Research

“A team of 14 scientists at Boston University’s National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories (NEIDL) developed a new strain of COVID-19 that killed 80% of the mice infected with the virus in a laboratory setting, according to a preprint study published Oct. 14.

Following the announcement, numerous news stories about the study’s results focused on the fatality rate observed in the laboratory mice used in the study.

However, behind the headlines, some scientists and others raised concerns about the nature of the research and the fact that it was partially funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci.

The research was conducted using what some scientists called “gain-of-function” research, raising concerns that this type of research — which some theorize led to the creation and escape of the original Wuhan strain of COVID-19 — is still being done, despite concerns that it could lead to more lab escapes and more pandemics.”

‘Insane’: Boston Researchers Create ‘More Lethal’ Strain of COVID, Prompting Calls to Shut Down Risky Gain-of-Function Research

Boston U Tries to Back Peddle Out of Dangerous Experiment Reports

“Just a couple days after news broke that Boston University had created a deadly strain of SARS-CoV-2 in its labs, the institution is trying to back peddle its announcement, saying news media not only got it wrong, but are are misconstruing what the institution really did. But is that true? According to infectious disease epidemiologist and microbiologist Marc Lipsitch, the university can twist the reports of their findings in any way they want, but what they did is still gain-of-function…”

https://blogs.mercola.com/sites/vitalvotes/archive/2022/10/19/boston-u-tries-to-back-peddle-out-of-dangerous-experiment-reports.aspx

For a great look at how studies such as the one done by Boston U are reported on as the truth with the use of scare tactics, media hype, and sensationalism, please feel free to watch the nearly 10 minute clip (kindly edited by Bill Huston) from Del Bigtrees latest The Highwire episode linked below. It is clear that both Del and guest Jefferey Jaxen failed to read the study as well as put any critical thought into whether or not the results and conclusions in this pre-print, non-peer-reviewed study are even scientifically valid. They simply report on it as true and use the conclusions to bolster their fear-based message on the threat of bioweapons. Del even ends the segment with the appropriate tug on the ol’ fear-strings by stating “Downtown Boston, we could have the same leak because people are not playing by the rules.” Masterfully done by the “alternative” media. 👏

RFK Jr. also dropped an article a few days after the release of the Boston U study promoting yet another pre-print, non-peer-reviewed study as evidence that “SARS-COV-2” was a lab-created “virus.”

This study, titled “Endonuclease fingerprint indicates a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV2,” was published on the preprint server bioRxiv and consists of nothing but comparisons of genomic data. There is no “virus” involved in the study whatsoever other than the random A,C,T,G’s presented on a computer screen as a stand-in for one. There are no descriptions for how any of the genomes were obtained that were used in the comparison. In essence, the researchers are doing nothing but looking at computer data. Nothing physical exists, just the data. Unfortunately for RFK Jr., data accumulation and analysis is not science. This, however, did not stop RFK Jr. from declaring that “The world now has proof positive that SARS-CoV2 is an engineered laboratory creation generated with technology developed by Ralph Baric with U.S. government funding.” Interestingly, a few paragraphs later, he states this:

UNC and NIAID’s liability is now clear. But do we have positive proof that the Wuhan lab created the monstrosity that caused COVID-19?

The cumulative evidence strongly suggests that the Wuhan lab used Baric’s methodologies to cobble together the chimeric virus that caused the COVID-19 pandemic. But a few missing puzzle pieces still prevent us from definitively proving that this dangerous construction project occurred at the Wuhan lab.”

-Robert Kennedy Jr.

The last I checked, “strongly suggests,” “missing puzzle pieces” and “prevent us from definitively proving” does not sound like “proof positive” that “SARS-COV-2” was an engineered laboratory creation. Thus, this evidence Kennedy Jr. is throwing out there is akin to this is how they did it, but we don’t know yet if they did it. It’s like being excited over purchasing someone’s air guitar on ebay. Sure the transaction may be there, but nothing physical actually exists. Nonetheless, in a rush to get the latest piece of indirect evidence out there to push a fear-based agenda, RFK Jr. has disregarded waiting for confirmation by independent reproduction of the results, and most importantly, having evidence of properly purified and isolated “virus” particles instead of random A,C,T,G’s in a computer database. In lieu, he quickly wrote up an article selling this preprint comparison shopping of computer-generated genomes as further “proof” for a gain of function bioweapon narrative.

If RFK Jr. and friends took the time to actually read these “gain of function” studies, they would find that there is no actual science taking place anywhere inside any of them. In the case of the latest attempt at GOF fear-mongering from Boston U, those pushing this narrative would discover that no purified and isolated “viruses” were ever used at any point and that the findings behind the conclusions are highly questionable. All that would be required in order to see this is for RFK Jr. and friends to read the methods section which easily demonstrates that the paper entails nothing but grandiose chemistry experimentation involving numerous chemicals and foreign substances combined and cultured together which were used to justify the killing of the animals experimented on.

For instance, the authors claimed to have created a chimeric recombinant version of “SARS-COV-2.” According to Merriam-Webster, chimeric means that the substance contains tissue with two or more genetically distinct populations of cells while recombinant relates to containing genetically engineered DNA. Essentially, the researchers mixed numerous sources of genetic materials with added synthetic chemicals into a petri dish and claimed a new engineered “virus” existed within the cell culture soup. In order to do so, they utilized:

• Human embryonic kidney HEK293T cells
  • An immortalized cell line taken from aborted fetuses in the 1970’s
• Human lung adenocarcinoma A549 cells
  • Cells derived from a primary lung tumor from a 58-year-old male in 1972
• Human colorectal adenocarcinoma Caco-2 cells
  • Cells derived from the colon cancer tissue of a 72-year-old male in 1977
• African green monkey kidney Vero E6 cells
  • As the name implies, cells from monkey kidneys which are the most commonly used cell line for culturing

Numerous chemicals and substances were added for culturing purposes such as:

• Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle Medium
  • Contains various ingredients including amino acids, vitamins, glucose, sodium, glycine, serine, ferric nitrate, pyruvate, and sodium bicarbonate
• Fetal Bovine Serum
  • The blood taken from the heart of an unborn calf
• Non-essential Amino Acids
  • This can include L-alanine, L-asparagine, L-aspartic acid, L-glycine, L-serine, L-proline and L-glutamic acid
• Avicel
  • According to manufacturer DuPont, this is a purified, partially depolymerized alphacellulose excipient made by acid hydrolysis of specialty wood pulp which rapidly produces robust granules that remain stable in high shear environments

There are various other synthetic additivies utilized throughout this whole process such as bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC), PrimeStar GXL DNA polymerase, CPER reaction volume with 250 µl of Opti-MEM, and TransIT-X2 Dynamic Delivery System. What occured during this (and similar) experiments was nothing more than the creation of a recipe which resulted in a toxic soup. This soup was then forcibly injected into the nasal passages of baby mice under isoflurane anesthesia. The mice were checked regularly to see if they showed any signs of the symptoms the researchers wanted to see such as 10-19% weight loss, ruffled fur and/or hunched posture, low to moderate unresponsiveness, and tremors, i.e. the classical signs associated with “Covid-19” in humans (note sarcasm). It was never considered whether or not the mode of injection and/or the use of isoflurane anesthesia may have resulted in any symptoms. It was never considered whether the stress of the experimentation nor the artificial living conditions affected the health of the mice. Any signs and symptoms were assumed to be caused by an invisible “virus” which was never directly demonstrated to exist. In cases where weight loss greater than or equal to 20% occured or if the mice received a clinical score of 4 or greater for two consecutive days, the mice were then considered moribund and euthanized.

In other words, the researchers looked for subjective signs of illness, claimed it was due to a “virus,” and then killed the animals if they met a certain subjective threshold. This is how the 80% fatality rate was conjured up. This can all be seen from a few highlights taken from this study:

Role of spike in the pathogenic and antigenic behavior of SARS-CoV-2 BA.1 Omicron

“The recently identified, globally predominant SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant (BA.1) is highly transmissible, even in fully vaccinated individuals, and causes attenuated disease compared with other major viral variants recognized to date. The Omicron spike (S) protein, with an unusually large number of mutations, is considered the major driver of these phenotypes. We generated chimeric recombinant SARS-CoV-2 encoding the S gene of Omicron in the backbone of an ancestral SARS-CoV-2 isolate and compared this virus with the naturally circulating Omicron variant. The Omicron S-bearing virus robustly escapes vaccine-induced humoral immunity, mainly due to mutations in the receptor-binding motif (RBM), yet unlike naturally occurring Omicron, efficiently replicates in cell lines and primary-like distal lung cells. In K18-hACE2 mice, while Omicron causes mild, non-fatal infection, the Omicron S-carrying virus inflicts severe disease with a mortality rate of 80%. This indicates that while the vaccine escape of Omicron is defined by mutations in S, major determinants of viral pathogenicity reside outside of S.”

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cells, antibodies, and plasmids

“The cell lines were incubated at 37ºC and 5% CO2 in a humidified incubator. Human embryonic kidney HEK293T cells (ATCC; CRL-3216), human lung adenocarcinoma A549 cells (ATCC; CCL-185), human colorectal adenocarcinoma Caco-2 cells (ATCC; HTB-37), and African green monkey kidney Vero E6 cells were maintained in DMEM (Gibco; #11995-065) containing 10% FBS and 1X non-essential amino acids. Lentiviral delivery system was used to generate cells stably expressing human ACE2 and TMPRSS2. Mycoplasma negative status of all cell lines was confirmed.

Anti-SARS-CoV nucleocapsid (N) protein antibody (Rockland; #200-401-A50) was used for detection of the SARS-CoV-2 N protein by IF. Expression plasmid encoding the spike protein of the SARS-CoV-2 Wuhan isolate, pCSII-SARS-CoV-2 F8, was a kind gift from Yoshiharu Matsuura. We replaced the Wuhan spike in this plasmid with a chemically synthesized version of Omicron spike and called the resulting plasmid pCSII-SARS-CoV-2 F8_Omicron. The lentiviral vectors, pLOC_hACE2_PuroR and pLOC_hTMPRSS2_BlastR, containing human ACE2 and TMPRSS2, respectively, have been previously described.

Omicron stock preparation and titration

The SARS-CoV-2 BA.1 Omicron virus stock was generated in ACE2/TMPRSS2/Caco-2 cells. Briefly, 5 x 105 cells, grown overnight in DMEM/10%FBS/1X NEAA in one well of a 6-well plate, were inoculated with the collection medium in which the nasal swab from a SARS-CoV-2 patient was immersed. The swab material was obtained from the Department of Public Health, Massachusetts, and it contained the sequence-verified Omicron virus (NCBI accession number: OL719310). Twenty-four hours after infecting cells, the culture medium was replaced with 2 ml of DMEM/2%FBS/1X NEAA and the cells were incubated for another 72h, at which point the CPE became visible. The culture medium was harvested, passed through a 0.45 µ filter, and kept at -80ºC as a P0 virus stock. To generate a P1 stock, we infected 1 x 10 7 ACE2/TMPRSS2/Caco-2 cells, seeded the day before in a T175 flask, with the P0 virus at an MOI of 0.01. The next day, the culture medium was changed to 25 ml of 2% FBS-containing medium. Three days later, when the cells exhibited excessive CPE, the culture medium was harvested, passed through a 0.45 µ filter, and stored at -80ºC as a P1 stock.

To titrate the virus stock, we seeded ACE2/TMPRSS2/Caco-2 cells into a 12-well plate at a density of 2 x 105 cells per well. The next day, the cells were incubated with serial 10-fold dilutions of the virus stock (250 µl volume per well) for 1h at 37ºC, overlayed with 1 ml per well of medium containing 1:1 mixture of 2X DMEM/4% FBS and 1.2% Avicel (DuPont; RC-581), and incubated at 37ºC for another three days.”

Recombinant SARS-CoV-2 generation by CPER

“SARS-CoV-2 recombinant viruses were generated by using a modified form of the recently published CPER protocol. Full-length SARS-CoV-2 cDNA cloned onto a bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) was used as a template to amplify the viral genome into eight overlapping fragments (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, and F9). The pCSII-SARS-CoV-2 F8 and pCSII-SARS-CoV-2 F8_Omicron plasmids, which were used to generate spike mutants, served as templates for amplification of fragment 8 (F8). A UTR linker containing a hepatitis delta virus ribozyme (HDVr), the bovine growth hormone polyadenylation signal sequence (BGH-polyA), and a cytomegalovirus (CMV) promoter was cloned onto a pUC19 vector and used as a template to amplify the linker sequence. The 5’ termini of all ten DNA fragments (F1-F9 and the linker) were phosphorylated by using T4 PNK (NEB; #M0201), and the equimolar amounts (0.05 pmol each) of the resulting fragments were subjected to a CPER reaction in a 50 µl volume using 2 µl of PrimeStar GXL DNA polymerase (Takara Bio; #R050A). The following cycling conditions were used for CPER: an initial denaturation at 98ºC for 2 min; 35 cycles of denaturation at 98ºC for 10 s, annealing at 55ºC for 15 s, and extension at 68ºC for 15 min; and a final extension at 68ºC for 15 min. The nicks in the circular product were sealed by using DNA ligase.

To transfect cells with the CPER product, we seeded ACE2/TMPRSS2/Caco-2 cells into a 6-well plate at a density of 5 x105 cells per well. The transfection mix was prepared by mixing 26 µl of the original 52 µl CPER reaction volume with 250 µl of Opti-MEM (Thermo Fisher Scientific; #31985070) and 6 µl of TransIT-X2 Dynamic Delivery System (Mirus Bio; #MIR 6000). Following incubation at room temperature for 25 min, the transfection mix was added to the cells. The next day, the culture medium was replaced with fresh DMEM containing 2% FBS. The CPE became visible in 3-4 days, at which point the culture medium was collected and stored as a P0 virus stock. The P0 stock was used for experiments described in this manuscript. The spike region of all CPER-generated viruses was sequenced by either Sanger sequencing or next generation sequencing to confirm the presence of desired and the absence of adventitious changes.”

“Twelve to twenty weeks old male and female K18-hACE2 mice were inoculated intranasally with 10 4 PFU of SARS-CoV-2 in 50 µl of sterile 1X PBS. The inoculations were performed under 1-3% isoflurane anesthesia.”

“The score of 1 was given for each of the following situations: body weight, 10-19% loss; respiration, rapid and shallow with increased effort; appearance, ruffled fur and/or hunched posture; responsiveness, low to moderate unresponsiveness; and neurologic signs, tremors. The sum of these individual scores constituted the final clinical score. Animals were considered moribund and humanly euthanized in case of weight loss greater than or equal to 20%, or if they received a clinical score of 4 or greater for two consecutive days. Body weight and clinical score were recorded once per day for the duration of the study. For the purpose of survival curves, animals euthanized on a given day were counted dead the day after. Animals found dead in cage were counted dead on the same day. For euthanization, an overdose of ketamine was administered followed by a secondary method of euthanization.”

Click to access 2022.10.13.512134v1.full.pdf

It would have been painfully obvious to RFK Jr. and friends, if they were being intellectually honest, that at no point did this pre-print non-peer-reviewed study ever demonstrate the engineering of a new strain of “SARS-COV-2.” Yet somehow they cling to studies such as this to show that not only do “viruses” exist, but that they are being genetically engineered by Anthony Fauci and his merry band of cohorts who are unleashing these invisible entities upon the world. While RFK Jr. and friends decry the vaccines and the draconian measures implemented during this pandemic, their belief in these genetically engineered fictional entities allows for them to justify their continued quests to find “safer” vaccines and to sell alternative pharmaceutical treatments when there is no need for any treatment nor such a thing as a “safer” alternative as there are no “viruses” causing a new disease to begin with. Their promotion of this fraudulent concept keeps the fear-based propaganda train rolling and steers anyone looking to break free from the pharmaceutically crafted germ theory narrative back into the web of lies. Intentionally or not, RFK Jr. and friends are the pied pipers for the pharmaceutical industry leading the straying mice back into the fold.

However, if they were to peel the onion back a little bit more and look at the origin of “coronaviruses” (as I did here), as well as the pseudoscientific foundational evidence for any and all “viruses,” they would see how illogical their position truly is. In order for gain of function research to be legitimate, the “virus” or “viruses” claimed to be manipulated and engineered must be scientifically proven to exist first. This requires adherence to the scientific method and establishing a valid independent variable which would be properly purified and isolated particles assumed to be “viruses” found directly in the fluids of a sick host. Once obtained by being separated from all other potential contaminants and microbes, these particles would then have to be shown to cause the disease in question in a natural way, i.e. breathing the aerosolized particles in rather than using toxic cell-cultured fluids poured directly into the nostrils or injected in some way. If the same symptoms of disease occur, the same particles must be repurified and reisolated from the newly sickened host and shown to be identical by way of biochemical characterization and imaging of the particles. Proper control experiments utilizing fluids from healthy hosts or those with similar symptoms but said not to have the “virus” must also be performed. This process would need to be repeated on a large scale and shown to be reproducible and replicable by various independent researchers. Only once the “virus” has been put through such a rigorous process and scientifically proven to exist could it then be determined how to “grow” this entity as well as how to genetically engineer it in some way in order to make it more lethal. Only then would gain of function studies and a bioweapon/lab leak origin for any “virus” be hypothetically possible. However, this scientific process has never once been carried out in the over 100 years of the existence of virology. The “virus” particles must be proven to exist first. They can not be assumed to exist. It is straightforward simple everyday logic that is somehow lost on RFK Jr. and friends.

In Summary:

• There are many leaders of the health freedom community who would rather cling to pseudoscientific gain of function studies as evidence of “viruses” existing rather than examining whether any “virus” has ever been scientifically proven to exist by adherence to the scientific method
• They push a narrative, based on officially released emails, grant applications, and letters to Congress that Anthony Fauci is covertly funding GOF studies in China which resulted in the origin of “SARS-COV-2”
• Robert Kennedy Jr. has written a new book, The Wuhan Cover-up, pushing this GOF bioweapon/lab leak speculation
• He also detailed Fauci’s nefarious activities in his book The Real Anthony Fauci including funding “fraudulent do-nothing” studies during the HIV/AIDS era (seems like a pattern that GOF studies fall right into)
• Kennedy Jr. and friends are also pushing a new pre-print non peer-reviewed Boston U study claiming it is proof Fauci is funding GOF research and genetically-engineered “SARS-COV-2”
• However, if they read just the methods section of this study, it would be obvious to them that this is nowhere near the case

• The authors claimed to have generated chimeric recombinant “SARS-CoV-2” encoding the S gene of Omicron in the backbone of an ancestral “SARS-CoV-2” isolate and compared this “virus” with the naturally circulating Omicron variant
• In K18-hACE2 mice, while Omicron causes mild, non-fatal infection, the Omicron S-carrying “virus” inflicted severe disease with a mortality rate of 80%
• The researchers used genetically engineered mice for experiments with no mention as to what procedures were done to genetically engineer them
• Human embryonic kidney HEK293T cells, human lung adenocarcinoma A549 cells, human colorectal adenocarcinoma Caco-2 cells, and African green monkey kidney Vero E6 cells were maintained in DMEM containing 10% FBS and 1X non-essential amino acids
• “Lentiviral” delivery system was used to generate cells stably expressing human ACE2 and TMPRSS2
• “Anti-SARS-CoV” nucleocapsid (N) protein antibody was used for detection of the “SARS-CoV-2” N protein by IF
• In other words, they used non-specific invisible antibodies never properly purified/isolated to detect a protein for a “virus” never properly purified/isolated, thus using one fictional creation to determine the existence of another
• Expression plasmid encoding the spike protein of the “SARS-CoV-2” Wuhan isolate, “pCSII-SARS-CoV-2 F8,” was a kind gift from Yoshiharu Matsuura
• The researchers claimed that they replaced the Wuhan spike in this plasmid with a chemically synthesized version of Omicron spike and called the resulting plasmid “pCSII-SARS-CoV-2 F8_Omicron”
• The “SARS-CoV-2” BA.1 Omicron “virus” stock was generated in ACE2/TMPRSS2/Caco-2 cells
• Briefly, 5 x 105 cells, grown overnight in DMEM/10%FBS/1X NEAA in one well of a 6-well plate, were inoculated with the collection medium in which the nasal swab from a “SARS-CoV-2” patient was immersed
• Twenty-four hours after infecting cells, the culture medium was replaced with 2 ml of DMEM/2%FBS/1X NEAA and the cells were incubated for another 72h, at which point the CPE became visible
• The culture medium was harvested, passed through a 0.45 µ filter, and kept at -80ºC as a P0 “virus” stock
• As can be seen, this is the usual unpurified cell culture soup that is claimed to have a “virus” due to the appearance of the cytopathogenic effect which can be caused by numerous things other than a “virus”
• To generate a P1 stock, they infected 1 x 10 7 ACE2/TMPRSS2/Caco-2 cells, seeded the day before in a T175 flask, with the P0 “virus” at an MOI of 0.01
• The next day, the culture medium was changed to 25 ml of 2% FBS-containing medium and three days later, when the cells exhibited excessive CPE, the culture medium was harvested, passed through a 0.45 µ filter, and stored at -80ºC as a P1 stock
• Passed through a filter means it was minimally “purified” as filtration is known not to be able to separate out all contaminants/microbes
• The cells were incubated with serial 10-fold dilutions of the “virus” stock (250 µl volume per well) for 1h at 37ºC, overlayed with 1 ml per well of medium containing 1:1 mixture of 2X DMEM/4% FBS and 1.2% Avicel, and incubated at 37ºC for another three days
• “SARS-CoV-2 recombinant viruses” were generated by using a modified form of the recently published CPER protocol
• Full-length “SARS-CoV-2” cDNA cloned onto a bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) was used as a template to amplify the viral genome into eight overlapping fragments
• A UTR linker containing a hepatitis delta “virus” ribozyme (HDVr), the bovine growth hormone polyadenylation signal sequence (BGH-polyA), and a cytomegalovirus (CMV) promoter was cloned onto a pUC19 vector and used as a template to amplify the linker sequence
• The transfection mix was prepared by mixing 26 µl of the original 52 µl CPER reaction volume with 250 µl of Opti-MEM and 6 µl of TransIT-X2 Dynamic Delivery System
• The next day, the culture medium was replaced with fresh DMEM containing 2% FBS
• Every step of this process is a mix of human and foreign animal products with synthetic chemicals in order to produce the desired reaction in order to claim a “virus” is present
• Twelve to twenty weeks old male and female K18-hACE2 mice were inoculated intranasally with 10 4 PFU of “SARS-CoV-2” in 50 µl of sterile 1X PBS and the inoculations were performed under 1-3% isoflurane anesthesia
• The score of 1 was given for each of the following situations:
  • Body weight: 10-19% loss
  • Respiration: rapid and shallow with increased effort
  • Appearance: ruffled fur and/or hunched posture
  • Responsiveness: low to moderate unresponsiveness
  • Neurologic signs: tremors
• The sum of these individual scores constituted the final clinical score and animals were considered moribund and humanly euthanized in case of weight loss greater than or equal to 20%, or if they received a clinical score of 4 or greater for two consecutive days
• In other words, the 80% fatality rate was a subjective consideration based on an arbitrary scoring system leading to animals being euthanized unnecessarily and blamed on the “virus”

When attempting to determine the truth about something, we must trace the evidence as far back as it can go to verify the accuracy of the information presented. If we do not, we speak on a topic from a standpoint of ignorance.  In regards to “viruses,” this means pouring through the over 100 years of research in order to find out whether or not the existence of the invisible particles assumed to cause disease has ever met the scientific burden of proof by fulfilling the required steps of the scientific method. Anyone looking at virology openly and honestly will come to the conclusion that this burden has never been met for any “virus.” All one has to do is to pick a “virus” and look to the evidence from the foundational paper presented to see whether or not this is the case. I have done this work for the last 5 years. I have read the original studies to see if the researchers ever fulfilled the scientific requirements. Many of my peers have done the same. Because of this, we all came to the very same conclusion that the scientific evidence for the existence of any “virus” simply does not exist. Thus, we speak on this topic not from ignorance but from knowledge.

When Robert Kennedy Jr. was asked about the existence of “viruses,” he fumbled the hand-off and hastily punted the ball. He claimed that he was not a scientist and was not qualified to speak on the topic. Yet, RFK wrote a book covering the existence and origins of a “virus” he himself admitted to not being qualified to discuss nor to determine. How did Kennedy Jr. suddenly become qualified in order to be able to write an entire book and numerous articles on the topic? It definitely can not be from science, as RFK Jr. has admitted to not looking into the history of the “scientific” evidence behind “viruses.” If he had, he would realize there is no science to be found, only pseudoscience. It could not have come from any study purporting to show the genetic engineering of a “SARS-COV-2” as no such study exists. Apparently, all it takes to become qualified to speak on the mysterious man-made engineering origin of a “virus” is “leaked” emails and pure speculation.

Sadly, this is not just limited to RFK Jr. None of those previously mentioned in this article (and many others not included) are willing to look into the existence of “viruses” openly and honestly nor with critical thought and logic. We are regularly met with excuses relating to gain of function and genomics, recent “advances” that could only have legitimacy if the “virus” in question had been scientifically proven to exist first. Some even try to justify virology’s bastardization of the word “isolation.” Most often, we are told that “viruses” can not be found directly in the fluids of humans as there are not enough in there (yet there are enough “virions” to cause symptoms) and that “viruses” need a host cell (for some reason the actual sick host doesn’t count) in order to replicate. Somehow, the logic escapes these people that this information about how “viruses” operate and grow could not be obtained without either having found the “virus” in nature and/or in the fluids of a sick human first in order for “it” to be studied. Conjuring up cell culture soup in a lab and claiming that effects prove a cause is not how science works. It is, however, how pseudoscience works and these people would do well to learn the difference.

If RFK Jr. and friends were to stop chasing and promoting science fiction and learn to understand natural science, they would realize that the truth about the lack of scientific evidence for “viruses” does not hinder this health freedom movement but insteads strengthens it immensely. Once they realize that “viruses” do not exist and therefore can not be manufactured as bioweapons, they can stop fighting for “safer” vaccines as they will understand that there is no need for the toxic practice whatsoever. They will come to see that there are no alternative pharmaceutical treatments necessary as these products do nothing but promote further toxicity that the body must then contend with. They will be able to have a much more powerful message against lockdowns, quarantines, social-distancing, masking, etc. once they conclude that contagious infections do not occur making these measures completely illogical and entirely unnecessary. They will argue from a position of knowledge and strength as the onus will be placed back on those making the positive claims to prove that they are correct in accordance with the scientific method. RFK Jr. and friends will be free to step outside of the pharmaceutical paradigm and view it as the fear-based sick cycle system that it was built to be.

However, this only happens if they are willing to be intellectually honest. For those willing to admit that they may not be qualified to speak about the existence of “viruses,” there are many of us who are willing to help educate them or point them in the right direction so that they can make an informed opinion. For those unwilling to make such an acknowledgement and want to continue to promote pseudoscience as if it were legitimate scientific evidence, we have a measure designed to resolve this while adhering as closely to the scientific method as possible. If they are truly interested in actual scientific validation, there is no reason not to support it. The time has come to put down the science fiction storybook, to stop spreading scary tales to the audience, and to demand that real science should be carried out.