Part IV

44 min readAug 17, 2021

Masked in Plain View: The Novel Coronavirus Papers

The US Disclosed “Lab-Made”, “Engineered” “Novel” SARS Coronaviruses in 2015 and 2016; Permitted Funding to “Create, Transfer, and Use” Deadlier and More Highly Transmissible Genetically-Engineered Pandemic Strains of Coronaviruses in Laboratory Experiments Beginning in 2017 — But the US Government, the US/Western News Media and Scientists Remain Silent about this Truth and Open Secret in the Current Pandemic.

By Jita Merle Huangur

“We must complain. Yes, plain, blunt complaint, ceaseless agitation, unfailing exposure of dishonesty and wrong-this is the ancient, unerring way to liberty and we must follow it.”

— W.E.B. Du Bois, W.E.B. Du Bois Speaks: 1890–1919, with a tribute by M.L. King, Jr (ed. 1970)

“The day we see the truth and cease to speak is the day we begin to die. — Martin Luther King, Jr

“The men who are survivors of the syphilis study at Tuskegee are a living link to a time not so very long ago that many Americans would prefer not to remember, but we dare not to forget. It was a time when our nation failed to live up to its ideals, when our nation broke the trust with our people that is the very foundation of our democracy. It is not only in remembering the shameful past that we can make amends and repair our nation, but it is in remembering that past that we can build a better present and a better future. And without remembering it, we cannot make amends and we cannot move forward…. The United States Government did something that was wrong — deeply, profoundly, morally wrong. It was an outrage…. What was done cannot be undone. But we can end the silence…. Your federal government orchestrated a study so clearly racist.” — President Bill Clinton’s Formal Presidential Apology on the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments, May 16, 1997.

One of the core inventions that preceded the two US lab-made chimera novel coronaviruses were “Chimeric Coronavirus Spike Proteins”, a discovery patented by Dr. Baric and the USG in 2014. The patent and the vital information it contains is one of the scientifically established facts the two SARS-CoV-2 origins theories have not touched at all — for all the obvious reasons. The theories have avoided entirely this other key pertinent information: The vaccines US scientists created for the two lab-made pathogens in 2015 and 2016, respectively. The vaccines were tested on mice with serious negative outcomes. Extremely relevant here as well are: (1) coronavirus vaccines that were (are) being “designed” and “developed” in US labs since 2017 when the 2014 moratorium was revoked to permit (re)funding GOF research to create, transfer and use PPPs, including coronaviruses; (2) the messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine candidates for coronavirus disease US agencies, a US university and a US pharmaceutical company were testing on unnamed “models” just weeks before SARS-COV-2 emerged in China; and (3) the NIH, NIAID and Moderna conducted “human trial” with a mRNA vaccine for coronavirus disease in 2019, and “data” for that trial exists but is not divulged. Despite this silence, this question must be posed: What are the implications of these inventions and vaccine trials for the subject of vaccines for COVID-19? This section, the shortest of the series, focuses entirely on the matter of vaccines, SARS2 and the COVID-19 disease, and policies and strategies for vaccination by various nations, pharmaceutical companies, USG agencies, the WHO and others have implemented since the pandemic emerged. Furthermore, the section ponders why discussions and information about a vaccine for COVID-19 have absolutely ignored and totally remained silent about these publicly and scientifically documented facts. It is important to declare at this point that this segment is neither advocating an “anti-vax” position nor promoting opposition to vaccines. The section has no no “harmful information and intentionally deceptive information” about COVID-19 vaccines. Additionally, the section does not contain: “false, unfounded, or disproven claims that COVID-19 were not approved or do not exist”; “false, unfounded, or disproven claims regarding the safety or efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines and their potential side effects”; and “false, unfounded, or disproven claims regarding the development of the COVID-19 vaccine or misleading/false claims regarding their ingredients.” Rather, what the unit presents are indisputable and documented facts that coronavirus vaccines had been developed and tested (one on human subjects) before COVID-19 erupted.

2014 Patent for “Chimeric Coronavirus Spike Proteins”: Invented Platform for Developing Therapeutics and Vaccines for Coronaviruses

As already revealed in Part II, Dr. Baric and the USG applied for a patent for “Chimeric Coronavirus Spike Proteins” by publicly publishing a description of their invention in 2014.

What does the patent say about the “Chimeric Coronavirus Spike Proteins” and vaccines? A lot. According to information in the patent, these “chimeric coronavirus spike proteins” are to be used for therapeutic and other efforts to “treat” coronaviruses. Under the “Field of the Invention”, the patent states: “The present invention relates to methods and compositions comprising a chimeric coronavirus spike protein for treating and/or preventing a disease or disorder caused by a coronavirus infection.”

In its description of the invention, the patent states that “platforms for generating reagents and therapeutics are needed to detect and control the emergence of new strains [of coronaviruses], especially early in an outbreak prior to the development of type specific serologic reagents and therapeutics.” And for this reason: “The present invention overcomes previous shortcomings in the art by providing methods and compositions comprising a chimeric coronavirus spike protein for treating/and or preventing diseases and disorders caused by infection of a coronavirus.” In addition, the patent claims: “The present invention further provides an isolated nucleic acid molecule encoding the chimeric coronavirus spike protein of this invention, as well as a vector comprising the isolated nucleic acid molecule.”

Also provided are “compositions comprising the chimeric coronavirus spike proteins, isolated acid molecules and/or vectors of this invention in pharmaceutically acceptable carrier.” This means that the “chimera coronavirus spike protein” can be transmitted via vaccines, for example. The document reinforces this point by declaring that the invention “provides a method of producing an immune response to a coronavirus in a subject, treating a coronavirus infection in a subject, preventing a disease or disorder caused by coronavirus infection in a subject and/or protecting a subject from the effects of coronavirus infection, comprising administering [by vaccines, for instance] to the subject an effective amount of the chimeric coronavirus spike protein, the isolated nucleic acid molecule the vector and/or the composition of this invention, or any combination thereof, thereby producing an immune response to a coronavirus in the subject, treating a coronavirus infection in the subject, preventing a disease or disorder caused by coronavirus in the subject and/or protecting the subject from the effects of coronavirus infection.”

References in the patent to the invention and vaccines abound. For example, the patent refers to: “S[pike] protein based vaccines” made from different chimeric viruses; “Design of a chimeric Spike based CoV vaccine”; “Chimera S Vaccine”; “The Chimera S vaccine and SARS-CoV S vaccine”; the “generation of a Chimera S vaccine”; “a Chimeric Spike vaccine design can be effectively applied to coronaviruses from other subgroups”; “chimeric spike vaccine design”; and SARS-CoV Spike protein as a “model antigen” and a “vaccine platform.” The document lists as an example, “A multivalent vaccine that elicits broader protection against emerging human coronaviruses”. With respect to the invention’s delivery possibilities as a vaccine, the patent writes: “if the nucleic acid of this invention is delivered to the cells of a subject in an adenovirus vector, the dosage for administration of adenovirus to humans can range from about 107 to 109 plaque forming units (pfu) per injection, but can as high as 1012 (12 is upper), 1015 (15 upper) and/or 1220 (20 upper) per injection.” The document then adds: “The exact amount of the nucleic acid or vector required will vary from subject to subject, depending on the species, age, weight and general condition of the subject, the particular nucleic acid or vector used, its mode of administration and the like.”

Moreover, on the subject of the invention’s delivery as a vaccine in particular, the patent declares: “The nucleic acids, proteins, peptides, viruses, vectors, particles, antibodies and populations of this invention are intended for use as therapeutic agents and immunological reagents, for example, as antigens, immunogens, vaccines, and/or nucleic acid delivery.” The inclusion of “virus” on the list should be noted: This means the “chimeric coronavirus” can be delivered as a package in a vaccine. And as the patent states: “Thus in various embodiments, the present invention provides a composition comprising the nucleic acid, virus, vector, particle, antibody, and/or population of this invention in a pharmaceutically carrier.” The document further affirms: “In embodiments of this invention wherein a chimeric coronavirus spike protein is being administered, delivered and/or introduced into a subject, e.g., to elicit or induce an immune response, the protein can be delivered and/or introduced into the subject as a protein present in an inactivated … coronavirus.” It continues: “In some embodiments, the coronavirus protein or active fragment thereof can be administered to a subject as a nucleic acid molecule, which can be a naked nucleic acid molecule or a nucleic acid molecule present in a vector.”

Furthermore, the patent claims that the “nucleic acids and vectors of this invention can be administered orally, intranasally, parenterally (e.g., intravenously), by intramuscular injection”, etc. “In the methods described herein which include the administration and uptake of exogenous DNA into the cells of a subject (i.e., gene transduction or transfection), the nucleic acids of the present invention can be in the form of a naked DNA or the nucleic acids can be in a vector for delivering the nucleic acids to the cells for expression of the polypeptides and/or fragment of this invention. The vector can be a commercially available preparation or can be constructed in a laboratory according to methods well known in the art.” Furthermore, and more significantly, the patent asserts that this “vector delivery can be a viral system, such as a retroviral vector system, which can package a recombinant retroviral genome. The recombinant retrovirus can then be used to infect and thereby deliver to the infected cells nucleic acid encoding the polypeptide and/or fragments of this invention” (emphasis added).

“Exogenous DNA” is DNA (or RNA in the case of a virus) originating outside of an organism/subject of study. “Transfection” is the process of doing this DNA exogenous into human cells. Transfection is what the patent also calls “gene transduction.” “Transduction” (aka “gene transfer”) is the process by which exogenous or foreign DNA is introduced into a cell (human in this case) by a virus or viral vector. It is essentially a process of genome recombination resulting in the altering of human cells via genetic engineering. Therefore, transfection and transduction are genetic engineering mechanisms that facilitate the transfer of genetic material(s) from one cell to the other. In other words, they are methods of inserting foreign DNA from a “donor” cell to a “recipient” cell in which the former can transform the latter.

Applied to the patent, this means vaccines containing the chimeric coronavirus spike protein (as “donor” cells) will result in the transformation of the “recipient’s” (human) cells. This process is what, in essence, the patent refers to as “recombinant retroviral genome”, which, simply, is the introduction of new DNA (RNA) into the cells which were not there previously. This genetic engineering can also include what the patent also refers to “naked DNA”, which means: DNA that has been modified to remove the proteins that normally surround it. When the recipient cell takes a naked DNA, also known as purified DNA, the result is that it gives that cell a new characteristic or phenotype. Naked DNA is used for genetic transfers and vaccine manufacture.

What this means also is that vaccines developed via the invention’s technology can be based on mRNA models, for example. That is, chimeric coronavirus spike proteins can result in synthetic mRNA derivatives. Which signifies both the spike proteins and the chimeric coronaviruses could be used as a cloak to make a vaccine. In this case, the patent makes clear that its technology can be used to manufacture adenovirus vector vaccines or mRNA vaccines — and both models use the genetic modification techniques based on the invention’s artificial spike proteins.

Viral vector vaccines use a modified version of a different virus to deliver important instruction to human cells. In this model, the chimeric coronavirus spike proteins are used as the “vectors” to inject DNA coding for viral proteins in the cells and make them produce a response to the immune system. It is important to reiterate that the adenovirus vaccines don’t instruct the cells to manufacture the spike protein; rather, they actually inject it directly, encapsulated in said adenovirus. (The AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson vaccines that have been approved for COVID-19 are based on this method.)

The other vaccine that could be developed from the invention is mRNA, which depends on enormous use of spike proteins. Unlike the adenovirus vector vaccines, the mRNA vaccines do instruct the cells to manufacture the spike proteins in trillions. This indicates that the mRNA vaccine, once injected into the human cell, will instruct that cell to manufacture the artificial spike proteins that have been injected into it. (The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines that have been approved for COVID-19 are based on this technology.)

As the document further discloses, there are more than 500 or more amino acids sequences for the chimera coronavirus protein spikes. This suggests the possibilities and capacities to change the invention’s amino acids to invent chimeric coronavirus spike proteins mutations are endless and infinite. Putting together the invention is simple: Combine components from multiple chimera coronaviruses spike proteins to invent new ones. For instance, part of the combination can include MA15 and WIV1/3367 (which created the WIV1-MA15 vaccine, SCH014 and MA15 (which manufactured the SCH014-MA15 vaccine), etc. (With respect to the pandemic, are the variants/mutants of COVID-19 actually the manipulation of chimera coronavirus spike proteins? Or are the mutants essentially the result of such different chimera coronavirus spike proteins that are in the types of vaccines being used to “treat” the disease?) Answers to these questions are beyond the scientific know-how of this investigation. But one scientists who has ably unpacked the technicalities of all this subject is former Vice President and Chief Science Officer of Pfizer, Dr. Mike Yeadon. Dr. Yeadon has been specifically making the connections between amino acids and vaccines for SARS2 since the emergence of the pandemic [1].

So, what is evident is that way back in 2014, when barely no one had heard of coronaviruses and vaccines for a coronavirus pandemic, the USG and a virologist funded by tax dollars had patented chimeric coronavirus spike proteins to “treat” a potential or to protect against a coronavirus disease. This invention shows that coronaviruses, including multiple varieties of bat coronaviruses from nature and at least one from serial passage (MA15), were being genetically engineered so that their amino acids can be mutated and combined to construct a vaccine delivery platform to treat coronavirus infections. What is certain is that all “vaccines” that have been authorized for emergency use for COVID-19 are based on the delivery or induction of Spike glycoprotein synthesis. Have these vaccines used the chimeric coronavirus spike proteins described in the patent? This question needs to be asked for this reason: That a vaccine induced chimera coronavirus spike protein could actually cause the clinical signs, and even symptoms, of a coronavirus/or chimera coronavirus disease. As will be explained shortly, a partnership was established in 2019 between the USG, the NIH/NIAID, Moderna and Dr. Baric to test mRNA vaccine candidates for a coronavirus disease before SARS2 emerged to cause the pandemic.

US Genetically Engineered mRNA Vaccines to Treat Coronaviruses Existed before Covid-19 Emerged

So, a platform for creating vaccines for chimeric coronavirus spike proteins had already been invented almost five years before the deadliest-ever outbreak of a species of the coronavirus, the novel SARS-CoV-2, erupted into a pandemic in December 2019.

As the COVID-19 pandemic was taking over the world in 2020, the urgent need to curb its spread was focused on developing a vaccine for the disease. And the rush to create such a vaccine was being done at breakneck and unprecedented speed. In fact, this acceleration resulted in two “successful” COVID-19 vaccines being revealed in the space of a week in November 2020. The first was that announced by Pfizer, the American multinational pharmaceutical company, which claimed in a November 9 press statement that its “vaccine candidate was found to be more than 90% effective in preventing COVID-19 in participants without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection in the first interim efficacy analyses” [2]. The second was disclosed by Moderna, an American biotechnology/pharmaceutical company, in a November 16 press release that proclaimed its “COVID-19 vaccine candidate meets its primary efficacy endpoint” with a “vaccine efficacy of 94.5%” [3].

But what are the sources of these vaccines, and when and where were they first developed or designed? According to the official narrative, there were no vaccines for a novel SARS-related coronavirus, including the one that ended up as SARS-CoV-2, when what will turn out to be a pandemic started. This is how the official narrative explains what led to the development of the jabs for COVID-19: After the pathogen emerged in China, Chinese scientists examined and determined its genetic structure, including the genes that make up its spike proteins, and published this information on the Internet. Within minutes of this publication, Western scientists accessed this genome sequence and began using computer models to design a vaccine for the virus, an effort that resulted in the invention of a jab within weeks. Essentially, vaccine manufacturers informed the world that their their jabs for COVID-19 were based on computer models — not on an actual virus or virus particles.

But this is another Big Lie concocted by the official narrative. As already explained above, there was already a patented invented platform for manufacturing vaccines for chimeric coronavirus spike proteins before the pandemic emerged. Also, as the articles that announced the lab-made coronaviruses in 2015 and 2016, respectively, researchers who manufactured the pathogens also created vaccines for each. Additionally, and as revealed in Part I, various GOF experiments in US labs funded by the USG beginning in 2017 and ongoing to develop “novel” dangerous microbes in US labs involved “designing” and “developing” “novel” vaccines for them, and these included those made specifically for coronaviruses that will create a potential pandemic. (Much more on this shortly.)

However, it is Moderna’s claim that it started using computer models to develop its vaccine only after having had access to the genomic information of the virus from China that became the crowning glory of this narrative. Here is how Moderna describes the story about its vaccine in a company Press Release of February 10, 2020:

“mRNA-1273 is an mRNA vaccine against the novel coronavirus encoding for the viral Spike (S) protein, which was selected by Moderna in collaboration with the National Institutes of Health, the manufacture which was funded by the Center for Epidemic Preparedness and Innovations (CEPI). The S protein complex is necessary for membrane fusion and host cell infection and has been the target of vaccines against the coronaviruses responsible for Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). On January 13, the NIH and Moderna’s infectious disease research team finalized the sequence for the 2019-nCoV vaccine and Moderna mobilized toward clinical manufacture. The first clinical batch, including fill and finishing vials, was completed on February 7. This mRNA vaccine was designed and manufactured in 25 days.” [4]

We will return later to this Press Release, especially its “January 13” date, but first this probe will provide two examples of how the Moderna narrative was repurposed, repackaged and regurgitated by the MSM.

Here is how New York Magazine describes the expeditious steps that led to Moderna’s record-breaking development of its mRNA vaccine: According to the magazine, Moderna’s vaccine “had been designed by January 13 [2020]. This was just two days after the genetic sequence had been made public in an act of scientific and humanitarian generosity” by the Chinese [5]. The report continues: “Moderna’s vaccine took all of one weekend [to invent]. It was completed before China had even acknowledged that the disease could be transmitted from human to human, more than a week before the first confirmed coronavirus case in the United States. By the time the first American death was announced a month later, the vaccine had already been manufactured and shipped to the National Institutes of Health for the beginning of its Phase I clinical trial.” The magazine cannot hide its elation in proclaiming this victorious milestone: “This is — as the country and the world are rightly celebrating — the fastest timeline of development in the history of vaccines.” However, the magazine did not disclose that Moderna and the NIH have been for years collaborating to invent, develop and manufacture mRNA vaccines for coronavirus disease, and one such collaboration actually resulted in such vaccines being trialed on human subjects before COVID-19 appeared.

An other publication, Boston Magazine, portrays an even more romanticized account of Moderna’s “chasing a vaccine and breaking records for speed” to design and manufacture its jab. The mellifluous, elongated, exultant and triumphal prose in both magazines’ reports cannot hide the gaping holes their stories contain [6]. These omissions, as will be analyzed shortly, show that both magazines’ accounts of Moderna’s conquering and almost epic efforts to invent a vaccine in groundbreaking time are nothing but the information control and officially-sanctioned narrative management that were constructed to promote the propaganda aimed at manipulating the public about the vaccine.

And there is critical evidence that absolutely obliterates Moderna’s made-up narrative (and upends that given by the NIH, the NIAID and the USG) as parroted by news outlets, including the two magazines cited above. A publicly available DocumentCloud, “NIH-Moderna: Confidential Agreements” (CAs), contains immensely consequential details that contradict the Moderna vaccine storyline [7]. Essential to one particular CA are specifics enclosed in a “Material Transfer Agreement” (MTA) in which the NIAID and Moderna (“Provider”) agreed on December 16, 2019, to transfer material to a coronavirus scientist Dr. Baric at the University of North Carolina (“Recipient”). What material was transferred? The MTA clearly describes it as follows: “Provider agrees to transfer to Recipient’s Investigator the following Research Material: mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidates developed and jointly-owned by NIAID and Moderna.” Signing the MTA on behalf “FOR RECIPIENT: Recipient’s Investigator” is “Ralph Baric, PhD, Professor.” And signing on behalf “FOR PROVIDERS: NIAID’s Investigator” is “Barney Graham, MD, PhD.” (Please put an asterisk against this name for reasons that will become especially significant in a couple of paragraphs below.)

For now, though, this fact is worth noting: Prior to December 16, 2019, the NIAID and Moderna had “developed and jointly-owned” an “mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidate.” And what was the purpose for this MTA? It was to allow Dr. Baric to “Perform challenge studies with the mRNA vaccine in a [redacted information] model as described in Exhibit A” (emphasis added). Also redacted, rather suspiciously but intentionally, is the entire “Exhibit A” captioned “Research Program” which should contain details describing how and with what coronavirus species and model the “challenge studies with the mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidate” was to be conducted.

Although the crucial information in “Exhibit A” and its descriptive “Research Program” is missing, the MTA’s pronouncement that the “coronavirus vaccine candidate” will be used in “challenge studies” provides two significant clues to what the research experiment was about.

The first clue is “challenge studies.” What does this method/process mean? The most common scientific or medical use of the concept is “human challenge studies.” In such studies, medical professionals intentionally expose patients or human subjects to illnesses or viruses or pathogens so that they can study the patient’s symptoms and immune system response. Thus, in a “vaccine challenge studies”, researchers administer to patients (human subjects) or lab animal models the experimental vaccine, wait for some time to lapse, and then return to expose the vaccinated human subjects/animals to the disease virus the vaccine is aimed to treat. Following this exposure, the researchers will observe how well the vaccinated group resists (or tolerates) the virus compared to the control group that is exposed to the same substance used for the inoculation.

The second clue is “coronavirus vaccine candidates.” What is “vaccine candidate”? It “means finding out a suitable antigenic protein (antigenic determinant site) from the virus particles which are responsible for the disease and separate it as it no longer produces diseases and instead it should produce corresponding specific antiproteins (antibodies). This is purified and it is called [a] candidate vaccine which when introduced into individuals produces [specific] antibodies and this will neutralize the virus thereby protecting from particular infection and diseases” [8]. Which signifies that the mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidate developed and jointly-owned by the NIAID and Moderna would have gone through this process, clearly proving that a coronavirus was used to develop the candidate and/or to test it.

Translated to the MTA, Dr. Baric signed the agreement to “perform challenge studies with the NIAID/Moderna mRNA vaccine candidates in a “model” that could be lab mice or other animals, since the MTA states that the “RESEARCH MATERIAL MAY NOT BE USED IN HUMAN SUBJECTS” (bolded emphasis in original). (But that human subjects could have been used will become clear later.) In so doing, the researchers at UNC were to first inoculate this “model” with the vaccine candidates after which they will purposefully expose the model to coronavirus. Which means, and this is an extremely pivotal point, to conduct this challenge studies Dr. Baric and his lab will require access to both the experimental mRNA vaccine, the reason the MTA with NIAID/Moderna, and a source of an actual, genuine coronavirus, for example SARS, that can cause the viral disease. So, here is this pertinent question (an answer to which will strike a fatal blow to the glamorized made-up narrative about how Moderna invented a vaccine for SARS-CoV-2 just weeks after the virus appeared in China): Where did Dr. Baric get the coronavirus in December 16, 2019 to experiment with the NIAID/Moderna mRNA vaccine? Well, easy, and any (or a combination) of the following could be that source:

First: As this investigation has thoroughly established by now, Baric’s lab had engineered two novel coronaviruses in 2015 and 2016 both of which were invented to infect humans directly, possessed features eerily similar to SARS-CoV-2 and were described as poised for human emergence. Either or both could have been used to perform the vaccine challenge studies.

Second: In 2014, Dr. Baric and the USG patented an invention for “chimeric coronavirus spike proteins”, which the Baric lab could have used to generate a lab-made coronavirus to conduct the challenge studies.

Third: One of the labs the NIAID started (re)funding in 2017 following the reversal of the 2014 ban (although the moratorium never actually applied to this lab because it was conducting GOF experiments while the suspension was in place) was the Baric facility. And one project funded at the lab after the reversal was to conduct GOF experiments that will create coronaviruses and develop vaccines, specifically mRNA, for them.

Details in the redacted “Research Program” section will reveal facts about one or all three of these as the source for the SARS-CoV that Dr. Baric used to perform challenge studies for the NIAID/Moderna vaccine candidates.

Additionally, supporting the claim that a SARS-CoV was the pathogen used in the challenge studies are these two points:

The first is that the December 16, 2019, MTA is unique for this central reason: It is the only one among other MTAs in CAs involving Moderna, the NIAID and the NIH and the use of an mRNA vaccine not to name a specific virus the vaccine is directed to be experimented with. For example, there is information in a 2016 agreement between the NIH, the NIAID and Moderna to use “Moderna’s mRNA technology” to “test the preclinical efficacy of an mRNA vaccine” for HIV. There is another MTA between NIAID and Moderna signed in 2017 for an “Evaluation of an mRNA vaccine for Zika virus.” And there is a “Research Collaboration Agreement” between the NIAID and Moderna initially signed in 2017, with NIAID reference # 2017–1179. It was then amended between May and June 2019 that reads: “NIAID and Moderna will collaborate to evaluate immunogenicity of mRNA vaccines for Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and Nipah virus in animal models” (emphasis in original). This amended agreement was signed December 16, 2019 by Moderna’s infectious disease research representative; an NIAID official signed the document in January 13, 2020 (again, pay attention to this date). Even the amended MTA retained references to MERS-CoV. Therefore, it is certain that the coronavirus the NIAID/Moderna mRNA vaccine challenge studies used in the Baric lab at UNC was not MERS-CoV. The MTA would have named MERS-CoV if it was the coronavirus that was employed. Which clarifies that the only other coronavirus the challenge studies could have used is SARS-CoV.

The second can be gleaned in some rather incredible disclosures in the Boston Magazine article of Moderna’s development of its mRNA vaccine. Some pieces of details in the magazine’s narrative confirm directly that the coronavirus used in the MTA was a SARS-based pathogen. And here are the particulars.

In narrating the stages leading to Moderna’s invention of its vaccine at a record-setting pace, the magazine writes: “Moderna had worked with [Barney] Graham and the NIH over the past few years on its quest to bring a whole new class of vaccines to market.” (And the CAs and MTAs in the DocumentCloud files show one dimension of the history of such agreements.) Graham is the Deputy Director of the Vaccine Research Center at the National Institutes of Health and, as you will recollect, is the NIAID official who signed (although did not date) the MTA. Therefore, his authority on and knowledge into these matters cannot be contested or dismissed. According to the magazine, the first person the head of Moderna, Boston headquarters, made contact with via email when news of the virus broke from China in late December was Graham. One email between the two stands out. And the magazine describes that exchange as follows: “While [Graham] couldn’t yet identify [the virus in China], Graham said, ‘If it’s a coronavirus, we know what to do and have proven mRNA is effective [sic].” Graham’s missive makes clear that, although he was not sure that the virus unfolding in China was a coronavirus, “we [NIH/NIAID and Moderna] know what to do” if the Chinese virus turns out to be a coronavirus because they “have proven mRNA” vaccine that “is effective” against the pathogen. Graham’s communication is unambiguously clear: An “effective” mRNA vaccine against a coronavirus already existed both before the pathogen’s outbreak in China and Moderna’s claim that its “mRNA vaccine was designed and manufactured in 25 days.”

The magazine’s account continues with this other extremely significant detail in support of that last point: “The NIH confidence [about the fact that it has ‘proven mRNA’ vaccine that ‘is effective’ against the coronavirus that could be spreading in China] stemmed from Moderna’s early-stage human trial data from 2019” (emphasis added). In fact, “that data was so encouraging that” the Moderna boss “was set to announce in a few day’s time that the company would be doubling down on its vaccine-development program in 2020, with hopes of getting the world’s first mRNA vaccine — and what would be Moderna’s first licensed product — onto the market in the next few years.” There is no nuance here, and this is spectacularly public ownership of these facts, from which the following key conclusions must be drawn and carefully unpacked.

Graham discloses that the NIH and Moderna “have a proven mRNA [vaccine that] is effective” against coronavirus. He was not sure if the virus emerging in China belonged to this species. However, once the Chinese made public the genetic information of the pathogen that had erupted in China, it was discovered to be a coronavirus, first called “2019-nCoV” and then later labelled “SARS-CoV-2.” After this knowledge became public, agreements between the NIH and Moderna allowed the latter to develop a vaccine, initially called mRNA-1273, against the Chinese variant. Which indicates that the “effective” mRNA vaccine Graham refers to had been tested against a SARS-related coronavirus that was SARS-CoV-2 or a closely related, or a derivative or mutant, of it.

Graham also explicitly reveals that the NIH and Moderna were confident that, if it turns out that the disease developing in China is coronavirus, their mRNA vaccine could be effective against such a species for this reason: This confidence “stemmed from Moderna’s early-stage human trial data from 2019.” The suggestion here is clear: The NIH and Moderna trialed a coronavirus mRNA vaccine on human subjects in 2019. Testing the vaccine, as the previous explanation of “vaccine challenge studies” shows, is predicated on using actual coronavirus on humans, meaning the human subjects were dosed with or exposed to the coronavirus in order to experiment with the vaccine. What is not clear is: Which research experiments or program was the “early-stage human trial from 2019” based on? Graham refers to 2019 broadly without naming a month in that year or a research program that yielded the data. However, according to the CAs there are two mRNA vaccine studies with coronaviruses in 2019. The first is the amended 2017 “Research Collaboration Agreement” between the NIAID and Moderna signed between May and June 2019. This research collaboration was directed toward evaluating “immunogenicity of mRNA vaccines for Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and Nipah virus in animal models.” The second is the MTA the NIAID/Moderna signed with Dr. Baric in December 16, 2019 to perform mRNA vaccine challenge studies with an unnamed coronavirus. So, which of these studies is the early-stage human trial data of 2019 from? Or does the data come from another mRNA coronavirus vaccine studies research program that has not been documented by the NIH, the NIAID and Moderna?

What is clear, though, is that the data is not from the MERS-CoV mRNA vaccine studies because of this central point: Moderna’s account of its development of the vaccine for SARS-CoV-2 proclaimed: “On January 13, the NIH and Moderna’s infectious disease research team finalized the sequence for the 2019-nCoV vaccine and Moderna mobilized toward clinical manufacture.” There is a gigantic contradiction between Moderna’s account and that recorded in the CAs. That is, facts in the CAs simply do not support Moderna’s accepted narrative that a collaboration between it and the NIH on January 13 led to the processes that ended in the manufacture of the mRNA-1273 vaccine for a SARS-related coronavirus or “2019-nCoV.” And this incongruity is based on that marked date — January 13, 2020. The only document in the CAs attesting to this “finalization” is mentioned on p. 85. That finalization was for the amended research with the mRNA vaccine studies for MERS-CoV. Moderna’s “Head [of] Infectious Disease Research” signed the document on December 16, 2019. It took the NIAID representative almost a month to sign the document on January 13, 2020. Thus, the “finalization” Moderna refers to having occurred on January 13 was not for the development of its mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine candidate for SARS-CoV-2, but for a MERS-CoV inoculation. How is this possible?

Irrespective of where the early-stage human trial data came from, here are these pertinent questions: Were the NIH and Moderna secretly and illegally testing their coronavirus vaccine candidates and the virus on human subjects? Were the human subjects informed that these substances were being trialed on them? And did they give their informed consent allowing such trials to be performed on them? Where were these human trials conducted? These questions need to be asked because of the ambiguity in the NIAID/Moderna/UNC MTA of December 2019 with regards to the research’s use of human subjects. As stated previously, on that matter this is what the MTA pronounces: “THE RESEARCH MATERIAL MAY NOT BE USED ON HUMAN SUBJECTS.” The attention here is on the auxiliary (modal) verb “may”, which suggests the “possibility” and “probability” that the Baric lab could be given the “permission”, and “opportunity” to use the “research material” on “human subjects.” Furthermore, “may” indicates concession, conditions or authorization could be given to the lab to allow for the materials to be used on human beings.

Other MTAs, for example that relating to experiments with mRNA vaccines for MERS-CoV, state categorically: “RECIPIENT WILL NOT USE MATERIAL IN RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS.” (The NIAID/Moderna/UNC MTA does not have a similar statement.) The auxiliary verb “will” clearly expresses a command, an injunction stipulating that the research material must not be used on human subjects. But what will settle all this is for the NIH, the NIAID and Moderna to disclose their “human trial date from 2019” which should reveal whether the research material was used on human subjects at the Baric lab. (Because of his position, Graham should be aware of the results, and in possession of the data, that came from the challenge studies Dr. Baric performed with the jointly-owned NIAID/Moderna mRNA vaccine candidate with an unidentified model and an unnamed coronavirus.)

Graham’s revelations in the magazine’s report are massive and prove what some would think as unprovable, and bring into the open this undeniable fact: That in 2019, the USG, some of its agencies and a biotechnological/pharmaceutical company were conducting shadowy experiments on human subjects with coronaviruses and vaccine candidates for them before SARS2 appeared in China.

Furthermore, the December 16, 2019 MTA is confirmed evidence that the US was already conducting mRNA vaccine challenge studies with a SARS-CoV before a novel variant started in China. When SARS2 emerged, the official position of the USG on the virus and the vaccines that were being developed for the new germ was that it had no knowledge of the existence of a mRNA vaccine for a pandemic SARS-CoV-2 until weeks later when biotechnology companies such as Moderna started developing inoculation for the novel coronavirus that had appeared in China and was officially announced in December 31, 2019. Thus, Moderna’s claim that it developed its first mRNA vaccine for a SARS-CoV in 25 days is patently not true.

Therefore, and evidently and undeniably, the narrative that Western governments and their pharmaceutical companies have conveyed during the pandemic that they first started creating vaccines for this SARS-based coronavirus immediately after the plague started is incompatible with information at the NIH website describing US-financed GOF research that has been designing and creating such vaccines since 2017; information in the 2014 patent; research materials in two peer-reviewed journals describing invented and tested vaccines for two US lab-made coronaviruses; the MTA of December 16, 2019, between Dr. Baric and the NIAID and Moderna allowing the Baric lab to perform challenge studies with mRNA vaccine candidates for a coronavirus in an unnamed model/subject; and Graham’s revelation in Boston Magazine that the NIH and Moderna “have proven mRNA” vaccine that “is effective” against coronavirus, and that effectiveness was obtained in data that came from human trials conducted in 2019. Also, it is pivotal to recall what the EC Policy Report, mentioned in Part I, stated about vaccines and the engineering of PPPs in the EU nations. Such endeavors, the document revealed, “includ[es] the prioritization and development of pre-pandemic vaccines.” This disclosure was made in 2015.

No Successful Vaccine for Lab-Made, Genetically Engineered Novel Coronaviruses: Vaccines Designed and Developed for SHC014-MA15 and WIV1-MA15 Did Not Work

It is vital to point out that when the NM article revealed the existence of the first lab-made novel coronavirus it also contained this significant, sobering detail about SHC014-MA15 and vaccines: The scientists who manufactured the pathogen disclosed that they used their manmade coronavirus for “vaccine studies in mice”, which also suggests that they had also “designed” and “developed” a vaccine for their synthetic invention. Here is the explanation of their endeavor: “In contrast to vaccination of mice with DIV [earlier species of SARS], the use of SHC014-MA15 as a live, attenuated vaccine showed potential cross-protection against challenge with SARS-CoV, but the results have important caveats.” This disclosure unambiguously shows that SCH014-CoV-MA15 exists both as a “live, attenuated vaccine” and as a stronger, undiluted coronavirus.

What is a “live, attenuated vaccine”? According to the US Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), “Live vaccines use a weakened (or attenuated) form of the germ that causes a disease. Because these vaccines are so similar to the natural infection that they help prevent, they create a strong and lasting immune response” [9]. Explained otherwise, it is a vaccine that contains a whole, live virus or bacteria which has been “weakened” so that it creates a protective immune response but does not cause disease in healthy people. Thus, a “live attenuated vaccine” can also be a genetically modified (“designed”) yet weakened variant of a virus.

The patent does not directly list SHC014-MA15 in its application. It does, however, mention SHC014-CoV and MA.15-CoV as individual components that could be combined to manufacture chimeric coronavirus spike proteins upon which a vaccine to “treat” coronavirus infections could be developed. Inarguably, therefore, the SHC014-MA15 vaccine was genetically engineered possibly using the technology described in the patent.

Thus, and in the context of the US lab-made novel coronavirus, this further indicates that the genetically constructed SHC014-MA15 live attenuated vaccine was created from the equally bioengineered novel chimeric pathogen — which was “weakened” or “attenuated.” As per their explanation in the article, US scientists invented a genetically mutated SHC014-MA15 with inserted “novel” spike proteins. In the process of doing so, they created a vaccine which was also genetically modified to deliver bits of the created pathogens into mice to observe how to prevent SHC014-MA15.

Although the HHS states that live attenuated vaccines “create a strong and lasting immune response”, this is not what the scientists observed with regards to SHC014-MA15 as a vaccine. First, they note generally that vaccines simply don’t work against coronaviruses, and offer “diminished protection against SARS-CoV over time.” Second, and with specific reference to their synthetic creation, the scientists assert that “the SHC014-MA15 infection dose… induce… weight loss and lethality in some aged animals.” They also reveal that “vaccination with a lower dose of SHC014-MA15… did not induce weight loss, but failed to protect aged animals from SARS-MA15.” Without ambiguity, they then disclose that the vaccine “did not provide protection from the challenge with SHC014-MA15”; “aged mice failed to neutralize SHC014-MA15”; and, in fact, “vaccination resulted in robust immune pathology” and “eosinophilia.” (According to the Mayo Clinic, “Eosinophilia is a higher than normal level of eosinophilis. Eosinophilis are a type of disease-fighting white blood cell. This condition most often indicates a parasitic infection, an allergic reaction or cancer” [10]. Given these results, the scientists conclude: “Together, the data suggest that SHC014-MA15 challenge may confer cross-protection against SARS-CoV through conserved epitopes, but the required dose induces pathogenesis and precludes use as an attenuated vaccine.”

Dr. Baric, whose lab created SCH014-CoV-MA15, is quoted in the Vice essay saying that the synthetic pathogen “’resisted all vaccines and immunotherapy, too.’”

These observations are further explicitly captured in the NM article’s Abstract as follows: “Evaluation of available SARS-based immune-therapeutic and prophylactic modalities revealed poor efficacy; both monoclonal antibody and vaccine approaches failed to neutralize and protect from infection with CoVs using the novel spike protein.”

The conclusion from the study in the NM article is that SHC014-MA15 as a live, attenuated vaccine, in fact, harmed the group of mice it was tested on. The researchers also disclose that no successful vaccines for the manufactured novel coronavirus was developed, suggesting, in addition, that creating one may not be possible. In fact, under the article’s subsection “Vaccine” the scientists state, “Importantly, the failure of available therapeutics defines a critical need for further study and for the development of treatments.” They also write that “vaccine would not be protective against infection with [novel coronaviruses] and could possibly augment disease in the aged vaccinated group.” They then warn that “scientific review panels [approving GOF experiments] may deem similar studies building chimeric viruses based on circulating strains too risky to pursue.” In short, they seriously admonish that the danger of the lab-made novel coronavirus (and for any coronavirus for that matter) exists in the reality and fact that there is no immunity against it. However, the USG ignored this warning in 2017 by re-approving funding for GOF-based research in US labs to “create, transfer and use” even deadlier and highly communicable enhanced PPPs that spread widely and cause high morbidity and mortality in human populations.

The virologists who lab-engineered the other chimera coronavirus, WIV1-CoV-MA15, also report developing and testing a vaccine for their pathogen. They document this information in a section of the PNAS article they subtitled “Vaccine Efficacy Limited Against WIV1 Spike.” They write that in their experiments “Vaccinated mice” were “challenged 6 week postinitial vaccination with WIV1-MA15 and examined over a 4-d[ay] time course.” However, their conclusion is explicit: “Together, the data indicate that DIV [earlier species of SARS] vaccination would not provide significant protection and may cause adverse effects in the context of WIV1-CoV spike-mediated outbreak.” In their Fig. 5. Note, they explain: “Double-inactivated whole SARS-CoV vaccine fails to protect aged animals from chimeric WIV1-CoV infection.” Furthermore, and notably, they warn that the “failure of SARS DIV vaccine to induce protection highlights the need for continued development of additional therapeutics.” They also write that “vaccine failure indicated further development and refinement are necessary.” And they admonish that any such invented vaccines “require further testing and development before deployment in an outbreak setting.” And on this subject, they conclude: “Notably, whereas current antibody-based therapies hold great promise in treating WIV1-CoV spike-mediated infection, failure of SARS-CoV vaccination approaches present a major challenge for any efforts to protect against future emergent viruses.” Once again, the USG disregarded this grave warning in 2017 when it started to re-fund GOF experiments in US labs to create, transfer and use deadlier and more transmissible species of enhanced PPPs, including coronaviruses.

It is also worth mentioning here that although the patent does not directly list WIV1-CoV-MA15 in its application, it does refer to WIV1-CoV/3367-CoV and MA.15-CoV as individual components that could be combined to manufacture chimeric coronavirus spike proteins from which a vaccine to “treat” coronavirus infections could be developed. Therefore, the WIV1-CoV-MA15 vaccine was possibly genetically engineered using the technology described in the patent.

Ultimately, scientists in both experiments report that their research does not show promising results of their vaccine candidates in animal (mice) studies. In fact, the studies exhibit that the animals did die, and there were other problems with them as well, after being vaccinated. So, the simple message in the studies: Coronavirus vaccines tested on mice are not safe; in fact, such vaccines are dangerous. However, earlier research efforts to create vaccine for COVID-19 did not mention the experiments in the NM article and the PNAS article showing that vaccine studies in mice yielded less-than-promising results for SARS-CoV-MA15 and WIV1-CoV-MA15, which may or may not be genetically related to SARS-CoV-2. For example, one such study published in The Lancet [11] reported promising results of a vaccine candidate in animal studies, but failed to take into consideration the not-so-promising results in the mice studies as explained in the NM and PNAS articles. The Lancet study’s claim that it was the first to develop a novel coronavirus vaccine candidate from an animal study is simply a lie. Details in the NM article prove that a vaccine candidate was tested in an animal study for a novel SARS coronavirus in 2015.

Engineered Coronaviruses and Lab-Made mRNA Vaccines Beginning in 2017

It is indisputable, then, that two vaccine types had been designed and developed by USG-funded GOF experiments with coronaviruses with possible pandemic potentials before the COVID-19 pandemic erupted. The first, as experimented on mice, is the traditional, conventional vaccine that was created for the lab-made novel coronavirus. Traditional vaccines use weakened virus, which teaches the immune system about the features of a specific virus. These vaccines are produced by growing weakened forms of a virus in chicken eggs or other mammalian cells in a lab. Second, there is the vaccine designed and developed through the new gene-based technology resulting in the manufacture of mRNA jabs. Unlike the traditional vaccine which uses a weakened virus, mRNA, on the other hand, requires only the pathogen’s genetic code or the existence of a chimeric coronavirus spike protein (for vaccines for coronaviruses) for vaccine design and invention.

It is the case that mRNA vaccines were being developed in US labs in GOF experiments before the MTA between the NIAID/Moderna and Dr. Baric was signed. Was the mRNA vaccine candidates that was transferred to Dr. Baric a product of such experiments?

It is important to recall, as revealed in Part 1, that most NIH-funded GOF experiments to create, transfer and use enhanced PPPs, including coronaviruses, mention “Vaccine Design” and “Vaccine Development” as part of their “biodefense”, “biotechnology” and dual-use research with the microbes. These experiments, as public documents at NIH websites demonstrably display, designate that US researchers inventing such pathogens have been designing and making GOF-based (meaning genetically engineered) vaccines for the enhanced PPPs they have been bioengineering in labs from 2017–2019 and, therefore, before the emergence of COVID-19 in 2020. That a patent for “Chimera Coronavirus Spike Protein” to invent such vaccines existed before the pandemic establishes this scientific fact. Additionally, Graham’s disclosure that the NIH and Moderna “have proven mRNA” vaccine that “is effective” against coronaviruses before the pathogen appeared in China further solidifies this point.

Moreover, such endeavors also confirm NIH statements in multiple documents following the reversal of the 2014 ban stating that the agency’s funding to (re)start GOF lab experiments with enhanced PPPs that can infect humans directly involves a simultaneous development of medical countermeasures (vaccines, for instance) for them. As stated previously, the single narrative asserts that the quickness to the development of the mRNA vaccines was based on the revelation of the genetic features of SARS-CoV-2 by China. But the mRNA platform, as illustrated in the patent, had been ready for years to create vaccines within days of a virus’s emergence based on the genetic sequence of that virus. In fact, evidence show that this platform was recently, between 2017–2019, being funded by the NIH, the NIAID, and by extension the USG. Additionally, and as pointed out earlier, processes described in the making of such vaccines follow those contained in the patent.

For example, as funding information provided by the NIH and NIAID show, one of the jabs that was being developed from 2017–2019 in such experiments for a potential pandemic coronavirus was the mRNA vaccine. As also previously explained, the mRNA jab is made with a set of protein-building instructions that are implanted into human cells/bodies. Once such implantation is accomplished, the device in the vaccine takes the role of the cells in making proteins and starts producing proteins themselves. Thus, it is claimed, the body would be able to easily and quickly repel any future infection of the coronavirus because antibodies are already present, destroying or reducing the severity of COVID-19.

Significantly, one of the 2017–2019 NIAID-funded vaccine experiments was for “rational design” and “evaluation” of novel mRNA vaccines for coronaviruses. “Rational design, also known as computer modeling, attempts to modify or create [protein] molecules for specific applications by predicting which amino acid sequence will produce a protein for the desired properties” [12]. Therefore, rationally designed vaccines are created via protein engineering, a method that involves making changes to existing viruses/proteins also known as DNA breeding via recombinant technology, or gene expression technology processes of deletion and insertion, mutation and selection, of protein properties. Evidently, rationally designing a vaccine means identifying a receptor or enzyme for the disease a jab is being created for. This then would involve decoding or explicating the structure and function of that enzyme to design the vaccine.

Whether the pharmaceutical companies who invented the mRNA vaccines being used for COVID19 deployed the chimera coronavirus spike proteins contained in the patent, or actually used them in the mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidates in the MTA, is for them to tell the public. What, though, is undeniable is that platforms for making such vaccines had already been in place for years, and an actual mRNA vaccine had already been developed and was being tested just weeks, and possibly months in human trials, before SARS-CoV-2 emerged to cause COVID-19.

“Pathogens to Be Modified Must … Produce Knowledge — Such as a Vaccine — that Would Benefits Humans”: Delivering COVID-19 Vaccinations Without Full Disclosures

As previously stated, when the novel coronavirus first emerged, epidemiologists and virologists and agencies such as the WHO, the NIH, the NIAID, the FDA, the CDC, among others, claimed that because this particularly dangerous coronavirus was completely new, there was no immunity, in the form of a vaccine for instance, against it. This position precisely echoes the point expressed by US scientists who engineered the two novel coronaviruses.

In fact, the Director of NIAID, Dr. Fauci, and the Director of the NIH, Dr. Collins, were making statements about a vaccine for the novel coronavirus since the germ appeared on US soil. Dr. Fauci stated then that there did not yet exist a vaccine for the virus and time frame to develop one could take over a year. (As the MTA of 2019 and the Graham revelation show, Fauci’s utterances were false.) In some instances, Dr. Fauci claimed that it will take two months to determine whether a vaccine is safe enough to be trialed in a small study in humans. But Graham’s divulgence referring to “Moderna’s early-stage human trial data from 2019” of a “proven mRNA” vaccine candidate negates Fauci’s proclamations.

For his part, Dr. Collins explained in an interview the possibilities of and approaches to developing a vaccine for a virus whose “genome sequence” we “knew about in January [2020]” [13]. However, he failed to disclose publicly available information about the genome sequence of the NIH-financed, lab-made SHC014-MA15 and WIV1-MA15; he also ignored to reveal that vaccines were created for these unnatural viruses, but that the jabs did not work when tested on mice. Moreover, Dr. Collins neither disclosed his agency’s funding of the experiments that produced the chimera coronavirus spike proteins that can be used as a platform for vaccine development for coronaviruses, which led to this invention being granted a patent in 2014, nor the fact about the NIH’s refinancing of experiments to manufacture “novel” vaccines US scientists were developing for the enhanced “novel” PPPs they were creating in US labs from 2017–2019. And, finally, he disregarded information contained in the MTA of December 16, 2019 or in the data from the human trial Moderna conducted with its “proven mRNA” vaccine in 2019.

Additionally, the directors have not revealed that the human study that were undertaken to develop a vaccine for COVID-19 is/was not the opportunity for the US to trial “designed vaccines” and other medical countermeasures for the genetically engineered enhanced coronaviruses that their agencies are funding to create, transfer and use. In fact, substantial matters related to COVID-19 and vaccines mentioned in the Fauci emails published by Buzzfeed are redacted. For example, an email thread beginning on Friday, February 14 to about May 2, with the subject heading: “FY2020 — Covid-19 — Actual and Forecasted Spending as of 2/13/20”, has multiple references to vaccines — their testing on humans and non-human primates, including a “proto-type vaccine”; “spending to accelerate discovery of new therapeutics, vaccines and diagnosis”; vaccine “clinical trials” and “observational trials”; information to test an mRNA (mRNA-1273 nCoV) “vaccine two-dose schedule in mice. The study will measure the immune response to this vaccine in an animal model in anticipation of clinical test in humans” — are redacted. Additionally, information on other therapeutics and treatment for COVID-19, such as “concerns” over the use of the drug Remedsivir on “randomized trials”; about “Validated precise prediction of Remedsivir’s clinical efficacy on SARS-CoV-2 viral overload”; or “Autopsy data supporting Remedsivir trial”, are also redacted. Further probing discloses that the mRNA-1273-nCoV trial vaccine is actually what ended up as the Moderna vaccine [14].

This investigation has already disclosed numerous times that the NIH and the NIAID funded the experiments that invented the manmade coronaviruses, SHC014-MA15 and WIV1-MA15. Participating in those research was an employee/scientist of the FDA. And the conclusion of both research clearly stated that immunity against the virus in the form of a vaccine may be nonexistent. Moreover, this investigation has also divulged that in its recommendations that preceded the repeal of the 2014 moratorium, the NIH asserted that the creation, transfer and use of enhanced PPPs through GOF experiments will be done simultaneously with the invention of medical countermeasures (MCM), such as vaccines, for them. In fact, one of the critical recommendations advanced for allowing PPPs to be created in labs was for this reason.

As the NYT reported in 2017 following the suspension of the 2014 moratorium, a part of the reasons Dr. Collins gives for permitting research that creates dangerous potential pandemic germs in labs in US labs is the fact that the “pathogen to be modified must pose a serious threat, and the work must produce knowledge — such as a vaccine — that would benefit humans.” Confirming this position, Dr. Collins is quoted in the NYT as saying: “We want to be sure we’re doing the right thing [in genetically modifying deadly pandemic pathogens in labs and simultaneously creating vaccines for them].” And, as stated earlier, such funded experiments include “Vaccine design” and “vaccine development” in their research. But in the ongoing pandemic, Dr. Collins has not revealed what is the status of the designed vaccines created or that are being developed side-by-side the PPPs that have been or are being synthetically invented in US labs following the suspension.

Thus, although one of the clearly stated objectives in creating these artificial viruses is to also manufacture therapeutics and vaccines for them, what has not been disclosed is whether such vaccines have (had) been developed before the pandemic began. If they have (had), do such vaccines have any connections to: (1) Those that were used in the Baric lab? (2) Those that were used in the human trial for the “proven mRNA” vaccine Graham mentions, and (3) those that have been created for COVID-19?

Additionally, some of the companies, especially the big pharmaceuticals (Big Pharma), and their partners that have developed (and those that are still developing) vaccines for COVID-19 are those named in the NSABB Report to have been part of the deliberations about GOF experiments to create PPPs, a fact these vaccine makers have also not disclosed to the public. For example, one of the vaccines for COVID-19 was developed and tested via the partnership of Oxford University and Moderna. Moreover, researchers at Oxford partnered with British drug maker AstraZeneca to produce and commercialize a possible vaccine, which concluded with human testing by fall 2020 [17]. What is pertinent here is that Oxford University is one of the universities listed in the NSABB Report to have participated in discussions about the use of GOF experiments to create PPPs, including coronaviruses, for dual-use research purposes. But Oxford University has not disclosed this critical information to the public as well as to those volunteers on whom its vaccine was tested. (Another vaccine was developed by GSK (GlaxoSmithKline) and Sanofi) [18].

Another research company that claims involvement in developing vaccines for COVID-19 is the British Wellcome Trust [19]. It should be recalled that, according to the analysis of the Fauci emails in Part III, senior members of the Trust, including its director, played critical roles in the attempts to conceal the initial claims made by scientists that SARS-CoV-2 was not natural. It was also revealed that the EU Policy Report on GOF experiments with PPPs contained a Wellcome Trust Position Statement on bioterrorism and biomedical research and the development of vaccines for lab-made pathogens. As stated in Part III, the “scope of the Statement includes experiments to increase transmissibility of a pathogen.” So, is Wellcome Trust’s involvement in developing vaccines for COVID-19 connected to its lab-made pathogens?

But, perhaps, the most alarming of these non-disclosures relates to the development of Moderna’s mRNA vaccine for SARS-CoV-2 which has been authorized to be used against COVID-19. There were two-known mRNA vaccine candidate trials for coronavirus in 2019 and before COVID-19 emerged in China that involved Moderna. The first is the jointly-owned NIAID/Moderna mRNA vaccine candidates used in the Baric lab “research program” commencing in December 16, 2019. The second is the NIH/Moderna “proven mRNA” vaccine that was discovered to be “effective” in early-stage human trials in 2019, again before SARS2 erupted in China. So, were these vaccine candidates transformed into the prototypes of what became known as Moderna’s mRNA-1273 when COVID-19 started? More importantly, were data from both trials shared with those being given Moderna’s COVID-19 shots?

Undoubtedly, some of the companies that produced and tested vaccines for COVID-19 are connected to the pharmaceutical groups and other institutions that participated, according to the NSABB Report, in the discussions about GOF and the creation of enhanced PPPs. But these Big Pharma companies have also not revealed this critical fact, and by so doing disclose that the vaccines they have developed (are developing) are not for an enhanced engineered coronavirus manufactured under either the EU or the US’s PPPs programs.

It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that there are mammoth conflicts of interests and non-disclosures behind the vaccination schemes for COVID-19 and vaccines that were developed for SARS before the pandemic started. Are these companies and institutions using the pandemic as the route to “sell” the vaccines they had developed prior to the emergence of the scourge? Ensuring that patients being given these vaccines know these distinctive facts is an important aspect of the informed consent process. Administering the vaccines without disclosing these facts is a violation of the Nuremberg Code, a set of ethical research principles developed in the wake of the Nazi atrocities, specifically the monstrous and often lethal experimentation on human subjects without consent during World War Two [20]. The Code emphasizes “informed consent” and its aim of protecting human subjects in medical research as the only way not to repeat the horrors of the Nazi experimentation.

However, all data relating to the mRNA vaccine trials conducted before COVID-19 have not been disclosed. The failure to disclose such facts is dishonest. Also, it is worthwhile to recall what the scientists who created the engineered SHC014-MA15 and WIV1-MA15 and vaccines for them disclosed: They declared that their study did not invent a successful vaccine against coronavirus and intimated that none could ever be developed because there is no immunity against the pathogen.

Moreover, it is to be remembered that an FDA scientist participated in both experiments where the viruses were built along with the vaccines to treat them. But the FDA has been telling the public that the COVID-19 vaccines are safe, and granting emergency use authorizations (EUAs) to Big Pharma to use their vaccines for the disease, without also disclosing that mice studies from those research do not support this assertion. Once again, the failure by the FDA to disclose this information is deceptive.

Undeniably, there are critical facts about vaccines for COVID-19 that the NIH, the NIAID and the FDA and their directors, as well as Big Pharma and their partners, have not disclosed to the public. Such full disclosures must, for example, make clear to the public that a lab-made novel coronavirus capable of infecting humans without an intermediate animal host exists but is not responsible for the pandemic — and that vaccines that have been or are being designed, developed and used on human beings are not for this variant. This is all the more important for patients/volunteers who were (are being) used to trial vaccines for COVID-19. They should be (have been) provided with a high level of information disclosure about what species (zoonotic or genetically engineered) of novel coronavirus vaccines are being (were) trialed on them. Withholding such information is lack of veracity, which fundamentally violates the codes of ethics of the health profession — and a breach of the informed consent requirement of the previously mentioned Nuremberg Code.

Part IV Conclusion

The last survivor of the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment on black men died in 2004. Beginning in 1932 and continuing to 1972, the USG dosed black men with Syphilis and left them uncured and untreated for almost 40 years so that scientists could study the effects of the bacterial infection. One of the epigraphs in this section contains excerpts from former President Bill Clinton’s apology for this heinous act. He said the secretive testing behind the Tuskegee Experiments reflected how the US “failed to live up to its ideals, when our nation broke the trust with our people that is the very foundation of our democracy.” President Clinton’s words, and Acts passed in Congress to prevent another Tuskegee-like experiment, firmly reiterated that the only way to prevent another potential Tuskegee was transparency and the application of human consent policies and practices in all medical and scientific experiments involving human subjects. According to a very senior NIAID official, early-stage trials for the mRNA vaccine were conducted on human subjects before COVID-19 started. However, the data about such trials, which should reveal whether the human subjects used in the experiments were informed about and gave their consent to the vaccine and coronavirus used on them, are undisclosed. Data from other vaccine challenge studies which used mRNA inoculations against a coronavirus also remain undivulged. Additionally, the USG, its health agencies, Big Pharma, and the MSM have failed to reveal the existence of these experiments and their data to the American people before they were subjected to be COVID-vaccinated. In fact, those who attempted (are still attempting) to ask questions about these vaccine research and their outcomes were castigated and banned from social media platforms. But as the two other epigraphs — words from two African Americans who knew very well what lack of transparency has meant for the lives of black people in the US — in this section convey, truth-seeking, unending complaint, ceaseless agitation, and openly speaking out against dishonesty and wrong are the ancient, unerring way to liberty and acts that can prevent the “day we begin to die.”

Notes

[1] https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/ex-pfizer-science-chief-on-the-covid-lies-part-3/; For the extensive interview, see here: https://infiniteunknown.net/2021/04/01/james-delingpole-interviews-former-pfizer-vice-president-and-chief-science-officer-dr-mike-yeadon-video/comment-page-1/

[2] https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-announce-vaccine-candidate-against

[3] https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news-release-details/modernas-covid-19-vaccine-candidate-meets-its-primary-efficacy

[4] https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news-release-details/moderna-announces-progress-prophylactic-vaccines-modality-cmv

[5] https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/12/moderna-covid-19-vaccine-design.html

[6] https://www.bostonmagazine.com/health/2020/06/04/moderna-coronavirus-vaccine/

[7] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6935295-NIH-Moderna-Confidential-Agreements.html

[8] https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-candidate-vaccine?share=1

[9] https://www.vaccines.gov/basics/types

[10] https://www.mayoclinic.org/symptoms/eosinophilia/basics/definition/sym-20050752

[11] https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/ebiom/PIIS2352-3964(20)30118-3.pdf