Coronavirus-HIV Mutants Were Discussed in NIH-funded Work that Led to COVID-19

ER Editor: To the best of our understanding, two slightly different, yet critically different things are being discussed below on the human cell level:

  1. What we actually got in terms of a SAR-CoV-2 ‘virus’ plandemic
  2. What was researched originally, for our consumption? – the FOIA request to the DHHS by Judicial Watch reveals this research

What we got (1) was a CORONAVIRUS BACKBONE with spike proteins that included HIV inserts. What was researched (2), however, and revealed in the FOIA (NIH grant 1R01AI110964) was a ‘virus’ using an HIV BACKBONE with SARS-like spike proteins. HIV (backbone version), however, doesn’t function effectively to infect humans via airborne transmission (i.e. via our lung cells) because it doesn’t attach onto the human lung’s ACE2 receptor cells.

HIV, according to Igor Chudov’s article, is a ‘cunning’ virus because, once inside the body, it integrates itself into human DNA, producing its own edits and changes, so that ‘human cells produce new HIV viral particles’. Nice.

Surely we can say that the clear idea here is to infect us with HIV at some point, or at least to gauge the biological prospects for this. Especially as the original research was contemplating using an HIV backbone in an airborne way where human lung cells were the target. Instead, a Coronavirus backbone with HIV inserted into the spike protein was deployed.

Kudos to Igor Chudov for spelling this difference out clearly, and having to do a truckload of reading in order to bring it to us.


This is what Judicial Watch put out about this on April 19 — Judicial Watch: Records Show Funding for EcoHealth/Wuhan Institute Research to Create Coronavirus ‘Mutants’

This is Dr. Paul Alexander‘s quick take on the document release, which reveals many other things — Judicial Watch: Records Show Funding for EcoHealth/Wuhan Institute Research to Create Coronavirus ‘Mutants’; Eco Health planned to sequence the spike protein from coronaviruses obtained from bats


Coronavirus-HIV Mutants Were Discussed in NIH-funded Work that Led to COVID-19

Are you okay with “Airborne AIDS” Mutants, and Can we “Trust the Science”?


SUMMARY: In my previous posts, I discussed HIV genes present in Sars-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and showed how using HIV genes in recombinant viruses was the bread and butter of modern virology.

This post will introduce new evidence (published two days ago) of HIV/Sars mutant coronavirus chimeras discussed in NIH-funded research projects that led to the COVID pandemic. The research project discussed in this post was funded by NIH grant 1R01AI110964 and was titled “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence.” Grant 1R01AI110964 was given for research conducted by EcoHealth Alliance in cooperation with Dr. Ralph Baric of UNC and the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

In the last section, I will answer the question, “Can we trust science?”

I had to read hundreds of pages of the 554-page grant and related documents. Uncovering evidence of dangerous research is hard work. If you can spare $5 per month and can afford to support me, I would appreciate it if you could upgrade to a paid subscription!

NIH Grant 1R01AI110964

Two days ago, 554 pages of previously secret documents related to certain NIH grants to the EcoHealth Alliance were released under FOIA to Judicial Watch.

The monetary grant, dispensing $3,748,715, funded the work of EcoHealth Alliance, Wuhan Institute of Virology, and Ralph Baric lab, towards the following (page 16):

  • Assess CoV spillover potential
  • Develop predictive models of bat CoV emergence risk and host range
  • Test predictions of CoV inter-species transmission

Take a look at page 127:

The above page describes “receptor mutants and pseudoviruses,” specifically a mutant of HIV backbone with SARS-like “spike proteins.” These NIH-funded researchers created these HIV-SARS mutants to see how well they would infect human lungs and experimented on “humanized mice” whose lung cells resembled human cells.

These mutant viruses are, in a way, the opposite of Sars-Cov-2. They represent an HIV backbone with SARS-like spike protein.

Sars-Cov-2, on the contrary, is a coronavirus backbone with spike-protein including HIV genes. (Such a chimera is described in the DEFUSE proposal submitted by Peter Daszak to another government agency)

And yet, despite the dissimilarity, these mutants show how prevalent the lab work is that involves combining HIV and coronavirus genomes.

Airborne HIV?

HIV is an exceptionally cunning virus: it integrates into the human DNA after infection. Such integration is called “reverse transcription,” whereby RNA from the virus becomes part of the DNA of human cells. HIV essentially edits the human genome and inserts its code into it. After that, human cells produce new HIV viral particles, as this NIH page explains.

However, HIV is not very contagious. It cannot target cellular receptors found in human lungs, for example. One cannot get HIV via the airborne route: HIV infections require blood-to-blood transmission, and HIV-carrying aerosols cannot infect human respiratory systems.

A pseudovirus that can infect human ACE2 cells, which are present in our lungs, is one step closer to airborne transmission: an aerosol carrying ACE-2-binding HIV mutant could infect someone upon being breathed in.

Is the research that creates ACE-2-infecting HIV mutants, which may be contagious via the respiratory route, safe? What if these recombinants escape the laboratory?

That does not seem safe to me!

And yet, in search of grant money, fame, and discoveries, virologists funded by the NIH conducted such experiments involving ACE2-infecting HIV chimeras with minimal oversight.

Their work gave us Sars-CoV-2 and the Covid pandemic. Again, Sars-Cov-2, a recombinant chimera carrying HIV genes on a coronavirus backbone is NOT the same as the pseudovirus described above; it is something else but related.

The above shows that work on HIV/SARS coronavirus recombinants, funded by the NIH, was conducted by the same people whose cooperation with the Wuhan Institute of Virology gave us the Covid pandemic.

Almost every human was infected with the HIV-gene-carrying COVID virus. Every COVID-vaccinated human was injected with spike-protein-producing mRNA, which encoded the same HIV genes. We are now living through the consequences, with excess mortality continuing among the vaccinated countries.

Fact-Checkers Tried to Distract Us

Numerous fact-checking articles attempted to deny the link between HIV and Sars-Cov-2.

Those assurances are false.

The document I highlighted shows evidence that the same people who gave us Sars-Cov-2 also worked on HIV/SARS chimeras. Therefore, there is a “plausible route” by which the Covid pandemic virus could carry HIV genes. This belies the fact-checkers’ hollow claims.

Can We “Trust the Science” Ever Again?

During the pandemic, we were asked to “trust the science.”

And yet, the pandemic itself was caused by “the science,” when the leading virologists who, unbeknownst to us, were involved in creating Sars-Cov-2 (or funded its development) lied to us about the origins of the pandemic.

In the past, science gave us antibiotics, electricity, air travel, computers, the Internet, and all the perks of the civilization we enjoy. For example, when we plug in a vacuum cleaner into an electrical outlet, we “trust the science” that the electricity will make the vacuum cleaner run safely. Even though electricity may be a mystery to many of us, we know it works safely and effectively in our homes.

On the one hand, we have incredible advances in science in many areas, and we benefit daily from the fruits of the scientific process.

On the other hand, we have —

  • a manmade pandemic that killed millions,

  • scientists who lied about its origins, and

  • a non-working and dangerous Covid vaccine, which many people received against their will under false assurances.

So, we can ask… Can we ever trust science again?

In my opinion, asking whether “we should trust science” is a wrong question.

Science is not a person whose trustworthiness we can gauge. Science is a collection of human beings called “scientists,” who have all sorts of motivations and incentives. Some are honest, and some are not. Some can resist groupthink and peer pressure, but many cannot. Science is complicated, fascinating, and often wrong on matters of crucial importance.

So, trusting science in all instances is not wise. At the same time, we cannot decide on every scientific matter. We cannot be the top experts on electromagnetism that gave us home electricity while at the same time outsmarting the best virologists, biologists, and so on. We have lives to live.

Most of the time, trusting science is okay. Electricity works, planes mostly do not fall from the sky, allergy pills stop sneezing, and so on.

However, there are some crucial moments when “trusting science” does not work. These periods involve nonsensical stories (natural origin of Sars-Cov-2), censorship, media manipulation, or the use of science in party politics. During these moments, blind trust is NOT warranted and is best avoided.

That’s my answer, anyway. What do you think? Do you trust science?




Published to The Liberty Beacon from


The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)


Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.


Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.


Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.