Video Distorts Early Coronavirus Research To Promote Baseless Bioweapon Conspiracy Theory
SciCheck Digest Human coronaviruses first identified in the 1960s cause common colds. But a viral video misrepresents early research on common coronaviruses and cites unrelated patents to falsely suggest U.S. scientists created the viruses that cause SARS and COVID-19. The video also is not footage of official testimony before the European […]
The post Video Distorts Early Coronavirus Research To Promote Baseless Bioweapon Conspiracy Theory first appeared on BlackPressUSA.
Human coronaviruses first identified in the 1960s cause common colds. But a viral video misrepresents early research on common coronaviruses and cites unrelated patents to falsely suggest U.S. scientists created the viruses that cause SARS and COVID-19. The video also is not footage of official testimony before the European Parliament.
Full Story
Scientists have been studying coronaviruses, a family of viruses that infect animals and humans, for decades — the first was identified in chickens in the 1930s. In 1968, after the first human coronavirus was identified in 1965, virologists grouped them and named them coronaviruses for their crown-like surface, which also resembles the outermost layer of the sun called the corona (corona is the Latin word for crown).
Seven coronaviruses are known to infect humans — four of them, known as common human coronaviruses (229E, NL63, OC43 and HKU1), generally cause mild to moderate symptoms of a common cold. But coronaviruses got more attention in 2003, after the emergence of SARS-CoV-1, the first coronavirus known to cause a severe respiratory illness in humans, followed by MERS-CoV in 2012, and SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19, in 2019.
Both SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV originated in animals and jumped to humans. Although there is still no proof of how SARS-CoV-2 started, manyscientists think the available evidence also points to a zoonotic spillover. If SARS-CoV-2 did escape from a lab in Wuhan, there is a general consensus that it was an accident.A U.S. Intelligence report released in 2021 showed that all agencies agreed that “the virus was not developed as a biological weapon” and “most” said the virus “probably was not genetically engineered,” as we reported.
Yet, in a widely shared video misleadingly presented as testimony to the European Parliament, David Martin, a financial analyst, cited unrelated patents and distorted early research on coronaviruses to falsely suggest that scientists in the U.S. created the viruses that cause SARS and COVID-19 as part of a plot to drive vaccine profits.
“Ladies and gentlemen, this was premeditated domestic terrorism,” he said of the COVID-19 pandemic (mark 19:22). “This is an act of biological and chemical warfare perpetrated on the human race. … [T]his was a financial heist and a financial fraud,” he added — a quote that was later shared in a Twitter post that has been retweeted more than 75,000 times.
Except Martin’s entire argument is bunk. Dr. Susan R. Weiss, a coronavirus researcher at the University of Pennsylvania, told us in a phone interview that his statements are full of inaccuracies and completely distort past coronavirus research.
“There is no basis for any of this,” she said. “It makes no scientific sense.”
Martin has pushed severalconspiracytheoriesabout the pandemic. In 2020, he was a central figure in the second “Plandemic” video, which also falsely claimed that the pandemic was planned, as we’ve written.
Not European Parliament Testimony
Part of the appeal of Martin’s video — and lending false legitimacy to his claims — is that at first glance, it appears he is speaking in front of the European Parliament and giving official testimony.
“[C]ant believe my ears, what is being said at the europian union,” a Facebook user said, sharing the video, which shows Martin next to a European Parliament flag in what might look to someone like the European Parliament Hemicycle.
“Must watch: This is the opening presentation by Dr David Martin on the origins of Covid in 1965 & Covid Vaccines in 1990!” a Twitter user wrote. “He speaks in front of the European Parliament International Covid Summit III in Brussels on May 3, 2023. Hear and be shocked..!”
In reality, only five of the 705 members of the European Parliament participated in the event, which took place in a room of the parliament’s building in Brussels,as part of a three-day meeting organized by COVID-19 skeptics and anti-vaccination activists.The fiveParliamentmembershaveparticipatedin actions opposing COVID-19 vaccines.
Natalie Kontoulis, a press officer for the European Parliament, told us in an email that the meeting “was not an official European Parliament event.” She added, “Members of the Parliament can exercise their mandate freely and bear responsibility for both their activities and their content.”
During the almost 22-minute video, Martin spins a scientifically impossible story that suggests that SARS-CoV-2 and other viruses are the result of experimentation with common cold coronaviruses that were discovered in the 1960s.
“This is actually something that’s been long in the making,” he said of the COVID-19 pandemic (mark 5:31). “In 1967, the year I was born, we did the first human trials on inoculating people with modified coronavirus. Isn’t that amazing? 56 years ago — the overnight success of a pathogen that’s been 56 years in engineering.”
Human coronavirus 229E particles, digitally colorized transmission electron microscopic image from 1975. Image by CDC/ Dr. Fred Murphy; Sylvia Whitfield.
But Martin, who misleads throughout by implying all coronaviruses might be the same, is misrepresenting a study thatinvolved infecting people with a coronavirus that causes a cold. The virus had not been modified. More important, the notion that a common coronavirus could have been manipulated or engineered to create SARS-CoV-2 is incorrect.
“They’re too different,” Weiss said. “We don’t have the ability to turn one into the other.”
About a minute later, he said, “Ironically, the common cold was turned into a chimera in the 1970s. And in 1975, 1976, and 1977 we started figuring out how to modify coronavirus by putting it into different animals, pigs and dogs.”
“That doesn’t make any sense,” Weiss told us.
First, as we said, there are multiple kinds of coronaviruses. Some infect animals and others infect humans — and a few can cross from one species to another one, Weiss told us. “It turns out, the human virus … at least the cold virus, as far as I know, only replicates in humans.” The viruses couldn’t be genetically modified at that time, either, she explained. “We couldn’t engineer viruses at that time,” she said of the 1970s, since the technology to do it, such as cloning, didn’t yet exist.
Martin continues to mislead by saying the inoculation of those supposedly modified common coronaviruses created a huge problem in the pig and dog industry, which led Pfizer to patent its “first spike protein vaccine” in 1990. “Isn’t that fascinating? Isn’t it fascinating that we were, we were told that, ‘Well, the spike protein is a new thing,’” he said (mark 7:44).
Except, that patent was for a canine coronavirus vaccine, which targets an entirely different virus from SARS-CoV-2. In 2020, we debunked related claims that also confused canine coronavirus with the virus that caused the pandemic.
Moreover, scientists have never said that coronavirus spike proteins are “new.” The specific SARS-CoV-2 spike was new, and the genetic sequence was needed to design the vaccines. But one reason why the COVID-19 vaccines could be made so rapidly is because scientists already knew the virus’s spike proteins would be good vaccine targets. The existence of that previous knowledge is not evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was created as a bioweapon or as part of a ploy to sell vaccines.
Martin also falsely claims that SARS-CoV-1 was created in an American lab.
“Are you suggesting that SARS … might have come from a laboratory in the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill? No, I’m not suggesting it. I’m telling you that’s the facts — we engineered SARS,” he said. “SARS is not a naturally occurring phenomenon. The naturally occurring phenomenon is called the common cold … SARS is the research developed by humans weaponizing a life system model to actually attack human beings.”
There is no evidence SARS-CoV-1 was engineered or came from any lab. The virus naturally appeared in 2002 in China, when it likely jumped from civets to humans, and its origins are linked to bats.
Martin pointed to a 2002 patent as supposed proof. But the patent, which is for a method for creating viral vectors, focuses on a pig coronavirus (viral vectors are used to deliver genetic information to cells). As before, the patent is not evidence that the SARS virus was engineered.
Martin also distorted the meaning of a line of the patent that says the method could help produce “an infectious, replication defective, coronavirus particle.”
“Listen to those words: infectious replication defective,” Martin said suggestively (mark 10:18). “What does that phrase actually mean for those of you not familiar with language? Let me unpack it for you. Infectious replication defective means a weapon. It means something meant to target an individual but not have collateral damage to other individuals.”
But he’s wrong again. Replication-defective simply means that a viral particle would be incapable of replicating itself.
Editor’s note: SciCheck’s articles providing accurate health information and correcting health misinformation are made possible by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The foundation has no control over FactCheck.org’s editorial decisions, and the views expressed in our articles do not necessarily reflect the views of the foundation.
If you have a question about COVID-19, email Ask SciCheck, a project of FactCheck.org, at AskSciCheck@FactCheck.org. Tell them you are a reader of the Houston Forward Times. You can read previous Ask SciCheck answers here.
BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — The American people are expected to believe that one extraordinary officer after another suddenly fails to meet some undefined standard of excellence. We are expected to ignore impeccable service records while accepting that political appointees alone possess the wisdom to determine who is worthy of advancement.
Pete Hegseth insists that he is restoring “merit” to the United States military. But after months of dismissals, blocked promotions, and ideological purges, the evidence tells a different story. His campaign against so-called “diversity, equity, and inclusion” has become something far more dangerous: an assault on equal opportunity that falls with particular force on African Americans, while also targeting women, Latinos, gay Americans, and transgender service members.
The latest example is both troubling and infuriating.
Once again, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has reportedly blocked the promotion of an exceptionally qualified woman—Rear Admiral Amy Bauernschmidt. Bauernschmidt is no ordinary officer. She became the Navy’s first woman to command a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, one of the most demanding leadership assignments in the world. Her career reflects decades of exemplary performance, operational excellence, and leadership under extraordinary pressure.
Yet once again, a distinguished military career appears to have been subordinated to an ideological agenda masquerading as “merit.”
I call BS!
The American people are expected to believe that one extraordinary officer after another suddenly fails to meet some undefined standard of excellence. We are expected to ignore impeccable service records while accepting that political appointees alone possess the wisdom to determine who is worthy of advancement.
General Charles Q. Brown Jr., only the second African American to serve as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was dismissed despite a career that placed him among the most accomplished military leaders of his generation.
Admiral Lisa Franchetti, the first woman ever to serve as Chief of Naval Operations, was removed despite decades of distinguished command experience.
Reports have documented interventions that blocked or delayed the promotions of Black officers and women selected through the military’s rigorous promotion system.
Now Rear Admiral Amy Bauernschmidt joins the growing list of highly accomplished officers whose careers have been derailed for reasons that have never been persuasively explained.
Where is Congress?
Its silence has become deafening.
Congress has an independent constitutional responsibility to oversee the armed forces. Instead, too many lawmakers have watched silently while one of the nation’s most respected institutions is subjected to ideological litmus tests and political interference.
This is not military reform. It is testosterone-fueled performative masculinity disguised as a philosophy of military excellence.
The irony is impossible to miss. Hegseth repeatedly invokes “merit,” yet his rhetoric begins with the assumption that Black officers, women, and other historically excluded Americans must somehow justify their achievements in ways that white male officers are rarely required to do.
That is not meritocracy. It is prejudice wrapped in patriotic language.
No one is asking that anyone be promoted because of race or gender. Americans simply expect that promotions be based on demonstrated competence, leadership, integrity, and service. The officers being targeted have already proven themselves repeatedly under one of the world’s most demanding evaluation systems.
Their records speak for themselves.
The attack on African American military leadership has been especially pernicious.
For generations, Black Americans fought in segregated units, earned decorations while denied equal treatment, and repeatedly demonstrated loyalty to a nation that often failed to extend them full citizenship. They broke barriers not because standards were lowered but because excellence finally overcame institutional discrimination.
Today’s campaign against “diversity” threatens to revive old assumptions under new slogans.
The implication that Black generals and admirals somehow owe their success to affirmative action rather than extraordinary performance echoes some of the ugliest stereotypes of the Jim Crow era. Yesterday’s segregationists claimed Black Americans were inherently less qualified. Today’s culture warriors simply employ more politically acceptable language while inviting the same suspicion about Black achievement.
That is why Hegseth’s campaign increasingly resembles Jim Crow 2.0.
The targets may now wear stars on their shoulders instead of military patches on segregated uniforms, but the underlying message is hauntingly familiar: Black excellence is presumed suspect, while white excellence is presumed earned.
America’s military became the finest fighting force in history because it opened its doors to talent wherever it could be found. It grew stronger after President Truman desegregated the armed forces. It became stronger when women assumed greater command responsibilities. It became stronger when every qualified American was given the opportunity to serve to the fullest extent of their abilities.
Diversity is not a concession. It is a strategic advantage.
The nation’s adversaries do not fear an American military because it is racially homogeneous. They fear it because it draws upon the talents of more than 340 million Americans whose diverse experiences, perspectives, and abilities make our armed forces unmatched anywhere in the world.
Every politically motivated dismissal of a distinguished officer sends a chilling message throughout the ranks: excellence alone may no longer be enough if you belong to the wrong demographic group.
That weakens morale. It weakens recruitment. It weakens retention.
And ultimately, it weakens national security.
Pete Hegseth has every right to pursue military readiness. He has no right to redefine merit in ways that repeatedly cast suspicion upon the accomplishments of Black officers, women, and others who have devoted their lives to defending this nation.
America deserves better. The men and women who wear the uniform deserve better. The Constitution deserves better.
And unless Congress finds the courage to exercise meaningful oversight, history may well remember this period not as a restoration of military excellence, but as the moment political ideology attempted to resurrect, in modern form, the old poison of exclusion.
Jim Crow did not strengthen America. Jim Crow 2.0 will not strengthen America’s military. It will only diminish it
New Judge Could Decide if Karmelo Anthony Gets a New Trial
By Emilie St. John (Contributor) Karmelo Anthony will return to court next month in his first step to overturn his murder conviction. Anthony was found guilty last month in the stabbing death of Austin Metcalf and sentenced to 35 years in prison. His new legal team has filed motions seeking the recusal of State District […]
The post New Judge Could Decide if Karmelo Anthony Gets a New Trial appeared first on BlackPressUSA.
Karmelo Anthony will return to court next month in his first step to overturn his murder conviction.
Anthony was found guilty last month in the stabbing death of Austin Metcalf and sentenced to 35 years in prison. His new legal team has filed motions seeking the recusal of State District Judge John Roach Jr. from overseeing the appeals process.
Two hearings have been scheduled on the motion for Aug. 9 and 10 in the Collin County Courthouse in McKinney, Texas, according to Fox4 News.
On July 14, Senior Judge Sid L. Harle of the 226th District Court was assigned to preside over the defense’s motion to recuse Collin County Judge John Roach. The assignment took effect immediately and authorized Harle to handle all matters related to the recusal request, the filing read.
The Collin County District Attorney’s Office continues to defend its handling of the case by issuing a statement to NBC 5 DFW.
“The defendant’s new lawyers have filed a motion containing several inaccurate characterizations of the trial proceedings. The entire prosecution team and I conducted this trial ethically and in full compliance with the Court’s rulings and any agreements with defense counsel. We look forward to addressing these claims thoroughly in a Court of law in the coming weeks. The jury heard extensive evidence over the course of the trial and returned a unanimous verdict. We remain confident in that verdict and the fairness of the proceedings.”
Anthony’s new legal team, made up of appellate, civil rights, and criminal defense attorneys, was retained following Anthony’s conviction.
“Our responsibility is to determine whether a legal error occurred and to ensure that every issue supported by the record is fully and vigorously presented on appeal,” the team said in a statement.
“We recognize the profound loss suffered by one young man’s family and the uncertainty facing another, and we extend our respect to everyone whose lives have been forever changed by these events,” the release reads.
Anthony was charged with the stabbing death of Austin Metcalf during a track meet in Frisco, Texas, April 2, 2025. Anthony has long maintained it was an act of self-defense.
The attorneys are representing Anthony pro bono. The nearly 200-page notice of appeal seeks a new trial because his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial was violated.
“The cumulative and practical effect of these provisions was to exclude members of the public from proceedings at every stage,” the filing reads.
The filing also focused on an alleged “handshake deal” that kept Anthony from taking the stand in his defense.
The defense filing said the agreement was that the jury would not hear that Metcalf and his twin brother had been accused of racism and bullying in the past. In exchange, they also would not see Anthony’s cellphone records or his school disciplinary record, according to court documents reported by the Dallas Morning News.
Anthony’s former defense attorney, Mike Howard, said the defense relied heavily on that deal. The team chose not to ask certain questions of witnesses or call on a separate expert witness based on that agreement. It also abandoned plans to introduce testimony and evidence about the allegations against Metcalf and his brother.
Appellate attorney Russell Wilson is now handling post-trial proceedings and Anthony’s appeal. He recently sat down for an interview, stating, “The court committed multiple errors during the June murder trial, preventing him from receiving a fair trial.”
“You know, we file motions that we expect to prevail on, but we understand that there’s two sides to every story. And at the end of the day, it’ll be a judge that has to make these decisions, but we feel confident in the positions that we’re taking,” Wilson said during an interview with WFAA. “There were substantial issues that we thought a reviewing court needed to look at. We thought these were constitutional irregularities, and we could have them addressed now. And so, we put them into a motion for a new trial.”
Bree West, a former Dallas County Assistant District Attorney, found it startling that so little time was given to Anthony’s team for such a serious “life or death” situation.
“I do think that it’s really challenging that potentially a court decided that you have 10 minutes to make that level of decision when it has the potential of being life-altering,” said West during an interview with Fox 4 News.
Judge Harle is no stranger to high-profile cases, having presided over the prosecution of a police officer charged in connection with the 2022 mass shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde.
Anthony was convicted on June 9 of the murder of Austin Metcalf and sentenced to 35 years in prison.
WESTSIDE GAZETTE — The author criticizes Donald Trump’s rhetoric, noting his use of terms like “Dumbocrats” and “Communist” to describe Democrats and democracy. The column asserts that Trump’s current strategy involves creating doubt about midterm elections due to a lack of Republican agenda.
The post COMMENTARY: LSMFT! Lord Save Me from Trump! appeared first on BlackPressUSA.
Wow! Wow! Wow! The swamp drainers have truly stepped down to new levels of stupidity. You remember Weapons of Mass Destruction? We now have Weapons of Mass Distraction. Trump has introduced Dumbocrats and Communists into the conversation about Democrats and Democracy.
Trump lies so much, and his current strategy is to set up doubt about midterm elections because he and Republicans have no agenda!
He has no “Trump “ card, but Iran has a strait! He called it a skirmish; it’s now a War. He said five days; now it’s five months. He said few casualties; now it’s 18 deaths. He knew nothing about Project 2025 but hired its architects! Trump lies about the lies and often forgets these little inventions called cameras and phones
We see and hear and then see and hear the inconsistencies.
Home-based business with potential monthly income of $10K+ per month. A proven training system and website provided to maximize business effectiveness. Perfect job to earn side and primary income. Contact Lynne for more details: Lynne4npusa@gmail.com 800-334-0540