Dr. Francis Boyle Confirms Coronavirus Is An “Offensive Biological Warfare Weapon”

Dr. Francis Boyle is perhaps best known for authoring the Biological Weapons Act. In an explosive interview with Geopolitics and Empire, shown below, Dr. Boyle reveals that the coronavirus now circulating in the wild, exploding as a pandemic, is indeed an “offensive biological warfare weapon.”

In this eye-opening interview, probably soon to be banned by YouTube, Dr. Boyle plainly confirms exactly what I have been reporting for over a week now: that the coronavirus is a biological weapon system which escaped the Wuhan BSL-4 laboratory and broke containment in the local population, spreading uncontrollably.

In his own words, he says, “the coronavirus that we’re dealing with here is an offensive biological warfare weapon that leaked out of that Wuhan BSL-4 [lab].”

This further confirms the proof that the coronavirus was genetically engineered using the pShuttle vector tool that’s commonly known and used by virology researchers. It also ties into the fact that independent genomics researchers have also confirmed the coronavirus has been subjected to SARS gene insertions as part of the weaponization program.

The mounting evidence of a laboratory origin is now irrefutable, yet the WHO is covering for China’s bioweapons program and trying to lie to the world about the origins of the virus, falsely claiming it came about from random permutations in the wild.

Here’s more of the transcript from the interview with Dr. Boyle, which was originally posted on the Geopolitics & Empire channel on YouTube.

Dr. Francis Boyle:

It does seem to me that the Wuhan BSL-4 is the source of the coronavirus, yes. My guess is that they were researching SARS, and they weaponized it further by giving it gain-of-function properties, which means it could be more lethal, and indeed the latest report now is it’s 15% fatality rate which is more than SARS, and 83% infection rate. So a typical gain-of-function is it travels in the air, so it could reach out maybe six feet or more from someone emitting a sneeze or a cough. Likewise, this is a specially designated WHO research lab, so the WHO is in on it, and they knew full well what was going on there.

Yes, it’s also reported the Chinese stole coronavirus materials from the Canadian lab at Winnipeg; Winnipeg is Canada’s foremost center for research developing and testing biological warfare weapons. It’s along the lines of Ft. Detrick in the USA, and yeah, I have three degrees from Harvard, it would not surprise me if something was being stolen out of Harvard to turn over to China… the bottom line is, …and I drafted the U.S. domestic implementing legislation for the biological weapons convention, that was approved unanimously by both houses of the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President Bush, Senior, that it appears the coronavirus that we’re dealing with here is an offensive biological warfare weapon that leaked out of that Wuhan BSL-4 [lab]. I’m not saying it was done deliberately, but there have been previous reports of problems with that lab and things leaking out of it, and I’m afraid that is what we are dealing with today. (emphasis added)

The full video is posted at YouTube at the moment, but is likely to be banned:

The “newsclips” channel has cross-posted the video on Brighteon in case YouTube bans it. This is too important to allow to be censored. We hope the journalists at Geopolitics & Empire — who produce an amazing assortment of podcasts and other materials — understand why it’s important to post this interview everywhere before the tech giants can extinguish it. All credit goes to Geopolitics & Empire, and we hope you will visit their podcast site to listen to their own fascinating interviews.

Geopolitics & Empire also has a channel on Brighteon.com, but so far they have not posted this interview. If they post it, we will update the following link to their channel.

Brighteon.com/0a618138-5881-4805-83a1-24cc35fad34c

China’s plan to weaponize viruses and wipe out the United States of America

The coronavirus biological weapon development program was part of China’s long-admitted effort to weaponize viruses and wipe out the USA by deploying them on U.S. soil.

“In a secret speech given to high-level Communist Party cadres nearly two decades ago, Chinese Defense Minister Gen. Chi Haotian explained a long-range plan for ensuring a Chinese national renaissance,” reports Great Game India:

“We are not as foolish as to want to perish together with America by using nuclear weapons,” said the general. “Only by using non-destructive weapons that can kill many people will we be able to reserve America for ourselves.” The answer is found in biological weapons. “Of course,” he added, “we have not been idle, in the past years we have seized the opportunity to master weapons of this kind.”

“In the long run,” said Gen. Chi, “the relationship of China and the United States is one of a life-and-death struggle.” This tragic situation must be accepted. According to Gen. Chi, “We must not forget that the history of our civilization repeatedly has taught us that one mountain does not allow two tigers to live together.”

According to Gen. Chi, China’s overpopulation problem and environmental degradation will eventually result in social collapse and civil war. General Chi estimated that “more than 800 million” Chinese would die in such a collapse. Therefore, the Chinese Communist Party has no policy alternative.

Either the United States is “cleaned up” by biological attacks, or China suffers national catastrophe.

In other words, China has been building a biological weapon to destroy the United States, and that weapon got loose in their own back yard. Now, it looks like China may have just nuked itself with that very same bioweapon, and the fate of China’s population, industrial output and political leadership looks very much in doubt.

Perhaps it’s fitting that the coronavirus may be the vector by which China destroys itselfbefore its treacherous philosophy of communism, tyranny and mass death infects the entire world.

Brighteon.com/41383164-4313-4e9d-a1bc-28108b7a1a08

 

5 thoughts on “Dr. Francis Boyle Confirms Coronavirus Is An “Offensive Biological Warfare Weapon”

  1. This is going to be a short article about why popular Roman Catholic apologetics concerning the Formula of Hormisdas proving Vatican I, Papal Supremacy, or anything of the sort is a sham. In short, Roman Catholic apologists claim that the “libellus” essentially shows us two things:

    The the Roman Church was Papalist.
    That the Eastern Patriarchates submissively signed this document, proving that they submitted to a Papalist eccesiology.
    This is not some sort of strawman. A Uniate website sums up the events as follows:

    The formula of Hormisdas which the Pope sent to be signed on this occasion is a masterpiece of clarity. It repeats the condemnation of the heresies condemned by the ecumenical councils and it formally condemns the memory of Acacius who had started this schism. It so clearly stated the primacy and infallibility of the Roman See that from that day to the time of the Vatican Council, it has been a powerful weapon in the arsenal of Catholic orthodoxy. It was subscribed to by the patriarch of Constantinople, it swept the East and in the end was signed by 2,500 bishops.

    To quote modern Roman Catholic apologist Erick Ybarra:

    [W]hat was written in the Formula by Hormisdas were actually authentic Papal claims, which means that 6th century Rome was Papalist. And if that was truly the case, than it makes matters even worse since the Eastern Patriachates entered into communion with Papalist Rome in order to escape schism…reality was that there wasn’t a hint of rejection of Papal claims. Only this issue of the expunging of names from the diptychs…as I’ve mentioned above, there is no objection to the Papalist statements of the Formula by these bishops. If they were honest enough to withhold their agreement and signature because they couldn’t fulfill all the demands of the original request of the Formula, why would they fail to mention their honest objection to the statements made about Peter and the infallibility of the Apostolic See?

    Elsewhere, the same apologist claimed that “2,500” priests and Bishops signed an essentially unaltered libellus showing that “Christ promised an indefectible faith in blessed Peter.”

    Finally, I will quote popular blogger Catholic Nick who both offers his comments and presents an English translation of one of the Latin manuscripts of the formula:

    To effect the restoration of communion, Pope Hormisdas wrote a theological Formula and demanded that Justin, John II, and the Eastern bishops sign it. This “Formula of Hormisdas” stated the following (red highlights mine):

    “The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,” [Matthew 16:18], should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied. From this hope and faith we by no means desire to be separated and, following the doctrine of the Fathers, we declare anathema all heresies, and, especially, the heretic Nestorius, former bishop of Constantinople, who was condemned by the Council of Ephesus, by Blessed Celestine, bishop of Rome, and by the venerable Cyril, bishop of Alexandria. We likewise condemn and declare to be anathema Eutyches and Dioscoros of Alexandria, who were condemned in the holy Council of Chalcedon, which we follow and endorse. This Council followed the holy Council of Nicaea and preached the apostolic faith. And we condemn the assassin Timothy, surnamed Aelurus [“the Cat”] and also Peter [Mongos] of Alexandria, his disciple and follower in everything. We also declare anathema their helper and follower, Acacius of Constantinople, a bishop once condemned by the Apostolic See, and all those who remain in contact and company with them. Because this Acacius joined himself to their communion, he deserved to receive a judgment of condemnation similar to theirs. Furthermore, we condemn Peter [“the Fuller””] of Antioch with all his followers together with the followers of all those mentioned above.

    Following, as we have said before, the Apostolic See in all things and proclaiming all its decisions, we endorse and approve all the letters which Pope St Leo wrote concerning the Christian religion. And so I hope I may deserve to be associated with you in the one communion which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides. I promise that from now on those who are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See, will not have their names read during the sacred mysteries. But if I attempt even the least deviation from my profession, I admit that, according to my own declaration, I am an accomplice to those whom I have condemned. I have signed this, my profession, with my own hand, and I have directed it to you, Hormisdas, the holy and venerable pope of Rome.” [Source: “Eastern Orthodox opposition to papal supremacy”]

    As far as I can tell, no Eastern Orthodox denies this Formula is a historical document and is accurately presented here. What they do deny are the Papal ‘overtones’ of the document, which is what I’ll be addressing in a moment.

    From this Formula, it is clear that the See of Rome saw itself as the head of the Church by which all controversies are to be settled and all bishops (and Emperors) must submit to. Pope Hormisdas quotes Matthew 16:18-19 in regards to himself, he anathematizes the previous Patriarch of Constantinople, and he demands the new Patriarch of Constantinople and schismatic bishops all unconditionally sign this Formula. All these factors are huge for anyone who has common sense, for they clearly spell out that the Pope didn’t see himself as subject to the whims of other bishops. Just the fact the Pope unilaterally condemned a Patriarch is huge, since that’s something which is impossible in Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology.

    There are plenty of articles that speak of how the Bishop of Constantinople, John II, signed the document with the qualification that Constantinople and Rome are “one” see. In short, he was obviously assuming ecclesiastical prerogatives that may be inferred by such a document, an observation made by scholars such as Frend. So, I will not address that issue at length. Instead, I will make the following two points.

    First, the document, if one simply reads it plainly (especially the embolden section), really is not that radical in its claims. It makes the somewhat dubious, but generally true, claim that Rome had up until that point kept the faith “unsullied” and predicates this upon Matt 16:18. In Rome there is “perfect security,” but the libelous does not really flesh out what this means. And…That’s it. It does not say a Pope can never make a theological error, or that communion with Rome is necessary for salvation, or that Rome has jurisdiction over the entire world, or that any of these assertions will persist throughout time–or really anything Orthodox would take issue with.

    The document itself is really not that radical at all, despite the astonishment at its existence among Roman Catholic apologists. I honestly wonder why people react so strongly to libellus. Is it the first sentence? Even Protestants concur that we ought to keep the norm of the true faith. Do Roman Catholics read the end of the first sentence to be about the Papacy, when in fact the libellus never explicitly claims this? Is it the “perfect security” thing? Is that statement really so strong and explicit that it proves Papal infallbility, a far more fleshed out doctrine? All the formula really says is that Rome has been a stalwart, is blessed by God in this, excommunicates heretics, and extols maintaining communion with Rome instead of the heretics in which there is the security of right doctrine. If one agreed with Rome on dyophysitism, the preceding would be easy to concede.

    Second, the Greek versions of the text which are extant lack anything that one can infer to be a Papal claim. This is surprising given that even the Latin manuscripts are ecclesiastically tame in their claims and that the real point of contention was the libellus’ excommunications.

    For example, the Maronites (who were Roman allies in the sixth century and out of communion with Constantinople) signed the libellus with glee…but with massive alterations that put the document at variance with the one we see above. Letter 139 records the following (take note of how the embolden sections above compared to this letter):

    To you God has given the power and authority to bind and to loosen [Matt 16:19]. Not the healthy ones have need of the physician but the sick [Matt 9:12]. Arise, holy Fathers, come to save us! Be imitators of the Lord Christ, who has come down from the heavens onto the earth to seek the sheep that is going astray, Peter, that leader of the apostles, whose seat you adorn, and Paul, who is the vessel of election, the ones who are going around and have illuminated the world. Great wounds, namely, are in need of greater remedies. For the hired shepherds, when they see the wolves come against the sheep, abandon them so that they are scattered by them [cf. John 10:12], but to you, the true shepherds and teachers, to whom the care for the well-being of the sheep has been committed, the flock come who know their shepherd when they have been freed from the pitiless wild animals and they are following the voice of the shepherd, as the Lord says: “My sheep hear my voice and I know them and they follow me.” [John 10:3] Therefore, do not despise us, most holy one, since daily we are being wounded by wild beasts.

    But so that your holy angel may have complete knowledge, we courageously anathematize with our very petition both all the ones who have been put forth in the libellus and the ones who have been excommunicated by your Apostolic See: We speak, however, of Nestorius, who was bishop of Constantinople, Eutyches, Dioscorus, and Peter of Alexandria, who also has the name Balbus, and Peter, who was named “the Fuller,” of Antioch, and last not least Acacius, who was bishop of Constantinople, the one in communion with them and all, who defend any one of those heretics.

    As we can see, the Maronite petition in response to the libellus reaffirms the Roman excommunications which are of people they already had excommunicated, quotes Matt 16:19, and extols the authority Rome derives from both Peter and Paul. That’s it. No “clear statements” of “the primacy and infallibility of the Roman See,” or anything of the sort. The fact that they only quoted the excommunciations shows that they did not understand the rest of it to be doctrinally important in any way. Further, the fact they respond with their own non-substantial flattery to the same effect shows they merely interpreted the rest of the libellus as such.

    Now, some may claim that historians such as Fortescue in The Reunion Formula of Hormisdas call the preceding into question. I will respond to this in two ways.

    First, he makes no comments about the above Maronite response to the libellus. His comments pertain to the Greek formula as found in the minutes of of the Council of Constantinople 869-870 AD–a pro-Roman reunion council which was considered such an embarrassment to the east that they immediately tried destroying its manuscripts and later (with a Pope!) completely anathematized it, claiming the council to be invalid.

    Second, he makes the claim in Footnote 47 that “the Greek text is shorter but contains the same clauses.” Apparently, Fortescue likes citing things he has never read. If one actually follows up on his citation and reads the Greek, the Greek that is quoted does not even belong to the Formula of Hormisdas! So, he makes his observation based upon…who knows! We can throw it into the trash bin.

    So, what did the Greek minutes of Constantinople contain? I have scoured all of the footnotes to find them in the Migne but what I can find open source does not correspond with the book and chapters in the citations. So, I will present what Edward Denny in his book Papalism preserves for us. I have no reason to disbelieve Denny’s research on this because I have followed up on many of his footnotes and they all checked out. Denny writes:

    The Greek omits the greater part of the references to the Roman See, running as follows: ‘The chief means of salvation is that we should keep the rule of right faith, and in no way deviate from the decrees of God and the Fathers,’ then are omitted all the remaining words down to ‘following in all things the ordinances of the Fathers’ and the document proceeds at once with the anathemas and concludes, ‘Concerning the most reverend Patriarch Ignatius, and those who think with him, whatever the authority of the Apostolic throne has decreed we embrace with our whole mind. This profession of faith, I, N., Bishop of the holy Church of N. have made and subscribed with my own hand, etc.’ The fact that it was a Greek and not a Latin Synod makes it not improbable that the Greek text is the more trustworthy, at all events the divergence is remarkable. The Synod was greatly under Roman influence, and it was anathematised by the Greeks in the Synod of Constantinople A.D. 879 (vide n. 918), and was again expressly repudiated by the Easterns at the Council of Florence (vide nn. 266, 919). (p. 474).

    For those who are visual learners, here is the Latin document (left) with the “Papal part” embolden and the Greek reconstruction (right):

    Latin: “The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,” [Matthew 16:18], should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied. From this hope and faith we by no means desire to be separated and, following the doctrine of the Fathers, we declare anathema all heresies, and, especially, the heretic Nestorius, former bishop of Constantinople, who was condemned by the Council of Ephesus, by Blessed Celestine, bishop of Rome, and by the venerable Cyril, bishop of Alexandria. We likewise condemn and declare to be anathema Eutyches and Dioscoros of Alexandria, who were condemned in the holy Council of Chalcedon, which we follow and endorse. This Council followed the holy Council of Nicaea and preached the apostolic faith. And we condemn the assassin Timothy, surnamed Aelurus [“the Cat”] and also Peter [Mongos] of Alexandria, his disciple and follower in everything. We also declare anathema their helper and follower, Acacius of Constantinople, a bishop once condemned by the Apostolic See, and all those who remain in contact and company with them. Because this Acacius joined himself to their communion, he deserved to receive a judgment of condemnation similar to theirs. Furthermore, we condemn Peter [“the Fuller””] of Antioch with all his followers together with the followers of all those mentioned above.
    Following, as we have said before, the Apostolic See in all things and proclaiming all its decisions, we endorse and approve all the letters which Pope St Leo wrote concerning the Christian religion. And so I hope I may deserve to be associated with you in the one communion which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides. I promise that from now on those who are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See, will not have their names read during the sacred mysteries. But if I attempt even the least deviation from my profession, I admit that, according to my own declaration, I am an accomplice to those whom I have condemned. I have signed this, my profession, with my own hand, and I have directed it to you, Hormisdas, the holy and venerable pope of Rome.”

    Greek reconsturction: “The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
    Following the doctrine of the Fathers, we declare anathema all heresies, and, especially, the heretic Nestorius, former bishop of Constantinople, who was condemned by the Council of Ephesus, by Blessed Celestine, bishop of Rome, and by the venerable Cyril, bishop of Alexandria. We likewise condemn and declare to be anathema Eutyches and Dioscoros of Alexandria, who were condemned in the holy Council of Chalcedon, which we follow and endorse. This Council followed the holy Council of Nicaea and preached the apostolic faith. And we condemn the assassin Timothy, surnamed Aelurus [“the Cat”] and also Peter [Mongos] of Alexandria, his disciple and follower in everything. We also declare anathema their helper and follower, Acacius of Constantinople, a bishop once condemned by the Apostolic See, and all those who remain in contact and company with them. Because this Acacius joined himself to their communion, he deserved to receive a judgment of condemnation similar to theirs. Furthermore, we condemn Peter [“the Fuller””] of Antioch with all his followers together with the followers of all those mentioned above.

    Concerning the most reverend Patriarch Ignatius, and those who think with him, whatever the authority of the Apostolic throne has decreed we embrace with our whole mind. This profession of faith, I, N., Bishop of the holy Church of N. have made and subscribed with my own hand.”

    Notice the difference? All of the “questionable” parts of the libellus, which were really not even all that questionable to begin with, are missing. Again, I reiterate, this was a pro-Roman source like the Maronite petition!

    Being that Fortescue claims, “Only in the acts of the Fourth Council of Constantinople do we find a Greek version” (p. 14 of 1955 Graymoor edition), this means that Roman Catholic apologists are making their claims based on the above. Do we have any indication of Vatican I-level concessions? Absolutely not.

    To conclude, I can only say that all Roman Catholic apologetics on the issue are a big, old sham. If two first millenium documents from staunch Papal allies do not deliver the goods on this issue, I personally doubt any will and we can put this to rest. The better question is why the Latin manuscript record is always so exaggerated with its Papal claims, but these claims always magically disappear when translated into Greek, even to a friendly and receptive audience. That’s a question for another day.

    Share
    9Comments
    1Like
    MORE IN ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY
    Book Review: The Rise of the Monophysite Movement
    W.H.C. Frend’s book on Donatism was fantastic. Just like his book on Donatism, he likewise presents a pretty level-headed and in-depth treatment of…
    Is ‘Catholicity’ Proof of the True Church?
    Every once in an while, I hear a Roman Catholic argue that the proof that they are the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church may be found in their…
    Follow Conversation
    9 COMMENTS
    waterandthespiritapologetics
    waterandthespiritapologetics
    15h ago
    Craig,
    The pope can make a theological error, communion with Rome is not a condition of salvation, and Rome does not have jurisdiction over the entire world. These are not assertions that flow from papal supremacy.

    ReplyLike
    Alura
    Alura
    14h ago
    I was under the impression that the Greek transcript of Constantinople (869) no longer survives, which is why I found Denny’s claim about 869’s Greek formula being different a strange one. I haven’t been able to find a Greek version of the acta. Perhaps he got mixed up with the other Greek versions from earlier councils? Am I wrong in this?

    Reply1Like
    Craig Truglia
    Craig Truglia
    Alura
    14h ago
    Yes, I thought the same hint to. But being that tons of the guys early in the 1900s argued about it I will put it up and hope someone can refute it. Chadwick claims the Greek does not survive.

    ReplyLike
    Agus Pare
    Agus Pare
    13h ago
    If the the supposed Latin addition is not that questionable, why is it not in the Greek version?

    If it is really an addition by the Latin, then why not make the claim more ” radical?”

    You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

    And Greek often forged Church document (more so than the Latin). There are plenty of example for this.

    Finally, since the east were somewhat begrudgingly acquisced to the dogma of papal supremacy. So it’s understandable that the west, for diplomatic reason, would not use a straight forward language to press the dogma. A good example is what Don Vito Corleone said in this meeting. He went on about superstitions and struck by lightining bolt. But the message is clear, “if you try to kill my son, I’m going to kill you all.”

    ReplyLike
    Craig Truglia
    Craig Truglia
    Agus Pare
    13h ago
    Both sources are pro roman so your argument does not hold water . Apparently the flattery in the Latin version was considered embarrassing to some Greeks.

    ReplyLike
    Agus Pare
    Agus Pare
    Craig Truglia
    12h ago
    I’m not talking about the maronite version.

    So your argument for why the Greek omitted the addition because they were embarassed? Embarassed because they have to submit to a higher authority? Then my argument stands

    ReplyLike
    Craig Truglia
    Craig Truglia
    Agus Pare
    12h ago
    I am not going to respond to polemical arguments. We can disagree over my reading of the Latin tradition but for the roman apologetic to hold one needs the Greeks to agree to the embolden content in the formula. We have primary sources showing that they refused to quote the sections so the rc apologetic fails.

    God bless
    Craig

    ReplyLike
    Agus Pare
    Agus Pare
    Craig Truglia
    11h ago
    Why is not quoting the section prove something? That’s an argument from silence.

    And about your argument that the maronite quote Matthew 16:19 (instead of Matthew 16:18)…. did you know that the “you” in Matthew 16:18-19 is singular, not plural (as in “ya’ll” )? So in Matthew 16:19, Christ was giving the power of binding and loosing to Peter. Which is why, according to Catholic doctrine, the power of the bishops derives from the Pope (or course the source is Christ).

    Lastly, a diplomatic language formulated to save everyone’s faces surely could be read either way. So it’s no surprise that you read the Hormisdas formula and found no “radical” claim. You won’t find language such as Vatican I Pastor Aeternus in any ancient documents. But if you read it while keeping in mind the historical context, you will see that even the form of a greeting could mean death or live (ok, I’m exaggerating).

    Reply1Like
    ubipetrus2019
    ubipetrus2019
    8h ago
    Agus, the Catholic Church teaches the bishops recieve their legitimacy, not power, from the pope.

    Like

  2. Dr. Francis Boyle Confirms Coronavirus Is An “Offensive Biological Warfare Weapon” — Truth To Power – Sumo Sacerdote

Comments are closed.