#NNPA BlackPress

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.

Published

2 years ago

June 15, 2023

Forward Times Staff

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 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 ME R S-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, many scientists 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 several conspiracy theories about 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 five Parliament members have participated in 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.”

According to the event’s website, the speaker line-up included some prominent COVID-19 misinformation spreaders, including Dr. Robert Malone, Dr. Pierre Kory, and Dr. Ryan Cole. The event content was turned into a book called “ICS 3 – The Whole Truth” and commercialized — a paperback copy sells for $29.99.

SARS-CoV-2 is New, Not Engineered for 56 Years

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 that involved 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.

Sources

Payne, Susan. “Family Coronaviridae.” Viruses. 1 Sep 2017.

“Virology: Coronaviruses.” Nature. Vol. 220. 16 Nov 1968.

“Coronavirus: Detailed taxonomy.” AVMA. Accessed 13 Jun 2023.

“Human Coronavirus Types.” CDC. Updated 15 Feb 2020.

“Common Human Coronaviruses.” CDC. Updated 13 Feb 2020.

“Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS).” CDC. 6 Dec 2017.

“Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS).” CDC. Updated 2 Aug 2019

Spencer, Saranac H., et al. “New ‘Plandemic’ Video Peddles Misinformation, Conspiracies.” FactCheck.org. Updated 29 Jun 2021.

Weiss, Susan R. Vice Chair, Department of Microbiology, University of Pennsylvania. Phone interview with FactCheck.org. 5 Jun 2023.

Malone, Robert. “Videos: The International Covid Summit III in the European Parliament, Brussels.” Substack. 15 May 2023.

Alexander, Lorraine K., et al. “An Experimental Model for Dilated Cardiomyopathy after Rabbit Coronavirus Infection.” The Journal of Infectious Diseases. Vol. 166. 1 Nov 1992.

Kontoulis, Natalie. Press officer for the European Parliament. Email sent to FactCheck.org. 9 Jun 2023.

Curtis, Kristopher, et al. “Methods for Producing Recombinant Coronavirus.” International Patent Number WO 02/086068 A2. 31 Oct 2002. Robertson, Lori. “Still No Determination on COVID-19 Origin.” FactCheck.org. 20 Mar 2023.

The post Video Distorts Early Coronavirus Research To Promote Baseless Bioweapon Conspiracy Theory appeared first on Forward Times.

The post Video Distorts Early Coronavirus Research To Promote Baseless Bioweapon Conspiracy Theory first appeared on BlackPressUSA.

Forward Times Staff

Posts by Forward Times Staff

Up Next

MSCS board relaxes job requirements for superintendent post; vice chair quits

Don't Miss

Global Entrepreneur Jeff Hoffman and NBA Legend Shaquille O’Neal teaming up with City of Talladega

Forward Times Staff

Click to comment

#NNPA BlackPress

LIHEAP Funds Released After Weeks of Delay as States and the District Rush to Protect Households from the Cold

BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — The federal government has released $3.6 billion in home heating assistance after a delay that left states preparing for the start of winter without the program’s annual funding.

Published

1 week ago

December 1, 2025

Stacy M. Brown

By Stacy M. Brown
Black Press USA Senior National Correspondent

The federal government has released $3.6 billion in home heating assistance after a delay that left states preparing for the start of winter without the program’s annual funding. The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, known as LIHEAP, helps eligible households pay heating and cooling bills. The release follows a shutdown that stretched 43 days and pushed agencies across the country to warn families of possible disruptions.

State officials in Minnesota, Kansas, New York, and Pennsylvania had already issued alerts that the delay could slow the processing of applications or force families to wait until December for help. In Pennsylvania, more than 300,000 households depend on the program each year. Minnesota officials noted that older adults, young children, and people with disabilities face the highest risk as temperatures fall.

The delay also raised concerns among advocates who track household debt tied to rising utility costs. National Energy Assistance Directors Association Executive Director Mark Wolfe said the funds were “essential and long overdue” and added that high arrearages and increased energy prices have strained families seeking help.

Some states faced additional pressure when other services were affected by the shutdown. According to data reviewed by national energy advocates, roughly 68 percent of LIHEAP households also receive nutrition assistance, and the freeze in multiple programs increased the financial burden on low-income residents. Wolfe said families were placed in “an even more precarious situation than usual” as the shutdown stretched into November.

In Maryland, lawmakers urged the Trump administration to release funds after the state recorded its first cold-related death of the season. The Maryland Department of Health reported that a man in his 30s was found outdoors in Frederick County when temperatures dropped. Last winter, the state documented 75 cold-related deaths, the highest number in five years. Rep Kweisi Mfume joined more than 100 House members calling for immediate federal action and said LIHEAP “is not a luxury” for the 100,000 Maryland households that rely on it. He added that seniors and veterans would be placed at risk if the program remained stalled.

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore used $10.1 million in state funds to keep benefits moving, but noted that states cannot routinely replace federal dollars. His administration said families that rely on medical equipment requiring electricity are particularly vulnerable.

The District of Columbia has already mapped out its FY26 LIHEAP structure in documents filed with the federal government. The District’s plan shows that heating assistance, cooling assistance, weatherization, and year-round crisis assistance operate from October 1 through September 30. The District allocates 50 percent of its LIHEAP funds to heating assistance, 10 percent to cooling, 13 percent to year-round crisis assistance, 15 percent to weatherization, and 10 percent to administrative costs. Two percent is used for services that help residents reduce energy needs, including education on reading utility bills and identifying energy waste.

The District’s plan lists a minimum LIHEAP benefit of $200 and a maximum of $1,800 for both heating and cooling assistance. Crisis benefits are provided separately and may reach up to $500 when needed to resolve an emergency. The plan states that a household is considered in crisis if it has been disconnected from energy service, if heating oil is at 5 percent or less of capacity, or if the household has at least $200 owed after the regular benefit is applied.

The District’s filing notes that LIHEAP staff conduct outreach through community meetings, senior housing sites, Advisory Neighborhood Commissions, social media, posters, and mass mailings. The plan confirms that LIHEAP applicants can apply in person, by mail, by email, or through a mobile-friendly online application and that physically disabled residents may request in-home visits.

As agencies nationwide begin distributing the newly released funds, states continue working through large volumes of applications. Wolfe said LIHEAP administrators “have been notified that the award letters have gone out and the states can begin to draw down the funds.”

Stacy M. Brown

Posts by Stacy M. Brown

#NNPA BlackPress

Seven Steps to Help Your Child Build Meaningful Connections

BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — Swinging side by side with a friend on the playground. Sharing chalk over bright, colorful sidewalk drawings. Hiding behind a tree during a spirited game of hide-and-seek. These simple moments between children may seem small, but they matter more than we think

Published

1 week ago

December 1, 2025

Oakland Post

By Niyoka McCoy, Ed.D., Chief Learning Officer, Stride/K12

Swinging side by side with a friend on the playground. Sharing chalk over bright, colorful sidewalk drawings. Hiding behind a tree during a spirited game of hide-and-seek. These simple moments between children may seem small, but they matter more than we think: They lay the foundation for some of life’s most important skills.

Through everyday play, young children begin learning essential social and emotional skills like sharing, resolving conflicts, showing empathy, and managing their emotions. These social skills help shape emotional growth and set kids up for long-term success. Socialization in early childhood isn’t just a “nice-to-have”—it’s essential for development.

Yet today, many young children who haven’t yet started school aren’t getting enough consistent, meaningful interaction with peers. Research shows that there’s a decline in active free play and peer socialization when compared to previous generations.

There are many reasons for this. Children who are home with a parent during the day may spend most of their time with adults, limiting opportunities for peer play. Those in daycare or preschool may have restricted free play, and large classrooms can reduce supervision and social coaching. Some children live in rural areas, are homebound due to illness, have full schedules, or rely on screens to fill their playtime. And for some families, finding other families with young children to connect with isn’t easy.

While these challenges can feel significant, opportunities for connection still exist in every community. Families can take simple steps to help children build friendships, create a sense of belonging, and strengthen social skills. Here are some ideas to get started:

Storytime sessions at libraries or local bookstores
Community offerings such as parent-child workshops, art, music, gymnastics, swimming, or sports programs
Weekly events at children’s museums, which may include art projects, music workshops, or science experiments
Outdoor exploration, where kids can play with peers
Local parenting groups that organize playdates and group activities
Volunteer opportunities where children can participate, such as pet adoption events or packing meals at a food bank
Classes for kids at local businesses, including hardware, grocery, or craft stores

Some of these community activities are free or low-cost and give kids the chance to build friendships and practice social skills. Parents can also model positive social behavior by interacting with other parents and encouraging their children to play with their peers.

These may seem like small moments of connection, but they can have a powerful impact. Every time your child shares a toy, plays make-believe with peers, or races a friend down the slide, they’re not just playing—they’re learning the skills that build confidence, empathy, and lasting friendships. And it’s good for you, too. Creating intentional opportunities for play also helps you strengthen your own network of parents who can support one another as your children grow together.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

#NNPA BlackPress

Seven Steps to Help Your Child Build Meaningful Connections

Published

1 week ago

December 1, 2025

Oakland Post

By Niyoka McCoy, Ed.D., Chief Learning Officer, Stride/K12

Storytime sessions at libraries or local bookstores
Community offerings such as parent-child workshops, art, music, gymnastics, swimming, or sports programs
Weekly events at children’s museums, which may include art projects, music workshops, or science experiments
Outdoor exploration, where kids can play with peers
Local parenting groups that organize playdates and group activities
Volunteer opportunities where children can participate, such as pet adoption events or packing meals at a food bank
Classes for kids at local businesses, including hardware, grocery, or craft stores