WATCH: Nobel Prize Winner Weighs In On Specific Irregularities In COVID Genetic Structure

Written by Wes Walker on April 29, 2020

Having ‘aged out’ and won a Nobel Prize, he has nothing left to prove, and nothing left to lose. He’s free to share his honest thoughts… even if they dissent from popular consensus.

You may not know the name ‘Luc Montagnier’, but he worked at the prestigious ‘Pasteur Institute’ in Paris, and was a co-recipient of a Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2008.

The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2008 was divided, one half awarded to Harald zur Hausen “for his discovery of human papilloma viruses causing cervical cancer”, the other half jointly to Françoise Barré-Sinoussi and Luc Montagnier “for their discovery of human immunodeficiency virus.” — NobelPrize

Interestingly, his stated place of residence, as listed online is Shanghai, China.

Luc has some things to say about his study of this particular virus. Something that others won’t. And it might be because he’s past the point of being afraid of any negative sanctions.

As laymen, we can do no more than pass along his claims, leaving those more expert than ourselves to weigh the overall merits of deficiencies of his claim.

The Gates Of Vienna blog posted a video and transcript of Montagnier’s claim that there are aspects of this virus that appear to have been genetically manipulated.

Please note, he makes no specific claims about WHO did the manipulation, or what the motives behind them are. He only explains his reason for believing the viral genetic code has been modified.

Video transcript:

00:00 So what I’m interested in this morning is, you’re working on the virus right now.
00:07 I’m working, but not necessarily in the lab.
00:11 Work is done on the computer with a colleague and then that’s it.
00:15 We don’t do experiments, but we collect data from the disease itself, from all the measurements
00:24 that are being done in the labs right now on the patients. —And you came to certain conclusions.
00:32 So, you could say that I came to the conclusion
00:36 that there actually has been manipulation done on this virus.
00:41 What do you mean? —Well, some of it, I’m not saying all of it, y’know. There’s a part which is
00:47 Obviously the classic virus and there’s another mainly coming from the bat, but that part
00:56 has added sequences, particularly from HIV. The AIDS virus.
01:01 But when you say added, who added it?
01:06 I don’t know. —It’s not natural, is that what you mean?
01:10 No, it’s not natural. It was a professional job.
01:13 It was a job for molecular biologists. It’s a very meticulous job.
01:17 You could say clockwork of sequences.
01:21 So, with what goal? —It’s not clear what the goal is. I’m not exposing it. If you like, my job is
01:30 to expose the facts, that’s all. I’m not accusing anyone. I don’t know who did it or why.
01:37 There is a possibility that maybe they wanted to make —
01:41 we don’t know who “they” are — but they wanted
01:45 to make an AIDS vaccine.
01:49 So a small sequence of the virus is taken and put into the larger
01:55 coronavirus sequence. —I’m not sure, I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying.
02:04 You mean, in this virus, there’s a bit of HIV. —That’s it. The genetic material of the virus is
02:13 a long ribbon of RNA, correct? Like DNA, except it’s RNA and in this long ribbon at a certain place
02:22 someone placed a small sequences of HIV and this small sequence isn’t small like insignificant;
02:31 they have the possibility of modifying, for example, something called antigenic sites. That means,
02:38 if we want to make a vaccine, we can very well modify the protein for the vaccine by adding
02:44 a small sequence from another virus. —Are you certain? Because I think that was a rumour,
02:50 that it had human origin after all and it was then refuted by most scientific authorities anyway.
02:57 There’s still a willingness to stifle it. If we’re working on it, and we’re weren’t the first.
03:06 A very, very, very famous Indian research group had published the same thing and
03:13 they were forced to retract it. —So how were they going to force them to retract it?
03:19 By cancellation, if you look at their obligations, you can see big block of cancellations because…
03:27 Then what you’re saying here is that most scientists
03:30 are just saying otherwise anyway. —More or less.
03:33 More or less. Look, this happened at the beginning of the year
03:39 and we’re seeing more and more evidence
03:44 that suggests this. You see, I’m aged out.
03:49 I’m a Nobel Prize winner and I can work freely.
03:54 So there’s no pressure on me to do anything.