A NEW STUDY REVEALS JUST HOW DAMAGING THE POLICY WAS.
COVID-19 lockdowns could be responsible for claiming 20 times more lives than they were advertised to save, according to a new analysis published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.
The paper, which bases its conclusions on a comprehensive review of other relevant, lockdown-focused literature, was authored by researchers at the Jerusalem College of Technology.
“In this work, we performed a narrative review of the works studying the above effectiveness, as well as the historic experience of previous pandemics and risk-benefit analysis based on the connection of health and wealth,” summarized the article, titled “Are Lockdowns Effective in Managing Pandemics?”
“The comparative analysis of different countries showed that the assumption of lockdowns’ effectiveness cannot be supported by evidence—neither regarding the present COVID-19 pandemic, nor regarding the 1918–1920 Spanish Flu and other less-severe pandemics in the past,” argue the researchers.
The team proceeds to quantify the estimated number of lives lost due to the COVID-19 mitigation measure, which drew strong support from Democrats and public health officials including Anthony Fauci, Deborah Birx, and Mike Pence:
The price tag of lockdowns in terms of public health is high: by using the known connection between health and wealth, we estimate that lockdowns may claim 20 times more life years than they save.
The paper also exposes how governments and international health organizations’ embrace of lockdowns was at odds with their stance on the public health policy prior to COVID-19.
“It should be mentioned that the same conclusions—no clear benefit of lockdowns in case of pandemic—were made by national and international bodies before COVID-19 emerged. Namely, several governments prepared detailed plans of response to influenza- like pandemics years ago—see the programs of the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (2007) and the Israeli Ministry of Health (2007),”
Researchers singled out the World Health Organization (WHO), which published a comprehensive 91-page preparedness plan in October of 2019 that explicitly mentioned that:
• social distancing measures “can be highly disruptive” and should be carefully weighted; • travel-related measures are “unlikely to be successful”; “border closures may be considered only by small island nations in severe pandemics”; • and contact tracing and quarantine of exposed individuals are not recommended in any circumstances.
The paper doesn’t argue that lockdowns were merely ineffective; however, adding that they actually claimed the lives of the people public health officials claimed to be protecting.
“The lockdown policies had a direct side effect of increasing mortality. Hospitals in Europe and USA were prepared to manage pretty small groups of highly contagious patients, while unprepared for a much more probable challenge—large-scale contagion. As a result, public health care facilities and nursing homes often became vehicles of contamination themselves—to a large extent because of the lockdown-based emergency policy implementation,” explained the paper, citing New York as an example.
“While our understanding of viral transmission mechanisms leads to the assumption that lockdowns may be an effective pandemic management tool, this assumption cannot be supported by the evidence-based analysis of the present COVID-19 pandemic, as well as of the 1918–1920 H1N1 influenza type-A pandemic (the Spanish Flu) and numerous less-severe pandemics in the past,” concludes the paper.
The findings follow the publication of other studies finding sizable drawbacks to lockdowns and other popular COVID-19 mitigation measures such as mask mandates.
NO ONE IN THE BIG PHARMA-SPONSORED MEDIA SEEMS TO HAVE PICKED UP ON THIS. STRANGE, HUH?
Former White House coronavirus task force spokesman Ambassador Deborah Birx has effectively laid blame for thousands of deaths at the door of big pharmaceutical giants Pfizer and Moderna, claiming their refusal to pursue a “compassionate use authorization” for the COVID-19 vaccines led to a delay which directly impacted nursing home residents, The National Pulse can reveal.
The details come in the final parts of Birx’s little read book – Silent Invasion – wherein she details how she used “subterfuge” to get around the will of the Trump administration, as well as naming Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner and Vice President Mike Pence as her “go to” people in the government.
In Chapter 19, entitled “Winter Is Here,” Birx turns her guns on the same pharmaceutical companies she and her colleague Anthony Fauci promoted and protected during the COVID-19 outbreak. Specifically, she points out the corporates who were shielded by government from liability failed to get vital doses of their vaccines into the arms of those who needed it earliest: the elderly:
“Getting as many people inoculated as quickly and equitably as possible remained one of my priorities. In addition to “emergency use authorization,” or EUA, the FDA also has the authority to allow the use of therapeutics and vaccines (and the use of experimental drugs to people outside clinical trials) under what’s called “compassionate use authorization,” or CUA. Lacking the holy grail of emergency use authorization (which was pending), I continued to try to find a way to get the highest-risk group immunized as quickly as possible. In early November, I asked Tony and Steve to approach Moderna and Pfizer and urge them to apply for CUA while their vaccines’ efficacy was still being determined but safety was fairly clear. With a CUA in hand, we could inoculate any nursing home residents who wished to be. Whether they volunteered for the jabs or not, at least they’d have the option.”
But as many continued to die, her wishes were not carried through, she explains:
“We had a narrow window, and it was closing. Fifteen hundred nursing home residents died in the first week of October. The vaccine manufacturers, I learned, had already stockpiled three million doses. If we could draw from that supply through CUA, thousands of lives could be saved.
“This didn’t happen. Pfizer and Moderna declined to pursue compassionate use authorization. They believed the process would be a distraction. Their eyes were fixed on the EUA, another complicated process; taking on both simply wasn’t possible.
“I believed it was—it just wasn’t part of the plan these manufacturers had envisioned.”
Birx then goes on to detail the number of people that were affected by the major corporations’ refusal to pursue a faster route to market. At the time, many suspected they were refusing to do so because such speed would give President Trump an ostensible boost right before the U.S. presidential election.
“Take a moment to imagine that they did apply for compassionate use. And imagine that 1.5 million of the 3 million stockpiled doses went to nursing homes in November, and another 1.5 million at the end of November, for a second dose. If this had happened, the nursing home residents would have been fully protected in December, at the start of the surge, and not, as it turned out, as late as February, after the surge. An additional six-thousand-plus nursing home residents died in mid-December. They all could have been fully immunized and protected before this happened and we could have saved thousands of lives. If this had been done, literally thousands of lives could have been saved. Great good could have been done, and at low risk to these vulnerable people. In a pandemic, you need to innovate on the fly in response to the reality of the moment and not be locked into a rigid plan.”
Birx’s theory rests on the efficacy of the vaccines, however. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines were altered this past week to remove the distinctions between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. Regardless of the “science” today, the United States continues to restrict foreign travelers into the country who are not vaccinated, unless they come in illegally through America’s porous southern border.
Dr. Anthony Fauci this week urged people to vote out members of Congress who are spreading “total lies” about COVID-19, but made a false claim himself about COVID-19 vaccines.
Fauci, speaking at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle on Aug. 9, was asked how the scientific community can deal with congressional leaders “who promulgate unscientific ideas yet control funding for public institutions.”
“Vote,” Fauci responded, drawing applause from the room.
In commencement speeches he’s given this year, Fauci urged graduates, “Don’t accept the normalization of untruths.”
“Because there’s so much preposterous lying that goes on, and including, unfortunately it’s true … that members in our own Congress, in our own Senate, who just get up and say things that are total lies,” added Fauci, the longtime head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). “‘Vaccines kill people, that kind of thing.’ It’s so much untruths that people who have a lot of other things in their lives that they have to worry about, they kind of start accepting it and all of a sudden, lying becomes normal.”
Vaccines do kill people, according to U.S. health authorities.
Nine deaths from a combination of blood clotting and low blood platelet levels, for instance, have been determined to be “causally associated” with Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Causally associated means the vaccine caused or was related to the deaths.
Severe allergic reactions are also triggered on occasion by the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, as are cases of heart inflammation. People who have experienced the conditions have died.
NIAID didn’t respond to requests for comment.
Dr. Larry Corey, a Fred Hutch employee who asked Fauci the question, identified Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) by name but didn’t offer any evidence for Paul promulgating unscientific ideas.
Paul and Fauci have clashed during Senate hearings over Fauci’s agency funding the Wuhan, China, laboratory located near where COVID-19 cases were first detected, and Republicans have vowed to investigate Fauci if they gain control of Congress in the upcoming midterm elections. Paul’s office didn’t respond to an inquiry.
Fauci wasn’t questioned on his own prior statements, including his admission that he misled the U.S. public on the effectiveness of masks in order to prevent a shortage of masks for health care workers.
The cancer center awarded Fauci with the 2022 honorary Hutch Award, which he received during a baseball game at T-Mobile Park. The discussion took place hours before the game.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and chief medical adviser to Joe Biden, throws a pitch before the game between the Seattle Mariners and the New York Yankees at T-Mobile Park in Seattle, Wash., on Aug. 9, 2022. (Alika Jenner/Getty Images)
Gain of Function
At one point during the discussion, Corey started talking about how an early strain of the virus that causes COVID-19 was detected in Washington state, and Fauci joked, “I developed the ancestral modern strain.”
“I created it. I was in my kitchen,” Fauci said, drawing laughter.
“Gain of function, here we come,” Corey said, before moving on to another subject.
Gain of function is a term that describes research to make pathogens more transmissible or pathogenic.
“Families of the more than 1 million Americans who have perished from COVID-19 aren’t laughing,” Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), one of Fauci’s fiercest critics in Congress, wrote on Twitter in response to a clip of the new exchange.
Dozens of cases of Langya virus have been reported in China, according to new research from scientists who were previously linked to controversial bat coronavirus studies at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
The Langya henipavirus — referred to as LayV — belongs to a family of viruses that are “known to infect humans and cause fatal disease,” revealed a group of Chinese-led scientists in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Of the 35 confirmed LayV cases found in China’s Shandong and Henan provinces, however, none have proven deadly. Symptoms include fever, fatigue, cough, loss of appetite, and muscle aches.
The majority of the scientists behind the paper identifying the virus are affiliated with Chinese Communist Party-run scientific institutions, which are notorious for their ties to the regime’s military efforts and biological warfare programs. Researchers from labs including the Beijing Institute of Microbiology and Epidemiology and State Key Laboratory of Pathogens and Biosecurity are among the paper’s authors.
Lin-Fa Wang, a researcher at the Duke–National University of Singapore Medical School, is also an author of the peer-reviewed New England Journal of Medicine piece, whose work on the LayV virus follows his involvement with bat coronavirus research conducted by the Wuhan Institute of Virology using funds from Anthony Fauci’s National Institutes of Health (NIH) agency.
Led by EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak and the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s “Bat Woman” Shi Zhengli, researchers used the samples to conduct risky “gain-of-function” research, as now-deleted webpages reveal the lab manipulating bat coronaviruses to “replicate efficiently in primary human airway cells and achieve in vitro titers equivalent to epidemic strains of SARS-CoV.”
Wang, who is an Honorary Professor at the lab, appears as a co-author on many of these now highly controversial studies including “Isolation and characterization of a bat SARS-like coronavirus that uses the ACE2 receptor” in 2013 and “Discovery of a rich gene pool of bat SARS-related coronaviruses provides new insights into the origin of SARS coronavirus” in 2017.”
Though Wang told the Chinese Communist Party-run Global Times that the reported LayV cases had “not been fatal or very serious” so far and that there was “no need for panic,” officials from Taiwan’s health authority are currently monitoring the virus’ spread.
In the paper, scientists sequenced the LayV virus genome and alleged that “the shrew may be a natural reservoir of LayV.”
In the early days of COVID-19, Chinese Communist Party scientists and their American counterparts pushed a similar narrative.
he Wuhan Institute of Virology, whose research into coronaviruses is believed by many to be the source of COVID-19, is engaging in similarly risky studies tracking bats and their ability to infect humans in caves across China.
The unearthed paper follows the controversial lab using funds from Anthony Fauci’s National Institutes of Health (NIH) agency in collaboration with EcoHealth Alliance to gather bat samples. Beginning in 2014, led by EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak and the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s “Bat Woman” Shi Zhengli, researchers used the samples to conduct risky “gain-of-function” research, as now-deleted webpages reveal the lab manipulating bat coronaviruses to “replicate efficiently in primary human airway cells and achieve in vitro titers equivalent to epidemic strains of SARS-CoV.”
The new study, published in May of 2020, appears to be engaging in similar research methods.
Researchers from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, including “Bat Lady” Shi Zhengli, tracked and sampled the Cave Nectar Bat since it is “known to carry both filoviruses and coronaviruses,” according to the paper.
“In this study, we tracked 16 bats in Mengla County, Yunnan Province, China, using miniaturized GPS devices to investigate their movements and potential contact with humans. Furthermore, to determine the prevalence of coronavirus and filovirus infections, we screened for the nucleic acids of the Měnglà virus (MLAV) and two coronaviruses (GCCDC1-CoV and HKU9-CoV) in anal swab samples taken from bats and for antibodies against these viruses in human serum samples,” explains an overview of the researcher’s work.
The study also shows that researchers worked with “recombinant proteins,” a term that commonly appears in “gain-of-function” research.
The research was published in the journal Zoological Research and was funded by several Chinese Communist Party-run scientific organizations including the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC). The National Pulse has previously exposed the NSFC’s deep ties to China’s military.
The group’s 2020 funding guidelines identify “innovative research in defense and military and civilian integration” as receiving “preferential” funding. The foundation also inked a 2016 “strategic cooperative agreement” with the Science and Technology Committee of the Chinese Communist Party’s Central Military Commission – the regime’s paramount military policy-making body.
Annual reports from NSFC reveal several researchers from PLA-run institutions received millions in funding.
The paper also follows lies from EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak about the lab’s work with live bats, which were proved false through recovered footage from the lab. Deleted webpages and patents filed by the Wuhan Institute of Virology also show that researchers worked closely with bats despite the lab acknowledging that “the risk of being bitten by a bat still exists” even when protective gear is worn.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on Friday updated its monkeypox advice to suggest people most at risk, namely men who have sex with men, “take a temporary break” from those behaviors to help “contain … the outbreak.”
Among the updates are suggestions that people “take a temporary break” from sexual activity until considered vaccinated; limit their number of sexual partners; avoid “spaces” for anonymous sex with multiple partners; use condoms; and wear gloves during particular sexual activities.
These five suggestions to reduce the chance of spread were added to the seven that appeared on the webpage when it was updated on July 12. In that previous update, the CDC offered suggestions for sexual activities for people who have (or think they have) “monkeypox and … decide to have sex.”
Friday’s update contains stronger messaging, with the CDC now saying “the best way to protect yourself and others is to avoid sex of any kind … while you are sick.” People should especially “avoid touching any rash.”
Public Health Emergency
The updates come a day after the Biden administration declared a public health emergency for monkeypox in a bid to unlock funding and more powers to deal with the virus. Some states, including New York, California, and Indiana, have declared their own public health emergencies for similar reasons.
The stages of Monkeypox. (UK Health Security Agency)
The updated advice appears on the CDC’s “Safer Sex, Social Gatherings, and Monkeypox” webpage which contains detailed and specific information tailored to lowering the risk of transmission during particular sexual activities.
“While CDC works to contain the current monkeypox outbreak and learn more about the virus, this information can help you make informed choices when you are in situations or places where monkeypox could be spread,” reads a statement on the webpage which wasn’t there in July.
“Monkeypox is not considered a sexually transmitted disease, but it is often transmitted through close, sustained physical contact, which can include sexual contact.”
The CDC has also advised people to consider the chances of skin-to-skin contact when attending festivals or raves.
“Festivals, events, and concerts where attendees are fully clothed and unlikely to share skin-to-skin contact are safer. However, attendees should be mindful of activities (like kissing) that might spread monkeypox,” the CDC webpage reads.
“A rave, party, or club where there is minimal clothing and where there is direct, personal, often skin-to-skin contact has some risk. Avoid any rash you see on others and consider minimizing skin-to-skin contact.”
The CDC especially noted the increased risk of spread at these events in “enclosed spaces” where people go for “intimate, often anonymous sexual contact with multiple partners.”
The White House has identified a vital need for education about monkeypox and outreach to the LGBT community, which is most affected by the outbreak, in order to combat the virus.
White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Monday that there is a need to make sure the LGBT community and public health officials “know exactly what to look for and what the treatment is.”
The CDC’s updated suggestions come three days after President Joe Biden picked Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, who runs the CDC’s HIV prevention division, as one of two officials to lead the nation’s response to the monkeypox outbreak.
Daskalakis, who will be deputy to FEMA’s Robert Fenton, has expertise with issues that impact the LGBT community, making him an appropriate pick, according to Dr. Anthony Fauci, the White House’s chief medical adviser.
Dr. Demetre Daskalakis speaks at the press conference for New York City Pride on June 27, 2021. (John Lamparski/Getty Images)
The 2022 monkeypox outbreak has so far primarily spread via the sexual activity of gay and bisexual men, a major study has found. The virus can also spread through contaminated bedding, clothing, towels, according to the CDC and World Health Organization.
After the United States’ fifth pediatric monkeypox case was reported in Long Beach on Thursday, a Californian health department has also said transmission can occur via household items such as cups and utensils.
The CDC’s updated webpage for safer sex amid the monkeypox outbreak noted that vaccines will be “an important tool in preventing the spread of monkeypox.”
“But given the current limited supply of vaccine, consider temporarily changing some behaviors that may increase your risk of being exposed,” the webpage reads. “These temporary changes will help slow the spread of monkeypox until vaccine supply is adequate.”
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) used COVID-19 for biological warfare, according to a new report by nine experts with the Center for Security Policy (CSP).
Generals, medical experts, and foreign policy experts including former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Pete Hoekstra and former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Lieutenant General William “Jerry” Boykin contributed to the report, which is available in book form on Amazon.
The report, titled “The CCP is at War with America,” stated that there is no evidence COVID-19 was a natural virus, arguing that there is significant evidence it came from a CCP lab. It also stated that the CCP deliberately allowed the virus to spread worldwide by allowing international flights while locking down movement within China.
The CSP describes the report as an “exercise in competitive analysis that strongly challenges the Director of National Intelligence’s September 2021 conclusion.”
The Plague War
U.S. intelligence experts in 2021 concluded that they might never know for certain where COVID-19 came from. But the CSP put the blame squarely on the Chinese communist regime.
“The preponderance of evidence indicates that SARS-CoV-2 was lab-manufactured,” the report stated. “In any event, Beijing acted with murderous intent in spreading the disease beyond China’s borders.”
As proof of these claims, the report pointed to genetic features of COVID-19 not found in natural viruses. It noted that China’s military has a biological warfare program.
Finally, it highlighted that the Chinese regime restricted internal travel to stop the spread of COVID-19 but kept its international borders open. At the same time, it bought up global supplies of personal protective gear.
Even if the original release of the virus was an accident, its worldwide spread was intentional, the report stated. The likely motive was to ensure that the rest of the world would be set back economically by the virus to the same degree China would be.
The cover of The CCP is at War with America report on Amazon. Screenshot taken Aug. 5, 2022. (Jackson Elliott/The Epoch Times)
“Xi’s regime clearly saw the imperative need to ensure that it would not suffer economic privation alone, to the advantage of its enemies, especially the United States,” the report read. “Actively spreading the virus was, thus, a means of waging economic warfare, and the Chinese Communists applied themselves to doing so with a vengeance.”
According to the report, the CCP worked to spread its COVID-19 quarantine policies around the world so it could weather the pandemic at an advantage. The damage COVID-19 measures did to America’s economy put the CCP ahead.
“A principal beneficiary of such economic trauma would be the Chinese Communist Party,” the report read.
Weapons of Choice
The report also stated that the Chinese regime has a history of biological warfare. In the early 1990s, Chinese general Chi Haotian told China’s biological weapons program that it should depopulate America so China could take it over, according to the report. But China kept these plans secret.
“Right now, it is not the time to openly break with [America],” the general said. “Our reform and opening to the outside world still rely on their capital and technology.”
Biological weapons could be China’s road to world domination, the report stated. Chinese military journals have openly published articles about genetically-targeted biological warfare. China has collected genetic profiles of foreigners while keeping a close guard on the genetic profiles of Chinese people, it added.
“If Chinese scientists succeed in designing pathogens targeting only foreigners, the next germ, virus, or microbe from China could end non-Chinese societies,” the report stated.
“Xi will be the first supremo to possess a weapon making worldwide Chinese rule possible,” it read.
The report suggested that COVID-19 fatalities outside China should be considered “murder victims.”
The paper offered several conclusions. These include that the CCP and any who colluded with it must be held accountable for the pandemic’s results; the government shouldn’t impose vaccine mandates on the vulnerable; the United States should develop deterrents against Chinese bioweapons; and future medical health measures shouldn’t follow Chinese totalitarian lockdown advice.
“We must never again allow our constitutional freedoms to be denied on the pretext of a public health emergency, especially at the insistence of foreign powers, let alone our mortal enemy,” the report stated.
Didn’t he already admit it does not prevent the spread of infection? WTF? [US Patriot]
Dr. Anthony Fauci has once again sounded the warning bell over COVID-19, saying in an interview on Tuesday that those who are not up to date on vaccines will “get into trouble” this fall and winter.
“If they don’t get vaccinated or they don’t get boosted, they’re going to get into trouble,” Fauci told Los Angeles radio station KNX-AM.
A large part of the U.S. population is not up to date on the COVID-19 vaccines.
The Kaiser Family Foundation found that as of July 21, 227.8 million Americans either had not received a primary series of shots or had not gotten a booster dose. That is about 70 percent of the population.
“In each state, at least half the population is not up to date on COVID-19 vaccines. In Alabama, North Carolina, and Virginia, over 80% of people are not yet up to date on COVID-19 vaccines,” KFF noted.
The number of Americans who have received the second booster shot is even lower.
The CDC recommends that people over the age of 50 receive the second booster. Only 19,935,913 members of that demographic — about 31 percent — have done so.
In the Tuesday radio interview, Fauci called the overall vaccination and booster rates “quite discouraging.”
“If you want to get your arms around — metaphorically, as it were — the outbreak, you want to get as many people in our community — and by community I mean our nation and the world — vaccinated and boosted so you don’t give this virus such ample opportunity to freely circulate,” Fauci said.
He insisted that the only way to get the virus under control and to keep it from continually mutating is to get everyone vaccinated.
Fauci called getting vaccinated and boosted a “communal responsibility.”
“People say, ‘Well, the risk to me is low, so why get it?’ It is about you as an individual, but it’s also about the communal responsibility to get this outbreak under control.”
Two doctors and a former Harvard Medical School professor have signed onto the lawsuit that alleges the U.S. government and Big Tech colluded to censor dissenting voices.
Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, who was fired for refusing to get a COVID-19 vaccine, also joined the legal action.
All three say they have been affected by Big Tech censorship, and believe the punitive measures have been influenced or directed by government officials.
In April 2021, for instance, Google-owned YouTube deleted a video of Bhattacharya and Kulldorff questioning whether masks were effective in stopping the spread of SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19.
Kulldorff, a former Harvard Medical School professor who now works at the Brownstone Institute, was also suspended by Twitter for several weeks after positing that masks give people a false sense of security, which makes them more likely to expose themselves to the illness. That’s the same theory put forth by top U.S. officials until they pivoted to endorsing widespread mask-wearing months after the pandemic started.
Kheriaty also says he was censored by Twitter.
“I have always shared peer-reviewed research findings as well as my own opinions and perspectives on Twitter and LinkedIn. It was not until I began posting information about COVID and our COVID response policies, however, that I encountered censorship on the Twitter platform,” he wrote in a declaration filed in the new case.
Multiple platforms, meanwhile, took action against the declaration, which called for focused protection of the elderly while letting the rest of society live their lives normally and was vociferously opposed by top U.S. health officials, including then-National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins.
Search results on Google initially placed the declaration’s website near the top but soon ranked it lower than articles that were critical of the document, according to declarations from Bhattacharya and Kulldorff. Reddit removed links to the declaration and Facebook removed a page dedicated to the document, though it later restored it.
Stanford University professor of medicine Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a founding fellow of Hillsdale College’s Academy for Science and Freedom, at the Hillsdale College Kirby Center in Washington on March 17, 2022. (Bao Qiu/The Epoch Times)
‘Self-Censor’
The scientists say they’ve had to “self-censor” in order to try to remain on the platforms.
That has sometimes meant not posting at all, and other times posting by using “imaginative phrasing,” Kulldorff said.
They also say the timing of the censorship decisions support the assertion that the moves were induced by the government, including how censorship of the declaration happened soon after Collins called for a “quick and devastating … take-down” of the document in private and disparaged it in public.
“These are clear indications to me that government is in collaboration with Big Tech to suppress scientific dissent,” Bhattacharya told The Epoch Times.
Government officials such as former White House press secretary Jen Psaki have openly admitted to flagging “problematic posts” for Facebook and raising issues with posts on Twitter, the complaint notes, while some of the platforms have acknowledged consulting with government officials on content moderation.
“The government’s sweeping campaign to suppress the perspectives of the plaintiffs, and others like them, represents the most severe abrogation of the First Amendment in modern times, and we look forward to seeing this constitutional atrocity rectified in a court of law,” Jenin Younes, a lawyer for the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which is representing the new plaintiffs, said in a statement.
The revised effort drops one defendant, Psaki, who is no longer with the federal government, and adds a number of others.
Carol Crawford with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); the U.S. Census Bureau; Jennifer Shopkorn, a senior adviser for the bureau; the Department of Commerce; Robert Silvers and Samantha Vinograd, Department of Homeland Security officials; the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency; Jen Easterly, director of the agency; and Gina McCarthy, a White House national climate adviser were named as defendants.
None were named in the original filing.
Joe Biden, Dr. Anthony Fauci, and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas were among the defendants named in both complaints.
The messages show Crawford and colleagues met with and discussed taking action against alleged COVID-19 misinformation.
The Census Bureau was involved in the coordination, according to the missives.
The messages, the amended filing states, “confirm the allegations of collusion between [government] officials and social-media platforms to censor disfavored speech, speakers, and viewpoints, as alleged herein.”
The subpoenas and discovery requests sent out as part of a lawsuit against the federal government are going to bring back reams of information, Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry says.
Landry and Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, both Republicans, sued the Biden administration in May, arguing the government colluded with Big tech companies to violate the constitutional rights of Americans.
U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty, a Trump appointee, recently ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. Government officials like Dr. Anthony Fauci and companies including Facebook were served soon after.
“We’ve got a treasure trove of information that we think are going to come to us here shortly,” Landry said on EpochTV’s “American Thought Leaders.”
“The subpoenas have gone out. They’re being served. I think Dr. Fauci got served, and he and other members of the president’s Cabinet, and they’re gonna have to send us communications between them and the platforms. And what we believe we’ll find is communications between them telling them what they should and shouldn’t put out or what they should suppress, and what they should amplify,” he added.
Government officials have said they have not acted improperly.
Officials have for years commented on how social media platforms operate, and the federal government is not responsible for how platforms moderate content, U.S. lawyers said in a filing in the case, Missouri and Louisiana v. President Biden et al.
“Those companies independently chose to combat misinformation years ago, before this administration took office, and before the federal officials sued here made the comments at issue. Indeed, although the Complaint cites numerous statements by government officials, it does not identify how those statements are connected to the moderation decisions that purportedly harmed their resident,” they said.
Landry said that the government is violating citizens’ rights by pressuring companies to ban or take other punitive action against users. In a separate case, documents released this month showed U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officials highlighting specific posts in messages to Twitter executives while complaining about alleged misinformation from those users. Whistleblower documents released by two U.S. senators in June, meanwhile, showed that U.S. officials had been in touch with Twitter over purported disinformation.
“I think what we found, and what the whistleblowers put out, was that the government was actually engaged, and the White House, in directly communicating with Big Tech on stories and information that they either wanted suppressed or put out,” Landry said.
His office, after putting out a call for information from people who have been censored in some way by platforms, has also collected a number of examples. Those may be used in the suit in question, as well as other suits with which he’s involved.
Landry himself has witnessed censorship from Big Tech, with his posts initially drawing many shares, but engagement quickly falling off.
“We’re trying to get information out to our constituency in a medium—I guess you would say, in a new medium—under which everyone is using more than the other, traditional mediums,” Landry said. “And they are creating a filter between us and our constituents.”
Anthony Fauci’s wife – who is also head of the Department of Bioethics at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center – authored a paper detailing how to enroll children in COVID-19 vaccine trials.
The study – “Enrolling Minors in COVID-19 Vaccine Trials” – was funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical Center and was published in the journal Pediatrics. Christine Grady, wife to National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Director Anthony Fauci, and four co-authors collaborated on the paper to “propose recommendations for when and how to enroll minors in vaccine trials for the coronavirus disease 2019.”
“The costs that delay poses to children, their families, and society provide strong reasons to consider enrolling minors in vaccine trials for COVID-19 before safety and efficacy have been established in adults,” claimed Grady in the paper.
The paper proceeds to assess the benefits and drawbacks surrounding the timing of enrolling children in COVID-19 vaccine trials along with the ideal selection criteria for participants.
“A different way to address this concern is to enroll minors after there are sufficient safety data in adults, but before there is evidence of efficacy. To pursue this strategy, enrollment of minors should begin with those who are most similar to the adults from whom safety data were collected,” explains researchers.
The paper was published in March of 2021, is roughly one year before public health officials would authorize and urge the vaccination of children against COVID-19.
The unearthed paper comes amidst controversy over Fauci’s decision to fund research on “killer” bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Additionally, Grady’s prominent role in supervising the ethics of NIH research and policy appear to present a conflict of interest given her husband’s role in shaping America’s COVID-19 response and vaccination guidelines.
White House medical adviser Anthony Fauci claimed Monday that he never recommended “locking anything down” when pressed about what he would do differently regarding the COVID-19 pandemic.
“First of all, I didn’t recommend locking anything down,” Fauci replied during an interview published by The Hill’s “Rising” program on Monday, suggesting it had been a recommendation from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
“Go back and look at my statements,” he added, “that we need to do everything we can to keep the schools open and safe.”
Although it’s unclear exactly what Fauci meant by lockdowns, in October 2020, Fauci had publicly recommended that former President Donald Trump “shut the whole country down,” although it’s not clear what he meant as presidents don’t have the authority to hand down sweeping lockdowns.
“When it became clear that we had community spread in the country … I recommended to the president that we shut the country down,” he said in an event with students at the College of the Holy Cross in October 2020.
If the United States didn’t “shut down completely the way China did,” then the spread of COVID-19 wouldn’t be stopped, Fauci continued to say at the time. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) since early 2020 has pursued a “zero COVID” strategy that some analysts say is tantamount to economic suicide.
Closing Schools and Bars
In August 2020, Fauci said that public schools should remain closed across the country to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Fauci also publicly suggested multiple times in 2020 that bars and restaurants should remain closed, then arguing that there was a binary choice between opening schools or bars.
“You have a choice—either close the bars or close the schools. Because, if you have people congregating in bars, it’s likely you’re going to stay red,” the longtime head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases said in November 2020.
Also during the interview with The Hill, Fauci said there should have been “much more stringent restrictions” imposed on asymptomatic people in 2020.
“We know now, two and a half years later, that anywhere from 50 to 60 percent of the transmission occur from someone without symptoms, either someone who never will get symptoms or someone who is in the pre-symptomatic stage,” he said.
It’s not clear how Fauci came to this conclusion about asymptomatic spread. Physician Aaron Kheriaty wrote for the Brownstone Institute that “no respiratory virus in history” has been known to spread asymptomatically.
“Had we known that then, the insidious nature of spread in the community would have been much more of an alarm and there would have been much, much more stringent restrictions in the sense of very, very heavy, encouraging people to wear masks, physical distancing or what have you,” added Fauci, who again called for mask-wearing in schools, workplaces, and “anything that brings people together in a closed environment” in some areas.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention coordinated with social media companies and Google to censor users who expressed skepticism or criticism of COVID-19 vaccines, according to a trove of internal communications obtained by America First Legal and shared exclusively with the Washington Free Beacon.
Over the course of at least six months, starting in December 2020, CDC officials regularly communicated with personnel at Twitter, Facebook, and Google over “vaccine misinformation.” At various times, CDC officials would flag specific posts by users on social media platforms such as Twitter as “example posts.”
In one email to a CDC staffer, a Twitter employee said he is “looking forward to setting up regular chats” with the agency. Other emails show the scheduling of meetings with the CDC over how to best police alleged misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines.
Although many of the posts flagged by the CDC contained false information about the COVID-19 vaccines, the efforts to police misinformation also resulted in mistaken acts of censorship. An April 2021 email from a CDC staffer to Facebook states that the “algorithms that Facebook and other social media networks are apparently using to screen out posting by sources of vaccine misinformation are also apparently screening out valid public health messaging, including [Wyoming] Health communications.”
The communications reveal a high level of coordination between the government and tech industry during the pandemic and raise questions about the extent to which other private companies are working with the federal government to censor the public. The Biden administration has faced criticism for engaging in what some have called “Orwellian” practices, such as the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security Disinformation Governance Board. The Free Beaconreported that the now-shuttered disinformation board arranged a meeting with a Twitter executive who blocked users from sharing stories about Hunter Biden’s laptop.
The CDC’s effort to police alleged disinformation expanded to other federal agencies as well. An internal March 2021 email from a senior CDC staffer states “we are working on [sic] project with Census to leverage their infrastructure to identify and monitor social media for vaccine misinformation.”
One email shows a senior CDC official appeared at Google’s 2020 “Trusted Media Summit.” The conference, according to its website, was “for journalists, fact-checkers, educators, researchers and others who work in the area of fact-checking, verification, media literacy, and otherwise fighting misinformation.”
One of the organizers of the conference asked the senior CDC official for permission to post her remarks on YouTube. That official declined, saying she was not authorized to speak publicly.
In the same email chain with a senior CDC official, a Google staffer offers to promote an initiative from the World Health Organization about “addressing the COVID-19 infodemic and strengthen community resilience against misinformation.” That same Google staffer offers to introduce the CDC official to a Google colleague who is “working on programs to counter immunization misinfo.”
Facebook also awarded the CDC with $15 million in ad credits for the company’s platforms in April 2021, according to several emails.
“This gift will be used by CDC’s COVID-19 response to support the agency’s messages on Facebook, and extend the reach of COVID-19-related Facebook content, including messages on vaccines, social distancing, travel, and other priority communication messages,” an internal CDC memo reads.
A Facebook official says the platform has been transparent about its work with public health organizations “to address health misinformation.” The platform also says it has asked its internal oversight board to assess whether its “current COVID-19 misinformation policy is still appropriate now that the pandemic has evolved.”
Twitter and Google declined to comment. The CDC did not respond to a request for comment.
Tensions between the CDC’s powers and protecting the public’s civil liberties have arisen since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. White House chief medical adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci called a judge overruling the CDC’s mask mandate “disturbing.”
Dr. Anthony Fauci will receive a tax-paid annual federal retirement pension benefit of $414,667—more than the President’s $400,000 annual salary—if he leaves the civil service service in January 2025, as he has said he plans to do, according to the nonprofit government watchdog Open the Books (OTB).
While the specific details of an individual federal employee’s retirement benefit are exempt from public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the formula used to determine the amount is public, as are key details, including annual salary and years of service.
The OTB figure was arrived at by the nonprofit’s auditors by using the known formula, salary data and number of years of service for Fauci, who is the long-time Director of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) at the National Institutes for Health (NIH).
Fauci will have been a government employee for 59 years and be 85 years of age if he retires in January 2025. Under the present rules for federal compensation, his annual salary at retirement will be nearly $530,000, according to the OTB calculations.
He presently is paid $456,028 in annual salary compensation, making him the highest-paid employee on the federal payroll. His salary exceeds those of the president, the vice president, the heads of federal departments, senators and representatives, and the justices of the Supreme Court.
Fauci did not respond to The Epoch Times request for comment.
Adam Andrzjewski, OTB’s president, told The Epoch Times that “if it wasn’t already clear enough, Dr. Fauci’s profound impact on our public health policies, economy, and public schools is reflected by this enormous pension. At the end of the day, taxpayers helped fund this pension and guarantee all of it.”
The OTB chief added that the generosity of federal compensation overall is excessive, noting that “when debating the pay, perks, and pension benefits for federal employees, everything needs to be on the table. Today, the average federal bureaucrat makes six figures, receives 44 days of paid time off, and has a very lucrative retirement pension. It’s tough for the private sector to compete with this benefit package.”
The Chicago-based nonprofit is the nation’s largest private repository of information on government spending, including salary and pension benefit data. The foundation has filed thousands of FOIA requests and obtained data on more than $6 trillion in federal spending, the official checks of 49 of the 50 states, and the pay and pension information for 25 million government workers.
Her title is currently listed by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management as “Social Science” with a pay level of $238,970, according to data compiled by OTB. The current top pay rate for federal government executive-level officials is $226,300.
Grady’s compensation is at the center of a federal court complaint as a result of NIH officials’ refusal to disclose information sought via a FOIA request dated April 8 by OTB. The OTB lawsuit (pdf) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
The OTB request sought “all employment contracts, modifications, and addendums” for Grady since assuming her present position, as well as “all confidentiality agreements/documents, conflicts of interest waivers or documents, ethics disclosures, and financial interest and/or economic interest disclosure documents.”
In addition, the FOIA request sought a copy of Grady’s current official job description. All federal employment positions are required by federal law and regulation to have an official position description that describes the specific duties and responsibilities for which the individual holding the position can be held accountable.
The OTB FOIA was acknowledged by NIH officials on April 28, which was the maximum of 20 days allowed by federal law for an agency to do so. Federal law also requires agencies to communicate a final determination on what documents, if any, they will provide in response to requests. But OTB told the court that the NIH had failed to do so by the May 26 deadline.
The NIH further failed to advise OTB of its potential administrative remedies, and has produced none of the requested documents or explained which, if any, of the FOIA’s eight permitted exemption categories apply that would allow for the documents to be withheld.
As a result, the complaint asked the court to order the NIH to conduct a thorough search for all of the requested documents, to produce all such documents that aren’t subject to being withheld by a certain date, or to explain why doing so isn’t possible, and to provide what is known as a Vaughn Index describing each withheld document and why it was withheld, and to pay Open the Books the legal costs of the litigation.
Fauci’s long-time boss, former NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins left the agency in December 2021, and was then appointed in March 2022 as resident Joe Biden’s Chief Science Adviser. That appointment made Collins the highest-paid member of the most expensive White House staff ever.
Not all of Fauci’s income is received from federal taxpayers, however, as was first reported by The Epoch Times. He also received 23 secret royalty payments of undisclosed amounts between 2010 and 2020 from entities outside of the federal government that NIH refuses to identify. The 23 payments were part of an estimated $350 million in royalty payments received by more than 1,600 NIH officials, scientists and researchers, according to OTB.
Collins received 14 such payments, while Fauci’s top deputy at NIAID, Clifford Lane, received eight payments, according to OTB.
Dr. Lawrence Tabak, Collins’ successor as Acting NIH Director, admitted during a May congressional hearing that the $350 million in secret royalty payments has the appearance of a conflict of interest, but he claimed the agency has enough internal safeguards to prevent abuse..
Ruling against EPA sets precedent for a series of lawsuits against agency overreach
As the Biden administration reels from a string of recent legal defeats, political analysts hail the U.S. Supreme Court’s latest ruling, West Virginia v. EPA, as but one component of a new, broad-based approach that the courts are taking to halt a century-long effort by progressives to empower the administrative state and rule Americans by bureaucratic decree.
Dating back to President Woodrow Wilson 100 years ago, progressive presidents, including Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden, have worked to transfer law-making authority from Congress to their executive agencies. Wilson, the father of modern-day progressives, believed the Constitution, with its separation of powers, was an outdated document and that professional bureaucrats were superior at decision-making, compared to the time-consuming and compromise-ridden process of passing laws through elected representatives.
Wilson wrote in the 1887 article “The Study of Administration” that “the many, the people, who are sovereign [under the Constitution] have no single ear which one can approach, and are selfish, ignorant, timid, stubborn or foolish.”
“The greatest revolution since the Constitution in many ways has been this movement away from legislatures into agencies,” Matthew Spalding, Dean of Hillsdale College’s Graduate School of Government, told The Epoch Times. “The crisis here is the movement away from consent,” as Americans increasingly lose their right to have a voice in setting the laws and regulations that control their lives.
In 1984, for example, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that came to be known as the Chevron Doctrine, ruling that federal agencies had the authority to decide the scope of their power in situations where congressional authorization was ambiguous. Since this ruling, Chevron v. National Resources Defense Council, the courts have sided with federal agencies in cases where the authority of agencies was challenged.
Now, for the first time in a century, a series of rulings from federal courts have put up a roadblock to halt administrative encroachment. Two factors have brought about this change. First, the appointment by the Trump administration of 234 federal judges, including three Supreme Court justices. And second, the Biden administration’s unusually brazen attempts to push federal agencies well beyond their legal authority in order to impose a left-wing agenda on the United States without popular consent.
West Virginia Ruling
In the case of West Virginia v. EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) attempted to force America’s electric utilities to switch from fossil fuels to wind and solar. On June 30, the Supreme Court ruled that the Biden administration had no authority to do so.
“For years, unelected bureaucrats in the administrative state have been trying to destroy our fossil fuel industries by transforming the EPA into a communist-style central planning authority because they know they can’t get their radical environmental policies passed through Congress,” said West Virginia State Treasurer Riley Moore in an official statement, lauding the decision as “a victory for the rule of law.”
“Part of the problem is Congress writing these broad laws that leave a lot of room for interpretation by the agencies that are supposed to execute the laws,” William Shughart, senior fellow at the Independent Institute, told the Epoch Times. “That has led to this explosive growth in the administrative state. The West Virginia ruling applies the brakes to that growth.”
‘Major Questions Doctrine’
One of the key components of this Supreme Court ruling is the “major questions doctrine.” This is the concept that agencies, which are unelected by and unaccountable to the public, cannot make up rules on issues of major importance to Americans without clear authorization from elected representatives.
“The Supreme Court decision speaks to the legal flaws with trying to mark an entire industry for termination,” Jonathan Berry, a partner at Boyden Gray & Associates, told The Epoch Times. “What the Supreme Court is saying is that when you take on initiatives of major economic or political significance, those measures have to be authorized by a clear statement from Congress.”
“One of the most profound aspects of this ruling is its portability across regulatory regimes,” Berry said. In rendering its West Virginia decision, the Supreme Court looked at prior rulings, including those against the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). “The common thread across those cases is the executive branch using an administrative agency to wade into policy areas beyond what Congress authorized,” Berry added.
In August 2021, the Supreme Court ruled that the CDC did not have legal authority to ban landlords from evicting non-paying tenants. In January of this year, the Court ruled that OSHA did not have authority to force employees of large companies to take the Covid-19 vaccine.
“What we’re seeing here is extremely significant,” Spalding said. “The way the Court works is they do these things in different cases here and there, but they’re putting a doctrine together that ultimately builds up to a larger case. The heart of the matter is the unconstitutionality of essentially shifting legislative authority outside of the legislative branch into these agencies.”
“There are already tons of lawsuits out there that have been winding their way through the legal system for years,” Bonner Cohen, senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research, told The Epoch Times. “Some of those lawsuits will eventually make it to the Supreme Court, but a lot of them may be dealt with at lower court level simply because people can now point to the precedent that was set in West Virginia v. EPA.”
Administrative Overreach
Last week, a Trump-appointed federal judge temporarily blocked orders by the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) that attempted to force states to, among other things, allow transgender children to compete in sports in schools according to their gender identity rather than their gender at birth. Twenty state attorneys general brought a suit against the DOE directive, arguing that the authority to decide such policies “properly belongs to Congress, the States, and the people.”
Two other areas where administrative overreach by the Biden administration will likely be challenged next are a directive from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regarding “green accounting” (that is, accounting that factors environmental costs in the financial results of operations) and gun control initiatives from the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF).
In a case that closely parallels West Virginia v. EPA, the SEC issued a directive that all listed companies must provide audited reports on the greenhouse gas emissions of their operations, as well as those of their suppliers and customers. In addition, companies must detail their strategies to reduce such emissions. Critics believe this will open companies up to a rash of environmental lawsuits and actions by activist asset managers like BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard. West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey was among the first state officials to threaten legal action in response.
The ATF has been attempting to expand the legal definition of which gun parts constitute a firearm in an effort to implement a Biden administration initiative, which failed to pass Congress, against unregistered homemade guns, thus turning a formerly legal practice into a felony. A lawsuit against this has already been filed by the Gun Owners of America. In addition, the ATF was found to be keeping records of “several hundred million” gun purchases, despite the fact that Congress explicitly outlawed a federal gun registry.
Loss of Public Trust
Such attempts to circumvent public consent by legislating through unelected federal agencies inevitably lead to a loss of public trust in government.
“If there’s no consent, no responsibility, no check-back system, then you really are undermining public confidence in that process,” Spalding said. Regarding the ATF and gun control measures, a June poll by NPR/Ipsos found that, while most gun owners said they would accept universal background checks, they “harbored a deep distrust of government.”
“The more that this administration steps over the line and claims for itself powers that the peoples’ representatives in Congress have not given it, the more we should expect a decline in trust and in legitimacy,” Berry said.
As the courts begin to push back against administrative overreach, however, the backlash from the political left has been escalating, including demands for “packing” the Supreme Court with more left-leaning judges, or even abolishing the Court altogether.
Following the overturning of Roe v. Wade, President Biden stated, “We cannot allow an out-of-control Supreme Court, working in conjunction with extremist elements of the Republican Party, to take away our freedoms and our personal autonomy.” A recent survey by Rasmussen and the Heartland Institute found that, in the wake of the EPA decision, the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and the pro-Second Amendment Bruen decision (regarding concealed weapons), most Democrats and younger voters see the Court as a racist and sexist institution and want to pack it with progressive judges, remove it, or replace it.
“These findings clearly show that most Democrats and young Americans do not respect the sanctity of the Supreme Court when it issues decisions that run counter to their agenda,” Heartland Institute Research Fellow Chris Talgo told The Epoch Times. “As a former U.S. history and American government teacher, I can say without a doubt that our education system is not teaching the basics when it comes to civics. Most American students cannot name the three branches of government, let alone understand the role of separation of powers. This does not bode well for the future of freedom, seeing as how young voters are hostile to the very institutions that preserve our freedom.”
The Justice Department, for example, permitted weeks of intimidating protests outside the homes of conservative Supreme Court justices after the opinion to overturn Roe v. Wade was prematurely leaked prior to the formal ruling. Following the arrest in June of an armed man who was charged with attempted murder at the home of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) demanded that U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland “detail the steps the Department of Justice is taking to protect our Supreme Court Justices in the wake of an unprecedented harassment and intimidation campaign.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was criticized for taking weeks to bring a bill protecting Supreme Court justices and their families to a vote, even after the alleged assassination attempt against Justice Kavanaugh. When the bill was put to a vote, 27 Democrats voted against it.
Granting Power to Experts
Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, who disagreed with the majority in the West Virginia case, argued that the courts must defer to the EPA, which she deemed the “expert agency,” and allow the agency to interpret the scope of its own power. Critics of this approach, however, remain skeptical of granting too much power to experts and question whether administrators are in fact experts when it comes to issues like national energy policy or making personal medical decisions.
“These are career government employees,” Cohen said. “They are not experts.”
“Look at the experience the country had during the pandemic, where we had such experts as Dr. [Anthony] Fauci and Dr. [Deborah] Birx and others throughout the federal government who completely mishandled the public health response to COVID-19,” Cohen said. “If these are the experts, we need to free ourselves from experts, because they got it spectacularly wrong.”
“Anytime you encounter the word ‘emergency,’ anytime you encounter the word ‘crisis,’ be careful,” Cohen said. “It may in fact be a crisis because those things happen, but it may be nothing more than a pretext for a power grab.”
“The invocation of an emergency is not a justification for combining the powers of government into a single person,” Berry said. “That’s the definition of tyranny.”
While Dr. Anthony Fauci on Tuesday amended his Monday retirement announcement, Republicans who have criticized Fauci’s COVID-19 leadership were not changing their tune.
A Tuesday report from The Hill contradicted one from the day before concerning Fauci’s plans. Politico had reported that Fauci would retire by the end of resident Joe Biden’s term.
“I’m not going to retire. No, no, I’m not going to retire. I may step down from my current position at some time,” Fauci said. Fauci, 81, is currently the president’s chief medical adviser, as well as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
As Fauci told the story on Tuesday, he had been asked if he would keep working if former President Donald Trump wins the 2024 presidential election.
“I said a very innocent but true thing. I said whether it’s Donald Trump or it’s Joe Biden’s second term, I don’t intend to be in my current position in January of 2025,” Fauci said.
“What happens between now and then I have not decided, but the one thing I do know is that I have other things that I want to do in a professional way that I want to have the capability — while I still have the energy and the passion to do them,” he said.
Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who has sparred with Fauci in Senate hearings, welcomed the change.
“Excellent – because I look forward to ascertaining Fauci’s involvement in the cover-up of the lab origins of COVID — Under Oath!” he tweeted.
Excellent – because I look forward to ascertaining Fauci’s involvement in the cover-up of the lab origins of COVID — Under Oath! https://t.co/LHmpE8QuWs
Other Republicans reacted to the possibility of Fauci stepping down by saying that the career bureaucrat does not deserve to happily slip off into the golden years of retirement.
“Whether Fauci retires or not, he still must be investigated and held responsible for his role in Covid-19,” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia tweeted.
“Fauci thinks he’s just going to retire and move on with his life. Not on my watch,” Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert said. “He belongs in jail.”
Whether Fauci retires or not, he still must be investigated and held responsible for his role in Covid-19.
— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸 (@RepMTG) July 18, 2022
In an Op-Ed for The Wall Street Journal, James Freeman linked Fauci’s fading popularity with that of Biden.
“One shuttered the country and the other campaigned as a shut-in. Two Beltway lifers who promoted the disastrous lockdown policies of the Covid era seem to be on their way out of Washington. And even left-leaning media folk seem ready to see them depart,” he wrote.
A federal court has granted a request by Missouri and Louisiana officials to obtain information and documents from top-ranking officials in the Biden administration over its alleged collusion with social media giants in an effort to censor and suppress free speech.
Eric Schmitt, Missouri’s Republican attorney general, announced on social media on July 13 that Terry Doughty, a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, had ruled in favor of the request for the discovery process.
The ruling paves the way for the attorneys general to collect documents from top-ranking Biden administration officials and social media giants.
In court documents (pdf) shared by Schmitt, Doughty wrote that there is “good cause” for an expedited preliminary injunction discovery.
The judge, a Trump appointee, also gave a timeline in which federal officials and social media platforms must hand over documents.
Plaintiff states may serve document and information requests from government officials and third party subpoenas on up to five major social media platforms seeking to identify which federal officials have allegedly been in communication with them within five business days after the ruling.
The ruling was issued on July 12.
Federal officials and social media platforms must also hand over documents and answer questions from officials from the two states within the next 30 days, the judge ruled.
‘Suppressed Disfavored Speakers’
The ruling comes after the attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri filed a lawsuit in May alleging that the Biden administration “colluded with and/or coerced social media companies to suppress disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content on social media platforms by labeling the content ‘disinformation,’ ‘misinformation,’ and ‘malinformation.’”
The attorneys general named social media giants such as Meta, Twitter, and YouTube in a press release announcing the lawsuit in May.
They also claimed that resident Joe Biden himself, along with other top-ranking government officials, had worked with the platforms to censor and suppress free speech, including “truthful information” pertaining to the origins of COVID-19, the effectiveness of masks, election integrity, and the security of voting by mail, as well as the ongoing Hunter Biden laptop scandal.
Among the defendants named in the lawsuit are Biden, former press secretary Jen Psaki, chief medical adviser to the president and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Dr. Anthony Fauci, former Disinformation Governance Board executive director Nina Jankowicz, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, and others.
Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the officials “pressured and colluded with social media giants Meta, Twitter, and YouTube to censor free speech in the name of combating so-called ‘disinformation’ and ‘misinformation,’ which led to the suppression and censorship of truthful information on several topics, including COVID-19.”
The complaint also alleges that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Disinformation Governance Board was created “to induce, label, and pressure the censorship of disfavored content, viewpoints, and speakers on social-media platforms.”
The lawsuit contends the alleged suppression of free speech and collusion violate the protections of the First Amendment and amount to action in excess of statutory authority.
It also contends that the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Homeland Security violated the Administrative Procedure Act.
Missouri and Louisiana filed a Motion for Expedited Preliminary Injunction-Related Discovery on June 17, 2022.
In announcing the court’s decision to grant the attorneys general’s request, Schmitt said on Twitter, ” No one has had the chance to look under the hood before – now we do.”
Via this genetic engineering experiment, they’ve literally injected ‘seeds of demise’ into everyday people like a cockroach spray. Based on a 2011 estimate, he believes an extra 700 million will be killed from this bioweapon – and they’ve known about the risks since 2005.
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
David Martin, Ph.D., presents evidence that COVID-19 injections are not vaccines, but bioweapons that are being used as a form of genocide across the global population
The spike protein that the COVID-19 shots manufacture is a known biologic agent of concern
Martin believes the number that may die may have been revealed back in 2011, when the World Health Organization announced their “decade of vaccination”
The objective for the decade of vaccination was a population reduction of 15% globally, which would be about 700 million people dead; in the U.S., this may amount to between 75 million and 100 million people dying from COVID-19 shots
When asked what timeframe these people may die in, Martin suggested “there’s a lot of economic reasons why people hope that it’s between now and 2028”
The projected illiquidity of the Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid programs by 2028 suggests the “fewer people who are recipients of these programs, the better;” Martin believes this may be why people 65 and over were targeted with COVID-19 shots first
In this revealing interview with Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog.com, David Martin, Ph.D., presents evidence that COVID-19 injections are not vaccines but bioweapons that are being used as a form of genocide across the global population.1
In March 2022, Martin filed a federal lawsuit against resident Biden, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services alleging that COVID-19 shots turn the body into a biological weapons factory, manufacturing spike protein. Not only is the term “vaccination” misleading when referring to COVID-19 shots, it’s inaccurate since they are actually a form of gene therapy.2
“And we are not only not going to be sued for, you know, any libel or misinformation, we are actually holding people criminally accountable for their domestic terrorism, their crimes against humanity and the story of the coronavirus weaponization that goes back to 1998,” Martin says.3
SARS-CoV-2 Has Been in the Works for Decades
Martin has been in the business of tracking patent applications and approvals since 1998. His company, M-Cam International Innovation Risk Management, is the world’s largest underwriter of intangible assets used in finance in 168 countries. M-Cam has also monitored biological and chemical weapons treaty violations on behalf of the U.S. government, following the anthrax scare in September 2001.4
According to Martin, there are more than 4,000 patents relating to the SARS coronavirus. His company has also done a comprehensive review of the financing of research involving the manipulation of coronaviruses that gave rise to SARS as a subclade of the beta coronavirus family.
Much of the research was funded by the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) under the direction of Dr. Anthony Fauci.5 Martin explained:6
“I think it’s important for your listeners and viewers to remember that it was 1999 when Anthony Fauci and Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill decided to start weaponizing coronavirus they patented in 2002 — and you heard that date correctly, that’s a year before the SARS outbreak in China.
You know, they knew it was a bioweapon since 2005. They knew it was effective at harming populations, intimidating and coercing populations”
COVID-19 Shots Are an ‘Act of Bioterrorism’
According to Martin, the spike protein that the COVID-19 shots manufacture is a computer simulation of a chimera of the spike protein of coronavirus. “It is, in fact, not a coronavirus vaccine. It is a spike protein instruction to make the human body produce a toxin, and that toxin has been scheduled as a known biologic agent of concern with respect to biological weapons for the last now decade and a half,” he said.7
Rather than being a public health measure as they were widely campaigned to be, COVID-19 shots are an act of bioweapons and bioterrorism. Martin shared that in 2015, Dr. Peter Daszak, head of the EcoHealth Alliance that funneled research dollars from the NIAID to the Wuhan Institute of Virology for coronavirus research, stated:8
“We need to increase public understanding of the need for medical countermeasures such as a pan-coronavirus vaccine. A key driver is the media and the economics will follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage, to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of the process.”
Daszak, who Martin refers to as “the money launderer in chief,” “actually stated that this entire exercise was a campaign of domestic terror to get the public to accept the universal vaccine platform using a known biological weapon. And that is their own words, not my interpretation,” Martin said.9
Martin: 100 Million May Die Due to COVID Shots
Both Pfizer and Moderna’s COVID-19 shots contain nucleic acid sequences that are not part of nature and have not been previously introduced to the human body. This amounts to a genetic engineering experiment that did not go through animal studies or clinical trials.
However, already people are dying from the shots and, Martin states, “many more will” due to issues such as blood clots, damage to the cardiovascular system and problems with liver, kidney and pulmonary function.10
An onslaught of reproductive and cancer cases related to the shots are also anticipated. “The fact of the matter is an enormous number of people who are injected are already carrying the seeds of their own demise,” Martin said.11 As for how many may die, Martin believes the numbers may have been revealed back in 2011, when the World Health Organization announced their “decade of vaccination”:12
“Based on their own 2011 estimate, and … this is a chilling estimate, but we just have to put it out there … When the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Chinese CDC, the Jeremy Farrar Wellcome Trust and others published The Decade of Vaccination for the World Health Organization back in 2011 their stated objective was a population reduction of 15% of the world’s population.
Put that in perspective, that’s about 700 million people dead … and that would put the U.S. participation in that certainly as a pro rata of injected population somewhere between 75 and 100 million people.”
When asked what timeframe these people may die in, Martin suggested “there’s a lot of economic reasons why people hope that it’s between now and 2028.”13 This is because of “a tiny little glitch on the horizon” — the projected illiquidity of the Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid programs by 2028.
“So the fewer people who are recipients of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the better,” Martin said. “Not surprisingly, it’s probably one of the motivations that led to the recommendation that people over the age of 65 were the first ones getting injected.”14 Other populations at risk are caregivers, including health care providers, and others in the workforce who were forced to be injected, such as pilots.
“Why is it that we’re suddenly having 700 flights a day being canceled because, allegedly, airlines don’t have pilots? … the dirty secret … is there a lot of pilots who are having microvascular problems and clotting problems, and that keeps them out of the cockpit, which is a good place to not have them if they’re going to throw a clot for a stroke or a heart attack,” Martin said.
“But the problem is we’re going to start seeing that exact same phenomenon in the health care industry and at a much larger scale, which means we now have, in addition to the problem of the actual morbidity and mortality, meaning people getting sick and people dying.
We actually have that targeting the health care industry writ large, which means we are going to have doctors and nurses who are going to be among the sick and the dead. And that means that the sick and the dying also do not get care.”15
Why COVID Shots May Change Your DNA
It’s been stressed by the media and public health officials that COVID-19 shots do not alter DNA. However, Martin brings attention to a little-known grant from the National Science Foundation, known as Darwinian chemical systems,16 which involved research to incorporate mRNA into targeted genomes. According to Martin:17
“Moderna was started … on the back of a 10-year National Science Foundation grant. And that grant was called Darwinian chemical systems … the project that gave rise to the Moderna company itself was a project where they were specifically figuring out how to get mRNA to write itself into the genome of whatever target they were going after.
That could be a single-celled organism, it could be a multi-celled organism or it could be a human. And the fact of the matter is Moderna was started on the back of having proven that mRNA can be transfected and write itself into the human genome.”
It is completely unknown what the short- or long-term effects of the spike protein analog that’s inside people who received COVID-19 injections will be. But with respect to alteration of the genome, Martin states that data show mRNA has the capacity to write into the DNA of humans, and “as such, the long-term effects are not going to merely be symptomatic. The long-term effects are going to be the human genome of injected individuals is going to be altered.”18
Fraud Removes Big Pharma’s Liability Shield
The 2001 anthrax attack, which came out of medical and defense research, led to the passage of the PREP Act, which removed liability for manufacturers of emergency medical countermeasures.
This means that as long as the U.S. is under a state of emergency, things like COVID-19 “vaccines” are allowed under emergency use authorization. And as long as the emergency use authorization is in effect, the makers of these experimental gene therapies are not financially liable for any harm that comes from their use.
That is, provided they’re “vaccines.” If these injections are NOT vaccines, then the liability shield falls away, because there is no liability shield for a medical emergency countermeasure that is gene therapy. Further, lawsuits that can prove the companies engaged in fraud will also negate the liability shield. Martin states:19
“One of the convenient things about the PREP Act is the immunity shield from liability actually is only as good as the absence of fraud. Because if there was fraud in the promulgation of the events, leading to an emergency use authorization, then all of the immunity shield gets wiped out.
So the reason why it is so important for conversations like the one we’re having to actually be promoted and be advanced is because the pharmaceutical companies — and this includes Pfizer and Moderna and J&J — know they are perpetuating a fraud. The great thing about this is when that fraud is established, 100% of the liability flows back to them.
… when a fraud was the basis for a fraud, then we actually have a number of other legal remedies that allow you to pierce that veil. So in the end, there’s no question … and it’s quite evident based on the current mortality and morbidity data that given the fact that when it comes to biological weapons and bioterror each count comes with $100 million penalty. That’s what the federal statute gives us.
The penalty for corporate domestic terrorism, when you have per count $100 million a pop liabilities — that is an existential threat that takes a company like Pfizer or takes a company like Moderna out of existence. And that is what we’re working for every day.”
If you’d like to follow the progress of the ongoing legal cases seeking to expose the truth — that a criminal organization is seeking to obtain control over the global population via the creation of patented bioweapons marketed as novel viruses and injections — you can find all the details at ProsecuteNow.io, a website compiled by Martin and colleagues.20
White House chief medical adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci revealed that after about five decades in the federal government, he’s planning on leaving his position by the end of resident Joe Biden’s current term.
“We’re in a pattern now. If somebody says, ‘You’ll leave when we don’t have COVID anymore,’ then I will be 105. I think we’re going to be living with this,” Fauci, 81, told Politico in an interview published on July 18 that he plans to retire by the end of Biden’s current term, which ends in January 2025.
Fauci has been the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since 1984. During the COVID-19 pandemic, he became a household name as the face of the federal government’s response, often generating criticism from Republicans and conservatives about his generally dire predictions about the pandemic.
Of his relationship with former President Donald Trump, Fauci said that “we developed an interesting relationship … two guys from New York, different in their opinions and their ideology, but still, two guys who grew up in the same environments of this city. I think that we are related to each other in that regard.”
And if Republicans win back either the House or Senate in 2022, Fauci noted that he will likely be investigated by GOP lawmakers. But he claimed that regarding those investigations, “I don’t make that a consideration in my career decision.”
In the Politico interview, Fauci continued to defend his public recommendations, including school closures, mask-wearing, vaccination regimes, and lockdowns.
“My telling somebody that it’s important to follow fundamental good public health practices … what are you going to investigate about that?” he asked.
Possible Investigations
However, Fauci has faced public questions from Republicans in Congress about his agency having given funding to third-party groups to carry out research in China. COVID-19, caused by the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus, emerged in Wuhan, China, and a significant number of U.S. intelligence officials last year released a report suggesting the virus may be linked to the top-level Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Last month, amid questions from Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), Fauci conceded that he isn’t able to halt federal funding from being doled out to researchers in China.
“The NIH [National Institutes of Health] is still funding research in China, at least $8 million since 2020,” Marshall said. “In the Intelligence Community’s 2022 Annual Threat Assessment, the Chinese Communist Party is presented as one of the top threats to the United States, along with Russia, Iran, Syria, and North Korea. To my knowledge, only China is receiving U.S. research dollars.”
Later, he asked Fauci, “When will you as director of NIAID stop funding research in China?”
Federal health agencies, Fauci said in response, “had very productive peer-reviewed highly regarded research projects with our Chinese colleagues that have led to some major advances in biomedical research.”
“We obviously need to be careful and make sure that when we do fund them we have the proper peer review and we go through all the established guidelines,” he said.
NIAID officials didn’t respond by press time to a request by The Epoch Times for comment.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said it’s “astonishing” that mainstream media is not holding Dr. Anthony Fauci accountable for his remarks on Wednesday that COVID-19 vaccines don’t protect “overly well” against the CCP virus.
“One of the things that’s clear from the data [is] that … vaccines—because of the high degree of transmissibility of this virus—don’t protect overly well, as it were, against infection,” Fauci said.
“It’s astonishing that mainstream media allows [Fauci] to blindly make that statement without any effort to hold him accountable for the costly national policies and the lockdowns that were utterly built upon his initial assertion that the vaccines would prevent transmission and end the pandemic,” Kennedy told The Epoch Times.
The lockdowns initially were imposed to flatten the curve in two weeks. Kennedy asserts that they “were contrary to every previous advisory for pandemic countermeasures by the CDC and the WHO.”
He believes that “the house of cards should be falling” and that the media should be putting pressure on the NIH.
“The national media, which was fooled by all these lies, should be surrounding NIH with pitchforks and torches. And yet it’s like water on a duck,” he said.
Kennedy is the author of the best-selling book “The Real Anthony Fauci,” an encyclopedic work that encompasses Big Pharma’s meddling in public health and people’s liberties.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, responds to questions during a congressional hearing in Washington in a file image. (Greg Nash/Pool via Reuters)
He’s an attorney, environmental activist, and founder of Children’s Health Defense. He is the son of former U.S. Senator, Attorney General, and presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, and the nephew of former Democrat President John F. Kennedy.
“If they don’t prevent transmission, then how does he justify the mandates? Particularly for children?”
The Epoch Times reached out to Fauci’s office for comment.
THE NEWS RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ENDORSEMENT OF BIRX BY NH-1 CANDIDATE MATT MOWERS.
Dr. Deborah Birx – who often appeared in front of COVID-19 task force briefings on behalf of the Trump administration – has admitted to doctoring data associated with the government’s response, as well as quietly altering the Centers for Disease Control advice without authorization, according to her own book.
Birx – who was brought into the White House task force following recommendations from Republican Party figures such as Matt Mowers (now running for Congress in New Hampshire’s 1st Congressional District) – writes in her underperforming book ‘Silent Invasion‘:
“I devised a work-around for the governor’s reports I was then writing. Instead of including those recommendations in the common bulleted list, I’d include them in the pandemic summary and state-specific recommendations in the governor’s reports, where they wouldn’t be so obvious. These weekly reports couldn’t go out on Monday without administration approval. Week by week Marc’s office began providing line-by-line edits. After the heavily edited documents were returned to me, I’d reinsert what they had objected to, but place it in those different locations. I’d also reorder and restructure the bullet points so the most salient—the points the administration objected to most—no longer fell at the start of the bullet points. I shared these strategies with the three members of the data team also writing these reports. Our Saturday and Sunday report-writing routine soon became: write, submit, revise, hide, resubmit. Fortunately, this strategic sleight-of-hand worked. That they never seemed to catch this subterfuge left me to conclude that, either they read the finished reports too quickly or they neglected to do the word search that would have revealed the language to which they objected.”
Birx’s appointment was welcomed by her former Chief of Staff in the State Department, Mowers, who tweeted:
I served as Chief of Staff to Ambassador Birx and I have the utmost confidence that she will ensure America is prepared to confront the Coronavirus outbreak. Her passion and commitment to ensuring our nation’s health and safety are second to none.
Indeed, press reports indicate that Birx’s ability to operate in such a manner was specifically due to Mowers’s influence:
Though Birx was not personally close to the President, she was able to develop a close relationship with this White House in part because Trump campaign official Matt Mowers served as her chief of staff for nearly two years, according to a source familiar with her situation.
Within weeks, however, Birx was thwarting the will of President Trump and his team, in order to prioritize the demands of pharmaceutical lobbyists and Chinese Communist Party sympathisers like Anthony Fauci. She further revealed:
This wasn’t the only bit of subterfuge I had to engage in. Immediately after the Atlas-influenced revised CDC testing guidance went up in late August, I contacted Bob Redfield. He confirmed my suspicions: he had disagreed with the guidance, but had felt pressured by HHS and the White House to post it. Also, many on his staff in Atlanta were still comfortable prioritizing symptomatic individuals. Even at this late point, eight months into the pandemic, many at both the White House and the CDC still refused to see that silent spread played a prominent role in viral spread and that it started with social gatherings, especially among the younger adults. We had to find a way around them. Recognizing the damage to public health the Scott Atlas–driven testing guidance could do and was doing with testing rates dropping across the country, Bob and I agreed to quietly rewrite the guidance and post it to the CDC website. We would not seek approval. Because we were both quite busy, it might take a week or two, but we were committed to subverting the dangerous message that limiting testing was the right thing to do.
As this was going on, Republican figures like Mowers were running cover for the scarfed bureaucrat:
Worse still, Birx claimed to offer little contrition over her outright insubordination, when challenged on the matter by then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows:
“On September 18, I was still on the road—in Arizona again, for a meeting with those conducting proactive testing at the University of Arizona—when Mark Meadows’s name and number flashed across my White House–issued smartphone.
“What the hell do you think you’re doing? You rewrote and posted the CDC testing stuff.”
“Yes, I did, but—” “There’s no ‘buts’ here. You went over my head.”
I explained why I had done it. We’d already seen the drop in testing numbers resulting from Scott Atlas’s dangerous guidelines. Those few pages we’d rewritten would change how states could test, and we’d prevent even more community spread going into the dangerous winter ahead. Mark Meadows took this in and then, biting off each of his words, said, “You went over everyone else on the task force’s heads. You went around the whole approval process. You do not make unilateral decisions. It’s that simple. Period. End of sentence. Understood? Don’t ever do this again.”
“Understood. I did what I needed to do.”
“Don’t do that again without talking with me first.”
The news will raise questions about the work of Birx and those around her in the White House, and whether or not she acted illegally during her employment. The developments could also cost Mowers – whose lead in the New Hampshire 1 Congressional race has narrowed in recent months.
His main opponent – former Trump admin official Karoline Leavitt – has experienced a bumper fundraising quarter as well as garnering endorsements from key Trump-world figures such as Steve Cortes:
The opening paragraph of Gen. Daniel Hokanson, chief of the National Guard Bureau, on their website reads:
“The National Guard is a lethal, cost-effective, dual-role operational force that provides strategic depth to the Army, Air Force, and Space Force, and responds to crises in our homeland. We are capable of operating in a complex global security environment, and continue to invest in modernization and readiness to prepare for the threats of the future. Today’s National Guard is an integral part of addressing the gravest challenges facing the Joint Force.”
Sort of… at least it should be.
Unfortunately, these days the Guard is being manipulated and often attacked on all sides as the proverbial political football.
First came the question of its use. Although the Guard was properly called into Minneapolis after the George Floyd rioting and into Portland after that benighted city’s post-election violence (maybe it should have been earlier), the question of why it was not present for the Jan. 6 events—however you want to define them—remains unanswered. From what we understand, then-President Donald Trump, under whose leadership they served, offered them to the Congressional leadership who, for whatever reason, were disinterested.
Yet worse, however, is what has happened now to the actual members of this volunteer army, the National Guard. (Yes, we should never forget that National Guardsmen, many of whom served previously, are all volunteers. What could be more patriotic than that?)
Those volunteers who did not dutifully—subserviently might be a better word—take the COVID-19 vaccines will be ejected from the National Guard.
“About 40,000 National Guard and 22,000 reserve soldiers will be blocked from service for rejecting the COVID vaccines, U.S. Army officials said on July 8.
“’Soldiers who refuse the vaccination order without an approved or pending exemption request are subject to adverse administrative actions, including flags, bars to service, and official reprimands,’ an Army spokesperson told Military.com.
“The deadline for the Defense Department’s vaccination mandate passed at midnight on June 30. The order cuts off pay and some of the military benefits to the 62,000 service members.”
I’m going to say right now that those 62,000 are most likely among the bravest of the National Guard because they have the courage to stand by their beliefs as few do.
Ironically, news of this despicable treatment of the very people to whom we owe our thanks arrived not long before the father of it all, Dr. Anthony Fauci, began to backpedal.
“White House COVID-19 adviser Anthony Fauci conceded Wednesday morning that COVID-19 vaccines don’t protect ‘overly well’ against the virus.
“Speaking during a Fox News interview, Fauci told host Neil Cavuto that ‘one of the things that’s clear from the data [is] that … vaccines—because of the high degree of transmissibility of this virus—don’t protect overly well, as it were, against infection.’”
So if they don’t protect “overly well” why are we kicking all those people out of the National Guard?
Few of those being ejected are anywhere near the supposed danger age of over 70 or so with the requisite co-morbidities. Most are reasonably physically fit, possibly quite fit. But they have to go. No “our bodies, ourselves” for them.
Fauci, in the Cavuto interview, suggested the vaccines indeed did work against severe reactions for older people because he had evidence. It turned out, however, that the evidence he provided was from a study with only one person—himself. He had taken an array of shots and boosters and, at 81, only got a self-described mild case of COVID.
I will counter that with another study of one person—myself. I’m only a few years younger than Fauci. I took the initial Pfizer shots way back in February 2021, abjured all boosters after that, almost never wore a mask except when forced on airplanes, and have been in many crowds, unmasked, in New York, Los Angeles, Atlanta, and Nashville and have never contracted COVID at all, at least as far as I know.
Does that prove anything? Of course not, but neither does what Fauci told Cavuto “as a scientist.” Not remotely.
I don’t know for sure what inspired Fauci’s backpedaling and his ludicrous cover, but I suspect there’s a world of potential lawsuits out there that could cause grave financial harm to Big Pharma and those like Fauci who work so closely with them. One of the reasons some say they recommend these dubious shots to children is to avoid these devastating suits. When the government makes vaccines mandatory for children, the companies that produce them are held harmless.
Following on the theme of volunteers, and since I live in the Volunteer State (Tennessee), I would be remiss in not noting that as of now our Republican governor, Bill Lee, has been on the wrong side of the National Guard story, doing nothing, despite many asking, for the ejected Guardsmen. (The Tennessee Star has been covering this closely.)
Also in Tennessee, 5th District Congressional candidate Kurt Winstead, a brigadier general in the National Guard himself, has been curiously silent on his beleaguered fellow Guardsmen.
This, although the policy endangers far more than just the National Guard—it seriously endangers the already endangered national security of our country. As Breitbart is reporting, it’s on the brink of engulfing our entire army:
“At least 260,000 American troops—or about 13 percent of the 2.1 million total force—are not fully vaccinated despite a Biden administration vaccine mandate for the military, and many of them could face discharge.
“According to the Department of Defense website, at least 268,858 service members as of July 13 are still not in compliance with Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s August 2021 mandate for every member of the military to be fully vaccinated with two doses of a vaccine. That figure does not count the thousands who have not taken any doses.”
I guess Biden is planning on having Ukrainians do all our fighting for us. Sorry, folks, we just don’t have the troops.
After White House adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci and Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra issued warnings about a new COVID-19 subvariant, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said they are not providing key facts about the latest strain.
“How come the flu vaccine changes every year and they’re not willing to change this vaccine?” Paul told Fox News on Tuesday. “Now, you might have me with an argument. I’ll listen to you if you tell me, ‘We’ve got a new vaccine that actually has something to do with the current virus,’” he said.
It came after Fauci, who has given hundreds of media interviews since the start of the pandemic, told CNN this week that the Omicron subvariant BA.5 is concerning due to its high transmissibility. People infected in the first COVID-19 waves “really don’t have a lot of good protection” against the latest subvariant, Fauci also said at a White House briefing several days ago.
But Paul, himself a doctor, told Fox that Omicron “was about 90 percent less likely to put you in the hospital than the first variant,” saying that Americans should “discount” what both Fauci and Becerra are saying about the latest subvariant.
“So if no one’s telling you any information, how can you make any judgment other than the emotionalism and the sensationalism of the government?” he asked.
Fauci himself was infected with COVID-19 several weeks ago and confirmed he took Pfizer drug Paxlovid before his symptoms recurred, although he’s received two booster shots.
In a recent interview, Fauci conceded that most COVID-19 vaccines don’t protect “overly well” against the latest variant. However, he used that statement to claim that they are effective at limiting the most severe symptoms.
“At my age, being vaccinated and boosted, even though it didn’t protect me against infection, I feel confident that it made a major role in protecting me from progressing to severe disease,” said Fauci, who is 81 and has worked in various capacities in the federal government since the late 1960s.
In a recent interview with the Washington Post, Fauci suggested that Americans ages 5 to 50 should be allowed to get a second booster shot.
The federal government, he argued, “need[s] to allow people who are under 50 to get their second booster shot, since it may have been months since many of them got their first booster.”
“If I got my third shot [in 2021], it is very likely the immunity is waning,” Fauci proclaimed.
The Epoch Times has contacted the National Institutes of Health for comment.
White House COVID-19 adviser Anthony Fauci conceded Wednesday morning that COVID-19 vaccines don’t protect “overly well” against the virus.
Speaking during a Fox News interview, Fauci told host Neil Cavuto that “one of the things that’s clear from the data [is] that … vaccines—because of the high degree of transmissibility of this virus—don’t protect overly well, as it were, against infection.”
But Fauci said later that the vaccines “protect quite well against severe disease leading to hospitalization and death” before he made note of his recent COVID-19 diagnosis.
“At my age, being vaccinated and boosted, even though it didn’t protect me against infection, I feel confident that it made a major role in protecting me from progressing to severe disease,” said Fauci, who is 81 and has worked in various capacities in the federal government since the late 1960s. He’s also headed the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since the Reagan administration.
Fauci then said it’s because of the vaccination that it is “very likely why I had a relatively mild course.”
Natural Immunity
The official’s comments come just days after a bombshell study revealed that natural immunity, or the immunity conferred via a previous COVID-19 infection, provides superior protection against the virus when compared with vaccines.
Researchers in Qatar said that individuals who survived a COVID-19 infection and weren’t vaccinated had very high protection against severe or fatal disease.
“Effectiveness of primary infection against severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 reinfection was 97.3 percent … irrespective of the variant of primary infection or reinfection, and with no evidence for waning. Similar results were found in sub-group analyses for those ≥50 years of age,” Dr. Laith Abu-Raddad of Weill Cornell Medicine–Qatar wrote.
But the researchers noted that both natural and artificial immunity conferred via vaccines waned over time. People who were previously infected with COVID-19 and were not vaccinated had half the risks of reinfection as compared to those that were vaccinated with two doses but not infected.
During an interview with the Washington Post this week, Fauci suggested that Americans aged 5 to 50 should be allowed to get a second booster shot.
The federal government, he argued, “need[s] to allow people who are under 50 to get their second booster shot, since it may have been months since many of them got their first booster.”
“If I got my third shot [in 2021], it is very likely the immunity is waning,” Fauci proclaimed.
The Chinese Communist Party-run Wuhan University has reported a case of an individual contracting the virulent disease of cholera, media reports suggest.
Located in the same province as the Wuhan Institute of Virology – believed by many scientists and government intelligence officials to be the source of COVID-19 – Wuhan University is less than two miles from the controversial lab. The university has also received nearly three quarters of a million dollars from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
In November 2018, the vaccine advocate’s foundation sent $499,944 to the university to “establish international research networks and data sharing platforms as well as develop policy recommendations for improving the medical insurance system in China.” In January 2021, even after the Chinese Communist Party purposely hid data relevant to the origins of COVID-19, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation sent the university an additional $127,650 to fund research into broadening access to drugs for Tuberculosis.
The district’s health department claims to have collected samples, undertaken contact tracing, and closed certain venues for disinfection after a Wuhan University student was found to have the disease.
Chinese Communist Party health officials claim no further cases have been reported.
Cholera is a virulent disease that can be spread through contaminated food or water, typically resulting in acute diarrhea. The incident at Wuhan University is rare, as only one other case has been identified in China this year and five were detected throughout the entirety of last year.
The incident follows intense scrutiny of the Wuhan Institute of Virology for its role in the origins of COVID-19, as the lab manipulated bat coronavirus strains to become more lethal to humans. Resembling the hallmarks of gain-of-function research, which has previously been banned in the U.S. due to its risky nature, Wuhan Institute of Virology researchers have also hidden troves of data relevant to COVID-19.
Dr. Robert Malone is warning of immune imprinting after Dr. Anthony Fauci signaled his backing for second COVID-19 vaccine boosters for all Americans aged 5 and older.
“I couldn’t design a vaccine if I wanted to, to be more likely to drive immune imprinting,” Malone, who helped invent the messenger RNA technology the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are built on, told The Epoch Times.
Immune imprinting refers to a phenomenon whereby initial exposure to a virus strain may prevent the body from producing enough neutralizing antibodies against a new viral strain.
The COVID-19 vaccines currently in circulation are based on the Wuhan strain of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus. Also known as SARS-CoV-2, the virus causes COVID-19.
A number of strains have emerged and become dominant since the Wuhan strain was prevalent, including the currently dominant Omicron variant.
Researchers with Imperial College London and the United Kingdom Health Security Agency found that people who received three doses of a COVID-19 vaccine and were infected with the Wuhan strain had a lower level of protection against later strains when compared to people who had not been infected. Other groups, including researchers with the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, have found the vaccines much less effective against Omicron subvariants than the Wuhan strain.
A number of studies have found negative effectiveness among vaccinated groups. That means those who get vaccinated are more likely to get infected.
In some areas, the vaccinated account for a majority of those infected or in hospitals or dying with COVID-19. In Louisiana, for example, 70 percent of the deaths recorded between June 23 and June 29 were among the vaccinated.
Second Booster Push
The vaccines were originally promoted as two-shot primary regimens (Pfizer and Moderna) or a one-shot immunization (Johnson & Johnson). They were said to have efficacy as high as 100 percent against symptomatic infection.
Due to waning effectiveness against the emerging variants, U.S. officials authorized booster doses. In March, because the effects of the boosters against infection didn’t last long, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cleared and recommended second boosters for all adults over the age of 50.
Fauci, the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and resident Joe Biden’s top medical adviser, is now saying Americans 5 to 50 should be allowed to get a second booster dose.
Fauci told the Washington Post that the United States “need[s] to allow people who are under 50 to get their second booster shot, since it may have been months since many of them got their first booster.”
“If I got my third shot [in 2021], it is very likely the immunity is waning,” he added.
Fauci has no authority over authorizing or recommending boosters, but has signaled major changes in U.S. vaccine policy in the past.
White House, FDA Respond
Dr. Ashish Jha, the White House’s COVID-19 response coordinator, told reporters on July 12 that “we have conversations all the time about what are possible things we could be doing to better protect the American people” but that the decision on second boosters will be made by the FDA and the CDC.
Fauci uttered a similar statement during the briefing.
“The FDA is evaluating the current situation, including the emerging epidemiology indicating increased hospitalization, and will be open to all potential options to address this, if necessary,” an FDA spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email.
Vaccine makers and the FDA are working together to develop variant-specific shots for the fall, which they say will offer better protection. But the updated shots aren’t yet on the market.
Many U.S. adults have received a primary series of a vaccine, including 91 percent of those 65 and older and 77 percent of those 18 and older. But booster doses have been a harder sell. Only 70 percent of elderly persons who got a primary series have received a first booster, along with just 51 percent of those 18 and older, according to CDC data. A second booster has only been administered to 28 percent of the population 50 and older.
Few of the COVID-19 vaccine mandates included a booster, and most of the mandates have been rescinded due to factors like plunging COVID-19 metrics and the waning effectiveness of the vaccines.
The new BA.4 and BA.5 Omicron subvariants—which have been edging out other strains in the United States and are thought to be more transmissible, but do not seem to cause more severe illness—are “more likely to lead to vaccine breakthrough infections,” researchers with Columbia University found.
‘Vaccine-driven Disease’
The COVID-19 metrics in the United States have been creeping up in recent weeks, with the weekly average of cases jumping by 75 percent since late March and hospitalizations with COVID-19 doubling since April.
Officials blame the BA.4 and BA.5 Omicron subvariants, which have been edging out other strains in the United States and are thought to be more transmissible, but do not seem to cause more severe illness.
People should get a booster as soon as they’re eligible, which is typically about five months after their last shot, Jha and CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said. “Don’t delay,” Jha said.
But Malone is among the scientists who are challenging the idea that the old vaccines are the solution.
“You got a major problem with the new Omicron, that’s the BA.5. The people that are getting infected chronically and hospitalized and dying are predominantly the vaccinated. It’s happening all over the world,” Malone said. “Now they’ve got a problem because they have driven this because of immune imprinting. This is increasingly becoming a vaccine-driven disease.”
Fauci, a major vaccine proponent, “has basically created a situation through the insistence on the hyper vaccination where he’s actually driving the disease in the United States,” he added.
Government officials disagree. Walensky said CDC data show that people who either have not received a vaccine or have not been boosted have less protection than those who have been boosted, including against infection, even as studies show the boost against infection quickly drops after the first and second booster.
Fauci said that people who were previously infected, or have natural immunity from surviving COVID-19, “don’t have a lot of protection” against the new subvariants.
Neither mentioned how natural immunity, according to a new study, remains stronger than the protection from vaccines even with boosters, particularly against severe disease.
A second professor from Laval University in Quebec City has been suspended for questioning the need to vaccinate children against COVID-19.
Nicolas Derome, a professor of molecular biology, was suspended for the same reason and under similar circumstances as his colleague Patrick Provost, a professor of microbiology, infectious diseases, and immunology.
Derome and Provost both participated in activities organized by Réinfo COVID, which describes itself as a collective of nurses, physicians, scientists, and citizens seeking to generate debate about how the pandemic has been handled by the government.
Derome gave an online presentation organized by the collective in late November 2021, in which he said children were not at high risk for complications from COVID-19.
He said there had been “zero” serious cases among the 0 to 17 age bracket, with or without comorbidity, with his presentation slide indicating the data came from Quebec’s public health institute (INSPQ) and expert assessments.
A review of the INSPQ data for the first four waves, covering Feb. 23, 2020, to Dec. 4, 2021, reveals there were 73 ICU admissions for individuals between age 0 and 19. The data does not indicate if the admissions were “because of COVID” or “with COVID.”
These 73 ICU admissions represent an average of 1.6 percent of total ICU admissions across age groups during the four waves covered.
Derome also said children between 1 and 14 years old were 15 times more likely to die from a road accident than from COVID, and noted there had been no deaths for the 5 to 19 years olds.
“This information is very important to have in order to make a free and informed choice regarding this vaccination campaign for kids 5 to 11,” he said at the start of his presentation.
A current review of data for the first four waves shows one death occurred for the 10–19 age group during the third wave. A separate INSPQ chart reviewed on deaths and presence of comorbidities shows no deaths reported for the 19 and under category with the mention that percentages are not reported when the total number is less than 5.
Derome said, quoting published literature, that children have a better innate response to defend against COVID, which explains why they suffer less serious outcomes.
The professor also quoted from the U.N. children agency UNICEF, which said at the time that the World Health Organization (WHO) did not recommend COVID vaccines for children, due to lack of trials and little to no safety data for that age group.
Since then, the WHO has said that the Pfizer vaccine can be safely administered to children from 5 years of age and that both Pfizer and Moderna are licensed for use in children above 12.
The professor also raised the issue of the waning efficacy of vaccines—not only against infection, but hospitalizations—by quoting White House COVID adviser Anthony Fauci.
Derome gave his presentation when Quebec had just started its vaccination campaign for 5- to 11-year-olds.
Derome was contacted by The Epoch Times but was not available to comment.
Laval University said when contacted that it would not comment on the “personal situation of its employees.”
At the time Derome’s video was published, Laval spokesperson Andrée-Anne Stewart told Radio-Canada that his remarks “in no way reflect the stance of Laval University and its faculty of science and engineering regarding the health crisis.”
“Like all members of the teaching staff, professor Derome is held to all the rigour and scientific integrity required by this function,” Stewart said.
‘Sliding Into Dictatorship’
On Dec. 7, 2021, Derome’s colleague, Patrick Provost, said in a scientific panel organized by Réinfo COVID that, based on provincial data, there is more risk of hospitalization for children from the vaccines than from COVID-19 itself, in addition to not having a portrait of mid- to long-term side effects.
Provost was suspended for eight weeks without pay in mid-June for his comments. It’s likely that Derome received a similar penalty.
Réinfo COVID posted a letter on its website presumably from Provost asking, on behalf of Laval University, that the video of the panel he participated in be taken down, or else he could face further sanctions, including being fired.
The collective refused, citing the need for the public to be aware of the “utility, efficacy, risks, and ethics of vaccinating children.”
Réinfo said it would try to help the professors, noting: “If universities gag their professors, as do different professional orders, we’re sliding into dictatorship.”
The suspensions of Derome and Provost have added fuel to the debate about academic freedom in Quebec, which just last month adopted a law to protect it.
“Those situations at Laval University confirm that it was necessary to legislate on this issue and the law stipulates that every university must, within a year, write a policy and put in place a committee to monitor the implementation of the policy and review the complaints related to academic freedom in universities,” Higher Education Minister Danielle McCann said in a statement to The Epoch Times.
“The law also emphasizes that academic freedom must be practiced in conformity with norms of scientific rigour.”
The professors have the support of their union, which has filed a grievance, and of the larger union federation it’s affiliated to.
“Independently of what we can think of comments or statements made by a colleague, heads of the university have no legitimacy to intervene in the content of comments made by those colleagues,” says an email sent by the Laval teacher’s union (SPUL) to its members.
“The leadership of Laval University made a wrong call and hurts the principles guaranteeing the functioning of the University and academic freedom,” SPUL president Louis-Philippe Lampron said in a tweet.
The Epoch Times reached out to SPUL but didn’t hear back by publication time.
A provincial university professor’s labour union federation to which the SPUL is attached, the FQPPU, said the suspension of the two professors was even more “serious and surprising” since it occurred after the province passed the law on academic freedom.
“The conformity to the consensus of a scientific community is in itself not a sufficiently precise norm to justify a disciplinary sanction against a professor who exercises his academic freedom,” the FQPPU said in a statement.
It said it’s the duty of colleagues and other academics to refute or point out weaknesses in remarks or works presented.
“In an institution that respects academic freedom, it’s by refutation that professors and others participating in teaching and research must push back against comments which drift away from the knowledge validated by proven methods.”
Elon Musk has called on an independent journalist to provide information on how the U.S. government is allegedly pressuring Twitter to suspend the journalist’s account for posting anti-vaccination content.
Musk asked Substack writer, Alex Berenson, in a July 6 post on Twitter, about Berenson’s allegation that the U.S. government had pressured Twitter to censor him for posting his opinion questioning the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines.
“Can you say more about this: ‘… pressures that the government may have placed on Twitter …’,” Musk said, referencing Berenson’s blog post about being suspended by Twitter.
Can you say more about this: “… pressures that the government may have placed on Twitter …”
“I wish I could,” Berenson said minutes later, responding to Musk, “but the settlement with [Twitter] prevents me from doing so. However, in the near future I hope and expect to have more to report.”
Berenson’s Twitter account was reinstated on July 6 after the social media platform “permanently” banned him over purportedly violating its COVID “misinformation” policy. This follows Berenson filing a lawsuit against Twitter in April.
In a blog post published July 6, Berenson elaborated that despite his inability to discuss his case now, he will be able to disclose further “in the near future.”
“You know what it took Twitter to admit it shouldn’t have done what it did? You do not, and I can’t tell you, because the statement is all I can say about the settlement,” Berenson wrote.
“The settlement does not end my investigation into the pressures that the government may have placed on Twitter to suspend my account. I will have more to say on that issue in the near future,” he wrote.
“I made a promise to readers last month, and I take my promises to readers seriously.”
Alex Berenson speaks on censorship and freedom of speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference at the Hyatt Regency in Orlando, Fla., on Feb. 26, 2021. (CPAC/Screenshot via NTD)
‘Close Nexus’
What attracted Musk’s attention was Berenson’s claim that government entities were pressuring Twitter to suspend Berenson over vaccine claims.
“It doesn’t stop infection. Or transmission. Don’t think of it as a vaccine. Think of it—at best—as a therapeutic with a limited window of efficacy and terrible side effect profile that must be dosed IN ADVANCE OF ILLNESS. And we want to mandate it? Insanity,” Berenson wrote in a Twitter post in August last year, hours before Twitter suspended his account.
In Berenson’s lawsuit against Twitter, he alleges that the social media platform “acted on behalf of the federal government in censoring and barring him from to its platform.”
The lawsuit also cited the “extraordinarily close nexus” between government officials’ call for censorship and Twitter’s corresponding immediate actions.
“Mr. Berenson’s relationship with Twitter changed dramatically over the course of one week in July 2021,” read Berensen’s complaint, filed on Dec. 20, 2021.
“On Sunday, July 11, Dr. Anthony Fauci, resident Joe Biden’s Chief Medical Advisor, called Mr. Berenson’s comments about COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy ‘horrifying,’” the complaint said.
“By Friday, resident Biden himself piled on, blaming social media companies for ‘killing people’ on account of their failure to adequately censor content. Hours after resident Biden’s comment, Twitter locked Mr. Berenson out of his account for the first time,” it said.
“On August 28, in the wake of even more calls for censorship from government officials, Twitter permanently suspended Mr. Berenson from its platform, citing ‘repeated violations of our COVID-19 misinformation rules.’ Mr. Berenson did not violate those rules. Twitter, on the other hand, broke its promises to Mr. Berenson as well as its policies, and violated his rights as it served the federal government’s censorship demands,” the court filing continued.
“This case raises significant questions about private power and the state of free speech in America.”
‘Troubling’
Later on July 6, Musk commented on another post by author Glenn Greenwald that alleges officials in the Biden administration “pressure or coerce private actors to censor” free speech.
Musk, who is still finalizing a multi-billion dollar deal with Twitter, said in May that the platform has a “strong left-wing bias”.
The billionaire also called censorship on Twitter a “civilization risk” in April and suggested in May that he will lift the ban imposed on former President Donald Trump after he takes over.
Former New York Times journalist Alex Berenson has been allowed to return to Twitter, which banned him in 2021 for allegedly spreading COVID-19 misinformation.
Berenson and Twitter released similar statements on July 6.
“The parties have come to a mutually acceptable resolution. I have been reinstated. Twitter has acknowledged that my tweets should have not led to my suspension at that time,” Berenson said in a blog post on July 6, which he linked to in his first post on the platform since he was permanently suspended,” Berenson said in a blog post.
“The parties have come to a mutually acceptable resolution. Twitter has reinstated Mr. Berenson’s account. Upon further review, Twitter acknowledges Mr. Berenson’s Tweets should not have led to his account’s suspension at that time,” a Twitter spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email.
Vaccines
Minutes after Berenson posted for the first time following his reinstatement, he re-posted the words that triggered the ban.
“It doesn’t stop infection. Or transmission. Don’t think of it as a vaccine. Think of it—at best—as a therapeutic with a limited window of efficacy and terrible side effect profile that must be dosed IN ADVANCE OF ILLNESS. And we want to mandate it? Insanity,” he wrote.
Berenson was referring to the COVID-19 vaccines, which have proven increasingly unable to prevent infection from the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus. Also known as the SARS-CoV-2, the virus causes COVID-19.
Though the vaccines have been authorized and approved for prevention of the virus, they’re actually recommended primarily for helping prevent severe disease among those who contract the illness.
Twitter had initially claimed that Berenson’s post was “misleading,” even though the company acknowledged that “studies indicate a reduction in vaccine effectiveness against the Omicron variant” of the virus.
Studies show that the Moderna, Pfizer, and Johnson & Johnson shots—the only three available in the United States—provide little protection against Omicron, and that the protection quickly wanes.
Some studies indicate that the vaccinated are more likely to contract the virus after certain periods of time elapse following vaccination.
U.S. health authorities still recommend vaccination for virtually all Americans.
Lawsuit
Berenson sued Twitter after being banned, claiming the company breached its contract with him as a user.
A federal judge tossed all of the claims except for the breach of contract one. Berenson and Twitter recently announced they’d agreed on a settlement in principle.
The details of the settlement have not yet been entered into the court docket, with the parties saying they’re still negotiating.
According to court filings, Berenson was told by a senior Twitter executive that posts that sparked controversy would not lead to him being banned from the platform. But Twitter began taking action against him after Dr. Anthony Fauci, a top adviser to resident Joe Biden, said some of Berenson’s remarks were “horrifying,” first locking him out of his account and eventually enacting the ban.
U.S. District Judge William Alsup, a Clinton appointee, said in a recent ruling that Berenson “plausibly avers that Twitter’s conduct here modified its contract with plaintiff and then breached that contract by failing to abide by its own five-strike policy and its specific commitments set forth through its vice president.”
The National Institutes of Health canceled a nearly $2 million taxpayer-funded trial that would have force-fed puppies experimental drugs, after a Washington Free Beacon report.
NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which is helmed by Dr. Anthony Fauci, was slated to spend $1,836,453 in taxpayer dollars to test an experimental hay fever drug on mice, rats, and dogs, including puppies, according to funding documents obtained by the White Coat Waste Project, a government watchdog group, and provided to the Free Beacon in May. The most severe symptoms of hay fever, also known as seasonal allergies, are a runny nose and sneezing.
Following the Free Beacon report, Sen. Joni Ernst (R., Iowa) launched an investigation into NIAID’s project, describing the puppy tests as “invasive, painful, and potentially deadly procedures.” Fauci informed Ernst late last month that the puppy trials are now canceled, according to a copy of the June 22 letter sent to Ernst and obtained exclusively by the Free Beacon.
Ernst said the cancellation is a win for the taxpayers and should serve as a wake-up call to the NIH that Congress will not sit by while it abuses animals in the name of science. NIH’s animal tests have stoked anger from lawmakers and put the U.S. health agency under a microscope, particularly as questions linger about Fauci and the NIH’s response to the coronavirus pandemic. NIH’s funding for labs in Russia and China also have generated concerns about the agency’s priorities and led Congress to ban the practice last week.
A company called the Inimmune Corporation was tapped by NIAID to perform at least five separate experiments on dogs that were to include force-feeding them experimental drugs for several months. This included a proposal to purchase “six-month old puppies” to be used in the tests.
“Although the contract to Inimmune Corporation proposed the use of murine and canine preclinical animal models, after consultation with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the company elected to proceed using two rodent models only,” Fauci wrote to Ernst. “No experiments utilizing the canine model are being conducted under this contract.”
Fauci attempted to justify the trials, saying that 60 million people in the United States have seasonal allergies “and many patients do not achieve adequate relief with available medications, resulting in substantial social and economic burdens.”
Ernst, in comments to the Free Beacon, said “Fauci was barking up the wrong tree when he decided to use government dollars on dog testing.”
“These inhumane practices have no place in our government—much less on the taxpayer’s dime,” Ernst said. “Thankfully, after voicing our concerns and shining a light on these heinous tactics, taxpayers can rest easy knowing their hard-earned money is not going toward dog abuse.”
Fauci also defended NIAID’s decision to use animals such as puppies as test subjects.
“I want to assure you that NIH and NIAID take the welfare of animals in research very seriously,” Fauci wrote, noting that such experiments are governed by strict ethical guidelines. “NIH has established guidance, procedures, and protocols to ensure that … scientists maintain the highest possible standards for the humane care and use of animals in research.”
Fauci also noted in the letter that, unlike other NIAID-funded experiments, the seasonal allergy trials were not slated to allocate funding to any labs in China. This practice has become increasingly controversial in the wake of China’s efforts to lie and cover-up its role in starting the coronavirus pandemic.
Devin Murphy, public policy and communications manager for the White Coat Waste Project—which first unearthed these experiments and others involving lethal tests on beagle puppies—said NIH and NIAID are on notice.
“This is a decisive victory in the War on Waste, and sends a message to big-spending white coats across the federal government: taxpayers should not be forced to pay for wasteful, unnecessary, and cruel animal experiments,” Murphy told the Free Beacon. “Taxpayers and animal lovers in Iowa and across the nation are grateful for Sen. Ernst’s outstanding commitment to government transparency and the responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars.”
THE LATEST GRIFT FROM THE ECOHEALTH CHIEF INVOLVES A NUMBER OF KREMLIN-LINKED RESEARCHERS.
Peter Daszak – a controversial U.S-based researcher whose collaborations on coronavirus research with a Chinese laboratory were funded by Anthony Fauci – isolated Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus strains in Russia using funds from the Russian government in a recently published research paper, The National Pulse can reveal.
Daszak, 49, appeared to play a critical role in the origins of COVID-19, as his organization, the ‘EcoHealth Alliance’, facilitated a “longtime” joint research effort with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which is believed to be the source of the virus. Throughout the pandemic, Daszak also featured prominently in promoting the “natural origins” theory while simultaneously discrediting supporters of the “lab leak” theory, most notably in the role of the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 investigator.
His latest study appears to be yet another controversy. Daszak, who is originally British, is listed as the sole U.S. researcher on the paper: “Identification and Genetic Characterization of MERS-Related Coronavirus Isolated from Nathusius’ Pipistrelle Near Zvenigorod (Moscow Region, Russia).”
DASZAK’S LATEST GRIFT.
The paper was published on June 10th 2022 and counted an additional 11 Russian researchers from Kremlin-run facilities including the Federal Service on Consumers’ Rights Protection and Human Well-Being Surveillance and Moscow State University.
The study was funded by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, the national science funding body of the Russian government, and the state-run Russian Science Foundation.
Researchers conducted “analyses of bat viromes,” which “have been used to identify novel viruses with potential to cause human infection.”
“We characterized the fecal virome of 26 samples collected from six bat species captured during 2015 in Moscow Region. Of these 13/26 (50%) samples were found to be coronavirus positive,” continued researchers.
“We sequenced and assembled the complete genome of a novel MERS-related Betacoronavirus from Pipistrellus nathusii, named MOW-BatCoV strain 15-22.”
The capture and sampling of bats were carried out by Moscow State University researchers in the summer of 2015.
Appearing to use similar tactics as researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the Russian scientists and Daszak focused on the spike protein. The spike protein allows viruses to penetrate host cells and cause infection and is believed to have been manipulated by researchers in Wuhan to become more lethal to humans.
“To predict and analyze the interaction of MOW-BatCoV Spike glycoprotein with DPP4 receptors of the different mammalian species, the three-dimensional structures of these proteins were obtained by homologous modeling. The DPP4 proteins of two bats (Myotis brandtii and Pipistrellus kuhlii), the hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus), domestic cat (Felix catus) and mouse (Mus musculus) were used for analysis,” explains the paper.
Analysis of the complete genomes the novel coronavirus discovered in the paper shows that it “falls into clade of human/camel’s MERS viruses together with a few bat viruses.”
World Health Organization (WHO) Director Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus reportedly admitted to a senior European politician that the virus that causes COVID-19 most likely came out of a Wuhan lab. The Daily Mail reports that Tedros made the admission citing a catastrophic lab accident.
The disclosure comes on the heels of a WHO investigative report that was published earlier this month, concluding that the pandemic may have started at a Wuhan lab and that Chinese authorities have been blocking access to crucial data.
At the same time, Jeffrey Sachs, leader of the Lancet Commission on COVID-19, now says that he is convinced that the pandemic started in a lab and that SARS-CoV-2 was created with the aid of U.S. biotechnology.
Sachs made his stunning admission last week at a conference in Spain where he had been invited by former Spanish prime minister José Luís Zapatero.
The admissions from two of the world’s most prominent COVID-19 authorities, who also happen to be establishment stalwarts with a record of appeasing the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), is a significant development in the search for the origin of the pandemic.
Early in 2020, just as the pandemic was starting to unfold, Xiao Botao, a whistleblower from China, published an article claiming that the virus had come out of a Wuhan lab. The whistleblower’s paper was quickly removed from the internet and an all-hands-on-deck effort to scrub and censor the idea of a lab leak quickly ensued.
Two institutions played a key role in that scrubbing effort. The World Health Organization and esteemed British medical journal The Lancet.
White House Chief Medical Adviser on Covid-19 Dr. Anthony Fauci at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Md., on Feb. 11, 2021. (Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images)
WHO chief Tedros and his organization famously pushed CCP propaganda, including lavishly praising Xi Jinping and claiming that the virus did not transmit between humans. Tedros also spearheaded efforts to “combat the spread of rumors and misinformation.” In addition, two separate WHOinvestigations aggressively dismissed the lab leak theory.
For its part, the Lancet published a statement that maligned anyone who deigned to so much as contemplate that the virus might have come out of a lab.
That Lancet statement—which was published before most Americans even knew that there was a pandemic spreading around the globe—was signed by a number of notable leaders in the field of virology and set the tone for the corporate media’s coverage.
It also served as a warning to other scientists and science publications around the globe that lab-leak discussions were off-limits.
Most virological research in the Western world is funded through the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci—who was himself instrumental in shutting down any discussion of the lab leak theory—and Jeremy Farrar, the British pharmaceutical trust director who sits on billions of dollars’ worth of grant money and has long-standing ties to China’s CDC head, Gao Fu. Farrar co-authored the Lancet statement.
The Lancet’s editor, Richard Horton, is a recipient of the CCP’s Friendship Prize. Before the pandemic, he published a glowing tribute to Xi and the Chinese regime. Horton later went on Chinese state TV where he praised Chinese authorities, impugned Western governments, and asserted that claims that the pandemic might have started in a Wuhan lab were part of a “pandemic of disinformation.”
Horton also set up a commission to investigate “the nature, origin, and prevention of zoonotic diseases.” The focus on zoonosis—or a natural origin—meant that The Lancet had predetermined what the commission was supposed to conclude.
Sachs was appointed as head of the commission while Peter Daszak, the president of EcoHealth Alliance who helped Fauci funnel U.S. taxpayer money to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, was made a member of the group. It was Daszak’s enormous conflicts of interest, as well as the emergence of new evidence pointing to a lab leak, that led to the eventual disbanding of the Lancet Commission in September 2021.
An exterior view of building one of National Institutes of Health (NIH) inside Bethesda campus, in Bethesda, Md., on Nov. 21, 2020. NIH funds majority of biomedical research in United States. (grandbrothers/Shutterstock)
However, the group did not publicly dismiss the natural origin narrative until last week, when Sachs attended a conference in Madrid where he made his surprising admission:
“I chaired a Commission for the Lancet for two years on COVID. I’m pretty convinced it came out of U.S. lab biotechnology, not out of nature.”
Sachs’s statement is not only hugely significant because of his role as chairman of the Lancet Commission but also—and perhaps even more so—because of his admission that U.S. biotechnology was used to create SARS-CoV-2.
We have known for some time about the cooperation between the so-called godfather of gain-of-function experiments, Ralph Baric of the University of North Carolina, and the director of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Shi Zhengli. In fact, it was the disclosure of that collaboration in a Jan. 31, 2020, article in Science magazine that led Fauci’s team to scramble to cover up the NIAID’s involvement with, and funding of, Shi’s lab.
Baric and Shi’s collaboration traces back to 2015 when they created a modified coronavirus that was not only uniquely able to latch on to human cells but also able to efficiently replicate in human lungs. While the virus they created was not SARS-CoV-2, the virus did have the attributes that we would later find in SARS-CoV-2.
Their collaboration proved that Shi had gained the technical know-how to do the kinds of experiments that might have resulted in COVID-19. Baric also sent transgenic mice with human lung receptors to Shi’s Wuhan lab. Humanized mice mimic human lung tissue and act as experimental stand-ins for humans. They are used to test whether newly created viruses can replicate and spread quickly among humans.
It is not a big leap to go from infected lab mice to infected lab workers. This is even more evident when one considers that the Wuhan lab conducted its coronavirus research under biosafety level two conditions, which even Baric acknowledged as dangerous, stating that there is much less oversight and that lab-acquired infections occur much more frequently at biosafety level two than at higher levels.
After the pandemic started, Chinese authorities directed their labs to shift coronavirus work to biosafety level three labs.
An aerial view shows the P4 laboratory at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan in China’s central Hubei Province on April 17, 2020. (Hector Retamal/AFP via Getty Images)
But even that might not offer sufficient protection against a biosafety accident. Late last year, a lab worker in Taiwan contracted COVID-19 from handling infected lab animals in a biosafety level three lab.
To underscore how significant Sachs’s sudden shift is, he has also co-authored a paper in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, calling for an independent investigation of information held by U.S.-based institutions that would reveal the origin of the pandemic.
While it is correct that Chinese authorities have been concealing crucial data from the Wuhan lab, as well as data on early patients, many of the answers to the pandemic’s origins are held in the United States by organizations such as Fauci’s NIH and NIAID, by the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, by Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance, and by Baric’s lab, which provided the Wuhan lab with biotechnology.
Sachs’s observations further highlight the significance of the highly unusual furin cleavage site, the part of SARS-CoV-2 that makes it so virulent. It has been known since the start of the pandemic that SARS-CoV-2 is the only coronavirus of its kind that has a furin cleavage site. But Sachs now goes further, pointing out that the critical amino acid sequence of SARS-CoV-2’s furin cleavage site insertion happens to be identical to one that is present in the human body, strongly suggesting that it was deliberately inserted into a SARS-like virus.
Lastly, Sachs is also raising the issue of the 2018 partnership agreement between the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Daszak’s EcoHealth, and Baric that had the specific goal of inserting such furin cleavage sites into SARS-like viruses.
It has always strained credulity that a bat virus traversed all of China without leaving a trace only to suddenly erupt on the doorsteps of a lab that was known to have been creating COVID-like viruses. Sachs and Tedros appear to have come to the same conclusion.
The fact that the two institutions at the center of efforts to aggressively push the natural origin narrative have now changed course will give considerable momentum to finally get to the bottom of what really happened at the Wuhan lab. It also—very belatedly—vindicates Xiao Botao who, at great personal risk, tried to tell the world where the virus came from.
According to a new report that just came from the government watchdog agency responsible for overseeing the NIH, it turns out that nearly three-quarters of the scientists and researchers who accept NIH grant money—meaning, people who receive NIH tax-payer funding to conduct research—fail to properly report their ties to foreign countries and companies.
Specifically, the Department of Health and Human Services Inspector-General’s office found that approximately 69 percent of the people who receive NIH research grants don’t properly report all of their ties to foreign entities—specifically, the Chinese Communist Party.
Furthermore, this same lack of transparency also applies here at home. According to another report from Open the Books, it turns out that in a 10-year time span, government scientists—like Dr. Anthony Fauci, Dr. Francis Collins, and so on—received somewhere between $350 million to $400 million in royalty payments.
But the disclosure documents are so redacted that we don’t know which company is paying how much money to which scientist and for which patent.
Columnist Naomi Wolf, author of “The Bodies of Others: The New Authoritarians, COVID-19 and the War Against the Human,” asserts that after two years of pandemic policies, people in free societies are behaving more like those in authoritarian societies.
Wolf maintains that America is now less free, and becoming almost unrecognizable.
“A handful of bad actors” including the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), Big Tech, and the World Economic Forum (WEF) used the pandemic to “exploit the crisis in such a way as to reengineer our free democratic open societies, especially in the West, especially in the United States, into a post-free society, a post-humane society,” said Wolf during a recent interview on EpochTV’s “American Thought Leaders.”
The Biden administration in April extended the 2-year-old coronavirus public health emergency for another 90 days.
Wolf said, based on history, the ongoing lockdowns and extension of the public health emergency indicate society is in the last phase of a tyrannical takeover, because with emergency powers, laws protecting liberty can be suspended.
According to Wolf, there are 10 steps every tyrannical government has followed. We are now at step 10, said Wolf. Some of the other steps include demonizing whistleblowers and critics, calling dissent “treason,” “espionage,” or “subversion,” and controlling the media narrative.
During the last two years of lockdowns and mandates, Big Tech and the elites have profited while the average Americans have seen the American Dream slowly “closing” on them, she said.
“And so often, when a democracy is dying, or a regime is turning the screws on freedoms to create an established new form of tyranny, it happens intentionally in a very incremental way,” said Wolf. “And you really see this from 1930 to 1933 in Germany.”
She said humanity is witnessing the formation of a two-tier society of the vaccinated versus the unvaccinated, in which people who would never discriminate against others based on categories of race and sex are now discriminating against the unvaccinated.
“Suddenly, they’re happily embracing a discrimination society in which some people are cast as clean and valuable members of society and other people are ostracized and marginalized and ‘othered’ and described as sort of dirty and causing infection to others,” said Wolf.
She argues that big tech companies had an active role in creating these perceptions and in “shaping legislation and certainly in presenting the drama of COVID and lockdowns to us, and then the vaccine rollout, in such a way as to change human behavior and to change human society,” said Wolf.
Wolf cited the emails between Dr. Anthony Fauci and Meta Platforms CEO Mark Zuckerberg discussing Facebook’s role in getting the right public health “messages out” during the lockdowns.
Mark Zuckerberg (L) and Dr. Anthony Fauci. (Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images; Greg Nash/Getty Images)
People had no choice but to rely on tech platforms while they were locked down, and Big Tech used that to manipulate the public, said Wolf.
“What I do trace in the book is how there was a vast profit that tech companies made by suppressing human assembly, by helping to message that it was unsafe or unlawful to gather in person,” she said. “And when you understand that big tech companies are competing with human beings gathering in human spaces, you understand why there was a vested interest in suppressing human assembly.”
Wolf thinks big tech companies will not stop at just harvesting data on the computer, but that they want to dominate peoples’ bodily autonomy with vaccine passports.
“What these companies want more than anything is to leave the parameters of your computer and to colonize other currently non-colonized spaces, notably the human body,” said Wolf.
This would give these companies and governments the ability to switch off peoples’ access to commerce, travel, and other goods and services if they did not comply with a particular mandate, Wolf added.
Some forms of digital tracking and surveilling are already here in the United States, she said.
“You’re now expected to swipe these QR codes just to see the menu, or just to get in. And the QR code uploads your data to a central database,” she said, adding that she’s seen the software “that maps the relationships of everyone sitting at that table, and then builds databases and networks of relationships.”
This illustration photo shows a person looking at the app for the New York State Excelsior Pass, which provides digital proof of a Covid-19 vaccination, in Los Angeles on April 6, 2021 (Chris Delmas/AFP via Getty Images)
Wolf said that on a scale of one to 10 on the Chinese social credit system, the United States is currently at a three.
“There’s a change that’s happened in American cities in the last two years,” she said.
Because most people around the world, particularly in U.S. cities, use digital apps to travel, do banking, and shop, a digital social credit system similar to China’s is imminent, she said.
Our data is being harvested and used by the “global technocratic elite” to control human behavior, said Wolf.
“We’ve assumed that the worst it can be is data are harvested from us with everything that we choose to do using our free will as human beings,” said Wolf.
“But what I’ve seen is that digital technology has its own logic, and it isn’t restricted by what human beings want to do. So once digital platforms and their oligarchical masters can figure out how to change people’s behavior to suit technology, there’s nothing, moral or ethical, that will keep them from changing people’s behavior to suit their technology, and to suit their business plans,” she added.
The pandemic has revealed how this type of digital control is playing out, because humans, before the prevalence of digital technology, did not choose to “socially distance” to fight pandemics, said Wolf.
“The dream of our digital overlords is for technology to tell humans what to do, and that’s exactly where we’re at,” said Wolf.
While some people might label her a conspiracy theorist, her opinions are based on a long career as a journalist, political consultant, and now tech CEO, Wolf said. Furthermore, she has witnessed firsthand the powerful elites making historical decisions under the radar, she said.
Wolf was well acquainted with this group of powerful people until recently when she was ejected from their circles for writing oppositional pieces on lockdowns.
“But it’s really true that the global technocratic elite have more in common with each other than they do with their fellow Germans or Americans or Russians or Chinese, and they now are able to align above the level of nation-states,” she said.
The panel ‘Leaders for Europe’s Digital Decade’ at the 2022 World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos, Switzerland, on May 25, 2022. The yearly meeting takes place from May 22 to 26 with heads of governments and economic leaders. (Eric Lalmand/AFP via Getty Images)
For example, one of the WEF’s goals is to make nation-level decision-making less and less important, and the World Health Organization’s goal is to make public health decisions on a global scale, bypassing countries’ own authorities via the pandemic treaty, said Wolf.
“These technocratic elites really do believe that they can order the world better than you and I and that they have the right to,” she said. “That’s really scary.”
Little by little, humanity’s tolerance for cruelty and authoritarianism has grown.
“The war wasn’t just on us as a political entity, the war was on American culture, and is on American culture,” she said. “And they’ve succeeded largely, unless we wake up, because we were a kind, decent, inclusive culture that respected other people’s boundaries and freedoms. … And now a CCP-style cruelty is something that we tolerate.”
What people believe is largely determined by the news they consume, said Wolf, and many people only watch news outlets that give a skewed picture of pandemic treatments and policies, largely funded by wealthy people like Bill Gates.
“I do trace in ‘The Bodies of Others’ how millions of dollars flowed and are flowing from entities like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to the BBC and the Guardian and NPR and other formerly very credible, objective news outlets.”
Because most people get slanted news coverage, the country is more divided and many people on the left refuse to consider any other narrative or look at primary source documents, because they believe only government sources are giving them “scientific” information, said Wolf.
This skewed messaging has been able to convince people that the mandates and lockdowns are more American and important than liberty or critical thinking.
Wolf said the most brilliant aspect of the pandemic messaging was that it was framed altruistically.
“You know, ‘You’ve got to exclude those people for the good of the community,’ or ‘You’ve got to mask yourself and your child to save your child,’” said Wolf. “This really brilliantly upended American culture because it cast freedom as selfish.”
Now that those in power have effectively conditioned people to be fearful and submissive, they can keep reinstituting emergency powers, she argued.
“That’s what emergency law means,” she said. “They can do whatever they want, basically. It’s a weaponization of boards of health, it’s a weaponization of the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] and the [Department of Health and Human Services].”
Wolf said although the situation is dire, people can do something to push back against this tyranny by being informed about what is really going on in the country, assembling in groups, and getting involved politically on the local level.
As it stands now, “I will say that each side is being fed narratives and stereotypes about the other that would persuade each side that the other is absolutely insane and dangerous, dangerously insane,” said Wolf.
“I get that conservatives think, ‘liberals don’t know what a woman is.’ That is not actually literally true, and liberals think ‘conservatives all want to torch our democratic processes, storm the Capitol, and are misogynist, racist thugs who are trigger happy,” said Wolf.
The last two years have conditioned people to fear each other and so the conversations that would have normally occurred when people gathered are not happening and keeping the country divided, said Wolf. She said she will gladly talk to people on the right.
Communist Party cadres hang a placard on the neck of a Chinese man during the Cultural Revolution in 1966. The words on the placard state the man’s name and accuse him of being a member of the “black class.” (Public Domain)
“People I love think I’m doing something wrong in even talking to conservatives and libertarians. That’s very dangerous. The left, especially, has decided that you’re morally complicit if you have a conversation across the aisle,” Wolf said. “That is censorship, that is cancel culture, that’s un-American, that is an importation from Communism.”
She urges people to remember what makes America unique and a beacon to other nations: to remember we are the great experiment where neighbors talked to each other, listened, and didn’t “rat” each other out if they did not agree with each other, Wolf said.
Eight months after his 19-year-old daughter Grace died in a hospital after having been given a combination of a sedative, an anxiety medication, and morphine, Scott Schara and his family continue to bring attention to why they think she died, and who’s responsible.
Their most recent billboard campaign targets St. Elizabeth’s Hospital in Appleton, Wisconsin, where his daughter with Down’s syndrome passed.
Hospital staff driving to and from work would have a hard time not seeing the billboards that ask, “Was Grace given a lethal combination of meds at St. Elizabeth’s Hospital? Intentional? … Who’s Next?”
Others ask, “Was Grace labeled Do Not Resuscitate without family consent at St. E’s?”
Grace died in October 2021, a month after COVID-19 vaccine mandates had been announced by resident Joe Biden.
People who didn’t want to take the experimental vaccine were being fired, while unvaccinated patients in hospitals were being treated much differently than the vaccinated.
Reports from people such as Anne Quiner in Minnesota painted a picture of medical discrimination and unusual hospital protocols that many, like Quiner, alleged led to the death of their loved ones.
According to Schara, Grace, who, like the rest of her family, was unvaccinated, was admitted to St. Elizabeth’s for COVID-19 respiratory issues on Oct. 6 but had been recovering when the doctor began giving her a sedative called Precedex.
Schara said there were frequent incidents of discrimination regarding Grace’s unvaccinated status, and their choice to use other early treatment medications that weren’t approved by Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
Grace was on Precedex for four days preceding her last day, Schara told The Epoch Times, despite severe risks associated with being on the drug for longer than 24 hours.
On Oct. 13, the day Grace died, she was given—in addition to the Precedex—Lorazepam, and morphine within a 29-minute window, Schara said, even though the package insert for morphine warns against using it in combination with the other two drugs because it can result in death.
With an armed guard standing near the doorway of her room at the hospital, Schara said Grace’s sister and patient advocate begged nurses she saw in the hallway to revive Grace as their parents watched from Facetime, joining her in their pleas.
There was nothing to be done, a nurse responded because Grace had been coded as Do Not Resuscitate (DNR), a label that Scott said must be legally approved and signed off on by the medical power of attorney, who was Grace’s mother, Cindy.
The family said this never happened.
“Why would we agree to a DNR when we would not only want the doctors to save our daughter at any cost but also the morning of Grace’s last day, the doctor recommended a feeding tube to start the process of getting Grace home?” he asked.
The doctor had told the family, Schara said, that Grace “had a good day yesterday; we should work on nutrition,” before recommending a feeding tube.
Medical records seen by The Epoch Times show that the DNR order was put into the system eight minutes after a maximum dose of Precedex was administered at 10:48 a.m., on Grace’s last day, which Schara calls the “smoking gun.”
“She had been on Precedex for four days at this point, then they gave her close to the maximum dose,” he said. “Eight minutes later, the doctor puts the illegal DNR on her.”
According to her death certificate, Grace died of acute respiratory failure with hypoxemia.
Schara said “respiratory failure” is a direct side effect of using Precedex for more than 24 hours.
“Of course, COVID-19 pneumonia is listed as the second cause of death in order for the hospital to receive the killing bonus from the government,” he said.
The Schara family’s billboard campaign, 2022. (Courtesy of Scott Schara)
‘We Are in a Spiritual Battle’
Since then, Schara said he has continued investigating and has found even more negligence.
To bring attention to what happened, he’s been on over 100 media outlets, and has even held a rally with city approval outside of the hospital, he said.
Schara said the family has committed over $300,000 to the campaigns, $225,454 of that is for the billboards they put up through May 2023.
“Money is temporary,” Schara said. “I don’t want this to happen to anyone else. We are in a spiritual battle, and people must realize that.”
After telling his story to a wider audience, Robin Riley from Newtown, Connecticut, reached out to Schara on Grace’s website to share her own experience.
Riley’s and Schara’s stories share many similarities. Riley told The Epoch Times that her daughter with Down’s syndrome, 37-year-old Megan, was admitted to a hospital for COVID-19 and put on numerous tranquilizers and Fentanyl, as well as remdesivir.
Megan was also labeled as DNR, which Riley said she had never approved, and didn’t know until she got Megan’s records.
Megan died on Dec. 9, 2021, Riley said.
After discovering that the hospital had put Megan on DNR, Riley said it made her grief worse.
“Because they had her on DNR the whole time, I just keep thinking, did the doctors do everything they could to save her?” she asked.
Megan Riley, 2021. (Courtesy of Robin Riley)
‘There Was No Reason to Sedate Her’
For Schara, none of this is a coincidence, he said.
For the combination of meds given to Grace, the doctor had to order, a pharmacist had to sign off, the hospital medication alarm had to be overridden, and in Grace’s case, a 14-year ICU nurse delivered the lethal combination, Schara said.
“We were not provided informed consent about the drugs administered to Grace, nor did we know they were being administered in the first place,” Schara said. “There was no reason to sedate her. There was no reason to give her Lorazepam–an anti-anxiety drug–while she was knocked out from Precedex. There was no reason to give her morphine. The Nuremberg Code was created to ensure people would have informed consent in regard to any medical procedure, and to be able to opt out of such things. St. Elizabeth’s ignored providing informed consent and they ignored all the warnings in the package inserts.”
Schara first thought the hospital protocols leading up to her death were about the hospital getting federal reimbursements; however, now he suspects a motive much worse: hospitals are taking federal funding to enact COVID protocols that were not only killing the unvaccinated but the disabled, he said.
He cited one 2020 study from the UK Office for National Statistics that show that disabled people had made up about three-fifths of COVID-related deaths in England and Wales.
“Disabled females between nine and 64 were even more at risk, in comparison with non-disabled females in the same age group, with a rate of death 10.8 times higher,” he said.
He cited a 2021 report from the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy that stated that intellectual disability is second to old age as a risk factor for COVID-19 deaths.
“In unadjusted analysis, compared with 431,669 patients without intellectual disabilities, the 127,003 patients with intellectual disabilities were more suspectable to hospitalization, intensive care admission, and death,” he said.
He’s collected several additional studies and articles that support the theory that the disabled are at higher risk.
Combining that with his own experience, he thinks the disabled with COVID-19 are purposely being murdered.
He points to an article from NPR that tells the story of Melissa Hickson, who claimed a hospital where her quadriplegic husband was admitted for COVID-19 denied him life-saving treatment because of his disability.
The Milgram Experiment
All these reports and studies connect for Schara, implying ominous motives funded not only by money, but blind obedience, he said, alluding to a set of experiments in the 1960s that tested how far a person would go to follow orders.
“In the Milgram experiments, these psychologists tested the willingness of the participants in how far they would go to administer electric shock treatment to their peers under orders from an authority figure,” Schara said.
The experiments were held at Yale University by Stanley Milgram three months after the start of the trial of German Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann.
Milgram’s intent of the experiments was to study the psychology of genocide, he explained in his reports.
‘Death Protocols’
Todd Callender, an international lawyer with Disabled Rights Advocates and legal counsel to Truth for Health Foundation, previously told The Epoch Times that the “death protocols” being enacted in hospitals are passed down hierarchically from the World Health Organization to the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institute of Health, using the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act and Health and Human Services authorization to release funding for the declared pandemic that sets the protocols in motion.
From there, hospitals that are federally funded through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) use coding tied to NIH and CDC-written protocols. If those hospitals take that funding, they must follow those protocols, starting with ICD-10 codes (International Classification of Diseases).
According to Callender, the CDC and NIH protocols are based on the WHO’s 2005 International Health Regulations which directs each of its 196 signatory countries to cede all sovereign powers to the WHO in the case of a declared health emergency.
“The WHO then directs the various state health bodies—in this case, the CDC and NIH—on treatment,” Callender said. “This is why every country is responding in the same way at the same time globally; it’s a back door to a one-world dictatorial government.”
When these protocols are passed down to the hospitals that take funding, under the emergency declaration, patients’ rights are waived under the CMS COVID waiver program in conjunction with the PREP and CARES Act, giving participating hospitals legal immunity.
Patients admitted for a broken arm can be given a COVID-19 test that “will almost always come back positive,” then are admitted and put on an IV with a tranquilizer that lowers oxygen levels, which then justifies putting the patient into COVID isolation where the antiviral drug remdesivir—which Callender called “lethal”—is added to the bag before being moved into the intensive care unit where the patient is then given morphine and fentanyl while being deprived of nutrition, he said.
“Everybody talks about their fear of FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) death camps,” Callender said. “Well, they’re already here; they’re called hospitals.”
Each of these procedures brings in high federal reimbursements of up to hundreds of thousands of dollars, Callender said.
Tom Renz, an attorney with America’s Frontline Doctors and Make Americans Free Again—organizations that oppose unconstitutional federal health mandates—hosts his own show on Brighteon TV where he interviewed Schara.
He told The Epoch Times that, because the PREP and CARES Acts have been passed, it’s made it impossible to sue hospitals because they convey immunity to these hospitals.
“Through those acts, we’ve given hospitals as much immunity as we’ve given vaccine makers as long as the state of emergency is continuing,” he said. “And we’ve got to ask ourselves, why is there still a national emergency?”
In addition to immunity, hospitals get federal funding through the CARES Act, which gives a 20 percent increase in reimbursement to hospitals for inpatient stays resulting from COVID-19, Renz said.
“The laws are structured in a way that incentivizes hospitals to kill people,” Renz said. “The hospital makes more money if you die from COVID-19 than if you recover from it. Why don’t we incentivize hospitals for getting people cured of COVID?”
Renz supports Schara’s conclusion that the hospital killed Grace, he said.
“Can you imagine watching your daughter die on Facetime, begging the hospital to revive her, and they say, ‘No, we are not going to do that,’ claiming that they have a DNR that you didn’t agree to?” he asked. “I mean, can you imagine the horror? No person should have to go through that, and we’ve got to have accountability.”
Like Schara’s response from the hospital, Riley said the hospital contended that the family agreed to the DNR.
In a Dec. 15 letter to the Schara family, the hospital said that “multiple and in-depth discussions and explanations occurred with you, your wife and family in regards to resuscitation and intubation. The medical record documentation on October 13, 2021, reflects additional discussion and confirmation of the family decisions related to resuscitation and intubation interventions should Grace’s condition deteriorate.”
“What a bunch of crap,” Schara said, reemphasizing that his family never agreed to a DNR.
“The doctors only discussed the concept of DNR,” Schara said. “Why would we agree to a DNR when he just got done telling us that Grace had such a good day yesterday that we should work on nutrition?”
St. Elizabeth’s Hospital did not respond to The Epoch Times’ request for comment.
‘Genocide’
There’s a pattern, Schara said, that he hasn’t been able to ignore.
“If I would have listened to me saying these words now seven months ago, I would have thought, at best he’s become a conspiracy theorist; at worst: a whack job,” he said.
However, too many incidences of negligence have lined up to be a coincidence, he said.
“At first I thought this was about money, but it’s clear to me now that money was used to simply grease the wheels to accomplish a bigger agenda, which, in my opinion, is genocide,” he said.
AFTER YEARS OF HIDING IT, THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION IS APPARENTLY ADMITTING THE TRUTH BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.
The director of the World Health Organization privately believes the COVID-19 pandemic resulted from a leak from a Chinese laboratory, according to a new report which undermines the publicly stated position of the global health chief.
Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus – the Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO) – had previously stressed how unlikely the long-derided “lab leak” theory was, despite evidence to the contrary. Now, according to a report from the Daily Mail, Dr. Tedros “confided to a senior European politician that the most likely explanation was a catastrophic accident at a laboratory in Wuhan.”
The quiet admission in support of the “lab leak” theory is especially at odds with the public position of his WHO, whose affiliated scientists have often branded the hypothesis as a “conspiracy theory” and sought to silence the voices of those who claims otherwise.
BOMBSHELL REPORT BY THE MAIL.
The admission also follows the WHO launching a COVID-19 origins investigation that ultimately discredited the “lab leak” theory in favor of a “natural origins” theory. At the time, The National Pulse exclusively revealed that several researchers included on the team retained compromising links to the Chinese Communist Party, most notably EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak. Advisors to the Chinese Communist Party also served on the team.
Daszak and his partners conducted research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology using funds from National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) Director Anthony Fauci. Using this million-dollar grant, the lab has worked on isolating bat coronavirus strains capable of “direct human infection” and is under the control of the Chinese Communist Party.
The lab also appears to have engaged in gain-of-function research, which manipulates pathogens to become more lethal and transmissible to humans. The lab has done similar research on other viruses including influenza and monkeypox.
The WHO sponsored a second COVID-19 origins investigation following its botched first attempt, leading Dr. Tedros to publicly admit that “we do not yet have the answers as to where it came from or how it entered the human population” this month.
Tedros himself has ties to the Chinese Communist Party, helping the regime expand its financial and political control over his home country of Ethiopia while serving in government.
Former U.S. President Donald J. Trump attempted to shift away from relying on Tedros, the World Health Organization, and even Anthony Fauci. He was widely ridiculed and maligned at the time, despite the mounting evidence that most of the above actors are now either totally discredited, or have rowed back from their original COVID-19 claims.
‘China is the drug he just can’t quit’: GOP Senator slams NIAD head’s remarks
Dr. Anthony Fauci said he was unable to commit to stop federal funding from going to Chinese scientific research, despite the U.S. intelligence community assessing the regime as America’s top adversary.
Fauci, the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), made the remarks while appearing virtually at the Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee hearing on June 16, during an exchange with Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kansas).
“The NIH is still funding research in China, at least $8 million since 2020. In the Intelligence Community’s 2022 Annual Threat Assessment, the Chinese Communist Party is presented as one of the top threats to the United States, along with Russia, Iran, Syria, and North Korea. To my knowledge, only China is receiving U.S. research dollars,” said the senator during the hearing. “When will you as director of NIAID stop funding research in China?”
Since 2020, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has awarded a total of $8.3 million in grants to the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention and its division National Center for AIDS/STD Control and Prevention, along with five top public universities in mainland China and Hong Kong, according to the NIH website.
Although this amount doesn’t capture dollars later funneled to a Chinese institution through a U.S.-based organization, such as New York-based EcoHealth Alliance, which had partnered with the Wuhan Institute of Virology to perform coronavirus-related experiments that some experts said fit the definition of gain-of-function research, that is, experiments that increase the pathogenicity or transmissibility of a virus.
Fauci, in response to Marshall’s question, said that the U.S. federal agencies “had very productive peer-reviewed highly regarded research projects with our Chinese colleagues that have led to some major advances in biomedical research.”
“So I don’t think I’d be able to tell you that we are going to stop funding Chinese,” Fauci said.
“We obviously need to be careful and make sure that when we do fund them we have the proper peer review and we go through all the established guidelines,” he continued, adding that “grants that go to foreign countries, including China, have State Department clearance.”
“Dr. Fauci’s remarks prove that China is the drug he just can’t quit,” Marshall later told The Epoch Times about the NIAID head’s response.
Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kansas) questions Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, at a Senate panel on June 16, 2022. (The Epoch Times via the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee)
“Dr. Fauci told the truth for once after years of repeated dishonesty that has eroded Americans’ trust in our public health institutions. In the aftermath of the coronavirus pandemic, our government should know it’s dangerous and wrong to continue funding research projects supported by the Chinese Communist Party.”
The senator, at the hearing, followed up by asking Fauci if he agrees that the American public lacks records and studies from EcoHealth Alliance’s research.
Fauci’s answer was evasive.
“We have access to an extraordinary amount of information that has gone there,” he said, arguing that the publicly available information in the scientific journals is sufficient.
“Obviously none of us know everything that’s going on in China but if the question at hand is the rather small … peer-reviewed high-priority grant that was given from Eco[Health] to China in a sub-award we have a lot of good information that’s in the publishing.”
The NIH gave a total of $3.1 million grant to EcoHealth over the five years from 2014 to 2019. A fifth of that, $599,000, went to the Wuhan lab, in part for identifying and altering bat coronaviruses deemed likely to infect humans, documents obtained by The Intercept show.
Fauci earlier this week tested positive for COVID-19 and joined the Thursday Senate hearing remotely. His response to Marshall omitted reference EcoHealth’s lack of disclosure over some of its research activities, which would have prompted an NIH review over biosafety measures.
In this image from video, Dr. Anthony Fauci testifies to a Senate panel via remotelink on June 16, 2022. (The Epoch Times via the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee)
In one experiment at the Wuhan facility, funded by NIH via EcoHealth, mice infected with a modified version of the original bat coronavirus “became sicker than those infected” with the original version, an “unexpected result” that was not “something that the researchers set out to do,” Lawrence Tabak, the principal deputy director at the NIH, told lawmakers last October.
He said EcoHealth had violated grant terms by failing to promptly notify the NIH about the finding.
Fauci, at the Thursday hearing, also told Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) that he believes the outbreak of the virus “is very, very likely a jump in species from an animal host,” and less likely to be the result of a lab leak.
“I believe it’s essential to have cooperation and collaboration with the Chinese,” he said when Braun asked him whether he thinks Beijing will cooperate with him to “get to the thorough bottom of” COVID-19 origins.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on June 16 pressed Dr. Anthony Fauci on the royalty payments he’s received while working for the federal government.
Recently disclosed information showed that Fauci was one of hundreds of scientists at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to receive royalty payments. Fauci got 23 payments between October 2009 and September 2014, but it is unclear how much money he made.
“Can you tell me that you have not received a royalty from any entity that you ever oversaw the distribution of money in research grants?” Paul asked Fauci. “Have you ever received a royalty payment from a company that you later oversaw money going to that company?”
“I don’t know, as a fact, but I doubt it,” Fauci responded.
“Why don’t you let us know? Why don’t you reveal how much you’ve gotten, and from what entities?” Paul said.
The Epoch Times has submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for all royalty payments that Fauci has received since becoming head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which is part of the NIH, in 1984.
Open the Books received information in May showing that 1,675 NIH scientists received at least one payment during fiscal years 2010 to 2014, and that Fauci received 23 payments during that time.
In this image from video, Dr. Anthony Fauci testifies to a Senate panel via remote link. (The Epoch Times via the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee)
The amount of the payments is unclear “because of how these documents are redacted,” Open the Books said in a fact sheet.
The Associated Press previously found that Fauci received $45,000 between 1997 and 2004 in payments for interleukin-2, an experimental AIDS treatment. Fauci told the outlet at the time that he tried refusing the payments but was told that couldn’t happen, so he donated the money to charity. Fauci also said he tried reporting the payments on financial disclosures mandated for government employees but was told to remove them because they were considered federal compensation as opposed to outside income.
Adam Andrzejewski, founder and president of Open the Books, told The Epoch Times that every royalty payment “could be a conflict of interest” and urged the government to be transparent about the payments.
During Thursday’s hearing, Paul said his efforts to get the information have been stonewalled. “We asked them, the NIH, who got it and how much. They refused to tell us. They sent it redacted.”
Fauci defended the withholding of the information, telling Paul, “According to the regulations, people who have received royalties are not required to divulge them even on their financial statements, according to the Bayh–Dole Act.”
He then read off information he had brought up off-camera, which he said showed that from 2015 to 2020, the only royalties he received were for a monoclonal antibody he made.
“And during that period of time, my royalties range from $21 a year to $700 a year,” Fauci said. “The average per year was $191.46.”
Dr. Peter McCullough and co-author John Leake spoke to ‘American Thought Leaders’
During the research for their book, “The Courage to Face COVID-19: Preventing Hospitalization and Death While Battling the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex,” cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough and author John Leake discovered that the “system” was primed by global leaders to make vaccination the principal response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
“This was absolutely telegraphed from the beginning,” McCullough said. “[In] 2010, Gates says it’s the decade of the vaccines. Later on, Gates announces at meetings that the return on investment of vaccines is 20-to-1 anything else that he’s done.
“It is clear the system is juiced for a vaccine,” McCullough said during a recent interview with EpochTV’s “American Thought Leaders” program.
McCullough was referring to a 2010 post by Bill Gates on Twitter, in which the billionaire investor wrote: “Decade of Vaccines- a $10B, 10yr pledge for vaccine research, development & delivery.”
In 2019 Gates told CNBC’s Becky Quick on “Squawk Box” from the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, “We feel there’s been over a 20-to-1 return” on his $10 billion investment into vaccine development.
In the interview with McCullough, Leake questioned why the COVID vaccines, which were developed hastily, were advertised as safe and touted as the only solution to the pandemic while effective alternative and off-label treatments were demonized.
“What we discovered in our research and what we map out in our book is that this was being planned for, well in advance,” Leake said.
He also criticized Gates for his obsession with vaccines.
Bill Gates attends a press conference on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, on May 25, 2022. (Fabrice Coffrini/AFP via Getty Images)
“[Gates] seems to have sort of shifted his monopolistic spirit from the software business to the vaccine business,” said Leake.
Gates is also the founder and major contributing member of the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness and Innovation (CEPI), which was launched at the World Economic Forum in 2017. In the organization’s business plan, it appears to be entirely focused on the development of vaccines, with no mention of other treatments for viral outbreaks, said McCullough.
CEPI says it brings together heads of government, private businesses, and philanthropists to “accelerate” the development of vaccines to prevent future “epidemics and pandemics” and to ensure that “all people in need” have access to these vaccines.
Moreover, one of Gates’ most recent efforts in the proliferation of vaccines is his book, “How to Prevent the Next Pandemic.” In the book, Gates makes the case for establishing a well-funded global organization that would be managed by the United Nations’ World Health Organization, whose job it would be to search for and respond to the world’s next pandemic, said McCullough.
The Epoch Times reached out to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for comment.
McCullough said that although vaccines generally do little to prevent illness from upper-respiratory infections, they were still pushed as the answer to the COVID-19 pandemic.
“There isn’t a single shot in the arm that does virtually anything for a respiratory illness,” McCullough said, adding that the COVID vaccines were introduced “with an implicit talking point, and the talking point is, ‘They are safe and they are effective, and you will take them.’ Period. No discussions after that. No official discussions on safety and efficacy, no guarantee for reevaluation, no monthly review of safety.”
The safety was just assumed, even after a Chinese scientific paper was published pointing out that there were major health problems from the vaccine for people with underlying health issues, said McCullough.
McCullough called this broad use of the vaccines a “biological catastrophe.”
Furthermore, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) tried to bury information about the vaccines’ safety and efficacy by sealing, for 55 years, the “Pfizer dossier,” which is about half a million pages of documents detailing the key findings in the development and implementation of the vaccines, said McCullough.
The organization Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency sued the FDA under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and demanded the dossier be made public.
In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman said the group’s FOIA request was “of paramount public importance,” and ordered that the FDA release 55,000 pages per month (pdf).
From these documents, “we learned there were 1,223 deaths within 90 days of the release of the Pfizer program, worldwide. The standard is typically 50 deaths for some widely used product, [and it’s] taken off the market,” said McCullough
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) records deaths on its Vaccine Adverse Events Recording System (VAERS).
In the United States, McCullough said there have been 13,000 deaths recorded after receiving the COVID vaccine.
“That is astounding,” he said. “We have never let a product run like this for this period of time without revisiting safety, without reporting safety, without even questioning safety, and death being the final outcome.”
The Epoch Times reached out Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson for comment on vaccine safety.
“What I think a lot of the public didn’t understand is this is a completely novel technology,” said Leake. “These are genetic transfer technologies. You’re actually injecting messenger RNA that codes for the production of the spike protein, so this is Star Trek stuff.”
McCullough said it’s a false claim that vaccines reduce hospitalization and death.
He said there have been no thorough randomized trials with the active drug and placebo to show a reduction in hospitalization and death.
“None of the vaccines have had clinical trials done versus placebo with that composite endpoint,” said McCullough. “What’s happened over time is a false narrative that’s developed from observational data.”
There have been many “biased analyses by investigators and doctors and those in the biopharmaceutical complex who are invested in trying to promote the vaccines,” said McCullough
This file photo shows a box of ivermectin tablets. (Carl D. Master/Shutterstock)
He added that the analyses are based on faulty and biased data, which does not keep track of vaccinated individuals who come into a hospital. Instead, all who come into the hospital with a COVID infection are counted as unvaccinated by default.
“I can tell you those who’ve taken the vaccine are much more likely to have gotten early treatment, which really is the driver for reducing hospitalization and death,” said McCullough. He added that Gates, Anderson Cooper, and Vice President Kamala Harris all are vaccinated but also took Paxlovid, an early treatment for COVID-19.
Leake said the same rigor and safety standards that were applied to early treatment for COVID are completely ignored with the new messenger RNA vaccines. “Suddenly, the methodology and the rigor of ascertaining safety and efficacy is just thrown out the window with the vaccine,” he said.
McCullough said the pandemic could have ended quickly if resources had been put into giving high-risk patients early treatments with hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, but instead these early treatments were maligned.
McCullough also brought up monoclonal antibodies, another safe and effective treatment that’s been throttled in favor of vaccines, he said.
Despite the fact that these early treatments work well, they are pulled off the shelf, but the vaccines, which are not proven to be either safe or effective, are pushed on the public as the solution for the pandemic, said McCullough.
Leake and McCullough described what they observed and documented as a “monolithic vaccine solution” for all public health problems.
“This is what these international foundations are: the Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Wellcome Trust. The big money guys have put all of their money on vaccines,” said Leake.
Their book documents how other national institutions, like the National Institutes of Health, profit from these vaccines and from a relationship with wealthy philanthropists.
“They actually had a meeting at Bill Gates’ grand house near Seattle back in 2000. For 20 years, they’ve been working together,” said Leake.
There is a vaccine agenda, in which the powers that be want every person to keep getting vaccinated indefinitely, McCullough said.
“They have advanced it forward and there is at the same time an oblivion to safety, and it’s global,” said McCullough.
McCullough and Leake said they’d like to see all vaccine mandates lifted and all COVID-19 vaccines pulled off the shelves for a thorough safety and efficacy review.
“We have been burned,” McCullough said. “This has been, in a sense, the crime of our lifetime, if not of all time, of mass vaccination of the world in the middle of a highly prevalent and evolving pandemic.”
Once again, it appears that the science of COVID-19 and its origins is the science that is conducted among small groups of insiders behind closed doors.
Newly released government emails from early February 2020 reveal that additional secret teleconferences took place among a group of Fauci-funded scientists in the early days of the pandemic.
Up to now, we knew of the Feb. 1 secret teleconference that had been convened by Fauci. We also knew that scientists at the Feb. 1 teleconference privately concluded that the virus most likely came out of the Wuhan lab. And we knew that by Feb. 4, those scientists had written a paper that dismissed the lab leak theory.
What we did not know is that the same scientists continued having secret teleconferences to discuss the virus’s origins even after they wrote their paper. At least two of those conferences were attended by Fauci himself.
The new emails were obtained by the transparency group US Right to Know, but—as is now the norm for Freedom of Information Act requests from the federal government—the emails are almost completely redacted.
Piecing together the newly released emails with other emails that were released earlier, we can now put together an updated timeline of events after the initial Feb. 1 secret teleconference.
Recipients of secret royalty payments who hold key roles at the National Institutes for Health (NIH) have been revealed by nonprofit government watchdog Open the Books.
Through the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), Open the Books has discovered that payments totaling more than $134 million were paid to more than 1,600 NIH executives, scientists, and researchers by outside firms, thought to be primarily from the pharmaceutical industry, between 2010 and 2014.
The matter was first reported by The Epoch Times in May.
Based on the numbers for that period, OTB projects that about $350 million in such royalty payments were made by outside payers to NIH employees between 2010 and 2020.
One recipient is NIH distinguished investigator Dr. Ira Pastan.
Pastan, 91, began his career at the National Institutes for Health (NIH) in 1959 as President Dwight D. Eisenhower was nearing the end of his eight years in the Oval Office. He received 250 royalty payments from firms outside of NIH during the years between 2010 and 2014, according to information obtained recently by Open the Books.
Pastan, who works in NIH’s National Cancer Institute (NCI) Laboratory of Molecular Biology, was paid $297,435 by NIH last year, according to data compiled by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
The NIH only turned over the information sought by OTB via the FOIA request after a federal court suit was filed; the agency still hasn’t disclosed the amounts of each individual royalty payment, the identity of the payers, or the nature of the work involved.
Acting NIH Director Lawrence Tabak conceded during a recent congressional hearing that such secret royalty payments create the appearance of a conflict of interest, although he insisted that the agency has sufficient internal safeguards to prevent such an occurrence.
Given Pastan’s exceptionally lengthy career in government, it isn’t surprising that he received the second-highest number of royalty payments, exceeded only by the NCI’s Robert Gallo, who got 271 during the five-year period.
While Gallo left the NIH in 1995, he continued to receive royalty payments for work during his time in government.
A total of 34 NIH people received 100 or more royalty payments, according to data compiled by OTB and provided to The Epoch Times. Only nine of the 34—all between the ages of 68 and 91—are still on NIH’s payroll.
The youngest, Dr. Frank Gonzalez, 68, began working at NIH in 1981; he received 181 royalty payments during the period.
“Without question, these older scientists had careers of merit and distinction,” Adam Andrzejewski, OTB’s president, told The Epoch Times on June 8. “However, most haven’t been the primary author of a scientific paper in years.
“Therefore, it’s an open question whether or not taxpayers are still receiving the best possible production from NIH and its core of older, royalty-receiving scientists.”
Andrzejewski also noted that “a government bureau engaged in cutting-edge scientific discovery must justify why they employ people in their 80s and 90s.
“When those employees earn between $230,000 and $330,000 in taxpayer-paid salaries each year and are ranked in the top 20 of 1,800 scientists receiving hidden third-party paid royalties, there are naturally a lot of questions.
“It’s just another reason why NIH needs to come clean with the American people and produce the full record—which company is making the payment, how much to each scientist, and for what invention,” he said.”
Currently, NIH is refusing to disclose all that information, making it impossible to follow the money.”
The highest-paid among the nine is Dr. Steven Rosenberg, 81, a senior investigator who was paid $329,400 in 2021, and who received 136 royalty payments during the period.
The third-highest paid is distinguished investigator Dr. Warren Leonard, at $297,000, who got 179 royalty payments during the period, followed by Dr. Bernard Moss, 85, a distinguished investigator who was paid $281,351 in 2021 and received 149 royalty payments during the period.
In fifth is Dr. John Schiller, an NIH distinguished investigator who was paid $271,408 in 2019, the most recent year for which data was available. Schiller received 140 royalty payments during the period. Sixth is Dr. Richard Youle, who is an NIH senior investigator who was paid $250,000 in 2021 and received 135 royalty payments during the period.
Seventh is Dr. Ethan Shevach, NIH senior investigator, who completed medical school in 1967. He was paid $245,000 last year and received 136 payments during the period. Eighth among the nine is Dr. Jeffrey Scholm, who received 144 royalty payments during the period and was paid $244,984. Gonzalez is the ninth.
Royalty payments also went to at least three of the top echelon of NIH leaders, including Dr. Francis Collins, the immediate past director of NIH, who got 14 payments. Dr. Anthony Fauci received 23 payments and his deputy, Clifford Lane, received eight payments.
Collins resigned as NIH director in December 2021 after 12 years at the helm of the world’s largest public health agency. Fauci is the longtime head of NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), as well as chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden. Lane is the deputy director of NIAID, under Fauci.
The royalty payments by outside payers are made possible by the nature of the work conducted by NIH and its divisions.
As a part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), according to OTB, the NIH “is the largest biomedical research agency in the world. NIH grants over $32 billion in funding to research institutions around the world, and employs thousands of scientists to conduct research in-house.
“When an NIH employee makes a discovery in their official capacity, the NIH owns the rights to any resulting patent. These patents are then licensed for commercial use to companies that could use them to bring products to market.
“Employees are listed as inventors on the patents and receive a share of the royalties obtained through any licensing, or ‘technology transfer,’ of their inventions. Essentially, taxpayer money funding NIH research benefits researchers employed by NIH because they are listed as patent inventors and therefore receive royalty payments from licensees.”
THE DELETED WEBPAGE DETAILED A STUDY ON A “MILD, EXPERIMENTAL SMALLPOX VACCINE KNOWN AS MODIFIED VACCINIA ANKARA (MVA)” AND HOW IT IS “NEARLY AS EFFECTIVE AS THE STANDARD SMALLPOX VACCINE IN PROTECTING MONKEYS AGAINST MONKEYPOX.”
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) deleted a webpage from 2004 detailing research into vaccine efficacy against the monkeypox virus which included Anthony Fauci praising the findings as “important” and referencing a potential “bioterror threat involving smallpox.”
The webpage can be accessed through an archived version of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) website, which reveals a press release from March 10th, 2004: “Effectiveness of Safer Smallpox Vaccine Demonstrated Against Monkeypox.”
When accessed, the link currently prompts users with the message “the page you’re looking for isn’t available.”
NIH DELETED WEBPAGE.
The unearthed webpage comes amidst an ongoing global outbreak of monkeypox cases, already causing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to recommend masks during travel.
The deleted webpage detailed a study on a “mild, experimental smallpox vaccine known as modified vaccinia Ankara (MVA)” and how it is “nearly as effective as the standard smallpox vaccine in protecting monkeys against monkeypox.” Monkeypox was the pathogen of choice for the study “because of its similarity to the smallpox virus,” explained the NIH press release.
The study was conducted by researchers from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the NIH agency led by Fauci. This agency has previously come under scrutiny for funding bat coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which many public health experts and intelligence officials believe to be the source of COVID-19.
“These findings are important to the search for a replacement vaccine for people with health conditions that would prevent them from using the current smallpox vaccine,” said Fauci in response to the study, which reportedly found that an MVA injection in conjunction with a Dryvax injection yielded better coverage than Dryvax alone.
“In addition, because an initial MVA injection may help lessen the side effects experienced from Dryvax, MVA may serve as an important pre-vaccine for large-scale vaccination efforts in the event of a bioterror threat involving smallpox,” he added.
Fauci was reacting to the study “Immunogenicity of a Highly Attenuated MVA Smallpox Vaccine and Protection Against Monkeypox,” whose abstract also warns of the “potential use of smallpox as a biological weapon”:
“The potential use of smallpox as a biological weapon has led to the production and stockpiling of smallpox vaccine and the immunization of some healthcare workers.”
The study’s abstract continues, describing “another public health goal is the licensing of a safer vaccine” to treat smallpox:
As vaccines can no longer be tested for their ability to prevent smallpox, licensing will necessarily include comparative immunogenicity and protection studies in non-human primates. Here we compare the highly attenuated modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) with the licensed Dryvax vaccine in a monkey model.
The deleted study follows The National Pulse unearthing the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s recent research assembling strains of the monkeypox virus to be able to conduct PCR tests. It also comes amidst the NIAID administering a $10 million grant to fund research into additional cures for monkeypox shortly before the current outbreak began.
Five Republican senators have asked National Institutes of Health (NIH) Acting Director Lawrence Tabak for a comprehensive accounting of every royalty payment by an outside source to an employee of the federal agency since 2009.
“We believe that the American taxpayer deserves to know 1) the degree to which government doctors and researchers have a financial interest in drugs and products they support, and 2) whether any relationship exists between federal grants awarded by NIH and royalty payments received by NIH personnel,” the senators told Tabak in a letter that was made public on June 1.
“Additionally, Americans deserve greater transparency in how the hundreds of millions in royalty payments NIH receives are distributed, and the degree to which NIH’s leadership—already among the highest-paid individuals in the federal bureaucracy—has benefited from this ‘hidden’ revenue stream.”
The five senators are Rand Paul of Kentucky, James Lankford of Oklahoma, Josh Hawley of Missouri, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, and Rick Scott of Florida. Tabak has been acting NIH chief since his predecessor, Dr. Francis Collins, resigned in December after leading the agency for a dozen years.
The GOP senators’ letter was prompted by revelations first reported by The Epoch Times based on information obtained via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) submitted to NIH by Open the Books, an Illinois-based nonprofit government watchdog.
“We estimate that up to $350 million in royalties from third parties were paid to NIH scientists during the fiscal years between 2010 and 2020,” Open the Books CEO Adam Andrzejewski said in a telephone news conference on May 9.
“We draw that conclusion because, in the first five years, there has been $134 million that we have been able to quantify of top-line numbers that flowed from third-party payers—meaning pharmaceutical companies or other payers—to NIH scientists.”
The first five years, from 2010 to 2014, constitute 40 percent of the total, he said.
“We now know that there are 1,675 scientists that received payments during that period, at least one payment. In fiscal year 2014, for instance, $36 million was paid out and that is on average $21,100 per scientist,” he said.
Collins received 14 payments while serving as NIH director, according to the information obtained by Open the Books. Dr. Anthony Fauci received 23 payments, and his deputy, Clifford Lane, got eight payments during the period.
Tabak conceded during a recent congressional hearing that the payments “have the appearance of a conflict of interest.” Republicans have since been vocal in demanding that NIH be more forthcoming about the royalty payments, while Democrats have been unusually quiet.
Open the Books received the data on the royalty payments only after suing in federal court, and even then, the information provided was heavily redacted so that the specific amounts of individual payments to recipients and the names of payers were concealed.
The GOP senators took note of that fact in their letter to Tabak.
“Each year, NIH awards tens of billions of dollars in the form of federal grants, and under 401.10 of the Patent and Trademark Law Amendments (Bayh–Dole) Act, federal agencies and employees may receive royalty payments for products and inventions when listed as an inventor or ‘co-inventor’ on a product’s patent,” the senators told Tabak.
“A 2020 study conducted by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) showed that, in total, 93 NIH patents contributed to 34 FDA-approved prescription drugs, generating roughly $2 billion in royalty payments to the agency between 1991-2019. In 2004 alone, some 900 NIH scientists earned approximately $8.9 million in royalties for drugs and inventions they discovered while working for the government.”
The senators said NIH has in the past been substantially more transparent about the payments.
“In 2005, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) implemented a policy requiring its employees to disclose these royalty payments on the consent forms for clinical trial participants; however, the agency has taken no action to disclose such payments to the public at large,” the letter states.
“In fact, even after the nonprofit organization Open the Books submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to disclose royalty payments made between 2009 and 2020, the agency only provided the names of the employees receiving the payments and the number of payments they received between 2009 and 2014; the amounts of the individual payments, the innovation in question, and the names of the third-party payers were redacted by NIH.”
Andrzejewski told The Epoch Times on May 31 that his nonprofit shouldn’t have had to take NIH to court to get the information the five senators are now demanding.
“The production of an estimated $350 million in third-party royalty payments to NIH and 1,700 of its scientists is so heavily redacted that it’s nearly impossible to follow the money. NIH is violating the spirit if not the letter of open records law,” Andrzejewski said.
“It shouldn’t take our lawsuit or congressional action to force NIH to comply with basic open government rules. We applaud the actions of the senators on the Homeland Security committee as they remind these unelected career bureaucrats that they work on behalf of the American people.”
Anthony Fauci’s National Institutes of Health agency was funding research to identify treatments for monkeypox shortly before the virus began spreading in a global outbreak.
Fauci’s agency, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), has previously come under scrutiny for funding bat coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which many public health experts and intelligence officials believe to be the source of COVID-19.
NIAID has also funded research into potential cures for monkeypox, shortly before the viral disease began spreading in a global outbreak. The curious timing of the NIAID grant comes amidst pharmaceutical giants including Pfizer and Johson & Johnson making record-level profits due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The grant supports a “randomized, placebo-controlled trial of the safety and efficacy of tecovirimat for the treatment of patients with monkeypox virus disease.”
“The funding supports a clinical trial to identify effective treatments for monkeypox virus disease,” explains a summary of the research, which, despite beginning in September 2020, has not generated any publicly available studies, papers, or patents.
NIAID GRANT.
“The similarity between monkeypox and the variola virus, coupled with concerns about the potential of the variola virus as a potential bioterrorism agent, have placed monkeypox treatments at the forefront of public health and scientific research agendas in many countries,” adds the grant summary.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant database shows that $9,824,009 was sent to Leidos Biomedical Research, which partners with the NIH’s National Cancer Institute (NCI) to operate Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, in 2021.
The grant, which is set to conclude on September 27th, 2025, was distributed to Lori Dodd, who serves as a Mathematical Statistician in the Biostatistics Research Branch of the NIAID.
Dodd was previously exposed for her involvement in the NIAID’s efforts to cover up the agency reportedly altering the endpoint in a trial testing the effects of remdesivir against COVID-19 to make it look more effective.
The grant follows The National Pulse unearthing the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s recent research assembling strains of the monkeypox virus to be able to conduct PCR tests.
Experimental drugs aim to help treat seasonal allergies
The National Institutes of Health division led by Dr. Anthony Fauci is slated to spend nearly $2 million to force feed puppies with experimental allergy drugs, according to a government watchdog group.
NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which is helmed by Fauci, allocated $1,836,453 in taxpayer dollars for a contractor to test an experimental hay fever drug on mice, rats, and dogs, including puppies, according to the funding documents, which were obtained by the White Coat Waste Project and provided to the Washington Free Beacon. The most severe symptoms of hay fever, also known as seasonal allergies, are a runny nose and sneezing.
The documents, which were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request and are highly redacted, show that the division requested at least five separate experiments on dogs that are likely to include force-feeding them experimental drugs for several months. While the contractor conducting the tests, Inimmune Corp., said guinea pigs could be used in place of dogs for some testing, purchasing “six-month old puppies” that would be exposed to allergens and then used for testing was also proposed.
NIH’s animal experiments have become a flashpoint in Congress after it emerged earlier this year that the government spent $2.5 million injecting beagle puppies with cocaine, sparking a bipartisan investigation, which was first reported by the Free Beacon. The NIH also funds labs in Russia, even as it invades Ukraine, including one lab that conducted “horrific and barbaric experiments on 18 cats.” The disclosure of the latest funding tranche is likely to build momentum for legislation called the Preventing Animal Abuse and Waste Act that would bar NIAID from conducting these types of dog experiments.
“Fauci’s white coats at NIAID have forced taxpayers to pay millions to de-bark and poison puppies, infest beagles with ticks and flies, and, now, needlessly torture puppies to test a new drug to treat a runny nose,” Devin Murphy, White Coat Waste Project’s public policy and communications manager, told the Free Beacon. “Even NIAID’s own contractor acknowledges that the dog testing demanded by Fauci’s agency is unnecessary because alternative animal models are available.”
The latest animal experiment grant, which began on September 1, 2021, and is slated to end in August 2023, indicates that NIAID attempted to purchase “allergic dogs” from a supplier, but ran into supply roadblocks. “Unfortunately, all of the allergic dogs from the [redacted] have not been available,” the documents state. “Six-month old puppies” were proposed as an alternative solution, though it is unclear if NIH went forward with that suggestion.
NIAID’s contractor, Inimmune Corp., suggested guinea pigs be used “instead of dog studies,” according to the documents, indicating that dog experiments were unnecessary and raising questions about the government’s desire to use them as lab subjects. This proposal was under consideration as of January 2022.
White Coat Waste Project is challenging the redactions in the documents and has submitted follow-up requests to obtain information on the experiments.
Rep. Nancy Mace (R., S.C.), who is spearheading the PAAW Act and investigating NIH for its animal experiments, told the Free Beacon that U.S. taxpayers should not be forced to foot the bill for “unnecessary and cruel” government tests.
“Americans across the political spectrum have been horrified to learn their tax dollars are being used to subsidize NIAID’s barbaric experiments on beagle puppies,” Mace said in a statement. “I’m proud to be leading the bipartisan PAAW Act to ensure taxpayer money is not used to support outdated, unnecessary and cruel experiments on dogs.”
THE PAPER COMES HOT ON THE HEELS OF A NUMBER OF WHITE HOUSE LOSSES REGARDING FEDERAL WORKER VACCINATION AND MASK MANDATES.
Anthony Fauci’s wife – who is also head of the Department of Bioethics at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center – authored a paper defending the ethics of corporations “pressuring employees to get vaccinated” and “embarrass[ing] vaccine resistors.”
Published in March 2022, the paper followed attempts by the White House as well as Democratic Party politicians across America to mandate COVID-19 vaccination for federal and state workers.
Grady’s paper focuses on the “ethics of encouragement strategies aimed at overcoming vaccine reluctance (which can be due to resistance, hesitance, misinformation, or inertia) to facilitate voluntary employee vaccination.”
Grady and her three co-authors outline how it is “ethically acceptable” to “subtly pressure employees to get vaccinated”:
While employment-based vaccine encouragement may raise privacy and autonomy concerns, and though some employers might hesitate to encourage employees to get vaccinated, our analysis suggests ethically acceptable ways to inform, encourage, strongly encourage, incentivize, and even subtly pressure employees to get vaccinated.
While discussing vaccine mandates, the paper posits they can “be ethically appropriate” if there is “clear articulation about the consequences of not complying with the policy.”
“In that circumstance, employees have a choice between getting vaccinated or accepting the consequences of a choice to remain unvaccinated,” it explains.
Grady outlines other tactics employers could use to boost COVID-19 vaccination rates within their company, such as sharing “targeted statistics (such as 75% of the company or unit have been vaccinated) to spur competition or even implicitly embarrass vaccine resistors.”
“There can be social consequences associated with peer communication about vaccination, such as stigma and ostracization of those not vaccinated,” the paper asserts.
“Individuals who choose to make the workplace less safe for others through their vaccine refusal should be able to foresee the possibility of this kind of social consequence,” it continues, appearing to endorse the aforementioned “stigma and ostracization” of individuals unvaccinated against COVID-19.
“When a policy is tied to group vaccination metrics, unvaccinated employees may feel implicit (or explicit) pressure from peers or supervisors to help the group meet its return-to-work goals,” Grady and her co-authors outlined before describing the approach as “ethically appropriate”:
“Despite worries about a perception of unfairness, we argue that the selective easing of public health restrictions is ethically appropriate when done transparently and tied to objective public health guidance.”
The unearthed paper comes amidst controversy over Fauci’s decision to fund research on “killer” bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Additionally, Grady’s prominent role in supervising the ethics of NIH research and policy appear to present a conflict of interest given her husband’s role in shaping America’s COVID-19 response and vaccination guidelines.
A scientific journal published by top Wuhan Institute of Virology researchers shared studies appearing to engage in gain-of-function type research, a controversial method of studying pathogens that can increase their lethality.
The Wuhan Institute of Virology is believed to have engaged in the risky form of research regarding bat coronaviruses, as now-deleted webpages reveal the lab manipulating bat coronaviruses to “replicate efficiently in primary human airway cells and achieve in vitro titers equivalent to epidemic strains of SARS-CoV.”
Now, the latest edition of the lab’s journal, Virologica Sinica, appears to contain a similar style of research with the H7N9 virus in chickens and mice. The publication’s Editor-in-Chief is Wuhan’s infamous “bat lady,” Shi Zhengli, who is the lab’s premier bat coronavirus researcher and a recipient of funds from Anthony Fauci through Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance.
Virologica Sinica published the study “Combined Insertion of Basic and Non-basic Amino Acids at Hemagglutinin Cleavage Site of Highly Pathogenic H7N9 Virus Promotes Replication and Pathogenicity in Chickens and Mice” in its most recent edition, published February 2022.
JOURNAL COVER.
The paper’s abstract outlines how researchers “generated six H7N9 viruses,” analyzing how various amino acids altered the virus’ virulence and infectivity.
“We characterized the reconstituted viruses in terms of viral replication in avian and mammalian cells, thermostability and acid stability, cleavage efficiency, the virulence in mice, and pathogenicity and transmissibility in chickens,” outlined the study.
While the study conducted experiments on mice and chicken, it noted that H7N9 variants are “also highly transmissible in ferrets, posing the threats of pandemic potential in humans.”
In one case study, the H7N9 variant caused a 35 percent mortality rate in mice, with researchers noting that certain amino acids “increased the pathogenicity”:
Surprisingly, the monobasic mutants (i.e., PEIPKGR/G) showed clear symptoms of infection, including shaggy hair and abdominal breathing, after the second day of infection, followed by 15% of weight loss compared to the initial weight and death, with a mortality rate of 35%. In addition, each H7N9 viruses can replicate efficiency in lungs of the infected mice PEVPKRKRTAR/G (P ¼ 0.0109) significantly increased viral titers in the lungs of mice compared to that of the PEVPKGR/G group, indicating that the insertion of KRTA increased the pathogenicity of mice.
“Notably, we observed that the insertion of non-basic amino acids TA and IA in H7N9 viruses caused death in mice despite having the same viral titer, which suggested that HPAIV H7N9 inserted with a non-basic amino acid posed a potential threat to humans,” added the paper.
The paper follows continued revelations about the Wuhan Institute of Virology engaging in “gain of function” research with U.S. taxpayer funds from Fauci’s National Institutes of Health (NIH) agency.
Two key National Institutes for Health (NIH) executives in positions of influence on decisions about who gets grants from the agency received a total of 77 previously undisclosed royalty payments from outside firms between 2010 and 2014.
The secret royalty payments, which were first reported by The Epoch Times, are among thousands estimated to total at least $350 million paid between 2010 and 2020. Former NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins received 14 payments, Anthony Fauci, who heads NIH’s National Institute for Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), received 23, and Clifford Lane, Fauci’s chief deputy, got eight payments.
Acting NIH Director Lawrence Tabak conceded during questioning last week by Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.) that the undisclosed royalties had the “appearance of a conflict of interest,” but he insisted that the agency has sufficient internal safeguards to prevent such problems. Federal law and ethics regulations bar federal employees from activities that present either the appearance or an actual conflict of interest.
Dr. Michael Gottesman, who has been the NIH’s deputy director for intramural research (DDIR) since 1994, received 70 royalty payments during the five-year period from 2010 to 2014, according to documents recently obtained by the nonprofit government watchdog Open the Books (OTB) as a result of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for extensive data on all payments from 2o10 to the present.
Open the Books is a Chicago-based nonprofit government watchdog that uses federal and state freedom of information laws to obtain and then post on the internet trillions of dollars in spending at all levels of government.
According to his official resume on the NIH website, Gottesman “coordinates activities and facilitates cooperation among the 24 Institute- and Center-based Scientific Directors to achieve the scientific, training, and public health missions of the NIH Intramural Research Program.
“He provides guidance for the entire intramural program and reports to [Acting NIH Director Lawrence Tabak]. He oversees and ultimately approves the hiring of all NIH principal investigators, and he is the institutional official responsible for human subjects research protections, research integrity, technology transfer, and animal care and use at the NIH.
“During his tenure as DDIR, Dr. Gottesman has created the post-baccalaureate training program, the Graduate Partnerships Program (which permits graduate students to conduct thesis research at NIH); implemented loan repayment programs; institutionalized an intramural tenure track and new career tracks for clinical investigators; created the NIH Intramural Database (providing online information about all researchers and research at NIH); and spearheaded multiple other programs in the realm of diversity, equity, research integrity, and leadership.”
Gottesman announced in July 2021 his resignation from the DDIR position, pending the selection of his successor. He plans to remain as chief of the Laboratory of Cell Biology in the NIH’s National Cancer Institute after his DDIR successor is chosen.
The NIH initially ignored OTB’s request until the nonprofit filed a FOIA lawsuit in federal court. At that point, the NIH agreed to begin producing the requested documents in a series of monthly tranches.
But who paid the 70 royalties to Gottesman, the amounts of the payments, and for what purpose the payments were made isn’t known, since the NIH is redacting payment amounts and the payers’ identities from documents the agency is providing to OTB as a result of the FOIA.
The Epoch Times has requested from NIH the names of the payers of the 70 payments to Gottesman, the amounts of each payment, and the purpose for which the payment was made. The NIH hasn’t responded.
An additional seven royalty payments of unknown amounts from unknown payers were made to Roger Glass, the NIH’s associate director for international research. Glass was appointed to the post in 2006.
Congressional Democrats, including Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chairwoman Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), were silent when asked last week by The Epoch Times about the secret royalty payments.
Republicans on Capitol Hill, however, ripped the payments as an obvious conflict of interest and called for full disclosure of all the facts.
“NIH receives tens of billions of taxpayer dollars and is entrusted with making unbiased scientific assessments and recommendations,” Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) told The Epoch Times. “Their top officials, like any public officials, need to be held to the highest standards of transparency and accountability to prevent conflicts of interest and ensure the American people’s health and safety remains the agency’s top priority. The NIH must be held accountable to the American people.”
Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) called the NIH “a dark money pit.”
“They covered up grants for gain-of-function research in Wuhan, so it is no surprise that they are now refusing to release critical data regarding allegations of millions in royalty fees paid to in-house scientists like Fauci. If the NIH wants to keep spending taxpayer dollars, they have a responsibility to provide transparency.”
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said, “This report is disturbing and if it is true that some of our country’s top scientists have conflict of interest problems, the American people deserve to have all the answers.”
Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.) called for an investigation, noting: “Of course it’s a direct conflict of interest for scientists like Anthony Fauci to rake in $350 million in royalties from third parties who benefit from federal taxpayer-funded grants.
“Anthony Fauci is a millionaire that has gotten rich off taxpayer dollars. He is a prime example of the bloated federal bureaucracy. This royalty system should be examined to ensure it isn’t making matters worse.”
White House COVID-19 adviser Anthony Fauci revealed what he would do if former President Donald Trump wins the presidency in 2024.
Speaking to CNN on Sunday, when asked if he would stay around under a new Trump administration, Fauci said he would not.
“Uh, well, no,” Fauci replied, laughing. When asked by CNN if Fauci would “not serve with Trump again,” Fauci replied: “Right, for sure. Yeah.”
Fauci was also asked about the Trump administration’s response to the pandemic.
“I think just history will speak for itself about that. I don’t need to make any further comments on that … It’s not productive,” he said.
There have been more COVID-19-related deaths under the Biden administration than under the Trump administration. In about 10 months under the final period of the Trump administration, data suggests there were about 425,000 deaths in the United States. Under President Joe Biden’s first year, there were about 455,000 COVID-19 deaths, according to federal data.
“People are tired of hearing Fauci and all these idiots, these people,” Trump said in October 2020 during a campaign conference call, referring to the doom-and-gloom predictions that were being made along with COVID-19-related restrictions. “Every time he goes on TV, there’s a bomb, but there’s a bigger bomb if you fire him,” he said at the time.
In March of last year, Trump told a podcast of Fauci: “I thought rather than firing him, you know, I listened to him, but I didn’t do what he said because, frankly, his record is not a good record.”
“I like him personally,” the former president added. “He’s actually a nice guy. He’s a great promoter. He’s really a promoter more than anything else.”
“And if I would’ve listened to them?” Trump asked. “And then they went to the other extreme, like the entire country should lock up. I didn’t go for that. And you know, it just wasn’t for me. I didn’t go for that.”
In March, Fauci, 81, hinted at retiring from being in charge of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, a position he’s held since 1984.
For more than 50 years, Fauci has served as a public health expert in various capacities, although he was appointed as lead White House COVID-19 adviser by Biden last year.
“I can’t stay at this job forever. Unless my staff is going to find me slumped over my desk one day. I’d rather not do that,” Fauci said at the time.
Trump, meanwhile, has not publicly committed to running for president in 2024, although he has strongly hinted that he might.
“They’re going to find out the hard way starting Nov. 8 and even more so starting November 2024,” Trump said during a recent Conservative Political Action Conference in February, referring to the Democratic Party’s chances.
…AND THE CHINESE LAB’S “BAT WOMAN” TOLD HIM IT WASN’T THE RIGHT TIME TO TALK.
James LeDuc – a lab director funded by Anthony Fauci – provided an early warning to Wuhan Institute of Virology researchers ahead of a potential U.S. investigation into the lab for its role in the COVID-19 pandemic.
The National Pulse previously unearthed the Texas-based lab’s multi-year collaborative relationship with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, including hosting exchange programs and training researchers at the lab’s Biosafety Level 4 (BSL) facility. Directors from the Wuhan lab and the Galveston National Laboratory, which describes itself as “constructed under grants awarded by [Fauci’s] National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID),” admitted to working with the “world’s most dangerous pathogens” in 2018.
The Wuhan Institute of Virology also had the right to make its American counterpart “destroy and/or return the secret files, materials and equipment without any backups.”
New emails obtained via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by Judicial Watch reveal a deep relationship between the Texas lab’s director James LeDuc and top Wuhan Institute of Virology personnel.
LeDuc, whose earliest grant can be traced to 2006, has received 32 grants from Anthony Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).
On April 16th, 2020, former Commander of the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases David Franz emailed LeDuc that he “heard from someone in government this evening that Senator Rubio is starting to push for AN investigation regarding Wuhan lab” regarding the origins of COVID-19.
LeDuc quickly forwarded the email to the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s top bat coronavirus researcher – dubbed the lab’s “bat woman” – to alert her of the possible investigation and additionally requested a phone call with her.
The following day, Shi responded, insisting it wasn’t the “right time to communicate by the call” before defending her lab against accusations COVID-19 escaped from it.
“What I can tell you is that this virus is not a leaky [sic] from our lab or any other labs. It’s a shame to make this scientific question so complicated,” she asserted.
LEDUC’S EMAILS.
LeDuc responded promptly, referencing his “long history of collaboration” with the Wuhan lab, adding a “draft summary” of a report sent to “the leadership of our University of Texas system and likely to Congressional committees.”
“Please review carefully and make any changes that you would like. I want this to be as accurate as possible and I certainly do not want to misrepresent any of your valuable contributions,” LeDuc offered to Shi.
Separate emails from April 20th, 2020 show Le Duc informing Shi and the Director of the Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory at the Chinese Academy of Sciences Dr. Yuan Zhiming that he was “afraid” the Wuhan lab would be highly scrutinized for its potential role in creating COVID-19:
I’m afraid that this discussion will continue for some time regarding where early coronavirus work was being done, the role, if any, of the Wuhan CDC in research on bat-associated coronaviruses, and exactly when scientists at WIV [Wuhan Institute of Virology] first became aware of the new coronavirus and had possession of specimens in the WIV and where was that work done (level of biocontainment).
LeDuc even prepped Wuhan Institute of Virology officials with dozens of questions that could potentially arise in an investigation of the origins of the COVID-19. Questions were categorized under the headings “physical security,” “personnel,” “geography,” and “where is coronavirus research conducted,” including “is anyone on your team conducting gain of function studies, recombination studies or any other studies that may have resulted in the creation of the nCoV?”
The revelation adds to mounting evidence that the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) had a deep relationship with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, despite Fauci’s insistence otherwise.
Top Democratic leaders with oversight of the National Institutes for Health (NIH) are keeping quiet about the $350 million in secret payments to agency leaders like Dr. Anthony Fauci and hundreds of its scientists.
The Epoch Times received no responses from multiple requests to Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) for comment on a report by a non-profit government watchdog estimating that Fauci, former NIH director Francis Collins, and hundreds of NIH scientists got as much as $350 million in undisclosed royalty payments from pharmaceutical and other private firms between 2010 and 2020.
The revelations from Open the Books, which were first reported on May 9 by The Epoch Times, are based on thousands of pages of documents the group obtained from NIH in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit in federal court. The suit was filed by Judicial Watch on behalf of Open the Books.
Open the Books is a Chicago-based nonprofit government watchdog that uses the federal and state freedom of information laws to obtain and then post on the internet trillions of dollars in spending at all levels of government.
House Committee on Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) speaks at a hearing in Washington, on June 23, 2020. (Kevin Dietsch-Pool/Getty Images)
Pallone is chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, while Murray is chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. Their panels are the main congressional oversight tools for NIH.
A spokesman for NIH also did not respond to multiple requests from The Epoch Times for comment.
Because NIH hands out $32 billion in research grants to medical institutions and researchers annually the undisclosed royalty payments, which are usually for work on a new drug, may indicate the presence of massive and widespread conflicts of interest or the appearance of such conflicts, both of which violate federal ethics laws and regulations.
Collins resigned as NIH director in December 2021 after 12 years of leading the world’s largest public health agency.
Fauci is the longtime head of NIH’s National Institute for Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), as well as chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden.
Lane is the deputy director of NIAID, under Fauci.
NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins holds up a model of the coronavirus as he testifies before a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee looking into the budget estimates for the National Institute of Health (NIH) and the state of medical research, on Capitol Hill in Washington on May 26, 2021. (Sarah Silbiger/Pool via AP)
Fauci received 23 royalty payments during the period, while Collins was paid 14. Clifford Lane, Fauci’s deputy, got eight payments, according to Open the Books.
While Pallone and Murray were silent on the secret NIH payments, Republicans expressed outrage at what they see as serious conflicts of interest.
Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) told The Epoch Times, “the NIH is a dark money pit. They covered up grants for gain of function research in Wuhan, so it is no surprise that they are now refusing to release critical data regarding allegations of millions in royalty fees paid to in-house scientists like Fauci.
“If the NIH wants to keep spending taxpayer dollars, they have a responsibility to provide transparency.”
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said, “This report is disturbing and if it is true that some of our country’s top scientists have conflict of interest problems, the American people deserve to have all the answers.”
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) asks questions during a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Competition Policy, Antitrust, and Consumer Rights, at the U.S. Capitol in Washington on Sept. 21, 2021. (Ken Cedeno/AFP via Getty Images)
Similarly, Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.) called for an investigation, noting that, “Of course it’s a direct conflict of interest for scientists like Anthony Fauci to rake in $350 million in royalties from third-parties who benefit from federal taxpayer-funded grants.
“Anthony Fauci is a millionaire that has gotten rich off taxpayer dollars. He is a prime example of the bloated federal bureaucracy. This royalty system should be examined to ensure it isn’t making matters worse.”
Rep. Buddy Carter (R-Ga.) said the latest revelations are further evidence that Fauci should be fired.
“Fauci and the NIH have repeatedly abused the trust of the American people.
“From lying about gain of function research to walking back claims about COVID-19, this latest allegation is just another nail in the coffin of the integrity of our public health system.
“Dr. Fauci should have been fired a long time ago, and that remains true today,” Carter told The Epoch Times.
Rep. Buddy Carter (R-Ga.) is seen during a hearing in Washington in a file photograph. (Greg Nash/Pool/Getty Images)
Mike Howell, a veteran congressional counsel and investigator who is now senior adviser on government relations at the Heritage Foundation, told The Epoch Times he thinks NIH could be in for trouble on the Hill in 2023 if voters return Republicans to majority control of the Senate and House in November’s mid-term elections.
“This Congress has not only failed to perform any serious oversight of the Biden administration, but is in many cases complicit in covering for them.
“When new majorities take over next over year, they will have a mandate to get to the bottom of scandals like this.”
Another Heritage expert, Douglas Badger, pointed to the need for a systematic re-examination of federal ethics statutes and an oversight investigation of the NIH royalties by Congress.
“Government scientists who are collecting royalties in connection with work they did in the course of their official duties must disclose this information to the public. The potential for conflict of interest is obvious,” Badger said.
The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) building is seen in Washington, on July 22, 2019. (Alastair Pike/AFP via Getty Images)
“The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) should revise its ethics guidance to require such disclosure, federal agencies should respond fully and promptly to freedom of information act requests concerning these royalties, and Congress should conduct an oversight investigation to assure that royalties paid by private companies to government scientists do not compromise the integrity of executive branch agencies.”
Badger is a senior fellow in Heritage’s Center for Health and Welfare Policy.
Rick Manning, president of Americans for Limited Government, also pointed to the potential seriousness of the apparent conflicts of interest, and the need for a congressional probe.
“The obvious conflict of interest for the public health scientist recipients of the hundreds of millions of dollars in royalty payments calls into question who they have been working for,” Manning asked.
“Congress must demand a full, non-redacted accounting of these payments along with the projects these public employees have been involved in and stakeholder interests in those projects.
“At a time when the truthfulness of public officials like Dr. Fauci, have come under intense scrutiny, it is critical for these relationships to be fully disclosed,” he said.
In a related development earlier this week, Rep. Brett Guthrie told a meeting of an energy and commerce subcommittee examining Biden’s 2023 budget proposal for HHS that the department that includes NIH needs much more congressional oversight.
“Oversight is especially important given the huge increases in funding requested by the Biden administration. The HHS budget before us today calls for a 12 percent increase in discretionary spending at HHS for Fiscal Year 2023,” Guthrie told the subcommittee.
“The budget specifically gives more than a $6 billion combined boost in funding to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health, both of which have come under fire recently over controversial masking guidance and COVID-19 research funded by NIH using American taxpayer dollars,” Guthrie continued.
“We need to hold NIH accountable and ensure taxpayer dollars are not going to labs engaging in risky gain-of-function research and ensure researchers are transparent about how they are spending taxpayer funded research grants,” the Kentucky Republican said.
The supposed experts shaping the Trump administration’s response to the coronavirus forced their tunnel vision upon the administration, according to a former member of the White House Coronavirus Response Team.
In a new book, Dr. Scott Atlas lambastes the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Dr. Anthony Fauci, Dr. Deborah Birx and former CDC Director Robert Redfield for refusing to look at all options.
In his book, “A Plague Upon Our House,” Atlas recounted an incident in which he wrote that he presented compelling data indicating that schools should be reopened and that children were not major factors in the spread of the virus.
Fauci and others acted as though he had never spoken, he wrote, according to excerpts published Saturday by Fox News.
“As I finished, there was silence,” Atlas wrote. “No one offered any contrary data … Zero comments from Dr. Birx. Nothing from Dr. Fauci.”
“And as always, not a single mention by Birx or Fauci about the serious harms of school closures. In my mind, this was bizarre,” he wrote.
Atlas wrote that he appeared to be the only one on the team looking at facts before forming theories.
“Why was I the only one in the room with detailed knowledge of the literature? Why was I the only one considering the data on such an important topic with a critical eye? Were the others simply accepting bottom lines and conclusions, without any analytical evaluation? Weren’t they supposed to be expert medical scientists, too? I waited,” he wrote.
When the reaction arrived, it was hostile.
Has the country lost faith in Dr. Anthony Fauci?
Birx said Atlas was “out of the mainstream” and part of a “fringe” group supporting school reopening, Atlas wrote, according to Fox.
“Meanwhile she insisted that all experts agreed with her,” Atlas wrote. “I shook my head, thinking of some of the world-class epidemiologists who agreed with me—John Ioannidis and Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford, Martin Kulldorff of Harvard, Carl Heneghan and Sunetra Gupta of Oxford—and wondered if she or Fauci had ever read a single publication by them.”
Atlas said he presented detailed data about the spread of the virus through children. Children were unlikely to spread the disease to adults, he wrote, and were themselves in little danger of catching it. In Sweden, in particular, he wrote, there were no children’s deaths from COVID-19, though schools remained open and there were no mask mandates.
“The icing on the cake was the evidence that almost all coronavirus transmission to children comes from adults, not the other way around,” Atlas wrote.
Atlas wrote that Redfield indicated that in his mind, the mountain of data was inconclusive.
“I was disgusted at Redfield’s apparent lack of knowledge, shocked at his ignoring the scientific studies that had been published from around the world,” Atlas wrote. “I looked around the room, wondering if anyone else understood the glaring incompetence on display. Clearly, [Vice President Mike] Pence needed more input.”
In excerpts published Friday by the U.K. Daily Mail, Atlas explained the root of his opposition to policies that pushed lockdowns as the magic answer to stopping the virus.
“People were dying from the virus, and the lockdown policies were not preventing the deaths,” he wrote. “The simple logic of assuming you could stop the spread of, and some said eliminate, a highly contagious virus by shutting down society after millions had been infected was worse than nonsensical.
“The idea of stopping all businesses and closing schools while quarantining healthy young people at little risk from a disease in order to protect those aged seventy and over — that is simply irrational,” he wrote.
In the book, he wrote that former President Donald Trump was being given bad advice from his top advisers.
“They had let Birx and Fauci tell governors to prolong the lockdowns and school closures and continue the severe restrictions on businesses – strategies that failed to stop the elderly from dying, failed to stop the cases, and destroyed families and sacrificed children,” he wrote, according to the Daily Mail. “The closest advisers to the president, including the VP, seemed more concerned with politics, even though the task force was putting out the wrong advice, contrary to the president’s desire to reopen schools and businesses.”
In late October, as Fox reported, Atlas accused Birx of trying to “rewrite history” during congressional testimony in which she said Trump’s advisers failed to push mask-wearing, social distancing, and other steps that could have saved lives.
Birx claimed Atlas wanted to let the virus spread to build herd immunity, regardless of the cost, a claim he denies.
“I never advised the president, the Task Force, or anyone else while in Washington to allow the virus to spread,” Atlas told Fox.
“Dozens of my writings and interviews during my Washington service explicitly called for specific mitigations, including social distancing, extra hygiene, and masks when not able to socially distance, and ‘focused protection,’ a heightened protection of those at risk, to allow a safe opening and end the public health destruction from lockdowns.”
EcoHealth Alliance – the research group using funds from Anthony Fauci’s National Institutes of Health agency to work with the Wuhan Institute of Virology – counted several high-ranking American government officials as research partners during its controversial collaboration with the Chinese Communist Party-run lab.
The unearthed affiliation follows the National Institutes of Health (NIH) admitting the New York-based nonprofit carried out gain of function research with the Chinese military-linked Wuhan lab and failed to report its findings to the federal agency. Gain of function research, which counts support from EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak, increases the virulence, lethality, and transmissibility of viruses including bat coronaviruses. Daszak has previously described the viruses he and his Chinese colleagues were manipulating as “killers” in video unearthed by The National Pulse.
In addition to receiving sizable grants from Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and hosting Fauci repeatedly as a speaker at its events, EcoHealth Alliance also appears to retain close relationships to additional federal agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) through its research partnerships.
Three officials from the CDC are listed as active “partners” of EcoHealth Alliance along with one NIH official on the group’s website.
Since September 2012, two years before Fauci’s NIH agency funded EcoHealth Alliance’s bat coronavirus research with the Wuhan lab, Dr. Rima Khabbaz, the Director of the CDC’s National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases has been listed as on the group’s official partners.
Since April 2015, Dr. Heinz Feldmann, a Senior Investigator at the NIH, has also been a partner of EcoHealth Alliance. Feldman’s NIH biography describes him as a “laboratory expert on high containment viruses (BSL-4)” – the same biosafety level of the Wuhan Institue of Virology facility working on bat coronaviruses. Capt. Jason Thomas, the Biosurveillance Coordinator at the CDC, along with Dr. Stuart Nichol, Chief of the Molecular Biology Section of the Special Pathogens Branch at the CDC, have also been listed as EcoHealth Alliance partners since April 2015.MUST READ: Here’s What Else Senator Rand Paul Should Have Grilled Fauci On.
All aforementioned federal officials are still listed as EcoHealth Alliance partners, classified as “Science and Policy Advisors,” at the time of publication. Among the group’s other advisors is the Deputy Director for Surveillance and Epidemiology at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and World Health Organization (WHO) officials.
NIH to host seminar on vaccine mandates on Dec. 1, official says
A top infectious disease doctor has raised alarm about COVID-19 vaccine mandates despite top federal officials recommending them for businesses, schools, and other institutions.
Dr. Matthew Memoli, who runs a clinical studies unit within the National Institutes of Health’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases—headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci—is scheduled to argue against COVID-19 vaccine mandates during a Dec. 1 seminar hosted by the agency, according to David Wendler, a senior NIH bioethicist who is planning the seminar.
“There’s a lot of debate within the NIH about whether [a vaccine mandate] is appropriate,” he told the Wall Street Journal. “It’s an important, hot topic.”
Memoli had told Fauci in a July 30 email that he believes “the way we are using the vaccines is wrong,” adding that mandated vaccines are “extraordinarily problematic,” according to the WSJ.
In comments to the paper, Memoli said that he supports COVID-19 vaccination in high-risk groups including obese people and the elderly. However, widespread vaccinations for people who have a low risk of death or severe illness from COVID-19 could hamper the U.S. population’s ability to develop more robust protection against the virus via previous infections, he said.
A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study released last month suggested that those who had a previous COVID-19 infection saw a five times higher chance of testing positive than those who were fully vaccinated and never had COVID-19.
Dr. Jeffrey Klausner, who previously conducted a study that suggested people with natural immunity are at low risk of reinfection, told The Epoch Times that the CDC’s research was observational and said that “randomized controlled clinical trials are the gold standard of medical evidence.”
Memoli also told the paper that he has sought an exemption from the federal vaccine mandate on religious grounds, saying he is willing to risk his job and medical license for the right not to receive a COVID-19 vaccine.
Regarding the discussion, Memoli said that “part of my career is to share my expert opinions, right or wrong … I mean, if they all end up saying I’m wrong, that’s fine. I want to have the discussion.”
The NIH seminar comes as a federal appeals court temporarily blocked President Joe Biden’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate targeting private businesses with 100 or more employees. About two-dozen states have filed lawsuits against the rule, arguing the federal government lacks the authority to implement it.
The NIH has not responded to a request for comment on the email. When contacted by The Epoch Times, an NIH official said Memoli would decline to comment.
The Epoch Times has also submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain Memoli’s email.
“How do you think these schoolchildren have felt for the last year?”
Speaking in Zephyrhills on Monday, Florida GOP Governor Ron DeSantis took aim at both Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers, the second-largest teachers labor union in America, as well as Dr. Anthony Fauci. He pointed out that Weingarten, who had favored keeping schools closed through much of the pandemic, had been found maskless recently, but protested she did so because it was too hard to communicate while wearing a mask. DeSantis fired, “Well, how do you think these schoolchildren have felt for the last year?”
Regarding Fauci, DeSantis asserted, “I do think just the lack of just leveling with the public, I think it’s been very detrimental … I think you’re gonna see people have really, really serious misgivings the next time St. Fauci comes down the pike and says something.”
Speaking of mask mandates for schoolchildren, DeSantis said, “I think the smiles matter, and particularly the young kids. You will actually have school districts that will say, ‘We are relieving mask mandate for high schoolers but we’re keeping them on those elementary.” First of all, I don’t think you should have a mask mandate, period, but the elementary are the ones that need to be able to see the interaction more than anything, cause they’re learning to speak and read and do all that stuff.”
“And it’s absolutely critical. And don’t tell me it doesn’t make a difference,” he continued. DeSantis referenced Weingarten, who had said, “We took them off as people were having a hard time hearing us,” snapping, “Heck, this head of the teachers union who tried to keep the schools closed all last year; she was found maskless, and she said, I took it off because it was too hard to understand each other wearing the mask.”
He fired, “Well, how do you think these schoolchildren have felt for the last year?”
There are so many more questions to put to Fauci. Here are a few.
Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) got another chance to grill the nation’s most highly paid bureaucrat, Anthony Fauci, today on Capitol Hill.
While the pair got locked up over the definition of gain-of-function, there were a number of other questions or points Paul could have put to Fauci, as follows.
During today’s exchange Senator Rand Paul said: “You continue to support NIH money going to Wuhan.” Fauci falsely quoted him back as saying: “You said we continue to support research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”
While it’s a distinction with a slight difference because of third-party groups, organizations, and affiliates – like EcoHealth Alliance for example – who have historically openly worked with the Wuhan lab and Chinese Communist Party authorities in the region, Senator Paul could have been more precise because Fauci is oleaginous.
He’s slippery, and today he came extra-prepared with his circumlocution.
Senator Paul should’ve asked Fauci why 21 American scientists who have received taxpayer funds from 637 grants by Anthony Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) have also served as visiting lecturers and researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
He should’ve asked why despite Fauci’s claims that the grant process was tightly run, his disgraced boss Francis Collins admitted “we had no control over what else they were doing with those funds.”
He should’ve asked why a number of National Institutes of Health agencies – including Fauci’s own NIAID – have funded over 250 studies authored by researchers at institutions controlled by China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA).
He should’ve asked why there have been at least 13 grants sent to the Chinese Communist Party since the outbreak of the pandemic and to Senator Paul’s own point, Southern Medical University – which is controlled by the regime’s People’s Liberation Army and has close ties to the Wuhan Institute of Virology – received two additional grants worth nearly $300,000 from Fauci.
He should’ve asked why a recent NIH investigation concluded with 54 researchers being “terminated or resigning” for violating rules against simultaneously receiving funds from the U.S. government and foreign entities.
He should’ve asked why a lab he funded – specifically the Galveston National Laboratory – was training researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s biosafety level four facility to work with the “world’s most dangerous pathogens.”
He should’ve asked him why as recently as September of this year the NIH was funding an EcoHealth report entitled “A Strategy to Assess Spillover Risk of Bat SARS-Related Coronaviruses in Southeast Asia”.
He should’ve asked him if the NIH or NIAID have had any involvement in “Bat Lady” Shi Zhengli’s isolation of a coronavirus strain that could cause “direct human infection,” and if he said, “No,” then what about the historical grants that have created a wealth of knowledge and research that undergirds the Wuhan lab’s contemporaneous research.
He should’ve asked why U.S. researchers – including those advising the federal government on COVID-19 vaccination policy and those funded by the National Institutes of Health – attended a Chinese Communist Party virology conference featuring scientists from China’s military and the Wuhan Institute of Virology –– State Key Laboratory of Virology at Wuhan University. The event was even sponsored by Virologica Sinica, the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s house journal. Guess who edits it? Oh yeh, Shi Zhengli.
He should’ve asked why in February 2020 as the pandemic was beginning, Fauci was funding EcoHealth and Wuhan Institute of Virology researchers writing papers demanding more U.S. collaboration with China on pandemics.
And he should’ve asked why a coronavirus study funded by the NIAID – which names Wuhan Institute of Virology scientists as authors – was carried out in collaboration with an “arm” of the Chinese Communist Party’s military specifically relying on China’s Southern Medical University to provide human blood for their experiments.
And, finally, he should have asked why Fauci felt comfortable shipping taxpayer dollars to a lab that pledges to implement the Chinese Communist Party’s global agenda “without compromise” and holds routine party devotion sessions with researchers to ensure it.
Last week, EcoHealth Alliance’s Peter Daszak responded to a demand from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for “any and all unpublished data” from its experiments at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Daszak’s letter not only failed to provide NIH with the required information, it also revealed that crucial virus data from EcoHealth’s experiments with the Wuhan Institute (WIV) are actively being censored by Chinese Communist Party authorities.
Additionally, Daszak revealed that EcoHealth and the lab continued to jointly conduct gain-of-function experiments into April 2020 and EcoHealth’s experiments may have continued beyond that point. The letter also disclosed the existence of additional EcoHealth progress reports on its activities in Wuhan that covered the critical periods directly before and immediately after the start of the pandemic. Those reports haven’t been made public.
Dr. Francis Collins, the head of the National Institutes of Health, is seen in Bethesda, Md., on Jan. 26, 2021. (Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images)
These latest revelations followed an Oct. 20 letter to Congress written by NIH Principal Deputy Director Lawrence Tabak. In that letter, the NIH finally conceded that it had funded gain-of-function experiments that were conducted by EcoHealth and the WIV.
In conjunction with this admission, the NIH sent a separate letter addressed to EcoHealth, which gave the organization five days to submit to NIH “any and all unpublished data” from its experiments at the Wuhan lab.
Daszak responded in a five-page letter sent to NIH’s Deputy Director for Extramural Research, Michael Lauer. Instead of directly replying to NIH’s demand letter about EcoHealth’s missing data, Daszak framed his response as a direct retort to Tabak’s letter to Congress.
Daszak’s letter, reading more like a legal response than a compliance response, took issue with a number of items in Tabak’s letter and noted that “these types of mistakes about the timing or nature of our reporting can be better addressed by contacting us to request clarification prior to responding to any congressional inquiry.”
EcoHealth Cites ‘System Lockout’ for Submission Failure
NIH had demanded EcoHealth’s outstanding data after it became publicly known that the organization failed to submit a required fifth-year progress report on experiments it was doing at the Wuhan Institute in 2018 and 2019. EcoHealth’s failure to submit this report was only recently discovered, after The Intercept sued the NIH for documents relating to EcoHealth.
Daszak said that EcoHealth had actually first uploaded the fifth-year report in July 2019—before the Sept. 30, 2019, deadline—but claimed that when they tried to “officially submit” the uploaded report, the system “locked” EcoHealth out “at that point.”
The P4 laboratory at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China, on April 17, 2020. (Hector Retamal/AFP via Getty Images)
Daszak also claimed that EcoHealth made one request for “further information” about the submission failure from an NIH grant-management specialist, but didn’t receive a response. Daszak then blamed the NIH for EcoHealth’s submission failure by noting that NIH never sent a request for the fifth-year report despite being in “frequent communication” with NIH staff during that period.
Daszak’s letter fails to explain why other EcoHealth NIH-funded projects apparently didn’t run into similar lockouts.
Daszak said he heard nothing on the matter until July 23, when EcoHealth received the first demand letter from NIH—sent as a result of the Intercept lawsuit—requesting the missing fifth-year report. Daszak claimed that EcoHealth complied immediately but still had difficulty in circumventing the NIH “system lockout.”
Daszak also claimed that the NIH renewed EcoHealth’s grant in July 2019, and Daszak cited this new grant award from NIH as providing justification for his failure to submit the fifth-year report.
“Because the new award had been made and the work was permitted to commence, we had no indication there was anything missing.”
Daszak stated that he “assumed that the Year 1 report for the renewal grant would provide all of the relevant information” to NIH.
EcoHealth Gain-of-Function Work With Wuhan Lab Appears to Have Continued Into at Least 2020
Daszak’s disclosure of the existence of a new and previously unknown “Year 1” report for the period from mid-2019 to 2020 in the NIH renewal grant reveals that Daszak’s virus work with the Wuhan lab went well beyond the timeframe covered by the missing fifth-year report. Exactly how long EcoHealth’s work continued, and exactly what that work entailed, isn’t yet known.
However, it appears that EcoHealth’s virus experiments with the Wuhan Institute continued throughout 2019 and into 2020. It’s been reported that President Donald Trump had forced NIH to terminate EcoHealth’s funding of work at the WIV in April 2020.
WHO team member Peter Daszak leaves his hotel after the World Health Organization team wrapped up its investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 coronavirus in Wuhan in China’s Hubei province on Feb. 10, 2021. (Hector Retamal/AFP via Getty Images)
Daszak’s letter acknowledged that “even though the grant was terminated and then suspended, and funding is not available to us to work on this, we have continued to comply with NIH reporting requests, and submitted reporting for Years 6 and 7 of this grant.”
“Years 6 and 7” equate to the first two years of the 2019 to 2024 renewal grant that was issued in July 2019. These reports haven’t been made public, nor is it known what types of experiments, if any, were conducted during this period.
EcoHealth Attempts to Obfuscate Virus Growth
Under the original NIH grant, EcoHealth was obligated to immediately stop any experiments that showed evidence of enhanced virus growth greater than 10 times compared to the original virus.
However, EcoHealth didn’t immediately report, nor stop an experiment at the Institute that created novel coronaviruses with 10,000 times higher viral load—orders of magnitude greater than the limit that should have triggered the NIH obligation.
This experiment was belatedly reported after the fact as part of the fourth-year progress report submitted by EcoHealth in 2018. To make matters worse, related experiments continued into year 5–the period for which EcoHealth had originally failed to submit a progress report.
Daszak appears to have circumvented the NIH reporting requirements by claiming that the viral load data was based on “genome copies per gram not viral titer.” But the NIH never specified using “viral titer measuring”—a process that Daszak didn’t even undertake.
Rather, the NIH’s directive on cessation of experiments only cited “viral growth,” which Daszak’s experiments demonstrated beyond question.
Workers are seen next to a cage with mice inside the P4 laboratory in Wuhan, Hubei province, China, on Feb. 23, 2017. (Johannes Eisele/AFP via Getty Images)
Rutgers University biologist Richard Ebright wrote on Twitter that the attempt to invoke viral titer measuring by Daszak is a “distinction without a difference.” The viral load grew to over 10,000 when it should have remained under 10. By any measure, the laboratory-created virus was far more pathogenic than the reporting trigger requirements set forth in the NIH grant.
Daszak appears to have attempted to bolster his weak excuse, claiming that given the small number of humanized mice used to conduct the experiment, it was “uncertain whether the survival and weight loss data were statistically relevant.” In other words, Daszak was essentially arguing that the out-of-bounds results of EcoHealth’s experiments should be ignored because EcoHealth’s work had been sloppy.
Ebright responded to Daszak’s excuse by tweeting that “EcoHealth has reached a point of such desperation that it now points to the slipshod character of its research, and the limited predictive value of its research, as defense.”
EcoHealth Admits to CCP Censorship, Control of Data
In the last section of his letter, Daszak admitted that EcoHealth has still failed to provide the data demanded by NIH.
Daszak blamed President Trump for terminating EcoHealth’s grant in April 2020, claiming that the lack of funding and the instructions to cease work with the Wuhan lab had led to “significant disruption of the normal interactions and dialogue among collaborating scientists.”
The reference to the disruption of dialogue between scientists serves as a not-so-subtle reminder that access to much of the EcoHealth data is dependent on Chinese consent.
Daszak made that point abundantly clear when he told the NIH that he was unable to share genetic sequence data obtained through NIH-funded experiments precisely because that data was going through an approval process by Chinese Communist Party (CCP) authorities.
NIAID Director Dr. Anthony Fauci listens during a Senate Appropriations Labor, Health and Human Services Subcommittee hearing looking into the budget estimates for the National Institute of Health and state of medical research in Washington, on May 26, 2021. (Sarah Silbiger/Pool/Getty Images)
In other words, U.S. taxpayers gave Daszak millions of dollars, funded through Fauci’s organization—the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases—to conduct advanced gain-of-function experiments, only for the results of those experiments to be withheld and censored by the CCP.
This absurd arrangement with the CCP is inherently a breach of the terms and conditions of Daszak’s NIH grant, which specifically demanded that all genetic sequence data be made publicly available. CCP oversight and control isn’t part of that agreement.
That the genetic sequence data remains under the control of the CCP also completely invalidates both Daszak’s and NIH’s emphatic claims that EcoHealth’s Wuhan experiments couldn’t have caused the pandemic.
In reality, it’s simply not knowable what viruses were studied—because Daszak hasn’t released all his data and because some significant portion of that data remains subject to CCP censorship.
While it appears as though EcoHealth and NIH are now engaged in a potentially escalating war of words, their interests remain fundamentally aligned. EcoHealth and NIH share the same underlying goal–to convince the world that they weren’t involved in the creation of COVID-19.
Republican Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa wants to make sure that never again will the American people hear a tangled tale of American dollars funding research in China while officials dance around the truth.
Ernst is introducing the FAUCI Act — or the Fairness and Accountability in Underwriting Chinese Institutions Act — according to a statement on her website.
The act would ban the federal government from misusing taxpayers’ dollars to fund what’s known as gain-of-function research in China. This research takes place when a laboratory experiment transforms a naturally occurring virus into a more powerful disease.
Research conducted by American taxpayers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology that was funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has taken on new importance amid the coronavirus pandemic.
The NIH has funded what some experts say amounted to gain-of-function research in China, which undercuts assertions from Dr. Anthony Fauci and others that the federally funded agency did no such thing, according to one expert.
Fauci heads the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which is part of the NIH.
“For years, American tax dollars were funneled into Communist China, funding dangerous experiments on coronaviruses at the Wuhan Lab, while the head of the division funding those activities, Dr. Fauci, failed to tell the truth to Congress,” Ernst said.
“We need a full accounting of how and where our tax dollars are being spent—enough is enough. The FAUCI Act will put an end to U.S. funding of gain-of-function research in Communist China, go after government officials who intentionally mislead Congress, and bring about badly needed transparency and accountability.”
The act would require “a full accounting” of how NIH funding is spent and ban gain-of-function research.
Should everyone who has supported this research be fired?
In light of multiple allegations that Fauci has misled Congress, Ernst’s bill would punish any employee, official, or grantee of NIH who intentionally misleads Congress, or the Inspector General, by banning them from any federal funding or federal jobs.
The proposal drew praise from Justin Goodman, vice president of the government watchdog White Coat Waste Project.
“Shipping U.S. tax dollars to a notorious Chinese Communist Party-run bioagent lab in Wuhan for treacherous gain-of-function animal experiments was a recipe for disaster. We applaud Senator Ernst for introducing the FAUCI Act to protect taxpayers and public health from dangerous and wasteful spending in China and to hold NIH officials and grantees accountable for not being forthright with Congress,” Goodman said in Ernst’s statement.
Ernst has tried to rein in spending that supports dangerous research before. In June she proposed a law that would cut funding to groups such as EcoHealth Alliance, a grantee of NIH that conducted what appears to be gain-of-function research in China and dragged its feet admitting what it had done and how it spent federal grants.
“Despite skirting federal law and refusing to disclose how much U.S. taxpayer money was funneled to Communist China’s Wuhan Institute and the details about the coronavirus research the funding supported, EcoHealth Alliance was rewarded with another $7.5 million,” Ernst said then.
“Iowa taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to foot the bill for any organization that fails to comply with federal law. My bill would prevent federal funding from going to organizations, like EcoHealth, until they provide answers on how and where taxpayer dollars are being spent.”
One expert has denounced claims that no gain-of-function research was ever funded.
“Collins and Fauci lied to Congress, lied to the press, and lied to the public,” said Richard Ebright, a professor of chemical biology at Rutgers University, according to the Washington Examiner, referring to NIH Director Francis Collins. “Knowingly, willfully and brazenly.”
NIH Principal Deputy Director Lawrence Tabak last week admitted that the agency funded gain-of-function experiments on bat coronaviruses in China after over a year of denials from the agency’s leadership.
Tabak said its grantee, EcoHealth Alliance, first notified the NIH in August that it conducted the gain-of-function experiments with the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China between June 2018 and May 2019.
Tabak said EcoHealth failed to immediately notify the agency that it created coronaviruses that were 10 times more powerful.
Ernst also has called for an end to any U.S. funding of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the lab some fear might have been the origin of the coronavirus.
Nearly 1000 U.S. funded grants from Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins have landed in the laps of collaborators of the Chinese Communist Party’s Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Over 20 American scientists who have received taxpayer funds from 637 grants by Anthony Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases have also served as visiting lecturers and researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, The National Pulse can exclusively reveal.
The unearthed affiliation between the nearly two-dozen Fauci-funded researchers at the controversial lab – believed to be at the heart of COVID-19’s origins – follows the National Institutes of Health (NIH) admitting that Fauci’s agency funded “gain-of-function” research at the institute in partnership with the American non-profit group EcoHealth Alliance.
In addition to EcoHealth Alliance researchers such as Peter Daszak working with the lab on “killer” viruses, several American professors and researchers who’ve received grants worth millions from Fauci have also collaborated with the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Unearthed annual reports from 2011, 2012, and 2013 reveal a section titled “Visiting Scientists and Scientific Lectures,” which lists the names of various non-Chinese researchers who’ve taught at or worked with the Chinese Communist Party-run lab. The Wuhan Institute of Virology’s Chinese language website also reveals the identities of several researchers from additional years.
Among the 21 researchers is Stuart Le Grice, who works at the NIH’S National Cancer Institute (NCI) and has received 16 grants from Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), who lectured on “Extending Small Molecule Therapeutics to Cellular and Viral RNAs” in 2018. “At the meeting, Professor Stuart Le Grice first briefly introduced the important impact and application prospects of small molecule drugs that bind to cell or viral RNA in the development of new therapeutic strategies,” explains the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s summary.
Another Wuhan Institute of Virology Visiting Lecturer, Professor Anne Simon, addressed the lab on the “Non-Template Functions of an RNA Virus Genome,” according to an unearthed annual report from 2012. Several visiting scientists have also taught the lab about vaccine development: Tian Wang, who has received 25 NIAID grants, lectured on “Flavivirus: Disease Mechanism and Vaccine Development” and Michael McVoy, who has received 26 NIAID grants, lectured on “Cell Culture Models of Cytomegalovirus Infection: Pitfalls and Epiphanies for Vaccine Development.”
In some cases, Chinese Communist Party officials were in attendance at the Fauci-funded researchers’ lectures, as revealed on the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s website.
Galveston National Laboratory Director James Leduc, who “discussed the prevention and control of new infectious diseases” and “research and cooperation in the field of biosafety management” at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in 2014, had a “cordial talk” with the lab’s Chinese Communist Party Committee Secretary:
Researcher Yuan Zhiming, Dean of the Wuhan Branch of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Secretary of the Party Committee and Deputy Director of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, on behalf of the leaders of the Institute welcomed Professor James Leduc’s visit and had a cordial talk with him.
“Through this exchange, the two parties hope to jointly build a good contract platform, establish an efficient cooperation mechanism, further strengthen communication and exchanges, integrate resources, expand channels, and carry out extensive development in the field of new infectious disease prevention and biosafety management and training. Cooperation and exchanges will make positive contributions to the global fight against emerging infectious diseases,” notes the lab.
In addition to Fauci-funded researchers affiliating with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, six additional researchers counting funding from separate National Institutes of Health (NIH) agencies have also taught at the lab.
Former National Cancer Institute Senior Investigator DimiterDimitrov and current NIH Senior Investigator Zheng Zhiming are among the NIH scientists who’ve shared their taxpayer-funded expertise with the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
NIH RESEARCHER ZHENG ZHIMING AT WUHAN LAB IN 2016.2012 ANNUAL REPORT.2013 ANNUAL REPORT.2011 ANNUAL REPORT.
Did you know that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) spends public money to warn of attacks by hordes of zombies? Really. The program is designed to make some demographic groups more receptive to CDC propaganda—or rather, “messaging.”
But spending our tax dollars on zombie posters, a zombie novel, and zombie history are among the lesser problems at the CDC and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Both of these federal agencies are overgrown, unnecessary, arrogant, infused with leftist politics, and unconstitutional. And both should be abolished.
Recent Revelations: Fauci and Walensky
This past week, Americans were stunned to learn that a long-standing charge was actually true: The NIH funded coronavirus “gain of function” research at the Wuhan lab in communist China. This revelation directly contradicted repeated reassurances by NIH official Anthony Fauci that such funding didn’t happen.
Apart from the issue of misinforming the public (although that’s serious enough), why would a federal agency spend nearly $600,000 in taxpayer money to make a virus more dangerous? Why would it fund anything in communist China—except, perhaps, resistance to that country’s tyrannical government?
Earlier this year, CDC Director Rochelle Paula Walensky issued a decree rewriting every residential landlord-tenant lease in the country. This was outside her statutory authority and in defiance of both the Constitution and the Supreme Court (pdf).
Legal issues aside, consider the sheer hubris: There’s nothing in Walensky’s background to suggest she has any expertise on landlord-tenant law or management. What made her think she knows anything about the subject? What drove her to impose her will on millions of other people?
Fortunately, the Supreme Court promptly voided her order (pdf).
The Constitutional Issue
Every federal elected office holder promises to defend the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Outside of the capital district and the federal territories, that Constitution assigns no powers to the central government over civilian health care. Further, the Constitution limits the permissible size of the capital district to 10 miles square, so as to prevent federal institutions from metastasizing into state territory and unduly influencing state policy.
The great Chief Justice John Marshall—an advocate of a strong federal government—summarized the Constitution’s position on health care in his famous decision in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824): Reserved exclusively for the states, he wrote, are “health laws of every description”.
Nevertheless, enabled by rogue Supreme Court rulings issued in panic circumstances during the Great Depression, Congress continues to fund both the CDC and the NIH.
Bureaucracy Run Wild
Over the years, these two agencies have grown into massive bureaucracies. The CDC has nearly 11,000 employees and recently enjoyed a budget of $11.1 billion. That budget is now almost certainly higher. Rather than being located in the capital district, the CDC occupies a campus in Atlanta, Georgia. Except for a museum on the grounds, that campus is closed to the public.
The NIH is not located in the capital district, either. It occupies a lavish main campus in Bethesda, Maryland. The campus is a federal enclave, which means that although it’s within a state, it’s under direct federal control. It’s large enough to house several fitness centers and its own fire department. According to its official directory, the NIH contains 27 separate institutes and centers and a National Library of Medicine. It has 20,000 employees, and in 2020 enjoyed a budget of $42 billion.
The publicity and—for lack of a better word—conceit surrounding these two entities might make you think they’re the only health agencies in the country. Wikipedia, for example, describes the CDC as “the national public health agency of the United States.” This makes it sound as if the United States didn’t have 50 state public health departments and thousands of local public health departments.
Similarly, the NIH Clinical Center identifies itself as “America’s research hospital”—as if America didn’t contain hundreds of other research hospitals funded by state and local governments and by private philanthropy. In addition, the United States has 4,000 degree-granting institutions of higher learning, many of which are involved in health care research, and the pharmaceutical companies also operate a huge health care research sector.
Constitutional issues aside, therefore, an objective observer must ask why, at a time when the federal government is essentially bankrupt, are the feds duplicating state, local, and private efforts? After all, with modern telecommunications, research can be coordinated among different entities nationwide. Moreover, to the extent the CDC and NIH are not duplicating other efforts, why is Congress allowing federal agencies to crowd out programs that might otherwise flourish?
Politicization: Critical Race Theory and Other Leftist Notions
But duplication and waste are not the biggest dangers posed by federal involvement in health care. The biggest danger is politicization. When politics infiltrate science, science becomes corrupted and its application inefficient. Corrupted and inefficient medical science can lead to the death of millions who might have been saved and prolong the misery of millions who might have been cured.
One long-standing example of politicization is the CDC’s efforts to become involved in the issue of gun violence. Traditionally, this is an issue for law enforcement and criminologists rather than for public health agencies. The CDC’s intrusion into the area is a classic example of “mission creep.”
The reason for this mission creep is politics. The CDC started meddling with the “gun violence” issue during the administration of President Bill Clinton. A major agenda item for Clinton was more regulation of owners and users of firearms. The CDC apparently was to supply the supposedly neutral “science” to promote that agenda. Congress had to enact legislation to stop it.
Now Joe Biden is president and he also wants draconian control of firearms. So CDC Director Walensky has announced that she wants to renew CDC gun-violence research.
Another example of politicized mission creep is how the NIH and the CDC have become invested in the left’s poisonous racial politics—including “structural racism” (translation: “You’re a racist even if you’re not”) and the misnamed critical race “theory.”
Like gun control, race relations are outside the traditional scope of public health agencies. Walensky, however, claims that “racism is a serious threat to the public’s health.” So the CDC now spends your tax dollars on both a “Health Equity Matters newsletter” and an “Office of Minority Health and Health Equity (OMHHE).”
The latter office recently named a certain Chandra Ford as “the Health Equity Champion for Spring 2021.” The reason was that Ford and another person “originated … the Public Health Critical Race Praxis, which is a framework for applying Critical Race Theory empirically.”
Just as the CDC is on the lookout for zombies, the NIH is deeply into racial witch hunting. The agency has assigned nearly 100 highly paid witch-hunters to its UNITE program with the assignment of exorcizing “structural racism.” The NIH website virtue-signals by affirming that “ending structural racism in biomedical research starts now.”
The CDC and NIH are also attuned to the wider “woke” cause. The CDC’s celebration of Ford, for example, was a “two-fer” because she also works on LGBTQ issues. The NIH (like the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services generally), grants federal funding—that’s our money—to writers committed to the leftist agenda. Recent “funding opportunities” include “New investigators to promote workforce diversity in genomics, bioinformatics, or bioengineering and biomedical imaging research” and “Understanding and addressing the impact of structural racism and discrimination on minority health and health disparities.”
All of these are easily accessible examples of CDC and NIH politicization. My long experience in government taught me that for every easily accessible example, there are many hidden ones. Only whistleblowers can reveal the full extent of the rot within.
A Message to Republicans: Abolish Both Agencies
How can we clean up this mess?
It’s not by writing a letter to the president. It’s by insisting that the next time Republicans control Congress they permanently defund the CDC and NIH, thereby eradicating them root and branch.
Radical? Yes. Necessary? Absolutely. History tells us why:
Conservatives and “progressives” have one thing in common: Conservatives use their own money to fund their political activities, and “progressives” use the same source—conservatives’ money—to fund theirs. Without constant forced subsidies from hardworking taxpayers (overwhelmingly conservative and moderate), the far left would be an insignificant force in this country.
When Democrats obtain majorities in Congress and the state legislatures, they use public money to create and fund social programs that become (1) mechanisms for social control and (2) bases for leftist political activity. When Republicans regain legislative control, they may trim the programs and reform them. But those changes don’t last long, because when Democrats recover their majority, they expand funding, lift restrictions, and render the programs even larger and more powerful than they were before.
If the Republican Party wants to continue as a viable force, it must fully defund these programs and the agencies that administer them. This will eliminate their lobbying power and make it harder for subsequent Democratic majorities to re-create them.
Permanent defunding is, I recognize, a difficult task. Once accomplished, however, the agency and its lobbyists have vanished, its abuses are over, and a reliable Democrat base has vanished. This is because for all their talk about “public service,” once the money has dried up, bureaucrats don’t hang around. As the late California state senator and humorist H.L. (“Bill”) Richardson often remarked, “I never knew a bureaucrat who worked for nothing.”
What will happen to the CDC and NIH staff once the funding has stopped? Some will retire on their government pensions. Some will get jobs in state and local health agencies, where their potential to inflict damage is more limited and they may actually do some good.
But most will switch to the private sector where they no longer have incentives to be nuisances, and will become productive and useful members of society.
Robert G. Natelson, a former constitutional law professor and historian, is senior fellow in constitutional jurisprudence at Colorado’s Independence Institute. He is the author of “The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant” (3rd ed., 2015). He comes from a medical family and, unlike CDC director Walensky, has an extensive background in landlord tenant issues.
South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem on Wednesday signed an executive order she says will “protect” state employees against President Joe Biden’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate by allowing them to easily obtain medical and religious exemptions.
“South Dakota is fighting back against the heavy hand of @JoeBiden & his Administration,” the Republican governor announced on Twitter. “Today I signed an Executive Order to protect state employees, & those w/ federal contracts who are being forced to get vaccinated against their wishes. The order protects medical & religious exemptions for these workers.”
“Additionally, I am working w/ legislators on addressing other areas. I have always said the decision to get vaccinated should be a personal choice-not a mandate from Joe Biden, Fauci or your boss,” she added.You May Also Like
Noem said the move was necessary to ensure that employees aren’t forced to get COVID-19 vaccinations under Biden’s initiative, which covers not only people directly paid by federal contracts but also anyone who works to support them.
State lawmakers have said South Dakotans are being denied medical and religious exemptions from feds and have called for a special session to stop it.
Noem spokesman Jordan Overturf said Noem’s exemptions are “explicit and offer a clear path” for state workers to opt-out of the shots.
In a press release from Noem’s office, the governor said that employees who wish to receive a medical exemption from the vaccine mandate need a note from a doctor stating that the COVID-19 vaccination is too risky for health reasons.
Workers who wish to be exempted for religious reasons must fill out a form from the Bureau of Human Resources that states that they “dissent and object to receiving a COVID-19 vaccine on religious grounds, which includes moral, ethical, and philosophical beliefs or principles.”
“Due to established precedent, this Executive Order does not apply to service members with the South Dakota National Guard who must meet federal readiness responsibilities for deployment,” the release adds.
It also states that Noem will work during next year’s legislative session with South Dakota lawmakers to make these “protections” for state employees permanent, and “to extend similar health and religious liberty protections” to employees of private businesses who adopted mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policies.
The governor earlier criticized proposals by Republican lawmakers to ban vaccine mandates as “not conservative” because they’re telling businesses what to do and how to treat their employees. This order, spokesman Overturf said, is about upholding rights already included in the Constitution.
“She has repeatedly said private businesses should offer medical and religious exemptions for COVID vaccine mandates,” Overturf said.
Noem earlier said on Twitter that the state will “l stand up to defend freedom,” referring to the president’s vaccine mandates.
“@JoeBiden see you in court,” she wrote in September, later adding that her legal team is prepared to stand up to the Biden administration’s mandates.
The Epoch Times has contacted the White House for comment.
Fauci misled the country about mask-wearing during the pandemic by claiming they were of little use. But he argued that he lied so the public would not make a run on masks, deplete the supply, and thus rob medical professionals of protective equipment.
Fauci also told “noble” lies about the likely percentage of the public needing to be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity. He kept raising the bar—from 60 percent to 70 percent to 75 percent to 80 percent, to 85 percent.
Apparently, Fauci feared a lower figure, even if accurate, might lull people into complacency about getting inoculated.
Fauci also lied about his own role in routing U.S. aid money to subsidize gain-of-function viral research at the Wuhan virology lab—the likely birthplace of COVID-19.
Either Fauci was hiding his own culpability, or he believed the American people might not be able to fully accept that some of their own health officials were promoting the sort of research that was partially responsible for more than 700,000 American deaths.
Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas has serially lied about the number of undocumented immigrants who have crossed into the United States. He falsely claimed mounted agents were whipping migrants. He fibbed about the purported lack of federal data of apprehensions, detentions, and deportations. His assertion that the border is secure was a joke.
Apparently, Mayorkas believes the public would go ballistic or his own administration would be roundly despised, if he told the bitter truth about the border: by intent, the Biden administration has apparently deliberately left it wide open.
And it will likely allow 2 million undocumented immigrants into the country in the current fiscal year.
Lots of other unelected federal officials lied over the past five years by claiming or implying that harming the Trump administration was in the public interest.
Former FBI directors Andrew McCabe and James Comey likely misled the nation. McCabe admittedly lied that he did not leak FBI information to the media.
James Comey lied under oath on multiple occasions in congressional cross-examinations and claimed he did not know or could not remember basic facts about his own role in promoting the Russian collusion hoax.
Apparently, Comey and McCabe believed that by being less than truthful, they might better emasculate Donald Trump. And that result would be beneficial to America.
Our former intelligence leaders may have been the most brazen liars. Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper lied to Congress about the NSA surveillance program, though he denied it.
When caught in the untruth, Clapper reverted to the noble lie that he gave the least untruthful answer, apparently on the pretense that he did not wish to damage the reputation of an important intelligence agency.
Ditto John Brennan, the former head of the CIA. On two occasions he lied under oath about the agency’s monitoring of Senate staffers’ computers and the deaths of civilians caused by U.S. drone assassination missions along the Afghanistan border.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley lied for days about the details of an accidental drone strike that killed innocent women and children in Afghanistan.
Either Milley is now lying when he says he warned Joe Biden about the disasters to come in Afghanistan or Biden is lying when he denies hearing any such advice.
Many of the details of Milley’s conversations with authors Bob Woodward and Robert Costa as reported in their recent muckraking book were abjectly denied by Milley.
The list of such lies could be vastly expanded.
IRS functionary Lois Lerner never told the whole untruth about weaponizing the IRS.
Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch spun an implausible yarn that she accidentally bumped into Bill Clinton on a tarmac in Phoenix and never discussed the then-current FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton.
Special counsel Robert Mueller told a whopper under oath, claiming to know almost nothing about the Steele dossier and the misadventures of Fusion GPS. Both were the two catalysts that prompted his entire investigation of “collusion” in the first place.
In some of these cases, when caught and exposed, the liars will hedge by claiming temporary amnesia.
But sometimes they admit they lied but suggest they did so for higher purposes like national security.
In truth, in most cases there was nothing noble at all in their lying. They simply spread untruths to protect their own endangered careers by masking their own wrongdoing or fobbing it onto others.
In other words, “noble lies” are rarely spun for anyone’s interests other than those of the liars themselves.
Dr. Francis Collins appeared to acknowledge this week that the U.S. agency he heads funded gain-of-function experiments in Wuhan, China, which runs counter to claims he and a subordinate made earlier this year.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH), the agency Collins directs, revealed last week that money it gave to EcoHealth Alliance supported risky experiments at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China that some experts said met the definition of gain-of-function.
The term gain-of-function generally refers to research that increases a biological agent’s pathogenicity or transmissibility. Until last week, the NIH defined it as research that modifies an agent “so that it confers new or enhanced activity to that agent.”
Both Collins and Dr. Anthony Fauci, who heads the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), claimed earlier this year that the NIH didn’t fund gain-of-function research in China.
“Neither NIH nor NIAID have ever approved any grant that would have supported ‘gain-of-function’ research on coronaviruses,” Collins said in May, though he stipulated that he was only referring to gain-of-function experiments that would have increased the viruses’ “transmissibility or lethality for humans.”
Fauci didn’t include that stipulation when testifying to Congress that month.
“The NIH and NIAID categorically has not funded gain-of-function research to be conducted in the Wuhan Institute of Virology,” he said on May 11.
Collins was pressed on the statements during an appearance on CNN this week.
EcoHealth “did some things they should have told us about, but they did not do the kind of gain-of-function research that requires special, high-level oversight,” he said.
NIH was asked if it wanted to clarify his remarks, which appear to undercut Fauci’s previous comments.
Renate Myles, a spokeswoman for Collins, told The Epoch Times in an email that gain-of-function research “is done all the time.”
“For example, cancer immunotherapy, where a cancer patient is provided new cells that have been genetically or pharmacologically enhanced to ‘gain’ the function needed to attack the cancer. Most ‘gain of function’ research studies do not raise significant biosafety and biosecurity risks. So saying something is ‘gain of function’ alone doesn’t really mean anything,” Myles wrote.
Like Collins, Myles focused on the Department of Health and Human Services framework that defines research requiring special oversight. That research must be “reasonably anticipated to create, transfer or use potential pandemic pathogens resulting from the enhancement of a pathogen’s transmissibility and/or virulence in humans.”
Jonathan Latham, executive director of The Bioscience Research Project, said the NIH is obfuscating the issue.
“When people discuss gain-of-function research they are never talking about cancer. They are talking about actual or potential human pathogens,” Latham wrote in an email.
The P4 laboratory building at the Wuhan Institute of Virology is shown in Wuhan, China, on May 13, 2020. (Hector Retamal/AFP via Getty Images)
“Francis Collins is obfuscating too, but in a different way. In Wuhan, research funded by NIH studied live MERS virus, an actual human pandemic pathogen, and live SARS-like coronaviruses from bats. These SARS coronaviruses were ones that the researchers believed to be potential pandemic pathogens. If Francis Collins thinks that such research does not require special oversight I do not know what research he thinks does require special oversight,” he wrote.
“In all, it seems that NIH is calculatedly deploying two working definitions of gain-of-function research that it is switching at will. One is so broad as to be meaningless and the other is so narrow as to encompass little or no actual research.”
Lawrence Tabak, the principal deputy director at the NIH, told lawmakers last week that the agency determined the research in question didn’t require enhanced oversight. He also claimed the viruses studied in China couldn’t have been the source of the COVID-19 pandemic, even though information on most of the viruses sampled in Wuhan in recent years hasn’t been shared with the public.
“It is molecularly impossible to derive SARS-CoV-2 from any of the strains described in the EcoHealth documents available to the public so far. But the question is what other work was being done,” Alina Chan, a postdoctoral researcher at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, wrote on Twitter.
The NIH produced the documents after receiving inquiries from lawmakers on multiple panels, including Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.), the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.
“In my assessment, Dr. Collins appears to be invoking the letter of the law on gain of function but clearly evading the spirit of the law. That’s why it is so important to determine exactly what NIH was supporting in Wuhan,” Griffith told The Epoch Times via email. “I have asked for lots of information from NIH, but the agency has not provided most of it. Dr. Collins’ comments show why we need more details—to make sure the letter of the law does not allow the spirit of the law to be violated.”
“We now know for certain that Dr. Fauci and Dr. Collins have been misleading the American people for months,” Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), the top Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said in a recent statement. “The documents released show that NIH was in fact funding gain-of-function research in China through EcoHealth Alliance. It is also clear there are significant failures at the NIH to properly oversee grant funding.”
EcoHealth officials didn’t immediately respond to requests from The Epoch Times for comment.
Shi Zhengli – the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s premier bat coronavirus researcher – celebrated her isolation of a coronavirus strain that could cause “direct human infection” in an annual lab report unearthed by The National Pulse.
The admission follows mounting evidence that COVID-19 traces its origins to the Wuhan-based lab and can be linked to risky “gain-of-function” research funded by Anthony Fauci. A “longtime collaborator” of several Fauci-funded researchers, Shi, also known as “Bat Lady,” has listed grants from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Director on her resume.
Shi’s biography and research accomplishments, which appear in the lab’s 2013 annual report exclusively unearthed by The National Pulse, augment her ties to the scientific research carried out at the Wuhan Institute of Virology that likely led to COVID-19.
The subheading “Research Interests” included in Shi’s profile outlines the focus of her work in her capacity as the Director of the lab’s Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases. “This group focuses on emerging viral pathogens and their infection mechanisms,” the synopsis begins before providing examples of her work on the “interspecies infection mechanism of zoonotic virus” such as SARS-like coronaviruses:
Viral isolation and characterization, diagnostic method development and genomic studies; molecular epidemiology and interspecies infection mechanism of zoonotic virus (SARS-like CoV, Nipah virus, Hantavirus, etc); viral metagenomics in particular niche samples (animals and environments)
SHI’S PROFILE.
Focusing solely on her work accomplished in 2013, Shi boasts that “we successfully isolated a bat SARS-like coronavirus” before adding that the isolated strain could result in “direct human infection”:
“It was proved that WIV-1 was able to utilize ACE-2 of human, civets, and Chinese horseshoe bats as the receptor to enter the cells, suggesting the virus is potential to cause a direct human infection.”
The summary also references how coronaviruses “achieved cross-species infection by mutation of key sites of the spike protein,” which is the mechanism that allows COVID-19 to enter human cells.
After nearly two years of denials, Dr. Anthony Fauci’s parent organization, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), has finally conceded that it had funded gain-of-function experiments at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
As these admissions were made, NIH officials told Congress that the viruses being experimented on were too genetically distant to have possibly caused COVID-19.
But the NIH failed to tell Congress that Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance, the organization through whom Fauci was funding the Wuhan Institute, has kept a large number of unknown viruses in its possession. And only those with access to these viruses know what was done with them or exactly how genetically close to COVID-19 they actually are. Additionally, the Institute deleted its entire database of over 22,000 previously unreported virus samples on Sept. 12, 2019.
At exactly the same time that the NIH was making the gain-of-function admission, the agency quietly edited its website to redefine what constituted gain-of-function experiments. In doing so, the NIH narrowed its definition to focus only on known and established human transmission, instead of any potential dangers to humans.
The belated gain-of-function disclosure was made by Lawrence Tabak, the deputy principal director of the NIH, who noted in a letter to Congress, that, despite its previous denials, the NIH had, in fact, funded gain-of-function experiments at the Wuhan facility.
Tabak’s letter, written in response to congressional inquiries, corrected previous assertions by NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Fauci that the NIH hadn’t funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan. Tabak also acknowledged that EcoHealth, the body through whom Fauci funded the Wuhan lab, had violated the terms and conditions of its NIH grant.
But Tabak’s assertion that the NIH was unaware of gain-of-function work being conducted by EcoHealth was contested in a statement issued by EcoHealth in response, which noted that “[t]hese data were reported as soon as we were made aware, in our year four report in April 2018.”
2018 EcoHealth Report Details Gain-of-Function Work in Wuhan
EcoHealth failed to provide the NIH with its contractually obligated 2019 fifth-year report until this month, although EcoHealth did share data with the NIH in 2018 and in previous years as part of earlier annual progress reports. Those reports were required as a condition of the five-year grant that Fauci’s NIAID had awarded to EcoHealth in 2014.
Notably, EcoHealth’s 2018 report should have immediately alerted the NIH that agency money was being used to create coronaviruses that were far more pathogenic than the original viruses.
Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, appears before a Senate hearing to discuss vaccines, in Washington, on Sept. 9, 2020. (Photo by Greg Nash/Pool/Getty Images)
EcoHealth’s April 2018 report specified that it, in collaboration with the Wuhan facility, applied reverse genetic methods to construct artificial viruses. These newly created viruses contained novel spike proteins. As Daszak would later explain in a Dec. 9, 2019, interview, the “spike protein drives a lot of what happens with the coronavirus.”
The resulting genetically modified viruses exhibited particularly high pathogenicity in humanized mice, with a viral load that was enhanced by a factor of 10,000. The construction of at least three such viruses was detailed in EcoHealth’s April 2018 report.
The report also stated that EcoHealth and the Wuhan lab were moving forward with similar work to be done on a different type of virus, the far more lethal MERS virus.
A second report was submitted by EcoHealth to the NIH in November 2018. That report, which took the form of a proposal for a second five-year grant, again described the same gain-of-function work laid out in the April 2018 report.
The 2018 disclosures by EcoHealth highlight two problems. First, EcoHealth had already violated the terms of its grant, which stated that if any artificial viruses showed evidence of enhanced virus growth by a factor of 10, NIH must be notified and all experiments with these viruses must stop immediately. But EcoHealth failed to follow the grant requirements and only notified NIH of the viral growth through a routine disclosure in an annual progress report.
Peter Daszak (R) and other members of the World Health Organization (WHO) team investigating the origins of the COVID-19 coronavirus, arrive at the Wuhan Institute of Virology on Feb. 3, 2021. (Hector Retamal/AFP via Getty Images)
This violation by EcoHealth should have prompted immediate action on the part of NIH.
Secondly, the fact that EcoHealth made the NIH aware of the results of its gain-of-function experiments in 2018, placed an inherent oversight requirement on NIH to closely monitor EcoHealth’s experiments going forward. Instead, the NIH allowed Daszak’s team to continue their work without any monitoring for the next several years.
Missing EcoHealth Report Describes Lethal Virus Work
The lack of EcoHealth’s submission of a fifth-year progress report was only recently discovered, after The Intercept sued the NIH for documents relating to EcoHealth. If not for the alarms raised by The Intercept, it’s likely that EcoHealth’s fifth-year progress report would remain unsubmitted.
That fifth-year report described how EcoHealth and the Wuhan lab engaged in additional gain-of-function experiments by constructing clones of the deadly MERS virus—a virus with a case-fatality rate of 35 percent. The report also detailed how researchers at the Wuhan facility replaced the virus’s receptor-binding domain, which forms part of the spike protein—which determines the virus’s pathogenicity.
The gain-of-function work that EcoHealth described in the delayed fifth-year progress report appears to directly contradict a September 2021 statement made before the fifth report was finally released, when an EcoHealth spokesperson claimed that “[t]]he MERS work proposed in the grant is suggested as an alternative and was not undertaken.”
Tabak’s letter to Congress also stated that NIH had determined that Daszak’s experiments didn’t require strict oversight from NIH because the bat coronaviruses originally cited in Daszak’s work hadn’t been shown to infect humans.
The P4 laboratory on the campus of the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, in China’s central Hubei Province, is seen on May 27, 2020. (Hector Retamal/AFP via Getty Images)
But one of the viruses tested by Daszak, WIV1-SHC014, a lab-created virus that had already been mentioned in the 2018 report, exhibited high lethality on humanized mice. According to Daszak’s belatedly submitted fifth-year progress report, 75 percent of the humanized mice that were infected with the virus died.
Humanized mice are mice that have been adapted to carry functioning human genes, cells, and tissue. They effectively act as experimental stand-ins for humans, particularly when testing whether a new virus is capable of infection and transmission in humans.
NIH Changes Gain-of-Function Definition
The NIH suddenly and quietly removed its long-standing definition of gain-of-function experiments from its website at around the same time that Tabak wrote his letter, replacing it with a new section on enhanced potential pandemic pathogens (ePPP) research.
The NIH’s previous, long-standing definition focused on potential danger to humans. It stated that any NIH-funded gain-of-function research that was “anticipated to enhance the transmissibility and/or virulence of potential pandemic pathogens, which are likely to make them more dangerous to humans ” could only be conducted subject to “stringent oversight and appropriate biosafety and biosecurity controls.”
That definition was materially modified, narrowing the focus to humans to known and established human transmission—specifically “the enhancement of a pathogen’s transmissibility and/or virulence in humans”—from potential dangers.
The NIH’s new gain-of-function wording was remarkably similar to a statement from Fauci’s spokesperson, who said that EcoHealth’s research didn’t fall under strict NIH oversight since the funded experiments “were not reasonably expected to increase transmissibility or virulence in humans.”
This new definition was echoed by Tabak in his recent letter to Congress, when he wrote that Daszak’s work “did not fit the definition of research involving enhanced pathogens of pandemic potential or ePPP because these bat coronaviruses had not been shown to infect humans.”
Professor Richard Ebright, a biologist at Rutgers University, wrote on Twitter: “In essence, they are claiming that, because the NIH did not fund infection studies with lab-generated viruses and human subjects—Uyghur detainees? Falun Gong dissidents?—the NIH did not fund gain of function research.”
The new gain-of-function terminology may have originated with NIH Director Collins, who appears to have foreshadowed the definitional shift in a May 2021 statement when he claimed that NIH didn’t fund research on coronaviruses that “increased their transmissibility or lethality for humans.”
At the time of Collins’ statement, questions were beginning to be raised for the first time in the corporate media about COVID-19’s origins and NIH’s funding of gain-of-function experiments at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Collins himself had strongly denied that gain-of-function experiments had been funded at the lab, calling the reports misinformation.
NIH Claims EcoHealth Work ‘Distant’ From COVID but Ignores Hidden Viruses
On the same day that Tabak’s letter was sent to Congress, the NIH published a separate statement claiming that none of the work it had funded in Wuhan through EcoHealth Alliance could have led to the creation of COVID-19.
The NIH stated that “it is evident that the viruses studied under the EcoHealth Alliance grant are very far distant from SARS-CoV-2.”
A medical staff member gestures inside an isolation ward at Red Cross Hospital in Wuhan in China’s central Hubei Province on March 10, 2020. (STR/AFP via Getty Images)
But the NIH failed to disclose that it simply isn’t possible to know what viruses were being studied by EcoHealth and the lab in Wuhan. The Institute deleted its database of viral samples in September 2019; the database remains missing. In addition, Peter Daszak, the Institute’s longtime collaborator, has admitted to holding a large number of undisclosed viruses.
The NIH also failed to acknowledge the existence of a blueprint for the creation of a COVID-19-like virus. In 2018, EcoHealth submitted a proposal to the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) program that detailed the organization’s plan to create entirely new coronaviruses through the synthetic combination of preexisting virus backbones. The proposal described how those viruses were going to be made more virulent in humans by the insertion of a furin cleavage site, a feature that distinguishes COVID-19 from all other SARS-related coronaviruses.
The furin cleavage site is the key to COVID-19’s pathogenicity in humans. Notably, the director of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Shi Zhengli, left out any mention of COVID-19’s furin cleavage site when she first described the COVID-19 virus in a detailed Feb. 2020 article in the science journal Nature.
Despite its previous denials, the NIH knew that EcoHealth and the Wuhan Institute of Virology had conducted gain-of-function experiments that resulted in highly pathogenic viruses, and failed to hold EcoHealth accountable for requirements that the NIH itself had imposed.
Perhaps most importantly, the NIH knew that these experiments were being conducted on the soil of an adversary of the United States—communist China.
Representative Jim Jordan has said that if infectious diseases expert Dr. Anthony Fauci had any dignity, he’d immediately resign.
“If Fauci had any sense of honor left, he’d resign today,” the Ohio Republican wrote in a Monday morning tweet.
Conservatives have long targeted Fauci, the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), because of his continued advocacy for restrictive measures for slowing the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Throughout the pandemic, Fauci has advocated for mask and vaccine mandates and school and business shutdowns, among other social distancing measures.
If Fauci had any sense of honor left, he’d resign today.— Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) October 25, 2021
The GOP legislator and the infectious diseases expert have clashed several times before over COVID-19 prevention measures.
In mid-April, Jordan and Fauci got into a heated exchange during a congressional hearing. Jordan asked Fauci when Americans could stop following mask mandates and other social distancing measures.
“What metrics, what measures, what has to happen before Americans get more freedoms back?” Jordan asked Fauci.
Fauci accused Jordan of making the preventative measures “a personal thing,” which Jordan denied. Fauci then responded, “You’re indicating liberty and freedom. I look at it as a public health measure to prevent people from dying and going to the hospital.
Fauci later said he’d feel more comfortable relaxing social restrictions once the U.S. had reached less than 10,000 new COVID-19 infections a day. As of October 25, the U.S. is averaging just over 10,000 new infections each day, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
In a late July hearing, Jordan accused Fauci of refusing to condemn public protests that could potentially spread the virus. Jordan said Fauci’s refusal was hypocritical, considering that Fauci had previously advocated closing down schools, businesses and other public gatherings to prevent the virus’ spread.
“You see the inconsistency though, Dr. Fauci?” Jordan told the doctor. “So you’re allowed to protest millions of people on one day in crowds, yelling, screaming, but you try to run your business. You get arrested.”
Ohio Representative Jim Jordan said that if infectious diseases expert Dr. Anthony Fauci had any dignity, he’d immediately resign. Above, Jordan speaks during the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump on November 13, 2019, in Washington, D.C.JIM LO SCALZO/GETTY
They have also claimed that the NIAID funded gain-of-function (GOF) research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology that helped COVID-19 leap from animals to humans, causing the pandemic.
While Fauci said that the NIAID has never funded GOF research, he has also admitted under Senate questioning that he can’t know for certain how the WIV lab used the NIAID’s funding. Recent documents have suggested that Fauci may have been “untruthful” about the funding’s use, though his agency has continued to deny that it ever funded GOF research.
More recently, Fauci has come under bipartisan criticism over a $1.68 million taxpayer-funded NIAID grant to a Tunisian laboratory to conduct drug and “de-barking” experiments on beagle puppies.
Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene and other conservatives have publicly called for Fauci’s firing. Greene herself has introduced the “Fire Fauci Act,” though Jordan has not yet cosponsored her legislation.
Greene’s bill would terminate funding for Fauci’s position until someone new is appointed as the NIAID’s new director. The legislation would also require an audit of Fauci’s emails, policy memoranda and financial transactions from October 1, 2019, until December 31, 2021.
Fauci has advised every president since Ronald Reagan and has served as director of the NIAID for nearly 40 years.
Finally, the corporate media is catching up to Peter Daszak.
The Washington Post editorial board has called for EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak – an American scientist whose collaborations with the Wuhan Institute of Virology were funded by Anthony Fauci – to testify before U.S. Congress.
Daszak is singled out in the outlet’s recent op-ed, “One Person Who Might Know What Really Happened In Wuhan,” which questions the continued cover-up of his ties to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) and involvement in “killer” gain-of-function research with coronaviruses. The article follows the National Institutes of Health admitting that Fauci lied about the manner of research conducted by Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance in cooperation with the WIV.
“Unanswered questions keep emerging about Mr. Daszak and the WIV,” the paper asserts before asking: “Why did he not disclose his 2018 proposal to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) for research on bat coronaviruses with the WIV and others, which called for engineering a modification onto spike proteins of chimeric viruses that would make them infect human cells in the way the pandemic strain did? What does he know about the databases of viruses that WIV took offline in 2019 and never brought back? Does he know what research the WIV may have done on its own, during or after their collaboration? What was being done at WIV in the months before the pandemic?”
Daszak, who did not respond to The Washington Post’s request for comment, “must answer these questions before Congress,” the paper argues. “His grants were federal funds, and it is entirely appropriate for Congress to insist on accountability and transparency,” it adds.
The calls follow months of National Pulse reporting highlighting Daszak’s extensive conflicts of interest with the WIV and the Chinese Communist Party, which should have excluded him from serving on bodies such as the World Health Organization’s COVID-19 origins investigation team. The National Pulse, which called for Daszak to testify in front of Congress six months ago, has also revealed the close ties between Daszak and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Fauci.
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci’s salary – the highest of all federal employees – was increased due to his work on vaccine development and bioterrorism research, internal U.S. government documents have laid bare.
Obtained by transparency group OpenTheBooks through a Freedom of Information Act request, a letter from then-National Institutes of Health (NIH) Deputy Director Raynard S. Kingston makes the case for Fauci’s sizable pay increase.
Fauci’s permanent pay raise was to “appropriately compensate him for the level of responsibility… especially as it relates to his work on biodefense research activities.”
Kingston outlines the rationale behind proposing Fauci’s salary increase, emphasizing how he “has been a key figure in the White House and Department’s response to bioterrorism”:
“More recently, Dr. Fauci has been a key figure in the White House and Department’s response to bioterrorism. His contributions to this effort have been outstanding and include the development of the departmental strategy to augment smallpox vaccine supplies and the development of a plan to develop new anthrax vaccine. He serves as an expert consultant to the White House, the Secretary of DHHS, congressional staff, and a number of HHS groups on the development of biodefense-related research, and public health priorities. He is leading the development of a series of research initiatives, has coordinated fast-track initiatives for academia and industry participation in biodefense-related research, and is responsible for the development of future intermediate and long-range research plans and policies for a sustained and committed biomedical research response to bioterrorism threats. During FY2004, under Dr. Fauci’s leadership, NIAID significantly expanded, intensified, and accelerated its research programs in biodefense.”
The documents reveal that, as a result, the George W. Bush Administration approved a “permanent pay adjustment” in excess of his regular salary in December 2004. From 2004 through 2007, the pay raise amounted to a 68-percent increase from $200,000 to $335,000-a year.
The unearthed justification for Fauci’s unparalleled taxpayer-funded salary follows extensive reporting revealing how Fauci’s NIH agency funded research at Chinese Communist Party and Chinese military-linked labs such as the Wuhan Institute of Virology – believed by many to be the source of COVID-19. Fauci and his advisors have also signed collaborative research deals with Chinese military fronts and funded American laboratories training Wuhan researchers how to work with “the world’s most dangerous pathogens.”
The National Institutes of Health altered a key portion of its website last week around the time it disclosed to Congress that experiments it funded in China met the definition of gain-of-function.
The federal agency, known as the NIH, had a detailed explanation of gain-of-function research on its site, noting that the term refers to any research that modifies a biological agent in a way that confers new or enhanced activity to that agent.
The updated page now says, in its only referral to type of research, that research involving enhanced potential pandemic pathogens (ePPPs) “is a type of so called ‘gain-of-function’ (GOF) research.”
It claims that “the vast majority of GOF research does not involve ePPP and falls outside the scope of oversight required for research involving ePPPs.”
Oversight involving research on ePPPs is governed by a framework (pdf) issued by the U.S. government in late 2017, on the same day the NIH lifted its yearslong funding pause on most gain-of-function research.
There’s no definition of gain-of-function inside the framework. The only mention of it refers people to a list of examples of activities that would and would not be considered to involve ePPPs. That list was last available in May 2017, according to an Epoch Times review.
An NIH spokeswoman confirmed that the webpage, a “backgrounder” on the framework, was altered last week, around the same time the disclosures were made.
The information concerning gain-of-function “was being misused/used incorrectly (and still is) and creating confusion (and still is),” the spokeswoman told The Epoch Times in an email.
“The backgrounder was updated to provide clarity on the scope of the framework,” she added.
The NIH Office of Communications and Public Liaison made the decision to alter the page, according to the spokeswoman. She noted that a separate page still gives details on gain-of-function research, but it does not contain nearly as much information about what exactly the type of research is as the other page.
The Epoch Times has submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for all communications and other internal NIH documents concerning the alteration.
The agency’s outgoing director, Dr. Francis Collins, and one of its top officials, Dr. Anthony Fauci, are under heightened scrutiny for their funding of research in China during and after the pause in funding of most gain-of-function research.
The new disclosures, some experts said, showed the funding did go toward GOF research, which runs counter to what Collins and Fauci told members of Congress in Washington during public hearings earlier this year.
Both Collins and Fauci are standing by their statements, though Fauci shifted his defense on Sunday, saying the experiments did not meet the definition of “gain-of-function research of concern”—after earlier claiming they were not gain-of-function at all.
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), a strong critic of the NIH, indicated on Twitter that the webpage change was concerning.
“Persistent propaganda is a problem for propagandists. How long until [the government] outlaws internet archiving or reposts of internet archives?” he wrote.
Twitter user Jeremy Redfern first identified the NIH’s update.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) also took notice of what happened, writing, “What does the NIH have to hide?”
The NIH and other health agencies have altered other pages during the COVID-19 pandemic.
For instance, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently changed the definition of a vaccine from “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease” to “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune system against disease.”
A spokesperson for the agency previously told The Epoch Times that the earlier definition “could be interpreted to mean that vaccines are 100 percent effective, which has never been the case for any vaccine, so the current definition is more transparent.”
An admission by the National Institutes of Health that it funded what amounted to gain-of-function research in China undercuts assertions from Dr. Anthony Fauci and others that the federally funded agency did no such thing, according to one expert.
Such research is controversial because it allows virus that exists in nature to be manipulated in a lab to make it stronger — even more deadly. The research conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which was funded by the NIH, has taken on new importance in the aftermath of the coronavirus pandemic.
“Collins and Fauci lied to Congress, lied to the press, and lied to the public. Knowingly, willfully and brazenly,” said Richard Ebright, a professor of chemical biology at Rutgers University, according to the Washington Examiner. The “Collins” referred to is NIH Director Francis Collins.
After over a year of denials from the agency’s leadership, NIH Principal Deputy Director Lawrence Tabak admitted last week that the agency funded gain-of-function experiments on bat coronaviruses in China.
Tabak said that its grantee, EcoHealth Alliance, notified the NIH in August that it conducted the gain-of-function experiments with the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China between June 2018 and May 2019. Tabak said EcoHealth failed to immediately notify the agency that they created lab-generated chimeric coronaviruses that exhibited a greater than one log, or ten times increase, in growth.
NIH leaders have tried to say that just because the outcome took place does not mean the NIH funded gain-of-function research.
Bur Ebright called the letter a “bombshell” because it “corrects the untruthful assertions” by Collins and Fauci, the Washington Examiner reported.
Has Dr. Anthony Fauci lied to Americans all along?
Ebright said there is more to this than an unexpected outcome.
“By failing to forward the proposal for the required HHS-level risk-benefit assessment, and then by funding the proposal without the required HHS-level risk-benefit assessment, officials at the NIH violated federal policies that were put in place to protect U.S. national security and U.S. public health … and put at risk U.S. national security and U.S. public health,” Ebright said.
“The NIH spokesperson — or preferably the NIH officials who funded the proposal without the required HHS-level risk-benefit assessment — need to explain how this violation of federal policy occurred and what steps are being taken to ensure that similar violations of federal policy do not occur in the future,” he continued.
Ebright said it was “incontrovertibly correct” that the work conducted by EcoHealth for NIH “show that EcoHealth and its Wuhan partner constructed novel chimeric SARS-related coronaviruses — artificial, lab-generated viruses that do not have counterparts circulating in nature — that exhibited 10,000 times enhanced viral load and two to four times enhanced pathogenicity in infection studies in mice engineered to display human receptors on their cells (‘humanized mice’).”
That means renewing the grant funding for the research required reviews it was never given.
“Therefore is correct that the proposal for the second 5-year grant term, which proposed to construct more such novel chimeric SARS-related coronaviruses — included research reasonably anticipated — indeed highly likely — to create, transfer or use potential pandemic pathogens resulting from the enhancement of a pathogen’s transmissibility and/or virulence in humans — and, therefore, it is correct that the proposal for the second 5-year grant term required HHS-level risk-benefit assessment under the HHS P3CO Framework,” he said.
HHS Deputy admits Fauci’s NIH funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan but says it was “an unexpected result.” If the experiment combines unknown viruses and tests their ability to infect and damage humanized cells, of course the result is ‘unknown’ before the experiment.
Ebright said efforts to downplay the research funded by NIH as only having infected animals are an exercise in misdirection.
“They have no shame. In essence, they are claiming that, because the NIH did not fund infection studies with lab-generated viruses and human subjects — Uyghur detainees? Falun Gong dissidents? — the NIH did not fund gain of function research or potential pandemic pathogen enhancement subject to the federal policies,” he stated.
A bipartisan group of lawmakers is demanding answers from Dr. Anthony Fauci after a government watchdog group accused the agency he directs of funding unnecessarily cruel medical research that used beagle puppies.
The White Coat Waste Project, an organization that advocates against both government waste and medical testing on animals, had accused the Fauci and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of appropriating taxpayer funds that were reportedly used to administer experiments on dogs in laboratories in Tunisia and elsewhere.
Fauci’s NIAD is part of the National Institutes of Health.
In a blog post on its website Oct. 12, the White Coast Waste Project shared what it said were documents that proved Fauci and his agency used taxpayer funds for research that included infecting dozens of puppies with parasites. The White Coat Waste Project said that similar testing had occurred three times previously, and that it had obtained that information through the Freedom of Information Act.
“This time, [National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases] spent $1.68 million of taxpayer money to poison and ‘de-bark’ 44 beagle puppies,” the group wrote. “Fauci’s taxpayer-funded white coats injected and force-fed the puppies an experimental drug for several weeks, before killing and dissecting them.”
“These dogs were subject to some of the cruelest treatment imaginable. In a procedure called a ‘cordectomy,’ sometimes called ‘de-barking,’ the puppies’ vocal cords were slashed,” the blog post stated.
The White Coat Waste Project added that in 2016, similar experiments were conducted on puppies at a lab in Bethesda, Maryland, where “infectious sand flies were strapped to beagles, and fed on them for 22 months.”
“The dogs developed infectious lesions, before Fauci’s staff killed and dissected them,” the post stated.
The letter further stated that the testing on beagles was unnecessary, because the drug in question had already been “extensively tested and confirmed…in different animal models such as mice…Mongolian gerbils…and rhesus macaques….”
Do you think Dr. Anthony Fauci will be fired?
A letter authored by Republican Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina and signed by 24 members of the House of Representatives, Republican and Democrat, called on Fauci to answer questions about any such testing that has occurred since 2018, The Hill reported Friday.
“We write with grave concerns about reports of costly, cruel, and unnecessary taxpayer-funded experiments on canine commissioned by Nationwide Institute of Allergy and Infectious Illnesses,” stated the letter, which cited the White Coat Waste Project and media coverage surrounding its claims.
In inquiring of Fauci’s agency’s alleged use the $1.68 to kill 44 beagles, the letter stated the animals were each “between six and eight months old.”
“The commissioned tests involved injecting and force-feeding the puppies an experimental drug for several weeks, before killing and dissecting them,” the letter stated. “Of explicit concern is the truth that the bill to NIAID included a line merchandise for ‘cordectomy.’”
“As you’re doubtless conscious, a cordectomy, also referred to as ‘devocalization,’ entails slitting a canine’s vocal cords with the intention to forestall them from barking, howling, or crying,” the letter also stated.
“This cruel procedure — which is opposed with rare exceptions by the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Animal Hospital Association and others — seems to have been performed so that experimenters would not have to listen to the pained cries of the beagle puppies. This is a reprehensible misuse of taxpayer funds.”
The lawmakers concluded that they want answers over how many tests were conducted on exactly how many dogs. Additionally, they asked for clarity of how much money was spent.
The letter also demanded to know if any dogs which were used for experiments were ever made available for adoption and asked about the medical necessity for such testing. The letter further reminded its recipients that the Food and Drug Administration does not require new drugs to be tested on dogs.
“We look forward to your prompt and thorough response,” the letter concluded.
The letter, dated Thursday, was written as the NIH admitted that taxpayer dollars were used to fund gain of function research on coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. On Wednesday, NIH Principal Deputy Director Lawrence Tabak confirmed the funding in a letter to GOP Rep. James Comer of Kentucky.
🚨🚨🚨
July 28th NIH says “no NIAID funding was approved for Gain of Function research at the WIV.”
Obviously, they were lied to.
NIH confirmed today EcoHealth and the WIV conducted GOF research on bat coronaviruses. @PeterDaszak with EcoHealth hid it from the USG. pic.twitter.com/Ou3ZLKto0L
— Oversight Committee Republicans (@GOPoversight) October 20, 2021
Fauci had previously denied that U.S. taxpayer funds were used for such research.
“Our investigators show that Fauci’s NIH division shipped part of a $375,800 grant to a lab in Tunisia to drug beagles and lock their heads in mesh cages filled with hungry sand flies so that the insects could eat them alive,” White Coat Waste said.
Story at a glance:
A bipartisan letter demands answers from the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and President Biden’s chief medical adviser.
House members, most of whom are Republicans, want Fauci to explain himself in response to allegations brought on by the White Coat Waste Project that involve drugging puppies.
Allegedly, 44 beagle puppies were used in a North Africa laboratory, and some of the dogs had their vocal cords removed so scientists could work without incessant barking.
A bipartisan letter demands answers from the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and President Biden’s chief medical adviser.
The White Coat Waste Project, the nonprofit organization that first pointed out that U.S. taxpayers were being used to fund the controversial Wuhan Institute of Virology, have now turned its sights on Anthony Fauci on another animal-testing-related matter — infecting dozens of beagles with disease-causing parasites to test an experimental drug on them.
America is changing faster than ever!Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news.
House members, most of whom are Republicans, want Fauci to explain himself in response to allegations brought on by the White Coat Waste Project that involve drugging puppies.
According to the White Coat Waste Project, the Food and Drug Administration does not require drugs to be tested on dogs, so the group is asking why the need for such testing.
White Coat Waste claims that 44 beagle puppies were used in a Tunisia, North Africa, laboratory, and some of the dogs had their vocal cords removed, allegedly so scientists could work without incessant barking.
Leading the effort is Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), writing a letter to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) saying the cordectomies are “cruel” and a “reprehensible misuse of taxpayer funds.”
“Our investigators show that Fauci’s NIH division shipped part of a $375,800 grant to a lab in Tunisia to drug beagles and lock their heads in mesh cages filled with hungry sand flies so that the insects could eat them alive,” White Coat Waste told Changing America. “They also locked beagles alone in cages in the desert overnight for nine consecutive nights to use them as bait to attract infectious sand flies.”
Mace’s letter was signed by Reps. Cindy Axne (D-Iowa), Cliff Bentz (R-Ore.), Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), Rick Crawford (R-Ark.), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), Scott Franklin (R-Fla.), Andrew Garbarino (R-N.Y.), Carlos Gimenez (R-Fla.), Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.), Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), Fred Keller (R-Pa.), Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), Lisa McClain (R-Mich.), Nicole Malliotakis (R-N.Y.), Brian Mast (R-Fla.), Scott Perry (R-Pa.), Bill Posey (R-Fla.), Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-Calif.), Maria E. Salazar (R-Fla.), Terri Sewell (D-Ala.), Daniel Webster (R-Fla.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.)
The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Changing America.
The Biden administration appears hell-bent on continuing to ignore natural immunity as the president and his team persist in pushing for stiffer and stiffer vaccine mandates.
The Brownstone Institute, an Austin, Texas-based nonprofit founded in May that opposes lockdown and champions academic freedom, has compiled a list of 30 peer-reviewed studies showing that those who have recovered from the coronavirus have long-lasting and robust immunity comparable to or better than those who are vaccinated.
This fact does not seem to impact President Joe Biden’s thinking about vaccine policy.
Last month, after receiving a vaccine booster shot, Biden was asked how many Americans need to be vaccinated before life could return to normal.
He responded, “Well, I think, look — I think we get the vast majority like is going on in some industries and some schools, 97, 98 percent. I think we’ll come awful close.”
Biden then acknowledged, “But I’m not the scientist. One thing for sure, a quarter of the country can’t go unvaccinated.”
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that’s about where we are as a country right now, at least among those eligible to receive the shot. Approximately 77 percent of Americans 12 and older have received at least one COVID-19 dose, and about 66 percent are fully vaccinated. Overall, 217 million Americans have at least one shot.
Not included in that statistic are many millions, probably tens of millions of Americans, who have natural immunity because they have recovered from the virus.
The vaccine mandate Biden announced in September included no exception for natural immunity, leaving American businesses demanding answers, Newsweek reported.
Last month, Dr. Francis Collins, the outgoing director of the National Institutes of Health, wrote that the number of those who have recovered from COVID-19 in the U.S. has likely been vastly underestimated, citing a report that concluded that, by the end of 2020, likely 100 million Americans had already had the sickness.
So they have immunity.
Over 44 million Americans have received a positive COVID test. Why should they be forced to take the vaccine?
Among the findings contained in the Brownstone Institute’s list of studies is that natural immunity offers approximately 95 percent protection against re-infection for at least six or more months.
30 Peer reviewed journal articles confirming natural immunity after Covid infection. Will Fauci now finally apologize to the 100 million or more Americans who’ve had COVID?
Natural Immunity and Covid-19: Twenty-Nine Scientific Studies to Share https://t.co/qJlWuS6ZOP
An Israeli Health Ministry study released in July and included on the Brownstone list showed that in the country’s most recent of reported infections — beginning in May — less than 1 percent of 7,700 new cases were among those who had previously recovered from COVID.
“With a total of 835,792 Israelis known to have recovered from the virus, the 72 instances of reinfection amount to 0.0086% of people who were already infected with COVID,” the conservative news outlet Israel National News reported.
Meanwhile, roughly 40 percent of the new cases were among those who were vaccinated.
“Israelis who were vaccinated were 6.72 times more likely to get infected after the shot than after natural infection, with over 3,000 of the 5,193,499, or 0.0578%, of Israelis who were vaccinated getting infected in the latest wave,” according to Israel National News.
Dr. Marty Makary, a professor at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, has written that the strength of natural immunity from COVID has not been appropriately recognized by policy makers.
“During every month of this pandemic, I’ve had debates with other public researchers about the effectiveness and durability of natural immunity,” he wrote in a piece published by U.S. News & World Report in August.
“I’ve been told that natural immunity could fall off a cliff, rendering people susceptible to infection. But here we are now, over a year and a half into the clinical experience of observing patients who were infected, and natural immunity is effective and going strong,” he recounted.
“And that’s because with natural immunity, the body develops antibodies to the entire surface of the virus, not just a spike protein constructed from a vaccine.”
Makary argued that rather than categorizing people as being vaccinated and unvaccinated, the better designations would be “immune and the non-immune.”
If you have not had the virus, by all means get vaccinated, he exhorted.
The pandemic of the unvaccinated is a misnomer. It’s a pandemic of the non-immune. More precisely, it’s a series of regional outbreaks in select pockets of the country with low population immunity. Same take-home message though: If you’re not immune, get immune by getting vaxed.
In an August interview on “The Vince Coglianese Show,” airing on the Washington, D.C.-area WMAL-FM, the medical professor contended, “One of the great failures of our medical leadership has been ignoring the half of America with natural immunity, which is the half of non-vaccinated folks.”
Dr. Ben Carson, former secretary of Housing and Urban Development in the Trump administration and former director of pediatric neurosurgery at the Johns Hopkins Children’s Center, told Fox News Monday night that the Biden administration, including Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, is ignoring natural immunity.
“The fact of the matter is, many studies have demonstrated that natural immunity is just as good as immunity induced by vaccines and probably even better because it affects more of the immune system in a positive way,” Carson said.
“Dr. Fauci knows that,” he continued. “The CDC knows that and yet they’re just completely ignoring it. And I think if they would deal truthfully with these things, put the real facts out, people would do the right thing.”
Dr. Ben Carson tosses Covid truth bombs during this great convo w/@HeyTammyBruce:
“Natural immunity is just as good as immunity induced by vaccines, and probably even better.”
“A lot of people in the healthcare field know that this is foolishness …”
“People are smart, but they don’t like being manipulated, and that’s exactly what’s going on right now: Manipulation of the people,” Carson said.
He added that many in the health care field know not recognizing natural immunity is not sound policy.
“They’ve had COVID already,” Carson said. “And why would they go ahead and expose themselves to extra risk when it’s unnecessary? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.”
“It’s all about control.”
It’s long past time for the United States to truly follow the science and recognize the efficacy of natural immunity and stop trying to force Americans to get a vaccine when they do not need or want it.
More of Fauci’s e-mails are emerging, and they don’t shower him or his wife in glory.
Previously unseen e-mail correspondence between Anthony Fauci and his wife Christine Grady show the couple celebrating how Fauci had been “immortalized” by an action figure, and reveal a callous reaction to vaccine-related deaths, The National Pulse can exclusively reveal.
In an e-mail sent on January 15th 2021, Fauci flagged a New York Post article highlighting 23 people who died in Norway after being administered the Pfizer vaccine.
“Yikes,” Grady simply replies after being forwarded the article with a note that simply read “fyi”.
The tone is markedly different from other e-mails between the couple who work together – an issue that has raised questions over the propriety of their roles and whether or not a conflict of interest exists. While Grady was overseeing “bioethics” for the U.S. government, Fauci was doling out cash to Wuhan Lab collaborators like Peter Daszak among others.
Another email seen by The National Pulse displays her reaction to the launch of an action figure in the image of her husband, Fauci.
“It is endless…” she writes before adding:
“You have been immortalized”
Fauci originally shared an article from The Hill –Fauci Gets His Own Action Figure – that was flagged by Greg Folkers, the Chief of Staff in the Office of the Director at Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).
The back and forths shed some light into the day-to-day working relationship between Fauci and Grady, who often exchange e-mails, with Fauci even sharing some messages not meant for Grady to his wife.
It is also an insight into the pair’s priorities and their flippancy regarding vaccine-related deaths.
The gatekeepers of movie reviews want us to believe that the new documentary featuring Dr. Anthony Fauci wasn’t all that bad.
As it turns out, they’re even willing to lie about how audiences are responding to what looks like a failure among all age demographics.
According to IMDb, the movie “Fauci” is “a glimpse into infectious disease specialist, Dr. Anthony Fauci who has led the U.S. fight against every epidemic the country has faced from AIDS to SARS to Ebola, and the ongoing COVID-19.”
Originally, IMDb listed the score for “Fauci” as a horrendous 1.6 out of 10.
Now, the site lists the movie’s rating as a much more respectable 5.8 out of 10.
The components of the overall score, however, remain the same as before.
So, presumably, the site believes its users are so stupid that they are unable to figure out the average of the following numbers — 1.0, 1.4, 1.4 and 1.7 — somehow add up to 5.8.
In other words, IMDb appears to have artificially inflated the movie’s rating — and it didn’t do a very good job in covering up its deception.
Overall, while the documentary appears to be a hit among critics (who are overwhelmingly left-leaning), multiple sites other than IMDb confirm that it has been an absolute bomb among regular viewers.
On Rotten Tomatoes, the film has a pitiful audience score of 2 percent.
In the review section of the website, users made it known why they despised the movie.
“Very disappointing film. I was excited to see a movie that captures one of the biggest names on the popular culture landscape over the last 2 years. Instead what I got felt like a propaganda piece or a fan tribute. Very troubling way to present a documentary/film,” one user named “Jason M” wrote.
“It should have taken a more balanced look at his life and work. Instead it felt like a marketing puff piece which is not what anyone wants from a documentary. Lets hope this was a blip and it’s not the future of documentaries.”
Another reviewer who spoke about watching the movie with an open mind was similarly let down.
“I had already known that this documentary was not well received by many, but I watched with an open mind to learn as much as I could about Fauci. If this documentary had a different purpose, or a different title, I would probably be more forgiving,” a user named “Chris E” wrote.
“What do I mean? Well, this was supposed to be a documentary about a public figure. Not a biography, but a documentary about a man’s career, no? Covering the many years of service of this man with no mention of any controversy is troubling. It did not mention the wins AND the losses, it just painted him as a dedicated, yet under appreciated man.”
“I wanted to learn as much as I could, so I could formulate an more fact based opinion on Fauci. I can’t use this documentary because it was really just a puff piece. It was very one sided. I prefer a documentary that covers all sides; the positives, the negatives, and everything in-between.”
“The Wide Angle” program on EpochTV examines the misuse of COVID data in the episode, “Is COVID-Death Data Being Used for Profit? Doctor Sues University Over Mandatory Vaccine Policy.” The host, Brendon Fallon, interviews Dr. Aaron Khariaty, who is a professor of psychiatry and human behavior at the University of California and the head of their medical ethics department, gives important information on how this data is being used to justify mandatory vaccinations and the threat to privacy and freedom that it poses.
The video begins with the explanation that people who are hospitalized for different conditions are given COVID tests. If they test positive, even with no symptoms of COVID and the cause of death being another condition, the death will be counted in the COVID metric. At the University of California, the policy states that employees and students must be vaccinated right now in order to be on campus, but they may also be required to get any other vaccine shots or boosters that are offered in the future. The lawsuit that he is involved in is on behalf of COVID-recovered patients and states that those who have survived the virus have a better immunity against it than the vaccine can provide. According to the lawsuit, the university’s policy of mandating vaccines and not recognizing natural immunity is discriminatory, because it excludes students and other university workers from coming on campus even if they have immunity. The case further states that this violates equal protection rights provided by the 14th amendment.
There are financial benefits for hospitals that report more COVID deaths. Medicare pays hospitals more for COVID cases than other kinds of cases. The same is true for pediatric cases. If a child comes in with a respiratory problem, he is tested for COVID. Many tests will show positive results even if the condition is something else, so those cases are added to the COVID numbers as well.
Khariaty gives an example of a patient who was hospitalized for psychiatric problems. He tested positive for COVID and was sent to the medical ward so PPE could be used when working with him. He had no symptoms of COVID and that was not the reason for his visit, but he was considered a COVID patient.
The host then asks the doctor about the existing natural immunity data. The doctor states there is a lot of evidence to point to the fact that natural immunity is a much better level of immunity than the vaccine.
Recently, Dr. Anthony Fauci, President Biden’s chief medical advisor, was asked why people with natural immunity still needed to get the vaccine. His answer was that while there is a case for natural immunity, we still do not have enough information yet. Khariaty said that Fauci has not been keeping up with the latest scientific data, which proves that natural immunity has a much better efficacy rate than vaccinations. One major fact which supports natural immunity is that it does not lose effectiveness over time or with new variants. This is not the case with vaccinations, as we are already hearing that more shots and boosters will be needed in the future. Vaccines are good for fighting against symptomatic disease but provide less protection against infection and transmission. Vaccine efficacy has been declining over time. Natural immunity has had an efficacy rate of 96–99 percent throughout the pandemic.
The host then asks about side effects from the vaccine. Khariaty replies that information is still being gathered on that issue. He stated there is a small risk of inflammation of the heart, and it is greater for young men versus older people. Also, this “one size fits all” theory of the vaccine negates individualized care as the vaccine might not be the best treatment for everyone. He says that more needs to be done to track the safety issues surrounding the vaccine, especially since the clinical trials were stopped much earlier than other vaccines.
According to Khariaty, a lot of the protocols are not being followed. The reason being given is that we are in a state of emergency and people are dying from the disease so the vaccine must be fast tracked. While we might have short term gains, the danger in this is there might be long term consequences. Also, the emergency phase is not being identified and so when is that “state of emergency” declared over? His opinion is that it may have held true early on but officials need to set benchmarks that define “state of emergency” so that is it not used as a reason to rush into treatments that may have adverse effects later.
In the next segment of the video, the host asks Khariaty to comment on people’s concerns that more shots and boosters will be needed. The doctor states, “The vaccines were originally touted back in January as the ticket out of the pandemic and a definitive solution for COVID.” Now health officials are reluctant to admit that they spoke too soon and rather than admit that the vaccine does not work as they said it would, they are going back to lock downs and advising people to get more shots.
People are questioning why a third dose is needed and why the original dose was not measured correctly for its efficacy. The CDC will be meeting soon to discuss the efficacy of the third shots. Unfortunately, the data is being provided by Pfizer which has very little actual data on this. Only about 300 people were included in the trial and some groups of people were not represented. Khariaty voiced concern over the lack of data and said he hopes that the CDC will recognize that more data is needed in order to make an informed decision. The host then asks what a more effective way would be for handling the pandemic. The doctor advises that we need targeted interventions for those who are most at risk. Now that we know that natural immunity works better than vaccines, those who are considered immune but not vaccinated are at risk of losing personal freedom. People that fall into this category could be put into nursing facilities to monitor their health. Rather than having an incentive to rely on natural immunity, the only incentive would be in taking the vaccine.
University of California officials have refused to comment on the lawsuit.
Dr. Anthony Fauci has been propped up by the left as a savior throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. If leftists wrote a Marvel superhero movie, former President Donald Trump would be like Thanos, and Fauci is supposed to be some sort of Avenger who saves that day.
The problem with that picture is that as far as I’m aware, Avengers are not supposed to brutally murder puppies and mutilate their bodies.
According to a watchdog group called the White Coat Waste Project, that is exactly what the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases did under the leadership of Fauci.
“Documents obtained by WCW through the Freedom of Information Act show that Fauci’s division at the National Institutes of Health ordered cruel and unnecessary drug toxicity tests on dogs and other animals that cost taxpayers $1.68 million,” the group said in a Tuesday news release.
This follows an August report that NIAID sent $424,455 in taxpayer money to the University of Georgia in September 2020 for research that would infect beagles with parasites so that an experimental drug could be tested on them.
In that research, documents obtained by WCW show at least 28 beagles were set to be infected with the parasites for three months. Afterward, they would be euthanized and their blood would be collected. The research was supposed to be completed by January 2022, but it is unclear whether the beagles were euthanized, according to the Daily Caller.
According to the new report from the Daily Caller, additional animal research took place between October 2018 and February 2019. These experiments reportedly included 44 beagle puppies aged 6-8 months who were given experimental drugs through either injection or force-feeding.
Afterward, WCW said the dogs were killed and dissected, supposedly for “research.”
In addition, NIAID paid for the abused puppies to have cordectomies, meaning part or all of their vocal cords were removed. WCW said Fauci’s division paid for these procedures so the puppies “couldn’t bark in the lab while they were being abused.”
NIAID defended the horrific treatment in its documents by saying the experiments were conducted to “provide data of suitable quality and integrity, in order to support applications to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other regulatory agencies,” according to the Daily Caller.
In July, WCW told KABC-TV that human drugs were being tested on puppies because of a 1930s law requiring drugs to be tested on animals before humans.
However, when KABC reached out to the FDA for comment, the agency said it “requires that an FDA-approved medical product must be demonstrated to be safe and effective,” but “does not mandate that human drugs be studied in dogs.”
This implies that NIAID’s reckless animal testing was conducted by choice, not out of obligation.
The timing of this new information is particularly ironic for Fauci. On Monday’s episode of “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” Carlson revealed Fauci had candles in his own home depicting himself as a saint.
“Tony Fauci isn’t just the high priest of Fauci-ism. He’s also a true believer himself,” Carlson said.
The very next day, Fauci was revealed to have overseen experiments brutalizing innocent puppies. Somehow, that doesn’t seem to be very “saint-like” behavior.
“People are naming puppies after Anthony Fauci, but he’s actually dogs’ and taxpayers’ worst nightmare,” WCW vice president of advocacy and public policy Justin Goodman told the Daily Caller.
“From poisoning puppies here at home to funding gain-of-function experiments in China, the government’s highest-paid employee has proven he can’t be trusted to spend taxpayer dollars responsibly. With NIH director Francis Collins retiring, Fauci should be the next one to go.”
To this writer, Sunday felt a little bit like Groundhog Day in autumn.
On CBS News’ “Face the Nation,” Dr. Anthony Fauci — the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, America’s COVID guru and arguably the most powerful unelected, unconfirmed bureaucrat in recent U.S. history — informed Americans it was “just too soon to tell” whether we’d be able to have Christmas gatherings.
This answer to a question posed by host Margaret Brennan was vaguely reminiscent of one Fauci gave last November when he was asked by CNN’s Jake Tapper whether Christmas gatherings would be out of the question.
“Yes, I’m — well, I think that, if we get most of the country vaccinated in the second, third quarter of the year, and the vaccine continues to prove its efficacy, and people adhere to those fundamental measures, I think we can start approaching the degree — it’s not going to be a light switch, Jake.”
REPORTER: “But we can gather for Christmas or it’s just too soon to tell?”
A year has passed, vast strides have been made against the coronavirus — both in vaccinations and treatment therapies. Deaths are way down. But Fauci’s fundamental position, and that of other lockdown-and-social distancing czars, doesn’t seem to have changed: Keeping Americans locked down, masked and socially distanced is still the only option.
To the Fauci crowd, the end of this all is somewhere in the middle distance. Next January. Maybe May. When 70 percent of adults are vaccinated. Make that 85. Or 98 percent, if you’re President Joe Biden. We can all get our lives back if we do what they say for just a little longer. Just a little while longer.
According to the author of one paper, however, all the lockdowns have potentially been for naught.
In a peer-reviewed study published Sept. 29 by the International Journal of the Economics of Business, Douglas W. Allen, an economics professor at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, Canada, argued that: “It is possible that lockdown will go down as one of the greatest peacetime policy failures in modern history.’
“An examination of over 100 Covid-19 studies reveals that many relied on false assumptions that over-estimated the benefits and under-estimated the costs of lockdown,” Allen wrote in the paper (which he originally published in April). “The most recent research has shown that lockdowns have had, at best, a marginal effect on the number of Covid-19 deaths. Generally speaking, the ineffectiveness stemmed from individual changes in behavior: either non-compliance or behavior that mimicked lockdowns.”
It didn’t matter how stringent the lockdown was, either. Why? Allen noted that much of the decision-making was based on the so-called Imperial College model or models like it. The Imperial model concluded “that epidemic suppression is the only viable strategy at the current time. The social and economic effects of the measures which are needed to achieve this policy goal will be profound.”
However, there were multiple problems with the model, Allen wrote.
It assumed a viral reproduction number and fatality rate that were too high — as well as not being age-dependent. It was also based on the assumptions that “hospital capacity was assumed fixed and unchangeable” and “individuals in the model were assumed to not change behavior in the face of a new virus.” None of these panned out.
In addition, a study of European lockdown policies found no reduction in mortality in countries with more stringent lockdowns and a study in the United States found only a “modest” reduction in transmission in locales that locked down.
There were also costs beyond lost GDP, Allen wrote, including lost educational opportunities, increased mortality from unemployment and deaths “due to despair” (suicides, drug overdoses), an increase in domestic violence and medical treatments and examinations that were postponed.
Allen then proposed a different way of looking at the costs and benefits of COVID lockdowns, courtesy of a thought experiment from professor Bryan Caplan of George Mason University: “Suppose you could either live a year of life in the COVID era with lockdowns (e.g. like what happened in the U.K.), or 12-X months with the virus but no lockdowns (e.g. like what happened in Sweden or Florida). What value of X would make the AVERAGE person indifferent?”
“For any random individual, X could take on a wide range of values. For some this past year has been horrific, and perhaps they would have preferred it never happened. Perhaps they suffered violence or abuse that was fueled by frustration and alcohol while locked down during a long stay-at-home order. Or perhaps they lost a business, a major career opportunity, or struggled over a long period of unemployment and induced depression,” Allen wrote.
“For these people, X equals 12 — they would have paid 12 months of their life to have avoided this past year. Others might have been willing to pay even more. For the vast majority of populations, Covid-19 was not a serious health risk. Lockdowns provided no benefits and only costs. Thus, for the vast majority, X likely takes on a value in the order of a few months.”
Caplan posited that X = two months would be “a conservative estimate. That is, on average, two months would be sacrificed to have avoided lockdown.”
Allen used the model on Canada and found “the costs were at least thirty-five times higher than the benefits. The reasonable conservative case is that the cost/benefit ratio is around 141, which means that by any cost/benefit standard, lockdown has been a public policy disaster.”
“Furthermore, if the fall of 2021 results in many cases resulting from the more transmissible delta variant among a shrinking number of unvaccinated people, then the expected benefits of lockdown policies become even smaller. Lockdowns are not just an inefficient policy, they must rank as one of the greatest peacetime policy disasters of all time.”
Few individuals, of course, are so associated with the lockdowns as Dr. Fauci. Not that he has that power, mind you, but the Napoleon of the novel coronavirus pronounces his social distancing recommendations as ex cathedra statements, and the mainstream media treat them likewise. If you ask questions, you’re a science denier.
No, Fauci may not have been the actual authority imposing the lockdowns, but it’s undeniable that his recommendations have been treated as gospel by blue-state public health officials. His hands are all over this — and he’s not letting go, as Sunday proved.
The lockdowns are finally being re-evaluated — and not just by Allen or Caplan — but you’re going to keep seeing some minor-key variation on them pop up for quite some time.
If the COVID bogeyman goes away, so does a lever of arbitrary power. It doesn’t matter how destructive that power is when it’s exercised. For some, just being able to exercise it is enough.
The coronavirus vaccine booster blitz that the Biden White House is planning is being opposed by what a new report says is “a vocal contingent of prominent doctors and scientists.”
These outside experts, many of whom mattered when President Joe Biden had them on his transition team, expressed the view that their expertise had been left behind during a Sept. 27 call on vaccine policy, according to Politico.
The contention of those focused on the data is that the justification for using boosters to address issues related to breakthrough infections for the virus’ delta variant is simply lacking.
The report said that Dr. Anthony Fauci and other top Biden advisers were told that saner health policy would be to limit the boosters to only those at high risk of severe infection who could be hospitalized or die.
The willingness of the Biden White House to make the facts fit its conclusions “undermines credibility not just for [federal health]agencies but for the administration overall,” said Dr. Irwin Redlener, director of the Pandemic Resource and Response Initiative at Columbia University.
“Somebody needs a communication lesson. Maybe many people do,” he said.
When Politico went fishing for comments about the opposition of some experts to decisions ordained by the White House, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services said the administration “regularly engage[s] outside stakeholders from the medical community with a broad array of viewpoints for their feedback.”
According to the report, during the Sept. 27 call, Fauci said a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention independent vaccine advisory committee that wanted boosters limited to high-risk groups got it wrong.
The report, which cited sources it did not name, said Fauci also wanted to use boosters as a tool to reduce the spread of the coronavirus.
That, according to the report, sparked a fierce debate over what exactly the Biden administration’s end game was all about.
“It was very tense,” Politico quoted one source as saying. “More than anything, it was like Fauci felt he needed to make a point.”
Some said the better approach to addressing the spread of the virus would be to address vaccine reluctance rather than further vaccinating those already vaccinated.
“There is some benefit to reducing transmission with boosters. But that benefit is marginal compared to the benefit of vaccinating people in parts of the country that are not vaccinated, never gotten a dose to begin with,” said Nahid Bhadelia, director of Boston University’s Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases Policy and Research.
“Even with the booster, the antibodies may go down again. And as long as there is a pool of people who are not vaccinated in the community, I’m not going to be 100 percent protected,” Bhadelia said.
Others said that with the pandemic closing in on its third year and no end in sight, the administration must make tough decisions on boosters without full data.
“Part of what we’re working out here is how to use these vaccines, and we shouldn’t be surprised that we don’t have all the answers,” said Michael Osterholm, an epidemiologist who advised the Biden transition team and supports boosters. “Too many people are viewing this as a luxury dose. It’s not.”
Why won’t they report the verified facts about this D.C. career bureaucrat’s life?
Francis Collins, director of the U.S. National Institutes for Health (NIH) and one of the leading public voices during the COVID-19 pandemic will step down from his role following a number of investigative reports into Collins and his underlings.
Appointed by President Obama in 2009, Collins issued a statement this week saying: “I fundamentally believe … that no single person should serve in the position too long, and that it’s time to bring in a new scientist to lead the NIH into the future.”
But it is unlikely Collins’s belief in a revolving door at the NIH that has prompted the move. Rather, with pressure mounting on key public figures such as his minion Anthony Fauci and arms-length brother-in-arms Peter Daszak, it is worth looking at what the media won’t be saying about Collins this week.
National Institutes of Health director Dr. Francis Collins serves on the advisory board of a conference sponsored by a Chinese military-linked genomics firm. The D.C.-based, health industry big-wig and boss to Anthony Fauci has even referred to the controversial company’s founder as a “friend”.
BGI Genomics has been flagged by U.S. intelligence officials for its robust efforts to “collect, store and exploit biometric information” on American citizens through COVID-19 test kits. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the firm has deep ties to both the Chinese Communist Party and its military.
Dr. Francis Collins, the director of the National Institute for Health (NIH), appears to have directly contradicted his underling Dr. Anthony Fauci in a bombshell moment from an interview with Hugh Hewitt.
The revelations further implicate those who approved U.S. grants to the lab, and the EcoHealth Alliance run by the British-born Peter Dazcak – who The National Pulse first reported on back in February.
The National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) has also funded several studies conducted by the Wuhan Institute of Virology, including research focused on bat coronaviruses alongside U.S.-based research groups such as the Anthony Fauci-funded EcoHealth Alliance.
Various National Institutes of Health agencies – including Anthony Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases – have funded over 250 studies authored by researchers at institutions controlled by China’s People’s Liberation Army.
Following a unique investigation into the origins of scientific research papers, the whopping level of collaboration with the Chinese military will further concerns in the United States that the political class has surrendered to the Chinese Communist Party. Last week it emerged that the ranking General in the U.S. Armed Forces agreed to tip off China in advance of a U.S.-led attack.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has continued to funnel millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund scientific research in conjunction with Communist China since the beginning of the COVID pandemic, including to military-controlled organizations.
Over half of the grants sent since early 2020 came from Anthony Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
The National Institutes of Health, the foremost research institute under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, has investigated 189 researchers for undisclosed ties to foreign countries, 93 percent of which were linked to China.
The fresh round of terminations resulted from an ongoing investigation at the taxpayer-funded National Institutes of Health (NIH) into the failure of grant recipients to disclose financial ties to foreign governments.
In reality, accountability in a post-COVID era is what likely shuffled Francis Collins off from his otherwise immortal coil at the top of the NIH. Not that the corporate media would ever tell you any of that.
So, St. Anthony Fauci has come down from his mountain top with a new list of “thou-shall-nots” and the news that it is “too early” to say whether he will allow families and friends to congregate for Christmas.
It is not too early for the body politic to engage in one gigantic spasm of retroperistalsis and expel that tyrannical medical pest from the community.
After all, Dr. Fauci is the chap who tells anyone who will listen that, when it comes to vaccine mandates, “There comes a time when you do have to give up what you consider your individual right of making your own decision for the greater good of society.”
Ah, yes, “greater good of society”—as defined, it goes without saying, by A. Fauci.
It is long past time for this fomenter of hysteria to go. He has being terrorizing the American populace for decades.
Give him a padded cell, a mirror, and a TV camera and he will be happy.
Back in the 1980s, Fauci was a superspreader of the myth that an important vector for the transmission of HIV was heterosexual intercourse.
For the last couple of years, he has been terrifying the public with tales from the crypt about the virus he helped develop with American taxpayer money for “gain of function” research in a Chinese virology lab in Wuhan.
The fact that this Bela Lugosi of the medical establishment is also a publicity addict who can’t pass a television camera without primping and dispensing contradictory but depressing dicta makes him a public nuisance.
You see his baneful influence everywhere.
In our former newspaper of record, for example, The New York Times.
Deploying their signature mixture of nauseating human interest pabulum and tendentious statistics, they paid homage to the CCP virus for giving them something to write about now that Donald Trump is, for the time being, off the menu.
According to the Times, the fact that the deaths of 700,000 people in the United States have been attributed to the virus means that it is now officially more deadly than the Spanish ’flu epidemic of 1918, which killed about 675,000 people in the United States.
Remember the old saw about “lies, damned lies, and statistics”?
The Timesspecializes in that wheeze.
The CCP Virus can be serious, no doubt about it. But it represents a significant threat to a tiny part of the population, mostly the elderly, especially those with certain co-morbidities like diabetes and obesity.
The Spanish ’flu, by contrast, cut a wide swathe through the young and healthy.
The so-called Delta variant seems to be more infectious but less virulent than the original.
It has affected some younger people, much to the delight of the Times and other members of Fauci fan club.
But the Timesstory is just the Gray-Lady version of a domestic-strife story like those in the sensationalistic rags you see in the supermarket checkout line. “Betts and Andy on the Rocks: What Really Happened On Their Honeymoon.”
Now on to those numbers.
One critical distinction you won’t find mentioned in the Times cri-de-coeur is the difference between dying from the CCP virus and dying with it. Millions upon millions are infected.
It is, after all, a very contagious virus.
But not only is it the case that many who are infected experience mild or no symptoms, it is also the case that many who are infected with the virus and happen to die in fact die from other things.
Remember the chap who was in fatal motorcycle accident, spread like jam across the highway, but had his death listed as due to COVID because the goo “tested positive”?
Another set of numbers you rarely see in the reporting about COVID fatalities is the age of the people who died.
The average life expectancy for males in the United States is around 78.
If Mr. Smith, who suffers from diabetes and high-blood pressure, comes down with COVID and dies at 87, is his death due to COVID?
You see why I like to say that the great thing about COVID is that it abolished death from old age.
It also essentially abolished death from influenza.
Generally there are anywhere from 20,000 to 40,000 deaths from the ’flu in this country per annum.
The CCP virus is a seasonal respiratory virus. The key to public health regarding it is the achievement of herd immunity.
Masks, lockdowns, and “social distancing” impede achievement of herd immunity.
The Harvard epidemiologist Martin Kulldorff and Stanford’s Dr. Jay Bhattacharya got it exactly right when they wrote last spring that “The idea that everybody needs to be vaccinated is as scientifically baseless as the idea that nobody does. COVID vaccines are essential for older, high-risk people and their caretakers and advisable for many others. But those who’ve been infected are already immune.”
At last, the clear voice of common sense—which is also, by the way, the voice of that “science” we’re supposed to be following.
Messrs. Kulldorff and Bhattacharya go on to offer these wise observations:
“Vaccine passports are unjust and discriminatory.”
“Most of those endorsing the idea belong to the laptop class—privileged professionals who worked safely and comfortably at home during the epidemic.”
“Millions of Americans did essential jobs at their usual workplaces and became immune the hard way. Now they would be forced to risk adverse reactions from a vaccine they don’t need.”
“Passports would entice young, low-risk professionals, in the West and the developing world, to get the vaccine before older, higher-risk but less affluent members of society. Many unnecessary deaths would result.”
“The widespread use of vaccines against polio, measles, mumps, rubella, rabies and other pathogens has saved millions of lives. Vaccines are one of the most important inventions in human history—the reason that before last year many in the West had forgotten that infectious disease could pose a population wide threat.”
“Those pushing for coercive COVID vaccination threaten all this progress by undermining public trust in vaccines. In this sense, they are more dangerous than the small group of so-called anti-vaxxers have ever been.”
What a pity that the media did not elevate experts like Martin Kulldorff and Jay Bhattacharya to the sacrosanct position it saved for Anthony Fauci.
We all would have been saved a great deal of irritation not to mention economic ruin and political despotism.
Dr. Anthony Fauci’s claim that it’s “just too soon to tell” if families can hold Christmas gatherings has come under scrutiny by a Johns Hopkins professor who accused him of failing to communicate that the COVID-19 risk is “not equally distributed.”
Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden, made the claim Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”
However, Dr. Marty Makary, a Johns Hopkins professor and public health researcher, disputed that assessment during an interview Monday on Fox News’ “Fox & Friends.”
“We’re going to be in a much better place in a couple of weeks or maybe by November at the latest,” Makary said.
“Cases are down 35 percent, and we’ve always known this delta virus is so contagious. It’s burning through that last segment of the population with no natural or vaccinated immunity,” he said. “By December, almost every adult will have had COVID or vaccination.”
Makary also noted Fauci failed to disclose the shift from the coronavirus pandemic to an endemic.
“In the language that he’s using there’s an implicit denial that we’re moving from an epidemic to an endemic phase, that is, we’ve got to learn to live with it,” he said.
The medical researcher also noted the problem with not explaining the unequal distribution of risk across America.
“We’ve got over 90 percent of seniors vaccinated. The risk is not equally distributed in the population, and that’s what they fail to communicate,” Makary said.
Dr. Fauci claims it’s too soon to tell if families can hold Christmas gatherings. Dr. @MartyMakary sounds off: “The risk is not equally distributed in the population and that’s what they fail to communicate.” pic.twitter.com/K5Er8vTRdA
This is not the first time Makary has provided a medical perspective that contrasted with the views of Fauci.
Last month, Fox News published an opinion piece in which he shared his concerns regarding President Joe Biden’s vaccine mandates.
Speaking about studies on natural immunity, Makary wrote, “If you recovered from a COVID infection, you have natural immunity which is 27-times more effective than vaccinated immunity in preventing symptomatic COVID, according to a large Israeli study.”
Another concern he shared was that mandates are not flexible with children.
“The current adult dose and short interval between doses may be too high for children,” Makary said.
“It’s always concerned me that we give are giving the same vaccine dose and short interval between doses to a thin 12-year old girl that we give to an overweight 50-year old man,” he said.
Makary concluded that the Biden phrase “pandemic of the unvaccinated” is not completely accurate.
“President Biden has rallied around the term ‘a pandemic of the unvaccinated’ but the more precise term is ‘a pandemic of the non-immune,’” he said.
Despite his repeat denials, we’ve got the paper trail linking Anthony Fauci to Wuhan’s BSL4 lab.
New Anthony Fauci e-mails obtained by The National Pulse reveal that a lab he funded through his National Institutes of Health agency was training researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s biosafety level four facility.
Now, a new e-mail confirms a previous National Pulse report on the relationship between the Chinese Communist Party-run institute and the Galveston National Laboratory (GNL), which describes itself as “constructed under grants awarded by [Fauci’s] National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).”
GROUP PHOTO FEATURING BARIC, SHI ZHENGLI, AND LE DUC.
The National Pulse can reveal a 2017 e-mail exchange between Fauci and GNL director James LeDuc confirming the existence of the lab’s partnership with the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
In brief, the e-mail shows Fauci’s funding of GNL via NIAID was doing directly towards training Chinese BSL4 staff.
Collaborations with ‘Important Leaders of China’
LeDuc sent an email [below] to Fauci on October 31st, 2017 titled “China BSL4 labs” where he reminds Fauci how they conversed “regarding collaborations with the new Chinese [biosafety level 4] labs.” Among the labs referenced by LeDuc are the “Chinese Academy of Sciences (Wuhan BSL4).”
LeDuc notes that “the directors of each of these 3 new labs has agreed to come to Galveston”:
Tony,
In follow up to our brief discussions at the UT meeting regarding collaborations with the new Chinese BSL4 labs, the US National Academy of Sciences will be hosting a meeting here at the GNL Tuesday, 16 Jan to Thursday, 18 Jan 2018 with counterparts from the Chinese Academy of Sciences (Wuhan BSL4), the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences (Kunming BSL4), and the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (Harbin BSL4). Each of these labs has been constructed and they are about to begin operations. The directors of each of these 3 new labs has agreed to come to Galveston, as has George Gao (if his schedule permits) and about 6-8 other accomplishes [sic] Chinese scientists.
The GNL Director continues, noting that the goal of the meeting is to facilitate “collaborations” and train the Chinese researchers in “practices in safety and security”:
The meeting will focus on a balance of science and operations with the goal of building collaborations and ensuring that the new labs are exposed to US best practices in safety and security. I’m wondering if you would be interested in joining us.
LeDuc concludes the email by adding that “important leaders of China” would attend the meeting:
This is not a “command performance” so no pressure is intended, but it would be a good opportunity for you to meet and interact on a personal and informal basis with these important leaders of China. We expect about 10-12 senior Chinese and a comparable number of senior US scientists from outside UTMB, plus several UTMB folks. I will be hosting a dinner at our home on Tuesday evening to facilitate informal discussions. Let me know if you’re interested and we can work to accommodate your schedule—again, no pressure. Happy to chat if you like.
LEDUC’S EMAIL.
On the same day Fauci receives the email, he forwards it to a contact – “NIAID OD AM” – while adding “let us discuss.”
FAUCI EMAIL.
The following day, Fauci informs LeDuc he is unable to attend due to scheduling conflicts, adding “thanks for the note and the invitation” and expressing no concern over the program:
Jim:
Thanks for the note and the invitation. Unfortunately, that week in January, 2018 is all tied up for me and so I regrettably will not be able to come to Galveston. Thanks for thinking of me.
Previously unearthed presentations from the Texas-based lab show its researchers training counterparts at the Wuhan Institute of Virology on how to handle the “world’s most dangerous pathogens.” American researchers funded by Fauci, such as University of North Carolina’s Dr. Ralph Baric, have visited the China-based lab as part of the program.
Baric is a proponent of gain-of-function research, calling the controversial form of virus manipulation “a crucial tool,” and was referenced by Senator Rand Paul as a partner of the Wuhan lab’s top bat coronavirus researcher Shi Zhengli while she carried out the risky form of research.
Fauci denied any involvement – via funding or personnel– from his NIAID on the research.
In their quest to prevent another SARS-like outbreak, Chinese and Western scientists pursued new viruses from bat caves in Southern China. Their efforts would lead them to a mine in Mojiang, China, where six miners had fallen ill with COVID-like symptoms.
N THEIR QUEST TO PREVENT another SARS-like outbreak, Chinese and Western scientists pursued new viruses from bat caves in Southern China. Their efforts would lead them to a mine in Mojiang, China, where six miners had fallen ill with COVID-like symptoms.
It was here that Shi Zheng-li of the Wuhan Institute of Virology found the closest known relative to COVID-19. This virus, along with thousands of other virus samples, would be brought back to several labs in Wuhan.
The Chinese labs were partially funded by Western organizations including Dr. Anthony Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance. When the COVID-19 pandemic erupted in Wuhan, efforts to promote a natural origins theory while dispelling any discussion of a potential lab leak were spearheaded by Fauci and involved a number of leading Western scientists.
Yet more Fauci e-mails shed light on the closeness to the CCP of U.S. healthcare officials.
ew e-mails from Mr. Anthony Fauci – obtained exclusively by The National Pulse – reveal the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director congratulated epidemiologist Dr. Ian Lipkin, a key Wuhan Institute of Virology collaborator, on receiving personal awards from Chinese Communist Party dictator Xi Jinping.
Lipkin – a Columbia University Professor – received the China International Science and Technology Cooperation Award from regime chief Xi in 2016 before going on to claim another award from China’s Central Government, Central Military Commission, and State Council.
The 2016 award is the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) top science honor for foreign scientists, and, as quoted in a Columbia University press release, Lipkin remarked that “it solidifies my relationship with dear friends and colleagues in the Chinese Academy of Science, Ministry of Science and Technology and the Ministry of Health” – all of which are wholly-owned and operated Chinese Communist Party entities.
In 2020 he commented, “It is a great honor to receive this medal… I will cherish it as a reminder of my dear friends and colleagues in China and all we have accomplished together for the health of the Chinese people and all people around the world.”
The latter award came just days before Communist China told the world of the human-to-human transmission of the then “novel coronavirus” which came to be known as COVID-19.
As the virus spread Dr. Lipkin became one of the most frequent media talking heads on the subject. Lauded by the New York Times in 2010, Lipkin’s work in covering for his Chinese Communist friends became apparent just 6 days after the World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 outbreak a “pandemic.”
Without much evidence at all, Lipkin and four others produced a paper on “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2,” wherein they speculated that “[i]t is improbable that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation of a related SARS-CoV-like coronavirus.”
A few months later Lipkin even thanked Fauci for his dismissal of the lab-leak theory. Today, almost 18 months later, that view is no longer credible.
Congrats!
In addition to his close links to China’s hardline Marxist regime, Lipkin has also received nearly 100 grants from Fauci’s own National Institutes of Health (NIH) agency to fund his research.
LIPKIN AT THE WUHAN INSTITUTE OF VIROLOGY.
The press release, included in the email sent from Fauci, touches on Lipkin’s long history of collaboration with the Chinese Communist Party and the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
A summary of his professional experience reveals he even “consults” for the regime and has lectured and accepted grants from Chinese state-run scientific bodies, as previously revealed by The National Pulse.
FAUCI/LIPKIN EMAIL.
Fauci exclaimed “Congratulations!” before adding, “Very much deserved” in an email sent to Lipkin the day following the January 8th, 2016 press release.
The email obtained by The National Pulse follows Lipkin’s stark denial of a lab origin for COVID-19. Lipkin was quoted by outlets including CBS and USA Today as a means by which to “debunk” Dr. Redfield’s explosive claim linking the virus to a Chinese lab.
“We should be moving away from finger-pointing,” Lipkin told CBS after adding there is “no evidence to suggest that it was created in a lab.”
Lipkin has also given several interviews to state-run Chinese news outlets including China Global Television Network, where he insisted “I have so many friends in China, in universities, and in government that I can help people to talk to one another and work together.” “Renowned epidemiologist Walter Lipkin lauds China’s transparent and professional approach against coronavirus outbreak,” reads a headline from the state-run outlet Global Times.
Fauci and Daszak continue their CCP collaborator road show.
nthony Fauci recently spoke to a conference sponsored by Wuhan lab collaborators, EcoHealth Alliance, The National Pulse can reveal.
Despite a preponderance of evidence of EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak’s role in the cover-up of COVID-19’s origins, Fauci addressed the event which also featured Daszak as a speaker.
The National Pulse can also reveal that the Fauci-led National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) sponsored the September 2021 event alongside other federal agencies including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and United States Agency for International Development (USAID).
SPONSORS.
A longtime recipient of grants from Fauci’s National Institutes of Health (NIH) agency, Daszak controversially used the federal funds to pursue collaborative research on bat coronaviruses with the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Daszak, who has hosted Fauci as a featured guest at several EcoHealth Alliance events, also spearheaded the fraudulent narrative that COVID-19 developed in a wet market in his roles on the Lancet COVID-19 committee and World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 origins investigation team.
Daszak was later recused from the Lancet task force due to his conflicts of interests exposed by The National Pulse.
Despite EcoHealth’s Chinese Communist Party collaboration and subsequent cover-up, Fauci appeared at a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) forum, “Toward a Post-Pandemic World,” alongside him. The event occurred September 21st through 24th, concluding one day before Daszak’s entire Lancet COVID task force was disbanded due to conflicts of interest.
A conference agenda seen by The National Pulse reveals that Daszak delivered the event’s welcome and closing addresses.
Similarly, on the final day of the event, Fauci delivered a pre-recorded “visionary statement” on “Pandemic Preparedness: The Biomedical Research Approach.”
AGENDA.
Despite Daszak’s repeated lies about COVID-19, the event seeks to mitigate the “impact of dis- and misinformation” in an effort to “maintain public trust and optimize adherence”;
“The impact of dis- and misinformation and how it can be managed to maintain public trust and optimize adherence to health behavioral guidance in a time of crisis.”
The September event was the complement to a forum convened in March 2021 by NASEM’S Forum on Microbial Threats, where Daszak serves as the Chair.
I seem to have been fortunate enough to stumble upon the latest vaccine shaming “copy and paste” post some people have decided to share on social media. If you’re vaccinated, good for you. If you’re not vaccinated, good for you. I honestly don’t care what you do with your body because the only person I have any control over is myself.
That being said, I’m honestly tired of staying silent while everybody else, including Joe Biden, go off on their tangents.
You’re vaccinated, and you don’t know what’s in it? You don’t know what’s in hot dogs or treatments for cancer, AIDS, MS, etc.? You don’t know what’s in Tylenol and Ibuprofen and tattoo ink and shampoo and your food? Well, the great thing about living in the information technology age is a lot of that information is available right at your fingertips, presuming of course it hasn’t been censored. We live in a time where we have the ability to know a lot of things that we didn’t know before. There may be a lot of things you don’t know right now, but you have the ability and opportunity to educate yourself. If you decide not to take the time, that’s your business. But that also makes you incredibly lazy and ignorant.
Life is short. And it passes quickly and can change on a dime. I believe all of us still have a lot of things we want to do in this life and experiences we want to share. Places we want to go. People we want to see.
If you seriously think the answer is shaming people who HAVE done their research into getting injected with something that isn’t even a vaccine is going to allow you to get your life back, you’re wrong.
The problem is, we’ve been putting our lives on hold for almost 19 months now. We’ve listened to the science. We kept our kids home from school for a year. We shut down businesses, some forever. We closed our churches, our parks, our gyms, our hiking trails, our beaches, pretty much everything. Obesity of U.S. children increased among 5- through 11-year-olds from 36.2 percent to 45.7 percent. Where’s the outcry over that? How about the excess consumption of processed sugars like high-fructose corn syrup? Where’s your passport for being allowed to be a parent or a human being for that matter? Maybe it’s time for you to remedy that for your fellow man.
And yet some still keep believing the next hurdle you jump over will get you back to your normal lives. But the goalposts keeps moving!
Guess what? You can’t comply your way back to freedom. This will never end if we keep submitting to the latest and greatest “scientific suggestion” that’s being forced on us. Label me a conspiracy theorist? I don’t care. The stats are in my favor as I’m currently at about 50-0 as far as how things are going down. If anything, I identify as a walking spoiler alert.
Personally, I’m appalled and offended that certain people in certain occupations are having to choose between getting injected with an experimental gene therapy (yes, that’s what your “vaccine” is, read the FDA “approval”), or lose their jobs, livelihoods and ability to support their families. It’s abhorrent to think in order to have a place in society, we’d have to inject ourselves with this and show proof to anyone and everyone. I’m sure the Germans in the 1930s allowed fear and division to make them think what was being done to the Jews was fair and justified as well. It’s taken almost 90 years for history to repeat itself. The Nuremberg Code is still in effect and these people enforcing these mandates are in violation of it.
Are these hospitals seriously going to fire nurses and doctors for NOT getting a vaccine in the middle of a pandemic? That’ll be a sight to see. It may resemble our exit from Afghanistan! These medical professionals worked through COVID for 18 months on the frontlines and were last year’s heroes and are now deemed expendable because they don’t want to inject themselves with an experimental vaccine. How about teachers? Are we going to shut down schools again? Parents will LOVE that. Or maybe we should eliminate the teaching certification so any random person can teach our kids? In Oregon you no longer need to show proficiency in reading and math. Will that become the new standard?
I advise you all to read The Thirty Tyrants. There is a ton of corruption in this world and in our government. Our Founding Fathers NEVER meant for our representatives to make lifelong careers in Washington, DC. Some of these younger representatives show promise but if they’re there too long, it’s only a matter of time before their soul and morals obtain a price tag and they’ll be bought and sold to the Devil himself.
How is it okay for these politicians to mandate how we live our lives and lock us down and torment our kids while they go out to expensive dinners indoors unmasked nor socially distanced at The French Laundry? How is it okay to have a 60th birthday party with 600 guests when my father’s funeral was limited to 10 people? How is it acceptable to enforce mask mandates and no social gatherings and be caught at a backyard BBQ doing exactly what was mandated NOT to do? How is it acceptable to say we can’t travel while politicians are off vacationing abroad? How is it okay to close hair salons and most of us went without getting a haircut for a year when you parade maskless inside a salon you had opened especially for you?
I also advise you all to do your own research and come to your own conclusions. Turn off the news, the television and the radio. FOLLOW THE MONEY. There’s a medicine that costs 12 cents that could eradicate this virus but instead the $300 billion option is being forced on us. Stop shaming people for the decisions that they make. Stop buying in to this ridiculous rhetoric. This won’t end until we say it ends. People all over the world are starting uprisings because they have had ENOUGH.
I’ve been affected by loss from COVID. I’m not denying the reality or severity of the virus. But Fauci is not my God. Bill Gates’ software and computers get viruses all the time! What is he doing working on and funding vaccines? Ultimately, the only person who knows how many days I have left on this earth is Jesus Christ, and that’s who I’m choosing to put my faith in. Not Fauci, not Pfizer, not Moderna, or whomever else is trying to dictate how I live my life. I do not consent. I will not comply.
For those doctors and nurses who have blatantly stated they won’t treat people who aren’t vaccinated, for the nurse who posted on social media recently that they’ll mess with your ventilator if you’re not vaccinated, I’m sorry, didn’t you all take an OATH when you became licensed? It’s your duty to do your job no matter what state or condition a person is in. Those lives lost are on YOUR hands, not the unvaccinated. And for those people who say the unvaccinated deserve to die? You’re no better than the dictators and tyrants. And even with your vaccine you can still get and spread the virus so YOU also should have to submit to regular tests.
I woke up about 18 months ago. Waking up is painful and disillusioning. But honestly, walking around awake in a world that’s still asleep is more painful and creates a righteous anger inside of you. I pray every day that darkness comes to light, that the truth comes out, and most importantly that those who have committed these crimes against humanity be held accountable.
Newly leaked documents obtained by private research group DRASTIC “completely contradict” claims made by both China and American immunologist Dr. Anthony S. Fauci about the reality of gain-of-function research being done inside the Wuhan Institute of Virology that may have caused the coronavirus pandemic, according to a former State Department COVID-19 investigator.
On “The Story“, host Martha MacCallum reported the documents released by DRASTIC revealed a plan to create a coronavirus – in this case SARS-CoV-2 – that would be more infections to and transmissible via humans. The virus would then be released in batcaves where researchers would test the flying mammals with vaccines to see if they could cure the virus.
The Chinese researchers planned to inject the “super-charged” virus into “humanized mice” to see what the effect on them would be.
Dr. David Asher, the ex-State Department official, told Fox News the biggest takeaway from the new documents is that there is a “smoking gun that explains the specific features of the [virus] sequence that are so peculiar.”
“The most genetically unusual piece of the puzzle and the sequence is a ‘furin cleavage site’, which allows the virus to spread from bats to humans, and among humans in a highly pathogenic way,” he said.
“The fact that the Wuhan Institute – with EcoHealth Alliance as their US partner – were applying for funding to do gain of function research, explicitly to endow a bat-borne Coronavirus related to SARS with a furin cleavage site so it could essentially kill humans.”
EcoHealth alliance, a New York-based NGO, is run by Dr. Peter Daszak, whom Fox News host Tucker Carlson recently discussed on his program.
Carlson previously reported on Daszak’s group’s funding of bat coronavirus research in Wuhan, with the help of the taxpayer funding the federal government directed to EcoHealth Alliance.
“We learned that the guy directly tied to bat virus experiments in the lab in Wuhan was the same guy telling the entire world that there was no possibility this virus could have come from the Wuhan lab. Conflict of interest, anyone? It’s absurd,” Carlson said of Daszak in June, noting that the doctor organized a letter published in The Lancet that downplayed the possibility the virus could’ve come from the Chinese lab.
On Thursday, Asher told Fox News he is relieved that in the end, DARPA, the Pentagon’s research & development arm, turned down direct funding to the coronavirus project in the Wuhan lab on account of “weapons of mass destruction concerns.”
According to Asher, DARPA also felt concerned the research was “pure gain of function – which contradicts Fauci.”
“It looks like the Chinese got into a global viral project, which works with this EcoHealth Alliance, and used China’s own funding to conduct the research into advancing the pathogenecity of COVID. Now we have all of the pieces genetically that account for Covid-19 being manufactured in that lab in Wuhan, the Wuhan institute by the bat lady (Dr. Shi Zhengli),” Asher said.
“All the lies that the Chinese had put out — and all the lies and the cover-up at the NIH and others have been complicit in have now been defeated,” he said, as the Bethesda, Maryland federal institute is the umbrella organization of Fauci’s NIAID.
Despite trying to distance themselves from one another, Fauci and Daszak have been colluding for years.
espite Anthony Fauci’s attempts to distance his agency from EcoHealth Alliance, the Peter Daszak-led group collaborating on coronavirus research with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, The National Pulse can reveal that the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director has been published in the controversial organization’s scientific journal.
Fauci authored an article for Volume 10 the EcoHealth Journal, whose Editor-in-Chief is Daszak, in March 2013. Of the 18 stories included in the issue, Fauci’s article was selected as the “cover story,” as the piece’s accompanying artwork was featured on the front page of the magazine.
The article was published roughly one year before Fauci’s NIAID inaugurated the controversial “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence” grant, which ultimately led to U.S. taxpayer dollars funding collaborative research with the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
“The two-century-old American emergence of dengue is an interesting starting point for considering determinants of emerging infectious diseases that occur today,” the article begins its overview of the viral disease.
The article stresses that the virus entered and spread throughout America via travelers from the Caribbean islands: “As early as the eighteenth century, dengue was being spread by human travel and was being introduced into new locales such as Philadelphia by the importation of both mosquitoes and infected crews and passengers arriving from Caribbean islands.”
The piece reiterates that American epidemics can often trace their roots to other countries:
“Dengue and yellow fever usually began in residential areas close to the docks, only occurred in the summer months, were repeatedly associated with concomitant Caribbean island epidemics, and such epidemics seem to have been most pronounced in places, like Philadelphia, where fresh water was scarce and expensive, leading to on premise storage of potable water, an ideal environment for Aedes oviposition (egg-depositing).”
Fauci’s featured publication in the EcoHealth journal undercuts his repeated claims that the NIAID didn’t support the group’s research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. In addition to top Wuhan lab personnel describing Daszak as a “longtime collaborator,” The National Pulse has also uncovered Fauci’s repeated attendance at events hosted by EcoHealth such as “Zika virus: A Pandemic in Progress.”
Fauci and Daszak were also co-panelists at a 2017 Consortium of Universities for Global Health conference where Daszak admitted that NIAID funded his “work on coronaviruses in China.”
It may seem too convenient to be true, but this event actually happened in 2017. The full video follows the article.
Speaking at the 2017 Consortium of Universities for Global Health conference on a panel alongside Anthony Fauci, EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak admitted his controversial “work on coronaviruses in China” was carried out with “funding through” Fauci’s National Institutes of Health agency.
The unearthed conference follows Fauci’s repeated attempts to distance his agency from the controversial New York-based non-profit, which, as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant registry shows, used the money to collaborate with the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
The National Pulse has previously uncovered footage of Daszak describing the viruses he manipulated as part of his “longtime” collaboration with the Chinese Communist Party-run lab as “killers.”
The 2017 event, the “Healthy People, Healthy Ecosystems” conference hosted by the Consortium of Universities for Global Health (CUGH), took place in Washington, D.C. In its description of the conference, CUGH notes that the conference supports its vision for a “world without borders”:
“CUGH believes in a world without borders, because the desire for health and well-being is universal and doesn’t change based on race, ethnicity, national, socioeconomic status, sexual identity, or geographic location.”
The conference’s unearthed agenda reveals the attendance of EcoHealth President Peter Daszak, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Director Anthony Fauci, and Principal Deputy Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Anne Schuchat. The three individuals participated in a panel – “Future of Infectious Disease Pandemics: From Ebola to Zika, and Beyond” – where they discussed pandemic preparedness.
“Although much is known about how to detect and respond to existing infections, more research is needed to predict the likelihood of their emergence and spread, and to improve the precision and timeliness of public health responsiveness,” notes the panel description.
CONFERENCE AGENDA.
During Daszak’s presentation, given with an accompanying slideshow, he states his coronavirus work in China was carried out with “funding” from Fauci’s NIAID along with the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Emerging Pandemic Threats (EPT) program:
“Working with the USAID EPT PREDICT Program and funding through NIAID to work on coronaviruses in China, we were able to test out this idea of predicting what the next emerging diseases might be. So we’ve all heard of SARS. We know that SARS is carried by civets. Well, actually, the host of SARS-like viruses, the viruses that the SARS coronavirus emerged from are bats.”
– Peter Daszak, EcoHealth Alliance, 2017
“We worked in China to go out and do surveillance in other bat species and say how many other SARS-like viruses are there. Is there something even close to SARS? And sure enough, there was,” he adds.
“We’re now doing surveillance of the people and we’ve found using NIAID funding that actually there is potential of spillover into those peoples,” he reiterates while outlining the global increase of human-animal interaction.
“Even the international grants, the bulk of those funds go through U.S. organizations like ours before we send any abroad,” Daszak answers in response to a question about federal funding posed by Cornell Medicine’s Oliver Fein, who asserts “the worst virus that we presently have is the Trump administration.”
DASZAK DELIVERS HIS ADMISSION.
During the panel, Schuchat, a CDC official, also praises the Chinese Communist Party’s response to China’s first SARS outbreak:
“A key lesson was that cover-ups are not worth it. You may recall the Minister of Health and the Mayor of Beijing were both removed during the SARS epidemic and that being transparent and open with your situation is a lot better.”
– Principal Deputy Director of the CDC, Anne Schuchat
“Beijing did an incredible job of responding once the political level let them respond. They took over the healthcare system,” she adds.
Another panel at the event – “The Global Virome Project: A First Step Toward Ending the Pandemic Era” – featured Daszak and the Chief Scientific Officer of Metabiota, a pandemic tracking and response firm whose lead financial backer was a Hunter Biden-led investment group.
Biden served as Managing Director of Rosemont Seneca Technology Partners (RSTP), which led the company’s first round of funding worth $30 million.
The panel summary predicts that “over the coming century we will witness spillover from a pool of more than 1,000,000 “unknown” viruses into human populations”:
“The frequency of pandemics is increasing, driven by surging populations, environmental change and globalized trade and travel. Disease outbreaks illustrate that we are ill-prepared to mitigate the impact of a novel virus or prevent its emergence. Only a small proportion of viral threats have been identified. Over the coming century we will witness spillover from a pool of more than 1,000,000 “unknown” viruses into human populations. A global initiative to identify and characterize every significant viral threat circulating in the world is achievable over the next ten years – a critical and essential step towards ending the pandemic era.”
FAUCI.
Both Daszak and Fauci have repeatedly lied about the type of research occurring at the Chinese Communist Party-run lab, as a host of Fauci’s emails obtained via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) reveal the facility was carrying out “gain-of-function” research and deleted articles reveal the lab worked with live bats despite Daszak stating otherwise.
Daszak, who failed to disclose his extensive ties to the Wuhan lab and the Chinese Communist Party, was recused from the Lancet medical journal’s COVID-19 commission yet still appears on mainstream news networks.
U.S. taxpayers have been footing the bill for Chinese military-linked studies for over a decade, a National Pulse investigation has revealed.
Various National Institutes of Health agencies – including Anthony Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases – have funded over 250 studies authored by researchers at institutions controlled by China’s People’s Liberation Army, The National Pulse can exclusively reveal.
Following a unique investigation into the origins of scientific research papers, the whopping level of collaboration with the Chinese military will further concerns in the United States that the political class has surrendered to the Chinese Communist Party. Last week it emerged that the ranking General in the U.S. Armed Forces agreed to tip off China in advance of a U.S.-led attack.
The unearthed studies, from the National Institutes (NIH) online database, expand upon the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) ties to the Wuhan Institute of Virology unearthed by The National Pulse.
U.S. Taxpayers Funding the People’s Liberation Army.
Of 265 studies identified by The National Pulse, the Chinese military entity most frequently appearing on studies funded by the NIH is the Beijing-based PLA General Hospital, a subsidiary of the army’s Joint Logistics Support Force of the Central Military Commission.
A now-deleted informational site about the facility notes it is “the largest comprehensive hospital in the whole army” that is “responsible for the medical and health care tasks of the leaders of the state and the military commission.”
A study – “Kras-Deficient T Cells Attenuate Graft-versus-Host Disease but Retain Graft-versus-Leukemia Activity” – has two researchers from the PLA General Hospital named as authors while noting “this work was supported in part by National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Grant AI079087 (to D.W.).”
T CELLS STUDY.
Several other hospitals under the PLA’s extensive network – including branches 85, 306, 307, 401,455, and 960 – have seen their researchers listed as authors on studies designated in the NIH database as receiving “research support” from the federal agency.
Examples of studies include “Spinal Cord Lateral Hemisection and Asymmetric Behavioral Assessments in Adult Rats,” which lists two researchers from the 960th PLA Hospital under the army’s Joint Logistics Support Force despite receiving funding from the NIH and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
SPINAL CORD STUDY.
Similarly, researchers from the Wuhan General Hospital of China’s PLA – located in the city hosting the lab believed to be the source of COVID-19 – have also co-authored NIH-funded studies.
A 2015 study – “Differences in the distribution, phenotype and gene expression of subretinal microglia/macrophages in C57BL/6N (Crb1 rd8/rd8) versus C57BL6/J (Crb1 wt/wt) mice” – notes that “support for this work was provided by NIH grant 1R01EY022652” in addition to listing a researcher from the Wuhan General Hospital of Guangzhou Military Command as an author.
MACROPHAGE STUDY.
Researchers from PLA-run universities including the Second, Third, and Fourth Military Medical Universities and Third and Fifth PLA Medical Centers also appear on NIH-funded studies.
The findings align with the Chinese Communist Party’s doctrine of Military-Civil Fusion (MCF) as outlined by the U.S. State Department:
Under MCF, the CCP is acquiring the intellectual property, key research, and technological advances of the world’s citizens, researchers, scholars, and private industry in order to advance the CCP’s military aims. […] Its goal is to enable the PRC to develop the most technologically advanced military in the world. As the name suggests, a key part of MCF is the elimination of barriers between China’s civilian research and commercial sectors, and its military and defense industrial sectors. The CCP is implementing this strategy, not just through its own research and development efforts, but also by acquiring and diverting the world’s cutting-edge technologies – including through theft – in order to achieve military dominance.
The National Pulse has previously exposed NIH Director Francis Collins’s advisory role with a controversial, Chinese military-linked genomics firm and his agency’s collaborative agreements with another military-linked entity, the National Natural Science Foundation of China.
The Intercept’s recent FOIA results added abundant documentation of Dr. Anthony Fauci’s funding, using U.S. tax dollars, for dangerous gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab—funding that Fauci had denied in testimony to Sen. Rand Paul; funding, indeed, that I had tried to share with the public on Twitter in early June, the day before Twitter deplatformed me permanently.
The Intercept’s FOIA trove adds important detail to existing documentation of that NIH-funded gain-of-function research and its potential links to the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic. Natalie Winters of The National Pulse has been out front with this story before The Intercept confirmed it separately.
So was I. Indeed, my own deplatforming from Twitter followed my having pinned private detective Brian O’Shea’s (disclosure, my husband’s) reading of Dr. Ralph Baric’s full CV, which linked this North Carolina researcher to gain-of-function work funded by Fauci’s agency. Twitter has yet to tell me exactly why I was kicked off its platform and blocked from sharing this well-sourced information with my 145,000 followers.
Twitter went so far as to deplatform me and then slander me across the globe: news reports mis-stated—via a Twitter spokesperson—that I’d been deplatformed for “vaccine misinformation.”
The First Amendment in the United States means that the government cannot outright censor critics or opponents; but the private sector—in this case Big Tech—is clearly aligned to do the dirty work of the administration.
I was accused of “Madness” (The New Republic), of having “always struggled with the truth,” of being an “anti-vaxxer.” Matt Gertz of Media Matters and CNN charged me with “pushing increasingly bonkers conspiracy theories”; he did so on Twitter, a platform on which I am no longer able to respond.
It seems my real crime may have been asking questions that other reporters have failed to ask, and in sharing information that undermines Fauci’s claims to Congress.
This very public silencing of a critic of pandemic-related “lockdowns” and of a debunker of Fauci’s denials of having ever funded gain-of-function research was no doubt meant to chill other critics. I received countless emails from other reporters and influencers stating that they supported me, but were scared to say so publicly, lest they be deplatformed as well.
Millions in Funding
Baric’s CV details millions of dollars in funding from the NIH and NIAID, including funds for a “gain-of-function” study. Baric’s research, according to Vanity Fair, could be described as “gain-of-function” research. Indeed, Baric sat on a “gain-of-function” research committee.
This CV is troublesome to the Biden administration, current patron of Big Tech, and beneficiary of its current wave of censorship, because it creates links between this research and Fauci, who has become this administration’s brand centerpiece and key re-election strategy talking point.
But Baric’s CV shows evidence to the contrary. His research on coronaviruses in bats—finding that “synthetic recombinant bat SARS-like coronavirus is infectious”—and research on the transmissibility of coronaviruses to other species, including bats, mice, and humans, goes back many years. (You can see “McRoy, W. and Baric, RS. 2004. Mechanisms of coronavirus cross species transmission” on p. 14. “Becker, M.M., Graham, R.L., Donaldson, E.F., Rockx, B., Sims, A.C., Sheahan, T., Pickles, R., Corti, D., Johnston, R.E., Baric, R.S. and Denison, M.R. 2008. A synthetic recombinant bat SARS-like coronavirus is infectious in cultured cells and in mice” on p. 17. “Rockx, B., Corti, D., Donaldson, E., Sheahan T., Stadler K., Lanzavecchia A., and Baric, R.S. 2008. Structural Basis for Potent Cross-Neutralizing Human Monoclonal Antibody Protection Against Lethal Human and Zoonotic SARSCoV Challenge” on p. 17.)
The CV of Baric’s lab assistant E F Donaldson even more clearly details work done with Baric to, as Donaldson puts it, “resurrect bat coronaviruses to determine the cross species transmission” and “I am currently employed as a Research Assistant Professor in the Department of Epidemiology, working in the lab of Dr. Ralph Baric. I am funded by the NIAID to conduct a study looking at the viruses in bats and studying how viruses cross the species barrier to emerge into new populations. In addition, I am working with Dr. Baric to resurrect bat coronaviruses to determine the cross species transmission potential of a variety of novel coronaviruses identified in bats.” The work detailed here took place when Dr Fauci was the NIAID director.
E F Donaldson also received hundreds of thousands of U.S. tax dollars in NIH/NIAID funding to study bat coronaviruses’ cross-species’ infectiousness, in a bat roost with “seven to twelve” different species, located, alarmingly enough, right here at home—in Maryland: “Donaldson 9/12/09 – 8/31/11 NIH/NIAID $301,000 10% FTE Metagenomic Analysis of the virome of Eastern North American Bats. The major goals of this project are to define the virome of seven to ten different bat species that cohabitate in one roost in Maryland to determine the viral population of each and define the role of orthologous receptors to viral cross-species transmission.” That’s on p. 4.
E F Donaldon’s CV also notes a 2011-16 request to the NIH for $1.85 million in funding for SARS-related bat coronavirus cross-species infectiousness research: “Donaldson 07/01/11 – 06/30/16 NIH $1,850,000 25% FTE Cross species emergence of coronaviruses from bats. This work builds upon our ARRA grant, which allowed us to discover a novel Coronavirus in bats that is closely related to a human pathogen, human Coronavirus 229E. The major goals of the proposal are to characterize the coronaviruses found in bat species in the northeastern United States, by sequencing several bat fecal samples to determine the complete genomic sequences, isolate and/or synthetically resurrect these coronaviruses using in silico biology, and assess the ability of these viruses to emerge into the human host.”
That newsworthy grant, to see if bat coronaviruses could emerge “into the human host,” is on p. 5.
Dr. Fauci had stated flatly to Sen Paul, on national television, that he had not funded “gain-of-function” research in the Wuhan lab. But Baric himself described his research as “gain of function,” in a workshop linked to the NIH, called—wait for it—“Potential Risks and Benefits of Gain of Function Research.”
“Dr. Ralph Baric, University of North Carolina […] explained that GoF [Gain of Function] experiments for CoV research encompass a very diverse set of experiments that are critical to the development of broad-based vaccines and therapeutics.”
Censorship and Liberty
The video I posted of Baric’s CV detailing Fauci’s funding of Baric’s gain of function research, had received 74,000 views when I was permanently suspended from Twitter.
It’s very serious that such a newsworthy and important piece of reporting—Baric’s CV—got erased from our social media universe and that I was publicly ridiculed as a punishment for attempting to open this discourse to the public.
Republicans have been pressing for investigations of the origins of the coronavirus. Without Baric’s CV, Americans do not have all the relevant information.
How is it that Twitter (and Youtube, which also froze my account, although it later restored it) went as far as heavy-handed, outright censorship of my findings? There is nothing in my sharing of this information that presents misinformation as their spokesperson apparently reported to the press as the reason for banning me. The social media companies have yet to tell me that what I posted that was inaccurate.
Sadly, Twitter, Youtube, and Facebook are now closely allied to the DNC and the Biden administration, which is one reason it is important to further unredact what Mark Zuckerberg had to say to Fauci via email, correspondence that belongs in the public domain given its content is of great public interest, and Fauci is a public servant.
I’m a lifelong Democrat and I voted for President Biden, but in the wave of deplatforming of conservative voices after the inauguration, I saw the danger to our system of this unholy alliance.
I don’t care much about personal attacks. I won’t be bullied or silenced. But I do care that American citizens deserve a free press and open debate, and that they risk losing it due to censorship by Big Tech.
We deserve every bit of information that could allow for a better understanding of the gain of function research that may have been related to the virus that has debilitated world economies and affected millions, as does the rest of the world. Big Tech, with its compromised platforms, should have no say in whether such information survives a committee of millennials deciding, in an airy workspace, on what may or may not be read by other free peoples around the world.
Without a free press our country could not have been born. And if we allow random personal smears and Big Tech censorship of important news stories to derail our governance and to keep our people ill-informed, our state of liberty cannot survive.
Fresh off of renewed questions about a grant given to a health organization that worked with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the National Institutes of Health is in the spotlight for giving grants to a man charged with illegally supplying high-tech medical equipment to Iran.
According to a Justice Department news release, Dr. Mohammad Faghihi was charged Tuesday with conspiracy to commit money laundering, unlawful exports of goods to Iran, smuggling goods out of and into the U.S., wire fraud and making false statements.
Faghihi, a former associate professor at the University of Miami who was born in Iran, was charged in a Miami federal court alongside his wife and sister.
The three operated a company called Express Gene, which, for four years ending in November of 2020, “received numerous wire transfers from accounts in Malaysia, the People’s Republic of China, Singapore, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates, totaling almost $3.5 million,” the news release said.
“Those third-country international wires [are] indicative of money laundering designed to conceal that payment originated in Iran,” the federal complaint said, according to The Washington Free Beacon.
The Department of Justice alleged in the news release that “some of the money received was used by Express Gene and its principals to purchase genetic sequencing equipment from U.S. manufacturers and ship them to Iran without a license from the Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) to export the machines, despite sanctions on Iran.”
The Miami Herald reported that prosecutors told a judge that one of Express Gene’s clients was the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, an Iranian military branch that’s also designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S.
The IRGC allegedly bought several genetic testing machines from Faghihi’s business.
According to the Herald, prosecutors said they caught up with Faghihi just as it seemed he was about to flee.
“He was literally about to board a plane on Monday when he was arrested,” prosecutor Michael Thakur told the court on Wednesday.
Faghihi was also accused of falsely obtaining grants from the NIH. The agency required him to disclose the international wire transfers he received, which he allegedly failed to do. The Herald reported Faghihi was the chief investigator on those grants.
According to the news release, the federal government’s case against Faghihi began after he arrived at Miami International Airport from Iran on Feb. 20. Upon his arrival, Customs and Border Protection officers inspected his luggage and questioned him.
“According to the charging documents, during his inspection by CBP officers, Faghihi made false statements, including that he did not practice his profession in Iran or conduct any type of research in Iran,” the news release read.
“In fact, according to the affidavit, Faghihi was the director of a laboratory within Shiraz University of Medical Science in Iran bearing his name: ‘Dr. Faghihi’s Medical Genetic Center.’”
The charging documents also stated that Faghihi told a professor with an Iranian number on the WhatsApp messaging service that he’d managed to purchase two genetic sequencing devices in the U.S. and had installed them at the university, according to the Free Beacon.
The documents said IP numbers from the genetic sequencing devices confirmed they were at the research university, which is government-run — leading to questions about whether Faghihi has connections with the Iranian regime.
While those questions likely won’t be addressed until the case gets further down the line, another red flag like this is the last thing the NIH needs after documents revealed grants to a U.S. health organization conducting research that’s now at the center of the lab leak hypothesis.
Documents obtained via the Freedom of Information Act seem to indicate the NIH funded so-called gain-of-function research into bat coronaviruses conducted with the Wuhan Institute of Virology by a group called EcoHealth Alliance.
Of the $3.1 million provided to EcoHealth Alliance in federal grants, $599,000 went to researching bat coronaviruses that could potentially infect humans. This included changing the viruses to make them more infectious to humans — the very definition of gain-of-function research.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s coronavirus czar, is the head of one of the NIH’s divisions, the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases. Testifying to Congress in May, he said the NIH and NIAID “categorically has not funded gain-of-function research to be conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”
Lying to Congress is, of course, a crime.
It’s unclear whether Fauci knew about the research being done by EcoHealth Alliance. However, the fact that the NIH was funding that kind of potentially dangerous research — with our chief geopolitical adversary at a lab where biosecurity questions had been raised — isn’t a good sign.
Now, the NIH finds itself linked to a man who allegedly smuggled scientific equipment to another geopolitical adversary, Iran.
It’s unclear whether the agency knew (or, indeed, could have known) anything about the crimes Faghihi is charged with. However, the association with him couldn’t have come at a worse time.
The scientific method used to govern much of popular American thinking.
In empirical fashion, scientists advised us to examine evidence and data, and then by induction come to rational hypotheses. The enemies of “science” were politics, superstition, bias, and deduction.
Yet we are now returning to our version of medieval alchemy and astrology in rejecting a millennium of the scientific method.
Take the superstitions that now surround COVID-19.
We now know from data that a prior case of COVID-19 offers immunity as robust as vaccination. Why, then, are Joe Biden’s proposed vaccination mandates ignoring that scientific fact? Dr. Anthony Fauci, when asked, seemed at a loss for words.
Is this yet another of the scientific community’s Platonic “noble lies,” as when Fauci assured the public last year that there was no need for masks? He later claimed he had lied so that medical professionals would not run out of needed supplies.
Fauci also threw out mythical percentages needed for herd immunity, apparently in an attempt to convince the public that it will never be safe until every American is protected from COVID-19 by vaccination only.
And why was it that hard for the scientific community to postulate a likely origin of COVID-19. Some of the very scientists engaged in gain-of-function research oversaw an investigation with Chinese authorities. They confirmed the predetermined conclusion that the virus likely had little to do with gain-of-function engineering. And they saw little proof it was birthed in a Wuhan virology lab. Yet scientific opinion, emerging evidence, and basic logic have suggested the opposite.
How can the government hector citizens that they have a moral duty—and soon a legal obligation—to be vaccinated when it does not mandate vaccinations for unvetted refugees flying in from Afghanistan?
How can the government medical community remain largely silent when an anticipated 2 million foreign nationals will cross into the United States in the current fiscal year—almost none of whom are vaccinated or tested for COVID-19?
Why do the media and government blame particular races for the delta variant outbreak on grounds that they were insufficiently vaccinated? Why wouldn’t officials simply urge the Latino and black communities to be vaccinated as quickly as possible? Data shows that both groups have lower vaccination rates than white and Asian populations.
Are woke political agendas discrediting science and losing public health?
We saw just that in June 2020, when more than 1,200 “health care professionals” signed a petition demanding exemptions from lockdowns and quarantines for Black Lives Matter protesters marching en masse. And they concocted medical excuses such as “vital to the national public health” to insist that violating quarantines was less unhealthy than not pouring into the streets.
Why did presidential candidate Joe Biden and his running mate, Kamala Harris, warn the American people on the eve of vaccination rollouts that an inoculation under the Trump administration could be unsafe, thereby undermining confidence in vaccines?
Why was the medical community largely silent about such dangerous sabotaging of new vaccines, but months later became vociferous in warning the public that any doubts about the safety of these Operation Warp Speed vaccinations were scientifically misplaced? Was there a medical breakthrough on Jan. 20, 2020, to alter their consensus?
From rewarding wokeness in medical school admissions to the peer reviewing of scientific papers, the anti-scientific mania has polluted scientific endeavors.
“Critical race theory” would preposterously tell us that we need racism to fight racism.
“Critical legal theory” ludicrously claims that laws have no rational basis but simply reflect power inequities.
“Modern monetary theory” defies millennia of evidence and basic logic in stating that governments can simply print money without worrying about balancing expenditures with revenues or inflating the currency to ruination.
Corporations are now asked to substitute a new woke agenda theory—“Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance (ESG)”—in lieu of market realities, rules of investment, and economic data.
Science is dying; superstition disguised as morality is returning. And we’ll all soon become poorer, angrier, and more divided.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has continued to funnel millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund scientific research in conjunction with Communist China since the beginning of the COVID pandemic, including to military-controlled organizations, The National Pulse can reveal.
Over half of the grants sent since early 2020 came from Anthony Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) database reveals that 13 grants have been sent to the country which has stonewalled investigations into the origins of COVID-19. China has also undertaken a global propaganda campaign to blame the U.S. for the virus, while America continues to send cash.
U.S.-FUNDED STUDIES.
China Medical University, Fudan University, Peking University, and China’s Center for Disease Control and Prevention are among the organizations, all of which are controlled by the Chinese Communist Party, funded by various NIH agencies.
Of the 13 grants to China, seven are from Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
Southern Medical University – which is controlled by the regime’s People’s Liberation Army and has close ties to the Wuhan Institute of Virology – also received two additional grants worth nearly $300,000 from Fauci.
In total over $4 million has been sent to studies counting their principal investigators as working in China for state-run scientific bodies in 2020 and 2021. Seven of the studies are still active at the time of publication.
Recently released documents appear to contradict what Dr. Anthony Fauci previously stated about funding by the National Institute of Health and gain-of-function research at China’s Wuhan lab. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and Fauci have notoriously had several contentious moments in congressional hearings regarding the pandemic. These documents appear to support Paul’s assertions that Fauci was lying. Fauci has been crowned by many on the Left as a hero during the coronavirus pandemic. However, these documents could destroy his reputation.
“This is a road map to the high-risk research that could have led to the current pandemic,” said Gary Ruskin, the executive director of U.S. Right To Know, a group that has been investigating the origins of COVID-19 , the Intercept reported .
“Surprise surprise — Fauci lied again. And I was right about his agency funding novel Coronavirus research at Wuhan,” Paul tweeted on Tuesday.
Paul previously referred Fauci to the Justice Department , insisting that the doctor lied to Congress about the National Institutes of Health funding gain-of-function research at a lab in Wuhan, China.
“I will be sending a letter to the Department of Justice asking for a criminal referral because he has lied to Congress,” Paul said back in July.
Assuming the documents are legitimate, this would prove either Fauci was lying or incompetent regarding the NIH’s funding. Nine hundred pages of information revealed that hundreds of thousands of dollars funded the research of the Wuhan Institute of Virology regarding bat coronaviruses and their correlation to human infections.
“The bat coronavirus grant provided EcoHealth Alliance with a total of $3.1 million, including $599,000 that the Wuhan Institute of Virology used in part to identify and alter bat coronaviruses likely to infect humans,” according to information obtained in a Freedom of Information Act request that was published by the Intercept .
The release of these documents appears to vindicate Paul. He made the claims that Fauci was lying about funding the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and there is now evidence showing that to be true. Fauci must be held accountable for what these documents show. As the country continues to grapple with the origins of COVID-19, the entire truth must be revealed to the public. The recent document release questions Fauci’s credibility.
Perhaps we should be listening to Sen. Rand Paul more and Dr. Anthony Fauci less.
A coronavirus study funded by Anthony Fauci’s National Institutes of Health agency – which names Wuhan Institute of Virology scientists as authors – was carried out in collaboration with an “arm” of the Chinese Communist Party’s military, The National Pulse can reveal.
A coronavirus study funded by Anthony Fauci’s National Institutes of Health agency – which names Wuhan Institute of Virology scientists as authors – was carried out in collaboration with an “arm” of the Chinese Communist Party’s military, The National Pulse can reveal.
The 2014 study entitled “Isolation and Characterization of a Bat SARS-like Coronavirus that Uses the ACE2 Receptor” was the result of a broader grant from Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) that sent U.S. taxpayer dollars to the Wuhan Institute of Virology via the New York-based EcoHealth Alliance.
The controversial, multi-million-dollar grant supported the manipulation of coronavirus into “killers,” according to Fauci acolyte Peter Daszak, who runs EcoHealth.
The study’s acknowledgments section thanks China’s Southern Medical University (SMU) for providing human serum – a type of blood that, due to a lack of plasma, doesn’t clot:
We thank X. Che from Zhujiang Hospital, Southern Medical University, for providing human SARS patient sera.
Twelve researchers from the Wuhan Institute of Virology – including “bat woman” Shi Zhengli – are listed as authors alongside several scientists from EcoHealth Alliance. The paper explicitly states they received “financial support” from Fauci’s NIAID.
The research material provided by SMU contributed to the study’s manipulation of different strains of coronaviruses through “recombination analysis.” The study also discusses “virus infectivity” research related to humans:
To determine whether WIV1 can use ACE2 as a cellular entry receptor, we conducted virus infectivity studies using HeLa cells expressing or not expressing ACE2 from humans, civets or Chinese horseshoe bats. We found that WIV1 is able to use ACE2 of different origins as an entry receptor and replicated efficiently in the ACE2-expressing cells.
The source of these samples, however, is under the control of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) of China: a hostile nation’s military that is increasingly in conflict with U.S. allies like India.
Formerly known as First Military Medical University, SMU falls under the jurisdiction of the Military Committee of PLA, according to its own website. Professors as well as entire institutes have received awards from various branches of the PLA including its General Logistics Department.
The school also runs a variety of labs, including an Institute for Genetic Engineering Research, which is described as an “arm of the PLA Key Biochip Lab” and “one of the top 20 labs of the Army.”
The school’s biomechanics lab operates under the control of the PLA and counts support from China’s 863 program, which has seen Chinese scientists affiliated with the effort get convicted for stealing trade secrets from American companies.
The financial and scientific collusion between the highest paid bureaucrat in the United States – Anthony Fauci – and the Chinese People’s Liberation Army would under normal circumstances lead to at least one full investigation of the matter. Fauci, thus far, has avoided any serious level of scrutiny from the U.S. Congress.
Fauci’s wife, Christine Grady, is currently the Chief of Bioethics at the National Institutes of Health, where she oversees her husband’s work handing cash to Chinese Communist researchers.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, a top U.S. public health official, said that a new study regarding so-called natural immunity following COVID-19 infection is provoking discussion among government experts.
The real-world study, conducted by Israeli researchers, found that previous COVID-19 infection confers better protection against infection and hospitalization than COVID-19 vaccines.
Fauci, the longtime director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, was asked Friday about the research in the context of convincing people who have natural immunity, or recovered from COVID-19, to get vaccinated.
“I get calls all the time people say, ‘I’ve already had COVID, I’m protected.’ And now the study says maybe even more protected than the vaccine alone. Should they also get the vaccine? How do you make the case to them?” Dr. Sanjay Gupta asked Fauci during an appearance on CNN.
“I don’t have a really firm answer for you on that,” Fauci responded.
“That’s something that we’re going to have to discuss regarding the durability of the response. The one thing that paper from Israel didn’t tell you is whether or not—as high as the protection is with natural infection—what’s the durability compared to the durability of a vaccine? So it is conceivable that you got infected, you’re protected, but you may not be protected for an indefinite period of time,” he continued.
“So I think that is something that we need to sit down and discuss seriously because you very appropriately pointed out, it is an issue, and there could be an argument for saying what you said.”
Some experts who have studied the matter have expressed confusion as to why vaccination efforts are not focused on those who have not gotten a shot and have not recovered from COVID-19.
“We’re trying to update policy such that people who have recovered have the same privileges and access as people who are vaccinated,” Dr. Jeffrey Klausner, clinical professor of preventive medicine and medicine at the University of Southern California’s Keck School of Medicine, told The Epoch Times previously.
The Israel findings, because they’re based on real-world data, even led Pfizer board member Scott Gottlieb, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, to call for natural immunity to be part of policy discussions.
“The balance of the evidence demonstrates that natural immunity confers a durable protection,” Gottlieb said during a recent television appearance.
Official guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) acknowledges people have some level of immunity after COVID-19 recovery. But the agency still recommends the vast majority of Americans get a COVID-19 vaccine, asserting the protection is even better when combining natural immunity and a jab.
Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the CDC’s director, last month pointed to a study conducted by CDC and Kentucky researchers that suggested vaccines actually provide better protection than previous infection.
“These data further indicate that COVID-19 vaccines offer better protection than natural immunity alone and that vaccines, even after prior infection, help prevent reinfections,” the agency said in a statement.
An Arizona public school district faces a lawsuit following its decision to demote buildings manager William Bishop to a substitute teacher in response to his declining to get the anti-CCP virus vaccine.
Cartwright School District in Phoenix is being sued for its “refusal to grant—in fact, its refusal to even respond to—Mr. Bishop’s request for an accommodation that would allow him to honor his religious convictions that prevent him from receiving the COVID-19 vaccine,” Bishop’s attorney, Rebecca Dummermuth, told Superintendent Dr. LeeAnn Aguilar-Lawlor in a Sept. 9 letter made available to The Epoch Times.
The CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus is also known as the novel coronavirus. It has killed more than 660,000 Americans since the first death occurred in January 2020 in California.
Dummermuth is counsel with the First Liberty Institute, a Plano, Texas-based public interest law firm that specializes in First Amendment and religious freedom issues.
Dummermuth said in the letter the school district’s refusal came “despite the fact that 95 percent district staff were carved out of its vaccine mandate. The district’s refusal to accommodate Mr. Bishop’s sincerely held religious beliefs, and its adverse employment action of transferring and demoting him to a position as substitute teacher, violate of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Arizona Free Exercise of Religion Act, and executive orders by [Arizona] Governor [Doug] Ducey.”
A spokesman for the school district told The Epoch Times that Aquilar-Lawlor was unavailable to comment on the First Liberty letter due to a bereavement. The superintendent will return to the office next week.
Bishop’s demotion comes as President Joe Biden warned the estimated 80 million Americans who have not yet been vaccinated that “we have been patient, but our patience is wearing thin. And your refusal has cost all of us.”
Biden’s warning came in a speech in which he announced his signing of an executive order directing the Department of Labor to issue regulations mandating all private companies with 100 or more employees to require vaccination as a condition of employment.
But Biden’s announcement almost immediately sparked new protests to an already surging public resistance, with at least 19 governors and two attorneys general issuing statements disagreeing with Biden’s decision and vowing to defy it.
The defiant governors, all Republicans, include Arizona’s Ducey, as well as those of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming.
Two state attorneys general also did so, including Sean D. Reyes of Utah and Todd Rokita of Indiana. Rokita is a former U.S. congressman. In addition, the Republican National Committee (RNC) said it is suing in federal court in opposition to Biden’s forthcoming directive.
Many of those declining to be vaccinated cite religious grounds for doing so, including Bishop, according to Dummermuth.
“As a Christian, he believes that his body is a temple of God (I Corinthians 3:16-17, 6:19), and therefore he has a God-given responsibility to protect the physical integrity of his body and not to defile it (I Corinthians 8:7; II Corinthians 7:1),” she said in her letter to Aquilar-Lawlor.
“Additionally, he believes that human life begins at conception, and he staunchly opposes abortion. Therefore, receiving a vaccine that has been developed using aborted fetal cell lines would violate his conscience.”
The health care industry appears to be especially hard-hit by the growing resistance to vaccine mandates, with severe staffing shortages in multiple states, according to Liberty Counsel (LC).
The Florida-based LC, like First Liberty, is a public interest law firm that specializes in civil liberties issues, especially those involving religious freedom.
“There are thousands of nurses all over the United States that are refusing the injection because they don’t believe it’s been thoroughly tested or vetted, that it’s being forced, and/or they have a deeply held religious belief against it. Many of these nurses have either been put on unpaid leave or have been fired due to refusing the injection,” LC said in a Sept. 8 statement.
“In Texas, weeks after 150 hospital workers were fired by Houston Methodist, one of several hospitals struggling has reached a breaking point amid the COVID-19 outbreak,” the LC statement continued.
The statement quoted a California physician, Dr. Tom Sugarman, who said, “Oftentimes at hospitals, there are long waits and long delays. There’s not enough staff to keep beds open, and patients can languish waiting.”
Sugarman is an emergency physician and senior director of government affairs at Vituity, a physicians and medical services group.
In addition to clients in the health care industry, LC is representing hundreds of Department of Veterans Affairs employees who seek exemptions from Biden’s vaccine mandate last month for government workers.
A new National Geographic chronicling the life and career of Anthony Fauci featuring interviews with Bill Gates and former President George W. Bush is set to be released on September 10th.
The hagiographic film, which also includes exclusive interviews with Fauci, his wife, and his children, praises the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Director as “one of our most vital public servants, whose work saved millions while he faced threats from anonymous adversaries” in its summary:
“With his signature blend of scientific acumen, candor and integrity, Dr. Anthony Fauci became America’s most unlikely cultural icon during COVID-19. A world-renowned infectious disease specialist and the longest-serving public health leader in Washington, D.C., he has valiantly overseen the U.S. response to 50 years’ worth of epidemics, including HIV/AIDS, SARS and Ebola. FAUCI is an unprecedented portrait of one of our most vital public servants, whose work saved millions while he faced threats from anonymous adversaries.”
The documentary comes amidst controversy over Fauci’s National Institutes of Health (NIH) agency’s documented relationship – via personnel and funding –with the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The Chinese Communist Party-controlled lab is believed by many, including the former Director of National Intelligence and Center for Disease Control and Prevention Chief, to be the source of COVID-19.
The documentary, however, portrays the criticism of Fauci in a different light.
“When COVID hit, he became this target,” a narrator posits in a recently released trailer.
“If you’re a public servant, you don’t do it because you want to make money,” former Obama-era National Security Advisor Susan Rice comments despite Fauci’s position as the highest-paid federal government employee.
