Jesus said, "Recognize what is in your sight, and that which is hidden from you will become plain to you . For there is nothing hidden which will not become manifest." Gospel of Thomas (5)
Del Bigtree is an American television and film producer as well as CEO of the anti-vaccination group Informed Consent Action Network.
As Athletes are Dropping, Pfizer’s in Panic Mode, Warning Their Investors of a Stock Price Collapse. Del Bigtree: “Pfizer sent out sort of an emergency statement to all the stockholders saying we need to have a meeting to discuss that we think we’re gonna see some earnings drops based on some things that are gonna come out about some dangers of ‘potential’ side effects of the vaccine.”
“This is Genocide!” Todd Callender, Attorney of the Disabled Rights Advocates
Dr. John Bergman explains the 10 codes that make up the Nuremberg Code and how big pharma have been breaking them consistently for a very long time.
Protection From Second Booster Quickly Wanes: Israeli Study
By Zachary Stieber
March 25, 2022Updated: March 25, 2022
The boosted protection from a second booster shot of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine against virus infection quickly waned, a new study found.
People with three doses have seen their protection against infection drop considerably following the emergence of the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2, also known as the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus.
That prompted Israeli regulators to clear a fourth dose, or second booster, of Pfizer’s jab in January.
While protection against infection did shoot up initially after the fourth dose, hitting 64 percent during the third week, it rapidly declined thereafter and hit 29 percent by 10 weeks post-administration, Israeli researchers found.
“It appears that effectiveness of the fourth dose wanes sooner, similarly to the fact that the third dose wants sooner than the second dose,” they wrote in the paper, which was published as a preprint.
Pfizer and its partner, BioNTech, on March 15 asked U.S. regulators to authorize second boosters for all elderly people. The request was based on Israeli data that the companies said shows the additional shot lowers rates of infections.
The new study saw researchers with Maccabi Healthcare Services and Yale School of Public Health analyze data from the services’ database, which covers approximately 2.5 million people, or over a quarter of the population in Israel.
All people in the database aged 60 or older were included in the analysis, exempting individuals who tested positive for COVID-19 before the start of the study period, or Jan. 10, and those who joined the database after March 2020.
Researchers counted who people tested positive for COVID-19 seven or more days after inoculation with the vaccine as well as people whose infections despite being vaccinated resulted in hospitalization or death.
Researchers found poor protection against infection. They also discovered the protection against severe disease did not wane considerably, but that protection from the third dose against hospitalization was already high.
Limitations of the paper, which was funded by Maccabi, include researchers only looking at 10 weeks of data.
A separate Israeli study, published earlier in March, found even worse results among young healthcare workers.
Approximately 274 workers received a fourth dose. Among those who received Pfizer’s shot, vaccine protection against infection was 30 percent and among those who received an additional Moderna shot, the effectiveness was just 11 percent.
Protection against symptomatic disease was estimated as higher for both groups, but was still under 50 percent.
Researchers were not able to estimate protection against severe disease.
Pentagon-funded labs in nations bordering Russia and China need to be opened up for inspections, the Russian FM said. Russia suspects Pentagon-funded bioresearch laboratories in foreign nations, including those in Ukraine, may pose a threat because of the secrecy surrounding their work, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told RT. Washington apparently didn’t want to risk exposing its own people to the pathogenic threat, he suggested.
“The Americans some years ago decided that it was too dangerous to do [such research] on their own soil. So, they moved all these threatening and dangerous activities to other countries,” Lavrov claimed.
“More and more they concentrate their research and experiments around the borders of the Russian Federation and China,” he remarked.
Lavrov was referring to biolabs funded by the Pentagon’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency, the existence of which was highlighted during Russia’s attack on Ukraine. The Russian military claims it has discovered evidence that the work in Ukrainian labs funded by the US Department of Defense had military applications.
Washington has denied the claims, which had reiterated Russia’s previous suspicions about research undertaken on foreign territory in return for American grants. The US government said the labs existed to study emerging infections throughout the world and served as an epidemic early warning system.
Beijing wants US to ‘open biolabs’ to international experts
US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland last week testified under oath that there were “biological research facilities in Ukraine,” and that the US was assisting Kiev in destroying research materials so they would not get into Russia’s hands.
In his interview with RT, Lavrov said that, in his assessment, there were more than 300 biolabs worldwide involved in research for the Pentagon. Such facilities should be subject to international monitoring for compliance with the Biological Weapons Convention, which bans any work related to germ warfare. There is no verification mechanism for the treaty – a lapse Moscow wants addressed, Lavrov said.
The UN Security Council is to convene later on Friday at Russia’s request to discuss a legally binding protocol to the convention, “which would require obligatory transparency measures by any participating state,” the minister said. The US stonewalled attempts to implement such a protocol throughout the 1990s before blocking it in 2001, therefore “the Americans … will be against it,” Lavrov predicted, branding the obstruction “not defensible.”
Beijing has previously supported calls for greater transparency about American bioresearch, arguing that Washington would have nothing to hide if all work carried out in foreign labs was as benign as it claimed.
How Fauci Used the AIDS Epidemic to Gain Power
More Media Lies
We are in a War
How are we supposed to fight Russia while becoming the Soviet Union?
How Media Lies with fake pics
Hitler Used Propaganda just like the US Government
Nurse testifies that none of the millions of Covid patients died from Covid, they died from medical malpractice .. hospitals were made to follow government orders that led to the deaths of millions of people… confirmed genocide.
More on the Genocide
On January 24, 2022 Senator Ron Johnson invited a group of world renowned doctors and medical experts to the U.S. Senate to provide a different perspective on the global pandemic response, the current state of knowledge of early and hospital treatment, vaccine efficacy and safety, what went right, what went wrong, what should be done now, and what needs to be addressed long term. This 38 minute video highlights the 5-hour discussion.
Another day in our strange times: the CDC has finally found a kind word to say about natural immunity. You have to dig for it but it is there: “By early October, persons who survived a previous infection had lower case rates than persons who were vaccinated alone.”
It’s not even slightly surprising or should not be, since the effectiveness of natural immunity has been documented since the Peloponnesian War. On Covid alone, there are nearly 150 studies documenting the power of natural immunity, most of which came before the interview with Anthony Fauci on Sept. 13, 2021. At that interview he was asked about natural immunity. He said this: “I don’t have a really firm answer for you on that. That’s something that we’re going to have to discuss regarding the durability of the response.”
Classic Fauci: what he meant to convey is that The Science doesn’t know enough to say. And most people for two years would seem to agree, either because they didn’t pay attention in 9th-grade biology class, or because our adoration of shots has swamped our common sense, or because there’s no profit in it, or because of some other reason that is not yet explained.
Regardless, it does seem as if something went wrong in 2020 as lockdowns began. Suddenly most public health agencies in the world stopped speaking of the subject of natural immunity. Vaccine passports have typically ruled out natural immunity or severely deprecated it. The WHO changed its definition of herd immunity to exclude natural exposure. Millions have lost their jobs for not getting vaccinated but have strong natural immunity.
How strange it all is! Here you have one of the most established, proven, documented, experienced, studied, known, and defended scientific truths about cell biology. One day (was it generations ago?) most people understood it. Then another day, it seemed almost as if vast numbers of people forgot or never knew at all. Otherwise, how could the WHO/CDC/NIH been able to get away with its strange denialism on this topic?
Perhaps, I’ve wondered, the case of natural immunity against Covid is an example of what Murray Rothbard called “lost knowledge.” He meant by that phrase a discovered and known truth that suddenly goes missing for no apparent reason and then has to be rediscovered at a later time and even in a different generation. It’s a phenomenon that made him enormously curious because it raises doubts about what he called the Whig Theory of History.
His wonderful “History of Economic Thought” opens with a blast against this Victorian-era idea that life is always getting better and better, no matter what. Apply it to the world of ideas, and the impression is that our current ideas are always better than ideas of the past. The trajectory of science is never forgetful; it’s only cumulative. It rules out the possibility that there is lost knowledge in history, peculiar incidences when humanity knew something for sure and then that knowledge mysteriously went away and we had to discover it again.
The idea of acquired immunity is consistent with how all societies have come to manage diseases. Protect the vulnerable while groups at no or low risk acquire the immunities. It is especially important to understand this if you want to preserve freedom rather than pointlessly impose a police state out of fear and ignorance.
It’s extremely odd that we woke up one day in the 21st century when such knowledge seemed almost to evaporate. When statistician and immunologist Knut Wittkowski went public with the basics of viruses in the Spring of 2020, he created shock and scandal. YouTube even deleted his videos! Seven months later, the Great Barrington Declaration made plain and once-obvious points about herd immunity via exposure and you would swear the world of the 11th century had discovered heretics.
All of this was strange to me and also to my mother. I visited with her and asked her how she came to know about the immune system is trained. She told me it’s because her mother taught this to her, and hers before her. It was a major public-health priority after World War II in the United States to school each generation in this counterintuitive truth. It was taught in the schools: do not fear what we have evolved to fight but rather strengthen what nature has given you to deal with disease.
Why was naturally acquired immunity a taboo topic in the 21st century? Perhaps this is a case of Rothbardian-style lost knowledge, similar to how humanity once understood scurvy and then didn’t and then had to come to understand it again. Somehow in the 21st century, we find ourselves in the awkward position of having to relearn the basics of immunology that everyone from 1920 to 2000 or so seemed to understand before that knowledge somehow came to be marginalized and buried.
Yes, this is hugely embarrassing. The science never left the textbooks. It’s right there for anyone to discover. What seems to have gone missing is popular understanding, replaced with a premodern run-and-hide theory of disease avoidance. It’s so bad that even the imposition of police states around the country, including brutal shutdowns and house arrest, did not inspire anywhere near the level of public resistance that I would have expected. To this day, we are still masking, stigmatizing the sick, and using unworkable and preposterous tactics to pretend to track, trace, and isolate all with the wild ambition permanently to stamp out the damn bug.
It’s like everyone gradually became ignorant on the whole topic and so they were caught off guard when politicians announced we had to get rid of human rights to fight a novel virus.
Here is Rothbard on this problem of lost knowledge and the Whig theory that such things do not happen:
The Whig theory, subscribed to by almost all historians of science, including economics, is that scientific thought progresses patiently, one year after another developing, sifting, and testing theories, so that science marches onward and upward, each year, decade or generation learning more and possessing ever more correct scientific theories.
On analogy with the Whig theory of history, coined in mid-nineteenth century England, which maintained that things are always getting (and therefore must get) better and better, the Whig historian of science, seemingly on firmer grounds than the regular Whig historian, implicitly or explicitly asserts that ‘later is always better’ in any particular scientific discipline.
The Whig historian (whether of science or of history proper) really maintains that, for any point of historical time, ‘whatever was, was right’, or at least better than ‘whatever was earlier’. The inevitable result is a complacent and infuriating Panglossian optimism. In the historiography of economic thought, the consequence is the firm if implicit position that every individual economist, or at least every school of economists, contributed their important mite to the inexorable upward march. There can, then, be no such thing as gross systemic error that deeply flawed, or even invalidated, an entire school of economic thought, much less sent the world of economics permanently astray.”
Rothbard’s entire book is an exercise in discovering lost knowledge. He was fascinated with how A.R.J. Turgot could have written with such clarity about value theory but the later writings of Adam Smith were murky on the topic. He was intrigued that the classical economists were lucid on the status of economic theory but later economists in the 20th century became so confused about it. You could observe the same about free trade: once it was understood almost universally such that everyone seemed to agree it had to be a priority to build peace and prosperity, and then, poof, that knowledge seems to have vanished in recent years.
On a personal note, I recall how passionate Murray felt about the issue of lost knowledge. He was also urging his students to find cases, document them, and explain how it happens. He always suspected that there were more cases that needed to be discovered and investigated. His writings on the history of ideas are a major effort to document as many cases as he could find.
Another intriguing feature: one might suppose that knowledge would be less likely to be lost in the information age in which we all carry in our pockets access to nearly all the world’s information. We can access it with just a few clicks. How did this not protect us against falling prey to a medieval-style theory of disease management? How did our fears and reliance of computer modeling so easily displace inherited wisdom of the past? Why did this new virus trigger brutal attacks on rights whereas nothing like this has happened in the previous century of new viruses?
George Washington’s troops scrapped off the scabs of the smallpox dead to inoculate themselves, while he personally recognized his own immunity via childhood exposure, but we cowered in our homes in fear and obedience for this virus. Even friends of mine who caught the virus early and developed immunities were treated like lepers for months later. Only once the Zoom class came to be entirely swamped with infection (the case fatality rate has been stable this entire time) did the media start to get curious about the likelihood and severity of reinfection. Now we are finally starting to talk about the subject—two years later!
I can only say this. Murray Rothbard right now would be astonished at how medical ignorance, fake science, and the lust for power all combined so suddenly to create the greatest global crisis in modern history for the cause of liberty to which he devoted his life. If anything has demonstrated that Rothbard was correct about the fallacy of the Whig theory, and the capacity of humanity suddenly to act and total ignorance of what was once widely known, it is these last two years of folly.
Jeffrey Tucker is founder and president of the Brownstone Institute. He is the author of five books, including “Right-Wing Collectivism: The Other Threat to Liberty.”
New evidence has emerged that suggests that Dr. Anthony Fauci not only initiated efforts to cover up evidence pointing to a lab origin of SARS-CoV-2 but actively shaped a highly influential academic paper that excluded the possibility of a lab leak.
Fauci’s involvement with the paper wasn’t acknowledged by the authors, as it should have been under prevailing academic standards. Neither was it acknowledged by Fauci himself, who denied having communicated with the authors when asked directly while testifying before Congress last week.
The article, Proximal Origin, was co-authored by five virologists, four of whom participated in a Feb. 1, 2020, teleconference that was hastily convened by Fauci, who serves as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), and Jeremy Farrar, who heads the UK-based Wellcome Trust, after public reporting of a potential link between the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China and the COVID-19 outbreak.
The initial draft of Proximal Origin was completed on the same day the teleconference, which wasn’t made public, took place. Notably, at least three authors of the paper were privately telling Fauci’s teleconference group both during the call and in subsequent emails that they were 60 to 80 percent sure that COVID-19 had come out of a lab.
Until now, it wasn’t known what role, if any, Fauci played in shaping the contents of the article, which formed the primary basis for government officials and media organizations to claim the “natural origin” theory for the virus. While the contents of emails previously released under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) show the Proximal Origin paper clearly conflicts with the authors’ private views on the virus’ origin, it was unclear if the authors had preemptively reshaped their views to please Fauci or if Fauci himself had an active role in shaping the article.
As the head of NIAID, Fauci controls a large portion of the world’s research funds for virologists. At least three virologists involved in the drafting of Proximal Origin have seen substantial increases in funding from the agency since the paper was first published. Any interference by Fauci in the paper’s narrative would present a serious conflict of interest.
Emails Show That Fauci, Collins Exerted Influence
Newly released notes taken by House Republican staffers from emails that still remain largely redacted clearly point to Fauci having been actively engaged in shaping the article and its conclusion. The GOP lawmakers gained limited access to the emails after a months-long battle with Fauci’s parent body, the Department of Health and Human Services.
The new emails reveal that on Feb. 4, 2020, one of the article’s co-authors, virologist Edward Holmes, shared a draft of Proximal Origin with Farrar. Like Fauci, Farrar controls the disbursement of vast amounts of funding for virology research.
Holmes prefaced his email to Farrar with the note that the authors “did not mention other anomalies as this will make us look like loons.” It isn’t known what other anomalies Holmes was referring to, but his statement indicates that Proximal Origin may have omitted certain anomalies of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, suggesting that the paper may have been narrative-driven from the start.
Dr. Anthony Fauci (R), director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, speaks while U.S. President Donald Trump (C) and Vice President Mike Pence listen during a briefing on the coronavirus pandemic, in the press briefing room of the White House on March 24, 2020. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
During Fauci’s teleconference, participants had discussed at least two anomalies specific to the virus—the virus’s furin cleavage site, which has never been observed in naturally occurring SARS coronaviruses, and the pathogen’s unusual backbone, which fails to match any known virus backbone.
Farrar almost immediately shared Holmes’s draft with Fauci and Collins via email, while excluding other participants of the teleconference. The ensuing email thread containing discussion among the three suggests that the reason for the secretiveness may have been that they were shaping the content of the paper itself, something that has never been publicly acknowledged.
It’s notable that the email thread included only the three senior members of the teleconference. Using Farrar as a conduit to communicate with the authors may have been seen by Fauci and Collins as adding a layer of deniability.
Fauci, Collins Express Concern Over ‘Serial Passage’
During a Feb. 4, 2020, email exchange among the men, Collins pointed out that Proximal Origin argued against an engineered virus but that serial passage was “still an option” in the draft. Fauci appeared to share Collins’s concerns, noting in a one-line response: “?? Serial passage in ACE2-transgenic mice.”
Serial passage is a process whereby a virus is manipulated in a lab by repeatedly passing it through human-like tissue such as genetically modified mice, which mimic human lung tissue. This is notable given that during the Feb. 1 teleconference, at least three of Proximal Origin’s authors had advised Collins and Fauci that the virus may have been manipulated in a lab through serial passage or by genetic insertion of certain features.
Then-National Institutes of Health Director Dr. Francis Collins stands in Bethesda, Md., on Jan. 26, 2021. Collins stepped down in December 2021. (Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images)
One day after Fauci and Collins shared their comments, on Feb. 5, 2020, Farrar emailed Fauci and Collins stating that “[t]he team will update the draft today and I will forward immediately—they will add further comments on the glycans.”
The reference to glycans is notable as they are carbohydrate-based polymers produced by humans. The push by Fauci, Collins, and Farrar to have the paper’s authors expand on the issue of glycans appears to confirm that they were exerting direct influence on the content of Proximal Origin.
According to Rossana Segreto, a microbiologist and member of the virus origins search group DRASTIC, emphasizing the presence of glycans in SARS-CoV-2 might suggest that Fauci and his group were looking to add arguments against serial passage in the lab. A study later found that Proximal Origin’s prediction on the presence of the O-linked glycans wasn’t valid.
The newly released emails don’t reveal what additional discussions may have taken place among Fauci, Collins, and Farrar in the ensuing days. Perhaps that’s partly because Farrar had noted on another email thread addressed to Fauci’s teleconference group that scientific discussions should be taken offline.
Online Version Appears to Incorporate Fauci, Collins Suggestions
Eleven days later, on Feb. 16, 2020, Proximal Origin was published online. The paper argued aggressively for a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2.
An immediate observation from an examination of the Feb. 16 version of Proximal Origin is that “glycans,” the term that Farrar, Fauci and Collins wanted to emphasize, is cited 12 times. We don’t know to what extent glycans were discussed in the Feb. 4 draft as it remains concealed by National Institute of Health (NIH) officials.
An item of particular significance is that the Feb. 16 version omits any mention of the ACE2-transgenic mice that Fauci had initially flagged in his Feb. 4 email to Collins and Farrar. While the Feb. 16 version of Proximal Origin acknowledges that a furin cleavage site could have been generated through serial passage using animals with ACE2 receptors, the cited animals in the Feb. 16 version were ferrets—not transgenic mice.
The P4 laboratory on the campus of the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China, on May 13, 2020. (Hector Retamal/AFP via Getty Images)
The authors’ use of ferrets is peculiar not only because the term “transgenic mice” was almost certainly used in the Feb. 4 version but also because it was known at the time that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was conducting serial passage experiments on coronaviruses using ACE2 transgenic mice.
Even more conspicuously, the reference to ferrets was removed entirely from a March 17 updated version of the paper. In its place, a passage was added that stated “such work [serial passage experiments with ACE2 animals] has also not previously been described,” in academic literature—despite the fact that the Wuhan Institute’s work with ACE2 transgenic mice has been extensively described in academic papers.
Published Version of Proximal Origin Was Altered
Following the online publication of Proximal Origin on Feb. 16, 2020, the article was published in the prominent science journal Nature on March 17. In addition to the changes surrounding the transgenic mice, a number of other notable edits were made to strengthen the natural origin narrative.
On March 6, 2020, the paper’s lead author, Kristian Andersen, appeared to acknowledge the inputs from Collins, Farrar, and Fauci, when he emailed the three to say, “Thank you again for your advice and leadership as we have been working through the SARS-CoV-2 ‘origins’ paper.”
Perhaps most strikingly, the most often publicly cited passage from the March 17 version of the paper, “we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible,” doesn’t appear in the Feb. 16 version. Additionally, while the Feb. 16 version states that “genomic evidence does not support the idea that SARS-CoV-2 is a laboratory construct” the March 17 version was altered to state that “the evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus.”
Similar changes in language are evident in various parts of the March 17 version. For example, a section that stated “analysis provides evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct” was amended to read “analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct.”
A medical staff member gestures inside an isolation ward at Red Cross Hospital in Wuhan in China’s Hubei Province on March 10, 2020. (STR/AFP via Getty Images)
The March 17 version also omits an entire section from the Feb. 16 version that centered around an amino acid called phenylalanine. According to Segreto, a similarly situated amino acid in the original SARS virus had “mutated into phenylalanine as result of cell passage in human airway epithelium.” Segreto surmises that the Proximal Origin authors might have deleted this section so as not to highlight that the phenylalanine in SARS-CoV-2 might have resulted from serial passage in a lab.
Segreto’s analysis is backed up by the fact that another section in the Feb. 16 version which states that “experiments with [the original] SARS-CoV have shown that engineering such a site at the S1/S2 junction enhances cell–cell fusion,” was reworded in the March 17 version to leave out the word “engineering.” Indeed, while the Feb. 16 version merely downplayed the possibility of the virus having been engineered in a lab, in the March 17 version, the word “engineered” was expunged from the paper altogether.
Another sentence omitted from the March 17 version noted that “[i]nterestingly, 200 residents of Wuhan did not show coronavirus seroreactivity.” Had the sentence remained, it would have suggested that, unlike other regions in China, no SARS-related viruses were circulating in Wuhan in the years leading up to the pandemic. That makes natural spillover less likely. The director of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Shi Zhengli, herself admitted that she never expected a SARS-related virus to emerge in Wuhan. When viruses emerged naturally in the past, they emerged in southern China.
Shi’s credibility already was coming under fire for failing to disclose that she had the closest known relative of SARS-CoV-2 in her possession for seven years—a point noted early on by Segreto. Additionally, the Wuhan Institute took its entire database of viral sequences offline on Sept. 12, 2019. Despite the Wuhan Institute’s documented deletion and concealment of data, Proximal Origin’s central argument is that SARS-CoV-2 had to be natural since its backbone didn’t match any known backbones.
However, even before the March 17 version was published, Segreto had stated publicly that Proximal Origin’s central backbone argument was inherently flawed, precisely because there was no way of knowing whether the Chinese lab had published the relevant viral sequences.
Fauci, Collins, Farrar Roles Improperly Concealed
The email exchange among Fauci, Farrar, and Collins presents clear evidence that the three men took an active role in shaping the narrative of Proximal Origin. Indeed, a careful comparison of the Feb. 16 and March 17 versions show that the changes made fail to reflect any fundamental change in scientific analysis.
Instead, the authors employed linguistic changes and wholesale deletions that appear to have been designed to reinforce the natural origin narrative.
Close scrutiny of the email discussions by the three scientists also suggests that there was no legal justification for redacting any of the newly released information in the first place.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, talks to members of the press prior to an event at the State Dining Room of the White House on Jan. 21, 2021. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Science journals require that contributions to scientific papers need to be acknowledged. According to Nature’s publishing guidelines, “[c]ontributors who do not meet all criteria for authorship should be listed in the Acknowledgements section.” The newly revealed sections of the still-redacted emails appear to confirm that Fauci, Farrar, and Collins met the criteria for acknowledgement but their names have never appeared on any published version of Proximal Origin, suggesting that the three didn’t want their involvement in the paper’s creation to be known.
Collins Asked Fauci ‘to Help Put Down’ Fox News Story
A final email released by the House Republicans shows that Collins wrote Fauci several months later on April 16, 2020, telling him that he had hoped that Proximal Origin would have “settled” the origin debate, but it apparently hadn’t since Bret Baier of Fox News was reporting that sources were confident the virus had come out of a lab.
Collins asked Fauci whether the NIH could do something “to help put down this very destructive conspiracy” that seemed to be “growing momentum.” Collins also suggested that he and Fauci ask the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) to weigh in. As was revealed in previous emails released under FOIA, Fauci’s group had pushed NASEM in early Feb. 2020 to promote the natural origin narrative.
Fauci told Collins that the lab leak theory was a “shiny object” that would go away in time. However, the next day, Fauci took responsive action when he categorically dismissed the possibility of a lab origin of COVID-19 during on April 17, 2020, White House press conference. In doing so, Fauci cited the Proximal Origin paper as corroboration of his claims. Notably, Fauci feigned independence, telling reporters that he couldn’t recall the names of the authors. Unbeknownst to reporters and the public at the time, four out of the five authors had participated in Fauci’s Feb. 1, 2020, teleconference.
Now, we know that Fauci had involvement in shaping the very article that he cited.
Fauci’s intervention at the April 17 White House briefing was effective, since media interest in the lab leak theory quickly waned. It didn’t resurface until May 2021, when former New York Times science writer Nicholas Wade published an article discussing the likelihood of a lab leak. Wade noted that “[a] virologist keen to continue his career would be very attentive to Fauci’s and Farrar’s wishes.”
Notably, Segreto had raised a similar concern after Proximal Origin was first published in February 2020, asking whether certain virologists were scared that if the truth came out, their research activities would be curtailed.
Jeff Carlson co-hosts the show Truth Over News on Epoch TV. He is a CFA-registered Charterholder and worked for 20 years as an analyst and portfolio manager in the high-yield bond market. He also runs the website TheMarketsWork.com and can be followed on Twitter @themarketswork.
Hans Mahncke co-hosts the show Truth Over News on Epoch TV. He holds LL.B., LL.M. and Ph.D. degrees in law. He is the author of numerous law books and his research has been published in a range of international journals. Hans can be followed on Twitter @hansmahncke.
A video shows FAUCI and other HHS officials discussing in October 2019, how a new virus from China could be used to enforce vaccination everywhere.
As many of us have long suspected, this was never about fighting a new virus. Footage from a panel discussion at the Milken Institute has been revealed. It’s about finding a new way to introduce a universal flu vaccine.
Dr. Rick Bright suggested that a novel bird flu virus could break out of China, which could then be used to create a global mRNA vaccine that could be tested on the public.
Top U.S. health officials, including Dr. Anthony Fauci, scrambled in early 2020 to respond to public reporting of a potential connection between COVID-19 and the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China.
This response, which included a secret Feb. 1, 2020, teleconference, was loosely detailed in previously released and heavily redacted emails. Those emails strongly suggested that Fauci and a small group of top scientists sought to promote the natural origin theory, despite having evidence and internal expert opinions that pointed to the possibility of a leak from the Wuhan lab.
Unredacted versions of some of the emails made public by lawmakers on Jan. 11 further confirm this.
The newly unredacted emails, released by House Oversight Committee Republicans, confirm and illustrate a pattern of lies and coverup. From the emails, it appears the effort was spearheaded by Fauci himself but also involved his boss, recently retired National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Dr. Francis Collins, as well as Jeremy Farrar, the head of the British Wellcome Trust.
It was previously revealed that at least two scientists, both of whom had received funding from the NIH, had told Fauci during the teleconference that they were 60 to 80 percent sure that COVID had come out of a lab.
The most significant new revelations in the unredacted emails come from two of these scientists, Robert Garry and Mike Farzan, who both noted the difficulties presented by the presence of a furin cleavage site in the COVID-19 virus—a feature that would later be cited as the defining characteristic of the virus.
‘Bothered by the Furin Site’
Farzan, an immunologist who in 2005 discovered the receptor of the original severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) virus, sent his post-teleconference notes to Farrar, who then shared them with Collins, Fauci, and Lawrence Tabak—top officials at the NIH. In those notes, Farzan wrote that he was “bothered by the furin site” and had difficulty explaining it “as an event outside the lab.” Farzan noted that it was theoretically possible the virus’s furin cleavage site could have arisen in nature but that it was “highly unlikely.”
The furin cleavage site is the defining feature that gives COVID-19 the ability to easily infect humans and has long been puzzled over by scientists, since no such site has ever been observed in naturally occurring SARS-related coronaviruses.
Farzan, like scientist Kristian Andersen, who has received funding from Fauci’s NIAID, works at the Scripps laboratory. As was already known from previously released emails, Andersen had privately told Fauci on Jan. 31, 2020 that the virus looked engineered. Andersen would later spearhead Fauci’s efforts to promote a natural origin narrative.
Then-NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins listens during a Senate Appropriations Labor, Health and Human Services Subcommittee hearing looking into the budget estimates for National Institute of Health (NIH) and state of medical research on Capitol Hill in Washington on May 26, 2021. (Sarah Silbiger-Pool/Getty Images)
Farzan told the senior members of Fauci’s teleconference group that “a likely explanation could be something as simple as passage SARS-live CoVs in tissue culture on human cell lines” for an “extended period of time,” which could lead to the accidental creation of “a virus that would be primed for rapid transmission between humans.” This mutated virus would likely have specific “adaptation to human ACE2 receptor via repeated passage.”
A recent study in the science journal Nature noted that the COVID-19 virus was uniquely adapted to infect humans, as it “exhibited the highest binding to human (h)ACE2 of all the species tested.”
In layman’s terms, Farzan concluded that the pandemic likely originated from a lab in which live coronaviruses were passed through human-like tissue over and over, accelerating virus mutations with the end result being that one of the mutated viruses may have leaked from the lab. Farzan placed the likelihood of a leak from a Wuhan lab at 60 to 70 percent likely.
The emails indicate that Farzan was cognizant that the Wuhan lab conducted these types of dangerous experiments in Level 2 labs, which have a very low biosecurity standard. This fact was later admitted by the Wuhan lab’s director, Shi Zhengli, in July 2020. Notably, since the start of the pandemic, Farzan has received grants totaling almost $20 million from Collins’s NIH and Fauci’s NIAID.
‘Can’t Figure Out How This Gets Accomplished in Nature’
Further revelations in the newly unredacted emails came from Garry, another scientist funded by Fauci’s NIAID, who told the senior members of the teleconference group in no uncertain terms that “I really can’t think of a plausible natural scenario where you get from the bat virus” to COVID-19.
Garry cited the remarkable sequences that would have to occur naturally, telling the group that “I just can’t figure out how this gets accomplished in nature. Do the alignment of the spikes at the amino acid level – it’s stunning.” He noted that a lab-created virus would readily explain the data he was seeing, telling Fauci’s group that “Of course, in the lab, it would be easy to generate the perfect 12 base insert that you wanted.”
The P4 laboratory on the campus of the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China, on May 13, 2020. (Hector Retamal/AFP via Getty Images)
Along the same lines of what Farzan had said, Garry was telling Fauci’s group that it was extremely unlikely that the furin cleavage site could have evolved naturally, whereas creating it in a lab was easy.
The primary difference between Farzan’s and Garry’s view lies in whether the lab created the furin cleavage site through serial passage in human-like tissue or through direct insertion of the site. In either case, both scientists thought it was likely that the virus came out of the Wuhan lab rather than having originated in nature.
Scientist’s Private Views Conflicted With Public Statements
Garry’s privately stated view is even more remarkable because only a day earlier, on Feb. 1, 2020, Garry had helped to complete the first draft of the Proximal Origin paper that promoted the idea that the virus had originated in nature. That paper became the media’s and the public health establishment’s go-to evidence for a natural origin for the COVID virus.
It was published online on Feb. 16, 2020, and firmly excluded the possibility of a lab leak.
One of Garry’s co-authors for the Proximal Origin paper, Andrew Rambaut, also is cited in the newly redacted emails. In congruence with the other two scientists, Rambaut told Fauci’s teleconference group that he also was bothered by the unusual furin cleavage site. But unlike Garry or Farzan, he speculated that the virus might have arisen in another animal, a so-called intermediate host.
Peter Daszak, right, the president of the EcoHealth Alliance, is seen in Wuhan, China, on Feb. 3, 2021. (Hector Retamal/AFP via Getty Images)
Two years later, no such host has been identified. In the case of the original SARS virus as well as the Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) virus, the intermediate host was found within a few months. Rambaut also recognized immediately the peculiar fact that the furin cleavage site “insertion has resulted in an extremely fit virus in humans—we can also deduce that it is not optimal for transmission in bat species.”
Rambaut lamented the lack of data being shared by Wuhan scientists and concluded that only the Wuhan Institute of Virology knew what had happened.
Fauci’s Group Misleads National Academy of Sciences
The day after these three scientists shared their views with the senior members of the group, on Feb. 3, 2020, Fauci attended a meeting at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). That meeting had been urgently convened at the behest of White House Director of Science and Technology Kelvin Droegmeier, who wrote that he was seeking answers about the origins of COVID-19.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, White House chief medical advisor and director of the NIAID, shows a screengrab of a campaign website for Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) while answering questions at a Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee hearing on Capitol Hill on Jan. 11, 2022. (Greg Nash-Pool/Getty Images)
The meeting, which included a presentation by Fauci, was also attended by Peter Daszak–the person through whom Fauci had funded the Wuhan Institute of Virology–and Kristian Andersen. Fauci and his group promoted the natural origin theory to the Academy, despite having just been told on the teleconference and in subsequent emails that a lab leak provided the most likely explanation for the virus.
While they were pushing their natural origin narrative to NASEM, and by extension to the White House, Fauci and his group made no mention of their private discussions—which were taking place at the same time—that the virus most likely originated in a Wuhan lab.
NIH Hiding Behind Unjustifiable Redactions
The new emails fill some of the gaps left by previous redactions, but still only cover a small portion of the many emails that remain redacted. A close examination of the newly unredacted emails reveals that none of the usual justifications for redactions, such as private information about people or threats to sources and methods, apply. Instead, it appears that all of the redactions were made solely on the basis of shielding the NIH from scrutiny over its coverup of the virus’s origins.
These efforts at obfuscation tie in with the fact that we only found out about these new emails after a months-long battle between the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the parent organization of Fauci’s NIH and NIAID, and House Republicans.
The Capitol building in Washington in a file photo. (Samira Bouaou/The Epoch Times)
In order to obtain this information, House Republicans were forced to avail themselves of a rarely used law from 1928, the so-called Seven Member Rule. Under this law, an executive agency, such as HHS, is required to provide requested information when requested by seven members of the House Committee on Government Operations (now called the Committee on Oversight and Reform).
It isn’t known why Republicans haven’t used this law earlier or with greater frequency.
Eventually, HHS allowed the House Republicans’ congressional staffers to view the unredacted emails in person. The staffers then transcribed what they saw, which is how we came to know about these new revelations.
NIH Silences Dissenting Views
These new emails are crucial in that they confirm that by Feb. 2, 2020, Fauci’s teleconference group had identified evidence pointing to a lab leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. These scientists knew that the virus’s unique furin cleavage site was very likely the result of experiments conducted at the Wuhan lab. Notably, they also knew that these experiments were being conducted in minimum biosecurity Level 2 labs.
These facts presented a major problem for the heads of the NIH, who had funded the experiments.
Dr. Martin Kulldorff, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and a biostatistician and epidemiologist at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital, in Connecticut on Aug. 7, 2021. (York Du/The Epoch Times)
As the new emails confirm, their response was to cover up the lab leak evidence and push a natural origin narrative.
Then-NIH Director Collins, who would later call for the public “takedown” of the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, asked his group for a “swift convening of experts” in order to prevent the “voices of conspiracy” from doing “great potential harm to science and international harmony…” through public discussion of a lab leak theory.
Collins’s view was mirrored by another participant in Fauci’s teleconference, Dutch virologist Ron Fouchier, who told the group that “Further debate about such accusations would unnecessarily distract top researchers from their active duties and do unnecessary harm to science in general and science in China in particular.”
Jeff Carlson co-hosts the show Truth Over News on Epoch TV. He is a CFA-registered Charterholder and worked for 20 years as an analyst and portfolio manager in the high-yield bond market. He also runs the website TheMarketsWork.com and can be followed on Twitter @themarketswork.
Hans Mahncke co-hosts the show Truth Over News on Epoch TV. He holds LL.B., LL.M. and Ph.D. degrees in law. He is the author of numerous law books and his research has been published in a range of international journals. Hans can be followed on Twitter @hansmahncke
Remember what they said
Fast forward to today
They lied, they will keep lying
2021 COVID-19 Recap: 200 Million Vaccinated, 450,000 Dead
By Petr Svab
January 3, 2022Updated: January 4, 2022
News Analysis
With the New Year’s Eve passing, 2021 is now the second year defined by the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus pandemic and the global response to it. Compared to 2020, last year was not only deadlier, but also more complicated. Issues such as virus variants, vaccine resistance, and vaccine efficacy have come to the forefront. Mandatory vaccination went from a “conspiracy theory” to official policy in a matter of months. Increasingly prominent were also legal battles over government restrictions on the population, with approaches taken by different states further diverging.
Although 2021 started with a massive wave of COVID-19-related hospitalizations, there was also an expectation that the pandemic would soon end or at least fade into the background. Vaccination was billed as the ticket to normalcy, and initially it looked that way. By mid-June, about 180 million Americans had received at least one does of one of the approved vaccines and even states with the most authoritarian approaches, such as New York, had lifted most of their restrictions.
Delta
However, the respite was brief. In July, infections started to spike again. The CCP virus mutated into a new variant, dubbed Delta, which appeared to be less deadly, but more infectious. Vaccine uptake slowed down and Delta appeared to be somewhat more resistant to it. The solution presented by authorities was to take yet another shot of the vaccine—a “booster.”
The virus also showed signs of seasonality. In the winter, it pummeled the northeast, but not so much the south. In the summer, the situation seemed to reverse.
In August, President Joe Biden, plagued at the time by what was widely panned as a botched withdrawal from Afghanistan, announced a major policy shift—mandatory vaccination for government workers, contractors, and even private employers with over 100 employees. Just months earlier, the administration was dismissing the idea of vaccine mandates. Any suggestion that the government may force people to take the novel vaccine, still in the process of long-term clinical trials, was even ridiculed by some as a “conspiracy theory.”
Soon after Biden’s announcement, some Democrat-heavy states and localities followed with various mandates of their own, with New York City spearheading the effort. Bit by bit, New York had mandated the shot for government workers, private school staff, most indoor establishment workers, and even patrons of gyms, entertainment venues, and restaurants. To see a movie, exercise, or eat indoors, a New Yorker now must show proof of “full” vaccination, which for now does not include boosters, as well as photo ID. Outgoing Mayor Bill de Blasio also added a mandate for all private employers and the state mandated the vaccine for all health care workers.
Legal challenges to the mandates have been a mixed bag of failures and partial victories. Oftentimes, courts would block the mandate only to later allow it to go into effect. Challenges to Biden’s mandate for private employers are expected to be heard by the Supreme Court.
Another phenomenon associated with Delta was an increase in severe illness and even deaths among children. While in 2020, about 0.05 percent of all COVID-19 deaths were children, the number rose to 0.1 percent in 2021, according to CDC, making for a total of 678 deaths associated with COVID-19. For comparison, the agency recorded 358 pediatric deaths during the 2009-2010 flu pandemic.
Omicron
With the winter approaching, about 50 million Americans got booster shots. If that was to give them a sense of security, however, it would be short-lived. Out of South Africa emerged a yet new variant capable of wide spread, named Omicron. There are indications that vaccines and to a lesser extent natural immunity acquired through previous infection only provide limited resistance to Omicron. On the other hand, the variant appears to be yet more infectious, but again, less lethal than Delta, with reports of much milder symptoms and far fewer deaths worldwide.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that Omicron comprised about half of COVID-19 infections in the week ending Dec. 25. Those are modeled projections, though, as data from its variant surveillance system lags about three weeks.
Omicron or not, hospitalizations attributed to COVID-19 have surged in the northeast. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul responded by again requiring people to wear masks in indoor establishments, regardless of vaccination.
Republican-led states have generally gone in the opposite direction, not only refraining from mandates, but sometimes even outlawing them. Florida went as far as expressly prohibiting local governments and school districts from imposing mask and vaccine mandates on their staff or in their facilities. The state, led by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, also restricted private businesses from imposing vaccine requirements by carving out a number of exemptions, including for health concerns and prior infection. Florida legislature even authorized the state to ditch federal Occupation and Safety Hazard Agency (OSHA) and create its own to preempt Biden’s vaccine mandate, which OSHA should enforce.
Information War
Last year has also been marked by a number of revelations regarding what appears to be a lack of candor on part of a number of experts and public officials.
A series of documents released under Freedom of Information requests showed that a group of experts, including NIH head Anthony Fauci, coordinated efforts to discredit the theory that the virus originally escaped from a lab in Wuhan, China. The evidence, in fact, appears to lean in that direction. But Fauci et al. have a personal stake in hiding those indices as they were involved in financing or conducting dangerous “gain-of-function” experiments with coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Fauci explicitly denied to Congress his NIH funded such research, only for a growing stack of evidence to indicate otherwise.
The information tug-of-war around potential therapeutics expanded last year. In addition to hydroxychloroquine, some doctors also tried off-label prescriptions of anti-parasitic drug Ivermectin. In one episode, popular talk show host Joe Rogan was both praised and vilified for taking Ivermectin upon announcing he tested positive for the virus. He then invited CNN’s Sanja Gupta on his show and criticized his network for claiming he took a “horse de-wormer,” when in fact he took the human formulation of the drug as prescribed by his physician.
Study results on both hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin remain mixed. Some show improved results in patients under certain circumstances, while others do not.
Conversations regarding the vaccines’ safety also morphed. After initial claims of no serious side effects, authorities have gradually shifted toward acknowledgement that some serious side effects, such as myocarditis, do occur.
Administration
The Biden administration’s handling of the pandemic has been mixed. The administration managed a smooth rollout of the vaccines, but after the initial wave, the uptake has since slowed down. Gallup reported in November that the percentage of adults who are or plan to get vaccinated plateaued at 80 percent. By Dec. 30, over 205 million people were “fully” vaccinated, meaning 2 shots of the vaccines that require them. Over 68 million got boosters as well, leaving about 23 percent of the adult population.
A December poll by the Trafalgar Group found that a large majority of American likely voters opposed new mandates and restrictions, regardless of new variants (pdf).
After months of promises to tackle the pandemic, Biden recently conceded that there’s “no federal solution” to it. The year concluded with over 450,000 deaths attributed to COVID-19 and over 33 million detected infections. That’s up 27 percent and 67 percent respectively from the year before.
A high immunity among South Africans that stems primarily from prior infection is likely a contributing factor to the lower hospitalization rate the country has recorded amid the surge in COVID-19 cases after the Omicron variant of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus became dominant, according to a pair of new studies.
COVID-19 infections in South Africa have skyrocketed in recent weeks, but hospitalizations have risen much more slowly compared to the previous wave, which was driven by the Delta variant.
In the first 31 days of the current wave, 164,911 cases were recorded, but just 3,432 patients required hospital care, and 194 died.
In comparison, during the same time period of the last wave, 38,577 cases were recorded, with 10,088 requiring hospital care and 668 dying.
“We believe that the evolution of cell-mediated immunity from prior natural infection and vaccination is resulting in the uncoupling of the high case rates seen with the Omicron variant and the rates of severe disease,” South African researchers said in one of the new studies, a preprint done with funds from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
The immunity is “primarily due to natural infection, with or without COVID-19 vaccination,” they added later.
In the other study, also not yet peer-reviewed, South African scientists said people who get infected now face roughly 80 percent lower odds of needing hospital care when compared to individuals who got COVID-19 from the Delta variant.
Additionally, people who do get admitted to hospitals have a lower chance of developing severe disease and are staying, on average, for fewer days than before.
That’s likely due in part to “high levels of population immunity (due to natural infection and/or vaccination),” wrote the researchers, who received funding from the South African Medical Research Council.
While seropositivity estimates have been high in South Africa, vaccination rates have been relatively low. As of this week, about half of adults 18 or older had received a COVID-19 vaccine, including people who only got one shot.
A man receives a dose of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in Johannesburg, South Africa on Dec. 15, 2021. (Luca Sola/AFP via Getty Images)
Early studies indicate Omicron can better evade immunity from both prior infection and vaccination, though both have held up well against hospitalization and severe disease. Just 1.7 percent of patients with COVID-19 were needing hospital care in South Africa, compared to 19 percent during the Delta wave, Health Minister Joe Phaahla told reporters last week.
Vaccine booster doses, meanwhile, show promise against Omicron, though experts aren’t sure how long the restored protection will last.
In South Africa, most people who have been admitted to hospitals or died with COVID-19 in recent weeks either did not receive a vaccine or just received one dose, according to the country’s National Institute For Communicable Diseases. Officials there are encouraging people to get a vaccine or get a booster if they’ve already gotten one.
Cheryl Cohen, an epidemiology professor at the University of the Witwatersrand who helped with the second study, told reporters in a virtual briefing Wednesday that researchers could not tell if vaccination, natural immunity, or an intrinsic reduced virulence of Omicron have played the largest role, but that she believes the findings are generalizable to other countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, which have similar levels of previous infection.
“I think what is unclear is how the picture will be similar in countries where there are high levels of vaccination but very low levels of previous infection,” she added. “The baseline epidemiology is different. But I think, compellingly, our data really suggests a positive story of a reduced severity of Omicron compared to other variants.”
Real-world data from other countries also points to a reduced severity, including lower hospitalization rates in Denmark and the United Kingdom when compared to previous waves.
At the same time, Imperial College London researchers said last week that they found no evidence of lower severity with Omicron versus Delta; and in Denmark, “the jury is still out” because of the small amount of data to study thus far, Troels Lillebaek, professor of infectious diseases epidemiology at the University of Copenhagen, told The Epoch Times in an email.
Still, there does seem to be enough evidence out to show Omicron is less severe than previous strains, “but we do not know yet if this is because of increasing cellular immunity in the population in December 2021 versus an inherent property of the strain that makes it less virulent or both,” Dr. Monica Gandhi, director of the University of California, San Francisco-Bay Area Center for AIDS Research, told The Epoch Times via email.
Riccardo Bosi, leader of Australia One, gives a warning to Australians and the rest of the world. He explains who are the White Hats and what is going on behind the scenes. Does this mean Q is Real? We are in the greatest spiritual battle the world has even known. Do not comply with the mandates and stand up for freedom
Nuremburg 2 is coming. Fauci, CDC, FDA, WHO and all those who conspired will be held accountable.
Pentagon-funded labs in nations bordering Russia and China need to be opened up for inspections, the Russian FM said. Russia suspects Pentagon-funded bioresearch laboratories in foreign nations, including those in Ukraine, may pose a threat because of the secrecy surrounding their work, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told RT. Washington apparently didn’t want to risk exposing its own people to the pathogenic threat, he suggested.
right there for anyone to discover. What seems to have gone missing is popular understanding, replaced with a premodern run-and-hide theory of disease avoidance. It’s so bad that even the imposition of police states around the country, including brutal shutdowns and house arrest, did not inspire anywhere near the level of public resistance that I would have expected. To this day, we are still masking, stigmatizing the sick, and using unworkable and preposterous tactics to pretend to track, trace, and isolate all with the wild ambition permanently to stamp out the damn bug.
