Kari Lake on Abortion and 2000 Mules; Democrats Silent as Republicans Rip Into Secret Royalty Checks to Fauci, Hundreds of NIH Scientists

Kari Lake on Newsmax
They never thought people who filmed the attacks on 9/11 with their JVC handycam would post it to social media years later. There were never any planes.

Patrick Byrne  Recaps 2000 Mules & Shares What You Can Do to Prevent Fraud

Crimes against humanity

Democrats Silent as Republicans Rip Into Secret Royalty Checks to Fauci, Hundreds of NIH Scientists

By Mark Tapscott

 May 11, 2022 Updated: May 11, 2022

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.

Epoch Times Photo
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.

Epoch Times Photo
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.”

Epoch Times Photo
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.

Epoch Times Photo
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.

Epoch Times Photo
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.

Mark Tapscott

CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT
Congressional Correspondent for The Epoch Times.

Patrick Byrne Exposes Deep State

Patrick Byrne

Patrick Byrne

2020 Election Fraud Is CCP ‘Assassin’s Mace’: Patrick Byrne

December 16, 2020 Updated: December 17, 2020

Election fraud is the secret “assassin’s mace” of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) that has long confounded security hawks, according to tech billionaire and entrepreneur Patrick Byrne, who back in August assembled a cyber intelligence team to analyze the U.S. voting system.

“For 10 years or more, there have been references to a coming ‘assassin’s mace’ in the Chinese literature—where they take out the United States with one stroke,” Byrne told The Epoch Times’ “American Thought Leaders” program. “The national security community in the United States has been trying to figure this out: Is it their new aircraft carrier? Is that the hypersonic missile? Is it this, that, is it an EMP?”

“I don’t think so, ” he told host Jan Jekielek. “The one stroke that takes the United States out is what we’re experiencing right now.”

The 2020 vote involved “massive election fraud,” he says. “Not voter fraud, but election fraud.”

Byrne has been a driving force in the research for lawsuits filed by attorneys Lin Wood and Sidney Powell. He has also been working together with ASOG, the company that recently carried out the forensic audit on voting machines in Antrim County, Michigan.

Byrne said he started investigations back in August, and that as a result, he anticipated the very irregularities which he later observed in the November election.

He says his team of online security experts now believes Chinese developers are “under the hood” of the software that has infiltrated at least two of the main voting systems in the United States.

Suppliers of such election software and systems involved in the U.S. election have responded to allegations of voting irregularities with consistent denial that their systems can be manipulated or that they have any such connection to foreign governments.

‘Reverse-engineering the Coup’

Byrne described the election as a soft coup.

“We are basically reverse-engineering this coup,” said Byrne, in reference to his team of 30-40 people.

Byrne says that he fell in with cyber experts who had been looking at election manipulation since 2018 when they were hired as part of a blue-ribbon commission set up to examine potential election fraud in Texas.

“That group has had two years to really reverse engineer what the rest of America has had a couple of weeks to understand,” he said. “They had already figured out really about a dozen different ways you could defeat an election or hack an election—in a broad sense of hack, not necessarily just electronic cyber guys hacking.”

According to Byrne, they found cheating was possible “at an industrial level, in terms of generating hundreds of thousands of fake votes.”

Byrne says the pattern of manipulation can be identified through examining three key points—what he calls “three buckets of facts.”

“One bucket is understanding the systems themselves and how they were built: the functionality that was built into them and the vulnerabilities that exist.”

The second bucket, he says, relates to how the election process played out. “[In the event of fraud] you would expect people to have certain experiences when they either go in and vote or if they volunteer and work in the precincts.”

Georgia
A Georgia Republican Party poll watcher looks over voting machine transporters being stored at the Fulton County Election Preparation Center in Atlanta, Ga., on Nov. 4, 2020. (Jessica McGowan/Getty Images)

He gives the examples of vote tabulating being shut down, of poll watchers being denied entry, and of the video of election workers pulling out cases of ballots from under a table after observers had gone home and then scanning them.

The third bucket, he says, is the extreme statistical outliers that would be thrown up by such a manipulation process.

“Things like that happened—these statistical outliers: Having 123,000 votes in a row going to one candidate; or in Pennsylvania, I believe it was 580,000 votes got processed that were 99.4 percent for Biden… and they came through exactly when all the Republicans had been told they had to leave.”

“They’re on the order of you winning the Powerball lottery this week, and next week and the week after—and that happening in dozens of places around America at the same time.”

“When you put those three different narratives together, they also just come together perfectly. They all reinforce each other.”

Traced to China

Byrne says that the manipulation of the voting systems can be traced back to China.

“There’s a chain of command basically from China through Iran to Cuba and Venezuela,” he said. “The Chinese are funding Smartmatic through the Panamanian division of Smartmatic, but it bounces through Venezuela.”

“There is code buried within the Dominion machines that has been turned up that seems to show Chinese provenance.”

“There are Chinese developers under the hood of this stuff back in China who are actually getting their software into the Smartmatic systems which have infiltrated at least two of the main voting systems used domestically.”

Epoch Times Photo
Smartmatic’s headquarters located in Boca Rotan, Fla., on Dec. 2, 2020. (The Epoch Times)

“I say this as a guy who loves China,” he adds. “I speak Chinese, I have a great affection for China and the Chinese people—but I’m not such a big fan of the CCP.”

Smartmatic says its products were used only in one LA county in the U.S. 2020 election and has consistently denied any claims of wrongdoing or involvement in voter or election fraud past or present. It says it has no involvement with any governments or political parties or with Dominion.

Dominion Voting Systems has also consistently denied any wrongdoing or vulnerabilities in its systems and said that it does not use software owned by Smartmatic and that it has no ownership ties to the governments of China, Cuba, or Venezuela. Dominion products are used in 28 states.

Byrne, however, says that software created by Smartmatic went through a series of corporate mergers, acquisitions, divestments, and licensing agreements before ending up in at least two of the main commercial voting systems being used in the United States, including Dominion. “Its genetic lineage [goes] back to the software,” he says.

A number of other analysts have signed affidavits to the same effect.

Dominion has also come under scrutiny for its ownership structure after its parent company raised funds with the help of a Swiss bank before the 2020 U.S. presidential election. The transaction, peculiar in several ways, has led some to speculate that a Chinese entity could be an indirect investor in the company.

Byrne says that stealing the national election doesn’t require cheating across the board. “There are six counties that you need to steal. If you steal these six counties around the country, that flips the six states they’re in, which flips the electoral college votes that come with them, which flips the nation, ” he said. “You’ve got to take six places and cheat like crazy there.”

He says that some online security experts, who he describes as white hat hackers, say that they would give the election systems a rating of just one or two out of 10 for security.

Follow Simon on Twitter: @SPVeazey
Follow Jan on Twitter: @JanJekielek
%d bloggers like this: