Desperate criminal fauci, guilty worm, pleads his e-mails taken "out of context"....

Apollonian

Apollonian

Guest Columnist
'MY emails were taken out of context': Fauci dismisses smoking gun correspondence about man-made COVID, defends Chinese scientists and says he was never anti-Trump - but admits 'I can't guarantee everything that is going on in the Wuhan lab' ​

Link: http://www.domigood.com/2021/06/my-emails-were-taken-out-of-context.html

[vids at site link, above]

Dr. Anthony Fauci has dismissed recent revelations that he was warned at the start of pandemic that COVID-19 may have been 'engineered' as he claimed Donald Trump supporters 'resent' him because they do not 'understand' science.

The chief medical advisor admitted he 'can't guarantee everything that is going on in the Wuhan lab' amid increased speculation that the virus did not not originate naturally.

Speaking with MSNBC's Deadline, Fauci said: 'There is no doubt that there are people out there who, for one reason or another, resent me for what I did in the last administration, which was not anything that was anti-Trump at all.

'It was just trying to get the right information, to try and get the right data. What they didn't seem to understand, I guess that it is understandable that they didn't understand it, is that science is a dynamic process.

'So something that you know in January, you make a recommendation or a comment about it, but as you get more and more information, the information leads you to change because that is what science is, it is a self-correcting process.

'That is what I was trying to do, always tell the truth on the basis of what the data is. It was never deliberately something against the president.'

In a separate interview with NewsNation Now anchor Leland Vittert on The Donlon Report, Fauci explained why scientists focused their theories on the natural transmission from bats to humans through an intermediary species.

The interview comes after a trove of 3,200 of Fauci's emails from January to June 2020 were obtained and published by Buzzfeed on Tuesday that showed leading virus experts warned him COVID-19 may have been created in a lab while he publicly played such claims down.

'The only trouble is they are really ripe to be taken out of context where someone can snip out a sentence in an email without showing the other emails, and say 'based on an email from Dr. Fauci, he said such and such' where you don't really have the full context,' Fauci told Vittert.

Dr. Anthony Fauci dismissed recent revelations that he was warned by scientist at start of pandemic that COVID-19 may have been 'engineered'

Fauci made his comments in an interview with NewsNation Now anchor Leland Vittert on The Donlon Report where he also admitted he 'can't guarantee everything that is going on in the Wuhan lab'

Fauci, who is considered America's top expert on infectious disease, also explained why scientists focused their theories on the natural transmission from bats rather than an accidental leak from the Wuhan lab

Researchers at a number of top universities have recently penned a letter claiming that theories that COVID-19 escaped from a Wuhan lab 'remain viable'

The Wuhan Institute of Virology is about 20 miles from the Huanan Seafood Market where the first coronavirus cases are reported to have occurred

Another trove of emails, published by the Washington Post, also revealed his cozy relationship with China's top infectious disease expert Dr. George Gao - the director of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention - during the early days of the pandemic in March and April of last year.

'Let's put things in context ... We're not talking about the Chinese Communist Party. We're not talking about the Chinese military. We're talking about scientists that we've had relationships for years,' Fauci said.

Fauci then defended his relationship with Gao, a colleague of Fauci's 'for many years' and a member of the United States National Academy of Scientists.

'The scientists there, and others that we dealt with the original SARS, with the influenza virtually every year, the scientists are experienced,' Fauci said.

He then defended a grant the United States had provided the Wuhan lab, which has raised concerns that American money may have helped pay for the alleged creation of virus at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

'The Wuhan lab is a very large lab to the tune of hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars. The grant that we're talking about was $600,000 over five years for an average of about $125,000 to $140,000 a year,' Fauci said.

He added: 'I can't guarantee everything that is going on in the Wuhan lab, I can't do that. But it is our obligation as scientists and public health individuals to study the animal-human interface' in the aftermath of the original SARS virus in 2002.

Fauci explained that SARS-CoV-1 'was clearly a jumping of species from a bat, to a civet cat, to a human.'

'So it was incumbent upon us to study the animal-human interface and to understand what potential these viruses have of infecting humans which then might damage the United States,' Fauci said.

'So you don't want to go to Hoboken, New Jersey or to Fairfax, Virginia to be studying the bat human interface that might lead to an outbreak. You go to China.'

During the interview, Fauci also defended the government's early messages telling Americans not wear masks before nationwide mask mandates were later ordered.

In one email, Fauci had said: 'The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through the material.'

Responding to questions about that email, Fauci said: 'Let me explain, and it is a complicated issue. At the time we were saying it wasn't necessary to wear masks there were three things that were going on.'

'One of them was, there was a consideration that there was a shortage of personal protective equipment, particularly among people who actually needed the mask – those who were taking care of patients in the hospital.

'So we didn't want to have people running to the stores and getting N95 and other masks. So I should have probably been more explicit, you're right, and said that there are a number of aspects to it – including the poor fitting.'

In March 2020, Gao had told Science magazine that it was a 'big mistake' for U.S. experts including Fauci to tell their citizens that they did not need to wear face masks.

A subsequent email shows that Gao was anxious as to how Fauci would interpret the remark.

He messaged Fauci on March 28 saying: 'I saw the Science interview... That was journalist's wording. Hope you understand. Lets work together to get the virus out of the earth.'

Fauci warmly replied: 'I understand completely. No problem. We will get through this together.'

On April 3, Fauci formally reversed his stance on mask-wearing, telling Americans that they should cover their noses and mouths to stop the spread. The top doctor was slammed by numerous pundits and millions of Americans for giving mixed messages.

He later said he did so to try and prevent members of the public panic-buying masks when hospitals were struggling to obtain adequate supplies of PPE.

Less than a week later, Gao emailed Fauci again expressing his support amid the onslaught of attacks.

'I saw some news (hope it is fake) that you are being attacked by some people. Hope you are well under such a irrational situation,' Gao wrote on April 8.

'Thank you for your kind note. All is well despite some crazy people in this world,' Fauci replied three days later.

Fauci also admitted during the interview that he doesn't believe COVID-19 will ever be fully eradicated.

'I don't believe we will ever fully eradicate SARS-COV-2, I hope we will be able to eliminate it or greatly control it in this country,' he said.

Fauci was warned that the coronavirus was possibly 'engineered' in a lab before the pandemic started and seemed to be taking it seriously behind closed doors while downplaying the idea in public.

In a Jan. 31, 2020 email - more than two months before the World Health Organization characterized COVID-19 as a pandemic - Fauci forwarded a copy of Science magazine article titled 'Mining coronavirus genomes for clues to the outbreak's origins' to two people.

U.S. virus researcher Kristian Andersen and Sir Jeremy Farrar, who runs a global health charity in Britain, were on the receiving end of the email.

'This just came out today. You may have seen it. If not, it is of interest to the current discussion,' wrote Fauci, the longtime head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Andersen, who runs a viral genomics lab at Scripps Research in La Jolla, California, wrote back, 'The problem is that our phylogenetic analyses aren't able to answer whether the sequences are unusual at individual residues, except if they are completely off.

'The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (<0.1%) so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered.'

Andersen also noted that he and others 'all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory' but added that 'there are still further analyses to be done, so those opinions could still change.'

On March 30 and April 1, Andersen sent dozens of tweets in a thread after the World Health Organization released its report about the origin of the coronavirus.

In the thread, he included a tweet saying, 'First of all, I have very carefully considered the possibility of a lab leak, dating back to January, 2020. A committee under the White House OSTP/NASEM was set up in response to these enquiries and I remain a member of that committee today.'

On Wednesday, after Fauci's emails went viral, Andersen tweeted a reply to Australian reporter Sharri Markson downplaying the idea of a cover up.

'I know it's super mundane, but it isn't actually a 'massive cover-up,' Sharri. It's just science. Boring, I know, but it's quite a helpful thing to have in times of uncertainty,' Andersen tweeted.

Two days later - February 2, 2020 - Farar sent an email to Fauci and other US health officials sent a ZeroHedge article wit the headline 'Coronavirus Contains 'HIV Insertions,' Stocking Fears Over Artificially Created Bioweapon.'

The emails show Fauci received 'a flurry of correspondence about the theory that coronavirus leaked from a lab in Wuhan,' Buzzfeed reported, including one email sent to Fauci on April 16, 2020 by Francis Collins.

Collins, the director of the National Institute of Health, wrote 'conspiracy gains momentum' in the subject line and included a link to a Mediaite news article referencing comments made a day earlier about the Wuhan lab leak theory by Fox News anchor Bret Baier. The contents of Collins' email was redacted.

Fauci replied on April 17 at 2.45am but his response also was blacked out. Fauci requested a 'quick call' with Collins in one of his earlier replies.

Andersen Tweeted this on June 2

US virus researcher Kristian Andersen responded to a January 2020 Fauci email about COVID

NIH Director Dr Francis Collins

Dr Anthony Fauci

NIH Director Dr Francis Collins (left) appeared to dismiss the theory that COVID-19 leaked from a Wuhan lab as a 'conspiracy' in an email to Dr Anthony Fauci (right) on April 16 last year

March: Fauci shoots down theory that COVID-19 escaped from Wuhan lab

The other email recipients included NIH Deputy Director Dr. Lawrence Tabak, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Deputy Director Clifford Lane and NIH spokesman John Burklow.

The story linked in Collins' original email was based on an April 15 broadcast on Fox News during which Baier told fellow anchor Sean Hannity that 'multiple sources' believed COVID-19 originated in a Wuhan lab before accidentally escaping.

'This is from multiple sources who have been briefed at the beginning part of the origins of China and the beginning of the virus. They've also seen documents, open source and classified,' Baier said.

'We've asked to see those documents directly, but they are saying that it is increasingly likely, that there is increasing confidence that the virus - COVID-19 - started in a Wuhan lab.

'They're saying it occurred naturally because China was trying to show that they could be as good or better than the US in handling viruses, discovering viruses, and that this was a botched effort to contain this and it got out to the population.

'They are 100 percent confident that China altered the data, the statistics, they did a lot of things to contain the information. Meanwhile, they cut down, as you mentioned, travel from Wuhan internally, but left the international flights going, and there obviously is how you have a spread like this.'

Evidence has been mounting of late that supports the theory that the pandemic began as an accidental leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

The subject line of Collins' email to Fauci and several others at the National Institutes of Health was titled 'conspiracy gains momentum'. It included a link to a Mediaite news article referencing comments made a day earlier about the Wuhan lab leak theory by Fox News anchor Bret Baier (above)

New evidence, including word of three workers at the Wuhan lab who fell seriously ill with COVID-like symptoms in November 2019, has forced a sober reassessment among doubters

Footage shows Wuhan Institute of Virology surrounded by security

President Joe Biden last week ordered a 90-day intelligence review to investigate the possibility and several high-profile public health experts have come out in recent months saying they believe that's how COVID-19 started.

Former CDC director Robert Redfield told CNN in March that he believes the virus 'escaped' from a Wuhan lab and started spreading as early as September 2019.

Fauci later dismissed Redfield's belief when asked about them at a White House COVID-19 briefing - noting that if the virus had been circulating for months it would make the assertion that it came from a lab less likely.

'So when you think about the possibilities of how this virus appeared in the human population, obviously there are a number of theories,' Fauci said in the briefing.

'The issue that would have someone think it's possible to have escaped from a lab would mean that it essentially entered the outside human population already well adapted to humans, suggesting that it was adapted in the lab.'

Kennedy grills Fauci over the grant invested in Wuhan research

However, Fauci said that most public health officials believe that the virus was actually circulating in China for a month or more before they were clinically recognized at the end of December 2019.

'If that were the case, the virus clearly could have adapted itself to a greater efficiency of transmissibility over that period of time up to and at the time it was recognized,' Fauci said.

'So, Dr. Redfield was mentioning that he was giving an opinion as to a possibility. But, again, there are other alternatives — others that most people hold by.'

Even Collins has appeared to change his tune as recently as last month while speaking to senators when he told them the Wuhan lab leak theory couldn't be completely ruled out.

'It is most likely that this is a virus that arose naturally, but we cannot exclude the possibility of some kind of a lab accident,' he said.

David Arnold Relman organized the letter for the Science journal which said that the Wuhan lab escape theory can't be ruled out yet

Jesse D. Bloom organized the letter for the Science journal which said that the Wuhan lab escape theory can't be ruled out yet

David Arnold Relman, left, and Jesse D. Bloom, right, recently organized a letter for the Science journal which said that the Wuhan lab escape theory can't be ruled out yet

There is continued discussion over whether COVID is a naturally-occurring virus or a more sinister genetically-modified virus that was meant to be confined to the Wuhan institute that leaked by accident.

Claims that the virus escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology have been laughed off as conspiracy theories - but even researchers at a number of top universities like Harvard and Cambridge have suggest in a letter that the 'hypotheses' cannot be ruled out until there is more evidence.

New evidence, including reports of three workers at the Wuhan lab who fell seriously ill with COVID-like symptoms in November 2019, has forced a sober reassessment among doubters.

Facebook also has been forced to reverse its policy censoring posts speculating that the virus was engineered in a lab, amid serious questions about the 'gain of function' experiments being done on coronavirus strains at the Wuhan lab.

China continues to furiously deny that the virus behind COVID-19 escaped from its lab in the original epicenter, accusing the United States of taking a 'dangerous stance' in calling for a full investigation into the possibility.
 
Fauci’s Boss ADMITS That NIH Was Funding Wuhan Lab And The CCP, Not Them, Had Control Over What They Were Doing​

about 5 hours ago

Link: https://en-volve.com/2021/06/04/fau...t-them-had-control-over-what-they-were-doing/

Dr. Anthony Fauci’s boss threw him under the bus this week after admitting that the the National Institute of Health (NIH) helped fund the Wuhan lab in China, a direct contradiction of statements Fauci has publicly made.

Dr. Francis Collins, the director of the National Institute for Health (NIH), appears to have contradicted Fauci in a bombshell moment from an interview with Hugh Hewitt on Wednesday.

Speaking to the veteran radio host, Dr. Collins admitted about U.S. collaboration with the Wuhan lab:

“Well, we, when we give a grant, Hugh, it has terms attached to it of what it is that the grantee is supposed to be doing with those funds. And we require annual reports to see whether that in fact is what they have been doing. And we trust the grantee to be honest and not deceptive. The grant funds that went to Wuhan, which were a subcontract from Eco Health, were very specifically aimed to try to categorize viruses that they could isolate from bats in Chinese caves, which we had a good reason to want to know more about, given SARS and MERS that had come out of there. And so we basically had those criteria attached to the grant. And of course, the amount of money that we were providing to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, I’m sure, was a tiny fraction of their total funding. And we had no control over what else they were doing with those funds. That’s another thing we’d like to know more about, and an investigation might potentially tell us.

Collins goes on to admit that the Chinese Communist Party is, in fact, involved in the Wuhan lab, but attempts to play down their influence.

In truth the lab hosts communist study sessions in order to boost “party spirit” and fealty to the Chinese Communist Party.

When asked if the NIH would collaborate with other human rights abusers and tyrannies such as North Korea, Dr. Collins replied, “Probably not,” before adding:

“I think you’re demonizing the Wuhan Institute of Virology as it is pure and simple an instrument of the Chinese Communist Party. There are certainly connections there, but let’s be clear. There are scientists working in that institute who are amongst the best in the world in terms of understanding virology. And many of those folks have had long-term relationships with others in other countries, including the United States, with a lot of respect, a lot of shared information. I don’t think we should just basically say well, because they’re in that country, they’re evil. I think you’re going too far with that one.

The stunning news contravenes the claims by Dr. Anthony Fauci, that the NIH/NIAID that the U.S. had not collaborated with the Wuhan lab on gain-of-function research.

Listen to the full interview: [ck site link, above, top]
 
Stanford epidemiologist says Dr. Fauci's 'credibility is entirely shot' and says his flip-flopping over masks 'made no sense' ​

Link: http://www.yourdestinationnow.com/2021/06/stanford-epidemiologist-says-dr-faucis.html

June 07, 2021
  
A professor and epidemiologist at Stanford University has declared that Dr. Anthony Fauci's 'credibility is entirely shot' following damaging revelations from his emails.

Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine at Stanford, levied the criticism in an interview on Friday, questioning the rationale for Fauci's reversal on universal mask wearing last year.

'I think he's been all over the place on masks,' Bhattacharya told Fox News host Laura Ingraham.

'There are emails you can find in the treasure trove of emails that have been released where he acknowledged the virus has been aerosolized -- well the cloth masks people have been recommending, they're not particularly effective against aerosolized viruses,' he added.

Jay Bhattacharya (above), a professor of medicine at Stanford, questioned the rationale for Fauci's reversal on universal mask wearing last year

Bhattacharya argued that Fauci should have known that cloth face masks are not particularly effective in stopping aerosolized particles

'I really don't understand his back and forth and his answer made absolutely no sense,' he said.

Bhattacharya, who has a medical degree and a PhD in economics, is a longstanding critic of lockdowns and universal masking, and was one of the three authors of the controversial Great Barrington Declaration that argued for lifting pandemic restrictions.

In March, Bhattacharya appeared in a round table with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, praising the Republican's more relaxed approach to economic restrictions.

His latest interview came after thousands of Fauci's emails were released last week through public records requests, including one from February 2020 in which he told someone that it was no necessary to wear a mask to an airport.

'Masks are really for infected people to prevent them from spreading infection to people who are not infected rather than protecting uninfected people from acquiring infection,' Fauci wrote.

'The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through the material,' he added.

Fauci's evolving views on masks were just as evident in his private emails as they were in his public statements

By late March, Fauci was changing his tune both in public and private.

'There are some data from NIH that indicate that mere speaking without coughing elicits aerosols that travel a foot or two. If that is the case, then perhaps universal wearing of masks in the most practical way to go,' he wrote in an email on March 31, 2020.

He explained his reasoning in an interview with NBC one day earlier, saying it had become clear that asymptomatic individuals can transmit the infection, and thus that everyone should be considered infected for the purpose of masks.

However, Bhattacharya argued that Fauci should have known that cloth face masks are not particularly effective in stopping aerosolized particles.

'Yes you should change your mind when the science changes, what is that science that changed that convinced him that masks are the most effective way?' he asked.

'The CDC Director Robert Redfield said masks were more effective than vaccines. and Dr. Fauci did not contradict him, when Dr. Scott Atlas said that was nonsense, which it was,' he said.

'I think his credibility is entirely shot,' he added.

Psaki on Fauci: He's an undeniable asset in COVID battle

Fauci is adored on the left and despised on the right, and following the release of his emails some Republicans are calling for his resignation.

Rep. Chip Roy, a Texas Republican, used the release of a batch of emails to say that Fauci should face criminal investigation.

'We have literally wrecked the greatest economy in the history of the world because Anthony Fauci wanted to be on the cover of magazines and be in at the cocktail scene circuit in D.C.,' he told podcast host Todd Starnes.

'We’ll go follow the truth wherever it may lead and if that’s criminal investigations, so be it.'

For his part, Fauci said the emails had been taken out of context. 'It's really very much an attack on science,' he told MSNBC Friday.

Being a public figure, he said, meant he expected attacks.

'My job was to make a vaccine and use my institute and its talented scientists that we have there - and that we fund in the various universities - to get a vaccine that was highly safe and highly effective and we succeeded,' he added.

'All the other stuff is just a terrible.. not-happy type of a distraction. But it's all nonsense.'
 
‘Self-spreading’ vaccines pose multiple risks to society — including the end of informed consent​

Link: https://www.cracknewz.com/2021/06/self-spreading-vaccines-pose-multiple.html

In October 2019, the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security co-sponsored the “pandemic exercise,” Event 201.

A little more than a year later, when the Event 201 scenario morphed from “hypothetical” to concrete, it became clear that sponsors of the event intended to see the majority of the world vaccinated against COVID-19.

Accomplishing this goal is a “monumental challenge,” however. In the U.S., more than one-third (38% to 45%) of adults continue to decline the unlicensed, Emergency Use Authorization injections, despite a marketing blitz that has included both carrots (ranging from the chance to win cash payments to a free order of fries) and sticks (such as nasty calls to “get personal” and “shun” the unvaccinated).

Although some of the uninjected tell pollsters they plan to eventually get the vaccine, a solid minority remains committed to never doing so. The same pattern appears to hold true globally: Roughly one-third of adults worldwide said they will not take a COVID shot.

While social and behavioral science researchers apply “soft science” techniques in an attempt to maneuver vaccine confidence into more acquiescent territory, bench scientists have a different option potentially waiting in the wings — genetically engineered vaccines that “move through populations in the same way as communicable diseases,” spreading on their own “from host to host.”

Not mainstream (yet)

In theory, self-spreading vaccines (also referred to as self-disseminating or autonomous) can be designed to be either transferable (“restricted to a single round of transmission”) or transmissible (“capable of indefinite transmission).”

Vaccine scientists concede transmissible vaccines “are still not mainstream, but the revolution in genome engineering poises them to become so.”

The makers of self-disseminating vaccines use recombinant vector technology to build genetic material from a target pathogen onto the “chassis” of a viral vector deemed “benign,” “innocuous” or “avirulent.” This is similar to the viral vector approach used to produce the Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca COVID vaccines.

For Johns Hopkins, the appeal of vaccines that are intentionally engineered to be self-disseminating seems obvious. The university’s Center for Health Security made its case explicit in a 2018 report, “Technologies to Address Global Catastrophic Biological Risks.” The report stated, “These vaccines could dramatically increase vaccine coverage in human … populations without requiring each individual to be inoculated.”

Further spelling out the utilitarian implications of self-disseminating vaccines, the report’s authors stated, “only a small number of vaccinated individuals would be required to confer protection to a larger susceptible population, thus eliminating the need for mass vaccination operations.”

From a programmatic standpoint, this strategy would have the advantage of being “cheaper than vaccinating everyone by hand.” Perhaps even more significantly, however, it would override one of the “thorny ethical questions” that mass vaccination programs routinely wrestle with: informed consent.

As the university’s Center for Health Security briefly acknowledged in its report, self-disseminating vaccines would essentially make it impossible for “those to whom the vaccine subsequently spreads” to provide informed consent at all.

Blame the animals

Writing in 2020 in Nature Ecology & Evolution, researchers observed that viral zoonoses (diseases theorized to jump from animals to humans) have become an entrenched part of the “global mindset” and a central element of the pandemic-obsessed global health zeitgeist.

Despite SARS-CoV-2’s unproven zoonotic origins (cast into doubt by figures such as Robert Redfield, former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), the past year’s coronavirus hype has helped reinforce the popular perception that wildlife populations represent a menacing cauldron of latent viral threats — requiring only the right set of circumstances to spring into humanity-endangering action.

Parlaying the COVID moment into a convenient scientific opportunity, researchers suggest that the purported “failure to contain the SARS-Cov-2 pandemic” furnishes a rationale for accelerating the rollout of self-disseminating vaccines. As some journalists have phrased the question du jour, “Wouldn’t it be great if wild animals could be inoculated against the various diseases they host so that those microbes never get a chance to spread to humans?”

Transmissible-vaccine research also has ascended the list of funding priorities for government agencies like the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and, reportedly, donors such as the Gates Foundation.

At least officially, the primary focus of self-spreading vaccine research has thus far been on wildlife populations. Although the practice of direct wildlife vaccination (for example, against rabies) has been around since the 1960s, it is the longstanding efforts to develop sterilizing vaccines in wildlife (euphemistically called “immunocontraception“), as well as recent advances in genetic engineering, that “have provided a foundation for transmissible-vaccine research.”

Researchers explain how the targeting of wildlife reservoirs is intended to work:

“The idea, essentially, is to vaccinate a small proportion of a [wildlife] population through direct inoculation. These so-called founders will then passively spread the vaccine to other animals they encounter either by touch, sex, nursing, or breathing the same air. Gradually, these interactions could build up population-level immunity.”

When put to the test by Spanish researchers in a limited field trial in rabbits, about 50% of the unvaccinated rabbits developed antibodies after being housed with vaccinated rabbits who had received a transmissible vaccine either via injection or orally. When the researchers assessed second-generation transmission (that is, development of antibodies in another batch of rabbits moved in with the first batch of unvaccinated rabbits), the transmission rate was much lower (two of 24 rabbits).

What could possibly go wrong?

As the Johns Hopkins report made clear in 2018, there is no technical reason why the self-spreading approach could not be applied to humans. The authors admitted to “several big challenges,” however, including the fact that autonomous vaccines (as mentioned above) would render informed consent a moot point and would make it impossible to screen individuals for contraindications such as allergies.

According to Johns Hopkins and others, another major challenge is the “not insignificant risk of the vaccine virus reverting to wild-type virulence,” creating an opportunity for the vaccines to propagate disease rather than prevent it.

In fact, the world is already familiar with this phenomenon in the form of oral polio vaccines. Though not “intentionally designed that way,” oral polio vaccines are considered “a little bit transmissible” and are acknowledged to cause polio.

Hopkins’ researchers pointedly characterized the reversion challenge as “both a medical risk and a public perception risk.” Another Catch-22 articulated in the university’s report is that while reversion risks could perhaps be lessened by engineering the vaccines to be more “weakly transmissible,” this could defeat the purpose of getting vaccines to “go” on their own.

On the other hand, the two scientists who are most strongly promoting transmissible vaccines argue that “even … where reversion is frequent, [their] performance will often substantially exceed that of conventional, directly administered vaccines.”

These same authors have also developed models suggesting that starting the transmissible ball rolling with direct vaccination of newborns could be particularly impactful.

In September 2020, two researchers writing in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists agreed that self-spreading vaccines may have significant downsides and could “entail serious risks,” particularly given that scientists lose control of their creation once released. They noted, “While it may turn out to be technically feasible to fight emerging infectious diseases … with self-spreading viruses, and while the benefits may be significant, how does one weigh those benefits against what may be even greater risks?” They outlined several additional questions:

◾Who makes the decisions about the “where and when” of the vaccines’ release?
◾What happens when there are “unexpected outcomes” and “unintended consequences” such as mutation, species-jumping or border-crossing? About unintended consequences, the two authors added, “There always are.”
◾What about bioweapons and “dual use” risks — that is, using the technology to “deliberately cause harm” rather than prevent disease? Advances in pharmacogenomics, drug development and personalized medicine, the two noted, could enable “ultra-targeted biological warfare.”

On the latter point, the Bulletin authors drew readers’ attention to immunocontraception efforts in animals as well as an infamous example of “weaponized biology” against humans in apartheid-era South Africa, called Project Coast, which sought — reportedly unsuccessfully — to develop an “infertility ‘vaccine’ to be used on black women without their knowledge.”

Other scientists have made an even more direct case against transmissible vaccines, arguing the risks of autonomously spreading vaccines do, in fact, “far outweigh potential benefits.” Risks, in their view, include “the unpredictability of mutations of the virus, the inability to safely test at a large scale and the grave potential threat to biosecurity.”

Vaccine science: many unknowns

When measles, rather than COVID, was dominating the headlines a couple years ago, the unvaccinated were heavily scapegoated for apparent outbreaks. This non-evidence-based finger-pointing (used to usher in draconian new vaccine mandates), ignored the well-documented “phenomenon of measles infection spread by MMR (live measles-mumps-rubella vaccine), which has been known about for decades” and has resulted in “detectable measles infection in the vast majority of those who receive it.”

The experimental Pfizer and Moderna COVID vaccines use new messenger RNA (mRNA) technology rather than the traditional live-virus technology featured in vaccines like the MMR, and thus, we are told, they cannot produce the same type of “shedding.”

However, many unvaccinated individuals are reporting unusual symptoms or illness after spending time in proximity to COVID-vaccinated individuals. Pointing to Pfizer’s protocol acknowledging the possibility of exposure via inhalation or skin contact with vaccinated individuals, concerned health professionals have raised the question of whether some novel form of shedding is occurring.

Some of the people raising these questions have pointed to the September 2020 article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, subtitled, “What could possibly go wrong?” By May 2021, the Bulletin’s editors, apparently uncomfortable with the attention the September article had attracted, were trying to distance themselves by stating the Bulletin’s content was being misused to further conspiracy theories about “highly effective and safe COVID-19 vaccines.”

Whether the COVID injections are “self-spreading” in any sense of the word is a question that cannot currently be answered. However, there is at least one plausible molecular mechanism that could explain the observed vaccinated-to-unvaccinated “shedding” effects.

GreenMedInfo’s Sayer Ji explains that “horizontal information transfer within biological systems [is] mediated by extracellular vesicles, which include a virus-like phenomenon known as microvesicle shedding and/or exosome-mediated transfer of nucleic acids.” Citing a 2017 peer-reviewed study on the “biology and biogenesis of shed microvesicles,” Ji states:

“t is possible that [mRNA vaccines] do, in fact, contribute to microvesicle shedding, which represents an even greater, more persistent threat than live-cell vaccine shedding when it comes to the persistent biological impact the vaccinated can have on the unvaccinated.”

What is even more certain is that scientists themselves do not have all the answers. Some may wish to believe in the possibility of simply genetically engineering a vaccine “in ways that thwart its ability to evolve into something nasty.” But others note “the inevitability of evolutionary change resulting from [transmissible vaccines’] ability to self-replicate and generate extended chains of transmission.”

Techno-thriller author Michael Crichton predicted in 2002 that with the advent of nanotechnology and other technological innovations, the pace of evolutionary change was likely to be “extremely rapid.” Crichton cautioned, “human beings have a poor record of addressing the hazards of new technologies as they arrive.”
 
Smoking Gun! One Month Before COVID Outbreak, Fauci & Moderna Sent “mRNA Coronavirus Vaccine Candidates” to Wuhan Lab-Linked Doctor​

by Kelen McBreen
June 23rd 2021, 11:46 am

Link: https://www.infowars.com/posts/smok...accine-candidates-to-wuhan-lab-linked-doctor/

Doctor infecting human tissue with bat viruses allowed to help create the "resolution" to the outbreak

Documents show Anthony Fauci’s NIH and pharma giant Moderna shared “mRNA Coronavirus Vaccine Candidates” with an expert who mentored the Wuhan bat lady and “helped test the COVID vaccine” over a month before COVID-19 was identified.

Originally posted by Axios last year, documents reveal the U.S. government and Moderna teamed up to send material transfer agreements to top specialists just days before COVID-19 was leaked in Wuhan, China.

The transfer agreement was signed by multiple parties between December 12th and 19th of 2019.

According to the official narrative, the World Health Organization (WHO) became aware of a pneumonia outbreak in the city of Wuhan on December 31, 2019.

Not until January 9, 2020 did WHO release an official statement regarding the novel coronavirus found in a hospital patient in Wuhan.

One of the signees of the transfer agreement, Dr. Ralph Baric of UNC Chapel Hill, has extremely close ties with the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

In the material transfer form, Fauci and Moderna ask Baric to “perform challenge studies with the mRNA vaccine in a (redacted) model as described on Exhibit A.”

However, “Exhibit A” is also redacted in the document.

Dr. Shi Zhengli, infamously known as the Wuhan “Bat Woman,” was a lead researcher alongside Baric until she left the UNC-Chapel Hill lab for the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

In fact, Zhengli and Baric published a paper in 2015 describing, “A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence.”

How would they know the cluster specifically associated with the Chinese horseshoe bat shows potential for human emergence?

Well, in their own words, they “built a chimeric by encoding a novel, zoonotic CoV spike protein—from the RsSHC014-CoV sequence that was isolated from Chinese horseshoe bats.”

Next, researchers purposely infected human lungs “for HAE cultures” that “were procured under University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Institutional Review Board–approved protocols.”

While “gain-of-function” research was banned in America in 2014, the 2015 Baric/Zhengli paper admits, “Continuation of these studies was requested, and this has been approved by the NIH.”

Interestingly, a note at the end of the research paper explains the authors originally omitted the fact that EcoHealth Alliance (EHA) funded their work.

EHA is the same group Fauci’s NIH used to funnel money to the Wuhan Institute of Virology where Baric’s co-worker Dr. Shi Zhengli is the lab director.

EHA’s president, Peter Daszak, was also the only American sent to Wuhan to “investigate” the lab leak theory, which he unsurprisingly dismissed.

In fact, as lead investigator for the WHO investigation, Daszak determined within 3 hours of visiting the Wuhan lab in February 2021 that there was “nothing to see here.”

With Daszak’s obvious conflict of interest regarding the Wuhan lab and gain-of-function research now making headlines, he was just recused from his position as head investigator looking into COVID origins for the medical journal The Lancet.

After Dr. Ralph Baric experimented with gain-of-function research, he created the coronavirus treatment drug Remdesivir for pharma giant Gilead, a company that has received over $6.5 billion from Fauci’s NIH in the past few years.

Now, Baric has teamed up with scientists to create another money-maker in what they call a “universal vaccine” that targets coronaviruses.

“The vaccine has the potential to prevent outbreaks when used as a new variant is detected,” said Baric.

“With this strategy, perhaps we can prevent a SARS-CoV-3,” a co-creator of the universal vaccine ominously stated.

In 2018, Baric spoke at a conference on the 100-year anniversary of the 1918 Spanish Flu Pandemic and explained one day somebody could sell vaccines to people who want to vaccinate themselves at home.

“Most likely, somebody will come up with a way to sell that in a legal way, not a safe way,” he said.

Could the “universal” coronavirus vaccine he just helped create be marketed for at-home use?

Baric even detailed how one could hypothetically “make money in the next pandemic,” providing a “global catastrophe opportunities” chart.

See the full speech below.

Another entity that would like to keep the origins of COVID-19 a secret is the Chinese military, which was on the record conducting secret research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

A new report by the Washington Post, an outlet that previously denied the lab leak theory, acknowledges classified military research was carried out at the lab and that records will almost certainly remain sealed by the Chinese government for two decades.

“The secrecy may help to explain why efforts to confirm or disprove the lab-leak theory of the pandemic’s origins have made little progress,” the report admits.

As Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) recently asked, why would a group of scientists intentionally take dangerous viruses that don’t harm humans and alter them in order to do so if not for military purposes?

This reporter didn’t see it coming

pic.twitter.com/hHfmnFo2SA
— Gecko (@Gecko0369) June 15, 2021

By the way… if anyone was wondering why the internet overlords are censoring the lab leak theory, it could be the fact that Google has been funding EcoHealth Alliance for over a decade.
 
HHS Redacts Fauci Email on Funding Recommendation and Hides WHO Information in Judicial Watch/Daily Caller Lawsuit For COVID-19/China/WHO Communications​

Link: https://www.judicialwatch.org/press...&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=press_release

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it and the Daily Caller News Foundation (DCNF) received from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 311 pages of records of heavily redacted communications from Dr. Anthony Fauci and the World Health Organization (WHO) regarding COVID-19.

Certain Fauci emails were redacted, including his personal edits to a COVID-related federal appropriations measure. Emails sent from the WHO were also redacted under a trade secrets exemption.

In a letter with the documents, HHS Freedom of Information Act Officer Gorka Garcia-Malene notes that:

[FOIA] Exemption 4 protects from disclosure trade secrets and commercial or financial information that is privileged and confidential. Exemption 5 [under which the Fauci email is redacted] permits the withholding of internal government records which are predecisional and contain staff advice, opinion, and recommendations.

The records were obtained in response to a May 2020 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by Judicial Watch on behalf of the DCNF (Daily Caller News Foundation v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (No. 1:20-cv-01149)). The lawsuit was filed after HHS failed to respond to the DCNF’s April 1, 2020, FOIA request asking for:

Communications between Dr. Fauci and Deputy Director Lane and World Health Organization officials concerning the novel coronavirus.

Communications of Dr. Fauci and Deputy Director Lane concerning WHO, WHO official Bruce Aylward, WHO Director General Tedros Anhanom, and China.

“The American people have every right to know key information on our government’s role in COVID,” said Neil Patel, Daily Caller News Foundation publisher. “This sort of hiding, dodging and stonewalling is one reason why trust in national authorities is near all-time lows.”

“Fauci’s agency is in stonewall mode – and has granted the corrupted WHO a special secrecy exemption from FOIA,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
 
Profiting from the pandemic? Fauci set for book and documentary deal​

07/26/2021 / By Ramon Tomey / Comments

Link: https://www.newstarget.com/2021-07-26-fauci-set-for-book-and-documentary-deal.html

American infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci is anticipating two books about him to hit the shelves. Aside from the book deals, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) is set to appear in a new Disney-produced documentary. Despite these deals, he has been criticized for profiting from the pandemic.

The NIAID director announced on June 1 that he will publish a book titled “Expect the Unexpected: Ten Lessons on Truth, Service and the Way Forward.” He added that the book will be released by National Geographic Books on Nov. 2. Both Amazon and Barnes & Noble have opened pre-orders for the 80-page book at $18 per copy. A NIAID spokesperson told the Daily Mail that Fauci will not be paid for the project.

“Expect the Unexpected” will draw from interviews of Fauci conducted during his more than three decades helming NIAID. An overview of the book describes it: “Those looking to live a more compassionate and purposeful life will find inspiration in his unique perspective on leadership, expecting the unexpected and finding joy in difficult times.”

While Fauci’s 80-page book is set for a later date, another book about him is set for release in late June of this year. The children’s picture book titled “Dr. Fauci: How a Boy from Brooklyn Became America’s Doctor” will be released on June 28. It draws upon interviews with the infectious disease doctor conducted by the author Kate Messner.

Aside from these two books, Fauci will also be the subject of a new documentary. The film is set to air on National Geographic – owned by The Walt Disney Company – later this year. Emmy winners John Hoffman and Janet Tobias are set to direct, while Dan Cogan and Liz Garbus are slated to produce the film.

Documentary filmmakers reportedly followed the infectious disease expert throughout 2020. They captured footage of Fauci working as part of the White House Coronavirus Task Force under the Trump and Biden administrations. Emails made public revealed that former Disney CEO Bob Iger was “extremely supportive” of the project when it was pitched early last year.

The book and film deals translate to publicity – and profit – for Fauci

The projects involving Fauci highlight how he will remain in the spotlight even after the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic ends. Currently, the NIAID director is the highest-paid federal employee in the U.S. with an annual salary of $417,608. The U.S. president receives a slightly lower yearly salary of $400,000.

But the infectious disease expert was not the first government official accused of profiting from the pandemic. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo released his own book last year titled “American Crisis: Leadership Lessons from the Pandemic.” Despite the book deal amounting to $5.1 million, it has only sold around 45,000 copies as of writing.

According to a piece by Alex Shephard of The New Republic, Cuomo’s book is “a disaster from a sales standpoint.” He added that the book itself may even have contributed to the governor being embroiled in a scandal. While Cuomo and his aides were working on “American Crisis,” they were also undercounting the actual number of COVID-19 deaths in nursing homes. (Related: Cuomo regime “undercounted” coronavirus nursing home deaths in New York.)

It is not yet clear how Americans will receive Fauci’s new book, but some have already criticized him for supposedly profiting during a pandemic. Many even took to Twitter to voice out their sentiments against the NIAID director, the Western Journal reported.

Tablet Magazine‘s Noam Blum wrote: “I really need the people in charge of handling this pandemic to stop writing books about how they’re handling this pandemic while they’re still doing it.” Greg Price of The Daily Caller meanwhile tweeted: “Dr. Fauci is publishing a book and [has become] the highest paid federal government employee, while you lost your business and had your kids out of school for a year.”

Three U.S. lawmakers from the Republican Party also joined in the fray. North Carolina Rep. Dan Bishop noted how Fauci “never missed a paycheck” while advocating that people lose theirs. He added: “His lockdown mandates destroyed livelihoods and threatened our children’s futures. Now he’ll be profiting nicely off it.” (Related: Republican lawmakers call on Dr. Anthony Fauci to testify about coronavirus origins.)

Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan posted: “Dr. Fauci took away your First Amendment rights during the pandemic, [but] relied on the First Amendment to write his new book.” Meanwhile, Arizona Rep. Andy Biggs kept it short with a one-sentence tweet: “Profiting from the pandemic with a book deal is truly a new low.”

Visit Pandemic.news to read more stories about Dr. Anthony Fauci profiting from the pandemic.

Sources include:

DailyMail.co.uk

NewRepublic.com

WesternJournal.com

Twitter.com 1

Twitter.com 2

Twitter.com 3
 
TRICKSTER: Fauci moves goal posts AGAIN, now says 90% vaccination is necessary to reach covid “herd immunity”​

Thursday, August 05, 2021 by: Ethan Huff

Link: https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-08...cent-vaccination-necessary-herd-immunity.html

(Natural News) After claiming for the longest time that only 70 percent of Americans needed to get “vaccinated” for the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) in order to “stop the spread,” fake television “doctor” Tony Fauci is now insisting that the true figure is more like 90 percent.

Speaking at the Center for Strategic and International Studies the other day, Fauci rewrote the plandemic script once again by claiming that once the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants full approval for the Trump Vaccines from “Operation Warp Speed,” businesses, colleges and other institutions will be free to start mandating the shots as a condition of employment and participation in society.

Fauci says that about 70 percent of adults in America are now vaccinated, but that 20 more percent will need to roll up their sleeves in order to “flatten the curve” in the coming weeks and months.

“I’d settle for 70 percent of 80 percent, but I’d love to see 90 percent,” Fauci stated, suggesting that a 90 percent compliance rate is the best way to keep everyone “safe” against the alleged infestation of Chinese Germs that just will not relent from occupying mainstream media headlines.

According to Fauci, official FDA approval will be a “game-changer” in terms of the medical fascists getting away with trying to force the injections on people who do not consent to them.

It is Fauci’s desire and hope that unwilling Americans will be medically raped with his shots in order to buy and sell. This is Fauci’s vision for the future of America under his and Pedo Joe’s rule.

Fauci is a medical fascist who wants you to be genetically raped with his deadly syringes

Keep in mind that the Biden regime used to claim that it supported freedom of choice when it came to Chinese Virus injections. Now, Hunter’s dad and his handlers are changing their tune and demanding total compliance with the Wuhan Flu shot agenda, or else.

The only way to avoid continued lockdowns, mask mandates and other forms of government tyranny, Fauci says, is for every last American to modify their DNA permanently with experimental gene therapy. Then, and only then, will the world be able to “evolve” into the “new normal.”

“To get to the 93 million unvaccinated people, we are going to need local mandates,” Fauci says.

I think you’re going to see more people get vaccinated and you’re also going to see enterprises feeling much more confident in local mandates for the vaccines … you’re going to see more universities…places of businesses, once they get the cover of the mandate … you’ll start seeing more vaccines. Because if you get the majority of the people vaccinated, we wouldn’t be having this conversation now.”

Fauci further griped about the handful of state governors across America who have signed executive orders or helped pass legislation prohibiting employers, businesses and schools from requiring face masks or vaccination as a condition of employment and participation in society.

If it were up to Fauci, every last anti-vaxxer would be lined up like cattle and injected by force – to keep them “safe,” of course.

“How does an injection that provides no immunity create herd immunity?” asked one critical thinker at Zero Hedge about Fauci’s erroneous claims about his Fauci Flu shots.

“Have we flattened the curve yet?” asked another.

“They have a time-sensitive agenda; on this I am sure,” speculated another as to the mad rush among certain government figureheads to get everyone mass vaccinated at ‘warp speed.’ “Now, why would they need a much smaller population? Answer that and you are coming close to the truth.”

To keep up with the latest news about Fauci’s plans for America, check out Fascism.news.

Sources for this article include:

ZeroHedge.com

NaturalNews.com
 

PETA Calls on Fauci to Resign After (More) Allegations His Agency Funded Horrific Experiments on Puppies​

Link: https://www.activistpost.com/2021/1...y-funded-horrific-experiments-on-puppies.html

October 26, 2021
By Jon Miltimore
Dr. Anthony Fauci, already facing calls for his ouster for allegedly lying to Congress about his agency’s funding of controversial genetic research at China’s Wuhan lab, is now facing political heat on a different front.
On Friday, a bipartisan group of lawmakers sent a letter to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NAID) and President Joe Biden requesting information regarding allegations that the government funded experiments that injected puppies with parasites.
“We write with grave concerns about reports of costly, cruel, and unnecessary tax-payer funded experiments on dogs commissioned by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases,” said Republican Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina, one of 24 lawmakers to sign the letter.
By Sunday, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) had joined the group of lawmakers demanding action at the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
“Yes, I think everybody who heads an NIH agency right now should resign,” said PETA senior vice president Kathy Guillermo, when asked if Fauci should resign during an interview with Newsmax.
Earlier this month, it was announced that Francis S. Collins will end his tenure as director of NIH by the end of 2021.
The US government must stop pumping money into horrific animal experimentation!
It's @POTUS Biden’s responsibility to designate an NIH director who choses human-relevant research, as outlined in PETA’s Research Modernization Deal. Visit https://t.co/5BbfjXGR2I to take action! pic.twitter.com/pNfcvDjiDp
— PETA (@peta) October 24, 2021
Click to expand...
"I think everybody who heads an NIH agency right now should resign," said @peta senior VP @kathygfrompeta after reports of cruel experiments on dogs funded by tax-payer dollars, on Monday's "American Agenda". pic.twitter.com/PA8O0bbAbh
— Newsmax (@newsmax) October 25, 2021
Click to expand...

A Gruesome Practice—But Not a New One​

The allegations, which can be read in this report from The Hill, are both stunning and terrifying. But they are not new.
In August, FEE’s Brad Polumbo wrote about the experiments NIAID, one of 27 institutes and centers that make up NIH, had allegedly funded in recent years:
According to a new exposé from the anti-animal-experimentation advocacy group the White Coat Waste Project, the National Institutes of Health spent $424,000 on a study involving the abuse of dogs. The NIH department that is specifically under the leadership of Dr. Anthony Fauci [NIAID] funded this experiment, and it ‘commission[ed] a study in which healthy beagles are given an experimental drug and then intentionally infested with flies that carry a disease-causing parasite that affects humans.’
Click to expand...

The revelations from August, however, also were not new. As Polumbo pointed out, the White Coat Waste Project reported in 2016 that Fauci’s department was “using tax dollars to buy beagle puppies and strapping capsules full of infected flies to their bare skin.”
“More than 1,100 beagles, hounds, and mixed-breed dogs—even puppies—were subjected to experiments in government laboratories operated by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Department of Defense (DOD), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),” the 2016 report reads. “Hundreds of the dogs were subjected to experiments involving significant pain and distress. NIH… [has] spent $5.95 million since 2011 to give dogs heart attacks. Other recent experiments include exposing dogs to anthrax, repeatedly forcing dogs to vomit, and drilling into dogs’ skulls and damaging their brains.”

A Monopoly on Violence​

The revelation that US taxpayers fund gruesome experiments that intentionally infest puppies with parasites so they can be eaten by flies is likely a shock to many. The fact that it has been happening for years is probably a bigger shock.
The reality, however, is that the US government has a long history of funding and conducting gruesome experiments on animals and even on people—”research” that would land any private individual or enterprise behind bars if it ever came to light.
The 1932 Tuskegee experiment, which allowed hundreds of African Americans to go untreated for syphilis so scientists could study its effects, is perhaps the most famous such experiment conducted by the US government—but it is just one of many. Other research conducted or funded by the government—mostly in the 1940s and 1950s—included experiments that injected subjects with hepatitis, gonorrhea, Malaria, and the Asian Flu.
.

News records at the time made no mention of many of the experiments, NBC reported in 2011.
Many no doubt wonder how the government was able to get away with such experiments, but the answer is not difficult to find. As the economist Murray Rothbard once observed, government bestows itself with certain privileges not afforded to others in society—particularly the ability to use violence.
“The State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area,” Rothbard wrote in Anatomy of the State.
Rothbard was referring primarily to the state’s ability to raise revenue through taxation instead of trade (or charity) like everyone else. But history is replete with examples showing the state also uses its monopoly on force to exempt itself from the usual laws that govern mere individuals and private enterprises.
Many will argue that gruesome experiments on puppies are not the same thing as gruesome experiments on humans, and I’d agree—but that’s not really the point. The point is that government consistently exempts itself from the ethics that (rightly) bind the rest of us.
Why the government violates normal ethical boundaries is also no mystery. As the Nobel Prize-winning economist F.A. once observed, it’s baked into collectivist philosophy.
“The principle that the end justifies the means is in individualist ethics regarded as the denial of all morals,” the economist F.A. Hakey once observed. “In collectivist ethics it becomes necessarily the supreme rule.”
For Fauci, like his predecessors in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, the end is the advancement of science (though the White Coat Waste project says injecting puppies is scientifically superfluous as well as unethical, since such experiments have already been done on mice and other rodent creatures). For the Nazis and Soviets and many other collectivist states throughout history, the end was the advancement of the party.
In both cases, the ethical violations are pursued for “a greater good.”

Means Are Greater Than Ends​

Don’t expect Dr. Fauci’s experiments to stop anytime soon. It’s likely the only reason they are gaining attention is because of the much bigger scandal brewing over Fauci’s unauthorized financial support of gain of function research, something he’s denied.
​
Nevertheless, NIAID’s cruel experiments offer a crucial lesson on the nature of government and an important lesson on means and ends.
“Ends, goals, aims are but the hope for things to come…not…reality… from which may safely be taken the standards for right conduct,” FEE founder Leonard Read once observed. “Many of the most monstrous deeds in human history have been perpetrated in the name of doing good—in pursuit of some ‘noble’ goal. They illustrate the fallacy that the end justifies the means.”
Dr. Fauci could have learned a lot from Leonard Read. [see vid at site link, above, top]
 

Emails Reveal Fauci’s Effort to ‘Smear’ Anti-Lockdown Scientists​

by RT
December 19th 2021, 10:01 am

Link: https://www.infowars.com/posts/emails-reveal-faucis-effort-to-smear-anti-lockdown-scientists/

Exchanges between NIAID director Fauci and NIH director Francis Collins reveal plot to discredit herd immunity and anyone who promoted it.

Newly released emails show Anthony Fauci and his boss at the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) wanted to conduct a “quick and devastating” take-down of health experts who proposed a lockdown-free Covid-19 control strategy.

The emails, released on Friday by the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, show retiring NIH Director Francis Collins telling Fauci in October 2020 to discredit the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD) – a statement that proposes working towards achieving herd immunity through “focused protection” of the most vulnerable.

Days after the GBD was released, Collins notified Fauci and other health officials about how the proposal from “three fringe epidemiologists” was getting a “lot of attention” and called for a “quick and devastating published take down of its premises.”

Thread summarizing what we've learned so far of the Fauci/Collins email dump on the Great Barrington Declaration:

It starts on 10/14/20 when Collins instructs Fauci and his staff to "take down" the GBD and the "fringe" scientists behind it. pic.twitter.com/XyTWINMOnG
— Phil Magness (@PhilWMagness) December 18, 2021
Click to expand...

A short time later, Fauci emails Collins an op-ed from Wired magazine that “debunks this theory” and calls out the three scientists – Martin Kulldorff, an epidemiologist at Harvard University, Sunetra Gupta, an epidemiologist at Oxford University, and Jay Bhattacharya, a public health policy expert at Stanford University – for touting an approach without “following the scientific method” for peer-reviewed hypotheses.

After Collins lauds this “excellent” response, Fauci sends him another op-ed in The Nation magazine that “[refuted] the herd immunity approach.” Collins replies agreeing with article that the idea is a “deadly delusion.”

The next day, Fauci sends Collins an angry rant against the GBD in the @TheNation by @gregggonsalves.

Collins approves. pic.twitter.com/jstxmUb4Ay
— Phil Magness (@PhilWMagness) December 18, 2021
Click to expand...

This part of the exchange was not included in disclosures by the subcommittee in its year-end report, but was posted in a series of tweets by Phil Magness, education director at the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER), a libertarian think tank that sponsored the GBD. Magness condemns the “smear campaign” later launched by Collins against the scientists through a Washington Post article in which he was quoted.

Fauci also emailed former White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator Deborah Birx about taking a “very [strong]” public stance against the GBD.
On the morning of the Covid task force meeting, Fauci sends Deborah Birx this email alerting her about the need to oppose the GBD at the meeting. The unredacted part suggests they are preparing to attack @ScottWAtlas, who was perceived as the task force's champion of the GBD. pic.twitter.com/iqYbiTiZxo
— Phil Magness (@PhilWMagness) December 18, 2021
Click to expand...
Following the release of the emails, Bhattacharya said he was the “subject of a propaganda attack by my own government” while Kulldorff tweeted that an “invitation” to a “public debate” on herd immunity was still open.

During a Fox News interview on Friday, Collins stood by his “take down” comment, claiming that the herd immunity approach “didn’t make sense” to him since adopting it would have led to “hundreds of thousands of additional deaths.”



Fauci Admits To World That Vaccines Can Make You Sick
 

Fauci not sure how many COVID shots will be needed​

Pfizer CEO says a 4th jab is 'necessary'​

Art Moore
By Art Moore
Published March 14, 2022 at 7:38pm

Link: https://www.wnd.com/2022/03/fauci-not-sure-many-covid-shots-will-needed/


fauci-vaccinated-wikipedia.jpg

Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, receives the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine at the COVID-19 Vaccine Kick-Off event at the National Institutes of Health on Dec. 22, 2020 (National Institutes of Health photo)

Dr. Anthony Fauci said in an interview published Monday it's likely that people who have been vaccinated will need more booster shots, but he isn't sure how many.

The interview follows the confirmation by Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla on Monday that a fourth shot will be "necessary."

Fauci told CNBC that two years after the pandemic was declared, he couldn't predict what was ahead for the COVID vaccines.

"The answer is: We don't know. I mean, that's it,” Fauci said.

TRENDING: Congressman charges Biden is violating key part of U.S. Constitution

Because of durability, he said, "it is likely that we're not done with this when it comes to vaccines."

He insisted that any move toward "normal," to keep the virus under control, could require regular COVID shots, similar to the annual flu shot.

On Monday, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who repeatedly has confronted Fauci in Senate hearings over his handling of the pandemic, announced his introduction of an amendment to eliminate the position of director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and break down the NIAID into three separate national research institutes.

Bourla told the CBS News show "Face the Nation" a fourth dose is needed "right now."

"The protection that you are getting from the third, it is good enough, actually quite good for hospitalizations and deaths ... it's not that good against infections but doesn't last very long."

On Friday, despite the mildness of the dominant omicron variant and the evidence that the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine hasn't stopped infection or transmission of SARS-CoV-2 while posing serious health risks, Bourla said his company will ask the FDA to grant emergency use authorization for a second booster, a fourth shot.

"Clearly there is a need in an environment of omicron to boost the immune response," Albert Bourla said Friday on CNBC's "Squawk Box."

Bourla claimed the data indicate the protection against severe disease after three doses is "very good." But the protection wanes after only three or four months, he acknowledged.

See Bourla's remarks to CNBC:

Pfizer wants a fourth shot approved because the last three were so effective… "After 3, 4 months it starts waning…The risk when you having waning immune responses is higher for people if they are older but the immune response is waning for all,"pic.twitter.com/D8BnlfQKhv
— Aaron Ginn (@aginnt) March 11, 2022
Click to expand...

In January, Bourla acknowledged that two doses of his vaccine "offer very limited protection, if any" against omicron. And he said the mRNA vaccines "don't have the safety profile that we hoped we can achieve with this technology."

Indeed, the FDA has released 55,000 pages of Pfizer clinical trial data – after attempting to keep it hidden for 75 years – that is now being examined by scientists and others who already have pointed to signals, such as the CDC's Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, indicating unprecedented vaccine injuries and deaths. Among the Pfizer documents are nine pages listing 1,291 different side effects.

Meanwhile, the European Union's top health agency has warned that getting boosted every four months could harm the immune system's ability to fight off the disease. Further, a landmark Israeli study found that a fourth Pfizer booster shot was only partially effective in protecting against the omicron variant. A German government report found more than 95% of reported cases of the omicron COVID-19 variant in the country were in vaccinated individuals.

A second booster already is available for Americans 12 years of age and older. Last fall, the FDA approved the Pfizer shot for children 5 to 11 despite concerns by the agency's expert panel about the lack of safety data.

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky recently acknowledged that she and her agency were wrong when they told the public the vaccines were 95% effective in stopping infection and transmission. And New York state health officials released a study earlier this month showing the Pfizer vaccine is only 12% effective for children ages 5 to 11 amid the omicron wave.

Data from many countries indicate people who are fully vaccinated have a higher risk of hospitalization and death than the vaccinated. Data from the CDC itself shows a massive increase in COVID-19 infections and hospitalizations among the fully vaccinated.

CDC officials have acknowledged hiding from the public most of the agency's COVID data for fear it would be misinterpreted by critics. Meanwhile, Walensky still refuses to fulfill her promise to a Senate committee to provide data on vaccine-related deaths.

The VAERS data – with more than 24,000 deaths and 1 million adverse events linked to the vaccines – is consistent with, among other things, the alarming trend observed in the insurance industry, the spike in sudden deaths and heart attacks in healthy athletes, the testimonies of vaccine-injured people and the more than 1,000 peer-reviewed studies presenting evidence of vaccine-related adverse events.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top